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’s 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 that 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
Copyright © 1996-2012 by
CyberTech,
Inc.
All rights reserved.
To subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.energycentral.com
To subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.energybiz.com