Record-Breaking Results Bring Fusion Power Closer to Reality
The ribbon was a plasma inside Germany's Wendelstein 7-X, an advanced fusion reactor that set a record last May by magnetically 'bottling up' the superheated plasma for a whopping 43 seconds. That's many times longer than the device had achieved before.
It's often joked that fusion is only 30 years away—and always will be. But the latest results indicate that scientists and engineers are finally gaining on that prediction. 'I think it's probably now about 15 to 20 years [away],' says University of Cambridge nuclear engineer Tony Roulstone, who wasn't involved in the Wendelstein experiments. 'The superconducting magnets [that the researchers are using to contain the plasma] are making the difference.'
[Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter]
And the latest Wendelstein result, while promising, has now been countered by British researchers. They say the large Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor near Oxford, England, achieved even longer containment times of up to 60 seconds in final experiments before its retirement in December 2023. These results have been kept quiet until now but are due to be published in a scientific journal soon.
According to a press release from the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics in Germany, the as yet unpublished data make the Wendelstein and JET reactors 'joint leaders' in the scientific quest to continually operate a fusion reactor at extremely high temperatures. Even so, the press release notes that JET's plasma volume was three times larger than that of the Wendelstein reactor, which would have given JET an advantage—a not-so-subtle insinuation that, all other things being equal, the German project should be considered the true leader.
This friendly rivalry highlights a long-standing competition between devices called stellarators, such as the Wendelstein 7-X, and others called tokamaks, such as JET. Both use different approaches to achieve a promising form of nuclear fusion called magnetic confinement, which aims to ignite a fusion reaction in a plasma of the neutron-heavy hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium.
The latest results come after the successful fusion ignition in 2022 at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) near San Francisco, which used a very different method of fusion called inertial confinement. Researchers there applied giant lasers to a pea-sized pellet of deuterium and tritium, triggering a fusion reaction that gave off more energy than it consumed. (Replications of the experiment have since yielded even more energy.)
The U.S. Department of Energy began constructing the NIF in the late 1990s, with the goal to develop inertial confinement as an alternative to testing thermonuclear bombs, and research for the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal still makes up most of the facility's work. But the ignition was an important milestone on the path toward controlled nuclear fusion—a 'holy grail' of science and engineering.
'The 2022 achievement of fusion ignition marks the first time humans have been able to demonstrate a controlled self-sustained burning fusion reaction in the laboratory—akin to lighting a match and that turning into a bonfire,' says plasma physicist Tammy Ma of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which operates the NIF. 'With every other fusion attempt prior, the lit match had fizzled.'
The inertial confinement method used by the NIF—the largest and most powerful laser system in the world—may not be best suited for generating electricity, however (although it seems unparalleled for simulating thermonuclear bombs). The ignition in the fuel pellet did give off more energy than put into it by the NIF's 192 giant lasers. But the lasers themselves took more than 12 hours to charge before the experiment and consumed roughly 100 times the energy released by the fusing pellet.
In contrast, calculations suggest a fusion power plant would have to ignite about 10 fuel pellets every second, continuously, for 24 hours a day to deliver utility-scale service. That's an immense engineering challenge but one accepted by several inertial fusion energy startups, such as Marvel Fusion in Germany; other start-ups, such as Xcimer Energy in the U.S., meanwhile, propose using a similar system to ignite just one fuel pellet every two seconds.
Ma admits that the NIF approach faces difficulties, but she points out it's still the only fusion method on Earth to have demonstrated a net energy gain: 'Fusion energy, and particularly the inertial confinement approach to fusion, has huge potential, and it is imperative that we pursue it,' she says.
Instead of igniting fuel pellets with lasers, most fusion power projects—like the Wendelstein 7-X and the JET reactor—have chosen a different path to nuclear fusion. Some of the most sophisticated, such as the giant ITER project being built in France, are tokamaks. These devices were first invented in the former Soviet Union and get their name from a Russian acronym for the doughnut-shaped rings of plasma they contain. They work by inducing a powerful electric current inside the superheated plasma doughnut to make it more magnetic and prevent it from striking and damaging the walls of the reactor chamber—the main challenge for the technology.
The Wendelstein 7-X reactor, however, is a stellarator—it uses a related, albeit more complicated, design that doesn't induce an electric current in the plasma but instead tries to control it with powerful external magnets alone. The result is that the plasmas in stellarators are more stable within their magnetic bottles. Reactors like the Wendelstein 7-X aim to operate for a longer period of time than tokamaks can without damaging the reactor chamber.
The Wendelstein researchers plan to soon exceed a minute and eventually to run the reactor continuously for more than half an hour. 'There's really nothing in the way to make it longer,' explains physicist Thomas Klinger, who leads the project at the Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics. 'And then we are in an area where nobody has ever been before.'
The overlooked results from the JET reactor reinforce the magnetic confinement approach, although it's still not certain if tokamaks or stellarators will be the ultimate winner in the race for controlled nuclear fusion. Plasma physicist Robert Wolf, who heads the optimization of the Wendelstein reactor, thinks future fusion reactors might somehow combine the stability of stellarators with the relative simplicity of tokamaks, but it's not clear how: 'From a scientific view, it is still a bit early to say.'
Several private companies have joined the fusion race. One of the most advanced projects is from the Canadian firm General Fusion, which is based near Vancouver in British Columbia. The company hopes its unorthodox fusion reactor, which uses a hybrid technology called magnetized target fusion, or MTF, will be the first to feed electric power to the grid by the 'early to mid-2030s,' according to its chief strategy officer Megan Wilson. 'MTF is the fusion equivalent of a diesel engine: practical, durable and cost-effective,' she says.
University of California, San Diego, nuclear engineer George Tynan says private money is flooding the field: 'The private sector is now putting in much more money than governments, so that might change things," he says. 'In these 'hard tech' problems, like space travel and so on, the private sector seems to be more willing to take more risk.'
Tynan also cites Commonwealth Fusion Systems, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology spin-off that plans to build a fusion power plant called ARC in Virginia. The proposed ARC reactor is a type of compact tokamak that intends to start producing up to 400 megawatts of electricity—enough to power about 150,000 homes—in the 'early 2030s,' according to a MIT News article.
Roulstone thinks the superconducting electromagnets increasingly used in magnetic confinement reactors will prove to be a key technology. Such magnets are cooled with liquid helium to a few degrees above absolute zero so that they have no electrical resistance. The magnetic fields they create in that state are many times more powerful than those created by regular electromagnets, so they give researchers greater control over superheated hydrogen plasmas. In contrast, Roulstone fears the NIF's laser approach to fusion may be too complicated: 'I am a skeptic about whether inertial confinement will work,' he says.
Tynan, too, is cautious about inertial confinement fusion, although he recognizes that NIF's fusion ignition was a scientific breakthrough: 'it demonstrates that one can produce net energy gain from a fusion reaction.'
He sees 'viable physics' in both the magnet and laser approaches to nuclear fusion but warns that both ideas still face many years of experimentation and testing before they can be used to generate electricity. 'Both approaches still have significant engineering challenges,' Tynan says. 'I think it is plausible that both can work, but they both have a long way to go.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
41 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump cuts millions in taxpayer funding for pushing COVID ‘cover-up'
At the frenetic pace of the Trump administration wins, it's easy to lose sight of smaller but still important successes. The administration just terminated a contract, and let three others lapse, with Springer Nature. Springer Nature is an academic publishing company which includes a consortium of science publications. Funding such a thing may seem innocuous, but Springer is a behemoth in the scientific publishing world and prone to error and politicized decision-making. As Brian Flood reported at Fox News in late June, "The German-owned Springer Nature was forced to issue 2,923 retractions in 2024, according to Retraction Watch. The publishing giant has also been accused of significantly downplaying the COVID lab-leak theory and censoring content to appease the Chinese government. It also has a peer review process that critics believe is dominated by woke groupthink." Springer has long been considered a company dedicated to political goals and not scientific ones. Their journals had spent much of the pandemic downplaying the COVID-19 lab leak theory concluding in the journal Nature Medicine, as early as March 17, 2020, that, "since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible." The paper was called "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2" and its goal was to remove all discussion of the lab leak theory. A House Oversight committee, in July 2023, found that "Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins tracked the paper through the review and publication process. And finally, Dr. Collins expressed dismay when Proximal Origin did not successfully kill the lab leak theory. He subsequently asked Dr. Fauci if there was anything more they could do. The next day, Dr. Fauci directly cited Proximal Origin from the White House podium." The committee concluded, "Dr. Collins and Dr. Fauci used Proximal Origin to attempt to kill the lab leak theory. This is the anatomy of a cover-up." In 2017, Springer "confirmed that it is restricting access to hundreds of articles that cover topics deemed sensitive to Chinese authorities." The censorship isn't limited to Covid and China. Two years ago, Springer retracted a peer-reviewed paper on gender dysphoria after pressure from activists who did not approve of the findings. Michael Bailey, the author of the study, had never had an article retracted before. This is not science. This is a political point of view. Springer Nature also charges scientists exorbitant amounts to publish their work. One study found that in just three years, Springer collected $589.7 million in "article processing charges." The researcher on that study found the scientific publishing companies "reach between 30% and 40%, well above most industries." This is not a company that should be receiving public funds and it's exactly the sort of thing that would have gone unnoticed in previous Republican administrations. Why are we funding any private publishing company, much less a foreign one with a leftist political bent? The Trump administration's laser focus on cost-cutting, but also on making the cuts specifically to politicized, bloated, entities like Springer is worth celebrating. Transparency is also a focus of the administration. On July 1, National Institutes of Health head Jay Bhattacharya posted about a new NIH policy to release all research to the public as soon as it is published. "The American people should have immediate free access to the science that we so generously fund through the @NIH. Starting today, we do." The Trump administration cuts to Springer are around $20 million and, a source told Axios, billions more are being evaluated. It's a strong start. Most Americans will be asking why we ever funded a company like this in the first place. President Donald Trump gets to say: we don't anymore.


Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Copeptin as a Prognostic Marker in Emergency Hyponatremia
TOPLINE: Measuring copeptin levels in patients with hypotonic hyponatremia on emergency department (ED) admission provided key diagnostic insights. The copeptin to urinary sodium ratio more accurately predicted preserved extracellular fluid (ECF) than urinary sodium alone, and higher copeptin levels were linked to an increased risk for mortality. METHODOLOGY: Hypotonic hyponatremia is frequently observed during hospitalization and can increase the risk for mortality; in this context, copeptin, the C-terminal portion of the arginine vasopressin precursor, has emerged as a valuable marker for predicting complications associated with hypotonic hyponatremia. Researchers reported findings from a prospective cohort study conducted between June 2018 and August 2019 at a hospital in Italy, evaluating the accuracy of copeptin in identifying preserved ECF patterns and its predictive value in critically ill patients admitted to the ED. They included 84 adult patients (median age, 79 years; 47 women), in whom hyponatremia was confirmed by both direct and indirect ion-selective electrode assays after glucose correction; severe hyponatremia was observed in 34.5% of patients. Information on vital signs, ultrasound, medical history, and comorbidities was recorded, and pretreatment blood and urine samples were collected for laboratory analyses. ECF status was reassessed after discharge by three independent endocrinologists; in-hospital mortality and 6-month mortality were also evaluated. TAKEAWAY: Reduced ECF, increased ECF, and preserved ECF were reported in 28 patients each. A ratio of copeptin to urinary sodium of ≤ 29.5 pmol/mmol × 100 increased the likelihood of preserved ECF by more than fourfold (adjusted odds ratio, 4.28; P = .026), outperforming standard urinary sodium measurements (difference in area under the curve when the urinary sodium cut-off was > 30 mmol/L, 0.177; P = .013). Copeptin levels were positively associated with increased risks for in-hospital mortality (P < .0001) and 6-month mortality (P = .02), with levels above 13.6 pmol/L associated with a more than fourfold increased risk for 6-month mortality (hazard ratio, 4.507; P = .0001). Additional predictors of 6-month mortality included levels of N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (P = .031) and comorbidity burden (P = .009). IN PRACTICE: 'It is important to note that our results do not suggest replacing copeptin with other established clinical and biochemical evaluations routinely performed in emergency care, such as s-K [serum potassium] or NT-proBNP [N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide] levels, when clinically appropriate. Rather, the aim of adjusting copeptin's predictive value for these common parameters in our analysis was to confirm its independent contribution,' the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Alessandro Maria Berton, Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. LIMITATIONS: Patient recruitment was restricted to daytime hours and weekdays, thus limiting the generalizability. Certain analytes were not available for all patients during ED evaluation. Additional urinary parameters such as urine chloride, uric acid fractional excretion, and potassium levels were not compared with the copeptin/urinary sodium index. DISCLOSURES: This study received no specific grant from any funding agency. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Eleva administers first dose of its Factor H biological treatment in C3-Glomerulopathy to healthy volunteers
First-in-human administration of CPV-104 marks a major step in drug development for the company's lead compound (Factor H) and in bringing a new medication to patients Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany, July 7, 2025 – Eleva, a pioneer in discovering and developing previously inaccessible biologics based on a breakthrough technology platform, announced today the first dosing in its Phase 1 clinical study investigating the company's Factor H (CPV-104) program in C3-Glomerulopathy (C3G). In the first part of the clinical study, Eleva is investigating single-ascending doses of CPV-104 in healthy volunteers. 'Today's news marks our second proprietary program advancing into clinical trials, which is a great achievement from an organizational standpoint,' commented Björn Cochlovius, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of Eleva. 'Our Factor H biological therapy platform continues to evolve, gaining visibility among clinicians and potential partners alike. We will continue to add value to this program in C3G as our initial focus, dry AMD as a second indication, and potentially several others down the road, while creating the best infrastructure for its successful clinical development.' 'We are thrilled to advance our Factor H molecule into a first-in-human study to evaluate the safety and tolerability and pharmacokinetics for further clinical studies. I like to thank all team members at Eleva and our clinical partners for their continued efforts and commitment to meet this milestone,' commented Dr. Martin Bauer, Chief Medical Officer of Eleva. C3G represents a rare renal disease caused by the abnormal regulation of the complement system, particularly the alternative pathway of the complement cascade, a central part of the body's immune defense. Naturally occurring complement regulators such as Factor H offer a therapeutic approach to help restore balance within the complement system and have shown therapeutic potential in a range of indications. Preclinical data sets were recently published in Frontiers in Immunology and underscored Factor H (CPV-104)'s ability to act as a functional analogue of human Factor H, support normalization of serum C3 levels and lead to a rapid degradation of C3 deposits in the kidney. The program has received the Orphan Drug Designation in the European Union for C3G and is also being pursued by Eleva in dry AMD as a second indication. ABOUT ELEVAEleva is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company discovering and developing previously inaccessible biological therapeutics. Eleva's disruptive moss-based technology platform enables GMP-scale manufacturing of human proteins with tremendous therapeutic potential that other platforms cannot achieve. The company's proprietary pipeline includes candidates for complement disorders and enzyme replacement therapies. The lead program, Factor H (CPV-104), a recombinant human complement Factor H, has entered a Phase 1/2 clinical studies to treat C3 Glomerulopathy (C3G). An intravitreal formulation of the candidate is in late preclinical development to treat dry AMD. The company's aGal (RPV-001) program has completed a positive Phase 1b single-dose clinical trial to treat Fabry disease. MEDIA CONTACTS Fabienne ZeitterDirector Marketingpr@ +49 761 470 99 0 Valency CommunicationsMario Brkuljmbrkulj@ +49 160 9352 9951 INVESTOR CONTACT Cohesion BureauGiovanni Ca' +33 7 84 67 07 27 Attachment 250707_Eleva_1st_Dosing_FactorH_ENG