The report “Fusion Energy: Potentially Transformative Technology Still Faces Fundamental Challenges” (GAO-23-105813) (“Report”) notes upfront that fusion could address many energy challenges by providing abundant, safe, low-carbon energy. Driven by scientific and technological advancements in recent years, fusion development received billions of dollars of private investment. We have discussed fusion in a number of previous posts, including here (covering the December “breakeven” fusion announcement), here (discussing the White House fusion summit), here (providing a legal analysis for regulating fusion), and here (discussing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff’s regulatory “options” paper).

GAO conducted its review to serve as a “technology assessment” whereby GAO assessed (1) the status, potential benefits, and limitations of fusion energy, (2) the challenges that might affect the development or use of fusion energy, and (3) policy options that might help enhance the benefits or mitigate challenges associated with fusion energy.

In compiling this Report, GAO reviewed key studies and scientific literature; interviewed stakeholders from government, industry, and academia; held focus groups with members of the public; attended a conference on issues related to fusion energy; and convened a meeting of experts in collaboration with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Notably, one of the fusion expert contributors to the GAO Report is blog author Amy Roma.

We walk through the key developments, identified challenges, and the policy options below, but in short, the GAO Report provides as follows:

• Fusion could provide abundant, safe, low-carbon energy. While fusion is the reaction that powers the sun, harnessing fusion energy has eluded us so far. Fusion requires engineering complex systems, and the U.S. has been working on fusion since the 1950s. Report at 3-11.
• Despite recent advancements, fusion has not yet achieved net energy gain. Projections of the time to putting fusion energy on the grid vary widely, and while fusion researchers have reported significant accomplishments in the past decade, commercial fusion energy requires major advancements, and many different concepts for fusion energy are still being pursued. Report at 12-19.
• Scientific and engineering challenges could impede fusion energy development. This includes a better understanding of burning plasma, finding materials that can withstand fusion conditions for sustained operations, overcoming complex systems engineering challenges, and addressing the supply, safety and security concerns around tritium fuel. Report at 20-23.
• The alignment of public and private efforts, regulatory uncertainty, and other factors—such as limited workforce and limited suppliers—could affect fusion development. Report at 24-31.
• Policy options could enhance benefits or address challenges to the development or use of fusion energy. This could include policymakers aligning public and private sector efforts to accelerate development of fusion energy, sharing assets for fusion energy development, and engaging the public in decision making. Report at 32-35.

We provide some additional information on the GAO Report below.

Key Fusion Energy Developments and Investments

As set forth in the Report, commercial fusion energy could provide a variety of benefits. This includes the potential to provide a clean, reliable energy source to meet U.S. and global needs safely and with low-waste. Report at 1, 3. The latest advancements in fusion energy developments have sparked renewed investment interest and the realization of these benefits.

Examples of the key developments include:

• Breakeven fusion. Recent fusion experiments have reported significant progress toward the goal of usable fusion energy. In December 2022, a U.S. facility became the first to get more energy out of a fusion experiment than the energy directly injected into the experiment. We discussed this milestone in a previous post.

• Technology advancements. While fusion has seen a number of significant technical advancements in recent years, other technology developments, such as advances in computer modeling, are helping scientists better predict the behavior of plasma and the state of matter needed for fusion. Report at 1, 20. Such advancements have prompted renewed interest in and funding for fusion energy.

• Investments. Private investors have committed several billion dollars of new investment to fusion startups, which we have previously written about here. Moreover, in FY 2022, the Department of Energy (“DOE”) Office of Science received appropriations of $713 million for its Fusion Energy Sciences program, continuing a steady increase since its 2017 appropriation of $380 million. Report at 8. In FY 2022, the National Nuclear Security Administration received $580 million in appropriated funds for its Inertial Confinement Fusion program. In March 2022, DOE announced a department-wide initiative to accelerate the development and commercialization of fusion energy in partnership with the private sector. Report at p. 1.

Possible Challenges to Commercialization

While fusion energy could provide immense benefits, certain limitations and challenges may affect its development and potential use. Report at 5, 20-30. Specifically, the Report identifies “significant scientific and engineering challenges” that could “impede fusion energy development.” Report at 20.

Examples of the identified scientific and engineering challenges include:

• The behavior of burning plasmas needs to be better understood. The current understanding of plasmas make it difficult to optimize plasma confinement and reliably drive fusion energy production. For example, turbulence is a highly complex behavior in which regions of a burning plasma move in ways that current methods cannot fully predict. Plasma turbulence is a multi-dimensional problem involving both the positions and velocities of large numbers of particles. Report at 20.
  • For example, self-heating or “burning” plasmas still may exhibit as-yet-unknown behaviors. Nearly all plasma research has currently been done on plasmas heated by an external source. Therefore, most scientific understanding of burning plasmas on earth is derived from simulations, and it is possible that burning plasmas in fusion energy devices will behave differently. Id.
  • Scientists need experimental data to study the behavior of burning plasmas further and enable the design of fusion energy systems. Id.
• Scientists need experimental data to study the behavior of burning plasmas further and enable the design of fusion energy systems. Another key challenge for the development of fusion energy is that fusion energy systems, particularly components that are exposed directly to the plasma, will need to withstand extreme physical conditions for extended periods in order to generate commercial electricity. Report at 20-21.
  • In a commercial fusion energy power plant, materials will need to last for months or longer to avoid frequent repair or replacement of components. However, when subjected to the stresses that fusion plasmas generate, materials currently available degrade or fail too quickly for commercial use. Without advances in materials, it will not be possible to build fusion energy systems that can reliably produce commercial electricity. Id. at 21.
  • Some materials can withstand high heat, high neutron flux, or ion damage, but no existing material can simultaneously tolerate all the applicable stress at the levels and durations that would be needed for a commercially viable fusion energy system. Id.
• Using tritium fuel raises supply, safety, and security concerns. The use of tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, as fuel raises certain issues, such as that the global supply of tritium is far too limited to meet the needs of commercial fusion energy plants. The only appreciable source is from fission in certain nuclear power plants. Report at 23.
  • Meanwhile, tritium cannot be effectively stored because it decays quickly, with a half-life of around 12 years. The global inventory is predicted to peak in 2027 at about 27 kilograms (about 60 pounds), of which ITER experiments could consume the majority. Id.
  • Containing and accounting for tritium is challenging because, as a light element, tritium can permeate many materials, becoming embedded in the plasma-facing components of a fusion energy system or escaping into the environment. Id.
  • Therefore, fusion energy systems will also require complex equipment for handling tritium, as well as procedures for managing the radioactive waste from materials embedded with tritium. Id.

In addition to the scientific and engineering matters, the Report identifies a variety of investment and stakeholder challenges that could impact commercialization. These include the possibility that (1) public and private efforts are not fully aligned; (2) regulatory uncertainty may slow development and that developing regulations for fusion energy is complex; (3) public perception on fusion energy remains unknown; and (4) fusion energy development relies on a limited workforce and limited suppliers. Report at 24-30.

With respect to regulatory certainty, we would note that based on at least one Commissioner vote and another Commissioner public comment at a public meeting earlier this month, it is possible the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission may choose to regulate fusion under a byproduct materials framework, which would help reduce some regulatory uncertainty at this time. This approach would be similar to the U.K. approach to regulating fusion.

GAO Policy Options to Help Overcome the Identified Challenges

GAO developed policy options that policymakers—legislative bodies, government agencies, academia, industry, and other groups—could consider to help enhance the benefits of fusion energy or address challenges to the development or use of fusion energy. The Report notes that the list of policy options is not an exhaustive list.

We walk through an overview of the policy options, and which challenge they address, below.

• Policymakers could align public and private sector efforts to accelerate development of fusion energy. GAO explains that inconsistencies between the public and private sectors could result in missed opportunities to develop commercial fusion energy. Report at 24. Policymakers wishing to accelerate development of fusion energy could attempt to align public and private efforts. Report at 33 for the below information. Specific examples of this type of alignment include the following:
  • Align existing programs, missions, and organizational structures with fusion energy development goals. This approach may accelerate the demonstration and commercialization of fusion energy by enhancing research on the materials, technology, and engineering needs of fusion energy.
  • Expand use of public private partnerships that focus on accelerating fusion energy development. For example, the INFUSE program is a public private partnership for research focused on innovation in critical areas such as materials science and modeling and simulation. This may leverage strengths across sectors and expand programs that, according to stakeholders, are underused and have been effective in advancing fusion energy development.
  • Increase use of funding mechanisms that provide greater predictability for recipients and accountability for funders. For example, milestone-based programs reimburse funding upon reaching performance targets. This may provide flexibility to funding recipients, while ensuring performance and accountability for the funder.
  • Reduce barriers to collaboration, for example by using standardized Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, or CRADAs. Standardized research and development agreements could accelerate research, encourage knowledge sharing between organizations, and reduce time intensive negotiation.
  • Leverage international coordination by, for example, increasing the use of facilities that are unavailable in the U.S. Improved knowledge sharing with other countries could help accelerate fusion energy research and workforce development. For example, a fusion developer recommended bringing staff from the U.S. to ITER to learn how to develop and operate a fusion plant on the ground so they could bring that knowledge back to the U.S. to support future fusion power plants.

• Policymakers could build shared assets for fusion energy development. Given the technical challenges to fusion energy and the limited workforce and suppliers available to the industry, policymakers could choose to promote fusion energy development by enhancing shared assets for use by the research community, such as research facilities and training programs. Report at 34 for the below information. Approaches to this policy option include the following:
  • Support facilities to address shared needs of the fusion development community’s scientific and engineering challenges, such as advanced materials and tritium management. This could help fill critical research gaps on the path to fusion energy commercialization.
  • Support workforce development to address labor shortages specific to fusion energy. This approach could include supporting multidisciplinary education and training programs at universities and technical colleges.
  • Assess sources of critical supplies and manufacturing capabilities that will be needed to demonstrate and commercialize fusion energy, along with options to fill any gaps.

• To address the uncertainty of public perception, policymakers could engage the public in decision-making. This may include the complex nature of the regulatory framework development. Report at 35 for the below information. This policy option includes the following:
  • Study public opinion, for example through surveys and focus groups, or host events to understand the public’s questions and perspectives on the benefits and risks of fusion energy. This will help inform policy decisions, such as those related to regulation of and investment in fusion energy.
  • Engage and educate the public through cross-sectoral forums to ensure balance, transparency, and inclusivity.
  • Include affected communities in making decisions around siting, construction, design, and operations. This will enhance alignment between communities and fusion developers could reduce barriers to their success.