Nuclear fusion has long occupied a paradoxical place in the energy transition: scientifically proven, perpetually “20 years away,” and yet increasingly central to national strategies, investor agendas, and corporate long-term planning. Emerald’s latest Energy Sprint on fusion brought together utilities, industrial players, experts, and startups to move beyond headlines and toward a clearer, more grounded understanding of what fusion progress really looks like today.
Rather than framing fusion as a near-term solution, the Sprint focused on a more pragmatic question: how should corporates and investors engage with fusion now, given long timelines, high uncertainty, and fast-moving technical progress?
As Christoph Frei, Partner & Head of Energy at Emerald, put it, this Sprint was “not about solving pain points today, but about building a strategic outlook – understanding timelines, decision triggers, and how to engage with the ecosystem in a structured way.”
From hype to structure
Across the Sprint’s peer-to-peer and expert sessions, a consistent theme emerged: the fusion landscape is maturing, but not in a linear way. Breakthroughs such as net-energy-gain experiments and billion-dollar private funding rounds signal real momentum. At the same time, participants were clear-eyed about the distance between experimental success and commercial power plants.
The strongest shared interest among corporates was not in picking winners, but in mapping the landscape: understanding different fusion approaches, their physical feasibility, and the critical building blocks that will determine success or failure. This included magnetic confinement, inertial and magneto-inertial approaches, as well as enabling technologies such as superconducting magnets, plasma control systems, materials, and tritium handling.
Importantly, many participants emphasized that fusion should be viewed as a system challenge, not a single technology bet. Supply chains, regulatory regimes, grid integration, and cost trajectories will matter as much as physics.
Why timelines still matter—even if they are long
One of the most debated topics during the Sprint was time horizon. Estimates ranged from aggressive views of early pilot plants in the 2030s to more conservative expectations pushing commercial relevance into the 2040s.
Frank Balas
, who leads Emerald’s nuclear and fusion work, captured the tension well: “As long as fusion remains a physics problem, timelines are hard to pin down. But once plasma confinement is demonstrated reliably, it becomes an engineering problem – and that’s where progress can accelerate much faster.”
Balas also highlighted why fusion differs fundamentally from nuclear fission. With lower regulatory burdens, modular designs, and smaller prototype scales, failure in fusion can be faster (and cheaper) than in traditional nuclear projects. “Unlike fission, failures in fusion are not catastrophic,” he noted, pointing to parallels with rapid iteration in sectors like aerospace and advanced manufacturing.
The real investment question: where to play
For Emerald, one of the most important Sprint outcomes was clarity around how corporates are thinking about engagement. Nearly all participants who had invested in fusion-related companies described their motivation as strategic, not financial. The goal was positioning: gaining early insight into future value chains, technologies, and partnerships rather than betting on near-term returns.
This strategic framing naturally shifts attention toward enabling technologies. As Balas observed during the expert discussions, no single fusion pathway is de-risked enough to justify a “winner-takes-all” approach. “There are still too many unknown unknowns,” he cautioned, from plasma-wall interactions to neutron damage and system efficiency. “The question for many corporates is not which reactor design will win, but where they can add value in a future fusion supply chain.”
A maturing ecosystem – by specialization
Perhaps the most encouraging signal from the Sprint was not a specific technology milestone, but a shift in industry behavior. As Frei summarized at the close of the Sprint, “What makes me most positive is seeing how specialization is taking place. Companies are no longer trying to do everything, but are focusing on the parts of the puzzle where they are strongest. That’s often a sign that an industry is maturing.”
For Emerald, this reinforces the value of structured, multi-stakeholder engagement. Fusion may still be decades from large-scale deployment, but decisions made today—about monitoring, collaboration, and strategic positioning—will shape who benefits when it arrives.
In that sense, the real takeaway from the Sprint was not whether fusion will work, but how to work with fusion: patiently, collaboratively, and with a clear view of both its promise and its uncertainty.
More on Energy at Emerald:
Tech to Solve the Data Center Energy and Resource Dilemma
Accelerating Action: Barbara Burger shares CVC leadership lessons in energy