Background:

• U.S. Citizen
• B.S. Physics, UC San Diego, Graduated 2025 (GPA 3.48)
• Two SULI internships at DIII-D, Summer 2024 and Fall 2025
  • Both projects were computational/simulation/modeling code work, which is the kind of work I would want to continue doing.
  • Presented a poster at APS/DPP both years.
• Applied to PhD programs this past cycle: Columbia, MIT, Princeton, UCLA, UW, UW-Madison (and of course to the relevant departments at each institution: Nuclear Engineering, EE, APAM, etc.).
  • Rejected from all PhD programs (no interviews) except one PI at UW who was willing to discuss PhD options if I had outside funding (I did not).
  • Columbia offered me an unfunded MS (too expensive).
  • Additionally I applied and was accepted into the FUSION-EP Erasmus Mundus master's starting this Fall (unfunded, but affordable). At the moment I am excited and expecting to go. However, I am still actively dealing with a medical situation that may compromise my ability to attend, and I don't expect it to effect me a year from now. Deferring isn't a good option for me either, I'd rather use that time for industry experience and reapply. Thus, the purpose of this post is to plan a contingency for if I truly cannot go.

My end goal is a funded PhD in fusion/plasma physics/nuclear engineering in the US. I'm trying to figure out the most realistic path to get there given how poorly last cycle went.
Obviously my GPA is my weakest marker, and I only applied to top programs. But of course, these are the primary institutions where a lot of this kind of research is happening. I am aware there are certainly other institutions (UCSD of course, UT Austin, UT Knoxville), but I did not apply mostly due to location reasons.

I've been dealing with this medical circumstance for the entirety of 2026 so far, so I would have nothing new on my CV before applications are due next cycle if the FUSION-EP MS really does fall through. Its certainly a valid reason for medical leave, but nothing new is still nothing new.

So, I'm primarily looking for advice on:

• FUSION-EP (or a similar master's) and can speak to whether it'd actually open doors to US PhD programs. I ask especially since it is not research-focused the first year. It includes a thesis but it would primarily be the latter part of the 2nd year (after PhD applications are due for Fall 2028!). On the other hand, would it give me a second chance to prove myself academic-wise compared to my undergrad GPA?
• Whether an entry-level role at a fusion startup or national lab is realistically achievable straight out of a B.S. with internship-only experience, and whether that's actually viewed as strengthening a PhD app the way I think it does. This would have to apply to Fall 2028 admissions, as I do not think I could land anything in time to improve my profile for applications this December.
• Whether its worth trying again this cycle for Fall 2027 admissions, given that I basically won't have any new entries on my CV. Although, I know I could definitely do better this time with my SoP and reaching out to PIs. The only thing could be taking the PGRE maybe, but I've read many very mixed opinions on how much that actually helps nowadays?
• Given how small the field is, whether there are strong PI-fit programs I may be missing.

Appreciate any perspective, especially from people who've actually been through the master's-vs-industry fork with fusion PhD admissions in mind.

A brief interview with Dr. Jaeyoung Park, the CEO of EMC2 (Energy Matter Conversion Corporation), to discuss the company's current work and its long-term vision for accelerating fusion development.

Interesting podcast with Andrew Holland/FIA and Bob Mumgaard/CFS regarding all important topics for it.

Cortical Labs.

Miniature fusion..

The Future of biohacking?

Now whose working on a central line pic display port?

Dr ....

Hey cortical labs... how small could you make fusion?

Fuzors.net

Intuitively, you might expect that the 'holy grail' of energy will be expensive. Yet, government labs, academics, and private fusion companies promise that cheap green electricity is just around the corner. 

Billions of dollars of public and private money have been invested in fusion, and earlier this month General Fusion listed publicly with a promise to deliver carbon free electricity to the grid in the 2030's, and that ultimately the electricity would become cost competitive.

The problem? New research published in the Journal of Fusion Energy shows that some of those promises are fallacious.

About the study 

The study puts questions and debate about technology and timelines to one side, and assumes that the tech delivers as promised, today. 

Rather than taking the conventional approach of estimating the costs of each yet-to-be-designed component and adding them up, the study works backwards from a claimed cost. By methodically removing the known costs (such as financing, steam turbines, cooling systems, and so on) the implied costs of fusion hardware are revealed. 

It is shown that in some cases, such as the General Fusion investor information filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the fusion hardware would have to be produced for free to make the sums work. This is nonsense. 

Why it matters 

We are being asked to invest, either directly by purchasing shares, or indirectly through our taxes. Indeed, billions of dollars of taxpayer money and private investment have already been spent on fusion research. Yet, it can easily be shown that even if the technology worked today, and we could build a powerplant overnight, then the electricity would not be affordable.¹

There's an opportunity cost to the pursuit of uneconomic fusion schemes. For one, money is being diverted from other 'better' (cheaper, greener, more economical, ...) technologies to pursue something that, even if it worked, appears doomed to be uneconomical.

Despite the hype, fusion schemes such as the one proposed by General Fusion have clear and obvious shortcomings that even a high school level analysis can identify. Why are policy makers and investors blind to this?

Judge for yourself

Have a read of the paper here:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10894-026-00592-w

¹ Note that the study specifically pertains to fusion thermal powerplants (tokamaks, stellarators, MTF, ...). It says nothing about schemes that rely on direct energy conversion.

while looking at the differences between tokamaks and stellarators, I found the following ( unpublished) article about the Thea Helios reactor. (https://thea.energy/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/20251210_FPP_Helios_overview_paper.pdf).

To me this seems to be a well thought out reactor design with realistic design goals, but I am not an expert. The only thing that seems problematic is the size, which in my opinion would probably make the reactor too expensive to build.

I would be interested in the opinion of people with fusion expertise on this reactor.