# Do you think practical nuclear fusion energy will ever be a thing? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Tags:** science-math\ **Created:** [August 5, 2026, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173 "2026-08-05T23:19:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2026, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/21 "2026-08-06T18:34:25Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > Your first paragraph adds nothing to the debate. I disagree. My point is that fusion works on a stultifying scale, and trying to squeeze it down to the size of Chicagoland, much less ITER, is plain foolish. I do not believe that net++ is ever going to happen. At all. Just because fusion needs some serious scale. ---
**Author:** ![markn\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@markn\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markn_1)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2026, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/22 "2026-08-06T19:00:26Z")
It needs serious _pressure_, not necessarily scale. Gravity is an easy way to achieve that pressure, but there’s no fundamental reason that the required pressure couldn’t be achieved technologically. Given how close we are with current designs, it’s certainly not foolish to think that it’s possible. ---
**Author:** ![Frodo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frodo/32/302_2.png) [@Frodo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frodo)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2026, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/23 "2026-08-06T19:02:05Z")
It’s a bit weird to engage in such efforts to get fusion energy when you have the Sun out there giving it out for free, better batteries seem more feasible and would solve the problem of night-time interruption. That said, the more non-global-warming sources of energy the better, so fuse away. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2026, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/24 "2026-08-06T19:08:08Z")
> [@echoreply](#): > > It’s been a while since I heard it, but I believe they’ve developed more efficient methods of isolating deuterium and tritium than the traditional methods. They hope to use these advancements to make money and fund their fusion research. I do recall that instead of “20 years” he was saying “10 years”. If you do have practical fusion, then sure, more efficient ways to isolate hydrogen isotopes would be great. But it’s not what’s holding back practical fusion right now. And it’s highly unlikely that a start-up could leapfrog the big multi-national projects by multiple decades. By contrast, a fresh new start-up hyping claims that they can’t possibly actually achieve in order to suck up investor dollars? That’s a tale as old as time. ---
**Author:** ![Ancient\_Nerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed655f/32.png) [@Ancient\_Nerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ancient_Nerd)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2026, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/25 "2026-08-06T19:47:23Z")
> [@xtenkfarpl](#): > > Also they are all using tritium, which doesn’t exist in nature because of its short half-life. Where are they proposing to source this from? Tritium fusion also produces a ton of neutrons, so the promise of ‘clean’ energy is a bit disingenuous. No one can seriously claim that Fusion is perfectly clean. It is however, a lot cleaner than Fission. A uranium nucleus can split thousands of different ways. Each of those is a different pair of radioactive isotopes that needs to be dealt with. Each of those reactions also produces a few neutrons. That is what makes it a chain reaction. If you can throttle it, you have a reactor. If you don’t throttle it, it’s a bomb. ---
**Author:** ![echoreply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/echoreply/32/3641_2.png) [@echoreply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/echoreply)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2026, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/26 "2026-08-06T20:06:05Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > If you do have practical fusion, then sure, more efficient ways to isolate hydrogen isotopes would be great His argument, and I’m not defending it, just relaying it, is that there is a market for tritium outside of fusion research, and that their breeder program will be able to produce multiples of all the tritium currently produced far cheaper. If I remember correctly this created a diversion in the interview of why don’t they just make and sell tritium if they can do it so well? The interview (first quarter 2026 maybe?) made it sound like this was already a done deal, but the press release from January, 2025 says, “over its four-year span, the programme aims to demonstrate controlled tritium breeding.” > [@Chronos](#): > > And it’s highly unlikely that a start-up could leapfrog the big multi-national projects by multiple decades. > > By contrast, a fresh new start-up hyping claims that they can’t possibly actually achieve in order to suck up investor dollars? That’s a tale as old as time. And the reply is also very old: We’ll take everything those multi-national projects learned, and mix it with our new special sauce. _Sometimes_ everything works out the way the start-up claims and a Google happens. All the investors need to do is to have 1 out of 20 plays they back win, and they’re happy. I think dismissing it _only_ because they are a start-up working on a (classic) hard problem would be a mistake. However the special sauce is often [bullshit and fraud](https://electrek.co/2026/06/08/donut-lab-solid-state-battery-exposed-lithium-ion-fraud/)\[1\]. > **[Fusion Neutron Source for UKAEA | SHINE Technologies](https://www.shinefusion.com/blog/shine-provides-fusion-neutron-source-for-ukaea-librti)** > > SHINE Technologies provides a powerful fusion neutron source for the UKAEA's LIBRTI program, advancing fusion energy and tritium breeding research. * * * 1. maybe I should have linked to something about cold fusion? ---
**Author:** ![Ancient\_Nerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed655f/32.png) [@Ancient\_Nerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ancient_Nerd)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2026, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/27 "2026-08-06T21:45:39Z")
> **[NuDat 3](https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat3/)** > > The main web application that allows users to search and plot nuclear structure and nuclear decay data interactively. Neat Web Site ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2026, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/28 "2026-08-07T01:53:51Z")
Progress over the last several decades has been minimal at best. It just seems to me it’ll never get there in our lifetimes if at all. Not to mention that with the rapid takeup of renewable power, it is less and less needed anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2026, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/29 "2026-08-07T02:02:19Z")
We might end up not needing it on Earth. But we will if we ever venture beyond our solar system. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2026, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/30 "2026-08-07T04:57:51Z")
There is a company which _claims_ they will have a functioning 50MW-output reactor up and running in less than 2 years.        They say they expect to use a 2H + 3He fuel process in a compact design that is not built to reach full ignition or rely on heat engines for energy output.        The mechanism is supposed to act more like a particle accelerator than a confinement system, slamming fuel packets together in the center of the cylindrical/hourglass reaction chamber. Power, they say, will be generated with plasma pulse flux, pushing electricity directly into the confinement coils when the plasma bounces back, in millisecond cycles. Hence, they say, the plant will not need a cooling tower, and there will be much less neutron flux than a traditional design.        I think we remember the optimistic claims coming from Lockheed Skunkworks early this decade, but this approach sounds interesting. [Helion](https://www.helionenergy.com/technology) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2026, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/31 "2026-08-07T13:23:07Z")
A company that says they want to do research into the possibility of such a design, and expects to get interesting scientific results within two years, might be worth investing in. A company that claims that they’ll have a working 50 MW plant up and running in two years is absolutely guaranteed no doubt a scam. ---
**Author:** ![Frodo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frodo/32/302_2.png) [@Frodo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frodo)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2026, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/32 "2026-08-07T13:27:23Z")
I fear I concur, overpromising doesn’t look good. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2026, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/33 "2026-08-07T14:00:34Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > In fact, we already know one way to make a fusion rocket, the Orion method: The engineering of it would be a beast, but the principles are simple enough. Maybe we could use this method to generate electricity. 1/ build a big, heavy, metal dome. 2/ Attach it to the ground by very long ropes all around the perimeter. Rig these ropes up to dynamo generators. 3 Put a small H-bomb under the dome. 4/ Bang. 5/ As the dome goes up, the ropes drive the dynamos. 6/ Gravity pulls the dome back down. Repeat. Dyson reckoned that the pusher plater would only suffer minimal ablation; if this were correct (it probably isn’t) = success. Another method would be to just use the expanding gases from the explosion to drive turbines, or even a big, big internal combustion engine. I expect all these methods have been considered in the past, but a big explosive/turbine combo would be one use for all the nuclear weapons in the world, if they ever decide to get rid of them. ---
**Author:** ![Frodo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frodo/32/302_2.png) [@Frodo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frodo)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2026, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/34 "2026-08-07T14:06:08Z")
Looks a bit polluting, just a smidgen… ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2026, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/35 "2026-08-08T06:32:41Z")
> [@eburacum45](#): > > … > 3 Put a small H-bomb under the dome. > … Here is where you encounter a problem: _every_ H-bomb that has _ever been built_ has a fat-boy trigger. We have not once built thermonuclear bomb that did not have a fission bomb to set it off.        Big boy did not have plutonium in it, but nearly all other atomic bombs, including H-bombs, have relied on plutonium, and plutonium has to be made in fission reactors (it is so incredibly trace in nature that breeding it is the only way to obtain adequate quantities).        Lawrence Livermore did succeed in producing a fusion explosion without a fission trigger, but it was way the hell too small to lift a large dome. And raw thermonuclear explosions produce huge amounts of neutrons: normal H-bombs have a uranium jacket to convert the neutron flux into additional fission energy to amplify the explosion (without the jacket, it becomes a “neutron bomb”, which is very efficient at killing living things). ---
**Author:** ![Ancient\_Nerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed655f/32.png) [@Ancient\_Nerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ancient_Nerd)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2026, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/36 "2026-08-08T08:26:35Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > plutonium has to be made in fission reactors (it is so incredibly trace in nature that breeding it is the only way to obtain adequate quantities). Plutonium 244 has a half-life of 81 million years. There may be a few atoms left from the supernova that created all of the heavy elements on earth 5 or 6 billion years ago. For nuclear reactions, we use Plutonium 239 with a half-life of only 24 thousand years. After 200,000 half-lives, there is none left from the supernova. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2026, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/37 "2026-08-08T08:53:32Z")
Yeah; the Orion fusion propulsion system is best confined to outer space, where the pollution is not such a problem. To make it non-polluting we’d need to ignite fusion pellets with lasers or something, which is more like some of the current small-scale fusion power generation schemes. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2026, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/38 "2026-08-08T09:08:20Z")
> [@Ancient\_Nerd](#): > > For nuclear reactions, we use Plutonium 239 with a half-life of only 24 thousand years. After 200,000 half-lives, there is none left from the supernova. Pu 239 is created when U-238 captures a neutron and emits an electron. That will happen occasionally in uranium ores, with the neutrons coming from U-235. So there’s always a few atoms of Pu in those ores. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2026, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/39 "2026-08-08T10:24:14Z")
I do not think you are going to be doing much practical nuclear anything with only a few atoms. ---
**Author:** ![JacobSwan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a6a055/32.png) [@JacobSwan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JacobSwan)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2026, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173/40 "2026-08-09T13:00:47Z")
And there is the famous Oklo reactor that occurred naturally. But as it was almost 2 billion years ago, a lot of plutonium half lives have since passed. [Natural nuclear fission reactor - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-think-practical-nuclear-fusion-energy-will-ever-be-a-thing/1032173.md?page=3)