These news are too important. This must be published. OVOODOCORVO will be back.
“If you’re not familiar with nuclear fusion, it’s
different from its cousin, nuclear fission, which powers today’s nuclear plants
by taking big, unstable atoms and splitting them. Fusion takes small atoms and
combines them to forge larger atoms. It is the universe’s ubiquitous power
source: it’s what causes the sun and stars to shine, and it’s the reaction that
created most of the atoms we are made of.
Scientists have long been excited about fusion
because it doesn’t produce carbon dioxide or long-lived radioactive waste,
since the fuel it requires – two types of hydrogen known as deuterium and
tritium – is plentiful enough to last for at least thousands of years, and
because there is zero chance of meltdown. Unlike renewables such as wind and
solar power, plants based on fusion would also take up little space compared
with the power they would be able to generate.”
The race to give nuclear fusion a role in the
climate emergency
Power from fusion has proved too hard to generate at
scale. Can recent breakthroughs and massive investment change that?
Arthur
Turrell
Sat 28 Aug
2021 17.00 BST
On 8 August
2021, a laser-initiated experiment at the United States National Ignition
Facility (NIF), based at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California,
made a significant breakthrough in reproducing the power source of the stars,
smashing its own 2018 record for energy released from nuclear fusion reactions
23 times over. This advance saw 70% of the laser energy put in released as
nuclear energy. A pulse of light, focused to tiny spots within a 10-metre
diameter vacuum chamber, triggered the collapse of a capsule of fuel from
roughly the size of the pupil in your eye to the diameter of a human hair. This
implosion created the extreme conditions of temperature and pressure needed for
atoms of hydrogen to combine into new atoms and release, kilogram for kilogram,
10m times the energy that would result from burning coal.
The result
is tantalisingly close to a demonstration of “net energy gain”, the long
sought-after goal of fusion scientists in which an amount greater than 100% of
the energy put into a fusion experiment comes out as nuclear energy. The aim of
these experiments is – for now – to show proof of principle only: that energy
can be generated. The team behind the success are very close to achieving this:
they have managed a more than 1,000-fold improvement in energy release between
2011 and today. Prof Jeremy Chittenden, co-director of the Centre for Inertial
Fusion Studies at Imperial College London, said last month that “The pace of
improvement in energy output has been rapid, suggesting we may soon reach more
energy milestones, such as exceeding the energy input from the lasers used to
kickstart the process.”
If you’re
not familiar with nuclear fusion, it’s different from its cousin, nuclear
fission, which powers today’s nuclear plants by taking big, unstable atoms and
splitting them. Fusion takes small atoms and combines them to forge larger
atoms. It is the universe’s ubiquitous power source: it’s what causes the sun
and stars to shine, and it’s the reaction that created most of the atoms we are
made of.
Scientists
have long been excited about fusion because it doesn’t produce carbon dioxide
or long-lived radioactive waste, since the fuel it requires – two types of
hydrogen known as deuterium and tritium – is plentiful enough to last for at
least thousands of years, and because there is zero chance of meltdown. Unlike
renewables such as wind and solar power, plants based on fusion would also take
up little space compared with the power they would be able to generate.
However,
because the NIF’s breakthrough is about demonstrating the principle only, the
total amount of energy generated is not very impressive; it’s only just enough
to boil a kettle. Nor does the gain measurement account for the energy used to
run the facility, just what’s in the laser pulse. Despite this, it is
nevertheless a landmark moment in the decades-long quest to produce fusion
energy and use it to power the planet – which is, perhaps, the greatest
scientific and technological challenge humanity has ever undertaken.
Although
the experiment may have happened in a vacuum, NIF’s advance has not, and the
pace of progress in fusion may surprise some long-time sceptics. Even Dr Mark
Herrmann, head of the NIF’s fusion programme, says the latest development was
“a surprise to everyone”. Many recent advances have been made with a different
type of fusion device, the tokamak: a doughnut-shaped machine that uses a tube
of magnetic fields to confine its fuel for as long as possible. China’s
Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (East) set another world record
in May by keeping fuel stable for 100 seconds at a temperature of 120m degrees
celsius – eight times hotter than the sun’s core. The world’s largest ever
magnetic fusion machine, Iter, is under construction in the south of France and
many experts think it will have the scale needed to reach net energy gain. The
UK-based Joint European Torus (Jet), which holds the current magnetic fusion
record for power of 67%, is about to attempt to produce the largest total
amount of energy of any fusion machine in history. Alternative designs are also
being explored: the UK government has announced plans for an advanced tokamak
with an innovative spherical geometry, and “stellarators”, a type of fusion
device that had been consigned to the history books, are enjoying a revival
having been enabled by new technologies such as superconducting magnets.
For now,
publicly funded labs are producing results a long way ahead of the private
firms – but this could change
This is a
lot of progress, but it’s not even the biggest change: that would be the
emergence of private sector fusion firms. The recently formed Fusion Industry
Association estimates that more than $2bn of investment has flooded into fusion
startups. The construction of experimental reactors by these firms is
proceeding at a phenomenal rate: Commonwealth Fusion Systems, which has its
origins in MIT research, has begun building a demonstration reactor in
Massachusetts; TAE Technologies has just raised $280m to build its next device;
and Canadian-based General Fusion has opted to house its new $400m plant in the
UK. This will be constructed in Oxfordshire, an emerging hotspot for the
industry that is home to private ventures First Light Fusion and Tokamak Energy
as well as the publicly funded Jet and Mast (Mega Amp Spherical Tokamak)
Upgrade devices run by the UK Atomic Energy Authority.
Some of the
investors in these firms have deep pockets: Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, Lockheed
Martin, Goldman Sachs, Legal & General, and Chevron have all financed
enterprises pursuing this new nuclear power source. For now, publicly funded
labs are producing results a long way ahead of the private firms – but this
could change.
With such
progress, interest, and investment – and net energy gain perhaps just one or
two more improvements away – perhaps it’s time to retire the old joke, so
cliched it has been banned by editors at the Economist, that “fusion is 30
years away… and always will be”.
But it does
depend on what we mean by “fusion” in that context; the scientists and their
backers are now focusing on the bigger objective of fusion as a viable power
source like fission, solar or wind. This requires far more than just
“breakeven” in energy: a functioning fusion power plant would probably need at
least 30 times the energy out for energy put in. However, scaling up the gain
in energy is but one difficulty in making fusion a viable power source. A
commercial reactor will have to solve several tricky engineering problems such
as extracting the heat energy and finding materials that will withstand the
relentless bombardment the reactor chamber will receive over its lifetime. Fusion
reactors must also be self-sufficient in tritium, one of the two types of
hydrogen that are fed in as fuel. For this, it is necessary to surround the
reactor chamber with lithium because its atoms are converted to tritium when
struck by the most energetic products of fusion – and this process has yet to
be demonstrated at scale.
Those
pursuing fusion have long known of the obstacles, but – with limited resources
– achieving the immediate goal of gain has been a bigger priority. That’s
beginning to change as fusion scientists and engineers look beyond scientific
proof of principle. Around the world, several recently opened facilities are
dedicated to solving these problems and, although they’re not trivial, everyone
in fusion is confident that the obstacles can be overcome: progress depends on
investment and will.
To find
examples of how these two factors can be transformative, look no further than
the pandemic. A sudden shot of both investment and motivation transformed the
use of mRNA to fight disease from a wild idea to an accepted technology in the
form of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Katalin Karikó, whose foundational
work on mRNA has been key to the success of the technology, had the will to
persevere for many years with little recognition and even less funding. Her
dedication, and that of her colleagues, combined with a massive investment in
development, testing and deployment is what enabled the vaccines to be ready in
record time. The world wanted this, and we made it happen.
Global
heating has made the need to turn carbon-free fusion energy into a usable power
source ever more urgent. The world’s response thus far has been lackadaisical:
it’s 2021 and more than 80% of global primary energy consumption still comes
from coal, oil and gas. Fossil fuel consumption actually increased between 2009
and 2019 (though it fell in 2020 as most of the world locked down to help
prevent the spread of Covid-19). While progress to date has been slow, most
nations have pledged to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Dr Ajay
Gambhir, a senior policy research fellow at the Grantham Institute for Climate
Change, Imperial College London, says most electricity generation needs to come
from near-zero carbon sources as soon as 2030 in order to achieve this. Dr
Michael Bluck, also of the Grantham Institute, expresses serious doubts that
commercial fusion energy will be ready in time, saying that it is “very
difficult to see this [conventional tokamaks] happening until after 2050” and
that laser fusion has “another 50 years to go, if at all”.
Those
working in fusion do recognise that time is of the essence, and it’s part of
what is motivating the recent acceleration. The startups’ vision necessarily
sees fusion power being deployed at an unprecedented rate. “If we want to
contribute to net zero by 2050 we need to be building plants, multiple, in the
2040s,” Nick Hawker, CEO of First Light Fusion, tells me. And who says the
fusion firms couldn’t do it with the right tailwind? We would never have
believed that a vaccine, let alone the first mRNA vaccine, could be developed
and approved within a year instead of over decades.
The scale
of the climate challenge is so immense that we need to throw the kitchen sink
at it. That means renewables, fission, energy storage, carbon capture, and any
other lifeline humanity can grab. If the world doesn’t have the will to at
least try to deploy fusion energy too, it would be a missed opportunity. Fusion
could afford people in developing countries the same energy consumption
opportunities as people in developed nations enjoy today – rather than the
global cutbacks that may be necessary otherwise. And we are likely to need
fusion well beyond 2050, too: as a source of large-scale power to extract the
carbon dioxide we’ve already put into the atmosphere, and because it’s the only
feasible way we can explore space beyond Earth’s immediate vicinity.
Whether
commercial fusion energy is ready in time to help with global warming or not
depends on us as a society and how badly we want – no, need – star power on our
side.
Arthur Turrell is the author of The Star
Builders: Nuclear Fusion and the Race to Power the Planet, published by
Weidenfeld & Nicolson (£20). To support the Guardian and Observer order
your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário