Fusion Engineering Dilemma

1. Fusion research and tokamak devices

The established goal of fusion energy research is to develop a new type of electrical energy based on the theory of nuclear fusion, the principle of which is the same as the heating principle of stars such as the sun.

This has proven to be an extremely difficult task, as it is extremely difficult to implement the underlying physics.

In the 1970s, Russia's tokamak fusion device appeared, this device has great development prospects in the manufacture and containment of extremely hot gas (ie plasma).

Physicists around the world have embraced the tokamak method and are working to perfect the tokamak experiments, including the various phenomena that occur in hot plasmas. The ultimate goal is to build a system large enough that the tokamak can generate more energy than is needed to heat the plasma.

In the past 60 years, although substantial progress has been made in tokamak research, the commercialization of its fusion energy has gradually disappeared. Some have recognized the uncertain future of tokamak commercialization, but most researchers are continuing to research and scale tokamak devices—while increasing the size of their construction budgets.

2. Take the ITER project as an example

On behalf of the Chinese side, Mr. Rodron (first from the left in the first row), director of the China International Fusion Energy Program Executive Center, and Bernard Bigot, the director general of the ITER Organization (first from the right in the first row) signed the "Procurement Arrangement Agreement for the Enhanced Heat Load Type First Wall of the ITER Program"

At present, there are many large-scale tokamak experimental devices around the world, the largest of which is located in France, called the ITER project.

The goal of ITER is to create a tokamak plasma that is extremely hot and long-lived, producing ten times the energy of heated plasma.

The original envisaged cost of ITER was about $5 billion, which is reasonable as a tokamak fusion power station.

However, with the continuous deepening of various construction projects, the cost of ITER continues to rise.

Today, ITER's management unit claims that the cost of ITER is about $22 billion. However, this claim is difficult to verify, because the production of ITER components is scattered around the world, and the actual cost is difficult to estimate.

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the actual cost of ITER is much higher, at about $65 billion. DOE should pay 9% of the total cost of ITER.

We calculated that even at a cost of $22 billion, the cost of an ITER power plant is about ten times the cost of a nuclear power plant (nuclear fission power plant), which is currently considered too expensive in the United States to be further promoted .

If ITER costs $65 billion, an ITER-based power plant would cost nearly 30 times the cost of a nuclear power plant.

So, no matter how you calculate it, ITER is clearly a "white elephant!" (an expensive burden)

But the reality could be even worse.

3. The fuel dilemma

There are four fuel combinations to consider for fusion power plants. The simplest one—and by no means easy in practice—is the fusion of two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium.

In nature, deuterium makes up a small fraction of ordinary water and is relatively easy to extract. So deuterium is actually an infinite, very cheap fuel. Tritium, on the other hand, does not exist in nature, is prone to radioactive decay and needs to be produced.

The world's largest tritium source is the heavy water nuclear reactor in Canada, but it is difficult to increase the supply. Due to the very limited global tritium production, coupled with the losses caused by radioactive decay, the world's tritium supply is very short.

Especially recently, it has become clear that the supply of tritium for larger-scale fusion experiments is so limited that supplies are insufficient for experiments, let alone commercial fusion reactors based on the deuterium-tritium fuel cycle.

In other words, fusion researchers are actually developing a fusion concept, not an experiment, because there isn't enough fuel in the world for an experiment!

As a result, the fusion concepts developed by fusion researchers are economically difficult to accept, and the fuel alone is sorely lacking.

This situation may sound strange. Why does this happen? The answer is that the cost increases happen so slowly that the researchers don't even notice. Neither did the project manager and those involved in project oversight. The problem of tritium supply came to the fore after researchers delved into the new tokamak experiment.

In fact, for over 60 years, fusion engineering oversight around the world has been carried out by fusion researchers and proponents — a phenomenon that unfortunately exists in many government R&D programs.

Practical power engineers, utility managers, and other members who are not part of fusion engineering-related teams are excluded from fusion project evaluations. As a result, it is difficult for the project organization to adapt to the development requirements of the times, and it is difficult to detect emerging problems in time.

We recently recommended that the Secretary of Energy appoint a panel of non-fusion engineers and environmentalists to conduct the objective, independent assessment we deem necessary. The minister referred the request to the head of the fusion project, who responded that the fusion project was decided by the two fusion teams involved. The groups are made up of fusion physicists and related researchers.

Once personnel changes are made, a considerable number of people and institutions are at risk of losing their jobs and financial support, so the project will continue to find excuses to maintain the status quo, and the waste caused by this is also very large, including brain drain and loss of money. For example, the U.S. fusion research budget exceeds $600 million this fiscal year.

That's not all.

4. Epilogue

The ITER fusion experiment will use most of the radioactive tritium currently stored in the world, and will also generate a large amount of radioactive waste, conservatively estimated at around 30,000 tons.

The researchers don't think this is a problem, though, because the decay of these radioactive wastes will disappear in about 100 years, much shorter than the decay time of fission reactor radioactive waste. So, we don't think this radioactive waste is scary. However, controversy remains.

There are many other fusion fuel cycles that are attractive both economically and environmentally.

The research on these circulating fuels has been quite in-depth, but it is very difficult to realize their physical theory. We don't know if these fuel cycles are feasible at all unless experiments are carried out.

Currently, on a global scale, government support for these high fuel cycles is negligible.

We still have hope for practical, acceptable, and environmentally attractive fusion energy. However, all is difficult to achieve without targeted goals, lean management and careful, independent oversight.

The fusion research process is complex and varied, and it will take considerable political courage for leaders to finally achieve their goals.