6
1day
1

Truth Social Parent to Merge With Nuclear Fusion Firm in $6 Billion Deal

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/18/business/trump-media-tae-technologies-fusion-power-deal.html?unlocked_article_code=1.9k8.ChnL.qUbtag7y6Cc1&smid=url-share

President Trump’s social media company, which recently expanded into streaming and cryptocurrency, is now entering its fourth act: fusion power, a promising but still unproven source of alternative energy.

Trump Media & Technology Group and TAE Technologies, a fusion power company, said Thursday they had agreed to an all-stock merger that the companies valued at more than $6 billion.

nymnympseudonym - 1day

There are at least half a dozen promising but largely unrelated fusion technologies at various stages of development/commercialization. So I did a little research on TAE technologies.

They use "Field Reversed Confinement" (FRC), which I'm not very familiar with. The article mentioned one other company, Commonwealth Fusion Systems, whose tech I am familiar with: spherical tokamak

Anyway, I asked Perplexity to compare and contrast the two companies from a tech and commercialization perspective.

[ Aside: the Brown shooting is now maybe linked to the murder of the head of MIT's plasma fusion department. Based on the below, the MIT approach is a direct competitor to the TAE approach. If you want a conspiracy theory, this one is screaming for attention. ]

===========

Commercial and risk trade‑offs

  • TAE FRC approach

    • Potential advantages:
    • Aneutronic p–B¹¹ pathway promises greatly reduced neutron‑induced damage, lower activation, and simpler balance‑of‑plant (no large tritium systems).
    • Linear geometry and reliance on self‑generated fields may lead to simpler, cheaper reactors if stability and confinement at extreme temperatures can be maintained.
    • Key risks:
    • FRCs historically suffer from stability and confinement issues; operating an FRC at p–B¹¹ conditions with good energy gain remains unproven.
    • Neutral‑beam‑dominant sustainment requires high beam power and efficiency, presenting demanding engineering and wall‐loading challenges. ​
  • CFS HTS tokamak approach

    • Potential advantages:
    • Builds on the most experimentally mature magnetic‑confinement concept (tokamak) with extensive data and validated models.
    • HTS magnets allow higher fields and smaller plants, improving projected economics and enabling SPARC to reach high QQ in a relatively compact device. ​
    • Key risks:
    • D–T operation entails significant neutron flux, requiring robust blankets, shielding, tritium breeding, and complex maintenance systems.
    • HTS magnet systems must withstand neutron and thermal loads over long lifetimes, which remains to be demonstrated at power‑plant scale.
1