FusionXInvest:Global 2025 - Three Key Insights
By Alex Higginbottom, Woodruff Scientific
FusionXInvest:Global just wrapped in Silicon Valley. Fusion companies and investors from around the world gathered to discuss the challenges and opportunities faced by the fusion sector. I was there, and I couldn’t help but be taken with the optimism and energy in the air. There are serious hurdles that need to be overcome—both by individual fusion companies, and by the industry as a whole, but the technology is too important not to face them head-on.
Here are 3 insights from my time in Silicon Valley.
Stuart Allen, CEO at FusionX Group, welcoming fusion CEOs, scientists and investors to the event. ©Jay Brister
1. Fusion companies are exploring different paths to market: “moonshot” vs. derisking
Fusion companies are now exploring different paths to market. Some are still going straight for the ‘moonshot’ of world-changing energy production, whilst others are increasingly ‘derisking’ and pursuing secondary applications on the way. Both have benefits and drawbacks, and both have their appeal to different investors. Time will tell the efficacy of each approach.
When they first secured funding, some of the most well-financed fusion companies—Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), Zap Energy, and Type One Energy among them—had a singular pitch: revolutionising global energy production. The promise was enormous, with potential returns of 100x or even 1,000x. As Phil Larochelle put it, fusion offered an “asymmetric upside”—a rare, game-changing investment opportunity.
But as development costs continue to rise and timelines stretch, many companies are re-evaluating their approach. Instead of focusing solely on grid-scale fusion, they're exploring nearer-term, non-energy applications to generate revenue and refine technology.
Greg Piefer, CEO of SHINE, exemplifies this “derisking” strategy. “Right now, we’re at the $100,000/kW level,” he explained—far too expensive for competitive energy production. Instead, SHINE is targeting high-value niches like medical isotope production and nuclear waste recycling. “The right way to decrease the cost structure is not a hail mary,” he emphasised, pointing out how these applications help develop critical fusion components.
Greg Piefer, CEO of SHINE, explaining his company’s approach of ‘stepping down the cost curve’ toward commercial fusion energy. ©FusionX Group
Others share this perspective. Alpha-E’s Allan Chen sees compact fusion devices for research labs as a stepping stone toward a full-scale power plant. At Avalanche Fusion, Robin Langtry describes their initial focus as “capability-driven, not cost-driven,” with applications like nuclear warhead detection satellites. Meanwhile, JC Ptaiche put it succinctly: “We’re aiming to build a sustainable and profitable company to get to the sustainable future we all want.”
Of course, this raises an important question: does branching into these alternative markets ultimately slow down progress toward grid-scale fusion? Andras Forgacs posed it directly: “Does going for these side ventures distract you or make you non-competitive for energy?”
Piefer and others argue that rather than being a distraction, these ventures accelerate fusion development by bringing in funds and improving technology. Rob Hill, who leads a spin-off from TAE Technologies, highlighted their approach of forming separate businesses—such as TAE Life Sciences—so that each team can remain laser-focused. “I spend zero time thinking about fusion,” he said, illustrating how spin-offs can avoid diluting a company’s core mission.
With over 50 private fusion companies now in the game, different paths are emerging, both technically and strategically. Investors have options, but time will tell which approach proves most successful.
2. Building a supply chain big enough and fast enough to meet the scale of fusion energy deployment is essential
Fusion companies have an ambitious timeline and scale: electrons on the grid by mid-2030s, and broad deployment in the following decade. The technological challenge is huge, but in order to meet these ambitions, the enabling supply chain must also work to the same ambitious scale and timeline.
The conversation about fusion’s supply chain isn’t new, but its urgency is becoming impossible to ignore. If fusion companies expect to deliver commercial power to the grid by the mid-2030s, a robust supply chain needs to be built—now.
Tim Bestwick was clear on this: “There’s no time to do things sequentially—we have to build devices and the supply chain in parallel.” Waiting for fusion technology to be fully developed before ramping up manufacturing would make hitting industry timelines nearly impossible.
Anantha Krishnan, investor at General Atomics, emphasised the scale of the challenge: “We need to figure out how to jump-start the supply chain so it’s mature enough to meet the demand of commercial fusion.” Ultimately, he warned, the ability to scale up a reliable supply chain will determine the cost of fusion energy.
The key challenge is the “chicken and egg” problem: as Jim McCarrick put it, “Suppliers exist, but they don’t have enough demand yet to scale up.” Without large, predictable orders (fusion companies that will survive the next 20 years), the risk is high for these companies.
The scale of opportunity for both investors and innovators is difficult to overstate. A panel discussion led by Sam Wurzel exemplified the breadth of the supply chain opportunity. Companies with expertise in construction, advanced AI, and manufacturing automation all have a role to play. This isn’t just about building reactors—it’s about fostering long-term innovation, attracting investment, and creating jobs. Unlike short-term government projects like NIF or ITER, private fusion firms are working to develop enduring partnerships that will support a thriving industry.
The public sector’s role in unlocking this supply chain bottleneck was a recurring theme. James Jopling highlighted the UK’s STEP programme, which requires thousands of kilometers of superconducting tape—a large enough order to attract serious private-sector interest. Bestwick praised the UK’s Fusion Industry Programme, which sets technical challenges for companies to solve while allowing them to retain their intellectual property. “They keep the IP,” he noted, “and we get real progress.”
For fusion to deliver on its promise, supply chain development must keep pace with technological breakthroughs. The challenge now is whether public and private players can coordinate fast enough to seize the opportunity—before climate urgency or global competitors leave them behind.
3. The global geopolitical landscape is changing, and fusion is changing with it
With a radically different administration in the US, shifting relations with China and political regimes in the EU, the global political landscape is changing. As a potentially world-changing technology, fusion is becoming a key point of competition. The effect this will have on the fusion industry is not clear, but international and inter-organisational collaboration must still be fostered.
Several forces are driving the race to commercial fusion—climate goals, investor enthusiasm and private-sector competition. But an increasingly urgent factor is the growing presence of China in the fusion space. As Julien Barber, Emerson Collective, pointed out, “China has twice the number of graduates in fusion sciences.” For the US and its partners, the message is clear: fusion is a potentially paradigm-shifting technology, and China is not to be underestimated.
During the keynote interview on day one, Carly Anderson (Prelude Ventures) drew a stark parallel to the solar industry. The US had an early lead but failed to prioritise manufacturing, allowing China to dominate. “80% of solar panels are produced in China, and only 2% in the US,” she warned. The fusion industry—and the current administration—must ensure history doesn’t repeat itself.
Matt Trevithick urged swift action: “Everyone in this room should make an investment in fusion, and after that, they should make a second investment.”
The keynote interview on day one: Carly Anderson (Prelude Ventures) and Phil Larochelle (Breakthrough Energy Ventures) interviewed by Melanie Windridge (Fusion Energy Insights/FusionX). ©FusionX Group
The competition with China extends far beyond energy. AI, for instance, is hungry for computing power, which in turn requires a stable, low-cost electricity supply. “Fusion as an unlock for AI is a more important story than energy production,” argued Eric Helfgott.
National security is another factor. Robin Langtry painted a vivid picture of what’s at stake: “If we find Chinese submersibles powered by orbitrons, I’ve failed in my job as the CEO of a defense contractor.”
Of course, strategy predictions are difficult to make in the current US political climate. However, Chris Wright—recently appointed as Secretary of Energy—appears to be a strong advocate for fusion. Trevithick was optimistic, praising Wright’s leadership in the nuclear industry: “Each of his employees would take a bullet for him.”
Like with any other 'strategic' industry, the new US administration is interested in “onshoring” critical technologies. Chris Good, investor at Pine Island New Energy Partners, noted, “It’ll increase costs, but that’s the decision that’s been made.” Still, many argue that international collaboration remains essential. As Anantha Krishnan put it, “$12.9 billion isn’t enough when split between all the companies. Even a single government might not be enough—partnerships between countries are essential.”
As Sam Wurzel put it, “Fusion is a civilisation-level challenge.” Even major powers like the US and China will gain more by pooling talent, resources and knowledge than by going it alone. The question is whether policymakers—and the fusion community—will find a balance between collaboration and competition quickly enough to shape the future of energy on a global scale.
Looking Ahead
From building robust supply chains to balancing “moonshot” ambitions with pragmatic, revenue-generating ventures, FusionXInvest 2025 made one thing clear: commercial fusion is a high-stakes marathon that must be run at sprint speed. The climate crisis is pressing, and so is the challenge of staying ahead in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape.
Yet despite the challenges, optimism remains high. Nearly every speaker emphasised fusion’s potential—not just as a power source, but as a driver of transformative breakthroughs in AI, national security and beyond.
As Matt Trevithick urged, investors and governments alike must recognise fusion as a strategic imperative. The time to fund and build this future isn’t later. It’s now.