Skip to content
Technology How it works Breeder — Hyperion Burner — Aegis Burner — MetroVolt AI-Native Architecture Magnets Fuel cycle Safety Roadmap
Solutions AI & Data Centers Defense & Government Grid & Baseload Neutron Detection Quantum
Learn Technical Library
Proof Publications Whitepapers Technical Library Open Science & Reproducibility The Honest Gates
Company About / Mission Leadership Environment Health & Safety Investors Careers Press Contact
3D Model
EHS › Fusion vs Alternatives
Fusion vs Alternatives

Capacity Factor Across Sources

A side-by-side of typical, public capacity factors shows why firm clean sources anchor a reliable low-carbon grid.

Comparing typical capacity factors across sources makes the firm-versus-variable divide concrete. The numbers below are public, widely reported typical ranges; real values vary by site, vintage, and region. They are not performance claims for any specific plant, and the fusion entry is a design objective rather than a measured value.

The comparison

Firm thermal sources cluster high because they run continuously by design. Variable renewables cluster lower because their fuel — sun and wind — is intermittent. This does not make renewables inferior; it means their value is in energy volume and abundant output, while firm sources provide the reliability backbone. A clean grid uses both.

Typical capacity factor (public ranges)solar PV~25%onshore wind~35%offshore wind~40-50%hydro~37-45%gas combined-cycle~55%+geothermal~74%fission~90%+fusion (design goal)firm targetPublic typical ranges; fusion is a design objective, not a measured result.

Reading the chart

A high capacity factor means more energy per unit of installed capacity and, usually, greater firmness. But two firm sources with the same capacity factor can differ in emissions: gas is firm yet emits CO₂, while fission and fusion are firm and low-carbon. The goal of the clean transition is to fill the high-capacity-factor rows with low-carbon options.

Design-and-simulation framing. The Kronos machines are today design and simulation studies: the breeder (Hyperion) and the burner (Aegis / MetroVolt). No hardware net-gain has been demonstrated. Breeder construction is planned to begin Q2 2027, with first-of-a-kind (FOAK) first tritium targeted around 2030. Comparisons on this page are qualitative and use only public, defensible figures; nothing here is a performance guarantee.

The honest takeaway: decarbonization means moving firm capacity from the carbon-emitting rows to the clean ones — the role fusion is being designed for.

Content reviewed August 2026 · design-and-simulation stage