ITER and nuclear fusion: Pro or con-fusion?

With the hunt for alternative sources of clean energy reaching critical mass, Power & Energy sets the record straight in the ongoing debate surrounding nuclear fusion and a project that could change the world of power generation forever.

“We say that we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don’t know how to make the box.”
-Sébastien Balibar

We hear it time and time again: the world needs clean energy and it needs it fast. It's been the Holy Grail of achievement for the industry's scientists and engineers ever since they helped power man to the moon - a feat that now seems simple in comparison - and one that has teased them down many a path, hopeful for that elusive shortcut. The collapse of cold fusion, the controversy of bubble fusion and the public disdain for nuclear fission have all contributed to frowning brows and countless hours of scribbled formulas in continuing the search for a boundless source of clean energy. Fortunately for the industry, a guiding star could start burning brightly, quite literally, in the near future - in the form of nuclear fusion.

Unlike nuclear fission, which generates energy by splitting atoms, nuclear fusion works on the principle that energy can be released by forcing together atomic nuclei - precisely the same reaction that occurs in the core of the sun. However, with a much lower pressure on Earth, the temperatures needed to produce fusion have to be far higher than those observed in the burning star - above 100 million degrees Celsius to be exact. And with an obvious lack of materials able to withstand anything near that intensity, scientists have had to devise a solution, in which a super-heated plasma is held and squeezed inside an intense doughnut-shaped magnetic field, allowing a balance to prevail between the magnetic and plasma pressures - a feat that has come to be more commonly known as magnetic confinement fusion.

Scientists at the Joint European Torus (JET) facility in Culham, UK, produced 16 MW of fusion power in 1997, the first project of its kind to make any real commercial advance with the potential of magnetic confinement fusion. The only problem was that, due to plasma escaping the confinement area and potentially touching the walls of the container, their input energy levels were significantly higher than their output levels, leaving them in a perpetual cycle of loss. Regardless, what they came to find was that what they lost in energy production, they reaped in knowledge.

ITER

Fast-forward 13 years and this knowledge has been used as an R&D platform to build up to the biggest magnetic confinement fusion project the world has ever witnessed. Known as the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor (ITER), it involves the participation of the EU, India, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and the US. After some extremely fierce negotiations between the EU and Japan, it was decided back in 2005 that Cadarache in southern France would host the main ITER site, with Japan taking a generous concessions package in heading up the related materials research facility, the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF), on their home turf. At the time, Professor Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, Director of UK Atomic Energy Authority's (UKAEA) Culham Division, said: "The rapid construction of ITER will be a major step in the development of fusion as a potential large-scale source of electricity that will not contribute to climate change."

And he wasn't wrong - on the climate change front at least. With the best fuel for fusion being two isotopes of hydrogen - deuterium and tritium, the former being derived from water and the latter being abundant in the Earth's crust - it means that fusion reactions produce no carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas so universally blamed by scientists for the warming of our planet. As if that weren't enough, compared with a timeline of many thousands of years for the radioactive waste of nuclear fission to become remotely safe, nuclear fusion would produce radioactive waste that is safe to handle in a modest 50 to 100 years.

Yet this is by the by, as the ITER concept wasn't designed to run as a commercially viable fusion plant. Instead, its mission statement is to demonstrate the feasibility of fusion power and prove to the watching world that it can work. More specifically, it aims to momentarily produce 10 times more thermal energy from fusion heating than is supplied by traditional auxiliary heating by maintaining a fusion pulse for blasts of 480 seconds. And, unlike JET, ITER hopes to make that jump up from arrears into energy profit, projecting 500 MW of fusion power from a modest 50MW of energy input.

Receiving a thumbs up at this stage would allow the ITER concept to move from its inception site into a currently proposed - and commercially viable - site next door, dubbed DEMO. Where the ITER site would produce 500 MW of fusion power for at least 480 seconds, DEMO's goal would be to produce a staggering four times that amount on a continual basis - while producing 25 times as much power - giving a thermal output on the scale of a standard electric power plant. For this to happen, DEMO will also need to have dimensions 15 percent larger than the already mammoth ITER 'tokamak' machine, at a density 30 percent greater. If DEMO became a reality, it could make fusion energy available within 20 years from implementation and claim the title of the world's first commercial nuclear fusion power plant.

Opposition

However, while the intentions of the ITER concept are aimed at exploring the possibility of removing the world from the clutches of finite fuels and towards a better, cleaner future for both the world and those who populate it, there are many who are in vehement disagreement with the project. From the scientific to the environmental, ITER opponents have joined the ranks from a variety of backgrounds to unveil potential cracks in its armour.

Perhaps one of the more prominent within this camp, Sébastien Balibar, Director of Research for the French National Centre for Scientific Research, certainly has the expertise to back up his sentiment. Speaking to Project Syndicate, he said: "We say that we will put the sun into a box. The idea is pretty. The problem is, we don't know how to make the box. Confining a little sun inside a box is an extremely difficult task for three main reasons.

"First, the nuclear fuel is not seawater, but a mixture of the two heavy isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium, a radioactive element that has been produced in small quantities for hydrogen bombs. Any development of fusion reactors would require producing tritium with industrial methods that have yet to be invented.

"Second, the deuterium-tritium fusion reaction starts at around 100 million degrees. To achieve this requires using a magnet to accelerate a plasma that is a big flame of deuterium and tritium nuclei. This must be done in an ultra-high vacuum in a large chamber. ITER is not designed to produce electricity, but to study the stability of the flame in the magnet. Since the fusion reactions produce alpha particles, which pollute the plasma, one has to insert a 'diverter' inside the flame at 100 million degrees in order to clean it. Nobody has ever accomplished this, but ITER may be able to try in around 2030 - that is, if it solves the previous problem.

"Third, fusion also emits neutrons that will produce helium gas bubbles inside the wall material, which tends to explode. The supporters of ITER explain that if the walls are porous, the bubbles can escape. But nothing can be both leak-proof and porous - and ITER is not designed to study this contradiction. In the future, a 'blanket' should be inserted between the plasma and the walls, with two objectives: to protect the outer walls and to produce tritium from nuclear reactions within a circulating fluid containing lithium. This might work, but the first wall of the blanket will need to not only be leak-proof and porous, but also sufficiently permeable to neutrons, which have to hit the lithium atoms beyond it.

"ITER will not solve our energy problem," concludes Balibar. "Although it has some scientific interest in plasma physics, the participating countries should clearly state that funding it won't affect the rest of their research efforts. At the same time, the international community should support research on energy saving and storage and accelerate the development of fourth-generation nuclear reactors, which will use fission and be both clean and durable."

In line with Balibar's perspective is the French association, Sortir du nucleaire (Get out of nuclear energy), who claim that ITER is hazardous because scientists don't yet know how to manipulate the high-energy deuterium and tritium hydrogen isotopes used in the fusion process. Even peers within the fusion sector have become critical of ITER in recent years, claiming that ITER researchers have failed to face up to potential technical and economic problems due to the dependence of their jobs on the continuation of tokamak research.

Con-fusion

Focusing on the environmental perspective, Greenpeace have had much to say on the subject - albeit with an often-confused narrative. Jan Vande Putte, Greenpeace International's head nuclear campaigner, declared, "With 10 billion euros [the original estimated cost of ITER], we could build 10,000 MW offshore wind farms, delivering electricity for 7.5 million European households. Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy, which will never deliver any useful energy. Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available; not in 2080, but today."

Unfortunately, while Vande Putte sympathetically highlights the need to progress and implement today's renewable technologies, he falls short on a number of other points - points that seem to be picked up by many anti-ITER supporters and preached as gospel. First to be picked out of the confusion hat - and perhaps the biggest mistruth - is that renewable energy can support the world's energy needs on its own. While this is the dream, it's simply not true. Although commercial and domestic solar panels and wind generators are becoming increasingly common and do reduce demand on the relevant grid systems, unfortunately they don't decrease it anywhere close to the 'golden zero' level that Vande Putte implies.

There is also the negation, deliberate or otherwise, of acknowledging where energy will come from when the sun forgets to shine and the wind stops blowing. Reserve stores will work up until a point, but ultimately an energy-hungry population isn't going to stop consuming - another, more reliable alternative will always be needed. As David Mackay, Chief Science Advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, said when asked about the possibility of running the world on renewables alone: "I'm not pro-nuclear. I'm just pro-arithmetic."

The second misunderstanding stems from an obvious confusion between fission and fusion. Stating that: "Fusion energy - if it could ever operate - would create a serious waste problem, would emit large amounts of radioactive material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons," Greenpeace has obviously got its wires crossed. It is true that if a reactor uses deuterium-tritium fusion then there will be neutrons a-plenty, which will make the reactor vessel radioactive over time. But Greenpeace refers to the emission of radioactive material, implying gaseous waste. And as helium is the end product of this type of fusion - and not radioactive in the slightest - then surely it must be a reference to tritium? But as ITER plans to use tritium as a fuel, one would presume that they wouldn't be too keen on their prospective plants emitting any of the radioactive gas.

Continuing the fusion/fission confusion, where nuclear fusion, from projected estimates, would produce the equivalent of one coke can's worth of radioactive waste per consumer's lifetime, fission already produces 19,000 tonnes of CO₂ waste everyday - nowhere near the same amounts. Of course, over time the potential DEMO plant would witness increased levels of radioactivity and would need to be decommissioned at the end of its cycle - but arguably that's a small price to pay when balanced against a clean source of energy.

Another in a long line of arguments against the go-ahead of nuclear plants lies in a far greyer area, with its relevance more often than not based in the subjective. Neither specific to fission or fusion, but rather to nuclear power plants in general, protesters claim that building nuclear power plants will increase the proliferation of nuclear weapons. While this obviously comes down to a matter of opinion, there are two main platforms the argument is commonly debated from.

First, it would make no logical sense for nuclear fusion plants to begin producing nuclear materials such as plutonium. Reactors could indeed be used to do so by surrounding them with uranium and allowing the neutrons to produce the much-dreaded element, but the relevant military bodies already do this with 'breeder' reactors designed specifically for the purpose, so it would make little sense to complicate an existing system.

Secondly, many proponents will argue that the old adage of 'war being inevitable' is finessing the point somewhat, as the vast majority of nations that want nuclear power and clean energy have already sorted out their weapons agendas and restrictions and are unlikely to jeopardise them at the cost of losing nuclear power security. Counteracting this, opponents often retort by playing the 'terrorism' card, claiming that nuclear plants and waste-carrying vehicles could become potential terrorist targets further down the line. The problem is that, until the plants are up and running on a commercial scale, no-one can predict what is going to happen until it does - a sentiment that is bound to provoke scare tactics for both parties.

Responsibility

However, while Greenpeace and other parties have done much to distort the true argument at hand with sensational and contradictory assertions, they have managed to bring up a few home truths that the ITER concept will have to face up to sooner or later. Going full circle, we return to the battle that Greenpeace would have you view: renewable versus nuclear power generation. Having contested the fact that it is unlikely that renewables alone could sustain a complete energy supply, the next bone of contention is that of the construction of nuclear sites against those of a renewable nature - both in the context of size and scales of time. It is here that heads start to bang.

The problem posed by many in opposition to ITER and nuclear power is two-fold in terms of time. First of all, there is no guarantee that ITER will succeed; it is, after all, a research project with its rooting in progressing the comprehension and potentials of nuclear fusion power. But with constantly evolving costs that have already moved from the originally estimated €10 billion, many see the project as a dangerous waste of money.

Voicing this perspective, Rebecca Harms, Green/EFA member of the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, revealed: "ITER is an enormous project of no practical relevance whatsoever. The €10 billion that will be spent on this white elephant bears no relation to what we can expect to gain from it. In the next 50 years, nuclear fusion will neither tackle climate change nor guarantee the security of our energy supply. I'm now convinced that this is the best moment to stop ITER before construction begins. We have a great opportunity to save money and invest in better, safer energy solutions. The Green/EFA group demands that these funds be spent instead on energy research that is relevant to the future. A major focus should now be put on renewable sources of energy."

While this is a rather brave assertion to make, Harms does much to exemplify the very real concern held by many watching the project unfold. Ironically, their worry is also vocalised by Steven Cowley, Director of the JET programme in the UK. "We need to get moving on fusion, we're behind the curve already. We need alternative sources of energy now and if we get a good outcome with ITER, we can go ahead and build a full-scale reactor. If we build a machine that doesn't work, it will be a waste of time," he said.

For some, the idea of pumping extraordinary amounts of money into a project that could turn out to be "a waste of time" is at best considered short sighted and naïve. For others, the focus is less on whether or not it will succeed and more on clock-watching. ITER itself foresees a timeline of 35 years for implementation, including development, processes and deconstruction phases, meaning that finite fuel plants will inevitably have to fill the supply void in the meantime. This has magnified the potential Achilles heel of ITER: its time-lag issue. While nuclear fusion is working itself out, energy supply will continue to come from our traditional sources and further contribute to the weight of climate change that already sits heavily on our shoulders.

French Green party lawmaker, Noël Mamère, believes this is exactly what will happen if ITER goes ahead, saying: "This is not good news for the fight against the greenhouse effect because we're going to put €10 billion towards a project that has a term of 30 to 50 years when we're not even sure it will be effective." The biggest worry for all in this mindset is the planning to operation delay, with no assurance that after all the time and money spent, it will be anywhere closer to the Holy Grail of energy it so desperately hopes to discover.

The flip side of the coin shows that ultimately this sense of discovery needs to prevail either way in order to establish a map for the future of the energy sector; if it fails then at least it can be crossed off the list. ITER even countered this argument by making it clear that they are in it for the long-term. "In a period of major economic stress worldwide, none of our members - China, the EU, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the US - has suggested pulling out of or slowing down the ITER project."

"I do not believe that there is growing scepticism," explained an ITER spokesperson to EurActiv, "but now is the time when members have to guarantee long-term financial support. I believe it is completely natural that there should be debate and some opposition. However, the future of the world's economy will be based on energy resources. It will take time to get fusion running and the world's governments are aware that the sooner we start, the sooner we finish."

If everything goes according to plan, ITER projects that fusion-powered electricity could be available from 2045 - a comparably short time when you consider what that would mean for the world's population and global warming at large. There is an ongoing joke that we are 40 years away from nuclear fusion energy - and always will be - which says much about both the inherent complexity of harnessing fusion power and the attitude towards a field that is constantly misunderstood by many looking from the outside in.

While the ITER project strides forward, its hoards of supporters and opponents continue their war of words outside its doors. For some, the dream of clean and infinite energy is just too much to ignore; for others, its costs and uncertainty provoke the same feeling. Where the former see the potential in progressing an understanding of plasma and astrophysics even if ITER is a failure, the latter see the holding back of renewable technologies that could otherwise be evolved to secure at least a significant amount of tomorrow's clean energy. Regardless of the perspective, one thing is certain: clean energy is the dream - and one day in the not so near future it could become out reality.