It's not a function of science. It's a matter of
whether the richest countries are willing to pay for it.
That's what believers in nuclear fusion are saying and
it's behind the signing of an agreement by 31 countries to
build the most advanced nuclear reactor.
|
Ken Silverstein
EnergyBiz Insider
Editor-in-Chief |
Representatives of nations that are kicking in $12.8
billion to build a nuclear fusion reactor commemorated the
start of the so-called International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER) in France to be erected near
the southern city of Marseille. French President Jacques
Chirac hosted the event in late November, which involved
representatives from other European nations as well as
Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States.
"If nothing changes, humanity will have consumed, in
200 years, most of the fossil fuel resources accumulated
over hundreds of millions of years," says Chirac, in a
public statement. "It is the victory of the general
interest of humanity." The reactor will get built in eight
years, although a demonstration project is unlikely before
2040.
Global energy consumption is expected to rise by 60
percent over the next two decades -- a product of
industrialization and population growth, particularly in
China and India. The issue is compounded as more than
three-fourths of the world's energy is produced by burning
fossil fuels. As a greater emphasis is placed on limiting
greenhouse gases associated with such combustion, there's
now a need to come up with environmentally benign
technologies.
Enter nuclear power and specifically nuclear fusion.
Fusion is responsible for powering the sun and stars. So,
the goal is to imitate that process on earth, although it
is extremely difficult and expected to take as much as 50
years to do.
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.
That's why the consortium of 31 nations has come
together, all to try and get over the hurdles. The costs
will be split among the participants, with the United
States expected to ante up about 10 percent, or $1.2
billion. Existing experiments have shown it is possible to
replicate the suns energy here on earth, the participants
emphasized.
"There is no possibility of a runaway reaction and
because the gas will be so dilute, there is not enough
energy inside the plant to drive a major accident and not
much fuel would be available to be released to the
environment if an accident did occur," says Kaname Ikeda,
ITER's director-general, in a piece written for the BBC
of London.
No Guarantees
Without a doubt, success is anything but certain.
Because hydrogen plasma is heated to 100 million degrees
Celsius, it will damage the vessel that contains the
substance. Those are expensive parts that would often have
to be replaced.
An article in the journal Science argues that
scientists can spend more time and money trying to solve
that plasma problem and other engineering issues. But, the
reality is that nuclear fusion will never come to pass.
That's despite four decades of research and $20 billion
already spent. Beyond that, fusion power may be 50 years
off and the energy landscape could look drastically
different by then.
"The history of this dream is as discouraging as it is
expensive," wrote William Parkins, in Science
magazine. He has passed away but he was chief scientist at
Rockwell International and a physicist who worked on the
Manhattan Project.
Proponents of nuclear fusion beg to differ with that
viewpoint. 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.
At the same time, those advocates go on to say that
efficiency efforts and 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.
"I was less convinced 30 years ago [that fusion could
become practical] but we have made incredible progress,"
Miklos Porkolab, director of the Plasma Fusion Center at
MIT, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, told New Scientist.
"The science is going to work," he says, "and the rest is
economics."
Nuclear energy currently comprises 16 percent of the
global energy mix. But the International Atomic Energy
Agency says that environmental concerns over fossil fuels
and the fact that they are a depleting resource mean the
use of reactors that use nuclear fission will grow. It
predicts such power will generate 27 percent of all
worldwide energy by 2030, although most of the growth will
occur in Asia where 22 of the last 31 plants have been
built.
In the coming decades, scientists and other researchers
are designing fission reactors that are expected to be
increasingly sophisticated. Longer term, however, many of
those experts have their eye on nuclear fusion -- a
technology that they argue is critical not just to nuclear
development but to all of power generation.
Copyright © 1996-2006 by
CyberTech,
Inc.
All rights reserved.
|