Nuclear Fusion: Moonshine or an Inexhaustible Source of Clean
Energy?
Carlos Badiola
University of Connecticut School of Law
Energy Law: Professor Elizabeth Burleson
Summer Session 2010
1
Table of Contents
Our Civilization’s Dual Challenge…………………………….2
Nuclear Power in the World Today…………………………...5
The Basics of Nuclear Fusion…………………………………..7
Advantages of Fusion Over Fission……………………………12
The Current Status of Fusion Research………………………13
Conclusions……………………………………………………..19
Figures…………………………………………………………..20
2
I. Our Civilization’s Dual Challenge
In an article published in 1949 in the journal Science, M. King Hubbert, a geophysicist
working for the Shell Oil Company, noted the historical acceleration in both the production and
consumption of fossil fuels as well as the accompanying growth in the world’s population, a
growth that directly correlated with the production and consumption of fossil fuels .1 Hubbert
predicted that world oil production and consumption graphed against time would take the shape
of a bell-shaped curve with steep slopes. He further predicted that a peak in oil production in the
lower 48 states would be reached in 1970.2 Hubbert’s prediction relating to the peak in oil
production in the lower 48 states was eventually proven correct. His methodology has been
applied on a global basis, leading to predictions of a peak in world oil production in the first or
second decades of the twenty-first century.3 Hubbert noted at the time of his 1949 publication
that humanity was positioned on a “nearly vertical slope” within the upward portion of the bell
shaped curve of fossil fuel production and accompanying world population growth.4 Hubbert
also identified the momentous historical significance of the discovery and exploitation of fossil
fuels as a source of energy, noting that the marked acceleration in the rate of energy utilization
from fossil fuels was a unique event, an anomaly in the history of civilization, and that fossil fuel
sources were by definition exhaustible. According to Hubbert, the availability of fossil fuels had
allowed an unprecedented growth in human population and the establishment of a “high energy
1
M. King Hubbert. Energy from Fossil Fuels. Science, Vol. 109: 103-108 (1949). This article is available online at
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/science1949/.
2
Richard D. Cudahy. The Bell Tolls for Hydrocarbons: What’s Next? 29 Energy L.J. 381. 384 (2008)
3
Id. at 384
4
See M. King Hubbert, supra note 1, at 108
3
industrial civilization” that is dependent on the availability of large amounts of energy derived
from fossil fuels.5
Hubbert’s prediction of a fairly imminent exhaustion of fossil fuels resources has been called
into question, particularly by economists. Economic analyses of the supply of fossil fuel
resources consider price as a factor affecting the supply and demand of oil, as well as
technological advances that allow for the recovery of oil resources that were believed
unrecoverable at the time of Hubbert’s seminal article.6 The discovery of vast new oil and gas
reserves, as well as technological advances that allow for the recovery of unconventional oil
resources, such as heavy tars, particularly at higher oil prices, may transform Hubbert’s curve
from a standard Gaussian curve to a Gaussian curve with a large and undulating plateau.7 But
regardless of the shape of the production curve for fossil fuels, hydrocarbons remain a finite
resource and exhaustion is unavoidable. The maintenance of humanity’s standard of living and
the characteristics of our current global civilization must therefore depend on the availability of
alternatives sources of energy. In addition, the recognition that the burning of fossil fuels results
in the production of greenhouse gases and global warming adds another disturbing dimension to
the world’s current reliance on hydrocarbons as its primary source of energy, a dimension
unknown to Hubbert at the time of his 1949 article.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), worldwide demand for
energy resources will continue to increase in the coming decades and most of this demand will
be supplied by an increase in the production and utilization of fossil fuels. The EIA predicts that
5
Id. at 109
See Cudahy, supra note 2, at 385-386
7
Id. at 386-387. See also Neil King, New Oil Fields May Offset Oil Drop. WSJ, Jan 17, 2008, available at
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/01/17/the-wall-street-journal-new-fields-may-offset-oil-drop/.
6
4
the world’s demand for energy will increase by 50% between 2007 and 2035, with
approximately 85% of this increase attributed to developing economies.8 The EIA further
predicts that liquid fuels, petroleum and to a much lesser degree biofuels, will remain the world’s
primary source of energy, with production increasing from 86 million barrels/day to 110 million
barrels/day between 2007 and 2035.9 At the current rate of increase in worldwide energy
consumption, the EIA predicts that the production of natural gas and coal will increase by 44%
and 56% respectively between 2007 and 2035.10 Emissions from fossil fuels, particularly carbon
dioxide, are causing and will continue to result in global warming.11 The scenario posited by the
EIA, a significant increase in the demand for energy resources over the coming decades supplied
by an accompanying increase in the production and utilization of greenhouse gas emitting fossil
fuels, results in a dual challenge to the world’s policy makers. The nature of this dual challenge
has been identified by the UN Secretary-General’s Advisory group on Energy and Climate
Change: meeting the world’s needs for development while contributing to a reduction in the
production of greenhouse gases.12 In light of this dual environmental and energy challenge, there
is an ever pressing need to supply the world’s energy requirements with clean alternatives to
fossil fuels. Among the clean alternatives, nuclear fusion holds the potential of providing the
world with an inexhaustible supply of large amounts of clean energy.
Having set the background of a looming energy supply crisis, this essay will describe the
basic principles of nuclear fusion, including an overview of fusion research and the challenges
8
See summary of EIA report available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html.
Id.
10
Id.
11
Megan Higgins, Is Marine Renewable Energy a Viable Industry in the United States? -Lessons Learned From The
7th Marine Law Symposium, 14 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 562 (2009), at 563
12
The Secretary-General’s Advisory Group On Energy And Climate Change (AGECC) Summary Report And
Recommendations 28 April 2010, at 7. Available at
http://www.un.org/chinese/millenniumgoals/pdf/AGECCsummaryreport%5B1%5D.pdf
9
5
currently faced by fusion research. Nuclear fission, the process that presently drives the world’s
nuclear energy production, will be briefly considered in an effort to distinguish it from fusion
and aid in the understanding of the fusion process. The conclusion will call for an expansion of
funding for fusion research and greater international collaboration for research into fusion as a
potential source of clean energy.
II. Nuclear Power in the World Today
Nuclear power currently accounts for 14% of worldwide electricity production, 20% of
electricity production in the United States, and 8% of total energy needs in the United States.13
There are 438 nuclear reactors in the world, 104 of which are located in the United States.14
France leads the world in the percentage of electricity produced by nuclear power, deriving
approximately 80% of its electrical output from nuclear plants. Belgium, Hungary, Lithuania,
Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine all derive between a third
and one-half of electricity generation from nuclear power.15 The construction of nuclear power
plants in the United States was almost entirely halted after the Three Mile Island incident in
1979, which resulted in the partial meltdown of a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. This
trend will likely soon be reversed. In February 2010 President Obama approved an $8 billion
13
Dan C. Perry. Uranium Law and Leasing. Proceedings of the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Fifty-Fifth Annual
Institute. July, 23, 2009. Chapter 27, at 3. See also U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) “Use of Nuclear Power”
available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=nuclear_use.
14
See Perry, supra note 13, at 3
15
Id, at 4
6
loan guarantee for the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia.16 In addition, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has received applications for the construction of 18 new power plants.17
The proposed Kerry-Lieberman Energy Bill also includes incentives for the building of new
nuclear power plants in the United States, with a goal of deriving 16% of electricity production
from nuclear power generation by 2030.18
All of the world’s nuclear power reactors are based on the splitting of large atoms, most
commonly uranium, through an atomic reaction known as fission. This process is efficient and
relatively safe. Reduced to its most basic conceptual framework, energy in a fission reactor is
created by the controlled splitting of large “fissile” atoms. The splitting of the atoms is slowed
down by the use of “moderators”, mainly in the form of water or graphite. The purpose of the
moderators is to prevent an uncontrolled fission chain reaction that may result in the release of
large quantities of heat and radiation, termed a “meltdown”. This controlled atomic splitting
results in the production of heat, which is in turn used to create steam. The generated steam
subsequently provides the energy required to turn a turbine and produce electrical power.
Fission based nuclear reactors present inherent risks related to the nature of the nuclear
reaction and the inputs and outputs of the nuclear fission process. Among these, the most feared
is the possibility of a nuclear “meltdown” created by an uncontrolled chain of nuclear fission
reactions. Other concerns relating to fission reactors include the limited availability of uranium
to fuel the nuclear plants, problems presented by the need to store radioactive end-products with
16
The New York Times Editors, A Comeback for Nuclear Power? The New York Times. February 16, 2010. Available
at http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/a-comeback-for-nuclear-power/.
17
See NRC document “Combined License Applications for New Reactors”, available at
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html.
18
Darren Samuelsohn. Study: The Kerry-Lieberman Bill will Prompt Decade of Job Growth. The New York Times.
May 20, 2010. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/20/20greenwire-study-kerry-liebermanclimate-bill-would-promp-31963.html?scp=1&sq=kerry%20lieberman%20nuclear&st=cse.
7
half-lives in the thousands of years, particularly plutonium, which is highly radioactive and has a
half-life of 24,000 years, as well as the potential for the proliferation of nuclear technology that
may result in the production of nuclear weapons. Nuclear installations are also vulnerable to a
direct armed attack, and the storage of nuclear stockpiles within nuclear facilities may present a
easy target for those seeking nuclear material for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.19
III. The Basics of Nuclear Fusion
Nuclear fusion involves the joining or fusion of two small atoms with a subsequent release of
energy. This is distinguished from fission, the basis of our current nuclear power generation
technology, and which involves the splitting of atoms with a subsequent release of energy.
Fusion is the process by which the stars, including the Sun, create heat. Fusion is also the basis
of a fusion or hydrogen bomb. The basic nuclear fusion reaction involves the joining of two
hydrogen atoms, each of which contains one proton, to produce an atom of helium, which
contains two protons. The joining of the two hydrogen atoms results in the release of a quantity
of energy that is much greater than the energy required to cause the two atoms to fuse.
Experimental fusion reactions typically involve the fusion of two isotopes of hydrogen,
deuterium (d) and tritium (t), to form helium (He) and a neutron (n)
d + t →He + n + 17.6 MeV (figure 1).
19
David E. Hoffman, Report on Nuclear Security Urges Prompt Global Action. Yearly Study Offers Agenda for New
Administration. The Washington Post. November 18, 2008; A25. Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111702976.html.
8
Isotopes differ in the number of neutrons within the nucleus of an atom, while maintaining the
same number of protons. It is the number of protons within a nucleus that defines an element.
Thus elements with differing numbers of neutrons within the nuclear core define isotopes of the
same element. Neutrons have no charge while protons are positively charged. Hydrogen contains
one proton. The isotopes of hydrogen deuterium and tritium, the most commonly used fusion
fuels, contain one proton and one neutron, and one proton and two neutrons respectively. The
products of the fusion of these two isotopes are a helium nucleus, composed of two protons and
two neutrons, a single free neutron, and 17.6 MeV of kinetic energy that is divided between the
helium nucleus and the free proton.
Fusion was initially observed in the 1930’s by Mark Oliphant, a young Australian physicist
working in Ernest Rutherford’s laboratory at the University of Cambridge. Oliphant never
envisioned that the fusion of light atoms that he observed in the Cavendish Laboratory would
one day be the basis of a thermonuclear weapon.20 Fusion experimentation has been conducted
ever since the initial observations of Mark Oliphant. To date, no fusion models, apart from the
hydrogen bomb, have been able to deliver energies in quantities that are greater than those
required as inputs for the initial reaction. Indeed, the production of energy in quantities that
exceed the necessary inputs for fusion remains the holy grail of fusion research.
In order to cause deuterium and tritium to join through the process of nuclear fusion, energy
must be initially applied to overcome the electromagnetic repulsion caused by the positively
20
Oliphant would eventually note “we had no idea whatever that this would one day be applied to make hydrogen
bombs. Our curiosity was just curiosity about the structure of the nucleus of the atom, and the discovery of these
reactions was purely, as the Americans would put it, coincidental.” See Conversation with Sir Mark Oliphant, 24
July 1967, National Library Collection, Tape 276, interviewed by Hazel de Berg. Cite available at
http://www.asap.unimelb.edu.au/bsparcs/exhib/journal/as_oliphant.htm#cite3.
9
charged protons within both the deuterium and tritium nuclei (figure 2). To accomplish this,
deuterium and tritium particles must be heated to extremely high temperatures to achieve a state
of plasma. Plasma is considered the fourth state of matter, along with solids, liquids, and gases.
Plasma is an ionized gas at extremely high temperatures where the electrons and protons that
normally define an atom are no longer bound. Fusion experiments typically involve the creation
of plasma at temperatures exceeding 100 million degrees Celsius, temperatures that are many
times higher than those in the Sun.21 Plasma at these extremely high temperatures requires
confinement for a period of time that is of sufficient length to allow for the fusion of the
deuterium and tritium nuclei, typically several hours.22 Because of the extremely high
temperatures involved in fusion experiments, the plasma must also be isolated from the walls of
the containment vessel to prevent destruction of the containment vessel and the introduction of
impurities into the mixture of plasma.23 Therefore, mere material confinement of plasma is not
feasible. The isolation of plasma is most commonly achieved through the use of magnetic fields
that serve to confine the positively charged nuclei within a device called a tokamak.
The tokamak design is based on a 1951 conceptual approach for the magnetic confinement of
plasma from the Russian physicists Igor Tamm and Andrei Sakharov.24 Tokamak is a Russian
acronym for the device envisioned by Tamm and Sakharov, a toroidal chamber with magnetic
coils. Toroidal refers to the geometry of the device, similar to the shape of a doughnut. A
tokamak uses circular superconducting coils, like to those used in high field medical MRI units,
to create a doughnut shaped magnetic field that confines the superheated plasma for a period of
21
The Sun’s temperature is around 15 million degrees.
Institute of Physics Report (IOP Report). Fusion as an Energy Source: Challenges and Opportunities, at 3 (2008).
Available at http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Publications/file_31695.pdf
23
A.A. Harms et al. Principles of Fusion Energy. World Scientific Publishing Co. at 48 (2000).
24
See IOP Report, supra note 22, at 6. Sakharov was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975 for his efforts in
support of human rights in the former Soviet Union.
22
10
time (figure 3). Within the magnetic confinement field, positively charged deuterium and tritium
nuclei fuse to form a helium nucleus and a single neutron. As noted, the fusion process releases
17.6 MeV of energy. The energy released by the reaction is taken up by the particles in inverse
proportion to their masses. Helium is composed of two neutrons and two protons and has an
atomic mass of four, whereas the neutron has an atomic mass of one. Hence, four fifths of the
kinetic energy derived from the fusion reaction is taken up by the released neutron. Given that
the neutron does not possess a magnetic charge, it is unaffected by the magnetic field of the
tokamak. The neutrons derived from the fusion reaction are emitted in all directions beyond the
area of magnetic confinement. The kinetic energy of the neutrons provides the means by which
energy may be harvested from the fusion of deuterium and tritium.
The released neutrons are captured by a material, termed a “blanket”, that surrounds the
magnetic field. The blanket is designed to capture the kinetic energy of the neutron by slowing
the velocity of the fast moving particles. Through the capture of the emitted neutrons, the blanket
becomes heated. To achieve the generation of electricity by fusion, the heat in the blanket may
be transferred to water in order to produce steam. The steam may in turn be used drive a turbine
for the production of electricity, in a process similar to that described for the generation of
electricity from fission (figure 4). By retaining the positively charged helium particles within the
magnetic confinement field of the tokamak, the kinetic energy of the helium nuclei aids in
sustaining the high temperatures required to maintain the fusion fuel materials in a state of
plasma within the magnetic confinement field of the tokamak. The heat initially necessary to
11
create plasma is provided by the electrical current in the superconducting magnetic coils as well
as through the application of radiofrequency pulses.25
One critical component of the design of a fusion reactor is the incorporation of lithium into
the blanket. Lithium (Li) reacts with neutrons (n) to create tritium (t) and helium (He)
n + Li → t + He.
This lithium-neutron interaction that results in the breeding of tritium is a critical aspect of the
blanket design. Tritium is one of the fuels of the fusion reactor along with deuterium. Although
deuterium can be produced from seawater in boundless quantities, naturally occurring tritium is
extremely rare, with deposits of approximately 7 kilograms present on the earth’s surface. 26 The
breeding of tritium is therefore an essential aspect of the fusion cycle, without which continued
deuterium-tritium fusion would not be feasible.27 Lithium is available in large quantities within
the earth’s crust.28
25
IOP Report, supra note 22, at 5
See Argonne National Laboratory (DOE), Fact Sheet on Tritium, available at
http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/tritium.pdf.
27
A description of the tritium breeding process is available from ITER at
http://www.iter.org/mach/TritiumBreeding. See also A.A. Harms, supra note 23, at 10.
28
See US Geological Survey Mineral Commodities Summaries 2009, available at
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2009/mcs2009.pdf.
26
12
IV. Advantages of Fusion over Fission
Given the proven record of fission, including the ability of nuclear fission to supply
significant quantities of electrical power, what are the benefits of fusion over fission as an energy
source? As noted, nuclear fission presents several problems inherent to the fission power
generation cycle that can be eliminated or significantly diminished by fusion. In contrast to the
fuels used for fission, the fuels for fusion are potentially inexhaustible. Deuterium is readily
produced from seawater and tritium can be bread in a fusion reactor through the interaction of
fast neutrons produced by fusion with lithium embedded in the blanket.29
Additional advantages of fusion over fission include a diminished environmental impact,
particularly as related to the production of radioactive byproducts. Tritium has a half life of 12
years. In contrast, the half life of uranium isotopes are in the hundreds of millions of years, and
the half life of plutonium produced in fission reactors is 24,000 years. Fusion reactions do not
depend on the availability of a critical mass of fissile material to create a chain reaction, making
a nuclear meltdown impossible. Tokamaks depend on a continuous supply of fuel; hence there is
no requirement to store large quantities of fuel as in fission reactors, where storage of radioactive
materials may present an opportunity for terrorists to gain access to nuclear material.30 Fusion
does not produce fissile materials that may be used in the production of nuclear weapons. A
possible exception to this last advantage of fusion over fission is the use of fast neutrons
produced through fusion to produce fissile materials through neutron bombardment and
transmutation of thorium 232 or uranium 233 into fissile uranium 238 or fissile plutonium 239
29
30
See IOP Report, supra note 22, at 1-2 for an overview of the advantages of fusion over fission.
See David E. Hoffman, supra note 19.
13
respectively.31 This theoretical integration of fusion and fission will be considered in greater
detail below.
V. The Current Status of Fusion Research
The world’s largest tokamak is the Joint European Torus (JET) located in Culham,
Oxfordshire, UK, and which has been in operation since 1984 (figure 5). JET will eventually be
dwarfed by the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), an experimental
tokamak that is currently being built in Cadarache, France, and which is expected to become
operational in 2017 at a cost of 10 billion euros.32 ITER’s proposed tokamak design calls for a
plasma volume of 840 cubic meters, over eight times the volume of the JET device. The goal of
the ITER program is to produce a net gain of energy and to set the stage for commercial fusion
power generation.33 Although the JET research facility has produced 16 MW of power, it was
able to do so for only a brief period of time and required total energy inputs of 25 MW, hence
resulting in a net loss of energy. To date, no fusion experiment has been able to release more
energy than the amount of input energy. ITER has been designed to produce 500 MW of output
power for 50 MW of input power, or ten times the amount of energy required as input.34
31
See A.A. Harms et al. Principles of Fusion Energy, supra note 23, at 253-255.
ITER is an international effort funded by contributions from the US, the EU, China, South Korea, Japan, Russia,
and India. See http://www.iter.org/FactsFigures.
33
The goal of the ITER fusion program is to produce a net gain of energy, and set the stage for the demonstration
fusion power plant to come. The current record for released fusion power is 16 MW (held by the European JET
facility located in Culham, UK). See http://www.iter.org/FactsFigures.
32
34
Id.
14
Despite the potential for unlimited energy production and the enthusiasm of segments of the
scientific community for fusion research, fusion technology faces significant barriers. Apart from
the structural and engineering challenges related to the confinement of plasma at temperatures
that are ten times greater than those in the Sun, the greatest challenges faced by fusion research
relate to limited funding and skepticism within scientific circles and political circles capable of
influencing policy and funding. Funding for fusion must compete with funding for research of
renewable sources of energy. There is a correlation between the price of oil and funding for
fusion research, with fusion budgets declining in the late 1990’s, a time of relatively cheap oil
prices. In the U.S., the Magnetic Fusion Engineering Act of 1980 followed the 1979 oil crisis.35
The Act called for increased funding for fusion research with the goal of operating a magnetic
fusion generation plant for electric power production “by the turn of the 21st Century.36 The
program was never fully funded as intended by the original legislation and needless to say, failed
to achieve it stated goal of electricity production by the year 2000.
Enthusiasm for fusion research in the United States is weak compared to the EU, which
devotes significant resources to fusion research. The EU devotes the majority of its energy
research budget towards nuclear programs, with fusion receiving the lion’s share of the EU
nuclear research budget allocation. EURATOM’s nuclear research budget for 2007-2001
includes 2.167 billion euros for fusion research, more than twice the 936 billion euros allocated
for fission research.37 By way of comparison, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Fusion
Energy Science Program received a total budgetary appropriation of 286.5 million dollars in FY
35
IOP Report, supra note 22, at 1
42 USC §9301
37
EURATOM funding data is available at http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8343. The EURATOM treaty
coordinates research among the member states of the EU towards the peaceful use of nuclear energy. For a
summary of the EURATOM treaty see
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_euratom_en.htm.
36
15
2008.38 Regarding U.S. funding for ITER, according to the DOE’s Fusion Energy Science
Program, in FY 2008 the U.S. reduced its commitment to ITER from a total of 160 million
dollars to 10 million dollars, a truly insignificant component to the ITER’s total budget of 10
billion euros.39 In contrast to the weak support for fusion research in the United States, China and
South Korea are enthusiastically pursuing fusion research. The Institute of Physics notes that
“China currently has a world-leading position with its impressive and operational mega-ampere
superconducting tokamak…which started its experimental program in September 2006”.40
According to the same report, South Korea finished construction of a large experimental
tokamak in 2007 using the same advanced superconducting technology that is planned for the
ITER tokamak.41 In contrast, the experimental Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at the Princeton
Plasma Physics Laboratory, constructed in the early 1980’s, was decommissioned in 1997 due to
U.S. fusion budget constraints.42
Ernest Rutherford, the father of atomic physics, once called the possibility of energy
production on a commercial scale from fusion “moonshine”.43 Indeed, the Institute of Physics
notes that the greatest challenge for fusion research “is the pervasive perception that fusion as a
power source is an ever receding goal”.44 In 1967 the Soviet nuclear scientist Lev Andreevich
Artsimovich noted that “10 years ago we said it would take us 20 years to make fusion work and
we still say that it will take 20 years to make fusion work, so we have not altered our view in any
38
Budget data available at http://www.science.doe.gov/ofes/annualbudget.shtml.
Id.
40
IOP Report, supra note 22, at 12
41
Id. at 12
42
John A. Schmidt. The Fusion Reaction. 143 NO. 8 Pub. Util. Fort. 28. 29-30 (2005)
43
Fletcher T. Newton. Why Nuclear Power Will Prevail and Not Merely Survive. Rocky Mountain Mineral Law
Foundation. Uranium Exploration and Development. April 27-28 2006. Paper 1A., at 2.
44
IOP Report, supra note 22, at 10
39
16
way”.45 A 2006 editorial in New Scientist noted the “old joke” that “fusion is 40 years away, and
will always be”.46 James Abbot, Britain’s Green Party Technology and science spokesman notes
that “Our main concern [with fusion] is it’s obviously an expensive and highly specialized form
of energy production, and it’s still at an experimental stage”.47 Indeed, fusion experiments have
been carried out since the early work of Oliphant in the 1930’s without achieving a net
production of energy. The current efforts are aimed at the use of fusion for the production of
electricity, a goal that if feasible, will result in the unleashing of vast clean energy resources.
This is the stated goal of the ITER project, the world’s largest fusion initiative. This focus has
eclipsed a second practical and perhaps more imminently achievable application of fusion
research, the creation of fusion-fission hybrids for the production of fissile isotopes for use in
fission nuclear reactors.
The concept of a fusion-fission hybrid is based on the production of fast neutrons by the
fusion of deuterium and tritium. The high kinetic energy of the neutron produced by the fusion
reaction can be theoretically used to create fissile isotopes, such as uranium 233 and plutonium
239, through neutron bombardment of thorium 232 and uranium 238.48 This process may involve
the use of an intermediate large atom to serve as a “neutron multiplier”, and may also be used to
sustain a fission chain reaction within an otherwise subcritical mass of fissile materials.49 By
including lithium within the area of neutron bombardment, the process of neutron bombardment
will also result in the breeding of tritium for subsequent fusion reactions. This model envisions a
45
Id.
New Scientist. June 7 2006. Available online at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025543.300-editorialnuclear-fusion-must-be-worth-the-gamble.html.
47
Leia Parker. A future for Fusion? The Wall Street Journal. (Eastern Edition) New York, N.Y.: Feb. 22, 2010, at. R.6
48
See A.A. Harms et al. Principles of Fusion Energy, supra note 23, at 253-255
49
Id. at 253-254
46
17
fusion reactor as an adjunct to a fission power source, and not as a commercial producer of
energy.50
Scientific hope for the development of commercial fusion power is currently centered on
ITER, with its stated goal of commercial electricity production. According to ITER, its fusion
project is not an “end to itself”, but a “bridge toward a first plant that will demonstrate the largescale production of electrical power and Tritium fuel self-sufficiency”.51 According to the ITER
website, the next step after ITER is the “Demonstration Power Plant”, or DEMO. A conceptual
design for such a machine could be complete by 2017. According to ITER, “DEMO will lead
fusion into its industrial era, beginning operations in the early 2030s, and putting fusion power
into the grid as early as 2040.”52 Hence, after ITER becomes operational in 2017, it will take
more than two decades of research to determine if magnetically confined fusion is a viable
option for the production of energy on a commercial scale.
Although the predominant method for plasma confinement is through the use of
electromagnetic forces, there exist additional methods for plasma confinement. A potentially
promising method for compressing fusion material at high temperatures is inertial confinement
fusion. Indeed, inertial confinement of fusion fuels by the energy of fission bombs is the basis of
the hydrogen bomb. Controlled inertial confinement fusion is achieved by the pulsed
bombardment of a millimeter sized pellets of fusion fuel by high energy lasers.53 Inertial
confinement is a feasible method for producing energy and may compete or perhaps replace
magnetic confinement as the primary method of confinement. The National Ignition Facility
50
IOP Report, supra note 22, at 12
See ITER project website at http://www.iter.org/proj/ITERAndBeyond.
52
Id.
53
See A.A. Harms, Principles of Fusion Energy, supra note 23, at 189-190
51
18
(NIF) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, an inertial
confinement fusion program of the U.S. Department of Energy, has a “goal of achieving nuclear
fusion and energy gain in the laboratory for the first time – in essence, creating a miniature star
on Earth”.54 Construction of the NIF was completed in March 2009.
The notion of “cold fusion”, or fusion at ambient temperatures, deserves mention insofar as it
has received much attention in the lay press relative to the attention received in scientific
circles.55 Cold fusion was initially described by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman in 1989.56
They reported excess heat through an electrolytic reaction involving deuterium and palladium.
The magnitude of the generated heat, the researchers postulated, could not be explained by
chemical reactions (reactions involving electrons) but only through by nuclear reactions
involving fusion. The results of Fleischmann and Pons’ experimental work have not been
reproduced. If cold fusion releases energy, it must do so without the production of large numbers
of high energy neutrons or other significant sources of heat. Therefore, the physical reactions
involved must be fundamentally different that those theorized for conventional fusion. The
current scientific consensus is that such phenomena do not exist.57
54
See the NIF website at https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/.
A link to the “60 Minutes” story on cold fusion that aired on April 22, 2009 is available at
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n.
56
Fleischman, M, and Pons, S. Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium. Journal of Electroanalytical
Chemistry. Vol 261(2),1:301-308 (1989)
57
A panel of experts organized by the DOE in 1989 concluded that cold fusion as described in the scientific
literature lacks credible supporting evidence. The panel’s conclusion is available at
http://files.ncas.org/erab/sec5.htm.
55
19
VI. Conclusions
Depending on one’s perspective, the generation of energy from fusion is “moonshine”, as
suggested by Ernest Rutherford, or perhaps a “misguided, grotesquely expensive engineering
boondoggle” as described by Dave Martin, policy advisor to Greenpeace.58 On the other hand, if
the ITER project proves capable of generating commercial electrical power from magnetically
confined fusion, then fusion will, as suggested by Steven Cowley, director of the Culham Centre
for Fusion Energy, the facility that houses the Joint European Torus, “clearly dominate energy
production”.59 The ITER project will likely produce the answer to these competing views on the
value of magnetically confined fusion as a source of energy. But even the most optimistic
scenarios relating to ITER do not envision an answer to this question until at least the year 2040.
Inertial confinement may also result in the commercial production of fusion derived energy. The
results of inertial confinement experiments in the National Ignition Facility in California are
unlikely to result in sustained ignition until 2020.60 In the meantime, fusion research will
continue to face financial constraints fueled by skepticism about the feasibility of using fusion
technology to achieve commercial energy production, as well as competition for research
funding from other alternative energy sources, such as fission and renewables.
The United States lags in its contributions to the international effort to make fusion energy a
reality, as evidenced by its anemic budgetary contributions to the ITER project. Given the reality
of global warming from the continued and increasing consumption of fossil fuels, as well as the
world’s ever increasing demand for energy resources, it is incumbent upon policymakers to
58
Leia Parker, A Future for Fusion? The Wall Street Journal. (Eastern Edition). New York, N.Y.: Feb. 22, 2010, at R.6
Id
60
IOP Report, supra note 22, at 13.
59
20
provide for a transition from our current reliance on fossil fuels towards the use of alternative
sources of energy production. Among the alternatives to hydrocarbons, fusion alone holds the
promise of essentially limitless quantities of continuous clean energy production. The United
States should follow the lead of the EU, as well as of China and South Korea, and make research
into fusion a greater national energy policy priority. Only through increased funding for research
will we be able to confidently identify fusion as “moonshine”, or as the answer to the world’s
current energy challenge
21
FIGURE 1.
The physical fusion of small atoms with subsequent release of nuclear
energy. In the above diagram, deuterium and tritium fuse to form Helium
and a neutron, accompanied by the release of 17.6 MeV of energy.
22
FIGURE 2.
Positively charged deuterium and tritium nuclei are repelled by an electromagnetic
force. This force must be overcome in order to achieve fusion.
23
FIGURE 3
The doughnut shaped magnetic confinement fields within a tokamak are produced by a toroidal
electromagnetic coil configuration. The super heated plasma is contained by the magnetic field of the
tokamak
24
FIGURE 4
jjj
25
FIGURE 5
An image of the inside of the tokamak at the Joint European Torus (JET)
in Culham, UK
26