Nuclear Fusion To Boost Our Fight Against Climate Change
How can energy be harnessed most effectively?
Solar energy, according to some, is the way to go. Wind energy may perhaps be considered the most exciting answer by some. Others may support nuclear fission, in which we instantly divide atoms to produce massive amounts of energy.
But in reality, there is only one viable response.
Atomic fusion is the ultimate goal of generating energy. A few atoms are fused, producing energy as a byproduct. It’s tidy. As a fuel, it makes use of plentiful substances (like hydrogen). Additionally, it doesn’t generate a lot of radioactive waste. It is the method by which the sun is powered.
What’s Happening Now?
Unfortunately, it has been difficult for scientists to create fusion reactors that regularly produce more energy than they use. Before now.
The bright researchers at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California have accomplished something incredible after 70 years of thinking about nuclear fusion. The first-ever “ignition” or “net energy gain” utilising nuclear fusion was produced in a lab last week! The energy output exceeded the input by 54%!
That’s why nuclear fusion is becoming a hot topic! It’s a crucial time in human history. A small cup of hydrogen fuel might theoretically power a house for hundreds of years, whereas a small mound of coal can only produce electricity for a few minutes.
However, this does not imply that massive nuclear fusion reactors will soon start operating. Producing a modest amount of energy in a lab is one thing. A commercially viable reactor’s ability to consistently produce electricity is quite another. Therefore, according to scientists, using fusion reactors to power homes may not happen for another couple of decades.
Why the Urgency?
We must decrease all emissions by 2050 to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (relative to pre-industrial levels). Emissions must be cut in half by 2030. We have a limited amount of time to make a significant shift to renewable energy. Why therefore must we seek fusion when we can just work on other renewable energy sources where we have made great strides?
After all, since 1976, the cost of solar modules has decreased by roughly 99.6%. Solar energy may eventually become widely used if the trend continues. And wind energy: during the past few decades, the net increase in output from wind turbines has been astounding. At this rate, we might have too many options.
Why then don’t we concentrate on these?
Well, there is one drawback to using solar and wind energy. They cannot be dispatched. Even when the sun isn’t shining brightly or the wind isn’t blowing particularly fiercely, you might occasionally require electricity.
Historically dry and low-wind circumstances between April 1 and September 22 caused the UK energy provider SSE’s renewable assets to produce 32% less power than anticipated. This equals 11% of the projected output for the entire year.
So what should you do in such a situation? You can’t ignore your energy requirements, can you?
No. However, you can keep the energy in batteries and use it as needed. Unfortunately, it still costs too much to implement large-scale battery solutions.
Historically dry and low-wind circumstances between April 1 and September 22 caused the UK energy provider SSE’s renewable assets to produce 32% less power than anticipated. This equals 11% of the projected output for the entire year.
So what should you do in such a situation? You can’t ignore your energy requirements, can you?
No. However, you can keep the energy in batteries and use it as needed. Unfortunately, it still costs too much to implement large-scale battery solutions.
ConclusionÂ
Therefore, commercial nuclear fusion could be a game-changer.
Fusion, though, has problems of its own. Costing $3.5 billion to construct, the US’s National Ignition Facility. ITER, the largest nuclear fusion experiment, was initially expected to cost $5 billion. However, when they continued to construct it, they revised that amount to $22 billion, and currently, some speculate that the actual cost may exceed $66 billion. Therefore, it is quite doubtful that we will be able to reliably produce power at competitive pricing levels if the model reactors are so expensive.
So although we applaud these new advancements, it’s also vital to recognise that there is still a long way to go before we start building nuclear power plants that will be financially feasible.
