Company hires new CEO, uses sheared flow stabilized Z-pinch for fusion and sodium-cooled microreactor for fission
Though our name implies that we only cover fusion energy, loyal readers have seen plenty of coverage of nuclear fission power solutions here as well. Yet aside from sharing a customer base, fission and fusion players have generally stayed in their own lanes. That is why Zap Energy’s announcement on Wednesday, April 29th, was a bit of a surprise. The Everett, Washington company announced that it is bifurcating its approach, and becoming an integrated nuclear platform spanning both fission and fusion energy. In addition, Zap Energy also announced the appointment of Zabrina Johal as Chief Executive Officer.
“Zap is entering its next phase, bringing fission and fusion together to accelerate innovation across the entire system, from core technologies to deployment,” said Zabrina Johal. “This alignment allows us to accelerate progress, reduce complexity, and deliver power on timelines that match demand.”
The Fusion Report’s Interview With Zap’s Ryan Umstattd
Last Thursday, The Fusion Report sat down with Zap Energy’s Ryan Umstattd, Vice President of Products and Partnerships, to discuss what it means and what the future holds for Zap Energy:
What motivated Zap to take on fission and fusion at the same time? Other than the heat-to-electricity cycle, there seems to be little that’s common between fission and fusion systems.
A: As we have been building our Century platform, we have learned a lot about how to turn high energy and low energy neutrons into power. We found that that infrastructure, whether it’s from the pumps to move the liquid metal to heat exchangers, to other areas are similar between fission and fusion power. The same is true on the regulatory and licensing piece. Yes, there are totally different regulatory frameworks, but we know how to go through them, whether the NRC, the state or local requirements. We also know the supply chain and manufacturing, especially given that we picked a fission approach with the same size and scale as our fusion approach. The goal is to use those capabilities to supply fission energy now, and fusion in the future. It is certainly today an itch that is not getting scratched.
What type of nuclear fission system is that going to investigate? I assume this is an SMR of sorts.
A: We are looking at something in the range of 10 to 15 megawatts; it is really a micro-reactor, which is smaller than an SMR that normally runs into hundreds of megawatts. And yes, it would be liquid cooled; on the fusion side we’re looking at liquid lithium, which is an alkaline metal. On the fission side, we are looking at using liquid sodium, which is also an alkaline metal and has similar issues and characteristics. As far as customers go, our first targets will be the ones for which the high cost of energy is worthwhile, because they are hard to reach or have other reasons. One target market would be the US military; Even in the U.S., they need alternatives to the grid that supplies them today. These are high-value markets, which while they may not be high volumes, they’re enough to build a beachhead and start driving down our learning curve so that we can be more applicable to a larger audience and broader market.
How much do those markets drive your choice of your new CEO?
A: She has a perfect background, including her time as a nuclear engineer for the U.S. Navy and her background with General Atomics and AtkinsRéalis. Between them she has both fission and fusion experience and working in global environments.
Zap has raised $330 million so far. Is that really enough to go after two-pronged strategies such as fission plus fusion, especially given that SMR companies like X-Energy have raised over a billion dollars, and Radiant Nuclear has raised over $300 million? Or is there plans to raise significantly more money?
A: Almost every fusion company needs to be in a constant fundraising mode, and it’s a huge challenge. For a long time, Fusion was funded at what we used to call the “fusion never” scenario, where there weren’t enough resources focused on the problem. To put it in perspective, we have raised about $10 billion in the entire fusion market; the electric scooter market has raised about the same amount of money, which is a much easier problem to solve. You can easily imagine that we’ll need more money in the fusion market as we go forward. So yes, we are in fundraising mode, and I am certain that will be one of the key areas that my boss, our new CEO, will be looking at. Additionally, it is not just money, it can be siting, licensing, and a number of other areas that the government can help us.
What significant milestones has Zap made on its fusion plans recently? What near-term progress is expected on both fission and fusion?
A: Last year we were able to get to record pressure inside of our device, which is hugely important for fusion – it’s one of the parameters that we have to increase to get to the triple product, along with density and temperature. We were able to increase both temperature and density in our device to regimes that we hadn’t seen before. We have also been working with the Department of Energy on the development of plans for pilot plants, which was also exciting. We wrapped up a pre-conceptual design for our fusion pilot plant, which we hope to wrap up and have some news on soon. We haven’t made any announcements yet, but I believe it’s coming soon. And while NIF achieved Q>1 in 2022, I believe everybody has to be focused on getting there with their designs. Unfortunately, no one can predict scientific breakthroughs with absolute certainty. But with that said, we will continue to see our triple product rise. We have one of the fastest growths in triple products as far as that goes. If you look at the paper that Sam Wurzel tracks on the, ours is one of the better growth rates. That said, there aren’t going to be any surprises. We believe in publishing our results and sharing them with the community, so you’ll see more and more progress as we get close.
Speaking of approaches, Tokamaks has been around for a while, as has laser inertial fusion. What do you see as the advantages of your approach?
A: If you think about how big the sandbox is in which we get to play with in fusion, inertial is characterized by very, very, very high densities for very short periods of time. On the other side of things, tokamaks are characterized by very long confinements with fairly low density plasmas. There is probably twelve orders of magnitude of plasma densities between the two of them. For inertial you need the best lasers you can get, while for tokamaks you need the best magnets you can get. In the middle space, we’re lucky that we don’t need the best of either of them. That means we don’t have to push the science or engineering boundaries quite as hard as something like tokamaks or lasers do. In fact, I just need to work on shear flow stabilization and show that it can meet the challenge required as we get to higher and higher densities and temperatures. We are looking for a sort of Goldilocks condition where you don’t have to be too hot or too cold, too dense or too diffuse, which might be easier on the technology side to make happen. That means, hopefully, that we can build a smaller, less expensive system that we can iterate on quicker and learn from faster. If you’re going to have to build 10 generations of devices, that means that each one is going to be done quickly and affordable to be done in a relevant time frame.
The Likely Meaning of Zap’s Announcement
To say that Zap’s announcement last week was “a little off the beaten path” would be an understatement. But we are likely to see more fusion companies go this way as time goes on, especially those with less than $1 billion in funding. Think of it this way: if a company like Shine Fusion, which has slightly more than $1 billion in funding, has to chase adjacent businesses like medical isotopes, then a company like Zap with roughly $330 million is under even more pressure to do so. To be fair, Shine has made medical isotopes part of its business from day one, which may simply mean it was one of the smarter companies out there.
The real question is to what extent this move is smart given the circumstances, or whether it simply piles on more risk. In the roughly nine years since it was founded, Zap Energy has raised $330 million, with the last round of $130 million coming about a year and a half ago in October 2024. That is significant by fusion fundraising standards, but small compared to what fission peers have raised. X-Energy raised more than $1.4 billion in private capital prior to going public, including a $700 million Series D in 2025. Radiant Nuclear raised a $300 million round in December 2025. That math suggests Zap will have to raise another significant round to fund work on both fusion and fission, which makes its funding challenge potentially larger rather than smaller.
On the positive side, Zap is already working on a liquid-metal (lithium) fusion machine, and that experience translates well to the liquid-sodium cooling design it has chosen for the micro-reactor. Even so, the company is well behind its competition in the nuclear fission market, which is crowded to say the least. One strength that they may have is touch points with end customers (which are the same as they’re looking at for fusion), though this more likely puts them at ‘even’ than ‘ahead’. In any case, Zap has its work cut out to pull this off. The company is better positioned financially than many of its peers, and the announcement suggests it has recognized the need to pivot sooner rather than later.
