How different country archetypes would navigate the Plasma Power Framework
- Alex Borovskis
- Apr 17
- 5 min read
Helixos developed our Plasma Power Framework to help countries and organizations consider the necessary policy, regulatory, financial, workforce, and scientific structures to support the commercialization and eventual deployment of fusion energy. The framework is designed to be adaptive and inclusive, enabling nations to set their own pace and focus areas based on their unique circumstances. Each "pillar" represents a fundamental area of focus essential for the successful deployment of fusion energy. By engaging stakeholders, encouraging cross-sector collaboration, and building strong public-private partnerships, the Plasma Power Framework creates a coordinated and strategic pathway towards making fusion energy a globally viable solution.
Fusion energy presents a transformative opportunity, not only for countries with established scientific or financial capacity but also for emerging economies looking to explore future energy solutions. To effectively achieve this, it is crucial to identify and categorize the unique attributes of different nations based on their specific characteristics and readiness and capability to engage with fusion energy technologies.
Categorizing Nations for Fusion Energy Adoption
Identifying the characteristics of different nations on their journey into fusion energy is critical in ensuring that resources are tailored to the maturity of that country. Categorizing nations into key archetypes allows us to better understand their specific needs and the most effective strategies for their progress. This approach helps align support mechanisms, partnerships, and investments in a way that optimally accelerates fusion development for each archetype.
Countries were assessed across six dimensions and categorized into these archetypes based on an evaluation framework. By assessing these dimensions, the framework enabled a nuanced categorization of countries into archetypes:
Key criteria considered included:
Policy and strategic commitment: Countries were evaluated on their governmental strategies, policy support for energy innovation, and their historical commitment to energy transitions. For example, countries with explicit fusion energy strategies or significant investments in Research and Development (R&D) ranked higher.
Economic stability: Countries were evaluated on their overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP), income levels, and financial resources available to support the research and deployment of fusion energy. For example, countries with higher economic stability and resources ranked higher.
Cost of electricity mix: Countries were evaluated on the cost of their electricity mix calculated by taking a weighted average levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of the generators supplying their market. The study assessed the competitiveness of LCOEs of other energy sources like renewables (e.g., solar and wind) and traditional fossil fuels. For example, countries with higher average LCOEs for other sources of energy ranked higher.
Technological and industrial infrastructure: Countries were evaluated on their existing technological infrastructure. The level of advancement in nuclear technologies is important to consider in how early a country would be able to build its first fusion system and scale it across the country. For example, nations with existing nuclear capabilities such as Japan and France, and those participating in international fusion projects like the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) ranked higher.
Market dynamics: Countries were evaluated on their energy demand, population density, and market readiness for adopting new technologies. For example, countries with high energy demand and dense populations ranked higher.
Environmental and energy security concerns: Countries were evaluated on their energy security concerns. For example, countries with limited access to fossil fuels or renewable energies ranked higher.
We identified a series of archetypes that classify countries based on their potential engagement with fusion technology, as seen in Table 1. These archetypes provide a basis for evaluating how various nations are likely to progress from R&D to the full commercial deployment of fusion energy.
Table 1: Country Archetypes for Fusion Energy Adoption
Fusion Energy Adoption Phases
Fusion energy's journey to widespread adoption and making impactful contributions around the world will involve four distinct stages, each of which plays a critical role in bringing fusion from concept to reality. These stages mark the evolution of fusion energy, starting with fundamental research, moving through pilot testing, commercial production, and finally reaching widespread adoption. Understanding each phase helps stakeholders—from scientists and policymakers to investors and energy consumers—grasp the timeline, challenges, and opportunities presented by this transformative technology. Each stage is interconnected, building upon the successes and lessons of the previous one, thereby paving the way for fusion energy to become a cornerstone of the global energy mix.
Table 2: Fusion Energy Adoption Phases
The Plasma Power Framework offers a comprehensive and adaptable approach to guiding countries through the adoption of fusion energy, recognizing the diversity of national circumstances and capacities. By categorizing nations into archetypes and aligning strategies with their unique readiness levels, the framework ensures targeted support across the fusion energy lifecycle—from research and development to widespread adoption. With an emphasis on collaboration, tailored policy-making, and strategic investment, the framework paves the way for a global transition to fusion energy, empowering nations to address energy security, sustainability, and economic growth while fostering a coordinated and inclusive energy future.
Framework for Fusion Adoption Phases by Pillar
The journey towards fusion energy adoption will look different for each country archetype, depending on their unique characteristics and readiness levels. The approach for each archetype must be adapted to align with these phases, ensuring that their specific needs are met and that their progress is effectively supported. This section outlines how the strategies and focus areas differ for each archetype across these phases.
To better understand how each country archetype should proceed across the different phases of fusion energy adoption, we present an example of the Fusion Leaders archetype. The section below provides detailed guidance on what Fusion Leaders should focus on at each stage when thinking about developing a fusion strategy and roadmap.
Case Study: ‘Fusion Leaders’ - Policy, Strategy, and Governance - Fusion Strategy and Roadmap
In the earliest stages of fusion development, both a strategy and roadmap are crucial for laying the groundwork for future industry growth and guiding R&D efforts towards practical fusion energy solutions. A national fusion strategy and roadmap have nuances in their structure and objectives, which are outlined below.
Table 3: Fusion strategy and roadmap definitions
Table 4 highlights the fusion strategy breakdown for the Fusion Leaders archetype by fusion energy adoption phase. This table demonstrates how these countries leading the charge in fusion energy development and adoption might strategically develop their technologies, industrial base, and regulatory regimes throughout different phases. Different archetypes will have similar elements, though will likely leverage the pioneering efforts of these nations.
Fusion strategy breakdown for the ‘Fusion Leaders’ archetype by fusion energy adoption phase
For each phase, a fusion roadmap should outline a clear, tactical, and time-bound plan with specific actions, milestones, and timelines to drive execution. Well-defined metrics should guide funding decisions, ensure accountability, and keep the program on track. Adopters must identify key decision points to determine whether to advance to the next technology readiness level or reallocate resources to more promising approaches.
Across all phases, the strategy and roadmap should place a strong emphasis on partnerships, collaboration, training, education, and proactive stakeholder engagement. Building strong relationships with industry leaders, research institutions, academia, policymakers, and investors is critical to fostering innovation, securing funding, and accelerating commercialization. Additionally, ongoing research and development efforts remain essential to advancing the fundamental science of fusion energy, refining key technologies, and optimizing system performance. By maintaining a balanced focus on both technical advancements and ecosystem development, the roadmap ensures sustained progress toward practical and scalable fusion energy solutions.
