Will fusion power get cheap? Don’t count on it.

MIT Technology Review lagi ngeluarin cerita yang cukup penting: Fusion power could provide a steady, zero-emissions source of electricity in the future—if companies can get plants built and running. But a new study suggests that even if that future arrives, it might not come cheap. Technologies tend to get less expensive over time. Lithium-ion batteries are now about 90% cheaper t…. Di technology, gue lebih tertarik ke efek operasionalnya daripada dramanya. Kalau lo ngikutin technology, cerita kayak gini biasanya ngasih clue soal infra, security, atau product reliability yang bikin tim bisa shipping lebih cepat.

Kalau kita buka detailnya, Fusion power could provide a steady, zero-emissions source of electricity in the future—if companies can get plants built and running. But a new study suggests that even if that future arrives, it might not come cheap. Technologies tend to get less expensive over time. Lithium-ion batteries are now about 90% cheaper than they were in 2013. But historically, different technologies tend to go through this curve at different rates. And the cost of fusion might not sink as quickly as the prices of batteries or solar. It’s tricky to make any predictions about the cost of a technology that doesn’t exist yet. But when there’s billions of dollars of public and private funding on the line, it’s worth considering what assumptions we’re making about our future energy mix and its cost. One crucial measure is a metric called experience rate—the percentage by which an energy technology’s cost declines every time capacity doubles. A higher figure means a quicker price drop and better economic gains with scaling. Historically, the experience rate is 12% for onshore wind power, 20% for lithium-ion batteries, and 23% for solar modules. Other energy technologies haven’t gotten cheap quite as quickly—fission is at just 2%. In the new study , published in Nature Energy , researchers aimed to improve predictions of fusion’s future price by estimating the technology’s experience rate. The team looked at three key characteristics that can correlate with experience rate: unit size, design complexity, and the need for customization. The larger and more complex a technology is, and/or the more it needs to be customized for different use cases, the lower the experience rate. The researchers interviewed fusion experts, including public-sector researchers and those working at companies in the private sector. They had the experts evaluate fusion power plants on those characteristics and used that info to predict the experience rate. (One note here: The study focused only on magnetic confinement and laser inertial confinement, two of the leading fusion approaches, which together receive the vast majority of funding today. Other approaches could come with different cost benefits.) Fusion plants will likely be relatively large, similar to other types of facilities (like coal and fission power plants) that rely on generating heat. They will probably need less customization than fission plants—largely because regulations and safety considerations should be simpler—but more than technologies like solar panels. And as for complexity, “there was almost unanimous agreement that fusion is incredibly complex,” says Lingxi Tang, a PhD candidate in the energy and technology policy group at ETH Zurich in Switzerland and one of the authors of the study. (Some experts said it was literally off the scale the researchers gave them.) The final figure the researchers suggest for fusion’s experience rate is between 2% and 8%, meaning it will see a faster price reduction than nuclear power but not as dramatic an improvement as many common energy technologies being deployed today. That means that it would take a lot of deployment—and likely quite a long time—for the price of building a fusion reactor to drop significantly, so electricity produced by fusion plants could be expensive for a while. And it’s a much slower rate than the 8% to 20% that many modeling studies assume today. “On the whole, I think questions should be raised about current investment levels in fusion,” Tang says. (The US allocated over $1 billion to fusion in the 2024 fiscal year, and private-sector funding totaled $2.2 billion between July 2024 and July 2025.) “If you’re talking about decarbonization of the energy system, is this really the best use of public money?” But some experts say that looking to the past to understand the future of energy prices might be misleading.“It’s a good exercise, but we have to be humble about how much we don’t know,” says Egemen Kolemen, a professor at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. In 2000, many analysts predicted that solar power would remain expensive—but then production exploded and prices came crashing down, largely because China went all in, he says. “People weren’t exactly wrong then,” he adds. “They were just extrapolating what they saw into the future.” How fast prices drop depends on regulations, geopolitical dynamics, and labor cost, he says: “We haven’t built the thing yet, so we don’t know.” This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review ’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here . sering jadi indikator tentang maturity sebuah produk atau stack. Di area ini, yang penting bukan cuma fitur baru, tapi apakah sistemnya makin stabil, lebih mudah di-scale, dan nggak nambah friction buat user atau tim internal.

Research tambahan ngasih konteks yang lebih tajam: Research lookup returned no usable results.. Ini bikin pembacaan awal jadi lebih grounded, bukan cuma bergantung ke judul atau ringkasan feed. Kalau ada detail yang saling nambah, gue pakai itu buat bikin cerita ini lebih utuh dan lebih berguna buat lo.

Di level produk dan operasional, cerita kayak gini biasanya nunjukin satu hal: perusahaan yang lebih cepat belajar bakal punya advantage. Kalau workflow makin otomatis, tim yang masih manual kebanyakan bakal kalah gesit. Kalau distribusi makin ketat, brand yang punya channel kuat bakal lebih unggul. Jadi meskipun judulnya kelihatan khusus, implikasinya sering masuk ke area yang jauh lebih dekat ke keputusan bisnis sehari-hari daripada yang orang kira.

Ada juga layer kompetisi yang sering kelewat. Begitu satu pemain besar bergerak, pemain kecil biasanya punya dua pilihan: ikut naik level atau makin susah relevan. Itu sebabnya gue suka lihat berita bukan sebagai peristiwa tunggal, tapi sebagai bagian dari pola. Siapa yang bergerak duluan? Siapa yang nunggu? Siapa yang bisa mengeksekusi lebih rapi? Dari situ biasanya kebaca apakah sebuah tren masih hype atau udah mulai jadi infrastruktur.

Buat pembaca yang peduli ke hasil praktis, pertanyaan yang paling berguna bukan “apakah ini keren?” tapi “apa yang harus gue ubah setelah baca ini?”. Kalau lo founder, bisa jadi jawabannya ada di positioning, pricing, atau channel distribusi. Kalau lo trader, mungkin yang perlu dipantau adalah sentimen, momentum, dan apakah pasar udah overreact. Kalau lo cuma pengin update cepat, minimal lo jadi ngerti kenapa topik ini muncul dan kenapa orang lain mulai ngomongin sekarang.

Gue juga sengaja ngasih ruang buat konteks yang sedikit lebih tenang, karena berita yang rame sering bikin orang lompat ke kesimpulan terlalu cepat. Tidak semua headline berarti revolusi. Kadang ada yang cuma noise, kadang ada yang benar-benar awal perubahan. Bedanya ada di konsistensi tindak lanjutnya. Kalau dalam beberapa siklus berikutnya topik ini terus muncul, besar kemungkinan kita lagi lihat pergeseran yang serius, bukan sekadar buzz harian.

Jadi kalau lo minta versi pendeknya: Will fusion power get cheap? Don’t count on it. penting bukan karena judulnya doang, tapi karena dia nunjukin arah pergerakan yang bisa berdampak ke cara orang bikin produk, baca pasar, dan nyusun strategi. Buat gue, itu inti yang paling worth it untuk dibawa pulang. Sisanya bisa lo simpan sebagai detail, tapi arah besarnya udah cukup jelas: pergeseran ini layak dipantau, bukan di-skip.