Fusion Energy - Will it Really Happen?

Perhaps you remember Dr. Emmett Brown's vehicle in the "Back to the Future" movies? It was powered by a fusion energy device small enough to fit in the vehicle's trunk. Perhaps you also looked at this device and said, "When can I get one of those"? (Or maybe you just looked at the Delorean longingly.)

Will fusion energy really happen? Do we want it to happen? The reply is a few years away. A project exists referred to as "ITER", (Latin for "the way") which could add to the hopes of the world for a clean, environmentally safe, abundant energy source. Currently in the planning stages, this project will plan, build and operate a fusion reactor that represents a necessary step in the understanding of how to harness fusion energy to produce electricity. This includes proving the feasibility of a prolonged fusion reaction and determining if ITER will produce more power than it consumes (critical to a sustained fusion reaction). Past and current reactors have approached this hurdle but the work done at ITER will play an important part in meeting and then surpassing this goal. The step beyond that is to design and build a commercial fusion plant to produce electricity based on ITER's findings.

The site for the ITER project is in Cadarache, France and the organization that oversees ITER has representatives from China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the United States. This organization has agreed to share responsibilities for the project including costs, design, licensing, construction, etc. It is estimated that the project will cost about five billion Euros to construct and another five billion Euros to operate over its intended twenty-one year life span. As stated before, the reply to fusion really happening is a few years away: the first plasma is tentatively scheduled to be generated in 2018 and then the reactor is expected to operate and conduct research for 10 years beyond that (after about a year to "fine tune" the process). From the beginning, the ITER reactor is intended to be a learning process where, once in operation, researchers can understand and improve the way the reactor operates so that the commercial reactors that result from this are safe and efficient.

What is fusion? Here is a very basic description: The nuclear reaction that most people are familiar with is "fission" where the nuclei of heavy atoms (Uranium U235 is probably the most common) are split into lighter atoms releasing energy as heat. Conventional nuclear reactors use this heat to make steam to run turbines that generate electricity. Fusion is the same power source used by suns and stars and it is roughly the opposite of fission. A fusion reaction is where the nuclei of lighter atoms fuse together forming heavier atoms (for ITER it is helium) and also releasing energy. The proposed reactor for the ITER project will utilize a "tokamak" design which uses strong magnetic fields to confine fusion plasma (a gas kept at a high temperature and proper density where the reactions take place) and allow control of the fusion reaction. The heat from the energy given off as a result of the fusion reaction can be used in a similar manner to conventional reactors to provide electricity.

As for the "Do we want it to happen?" Here are some reasons fusion could be a viable energy source for the world:

1. The fuel for fusion reactors (deuterium and lithium) is plentiful (several billion years worth) and easy to reach. Deuterium comes from saltwater and lithium is found in the earth's crust.

2. Radioactive fuel does not need to be transported to the reactor. That part of the fuel is generated on site by combining other materials and is in very small quantities.

3. There are no greenhouse gasses given off as a by-product of this process.

4. The reactor is designed so that an out-of-control chain reaction is not possible. Only a small amount of fuel is present in the reactor at any time.

5. One fusion reactor facility could power two million homes. By the time the first commercial reactors come on line that will probably be improved (in conjunction with other research including superconducting materials).

6. The radiation given off by this reaction is not nearly as harmful as with a fission reaction and shielding for it is much easier.

7. Yes, there is nuclear waste but it has a half life (basically the time until it is no longer radioactive) of 50 to 100 years. It is the parts in the reactor that are irradiated and they could potentially be reused over time.

8. The heavy atoms by-product of the fusion process is helium.

9. As stated earlier, countries from around the world are working together / cooperating to find a viable source of energy.

Given the current ITER timeline, a trip to the future may be the only way some of us will get to see fusion power as a reality.

More by this Author

  • Dumber Than a Bag of Hammers

    Think of this as some of the "left overs" to another article dealing with interesting phrases in the South (See Eating Corn on the Cob Through a Picket Fence). I have lived my entire life south of the Mason...

  • Whompy-Jawed Words and Phrases

    Here is another in what has now become a series for me (I guess three hubs constitute a series – It started with Eating Corn on the Cob Through a Picket Fence) about uniquely Southern words and phrases. As you...

Comments 4 comments

Amanda Severn profile image

Amanda Severn 7 years ago from UK

Thanks for writing about this Bryan. I'm fascinated by anything and everything that has to do with alternative energy. Unfortunately I'm not a scientist, and the fine detail often by-passes me, but I like to think that there is a real future for the world beyond peak oil!

Bryan Robertson profile image

Bryan Robertson 7 years ago from Tennessee, United States Author

Hi, Amanda - I'm glad you enjoyed the hub. I work at a national laboratory that over the years has moved from weapons to energy research and is part of the ITER project. I too am fascinated by alternative energy (and physics in general) and I am like a kid in a candy store with all that is going on here. They are working on more fuel efficient automobiles, solar and wind power, superconducting power lines (working towards lines that don't waste any of the electrical current that runs through them), etc. One researcher here has come up with a design for a "zero energy" home that can actually generate more electricity than it uses. They are working on two neighborhoods in this area right now that will feature these homes. Here is a website that describes the design: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v40_2_07/artic... Let me know if you cannot access it.

Maury Markowitz 4 years ago

I realize this is an old post, but I couldn't help myself...

You posted a big list of the pluses of fusion. But you didn't post a single minus. Let me assure you, they exist. Here's some:

1) D is extremely expensive, and all proponents of fusion have to assume a massive cost reduction in supplying D. The world's largest production centre for D is right down the road from me, and when you look at it you'll understand why such a reduction is by no means assured.

2) The reaction uses D as the primary fuel, and T as a sort of "booster". The T is generated in the reactor from lithium. Lithium is already a scarce commodity because we need it in batteries, and we're going to need a lot more once the wholesale move to electric cars starts. A "fusion economy" would need all the lithium in the world, which, to me, seems like a very bad thing.

3) Although the T is self-generated in the reactors, you need an external supply to start it up. And we don't have one. We can get T from conventional reactors (the local one is also a major producer of T) but since it burns off quickly you need to produce a whole lot of it really quickly, something we simply can't do. So what could we do? Build lots and lots of fission reactors to supply the T, producing lots of fissiles, so that we can produce less in the future?! Ummm, catch-22?

4) Tritium is a slippery substance and tends to get into the environment no matter how hard we try to contain it - the local reactor accidentally lets some into Lake Ontario every few years. When you calculate the amount of T produced in a "fusion economy" and compare that the known leakage rates of conventional H, a widely shipped gas, the answer is that the background load in the air would be worse than the height of nuclear testing in the 1960s.

5) Lithium generates the T, so during production the system is literally filled with radioactive gas. Li is also flammable, and especially so when in hot liquid form like in a reactor. If such a system were to catch fire, the radioactive release would be *enormous*. And it would be released as a gas that's extremely bio-reactive, lighter than air and has a short half-life - meaning it's highly reactive. What could *possibly* go wrong?

6) So let's say you solve ALL of these problems - you find a big deuterium mine in Florida, tritium starts bubbling out of wells in Texas, and we invent a perfect leak-and-fire-proof buildings. Ok, we still likely won't build it. Why? Because wind and PV are already cheaper. Oh I know, you need storage for those technologies...

storage that requires lots and lots of lithium

So I could spend all that money developing this specific form of generation, or I could spend that same amount building better batteries. And while spending that lithium in a fusion reactor means we get to use fusion reactors, spending that Li in a battery means I get to use *any* form of generation.

So don't hold your breath.

scraw profile image

scraw 3 years ago from Jacksonville, Fl

Hello my friend, I lke how you have done your research. My understanding is that the fusion process requires way too much energy being that the engineers are trying to reach temperatures that reach that of the sun. fortunately a man name Mehran Tavakoli Kesheā€ˇ has invented tehnology that can accomplish this same feat with room tempuratures. You should check him out and look at his patents.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article