What does this research mean for the field?

Fusion experts view nuclear fusion as a complementary flexible energy option rather than a standalone solution, emphasizing milestone-based roadmaps and transparent risk management to maintain public and industrial credibility. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

This study aims to explore expert perspectives on the challenges of nuclear fusion deployment and the framing of its timelines and roles.

May 29, 2026Open Access

Selling a dream? Fusion experts’ perspectives on the challenges of fusion deployment: Evidence from conference workshops

Key Points

This study aims to explore expert perspectives on the challenges of nuclear fusion deployment and the framing of its timelines and roles.
Qualitative analysis of expert insights gathered from workshops at SOFE 2023, FEC 2023, and SOFT 2024.
Data analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis to identify key themes.
Five major themes were identified, including energy systems, deployment timescales, and risk governance.
Experts primarily view fusion as a complementary option within energy systems rather than a standalone solution.
Milestone-based roadmaps are preferred over fixed dates for deployment, requiring transparency on waste and regulation.
Three expert stances emerged: balanced hope, open caution, and realistic risk management.

Abstract

Nuclear fusion is increasingly positioned as a pillar of future low-carbon energy systems, yet its deployment depends heavily on how experts frame timelines, system roles, and governance. This exploratory qualitative study analyses how fusion insiders navigate the tension of "selling a dream", balancing aspirational visions with the risks of deferred delivery. Data were collected from expert workshops at three major conferences: SOFE 2023 (Oxford), FEC 2023 (London), and SOFT 2024 (Dublin). Through reflexive thematic analysis, five themes emerged: fusion’s role in energy systems, deployment timescales, energy justice, risk governance, and social licence. Results show that experts view fusion primarily as a complementary "flexible option" rather than a standalone solution. They emphasize milestone-based roadmaps over fixed dates and argue that credibility requires a "showstoppers-first" transparency regarding waste and regulation. The analysis synthesizes three expert stances (balanced hope, open caution, and realistic risk management) and offers practical recommendations for aligning communication and governance with industrial realities.

Read Full Paperexternally

Demander à l'IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Stankiewicz et al. (Wed,) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a192c67fab5b468c44153b2 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2026.115830

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

Demander à l'IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper