Is fusion power here at last? The imagined energy of the future is becoming very real right now

Is fusion power here at last? The imagined energy of the future is becoming very real right now

The old joke about nuclear fusion power is that commercial deployment is 30 years in the future: it always has been and it always will be. It may be time to retire that joke. Private fusion companies have now raised billions in capital, and pilot plants are moving from slide decks and plans into steel and concrete. The questions now are not so much around whether fusion power can ever work, and more about how soon it can reach the grid, and at what cost Host Ed Crooks and regular contributor Amy Myers Jaffe, director of the Global Energy, Climate, & Sustainability Lab at NYU are joined by two fusion industry leaders to discuss the rapid progress they are making. Andrew Holland is founder and chief executive of the Fusion Industry Association, and Bob Mumgaard is chief executive of Commonwealth Fusion Systems, one of the companies vying to have the first commercial fusion power plant in operation. Andrew lays out the state of the sector. There are 56 private fusion companies globally, which between them have raised more than $14 billion in private capital. And there is a growing conviction inside the industry that commercial fusion could arrive in the early 2030s. Bob explains why Commonwealth believes SPARC, its demonstration project in Massachusetts, and ARC, its planned power plant in Virginia, can help make that timetable real. Fusion has moved beyond the era when government science programs defined the pace of progress. Research backed by governments and universities has played a vital role in moving the technology forward, but Andrew argues that competition, venture capital and milestone-based development have changed the industry’s tempo. Crucially, the industry has not put all its eggs in one basket. Multiple companies are pursuing different technical paths, including both laser-based approaches and magnetic confinement systems, in a race to commerciality.  Bob offers the clearest lay explanation of what fusion power means in practice. Commonwealth Fusion Systems uses a tokamak, which is essentially a magnetic bottle that holds a star inside it. Fusion creates heat, which can be used to run a steam turbine. Unlike wind and solar, fusion does not depend on weather or geography. Unlike fossil fuels, it does not rely on continual fuel deliveries. The episode also explores why fusion developers believe the technology could avoid some of the political and regulatory burdens that have constrained nuclear fission power. Because fusion reactions are hard to start and easy to stop, the risks are fundamentally different from those of a conventional fission reactor. Bob and Andrew argue that this changes everything from plant safety to siting to licensing, and could make fusion much faster to deploy if the technical hurdles are cleared. They also discuss what it will take to build an industry, not just a few prototypes. Amy pushes on fuel cycles, lithium, superconducting tape and supply-chain readiness. Bob argues that these challenges are real but manageable, and Andrew points to the growing ecosystem of manufacturers now positioning themselves for a future fusion market. The wider point is that fusion is increasingly starting to look like a manufacturing and industrial-policy story, not just a laboratory science story. That leads to the biggest question of all: if fusion works, how much could it matter? Bob sketches outcomes ranging from a valuable but still niche source of clean baseload power to a genuinely transformative technology. Andrew goes even further, arguing that fusion could decouple energy from geography and geopolitics in a way no fuel-based system ever has. If the industry’s ambitions are realized, within the next ten years fusion could emerge as a commercial energy source with real consequences for grids, markets and global power.   This episode of Energy Gang is brought to you by ENGIE, the smarter energy supplier. ENGIE doesn't just provide the power to run your business — they supply the energy to move it forward, with reliable, flexible solutions built for what's next. Learn more at engieresources.com [http://engieresources.com/always-on/?utm_source=paid_media_&utm_medium=podcast_host_read&utm_campaign=always_on&utm_content=energy_gang_show_notes]. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy [https://art19.com/privacy] and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info [https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info].

Can the LA Olympics in 2028 be a catalyst for clean energy? How the games could remake transport, power and clean air in the car capital of America

Los Angeles will host the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games, an event that poses formidable logistical challenges. To put it in terms that will be familiar to many Americans, it is the equivalent of seven Super Bowls happening every day, in one of the world’s biggest urban economies. That means huge demands on the city’s transport and energy systems. But it also creates a rare opportunity to use the games as a catalyst to accelerate investment that could leave the city cleaner, more resilient and better connected long after the closing ceremony. In this episode, host Ed Crooks talks to Matt Petersen, president and CEO of the Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator, or LACI. Matt explains how LACI has been using the run-up to the Games as a convening point for public and private sector action. The focus has been on transportation electrification, clean energy deployment and building infrastructure that can help Los Angeles cope with an influx of visitors while improving the quality of life for residents in the long term. Transport is key. Los Angeles is sometimes described as the car capital of the world, and transport will be the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Games. EV sales and charging infrastructure are growing fast. Even so, LACI’s modelling suggests that Los Angeles still needs more people using buses and rail, as well as better first-mile and last-mile options, from e-bike share to EV car-share schemes, if it wants to hit its climate targets. The conversation also explores the less visible systems that support electrification and emissions reductions for transport. Matt points to the electrification of freight, the build-out of charging depots, battery-backed fast charging, and experiments with flexible grid connections that can bring new infrastructure online faster. Those developments are central to whether Los Angeles can make room for more EVs and rising power demand without waiting years for grid upgrades. Too often, host cities for the Olympics promise transformative benefits that never fully materialise. Matt’s case is that Los Angeles has a better shot than most, partly because it is not building a wave of new permanent venues, and partly because the most important investments are in systems the city needs anyway: electric buses, cleaner freight, charging networks, transit improvements, shade for riders in extreme heat, and cleaner air in communities that have long borne the brunt of pollution. Can a deadline like LA 2028 accelerate progress on some of the hardest problems in urban decarbonization? For Matt, the real prize is not a few weeks of smooth operations during the Games, but a lasting legacy of economic opportunity and lower emissions. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy [https://art19.com/privacy] and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info [https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info].

Why is it so hard to build big energy projects? The barriers that obstruct new infrastructure development, and how to get past them

Whoever you ask, you are likely find broad agreement that the world needs more energy infrastructure. Whether you are worried about ensuring secure supplies, powering new data centres, or cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the answer is most often going to be investing in new assets: power plants, transmission lines, factories, pipelines, ports… the list goes on. But all too often, getting big projects built is painfully slow, expensive and unpredictable. It is particularly difficult in high-income countries, and perhaps in the US most of all. For this episode, host Ed Crooks and regular guest Dr. Melissa Lott are joined by Craig Albert, the President and COO of Bechtel, one of the world’s biggest engineering and construction companies. Together, they discuss the critical problems that get in the way of infrastructure projects, and what businesses and governments can do to get past them. First off, Craig acknowledges that the problems in the system all reflect good intentions. Communities, safety, the environment and local impacts all deserve scrutiny. The problem, especially in the US, is that the process used to take all those factors into account when approving large projects is slow, fragmented and uncertain. The result is that it pushes up costs, delays revenue, creates financing risk, and ultimately slows progress towards energy security and a lower-carbon energy system. The conversation digs into the role of trust and certainty in decision-making. Once a project has been assessed and approved, how do you stop it from being endlessly revisited? Craig argues that some aspects of the US system create particular difficulties. Other developed countries have shown that infrastructure projects can be brought in on time and on budget. Craig cites the Western Sydney International Airport project, which moved from site selection to full construction approval in just two and a half years. In the US, he says, the same process could easily take eight to ten. The discussion then turns to nuclear power, and the lessons from the two new AP1000 reactors built at the Vogtle plant in Georgia. Craig calls Southern Company and Georgia Power “national heroes” for taking on the first greenfield US nuclear project in decades, but he is candid about what went wrong. His biggest takeaway is the importance of deeply integrated EPC: engineering, procurement and construction working as one system from the start. He also stresses the need for earlier investment in workforce training, stronger supply-chain visibility and better sequencing to reduce costly reworks. From there, Ed and Melissa widen the lens to look at other energy sectors. Craig explains why the US LNG industry offers a more hopeful model of projects delivered without huge cost overruns and multi-year delays. In that industry the construction companies are building repeated, standardised projects, with integrated delivery, and a relentless focus on finding and fixing bottlenecks. Bechtel has delivered dozens of LNG trains, he says, all on schedule and within budget, while still improving speed from one project to the next. Similar lessons apply in solar, where scale, automation and better execution are helping push installation rates sharply higher. But policy and project design are only part of the story. Craig argues that workforce is the other great constraint. If every new power plant, grid upgrade, semiconductor fab and airport ultimately depends on skilled craft labour, then the US has to start treating those jobs with the respect they deserve. Restoring the status of skilled trades is not just a cultural issue. It is essential to the country’s ability to build, Craig says.  The closing message is both practical and cautionary: if the US wants more energy security, more electricity for AI and data centres, and faster progress on decarbonisation, it has to get much better at building. That means fixing permitting, reducing project uncertainty, investing earlier in supply chains, and treating skilled labour as a strategic asset, rather than an afterthought. This episode of Energy Gang is brought to you by ENGIE, the smarter energy supplier. ENGIE doesn't just provide the power to run your business — they supply the energy to move it forward, with reliable, flexible solutions built for what's next. Learn more at engieresources.com [http://engieresources.com/always-on/?utm_source=paid_media_&utm_medium=podcast_host_read&utm_campaign=always_on&utm_content=energy_gang_show_notes]. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy [https://art19.com/privacy] and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info [https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info].

The new politics of power: What's really driving up American electricity bills? And what can we do about it?

US residential electricity prices have risen by more than 40 per cent since the start of 2021, which is much faster than general inflation. Utilities requested a total of $31 billion in increased rates last year, double the amount in 2024. And investor-owned utilities are planning to spend $1.4 trillion on capital projects over the next five years – enough on one calculation, to build almost 2,000 Hoover Dams at today’s prices. So why are American electricity bills going up, and what can be done to provide some relief for hard-pressed consumers? In this episode, host Ed Crooks and regular contributor Dr Melissa Lott are joined by Charles Hua, founder and executive director of PowerLines, a nonprofit launched in 2024. Charles's focus is on US states’ Public Utilities Commissions: the roughly 200 commissioners across the country who oversee around $200 billion in annual spending and ultimately determine what consumers pay. He calls them the “US Supreme Court justices of energy”. The discussion opens with questions of consumers’ perceptions, and how they align with reality. The data show that in the past few years, electricity bills have been rising, on average, explaining why the issue has been rising up the political agenda. Recent Ipsos polling commissioned by PoweLines found that four in five Americans feel powerless about energy costs. The proportion who believe their state officials are serving their interests as consumers fell from 38 per cent to 29 per cent in a single year. Charles calls this "a new politics of electricity." It is a domain that until recently sat outside mainstream political attention, but now reaches governors' offices and the White House. Charles and Melissa then unpack what is actually driving the increases. Melissa walks through the top five cost drivers identified in the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's analysis: fuel and wholesale supply, distribution costs, generation capex, transmission costs, and cost recovery from extreme weather events. Charles points beyond the line items to a fundamental issue: the traditional utility business model, which structurally rewards capital spending.  The question about the impact of data centers is unavoidable. Charles breaks it down: until now, data centres have not been a meaningful driver of price increases across most of the country. But that does not mean they will not be in future. PJM's capacity auction, where prices have rocketed, is one early signal that the picture is starting to change. Charles offers three solutions. First, get more out of the existing grid, which is currently running at roughly 50 per cent utilisation, through technologies he describes as "ibuprofen for the grid." Second, modernise the utility business model, potentially drawing on the UK's totex approach, where utilities can earn a return on operational as well as capital spending. Third, improve grid planning, particularly how load is forecast and how integrated resource plans are built. Melissa zooms out to remind listeners what is actually at stake. Borrowing a line from Amory Lovins, she says: "I don't care about my electrons. I care about cold beer and hot showers." The question is not just about price, but about whether households can keep their homes safe and liveable year-round. You can learn more about PowerLines at PowerLines.org.   See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy [https://art19.com/privacy] and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info [https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info].

Methane is both a problem and an opportunity: How market-based solutions can cut emissions even after climate policy has retreated

Methane is the second-most important greenhouse gas, after carbon dioxide. It has accounted for roughly 30% of human-induced global warming since the 19th century. But it is also a valued commodity, used to heat homes and cook food, provide raw materials for industry and keep the lights on. Every molecule leaked is energy wasted and money lost. The IEA estimates that about 200 billion cubic meters per year could be saved for productive uses by reducing leakage and flaring in the oil and gas industry. That is roughly one fifth of US supply, over a third of the global LNG trade, and nearly twice the volume exported through the Strait of Hormuz in 2025. Half of all abatement opportunities have a positive or zero net cost. The technology to cut emissions by 75% exists today. So why are methane emissions from oil and gas still so large? Host Ed Crooks is joined by TJ Conway, Principal at RMI's Climate Intelligence Program, to explore what it will take to tackle the problem. TJ walks through RMI's approach: first, better understanding where emissions are and how large they are, including the role of super emitters, sources above 100 kilograms per hour that can account for half of total leakage, and then driving change through market mechanisms, corporate engagement, finance, and capacity building.  He then talks about the key issue for future methane emissions reductions: the demand side. Creating a functioning market for differentiated, lower-emissions gas requires that buyers, including utilities, industrial companies and hyperscales using gas-powered data centres, can credibly account for those purchases in their emissions inventories. That architecture is still being built. Ed and TJ also dig into the EU Methane Emissions Regulation, now entering its implementation phase ahead of methane intensity thresholds taking effect by 2030. The technical challenges are considerable: tracing emissions from source to importer through complex supply chains like the US pipeline network, where a single LNG cargo may blend gas from low-intensity offshore fields and high-intensity Permian basin production. RMI has proposed a hybrid traceability approach to solve those challenges.  The episode also covers methane abatement finance. Financial institutions with climate goals are now often relucatant to invest in oil and gas operations, even for emissions reduction. RMI's Methane Finance Working Group, launched at COP28 alongside the Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Charter, has developed guidance for financing structures to overcome that obstacle. It aims to unlock financing to meet a need estimated at 100 to 200 billion dollars. TJ closes with an optimistic message: emissions remain stubbornly high, but the institutional infrastructure built over the past five years now provides the foundation for action. The goal remains a 75% reduction, and the tools exist to get there.   Rocky Mountain Institute was founded during the energy crises of the 1970s, with a simple idea: better energy systems can deliver both economic and environmental benefits. Nearly 50 years later, that mission has never been more relevant. As businesses and governments navigate rising electricity demand, supply-chain uncertainty, and the push to decarbonize, RMI helps turn complex energy challenges into practical solutions. From grid modernization and industrial decarbonization to clean transportation and building efficiency, RMI works across sectors to accelerate the energy transition in ways that improve resilience, affordability, and energy security. Learn more at rmi.org. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy [https://art19.com/privacy] and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info [https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info].