The ARC proposal argued for a cost per kWh of 26 cents, for a pilot plant not necessarily optimized to full commercial configuration. This requires a fairly rev

The ARC proposal argued for a cost per kWh of 26 cents, for a pilot plant not necessarily optimized to full commercial configuration. This requires a fairly revolutionary further advance for general commercial relevance but note that the current cost for ratepayers in Germany is 32 cents. A much cheaper or much stronger structural material than steel 216 would quickly change the cost as the strength determines the operating magnetic field which increases output to the fourth power. More interestingly there appears to be a similar revolution newly predicted. Based on a first principles simulation it was projected that density can be doubled over current limits in a reactor as powerful as ARC. I believe density translates directly to pressure which increases output to the second power - possibly quadrupling output over what was expected. Roughly speaking this should mean a cost of less than 10 cents for ARC if that pans out. Hinkley Point C is guaranteed a price of 14 cents, which is the world average for electricity. The doubled density prediction appears to bring a conventional tokamak in line with the projected costs of various alternative designs such as General Fusion's 8 cent projection. None of the alternatives have been tested at the scale of tokamaks but there are a few with the potential of a revolutionary price - Helion projects 1-6 cents based on reactor survivability, and don't use tritium. In fact they may be able to produce it fairly efficiently if they fall short of standalone electricity production. Fusion is generally a more expensive, more of a longshot competitor to SMRs, but with the very dramatic advantage of zero meltdown risk that makes it worth a shot