In this think piece, fusion engineer Chris Billingham discusses the importance of shared fusion narratives and the influence of political ideology. He argues for a new narrative tackling lived experiences of electricity prices and the fragility of supply chains that moves beyond a self-destructing promise of clean and inexhaustible energy.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Open Fusion Collective.

Engraved on wall of the recently re-named Donald J. Trump United States Institute of Peace is a line attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt:

‘It isn’t enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn’t enough to believe in it. One must work at it.’

The same sentiment applies to fusion.

Like peace, fusion is a challenging and tantalizing goal with the potential for social change and economic disruption. Like peace, it requires sustained dedication as an overarching goal by governments, and broad acceptance by their respective polities as a positive element in a shared narrative.

Shared Narrative and Public Understanding

This does not require the public to understand plasma confinement times or tritium breeding ratios. The public does need to understand fusion as a solution to social and economic problems. Assuming government policies are rooted in, and accountable to, public opinion, then the manner in which a government couches its words vis-à-vis a new technology can inspire support — or provoke revulsion. Yet, even as fusion researchers publicize progressively significant milestones, it would be naïve to presume that proffering technical details will inspire endorsement.

Due to antipathy toward fission and its perennial role as a thematic punchline in techno-utopian fantasy, fusion does not carry broad understanding among the public. This lack of acceptance is partially a consequence of fusion’s technical nature. To describe advances in fusion in terms of tokamaks or hohlraums is to proffer information — and information is not truth. This becomes more difficult considering political polarization, combined with algorithmic media, has turned truth and facts into subjective concepts open to partisan and self-interested definition.

To take innovation seriously as a force for change is to infuse it with value and politics. This is bidirectional. Our present politics affect the technologies we develop and the technologies we develop shape the politics we create. Politics requires a story; the world survives on the stories it tells itself. Right now, our narratives have lost power and a political vacuum is opening. Leaders and laymen are looking for coherence and purpose. This is the moment when fusion can emerge as a positive role in a new political story.

This is harder than it sounds.

As suggested by the media critic Neil Postman, technology is not neutral regarding social change; without just policies and institutions, new technologies could easily accelerate inequality and despair. To have no program for harnessing a technology in service of constructive change is myopic. As governments commit to research and investment, a major question arises: how can the language invoked by public institutions promulgate a social license for fusion?

The Enabling Environment: Growth, State Capacity, and a Future Worth Building

Let’s accept, without moral panic, that we live in a capitalist society where economic growth, however imperfectly measured, still functions as a proxy for material progress. Said growth requires an enabling environment, the lion’s share of which is created, one way or another, by deliberate government action.

Whether our post-neoliberal era calls such action dirigisme, supply-side progressivism, or the abundance agenda, the rough mechanism is familiar: productive development policies drive growth by investing in skills and infrastructure, ensuring access to key raw materials, and building a regulatory structure that rewards utility and curiosity rather than mere rent-seeking. The state advances scientific research; markets scale what works; innovations supplant established industries.

Genuine innovation means conceiving of new ideas and encoding them into novel industrial processes. This zeitgeist of creativity insists that those who believe in a fairer, more sustainable world have a stake in nurturing the technologies that would make that world possible.

What is fusion’s role in this future? In a world where most people accept the scientific consensus on climate change, the only way for humanity to limit the effects of global warming while curtailing poverty is to invent clean energy that is plentiful and cheap — and spend enough to deploy it. In that light, fusion is a means to forestall economic and societal collapse.

Trust, Climate, and the Politics of Imagination

Social license for fusion research requires willingness to defer to expert knowledge and a belief in effective institutions. Unfortunately, in many countries which drive fusion research, public discourse is attached to a narrative of cultural and economic decline centered around ideological disagreement. Such dissatisfaction both drives support for populist political movements across the industrialized world and reflects shortcomings of previous policies. We can look back at the many longer-term causes of these trends — deindustrialization, immigration, diversification, technological change, inability of establishment parties to implement durable broad-based solutions — and surmise that industrial policies implemented without deep public consent risk foundering. To the extent that support for reactionary populism becomes, for many, a psychological coping mechanism to systemic failure, it is clear that successful industrial policies must foster social cohesion.

Fusion is a means to a firm decarbonized energy industry; its implementation will require large-scale construction of new infrastructure. Governments that successfully facilitate this infrastructure will both drive economic momentum and create a sense of optimism for the future. They must earn public trust by effectively managing their affairs to direct and encourage technological growth.

Alas, a low-trust era is the present operating environment. Fusion is a long-horizon partnership among universities, national laboratories and private firms that demands continuity and credibility — precisely what collapses when people believe government cannot meaningfully improve their lives. At the same time, the public is not blind to compounding crises. People acknowledge that climate change and resource disparity are genuine problems that will get worse unless addressed; a late-2025 Yale/George Mason poll found 65% of registered U.S. voters believe global warming is increasing the cost of living. Yet technocratic preoccupation with process and consensus — even in the face of energy and health crises — has fostered a sense of public-sector incompetence that has eroded trust in the US government from nearly 80% in the 1980s to only 22% in 2025.

Consider the outcome of the 2024 United States presidential election; in voting out a center-left establishment for a right-wing populist administration, American voters signaled a broader dissatisfaction with technocratic liberalism and an appetite for a state that claims it can act decisively.

Under this administration’s campaign of energy dominance pursuant to artificial intelligence via the Genesis Mission, the US Department of Energy’s new Office of Fusion may continue to fund research pending Congressional appropriation. Is this a vindication of the French cliché: the left thinks while the right governs? Well… not so fast.

Given the new administration’s questioning of environmental stewardship and demonstrable opposition to decarbonization, fusion plays an unclear role in its populist narrative. If policies don’t acknowledge fusion as a firm of source of nuclear energy without carbon emissions, long-term radioactive waste, or the potential for weaponization, what justifies billions of dollars in research funding as yet unproven technology?

Moving beyond rhetorical self-sabotage

A narrative that extolls the utility of fusion cannot be evasive as to its physical basis as both a form of nuclear energy and a solution to the negative externalities of fossil fuels. If the promise of fusion is bound up with its environmental benefits — cheap, abundant, carbon-free energy — then omitting climate language is not neutral. It is rhetorical self-sabotage. A serious fusion story has to touch lived experience: the price of electricity, the fragility of supply chains, the affordability of modern life, and the sense that a better future is not merely a slogan.

We treat the current U.S. moment as a case study: how the rhetoric around fusion shifts when a climate-forward, process-heavy center-left gives way to a populist right that promises action, dominance, and disruption — and what that social license and long-term public investment fusion will require.

Chris Billingham is Research Scientist Engineer (RSE) in the Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics at the University of Washington, Seattle. He holds an MSc in Fusion Energy from The University of York, an MS in Computer Science from Tufts University, and is presently pursuing an MS in Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning for Engineering through the University of Washington. Based in Madison, Wisconsin, his research focuses on coaxial helicity injection in spherical tokamaks.

Connect with Chris on LinkedIn

Want to respond? Leave a comment below or get in touch to share your own contribution at hello@openfusioncollective.org

By opening up these conversations the OFC seeks to put topics of public importance on the agenda of the fusion debate and ensure that societal values are considered and public voices are heard. Rooted in long-standing scholarship on responsible innovation and technology assessment, the OFC aims to encourage transparency and accountability across the life cycle of the technology - from design to decommissioning.

Formats

We are open to various types of contributions. We consider contributions on a rolling basis rather than according to a fixed editorial calendar. The best guide to what we are looking for, in terms of both substance and style, is what we have already published. All submissions should be accompanied by full contact information and a brief note describing the author’s background.

Although we try to avoid using footnotes, contributors should be able to provide appropriate citations for any facts or quotations their pieces contain.

Please see below for a selection of formats we support.

• Think pieces — free-form reflections

  • Shorter blog posts of approx. 400 words or longer think pieces of approx. 1500 words.

  • See for example: Nobility In The Quest For Fusion: Pandora’s Box or an Elixir Of Life?

• Research summaries — plain-language breakdowns of key academic articles

  • Approx. 800 to 1200 words

  • See for example: What People Think About Fusion: Insights from Two UK Communities

• News commentary — quick takes on what’s happening in the world of fusion

  • 200 to 400 words

• Interviews — with academics, fusion researchers, academics and public figures

• Event reports — recaps of fusion events and discussions, especially for those who can’t attend in person or don’t have access

  • 200 to 400 words

• Creative content – anything from videos, audio and artwork expressing views on fusion

We support the use of images in your contributions. Feel free to contribute suggestions.

Want to respond? Leave a comment below or get in touch to share your own contribution at hello@openfusioncollective.org

Subscribe now

From the Collective

The Open Fusion Collective welcomes contributions of all kinds – from opinion pieces and research summaries to artistic expressions. We’d love to hear from you! Contact us at hello@openfusioncollective.org to get started.

News & Media

Chinese nuclear fusion reactor pushes plasma past crucial limit: what happens next - Nature

Nature: ‘Researchers working on China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) have reported breaking a long-accepted threshold that has limited the operation of nuclear-fusion reactors for decades.’

Why the AI Industry Is Betting on a Fusion Energy Breakthrough - TIME

Fusion is being increasingly tied to advances in AI, this TIME article outlines the landscape of start-ups in fusion and how the key players in AI are taking stakes in these companies.

Trump Media bets on fusion energy with $6 billion TAE deal - Reuters

In somewhat unprecedented move, TAE and Trump Media announced a partnership at the end of last year. This article gives a brief overview of the deal and what this means in the current political climate of the US.

With a focus on nuclear power, Takaichi’s energy policy takes shape - The Japan Times

As Sanae Takaichi settles as Japan’s new Prime Minister, her energy policies are becoming more clear. With a renewed focus on nuclear energy over renewable source, also more innovative technologies such as nuclear fusion are increasingly emphasized.

Research

Eugenia Oberong-Akrofi - The Political Economy of Energy Transitions and the Role of Fusion in the Climate Change Debate

PhD candidate Eugenia Oberong-Akrofi’s research is summarised in this piece in the Cambridge Journal of Climate Research. In her work, she combines policy documents and interview data across the US and UK to understand the political forces shaping respective approaches to fusion development in the context of climate change and energy transition.

Merve Biten Butorac, Francesco Nicoli & Roberto Lalli - Unpacking public support for nuclear energy

In a new study Merve Biten Butorac, Francesco Nicoli and Roberto Lalli conduct the first-ever twin conjoint experiment designed to assess public support for both fission and fusion nuclear energy development plans. They reveal that public preferences for nuclear energy development plans, whether for innovative fusion or next-generation fission technologies, are shaped by place (topos), governance (nomos) and effectiveness (logos) oriented considerations. According to the study, respondents slightly favored fusion rather than fission development plans.

Upcoming Events

MIT IAP Course on the ‘Business of Fusion Energy’

MIT are mid way through running an in-person and online course on the techno-economic and commercial challenges and opportunities presented by fusion energy. Topics covered include: future energy systems, markets and supply chains, policy and governance. Online attendance is open to all.

Find more details and registration for the final session here.

UKAEA FOSTER Webinar Series

UKAEA are running a series of 45-min lectures on a range of topics in fusion science, innovation and engineering — a great opportunity to gain a greater understanding of fusion technology.

Register here.

An announcement, event, or anything else you would like to see in the next Fusion Footprint? Get in touch at hello@openfusioncollective.org

In this article, Environment & Politics PhD student and OFC team member Sophie Cogan explores the relationship between fusion energy and the idea of Energy Justice - thinking about what it might mean for fusion to truly provide benefits ‘for all’.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Open Fusion Collective.

As efforts to reach net-zero by 2050 intensify while energy demand continues to rise, decarbonisation of energy production has become a priority. However, in the context of climate change and the transition to ‘clean’ energy systems, the carbon-based energy systems that fuelled development in many high-income countries are being restricted or discouraged in less developed states.

This imbalance suggests a need to consider global justice more closely in the development of new energy technologies and systems. One way to do this is through the lens of ‘Energy Justice’.

Energy Justice is a way of understanding, researching, and developing energy systems based on the understanding that everybody should have access to sufficient, affordable, safe, and sustainable energy.

There are several different accounts of Energy Justice, but most centre on the principles that energy systems should:

• Fairly distribute the costs and benefits of energy production for both producers and consumers.

  • For example, who bears the cost of mining minerals and producing materials, and who benefits from the energy produced?

• Provide fair access to energy systems and services

  • For example, who has access to knowledge and technology that will enable a state to meet their energy needs?

• Allow for open, accessible information and participation in decision-making

  • For example, consulting local communities about building power plants and taking their concerns into account.

This post also takes a ‘cosmopolitan’ approach to Energy Justice. This means it accounts for the global aspects of energy systems, supply chains and impacts.

What Energy Justice means for Fusion

With the idea of Energy Justice in mind, we can see how the fusion energy could meet these principles, or fall short.

Fusion is often framed as a ‘holy grail’ energy source or a ‘Promethean spark of hope’ for climate change mitigation efforts. Several fusion organisations and companies also claim fusion technology can be globally scalable, making it an abundant, clean energy source ‘to transform the world’s energy supply’.

These bold claims mean it is important to look at how fusion is developed, and how it might be deployed, in line with Energy Justice principles. For distribution, accessibility and decision-making, there are several aspects of fusion energy that may be addressed to ensure alignment - here I outline a few examples.

Energy Justice in development phase

In fusion development, there is a ‘divide’ in the states involved. More developed states are overly represented in fusion research and development, while many less developed states are not (except for India, Thailand, Brazil, and Malaysia). Many countries simply don’t have the economic capacity to engage with fusion research. Funding is a challenge even in the more developed states, which is one of the reasons there has been so much international collaboration in developing fusion.

There are several consequences of this divide for Energy Justice.

The first consequence is the ability to share knowledge from the development phase. This raises concerns about the potential for inequalities in long-term access to the technology and other knowledge that may emerge from R&D and risks widening existing global inequalities.

Another consequence of this ‘divide’ is that it may not reflect a fair distribution of costs and benefits. For instance, fusion relies on materials, such as lithium used both the reactor wall and for producing the tritium fuel, are frequently sourced from countries that are not meaningfully involved in fusion R&D. Thus, these states may shoulder environmental and social costs without sharing in the technology’s long-term benefits.

A further consequence is the lack of input of those beyond the immediate scope of the technology in development-stage design decisions. Decisions in development may have effects for local communities and environments now and in the future.

Energy Justice in deployment phase

If fusion proves to be commercially viable, there are also challenges for Energy Justice in the potential deployment phase.

Firstly, since funding, intellectual property and technological capacity is focused in developed states, these countries are likely to benefit first and most from deployment. Without incentives to roll out the technology more widely, fusion could be an energy source for a few rather than providing genuine benefits ‘worldwide’.

Secondly, incompatibility with existing energy infrastructure could also limit safe and reliable deployment in some states. This could be material infrastructure, such as in grid capacity and connectivity, legal infrastructure, such as regulatory frameworks and oversight, or organisational infrastructure, such as specialised workforce. This may mean fusion is not accessible on a global scale.

Thirdly, inclusive decision-making is crucial in the deployment phase. Here, decisions need to consider the whole lifecycle of the technology - from raw materials to siting, grid access to waste handling. This means considering public opinions early, particularly of those who may bear environmental or social burdens. Integrating public perspectives not only ensures fairness and transparency but could build trust and facilitate broader acceptance of the technology throughout its operation.

So, can fusion align with principles of Energy Justice and truly be an energy source ‘for all’?

Maybe. Fusion energy shows potential within the global energy transition, by adding a potentially more clean and less carbon intensive energy source to the mix.

But approaches to development and deployment should consider costs and benefits, accessibility and inclusive decision-making to make sure it is included in a just way.

Decisions made in development and deployment are not simply technical or economic - they are deeply social and ethical. So if we want fusion to fit into a just energy future, we have steps to take to avoid creating inequities or reinforcing existing ones.

Sophie Cogan is a PhD researcher within the Fusion-CDT at the University of York. With a background in Politics and Philosophy, and Global Health, her work has covered a range of topics, though often are underpinned by interest in global justice and applied ethics. Her PhD research focuses on the social and ethical aspects of fusion energy technology, particularly the role of values in the research and development process.

Connect with Sophie on LinkedIn

Want to respond? Leave a comment below or get in touch to share your own contribution at hello@openfusioncollective.org

As the year comes to a close, we would like to take a moment to reflect on the story of the Open Fusion Collective (OFC) so far, and on how we see it moving forward in the year ahead.

Although we officially launched the OFC in June, we had been working behind the scenes well before that. Months of discussion, planning, and coordination went into clarifying our vision and developing the platform. Going live this summer felt like a major milestone.

With Michiel Bron joining in September, we strengthened our team with his expertise on the history and governance of nuclear energy.

The OFC stands for inclusivity, responsibility, and accountability where these may otherwise go overlooked. We are proud of this vision and deeply motivated by seeing that it resonates more broadly. The Collective is growing, and we are grateful for your support.

A special thanks goes to the authors of our contributed posts, who have been generous with their time and effort. They have shared thoughtful and important perspectives with the wider community. It is through their commitment that the space we set out to create is taking shape.

Looking ahead to 2026, we aim to continue on this path while broadening the range of topics on the platform — from philosophy and law to techno-economics and politics. We also want to underline that we warmly welcome critical perspectives on fusion energy and its development. Our goal is to continue offering space to as wide a range of voices as possible.

We also hope to strengthen our presence at events and conferences, as well as to begin organising our own gatherings. In parallel, we will continue sharing developments around the social and ethical dimensions of fusion through our Fusion Footprint newsletter and social channels.

To close the year, we would like to celebrate our contributors by spotlighting their posts once more below — we hope you enjoy them during a restful and celebratory holiday break.

Thank you for being part of the Open Fusion Collective.

Want to respond? Leave a comment below or get in touch to share your own contribution at hello@openfusioncollective.org

In this thinkpiece, plasma physicist and data scientist Luke Simons explores how the ‘quest’ for fusion could unfold. Despite the potential for fusion to be transformational for societal wellbeing and development, Luke suggests that a long-term perspective helps us consider who might benefit, how they might benefit and whether these consequences square with the aspirations of fusion.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Open Fusion Collective.

I’ve always found it difficult to explain when asked the classic question of why fusion energy is always 30 years away.

That was until I heard the perfect answer given by Dr. Ian Chapman at the conference announcing the results of the final high performance (DT) operations of the Joint European Torus (JET), prior to its shutdown in 2024.

JET had just demonstrated a landmark result by producing 67% of the energy from fusion needed to make the reaction self-sustaining. Chapman described these results as a step on ‘our quest to delivering fusion power’ for humanity. This framing is perfect because it communicates exactly the role that fusion plays in society today. We are on a scientific quest — one that began with Sir Arthur Eddington’s discovery of the reaction that fuels the sun and one which ends… How?

Today, we are navigating our way gradually towards the conclusion of this quest, driven by the winds of various stakeholders. The goal in the physicists’ mind is to reach a controlled, net energy gain from the reaction through understanding the complex details of particle motion in the confining potentials. For the engineer, the objective is the achievement of a significant engineering gain, including plant efficiencies and Carnot cycles, while maintaining safety and longevity. Finally, for the organisations, businesses and countries who will execute on these designs — the grail is revenue.

But what is humanity’s reward for completing the quest?

The basic answer is given by the correlation of the Human Development Index (HDI), a well-reputed metric for evaluating human wellbeing, with access to cheap electricity. When we achieve our goal of generating bountiful electricity with fusion by converting hydrogen into helium, electricity prices will go down and HDI will go up. We will have harnessed an energy source of unparalleled abundance that’s both operationally carbon neutral and theoretically accessible for all of humanity. This is no small achievement and may well contribute to the advent of a golden age of international human development and well-being.

But with this long-term view, it’s important to remember that the humanity we are working for lives in a distant future. On one hand, this means that by making small steps in our mission to achieve fusion today, we may contribute to unlocking equitable energy access for the entire future of humanity. Many modern moral philosophers argue that these actions can have hugely positive consequences, especially when we consider that many orders of magnitude more humans may exist in the future than do today.

However, on the other hand, it’s vital to admit that these people don’t exist in any real way now. Even if fusion energy becomes a meaningfully operational technology in our lifetimes, which seems unlikely, ‘we’ will not be the same people then as ‘we’ are today. Not only does that mean we are investing in the livelihoods of peoples that may never live or who may not care for our inventions, but that we are diverting our attention from the very real and urgent needs of those suffering at this moment.

In general, planting a tree under whose shade we will never sit is sage wisdom, but if we are to go to the effort of planting the tree, we should be sure the tree of fusion will bear fruit that we want our grandchildren to be eating.

So, what is the potential impact of the ‘fruit of fusion’ with our current path?

It is difficult to say, and one can only speculate.

What seems clear is that in offering an energy source of unmatched plenty, these devices will be, by today’s standards, large and expensive. In the geopolitical setting of the near future, this is likely to limit access to those that can afford them, namely countries in the Global North and large energy companies. A case already evident from the current investment, planned construction projects and the political intentions of those in power.

Given the colossal impact of the path we choose to take today in our quest for fusion, it is therefore vital that we ensure access to the technology remains equitable, in spite of the difficulties with the scale of our ambition. For the moment, it seems the fate of our quests end is still uncertain and as Eddington himself suggested it might end either with us ‘controlling this latent power for the well-being of the human race or for its suicide’.

Luke Simons is a data scientist at the Swiss Plasma Center (SPC) at EPFL. He holds a PhD in Fusion Energy from Imperial College London and has worked across several areas of plasma physics. Beyond his research, Luke is interested in exploring how a deeper understanding of physics can be applied to create greater societal and environmental benefits.

Connect with Luke on LinkedIn and subscribe to his Substack:

Luke Simons

Conscientious physicist and Buddhist trying to understand the world and leave it better than I found it

Want to respond? Leave a comment below or get in touch to share your own contribution at hello@openfusioncollective.org

In this post, Dr Megan Connolly gives an overview of her PhD thesis titled ‘Public Attitudes to Fusion Energy: A Qualitative Study in the UK’. Through interviews with those living around two proposed sites for the STEP project - the UK’s programme to build a prototype power plant - and media analysis, she considers how local understanding of place, experience and identity shape reception to fusion development. With these insights, she suggests that community engagement, transparency and honesty are key to ensuring public acceptance and trust in fusion’s future.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Open Fusion Collective.

When we talk about the future of fusion, we often focus on the physics, the machines, materials, and milestones. But behind every site decision or funding announcement, there are people and places that will live with the consequences. In my PhD, ‘Public Attitudes to Fusion Energy: A Qualitative Study in the UK’, I explored what fusion means to those people and why their perspectives matter for projects like STEP.

Using a mix of interviews, media analysis, and participant observation, I studied two communities linked to the STEP site selection process: West Burton in Nottinghamshire (now confirmed as the host) and Ardeer in North Ayrshire (a shortlisted site). Based on insights from residents, local officials, and stakeholders, national and local media I now conclude that attitudes towards fusion are shaped less by the technology itself, and more by local histories, trust, and identity, and local media remain an important bridge between national narratives and community-level discussion.

In West Burton, a community defined by deindustrialisation and the recent closure of its coal power station, many saw fusion as a chance for renewal. There was optimism, but it was often cautious and shaped by past experience. Some described supporting the project not because they loved the idea of nuclear fusion, but because they preferred it to other proposed developments, like large solar farms.

In Ardeer, the story was different. The area’s strong environmental identity, and memories of industrial decline, meant people approached fusion with caution. Concerns focused on the landscape, ecology, and whether government promises would last beyond initial investment. The contrast between the two sites underlines how place attachment, the meanings people give to where they live, shapes their sense of what counts as a “good” development.

Across both sites, fusion was often understood through comparison with fission. Many interviewees used fission as a mental shortcut to make sense of fusion’s unfamiliarity, what psychologists call a “heuristic”. This transfer sometimes carried over fears of radiation and waste, even though participants generally recognised that fusion is safer. This shows that communication about fusion isn’t just about facts; it’s about context and how those facts connect to people’s prior experiences.

Media analysis added another layer of insight. National coverage tended to frame fusion as a global, optimistic story of innovation and climate leadership. Local outlets, meanwhile, emphasised jobs, fairness, and environmental risk; concerns that reflect the lived realities of communities near potential sites. These framings often echoed in interviews, suggesting that local media remain an important bridge between national narratives and community-level discussion.

So what does this mean for fusion developers and policymakers?

The findings suggest that early, open, and locally grounded engagement is essential. People want transparency about how decisions are made, realistic expectations about timelines and benefits, and honesty about uncertainty. Technical progress alone won’t build public trust, that comes from long-term relationships, not press releases.

Fusion’s story is often told as a technological frontier. But its future will also depend on how well it fits into people’s sense of place. The science may be universal; the acceptance will always be local.

Dr Megan Connolly holds a PhD in Politics and Environment from the University of York, completed in collaboration with the UK Atomic Energy Authority, and a Master’s degree in Water, Energy & Environment from Liverpool John Moore’s University. Throughout her research, she has focused on energy and climate policy, emphasising thoughtful and inclusive public engagement.

Connect with Megan on LinkedIn.

Want to respond? Leave a comment below or get in touch to share your own contribution at hello@openfusioncollective.org

Subscribe now

From the Collective

Katherine Dunne - Nordic Lessons for European Fusion Development

Physicist Katherine Dunne wrote about her contribution to the European Commission’s consultation on the EU Fusion Strategy. By drawing on lessons from Nordic energy transitions, Katherine suggested that the EU Fusion Strategy should combine technological progress with meaningful democratic governance. To do this, she provided five key recommendations.

Abdus Saboor Shaik - How can Fusion be a Diplomatic Tool?

PhD researcher Abdus Saboor Shaik discussed how he thinks fusion can be used as a tool to facilitate global collaboration. He highlighted how fusion technology development offers the opportunity to share knowledge across borders, shape sustainable policy initiatives and address the global energy crisis, despite geopolitical tensions.

The Open Fusion Collective welcomes contributions of all kinds – from opinion pieces and research summaries to artistic expressions. We’d love to hear from you! Contact us at hello@openfusioncollective.org to get started.

News & Media

Energy Subcommittee Hearing - Igniting America’s Energy Future: The Promise and Progress of Fusion Power

In the US, a Congressional subcommittee hearing was held to consider the progress and potential of fusion energy. Witnesses from academia, national labs and private companies suggested that federal funding, public-private partnerships, and a clear national strategy for fusion would bring the ‘clean energy promise of fusion’ closer to reality, while also keeping the US internationally competitive in the field.

Read here the report Fusion Forward - Powering America's Future by the Commission on the Scaling of Fusion Energy

Financial Times - Can nuclear fusion save the planet?

Fusion made it into mainstream news with this article in the Financial Times, which provides a clear overview of the technology, its potential benefits, and the current state of development globally.

EUROfusion - We are EUROfusion

A new EUROfusion video offers a brief introduction to the consortium and a look at the people driving Europe’s fusion research.

Research

Christian Oltra and colleagues - Public acceptance of fusion energy in Europe

A Europe-wide survey of over 19,000 people, conducted under the Socio Economic Studies Project funded by EUROfusion, found that respondents were generally positive about fusion. However, since many people remained neutral or undecided, the authors suggest that transparent communication will be key to building support as the technology develops.

Upcoming Events

ITER Open Doors Day - 29 November 2025

The ITER Organization and the European agency for ITER, Fusion for Energy, will be hosting free tours of the ITER construction site for the general public on Saturday 29 November 2025 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (local time). Sign up will open approximately one month before the event, see here for more details.

An announcement, event, or anything else you would like to see in the next Fusion Footprint? Get in touch at hello@openfusioncollective.org

In this contribution, PhD researcher Abdus Saboor Shaik discusses how he thinks fusion can be used as a tool to facilitate global collaboration. He highlights how fusion technology development offers the opportunity to share knowledge across borders, shape sustainable policy initiatives and address the global energy crisis, despite geopolitical tensions.

—

The standard of life in any society is directly linked to energy. Industrial output, transportation networks, communications infrastructure, and national defence all depend on secure and affordable power.

Nations with reliable energy supplies achieve stability and growth, while those without remain exposed to economic strain and external influence.

Since the Industrial Revolution, rising energy use has driven economic progress but also produced the emissions behind climate change. This has made energy a central topic in global diplomacy.

Fusion offers a different trajectory.

Fusion’s Diplomatic Potential

In practice, fusion avoids the political weight attached to fission.

It produces energy by combining light atomic nuclei, so leaves only short-lived waste and carries no danger of runaway reactions. The process does not depend on uranium enrichment or plutonium stockpiles which poses challenges for security and proliferation.

It also creates more room for collaboration across borders, through supply chains, research diversity and climate policy, as noted by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

ITER: A Test of Global Collaboration

The most visible example of fusion’s potential is ITER in southern France.

Europe, the United States, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Russia are all invested in building the largest fusion experiment in history.

Shipments move through supply chains, components are assembled to shared standards, and research teams maintain their joint work.

Even after the invasion of Ukraine, Russia has remained a member of the ITER Organisation, with obligations to deliver components and provide financial contribution. This a situation the European Parliament has noted, but remains a pathway for engagement.

Few international projects have held together under comparable strain.

Beyond the Superpowers

Other examples reinforce the pattern. China’s EAST reactor has tested new plasma configurations with contributions from American and European partners.

Japan’s JT-60SA project, built with European support, stands as a continuation of decades of joint work on advanced reactors.

Countries with smaller nuclear programs have also gained a role. For example, Brazil has supplied diagnostic systems, while Kazakhstan has contributed materials expertise.

The partnerships formed in these projects thus stretch far beyond the usual group of nuclear powers.

Multidisciplinary Opportunities

Fusion draws strength from the variety of its research fields. Plasma science, superconducting magnets, cryogenics, advanced materials, and control systems all demand specialized knowledge.

Each becomes a door through which universities, laboratories, and industries can join.

Where fission has often been guarded by security concerns and restricted fuel cycles, fusion has proven more open to wide participation, a point stressed by the World Nuclear Association.

Creating Shared Standards and Regulation

The framework of rules and regulations for fusion is still taking shape and will be reinforced by global cooperation and alignment.

Existing projects already depend on common testing protocols and quality benchmarks. Safety procedures, licensing systems, and waste management are debated in parallel with technical progress.

International agencies, like the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, are urging governments to move toward harmonisation. Aligning national regulations, endorsing shared codes and standards, and even partial acceptance of licensing reviews conducted abroad could improve the ability for all states to benefit from research and innovation in fusion technologies.

Strengthening Climate Policy

The diplomatic value also rests on climate policy.

Fusion is not expected to deliver power to the grid soon, but international cooperation shows a collective effort toward low-carbon energy.

It strengthens domestic industries and trains new generations of scientists and engineers while signalling commitment to long-term decarbonization.

The technology has entered the agenda of the G20 and the United Nations climate process, connecting energy transition goals with opportunities for scientific collaboration.

Sustaining Cooperation

Energy has often divided states and set the stage for conflict. Fusion is emerging as one of the few technologies that sustains cooperation even in an atmosphere of rivalry.

The record of ITER, the links maintained through Japanese and Chinese projects, and the participation of countries outside the traditional nuclear circle show how resilient those networks can be.

In an international system defined by mistrust, fusion remains one of the rare areas where connections grow stronger rather than weaker.

—

Abdus Saboor Shaik is a PhD student in Nuclear Materials Research at Imperial College London where his work focuses on modeling the interaction between creep and irradiation damage in fusion reactor materials. He also serves as an executive committee member of the Arab Fusion Energy Programme (AFEP), where he collaborates with fusion experts from international institutions to promote the adoption of fusion energy in the Arab world, an advisor to FusionX Group, and is an active member in the Fusion Industry Association news team.

Connect with Abdus here.

Want to respond? Leave a comment below or get in touch to share your own contribution at hello@openfusioncollective.org

Disclaimer. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Open Fusion Collective.

This blog post discusses physicist Katherine Dunne’s contribution to the European Commission's consultation on the EU Fusion Strategy. By drawing on lessons from Nordic energy transitions, the author suggests that the EU Fusion Strategy should combine technological progress with meaningful democratic governance. To do this, she provides five key recommendations: building inclusive decision-making structures, strengthening supply chains, developing adaptive regulation, investing in public participation, and improving coordination across stakeholders.

The views expressed are personal and do not represent their employer’s position. The full submission is available here.

Nordic Lessons for European Fusion Development

Katherine Dunne

The European Commission's recent Call for Evidence on its Fusion Strategy is a real-world example of democratic governance in action. By inviting contributions from citizens, industry stakeholders, and experts, the Commission aims to use these inputs to shape effective strategy and viable commercialization.

This initiative embodies the principle that those affected by policy decisions should have meaningful opportunities to shape them.

My submission to the Commission drew on governance innovations from Nordic countries to address critical challenges in fusion commercialization, particularly around supply chain resilience and multi-stakeholder coordination.

Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and their autonomous territories) have successfully managed complex energy transitions while maintaining both commercial competitiveness and democratic legitimacy. So, their experiences offer relevant insights for fusion development, as they demonstrate how to navigate the tensions between rapid technological deployment and inclusive decision-making processes.

Clear examples can be found in the Nordic approaches to resource governance in mining key minerals for the energy transition. Finland's Keliber lithium project - a development of one of Europe’s most substantial lithium deposits - was recently designated as strategic under the EU's Critical Raw Materials Act. The project has ongoing assessment of social and economic impacts, illustrating how regional resource development can address supply chain vulnerabilities while maintaining community support.

However, the region's experiences with mining governance also reveal the costs of inadequate stakeholder engagement. Mining projects that proceeded without proper consultation with Sami communities in Norway and Sweden have faced sustained opposition and legal challenges, ultimately delaying development and increasing costs.

These cases underscore that democratic participation is not just a procedural requirement, but is a practical necessity for sustainable fusion commercialization.

Key Recommendations for the EU Fusion Strategy

Based on these governance experiences and the specific challenges facing fusion commercialization, I outlined five interconnected recommendations for strengthening the EU strategy:

1. Establish formal multi-stakeholder governance structures. Including defined roles for private fusion companies, public research institutions, civil society organizations, and affected communities. This framework would address private sector concerns about exclusion from decision-making processes while maintaining democratic accountability and public interest representation.

2. Prioritise supply chain resilience through strategic development of European lithium resources. Ensuring both commercial viability and community benefit, particularly in Nordic regions with existing governance frameworks. A regional approach would reduce dependence on geopolitically unstable supply chains while creating local value chains that strengthen EU industrial capabilities.

3. Develop adaptive regulation. Building regulatory systems able to evolve alongside technological advancement without compromising safety. Regional pilot programs could test regulatory innovations before broader implementation, allowing for learning and adjustment while maintaining public protection.

4. Invest in democratic participation infrastructure. Investing in structured public consultation processes, community benefit-sharing mechanisms, and transparent decision-making procedures. While requiring more upfront resources, these measures would generate returns through reduced opposition, stronger social license, and improved long-term outcomes.

5. Create coordination mechanisms to respect public and private interests. Balancing competition and public research, while enabling knowledge sharing and resource optimization across regions and stakeholders would support innovation while maintaining alignment with public objectives.

Strengthening Fusion Governance Through Public Engagement

Reflecting on the Nordic experiences of energy transition suggests that successful navigation of these challenges requires more than just technical solutions or market mechanisms.

Sustainable fusion commercialization will depend on governance frameworks that maintain public trust, ensure equitable benefit distribution, and adapt to changing circumstances while preserving democratic accountability.

By incorporating lessons from regions that have successfully managed complex energy transitions, the EU can develop fusion governance approaches that accelerate commercialization while maintaining the democratic legitimacy essential for long-term success.

The current consultation process provides an opportunity to embed these governance considerations into the fusion strategy from the start, potentially avoiding the costly delays and opposition that have plagued other major energy infrastructure projects.

Katherine Dunne is group lead for experimental physics at a Swedish fusion company. Katherine moved from the US to Sweden in 2019 to pursue doctoral studies in physics at Stockholm University, completing her Licentiate degree. She started her role as an R&D physicist in 2023. Her interests in fusion extend beyond the technical challenges to encompass governance, workforce development, and ensuring fusion energy serves public purpose.

Connect with Katherine on LinkedIn.

Fusion energy is often seen as a purely scientific and technological challenge, but it is deeply human too. The Open Fusion Collective (OFC) explores the social and ethical sides of fusion, bringing hidden questions, voices, and concerns into the conversation.

By combining critical reflection with constructive thinking, we aim to support a more responsible, inclusive and effective path toward fusion energy.

Fusion

The Science and Technology.

Unlike nuclear fission, which splits large atoms like uranium to release energy, fusion works by combining two smaller atoms, usually forms of hydrogen, into a heavier one - releasing a huge amount of energy in the process. This requires very high temperatures and intense pressure to allow the positively charged atomic nuclei to overcome their natural repulsion and fuse together.

To harness the energy produced in fusion, different technologies might be used. There are two main approaches:

Magnetic Confinement Fusion (MCF) which uses powerful magnets to trap the plasma - the state of matter containing positively charged nuclei and electrons - in a loop. The most common device for this is the ‘tokamak’, a doughnut-shaped chamber.

Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) which uses lasers to rapidly compress a tiny fuel pellet, creating the heat and pressure needed for fusion in a very short burst.

Both approaches have different challenges, and there are a variety of technologies within each, but the goal is the same: to achieve a stable, controlled fusion reaction that produces more energy than it consumes.

If it works at scale, fusion could produce a stable, baseload source of power to complement nuclear fission and renewables like wind and solar, to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels in the future.

If you want to learn more about fusion science and technology, take a look at some of the resources on the ‘Fusion?’ page.

The History.

There is a long history of research into nuclear fusion. Following the demonstration of nuclear fusion processes in the 1930s, researchers have been working to understand how to harness fusion – both for weapons and energy. Since achieving fusion is so challenging, this has encouraged international collaboration. The first of these collaborations was the Joint European Torus (JET). Then, in 1985, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) was proposed as a project that also aimed at improving international relations between the US and USSR. Today, ITER remains one of the largest international collaborations, involving the EU, US, Russia, China, South Korea, Japan and India, bringing these nations together despite political challenges.

Interest in fusion as an energy source has fluctuated across time. Usually it has been tied to oil prices or global energy concerns. The 1979 oil crisis sparked more funding; the end of the Cold War saw a dip. In the last few decades, concerns around climate change and energy security have seen fusion energy gaining momentum again. And, more recently, there has been increasing involvement from the private sector.

The Human Side of Fusion

Fusion technology development is a process done by humans, for humans. That means that it has social and ethical sides, just like any other human activity. We saw it already in the section above: fusion history is filled with international collaboration on a stage of intricate geopolitical relations – social sides are immediately clear here.

But it goes further than that, because also questions of how people collaborate, what topics researchers investigate or not, what the working conditions are like for those involved, how media talks about the technology, which laws are needed to make possible – as well as regulate – the technology, what kind of role we foresee for the technology in future energy landscapes, which promises are told about fusion to politicians and public, or which historical decisions shape fusion institutions today – all that is social and ethical, and all that shapes how fusion is developed, and, ultimately, deployed.

And yet, these social and ethical sides are the most and least visible sides of fusion at the same time.

On the one hand, they are very visible: they are the people we can relate with, the societal transformations we may see in the future, and the messages we see in the media today. On the other hand, they are very invisible: they are the hidden structures and assumptions that shape decisions, the values and principles that remain implicit, and the voices unheard, the worries unshared and the topics not discussed.

And that is why the OFC exists: to be the spokesperson for these hidden social and ethical aspects.

It digs up the research and public discussion that has already been going on about the human side of fusion, as well as aims to inspire new perspectives on it – from academics, from fusion developers and researchers, and from the public.

To do this, the OFC looks at the development of fusion and its potential end product from a perspective that is both critical and constructive.

Critical

The critical perspective is focussed on assessment of fusion’s promise and identification of social and ethical risks. The mission statements of many organisations in the fusion industry centre on mitigating climate change, fostering energy security and global development. Fusion energy is a kind of ‘silver bullet’ for these challenges. However, in focusing on promise, there is a risk of ignoring potential harms and problems.

This calls for an approach that openly explores fusion’s potential social and ethical challenges. From examining whether fusion research is organised in the most resource-effective way, to investigating fusion’s role in the future energy mix based on socio-economic modelling; from looking at the working conditions of current fusion researchers, to wondering about those of the future miners of materials that fusion reactors may require; and from asking about where fusion reactors should be located, to expressing worries about potential dangers by those who may live close.

It may still take a long time before fusion becomes a reality – if we can develop it, and if we decide we want it – but the time to start thinking about these issues is now.

The decisions made today will shape the technology, its development process, and the course of society ahead.

Constructive

This is why the OFC also looks at the development of fusion and its potential end product from a constructive perspective. By collecting and communicating insights from both academics and the public, we aim to contribute to shaping a development process that is both responsible and effective, while also thinking along about pathways for successful deployment – where wondering what ‘success’ means in that context is a key question for the OFC.

There are many sources of valuable knowledge and insight, across a diverse range of backgrounds, that can support and shape the quest for fusion.

It would be a waste as humanity not to use those resources while exploring something potentially very useful, if done right.

Looking for an impression of what critical and constructive involvement could look like?

Have a look at Sophie’s article in The Conversation.

Have a look at the symposium organized by Richelle and Michiel, attended by both fusion researchers and academics working in the social sciences and humanities.

Inspired to make your own critical and/or constructive contribution?

Message us here:

Or email hello@openfusioncollective.org

The Open Fusion Collective (OFC) is a platform built to bring together the public, academics and fusion researchers to discuss the social and ethical questions about fusion energy development and deployment. This includes questions about how the technology is designed, what the risks and benefits may be, who can access it, and where the materials come from.

By opening up these conversations the OFC seeks to put topics of public importance on the agenda of the fusion debate and ensure that societal values are considered and public voices are heard. Rooted in long-standing scholarship on responsible innovation and technology assessment, the OFC aims to encourage transparency and accountability across the life cycle of the technology - from design to decomissioning.

You can read more about our vision in an upcoming post.

What to expect?

On this Substack, we publish a range of content on the social and ethical aspects of fusion, made by anyone with an interest in this topic – from engineers and scientist to philosophers, and from investors to your local neighbour!

For example:

• Think pieces — free-form reflections

• Research summaries — plain-language breakdowns of key academic articles

• News commentary — quick takes on what’s happening in the world of fusion

• Interviews — with academics, fusion researchers, academics and public figures

• Event reports — recaps of fusion events and discussions, especially for those who can’t attend in person or don’t have access

• Creative content – anything from videos, audio and artwork expressing views on fusion

• The Fusion Footprint Newsletter — regular updates on the social and ethical side of fusion

Beyond Substack, the OFC aims to continue stimulating and facilitating conversation through involvement at conferences, events, journals and other platforms.

What’s Next?

The OFC depends on contributions from everyone, regardless of background. If you have something to say about the social impact and ethics of fusion, this is the place for you.

Would you like to submit a contribution? Or do you have an idea for one, but are not sure if it would fit or how to move forward? Feel free to reach out! You can send an email to hello@openfusioncollective.org, or use the ‘Contact Us’ feature on this website and we will get in touch as soon as possible.