Much of the discussion around the commercial future for nuclear fusion has revolved around sharing updates in technological breakthroughs and developments, or around devising plans on how to attract investment or generate revenue in the short-to-medium term before commercial reactors come online. However, with investors demonstrating their continued and increased appetite to back fusion companies (see e.g., the recent news that Helion has raised $425 in new funding), and a growing consensus that the first reactors will be coming online in the next 20 years, if not sooner, is now the time to take the conversation to a wider audience?
In a recent interview on the news podcast the NewsAgents, the CEO of Octopus Energy Greg Jackson advanced the suggestion that public opinion is largely ambivalent about ideas like “Net Zero” but instead cares deeply and passionately about factors that affect their individual lives such as bringing energy bills down for the consumer.
So, with funding largely secured, and capital flowing into the fusion industry from both public and private sector sources – how can fusion companies connect with and engage the public to buy in to the idea of heating their homes using the energy of the stars? After all, the weight of public opinion can have significant impacts on government policy, and without the support of the state, fusion reactors can’t be brought online and can’t connect to the grid.
There seem to be two issues to address. The first is the tangible reticence in the public psyche for all things ‘nuclear’, and the second is the need to convince the individual that they will be better off when fusion succeeds.
The fusion industry has already made significant inroads into sidestepping public distrust of ‘nuclear’ and ‘atomic’ industries. Disasters like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima live long in the public memory – their persistence only enhanced by the multiple dramatisations and documentaries produced to examiner the impacts of nuclear fallout. However, fusion – unlike its more established cousin – is not susceptible to a runaway chain reaction, and its fuel source (originating from heavy water and lithium) is distinctly non-radioactive. For this reason, fusion will inhabit a distinctly separate regulatory framework than fission when it is eventually commercialised, and rightly so.
To reduce public confusion between the fusion and fission approaches to power generation, the fusion sector has astutely dropped “nuclear” from its identification, and this has gone some way distinguishing between the two, but there is still more that can be done.
Meanwhile, there is almost no public discourse about the financial benefits of fusion to the consumer. While modelling published in 2023 suggests that early-stage commercial reactors will run with energy costs of $150/MWh or more, the same models indicated that the technology improvements expected to be made in reactor design and operation up to and beyond 2040 could bring costs down to at or below $80-100/MWh. This would be low enough for fusion to be commercially competitive and offers the tantalising prospect of reducing energy bills.
Not enough is being said about this. It’s great to capture the public’s imagination with the allure of reaching for the stars (the Space Race was an excellent example of this), but in the context of a volatile global economy and consecutive cost-of-living crises, offering people the prospect of cheaper bills is likely to have much more cut-through.
To address both of these issues, education is key. Innovative initiatives like the Fusion Energy Café are already doing great work bringing fusion to the public in an accessible manner to boost public understanding. This work needs to be supplemented by the rest of the fusion industry proactively pushing forward with public engagement and education. Major players in commercialising fusion reactors should also consider investing time in crafting and distributing the message that fusion isn’t just good for the planet – it could be good for your bills too.
That’s not to say that we should distract ourselves from the central task of overcoming the physics and engineering challenges needed to commercialise fusion. Nor should fusion companies ignore the importance of maintaining investor engagement or leveraging their expertise and assets to generate revenue. But, in an age where public opinion is king, it’s never too early to think about the end consumer could drive policy shifts, and what you can do to bring them onside.
