????勒那相信，在鈹電極的幫助下，到明年中旬，他的實驗室將克服一個長久以來一直困擾著核聚變研究的難題，讓我們從核聚變反應堆中獲得的能源超過我們投入的用于點燃反應堆的能源。如果試驗成功的話，屆時可能會有大量資金涌入。LPP的研究總共要花費5000萬美金，聽起來倒是不少，但相比之下ITER的核聚變項目預計需要30年的建設時間，光是頭10年的預算就高達180億美元，還要建筑一個20層樓“托卡馬克”裝置。這樣看來，LPP的5000萬美金簡直太便宜了。

????勒那相信，憑借這筆資金，到2020年的時候，他的公司將能夠量產(chǎn)單價在30萬到50萬美元之間的小型核聚變發(fā)電機。每臺這種發(fā)電機的尺寸只有一個停車位那么大，發(fā)電量達到500萬瓦特，足夠支持3000個家庭的用電量。

????可惜LPP的后盾遠遠不及競爭對手Tri-Alpha能源公司。這家公司已經(jīng)從高盛（Goldman Sachs）、微軟（Microsoft）共同創(chuàng)始人保羅?艾倫、俄羅斯國有企業(yè)Rusnano等投資人處融到了1.4億美元資金。像LPP一樣，這家位于加州爾灣市的核能創(chuàng)業(yè)公司也希望開發(fā)出一臺無中子核聚變發(fā)電機，從而不需要借助汽輪機也能發(fā)電。

????ITER和NIF這兩大政府機構則采取了更加“傳統(tǒng)”的核聚變方案，也就是通過融合氫的同位素氘和氚和釋放熱量，從而驅動汽輪機發(fā)電。（相比之下，無中子核聚變傾向于將標準的氫與硼進行融合）。此外還有一大批創(chuàng)業(yè)公司相信，他們可以比這些舉傾國之力的大科學項目提前研究出可控核聚變技術，并且開發(fā)出小型的核聚變發(fā)電機（NIF的核聚變設施有3個足球場那么大，10層樓高）。

????總部位于加拿大溫哥華附近的通用聚變（General Fusion）公司的CEO南森?吉利蘭德指出：“我們可以把它與人類基因組計劃或太空探索技術公司（Space X）做一下比較，因為在后兩者的領域中，大型政府性項目最終也是被私人領域的更靈活、更實用的創(chuàng)新超越了?！蓖ㄓ镁圩児緩募幽么笫凸綜enovus和亞馬遜（Amazon）CEO杰夫?貝佐斯等投資人那里融得3200萬美元資金。

????雖然核聚變的前景非常誘人，但更多的創(chuàng)業(yè)公司可能活躍在核裂變領域，他們研究的一些新方法比行業(yè)現(xiàn)有的對鈾燃料棒進行裂變然后用水冷卻、穩(wěn)定的方法要先進得多。

????很多公司正在圍繞新型的核裂變方法展開試驗，比如使用液態(tài)燃料，或是使用不同形狀的固態(tài)燃料（如磚型或卵型），以及使用鹽或氣體作為冷卻劑與緩和劑等等。許多設計都吸收了幾十年前不被政府允許的理念。比如由比爾?蓋茨任董事長的泰拉能源公司（TerraPower）正在設計一種不需要對中子進行緩和的“快速反應堆”。有些公司則設想利用釷元素來代替鈾作為裂變燃料。

????很多創(chuàng)業(yè)公司的方案在提高核裂變安全性、大大減少核廢料、變“廢物”為燃料、最大程度降低武器化風險、降低成本和提高效率方面都具有廣闊的前景。許多方案都具有“小型模塊化”的特征，能夠滿足量產(chǎn)和經(jīng)濟性發(fā)電的需要。（俄勒岡州的創(chuàng)業(yè)公司NuScale能源公司最近獲得了2.17億美元的聯(lián)邦基金，用于研發(fā)一種小型的、但相對傳統(tǒng)的核反應堆。）

????加拿大米西索加市創(chuàng)業(yè)公司Terrestrial Energy的CEO西蒙?艾里什指出：“市場對核能領域創(chuàng)新的拉動力越來越強。所以我們開始看到，很多在核能領域從事不同研究的創(chuàng)業(yè)公司如雨后春筍般涌現(xiàn)出來?！卑锸驳墓菊谘邪l(fā)一種基于液態(tài)燃料的“熔鹽”反應堆（MSA）。

????Lerner is boldly confident that the beryllium would by the middle of next year enable his lab to overcome the problem that has vexed fusion projects forever: It would harness more energy out of its reactor than what goes into it. Additional financing might then rush in. LPP will need $50 million in total, virtually nothing next to the nearly $18 billion that ITER has budgeted for only the next 10 years of an expected 30 years of construction and development of a 20-story “tokamak” facility.

????With the financing, Lerner believes that by 2020 he could license the mass-production of small $300,000-to-$500,000 fusion machines—each the size of a one-car garage—with a capacity of 5 megawatts, enough to power 3,000 houses.

????If only he had the wherewithal of rival fusion startup Tri-Alpha Energy, which has rounded up over $140 million from Goldman Sachs, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, and Russian state-owned company Rusnano, among others. Like LPP, Irvine, Calif.-based Tri-Alpha hopes to develop an aneutronic machine that delivers electricity without using turbines.

????ITER and NIF, the government groups, are taking a more “conventional” fusion approach, aspiring to drive turbines with heat released by fusing isotopes of hydrogen. (In contrast, an aneutronic process tends to fuse standard hydrogen and boron.) So, too, are a number of startups that believe they can crack fusion long before the big science projects do by developing smaller machines (NIF’s facility is 3 football fields long and 10 stories tall) and deploying different technologies.

????“We liken it to the Human Genome Project or SpaceX, where large government programs were ultimately outrun by more nimble and more practical innovation in the private sector,” notes Nathan Gilliland, CEO of General Fusion near Vancouver, Canada. General Fusion has raised $32 million from sources including the Canadian oil company Cenovus and Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive.

????As intriguing as fusion is, there is probably more startup activity in fission, where novel approaches promise great improvements over the industry’s addiction to fissioning solid uranium fuel rods then cooling and moderating them with water.

????A host of startups are experimenting with different approaches including the use of liquid fuel, the use of solid fuel with different shapes (such as bricks or pebbles), and the use of alternative coolants and moderators such as salts and gases. Many of the designs draw on ideas that politics suppressed decades ago. Some, like Bill Gates-chaired TerraPower in Bellevue, Wash., are designing “fast reactors” that don’t moderate neutrons. Some envision using the element thorium instead of uranium.

????Between them, they portend leaps in safety, cut way down on nuclear waste, use “waste” as fuel, minimize weapons proliferation risks, slash costs and tremendously boost efficiencies. Many fit the “small modular” form that enables mass production and affordable incremental power. (Oregon startup NuScale Power recently secured $217 million in federal funds to develop a small but comparatively conventional reactor.)

????“There is a growing market pull for innovation in the nuclear space, so you’re beginning to see a blossoming of startup companies doing different things in nuclear,” says Simon Irish, CEO of startup Terrestrial Energy, Mississauga, Canada, which is developing a “molten salt” reactor (MSR) based on liquid fuel.