Editor's note: Professor Steven Cowley is Director of the Culham Center for Fusion Energy
(CCFE), the UK's national laboratory for fusion research. He has
published over 100 papers and articles and in 2011 was appointed to the
UK's Council for Science and Technology -- an advisory board which
reports directly to Prime Minister David Cameron.
Until recently, fears of peak oil and
dependence on Middle Eastern suppliers were the key factors shaping our
energy policy, pushing governments to scramble for fossil fuel
alternatives. Then came shale gas, tar sands, and other unconventional
sources. Industry found ways to affordably extract fuel for decades to
come. So many are now imagining an end to the energy crisis. That's a
dangerous mistake.
We need to innovate
alternative energy sources now more than ever ... and our choices are
limited. There are few viable options that will preserve the levels of
prosperity that modern industrial economies have come to expect.
"Fusion is in many respects the perfect energy source
Steven Cowley, Culham Center for Fusion Energy, UK
Steven Cowley, Culham Center for Fusion Energy, UK
Solar, advanced nuclear
fission, and fusion offer the best hope but, unfortunately, none are
ready for large-scale deployment. All need time-consuming innovations so
we cannot afford to hesitate; research must be ramped up across the
board and government must keep up the pace.
Of our three most
promising technologies, fusion would be the biggest prize. It is in many
respects the perfect energy source. Sea water provides millions of
years of fusion fuel. Fusion reactions are safe, they emit neither
radioactive waste nor greenhouse gasses and fusion reactors would take
up relatively little space.
The catch is fusion is
very hard to do. Two isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) must
be held at 200-million degrees until they collide and fuse to make
helium. It is not easy to build a device that runs at ten times the
temperature of the Sun, but it is possible.
Steven Cowley
In fact, the European experimental facility, JET
-- hosted in the UK, has already done it. For a couple of seconds, it
generated 16 megawatts of fusion power -- enough to supply around 8,000
homes. This is an astonishing achievement. We must now extend that
duration and power and innovate technologies to make fusion electricity
at a price that the consumer will pay.
We're working flat out on
the first of those goals. Seven international partners representing
more than half the world's people are constructing the critical
experiment right now in Southern France. Called ITER
-- it is designed to reach a self-sustaining fusion burn -- the last
scientific hurdle to fusion power. Construction will complete in 2020
with a fusion burn expected by 2030.
There are other approaches to fusion -- for example the laser experiments at the National Ignition Facility in California -- but for many of us in the scientific trenches, the fusion burn on ITER is expected to be the defining moment.
"It is not easy to build a device that runs at ten times the temperature of the Sun, but it is possible
Steven Cowley, Culham Center for Fusion Energy, UK
Steven Cowley, Culham Center for Fusion Energy, UK
But what about our
second objective of economic viability? ITER isn't meant to achieve that
goal. In addition to clearing our last remaining scientific hurdle, we
need to advance a parallel engineering agenda into key reactor
technologies that will enable commercial fusion power plants to reliably
deliver electricity in a highly competitive market.
This means technological
advances in areas such as structural and functional materials, power
conversion, and reliability. China and Korea are on the job but the U.S.
and Europe are reluctant to face the engineering issues. Certainly,
cost increases on ITER haven't helped. If we continue to starve the
technological research agenda of funds, however, we risk delaying fusion
power and ceding technological leadership to China and Korea.
It goes without saying
that resources are limited in our recession-ravaged economies ... but
disinvesting in seed corn is obviously self-defeating.
What can we afford? The
world energy market is approximately €5-€10 trillion ($6.5-13 trillion) a
year. The total world spend on energy research is about 0.5% of this --
strikingly low. Fusion research including ITER construction is less
than €1.5 billion ($2 billion) a year -- not even 0.05% of the market.
We are, it seems, not
taking the threat of climate change and energy shortages seriously. In
this context, the roughly €200-500 million ($260-650 million) per year
needed to vigorously pursue the parallel track of technology innovation
in fusion seems absurdly small.
We often hear that
Thomas Malthus' dire predictions about population growth were wrong
because humans innovated solutions to food shortages. Will we innovate
ourselves out of our long-term energy constraints too? Only if we
sufficiently fund alternative energy research now.
No comments:
Post a Comment