OXFORD, England, March 28 (UPI) -- Nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun and the stars, is a potentially viable solution to the global energy challenge, and is an alternative that must be fully explored, industry experts say.
In the wake of the June 2005 announcement that the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor will be constructed in Caradache, France, interest in fusion research has increased significantly, yet the process remains controversial.
With global energy use expected to rise 60 percent by 2030, the dependency on fossil fuels, which now provide 80 percent of world energy, is unsustainable. This dilemma has fueled a search for alternatives and fusion is often identified as a lead player.
"I am completely confident that we will be using fusion," said David Ward, a fusion physicist at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Association's Culham Science Center. "The question is the timescale in which we do it."
At the core of the sun, hydrogen is converted into helium by fusion, providing enough energy to keep the sun burning. A worldwide research program aims to safely exploit this process on Earth, a feat that requires the heating of isotopes of hydrogen to temperatures exceeding 100 million degrees Celsius.
Significant progress has already been made. In 1983, the Joint European Torus, the world's most powerful magnetic fusion device, was completed, and in 1997, JET produced a record-breaking 16 megawatts of fusion power. ITER is envisaged as an experimental facility that will further this success, and is described in a European Commission document titled "Fusion: Energy for the Future" as "the next step on the path to safe and sustainable fusion power."
It is hoped that by generating 500 megawatts of power, initially for 10-minute periods, ITER will demonstrate the scientific and technical feasibility of a full-scale fusion power reactor. If this research proves successful, experts argue fusion could then be used to produce essentially limitless energy in a safe and environmentally friendly way.
"It would offer very large amounts of fuel which are almost inexhaustible over very large timescales," said Jerome Pamela, head of JET.
Fusion does not produce carbon dioxide, and requires very small amounts of fuel. Indeed, according to Ward, the JET device uses only 1/100th gram of fuel at any one time. This makes fusion an "intrinsically safe process ... the biggest downside is that it is not available as a viable technology today," Ward said.
The large availability of fusion raw materials, deuterium and tritium, provides a further advantage. According to Pamela, "the basic fuel is very easily found on Earth. This would release the geopolitical tensions over fuel supplies which exist today."
However, other observers are less convinced. With ITER construction costs expected to reach $5.7 billion, the price tag has proved a magnet for criticism.
According to Alister Scott, research fellow at the Sussex Energy Group, "the one thing you can say about nuclear fusion is that it is not financially viable."
Despite massive spending, there is "no remote possibility that fusion will produce commercial power in the next 25 years," he said.
These high costs invite the criticism that funding could be more effectively channeled into other projects. Scott highlighted Britain's pre-eminence in wind power development during the 1980s as a missed opportunity. This contention is given greater weight by the British Wind Energy Association's recent announcement that wind power capability is exceeding predictions, and will provide 5 percent of Britain's electricity by 2010.
The environmental effects of fusion have also inspired vigorous debate. Although proponents highlight the lack of carbon dioxide emissions, environmental groups cite other damaging byproducts. According to Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International, "fusion power in theory relies on the use of relatively large amounts of tritium. The year-to-year operation of reactors with such a fuel will release large amounts of tritium into the atmosphere."
The debate over fusion also extends to the heart of the global energy challenge. Fusion power remains in the research and development stage. ITER will not produce electrical power for a public grid and according to Scott, "nobody is yet qualified to say when fusion will become viable." So it remains to be seen whether fusion technological advances keep pace with, and eventually satisfy, world energy demands.
Many observers view the notion of fusion as a viable energy alternative with skepticism. The bulk of the predicted global rise in energy demand will occur in the developing world. In 1990, developing countries were responsible for 33 percent of global energy consumption. By 2020, this is expected to rise to 55 percent as rapid industrialization and urbanization fuel an insatiable need for power.
This increase leads many to argue that investment should be directed toward more feasible energy alternatives.
"India and China don't have time to sit and wait for resources which are unproven," Burnie said. "Any society committed to fusion is diverting resources down the wrong path."
Despite such criticisms, proponents of fusion power remain optimistic. At a June 2005 conference in Moscow, Europe, the United States, China, South Korea, Russia and Japan agreed to share the costs of ITER and in December 2005, India official joined the ITER cooperation.
For fusion advocates, such international cooperation bodes well for future capacity of fusion to become a viable energy resource. According to Ward, "it is only through international collaboration that we can realistically take a research project and turn it into an industrial machine."
The involvement of the developing world is seen as particularly important.
"The biggest need for energy comes from India and China, and they are active participants in ITER," Ward said. "Everybody now wants to join."
--
(Comments to [email protected])
