The fifty year wait for nuclear fusion energy is here, honest...

Last week the UK firmly threw its hat into the fusion ring with the UK Company AWE joining the National Ignition Facility (NIF) based in the US to push for energy’s Holy Grail: nuclear fusion. If fusion can be harnessed and surplus energy is harvested over and above the vast amounts of energy needed to stabilise and sustain the reaction then the long sought silver bullet, we are told, will be here. The promise of limitless clean fusion energy within fifty year, which has probably been around for fifty years is nearly here.

But, and this is the largest ‘but’ I will ever type, the technology still has some immense hurdles to cross yet.

Nuclear fusion, in layman’s terms, has all the benefits of nuclear fission, our current nuclear energy source, but with none of the radioactive material which will have an environmental impact lasting far past the life time of our children’s children.

Nuclear fusion is the chemical process where two lighter nuclei are essentially slammed together with such force that they fuse into one heavier nucleus. As they fuse they emit large quantities of energy.

Nuclear fusion is occurring in the Sun, a process called nucleosynthesis, the heat and light released in the reaction allowing life on Earth to flourish.

Having a stable reaction here on Earth is incredibly difficult as there are no materials able to withstand temperatures in excess of 100 million Kelvin which nuclear fusion reactions can reach.

This means that these plasmas need to be contained in an electric field with no part of the reactor in contact with the fusion reaction.

The two nuclei that come together can be no heavier than iron, with hydrogen atoms, the lightest element the usual candidate making the potential source of fuel for a fusion reactor the most abundant element in the Universe. Nuclear energy sources will no longer be shackled to scarce uranium deposits and suddenly we can look to the oceans for our energy.

The president of the Institute of Physics, Sir Peter Knight, claimed that a demonstration plant would be operational within the next 18 months, showing that in principle fusion can generate more energy than is required to start and maintain the fusion reaction.

He hopes that by demonstrating that this is possible, the first step to scaling the process up will begin and then the enormous benefits of fusion can be realised.

Of course however, it is not that straight forward. It never is.

Even if it possible to utilise nuclear fusion to its full potential and generate massive quantities of accessible, clean, cheap electricity we do not have the ability to effectively utilise this electricity.

Our cars and lorries currently require petrol or diesel, we have gas boilers to heat our water and warm our homes, our planes need aviation fuel to fly etc.

One solution to this, as David MacKay writes in his beguiling and sometimes scary book, Sustainable Energy - without the hot air, is to electrify as many devices as possible.

This means electric: cars; trams; boilers; machinery; ships; all lighting; heaters; you name it, everything. If fusion can provide clean, cheap, accessible electricity then everything that can use batteries, should.

Job done you might think. But then there is the very obvious question:

Is it possible to produce all the batteries needed?

And the simple answer is, no. Not in the form that batteries are currently produced. There are just not enough of the rare earth metals, such as lithium, needed to produce the batteries to substitute all our energy sources. Some people highlight the fact that we will just shift our economy and lifestyle from one dependent on oil to one dependent on rare earth metals.

So, to sum up this rather dispirited article, there have been some bold claims made recently that critical advances are occurring in our fifty year exploration for nuclear fusion. If the incredible is achieved however, there are enormous obstacles to overcome both technically and in our natural resources.

It is my opinion that it is our lifestyle, which is currently so tightly bound to high energy consumption, which is our true Achilles Heel. By reducing our energy consumption we liberate ourselves from the need for complex, technical, and possibly impossible solutions to our energy problems. Fusion may solve some of our energy problems, but it won’t solve them all.


Report Article

Article Details

James Williams
  • Published:

Share This Story

Follow Green Blog

Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay updated with out latest posts and articles. You can also subscribe to our newsletter and get weekly updates. Follow us on Twitter, Google+ or Facebook.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

User Feedback


Guest D. A. Ryan

Posted · Report

Good article! It sort of addresses a few points I've been making on my blog, such as the fact that the bulk of what we use energy for is in the form of heat and transport fuel and not electricity (a little over 20% in the case of the UK). http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/how-much-energy-do-we-actually-use-part-ii-%e2%80%93-a-uk-case-study/ Also as I point out in the links below Nuclear Fusion is no slam dunk. While we might have some crude proof of concept reactor up and running in the next few decades (tho ITER is forever slipping behind schedule). But there's a world of a difference between some crude prototype that runs for a couple of minutes every week or so and a fusion reactor capable of running 24/7 and one that can be built and operated on a commercial basis. http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/11/a-critical-analysis-of-future-nuclear-reactors-designs/ http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/part-9-fusion-power/ I would argue that such a goal is some way off in the future, so far off that blindly assuming that fusion power is going to arrive according to any form of predictable timescale is a risky proposition. Hence while I'd certainly argue in favour of continued research into fusion, we clearly need to hedge our bets and invest heavily in renewables, as well as promoting greater energy efficiency in our society, as you state towards the end.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest James P Williams

Posted · Report

Thanks! I agree that fusion is some way off and I agree that we have to look to renewables. I would also argue that it is our consumption level that is far too high (roughly 195kWh per person per day, with only 15kWh per person per day (The Tyndall Centre's prediction), 12kWh (The Interdepartmental Analysts Group's prediction),  56.4kWh (Performance and Innovation Unit's prediction)  and 48kWh per person per day (Centre for Alternative Technology prediction) of energy that we could possibly hope to harvest from renewable sources in the UK.And these estimates are somewhat spurious as they assume the maximum available of that renewable source without considering the fact that some sources will impinge on others, for example if every spare bit of land had a wind turbine on it the estimates don't factor in that these turbines will cast a shadow on any potential PV cells on the ground.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just love the way you work. Thanks for sharing this great and interesting stuff. Fabulous post! I really enjoyed that.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The byproduct of nuclear fusion is lithium. So if you solve the fusion problem, then you solve the earth metals problem. Of course, nuclear fusion will never happen (at least in the way we expect it or need it). I'm just talking science fiction here.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites


Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now