Interview: practitioners on Fusion energy & enabling supply chain — what they wish they knew earlier

Private fusion energy companies raised over $7.1 billion in cumulative investment by the end of 2024, with North American ventures capturing approximately 65% of global fusion funding. Yet despite this capital influx, practitioners working across the fusion supply chain emphasize that the path from scientific milestone to commercial power generation involves challenges far more complex than plasma physics alone. In conversations with supply chain managers, procurement specialists, and utility integration experts, a consistent theme emerges: the enabling technologies and industrial ecosystems required to commercialize fusion power demand as much strategic attention as the reactor designs themselves.

Why It Matters

Fusion energy represents a potentially transformational solution to decarbonization, offering baseload power with virtually unlimited fuel supply, zero carbon emissions during operation, and no long-lived radioactive waste. The Fusion Industry Association's 2024 Global Fusion Industry Report documented 43 private fusion companies worldwide, with 25 headquartered in North America. These companies collectively employ over 4,500 professionals and have attracted significant attention from both corporate offtakers and government stakeholders.

The U.S. Department of Energy allocated $1.4 billion toward fusion research and development in fiscal year 2024, including its Bold Decadal Vision initiative aimed at achieving commercial fusion within the 2030s. Canada has similarly positioned itself as a fusion development hub, with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission beginning regulatory framework consultations for fusion systems in 2024.

From a grid reliability perspective, North America faces an estimated 300 GW of new clean firm power demand by 2040 to meet decarbonization commitments while maintaining system stability. Natural gas currently provides approximately 43% of U.S. electricity generation, representing an enormous displacement opportunity for zero-carbon baseload sources. Practitioners note that fusion's potential capacity factors exceeding 90%—comparable to nuclear fission—make it a compelling candidate for this role, provided supply chain and regulatory barriers can be addressed.

The Scope 3 emissions implications are equally significant. Major technology companies including Microsoft, Google, and Amazon have signed letters of intent or preliminary power purchase agreements with fusion developers, driven by aggressive net-zero commitments that require clean energy sources beyond intermittent renewables. Microsoft's 2024 agreement with Helion Energy for fusion-generated electricity beginning in 2028 signaled that corporate buyers view fusion as a credible near-term procurement pathway rather than a distant research curiosity.

Key Concepts

Nuclear Fusion: The process of combining light atomic nuclei (typically hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium) to form heavier nuclei, releasing enormous energy. Unlike fission, fusion does not produce high-level nuclear waste and cannot sustain runaway chain reactions, addressing key safety and waste concerns associated with conventional nuclear power.

Enabling Technologies: The suite of advanced manufacturing capabilities, materials science innovations, and component supply chains required to construct and operate fusion power plants. Practitioners identify high-temperature superconducting magnets, tritium breeding blankets, plasma-facing materials, and power conversion systems as critical enabling technology categories requiring parallel development alongside reactor core designs.

Grid Reliability and Capacity Factor: Capacity factor measures the ratio of actual energy output to maximum possible output over time. Fusion plants are projected to achieve capacity factors of 85-95%, providing dispatchable baseload power essential for grid stability. This contrasts with solar (25-30%) and wind (35-45%) capacity factors, positioning fusion as a complement rather than competitor to variable renewable sources.

Scope 3 Emissions and Corporate Procurement: Scope 3 encompasses indirect emissions across a company's value chain, including purchased electricity. Corporate power purchase agreements (PPAs) for fusion energy enable organizations to address Scope 2 (purchased electricity) and potentially Scope 3 emissions while securing long-term price stability.

Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs): Long-term contracts between electricity generators and buyers specifying price, volume, and delivery terms. Fusion developers have begun structuring preliminary PPAs with corporate offtakers, though practitioners note these agreements often include contingency provisions reflecting technology development risk.

Standards and Regulatory Frameworks: The codes, certifications, and licensing pathways governing fusion plant construction and operation. Unlike fission reactors, fusion systems currently lack dedicated regulatory categories in most jurisdictions, requiring developers to navigate frameworks designed for different technologies or advocate for fusion-specific licensing approaches.

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

High-Temperature Superconducting Magnet Manufacturing Scale-Up: Commonwealth Fusion Systems' successful demonstration of its SPARC magnet technology in 2024 validated that high-temperature superconducting (HTS) magnets can achieve the field strengths necessary for compact fusion devices. Practitioners emphasize that HTS magnet supply chains have matured significantly, with domestic production capacity expanding through partnerships between fusion developers and specialty manufacturers including SuperPower Inc. and American Superconductor Corporation. "Three years ago, we were sourcing critical HTS tape from a single overseas supplier with 18-month lead times," one procurement manager noted. "Today we have multiple qualified North American sources with lead times under six months."

Corporate Offtaker Engagement and PPA Structuring: The fusion industry has successfully cultivated serious corporate interest despite technology that remains pre-commercial. Practitioners credit this engagement to sophisticated commercial teams who have structured agreements acknowledging development risk while providing meaningful offtake commitments. Nucor Corporation's 2024 memorandum of understanding with Helion Energy for steel manufacturing power demonstrates that industrial consumers—not just technology companies—recognize fusion's potential for hard-to-decarbonize applications.

Public-Private Partnership Models: The DOE's Milestone-Based Fusion Development Program, which awarded $46 million to eight fusion companies in 2024, has established a model where government funding supports specific technical milestones while private capital finances broader development efforts. Practitioners report that this structure improves both capital efficiency and accountability compared to traditional cost-plus research contracts.

What Isn't Working

Tritium Supply Chain Constraints: Tritium, the radioactive hydrogen isotope required for deuterium-tritium fusion reactions, remains the most significant near-term supply chain bottleneck. Global tritium inventory is estimated at approximately 25 kilograms, primarily produced as a byproduct of CANDU heavy water reactor operations in Canada. Practitioners note that this supply can support early fusion plants but will prove insufficient as the industry scales. "We've modeled scenarios where tritium constraints delay commercial deployment by 3-5 years unless breeding blanket technology performs as designed from day one," one supply chain strategist observed. Most fusion developers plan to breed tritium within their reactors using lithium blankets, but this technology remains unproven at scale.

Plasma-Facing Materials Qualification: Components directly exposed to fusion plasma must withstand extreme heat fluxes, neutron bombardment, and erosion rates that exceed any existing industrial application. Tungsten and specialized ceramic composites represent leading candidates, but practitioners report that qualifying these materials for multi-decade operational lifetimes requires testing infrastructure that does not yet exist. The DOE's MPEX (Materials Plasma Exposure eXperiment) facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory addresses part of this gap, but full qualification pathways remain undefined.

Regulatory Uncertainty and Licensing Timelines: Despite the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 2024 determination that fusion systems would be regulated under 10 CFR Part 30 (byproduct material) rather than Part 50/52 (nuclear reactors), practitioners report that detailed licensing guidance remains insufficient for final investment decisions. "The NRC has signaled a risk-informed approach, which we support, but we still lack the specific technical acceptance criteria needed to design for regulatory approval," one licensing specialist explained. Canadian fusion developers face similar challenges as the CNSC develops its fusion regulatory framework.

Key Players

Established Leaders

1. Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS): Massachusetts-based developer of compact tokamak reactors using HTS magnets. Raised over $2 billion by 2024 and is constructing the SPARC demonstration device in Devens, Massachusetts, targeting first plasma by 2025-2026.

2. TAE Technologies: California-based company pursuing hydrogen-boron fusion using field-reversed configuration technology. Has raised approximately $1.2 billion and maintains partnerships with Google for machine learning plasma optimization.

3. General Atomics: San Diego-based defense and energy company operating the DIII-D National Fusion Facility and providing critical component manufacturing for domestic and international fusion programs.

4. General Fusion: Canadian company developing magnetized target fusion technology. Operates demonstration facilities in British Columbia and the United Kingdom, with backing from Jeff Bezos and Malaysian sovereign wealth fund Khazanah.

5. Tokamak Energy: UK-headquartered company with North American operations, developing compact spherical tokamaks. Achieved plasma temperatures exceeding 100 million degrees Celsius in 2024.

Emerging Startups

1. Helion Energy: Washington state company developing pulsed fusion technology and the first to secure a commercial PPA with Microsoft. Targeting electricity generation by 2028.

2. Zap Energy: Seattle-based startup pursuing Z-pinch fusion technology, which uses plasma self-compression to achieve fusion conditions without external magnetic confinement.

3. Realta Fusion: Wisconsin-based company developing compact mirror fusion systems, spun out of the University of Wisconsin-Madison's world-leading mirror research program.

4. Type One Energy: Madison-headquartered company developing optimized stellarator configurations, benefiting from advanced computational design tools and DOE milestone program funding.

5. Princeton Stellarators: New Jersey company commercializing stellarator technology with support from Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory expertise.

Key Investors & Funders

1. U.S. Department of Energy: Primary government funder through the Office of Science, ARPA-E, and the Milestone-Based Fusion Development Program, providing over $1.4 billion annually to fusion research.

2. Breakthrough Energy Ventures: Bill Gates-founded climate technology fund that has invested in multiple fusion companies including Commonwealth Fusion Systems and TAE Technologies.

3. Tiger Global Management: Major investor in Commonwealth Fusion Systems' Series B funding round, demonstrating mainstream venture capital interest in fusion.

4. Eni Next: Corporate venture arm of Italian energy company Eni, which has invested over $250 million in Commonwealth Fusion Systems and maintains a strategic partnership.

5. Canada Strategic Innovation Fund: Canadian government program supporting General Fusion and domestic fusion supply chain development.

Examples

1. Commonwealth Fusion Systems SPARC Facility (Devens, Massachusetts): CFS broke ground on its SPARC demonstration facility in 2023, with construction advancing through 2024 and first plasma targeted for 2025-2026. The $2 billion project involves over 50 domestic suppliers providing HTS tape, vacuum components, cryogenic systems, and construction services. Practitioners report that the SPARC supply chain has created approximately 1,500 direct jobs in Massachusetts and established qualification pathways for fusion-specific components that will benefit the broader industry.

2. Helion Energy Polaris Demonstration (Everett, Washington): Helion is constructing its seventh-generation fusion prototype, Polaris, designed to demonstrate net electricity production by 2024 and support the company's 2028 Microsoft PPA commitment. The project has driven development of pulsed power supply chains and direct energy conversion technologies distinct from thermal conversion approaches used by tokamak developers. Helion's integrated approach—producing electricity directly from plasma rather than generating steam—requires specialized high-voltage capacitor and switching systems sourced from Pacific Northwest electronics manufacturers.

3. General Atomics DIII-D Tokamak Operations (San Diego, California): The DIII-D National Fusion Facility operates the largest magnetic fusion experiment in the United States, providing critical data for ITER and domestic fusion developers while serving as a training ground for the fusion workforce. In 2024, DIII-D experiments achieved record performance metrics supporting compact reactor designs and validated divertor configurations essential for plasma exhaust handling. Over 600 researchers from 100 institutions utilize DIII-D annually, creating knowledge transfer pathways that accelerate private sector development.

Action Checklist

• Map existing supply chain relationships against fusion-specific material and component requirements, identifying gaps requiring new supplier qualification
• Engage with NRC and CNSC fusion regulatory consultations to shape licensing frameworks favorable to deployment timelines
• Develop tritium sourcing strategies including CANDU operator partnerships and breeding blanket technology investment
• Establish plasma-facing material testing partnerships with DOE national laboratories and university research programs
• Structure corporate PPA frameworks that appropriately allocate technology development risk while providing meaningful offtake commitments
• Assess workforce development needs and partner with technical education institutions on fusion-specific training programs
• Evaluate grid interconnection requirements and transmission infrastructure needs for planned fusion plant sites
• Monitor DOE milestone program progress and position for future public-private partnership opportunities
• Develop Scope 3 emissions accounting methodologies that appropriately credit fusion energy procurement
• Participate in fusion industry standards development through organizations like the Fusion Industry Association and ASTM International

FAQ

Q: What are realistic timelines for commercial fusion power in North America? A: Based on current development trajectories, practitioners anticipate the first net-electricity-producing fusion devices by 2028-2030, with initial commercial plants potentially operational in the early-to-mid 2030s. However, these timelines assume successful completion of demonstration milestones, regulatory pathway clarity, and supply chain scale-up. Most practitioners emphasize that initial commercial plants will likely serve as first-of-a-kind demonstrations with electricity costs higher than mature renewable alternatives, with cost competitiveness emerging through fleet deployment and learning curve effects by the late 2030s.

Q: How does fusion compare to advanced fission for corporate clean energy procurement? A: Both offer zero-carbon baseload power with high capacity factors, but fusion presents distinct advantages and challenges. Fusion eliminates concerns about meltdown risk and long-lived radioactive waste that complicate fission siting and public acceptance. However, fission technology is commercially proven today, while fusion remains in development. Practitioners suggest that corporate procurement strategies may include both technologies, with fission providing near-term clean firm power and fusion offering longer-term optionality as the technology matures.

Q: What supply chain investments offer the best risk-adjusted returns? A: Practitioners consistently identify high-temperature superconducting materials, specialized vacuum systems, and tritium handling infrastructure as supply chain segments with strong demand visibility across multiple fusion approaches. These technologies also have applications beyond fusion, including medical imaging, quantum computing, and particle accelerators, providing downside protection if fusion timelines extend. Plasma-facing materials and breeding blanket technologies offer higher upside but carry greater technology development risk.

Q: How will fusion plants integrate with existing grid infrastructure? A: Fusion plants are expected to produce steam that drives conventional turbine-generators, enabling integration with existing grid infrastructure designed for thermal power plants. This represents a significant advantage over some advanced nuclear concepts requiring novel power conversion systems. Practitioners note that fusion's high capacity factors and dispatchable output complement variable renewables, potentially enabling grid operators to reduce reliance on natural gas peaking plants. Transmission infrastructure to accommodate large, centralized fusion plants remains a deployment constraint in some regions.

Q: What regulatory changes would most accelerate fusion deployment? A: Practitioners prioritize three regulatory developments: (1) clear technical acceptance criteria from NRC specifying safety analysis requirements for fusion license applications; (2) streamlined environmental review processes recognizing fusion's reduced waste and safety profile compared to fission; and (3) establishment of fusion-specific worker radiation protection and waste classification standards distinct from fission regulatory frameworks. International regulatory harmonization, particularly between U.S. and Canadian frameworks, would also benefit companies pursuing cross-border deployment strategies.

Sources

• Fusion Industry Association. "The Global Fusion Industry in 2024." Annual Industry Report, July 2024.
• U.S. Department of Energy. "Bold Decadal Vision for Commercial Fusion Energy." Office of Science, March 2024.
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Options for Licensing and Regulating Fusion Energy Systems." SECY-23-0001, January 2024.
• International Energy Agency. "Energy Technology Perspectives 2024: Pathways to Net Zero." IEA Publications, 2024.
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. "Bringing Fusion to the U.S. Grid." The National Academies Press, 2021.
• Bloomberg New Energy Finance. "Fusion Energy Market Outlook 2024-2040." BNEF Research, September 2024.
• Commonwealth Fusion Systems. "SPARC and ARC: The Path to Commercial Fusion Power." Corporate Technical Documentation, 2024.