Zap Energy, best known as a fusion startup that has raised more than $300 million, is adding nuclear fission to its roadmap and expects to start booking revenue within a year. CEO Zabrina Johal said fission and fusion are 'two sides of the same coin' and argued many engineering problems overlap, a rationale the company hopes will deliver grid-relevant power sooner. The move responds to rising electricity demand from AI data centres and the slow commercialisation timeline for fusion, with Zap aiming for a nearer-term, commercially workable offering while continuing its fusion work.

Why Zap shifted

Zap Energy has spent recent years developing fusion technology. The company has attracted over $300 million in investment. Despite that backing, the firm decided to add fission to its roadmap. Zabrina Johal, Zap’s chief executive, said fission and fusion are "two sides of the same coin." She argued many technical problems overlap between the two.

Johal framed the change as a response to demand. She said AI data centres need far more power. Industry estimates show that demand from those centres could nearly triple by 2030. Tech customers want electricity today. Fusion firms, by contrast, face timelines that stretch years into the future. Zap concluded a parallel fission effort could deliver something that matters to grids sooner.

The shift is partial. Zap isn't abandoning fusion. It’s adding fission as a complementary capability. The company says the work on both technologies shares engineering and materials challenges. That overlap shaped the decision. Investors and peers in the fusion field watched the announcement closely because Zap is among the better-funded startups in the sector.

Fission versus fusion, in practice

Fission and fusion produce energy in very different ways. Fusion fuses light atoms. Fission splits heavy atoms. Fusion has long been the promise of abundant, low-carbon power. But practical, grid-ready fusion plants aren't yet a reality. One experimental fusion effort was able to produce more energy than the reaction needed to ignite. That milestone showed potential.

It didn't deliver electricity at scale.

Fission, by contrast, has decades of commercial history. Countries have run fission reactors since the 1950s. That operational track record makes fission a commercially workable path today in ways fusion is not. However, fission still has cost and deployment challenges. Companies building small modular reactors, or SMRs, are betting on mass manufacturing to cut costs. That strategy depends on scaling production and standardising designs. Benefits from that scaling, industry participants say, can take around a decade to appear.

Zap’s move acknowledges those realities. The company sees fission as a faster way to produce grid-scale power. At the same time, it recognises the economic and regulatory hurdles that have long dogged fission projects. The firm plans to leverage engineering lessons from its fusion programme to speed fission development and to reduce development risk where possible.

Mastheads

Business model and timing

Zap says its commercial plan for the new fission arm doesn't rely solely on selling electricity. Johal told staff and investors the business model can generate revenue before a plant is producing megawatts for the grid. She pointed to potential income from design, licensing, services, and federal programmes. The company expects to start booking revenue from fission-related activities within a year.

That timeline is notable because many energy projects take years to reach cash flow. Johal emphasised that delivering products or services that are relevant to customers and regulators today is a priority. The company still keeps fusion development on its books, while shifting some resources into design and deployment work for fission systems that are nearer-term.

The decision also signals a change in how advanced-energy startups plan for customers. Some buyers, including large tech firms operating data centres, want reliable power on a shorter timetable. Zap’s leaders concluded the market needs practical solutions now. They said the combined fission and fusion strategy helps the company address both immediate demand and longer-term fusion goals.

Industry context and constraints

Adding fission doesn't erase the broader constraints that affect nuclear projects. Cost control remains a major issue. SMR proponents argue that factory production and repeatable designs can lower costs. But those gains usually require a long production run. The industry expects cost declines to appear only once manufacturing ramps significantly, a process that can span years.

Regulatory approvals are another hurdle. Nuclear projects must clear licensing steps that vary by jurisdiction. Those processes can add months or years to deployment. Zap will need to work within those timelines while trying to capture earlier revenue streams from non-electron products and services. The firm will also be negotiating the usual financing, supply-chain and construction challenges that come with building nuclear equipment.

At the same time, growing electricity demand from compute-heavy applications is reshaping buyer behaviour. Data-centre operators and cloud providers are planning new capacity. They want predictable, low-carbon power. That demand creates a commercial opportunity for suppliers who can provide reliable output sooner rather than later. Zap’s hybrid approach aims to trade on that window.

Zap believes engineering work for fusion helps with fission. Both technologies require materials that can withstand high temperatures and radiation. Vacuum systems, cooling, and advanced controls show overlap. Zap plans to reuse experience from its fusion testbeds in fission designs. The company expects that to speed development and lower some technical risks.

But transferring know-how between fields isn't automatic. Some problems are unique to each approach. For instance, the physics of sustaining a fusion plasma differ from controlling a fission chain reaction. Operational environments and regulatory frameworks also diverge. Zap will need to manage those differences as it scales a fission business while keeping its fusion programme alive.

The company’s funding base gives it room to experiment. Having raised north of $300 million provides capital to pivot without immediate insolvency. It also raises expectations. Investors in advanced-energy startups look for a clear path to commercial traction. Zap’s announcement is an attempt to articulate that path in concrete terms.

Zap’s status as a well-funded fusion firm makes the move consequential. The partial pivot sends a message to investors and competitors about priorities. It shows a willingness to adopt a more pragmatic timetable. For backers who care about nearer-term returns or clearer revenue lines, the fission push offers a different set of milestones to track.

At the same time, the broader market will watch whether the company can convert engineering work into early contracts or government funding. Johal noted federal programmes could be a revenue source. If Zap secures government or commercial contracts, it could validate the approach. If not, the company will face the same commercial pressure that has confronted many energy startups.

Related Articles

Zap expects to start booking revenue from fission-related design, licensing and services within a year, while continuing its fusion programme.

This article was created with AI assistance.