The Dream We Still Just Can't Catch

By Keith Heyde

The Dream we Still Just Can’t Catch:

 Nuclear fusion is out there. We have been promised it for over 50 years. Yet time and time again it seems just out of our reach. With yet another crucial deadline in the ‘fusion time table’ coming to pass, we have to ask ourselves the question: Is it worth it?

Nuclear fusion has inspired great hope in both the minds of scientists and economists who look at fusion as a ‘catch all’ for the energy shortages and woos currently facing the modern world. With energy demands constantly on the rise, fusion presents a solution that would require little more than hydrogen… if it would ever work.

Not too long ago, there was a hope of what was known as ‘cold fusion’. This process turned out to be little more than a hoax.

Yet, (relatively) pragmatic scientists have staked their claim on one of two leading theories on how to make fusion work in an energy production capacity. These technologies can be broken down into two main groups: on the one hand there are reactors that use plasma, and on the other hand there are those that use lasers. Boom, simple? Done. The days of fusion conjectures around futuristic rotating satellites and magic liquid cops seem to be over.

Now we just have the dirty hard work.

At the front and center of the fusion world is the National Ignition Facility (NIF). NIF has been a 5 billion (yes BILLION) dollar publicly funded project. It has sucked up the resource and materials of many departments and has been the major hope for fusion advocates in the western world. NIF uses laser concentration technology to shoot thousands of lasers into an area incredibly small. The lasers create enough force that the conditions similar to that in the middle of a star should be simulated. This will cause light atoms, such as hydrogen, to initiate fusion.

Just to put things in perspective a bit, initiating fusion means that suddenly, with the advent of fusion technology, we have free energy everywhere. There is no longer a resource scramble and although fusion facilities will be incredibly capital intensive, they will produce energy for a 0 dollar [material/ fuel] price tag. Plus, fusion reactors, unlike fossil fuels or fusion’s step cousin fission (traditional nuclear), would not leave any toxic or detrimental waste after the reaction is completed. Not too shabby.

However, as with many things publically funded, there are issues that naturally arise and bog down progress. Policy, politics, and the inevitable green back keep the forward movement of the fusion research stymied. Perhaps due to the comparative lack of need for advanced weaponry (contrasted to the development and advancement of fission in the 1940s).

NIF recently failed to meet a funding/ results deadline imposed for October 1^st. Whether or not this has any long term consequences is yet to be seen. To be frank, it is difficult to envision many consequences arising from the lame duck congress and the fusion project seems to be one of the lesser known money sinks in the country.

This begs the question of whether or not it is worth it. The promise of nuclear fusion seems so great, but is it little more than leprechaun gold? If fusion is attained, it would radically alter the world’s economic dynamics and take humanity (or rather, those with fusion) on the fast track of development. Historically, growth has been tied to access to energy. One can look at the economic development of countries, and it roughly correlates to the energetic intake of that country. As we, as a society, face down an ever tightening energy path, we have to ask ourselves what to do. In my mind, there are three main choices. 1. Continue down the energy consumption habits that have dominated the past century. These will only last a bit longer and although they seem appealing now (with the rise of U.S. natural gas), they will inevitably lead to the same bottle neck once again. 2. Attempt to cut back on energy consumption. Whether through sustainable and energy conserving appliances or through advanced energy efficient sharing technology, the idea would be to lower the need for energy. This could work, but it may create a culture in which development is hampered by energy constraints. Perhaps the lack of large growth in Western nations is already partially due to this looming constraint. And finally 3. Create cheap, renewable energy that does not have the detrimental side effects of nuclear, coal, and conventional fossil fuels. Of this final option, in an idealistic state there is probably no more attractive alternative than fusion.

So, is the capital investment worth it? I think it just might be. And, although most of the people funding fusion are too old to witness its rise, perhaps they just might plant some seeds for the future. A couple seeds of hope wouldn’t do any harm.