Fusion Energy Poised for Simpler U.S. Review

Fusion energy — tapping the power of the stars — is on the cusp of getting new federal rules.

Why it matters: Regulators increasingly view fusion as fundamentally safer than nuclear fission, helping to pave the way for a substantially simpler permitting process than the one faced by conventional nuclear plants.

Driving the news: The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is closing the public comment period on the proposed rule on Wednesday, with a final regulation expected as soon as this fall.

The big picture: Fusion electricity doesn’t yet exist in reality, but industry leaders see this regulatory move as fundamental to commercializing the technology in the United States in the next decade.

• “This is a big deal — we’ve been working toward this for a long time,” said Andrew Holland, CEO of the Fusion Industry Association.

How it works: Fission — the type of nuclear energy widely used today — generates power by splitting heavy atoms apart, creating heat for electricity but also long-lived radioactive waste.

• Fusion, on the other hand, generates power by combining light atoms together to release energy — the same process that powers the stars — while producing no long-lived radioactive waste.
• Federal regulators concluded in 2023 that fusion’s risk profile is far closer to that of existing medical and research radiation systems instead of nuclear fission.

“Most importantly, this rule makes clear that fusion energy is permanently and completely separated from the regulation of nuclear fission,” states a letter the fusion trade group submitted to regulators Thursday ahead of next week’s deadline, and reviewed by Axios.

Zoom in: The physics of fission require extensive engineering and safety systems to prevent runaway reactions — though nuclear power remains one of the safest forms of energy overall.

• Fusion, by contrast, lacks the long-lived radioactive waste associated with fission and can’t sustain runaway reactions that cause traditional nuclear meltdowns.

“The physics of fusion are inherently safe,” said Greg Twinney, CEO of General Fusion, during an interview with Axios last week at the Web Summit gathering in Vancouver, British Columbia.

• “The beauty of all that is that the regulatory regime that needs to regulate it can be much, much, much, much lighter,” Twinney said.

Zoom out: The U.S. is not alone. Regulators in the United Kingdom, Canada and elsewhere are increasingly moving toward fusion frameworks that treat the technology differently from conventional nuclear fission reactors.

Between the lines: Safety concerns around radioactive waste have subjected traditional nuclear plants — and even many newer, advanced designs now under development — to long federal reviews that critics say drive up costs and delay construction.

• That friction will be almost non-existent for the fusion industry. Companies “will not have to go through the NRC at all,” Holland said, while adding that state regulators will have to follow NRC rules.

What they’re saying: “I think it will accelerate our timelines,” said Annie Kritcher, co-founder and chief scientist at Inertia, in an interview with Axios at the same Vancouver tech industry gathering.

• “It’s going to make putting these facilities close to where people need to use the power so much easier and more accessible,” said Kritcher, who is also a scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where she oversaw a key scientific achievement reached in 2022 for fusion.

The other side: Environmental groups that have long expressed skepticism about nuclear power are likely to be more open to fusion.

• The Natural Resources Defense Council, which earlier this year shifted its stance on fission to cautiously support it, said in a statement that the group “welcomes the momentum on fusion.”

“Fusion avoids the meltdown risk and long-lived radioactive waste of fission, but we will still demand strong safety and health guardrails,” said Matthew McKinzie, NRDC’s senior director for data and policy.

Reality check: Regulation is not the hardest part of commercializing fusion, Holland said, pointing to science and engineering as higher hurdles.

• On the overarching goal of commercializing fusion, Holland likens next week’s regulatory move to the third or fourth inning in a nine-inning baseball game.
• The rules will help reduce financial risk and allow new investment in the longer term, he said.

What we’re watching: Dozens of fusion startups, including Inertia and General Fusion, are still racing to overcome those scientific and engineering hurdles to commercialize their technologies.

• The top executives at both startups in Vancouver were vague on when they anticipate a commercial fusion plant; they both said between 2030 and 2040.

The bottom line: To the degree companies clear those hurdles, they will be a lot closer to the starting line for fusion electricity thanks to these rules.

Source: Axios Future of Energy.