• Question: What is your opinion on the progress of commercialised nuclear fusion, do you think it is viable in my lifetime?

    Asked by FWakefield to uzairabdullah, mattpriestley, Luke, hudsonbaker, ciarabyers, Charlie, Agnes on 19 Mar 2026.
    • Photo: Charlie Boswell

      Charlie Boswell answered on 19 Mar 2026:

      I think commercialised nuclear fusion will definitely become viable in your lifetime.

      Many experiments around the world are proving that they can control a fusion reaction effectively. The proof that the results from these science experiments are good is that several countries are now beginning to build demonstration power plants:

      UKAEA is building STEP here in the UK
      Proxima fusion is building Stellaris in Germany
      Commonwealth Fusion Systems is building Arc in the US

      To name just a few front runners. Others are being built in South Korea, Japan, China and India.

      These will come online in the late 2030s and 2040s.

      These will generate fusion power and supply it to the grid, but making things commercially viable will take longer. These power plants are all expected to cost more to design and build than they will make from selling energy. But, as we build these demonstrations we will learn how to build power plants better and more cheaply.

      We also need a lot of components that have never been built before. But after building lots of these demonstration power plants, there will be companies that specialise in building the kinds of things we need. They’ll make it cheaper to build other power plants like this in the future.

      2040 is still a long way. Fusion is not the answer to the climate crisis we need now. Between now and 2040 we expect our demand for energy to double – in the future, fusion will be the way to most cleanly meet that energy demand. I don’t expect there to be lots of commercial fusion power plants until… 2050? Maybe sooner if private companies see a way to make manufacturing some components more cheaply. Still within your lifetime, and for now there are lots of exciting and interesting experiments to follow on our road there 🙂

    • Photo: Luke Humphrey

      Luke Humphrey answered on 27 Mar 2026: last edited 27 Mar 2026 13:09

      I second everything Charlie wrote. Worth noting I work in Fusion research and have an obvious bias. Always consider the bias of whoever is giving their opinions, but also, I work in Fusion because I believe in it, not the other way around.

      Anyway, another aspect to consider is government subsidies and taxes. One appealing aspect of nuclear fusion is that it’s low-carbon, but is better equipped to displace the baseline “always-on” energy production of fossil fuels than renewables. Renewables are brilliant and we should absolutely use them, but rely too much on unreliable environmental conditions and inefficient energy story technologies to seriously challenge our fossil fuel dependence the way nuclear can.

      Government are expected to provide subsidies to low-carbon tech and taxes on high carbon tech to support the net zero transition. Without that financial impact, the very-established fossil fuel industry may well outcompete the developing fusion industry, especially as we continue to optimise the technology, grow supply chains, and train the skilled workforce required to design, build, operate, and decommission fusion power plants.

      It’s also worth considering that even commissioning a power plant with established technologies takes decades. So, even if we had a commercial prototype today, we wouldn’t see a serious displacement of fossil fuels until 10 years later.

      Long term, though, with the dwindling fossil fuel reserves, a renewed interest in energy security, and the need to hit net zero carbon emissions, fusion will absolutely be a significant part of the future energy mix. I would guess that will happen in your lifetime, but I might be retired by then, we’ll see.

      Also, it is my strong opinion that we need to be, right now, commissioning nuclear *fission* power plants in much greater numbers. As Charlie pointed out we really need to be getting to net zero carbon long before fusion timescales to avoid the worst outcomes of climate crisis and fission is best placed to do this.

      I think this is something which is often not realised by the general public, who put too much faith in non-nuclear renewables, likely due to a lack of awareness of the energy storage limitations. I certainly didn’t realise the significance of that limitation until I began to move into the energy sector.

Comments