Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Technology

What If We Get Fusion — But Don’t Need It?

Even if the technology works, the economics might not.

An atom.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Nuclear fusion, sometimes breathlessly referred to as the “holy grail” of clean energy, capable of providing “near limitless” energy, might actually, finally be on the verge of working. And when that first prototype reactor turns on, the feverish headlines about harnessing the power of the sun and the stars here on Earth will at least be somewhat justified. Fusion is going to be a massive scientific achievement, but in a practical sense, it might not matter.

“We can make it work,” Egemen Kolemen, fusion expert and associate professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Princeton University, told me. “But at what price?”

Figuring out fusion is one thing, penciling out the economics another. There’s a nontrivial chance that fusion could become a scientific reality but remain too expensive to make a dent in the barriers to decarbonization.

How this plays out largely depends on what the grid looks like by the mid-2030s, when the leading fusion startups think we’ll see the first demonstration reactors come online. President Biden wants to fully decarbonize the electricity sector by 2035. And as ambitious — or, as many say, unrealistic — as that may be, how close we get and how we get there will determine what opportunities remain for fusion.

By the mid-2030s, the cost of building new fission reactors could come down significantly; if The Nuclear Company has its way, we’ll have built a 6 gigawatt fleet of standard nuclear plants by then. Or maybe small, modular reactors will finally prove out, squeezing much of the market space for fusion. And then there’s all the other emergent, grid-firming tech in various stages of development. Think long-duration battery storage, enhanced geothermal, and hydrogen for starters.

“Batteries go down in price, hydrogen goes down, you know, two orders of magnitude, whatever. And then you say, we’re okay, we don’t need an extra [energy] source,” Kolemen told me. “So we have to be very clear that that’s an option as well.”

Needless to say, investors know it’s a gamble. “This is venture, of course there’s a chance that it might not be economically feasible,” Gabriel Kra, managing director and co-founder at climate tech VC Prelude Ventures, told me. “That’s not a reason, in any case, not to try.” Prelude Ventures has invested in two fusion companies, Thea Energy and Xcimer Energy, while venture capitalists on the whole have poured $6.7 billion into fusion since 1992, according to the Fusion Industry Association, the vast majority of that in the past three years.

Many of these same venture firms are also placing big bets on other energy solutions that promise to provide many of the same benefits as fusion, such as Fervo’s enhanced geothermal tech, or Koloma’s artificial intelligence-powered geologic hydrogen detection system, or Form Energy’s long-duration iron-air batteries. But because none of these brand new technologies has yet achieved meaningful scale, creating simple price forecasts or cost curve models isn’t possible.

A refrain I heard a few times, however, is that no matter the energy mix of the future, fusion’s viability isn’t simply a matter of dollars and cents. “Even if fusion doesn’t get as cheap as solar or wind, or even if it doesn’t get as cheap as natural gas, there’s still a huge place for it in the grid,” Kra said.

Siting fusion reactors near dense urban areas, for example, could help solve one of the principal issues with renewables. “Even now, it’s becoming difficult to find sites for solar and wind, and we have a fraction of what we would need,” Jacob Schwartz, a staff research physicist at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, told me. “If you really want a lot of firm power that can be much physically denser than these other resources, you might really want to build fusion.” Siting fusion next to demand centers would also reduce the need to permit and build long transmission lines, which can take a decade or more if it happens at all.

Of course, fission reactors have these advantages too. A paper Schwartz and Kolemen published last year, modeling fusion’s place in various net-zero grid scenarios from 2036 to 2050, found that in most of them, fusion plants would be primarily displacing fission. That is, if they made sense at all. The authors (including Princeton energy systems professor and Heatmap contributor Jesse Jenkins) also found that if the price of competing technologies creates at least a moderate market opportunity for fusion, we could wind up with 100 gigawatts or more of fusion capacity, about the size of the current domestic fission fleet. But if other technologies outperform and drop significantly in price, it’s possible that no commercial fusion plants would get built in that timeframe.

Kra, however, disagrees with a core assumption of the paper — that the U.S. will actually meet our carbon-free energy targets. “I don’t want to be a doomer, but I don’t think we’re going to decarbonize the grid by 2035,” Kra told me. “I think the first fusion plant that comes online, maybe between 2035 and 2040, will be displacing a fossil source at that moment in time.”

Looked at that way, the calculus changes. Fusion could become just another player in the renewables mix, slotting in alongside a plethora of other emergent and established carbon-free technologies to supplant fossil fuels in an all-of-the-above march towards zero emissions. It would still need to be cost-effective, of course, but if it’s framed as a possible successor to fossil fuels as opposed to a rival of existing clean energy sources, that’s a much better sales pitch.

That said, it’s going to take more than just reaching cost-parity with fission for fusion to take off. If that’s all we do, Kolemen told me, “it will have the exact same result, which is that nothing is going to be built.”

And even if fusion doesn’t end up penciling out for the U.S. grid, it may still in other areas of the world with less abundant renewable energy resources and rapid load growth. Phil Larochelle, the leader of Breakthrough Energy Ventures fusion investment strategy, told me that it’s really not the West that stands to benefit the most.

“You’ve got the rest of the world — call it, 80% of the world's population — who are trying to live a life of prosperity, like we do here.” But raising standards of living around the world means a huge increase in energy consumption. “And so then the question is, can you just kind of sneak across the finish line with wind, solar, storage, transmission, geothermal, a bit of natural gas?” Larochelle asked. While he said it should be possible, it wouldn’t allow for the flourishing vision of the future that he hopes to see. “Sustainable abundance for all. That’s, I think, where fusion really shines,” he told me.

Green

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Climate Tech

The Water Tech Investor Not Super Worried About Data Centers

Tom Ferguson, founder of Burnt Island Ventures, has bigger concerns.

Water on a computer.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Water — whether too much or too little — is one of the most visceral ways communities experience the impacts of a warming world. It’s also a $1.6 trillion global market that underpins much of the world’s economy. As climate-related risks such as droughts, floods, and contamination converge with systemic challenges like aging water infrastructure and clunky resource management, the need for innovation is becoming painfully obvious.

As Heatmap’s own polling shows, water is also becoming an increasingly large part of the data center story, with many Americans opposing these facilities in part due to concerns over their water usage. That anxiety may not be entirely rational, Tom Ferguson, founder of the water-focused investment firm Burnt Island Ventures, told me.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
AM Briefing

U.S. Headwinds

On Japan’s atomic ‘Iron Lady,’ Electra’s supercharge, and a mineral deal Down Under

Offshore wind.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Tropical Storm Melissa is barreling toward Haiti and Jamaica carrying a payload of as much as 16 inches of rain for certain parts of the Caribbean • A coldfront is set to drop temperatures by as much as 15 degrees Fahrenheit over the Great Lakes states • Temperatures in the French overseas territory of Juan de Nova hit nearly 94 degrees Tuesday, the hottest October day in the history of the French Southern Territories.

THE TOP FIVE

1. US Wind warns of bankruptcy if Trump yanks permits

US Wind told a federal court that it will go bankrupt if President Donald Trump succeeds in revoking its building permits. The Baltimore-based developer testified on the fate of its 2.2-gigawatt Maryland Offshore Wind project in response to a lawsuit brought by the Department of the Interior and the City Council of Ocean City, Maryland. “If the plan is lost, surrendered, forfeited, revoked or otherwise not maintained in full force and effect, US Wind’s investors have the right to declare US Wind to be in default on the repayment of the company’s debt and/or refuse to extend the additional financing needed to complete construction of the project,” the company told the court, according to an update on the energy consultancy TGS’ 4C Offshore news website. “Either of these consequences could result in US Wind’s bankruptcy.”

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Podcast

The Startup Trying to Put Geothermal Heat Pumps in America’s Homes

Rob and Jesse hang with Dig Energy co-founder and CEO Dulcie Madden.

Geothermal energy.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Simply operating America’s buildings uses more than a third of the country’s energy. A major chunk of that is temperature control — keeping the indoors cool in the summer and warm in the winter. Heating eats into families’ budgets and burns a tremendous amount of fuel oil and natural gas. But what if we could heat and cool buildings more efficiently, cleanly, and cheaply?

On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk to Dulcie Madden, the founder and CEO of Dig Energy, a New Hampshire-based startup that is trying to lower the cost of digging geothermal wells scaled to serve a single structure. Dig makes small rigs that can drill boreholes for ground source heat pumps — a technology that uses the bedrock’s ambient temperature to heat and cool homes and businesses while requiring unbelievably low amounts of energy. Once groundsource wells get built, they consume far less energy than gas furnaces, air conditioners, or even air-dependent heat pumps.

Keep reading...Show less
Green