Science Google just bought 200 megawatts of fusion energy that doesn’t even exist yet


By Ella Nilsen, CNN
Mon June 30, 2025

april-10-2025-cfs-68.webp
A person works on the cryostat base of the fusion reactor inside the tokamak hall at Commonwealth Fusion Systems in Devens, Massachusetts, on April 10. A full-sized image of the tokamak is superimposed onto the wall.

Tech giant Google is investing money into a futuristic nuclear fusion plant that hasn’t been built yet but someday will replicate the energy of the stars. It’s a sign of how hungry big tech companies are for a virtually unlimited source of clean power that is still years away.

Google and Massachusetts-based Commonwealth Fusion Systems announced a deal Monday in which the tech company bought 200 megawatts of power from Commonwealth’s first commercial fusion plant, the same amount of energy that could power roughly 200,000 average American homes.

Commonwealth aims to build the plant in Virginia by the early 2030s. When it starts generating usable fusion energy is still TBD, though the company believes they can do it in the same timeframe.

Google is also investing a second round of money into Commonwealth to spur development of its demonstration tokamak — a donut-shaped machine that uses massive magnets and molten plasma to force two atoms to merge, thereby creating the energy of the sun.

Google and Commonwealth did not disclose how much money is being invested, but both touted the announcement as a major step toward fusion commercialization.

“We’re using this purchasing power that we have to send a demand signal to the market for fusion energy and hopefully move (the) technology forward,” said Michael Terrell, senior director of energy and climate at Google.

Commonwealth is currently building its demonstration plant in Massachusetts, known as SPARC. It’s the tokamak the company says could forever change where the world gets its power from, generating 10 million times more energy than coal or natural gas while producing no planet-warming pollution. Fuel for fusion is abundant, derived from a form of hydrogen found in seawater and tritium extracted from lithium. And unlike nuclear fission, there is no radioactive waste involved.

april-10-2025-cfs-445.webp
Commonwealth Fusion Systems in Devens, Mass. on April 10, 2025.

The big challenge is that no one has yet built a machine powerful and precise enough to get more energy out of the reaction than they put into it.

Still, fusion is especially appealing to big tech companies like Google because it delivers a steady supply of baseload electricity for power-hungry data centers and AI. Google has also invested in geothermal energy and small nuclear reactor projects, which can also provide baseload power with no carbon emissions.

Commonwealth CEO Bob Mumgaard called the agreement the “largest offtake agreement for fusion” and said Google’s funding investment would allow his company to take necessary research and development steps to work towards developing its commercial fusion plant in Virginia at the same time it finishes its demonstration plant in Massachusetts and starts working towards ignition there.

“It’s hard to say exactly how much it accelerates it, but it definitely puts it in a category where now we can start to work more and more on ARC (the future Virginia plant) while we finish SPARC, instead of doing them very sequentially,” Mumgaard said.
 
Sometimes I think they just expect millions of Americans to go back to the stone age.
They themselves think they won't be affected be ludicrously expensive energy prices. They think only the chuds and right-wing bigots will suffer. Yeah, well... no. Leftoids don't understand that there are roughly ZERO energy-poor materially wealthy countries. Cheap energy, regardless of its source, is the single most important indicator of wealth. Making electric power more expensive will inevitably make everyone poorer.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin
They themselves think they won't be affected be ludicrously expensive energy prices. They think only the chuds and right-wing bigots will suffer. Yeah, well... no. Leftoids don't understand that there are roughly ZERO energy-poor materially wealthy countries. Cheap energy, regardless of its source, is the single most important indicator of wealth. Making electric power more expensive will inevitably make everyone poorer.
They're the type to give the stink eye to some working class Joe Shmoe driving a shitty, inefficient gas guzzler to get to work to feed his family BUT when they charge their iPhone using electricity from a coal fired power plant, so they can screech dumb troon talking points on bluesky, it's an unfortunate necessity because it's for the social good or some gay shit.

They're insufferable knob gobblers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TowinKarz
Fusion would be nice to pour money into. It's technically possible, it's just terribly underfunded for the massive technical undertaking involved.
Not when you consider it's been an ongoing research field for 70 years and you add up every dollar that's ever been spent on it.

The issue isn't lack of funding, the issue is you are asking a nigh-miracle to make it happen in a way that is economically and practically harnessable for commercial power.

The only easy thing about it is the theory.
 
Not when you consider it's been an ongoing research field for 70 years and you add up every dollar that's ever been spent on it.

The issue isn't lack of funding, the issue is you are asking a nigh-miracle to make it happen in a way that is economically and practically harnessable for commercial power.

The only easy thing about it is the theory.
Germany alone has poured 500+ billion into renewable energies the past 15 years alone with very little to show for (other than localised instabilities in the power grid and the second most expensive electricity prices on the continent - good job). If you think the global research that goes into fusion energy is more expensive, you're utterly deluded.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Cpt. Stud Beefpile
Not when you consider it's been an ongoing research field for 70 years and you add up every dollar that's ever been spent on it.

The issue isn't lack of funding, the issue is you are asking a nigh-miracle to make it happen in a way that is economically and practically harnessable for commercial power.

The only easy thing about it is the theory.
A trickle of money over time isn't the same thing as properly funding it.

Also if the theory is solid then you can totally make it happen. The medical field does this constantly. Computer nerds do this. If there isn't some kind of equation proving it's impossible, then the inverse, that it can be done, is the default.

Perhaps one day we'll discover some mathematical principle proving why we can't do fusion on a small scale and the theory is updated to show why it's a pipe dream. But until we get there, it's definitely a valuable investment, even if just for national security reasons.

The environmental issues concern me, but unless we start nuking China and India, we're not going to get a handle on climate change on our own. Still, reducing our dependence on petroleum that stone aged shitheads in certain sandy countries control, is incredibly valuable to the US. This is a good use of resources.
 
Also if the theory is solid then you can totally make it happen.
That is reducing scientific problems to a gross oversimplification that simply isn't true.

The problems that hold back fusion can't be solved with just more money. There are basic technical problems that can't be solved simply by spending more.

This, the world is not a video game tech tree, you cannot brute force open the next level just by assigning research points, sometimes, you literally are asking the impossible.

To date? The only time we've ever created fusion at a net-energy release? Was in the H-bomb, and that needed a fission reaction to jump-start it.

This is a "can't divide by zero" technical hurdle innate to the physics of atoms themselves and cannot be overcome by just "study them a little harder".

Developments in fission are more likely to get results faster, that is proven tech not "Impossible today, but maybe we'll have a miracle tomorrow" tech.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: WonderWino
This, the world is not a video game tech tree, you cannot brute force open the next level just by assigning research points, sometimes, you literally are asking the impossible.

Developments in fission are more likely to get results faster, that is proven tech not "Impossible today, but maybe we'll have a miracle tomorrow" tech.
That's fine but we need to get there by proving it impossible, with an explanation why. That seems to be lacking.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Cpt. Stud Beefpile
Take all the money with give to foreigners in gibs and put it into fusion

This would actually be of benefit to those same foreigners too if it pays off
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marvin
Google I can give you nothing in ten years that I promise today. Could I get a ten or so million?
 
Not necessarily. In the past years, there have been some quite substantial investments into the field, and not only into the more well understood concepts (tokamaks/magnetic confinement, inertial confinement), but also more obscure things (z pinch). I think the last time that happened was in the 1970s as a result of the oil crisis, since virtually all fusion reactor designs now discussed or used for experiments come from the 1950-1980 timeframe. Even stuff like ITER comes from that time.
most of that was a waste.

Wendelstein was pretty cheap and will birth the only viable design.
it will just take another 20 years because germany is so anti business,
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Marvin
Fusion occupies the same 'permanent liminal' space as happenings where the closer you get to a happening the slower progress becomes on an infinite curve. We can never reach it, only get closer
When I was a very small boy I read an exciting book on fusion power.

I cannot begin to tell you all how much my science-loving heart was shattered when I took it to my father and he gently pointed out the publication date...mid 1960's.

A fucking RBMK will give you more power on the grid in one year than all the 'fusion reactors' have generated in half a century. Man it must be nice to squander this kind of money.
 
...I mean we could spend 10 years to have a neat energy deficit generation machine or a fission reactor that actually works in the same timeframe but that's none of my business.
 
...I mean we could spend 10 years to have a neat energy deficit generation machine or a fission reactor that actually works in the same timeframe but that's none of my business.
There have been a number of small fusion startups in the last decade or two, that are characterized by attempting to take fusion in a more compact direction than ITER. I'm thinking of companies such as Helion Energy, General Fusion, Zap Energy, Tokamak Energy, LPP Fusion, etc.

It's possible that one of them will get it done and start producing cheap electricity. The demand for AI/datacenter electricity is so high that Google might find it worthwhile to throw money at energy moonshots that are unlikely to work, just in case one of them actually does work and provides a significant return on investment. The failures could be sold for IP scraps.
 
Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) raised 1.8 Billion dollars in 2021. This year they are raising another billion dollars.

They have talked about being "on the brink" since 2018. But the amount of time and money spent so far kind of makes me wonder about the whole thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cpt. Stud Beefpile
Back