Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on February 4, 2015
The peril and promise of fusion
Our species balloons like bacteria on a petri dish. But like any finite sugar supply, the fossil-based energy that permits our continued growth has its limits. Though with modern advances in the energy sector, it would seem that humankind has the ingenuity to engineer the cap right off of our own carrying capacity. Take a star, put it in a box and voilà, you have fusion power — the panacea to our impending global energy crisis and perhaps the only way to sustain human life at its current growth rate.
Fusion machinery is complicated but its principle science is actually quite simple. Within a fusion reaction, hydrogen isotopes are heated until they fuse to form helium gas, releasing energy that can then be harnessed and distributed (explained further here). One unit of fusion fuel taken directly from seawater yields upwards to a million times the potential energy contained within its petrochemical equivalent. The product — seemingly limitless clean energy and little radioactive waste to boot. Although human-induced climate change has become an irreversible reality, such a technology could offer a quick practical transition away from our current dirty energy reliance. With fusion, we could power the world without further disrupting atmospheric stability. For once, might we get to keep the cake and eat it too?
Like the fossil fuel industry, fusion power is a highly centralized method of energy supply. Unlike wind, solar and geothermal — which have the potential to transform U.S. cities and towns into self-supporting energy generators through local, collaborative projects — fusion would likely become another energy firehose, much like oil or coal albeit a bit cleaner. In other words, it would serve as an alternative provider in support of an outdated energy model, in which centralized plants feed into a national grid. Remaining fettered to a 20th century vertical energy market would likely lock us into an environmentally unsustainable growth trajectory. Additionally, a shortcut to massive clean energy supply would probably not provide the same array of job opportunities that accompany green retrofitting of private and public spaces. A decentralized grid would require an infrastructural makeover and thus a mobilization of the workforce. In contrast, fusion power would simply replace its dirty predecessors, and if left to private owners, further reinforce current cultural and socio-economic disparities by placing power (quite literally) in the hands of the wealthy elite.
Fusion may seem ideal, but incorporating such an immensely powerful technology under runaway capitalist conditions may actually pose a greater threat to the health and security of our people and environment. As any Dane would attest, future economic stability hinges on more than just a shift to cleaner energy sources. It demands warmer and wider reception to “notions of participation, dialogue, collaboration, societal responsibility and wealth distribution (or shared value, to give it its contemporary moniker).” If social responsibility and collaboration are key components of next generation’s energy economy — which has already become a burgeoning reality in countries such as Germany and Sweden — then fusion power would seem incompatible with this much needed cultural shift. Instead, fusion symbolizes a green flag for our continued celebration of excessive capital accumulation through industrialization and individualized market practice.
The fate of fusion largely hinges on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) stationed in southern France — the most ambitious fusion project to date. But as Dino Grandoni of the Huffington Post reports, “ITER is sputtering with delayed construction and ballooning costs, and U.S. physicists are increasingly worried that their work at home, such as the National Spherical Torus Experiment, will be sidelined to fund the international project.” Even projects in the United States are generating too little return to merit increased government support. The U.S. Department of Energy recently reduced domestic fusion funding to historic lows, threatening to dismantle experimental reactors at MIT, Princeton and General Atomics in San Diego. Unless ITER encounters a breakthrough in the near future, the downward spiral will likely continue.
Fusion has not yet achieved economic viability because current projected energy costs of running a single reactor would far exceed the amount of energy actually produced, yielding significant net loss. But if fusion ever becomes an operative reality, the United States should be strategic and circumspect in its application of the technology. If poorly regulated, fusion could displace other alternatives through monopolization of the energy grid. We must not forget — our continued reliance on a centralized regime would neglect the potential societal benefits of a more distributive and collaborative energy economy.
I would more readily support fusion if industrialized nations were guaranteed to employ the technology as a quick means for eliminating current reliance on nuclear fission and fossil fuels in order to quicken our transition to solar and wind. But given that most U.S. business and political cycles rarely operate in the long-term, I have little confidence that the technology would be geared towards this goal. Any silver bullet solution risks reinforcing our “go big or go home” credo, which simply does not align with the “go small and stay local” model essential to 21st century energy security. At this point in time, the American citizenry might not be culturally equipped to handle such a technology. In the end, fusion power can either reinforce the status quo or help facilitate our necessary shift towards a more ecological and equitable way of life. As with any double-edged sword, we best carefully choose which edge to sharpen.
28 Comments on "The peril and promise of fusion"
Makati1 on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 7:38 am
“Once upon a time…”
Go Speed Racer on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 8:51 am
Fusion is a great way to convert taxpayer money into juicy paychecks for government-funded scientists.
The conversion coefficients are very good.
If you want some electricity generated, forget it. Try connecting an old generator to an exercise bike and start peddling.
You will be generating more power at that point, than fusion ever will.
sunweb on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 9:48 am
The biggest pitfall besides human immaturity when comes to power is continuing business as usual which destroying life on the planet. It is the nature of the life itself to use all the resources available in the environment.
James Tipper on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 10:21 am
1960’s- I think fusion is just 5 decades away.
2015- I think fusion is just 5 decades away.
There is no energy equivalent of the “get out of jail free” card. He made this mess and now we have to deal with it, whether we like or not, and we really do not.
Bob Owens on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 10:30 am
The fusion story is so old and worn out that it doesn’t deserve any more comments. It is not viable and never will be.
Plantagenet on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 11:22 am
Particle physics is an important part of science, even if fusion is never successfully developed as a power source
peakyeast on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 11:36 am
Particle physics is an important part of military interest. Bigger better bombs. And besides that its most useful purpose seems to be interlectual masturbation.
We do have real problems that needs to be solved… Oh .. They want to solve our real life problems with bombs – now i understand. That was why NIST was converted into making smaller nuclear weapons. I suppose they want to arm drones, remote controlled rats and bacteria with nukes nowadays. That will solve all our problems.
GregT on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 11:43 am
“Particle physics is an important part of military interest. ”
Absolutely. There is a very good reason why so much funding come from national “defence” budgets.
Northwest Resident on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 12:02 pm
It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that about 30 or so years ago, when TPTB first clearly understood that we were on a direct and fast path to peak oil, that they “bet the farm” on the scientific community being able to make fusion energy workable and practical before we actually reached the end of the age of oil. Nor would it surprise me to learn that they believed wholeheartedly that if only they ramped up commerce and science, then the brilliant minds produced from universities around the world would of course be able to crack this scientific nut before we ran out of oil, and thereby be able to replace oil with a sustainable energy source which they could leverage to maintain their magnificent positions of power and prestige for their descendants and chosen heirs for basically fucking ever. That would explain the initial research and development begun way back when we first got hints of oil depletion consequences for our economy, and would explain the black budget and hidden budget expenditures funneled to fusion research projects, and would explain the constant beating of the “fusion will save us” drum. And now that we find ourselves here at this point of time, and so far away from fusion as a practical or even workable source of energy, it totally does NOT surprise me to see how those same Powers That Be, realizing that they bet the farm and lost, have resorted to using the “promise of fusion” as nothing more than a propaganda tool to keep the restless masses pacified while they prepare and implement their escape plans.
Plantagenet on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 12:20 pm
People who think that scientific research is unnecessary are very short-sighted.
Science is the study of the materials, nature and processes of the universe. The only alternative to science is ignorance about everything around us.
GregT on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 2:15 pm
The human study of the materials, nature and processes of the universe, are all unnecessary for life to exist.
The alternative to science, was to live in harmony with the natural world that gave each and every single one of us life. Much of what we believe that we understand, we really don’t understand at all. In the big scheme of things all that we have done is sped up our own rate of extinction. When our species is finally gone, human science will continue to be unnecessary.
Northwest Resident on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 2:25 pm
Science is a two-edged sword. It cuts both ways. A good question is, are humans collectively advanced enough, morally and socially, to be able to safely wield that two-edged sword. Answer, clearly, is “hell no”. We’re cutting each other to pieces with it and slaughtering all life on the plant and along with it the very environment that sustains us. Humans are a crazed kung-fu hack-attack version of slightly evolved ape.
A few humans relatively speaking may have ended up benefiting from science, but other life on planet earth most definitely suffered as a result — no exceptions. And the environment and earth that sustains life was poisoned.
But a few people ended up making out, and what the hell, it was a wild adrenaline rush. All that knowledge could have been put to such good use, but not by the human species where psychopaths and sociopaths motivated by power and greed always rise to the top.
God’s creation.
GregT on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 2:34 pm
NWR,
If we are truly God’s creation, then maybe we should have listened to God, when he told us not to eat from the tree of knowledge?
Northwest Resident on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 3:13 pm
GregT — I was actually thinking about the Adam and Eve fable as I wrote my above post. That would be the tree of knowledge of good and evil, by the way… 🙂 Yeah, Eve blew it, big time, and her dope of a mate Adam followed in her steps. It’s been all blood and guts and misery and dog-eat-dog since then. Actually, I don’t blame Adam and Eve because they were created with a streak of curiosity and a strong sense of adventure that ended up being a couple of their most fundamental survival instincts AND two of their strongest traits that lead ultimately to their eventual downfall. One might almost suspect that the God’s created us merely to watch us struggle and ultimately fail. I’m sure they’re in heaven (or wherever) right now, having a good laugh at our expense. They must have a sense of humor. I know if I was a God and looking down at planet earth, I would also be highly amused by human antics. I’m not even a God or anything close, and I’m STILL highly amused!
GregT on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 3:24 pm
“and her dope of a mate Adam followed in her steps”
He probably didn’t have much of a choice. Poor guy. 🙂
peakyeast on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 3:36 pm
@Plantagent: Priorities was what my post was about – not stopping scientific research.
Speculawyer on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 4:36 pm
I don’t know they’ll be able to do it commercially. It requires so much heat/force and it is hard to do that sustainably. Even deep in the heart of the sun with all that pressure, quantum tunneling is required to get nuclei to fuse.
Plantagenet on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 4:59 pm
Its sad that the obama administration wants to gut physics research at MIT and Princeton. Its “penny wise pound foolish” to cut current research funding in the hard sciences, as the students who come out of top flight physics and engineering programs like these are the ones we need to lead US science programs in a range of disciplines in the future.
Richard on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 5:10 pm
Another troubling crisis.
I guess this is a problem that may take a while to get into action.
As for religion and god examples, they aren’t the way to look at this.
You know the Martian world was once a lot like our own planet, we were just in the right place and time, but only a small population on our planet can continue space flight.
Brought back the scene from The Voyager Home, about the whales, and Humankind’s agenda against them.
tahoe1780 on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 5:54 pm
I think this has a better chance of success http://terrestrialenergy.com/media/media-coverage/
St. Roy on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 6:27 pm
Science and technology is a product of higher intelligence that Ernst Mayr contended was a lethal mutation that will undoubtedly be proven out in this century and much before we ever see fusion power.
Makati1 on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 6:44 pm
” … and they didn’t “live happily ever after”, they became extinct.”
ghung on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 6:56 pm
NWR: “Science is a two-edged sword. It cuts both ways. A good question is, are humans collectively advanced enough, morally and socially, to be able to safely wield that two-edged sword. Answer, clearly, is “hell no”.”
I have to agree. The only way we’ll survive our technological infancy is for it to fail catastrophically, or to get off planet. Which one do you consider more likely? Perhaps we’ll eventually evolve to deserve the moniker ‘sapiens sapiens’. Not there yet; not even close.
Children, playing with fire.
GregT on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 6:57 pm
” … and they didn’t “live happily ever after”, they became extinct.”
And right up until the very end, they couldn’t figure out why. Not so smart after all.
peakyeast on Wed, 4th Feb 2015 10:58 pm
One of my friends has worked in CERN, and with inspection of nuclear plants and development of many important inventions in nuclear physics.
He stopped as everything became politically controlled – and the corrupt leaders got shuffled from country to country in order to stay one step ahead of their catastrophes. – When they left they appointed some ignorant tinpot to take the blame for their stupidity. A couple of years down the line they would come back to get show “back on track”.
Thats how psychopathic politicians are running many “higher” research institutions.
And that is why I dont give a hooting fart about them. We need to clear out the complete corruption before we hand out billions.
Needless to say this will never happen.
Which is also why we are collapsing now. These fools has ruined everything and anything to satisfy their greed and ambitions.
WelshFarmer on Thu, 5th Feb 2015 3:20 am
GoSpeedRacer nails it:
Fusion is a great way to convert taxpayer money into juicy paychecks for government-funded scientists.
The conversion coefficients are very good.
I was involved on the periphery of the JET project (forerunner of ITER) in the 80s. Since that time it has consumed around 100 billion USD and made virtually NO technical process. As was probably inevitable in such a large international project it became bogged down in a risk-averse bureaucratic swamp, with thousands of hangers-on living well off the endless government payouts.
There are a couple of very promising alternative low cost approaches –
e.g. Focus Fusion – that do not involve either tokamaks or lasers, but they are starved of funding because…….. they are aren’t expensive enough to interest the usual lobbies.
baptised on Thu, 5th Feb 2015 3:35 pm
Perfect fission- if possible -, before fusion. The baby always wants the new shiny toy.
WelshFarmer on Fri, 6th Feb 2015 2:28 am
peakyeast – well said.
Here in the UK the corruption and incompetence is well-hidden behind an array of pretty facades, but it infests EVERYTHING: agriculture, environment, health service, education, social services,finance,science, local government etc. etc.
Unless the lazy majority WAKE UP, I see no hope of averting a catabolic collapse over the next few years.