Fusion power could change the way we get energy — and worsen the problems it’s supposed to solve

Harnessing the power of nuclear fusion—the fusion of nuclei found in atoms—could play a fundamental role in the transition to a decarbonized global energy system. As climate change and energy security issues become increasingly visible, the promise of a seemingly “clean,” “abundant,” and “safe” energy source like fusion is becoming increasingly attractive.

In response, the fusion industry is growing at a rapid pace, and the stereotype that fusion is “30 years away and always will be” is starting to lose credibility as the technology moves beyond the experimental phase.

But it’s all too easy to create hype around a seemingly perfect solution to societal problems – and I dare say that the realization of fusion energy may be at odds with the problems it aims to solve.

Putting this noise into context and examining areas where tensions may arise is crucial to ensuring that the technology develops in an ethically sound manner and that, if successful, it delivers societal benefits.

The appeal of a zero-emission, low-waste, reliable and relatively safe energy source like fusion is obvious. It is set against the backdrop of growing global energy demand and climate change. All of this requires a transition to a clean energy system.

It is widely believed that fusion energy could fill gaps in existing energy sources. For example, it would bypass the intermittency of renewable energy sources, given that supplies from solar and wind are unpredictable, weather-dependent. Fusion also avoids the long-term radioactive waste, safety concerns and public concerns about conventional nuclear fission energy. It would help mitigate the cost of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.

Fusion energy could also ease concerns about energy security, since some of its key resources are abundant. For example, the deuterium fuel used in some fusion processes can be easily extracted from seawater. This would reduce dependence on imports and buffer nations against global market shocks.

However, these benefits can mask deeper ethical issues surrounding technology development and some of its potentially harmful effects. Perhaps one of the clearest examples of this tension is the issue of environmental sustainability. This is particularly true as it relates to climate change mitigation and greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

Climate change is an issue that lends itself to a “techno-fix” approach—in other words, it can be tempting to avoid making significant changes to our behavior because we think we can rely on technology to fix everything. This is known as the “mitigation of obstacles” argument.

Factoring in greenhouse gas emissions with energy demand also raises questions about fairness and equity. Energy demand is rising in some regions, mostly in the global south, that have contributed least to the current climate crisis. Yet fusion programs are overwhelmingly based in the global north. So if fusion proves feasible, those with access to such transformative technology will not necessarily need it the most.

Climate change is a global challenge, so any proposed solution must take into account global impacts. Efforts must be made to recognize the development context and to address global inequality in the deployment of fusion if we are to meet the climate challenge.

Similar concerns can be found in the materials used to produce fusion energy. These include critical minerals, including lithium, tungsten, and cobalt. Mining and processing these minerals release greenhouse gases. In some cases, mining operations are located on or near indigenous lands. And the supply chains for these materials are embedded in geopolitical tensions, with alliances, collaborations, competition, and the potential creation of monopolies.

Mercury, for example, is used to process lithium for fusion reactors. This element is not only environmentally harmful and toxic, but it is largely dependent on Chinese production.

The acceleration of the pace of fusion energy increases the risk of overlooking these potential hazards along the way. However, I would argue that this is not a case where we need to apply moral brakes, but rather shift gears. Addressing these potential ethical tensions requires systematic thinking throughout the development process, from thinking about the implications of design decisions and material selection to equitable implementation strategies and knowledge sharing.

Access to energy is fundamental to human well-being and development, and the energy system as a whole has profound societal implications. Failure to openly engage with the social and ethical challenges of new and emerging technologies in this space would be at best irresponsible and at worst harmful. This is particularly true when the impact of fusion technology may amplify the very challenges it is designed to solve.