Skip to main content

Albuquerque,NM, gets new energy lab.

Image
By scooby

 ABQ ( Albuquerque,NM) gets new energy lab.



Pacific fusion has selected Albuquerque NM for its new $1 billion fusion research and manufacturing campus.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Ok, well, when I think fusion breakthroughs, I always think famous biologists first. Next, I think Z-Machine. Third, for commercial power, I think ICF. Put all of those together and you clearly have a winner. I mean, from their press releases, they clearly understand that because a Z-pinch uses a magnetic field like a tokamak, it must not be ICF and it must be cheaper than NIF and it must be viable for continuous commercial power generation like ITER. I mean, ITER is on budget and schedule, so why not?

On a serious note though, ignition at NIF clearly kicked off major investor enthusiasm for all things fusion, and given that we are nearing the end of the current economic froth cycle, I don't fault any scientist, even biologists, from cashing in on deep pocketed investors who think fusion is just another app to scale. Honestly, the only thing they are missing here is AI, right? Oh wait, they claim that too. Hold on, I'm also going to have ChatGPT write me a competing business plan to pitch. This could be big.
9/27/2025 7:28 AM
Anonymous said…
Great news for NM specialized skill workers now you have this project, Sandia and Los Alamos to bounce between.
9/27/2025 1:57 PM
Anonymous said…
ITER is not continuous, no tokamak is. They require external heating and disruption control. ITER's schedule and budget has shifted a few times including recently. Planned D-T operation is now just before 2040. It is still planned for pulsed mode.
9/27/2025 2:45 PM
Anonymous said…
Pacific fusion has evidently only raised $900M in a series A funding round -- and has a variety of ongoing operations aside from this new $1B project. Do they actually have the $1B lined up, does anyone have a reference for that, or is this contingent on someone giving them the money in the future? The article mentions a bond issuance, but who is guaranteeing the bonds, and why would anyone buy them otherwise?
9/27/2025 4:33 PM
Anonymous said…
Nice try, I see what you are trying to do there. nanosecond Z-pinch pulsed ICF is in a completely different regime than pulsed operation of a tokamak in pulsed mode. That's like saying ns pulses are comparable to second-long or even ms pulses. Shows a complete lack of understanding, not to mention the different physics.
9/27/2025 7:14 PM
Anonymous said…
Yes, tokamak pulsed are longer. They are hoping to get them up to minutes. But no power company will use a power source that is shut down on even an hourly rate.
9/28/2025 2:44 PM
Anonymous said…
Albuquerque city council has voted on the bonds. You could have searched and found this out yourself.
9/29/2025 1:33 PM
Anonymous said…
1:33 -- I see that, but those are less than $1B, also they are not being guaranteed by the city it seems. What investors will buy them given the obvious risk of default? In other words, how certain is the $1B plan to come to fruition, will it actually materialize, or is it an aspirational plan?
9/30/2025 7:14 AM
Anonymous said…
I think it's more aspirational. The investors are basically saying, "hit these milestones during your goal to cure cancer and we will dish out a huge sum of money in a graduated way." Well guess what? If any business makes significant progress toward the Holly Grail, money is going to rain down on them from investors the world over. So in a way, it's disengenuous because the investors aren't really taking a risk. They are just stating the obvious. It's more of a way to get a PR boost by announcing a big number that sounds like a commitment that reflects the promise of the company, but in reality, it's not.

It's no different than if anybody on this blog makes an offer to invest $1B if commercial fusion is solved. Well, that's not taking a risk because the payoff is much higher than that with probability = 1.0.
9/30/2025 4:08 PM
Anonymous said…
This will be the Theranos of fusion. I expect jail time for some of these people.
9/30/2025 9:10 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more