Fusion energy start-ups are actively working to reframe public perception by distancing themselves from conventional nuclear power terminology, reflecting a strategic effort to highlight the distinct safety profile and regulatory needs of their technology. As interest and investment in fusion surge, particularly in the United States, the industry is pushing for a regulatory framework that acknowledges its fundamental differences from nuclear fission.

Fusion technology, which aims to replicate the sun’s energy generation by fusing atomic nuclei rather than splitting them, has attracted more than $11.5 billion in private funding worldwide. Over 50 companies are competing to commercialize fusion power, with high-profile backers including Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. Despite a recent demonstration by a U.S. government laboratory proving net energy gain is possible through fusion, no company has yet built a commercially viable fusion power plant.

A key aspect of fusion firms’ branding involves forgoing terms traditionally associated with nuclear power, such as “nuclear” and “reactor.” Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), one of the sector’s largest players with roughly $4 billion in funding, was among the first to eschew these labels. CFS CEO Bob Mumgaard explained that fusion should be “judged on its merits” independently of nuclear fission’s legacy, which carries both positive and negative connotations. Helion Energy, another prominent company, refers to its devices as “generators” instead of reactors and views common nuclear power perceptions as not applicable to fusion.

Industry leaders argue that fusion systems present fundamentally different risks compared with conventional nuclear plants. Unlike fission, which relies on a chain reaction that can potentially run out of control, fusion reactions cannot sustain such a runaway process. However, fusion still involves radioactive materials such as tritium, and neutron exposure can render reactor components radioactive over time. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) characterizes fusion as “inherently safe” based on these distinctions. Tritium’s half-life of 12.3 years is significantly shorter than many fission byproducts, some of which remain hazardous for millennia.

Nonetheless, experts like fusion physicist Colin McNally caution that the presence of radioactive fuel onsite, even with a relatively short half-life, could pose political and regulatory challenges as projects scale up to commercial size. He emphasized the difference between long-term environmental contamination and shorter-term potential risks to people but acknowledged that both concerns require careful management.

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is currently in the process of finalizing regulatory rules that would treat fusion facilities similarly to particle accelerators rather than conventional nuclear plants. This approach aims to establish a lighter licensing regime under which many fusion projects could receive state-level rather than federal oversight. States are already vying to become leaders in the emerging fusion industry by offering streamlined permitting processes.

Former NRC lawyer Christian England-Livingood, involved in shaping the regulatory framework, noted the fusion industry’s advocacy significantly influenced the commission’s thinking. She described the input as instrumental in broadening the NRC’s perspective on fusion, an agency traditionally described as “very closed.”

Andrew Holland, chief executive of the Fusion Industry Association—one of the main advocates for regulatory separation—confirmed the group’s deliberate avoidance of “nuclear” and “reactor” terminology to shift perception and facilitate a distinct regulatory path.

As the fusion sector advances towards commercial deployment, its leaders remain firm on the need for language that highlights their technology’s uniqueness. “Fusion deserves to be its own thing,” said Mumgaard. “So we should make language that highlights that.”