Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published online by De Gruyter January 27, 2022

Nuclear fusion: the promise of endless energy

  • Simona E. Hunyadi Murph EMAIL logo and Melissa A. Murph
From the journal Physical Sciences Reviews


This chapter introduces the reader to the fundamentals and reasoning for exploring fusion energy. Fusion, the reaction of two hydrogen atoms colliding, is the process that powers the Sun and stars. Fusion works by turning small amounts of matter into vast amounts of energy. If realized on Earth, nuclear fusion could solve global energy demands for generations to come.

Keywords: energy; fusion; nuclear

Corresponding author: Simona E. Hunyadi Murph, Savannah River National Laboratory, Aiken, SC, USA; and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA, E-mail:

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding this article.


1. The National Academy of Sciences. What you need to know about energy. Available from: [Accessed 16 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

2. International Energy Agency, World Energy Balances: Overview. Available from: [Accessed 16 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

3. World Energy Consumption. Available from: [Accessed 16 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

4. Global Direct Primary Energy Consumption. Available from: [Accessed 17 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

5. BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2020. Available from: [Accessed 16 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. National Emissions Inventory, Available from: in Google Scholar

7. Krohn, S. Pros & cons of coal energy. Sciencing; 2019. Available from: in Google Scholar

8. Dowdey, S. “What is clean coal technology?” HowStuffWorks Science, HowStuffWorks; 2020. Available from: in Google Scholar

9. Hook, M, Tang, X. Depletion of fossil fuels and anthropogenic climate change—a review, Energy Policy, 2013;52: 797–809.10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.046Search in Google Scholar

10. Siegel, RP. “Natural gas: pros and cons.” TriplePundit; 2012. Available from: in Google Scholar

11. OPEC Share of World Oil Reserves 2010 [Accessed 16 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

12. Richardson, L. “Solar energy pros and cons: top benefits/drawbacks: EnergySage.” Solar News 23 Feb 2021. Available from: in Google Scholar

13. “How Does Solar Work?” Available from: in Google Scholar

14. Hunyadi Murph, SE, Larsen, GK, Korinko, P, Coopersmith, KJ, Summer, AJ, Lewis, R. Nanoparticle treated stainless steel filters for metal vapor sequestration. JOM 2017;69:162–72, in Google Scholar

15. Hunyadi Murph, SE, Larsen, G, Coopersmith, K. Anisotropic and shape-selective nanomaterials: structure-property relationships, nanostructure science and technology series. Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG; 2017:1–470 pp.10.1007/978-3-319-59662-4Search in Google Scholar

16. Methods and materials for determination of distribution coefficients for separation materials, US-2017-0122875-A1, 2020. in Google Scholar

17. Li, D, Seaman, J, Hunyadi Murph, SE, Kaplan, D, Taylor-Pashow, T, Feng, R, et al.. Porous iron material for TcO4− and ReO4− sequestration from groundwater under ambient oxic conditions. J Hazard Mater 2019;374:177–85. in Google Scholar

18. Sun. Available from: [Accessed 15 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

19. Unlimited Energy, ITER. Available from: [Accessed 20 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

20. How much fuel does it take to power the world? Forbes. Available from: [Accessed 20 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

21. Eddington, AS. The internal constitution of the stars (Cambridge Science Classics). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press; 1988.10.1017/CBO9780511600005Search in Google Scholar

22. Atkinson, R, Houtermans, F. Aufbaumöglichkeit in sternen. Z Phys 1929;54:656–65, in Google Scholar

23. The Nobel Prize, Hans Bethe. Available from: [Accessed 20 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

24. Joffrin, E, Abduallev, S, Abhangi, M, Abreu, P, Afanasev, V, Afzal, M, et al.. Overview of the JET preparation for deuterium–tritium operation with the ITER like-wall. Nucl Fusion 2019;59:112021.10.1088/1741-4326/ab2276Search in Google Scholar

25. Fujita, T, Kamada, Y, Ishida, S, Neyatani, Y, Oikawa, T, Ide, S, et al.. High performance experiments in JT-60U reversed shear discharges. Nucl Fusion 2002;39:1627. in Google Scholar

26. Wegner, P, Bowers, M, Chen, H, Heebner, J, Hermann, M, Kalantar, D, et al.. Recent progress on the National Ignition Facility advanced radiographic capability. Stockpile Stewardship Quarterly (SSQ) 2016;6:19.Search in Google Scholar

27. Le Pape, S, Berzak Hopkins, LF, Divol, L, Pak, A, Dewald, EL, Bhandarkar, S, et al.. Fusion energy output greater than the kinetic energy of an imploding shell at the national ignition facility. Phys Rev Lett 2018;120:245003. in Google Scholar

28. Report on science challenges and research opportunities in plasma materials interactions; 2015. Available from: [Accessed 12 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

29. China’s “artificial sun” sets world record with 100s steady-state high performance plasma. Chinese Academy of Sciences; 2017. EurekAlert. Available from: in Google Scholar

30. Coenen, J. Fusion materials development at Forschungszentrum Jülich. Adv Eng Mater 2020;22:1901376, in Google Scholar

31. Zinkle, SJ. Materials challenges for fusion energy. Bridge 1998;28:4.Search in Google Scholar

32. Hunyadi Murph, SE, Lawrence, K, Sessions, H, Brown, MG. Larsen controlled release of hydrogen isotopes from hydride-magnetic nanomaterials. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2020;12:9478–88, in Google Scholar

33. Sessions, H, Hunyadi Murph, SE. Analytical method for measuring total protium and total deuterium in a gas mixture containing H2, D2, and HD via gas chromatography. In: Metal-matrix composites: advances in analysis, measurement and observations. Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG; 2021.10.2172/822364Search in Google Scholar

34. Hunyadi Murph, SE, Sessions, H, Coopersmith, K, Brown, M, Ward, PA. Efficient thermal processes using alternating electromagnetic field for methodical and selective release of hydrogen isotopes. Energy Fuels 2021;35:3438–48, in Google Scholar

35. Larsen, G, Hunyadi Murph, SE, Lawrence, K, Angelette, L. Water processing for isotope recovery using porous zero valent iron. Fusion Sci Technol 2019:1–8, in Google Scholar

36. L’Annunziata, MF. Neutron radiation. In: L’Annunziata, MF, editor. Radioactivity, 2nd ed. Elsevier; 2016:361–89 pp.10.1016/B978-0-444-63489-4.00010-1Search in Google Scholar

37. Lv, W, Duan, H, Liu, J. Enhanced deuterium-tritium fusion cross sections in the presence of strong electromagnetic fields. Phys Rev C 2019;100:064610, in Google Scholar

38. Lawson criterion. Available from: [Accessed 21 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

39. Rubel, M. Fusion neutrons: tritium breeding and impact on wall materials and components of diagnostic systems. J Fusion Energy 2019;38:315–29, in Google Scholar

40. Costley, AE. On the fusion triple product and fusion power gain of Tokamak pilot plants and reactors. Nucl Fusion 2016;56:066003, in Google Scholar

41. Brink, DM. Nuclear fission and fusion. In: Bassani, F, Liedl, GL, Wyder, P, editors Encyclopedia of condensed matter physics. Elsevier; 2005:113–8 pp.10.1016/B0-12-369401-9/00627-6Search in Google Scholar

42. Luce, TC. Realizing steady-state Tokamak operation for fusion energy. Phys Plasmas 2011;18:030501, in Google Scholar

43. Porkolab, M. Waves and RF heating in plasmas: a historical perspective, 2001. Available from: in Google Scholar

44. in Google Scholar

45. Hou, Z, Jin, Y, Chen, H, Tang, JF, Huang, CJ, Yuan, H, et al.. “Super-Heisenberg” and Heisenberg scalings achieved simultaneously in the estimation of a rotating field. Phys Rev Lett 2021;126:070503. in Google Scholar

46. EuroFusion. Available from: [Accessed 20 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

47. Xu, Y. A general comparison between Tokamak and Stellarator plasmas. Matter Radiat Extrem 2016;1:192–200, in Google Scholar

48. DIII-D. General atomic. Available from: [Accessed 15 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

49. About NIFPhoton Science, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Available from: [Accessed 15 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

50. Transformative enabling capabilities for efficient advance toward fusion Energy TEC Report Feb 2018 [Accessed 15 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

51. Steffen, A, Reiser, J, Hoffmann, J, Onea, A. Energy Technol 2017;5:1064–70.10.1002/ente.201600571Search in Google Scholar

52. Neuman, EW, Hilmas, GE, Fahrenholtz, WG. J Am Ceram Soc 2016;99:597. in Google Scholar

53. Bloom, EE, Zinkle, SJ, Wiffen, FW. Materials to deliver the promise of fusion power– progress and challenges. J Nucl Mater 2004;329–333:12–9, in Google Scholar

54. Nozawa, T, Katoh, Y, Snead, LL. The effect of neutron irradiation on the fiber/matrix interphase of silicon carbide composites. J Nucl Mater 2009;384:195, in Google Scholar

55. Linke, J. Plasma facing materials and components for future fusion devices—development, characterization and performance under fusion specific loading conditions. Phys Scr 2006;T123:45–53, in Google Scholar

56. Ibarra, A, Hodgson, ER. The ITER project: the role of insulators. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect B 2004;219:29, in Google Scholar

57. Stoneham, AM, Matthews, JR, Ford, IJ. Innovative materials for fusion power plant structures: separating functions. J Phys Condens Matter 2004;16:S2597–621, in Google Scholar

58. Porro, S, De Temmerman, G, Lisgo, S, John, P. Nanocrystalline diamond coating of fusion plasma facing components. Diam Relat Mater 2009;18:740–4. in Google Scholar

59. Ono, M. Nucl Fusion 2015;55:027001.10.1088/0029-5515/55/2/027001Search in Google Scholar

60. Nygrena, RE, Tabarés, FL. Liquid surfaces for fusion plasma facing components—a critical review. Part I: Physics and PSI. Nucl Mater Energy 2016;9:6–21, in Google Scholar

61. Oyarzabal, E, Martin-Rojo, AB, Tabares, FL. J Nucl Mater 2014;452:37–40. in Google Scholar

62. Guo, HY, Li, J, Gong, XZ, Wan, BN, Hu, JS, Wang, L, et al.. Nucl Fusion 2014;54:013002.10.1088/0029-5515/54/1/013002Search in Google Scholar

63. Schmitt, JC, Bell, RE, Boyle, DP, Esposti, B, Kaita, R, LeBlanc, BP, et al.. Phys Plasmas 2015;22:056112. in Google Scholar

64. Osborne, TH, Jackson, GL, Yan, Z, Maingi, R, Mansfield, DK, Grierson, BA, et al.. Nucl Fusion 2015;55:063018. in Google Scholar

65. Materials Genome Initiative. Available from: [Accessed 3 Jan 2021].Search in Google Scholar

66. Powering the Future Fusion & Plasmas, A Report of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) Long Range Planning, 2021. Available from: in Google Scholar

67. in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2022-01-27

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 26.3.2023 from
Scroll Up Arrow