First, a clarification: "Classical nuclear power plants" and "fission power plants" are essentially the same – both are based on nuclear fission. The term "nuclear power plant" is mostly used for fission plants, as they have been commercially utilized for decades. Fusion power plants, on the other hand, operate with nuclear fusion and are not yet market-ready. The key differences:
Nuclear Fission
Nuclear Fission: A neutron hits a heavy atomic nucleus (e.g., Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239), splitting it into two smaller nuclei and releasing energy, neutrons, and radioactive radiation. These neutrons can trigger further splits (chain reaction), which is controlled to produce steam that drives turbines and generates electricity.
- Advantages: High energy density, proven technology.
- Disadvantages: Radioactive waste (long-lived), risk of meltdowns (e.g., Chernobyl, Fukushima), dependence on finite uranium supplies.
Nuclear Fusion
Nuclear Fusion: Light atomic nuclei (e.g., Deuterium and Tritium, isotopes of hydrogen) are fused into a heavier nucleus (e.g., Helium) under extreme conditions (temperatures over 100 million degrees Celsius and high pressure). This releases much more energy than fission – up to four times as much per reaction.
- Advantages: Minimal radioactive waste (short-lived), nearly inexhaustible fuels (from seawater), no chain reaction (safer).
- Disadvantages: Technically very challenging, as plasma (ionized gas) must be stably contained (e.g., with magnetic fields in Tokamaks).
In summary: Fission "splits" heavy atoms and is like a controlled "atomic bomb effect," while fusion "combines" light atoms and resembles the sun. Fusion is potentially cleaner and more efficient, but fission is currently the only commercial nuclear energy source.
Comparison
| Criterion | Nuclear Fission (Splitting) | Nuclear Fusion (Merging) |
|---|---|---|
| Principle | Heavy nuclei (Uranium-235, Plutonium-239) are split → Energy + Neutrons | Light nuclei (Deuterium + Tritium) are fused → Helium + Energy |
| Energy Yield | 1 kg Uranium → ~24,000 MWh | 1 kg Fuel → ~300,000 MWh (4× more) |
| Fuel | Uranium (rare, mineable), Thorium possible | Deuterium (seawater), Tritium (from Lithium) → practically inexhaustible |
| Availability | Today: 438 reactors worldwide, 9% of electricity | Still experimental – no commercial power plant |
| First Commercial Plants | Since 1954 (Obninsk, USSR) | Pilot plants from 2030–2035 (CFS, Helion), scaling from 2040 |
| Radioactive Waste | Highly radioactive, long-lived (100,000 years storage needed) | Low, short-lived (Tritium: 12 years, reactor walls: <100 years) |
| Safety | Risk of Meltdown (Chernobyl, Fukushima) | No chain reaction → fusion stops immediately on failure |
| Accident Risk | Possible (core melt, radiation release) | Impossible – plasma "puffs" in seconds |
| Weapons Potential | High – Plutonium from reactors can be used for bombs | Low – no fissile material |
| Costs (per kWh) | 6–12 ct/kWh (existing plants) | Unknown – Forecast: 3–8 ct/kWh from 2040 |
| Construction Time | 7–15 years (large reactors) | Unknown – Prototypes: 5–10 years |
| Flexibility | Large plants (1,000 MW+), hard to scale | SMR-like scalable, compact designs possible |
| Leading Countries | China (70 reactors under construction), USA, France, Russia | China (records), USA (private sector), EU (ITER), Japan |
| Leading Companies | Rosatom, CNNC, Westinghouse, EDF | CFS, TAE, Helion, Tokamak Energy, General Fusion |
| Technical Maturity | TRL 9 (fully commercial) | TRL 3–6 (prototypes to pilot) |
| CO₂ Balance | Very low (12 g/kWh) | Even lower (materials, construction) |
| Public Acceptance | Mixed – fear of accidents | High – seen as "clean future" |
State of the Art
Fission: Fully established and commercially mature. There are around 438 reactors worldwide in 31 countries, generating about 9% of global electricity. 2025 is a record year: Production reaches an all-time high (70 power reactors are in construction), driven by rising demand (e.g., for AI data centers) and new construction projects. There are advances in "Generation-IV" reactors (safer, more efficient, e.g., small modular reactors/SMRs), which reduce waste and costs. However: High construction costs, delays, and political debates slow expansion. Global capacity is growing, but slower than renewables.
Fusion: Still in the experimental stage, but with rapid progress – often mocked as "30 years away," now realistically for the 2030s. 2025: First private prototypes (e.g., Tokamaks with high-temperature superconductors by Chinese company Energy Singularity) achieve sustained runs over 1,000 seconds (China leads). US roadmap targets commercial pilot plants by mid-2030s, focusing on materials and plasma stability. Challenges: Energy balance (more energy out than in) and scaling. No commercial power plant, but over 160 research facilities worldwide.
Who is relying on it?
Fission: Strong state and industrial involvement. Countries with the most reactors: USA (94 reactors, 97 GW), France (57 reactors, 63 GW), China (57 reactors), South Korea (26), Russia, Canada, and Japan. Over 30 countries plan expansions, e.g., Turkey starts with Akkuyu in 2025. Companies: China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), Westinghouse Electric (USA), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan), Rosatom (Russia), Orano (France). Many investments in SMRs, e.g., from NuScale (USA).
Fusion: International research consortium and booming private sector (over 40 companies, >7 billion USD investments). International Projects: ITER (France, 35 countries, start 2025 for first tests), IAEA World Fusion Outlook. Private Companies (Top Players 2025): Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS, USA, backed by Bill Gates), TAE Technologies (USA), Helion Energy (USA), General Fusion (Canada), Tokamak Energy (UK). US-DOE funds 8 companies for pilot designs. China (Chinese Academy of Sciences) leads in experiments; tech giants like Google and Chevron invest.
Fusion in detail: MCF vs. ICF
Magnetic Confinement Fusion (MCF) and Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) represent the two dominant strategies in the pursuit of practical nuclear fusion energy. MCF relies on magnetic fields for sustained plasma containment, while ICF uses rapid compression for short bursts.
The following table compares their key aspects:
| Approach | MCF – Magnetic Confinement Fusion (Tokamak / Stellarator) | ICF – Inertial Confinement Fusion (Laser Fusion) |
|---|---|---|
| Principle | Plasma is confined in a ring (e.g., Tokamak) by strong magnetic fields (superconductors) and heated to >100 million °C. Fusion occurs continuously. | Tiny fuel pellets (Deuterium-Tritium) are extremely quickly compressed and heated by high-power lasers → Mini-explosion (nanoseconds). |
| Examples | ITER (France), SPARC (CFS, USA), EAST (China), Wendelstein 7-X (Germany) | NIF (USA), LMJ (France), SG-IV (China) |
| Status 2025 | Closer to commercial use – ITER: First plasma tests 2025 – CFS: Net energy 2026 planned – China: 1,000-second sustained run 2025 |
Further away – NIF: 2022 first Q > 1 (more energy out than laser in) – But: only 0.5% of the energy needed for power – No continuous operation possible |
| Danger / Safety | Very safe – No chain reaction – In power failure: Plasma cools immediately – No meltdown possible – Radioactive waste: only short-lived (Tritium, activated components) |
Safe, but more complex – Also no chain reaction – But: Thousands of mini-explosions per second needed → mechanical stress – Tritium handling (radioactive) – Laser system extremely expensive and maintenance-intensive |
Detailed comparison of danger:
| Risk | MCF | ICF |
|---|---|---|
| Chain Reaction / Meltdown | ❌ Impossible – Fusion stops immediately without magnetic field | ❌ Impossible – each pellet explosion is individual |
| Radioactive Waste | ⚠️ Low: Tritium (half-life 12 years) (PDF), activated reactor walls (100 years), although very much dependant on the type of material used for reactor walls | ⚠️ Similar, but more neutrons due to higher density → more activation |
| Tritium Leakage | ⚠️ Possible, but well manageable (Tritium is gaseous) | ⚠️ Higher risk – many pellets = more Tritium in circulation |
| Accident on Failure | ✅ Safe: Plasma "puffs" in seconds | ⚠️ Complex: Laser + vacuum chamber + robotics → many potential failure sources |
| Weapons Potential | ⚠️ Theoretical: high neutron fluxes → could breed Plutonium | ⚠️ Higher: NIF is also used for nuclear weapons simulations (US military) |
These advantages position magnetic fusion as the frontrunner in the field, primarily due to its superior scalability for continuous 24/7 grid-compatible operation, the potential for significantly higher energy yields with targets like Q > 10 (delivering tenfold more output than input energy), minimized material fatigue without the high-frequency explosive cycles inherent in laser-based systems, and its dominance in attracting over 90% of the more than 7 billion USD invested privately in fusion technologies worldwide.
Fission in detail: Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)
"Mini-reactors" or "mini-nuclear power plants" are **Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)** – an advancement of fission technology for existing fission reactors. SMRs are compact, factory-built units (up to 300 MW per module, compared: Large reactors have 1,000+ MW), which can be stacked like building blocks. They are supposed to be cheaper, faster to build, and more flexible (e.g., for industrial parks, islands, or AI data centers).
- Advantages: Less waste, higher safety (passively cooled, no meltdown risk), scalable.
- Disadvantages: Not yet in mass use, regulatory hurdles.
In contrast to large fission power plants (which take decades and cost billions), SMRs promise a "revolution" in nuclear energy – but it remains fission, so with uranium fuel and some radioactive waste.
Over 74 SMR designs worldwide (November 2025) in development, market grows from 0.67 billion USD 2025 to 2.71 billion USD by 2029 (CAGR 152%). US-DOE pumps 900 million USD into Gen-III+ SMRs. First approvals: NuScale (USA) has NRC approval in May 2025 for 77-MW models (VOYGR series). First prototypes running (e.g., China's HTR-PM since 2023). Global pipeline: 22 GW in development, first online deployment 2030.
| Phase | Expected Start* | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Prototypes & Tests | 2025–2028 | NuScale (USA), Rolls-Royce (UK), X-Energy (USA) |
| First Commercial Projects | 2030–2035 | Amazon plans SMRs for data centers (first 2030); EU goals: Reduce emissions 90% by 2040 through SMRs |
| Mass Deployment | 2045 | 284 SMR (China), 133 SMR (India), 91 SMR (EU) |
*Timelines are estimates based on 2025 roadmaps and subject to technical breakthroughs.
Germany is not leading in the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), but it is increasingly involved, primarily as a "helper" in Europe. The country completed its full nuclear phase-out in 2023, shutting down its last three reactors, and currently has no plans to build its own SMRs. However, companies like Siemens Energy or Framatome (a French-German joint venture) are assisting with EU-SMR projects, such as the European Industrial Alliance on SMRs and its Action Plan from September 2025. The goal is to certify the first EU-SMRs by 2026. A pilot project could reduce CO₂ emissions by 500,000 tons per year by the end of the 2020s. There is potential for SMRs in industry applications, such as steel and chemicals production, or for export.
China is the world champion in nuclear construction, including SMRs. The country has 57 active reactors, 70 under construction, and 110 planned, mostly throughout Asia. China's HTR-PM (a 300 MW gas-cooled reactor) has been fully on the grid since December 2023, marking it as the first commercial high-temperature SMR worldwide. China's plan includes adding 75 GW of new capacity by 2035 under the 14th Five-Year Plan. In 2025, 8–10 new reactors are set to start construction. By 2050, the country aims for 500 GW of total nuclear capacity, up from the current ~58 GW. China's faster progress stems from state planning, low costs, and less regulation. The nation already exports SMR designs, for example to Pakistan. In comparison, while the West discusses nuclear expansion, China builds it, driving global CO₂ reduction by 1.5 billion tons per year through 200 GW by 2025.
Fusion Roadmap: Leaders and Path to Large-Scale Implementation
Fusion research is a global competition with strong international collaboration, increasingly driven by private initiatives. Over 50 countries are involved, but the top 5—USA, China, EU, Japan, and South Korea—account for 80% of progress.
- China: Established as the frontrunner in 2025, surpassing the USA in experiments and construction (e.g., EAST Tokamak record runs). Massive investments in prototypes, leading in sustained plasma operations.
- USA: Dominates the private sector with over 35% of the global market and billions in startup funding. Focus on commercialization through the Departmnt of Energy (DOE).
- EU: Leads via collaborative projects like ITER, top-tier startups, and research networks.
- Japan, South Korea, Russia: Strong contributions in materials science and plasma technology.
Private investments exceed $9.7 billion, with 90% flowing to companies rather than governments, accelerating innovation.
Key Projects and Institutions
- ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, France): Largest global project involving 35 countries, budgeted over €10 billion. Focus: Plasma stability and high-temperature superconductor (HTS) magnets. First tests started in 2025.
- US Department of Energy (DOE): Funds 8 private firms for pilot designs; October 2025 roadmap emphasizes "Build–Innovate–Grow" for rapid commercialization.
- China Academy of Sciences: Leads in long-duration runs and HTS technology.
Leading Private Companies (Top Players in 2025)
From the "Top 50 Fusion Companies" list, here are the highlights of the most influential firms, mostly USA-based:
| Startup | Total Funding | Key Rounds* | Key Investors (latest round) | Use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) (MIT spin-off, Tokamak tech) |
~3 billion USD | - Series B2: 863 million USD (Aug. 2025) - Series B: 1.8 billion USD (2021) - Earlier: Seed/Series A (2018–2020, ~115 million USD) |
Nvidia (NVentures), Google, Breakthrough Energy Ventures (Bill Gates), Emerson Collective, Tiger Global, Khosla Ventures, Lowercarbon Capital, Morgan Stanley, Mitsui & Mitsubishi (Japan consortium) | SPARC prototype (net energy 2026), ARC power plant (Virginia, construction 2027/28), Google deal for 200 MW |
| TAE Technologies (FRC tech, Hydrogen-Boron fuel) |
1.32 billion USD (12 rounds since 2002) | - Series G: 150+ million USD (June 2025) - Series E: 250 million USD (2022) - Earlier: Series D (2019, 250 million USD), etc. |
Chevron Technology Ventures, Google, NEA (New Enterprise Associates), Sumitomo, Goldman Sachs, Vulcan Capital | Plasma optimization (e.g., "Norm" machine), collaboration with Google (AI plasma tools), commercial power solutions |
| Helion Energy (Pulsed magnetic fusion) |
>1 billion USD (7 rounds since 2011) | - Series F: 425 million USD (Jan. 2025) - Series E: 500 million USD (2021) - Earlier: Series D (2019, 82 million USD), etc. |
Lightspeed Venture Partners, SoftBank Vision Fund 2, Sam Altman (OpenAI), Mithril Capital, Capricorn Investment Group, Nucor, Dustin Moskovitz (Good Ventures) | Polaris reactor (power generation), 50-MW plant for Microsoft (2028), 500-MW deal with Nucor; in-house manufacturing (capacities, magnets) |
| Pacific Fusion (new, stealth exit) | 900 million USD | - Series A: 900 million USD (Nov. 2024) | DCVC, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, etc. | Early prototypes |
*Data primarily taken by Crunchbase
Other notable players: Marvel Fusion (Germany, laser fusion) or **Proxima Fusion** (Germany), First Light Fusion (UK). The private sector has surged ahead, with over 40 firms attracting the majority of investments.
Source: Marvel Fusion's novel technology to create abundant, emission free energy by Marvel Fusion
Timeline for Large-Scale Fusion (Commercial Scaling)
Fusion is no longer perpetually "30 years away." Private innovations and roadmaps (e.g., US DOE's October 2025 plan) target pilot plants by the mid-2030s and scaled production from 2040 onward. Based on IAEA, DOE, and industry reports:
| Phase | Timeframe | Milestones |
|---|---|---|
| Short-term (Near-Term) | 2025–2028 | First private prototypes achieve net energy (Q > 1); ITER plasma tests; HTS magnets standardized. |
| Medium-term (Mid-Term) | 2029–2035 | 3–5 pilot power plants (e.g., CFS SPARC, Helion); Grid-connected power (e.g., for data centers); Build fusion materials and supply chains. |
| Long-term (Long-Term) | 2035–2050 | Commercial scaling to 100+ GW globally; Significant grid integration (10–20% of world electricity); US Energy Secretary estimates first plants possible by 2033. |
By 2050, fusion could provide 5–10% of global electricity, offering clean and inexhaustible energy. China may scale faster due to state-driven efforts, while the USA and EU follow with private-public partnerships.
Challenges and Realism
Large-scale implementation is realistic for GW-scale by 2040, fueled by the 2025 boom (over 150 research facilities worldwide). However, hurdles include material fatigue from extreme conditions, Tritium production (a key fuel), and regulatory frameworks. Only pilots are expected by 2035, with full commercialization depending on overcoming these. Success hinges on continued investment and breakthroughs in plasma control.
Investment Shifts in Fusion: From Global to Local Funding
Global mega-projects like ITER are running with massive delays and cost explosions, leading to frustration and shifting funding increasingly to national, regional, or private "local" levels. This is no coincidence, but a reaction to realities: ITER (the international flagship) is expensive, bureaucratic, and slow, while private startups and national programs promise faster progress.
ITER as a prime example: ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor in France) is the largest global fusion project (35 countries, >20 billion € budget). Originally planned: First plasma 2025, full fusion tests 2035. But technical hurdles (e.g., corrosion cracks in pipes, welding problems in vacuum vessel, COVID delays) have shifted it: Now first plasma 2033–2035, full operations only 2039+. Costs: Exploded from 5 billion € to >25 billion €, plus billions more expected. The French nuclear regulator ASN even stopped parts of construction in 2022 for safety reasons. Despite reorganization (new Director-General Pietro Barabaschi) and 85% completion (as of 2025), it remains a "giant project with giant problems" – bureaucratic, multinational coordinated, but too slow for climate pressure.
Unsuccessfulness? Not entirely: ITER has generated knowledge (e.g., superconductor magnets, plasma stability) and is essential for long-term research. But it produces no electricity, and the delays (8+ years) have discouraged investors and governments. Many see it as the "last big state project" that can't keep up with startup speed.
This leads to a redistribution of funding: Global budgets (e.g., EU contributions to ITER) are cut or redirected, while national/regional initiatives boom. Private investments take over – they are more agile and risk-tolerant. Global investments in fusion exceed 2025 10 billion USD, of which >7.5 billion USD private – a 5-fold increase since 2021. In the last year alone (up to July 2025): 2.64 billion USD new (record since 2022). Public funding for companies rose 84% to 800 million USD.
In the last year alone (up to July 2025): 2.64 billion USD new (record since 2022). Public funding for companies rose 84% to 800 million USD.
National/regional examples:
- USA: DOE roadmap (October 2025) prioritizes private companies; Milestone-Based Fusion Development Program (MBFDP) distributes 46 million USD to 8 startups (e.g., CFS, Helion), plus 10 million USD extension. States like California (SB 80, October 2025: Fund for fusion R&D and pilot by 2040s) and Washington (grant to Avalanche Energy for test facility) are building own funds. Goal: US leadership in commercialization by 2030s.
- China: Overtaking all – 1.5 billion USD annual state funding (twice as much as USA). Projects like CFETR (China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor) run parallel to ITER, focusing on fast prototypes. Less bureaucracy, more construction.
- EU/Germany: €202 million for Spanish research facility (2025); Germany: Marvel Fusion raises €113 million Series B. But EU slightly cuts ITER contributions to strengthen national programs (e.g., EUROfusion for DEMO successor).
- UK/Canada: UK: Tokamak Energy with government funding; Canada: General Fusion builds prototype in Culham (UK).
Private Startups as "local" drivers: >50 companies worldwide, 29 in USA. They attract 90% of new money because they iterate faster (e.g., prototypes by 2025–2027). Big rounds 2025: Pacific Fusion (900 million USD Series A), Helion (425 million USD), CFS (2.9 billion USD total). Investors: Bill Gates (Breakthrough Energy), Google, Chevron – often focused on local energy needs (e.g., AI data centers).
Comparison: Global vs. Local/National (as of 2025)
| Aspect | Global Projects (e.g., ITER) | Local/National/Private |
|---|---|---|
| Funding 2025 | >10 billion € total, but stagnant (delays eat budget) | >10 billion USD private + 800 million USD public; +73% growth in supply chain |
| Successes | Knowledge exchange, but no net energy gain | Prototypes with Q>1 (e.g., CFS SPARC 2026); 83% companies see investor challenges, but fast milestones |
| Challenges | Bureaucracy (35 countries), cost explosion (+>20 billion €) | "Missing Middle" financing (prototypes expensive); but more agile |
| Timeline | Plasma 2033+, no electricity (experiment) | Pilots 2030–2035; commercial 2040 |
| Why Shift? | Too slow for climate goals (IEA: Fusion 10% world electricity by 2100) | Faster innovation; states want independence (e.g., China vs. USA race) |
The "phasing out" of global projects like ITER (due to unsuccess in terms of time) drives a funding shift: More money flows locally/nationally because it's more tangible and economic. ITER remains important for basic knowledge, but real progress comes from startups and national roadmaps – e.g., US-DOE targets 2030s commercialization. By 2050, fusion could supply 5–10% of world electricity if the private boom continues. In Germany/EU: Potential for more (e.g., via Green Deal), but still behind USA/China.
Venture Capital in Germany
In 2025, the European (and thus German) fusion sector has established itself as a hotspot: European fusion startups raised a record €290 million in the first half of the year, with a large part in Germany. That's more than ever before, driven by private VCs, state funds, and corporates like Siemens. Compared to the USA (€1.3 billion in the same period) (PDF), it's still smaller, but Europe/Germany is catching up – thanks to strong research (e.g., Max Planck Institute) and EU programs.
Germany benefits from its deep-tech strength: Companies like Proxima Fusion, Marvel Fusion, and Focused Energy attract international investors. The trend: VC firms are betting on "impact investing" (clean energy), and state co-financing (e.g., 30/70 model: 30% private, 70% public) makes it attractive. However: The market is competitive, and funding depends on milestones (e.g., prototypes).
| VC Firm/Fund | Location | Focus | Known Fusion Deals 2025 | Typical Ticket Size* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cherry Ventures | Berlin | Deep Tech, AI, Climate | Lead in Proxima Fusion (€130 million Series A) | €5–20 million |
| Balderton Capital | Berlin/London | Early-Stage Tech | Co-Lead Proxima Fusion | €10–50 million |
| High-Tech Gründerfonds (HTGF) | Bonn | Seed-Stage Deep Tech | Proxima Fusion (Pre-Seed €7 million) | €0.5–3 million |
| DeepTech & Climate Fonds (DTCF) | Berlin | Climate/Deep Tech | Proxima Fusion, Marvel Fusion | €5–15 million |
| Bayern Kapital | Munich | Bavarian Startups | Proxima Fusion | €1–10 million |
| UVC Partners | Munich | Hardware/Deep Tech | Proxima Fusion (Seed-Lead) | €2–10 million |
| EQT Ventures | Stockholm/Berlin | Scale-ups | Marvel Fusion (€113 million Series B) | €20–100 million |
| European Innovation Council (EIC) Fund | Brussels/Berlin | EU-wide Deep Tech | Marvel Fusion (first fusion deal) | €10–50 million |
| KfW Capital | Frankfurt | Impact/VC | Supports fusion via Future Fund | €5–20 million (Co-Invest) |
*Data primarily taken by Crunchbase
German startups don't just have a chance – they lead in Europe and attract global VCs. With the government strategy (cabinet meeting Oct. 2025), Germany could become a "fusion stronghold."
Final Thoughts
Nuclear energy stands at a pivotal crossroads, with fission providing reliable, low-carbon baseload power today while fusion promises a transformative, cleaner future. Fission, through established reactors and emerging Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), generates 9% of global electricity from 438 units worldwide, with record production in 2025 driven by AI data center demand. Advances like Generation-IV designs and SMRs (e.g., China's operational HTR-PM) enhance safety and efficiency, but high costs, waste issues, and political hurdles limit growth—China leads construction with 70 reactors underway, outpacing the West's discussions.
Fusion, still experimental, is accelerating: Magnetic Confinement (MCF) edges ahead of Inertial Confinement (ICF) due to better scalability and private investment dominance (>90% of $9.7 billion total). Key players include China (experimental leads), USA (private sector with CFS, TAE, Helion raising billions), and EU (ITER, though delayed to 2033+). Roadmaps target net energy by 2026–2028, pilots by 2030s, and GW-scale by 2040, potentially supplying 5–10% of world electricity by 2050.
Investment shifts from global projects like ITER (bogged by bureaucracy) to local/national efforts emphasize agility: USA and China surge with state-private hybrids, while Germany/EU leverage VC (e.g., Proxima Fusion's €200 million) for European leadership. Challenges—plasma stability, Tritium supply, regulation—persist, but 2025's boom signals fusion's viability for sustainable energy. Overall, fission bridges the gap; fusion could revolutionize it—if breakthroughs continue.
The website and the information contained therein are not intended to be a source of advice or credit analysis with respect to the material presented, and the information and/or documents contained on this website do not constitute investment advice.
Addendum: Yes, I do leverage AI to compile these articles. Over the past 16 years, I have been collecting my research in Markdown format—now totaling over 3,200 documents—archived in Obsidian. I run Open WebUI and Ollama for my local LLMs on a Talos OS Kubernetes Cluster, and use LiteLLM to integrate public LLMs. I also leverage Readwise to auto-store interesting tidbits in Markdown and my local RAG, plus run multiple agents to compile compelling data pieces.