1

Nuclear Fusion Diffusion Challenges and Opportunities: Theory, Policy, Practice and Politics

 promise of Generation IV reactors, due to the fundamental Abstract—Fusion energy has the potential to address long- problems of “(i) maintaining safe operation of the nuclear term energy requirements and climate change. However, fusion plants, (ii) securing the fuel supplies, (iii) a strategy for the energy is characterized by a ‘development divide’ between the management of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel” [5, International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) consortium members and the non-ITER ‘Global South’ states. It 41]. is beset with problems, which can be divided into geopolitical, The present impasse, including the impending withdrawal geoeconomic, geo-sociocultural, and geo-technological (GEO- of the United States (U.S.) from the Paris Agreement, is PEST). Geopolitical problems include cooperation on fusion partially because national self-interests are triumphing over energy development between ITER members (of the Global the notion that technological innovation leads directly to North) and the Global South on fusion development. Geo- economic problems include the cost of funding ITER versus implementation (the ‘engineer’s myth’) [6]. However, these newly emerging privatesector fusion companies. Geo- same national self-interests can be leveraged to escape sociocultural problems include the requirement to maintain the gridlock via enabling actions to encourage the development peacebuilding tradition of nuclear energy (embodied by the Cold and commercialization of energy innovations, like fusion War-era ‘Atoms for Peace’ initiative), as well as public energy. With regard to such transformation, the role of perceptions of radiation. Geotechnological problems include tokamak lock-in, fuel type, the viability of ‘compact reactors’, international institutions is “to help governments deliver as and disruptive technology events. We outline these problems and much as they are willing and able to implement so that the discuss how to address them in a timely fashion via an external collective effort better reflects the collective good” [6, 49]. To independent review mechanism, modelled on the International this end, this article calls for a global external independent Energy Agency’s ‘Global Commission for Urgent Action on review (EIR) of the various international, national, and Energy Efficiency’, established in 2019 and due to deliver recommendations in 2020. private-sector fusion projects that will assess the collective good that a collective effort, with developing ‘Global South’ Index Terms—Energy for All, External Independent Review, (and OPEC countries) co-funding and co-development, could Fusion power generation, Global South, ITER, Nuclear Industry, deliver in terms of fusion energy’s contribution to phasing out GEO-PEST Analysis fossil fuels this century. The fusion energy roadmap is presently dominated by the multi-billion dollar decades-long International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) scientific experiment, supported by China, India the U.K., the European Union (E.U.), Japan, I. INTRODUCTION South Korea, Russia, and the U.S. [7][8]. Leveraging ITER’s HE relationship between nuclear energy and the progress along its own technology maturation pathway [9, 92, Tenvironment is a delicate one. Although climate change 243], the first national energy-generating tokamak-based has been designated the highest impact and highest likelihood fusion reactors are projected to emerge in around 2042, in the threat to the global economy and society [1], progress on form of the Chinese CFETR tokamak [10] or, in the case of rapidly resolving it has reached gridlock, one which the Paris the United Kingdom STEP spherical tokamak grid-connected Agreement [2] seems unlikely to overcome. The United design, by 2040 [11]. Nations’ (U.N.) position is that the Paris Agreement is not, on Meanwhile, leading private-sector fusion companies project its present pathway, capable of maintaining greenhouse gas fusion could materialize at the commercial application level emissions at below 3°C above preindustrial levels [3], let within the next decade [12]. However, these private-sector alone the 2°C defined in the Agreement. The likelihood of projections rely on full funding of sometimes highly more extreme global warming scenarios developing is speculative new physics, whereas the rapid development of a accentuated by most G20 countries not being on track to meet global fusion economy would likely require an international their Paris Agreement Nationally Determined Contributions program greater in scope and size than the U.S. Atoms for [4]. Peace project [13], any sign of which is so far lacking. This is partly because nuclear fission has not become Despite the slow progress of fusion development, over the globally accepted as a low-carbon baseload energy alternative past half-century, various countries have viewed the adoption to fossil fuels. This situation is likely to persist, despite the of fusion energy as a highly attractive alternative to fossil fuels [14][15] because of its revolutionary and cost-effective

 potential in global low carbon energy transition strategies [16] 2

[17]. Fusion is a relatively low radiation process, with the urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts” [30, possibility of extremely low radiation aneutronic fuel systems, 14/35] Here, the Group of 77 UN bloc (G77; actually 133 for example via inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) [18], states) [32] stands out as a potential co-development partner utilizing the so-called Grad’s wiffle-ball effect [19]; it is also for global fusion community because it is often synonymous safer than fission in that there exists no possibility of a with the Global South. It includes most OPEC countries and terium) and manufactured inside the plant (tritium) via a several very wealthy petro-states, such as Saudi Arabia, and tritium breeder [21]. large fossil-fuel reliant economies, such as Brazil. Given fusion’s potential and the present lack of a global Of the G77, only India is an ITER member, although fusion program, this article makes the case for establishing a several G77 countries have their own fusion programs and high-level, global commission in order for the international already cooperate with ITER, such as Brazil, through Euratom community to conduct an external independent review (EIR) [33], and Thailand [34], or invested in the fusion private- of fusion’s progress and so investigate whether collective sector, as when Malaysia, via its sovereign wealth fund (SWF) global ‘urgent action’ on fusion energy is, in any way, viable, (Khazanah Nasional), invested in the Canadian company and if so, at what cost. In response to increasing demands for General Fusion [35]. This suggests non-ITER states, acting energy and rising greenhouse gas emissions, such an approach either as sovereign states or as blocs, e.g., G77, OPEC, Gulf has already been taken by the International Energy Agency Cooperation Council, could co-develop fusion through ITER (IEA) with regard to urgent action on energy efficiency, when DEMO projects, joint ventures, or investment in private-sector it established the ‘Global Commission for Urgent Action on fusion companies, via SWF, government agencies, state- Energy Efficiency’ on 24 June, 2019 [22]. owned enterprises, or private companies. In arguing for the timeliness of an EIR to examine global Such arrangements may be viable given that the G77 has its progress on fusion and make ‘urgent action’ own geopolitical ‘South-South cooperation’ viewpoint [36], recommendations, this article reviews fusion via a high-level centered on the goals of G77 member states, North-South geopolitical, geo-economic, geo-sociocultural and geo- geopolitical differences, and countering the “power of the technological (GEO-PEST) approach [23], a form of PEST purse” of developed countries, as embodied in oppositional management analysis [24]; PEST analysis has already been dynamics between the General Assembly (GA) and the UN applied in a similar manner to global wind energy [25]. Security Council, due to the G77’s ability to invoke the This article considers the development divide in fusion, ‘majority rule’ of the GA. briefly describes the external EIR mechanism, then makes the OPEC has its own viewpoint on energy development, case for the timeliness of the EIR in terms of the GEO-PEST which, given the reality of resource depletion and exhaustion, framework. The article establishes that there is a sufficient recognizes the development of alternative energies as valid, number of serious GEO-PEST fusion-related problems to and that to this end, recognizes in principle that in developing merit a global EIR. This could then lead to more countries e.g., nuclear energy, it is necessary “to keep the prices of fuel becoming involved in fusion energy development and oil above those of its alternatives for the supply of electricity commercialization, based on the premise of various forms of so that their development would not be damaged by uncertain patent ‘co-development’ [26, 5-31], particularly through prospects” [37, 50]. OPEC also has its own development investment by the Global South, and the OPEC bloc agenda for the Global South, realized through the OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID), which has historically II.THE DEVELOPMENT DIVIDE IN FUSION focused on developing non-OPEC (mainly Arab) states though The geopolitics of economic development involves the an emphasis on energy [38], recently including energy promotion of North-South mutual respect, equal partnership, alternatives like solar [39]. and mutual interests, as well as the avoidance of double The development of fusion thus has significant implications standards between the developed nations and the developing for the G77, with ITER being dominated by the global world, especially in areas such as clean energy technology and ‘North’. The ITER and G77 blocs can be compared in terms of the environment [27][28]. These can be achieved through the total GDP, total population (GDP and population figures are principle of ‘distributive justice’ [29], as embodied in the UN sourced from [40]; GDP is nominal, in current dollar prices for Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDG), especially Goal 7 December 2017), human development, and innovative ability on “affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for in order to provide a simple comparative profile. all” [30, 14/35], in order to bring about ‘energy justice’ [31]. The 35 countries that constitute ITER include all the former In Goal 7, the U.N. has set the goal of universal, primarily colonial powers, including Japan, and only one G77 country, electrical, energy for all by 2030. India. Between them, they have a GDP of $56.9 trillion The involvement of the Global South in the development of (around 75.2 per cent of the world’s GDP, and a population of fusion is important for the long-term development of fair 3.9 billion, or 52.1 per cent of the world’s population. The global sustainable energy and for equitably addressing energy median country in terms of GDP is Denmark, with a GDP of transformation in climate mitigation policies, initiatives, and $306.9 billion dollars, whereas the median for population is practices. If a fusion economy is adopted globally, fusion Portugal, with a population of 10.4 million people. energy can contribute this century to UNSDG 13, “Take In terms of human development, using the 2018 UN Human Development Index (HDI) [41], which measures life 3 expectancy, education, and per capita income, the ITER III. THE EXTERNAL INDEPENDENT REVIEW AS A MECHANISM median is 0.888 (‘very high’). In contrast, the GDP of the 133 FOR GLOBAL SOUTH CO-DEVELOPMENT OF FUSION G77 countries is $13.8 trillion (18.3% of the global total), and External independent reviews (EIRs) are a crucial its total population is 4.4 billion, or 59.4 per cent of the global component of the energy industry. In the public sector, they total. The median country’s GDP is $16.1 billion (Zimbabwe) are governed by government guidelines, such as the U.S. and the median population is 8.7 million (Tajikistan). The G77 Department of Energy’s (DoE) External Independent Review median HDI is 0.656 (‘medium’; no one country as median is (EIR) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) [45], which was an average of Cabo Verde/Guyana and Nicaragua), a drop of informed by the National Research Council’s Assessment of two development categories. As a bloc, the G77 is therefore the Results of External Independent Reviews for U.S. much more populous than the ITER countries, but with a Department of Energy Projects [46]. much lower total and average GDP. The countries are also, in Such guidelines then inform more detailed assessment HDI terms, much less developed. processes employed in both internal and external energy Energy transformation is especially important for the Global technology assessment, such as the U.S. DoE’s Technology South, as it plays a role in increasing a country’s levels of Readiness Assessment Guide [47], as well as assessments by development and in managing structural transitions, such as non-DoE bodies, for instance the U.S. Navy, which conducted energy transitions [42], e.g., the transition to electric cars [43, a series of four technical reviews on private contractor 49]. The difference between the ITER-Global South blocs in EMC2’s fusion technology between 2008 and 2013 [48][49] the ability to innovate and engage in entrepreneurial activity is [50]51]. This section describes the U.S. approach as a) the indicated by the Global Innovation Index (GII) [44]. The GII U.S. is most likely to insist its standards are adopted in any draws on data from, inter alia, the International global EIR of the progress of fusion energy, and b) the U.S. Telecommunication Union, the World Bank and the World DoE’s EIR approach informs that of many other countries’ energy sectors. Economic Forum, and is composed of up to five The U.S. DoE distinguishes between independent project subcomponents, totaling 80 indicators. The Input Index is reviews, which are “conducted by federal staff not directly composed of Institutions, Human capital and research, affiliated with the project or program and management and Infrastructure, Market sophistication, and Business operations (M&O) contractors” and EIRs, which are sophistication, whereas the Output Index is composed of “overseen by the Office of Engineering and Construction Knowledge and technology outputs and Creative outputs (see Management and conducted by contractors external to the Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO 2018, 15). department” (46, 1). However, both reviews are peer reviews, Every ITER country has a GII score, with the highest being and EIRs often rely on previous peer review work undertaken 68.4 (Switzerland), the lowest being 35.2 (India), and the by IPRs. Peer reviews have multiple aspects and are defined median being 50.2 (Malta). In contrast, only 69 of the 133 by the National Research Council (46, 1) thusly: G77 countries are included in the GII index, with the omissions being due to the small size of the economies (e.g., Peer reviews are conducted to ensure that activities are Nauru) or difficulties in collecting data (e.g., Somalia). For technically adequate, competently performed, and properly these 69 countries, the highest is 59.8 (Singapore), and the documented; to validate assumptions, calculations, and lowest is 15.4 (Yemen), with the median being 28.2 extrapolations; and to assess alternative interpretations, (Botswana). In addition, an Efficiency Ratio can be calculated, methodologies, acceptance criteria, and other aspects of the consisting of the ratio of the Output Sub-Index score to the work products and the documentation that support them. Input Sub-Index score. This shows how much innovation Effective peer reviews are conducted in an environment of output a country is obtaining for its inputs, and whereas the mutual respect, recognizing the contributions of all ITER median is 0.84, the G77 median is 0.39. participants. Their primary objective is to help the project This brief high-level analysis illustrates the current barriers team achieve its goals. Reviews also contribute to quality facing the Global South in integrating into the global fusion assurance, risk management, and overall improvement of community and so co-developing fusion energy. the management process.

They can be applied at five main critical decision (CD) stages in the project management process (46, 1):

 CD-0 Approve mission need  CD-1 Approve alternative selection and cost range  CD-2 Approve performance baseline  CD-3 Approve start of construction  CD-4 Approve start of operations or project closeout

An EIR should embody six main characteristics, in that it should consider the diverse stakeholders and benefits; review 4 the planning process and involve tailoring, such as by the U.K.’s national STEP program. The result would be a complexity, cost, risk, safety, schedule, security, and visibility; global cost-benefit assessment of the possibility of urgent maintain its independence; integrate the differing reviews; action on fusion energy to address both energy requirements carefully consider cost and value; and be used to improve and climate change. The main concern now is the timeliness of project management capabilities [46]. the EIR, which the following four sections will review. An EIR’s criteria should consider the amount of time elapsing between CDs, capabilities of the project management IV. GEO-PEST ANALYSIS OF FUSION team, inherent risks, project complexity, and total project cost A. Geopolitical Analysis of Fusion (TPC) [46, 23]. The EIR process itself includes a scoping meeting, team selection and staffing, allocation of roles and The problem addressed in this section is whether there responsibilities, and project documentation, including the EIR exists a geopolitical case for a fusion EIR. The geopolitcs of reports themselves [45]. fusion energy falls within the subfield of ‘open’ innovation At the global level and on the concept of ‘urgent action’, the diplomacy [23], a form of science diplomacy, a subfield of IEA Global Commission for Urgent Action on Energy international relations [56][57]. The geopolitics of fusion Efficiency (IEA, 2019) is a potential model for an EIR on energy is characterized by a paucity of recent academic fusion. The IEA Global Commission was established on 24 research. A SCOPUS abstract and key word search on 29 June 2019 at the IEA’s 4th annual Global Conference on October 2019 revealed only 33 academic articles, conference Energy Efficiency in Dublin, Ireland. The Commission is papers, or book chapters for the search term (“nuclear fusion” chaired by Leo Varadkar, Prime Minister of Ireland, his moral AND politic*), only six of which are from after 2010. claim to lead it enhanced by the success of the 2017 Irish Nonetheless. ITER is not just the world’s largest science Climate Assembly [53]. The Commission presently comprises experiment but also the world’s largest science diplomacy 21 members, including national leaders, current and former initiative, one designed to counter Cold War enmities by ministers, top business executives and global thought leaders. creating a common project for humanity. In the words of the The Commission is relying on the analytical expertise of the Joint Soviet-United States Statement on the Summit Meeting IEA as well as on a global public survey, and it is due to in Geneva, November 21, 1985 [58]: develop recommendations in Spring 2020 and deliver them in June 2020. The two leaders emphasized the potential importance of the Although the global fusion EIR could involve the IEA, the work aimed at utilizing controlled thermonuclear fusion for IEA is an OECD-based organization rather than a global peaceful purposes and, in this connection, advocated the organisation, thus a similar commission on fusion would likely widest practicable development of international cooperation also involve International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in obtaining this source of energy, which is essentially steering, as the IAEA is a global autonomous agency that has inexhaustible, for the benefit for all mankind. an existing remit for supervising the development of fusion energy [54[55]. The diverse stakeholders affected both by ITER thus began in 1985 as a Reagan–Gorbachev initiative energy development and climate change means the EIR must designed to reduce the possibility of conflict during the Cold involve the participation of not just ITER consortium War by seeking to unite East and West in the quest for fusion, countries but the entire global community, which could be with the equal participation of the European Atomic Energy achieved through bloc-based participation, whether regional or Community, Japan, the Soviet Union, and the U.S. The interest-based, and UN Economic and Social Council (UN responsible development of fusion reactors is not a given and ECOSOC) participation. will likely be determined by three factors that depend on The maintenance of the EIR’s independence could be domestic policies and politics as well as international guaranteed by ensuring the externality of reviewing, such as regulation [59, 525]: by country for national projects (e.g., U.S./U.K./China), fuel type (neutronic / aneutronic), technology (e.g., tokamak / (i) the technological trajectory of global energy policies spherical tokamak / stellarator, etc.), sector (public / private), (fusion development pathways and timetables); stakeholder (Global North / Global South), etc. (ii) the management of a peaceful power transition To conclude this section, this article is advocating a global between rising and declining powers (geopolitical EIR on fusion via a mechanism similar to, though not identical conflict management); and to, the IEA Global Commission for Urgent Action on Energy (iii) the overall acceptance of the nuclear normative order Efficiency. This EIR would independently review global (International Atomic Energy Agency regulations). planning and implementation progress towards fusion energy, tailoring by both main forms (neutronic and aneutronic), the In the run-up to the launch of ITER in 2007, there was a technology maturation progress of different (tokamak and growing appreciation that fusion was a ‘pathfinder’ for the non-tokamak) projects, and public and private sector projects. globalization of research and development of technology, one The EIR would include cost and value considerations and which impacts sustainability, financial markets, information estimations of total project costs for existing and planned and communication networks, and global organizations of projects towards prototype grid-connected reactors, such as research and innovation processes. There are three dimensions 5 to this pathfinding [60, 1094): paper China’s Energy Conditions and Policies [79]. China created the world record beating Experimental Advanced (i) the recognition and treatment of global problems; Superconducting Tokamak [80], in which there is U.S. (ii) the transformation and evolution of new forms of scientific collaboration [9, 232]. It also has its own fusion organization and cooperation in a global community of development programs, including the HL-2A, the HL-2M and researchers; the China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor [81], in which (iii) the constitution of Global Change Research. U.S. fusion scientists also collaborate [9, 235]. However, the age of close Sino-American scientific The potential of fusion to address multiple global problems collaboration effectively ended in 2011, when the U.S. passed is particularly important. In the face of liberalizing energy a spending bill which prohibited NASA from working with markets, fusion scientists have called for political decisiveness China, shutting China out of the International Space Station to keep tokamak fusion (ITER) on track for commercialization [82, 18]. The more recent trade war, concerned with illicit IP around 2050, seeing it as of benefit for sustainable transfer, including Chinese theft of U.S. nuclear IP, especially development [61]. The ITER pathway envisages initial the Allen Ho incident [83], have led to significant U.S. experiments on DT fusion in 2035, with the actual sanctions on civil nuclear technology transfer to China [84]. development of one or more prototype tokamak fusion energy Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with the development of reactors (DEMO) around 2050 [9, 92, 243]. China as a military [85] and nuclear power [86] Chinese However, as outlined above, the ITER approach is not a military development appears to be focusing on fusion reactor global geopolitical initiative. In addition to China, the EU, and technology where the U.S. has a noticeable lead, i.e., inertial the U.S., only five other states are participating on an equal confinement [87, 37]. basis, i.e., India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and Switzerland, In the military context, fusion reactors could be used to the latter as a third country member of the European Domestic propel naval platforms and power military weapons. For Agency’s ‘Fusion for Energy’ agency. Canada withdrew from example, since the 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative, U.S. the ITER proposal in 2003, and Australia is the only other defense policy has sought to leverage state-of-the-art energy country with substantive technical engagement. The high technology, such as Directed Energy Weapons and Electronic financial barrier to entry to ITER, where an equal partner Weapons [88], for military purposes. The development of contribution is measured in billions of dollars, means that the Chinese nuclear capabilities is seen as a particular challenge to developing world faces a problem competing in the fusion U.S. dominance, as nuclear energy provides a sufficient and energy race as individual countries; this leaves open the reliable energy source for such weapons [89]. possibility of the Global South acting as a bloc or as sub- Because of these concerns, on October 11, 2018, the DoE blocs. issued new guidance with much wider presumption of denial Although the Cold War is over, the geopolitical role for of requests for technology export, including for non-light ITER and for fusion in general in benefiting all humanity water advanced fission reactors [84]. Moreover, there is an continues, as geopolitical tensions between the main automatic presumption of denial for exports to the state- participants remain. These include ‘New Cold War’ tensions backed China General Nuclear Power Group, as it is currently between Russia and Europe [62], between Russia and the U.S. facing charges related to the U.S. Atomic Energy Act. A case- [63][64], and particularly between China and the U.S.. The by-case review process was put in place which will analyze tensions between the U.S. and China merit further “the risk of diversion to the military, the risk to U.S. national consideration because of their severity. For example, due to and economic security, and the risk inherent in the parties to emerging energy securitization challenges in the Asia Pacific the transaction” and balance this against the “economic and region [65][66][67], the worsening of relations between China strategic benefits the export might provide” [84, 1]. and the U.S. could lead to a Sino-American ‘Cold War’. In addition, a June 2018 National Intelligence Council Geopolitical hot spots include the South China Sea, South report noted that China’s “Thousand Talents” program was a Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India), and Northern Africa threat to U.S. Intellectual Property (IP), and the U.S. has and the Middle East [68][69][70]. The China-U.S. trade war limited cooperation with the program [73]. [71[72], is another factor, especially due to some of its roots This situation is clearly not ideal. Considerable multilateral being in China’s infringement of high-technology intellectual efforts were invested in the development of ITER in the 1980s property rights (IPR) [73], including, potentially, fusion IPR. to secure U.S.-U.S.S.R. cooperation on fusion energy during Sino-U.S. competition in cyberspace and over artificial the Cold War period. Likewise, with China’s emergence as a intelligence add to the complexity [74[75]. serious challenger to the current unipolar world system (the These tensions are worsening despite the U.S. and China’s ‘Thucydides Trap’), considerable efforts may need to be membership of ITER. Chinese scientists are well aware of invested to secure continued U.S.-China cooperation on, rather fusion’s potential, including ‘spillover benefits’ [76], such as than conflict over, fusion energy. it being a neutron source for medical purposes [77]. Chinese The Thucydides Trap is a term coined by Graham Allison, researchers are actively studying U.S. fusion patents with the an American political scientist and professor at the John F. aim of developing China’s own high profile and successful Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. The fusion programs [78], originally announced in the 2007 white concept refers to the fact that the situation of hegemonic 6 powers challenged by newcomers, such as the British Empire over a dozen companies are now developing ‘compact when faced by the rise of the German Empire, has frequently fusion’—small, economically attractive fusion technologies led to preventive war, and Allison has applied the term to the [103]. They include Commonwealth Fusion Systems, EMC2, U.S.-Chinese geopolitical context, as a warning rather than a General Fusion, Helion Energy, Lockheed Martin, TAE specific prediction [90]. Technologies and Tokamak Energy, most of which are U.S.- The recent worsening in U.S.-Chinese relations in the past based [12][104][105]. year has provoked a number of sinologists to critically Some of these companies are also receiving public funding, evaluate Allison’s appraisal of Sino-U.S. relations, with a typically a few million dollars, via the US government’s recent issue of the Journal of Chinese Political Science being Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), dedicated to the subject [91]. The consensus is that which has been funding non-tokamak technologies since 2015 psychological misperceptions on both sides present a threat via its Alpha program [106]. regarding status that must be overcome [92][93]. However, The private-sector companies are organizing as an industry with China increasing its military spending [94] and—in the [107] and positioning themselves to take advantage of case of fusion research—with China’s actively seeking theoretical and practical scientific advances in the field, such information on private-sector fusion developments in other as iterative advancements in high power electronics, machine ITER member countries [95] needing to be seen within learning, materials science, and engineering [9, 89-133). For China’s overall IPR infringement record [96] [97], the instance, Helion Energy projects employing advanced Helium- baseline for Sino-U.S. science diplomacy must be re-created. 3 fuels and leveraging high power electronics developed for In fact, the U.S. has acknowledged the requirement for it to space propulsion and the smart grid [108]. This is better understand the interactions between the U.S. fusion complementary to the traditional approaches of the private- program and the programs of other ITER members (such as sector fusion community, which involves innovating through China), as well as with the private sector [9]. rapid turnover iteration of small, relatively inexpensive To conclude this section, we provide two geopolitical machines to develop technology incrementally in order to test reasons for the argument that an EIR of global process on proof of concept [109]. fusion is timely. The first reason is to review ITER’s progress Unlisted private compact fusion companies generally guard towards becoming a global collective effort by humanity to their secrecy. However, their progress can still be evaluated by achieve fusion. The second would review ITER’s role as a a) the amount and nature of public oversight, b) the amount of geopolitical instance of innovation diplomacy, considering investment, c) the makeup of a board of directors, and d) if geopolitical tensions between all consortium members. This is ever a recipient of public funding, Freedom of Information especially important in the case of Sino-U.S. relations, as the requests. The leading contender in terms of investment is the Sino-U.S. trade war may inhibit progress managing climate U.S.-based TAE Technologies, which was founded in 1998 change [98]. As such, an EIR could re-establish a baseline for and came out of stealth mode in 2015. It has received over 700 global, and especially Sino-U.S., cooperation on fusion million USD in funding, mainly from private investors and energy. venture capitalists like Goldman Sachs, Vulcan Inc., Venrock, and New Enterprise Associates [110][111]. In 2017, its board B. Geo-economic Analysis of Fusion of directors was augmented when Ernest Moniz, the former The problem addressed in this section is whether there U.S. Secretary of Energy who brokered President Barack exists a geo-economic case for an EIR of fusion. The Obama’s Iranian deal, joined the team [112]. development of tokamak-based fusion as an energy source has Commonwealth Fusion Systems, CTFusion, General so far proven expensive. As of 2016, ITER is projected to cost Fusion, TAE Technologies, and Tokamak Energy all aspire to over €20 billion [99]. net gain fusion by around 2025 and a prototype commercial A fusion economy based on ITER successor ‘DEMO’ grid-connected reactor by around 2030, although this is tokamak family machines (including the spherical tokamak extremely ambitious, and these companies are not even fully ‘compact reactor’) is decades away [100] and in any case funded to attempt this goal. As the CEO of Helion Energy, would require greenhouse gas externalities to be incorporated David Kirtley, has made clear, such ambitious timelines into a unit cost scheme to be viable [101]. This externalities assume full funding [113]. At present, no private-sector fusion requirement is one which the U.S., by withdrawing from the companies are fully funded to such a degree [114]. The Paris Agreement, may be unwilling to endorse, and which business cases, and so geo-economics, of private-sector many Global South countries may be unable to afford. businesses are, generally speaking, commercial-in-confidence, Moreover, the Chinese CFETR and U.K. STEP machines, although Helion Energy has released information about its while grid-connected energy generating prototypes designed revenue model [115]. A private-sector prototype non-grid to ‘leapfrog’ ITER, do not presently have business cases connected demonstration reactor costs from $50 million to associated with them that would lead to market. $500 million, depending on the technology [116]. In contrast to the public-sector tokamak route, private- Focusing on the geo-economic problems inherent to this sector companies generally promise cheaper, faster routes to situation, as we outlined in a previous section, the majority of market, based on less well understood, more speculative the world’s countries are, so far, not fully engaged with ITER technologies. According to the Fusion Industry Association, or the multi-billion dollar fusion industry more generally, 7 either as co-developers or as future customers. Fusion energy focused on the ‘Atoms for Peace’ approach, which was development along its multiple pathways, such as tokamak, designed to develop nations by leveraging the U.S. spherical tokamak, stellarator, field-reversed configuration technological advantage within the overall geopolitics of the (FRC), and IEC, requires billions of dollars of funding, in Cold War [13]. As our analysis of the fusion divide suggests, most cases over decades, in order to reach the stage of a grid- this development-cum-peace-building obligation, which is connected reactor, and in the public sector, only ITER is close already integral to the mission of the U.N.A.E.C.’s successor, to fully funded; funding plans for the Chinese CFETR and the the IAEA, should not just be maintained, but strengthened by UK STEP are not, so far, public. enlarging the global fusion community. Furthermore, because of the high level of technological A ‘Trinity-test’-level critical juncture for fusion that could complexity and secrecy inherent in private-sector fusion IP, be leveraged for peace-building along the lines of the Baruch the fusion market risks market failure due to information Plan could be the achievement of a self-sustaining fusion asymmetries, i.e., gross inequality in information between the reaction, i.e., a burning plasma [124], although the first grid- seller and buyer, which can affect, for example, interpersonal connected reactor would be another opportunity. trust in the entrepreneur-investor relationship in technology Finally, an EIR should review the public perception of situations [117]. Information asymmetries can, nonetheless, be radiation from nuclear energy [125], especially given the assuaged by signaling factors like patents or previous national Fukushima event [126]. The public’s response to the lower grants, with one option being to build venture capital into the radiation risks of fusion is so far a poorly researched, though grant process [118]. important, topic, as it will inform the extent to which the Finally, Global South-dominated blocs, such as OPEC, public will view fusion as an ‘alternative’ sustainable energy unless involved in global fusion co-development, could act to rather than ‘nuclear’ energy. deter the development of an alternative energy [119]. In To conclude this section, the principal geo-sociocultural particular, if fossil-fuel producing nations exhibit ‘limit- reason why an EIR of the progress of fusion globally would be pricing resembling’ monopolistic behavior in response to timely concerns fusion’s potential with regard to peace- fusion’s development, even when faced with a carbon tax as a building, and a secondary issues is public perception of reaction to climate change [120], this could seriously restrict radiation risk levels. the emergence of a future fusion energy market. D.Geo-technological Analysis of Fusion To conclude this section, we find three geo-economic reasons why a global EIR of fusion energy would be timely. The geo-technological context for fusion is defined by the The first is to obtain a better understanding of the business fact it relies on cutting-edge technology beyond the grasp of cases for both the public and private sectors, across multiple most scientists, let alone governments, policy makers, and competing technologies, which between them require average citizens. This section considers technological issues, substantial further additional investments to reach the stage of beginning with the problem of early technological lock-in, grid-connected reactors. The second, related issue, involves turning next to the two main kinds of fusion fuel reaction, and addressing fusion market failure in the form of information finally considering the difficulty in tracking the diverse fast- asymmetries. The third concern is how to better involve the moving technologies driving fusion projects forwards. Global South and OPEC countries in the fusion development Turning first to technological lock-in, the ‘scaling issue’ process, as funders and co-developers, to prevent limit-pricing that affects the tokamak design, and fusion in general, has behavior by fossil fuel economies. resulted in the development of a one ‘big machine’ approach [7], the ITER itself, based at Cadarache, in France. The C.Geo-sociocultural Analysis of Fusion tokamak is the dominant fusion technology family at present, Serious sociocultural implications are attached to that fact and in path dependence terms, because of increasing returns, that nuclear energy development is dominated by the Global sunk costs, and institutional aspects, humanity may be facing North (and fusion by the ITER consortium states), such as tokamak technological ‘lock-in’ [127]. Four characteristics of fairness to, including peace-building obligations towards, the ITER pathway contribute to increasing returns to the disadvantaged and developing countries [13][121], especially tokamak [127]: in an era of petro-wars [122], and the public perception of radiation is a second problem. 1. The setup costs associated with the commercialisation of During the birth of the fission era, the moral need for co- fusion are considerable, both in terms of research and development to address the sociocultural risk of war following development, as well as plant/infrastructure construction. the Second World War took the form of the U.S.-proposed 2. Given the likely desire to move beyond the first-of-a-kind United Nations. Managing the risk of atomic war following DEMO into full-scale commercial operations, the learning the development and dropping of the atomic bomb was effects will likely contribute to DEMO-like reactors addressed in the Baruch Plan, presented to the U.N. Atomic becoming hegemonic. Energy Commission (U.N.A.E.C.) in 1946 with the aim of 3. The arrangements of the ITER/DEMO projects are decommissioning existing atomic weapons and banning all inherently international, with China, the European Atomic future production of atomic weapons [123]. Energy Community, India, Japan; South Korea, Russia and Following the collapse of the U.N.A.E.C., the U.S. effort the US all financing and constructing the ITER reactor. This 8

complexity, alongside with the significant infrastructure FRC colliding beam fusion reactor [137]; Commonwealth required to realise fusion leads to noteworthy coordination Fusion Systems’ ARC tokamak [138], and the Canadian effects. company General Fusion’s magnetized target fusion [139]. 4. As fusion takes place in a political environment, where The fact that some of these companies ultimately aim to negative consequences are likely if designs are chosen that employ aneutronic fusion adds complexity to any analysis. would operate on suboptimal levels, there will be adaption The main fusion reaction systems that can be fueled by DT but expectations around the post-ITER/DEMO pathway as well which may eventually be capable of supporting aneutronic as risk averseness. fusion are the inertial electrostatic confinement polywell, in the ‘wiffle-ball’ high-beta configuration, one used by EMC2 Going forwards, because the majority of global fusion [19] and, in another system, by Lockheed Martin Skunk research is connected to ITER, promising mainstream designs Works [140], and the FRC. such as the stellarator, let alone more speculative designs such Although fusion companies file patents and sometimes as inertial electrostatic confinement, may be unable to publish academic articles, their precise technology compete against ITER-derived tokamak or spherical tokamak development pathways are zealously guarded and involve designs globally, unless ‘new money’ becomes available, such bleeding-edge technological developments at present not well as via the SWF of fossil-fuel producing economies. The understood except in dedicated university facilities or tokamak should, nonetheless be evaluated against four specialist national research laboratories. Moreover, due to potential exogenous shocks: a crisis in the existing technology, their speculative nature, aside from research conducted by the regulation, technological breakthroughs producing (real or defense sector (especially Lockheed Martin), no U.S. private- imagined) cost breakthroughs, and niche markets (such as sector fusion firm is publicly traded on stock markets, instead military applications of otherwise prohibitively expensive primarily relying on venture capitalists, meaning the technologies) [127]. The fact that ITER celebrated its halfway opportunity to assess their business potential is limited. mark in December 2017 [128] adds to the timeliness of an However, the fact that such companies are entering the EIR. market and are obtaining venture capital suggests a certain Secondly, one of the main technological differences in technology threshold has now been reached, whereby fusion fusion is by fuel type, between neutronic fusion, typified on energy as a commercial venture is now a valid, if medium-to- the one hand by the deuterium-tritium reaction, which emits long-term, concept. The 2018 U.S. National Academies report neutrons, and on the other hand, aneutronic fusion, such as the on fusion notes that “increasing industrial interest in fusion is proton-boron11 (p-B11) reaction, which emits far less neutrons, a good sign, indicating the readiness to transition to more of a but which requires substantially higher temperatures, with fusion energy focus and to take advantage of new thermalization becoming problematic for the ignition process opportunities for collaboration” [9, 166]. [129]. At a foundational level, it is generally held that there Fourthly, because of private-sector secrecy, there also exists are fundamental limitations on plasma fusion systems not in the remote possibility of a ‘sudden’ breakthrough. As this thermodynamic equilibrium, a supposition which has in eventuality is rather remote, we place it in the technological techno-institutional terms favored DT-fueled tokamak family rather than economic section of this analysis. Once a self- reactors, as well as other magnetic confinement systems like sustaining burning plasma is achieved, if only as a science the stellarator, in systems like the Wendelstein 7-X [130], and experiment, fusion has the potential to be a ‘disruptive mitigated against technologies ultimately seeking to employ innovation’ within the energy field [141]. This means it could aneutronic fuels such as the p-B11 reaction. However, this cause a short-term shock to the financial sector and, if cheap position has since been revised to acknowledge that an enough to commercialize, disrupt other, potentially even aneutronic fusion system not in thermodynamic equilibrium cheaper fusion technology development pathways, as well as may be viable, though it would require new, potentially Nobel demand for other energy sources over the medium and long Prize-winning physics [131]. If aneutronic fusion is ever term. achieved, global regulation of fusion may need to vary by fuel To conclude this section, we find three reasons why an EIR type because of the different neutron emission levels. would be timely. An EIR would review the lock-in scenario Thirdly, the fast-moving nature of diverse, cross-cutting facing the tokamak family, review the situation concerning the cutting-edge technologies in the nuclear fusion industry [132] two main fusion fuel types, and assess the technological [133] in themselves pose a problem for how policy analysts maturation projections of the main private-sector companies and politicians, in developing and developed countries alike, against various business scenarios. It would assess signals like comprehend them. Given fusion energy via ITER/DEMO may grants or venture capital obtained, in the process addressing now rely on slow progress by the Chinese CFETR during the the risk of a disruptive technology emerging. 2020s and 2030s, in recent years, considerable interest has E. GEO-PEST Summary emerged in innovative compact modular reactor alternatives [134], such as spherical tokamaks [135]; advanced magnetic- This section summarizes the GEO-PEST analysis in tabular confinement cusp and mirror devices [136], including the form (table 1). We find multiple problems in all four GEO- Lockheed Martin Compact Fusion Reactor (CFR) and the PEST categories. EMC2 IEC ‘Polywell’ device [19]; the TAE Technologies 9

In total, twelve reasons for an EIR have been identified. fusion IPR. We discuss our GEO-PEST analysis in this overall TABLE I context in more detail below. GEO-PEST SUMMARY CASE FOR A GLOBAL EIR A.Geopolitics No. Problem Type Subtype Our GEO-PEST analysis indicates that the economic GEO-P1 Fusion as global development of fusion requires global energy leadership, a technological energy pathfinder substantive aspect of the increasingly contested Sino-U.S. GEO-P2 ‘New Cold War’ Russia-Europe wrangle over world economic and military leadership [143] Russia-U.S. [144][145]. The current paradigm of bipolar U.S.-Chinese China-U.S. (Thucydides economic/military leadership risks being dominated by a Trap) GEO-E1 Status of public-sector fusion ITER competition for fossil fuels that historically, in other contexts, DEMO (incl. U.K. STEP) has led to warfare [120]. business case The present vacuum in global economic leadership has GEO-E2 Status of private-sector Business models been posited to result in a stable or unstable leadership fusion Venture capital obtained vacuum (GO), the emergence of China as leader (G1), or a Research grants obtained U.S.-Chinese partnership (G2) [145]. Our EIR mechanism GEO-E3 Information asymmetry risk would insert the Global South as a fulcrum to balance G2, GEO-E4 Relationship with Global Entrepreneur-investor especially as Global South co-development of fusion IP would South re future fusion energy market lessen the likelihood of patent infringement, as Global South Entrepreneur-established countries would be less likely to buy technology that infringed competitor (OPEC, etc.) their own IP. Our analysis emphasizes overcoming the present GEO-S1 Peace-building trade deadlock via cooperative multipolar leadership, via GEO-S2 Public perception of radiation & fusion as ‘alternative’ ‘open’ innovation diplomacy [146], involving co-development energy and co-creation of a new baseline of respect for high- GEO-T1 Technological lock-in Tokamak technology IP. Spherical tokamak? GEO-T2 Fuel type We leave open the question of who should chair a global GEO-T3 Viability of diverse ‘compact commission’s EIR, but a global ‘soft power’ or a G77 OPEC reactor’ technology member, or co-chairs, would all be valid choices. The maturation pathways commission could organize as part of the EIR a Global South GEO-T4 Disruptive technology event oversight task force, probably including its most innovative countries in the 2018 GII, such as Singapore and the United Together, these constitute a rationale for the timeliness of an Arab Emirates, together with a representative sample of less EIR that can then make recommendations on ‘urgent action’ to innovative countries that might already possess national fusion address the problems. laboratories, such as Brazil. This type of oversight, perhaps facilitated by both the V. GEO-PEST DISCUSSION: FUSION INNOVATION DIPLOMACY IAEA and the U.N. Security Council through UN ECOSOC, We seek to develop a fusion energy pathway that can could analyze, and if adopted over the long term, monitor contribute towards ‘energy for all’, i.e., UNSDG 7, as well as progress towards fusion energy while putting in place towards the long-term management of climate change, firewalls between any sensitive IP and G77 countries presently UNSDG 13. Although fusion energy cannot meet short-terms under sanctions, such as North Korea and Iran. Despite the requirements for low carbon energy, it may contribute to complexity challenges, this offers a pathway for Global South medium-term and long-term goals of zero carbon emissions. fossil fuel-based economies to have the choice to eventually However, meeting medium-term goals requires potential transition to fusion energy, concomitantly addressing the ‘neo- customers of fusion energy reactors, many of whom are fossil- colonial’ situation inherent in nuclear energy geopolitics. fuel based economies, to both be informed of, and receptive B. Geo-economics towards, fusion energy. Our analysis indicates that this necessitates their involvement in co-development of the Current outlooks on energy transformation typically do not technology and business models for commercialization, with a include fusion as an energy source, and therefore there has view to developing a future fusion economy. been little interest in addressing the challenges and Because of the UNSDG-endorsed higher-level opportunities of a future fusion energy economy and fusion requirements, there is a requirement for ‘principled realism’ businesses. Nonetheless, our analysis indicates the economic [142] with regard to developing and commercializing fusion. model for how fusion is developed and then commercialized is The nature of the global grand geo-political accommodation a critical issue for environmentally sustainable energy that we recommend creates a multilateral geo-economic and development, particularly in the context of UNSDG 7. geo-sociocultural win-win-win for the public and private Although nuclear fission power is developing sectors, Global North and Global South, and Global West and technologically relatively rapidly, especially as regards safety Global East. This win-win-win scenario creates a new baseline [147], fusion is, in principle, preferable. Once a grid- for the understanding of, and respect for, geo-technological connected fusion power plant is developed, fusion has the potential to be a ‘disruptive innovation’ within the alternative energy field [139], which our approach could result in a 10 process for managing, through multilateral co-development of world by co-developing fusion to benefit Global South the future fusion economy. interests, concomitantly benefiting diplomatically. Presently, however, fusion energy risks being a luxury for The main disadvantage is the additional organizational developed nations. France converted 80% of its primary complexity that this bloc-based peace-building scenario would energy supply to nuclear fission through constructing 58 new bring. For instance, would countries like China (i) agree to reactors in three decades following the first oil crisis [148], Global South co-development under a global commission with and a similar adoption timeframe may be anticipated for IAEA support serving as a fulcrum for re-baselining fusion in the case of select ITER countries once a grid- diplomatic and trade relations with the U.S., (ii) have respect connected reactor is built. for the resultant IP, and (iii) commit to long-term peace- However, the fact that most Global South countries, building via such an arrangement? If China’s government is to including major fossil fuel economies, do not have any be consistent with the country’s recent commitment to a economic or business stake in developing fusion could leave “beautiful China” [149][150], i.e., the securitization of many unable, and even unwilling, to adopt fusion. Energy Chinese climate and energy politics [151], while remaining transformation cooperation between ITER member entities within the UN SDG framework, China will respect Global and the developing world, and between public and private South co-development of fusion towards a peace-building efforts, to achieve the potential of nuclear fusion requires in- goal, if only pragmatically because it grows the global market depth stakeholder consideration, and a global EIR meets this for fusion energy and so brings down the price of future need. Because fusion energy technologies are only at the early Chinese fusion reactors, benefiting China domestically. stages, several doors are open for future collaboration in the In working towards global peace-building, ITER member field. states and the Global South could cooperate on fusion energy In terms of international cooperation, in the U.S., co-development and commercialization within an existing cooperation in the field of fusion technology innovation overarching peace-building framework like Nonkilling Global remains open to both U.S. and non-U.S. companies, as Political Science (NKGPS), which as a paradigm is demonstrated in TAE Technologies’ ability to bring in global represented by the Center for Global Nonkilling at UN stakeholders, like Russia, in the form of Rusnano. Although ECOSOC (Figure 1). the U.S. DoE has issued restrictive guidelines on civilian nuclear technology export to China [84], in a principled realism approach, fusion still holds promise in enhancing not just Sino-U.S. innovation diplomacy, but also trade. In terms of public-private cooperation, the 2018 U.S. National Academies report concludes, “Opportunities exist to encourage and support private investment in fusion energy development and the focused, goal-oriented approach from U.S. industry, which is beneficial to fusion energy development” [9, 170). An EIR could lead not just to more regional and national fusion laboratories in the Global South, which could benefit regions’ and countries’ R&D efforts and business competitiveness, but to a programmatic approach to business Fig. 1. An NKGPS approach toward peaceful development and matching between private-sector businesses and venture commercialization of nuclear fusion with perceived challenges and opportunities. capital, via sovereign wealth funds, state companies or state- owned enterprises, perhaps organized on a bloc basis, such as The ultimate aim could be reducing global military tensions by the G77 or OPEC. This would contribute substantially to a via a universal peace treaty [124]. If this scenario can be future fusion economy. achieved, fusion-based peace-building has a chance of C. Geo-sociocultural securing genuine long-term demilitarization, through reducing Serious sociocultural implications are attached to fusion the likelihood of fossil fuel resource-based wars [124], which, energy development by the Global North-dominated ITER disadvantage populations in developing countries. consortium, such as developing, and facilitating peace in, Finally, the radiation risk from fusion is less than that of disadvantaged countries. During the birth of the fission era, fission, thus an EIR open to the civil society and the media the moral need was managed by the U.S. through the UN AEC could go some way to better differentiating between the and then continued by the ‘Atoms for Peace’ program, a radiation risk levels in the mind of the global media and feature of Cold War geopolitics. public. As our GEO-PEST analysis outlines, this peace-building D. Geo-technological obligation should be maintained by the fusion community, and A global EIR, reviewing the technology of fusion and global peace-building is best developed as a global program. leading to new, innovative funding from the Global South, Furthermore, if the G77 or select blocs within the Global could spur both public sector national laboratories and private- South co-develop fusion, the participating Global South sector companies in ITER member states and beyond to co- countries, such as the OPEC nations, demonstrate South-North leadership and solidarity with populations in the developing 11 develop fusion technologies. This will need to be effected in a would espouse an environmentally sustainable multi-sector way that respects IPR. co-development model that would begin to address and The 2018 U.S. National Academies’ report’s sixth thereby alleviate the concerns. An EIR at the level of a global recommendation included the need “to manage assignment of commission on ‘urgent action’ would involve all five ‘helices’ intellectual property as a means to encourage both private and of the innovation ecosystem, i.e., academia, the public sector, publicly funded researchers to establish mutually beneficial the private sector, civil society and the media, and socio- partnerships” [9, 171]. This has already inspired a new ecological interests [146], both in ITER member states and in program between the U.S. DoE Office of Fusion Energy the Global South. In geopolitical terms, we emphasize the Sciences and the private sector that should both accelerate need for North-South and East-West global rapprochements. private sector-companies’ technology maturation pathways In geo-economic terms, an EIR could identify optimal and support public sector projects. The new “Innovation economic and business pathways to clean, sustainable fusion Network for Fusion Energy” (INFUSE) program [152] energy. In geo-sociocultural terms, the EIR should continue promotes collaboration between the public and private sectors the science diplomacy tradition of nuclear energy for peace- by allowing private companies to apply for vouchers building. In geo-technological terms, the EIR should review a redeemable at public laboratories within the DoE complex. diversity of technology maturation pathways. INFUSE thus addresses the IPR issue that can be divisive with regard to cooperation between the public and private sectors VI. IMPLICATIONS by enabling U.S. companies to work directly with government Nuclear energy research and development is concentrated in scientists on government assets, potentially facilitating access a handful of countries, primarily the U.S., Germany, Japan, the to computational modeling, design validation, and U.K., France, and China [154]. Based on our preliminary experimental testing as well as collaborative public-private GEO-PEST analysis, we advocate the entire international publication of cutting-edge research [153]. community becoming more engaged, in a similar way to the The impact of the U.S.-Chinese trade war on the sharing of IEA’s ‘Global Commission for Urgent Action on Energy nuclear technology knowledge cannot be underestimated. Efficiency’. This would both leverage and revitalize the However, tripartite involvement by the U.S. DoE, the U.S. science diplomacy that underpins the global fusion initiative, Department of State, and U.S. Department of Defense, could particularly with regard to relations between ITER member create the safeguards via which the U.S. may be open to an states, especially China and the U.S. EIR through a global commission that then leads to deeper With greater available information, the Global South, academic collaboration. This could create the potential for co- including OPEC, states will be able to decide for themselves development of core fusion technology IP via direct deals whether they want to benefit from co-development of fusion between, on the one hand, publicly funded U.S. national power and whether fusion is a viable option for climate laboratories and private U.S. fusion companies, and on the change mitigation—leading, thereafter, to institutional other hand, public or private entities from the Global South. entrenchment in the promotion of nuclear fusion—or whether This would be especially true if it involved strategic it is just a costly illusion, and other technologies should then technological partners, including selected OPEC states and be adopted. non-NATO Treaty allies. In terms of further research, to better understand fusion Turning to a disruptive technological energy innovation energy development, a ‘five-helix’ view should be applied, as breakthrough, such an event could be foreseeable due to insights are required from the perspectives of academic, signaling by the company concerned. For example, within the government, industry, civil society and media, and socio- global fusion community, which is still relatively open, senior ecological lenses. Quadruple/Quintuple Innovation Helix physicists are generally aware of the likelihood of success of (Q2IH) frameworks are built for multi-level and multi- various iterations of machines, which can take 1-2 years to dimensional innovation diplomacy problem sets that require build even in the case of compact reactors, and which require the university-industry-government-civil society relations to months, if not years, of fine-tuning. Furthermore, if a spur green innovation within natural ecosystems [145] and breakthrough reactor required a DT fuel, substantial purchases could be employed in further GEO-PEST analysis of fusion of tritium by a single company would affect the global market energy. Future research could examine the GEO-PEST for tritium and be noted by the fusion community. The kind of challenges and opportunities within such a framework, ‘open’ innovation diplomacy that we advocate would including in the form of potential work packages for a minimize this risk. commission. To sum up, an EIR would contribute to bottom-up To conclude, given the potential of fusion energy to confidence building on nuclear fusion in the Global South, thereby increasing the market for future fusion technological contribute towards the ‘collective good’, ‘collective effort’ is and energy products, driving their development. An EIR required on ‘urgent action’ to ensure that the Global South can would also reduce the risks posed by a disruptive make informed decisions as to whether or not to invest in a technological innovation. future fusion economy, in the process potentially optimizing future energy and climate scenarios. E. Conclusion Our GEO-PEST analysis raises multiple concerns that would best be addressed by a global EIR, with a view to assessing the possibility of ‘urgent action’ on fusion. The EIR 12

REFERENCES [21] R. J. Pearson, A. B. Antoniazzi, and W. J. Nuttall, “Tritium supply and use: A key issue for the development of nuclear fusion energy,” Fus. [1] World Economic Forum. The Global Risks Report 2019, 14th ed. Eng. and Des. 2018, vol. 136, pp. 1140-1148, Nov. 2018, Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2019, p.5. 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2018.04.090. [2] United Nations. Paris Agreement. New York, NY, U.S.A: United [22] International Energy Agency. Global Commission for Urgent Action on Nations Treaty Collection. Available: https://unfccc.int/process-and- Energy Efficiency. Paris: International Energy Agency, 2019. meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement Available: https://www.iea.org/topics/energyefficiency/global [3] United Nations. Climate Action Summit Main Release. New York, NY, %20commission/. U.S.A.: United Nations, 2019. Available: [23] E. G. Carayannis and C. B. Papadopoulos, “Innovation diplomacy and https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/assets/pdf/CAS_main_release.pdf the Hellenic-American innovation bridge as a special case-in-point,” J. . of the Know. Econ. vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 257 to 326, Sep. 2011, [4] den Elzen et al., “Climate–carbon cycle uncertainties and the Paris 10.1007/s13132-011-0056-5. Agreement,” Nat. Clim. Change, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 609–613, Jul. 2018, [24] A. Gupta. “Environmental and pest analysis: An approach to 10.21552/cclr/2017/3/16. external business environment,” Intl. J. of Mod. Soc. Sci. vol. 2, no. [5] A. Horvath and E. Rachlew, 2016. “Nuclear power in the 21st century: 1, pp. 34–43, Jun. 2013. Challenges and possibilities,” Ambio, vol. 45, suppl. 1, pp. 38-49, Jan. 2016, 10.1007/s13280-015-0732-y. [25] G. E. Valencia1, Y. D. Cardenas, and C. H. Acevedo, “PEST analysis [6] D. G. Victor. Global Warming Gridlock: Creating More Effective of wind energy in the world: From the worldwide boom to the emergent in Colombia,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., vol. 1126, 012019, Dec. 2018. Strategies for Protecting the Planet. Cambridge, U.K.: CUP, 2011. Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742- [7] D. Clery. A Piece of the Sun: The Quest for Fusion Energy. London, 6596/1126/1/012019. U.K.: Overlook Duckworth, 2014. [26] G. M. Lawrence and C. Baranowski. Representing High-tech [8] European Fusion Development Agreement. Fusion Electricity: A Companies. New York, NY, U.S.A: Law Journal Press, 2005. Roadmap to the Realisation of Fusion Energy. Abingdon, U.K.: [27] M. M. Yurchenko, “UN-70: Problems of reforming,” World Econ. and EUROfusion, 2012. Available: Intl. Rel., vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 88-98, 2017, 10.20542/0131-2227-2017- https://www.euro-fusion.org/fileadmin/user_upload/EUROfusion/Docu 61-5-88-98. ments/Roadmap.pdf. [28] J. K. Sundaram. 2016. “Carpe diem: Bandung, historical inequalities [9] U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. and development goals,” Inter-Asia Cult. Stud., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 27- Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning 32, Jan. 2016, 10.1080/14649373.2016.1133389. Plasma Research. Washington, DC, U.S.A: The National Academies [29] M. Vieira, “Rising states and distributive justice,” in Regional Powers Press, 2018. Available: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25331/final-report- and Global Redistribution, P. Nel, D. Nabers, and M. Hanif Eds. of-the-committee-on-a-strategic-plan-for-us-burning-plasma-research. London: Routledge, 2016. [10] X. Liu, et al., 2017. “Mechanical performance evaluation of the CFETR [30] United Nations General Assembly. Transforming Our World: The central solenoid model coil design,” Nucl. Fus. vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 1-9, 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Resolution 70/1). New Jan. 2018, 10.1088/1741-4326/aa9866. York, NY, U.S.A: United Nations. Available: [11] U.K. Atomic Energy Authority. U.K. to Take a Big ‘STEP’ to Fusion https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1. Electricity. Culham, U.K.: U.K. Atomic Energy Authority. Available: [31] L. Guruswamy, “The contours of energy justice,” in International https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-take-a-big-step-to-fusion- Environmental Law and the Global South, S. Alam, S. Atapattu, C. G. electricity. Gonzalez, and J. Razzaque Eds., pp. 529-552. Cambridge: CUP, 2015. [12] J. McMahon, “Energy from fusion in 'a couple years,' CEO says, [32] J. Toye, “Assessing the G77: 50 years after UNCTAD and 40 years commercialization in five,” Forbes, January 14, 2019. Available: after the NIEO,” Third World Q., vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 1759-1774, Nov. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/01/14/private-firm- 2014, 10.1080/01436597.2014.971589. will-bring-fusion-reactor-to-market-within-five-years-ceo-says/ [33] European Commission. Roadmap for EU -Brazil STI Cooperation. #2997b7ae1d4a. Brussels: European Commission, 2019. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/ [13] S. Cooke, In Mortal Hands. A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age. research/iscp/pdf/policy/br_roadmap_2018.pdf. New York, NY, U.S.A: Bloomsbury, 2009. [34] ITER. A Princess Royal with a Passion for Science. Cadarache, France, [14] R. Guck, “The tasks for nuclear research from the viewpoint of 2018: ITER. Available: https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/3196. electricity supply undertakings,” VGB-Kraftwerkstechnik, vol. 68, no. [35] M. McCullough, “General fusion raises another $27 million to advance 10, pp. 988-991, Oct. 1988. its reactor concept,” Canadian Business, 20 May 2015. Available: [15] K. Irie and K. Kanda. “Evaluation of nuclear energy in the context of http://www.canadianbusiness.com/innovation/general-fusion-raises- energy security: Analysis based upon Japan’s policy documents,” another-27-million-to-advance-its-reactor-concept/. Trans. Atom. En. Soc. of Jap., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 107-118, Jun. 2002. [36] K. Kheng-Lian and N. A. Robinson, “South–South cooperation: [16] H. Cabal, et al., 2017. “Fusion power in a future low carbon global Foundations for sustainable development,” in International electricity system,” En. Strat. Rev., vol. 15, pp. 1-8, Mar. 2017, Environmental Law and the Global South S. Alam, S. Atapattu, C. G. 10.1016/j.esr.2016.11.002. Gonzalez, and J. Razzaque eds., pp. 553-571. Cambridge: CUP, 2015. [17] D. P. Turnbull, A. Glaser, and R. J. Goldston, “Investigating the value [37] OPEC: Twenty Years and Beyond, R. el Mallakh, Ed., London: of fusion energy using the global change assessment model,” En. Econ. Routledge, 2016. 51:346–353, Sep. 2015, 10.1016/j.eneco.2015.08.001. [38] I. F. I. Shihata. The OPEC Fund for International Development: The [18] G. H. Miley and S. Krupakar Murali, Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Formative Years. London: Routledge, 2011. (IEC) Fusion. New York, NY, U.S.A: Springer, 2014. [39] “OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID),” OPEC Bulletin, [19] J. Park, et al.. “High energy electron confinement in a magnetic cusp vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 45-47, Sep. 2011. configuration,” Phys. Rev. X, vol. 5, no. 2, 021024. Jun. 2015, 10.1103/ [40] United Nations Statistics Division. National Accounts Main Aggregates physrevx.5.021024. Database. New York, NY, U.S.A: United Nations Statistics Division. [20] Y. Wu and S. Şahin. 2018. “Fusion energy production,” in Available: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnlList.asp. Comprehensive Energy Systems, I. Dincer, Ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, [41] United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Index. 2018, pp. 538-589. 2018 Statistical Update. New York, NY, U.S.A: United Nations 13

Development Programme. Available: [63] R. Sakwa, “U.S.-Russian relations in the Trump era,” Insight Turkey, http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi. vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 13-27, Oct. 2017, 10.22459/mic.04.2018.15. [42] The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the [64] W. C. Wohlforth, and V. M. Zubok, “An abiding antagonism: Realism, World Bank. Innovation Policy: A Guide for Developing Countries. idealism and the mirage of western-Russian partnership after the Cold Washington: World Bank, 2010. War,” Intl. Pol., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 405-419, Jul. 2017, 10.1057/s41311- [43] C. H. Matthews and R. Brueggeman. Innovation and 017-0046-8. Entrepreneurship: A Competency Framework. London: Routledge, [65] M. E. Herberg, ed., 2014. Energy Security and the Asia-Pacific. 2015. Washington, DC, U.S.A: The National Bureau of Asian Research, [44] Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO. Global Innovation Index 2014. 2018. Available: https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/Home. [66] J. Nyman. The Energy Security Paradox: Rethinking Energy [45] U.S. Department of Energy. External Independent Review (EIR) (In)Security in the United States and China. Oxford: Oxford University Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Washington, DC, U.S.A: Press, 2018. Department of Energy, 2011. Available: [67] M. J. Trombetta, “Fueling threats: Securitization and the challenges of https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11887/assessment-of-the-results-of- Chinese energy policy,” Asian Persp., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 183-206, external-independent-reviews-for-us-department-of-energy-projects. 2018, 10.1353/apr.2018.0008. [46] National Research Council. Assessment of the Results of External [68] U.S. Department of Defense. Annual Report to Congress: Military and Independent Reviews for U.S. Department of Energy Projects. Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2017. Washington, DC, U.S.A: The National Academies Press, 2007. Washington, DC, U.S.A: Department of Defense, 2017. Available: [47] U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. Department of Energy Technology https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2017_China_Militar Readiness Assessment Guide. Washington, DC, U.S.A: Department of y_Power_Report.PDF. Energy, 2009. [69] U.S. Department of Defense. Summary of the 2018 National Defense [48] U.S. Navy. Review Committee Evaluation of Recent EMC2 Progress Strategy of the United States of America. Washington, DC, U.S.A: on the Bussard Polywell Fusion Concept: July 21, 2008. Washington, Department of Defense, 2018. Available: DC, U.S.A: U.S. Navy, 2008. https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National- [49] U.S. Navy. Review Committee Evaluation of Recent EMC2 Progress Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf>. on the Bussard Polywell Fusion Concept: February 28, 2012. [70] United States Government. National Security Strategy of the United Washington, DC, U.S.A: U.S. Navy, 2012. States of America. Washington, DC, U.S.A: The Whitehouse, 2017. [50] U.S. Navy. Review Committee Evaluation of EMC2 Progress on the Available: Bussard Polywell Fusion Power Concept: July 5, 2013. Washington, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final- DC, U.S.A: U.S. Navy, 2013. 12-18-2017-0905.pdf. [51] U.S. Navy. Review Committee Evaluation of Recent EMC2 Progress [71] E. Alden. 2018. “Trump: Reckless free trader or genuine protectionist?” on the Polywell Fusion Power Concept: Nov. 11, 2013. Washington, Interecon., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 239-240, Jul. 2018, 10.1007/s10272-018- DC, U.S.A: U.S. Navy, 2013. 0756-1. [52] International Energy Agency. Global Commission for Urgent Action on [72] M. Guo, Lin Lu, Liugang Sheng, and Miaojie Yu, “The day after Energy Efficiency. Paris: International Energy Agency, 2019. tomorrow: Evaluating the burden of Trump's trade war,” Asian Econ. Available: https://www.iea.org/topics/energyefficiency/global Pap., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 101-120, Jul. 2018, 10.1007/s10272-018-0756- %20commission/. 1. [53] D. Robins. Climate Change, Politics and the Press in Ireland. [73] White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy. How China’s Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge, 2019. Economic Aggression Threatens the Technologies and Intellectual [54] D. Fischer. History of the International Atomic Energy Agency: The Property of the United States and the World. Washington, DC, U.S.A: First Forty Years. Vienna: IAEA, 1997. The White House, 2018. Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp- [55] M. Elbaradei. The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in content/uploads/2018/06/FINAL-China-Technology-Report-6.18.18- Treacherous Times. London: Bloomsbury, 2011. PDF.pdf. [56] P-B. Ruffini. Science and Diplomacy: A New Dimension of [74] X. Qian, “Cyberspace security and U.S.-China relations,” in International Relations. Cham: Springer, 2017. Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Artificial [57] V. C. Turekian, “The evolution of science diplomacy,” Glob. Pol., vol. Intelligence and Computer Science. New York, NY, U.S.A: ACM, 9, pp. 5-7, Nov. 2018, 10.1111/1758-5899.12622. 2019, pp. 709-712. [58] R. Reagan, Ronald.. Joint Soviet-United States Statement on the [75] C. C. Demchak, “China: Determined to dominate cyberspace and AI,” Summit Meeting in Geneva. Santa Barbara, CA, U.S.A: The American Bull. of the Atom. Sci., vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 99-104, May 2019, Presidency Project, 1985. Available: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ 10.1080/00963402.2019.1604857. node/258993. [76] P. Bruns, M. Q. Tran, D. Kunz, H. Mueller, and C. Soltmann. 2012. [59] G. Franceschini, M. Englert, and W. Liebert, “Nuclear fusion power for “Spillover benefits from controlled nuclear fusion technology - A weapons purposes: An exercise in nuclear proliferation forecasting,” patent analysis.” World Pat. Inf., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 271-278, Dec. 2012, Nonprolif. Rev., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 525-544, Nov. 2013, 10.1016/j.wpi.2012.06.001. 10.1080/10736700.2013.852876. [77] U.S. Department of Energy. Applications of Fusion Energy Sciences [60] G. Bechmann, F. Gloede, and E. Lessmann. 2001. “International power Research: Scientific Discoveries and New Technologies beyond Fusion. supply policy and the globalisation of research: The example of fusion Washington, DC, U.S.A: U.S. Department of Energy, 2015. Available: research,” Fus. Eng. and Des., vol. 58-59, pp. 1091-1095, Nov. 2001, https://science.energy.gov/~/media/fes/fesac/pdf/2015/2101507/FINAL 10.1016/s0920-3796(01)00556-7. _FES_NonFusionAppReport_090215.pdf. [61] W. D. D'haeseleer, 2003. “The importance of fusion development [78] H. Tong, Y. Cao, and J. Zhang. “Analysis of global nuclear power towards a future energy source,” Fus. Eng. and Des., vol. 66-68, pp. 3- based on U.S.PTO's patent database,” Gaojishu Tongxin/Chin. High 15, Sep. 2003, 10.1016/s0140-6701(04)91445-2. Tech. Let., vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 762-766, Jul. 2013. [62] M. Maslovskiy, “Russia against Europe: A clash of interpretations of [79] Information Office of the State Council. China's Energy Conditions modernity?” Eur. J. of Soc. Theory, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 533-547, Nov. and Policies. Beijing: State Council, 2007. Available: 2019, 10.1177/1368431018768623. 14

http://en.ndrc.gov.cn/policyrelease/200712/P020071227502260511798. [98] R. Y. Shum. “Heliopolitics: The international political economy of solar pdf. supply chains,” En. Strat. Rev., vol. 26, 100390, Nov. 2019, [8o] Chinese Academy of Sciences, “China's 'artificial sun' sets world record 10.1016/j.esr.2019.100390. [99] J. Tirone, “World’s biggest science experiment seeks more time and with 100 second steady-state high performance plasma,” Phys.org, July money,” Bloomberg, June 15, 2016. Available: 6, 2017. Available: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-china-artificial-sun- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-15/world-s-biggest- world-steady-state.html. science-experiment-seeks-more-time-and-money. [81] J. Li. 2015. Closing gaps to CFETR readiness. Presented at the IAEA [100] H. Elserafy, “Assessment of DEMO reactors for fusion power TCM 3rd DEMO Workshop, Hefei, China [Online]. Available: utilization,” Evergreen, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 18-25, Dec. 2018, http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/physics/meetings/TM49530/website/t 10.5109/2174854. alks/May%2012%20Sessions/Li_J.pdf. [101] S. Entler, J. Horacek, T. Dlouhy, and V. Dostal. “Approximation of the economy of fusion energy,” En., vol. 152, pp. 489-497, Jun. 2018, [82] L. Dawson. The Politics and Perils of Space Exploration. Cham: 10.1016/j. Springer, 2017. [102] Fusion Industry Association. Members. Available: [83] U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. Nuclear Engineer, China General https://www.fusionindustryassociation.org/members. Nuclear Power Company and Energy Technology International [103] R. F. Post, “Magnetic mirror research points towards compact fusion Indicted in Nuclear Power Conspiracy against the United States. power system.” Nuc. Eng. Intl., vol. 22, no. 263, pp. 59-63, Oct. 1977. Washington, DC, U.S.A.: Department of Justice, 2016. Available: [104] A. Beall, “Private sector companies are firing up the fusion race,” https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-nuclear-engineer-china-general- Chinadialogue, September 6, 2017 Available: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/10042-Private- nuclear-power-company-and-energy-technology-international. sector-companies-are-firing-up-the-fusion-race. [84] U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. Policy Framework on Civil Nuclear [105] B. Wang, 2019. “CEO of TAE Technologies says they will begin Cooperation with China. Washington, DC, U.S.A.: US Department of commercialization of fusion by 2023,” Next Big Future, January 16, Energy, 2018. Available: 2019. Available: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/01/ceo-of-tae- https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/10/f56/US_Policy_Frame technologies-says-they-will-reach-commercial-fusion-by-2024.html. work_on_Civil_Nuclear_Cooperation_with_China.pdf. [106] ARPA-E. ALPHA: Accelerating Low-Cost Plasma Heating and [85] R. O’Rourke. China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Assembly. Washington, DC, U.S.A.: Department of Energy. Available: https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=arpa-e-programs/alpha. Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress. Washington, DC, [107] J. Draper, “Accelerating the Arrival of Fusion Energy within a U.S.A.: Congressional Research Service, 2018. Quintuple Helix Innovation Ecosystem to Address Climate Change,” [86] American Security Project. Fact Sheet: Chinese Nuclear SocArXiv, Paper AXB95. Available: 10.31235/osf.io/axb95. Modernization. Washington, DC, U.S.A.: American Security Project. [108] Next Big Future, “Helion Energy raised.$10.9 million and has filed to Available: raise $21 million which would be enough to build a breakeven scale https://www.americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ fusion machine in 2016-2017,” August 18, 2015. Available: Ref-0198-Chinese-Nuclear-Modernization.pdf. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/helion-energy-raised-109- million-and.html. [87] M. Brown and P. Singh. China’s Technology Transfer Strategy: How [109] R. W. Bussar, “Should Google go nuclear? Clean, cheap, nuclear Chinese Investments in Emerging Technology Enable a Strategic power,” GoogleTechTalks, November 9, 2006. Available: Competitor to Access the Crown Jewels of U.S. Innovation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhL5VO2NStU. Washington, DC, U.S.A.: Defense Innovation Unit Experimental [110] K. Fehrenbacher, “Nuclear fusion startup Tri Alpha Energy hits a big (DIUx), 2018. milestone,” Greentech Media, July 10, 2017. Available: [88] D. H. Kiel, M. Ziv, and F. Marcell. A Vision for Directed Energy and https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/fusion-startup-tri-alpha- Electric Weapons in the Current and Future Navy. 2007. Available: energy-hits-a-big-milestone. [111] R. Martin. “Finally, fusion takes small steps toward reality,” MIT https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/files/asne_paper_a_ Technology Review, September 14, 2015. Available: vision_for_de_weapons.pdf. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/541286/finally-fusion-takes- [89] T. A. Mehlhorn. 2014. “National security research in plasma physics small-steps-toward-reality/ and pulsed power: Past, present, and future.” IEEE Trans. on Plas. Sci., [112] Tri Alpha Energy, “Former US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz joins vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1088-1117, May 2014, 10.1109/tps.2014.2310468. Board of Directors for fusion energy leader Tri Alpha Energy,” PR [90] G. Allison. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Newswire, May 18, 2017. Available: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/former-us-energy- Thucydides's Trap? New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017. secretary-ernest-moniz-joins-board-of-directors-for-fusion-energy- [91] C. Zhang and Xiaoyu Pu, “Introduction: Can America and China leader-tri-alpha-energy-300459608.html. escape the Thucydides Trap?” J. of Chin. Pol. Sci., vol 24, no. 1, pp. 1- [113] A. Boyle, “Commercial fusion ventures learn lessons about engineering 9, Mar. 2019, 10.1007/s11366-019-09609-y. and expectations,” Geekwire. February 14, 2018. Available: ]92] W. Z. Wang, 2019. “Destined for misperception? Status dilemma and https://www.geekwire.com/2018/commercial-fusion-ventures-learn- the early origin of U.S.-China antagonism,” J. of Chin. Pol. Sci., vol. lessons-engineering-expectations/. 24, no. 1, pp. 49-65, Mar. 2019, 10.1007/s11366-018-09596-6. [114] S. Hsu, private communication, Jul., 2019. [115] B. Wang, “Helion Energy got funding for possible breakeven fusion [93] B. K. Yoder, “Uncertainty, shifting power and credible signals in U.S.- device this year,” Next Big Future, October 1, 2018. Available: https:// China relations: Why the “Thucydides Trap” is real, but limited,” www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/10/helion-energy-got-funding-for- J. of Chin. Pol. Sci., vol 24, no. 1, pp. 87–104, Mar. 2019, possible-breakeven-fusion-device-this-year.html. [94] Rand Project Air Force. Forecasting China’s Military Spending [116] A. Rathi, “In search of clean energy, investments in nuclear-fusion Through 2025. Santa Monica, CA, USA: Rand Corporation. Available: startups are heating up,” Quartz, September 26, 2018. Available: https:// https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/RB162/R qz.com/1402282/in-search-of-clean-energy-investments-in-nuclear- AND_RB162.pdf. fusion-startups-are-heating-up/. [95] ENN Group. ENN Symposium on Compact Fusion Technologies, 19-20 [117] K. Von Gehlen, M. Holtgrave, A.-M. Nienaber,and G. Schewe, “Trust April 2018, Langfang, China: Programme. Available: in entrepreneur-venture capitalist relationships: A bilateral perspective,” http://www.ennresearch.com/fusionsymposium2018/Programme/. in Proc. PICMET 2018 - Portland International Conference on [96] C. Roper. Trade Secret Theft, Industrial Espionage, and the China Management of Engineering and Technology: Managing Technological Threat. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2014. Entrepreneurship: The Engine for Economic Growth, Article number [97] W. C. Hannas, J. Mulvenon, and A. B. Puglisi. Chinese Industrial 8481848, 10.23919/picmet.2018.8481848. Espionage. London: Routledge, 2015. [118] M. Islam, A. Fremeth, and A. Marcus, “Signaling by early stage startups: U.S. government research grants and venture capital funding,” 15

J. of Bus. Vent., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 35-51, Power and Energy Conference, EPEC 2014, 7051685, pp. 110-115. 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.10.001. New York, NY, U.S.A.: IEEE, 2014, 10.1109/EPEC.2014.20. [119] N. Jaakola, “Carbon taxation, OPEC and the end of oil,” J. of Env. [142] B. Rihardson, 2008. “A new realism: A realistic and principled foreign Econ. and Man., vol. 94, pp. 101-117, Mar. 2019, policy,” For. Aff. 87 (1):142-154. 10.1016/j.jeem.2019.01.011. [143] G. Christoffersen. 2015. “U.S.-China relations in Asia-Pacific energy [120] G. van der Meijden and C. Withagen, “Limit pricing, climate policies, regime complexes,” in Conflict and Cooperation in Sino-US Relations: and imperfect substitution,” Res. and En. Econ., vol. 58, p. 101118, Change and Continuity, Causes and Cures, J-M. F. Blanchard and S, Nov. 2019, 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2019.101118. Shen Eds., pp. 257-280. New York, NY, U.S.A.: Routledge, 2015. [121] E. Rebhan, “Challenges for future energy usage,” Eur. Phys. J., vol. [144] G. Christoffersen, 2016. “The role of China in global energy 176, no. 1, pp. 53-80, Sep. 2009, 10.1140/epjst/e2009-01148-9. governance,” Chin. Persp., vol. 2016, no. 2, pp. 15-24, Jun 2016, [122] A. T. Price-Smith. Oil, Illiberalism, and War. Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.: 10.4000/chinaperspectives.6968. MIT Press, 2015. [145] C. F. Bergsten, “China and the United States: The Contest for Global [123] L. G. Gerber, “The Baruch Plan and the origins of the Cold War,” Dipl. Economic Leadership,” Chi. & World Econ., vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 12-37, Hist., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 69-96, 1982, 10.1111/j.1467- Sep. 2018, 10.1111/cwe.12254. 7709.1982.tb00364.x. [146] E. G. Carayannis and D. F.J. Campbell. “Open innovation diplomacy [124] J. Draper and B. Bhaneja, “Fusion energy for peace building - A Trinity and a 21st century fractal research, education and innovation (FREIE) Test-level critical juncture,” SocArXiv, Paper MRZUA. Available: ecosystem: Building on the quadruple and quintuple helix innovation 10.31235/osf.io/mrzua. concepts and the “mode 3” knowledge production system,” J. of the [125] V. A. Panteleev, M. D. Segal’, and A. V. Simonov, “Radiation risk and Knowl. Econ., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 327-372, Sep. 2011, 10.1007/s13132- features of its perception,” Atom. En., vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 265-268, Feb. 011-0058-3. 2019, 10.1007/s10512-019-00478-5. [147] V. Nian, “Technology perspectives from 1950 to 2100 and policy [126] Y. Kim, M. Kim, and W. Kim, “Effect of the Fukushima nuclear implications for the global nuclear power industry,” Prog. in Nucl. En., disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy,” En. Pol.. vol. vol. 105, pp. 83-98, May 2018, 10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.12.009. 61, pp. 822-828, Oct. 2013. [148] Q. Perrier, “The second French nuclear bet,” En. Econ., vol. 74, pp. [127] J. C. H. Lindberg, “The nuclear cage: Path dependencies in fission and 858-877, Aug. 2018, 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.07.014. fusion innovation,” Nuc. Fut., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 46-49, 2018. [149] M. Marinelli, “How to Build a ‘Beautiful China’ in the Anthropocene,” [128] ITER, “World’s most complex machine is 50 percent completed. Saint- J. of Chin. Pol. Sci., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 365-386, Sep. 2018, Paul-lès-Durance,” 2017. Available: 10.1140/epjst/e2009-01148-9. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/iter/website/20171206-ITER-press- [150] P. Xiang-Chao, “Research on Xi Jinping's thought of ecological release.pdf. civilization and environment sustainable development,” Earth and Env. [129] T. Rider, “Fundamental limitations on plasma fusion systems not in Sci., vol. 153, no. 6, p. 062067, May 2018, 10.1088/1755- thermodynamic equilibrium,” Phys. of Plas., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1039- 1315/153/6/062067 1046, Apr. 1997, 10.1063/1.872556. [151] J. Nyman and J. Zeng, “Securitization in Chinese climate and energy [130] T. Pedersen, et al., 2016. “Confirmation of the topology of the politics,” Clim. Chan., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 301-313, Mar. 2016, Wendelstein 7-X magnetic field to better than 1:100,000,” Nature 10.1002/wcc.387. Communications, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 13493, Dec. 2016, [152] U.S. Department of Energy. Innovation Network for Fusion Energy. 10.1038/ncomms13493. Oak Ridge, TN, U.S.A.: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Available: [131] T. Rider, “Is there a better route to fusion?” unpublished. Available: https://infuse.ornl.gov/. http://fuelrfuture.com/pdfs/FusionRoute.pdf. [153] Fusion Industry Association. “INFUSE Program awards Fusion [132] Department of Energy. 2015. Applications of Fusion Energy Sciences Industry Association members grants for research,” June 5, 2019. Research: Scientific Discoveries and New Technologies beyond Fusion. Available: https://www.fusionindustryassociation.org/post/infuse- Washington. Washington, DC, U.S.A.: U.S. Department of Energy. program-awards-fusion-industry-association-members-grants-for- Available: research. https://science.energy.gov/~/media/fes/fesac/pdf/2015/2101507/FINAL [154] Wang, Qiang, Rongrong Li, and Gang He. 2018. “Research status of _FES_NonFusionAppReport_090215.pdf. nuclear power: A review,” Ren. and Sust. En. Rev., vol. 90, pp. 90-96, [133] Department of Energy Office of Science (Fusion Energy Sciences). 10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.044 Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Report. Transformative Enabling Capabilities for Efficient Advance toward Fusion Energy. U.S Department of Energy: Washington, D.C., 2018. Available: https:// science.energy.gov/~/media/fes/fesac/pdf/2018/TEC_Report_15Feb201 8.pdf. [134] S. Woodruff, et al., 2012. “Path to market for compact modular fusion power cores,” J. of Fus. En., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 305-316, Aug. 2012, 10.1007/s10894-011-9472-6. [135] A. Sykes, et al., “Compact fusion energy based on the spherical tokamak,” Nuc. Fus. vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 016039, Nov. 2017. [136] L. Zhu, H. Liu, and X. Wang, “Particle confinement property in the cusp-mirror field of a compact fusion reactor,” Phy. Scrip., vol. 91 (9):095604, 2016. [137] D. Clery, “Dark horse scores a fusion coup,” Science, vol. 349, no. 6251, pp. 912-913, Aug. 2015, 10.1126/science.349.6251.912. [138] J. Tollefson, “MIT launches multimillion-dollar collaboration to develop fusion energy,” Nat., vol. 555, no. 7696, pp. 294-295, Mar. 2018, 10.1038/d41586-018-02966-3. [139] N. Alexander, et. al., Fusion 2030: Roadmap for Canada. Toronto, ON, Canada: Canadian Nuclear Society, 2017. Available: https://www.cns- snc.ca/media/uploads/dir_58/Fusion-2030---Roadmap-for-Canada.pdf. [140] J. Trevithick, “Skunk Works' exotic fusion reactor program moves forward with larger, more powerful design,” The Warzone, July 19, 2019. Available: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29074/skunk- works-exotic-fusion-reactor-program-moves-forward-with-larger-more- powerful-design>. [141] F. P. Adams, B. P. Bromley, and M. Moore, “Assessment of disruptive innovation in emerging energy technologies,” in Proc. 2014 Electrical