Somewhat relevant, folks here might also be interested in a whitepaper we recently put up on arXiv that describes what we are doing at Pacific Fusion: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10680
Section 1 in particular gives some extra high-level context that might be useful to have while reading Sam and Scott's update, and the rest of the paper should also be a good introduction to the various subsystems that make up a high-yield fusion demonstration system (albeit focused on pulser-driven inertial fusion).
The issue right now is cracking the code. Once that is done, performance gains and miniaturization can take place.
Fusion can work on lots of things. Its possible that a fusion system the size of a car could be made within 25 years of the code being cracked that would power a house, or the size of a small building that could power a city block.
The waste product of hydrogen fusion is helium, a valuable resource that will always be in high demand, and it will not be radioactive.
And yes, it will need coolant as with hot fusion the system uses the heat to turn a turbine, but that coolant isn't fancy, it's just water.
Fusion has the potential to solve more problems than it causes by every metric as long as it is doable without extremely limited source materials, and this is what these big expensive reactors are trying to solve.
Quote:
A fusion power plant produces radioactive waste because the high-energy neutrons produced by fusion activate the walls of the plasma vessel. The intensity and duration of this activation depend on the material impinged on by the neutrons.
The walls of the plasma vessel must be temporarily stored after the end of operation. This waste quantity is initially larger than that from nuclear fission plants. However, these are mainly low- and medium-level radioactive materials that pose a much lower risk to the environment and human health than high-level radioactive materials from fission power plants. The radiation from this fusion waste decreases significantly faster than that of high-level radioactive waste from fission power plants. Scientists are researching materials for wall components that allow for further reduction of activation. They are also developing recycling technologies through which all activated components of a fusion reactor can be released after some time or reused in new power plants. Currently, it can be assumed that recycling by remote handling could be started as early as one year after switching off a fusion power plant. Unlike nuclear fission reactors, the long term storage should not be required.
https://www.ipp.mpg.de/2769068/faq9
Basically, whatever containment vessel becomes standard for the whole fusion industry would need probably an annual cycle of vessel replacements, which would be recycled indefinitely and possibly mined for other useful radioactive byproducts in the process.
Unironically: you’re the first person I’ve come across to openly acknowledge this issue. Thank you.
Presumably your comment is either to persuade or to inform; it does neither. I'm very curious about this field and its future, do you care to try again?
ITER began building in 2013, first plasma is expected for 2034. DEMO is expected to start in 2040.
So, ITER is taking an estimated 20 years. It's being built for a reason, so I imagine follow-ups want to wait to see how that shakes out. So certainly, DEMO needs to start a few years after ITER is finally done.
Then DEMO isn't a production setup either, it's going to be the first attempt at a working reactor. So let's say optimistically 20 years is enough to build DEMO, run it for a few years, see how it shakes out, design the follow-ups with the lessons learned.
That means the first real, post-DEMO plant starts building somewhere in 2060. Yeah, fair to say a lot of the here present will be dead by then, and that'll only be the slow start of grid fusion if it sticks at all. Nobody is going to just go and build a hundred reactors at once. They'll be built slowly at first unless we somehow manage to start making them amazingly quickly and cheaply.
So that's what, half a century? By the time fusion gets all the kinks worked out, chances are it'll never be commercially viable. Renewables are far faster to build, many problems are solvable by brute force, and half a century is a lot of time to invent something new in the area.
This is the reality. It’s not happening. It’s a welfare program for bullshit artists that depends on a credulous public.
ARC, which uses those high temperature superconductors, is just 40x lower power density.
Neither promises to be competitive with fission, never mind the things beating fission.
Any truth to that?
Modern lasers can also repeat shots much more quickly. Power gain on the capsules appears to scale faster than linear with the input power, so getting to practical gain might not be as far off as it appears at first glance.
These are some of the reasons that various fusion startups are pursuing laser fusion for power plants.
Btw, NIF achieved those recent results by adding strong magnetic field around the target (penny-shrinkers knew that tech for 20+ years :). There are other things like this around that can potentially be similarly useful. Only if somebody had money and interest ...
So it seems more likely to me that some physicists figured out how to get their fusion power research funded under the guise of weapons research, since that's where the money is. NIF's original intent was mostly weapons research but it's turned out to be really useful for both, and these days, various companies are attempting to commercialize the technology for power plants.[3]
[1] https://theaviationist.com/2025/04/26/us-nuclear-weapons-wil...
[2] https://www.fusionindustryassociation.org/congress-provides-...
[3] NYTimes: https://archive.is/BCsf5
https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/what-is-nif
>NIF is a key element of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program to maintain the reliability, security, and safety of the U.S. nuclear deterrent without full-scale testing.
fission has relatively low temperature heat, i.e. no metal reduction, no "concrete" production. you can cook hot dogs with it. also electrification of heat can provide lower losses stemming from regulation or lack thereof. with electricity you can say i need 293.5 degrees C and you just type it somewhere and you get it for almost free (regulation).
There's "breakeven" as in "the reaction produces more energy than put into it", and there's breakeven as in "the entire reactor system produces more energy than put into it", which isn't quite the same thing.
Availability (reliability engineering) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability
Terms from other types of work: kilowatt/hour (kWh), Weight per rep, number of reps, Total Time Under Tension
I want to believe, but this does not make that easier.
(I work for one startup in the field, Commonwealth Fusion Systems. We're building our SPARC tokamak now to demonstrate net energy gain in a commercially relevant design.)
actinium226•7h ago
7thaccount•7h ago
tomnicholas1•7h ago
Much of the interesting tokamak engineering ideas were on small (so low-power) machines or just concepts using high-temperature superconducting magnets.
moffkalast•6h ago
There's the common joke that fusion is always 30 years away, but now with the help of ITER, it's always 10 years away instead.
tomnicholas1•6h ago
This is why much of the fusion research community feel disillusioned with ITER, and so are more interested in these smaller (and supposedly more "agile") machines with high-temperature superconductors instead.
cyberax•6h ago
Mind you, it's not useless! It produced a TON of very useful fusion research: neutral beam injectors, divertors, construction techniques for complex vacuum chambers, etc. At this point, I don't think it's going to be complete by the time its competitors arrive.
One spinoff of this is high-temperature superconductor research that is now close to producing actually usable high-TC flexible tapes. This might make it possible to have cheaper MRI and NMR machines, and probably a lot of other innovations.
pfdietz•4h ago
ITER has been criticized since early days as a dead end, for example because of its enormous size relative to the power produced. A commercial follow-on would not be much better by that power density metric, certainly far worse than a fission reactor.
There is basically no chance than a fusion reactor operating in a regime similar to ITER could ever become an economical energy source. And this has been known since the beginning.
I call things like ITER "Blazing Saddles" projects. "We have to protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen!"
robocat•2h ago
I looked hopefully at the HR report https://www.iter.org/sites/default/files/media/2024-11/rh-20... to see if there was some sort of job categorisation - scientist, engineer, management. Disappointingly scant. PhD heavy. Perhaps the budget would be more insightful.
"Execution not ideas" is a common refrain for startups.
I wonder how much of the real engineering for ITER is occurring in subcontractors?
sam•6h ago
Additionally the final plot of scientific gain (Qsci) vs time effectively requires the use of deuterium-tritium fuel to generate the amounts of fusion energy needed for an appreciable level of Qsci. The number of tokamak experiments utilizing deuterium tritium is small.
CGMthrowaway•5h ago
sam•5h ago
twothreeone•3h ago
> The design operating current of the feeders is 68Ka. High temperature superconductor (HTS) current leads transmit the high-power currents from the room-temperature power supplies to the low-temperature superconducting coils 4K (-269°C) with minimum heat load.
Source: https://www.iter.org/machine/magnets
stshank•1h ago