It was reassuring to read that researchers succeeded in creating a nuclear fusion reaction that generated more energy than they used. For almost half a century, I have reported on scientific issues and no decade has been complete without at least two or three announcements by scientists that their work will allow them to recreate the processes that drive the sun. The generation of cheap nuclear fusion would change our lives.
It gave me a warm glow to know that standards might be returning to normal. Researchers at the US National Ignition Facility were able to generate temperatures only found in stars and thermonuclear bombs by using 192 lasers. Excess energy was released from the fusion of the isotopes.
It was a milestone event but not a major one, although this did not stop the US government and swaths of the world's media from hyping the achievement. The Wall Street Journal described the achievement as a breakthrough that could lead to an era of clean, cheap energy.
Nuclear fusion would have a beneficial impact on our planet by freeing vast amounts of energy without emitting high levels of carbon emissions and would be a boost in the fight against climate change.
We have been presented with similar visions before. The world would have an inexhaustible supply of fuel according to the claims made by Sir JohnCockcroft. That didn't happen. The fusion work done by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons has never been replicated.
The International thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (Iter), a huge facility being built in Saint-Paul-ls-Durance in Provence, France, that was supposed to achieve fusion by 2023, is ten years behind schedule.
The construction of the first commercially viable nuclear fusion plants was predicted to change our lives. Hopes never materialised and have led to a weary cynicism among hacks. They joke that fusion is 30 years away.
One of the most impressive scientific feats of the 21st century was argued by the US energy secretary. This is a hard claim to justify for a century that has already seen the creation of Covid-19 vaccines, the launch of the JAMES WEBSTER telescope, and the unraveling of the human genome. The ignition event at the NIF is second-tier.
Journalists and scientists have taken to joking: ‘Fusion is 30 years away – and always will be’
Scientists have been careful in their responses to the over-hyping. They agree that a key step has been taken towards commercial fusion power, but insist that such plants remain far away. Despite all the claims that were made last week, they should not be seen as likely saviours.
The dependence on fossil fuels has brought humanity to a point where it threatens to cause a 2C jump in global temperatures. The consequences will include flooding, fires, worsening storms and rising sea levels.
Scientists are clear in this place. The world won't be saved in time. Aneeqa Khan is a research fellow in nuclear fusion at Manchester University. Tony Roulstone is a researcher at Cambridge University. It is a success for science, but it is still a long way from providing clean energy.
There are two main ways to fusion. A powerful magnetic field is involved in one of the methods. Such an approach is followed by the Iter reactor. The other uses lasers to blast deuterium-tritium pellets, which cause them to collapse and explode. Major technological headaches are involved in controlling the reactions in both cases.
Many new investors and entrepreneurs, including Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, have recently turned their attention to the field, raising hopes that a fresh commercial motivation could revive the development of commercial plants.
fusion won't arrive in time to save the planet from climate change, but we should welcome it. There are only a few short-term alternatives to burning fossil fuels. These power sources need to be pinned on. It would be foolish to rely on an energy source that will take at least two decades to materialise, even though fusion may earn its place in the future.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
