Nuclear Fusion's Power Reverberates

Ken Silverstein | Feb 08, 2012

 

Whether it’s the 21st Century’s version of Stars Wars is yet to be seen. But advocates of nuclear fusion are saying that it would be life-changing while politicos are helping to bring it one step closer to reality. 

Fusion is responsible for powering the sun and stars. So, the ultimate goal is to imitate that process on earth. Indeed, the countries bankrolling the science hope to have a reactor erected in France by 2019 -- one that could be replicated so as to produce electricity at commercial scale. To that end, the European Commission has drafted a plan to inject $1.7 billion into the so-called international nuclear fusion project, or ITER, to 2018.

“ITER is a major step towards the demonstration of fusion as a sustainable energy source,” the EC said after its agreement to keep financing the reactor. “Due to its important advantages, such as the availability of large fuel reserves and the lack of CO2 emissions, fusion could greatly contribute to the long-term EU energy strategy ... in a safe, efficient and secure way.”

ITERs’ critics are saying that it is pipe dream, or the equivalent of Star Wars that was purported in the 1980s to be the next great defensive weapon that would insulate the United States from all nuclear bombs. ITER’s supporters, however, are responding that nuclear fusion must be commercialized because the fuel alternatives will not solve the world’s energy woes.

The participants are not just the member states comprising the EU but also the United States, Russia, Japan, China, India and South Korea. An international consortium was put together because of ITER’s associated costs, as well as the sheer scientific and engineer prowess involved.

Today's nuclear reactors use fission that produces energy when atoms are split apart. In contrast, fusion releases energy as atoms are combined -- a process that thus far consumes more energy than it generates. The aim is to heat hydrogen gas to more than 100 million degrees Celsius so that the atoms will fuse together instead of bouncing off one another. The end result of that fusion process is the production of 10 million times more power than a typical chemical reaction, such as the burning of fossil fuel.

It will be a long slog ahead. Roughly $20 billion has already been spent on  studying fusion and by the time the science is primed, the energy landscape may look very different from what it does today.

Political Will

The good news is that some of the technical hurdles are getting solved. Today, scientists are said to be able to heat the hydrogen gases to the extreme levels that are needed to start the fusion process. Some, such as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, are trying to figure out “cold fusion” that is a low temperature nuclear reaction.

“The disproportionate amount of funding that continues to be allocated to nuclear power, in spite of the clear need to finally shift away from nuclear in the aftermath of Fukushima, is wrongheaded,” says Helga Trupel, a leader in the European Parliament's green movement. “The elephant in the room is clearly the funding for the ITER nuclear fusion project. ITER is a ticking budgetary time bomb.”

Advocates of fusion say that the science can be conquered. It’s the political will that is required to edge ahead. They say that the current global energy market is now valued at $3 trillion a year -- an amount that will expand proportionately as developing nations modernize their economies. Much of that consumption is fossil fuel-fired and any energy source that can displace that value would help better the human condition and the environment, they say.

Those advocates add that renewable energy -- while essential -- will not diminish in a major way the world's reliance on coal, natural gas and oil. A large scale nuclear project with an eye toward the future is therefore necessary and practical.

“Scientists not only produce 100 million-degree plasmas routinely, but they control and manipulate such ‘small suns’ with remarkable finesse,” writes Stewart Prager, director of Princeton’s Plasma Physics Lab that gets its funds from the U.S. Department of Energy. The story, which appeared in the New York Times, goes on to say that sustaining hot plasma is more challenging, and along with other hurdles, will take another $30 billion and 20 more years.

Scientists and engineers are actively working on the next generation nuclear reactors that utilize fission. Those are just around the corner and they are very real. ITER, however, is more distant, and nations are driven to solve more immediate problems. That’s why its supporters are keeping up the political pressure as a way to move the technology ahead.

EnergyBiz Insider is the Winner of the 2011 Online Column category awarded by Media Industry News, MIN. Ken Silverstein has also been named one of the Top Economics Journalists by Wall Street Economists.

Follow Ken on  www.twitter.com/ken_silverstein

energybizinsider@energycentral.com