“We are standing on the ground that could change the future of energy,” says engineer Laurent Pattison, deep in the reactor pit of the world’s biggest nuclear fusion project.
Around him is a vast construction site, all aimed at creating temperatures of 150 million degrees Celsius on this spot and finally bringing the power of the sun down to Earth. The 18 billion euro (US$19.2 billion) Iter project, now rising fast from the ground under the bright blue skies of Provence, France, is the first capable of achieving a critical breakthrough: Getting more energy out of the intense fusion reactions than is put in.
“It is a bet that is very important for humanity,” says Johannes Schwemmer, the director of Fusion for Energy, the EU partner in the international Iter collaboration. “We need to get this energy once and for all.”
Illustration: Yusha
The long allure of nuclear fusion is simple: Clean, safe, limitless energy for a world that would soon house 10 billion energy-hungry people, but despite 60 years of research and billions of dollars, the results to date are also simple: It has not delivered.
Fusion is in danger of following its atomic cousin, conventional fission nuclear power, in over-promising — “electricity too cheap to meter” — and under-delivering. The Iter project itself, which stems from a cold war summit between then-US president Ronald Reagan and then-Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985, has seen years of turmoil. The US pulled out entirely between 1998-2003 and in 2008, Iter had to treble its budget and shift its deadline back a decade.
However, leaders representing half the world’s population — through the Iter partners, the EU, China, Russia, the US, India, Japan and South Korea — are now making the 18 billion euro wager that fusion can deliver and have radically overhauled Iter’s management to fix the mistakes of the past.
The goal is to trap a plasma in a huge magnetic ring and force heavy hydrogen isotopes to fuse together to release prodigious amounts of energy — four times more than the splitting of uranium atoms produces in conventional fission reactors.
“We are convinced we can deliver hundreds of megawatts through Iter,” up to 10 times more energy than is put in, says David Campbell, the director of science and operations at Iter — which means “the way” in Latin.
To achieve that breakthrough, Iter would use a doughnut-shaped magnetic cage called a tokamak to trap the plasma. More than 200 smaller tokamaks have been built around the world and Campbell says the decades of physics and engineering that Iter is building on is a strong guarantee of success.
Nothing has ever been attempted on the scale of Iter. The world record for fusion power — 16 megawatt — was set in 1997 at the JET reactor in the UK. The longest fusion run — six minutes and 30 seconds — was achieved at France’s Tore Supra in 2003. Iter is aiming for 500MW and 50-minute runs.
The site is a cathedral to the fusion dream: It spans the equivalent of 60 soccer fields and the reactor building is to weigh 320,000 tonnes, all resting on rubber bearings in case of an unlikely, but not impossible, earthquake. The reactor itself is to weigh 23,000 tonnes, three times more than the Eiffel Tower. It is the most complex engineering project in history.
More than 2,800 tonnes of superconducting magnets, some heavier than a jumbo jet, would be connected by 200km of superconducting cables, all kept at minus-269?C by the world’s largest cryogenic plant, which would pump 12,000 liters per hour of liquid helium.
Millions of precision components are to be shipped in from the seven partners to be assembled by thousands of workers. This is all aimed at keeping just 2g of plasma hot enough and stable enough in the 30m-diameter tokamak for fusion to take place.
Iter’s schedule is to create the first plasma in 2025, then start firing tiny 5mm frozen pellets of heavy hydrogen — deuterium and tritium — into the plasma and generating energy. Deuterium is easily refined from seawater and fuses with tritium, which is harvested from fission reactors, but could be self-generated in Iter. The aim is to reach its maximum power output by 2035 and, if so, Iter would be the foundation of the first fusion power plants.
Bernard Bigot, the director-general of Iter, is certain it will produce plentiful power, “but what is not granted so far is that this technology will be simple and efficient enough that it could be industrialized,” he says.
The point of Iter is finding out, Bigot says. “The world needs to know if this technology is available or not. Fusion could help deliver the energy supplies of the world for a very long time, maybe forever.”
Even if things go well, getting real fusion power plants online before 2050 would be a triumph, raising an awkward question: What if fusion comes too late? Climate change is driving an accelerating transformation to low-carbon energy and drastic cuts in emissions are needed by 2050. If these are achieved, will there be a need for fusion power, which will be expensive at the start?
“It is certainly not going to be too cheap to meter,” Campbell says.
But it is a question of timescale, he says. “In the long term there are very few available options: renewables, fission and fusion.”
For Schwemmer, there is only one long-term option.
“You would have to cover whole continents with wind turbines to produce the energy needed for 10 billion people,” he says. “And if our children’s children are not to sit on piles of [fission] nuclear waste, we have to make fusion work. Even if it takes till 2100, we should still do it.”
Nuclear fission is also limited by uranium supplies, perhaps to a few decades if it were to play a large role.
“People have to realize, if we want a breakthrough [that could provide energy] for millions of years, 10 or 20 years is nothing,” Bigot said.
He thinks fusion might still come in time to meet the need to move the world to zero emissions in the second half of the century to defeat global warming.
As a nuclear technology, some would remain implacably opposed to fusion. While fusion reactions produce only harmless helium, the high-energy neutrons also ejected irradiate the walls of the reactor, leading to radioactive waste.
Again, the key is timescale, says Campbell.
Waste from fission can remain radioactive for 250,000 years, making plans to store dangerous waste for many times longer than the whole of human civilization speculative. In contrast, fusion waste would decay on the scale of decades.
“Looking after the waste for 100 years is credible,” he says.
Fusion is also intrinsically safe, with the large meltdowns seen in fission accidents such as Fukushima Dai-ichi and Chernobyl physically impossible. Part of the reason is the tiny amount of fuel in a fusion reactor at any one time and part is the temperamental nature of plasma, a boiling gas of ions and electrons.
“If you lose control of the plasma, it does not just sit there, it disappears like that,” says Campbell, clicking his fingers.
“After Fukushima, we thought we would be flushed down the toilet like all nuclear,” says Sabina Griffith, a communications manager at Iter. “But the opposite happened — governments thought if not fission, then what?”
There are other fusion reactor designs that might be better and, in particular, smaller. A 1 billion euro reactor opened in Germany by German Chancellor Angela Merkel earlier this year uses a stellarator, in which the plasma ring is shaped like a Mobius strip. This makes it potentially more stable and, crucially, able to operate continuously, rather than in pulses like a tokamak.
There are also numerous private companies, staffed by serious fusion researchers, promising much smaller reactors, including the UK’s Tokamak Energy and Tri Alpha Energy and General Fusion in Canada.
“There are technology routes that might let you build something smaller — in principle,” Campbell says.
However, he says they either rely on unproven “exotic” ideas or underestimate the heavy engineering needed to contain burning plasmas.
“Iter is the size our present technology allows us to build,” he says.
Politics remains a challenge to delivering Iter and uncertainty has been ramped up by the election of Donald Trump as president of the US, where some powerful voices want to leave the project for good. Britain’s vote to leave the EU has also added to the uncertainty.
However, Bigot believes the need to know if full fusion power is feasible will keep the partners in.
“To be frank, the US is only 9 percent of the project, if they were to leave alone, I believe we could go on,” he said. “But it would be the wrong signal [showing] the most powerful country in the world is not preparing for its future.”
On Brexit, he said: “It would damage Iter a little, but it would damage the UK a lot,” given its long and continuing research in fusion.
The political problems usually boil down to costs and the governments of Iter partners wanting to reduce the taxpayers’ money spent on the project.
“Iter looks very expensive to the ordinary person in the street,” Campbell says. “But the cost is spread across half the world’s population. Seen in that context I don’t think it is such a big investment to make.”
The world spent US$325 billion on fossil fuel subsidies last year alone, according to the International Energy Agency, and US$150 billion on “renewable” energy support.
Fusion supporters, such as Campbell, also suggest fusion has geopolitical benefits, because its key fuel — heavy hydrogen — is accessible to all.
“No one has a monopoly on the fuel so no one is going to fight each other over it,” Campbell says.
The 1985 Reagan-Gorbachev summit that kick-started the Iter project called for “the widest practicable development of international collaboration” in nuclear fusion to obtain “energy which is essentially inexhaustible, for the benefit of all mankind.”
So how far is the world from achieving that, 30 years and numerous stumbles on? Many still point to the answer given by Lev Artsimovich, the father of the tokamak and head of the Soviet fusion power program for more than two decades until his death in 1973.
Fusion power, he said, will arrive “when mankind needs it — maybe a short time before that.”
A high-school student surnamed Yang (楊) gained admissions to several prestigious medical schools recently. However, when Yang shared his “learning portfolio” on social media, he was caught exaggerating and even falsifying content, and his admissions were revoked. Now he has to take the “advanced subjects test” scheduled for next month. With his outstanding performance in the general scholastic ability test (GSAT), Yang successfully gained admissions to five prestigious medical schools. However, his university dreams have now been frustrated by the “flaws” in his learning portfolio. This is a wake-up call not only for students, but also teachers. Yang did make a big
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS