It’s turning chilly, let's up the heat to a balmy... 150,000,000°C

Recently, there have been reports of advances within the field of nuclear fusion and it is moving away from the land of science fiction. Fusion differs from nuclear fission (the conventional nuclear reactors) as fission involves the splitting of atoms whereas fusion – as the name suggests – involves fusing atoms (usually isotopes of Hydrogen) together, at temperatures around 150,000,000°C. These particles are super charged to create plasma, and neutrons are released which hit the inside of the reactors vacuum chamber, which are transferred to heat and then ultimately used to produce electricity (Climatewire, 2013).

(Diagram of nuclear fusion reactions, courtesy of http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8590562.ece/ALTERNATES/w2048/sungraphic-kath.jpg click to expand)

Despite the US government shutdown (which did affect national laboratories), the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory near San Fransisco has reported advances in nuclear fusion, although the information released is minimal. This facility uses inertial fusion, which differs from the ITER facility currently being built in France, which will use magnetic confinement fusion, but both facilities aim to recreate the fusion reactions that occur in the Sun.

The advantages of nuclear fusion are that if (and when) it becomes economically viable, it will be self-sustaining, need relatively small amounts of fuel (derived from electrolysis using seawater), emit zero carbon emissions and pose no danger through nuclear proliferation – which traditional nuclear technologies have led to. Simplified calculations show that the amount of Lithium that can be created from electrolysing seawater could provide fuel for 2700 power plants for 23 million years, although this is obviously rather speculative (Bradshaw et al., 2011)! The factor more likely to limit the renewability of nuclear fusion is the requirement for a neutron multiplier such as Berylium, which is needed for the self-sustaining mechanism.

The timeline for the possible viability of this technology is mainly theorised to be economical by 2050. Considering specifically the French ITER project; this is expected to be completed in 2019 with plasma being produced in 2025. However, by 2050, there is debate over whether renewable energy will have become so cheap by then that nuclear fusion will not be able to compete in that market (Hamacher et al., 2013).

There is a short video setting out the timeline of nuclear fusion: 

It describes an optimistic time frame and attitude towards nuclear fusion, however worth a watch, just have a pinch of salt handy.

However, despite the possible solution that nuclear fusion could provide for the global energy crisis, providing cheap and ‘environmentally friendly’ fuel, I wanted to consider the possible disadvantages and unseen effects which as far as I can see have not been considered thus far.

What could happen if fusion becomes economically viable...?

Energy security would not be a factor in international relations. Every country which could afford the technology, could have an energy surplus. However what would happen to those who couldn’t afford to create this incredibly expensive technology? These could still rely on fossil fuels, although they may be cheaper due to lower demand, which would benefit development; or those countries could implement renewable technology which would have hopefully become more affordable in a decade or so.

How would industry respond to cheap energy? I wonder if this would deter efficiency, which could lead to increases in consumption of other materials and larger volumes of waste products. Having an energy supply which is abundant and safe, with no CO₂ emissions has obvious benefits, however there is limited consideration to the downsides to achieving this. Regarding waste disposal, and the domino effect of cheaper energy leading to cheaper products leading to a more materialistic lifestyle, which could possibly lead to a higher requirement for landfill. Although, the waste could be incinerated, and financial incentives may be appropriate as this would vastly reduce the requirement for landfill.

Cheap energy would not solve the unsustainable use of other resources, for instance forest clearance (and related biodiversity and carbon sink losses) for wood or quarrying for limestone, which are come causes of environmental degradation. Therefore achieving economically viable nuclear fusion could be incredibly beneficial to solving the problem of GHG emissions, however it is not a panacea for all environmental woes.

As the majority of renewables are inherently intermittent, nuclear fusion would be best when combined with RE, to be used as the baseline fuel and RE used at peak times to boost supply (Connor, 2013). I think that nuclear fusion is incredibly exciting and could solve issues for both international relations and climate, however I would also advocate using renewables as a transition fuel, to see us through to the time when fusion can be economical.