Is Fusion Getting Closer?

And What If It Is?

The press has been abuzz lately about claims that fusion energy will soon be economically viable, and can become the go-to technology to meet a lot of our energy needs.  They point to some technological advances, particularly in the materials area, that certainly seem promising.

However, for those of us who have been around for--ahem--awhile, the arguments have a familiar ring.  Fusion has appeared to be just around the corner for a long time now.  For 30 years, I have been hearing that fusion is just 30 years away.  Maybe this time, it's really true.  It is probably just as wrong for me to dismiss a claim based on past failures as it is for others to ignore past failures altogether and promise success this time.  

More fundamentally, this news has gotten me to thinking about recent news items touting advances in other energy technologies, as well, and what it means for our energy planning.  The truth is that we are seeing advances, or the potential for advances, on many fronts.  Energy storage is getting cheaper, making renewables potentially more viable sometime in the future.  We are developing advanced nuclear power plant designs that will make nuclear power safer and more economical in the future. 

I could go on.  All of these claims are, at the moment, promises about concepts that are still in their early phases of development.  And in many of these cases, even a successful demonstration (such as achieving "break even" power production from fusion) is only one step in a long road to reliable, long-term operation. 

It all reminds me, once again, of Admiral Rickover's "paper reactors."  He noted that advanced concepts that are still on the drawing board are always reported to be fully developed, simple, cheap, flexible, etc.  However, once we start to build them, we run into problems, and end up with cost overruns and schedule delays while we solve all the problems we didn't think we had.  I know I've covered Rickover's statement before, and I will probably come back to it again one of these days, but it seems to me that it's one of the most profound statements that I've ever heard about advanced technologies and large-scale projects--that is, that there are a lot of stumbling blocks between the idea and the reality.

Surely, we will make progress on many of the technologies we are developing.  Despite past failures, maybe fusion will succeed spectacularly this time around and change the face of our energy supply.  Or maybe not this time, but another few decades down the road.  Maybe energy storage will get cheaper and make wind and solar energy more suitable for baseload.  Or maybe not this time.  Maybe the small modular reactors and other advanced fission reactor designs will indeed prove to be both safer and cheaper.  Or maybe not this time.  Maybe we will discover a reliable and cost-effective way to remove and sequester emissions from fossil-fired power plants.  Or maybe not this time.

Most likely, we will solve one problem, but discover other roadblocks.  For example, new materials may cause different kinds of problems in their mining, manufacture and use.  With luck, some of these areas will make progress, but others will stall, and it is impossible to determine today which will be the one that will edge ahead. 

The real point is, what should we do in light of this uncertainty?  We need more energy in many parts of the world and we need it today.  Heck, we need it yesterday.  We need to replace aging facilities.  We need to replace polluting facilities.  There are some people who think that we should just wait for the perfect technology that is just around the corner.  But Rickover's paper reactors should make us realize that the perfect solution is not really imminent, and will not be perfect.  It will most likely take longer to develop and implement new technologies than we think it will, and we will find that the new technologies have some drawbacks we didn't anticipate.

If that sounds full of despair, I don't intend it to be.  My point is that we have near-term needs that can't afford to wait.  They can be met only with present-day technologies.  A smart development program will take the best technologies that we have today to meet increased demands and to replace older technologies. 

Most likely, some of the technologies that are now under development will be available in the future, but we can't afford to wait.  And, what the best technology will be 30 years down the road...well, let's check in sometime in 2045 and see what's happened. 

***





  

Renewable Energy and Reality:

Growing Recognition of the Limits and Drawbacks

Although this is supposed to be a blog about nuclear energy, I keep finding myself drawn to discussing the world in which nuclear energy operates, including the pros and cons of alternative energy sources.  As readers of this blog know, I have long been concerned that most of the public seems to believe that there are easy solutions to our energy problems.  That the intermittency problems of "new" technologies such as renewables can be solved quickly, reliably and economically.  That these technologies are more "natural" and cleaner and greener. 

In other words, the "paper reactors" of Admiral Rickover's day have been replaced in people's minds by "paper solar power plants" and "paper wind farms."

I was therefore very pleased to find a couple of articles that raise some specific points that reinforce the arguments I have been trying to make.  While I may not agree with the authors in every respect, I do agree with some major points they make.  Since most of the press seems to focus on the issues associated with fossil and nuclear power, I hope that highlighting articles such as these will help balance the dialogue.   

The first article I want to discuss is an interview with Ozzie Zehner, the author of a new book called  "Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism."  The article starts by pointing out what I said above--that many people believe that the answer to climate change (as well as to other downsides of current fossil fuel energy sources) is to shift from fossil fuels to "clean, green, renewable, alternative energy." The problem with such a solution, the article goes on to say, is that things are never as simple as they seem, and that "there's actually no such thing as a free lunch" when it comes to energy consumption and production. Further, what we're often told is "green" and "clean" is actually neither.

While I haven't had a chance to read the book yet, Zehner's description is clearly very much along the lines of my own thinking.  He says that this book  "...isn't a book for alternative energy. Neither is it a book against it. In fact, we won’t be talking in simplistic terms of for or against, left and right, good and evil ... Ultimately, this is a book of shades." 

In answer to a question about whether we can move from fossil fuels to solar and wind energy, Zehner says:

There is an impression that we have a choice between fossil fuels and clean energy technologies such as solar cells and wind turbines. That choice is an illusion. Alternative energy technologies rely on fossil fuels through every stage of their life. Alternative energy technologies rely on fossil fuels for mining operations, fabrication plants, installation, ongoing maintenance and decommissioning. Also, due to the irregular output of wind and solar, these technologies require fossil fuel plants to be running alongside them at all times.

Zehner goes on to say that every energy generation method has side effects and limitations.  He mentions several, but I will highlight one:

Finally, we have to consider the mining, health, pollution and waste problems of renewable technologies. For example, we are now learning that the solar cell industry is one of the fastest growing emitters of virulent greenhouse gases such as sulfur hexafluoride, which has a global warming potential 23,000 times higher than CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

This, coupled with the fact that solar power usually relies on fossil fuel backup, makes it unlikely that converting to solar power will really solve climate change. 

I can't subscribe to everything that Zehner says.  In particular, he sees the only solution as being to "bring the population down over time as we also reduce per-capita consumption."  While I can see improvements in energy efficiency, even possibly substantial ones, it is harder to see how we will achieve enough through efficiency alone, and achieving the kinds of reductions in population that he seems to think are necessary is far easier said than done.  I am more optimistic that a spectrum of advanced energy technologies (including improvements in efficiency) can meet the world's energy needs.

Although that is an important point to Zehner, I think we can disagree on that but still agree that every generation method has both pros and cons.  Zehner has provided a service by bringing greater attention to the challenges we will have to face as the use of renewable technologies grows.

The articles on Zehner's book brought my attention to a two-year-old op ed by Paul Krugman on "renewable energy's not-so-bright side."  Krugman takes issue with some reports that came out two years ago that claimed that "we can have a fully renewable-based, nuclear-free economy by 2050."  And, "What’s more, the world wouldn’t have to pay that much more for energy than it does today."

Krugman points to his personal experience, early in his career, where cost projections for energy proved wildly wrong.  "They were much too optimistic about the costs of alternative energy sources, especially alternatives to oil. Basically, the engineers were understating the difficulties involved. Later, economist Marty Weitzman would formulate a law: the cost of alternatives to crude oil is 40 percent above the current price — whatever the current price is."

Krugman implicitly acknowledges that this formula may also be too simplistic, saying that, "To be fair, we probably have much more solid ideas about the costs of wind and solar power than we did about shale oil and coal liquefaction back in 1973: wind is already a widely used technology, and concentrated solar power is pretty well understood, too."

Nevertheless, he concludes, "But there will be surprises, not all of them positive."

This is a caution we all need to keep in mind, whether we are making projections about renewable technologies, advanced nuclear technologies, or new carbon-capture technologies for coal plants. 

***