For decades, fusion energy has been celebrated as the ultimate source of abundant, clean electricity. With the pressing global need to reduce carbon emissions and combat catastrophic climate change, the realization of commercial fusion power has become more critical than ever. In a future energy landscape dominated by low-carbon Variable Renewable Energy sources (VREs) like solar and wind, “firm” electricity sources will be essential. These sources are needed to address energy supply shortages during periods when solar panels may be inactive or wind turbines aren’t turning, especially when storage solutions fall short. What potential role could fusion power plants (FPPs) play in creating a carbon-free electric power system capable of meeting the escalating global electricity demand anticipated in the coming decades?
A research collaboration between the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) and the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center (PSFC) has been working tirelessly over the past year and a half to explore this critical question. The findings suggest that depending on future costs and performance, fusion could significantly contribute to global decarbonization efforts. Under certain scenarios, the integration of FPPs could lower the global cost of decarbonization by trillions of dollars. Over 25 experts examined various factors influencing FPP deployment, including costs, climate policy, operating characteristics, and more. Their insights are detailed in a new report titled The Role of Fusion Energy in a Decarbonized Electricity System.
“Currently, there’s tremendous interest in fusion energy across diverse sectors, including private companies, government agencies, and the public,” notes Robert C. Armstrong, the study’s principal investigator, former director of MITEI, and the Chevron Professor of Chemical Engineering Emeritus. “Our aim with this study was to present a balanced analysis that helps stakeholders engage with the opportunities fusion presents.” This report integrates a multidisciplinary approach, leveraging economic modeling, electric grid modeling, and techno-economic analysis to assess key factors likely to shape the future utilization of fusion energy. MITEI contributed energy systems modeling expertise, while the PSFC provided insights into fusion technology.
Although fusion technologies may still be a decade or more away from commercial deployment, understanding the cost thresholds for FPPs by 2050 is crucial. The MIT research team focused on determining what costs are needed for fusion plants to achieve significant market uptake and greatly assist in decarbonizing the global electricity supply in the latter half of the century.
The value of FPPs in an electric grid context hinges on existing options. Thus, the researchers meticulously assessed the future cost and performance of various alternatives, such as conventional fossil fuel plants, nuclear fission, VRE generators, and energy storage technologies, while considering electricity demand projections globally. They sifted through extensive published literature and previous MITEI and PSFC analyses to gather reliable data.
Overall, their analysis revealed that despite the formidable technological challenges in harnessing fusion energy, the potential economic and environmental rewards of integrating this low-carbon technology into the global energy mix are substantial.
The findings underscore the “societal value” of commercial FPPs. “Achieving a limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius in warming necessitates global investments in wind, solar, storage, grid infrastructure, and other efforts toward decarbonizing the electric power sector,” explains Randall Field, executive director of the fusion study and MITEI’s director of research. “The availability of FPPs as a clean and firm electricity source could significantly reduce that financial burden.” Depending on FPP costs, for instance, if the construction cost stands at $8,000 per kilowatt (kW) in 2050 and drops to $4,300/kW by 2100, the global cost of achieving decarbonization could be reduced by $3.6 trillion. Conversely, if the FPP costs are estimated at $5,600/kW initially and fall to $3,000/kW by 2100, potential savings could hit $8.7 trillion. (These projections consider changes in global GDP and assume a discount rate of 6 percent, with undiscounted values being about 20 times greater.)
The study also sought to quantify the scale of global fusion deployment under various cost scenarios. Astonishingly, for a scenario aimed at deep decarbonization, the share of electricity generation from fusion could exceed 50 percent by 2100 if costs are low, whereas a higher cost scenario could limit this to below 10 percent.
Furthermore, the potential for fusion rollout varies significantly across the globe. Early implementation is likely to occur in affluent nations, including European countries and the United States, due to their progressive decarbonization policies. However, regions such as India and Africa are expected to witness substantial fusion deployment in the latter half of the century, driven by an increasing demand for electricity. “In the U.S. and Europe, the focus will be shifting from fossil fuels to fusion to meet demand growth, which will be modest. But in India and Africa, soaring electricity demand will call for a robust mix of fusion and other low-carbon generating resources in the later decades,” comments Sergey Paltsev, deputy director of the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy and a senior research scientist at MITEI.
Further analysis in nine subregions of the U.S. illustrated how the availability and costs of other low-carbon technologies, alongside carbon emission constraints, significantly shape FPP deployment strategies. In a decarbonized future, FPPs are expected to thrive in subregions characterized by limited renewable resources, as carbon emission limits will drive demand for fusion power. For instance, the Atlantic and Southeast regions face challenges due to low renewable energy potential. In these subregions, fusion could operate significantly even under relatively lenient emission constraints. In contrast, areas like the Central U.S. with stronger renewable sources may find fusion competing only under stringent emissions limits, thus primarily operating when renewables fall short.
Utilizing a specialized modeling tool developed at MITEI, the fusion investigation team analyzed the New England power system to yield comprehensive insights. They examined various assumptions, from cost and emission limitations to land-use constraints affecting VRE deployment. This refined approach enabled them to identify the cost at which fusion units are likely to be adopted and how that threshold might vary with changes in emissions caps. This methodology even allowed them to establish price points for FPPs where they start to replace specific generating sources, such as offshore wind and rooftop solar.
“This study provides vital insights into the commercialization of fusion by establishing economic benchmarks for integrating fusion energy into electricity markets,” notes Dennis G. Whyte, co-principal investigator of the fusion study, former director of PSFC, and the Hitachi America Professor of Engineering at the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering. “It better defines the technical design challenges facing fusion developers concerning pricing, availability, and the capacity to adapt to demand fluctuations.”
While fission power plants are part of the analysis, a direct comparison between fission and fusion hasn’t been made. Both technologies generate firm, low-carbon electricity, but fusion stands out as it does not rely on fissile materials or produce long-lived nuclear waste. This distinction suggests that regulatory frameworks for FPPs will differ significantly from those of existing fission plants, though the specifics remain uncertain. Public perception and acceptance of these technologies are also unpredictable yet could profoundly influence which electricity generation methods prevail as we meet future demands.
The study conveys several key messages about the future of fusion energy. Notably, regulatory considerations may emerge as significant cost factors. This insight should push fusion innovators to minimize their regulatory and environmental impacts concerning fuels and materials. It also highlights the necessity for governments to develop favorable regulatory frameworks to maximize the integration of fusion energy in achieving decarbonization targets. For fusion technology developers, the report’s conclusion is clear: “If the cost and performance benchmarks identified in this analysis are met, our findings suggest that fusion energy can play a pivotal role in fulfilling future electricity requirements and achieving global net-zero carbon aspirations.”
Photo credit & article inspired by: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
