A global race to develop fusion energy has begun — and governments that actively support the commercial fusion industry stand to benefit from this clean and essentially limitless source of power.
They’ll be able to plug their economies into fusion power plants that can reliably meet rising electricity demand, enable new industries, and improve energy security. Fusion, the last new energy source the planet needs, will help those countries chart the most prosperous path into the future.
We’ve seen new signs that governments have realized the importance:
- Germany’s new government leadership wants the first fusion power plant to be in Germany, part of an ecosystem of scientists, start-ups, and other businesses.
- Japan’s government has developed a national strategy on fusion. It recently released a draft plan for regulating commercial fusion that’ll ensure the growth of the fusion industry, and it included fusion as a governmentwide R&D target in its Moonshot program.
- And in January, the United Kingdom allocated a further £410 million (about $530 million) for fusion energy work at the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA).
As support for fusion grows globally, policymakers in the US should do more.
For comparison, the UK’s investment, if scaled up to reflect the United States’ larger economy, would be $2.5 billion. But the US is far, far short of that for overall fusion spending and for commercialization in particular. Of the Department of Energy’s Fusion Energy Sciences spending from 2020 to 2023, only 1.2% went to fusion commercialization work, a January report from the Government Accountability Office concluded.
Fusion energy industry progress
For decades, fusion was largely an academic pursuit. Progress now has brought commercialization within reach, with dozens of company efforts underway. Our effort at Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) in Massachusetts is the most mature, securing more than $2 billion in funding and hiring more than 1,000 employees. The US has the most fusion startups, with others headquartered in the UK, Germany, Japan, China, and a few other countries.
Just because fusion has grown beyond its academic roots doesn’t mean there’s no role for governments to play. Federal funding can enable research programs and facilities that benefit all fusion companies — for example a Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source (FPNS) to help evaluate new metal alloys adapted to a fusion power plant’s intense environment. Countries that invest put themselves on the fast track to fusion’s broad benefits.
Again, the UK offers a good comparison. The UKAEA’s LIBRTI Program, which investigates breeding blanket technologies for fusion fuels, will benefit a variety of fusion power plant designs. The UKAEA has also built other commercially relevant facilities and programs that have attracted a broad engagement across private industry.
Full support for fusion energy in the US would beef up the DOE’s Milestone-Based Fusion Development Program. Modeled on NASA’s successful fostering of the US’s private space industry, it funds companies step by step as they achieve specific pre-agreed goals. Fusion companies bear all the technical, schedule, and financial risk. Taxpayers don’t pay until milestones are met, and the companies share the costs. So far, the Milestone program is modestly funded at $46 million for CFS and seven other companies. The Milestone program is the public-private partnership delivery mechanism to start construction on the world’s first commercial-scale fusion power plants this decade.
That’s not a meaningful contribution compared to fusion programs from other governments. The Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP), a group working to improve industrial vigor and national security in the US, recommended a one-time fusion commercialization investment of $10 billion in a February preliminary report. This is the same level of funding the Fusion Industry Association is seeking and that the Clean Air Task Force’s recommendations reinforced.
Fusion energy benefits
The return on the government investment to the American taxpayer is potentially enormous, starting with tax revenue from a $3 trillion global energy business, according to an International Energy Agency estimate.
At scale, the industry will employ tens of thousands and support a robust supply chain, further bolstering its economic impact. Fusion energy — clean, steadily available, with abundant fuel and flexible siting — also can strengthen countries in other ways.
“The nation that leads in fusion could write the global rules and secure significant economic advantages, ensure its energy independence, and maintain its technological edge in critical areas, including AI, advanced manufacturing, and national defense,” the SCSP report said. Moreover, countries that have fusion power also will have energy security that’s reliable and affordable.
Compare that to the consequences of slower progress.
China could claim the fusion lead
In 2023, by some estimates the Chinese government’s fusion support was $1.5 billion — twice the DOE’s spending. This number is likely very conservative. At the same time, investments in Chinese fusion companies have risen from zero in 2021 to $1.3 billion in 2024, matching investments in US fusion companies, according to the Fusion Energy Base.
“There’s a race to lead the world in power generation,” Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin said at the CERAWeek energy conference in March. “We’ve got to drive hard to accelerate fusion. Otherwise, China will. This is our chance.”
Tammy Ma, leader of the Inertial Fusion Energy Initiative at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s successful National Ignition Facility, aptly likens the US fusion situation to the country losing its clout in semiconductors — the industry that makes the computer chips in every phone, car, and welding robot, and radar station.
“The US is now grappling with the national and economic security ramifications of that failure to act at a critical juncture,” Ma said in an April opinion piece. “Funding fusion research will affirm and build on the US’s position as the global leader in energy technology. It held and then lost that role in the semiconductor industry; we cannot afford to make the same mistake twice.”
