University announces massive investment to aid development of limitless energy machine: 'Exciting new technology with huge room to run'
As the global race to sustainably produce and harness fusion energy endures, one American university announced plans to be the leading academic institution to support fusion energy development in the country, Tucson.com reported.
Leaders at the University of Arizona (UA) — Suresh Garimella, UA President; and Tomás Díaz de la Rubia, UA Senior Vice President for Research and Innovation — have publicized the university's research priorities, of which fusion energy is top of mind.
Of the recent $20 million investment the university received from the Arizona Board of Regents' Technology and Research Initiative fund, the budget will be split among three primary research areas: space and national security, fusion energy, and artificial intelligence and health. Though the university does not have concrete numbers for dispersing the investment just yet, it does anticipate spending more on the first two research areas to secure appropriate equipment, facilities, and laboratories.
The UA leaders are especially enthusiastic about investing in fusion energy development and pursuing fusion commercialization, which could generate a $68 trillion increase in global Gross Domestic Product, according to their opinion piece published on The Hill.
"Fusion is the process that powers the stars, including our sun, which is the original source of energy that sustains life on Earth," explained UA spokesperson Mitch Zak, per Tucson.com.
Fusion energy is abundant and doesn't produce long-lasting radioactive nuclear waste, like fission energy does, per the International Atomic Energy Agency, holding great potential to power cities and towns with affordable, renewable, clean energy. Transitioning from dirty fuels to cleaner energy reduces harmful gas pollution, which can improve people's respiratory health.
UA's support for the fusion industry in successfully achieving fusion commercialization could help Arizona and the country achieve greater energy security. Limitless and affordable fusion energy could help address the state's water scarcity problems (desalinating water) and AI's growing energy demands.
Powering the country with domestically produced renewable energy positions the country to be in a place of greater security, reducing reliance on imported energy and shielding from the volatility of international energy prices.
According to Tucson.com, the university plans to improve fusion technology to reduce the associated risks of current fusion processes, to ultimately support the private sector in developing a successful fusion reactor.
Commonwealth Fusion Systems, an MIT energy startup backed by Bill Gates, is one such company moving towards a viable tokamak reactor. The company has installed a 75-ton cryostat base to help keep the reactor's magnets at 487 degrees Fahrenheit, which creates a plasma condition that is hotter than the sun.
Should the U.S. invest more in battery innovations?
Absolutely
Depends on the project
We're investing enough
We should invest less
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
In another instance, nuclear experts at General Atomics successfully surpassed the "Greenwald limit," the threshold in reaction experiments where the fusion process tends to become rampant. Some calculation adjustments allowed the team to exceed the Greenwald limit by 20% and achieve a 50% greater energy confinement quality.
"This (fusion) is exciting new technology with huge room to run and has moved very rapidly — the last decade has seen more progress than in my lifetime — and I would love to see that come to commercial power in the next decade," said U.S. energy secretary Chris Wright, per Tucson.com.
"We're very fortunate that the Arizona Board of Regents enabled us to get started. Our job now is to take that seed and turn it into a significant program of federal research," said Diáz de la Rubia, per Tucson.com.
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Needs to Get Real on Trade
U.S. President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order during a tariff announcement in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 2, 2025. Credit - Jim Lo Scalzo—EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images The roller coaster that is President Donald Trump's trade war steamed ahead this week. On Wednesday, a federal district court dealt a major blow to Trump when it ruled that his sweeping global tariffs were illegal. On Thursday, an appeals court ruled the levies could remain in place for now. And then, on Friday, Trump accused China of violating a preliminary trade deal and suggested he would respond. As all this unfolds and the U.S. legal system lumbers toward a final verdict, one thing is clear: the White House needs to get a real trade strategy, and fast. Read More: The Five Small Businesses That Helped Block Trump's Tariffs Few issues are more fundamental to Trump's worldview than trade. For Trump, trade is not merely an economic issue, but a litmus test of whether America is winning or losing on the world stage. Even matters of war and peace, such as Taiwan and the South China Sea, have seemingly taken a back seat to Trump's stubborn fixation on China's trade surplus with the U.S. During his first term, Trump launched a trade war against China with a goal, as he framed it, of punishing China's unfair trade practices. The trade war ended with a Phase-one deal wherein China promised to increase its future purchases of American products and enact structural reforms. Ultimately, this deal failed to deliver. The Chinese underperformed on their pledges. Trump blamed the Biden Administration for not enforcing the deal. Unbowed by the disappointment of his first trade war with China, Trump launched a second one when he returned to office earlier this year. This time, he surrounded himself with loyalists who supported his instincts for public confrontation and rapid escalation to force China to the negotiating table. Trump's approach appeared to be built on an assumption that China's economy was brittle, and Beijing would buckle under pressure. Read More: Why Trump Will Blink First on China That bet backfired. China retaliated with counter-tariffs. Beijing also implemented novel new export controls on critical minerals and magnets upon which U.S. industries depend. Chinese policymakers moved swiftly to shore up China's economy while expanding trade ties with other partners. Rather than fold, China punched back. As the economic costs of the trade war mounted on both sides of the Pacific, Trump designated his Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to negotiate a 90-day truce. The Chinese accepted. Trump's trade war with China is not over. It is merely paused. Trump will continue returning to the well of grievance about America's trade imbalance with China until he can secure a deal that he can sell as a win to the American public. But therein lies the rub. Based on my recent exchanges with Chinese officials and experts, it seems Beijing has taken America's measure in recent weeks and concluded that China has greater capacity to withstand economic pain than the U.S. China's leaders lack confidence that any agreement with the mercurial Trump will last. At a more fundamental level, China's leaders are unclear on what specifically Trump seeks—and what he would offer in return. On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Bessent said that U.S.-China talks were 'a bit stalled' and suggested Trump and Xi Jinping 'have a call.' But until the Trump Administration can articulate its concrete objectives, its strategy for achieving them, and its vision of a productive process for doing so, the U.S.-China trade war will stay stalemated. Read More: It's Time for Trump and Xi to Meet To be clear, the Trump Administration has legitimate grievances about China's unfair economic practices. China's market access barriers, forced technology transfers, and state-directed subsidies to preferred industries and businesses have created massive global trade distortions. But grievance is not a strategy. And daily improvisation is not a formula for progress in negotiations. The 90-day trade truce gives the Trump Administration time and space to do its homework. That means discarding the failed assumptions that Xi will cave under pressure and instead doing the hard work of homing in on what specifically Trump is aiming to achieve and what he is prepared to give in return. In the end, trade policy is not about scoring points or undermining competitors. It is about making America stronger, safer, and more prosperous. If Trump wants to succeed, he will need to move beyond theatrics and prepare for the grinding process of negotiating with China that awaits. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump is about to send tipping culture into overdrive
'When I get to office we are not going to charge taxes on tips, on people making tips,' Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail. 'If you're a restaurant worker, a server, a valet, a bell hop, a bartender, one of my caddies –your tips will be 100pc yours.' The billionaire president has stayed true to his promise. The bulk of the tax cuts outlined in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax and spending bill, currently before the Senate, reward the wealthy. But one populist clause within the legislation is a plan to scrap federal tax on tips – one of Trump's key campaign pledges. The tax break is popular with US service workers – everyone from hairdressers to restaurant staff – but may not be so popular with customers. American tipping culture is already in overdrive, and people hate it. A policy that was once the sole domain of the restaurant and hospitality sector has rapidly proliferated since the pandemic. Takeaway coffee orders now prompt demands for a few bucks extra and even stopping by a news-stand for a paper or some gum can lead people to pay an extra 20pc on their bills. Many Americans have noticed this creep and don't like it. As one Reddit user put it online: 'What the f--- am I tipping for? Is it not bad enough that I just paid over $5 (£3.7) for a small bottle of water?' Trump's tax break is likely to push a wave of new jobs to adopt restaurant-style tipping policies and will incentivise businesses to restructure their employees' pay, so that they receive a larger proportion of their income from tips. Maurice Obstfeld, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, says: 'Number one, this is going to induce new employers to classify more compensation as tips.' It may already be happening. Chris Bakke, a San Francisco entrepreneur and investor, wrote on X recently: The message, which may have been a joke, was in response to news that the US Senate had passed the No Tax on Tips act – a bipartisan bill proposing a tax deduction of up to $25,000 for cash tips. It is separate to the president's proposals, showing the broad support for the policy across the political spectrum. Both Republicans and Democrats present the policy as a boost for blue-collar workers. However, economists warn that people could end up with lower baseline pay as a result of the changes, putting more pressure on customers to top up earnings. That means even more social pressure and financial pain at the checkout. The plans laid out in Trump's tax and spending bill offer the same level of tax break as the No Tax on Tips act. Under the current law, staff are required to report tips to their employer if they total $20 or more in a single month. Businesses then include the tips in salary calculations – withholding federal income tax, social security tax and Medicare taxes. The new exemption will only apply to tips paid in cash, not by card. Workers must earn less than $160,000 per year to qualify and be working in occupations that 'customarily' receive tips. The US Treasury will publish a list of these occupations when the bill is passed into law. The total cost to the public purse will be around $15bn per year. The impact on American consumers and tourists visiting the US will also be huge. Abir Mandal, senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, says tax exemptions on tips will create 'perverse incentives' for employers. It will encourage businesses to make employees source more of their wages from tips, with a lower proportion from their salaries. Expectations for tips could also become far more widespread, and bigger. Chris Edwards, a tax expert at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, says: 'I think different job types will shift their types of compensation. You can think of all kinds of professions where it could become more normal.' Luggage handlers at airports are an obvious potential example, says Mandal. 'They are given a salary. You can give them like $1 or $2 for carrying a bag, but in general they are paid a wage. If this thing takes off, perhaps their income could be reconfigured so that they would make a lower wage but expect a larger tip per bag.' Tipping has always been the norm in US restaurants, but something changed during the pandemic. More people had food deliveries and wanted to show their appreciation for drivers, widening the tipping net. At the same time, wage growth accelerated sharply as the economy reopened but restaurant bosses and other small business owners struggled to match it. As a result, demands for tips grew. 'The expectation of tipping has grown quite dramatically,' says Stephen Barth, an attorney and hospitality law professor at the University of Houston. 'It was already growing and then during Covid it expanded exponentially.' The share of bakeries asking for tips has soared from 36pc to 49pc in the five years to July 2024, for example, according to analysis of payroll data by Gusto. Among coffee shops, the proportion has jumped from 56pc to 72pc. 'For a lot of small businesses, they run on very tight margins, which means that owners couldn't always raise wages. Tips let them pay more to their employees without hitting their budgets,' says Nich Tremper, senior economist at Gusto. The growth of electronic payment terminals, such as Square, has also made it easier to request tips. Whereas with cash it was up to a customer's discretion, now they are confronted with a menu of tip options and have to actively opt out. Even some card machines now have this as the default option. Tips are even now entering shops. The share of retail businesses using tips as part of their employees' pay nearly doubled in the five years to July 2024, rising from 3.86pc to 6.6pc. One in six health stores, 16.2pc, now pay their staff partly in tips. If Trump's bill passes, tipping will become even more important to staff wages, but potentially also more irritating to give. 'Only cash tips will be untaxed if this legislation passes. There may be added pressure on consumers to pay tips in cash. It'll make things awkward. And people already hate tips in America,' says Mandal. The change to federal tax policy is likely to trigger a wave of similar policies at a state level, he adds. States typically try to conform their own taxable income in line with federal policy. That may sound good for workers. But Barth says it amounts to just a 'subsidy for employers'. The tax break will reduce pressure on employers to raise wages and companies could actually cut workers' base pay as a result, demanding they make up the difference through tips. It hits at the heart of what many customers dislike about the recent transformation in tips. What was once a way of showing appreciation for good services has transformed into an expectation with no real link to the quality of experience. If you don't tip, it's not a sign that you're unhappy with the service – it's a signal you're a bad person. Obstfeld is scathing: 'This was a campaign promise that was made to essentially pander to voters and the economic rationale for it is basically nil.' The public may soon share his anger as demands for tips mount up. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Atlantic
24 minutes ago
- Atlantic
A Victory for Separation of Powers
Wednesday's unanimous ruling against President Donald Trump's expansive 'Liberation Day' tariffs by the United States Court of International Trade wasn't merely a victory for the businesses and consumers opposed to the policy. The decision was much more than that: a victory for the constitutional system of separation of powers—and, even more broadly, for the rule of law in America. The decision came in a case filed by the Liberty Justice Center and me on behalf of five American businesses harmed by the tariffs, and it also covers a similar case filed by 12 states led by Oregon. Our suit challenged Trump's attempted use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose 10 percent Liberation Day tariffs on imports from almost every nation in the world, plus additional 'reciprocal' tariffs on many more countries. We argue that the IEEPA doesn't grant Trump the virtually unlimited tariff authority he claims, and that, if it did, it would be unconstitutional. Earlier, the president also used IEEPA to impose 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico, plus additional tariffs on China, under the pretext that they would somehow curtail importation of fentanyl into the United States. (Our case challenged only the Liberation Day tariffs, while the Oregon case also targeted the fentanyl ones.) In combination, the IEEPA tariffs kicked off the biggest trade war since the Great Depression. The Tax Foundation estimated that Trump's IEEPA tariffs would have imposed some $1.4 trillion to $2.2 trillion in tax increases on Americans over the next decade. They also would have severely slowed economic growth, inflicted grave harm on many businesses—including our clients, who depend on imports—and raised prices on consumers. Fortunately, the court ruled that Trump does not have the 'unbounded authority' he claims 'to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country.' The British overthrew King Charles I in part because he tried to impose 'ship money' taxes without legislative authorization. The president of the United States is no king, and he does not have the power to impose taxes in the form of tariffs whenever he feels like it. The court's decision upholds this fundamental principle of the Anglo-American constitutional tradition. The IEEPA doesn't even mention tariffs as one of the emergency powers it grants the president. No previous president ever used it to impose them. In addition, the law can be invoked only to address a 'national emergency' that amounts to an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' to America's economy or national security. The administration claimed that the president has unlimited discretion to decide what qualifies as an 'emergency' and an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Thus, the Liberation Day tariffs were supposedly justified by the existence of trade deficits with various countries, even though such deficits have persisted for decades; there is nothing 'unusual' about them; and, as most economists recognize, they are not a threat at all. As Judge Jane A. Restani put it during oral argument, the administration's approach would allow the president to impose sweeping tariffs for virtually any 'crazy' reason, such as a peanut-butter shortage. The court ruled that the 'IEEPA requires more than just the fact of a presidential finding or declaration,' because 'it does not grant IEEPA authority to the President simply when he 'finds' or 'determines' that an unusual and extraordinary threat exists.' Otherwise, he would have virtually unlimited tariff authority, which the Congress that enacted the IEEPA carefully sought to prevent. The court also emphasized that 'the Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises' and to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.' For that reason, 'any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.' It would 'constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The Supreme Court has been relatively lax in enforcing what is called the 'nondelegation doctrine,' which limits the extent to which congressional authority can be delegated to the executive. But both conservative and liberal justices have held that there must be at least some limits to delegation. And if anything qualifies as excessive delegation, it would be a transfer of unlimited power to impose tariffs amounting to trillions of dollars in tax increases. The court ruling also cites the 'major-questions doctrine,' which requires Congress to 'speak clearly' when authorizing the executive to make 'decisions of vast economic and political significance.' According to the major-questions doctrine, if the law isn't clear, courts must reject the executive's assertions of power. If Trump's sweeping use of the IEEPA is not a major question, nothing is. The magnitude of the IEEPA tariffs exceeds that of any of the measures ruled to be 'major questions' by the Supreme Court. Not even President Joe Biden's $400 billion student-loan-forgiveness plan (which the Court in my view rightly invalidated under the doctrine) compares. And, as the Court of International Trade decision explains, it is anything but clear that the IEEPA grants Trump the immense authority he claims; indeed, it clearly does not. The nondelegation and major-questions doctrines are related, but distinct. The former categorically bans excessive delegations of legislative power to the executive because they undermine the constitutional separation of powers, while the latter merely requires that broad delegations be clearly indicated by Congress. In combination, they aim to constrain executive power grabs, such as that attempted here by Trump. In addition to vindicating constitutional principles, the decision is a win for the rule of law. Major legal rules should be clearly stated, and not instantly changeable at one person's whim. That is what differentiates the rule of law from the 'rule of men.' Trump's claim to unlimited tariff authority and his repeated gyrations in imposing and lifting tariffs are a blatant affront to this principle. After imposing the Liberation Day tariffs, he soon suspended them for certain electronic goods, struck an ad hoc temporary deal to suspend some tariffs on China, and then proceeded to threaten new tariffs on such products as foreign-produced movies and Apple iPhones. Such one-man rule wreaks havoc on the rule of law—to say nothing of the stable legal environment that investors and businesses need to make plans. The court's ruling imposes a nationwide permanent injunction blocking the IEEPA tariffs, thus granting relief to all Americans, not just our clients. Still, the litigation is not over. The administration appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asking it to stay the injunction in the meantime. Yesterday, that court granted a brief 'administrative stay' that delays the ruling for a few days as the parties litigate the issue of whether a longer stay should be granted. The case may yet reach the Supreme Court. A second decision against Trump's IEEPA tariffs was issued yesterday by Judge Rudolph Contreras of the federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Unlike the Court of International Trade ruling, it applies only to tariffs imposed against the two toy manufacturers that brought the case. But notably, Contreras concluded that the IEEPA doesn't grant the president the power to impose tariffs at all, thereby going further than the Wednesday decision did. If the law did grant the sweeping authority claimed by Trump, Contreras—like the Court of International Trade panel—noted, that would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, and 'render IEEPA unconstitutional.' While the impact of the district-court ruling is very limited, it further bolsters the case against Trump's tariffs. The legal fight over the IEEPA tariffs will continue. But these decisions make me guardedly optimistic. The Court of International Trade ruling was joined by judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, including one (Timothy M. Reif) appointed by Trump. Judge Restani was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and the third judge who joined the decision, Gary S. Katzmann, was appointed by Barack Obama. This shows that the legal case against these sorts of sweeping, unilaterally imposed tariffs cuts across liberal-conservative lines. The nondelegation and major-questions doctrines on which our case—and this decision—are largely based have been championed by conservative Supreme Court justices. Americans across the political spectrum have an interest in preventing the president from wielding monarchical powers, undermining the Constitution, and starting ruinous trade wars. It's good to see that courts seem to agree.
