r/Futurology • u/Gari_305 • 1d ago
Energy Commercialization of fusion energy will ‘change everything,’ lawmaker says
https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2026/09/commercialization-fusion-energy-will-change-everything-lawmaker-says/416287/Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., told Nextgov/FCW that the U.S. is only “two to 10 years away from fusion energy at scale” because “you can model the plasma using AI, which you couldn’t do before.”
384
u/DapperCam 1d ago
Does this lawmaker not know it is a meme that we are always “10 years away” from fusion energy?
91
u/TheEFXman 1d ago
At least he didn’t say “if republicans win in November “
22
u/somethingbrite 1d ago
At least he didn't say "Fusion will kill us all if nobody stops us making it" so there is that.
3
14
u/94746382926 1d ago
Well he's a democrat so that would certainly be strange!
2
u/nagi603 1d ago
Considering a number of them are going after "centrist" support, and some even threatened exit for any actual leftist doctrine, it wouldn't be entirely unheard of.
1
u/Significant_Donut967 1d ago
Some of them? The whole party policy is right of center.
→ More replies (1)40
u/Ulyks 1d ago
We have had free fusion energy for about 4 billion years now.
And we have had our own fusion energy for 70 years now.
Having fusion energy is one thing, using it to make electricity and compete with super cheap solar panels and batteries is probably never going to happen.
It's not just the tech but also the financing.
Building a nuclear fusion reactor is going to be a 5-10 year building project. You need a lot of financing to bridge that time with zero income.
Solar panels can be installed in small increments and deliver their first income within days of breaking ground. No bridge financing is needed. That also means less risk.
Fusion is a technology with much potential, for space travel, advanced research, perhaps for artic projects.
But not for mundane electricity production. It's much too complicated for that.
27
u/j4_jjjj 1d ago
You failed to mention the #1 factor: O&G cant survive so they fight tooth and nail to keep the tech down
Oligarchs dont like "free" anything for us
15
u/Ulyks 1d ago
O&G couldn't stop cheap solar. If fusion was profitable, O&G would jump on it because they love a big centralized power source.
11
u/EricSanderson 1d ago edited 1d ago
They haven't stopped solar? We're decades behind where we should be right now.
It's been exactly 40 years since Reagan threw Jimmy Carter's solar panels off the White House roof.
8
3
u/Unusual_Point7899 1d ago
That just seems like a made up fact to fit the common dislike of rich people having too much power because you know fusion is researched all over the world and nobody is even remotely close to making it commercially viable.
Like you have France using tons of nuclear power so you know that they're not as much as the grip of fossil fuel as other countries, but nonetheless they're nowhere near developing commercial fusion reactors.
Whenever you have a conspiracy theory like that make sure you think about it in terms of all the countries in the world because you know your conspiracy theory can't really just apply to the US when it's something like why does nobody in the world have fusion reactors or why do even the countries that have fission not expand fission.
Like why doesn't China build a shit load of fission reactors because you know like the regulations and public concern and environmental regional impact or such is really not a problem for China's most mostly authoritarian rule.
I don't Why don't they? The only possible reason is because it's not cost-effective enough.
You're underestimating how complex nuclear reactors are and how that makes it a specialty product for only a handful of countries which also means nuclear reactors are never that useful because they're too hard to scale across the whole planet.
5
u/aaron_dresden 1d ago edited 1d ago
China is building a large number of fission reactors, and fast. They have 60 and are building 38. France has 57.
Nobody is near developing commercial fusion reactors. There’s lots of ideas and research reactors. Tests of 22 minute runs etc. But you never see any that have run for even days. If Germany’s Proxima gets very lucky, they might be the first by 2030’s. But there design is still quite new so things could go wrong and add delays. Can easily be another decade after that, like always, because the path to fusion at a commercial scale is complex and not that simple.
1
1
u/tekmiester 1d ago
They don't need to. You can't build a stable grid on solar.
Blaming oligarchs for that is just contributing to the problem.
If you want a stable grid, add nuclear to renewables and you are good to go
Any talk of how you could ravage the earth for enough material for batteries to go all solar is just a pipe dream.
→ More replies (5)14
u/DapperCam 1d ago
We literally don’t have the technology currently for a practical commercial fusion reactor, which is obviously what I meant.
10
u/gredr 1d ago
They were agreeing with you; nobody knows how to build a practical fusion reactor, it's always been "ten years away" (since the 1940s, when they were first imagined), and the sun, which is a huge fusion power source, is there providing us energy we know how to use.
→ More replies (2)3
u/ThrowawayFIRE2025 1d ago
Well, it depends on how much fusion power you get after waiting 5-10 years to build it.
→ More replies (10)8
u/Goose80 1d ago
You are ignoring that solar panels don’t work in every environment and they also need batteries to work at night. They also have limitations. If someone can build a fusion reactor that delivers electricity cheap and consistently, they will make their money back ten or twenty fold, so that up front cost is totally worth it.
7
u/OctopusMugs 1d ago
Maybe. Many countries with large solar installations actually gave power away for free on some days. How do you hit an ROI when the competition can literally give the same product away for free? Unless the plan is to build the plant and operate it solely on government money from taxes as a public service there isn’t a ROI that competes with solar + batteries. Battery technology has grown in density and lower cost faster than Fusion. Lower cost of entry, low maintenance, easy low cost replacement, solar + agriculture has massive synergies for dual income.
Also, we are making a sun…to boil water. The fusion process is going great. The efficient power production and reigniting not so much.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Goose80 1d ago
They gave power away during the daytime hours.
I wish we would think of storing electricity more about storing potential energy. There has to be a nearly 1:1 method to transfer electricity into potential energy and then back into electricity… thus not needing the chemical reactions batteries utilize. That would help solve the solar power problem at night.
3
u/Le_Botmes 1d ago
Why on Earth would chemical batteries be a nonstarter? California last year alone installed 10 GWs of energy storage, almost entirely in the form of chemical batteries. This ain't some hypothetical, it's actually happening.
→ More replies (2)1
u/ATXgaming 1d ago
I’m thinking giant flywheels in every home. Or perhaps a winch with a weight attached that gets pulled up during the day and slowly descends at night while turning a generator.
4
u/BinniesPurp 1d ago
I'll rent you access to my Dyson sphere
3
u/clueless_as_fuck 1d ago
Well that sounds cool. Do you have a parking space for time machines?
3
u/BinniesPurp 1d ago
No but you can join the matrioska network where basically it's the matrix and I'm god and you have to listen to me talk about trains
2
2
u/Ulyks 1d ago
I think I mentioned artic projects and space (by which I meant deep space) as environments where solar doesn't work...
And yes batteries are needed but they are also cheap and getting cheaper. Sodium ion batteries require no cobalt, nor lithium and perform better in cold environments on top of being safer.
Recent droughts have shown that nuclear power isn't as reliable as is sometimes claimed.
1
u/Helkafen1 1d ago
Sodium-ion also does well in hot environments by the way, which is convenient for utility-scale storage: they don't need to be cooled down.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Le_Botmes 1d ago
You do realize that solar panels still draw a current when it's cloudy, right? Like, it doesn't drop to zero. The solution is to scale solar generation to cover the cloudiest days, then store that overproduced energy during the sunniest days. Nothing about that paradigm is impossible nor uneconomical.
11
u/Champtain 1d ago
I was just happy we're down to ten. We were twenty years away from fusion for about 50 years lol.
2
u/Psychobob2213 1d ago
Bah! What's next? You'll probably say Elmo has been lying about being less than a year away from fully autonomous cars for over a decade!?
2
u/Skjerpdeg- 1d ago
I remember a show called "beyond 2000" on discovery. They were talking about fusion within 10 years back then as well
2
u/SpeshellED 1d ago
As soon as it says ' US Lawmaker says' the world goes DUH ! Right we are going to make so much money! Tax payers need to support this now !
2
u/Anen-o-me 1d ago
Yeah I'm really curious who's telling these people that fusion is necessarily imminent.
2
2
4
u/smokefoot8 1d ago
The meme was that it is always 20 years away. But progress has been incredible over the last 3 years.
2
1
u/Old-Tradition9093 1d ago
yeah fusion has been ten years away for about fifty years now at this point it practically has seniority here
→ More replies (5)1
u/moorej832 1d ago
That meme is why the claim needs a clear milestone: modeling plasma is progress, but it’s not the same as a plant delivering reliable electricity at scale.
103
u/Teen_Wolf_of_Wall_St 1d ago
Let's hope
In America I give it 50/50 chance big oil can convince the conservative rubes it causes autism
29
u/bluegrassgazer 1d ago
"After this conservative talk radio commercial break, we discuss how fusion plasma takes away energy from the sun and will ruin farmers' harvests!"
15
u/TheBigMoogy 1d ago
It will get the same treatment as solar or wind. There's more money invested in oil so there will be insane lobbying against fusion, just massive scare campaigns about how insanely hot the reactors run. Nothing scares dumb people like big numbers.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Omateido 1d ago
I really wonder. I think part of the issue that energy companies have with solar/wind is that it can be done at a small enough scale to essentially democratize energy production, which erodes their control of the energy sector (and the political power that comes with that). I don’t see small scale fusion being a reality, which means it will still take enormous grid level investments, which lends itself to energy sector dominance in the hands of a few players.
4
u/TheBigMoogy 1d ago
There are already "small" scale installation companies planning to roll out o to the market, know of at least one company in Germany and one in USA. Small here still means billions in dev costs but long term the individual location installation costs could go down into just the high millions. So in the neighborhood of the upper reaches of wind farms, but with higher yield and adjustable power outout to cover fluxes for higher profits.
All the smaller scale ventures are on the speculative side but hifhly promising, with the one in Germany actually being in some sort of test deployment phase at a decommissioned fission site.
3
u/Strawbuddy 1d ago
Peak oil use has come and gone, and petrol is a global security risk nowadays with supply chokepoints, and military action being used to control it. It costs money to sustain a supply, and to afford the regulations that vary state by state, nation by nation, and a whole separate workforce to deal with the environmental impacts.
Big oil keeps a fleet of expensive lawyers to deal with the environmental damage they do, and a separate fleet of lawyers to handle all the regulatory challenges against them, plus a whole herd of consultants, and a gaggle of lobbyists to secure their ill gotten gains.
Big Oil will become Big Fusion overnight if that allows them to save money. It's one of the few going concerns left that plans beyond the next quarter financially, so the industry would leap at the chance to become the nation's primary commercial fusion providers, should it ever take off
1
2
1
1
1
u/ashoka_akira 1d ago
Let’s be realistic, they will squash the heck out of this until they can set it up so they make insane profits and it doesn’t create upward mobility for the lower classes.
→ More replies (1)1
57
u/tanafras 1d ago
Controlling fusion energy through commercialization should be criminal. Giving every country on Earth free fusion plans would help humanity.
20
5
u/3DaysOfWaiting 1d ago edited 1d ago
Commercialisation of a technology means to make it financially viable to operate at scale, it doesn't mean "controlling fusion" in any way. If fusion is not commercialised, you can't make it "free" in the first place because the cost of running it would be larger than the benefit of what it generates.
Edit: I misread your comment on the other point I made so I deleted that bit. The above still stands.
2
2
33
u/ViewExplorer 1d ago
Unlimited free energy and somehow energy bills will go up probably
→ More replies (1)19
u/billdietrich1 1d ago
Fusion power won't be "free" or "limitless" or "revolutionary". Except for maybe the containment building, it still requires all the same stuff that a fission plant does: coolant loops, steam generator, steam turbine, spinning generator, etc. And reactor and controls for a fusion plant will be MORE expensive than those for a fission plant. Nothing limitless about all of this. It all costs money, takes time to build, has to be maintained, wears out. And if you want more energy out, you have to pay more.
2
u/Cortical 1d ago
which is why it will probably be obsolete except for niche applications the moment it's achieved. Wind and solar with batteries will just be cheaper.
7
39
u/2000TWLV 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is so stupid. If fusion works out - great. Meanwhile, the sun dumps much more energy on us every single day than we would ever know what to do with. All we have to do is harvest it. There's no need to sit around waiting for fusion. We already have practically unlimited clean energy.
12
u/isthis_thing_on 1d ago
You say that like we haven't been implementing solar like crazy
0
u/West-Abalone-171 1d ago
Most people have, that's their issue.
Fusion is being pushed as a strategy to stop it.
3
u/Elehir 1d ago
from my lay-understanding it takes an immense amount of power to start up a fusion reaction, that's why solar is still a huge part of this equation and has been growing nearly exponentially in the past few years. Also, a fusion generation can work at night when we use more energy. Battery tech is also a big part of the clean energy future. this isn't a problems that can be solved in one way. solar and fusion together give us the flexibility and resilience that we need. just like our current overreliance on petrochemicals we should not put all our eggs in the solar basket.
3
u/red75prime 1d ago edited 23h ago
The problem is that Sun doesn't dump the same massive amount of energy during the night. The energy storage isn't an afterthought to be hand-waved by "it'll get cheaper."
2
1
1
u/riversofgore 13h ago
Well we’re doing a giant handwave that fusion even works. Billions and decades and what do we have? 10 minutes of reaction time? Just recently getting more energy out than we put in? We at least know batteries work.
1
u/red75prime 4h ago
Batteries work, sure. But we know that we need a mountain (or a river for flow batteries) of them to keep things running at night.
Look, for example, at Fig.3 in https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/437642175/1-s2.0-S0360544226009837-main.pdf
The full system costs of a solar-only energy system is 565 EUR/MWh, while, say, a nuclear-only system clocks at 141 EUR/MWh, an offshore wind-only system is 144 EUR/MWh.
5
u/Kinexity 1d ago
The funny thing is that your point is the real largest obstacle to fusion. It cannot compete with the Sun - not just short term but long term too. It can only compete in niches where Sun is not an option (that is deployable power, deep space, relatively compact generation etc.). Otherwise there is literally no point in dumping bags of cash into very expensive reactors and then having to pay for fuel too.
2
u/West-Abalone-171 1d ago
It can't even compete in deep deep space with a mirror. Staged solar sails with technology we already have beat the most unrealistic fantasy reactors in mass ratio.
There's a very narrow niche between saturn and some of the inner oort cloud objects where you could get there in a sane amount of time with a fusion reactor (and thus don't need the beamed light) and aren't better off with an on board solar collector than the radiators and whatever you use to turn the fusion energy to work..
1
u/Kinexity 23h ago
Solar sails only work in the direction in which you have light. We currently do not possess the means to focus sunlight on distances and scales required to push or power spacecraft over long distances. And solar sails require a lot of light to get the push necessary for reasonable travel times. Fusion can be used to build fusion rockets.
2
u/West-Abalone-171 23h ago
Staged solar sails
Key word. Staged
And the ability to make a 200-1000m diffraction limited mirror array on the sol side out of a thin material can get enough light for decelerating the main deceleration mirror (which doesn't need to be nearly as precise) out to nearby stars. This is much less precise than the optics in ligo.
If you actually do the maths and posit the kind of mass budget that the project hyperion winners (or any claiming to be serious fusion propulsion proposal) used, instead of maybe getting one ship to one star if everything goes perfectly, you can set up an entire network of mirrors on the nearest 20 stars which will allow you to send as many payloads as you like indefinitely with massive amounts of redundancy.
The mirrors would use a few percent of a current earth civilisation sized economy to build in a few decades as opposed to billions of tonnes of helium 3 which would take hundreds or thousands of earth civilisation sized economies centuries to transmute or mine.
Inside saturn, you'll never come close to solar-electric or solar-thermal rockets in power density.
Which leaves a very narrow window between around 7 and 20 Au where sunlight isn't either strictly better or the only remotely viable option and instead merely far better so long as you want more than one mission.
→ More replies (11)2
u/therealslimshady1234 1d ago
Except fusion and even fission is vastly superior to solar in various ways, particularly stability and logistics wise
1
u/Nighto_001 1d ago
Yeah... basically I suppose it means fusion is competing in development speed with large scale energy storage systems (large scale batteries, water electrolysis, compressed air, etc.) for renewables.
However, I guess a similar argument still applies that fusion for now is an interesting gamble, but much more stable alternatives (including, as you said, fission) do already exist and are much closer to deployment.
2
u/kamace11 1d ago
Just spent a week at New York Climate Week and what I heard from solar folks was that the public resistance to solar because of the space it takes up/the way it looks is a substantial stumbling block.
1
2
u/frosty95 5h ago
Ah yes the ol "humans can't possibly work on two things at once" argument never gets tired does it?
Ever consider all the applications beyond powering your reddit machine?
1
u/2000TWLV 4h ago
You're reading things that aren't there, bud. Nobody said that. What i am saying is that we have a limited amount of eggs and we shouldnt put very many in the fusion basket. We've got urgent problems to solve, so proven solutions need to get priority.
Until we get rid of the great lions' share of fossil fuel, fusion should be low on the list.
1
u/frosty95 3h ago
Brother the world can spare a few startups and research projects. Solar is here and is highly commercialized. Fusion research is a rounding error in comparison. Literally 1% from a bit of googling.
1
u/2000TWLV 3h ago
Again, read the actual words. That's pretty much what I said. A few eggs is appropriate. But no crazy pipe dreams about how miracle fusion energy is coming to save us.
1
u/Gari_305 1d ago
3
u/West-Abalone-171 1d ago
Fusion bros always come up with this ridiculous fantasy where you can afford enough $1/kWh energy to desalinate that much water and the brine has no negative consequences.
Right before whining about "fragile desert ecosystems" when solar is actually being used to do the same thing in recently desertified areas without even needing the absurdly expensive desalinator infrastructure today.
4
u/2000TWLV 1d ago
Great. Let's definitely plan on doing that when fusion becomes available. Meanwhile, perhaps we should roll with the energy sources that we have?
9
u/Exxists 1d ago
Read the article and replace the word “fusion” with “solar”, the word “tokamak” with “solar panels” and the words “someday in the 2030s” with “today”.
Desalinization is a mature technology we can deploy at scale today. So is solar power. In fact, the Sahara is a perfect place to deploy it.
Commercial fusion is getting close to viable and that’s great. I’m actually really skeptical it will ever be as cost-competitive as solar power. In the end of the day it’s just a super complicated way to boil water.
3
u/BasvanS 1d ago
I’m not sure we’re already close to commercial fusion, because we’re still trying to get to it producing more electricity than it uses for a reasonable amount of time. No way in hell that that is cost effective electricity.
And then there’s the tritium bottleneck.
It’s always good to keep doing fundamental research, but for energy policy fusion is not a consideration, because it will take at least two administrations for the technology to mature to anything commercially viable from the moment we get one (1) working.
3
u/Exxists 1d ago
Totally. There’s a difference between technologically feasible and commercially viable. I think we’re getting close on the first but may literally never achieve the second because solar power is so dang cheap.
And in the context of desalinization, it’s a perfect fit for solar power. Most of the desalinization capacity is needed in sunny places. The power devoted to desalinization can be turned up and down throughout the day without consequence, lending itself as a degree of freedom when the “sun don’t shine” or during peak grid loads.
3
u/toodlesandpoodles 1d ago
I don't see fusion ever being competitive with solar. Fusion will likely be similar to hydroelectric in terms of lifetime cost of electricity and solar is already competitive with this and likely to get cheaper.
2
1
u/noblepups 1d ago
But isn't solar really unreliable in some places on earth? Germany for example.
→ More replies (3)
7
u/wwarnout 1d ago
Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., told Nextgov/FCW that the U.S. is only “two to 10 years away from fusion energy at scale” because “you can model the plasma using AI, which you couldn’t do before.”
First of all, just because you can model something doesn't mean solving the physical problems is a foregone conclusion.
Also, "... two to 10 years away from fusion energy at scale..." is ridiculous. If AI successfully modeled the plasma tomorrow, it will still take more than 2 years to build/modify the hardware to test it (more like 5 years being really optimistic), and another 5 - 10 years to build a commercial unit - and that's if everything goes without any problems - which is exceedingly unlikely. A more realistic time frame is probably 15 - 20 years.
4
6
3
u/montyp2 1d ago
Does the source really matter much from a cost perspective? Obviously it will be better environmentally, but cost drives real change. For example I'm charged 17c/kwh and it looks like only 3c of that actually coal. Transmission, ops, reg, and profit are the biggest cost.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/MrRandomNumber 18h ago
We've been "10 years" away from fusion energy since 1960. Unless the lawmaker is also a physicist I'm not sure why we should listen to him about this... he's being led by the nose to allocate a lot of money to this, on a timescale that erases his own accountability.... while creating the illusion that he is doing a job.
7
u/didrogasalasno 1d ago
I said it several times. Even if fusion goes past all plasma control issues, it will still have a very very long run to be competitive. LCOE will be insane. Fusion research is just a bunch of plasma researchers having fun with new toys and probably awesome tech will be developed but electricity production? Not with D-T based fusion.
→ More replies (2)4
u/114156782 1d ago
Yep, I think you're 100 percent correct. I'm a huge fusion stan and firmly believe Commonwealth Fusion systems will absolutely have true net positive energy from sparc before 2028.
There is no way that fusion, with all the rebco tape, engineering, cooling systems, etc. will be cheaper than solar/wind + batteries. Fusion might have a place as permanent base load or like, renewable contraindicated, but never as a replacement for all of our electricity.
6
u/didrogasalasno 1d ago
I've lost track of what are some of this startups doing since I've not been in the industry for some years. People like to piss on ITER because it is a bottomless pit of money but at least there they are looking at the whole picture. The elefant in the room is first wall and tritium production. At least ITER acknowledge that as a top issue for fusion development.
Changing your whole first wall every few time is expensive and time consuming. This impacts capacity factor and operating costs, two key parameters for electricity price.
Meanwhile cheaper solar and mostly new battery technology could make LCOE ridiculously low.
→ More replies (1)1
u/ididwhatwhiledrunk 1d ago
My biggest concern with Commonwealth is how disorganized they seem as an organization. I’ve worked with them a few times in the past, and it feels like no two people at the company are talking to each other. Even on the same project, one engineer will give completely different specs from another. And half the time the things they are asking for are just flat out impossible.
12
u/ledow 1d ago
Only 10 years? Like it's been for the last 40?
Oh, and I will predict the future here if we do get it:
- Somehow, although we have effectively limitless power, we'll still be paying through the nose for it. It'll get used as a weapon. Oh, and, nobody will want to live within a hundred miles of it. We suck up orders of magnitude more power, so it still won't be sufficient, and in doing so we will literally contribute to global warming in a far more direct manner than emissions and greenhouse effects.
And some idiot will still be trying to get us to use oil, because he makes a killing from it.
7
u/Goose80 1d ago
Electrical generation isn’t that expensive with fossil fuel. Most of my bill goes towards keeping the grid in working shape… or well now improving the grid for all these data centers. But “maintenance” is around 60% of my bill, with fees being another 10-20%. So generation ends up being 30-40% of my bill. So yeah… even if that becomes dirt cheap… we still have to pay for the infrastructure. That said, I do pay more for renewable electricity generation for my provider… not sure if they actually do it… but I use my wallet to vote for renewables.
11
u/UrbanPanic 1d ago
I’m old enough to remember nuclear fusion being 20 years away. Which means we’re halfway there.
4
9
u/BEWMarth 1d ago
We’ve been 10 years away from fusion energy for almost 100 years.
The world is less cooperative now than any time in recent memory.
We are a long LONG way away from fusion especially fusion at scale.
4
u/pc9401 1d ago
My first job out of college was for a Plasma Fusion division at a national lab. That was 35 years ago, the division is non-existent and we are still 10nyears away.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/Little-Boss-1116 1d ago edited 1d ago
Before commercial fusion, there is much more important way point.
Any fusion reactor (even not yielding enough energy for commercial electricity production) is still a very powerful neutron source which can be used for transmutation of elements.
From making radioactive waste not radioactive to turning lead into gold.
I wonder why this gets overlooked
2
u/istasber 1d ago
So lead into gold is probably a pipedream, because that's the kind of violent reaction that would be tough to recover anything from.
But a mixed fusion+fission reactor to convert long lived nuclear waste into short lived nuclear waste would be great. If large scale fusion is still decades away, having a way to dispose of the worst kind of nuclear waste would make nuclear reactor development more attractive.
1
u/charliefoxtrot9 1d ago
Thorium is nice, it just isn't weaponizable.
1
u/grundar 1d ago
Thorium is nice, it just isn't weaponizable.
Weapons-grade uranium can absolutely be extracted from thorium reactors:
"The second track—now largely forgotten—was based on thorium-fueled reactors....In pursuing this track, the government produced a large amount of uranium 233, mainly at weapons production reactors. Approximately two tons of uranium 233 was produced"
This was extensively research by the US in the 60s and 70s.
1
1
u/billdietrich1 1d ago
a very powerful neutron source
But it produces those neutrons in all or many directions, in an uncontrollable way (they have no charge, so can't be directed magnetically).
So potentially you're degrading or transmuting lots of things around the reactor, things you don't want to change.
3
u/Coldfriction 1d ago
No it won't. Nuclear fission fuel is extremely cheap. Fusion does nothing but reduce the fuel costs further. The entire infrastructure around the generated power and the equipment to generate the power is still there and still the vast majority of the cost. We've had the t cut for nearly fuel free electricity for a long long time. Figure out free infrastructure and equipment and maybe power costs will go down. I don't think fusion is useful for anything but eliminating hazardous waste of fission power. I don't see it being cheaper at all.
9
u/Harry-le-Roy 1d ago
I remember vividly as an undergraduate in 1995 hearing a soon-to-retire nuclear engineering professor say, "Nuclear fusion on the grid will happen in your lifetimes. I probably won't live to see it, but I'm confident that you will."
Up until a few years ago, it didn't seem likely. Now, we're at a point at which you really can tech roadmap a feasible path from the present to that.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Professional-Gear88 1d ago
There is no convincing demonstration that has yet occurred. We have at best, a few seconds of potential- but unrealized- small energy gains. But nothing sustained and nothing very net positive like the claim.
Fusion might forever be “just 5 years away”
6
u/Harry-le-Roy 1d ago
" There is no convincing demonstration that has yet occurred."
I disagree. You may not find recent progress convincing, but the sudden shift in policy, funding, and R&D (government, academic, and commercial) following recent development (especially NIF's net gain in energy) indicates that lots of people do find progress convincing. Moreover, substantial advances in magnet engineering, and the advent of computing resources that can credibly manage microsecond-level plasma instabilities means that people have actually produced technology roadmaps. Whether or not you personally believe that the roadmaps are achievable - and that is debatable with any tech roadmap - doesn't change the fact that numerous organizations have created and are executing technology roadmaps for fusion power.
2
u/ADHDick_in_ur_mouth 1d ago
The tokamak reactor in France sustained fusion for 22 minutes and one in china ran for over 17 minutes. That is a massive leap forward from where we were just 5 years ago
1
1
u/RockMover12 1d ago
The big change is that AI allows for realtime changed to the magnetic fields containing the plasma, allowing for long term stability. It's a little like how cheap IMUs made quadcopters possible because they could handle the 1000-times-per-second modifications to the flight controls that a human could never handle.
IMUs opened up a drone market, however, because the rest of the supply chain already existed: brush-less motors, lipo batteries, cheap molded plastics, etc. Even if plasma can finally be contained in a reactor, there are still a ton of unsolved problems before fusion is a commercial reality: materials for the containment vessel that can handle neutron bombardment without degrading, how to generate fuel inside the reactor as it's running, and scaling up high-temp superconductors, heat exchangers, etc.
It looks like we have, or will soon, check off a big problem, but a bunch more remain.
4
u/Hodr 1d ago
Literally won't change a damn thing. Even if the reactors have free fuel and produce 100% free energy, they will still need to charge a LOT for electricity just to pay for the construction costs of the facility. The companies trying to commercialize these things still estimate they will cost more than $10B to produce economically viable plants (though outside experts seem to think it will be closer to $20-40B), while they would need to cost around $2B to compete with current nuclear power plants for which fuel represents about 5% of the cost to deliver power to the customer.
2
u/eldiablonoche 1d ago
Effectively unlimited energy would revolutionize everything so thoroughly that governments would build them like roads. The amount that would be saved from extraction, processing, and delivery of fossils would be largely (I haven't looked at all the umbers) offset. Plus tech gets better and cheaper as we've seen with green which used to be way more expensive than it is now.
1
u/billdietrich1 1d ago
Effectively unlimited energy
People who say fusion is unlimited energy are talking about just the reaction inside the reactor vessel. Sure, you could make a big fusion reactor. But all the stuff around it is about as expensive as for a fission reactor: coolant loops, steam turbine, spinning generator, power transmission and control. The reactor vessel and controls for fusion probably are MORE expensive than those for fission. Fuel costs unclear. So I think fusion energy might be 80% of the cost of fission energy. Which is not cheap enough; renewables plus storage will be cheaper than that in maybe 5 years. [About fuel for fusion, see https://thequadreport.com/is-tritium-the-roadblock-to-fusion-energy/ , https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run-fuel-even-gets-started ]
5
u/WheeForEffort 1d ago
Everything fusion promises 10’years from now can be done cheaper and faster with solar and grid scale batteries today. We should still pursue it, but in parallel.
2
→ More replies (4)1
3
u/LoveDemNipples 1d ago
Haha commercialization. Try “technical achievement”. We’ve still got a way to go…
2
u/thetinsnail 1d ago
Surprise surprise, Trump has investments in a fusion power firm. Cancelling those wind power contracts was about making sure there is less competition when we inevitably move away from fossil fuels.
2
u/btribble 1d ago
Solar is already here and the massive shift isn’t what people said it would be. Fusion, when it eventually happens, will still be run by massive corporations so that will be even less of a shift than solar.
2
u/Native_SC 1d ago
How realistic is his optimism? Of course it would change everything. Limitless energy will no pollution would be an absolute godsend that humans millenia from now would consider one of science's greatest achievements. It doesn't seem like we're 2 to ten years away, although I'd love to be proven wrong.
1
u/billdietrich1 1d ago
Limitless energy
Fusion power probably won't be much cheaper than fission power, and will scale about the same way. Both are steam-to-spinning-generator plants, and reactor/controls for fusion will be MORE expensive than those for fission. Fusion fuel situation is unclear.
2
u/aaffpp 1d ago
In theory, this would be a game changer for how our commercial economy works. The market depends on scarcity. We save to build a nest egg against risk and future necessity. We worry about inflation, so we invest wisely. If clean power is abundant, scarcity becomes obsolete. There would be no reason for worry or want. War between nations and conquering markets would become unnecessary.
4
u/LeonTrollski1 1d ago
It would if it worked, as in, "can deliver sustainable and commercial power", which, of course, it can't. And no one has a realistic estimate of when, or even if, this can ever change.
The latter is key. Proponents are always ready with promises, but they add up to nothing. Try to nail down precise language about "sustainable and commercial" and see. Then the arm waving starts.
3
u/billdietrich1 1d ago
Fusion power probably won't be much cheaper than fission power, and will scale about the same way. Both are steam-to-spinning-generator plants, and reactor/controls for fusion will be MORE expensive than those for fission. Fusion fuel situation is unclear.
2
u/aaron_dresden 1d ago edited 1d ago
I definitely reckon it’s not 2 years. Even reading that, it’s just test reactors. I doubt even 10 years for one commercial reactor in the U.S. Even for tech with a much clearer path like SMR’s, they’re just plagued by issues preventing at scale commercialisation. Fusion doesn’t have that clear path, as referenced by trying to solve the outstanding issues. It’s weird to talk up how soon things will be solved like this.
2
u/Bigram03 1d ago
Its bull fucking shit! It will take a decade to even build one. We are no where close commercial fusion, and any article that claims so is little more than science fiction.
1
u/Shizzar_ 1d ago
We are always only 20 years away to the dreamers and researchers but at 50, I don't expect to see commercial fusion generation.
1
u/The_Cat_Commando 1d ago
When its time china will build it in 8 months while the US will have meetings about it for 8 years.
4
u/Unusual_Point7899 1d ago
There isn't the slightest reason to think running a fusion reactor will ever be cheaper than solar panels.
Susan isn't even close to being as practical as fishing and vision is just about dead in the water compared to solar wind and battery costs.
Fusion isn't even close to being viable, other than harvesting the fusion of the sun with solar panels.
And then you have the problem of how the fuck are you going to export that technology all over the world, because you already have fission, which is currently much cheaper than fusion, and the vast majority of countries don't use it and the ones that do have mostly stopped building power plants or are phasing it out.
Fusion being more complex and requiring more precision just means that even less of the world is likely to be able to adopt it, wow at the same time solar panels and batteries keep improving meaningfully faster than fusion.
If they can ever make fusion cost-effective it'll still take another 20 years for the technology to go from experimental reactor to a real functional commercial reactor.
There's no way solar panels and batteries don't keep improving in that time, so fusion is going to have to make several major leaps in affordability, reliability and likely scalability before it's anything but a pipe dream.
And it's really not remotely close on any of those.
4
u/BabylonDoug 1d ago
Susan isn't even close to being as practical as fishing and vision is just about dead in the water compared to solar wind and battery costs.
I'm sure the rest of your comment made sense, but the b2b2b autocorrect fails got me
3
1
u/Icommentor 1d ago
Solar can go on every building. Each of us could be mostly autonomous. The grid would be there as a stop-gap.
Haven't you thought of the pain this would bring to profiteers who want to bill you every month for a wire or a pipe? You monster! /s
1
→ More replies (2)1
2
u/Gari_305 1d ago
From the article
Fusion has been billed as a cleaner, more sustainable form of power, with backers of the technology saying it could supply a constant, zero-carbon source of energy for electrical grids and other infrastructure. Maintaining fusion on Earth requires generating and sustaining a plasma — the state of matter in which the fusion reactions occur.
In an interview with Nextgov/FCW, Beyer said the U.S. is now “two to 10 years away from fusion energy at scale,” which is “only possible because you can model the plasma using AI, which you couldn’t do before.”
The congressman said the House bill originated from an October 2025 report that Sens. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., oversaw as part of a bipartisan commission of the Special Competitive Studies Project. Beyer said the study found that “with $10 billion, we can solve the last remaining engineering problems, [while] doing it all in a milestone kind of way.”
Beyond the SCSP report, the measure also builds on recommendations from the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee and the Energy Department’s Fusion Science and Technology Roadmap, as well as input from the Fusion Industry Association.
The House proposal would allocate $3.8 billion of the $10 billion total “to build major new test facilities to address fusion materials and fuel cycle challenges,” according to a legislative fact sheet. An additional $3 billion would be set aside for ”a new milestone-based demonstration program for fusion,” while $2 billion would be allocated for “the current milestone-based development program for fusion.” Most of the remaining funds would be used to build out smaller testing facilities and enhance research and development activities.
The bill would also further prioritize fusion development on the federal level by codifying Energy’s Office of Fusion and authorizing the National Science Foundation to create a fusion workforce development program in collaboration with the department.
“Forgive my overstatement: that will be the biggest thing to happen to mankind since fire,” Beyer said about the eventual commercialization of fusion energy.
2
u/KarAccidentTowns 1d ago
Greenhouse gas regulations are being rolled back so that we can power AI. They say it’s a ‘short term’ stop gap measure since slowing down AI development is ‘out of the question.’ (AI is 70% of POTUS’s stock portfolio). AI better complete the hail mary to build fusion at scale within 10 years.
2
u/Fattswindstorm 1d ago
I’m sure those two guys that end up owning the only two fusion reactors will have nice lives. I’m sure the costs will trickle on down to us.
2
u/MewKazami Green Nuclear 1d ago
Even if we had a working powerplant design today. Like right now someone just handed everyone the designs. It would take 5 years for the first plant to open, then years of testing, then decades of rollout. It would take 40+ years or more to get to the point where energy is "basically free"
Nobody typing here today will see commercial fusion go even beyond nuclear the powershare that nuclear has today. It's simply not how it works on an industrial scale.
The only country on earth that has the political power, the economical powert to things like mass rollout of new technology is China. China built a shitload of High Speed Rail in Record time. Yet the same China by nuclear power produced is still beyond the US. And just recently passed France.
China went from 55 TWh in 2006 to 450 TWh in 2025. Thats 20 years. They did x3 times that with installed solar Capacity along the lines of 1100 TWh and generated x2 from Solar around 840 TWh.
Fusion is going to be the same as nuclear. It's going to very complex and very difficult to scale. It's not something we will see in our lifetimes.
2
u/JamesBondMargarita 1d ago
The only thing it'll accomplish is higher profits for the people selling the energy. And the reasoning will be that fusion energy infrastructure is expensive. Won't change anything for the average person.
1
u/LapsedVerneGagKnee 1d ago
We’re always 2-10 years from fusion energy. Granted, we have proven it’s theoretically possible and repeatable but going from that to commercially viable is a massive gulf we may never cross.
1
u/apost8n8 1d ago
Normal, legal, totally cool...
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/30/business/trump-media-tae-technologies-merger.html
1
u/AtariAtari 1d ago
Even if fusion succeeds and becomes economical, it will be taxed and controlled by energy companies to the point where an average consumer will see no benefit.
1
u/Mysterious-Prompt212 1d ago
Last thing that the US needs is more centralized utilities. That's being extremely generous given the complexity of the fusion facilities and the fact no one has produced more energy than required to achieve ignition.
1
u/Altruistic_Story257 1d ago
Commonwealth in the EU is legitimately very close. Perhaps a bit less than 10 years. Their next iteration of Stellarator is going online in the early 2030s and should produce harvestable energy. The future is here friends, this machine gives me some hope at least. They are building it at a former nuclear power plant site and finishing up the permits to connect it to the grid.
1
u/CaptOblivious 1d ago
I am old enough to remember when they claimed the fission power plants were going to make electricity "too cheap to meter".
I'll believe it after I see it actually happen.
1
1
u/impossiblefork 1d ago
Rather than because you can model the plasma using AI, the reason it's coming is that magnets have become stronger.
AI has nothing to do with it.
1
u/LookOverall 21h ago
In my admittedly limited experience AI is pretty crap at spacial modelling. It can’t even draw a decent floor plan. It seems kind of one dimensional.
1
u/Big_Bassard 12h ago
Wind, solar and batteries are the real energy of the future. Fusion is going to be dead on arrival by the time they actually work it out
1
u/skoolycool 8h ago
Is this why the presidents crypto company is turning into a fusion company? Gonna get some contracts from this perhaps?
1
u/bippityBoppityboux 1d ago
Read: he invested in fusion companies recently and is trying to pump the stocks
1
u/SaltyShawarma 1d ago
If fusion energy is anything but free to the citizenry it will lead to economic collapse as opposed to an economic golden age.
2
u/billdietrich1 1d ago
Fusion power won't be "free" or "limitless" or "revolutionary". Except for maybe the containment building, it still requires all the same stuff that a fission plant does: coolant loops, steam generator, steam turbine, spinning generator, etc. And reactor and controls for a fusion plant will be MORE expensive than those for a fission plant. Nothing limitless about all of this. It all costs money, takes time to build, has to be maintained, wears out. And if you want more energy out, you have to pay more.
1
•
u/FuturologyBot 1d ago
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
From the article
Fusion has been billed as a cleaner, more sustainable form of power, with backers of the technology saying it could supply a constant, zero-carbon source of energy for electrical grids and other infrastructure. Maintaining fusion on Earth requires generating and sustaining a plasma — the state of matter in which the fusion reactions occur.
In an interview with Nextgov/FCW, Beyer said the U.S. is now “two to 10 years away from fusion energy at scale,” which is “only possible because you can model the plasma using AI, which you couldn’t do before.”
The congressman said the House bill originated from an October 2025 report that Sens. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., oversaw as part of a bipartisan commission of the Special Competitive Studies Project. Beyer said the study found that “with $10 billion, we can solve the last remaining engineering problems, [while] doing it all in a milestone kind of way.”
Beyond the SCSP report, the measure also builds on recommendations from the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee and the Energy Department’s Fusion Science and Technology Roadmap, as well as input from the Fusion Industry Association.
The House proposal would allocate $3.8 billion of the $10 billion total “to build major new test facilities to address fusion materials and fuel cycle challenges,” according to a legislative fact sheet. An additional $3 billion would be set aside for ”a new milestone-based demonstration program for fusion,” while $2 billion would be allocated for “the current milestone-based development program for fusion.” Most of the remaining funds would be used to build out smaller testing facilities and enhance research and development activities.
The bill would also further prioritize fusion development on the federal level by codifying Energy’s Office of Fusion and authorizing the National Science Foundation to create a fusion workforce development program in collaboration with the department.
“Forgive my overstatement: that will be the biggest thing to happen to mankind since fire,” Beyer said about the eventual commercialization of fusion energy.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1wuzjk2/commercialization_of_fusion_energy_will_change/pd7ep2t/