An article at MSNBC covers the state of fusion research in the United States (US). I agree with its beginning: that fusion research in the US is falling behind that in other countries. This is not an easy statement to make because it can be interpreted as saying that fusion research needs more money, which is nothing new and simply repeats what every other field of federally funded research says. This is where I begin to disagree with the article because it strays into the realm of which fusion projects are most promising, instead of making the argument for providing increased resources to the general concept.

Nit Picking

One nit to be picked away before getting to the fusion discussion is the use of the term “cleaner coal” as one of the energy production methods expected to provide immediate results. As I've mentioned (item 2), there is no such thing as cleaner coal because the chemical process of burning coal never changes. The cleanliness comes from capturing the “dirt” and burying it underground. The US Department of Energy discusses this, saying, “The primary means for carbon storage are injecting CO2 into geologic formations or using terrestrial applications.” Coal does not burn cleanly, we can just put the byproducts in a fancier garbage can. This makes coal the less desirable choice compared to any energy production means that produces fewer byproducts.

Back to Fusion

The article takes its lead from Gerald L. Kulcinski, Director of the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin. Dr. Kulcinski makes the statement that the US is falling behind other countries in terms of fusion development. The final impression, however, is that magnetically confined fusion research is less likely to lead to an energy production solution than either inertially confined or electrostatically confined fusion. Dr. Kulcinski, possibly taken out of context, is quoted as saying “In my personal opinion, I don't think tokamaks will ever be commercially effective ... I think laser fusion, or heavy-ion fusion, or X-ray fusion has a chance of being economic, probably a better chance than magnetic fusion, but it's hard to quantify.”

We are not at a place where any single fusion energy method is clearly better than the others. While Dr. Kulcinski certainly knows a lot more about fusion than I do and his informed opinion is valuable, the tone of this article might lead the public to believe that investment in magnetically confined fusion energy is a waste. What I take from the article is that generic support of fusion energy should be improved because the US cannot afford to miss out on any of the three dominant methods that might lead to a viable production facility.

Alan Boyle, the author of this article, mistakenly uses fusion and fusion energy interchangeably. For example, Boyle writes, “If Kulcinski had to pick a favorite in the decades-long fusion marathon, it might well be the dark horse in the race: electrostatic fusion,” which implies that Dr. Kulcinski believes electrostatic fusion is the method most likely to lead to fusion energy production. It appears, however, that Dr. Kulcinski is more impressed with this method's ability to achieve fusion in the non-energy limit and he is quoted as directly saying that the present research “has nothing to do with electricity”. The electrostatic device employs the fusion process to serve a useful purpose in the medical field, but not all fusion is energy relevant.

Why Support Fusion?

I am arguing that a more general discussion of the importance of fusion energy is needed in the public sphere. There certainly are energy sources that are both accessible and plentiful today, including solar power and still-dirty coal. Fusion energy has advantages over these and warrants continued development concurrently with solar power.

The Logical Argument for Solar and Fusion

There are plenty of numbers being thrown around about the output of solar energy. I wish to avoid that ongoing discussion because there is a logical argument in favor of adding fusion energy to the solar production: we need an on/off switch.

The on/off switch argument is simple. Humanity does not control the Sun. This fact is partly responsible for why the Sun is so dependable, shining day in and day out. The problem is that we cannot guarantee that the Sun's energy will always be collectable. Basic cloud cover reduces the collection of solar rays. There is a distinct possibility that weather patterns, or even a process as yet unconsidered, will negatively impact the amount of energy that can be collected from the Sun.

Fusion is a completely human-controlled energy source (as soon as it works). This is beneficial because energy needs are not entirely predictable. It is sensible to develop an energy source that can be turned on, or have its yield increased, on demand. Solar energy production varies day and night and according to season. The environmental benefits of solar power should heavily influence its development in a positive way, but we cannot afford to leave such a potentially unreliable energy source as our only means of energy production.

A similar argument can be made for saving coal. Coal has a perfectly good use as an emergency backup. The benefit of coal is that anyone can use it. If you can start a fire, then you can use coal as an energy source. In a time of great emergency, be it natural disaster or other, coal might just be our savior. Coal is so simple to use, and has such a low energy output compared to more advanced techniques, that is does not make sense to burn it now. We should be using more technologically advanced energy sources in the present and save our coal reserves. Why use all of the coal now and then have no backup in the future? What happens if all of the coal is burned within the next 100 years and then a future energy source goes through a period of reduced effectiveness?

Fusion is a worthwhile investment because any multi-billion person population is best served by energy sources that are fully controllable. One person can suffer through lessened energy availability overnight, but large societies need consistency. Even if solar energy dominates the landscape of tomorrow, fusion energy is the responsible partner in times of hardship that cannot be predicted today.

Which Fusion Research Deserves Support?

This is the section where fusion research needs to differentiate itself from the similar sounding funding increase requests of other fields. Having three unique and active arenas (magnetic, inertial, and electrostatic confinement) is a positive result of fantastic advances in research. While experts will have their own favorites, there is no scientific reason to allow one method to take precedence over the others. At least, there is no support for choosing a preferred method at this time. Additional work might produce a clear leader, but all three methods suffer from downsides and unresolved issues. The following table is a one item collection of problems with all three methods (of course, greatly simplified).

The next table is a short compilation of benefits from each method that can be achieved even in the worst-case scenario of little useful fusion energy results.

Conclusions

I was taken aback by the MSNBC article and thought that it missed the point. Without a Ph.D. (at least, not yet) and not working in a fusion lab there is little room for me to present a scientific argument that covers the most recent advances in this field. That is why I have presented an argument on both logical and scientific grounds for increased support of all branches of fusion energy research. We need fusion because it has the highest energy yield and is completely controllable. Fusion energy is a source that is most useful for all of the future problems that have not been foreseen, for the energy crunches that lie ahead and strike without warning. Let's have solar energy, but do not count on it as a sole provider.

There is no obvious fusion energy method. Of the three methods presently being researched, each provides unique physics challenges and possibility. If the US does not support this increasingly developing field then we can expect to be buying this technology from the rest of the world in the same manner they have been buying ours over the past century. If the prosperity of the US is due to our scientific prowess, then where will trailing in energy research lead our nation?

Technorati Tags: fusion, fusion energy, physics research, media criticism

Comments

Add New Search RSS

Ethan Wynn - Criticism of MSNBC and Alan Bo | 2008-05-04 10:33:23 Science journalism should inform, and should, like science, be aimed at finding and presenting the truth clearly and succinctly. Science journalism should be unafraid to present conflicting results /ideas and should never fall back on appeal to authority. Mr. Boyle works as the science editor at MSNBC and you are telling me he can interview only one expert? From one university? A university that may in fact have a lot to gain should tokamaks be deemed useless by the funding agencies at large in the US? The expert interviewed works on ES confinement. I ask, has he anything to gain from such positive press from Mr. Boyle? Does Mr. Boyle hold stocks in the NM company for ES fusion development? Read the article very closely and you will see that sadly Mr. Boyle presents a confusing and one sided argument. What he presents indicates that he has not done his research and rather he has taken quite reasonable comments from Dr. Kulcinski to spin a story about science into a story that is sensationalist - Magnetically confined fusion is bad! Mr. Boyle obviously has googled ITER. Good for him. But his article does not present any of the arguments that have motivated ITER. Tokamaks surely must have some useful results for people to be looking into them at the ITER-scale?? Mr. Boyle's selected quote from the ITER US operation's director paints ITER supporters at large as rather ambivalent about their work. I found it to be a negative quote, especially in the context of the rest of the article, where the cost of ITER was listed how many times? Mr. Boyle, like Hollywood, finds the dark horse most exciting. But Hollywood is not reality. Any scientist will be pleased to see ITER succeed at igniting a plasma -- and any plasma scientist worth his letters will be prepared to abandon the ITER concept if it fails on scientific grounds. In order to be able to have the freedom to abandon good ideas that turn out not to work, scientists need less politics and more funding. More funding for fusion research for non-energy applications and more funding for fusion research for energy applications will help keep the US on top of science research and development. What scientists DO NOT NEED are men like Mr. Boyle writing pieces that the PUBLIC reads. Mr. Boyle does a disservice to scientists who are working hard to find the truth about the science of fusion for energy productions and his biased piece is a blow to the spirit of science. Shame on him. Reply

Write comment
Name:
Email: (not published)
Website:
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.12

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.