A star is born. And, less than a second later, it dies. On a drab science park just outside the Oxfordshire village of Culham in southern England, some of the world’s leading physicists stare at a monitor to review a video of their wondrous, yet fleeting, creation.
“Not too bad. That was quite a clean one,” starmaker-in-chief Steve Cowley says.
Just a few meters away from his control room, a “mini star” not much larger than a family car has just burned, momentarily bright, at temperatures approaching 23 million degrees centigrade inside a 70-tonne steel vessel.
Illustration: Kevin Hsu
Cowley sips his coffee and says: “OK, when do we go again?”
Last year, when asked to name the most pressing scientific challenge facing humanity, Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox both gave the same answer: producing electricity from fusion energy. The prize, they said, is enormous: a near-limitless, pollution-free, cheap source of energy that would power human development for many centuries to come. Cox is so passionate about the urgent need for fusion power that he said it should be scientists such as Cowley who are revered in our culture — not soccer players or pop stars — because they are “literally going to save the world.”
It is a “moral duty” to commercialize this technology as fast as possible, he said.
Without it, our species will be in “very deep trouble indeed” by the end of this century.
If only it were that simple. Fusion energy — in essence, recreating and harnessing here on Earth the process that powers the sun — has been the goal of physicists around the world for more than half a century. And yet it is perpetually described as “30 years away.” No matter how much research is done and money is spent attempting to commercialize this “savior” technology, it always appears to be stuck at least a generation away.
Cowley hears and feels these frustrations every day. As the director of the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, he has spent his working life trying to shorten this exasperating delay. Fusion energy is already a scientific challenge arguably more arduous than any other we face, but recent events have only piled on further pressure: international climate-change negotiations have stalled, targets to ramp up renewable energy production seem hopelessly unrealistic and the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster has cast a large shadow over the future of fusion’s nuclear cousin, fission energy, with both Germany and Italy stating that, owing to safety concerns, they now intend to turn their back on a source of energy that has been providing electricity since the 1950s.
However, today Cowley seems upbeat, chipper even. After an 18-month shutdown to retile the interior of the largest of the center’s two “tokamaks” — ring doughnut-shaped chambers where the fusion reaction takes place — he is bullish about the progress being made by the 1,000 scientists and engineers based at Culham.
“By 2014-15, we will be setting new records here. We hope to reach break-even point in five years. That will be a huge- -psychological moment,” he says.
Cowley is referring to the moment of parity when the amount of energy they extract from a tokamak equals the amount of energy they put into it. At present, the best-ever “shot” — as the scientists refer to each fusion reaction attempt — came in 1997 when, for just two seconds, the JET (Joint European Torus) tokamak at Culham achieved 16MW of fusion power from an input of 25MW. For fusion to be commercially viable, however, it will need to provide a near-constant tenfold power gain.
So, what are the barriers preventing this great leap forward?
“We could produce net electricity right now, but the costs would be huge,” Cowley says. “The barrier is finding a material that can withstand the neutron bombardment inside the tokamak. We could also just say damn to the cost of the electricity required to demonstrate this, but we don’t want to do something that cannot be shown to be commercially viable. What’s the point?”
At the heart of a star, fusion occurs when hydrogen atoms fuse together under extreme heat and pressure to create a denser helium atom, releasing, in the process, colossal amounts of energy. However, on Earth, scientists have to try and replicate a star’s intense gravitational pressure with an artificial magnetic field that requires huge amounts of electricity to create — so much that the UK’s National Grid must tell Culham when it is OK for them to run a shot (namely, not in the middle of a top TV soap or a big soccer match).
The fusion reaction occurs when the fuel (two types, or isotopes, of hydrogen known as deuterium and tritium) combines to form a super-hot plasma that produces, alongside the helium, neutrons that have a huge amount of kinetic energy. The goal of plasma physicists such as Cowell is to harness the release of these neutrons and use their abundant energy to drive conventional turbines to generate electricity. The JET tokamak has been shut down for the past 18 months while the interior has been stripped of its 4,500 carbon tiles and replaced with new tiles made from beryllium and tungsten. The hope is that these new tiles will be far more “neutron resilient,” allowing for shots to be conducted for longer periods and at much higher temperatures.
Over lunch at the staff canteen, Francesco Romanelli, the Italian director of the European Fusion Development Agreement, the European agency that funds JET, explains why the new tiles are so crucial.
“We now understand how a plasma works. We have demonstrated with JET that we can contain the reactants; we reach temperatures 20 times hotter than the sun’s core and we produce an intense magnetic field, 1,000 times that of Earth’s normal magnetic field. However, the main problem we face is plasma turbulence. To compensate for this loss, we have to add more heat and energy. So we are always looking for materials that can withstand these extraordinary conditions inside the tokamak,” he says.
Last year, bulldozers began clearing land 60km northeast of Marseille in southern France. By 2019, it is hoped that the world’s largest and most advanced experimental tokamak will be switched on. The 15 billion euro (US$21.72 billion) International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is being funded by an unprecedented international coalition, including the EU, the US, China, India, South Korea and Russia. Everything learned at Culham will be fed into improving the design and performance of ITER, which, it is hoped, will demonstrate the commercial viability of fusion by producing a tenfold power gain of 500MW during shots lasting up to an hour.
However, ITER’s projected costs are already rocketing, and politicians across Europe have expressed concern, demanding that budgets be capped.
Fusion energy also has its environmental detractors. When the ITER project was announced in 2005, Greenpeace said it “deplored” the project, arguing that the money could be better spent building offshore wind turbines.
“Advocates of fusion research predict that the first commercial fusion electricity might be delivered in 50 to 80 years from now,” said Jan Vande Putte, a Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner. “But most likely, it will lead to a dead end, as the technical barriers to be overcome are enormous.”
Meanwhile, there is criticism from some plasma physicists that the design of ITER is wrong and alternative designs might produce better results for much less money.
Romanelli rejects this analysis. We simply must make this investment, he says.
“The prize on offer is too tantalizing to ignore. Fusion doesn’t produce greenhouse gases, it is intrinsically safe and it leaves no burden on future generations. The primary reaction does not produce nuclear material, only helium. There’s a limited problem in that you produce neutrons, but this only makes the reactor chamber itself radioactive. Within 100 years, you could recycle the chamber so there’s no need for geological-timescale storage as there is with the waste from fission energy. And the fuel is virtually unlimited. All you need is lithium and hydrogen. Sea water alone could fuel current human consumption levels for 30 million years,” he says.
Another major positive promised by fusion, Romanelli says, is that reactors would be so safe that they could be located in urban centers where the power is most needed.
“A tsunami, earthquake or bomb could hit a fusion reactor and the problems caused would only ever be structural. With fission, you have to release the energy if there’s a problem, whereas fusion shuts down instantly if disrupted,” he says.
If fusion offers such glorious bounty, it prompts the question — given, say, our concerns over climate change and the global political instability caused by the pursuit of oil — why the world is not concentrating much harder on delivering it as fast as -possible. Yes, 15 billion euros is a lot of money to be spending building ITER. However, by comparison, the global cosmetics and perfume industry is worth about US$170 billion a year and, last year, the US’ military budget was US$663 billion. If the motivation was there, the global community could find the money to fund 10 rival fusion projects to fast-track the process of finding the optimum design. So, why haven’t we seen a Manhattan Project-style push for fusion such as we did during World War II, when it was deemed by the allied forces that they must beat the Nazis in the race to build the first atomic bomb?
“People — and particularly politicians — still remember fission’s early claims that it would produce electricity that was ‘too cheap to meter,’” Cowley says.
For most people, fusion is in the realm of science fiction and it is hard to convince them that it should be a strategic priority, he says.
“We scientists have to be honest, too: We thought it would be easy to crack fusion, but there’s no other comparable challenge. There is no model for this technology. The first flying devices looked like birds because those early inventors looked to nature for solutions, but we don’t have a model in nature to look to. The sun is not a good model for fusion here on earth. We’re having to start from the very beginning,” he says.
Cowley says a Manhattan Project for fusion would, of course, greatly speed up its delivery.
“ITER will cost around 15 billion euros, but that is not expensive when you consider the prize. At present, all we can hope for is, if oil prices are still high in 2015 and we pull off a big shot demonstrating parity of power, this gets us the international attention — and therefore the funding — we need to really push on. JET was first funded and built during the 1970s as a result of as a result of the oil crisis. That is not a coincidence: There has always been a direct correlation between investment in fusion and the price of oil. Interestingly, though, China is now putting a lot of money into fusion,” he says.
This raises another big question: Who will stand to benefit financially from its commercialization? “The global energy market is worth US$5 trillion to US$6 trillion a year: Somebody will make a lot of money out of this,” says Cowley, who predicts that once ITER provides a demonstration model for a fusion reactor, all the major countries involved will then attempt to build their own version.
“We handed our advantage away with fission. We really don’t want to make the same mistake again,” he says.
One area where the UK already has an edge, Cowley says, is making the very specialized steels required for next-generation tokamaks.
It is hard not to look at the potential of fusion and scream: “We need this right now,” but Cowley says we still face a 30-year wait for the magic day when we flick a switch and electricity generated from fusion flows from the socket.
“After ITER, we will then have to build a demonstration plant. We hope to have that built by 2040. This is why there needs to be, in my mind, a 10-fold increase in fission power by 2050. We still need fission because it is a bridging technology until fusion becomes commercial. By 2100, fusion could be producing 20 percent to 25 percent of all our energy,” he says.
Romanelli’s outlook is a little more optimistic: He believes fusion will be providing 50 percent of the world’s energy by 2100.
What Cowley is saying, though, is that as long as fusion research remains underfunded (a term he does not utter, but the implication is there) then it will never save humanity from climate change, oil wars and the poverty and underdevelopment caused by ever-higher energy costs. As if to prove his point, he says that on occasion he has even turned to eBay to buy spare parts for the smaller UK-owned tokamak at Colham which is known as MAST (Mega Amp Spherical Tokamak).
However, such things do not deter him from pushing forward as best he can, he stresses. He is first and foremost a plasma physicist.
“Saving the planet is a nice thing to do,” he laughs. “Doing something that no one else has ever done is attractive, too, but, ultimately, this is fascinating. I work at the best fusion laboratory in the world, where we conduct day-to-day physics with an incredibly high level of intellectual activity. Every night on the train home, I prefer to do a calculation rather than a sudoku. I try to work out things such as how a 200-million-degree-celsius plasma behaves in a magnetic field. Such things are critically important for the future of our world, but they’re bloody good fun, too.”
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under