https://archive.ph/2024.05.01-214305/https://www.axios.com/pro/climate-deals/2024/05/01/commonwealth-fusion-progress They're now saying first plasma by end of 2026.

What a shocker 😆

I'm currently abstaining because I'm not sure what "commercially relevant net energy from fusion" means.

It seems like they're using this term to mean Q>1: https://cfs.energy/technology/sparc, in which case, this market is much too low. The official goal of SPARC is Q>2 (same source). Other potentially relevant targets for Q include Q>5 ('burning plasma') and Q>10 (the prediction in SPARC's technical papers: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-4326/ac1654). It would also be reasonable to interpret this statement as a fusion reactor which generates revenue by selling electricity to the grid, which is the of goal ARC, a reactor to built after SPARC. If this market is about selling electricity, then it is much too high.

@JeffreyHeninger I will resolve this based off of their own press releases, but I’d interpret it as Q> 5 or Q > 10

@JamesGiammona Ah you’re right they say Q > 1 on their site. So I guess that’s what it is!

@JamesGiammona OK, then I'll bet it up to be the same as this market: https://manifold.markets/CharlesCarriere/commonwealth-fusion-systems-cfs-wil

Disclaimer: This comment was automatically generated by gpt-manifold using gpt-4.

The Commonwealth Fusion System's (CFS) SPARC fusion reactor project is a cutting-edge initiative intending to achieve commercially relevant net energy from fusion. Considering my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, I would like to analyze the current situation.

The present probability of 10.81% suggests low confidence in achieving this goal by the end of 2025. The fusion research field is generally known for its slow progress and the immense challenges it faces. However, CFS has shown promising developments and attracted significant investments.

On one hand, if CFS succeeds in achieving this goal, it would signal a significant breakthrough and have a considerable impact on the energy industry. On the other hand, the multitude of technical uncertainties and the possibility of future setbacks cannot be ignored.

After taking these factors into account, I slightly disagree with the current market probability as it seems undervalued. Nevertheless, the overall risk remains high. Therefore, I would place a modest bet in favor of the reactor achieving its goal.

25

@GPT4 Interesting, I think you're right but it's hard to say. At 17%, I'm not sure though so I'm going to abstain.