Use cases · Energy · utilities · 2026-11

Which assets fail together: the network’s response, simulated past the classical limit

The response of a 156-node network simulated to eight time steps on a 156-qubit processor; the classical simulator we ran stopped at six. For a planner, that is the contingency case read further than the reference tool reaches.

Impact

The response measured two steps further than the reference
Baseline: the classical simulator we ran, which stopped at six steps
Condition: eight time steps at high significance on 156 qubits, in three minutes
The same depth at every step and width
Baseline: circuits that grow with the simulated time
Condition: three entangling layers at every width from five to 156 qubits

The problem

When a line trips, which assets fail together and where the stress concentrates is answered today by contingency analysis run case by case on a simplified model. The full coupled response is what a planner needs and what the reference simulator runs out of.

Our approach

The network was simulated as one coupled system on the whole processor, at the same circuit depth for every time step, and the response measured step by step. The classical simulator was run on the same problem to find where it stops.

The evidence

  • 156-qubit collective-response simulation to eight time steps; the classical simulator we ran stopped at six. Superconducting processor.
  • Fixed circuit depth at every simulated time and qubit count; 126 qubits in one job.
  • Not claimed: a commercial quantum benefit for grid planning. These findings do not establish one.

Status: Quantum hardware. Measured on quantum hardware; the classical comparison is the simulator we ran, named with its settings on the result.

Book a 30-minute callCheck your problem freeEnergy & utilitiesGrid expansion planningInfrastructure walkthroughRead the full story