Page added on June 27, 2013
Some people have spent their whole working lives researching fusion and then retired feeling bitter at what they see as a wasted career. But that hasn’t stopped new recruits joining the effort every year: optimistic young graduates keen to get to grips with a complicated scientific problem that has real implications for the world. Their numbers have been increasing in recent years, perhaps motivated by two factors: there is a new machine under construction, a huge global effort that may finally show that fusion can be a net producer of energy; and the need for fusion has never been greater, considering the twin threats of dwindling oil supplies and climate change.
The new machine is the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or simply ITER (pronounced ‘eater’). Many machines over the past 60 years have been billed as ‘the one’ that will make the big breakthrough, only to stumble before getting there. But considering how close JET, its direct predecessor, got to break-even, ITER has to have a good chance. ITER is not a power station, it won’t be connected to the grid and won’t even generate any electricity, but its designers are aiming to go far beyond break-even and spark enough fusion reactions to produce 10 times as much heat as that pumped in to make it work. To get there requires a reactor of epic proportions. The building containing the reactor will be 60m tall and extend 13m underground–altogether taller than the Arc de Triomphe. The reactor inside will weigh 23,000 tonnes–continuing the Parisian theme, that’s more than three Eiffel Towers.
The need for fusion has never been greater.At the time of writing, workers at the ITER site in Cadarache, southern France, are laying foundations, erecting buildings, installing cables and generally preparing the ground. In factories around the world the various components that will make up the reactor are being built, ready to be shipped to France and assembled on site. The scale and the quantities are prodigious. In six different ITER member countries factories are churning out niobium-tin superconducting wires for the reactor’s magnets. When finished, they will have made 80,000km of wire, enough to wrap around the equator twice. The giant D-shaped coils of wire that are the electromagnets used to contain the plasma are each 14m tall and weigh 360 tonnes, as much as a fully laden jumbo jet. ITER needs 18 of these magnets. Perhaps the most mindboggling statistic about ITER, and one of the reasons it is being built by an international collaboration, is its cost: somewhere between €13 billion and €16 billion. That makes it the most expensive science experiment ever built–twice as expensive as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.
That huge sum of money is, for the nations involved, a gamble against a future in which access to energy will become an issue of national security. Most agree that oil production is going to decline sharply during this century. There is still plenty of coal around but burning it in large quantities increases the risk of catastrophic climate change. That doesn’t leave many options for the world’s future energy supplies. Conventional nuclear power makes people uneasy for many reasons, including safety, the problems of disposing of waste, nuclear proliferation and terrorism.
Alternative energy sources such as wind, wave and solar power will undoubtedly be a part of our energy future. The cost of electricity from alternative sources is high but has declined substantially in recent decades and with continuing improvements in technology it will come down further. It would be very hard, however, for our modern energy-hungry society to function on alternative energy alone because it is naturally intermittent–sometimes the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow–and also diffuse–alternative technologies take up a lot of space to produce not very much power.
Difficult choices lie ahead over energy and, some fear, wars will be fought in coming decades over access to energy resources, especially as the vast populations of countries such China and India increase in prosperity and demand more energy. Anywhere that oil is produced or transported–the Strait of Hormuz, the South China Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Arctic–could be a flashpoint. Supporting fusion is like backing a long shot: it may not come through, but if it does it will pay back handsomely. No one is promising that fusion energy will be cheap; reactors are expensive things to build and operate. But in a fusion-powered world geopolitics would no longer be dominated by the oil industry, so no more oil embargoes, no wild swings in the price of crude and no more worrying that Russia will turn off the tap on its gas pipelines.
Fusion science is not about seeking knowledge for its own sake, it is about hammering away at a stubborn nut in the conviction that one day it will crack.There are still many skeptics who say that fusion will never supply a single kilowatt of power to the grid because there are just too many scientific and technological uncertainties. But their views will not dent the conviction of those who have dedicated their lives to the dream of fusion energy, enduring ups and downs, dead ends, false trails and minor breakthroughs. The story of fusion is not just one of scientists toiling away in laboratories in isolation. Military expediency, international politics and historical serendipity have all boosted and buffeted the progress of fusion research. Funding for the increasingly expensive machines that fusion requires has ebbed and flowed depending on the eagerness of governments to find alternative sources of energy: the Middle East oil embargo of the 1970s led to a huge boost in funding for fusion but by the 1980s, when oil was cheap again, research money was harder to find. Atomic espionage, superpower summits, hijackings by Palestinian terrorists and the Iraq War have all impacted on fusion’s fortunes. What has kept it going is the unwavering belief among the scientists who have embraced the field that one day it will work. Fusion science is not about seeking knowledge for its own sake, it doesn’t have the intellectual appeal of the Big Bang, black holes, the human genome or the hunt for the Higgs boson, it is about hammering away at a stubborn nut in the conviction that one day it will crack. There’s unlikely to be a eureka moment but one day the operators of ITER, or some other reactor, will get their settings just right, the plasma will get hot, stay hot, and burn like a piece of the Sun.
12 Comments on "The Most Expensive Science Experiment Ever"
Plantagenet on Thu, 27th Jun 2013 10:03 pm
We have fusion cuisine and fusion music—why not fusion power?
I say let the scientists try. The payoff would be tremendous.
GregT on Thu, 27th Jun 2013 10:36 pm
We already have a thermonuclear fusion reactor. It is commonly referred to as the Sun. It is the source of energy for all living things, including humans beings.
The sooner we learn how to live within the natural confines of the environment that we were all born into, the better off all species, and the planet earth itself, will be. The longer we continue to destroy the natural environment to suit our wants, the less likely that the natural environment will be able to continue to support our lives.
rollin on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 1:34 am
An experiment to play with the forces of nature versus an experiment to solve humanity’s worldwide energy problems. Worth a few billion? One hydro dam or one large bridge costs a lot more than this potential power source.
I think we are down to the engineering stages on this one, and that can take a few iterations. Be prepared to spend a lot more money.
Dmyers on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 2:44 am
It strikes me as a feel good story parading as science.
Fusion can’t be adapted to our particular matrix. That seems to be what time has told us, as fusion is not something very new.
If there are people who refuse to believe this, even though it’s true, and keep beating their heads against the wall, in order to conjure up the impossible, I don’t know that this is so heroic as implied.
In terms of money as a catalyst for this fusion miracle, I would think that a promising prototype would easily have brought forth ample funding.
DC on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 2:49 am
Q/considering the twin threats of dwindling oil supplies and climate change.
This combines two fallacies for the price of one. Any working fusion power station would be built by oil-and LOTS of it. Thus the already beyond interstellar cost of fusion station can add the ever increasing price of oil. The other idea is that fusion is going to ‘solve’ global warming. No they wont. Fusion power stations, each with glowing balls of plasma hotter than the surface of the sun-will generate waste heat-and lots of it. It might not be as toxic as the waste heat+other emissions from coal, fission or oil power plants, but the end result will be same. A Hyper-active fusion powered economy will cook the planet just as fast as any other source-perhaps faster.
BillT on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 3:51 am
DC … your ruining the techie dreamer’s day with your dose of reality. They don’t seem to get the fact that ANY use of energy creates heat. It doesn’t matter if it is a burning forest or their dream machine, it creates heat and huge amounts of it. Heat is created in the fraking or drilling process, then it is created again in the pumping and piping, and then in the refining and then in the end use.
Yes, there is a lot of energy in cracking the atom, but there is a lot of heat also … see the sun for an example.
mike on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 7:13 am
This is the problem I have with nuclear power advocates. They want everyone else to invest in something anyone with a brain can see isn’t going to work or is damn right dangerous. Advocates should be allowed to invest their money in the projects of course and even free up their own land for the dumping of waste, no problem with that. I’m betting most advocates of nuclear probably won’t go for that option though, so why should the rest of us?
Norm on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 7:53 am
Geeze Mike, we aren’t talking about fission nuclear, we are talking about fusion. i mean at least get the topic right. AS TO FUSION … IT WORKS! IT WORKS! Cause everytime those researchers cash those paychecks, they dont bounce!
rollin on Fri, 28th Jun 2013 6:30 pm
DC, crunch the numbers, your industrial and power plant heat is insignificant compared to the natural environmental heating.
BillT on Sat, 29th Jun 2013 3:41 am
rollin, you mean that if you already have 99 candles burning under a pot of water, another candle does not add any heat? What is you have 400 candles burning?
And then there is the heat produced when the ores were mined for the mining machines that mine the uranium ores, etc. Or you can go to the heat produced in the making of all of the materials that go into a nuclear plant ( 1 barrel of oil to make one cubic yard of concrete, and it takes tens of thousands of cubic yards of concrete per nuke plant ) Or the energy that is released when that energy produced is used. No, there are hundreds of energy inputs and heat out puts in every energy we use except direct solar to grow plants that we eat.
DC on Sat, 29th Jun 2013 4:30 am
Ill do no such thing rollin, the waste heat from our power plants and industrial facilties is signifigant. Every time energy use doubles, so does waste heat. Since the planet can only radiate so much excess heat back into space, the surplus slowly builds over time. Power plants, in addition to the copious amounts of toxic waste they produce, are basically giant heat engines, radiating waste heat, along with all that heat-retaining Co2, 24/7/365. If fusion plants were ever perfected and deployed and the scales it proponents imagine, we would still end up cooking the planet. The time frame for that would of course, largely depend on the scale of power plant construction.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL019852/abstract
Power plants have allready been proven to heat bodies of water after they discharge the waste water used to cool the plant back into the environment. This has proven to cause fish kills and localized dread zones and algae bloom because the water is hotter than the life-forms adapted to the water can handle.
Fusion plants would be even worse than fission or coal plants for that, a fusion power station would be constantly dumping hot water 24/7. I would be surprised if any bodies of water located next to a fusion plant would have any life at all besides algae slime.
MrEnergyCzar on Sat, 29th Jun 2013 8:35 pm
Solar panels…