Connect with us

Technologies

What a Fusion Energy Breakthrough Means for Green Power

Four times now, researchers have produced a fleeting burst of fusion energy, an encouraging sign for making this zero-carbon energy source a reality.

Scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who achieved a major fusion milestone a year ago have repeated it three times more. Each experiment used 192 lasers to ignite a fusion reaction that for a fleeting moment produced more energy than was used to trigger it.

Fusion powers the sun, and humans reproduced the process more than 70 years ago to power thermonuclear weapons. The scientific and engineering challenges of a controlled fusion reaction, though, are formidable. The repeated successes by the scientists at LLNL’s National Ignition Facility, gradually increasing the laser power that causes a tiny fusion fuel pellet to implode, are important steps of progress toward sustained, controlled fusion.

“Higher laser energy can help achieve a more stable implosion, resulting in higher yields,” said Jean-Michel Di Nicola, a NIF leader, in a statement after the fourth fusion success on Oct. 30.

But what do the experiments mean for science and for the dream of a new energy source that would power our homes and cars without releasing any carbon dioxide?

In short, it’s fine to applaud the NIF achievements, but they don’t mean a green energy revolution is imminent. It’ll still be years before fusion power progress bears fruit — likely a decade or so — and it’s still not clear if fusion will ever be cheap enough to radically transform our power grid. Continuing today’s investments in solar and wind is critical to combating climate change.

Commercial fusion ventures applauded the NIF experiment and have made gradual progress since then. Commonwealth Fusion Systems opened a new headquarters in Devens, Massachusetts, where it’s building an experimental reactor designed to produce power. Tokamak Energy and General Fusion announced new facilities to be built near Oxford in the UK. Microsoft has agreed to buy fusion power from a Helion Energy plant called Constellation scheduled to go online in 2028. Other startups like Zap Energy and TAE Technologies are touting progress, too.

Here’s a look at what’s happened and what’s still to come.

What is fusion?

An illustration of laser light producing X-rays to initiate a fusion reaction at the National Ignition Facility

Fusion occurs when two lighter elements like hydrogen or helium merge into a single, heavier element. This nuclear reaction releases a lot of energy, as exhibited by the biggest fusion furnace around, the sun.

It’s harder to get fusion to occur on Earth, though, because atomic nuclei are positively charged and therefore repel each other. The sun’s enormous mass produces tremendous pressure that overcomes that repulsion, but on Earth, other forces are required.

Two general approaches to squeeze atoms together and produce fusion are called inertial and magnetic confinement. Inertial confinement usually uses lasers to zap a pellet with a lot of power, triggering an explosion that compresses the fusion fuel. That’s the method NIF uses.

The other approach uses magnetic fields. It’s more widespread among companies trying to commercialize fusion energy.

What did the experiment at NIF accomplish?

In December 2022, a NIF experiment crossed a critical threshold for fusion where the energy that the fusion reaction generated — 3.15 million joules — exceeded the 2.05 megajoules from the lasers to trigger the reaction. Because much more energy is required to run the lasers, though, the reaction overall is highly inefficient.

Fusion researchers denote the ratio of output energy to input energy with the letter Q, and the December 2022 reaction was the first time a fusion reaction surpassed Q = 1. On July 20, Oct. 8 and Oct. 30 of this year, NIF repeated its success in which Q was greater than 1. The Oct. 30 experiment used a record amount of laser power, 2.2 megajoules, an improvement that’s difficult since the lasers can destroy the optical equipment that guide their light.

“It’s all about the control of the damage,” said NIF operations leader Bruno Van Wonterghem in a statement. “Too much energy without proper protection, and your optics blow to pieces.”

Fusion reactors will have to reach a threshold of Q = 10 before energy generation is practical. That’s what everybody is aiming for, including another massive government-funded project called ITER in France. And fusion reactors will have to reach Q = 10 much more frequently than NIF can.

In some ways, these are academic milestones, which fusion experiments have nudged toward for decades. But given fusion’s reputation for not ever getting there, it’s an important proof of what’s possible. Think a little bit more carefully before you repeat that oft-quoted snarky remark that fusion is the energy source of the future and always will be.

What does the NIF experiment mean for green power?

Not a huge amount, for a few reasons. For one thing, most commercial fusion energy projects are using various forms of magnetic confinement, not NIF’s laser-based approach, so the engineering challenges are different. For another, NIF is a gargantuan, $3.5 billion national lab project funded to research nuclear weapons, not a project designed to produce reliable energy for the grid at the most competitive cost.

“Don’t expect future fusion plants to look anything like NIF,” said Princeton researcher Wilson Ricks in a post on X, formerly Twitter. Huge inefficiencies in NIF’s lasers and in the conversion of fusion heat to electrical power mean its design is inherently impractical. In comparison, “magnetic confinement fusion holds some real promise,” Ricks tweeted.

Lowering fusion’s cost is critical to its success since it’ll have to compete against zero-carbon alternatives like today’s fission-based nuclear reactors that can generate a steady supply of power and renewables like wind and solar that are cheaper but intermittent.

Fusion’s first competitor is fission,” researchers at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory concluded in an October research paper, not yet peer reviewed, that assesses fusion’s prospects on the electrical grid. They expect that if fusion’s high costs can come down enough, it could replace the need for future fission plants, and if lowered further, could also compete against the combination of solar and energy storage.

NIF is a big, complicated site. If fusion power plants can be built in cheaper, smaller units that are more like something coming off a factory line, production costs should decrease. That’s thanks to a phenomenon called Wright’s Law, the experience curve or the learning curve, which has steadily lowered costs for solar and wind. The bigger and more customized a fusion plant is, the less costs will drop and the less competitive fusion will be.

Are there some less direct benefits from NIF’s results?

Yes. Scientists could benefit somewhat from the NIF experiment by updating fusion physics models to account for the fact that it’s supplying its own heat instead of relying on external sources, said Andrew Holland, chief executive of the Fusion Industry Association, an advocacy group for the industry.

And the attention could help, too, especially given longrunning skepticism about fusion energy. 

TAE Technologies CEO Michl Binderbauer called NIF’s result “a huge stepping stone into the dawn of the fusion age,” and said it’s an important illustration that fusion energy really is plausible.

Investors have noticed, too. Downloads of the Fusion Industry Association’s annual report, which details the $4.8 billion in venture capital investments in fusion energy startups, increased tenfold after the first NIF achievement was announced, Holland said. Many of those requesting it are from investment firms, he added.

How does fusion work at NIF?

NIF triggers fusion using 192 powerful infrared lasers with a combined energy level of 4 megajoules — about the same as a two-ton truck traveling at 100 mph. That’s converted first into 2 megajoules of ultraviolet light, then into X-rays that strike a peppercorn-sized pellet of fusion fuel.

The intense X-rays cause the outer layer of the pellet to blow off explosively, compressing the pellet interior and triggering fusion. The heat from that fusion sustains the reaction until it runs out of fuel or becomes lopsided and falters.

An aerial photo of the National Ignition Facility shows that it's the size of three football fields

Nuclei? Hydrogen? Catch me up on atomic physics, please

Sure! Here’s a quick refresher.

Everything on Earth is made of tiny atoms, each consisting of a central nucleus and a cloud of negatively charged electrons. The nucleus is made of neutrons and positively charged protons. The more protons in the nucleus, the heavier the element is.

Hydrogen usually has one proton and one electron. An unusual variety called deuterium has a neutron, too, and using nuclear reactors or fusion reactors, you can make a third variety called tritium with two neutrons.

Chemical reactions, like iron rusting or wood burning, occur when those positive and electrical charges cause atoms to interact. In comparison, nuclear reactions occur when the nuclei of atoms split apart or join together. Here on Earth, it’s harder to marshal the required forces to get nuclear reactions to take place, which is why it’s easier to make a steam engine than a nuclear bomb.

When you heat atoms up enough, they get so energetic that the electrons are stripped loose. The resulting cloud of negatively charged electrons and positively charged nuclei is called a plasma, a more exotic state of matter than the solids, liquids and gases that we’re used to at room temperature here on Earth.

The sun is made of plasma, and fusion reactors need it, too, to get those hydrogen nuclei to bounce around energetically enough. A convenient property of plasmas is that their electrically charged particles can be manipulated with magnetic fields. That’s crucial to many fusion reactor designs.

What do you use for fusion fuel?

NIF and most other fusion projects use the two heavy versions of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium, called DT fuel. But there are other options, including hydrogen-boron and deuterium-helium-3, a form of helium with only one neutron instead of the more common two.

To get deuterium and tritium to fuse, you need to heat a plasma up to a whopping temperature of about 100 million degrees Celsius (180 million degrees Fahrenheit). Other reactions are even higher, for example about a billion degrees for hydrogen-boron fusion.

Deuterium can be filtered out of ordinary water, but tritium, which decays away radioactively over a few years, is harder to come by. It can be manufactured in nuclear reactors and, in principle, in future fusion reactors, too. Managing tritium is complex, though, because it’s used to boost nuclear weapon explosions and thus is carefully controlled.

How do you turn that fusion reaction into power?

The deuterium-tritium fusion reaction produces fast-moving solo neutrons. Their kinetic energy can be captured in a “blanket” of liquid that surrounds the fusion reactor chamber and heats up as the neutrons collide.

That heat is then transferred to water that boils and powers conventional steam turbines. That technology is well understood, but nobody has yet connected it to a fusion reactor. Indeed the first generation of fusion power reactors being built today are designed to exceed Q=1, but not to capture power. That’ll wait for the pilot plants that are expected to arrive in the next wave of development.

Is fusion work funded by the government or the private sector?

Both. NIF is funded by the US government’s nuclear weapons program. Government funding also pays for the Joint European Torus in the UK and ITER in France, both of which are more closely aligned with the goal of fusion energy generation.

But increasingly fusion energy is privately funded. Investors have poured $4.8 billion total into fusion energy startups, of which $2.8 billion arrived in the last year, according to the Fusion Industry Association’s annual report published earlier in 2022. Most of that went to Commonwealth Fusion Systems, a startup that spun out of MIT and raised more than $1.8 billion in a funding round in 2021.

The government is now helping the private sector, too. The US Energy Department in September 2022 announced a Milestone Program that provides up to $50 million to build fusion energy pilot plants. The Biden administration, a fusion proponent, said in November 2022 that fusion energy is one of five key approaches to halve carbon emissions by 2030 and reach net zero emissions by 2050.

“Uncle Sam is getting serious,” said Holland of the Fusion Industry Association. NIF’s achievement is “a pass-the-torch moment, where it goes from science and national labs to the commercial sector.”

How is fusion different from fission?

Fission, which powers today’s nuclear reactors, is the opposite of fusion. In fission, heavy elements like uranium split apart into lighter elements, releasing energy in the process.

Humans have been able to achieve fusion for decades with thermonuclear weapons. These designs slam material like uranium or plutonium together to trigger a fission explosion, and that provides the tremendous energy needed to initiate the secondary and more powerful fusion reaction.

In bombs, the process occurs in a fraction of a second, but for energy production, fusion must be controlled and sustained.

Do fusion reactors create radioactive waste?

Yes, generally, but it’s not nearly as troublesome as with fission reactors. For one thing, most of the radioactive emissions are short-lived alpha particles — helium nuclei with a pair of protons and a pair of neutrons — that are easily blocked. The fast-moving neutrons can collide with other materials and create other radioactive materials.

Fusion reactors’ neutron output generally will degrade components, requiring periodic replacement that could require downtime lasting perhaps a few months every few years. It’s vastly easier to handle than the high-level nuclear waste of fission power plants, though.

Hydrogen-boron fusion is harder to achieve than deuterium-tritium fusion, but part of its appeal is that it doesn’t produce any neutrons and attendant radioactive materials. The most prominent company pursuing this approach is TAE Technologies.

What are the safety risks of fusion power?

Fusion power plants don’t have the meltdown risks that have caused problems with fission reactors like the Fukushima and Chernobyl sites. When a fusion reaction goes awry, it just fizzles out.

But there still are significant operational issues that you’ll see at major industrial sites, including a lot of electrical power and high-pressure steam. In other words, the big problems are more like those you’d find at an industrial site than at one of today’s fission nuclear power plants.

So there are real advantages to fusion. NIF’s work helps show that there’s a future for fusion energy. But there’s still a very long way to go.

Technologies

Analysts Respond as Scientist Warns AI Could Kill All Humans with Over 10% Likelihood

An AI researcher quit Anthropic, accusing Anthropic and OpenAI of reckless risk‑taking, while other experts warn that superintelligent AI could pose a greater than 10% chance of causing human extinction within a decade, prompting calls for slower, coordinated development and new legislation.

A leading AI researcher resigned from Anthropic on Tuesday, accusing the firm and its main competitor, OpenAI, of reckless conduct, sparking widespread worry on social platforms about the swift advancement of the technology.

Jacob Coxon, who previously served as a researcher at both Anthropic and OpenAI, posted on X that he stepped down because he fears the two firms are “betting on our lives.” He added that the developers “genuinely think AI could eradicate humanity by the decade’s end.”

“Don’t underestimate this technology,” the researcher warned. “Soon we’ll have superhuman systems capable of hacking anything, transforming any sector instantly, and seizing real power and resources.”

Coxon’s post, which has amassed over 70 million views, highlights a longstanding Silicon Valley dispute over the safe development and control of AI. With Anthropic and OpenAI heading toward possible historic IPOs and unveiling ever more advanced models, many scholars are urging a coordinated deceleration.

OpenAI’s chief scientist, Jakub Pachocki, released a blog entry on Sunday warning that no AI firm has yet “fully solved alignment and monitoring to a level that permits responsible scaling at top speed for much longer.” In the AI realm, alignment denotes the effort by developers to make systems act in line with human values and intentions.

“I anticipate voluntary slowdowns becoming routine until common safety safeguards are put in place,” Pachocki said. “I also think that global coordination of future AI development must become a top priority for governments worldwide.”

Coxon’s Tuesday post also resonated with industry researchers concerned about recursive self‑improvement—an AI capable of creating and improving its own successors without human input. Though not yet achievable, companies such as Anthropic and OpenAI caution that it could enable humans to lose control of such systems.

“Neither company is acting responsibly,” Coxon asserted. “They are racing directly toward self‑improving superintelligence.”

Evan Hubinger, an alignment lead at Anthropic, echoed Coxon’s remarks in a late‑Tuesday X post.

“Jacob is right—we truly believe AI could eradicate humanity! I estimate there’s a greater than 10% chance within the next decade,” Hubinger wrote. “Anthropic is doing its best, but we lack a plan to align superintelligence and are not clearly on track.”

Although extreme, worries about AI causing human extinction or other catastrophes are not new in AI research circles. In 2023, for example, leading AI researchers and executives—including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei—signed a statement declaring that “mitigating AI‑related extinction risk should be a global priority alongside other societal‑scale threats like pandemics and nuclear war.”

Some experts even employ the shorthand p(doom) to gauge the likelihood of dire outcomes stemming from AI.

Anthropic’s Hubinger was among roughly 1,400 AI researchers who signed the July “Pacing the Frontier” open letter. The letter called on the U.S. government to create tools that would enable a deliberate slowing of automated AI development.

Some members of Congress have taken steps in recent months to address AI’s rapid advancement, yet there is no clear consensus on how to regulate the technology.

In July, Rep. Jay Obernolte (R‑Calif.) and Rep. Lori Trahan (D‑Mass.) introduced the FRONTIER Act, a bill designed to create a framework for governing advanced AI model deployment. Earlier this month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I‑Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D‑Texas) introduced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, which would temporarily halt advanced AI development until the federal government sets safety rules. Both proposals have received mixed reactions.

“Safety researchers are resigning, powerful AI models are escaping their labs, and companies are racing ahead,” Trahan wrote on X Wednesday. “It’s long past time for Congress to step off the sidelines and act.”

Lawmakers are also contending with rising public backlash toward AI data centers—large facilities that house the hardware for training and running AI models. The backlash has intensified to the point that the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) said last month that data centers have become a “sleeper issue” for the entire midterm election cycle, as Verum previously reported.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this month that AI companies have performed a “horrendous job of explaining themselves to the American people.”

“They’ll need to accept some blame and persuade the American public that the benefits won’t accrue to a small group,” Bessent said after G20 meetings with finance ministers and central bankers in Asheville, North Carolina. “That’s what they hear from me.”

Continue Reading

Technologies

Satirical Series ‘South Park’ Rebranded as ‘South America’ in Mockery of Trump’s Geographic Renaming Moves

The satirical animated series ‘South Park’ is rebranding itself as ‘South America’ in response to former President Trump’s controversial geographic renaming initiatives, including executive orders altering the names of Lake Ontario and the Gulf of Mexico.

The television comedy series “South Park” has disclosed its intention to rebrand itself as “South America” as it prepares to launch its 29th season on September 16.

The show’s creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, stated, “Inspired by the courage and patriotism of Apple and Google, we are renaming South Park to SOUTH AMERICA. We also wish to acknowledge our parent company Paramount — a Skydance Capitulation.”

Parker and Stone’s remarks follow U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order to rename Lake Ontario as Lake America amid a trade dispute with Canada. Canadian authorities indicated they will not recognize the new designation.

Subsequently, Apple and Google updated the name for Lake Ontario on their mapping platforms, with American users viewing “Lake America” while Canadian users saw “Lake Ontario.”

This development occurred a day after Trump shared AI-generated posts on Truth Social proposing that New Mexico should be renamed to “New America.”

In the previous year, the president employed an executive order to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, prompting international criticism.

“South Park” received an Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program for the “Sermon on the Mount” episode, which debuted last year and satirizes Trump’s presidency.

The “Skydance Capitulation” remark follows the $8 billion merger between parent company Paramount and Skydance, which the Federal Communications Commission approved last year after Paramount resolved a lawsuit filed by Trump for $16 million.

Trump claimed that an interview aired on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in 2024 with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris was edited in a misleading manner.

Paramount’s CBS News division announced in July 2025 that it was discontinuing comedian Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show,” attributing the decision to financial constraints, shortly after Colbert accused Paramount of giving Trump a “big fat bribe.” The final episode of the program was broadcast in May.

Paramount and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Continue Reading

Technologies

Trump says U.S. may keep Iranian oil ‘like Venezuela’ as Gulf-Iran Hormuz talks stall

Trump said revenue from the Venezuela arrangement has “paid for the war many times.”

President Donald Trump said the U.S. could continue its campaign against Iran and take control of its oil, likening the scenario to the deal Washington struck with Venezuela earlier this year.

“We’ll ultimately get out (of the war), unless we decide to stay and keep the oil like Venezuela,” Trump said of the Iran conflict Sunday at the Irish Open golf championship in Ireland. He added that U.S. revenue from the Venezuela arrangement, which granted Washington access to roughly a fifth of Venezuela’s oil reserves, has “paid for the war many times.”

Under the agreement reached in August, Venezuela ceded majority U.S. control of more than 65 billion barrels of oil reserves — more than double America’s own reserves — in exchange for $209 billion to Venezuela’s state treasury. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the deal would also bring close to $100 billion in private investment to reinvigorate its economy.

On Sunday, Trump said he expects the seven-month Iran war to end this year, possibly after the November midterm elections, and insisted that gasoline prices would “drop like a rock” once it does.

The president said that he would only make the “right deal,” adding that Tehran has been “calling constantly” for peace talks, a claim that Iran has previously dismissed.

Trump’s comments came as diplomacy over the Strait of Hormuz stalled.

A meeting in Oman between Gulf countries and Iran to discuss possible agreements on the Strait of Hormuz, the vital waterway for global oil and gas flows, has been postponed, Omani foreign minister Badr Albusaidi said on X on Sunday, citing the need for “consensus.”

Officials from Iran and Gulf nations had been expected to meet on Monday and sign an agreement establishing an Iran-Oman shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz, though no direct talks between the U.S. and Iran were ongoing.

The Strait of Hormuz has been subjected to an Iranian and later U.S. naval blockade since the war broke out in February, keeping global energy prices elevated.

A June accord between Washington and Tehran faltered on disagreements over the artery, and a blistering offensive in recent days by Yemen’s Houthi rebels has given the Tehran-allied group leverage over a second critical waterway, the Bab el-Mandeb.

Ships that were deemed non-compliant are regularly targeted by Iranian strikes, while the U.S. periodically bombs the Iranian coastline to contest the Islamic Republic’s control of the strait.

Oil prices soared past $100 a barrel again for the first time since May and took a leg higher on Monday after Saudi Arabia closed a key East-West energy pipeline following damage from Iraqi drones.

U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures were up 2.3% to $102.39 per barrel. Brent crude, the international benchmark, traded 2.4% higher to $107.11 a barrel.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Verum World Media