Both fission and fusion are nuclear processes that release a large amount of energy. The energy that is produced is used to heat water into steam, producing electricity by turning turbines to power a generator. But there are important differences, which is why fusion has yet to be a viable source of power.
Fission
Nuclear fission involves the splitting of the nuclei of heavy elements. Commercial nuclear reactors typically use uranium-235 which is concentrated from uranium ore. Splitting the atom creates radioactive isotopes (called ‘fission products’) which are dangerously radioactive for 100,000 years or more. The U.S. currently has no viable plan for safely storing this waste.
Fusion
Fusion occurs when two low-mass isotopes combine under conditions of extreme heat and pressure. This is the process that occurs inside stars. Sunlight comes from the fusion taking place inside the sun. Fusion typically occurs with the hydrogen isotopes tritium (H-3) and deuterium (H-2), which combine to create helium. This fusing of isotopes releases more energy than the fission process. Fusion produces some radioactive waste, but not the long-term radioactive by-products that fission does. However, there are tremendous technological obstacles to creating the extreme conditions required to maintain a fusion reaction inside a reactor.
- Don Hughes
____________________________________________________________________
On December 5, 2022, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory achieved something that has been eluding scientists for over five decades: creating a nuclear fusion reaction that released more power than it consumed. 192 high-power laser beams zapped a tiny pellet containing hydrogen for a trillionth of a second, causing the atoms inside to mash together and emit 50% more energy than the laser beams. It was heralded as the beginning of a new era of limitless clean energy. But is it?
____________________________________________________________________
By Marilyn Elie
Well, the hullabaloo over fusion has finally settled down to a dull roar. 60 Minutes, as it usually does, came in last with a typically balanced and breezy summary. https://cbsn.ws/3wAPEfK. Fox News still occasionally mentions how fusion will save the world - usually paired with remarks about how we have to get back to producing more "American" energy, that is gas and oil. If you somehow missed the details of how this experiment worked, here is a source that does a good job of explaining it in 16 minutes and offers some other insights as well as a bit of humor: The Energy Show: Fusion Power Breakthrough...Really? on Apple Podcasts .
The Press Conference
+The experiment on December 5th was celebrated worldwide which seemed somewhat surprising until it became clear that Department of Energy Secretary Granholm had pulled out all the stops to promote it. She held a major press conference the following week for members of both houses of Congress, visiting dignitaries, heads of different labs and scientific institutions across the country. You can see the press conference here: https://tinyurl.com/362p4hbp.
All the major news media were there and left with stories and graphics about how the lasers worked, the size of the tiny pellet at the center of the experiment and how fusion could be the answer to all of our energy problems. Clean, limitless energy with no greenhouse gasses and only a very small bit of radioactive waste was the story of the day. As it turns out, fusion is not yet ready for prime time.
The reason for the experiment and why it was so important never really made it into the headlines. Occasionally the timeline of when commercial fusion might be available came up. Many different estimates, from the President's goal of 10 years, to more reality-based figures of 50 to 70 years, were proposed, so don't throw away your solar panels just yet.
Another curious fact was that this happened at a place you rarely hear about when the subject of electricity comes up. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory or LLNL, Lasers, more Lasers and Nothing but Lasers, as it is sometimes called, is a research laboratory for nuclear weapons. The purpose of this experiment was to make it possible to test our nuclear stockpile without open air explosions. Generating electricity was a beneficial side effect. Few in the press mentioned this fact which was laid out in detail at the press conference.
All of the heads of different departments at the lab were there and were clearly overjoyed to be enthusiastically praising the achievement and recounting how difficult it was to get to this point. None of them focused on the commercial generation of electricity. Mark Adams, Deputy Administrator for Defense said it best when he outlined the three main benefits flowing from this experiment:
● Continuing to maintain a competitive edge in our nuclear stockpile without open air explosions
● Underpinning the credibility of our deterrence by demonstrating world leading progress, "We know what we are doing"
● Advancing national security and increasing our non-proliferation goals
When asked by a reporter from Bloomberg about a timeline for commercial application, the head of the lab spent some time explaining the long and difficult process to get to commercial generation. Her final estimate: five decades.
Other opinions
Most unaffiliated experts who went on record agreed with the importance of this achievement. Now we know for sure that it is really possible and we can work on replicating it was the common theme. Several doubted the amount of extra electricity that was produced because the final presentation did not take into consideration the electricity needed for firing the lasers. According to Charles Seife, author of Sun in a Bottle: The Strange History of Fusion and the Science of Wishful Thinking, it took 150 to 200 units of energy to produce the one unit of laser light that hit the pellet. See https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/department-of-energy-nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-nif-livermore/672439/
Other expert opinions are interesting and not difficult to follow. They point out a lot of things that did not make it into the news cycle. Here is the link: https://tinyurl.com/4vt25ypc.
Billions of dollars, both private investment (e.g. Bill Gates) and government research grants, have been poured into nuclear fusion because the payoff--relatively clean and unlimited energy--is so huge. Essentially all of that money has funded a design which employs powerful magnets to confine the hydrogen gas. Seife opines: "Most likely, if there’s going to be a future for fusion, it’s going to be magnetic confinement fusion rather than inertial confinement fusion, which [Lawrence Livermore] employs."
This look back is important because of how the newspapers and cable shows covered the event. Few members of the general public understand that this experiment had to do with nuclear weapons, not electricity generation or climate change. Fusion and fission were so conflated in most stories that the attention given to this experiment was actually a feather in the cap of the powerful nuclear industry.
Given the celebration in Congress and by the President, the overall effect of the publicity surrounding this experiment is one more success in the battle by the industry to make nuclear power more acceptable to ever larger numbers of the American people. This is a number that has been rising. In April of 2021 a study by Pew Research Center said that 50% of Americans favored nuclear power while 47% opposed it. https://tinyurl.com/yk9x4b43.
Inflation Reduction Act
Energy Secretary Granholm has used this and every opportunity to talk about the $6.7 billion her department received as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. Some of this money is already being used to bring formerly decommissioned reactors back on line. Some of it is being used to woo communities to participate in a so-called informed consent experiment that could lead them to host a high level radioactive waste dump. Some of the money is being used to support the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which the private market will not do by itself. The list goes on.
A Bit of History
We have not had this level of nuclear excitement since 2005, the start of the so-called "Nuclear Renaissance." Five commercial fission reactors on three sites were started with huge amounts of government funding. The expectation was that many, many more reactors would follow because of these generous fail-safe arrangements. There was a great deal of talk about next generation nukes and cheap electricity. Changing the many "unnecessary" NRC safety regulations was also a hot topic, then as now.
The result? Five reactors started in all. TVA finished construction on a reactor it had started 20 years before; VC Summer in South Carolina was supposed to be the site of two more. There was so much faulty engineering and corruption that the State closed it down in 2018 and was left with a very expensive hole in the ground. Some executives actually went to jail. Vogtle in Georgia was the proposed home of two more reactors. Construction started in 2009. Vogtle 1 is rumored to start up sometime this quarter but is still not online. It is also billions of dollars over budget. No news yet on the second reactor on that site. This leaves the one working reactor that TVA completed as the only one generating electricity as a result of the much ballyhooed Nuclear Renaissance. Delays and construction problems are not unusual for nuclear construction. Georgia ratepayers continue to foot the bill for this through their electricity bill even though no electricity has ever been generated on site. This arrangement is what the industry craves because it guarantees a favorable rate of return no matter what problems arise.
Solutions
When you come across one of the many "we need nuclear now" or "nuclear is the answer to climate change" or "environmental groups rethinking nuclear power" articles that are popping up all over, look for a timeline, the cost of electricity per megawatt hour, and what is currently being built, not what is on the drawing board like the SMRs that are currently all the rage. Post a comment outlining the facts.
The Sierra Club is opposed to nuclear power. Here is the link to the Nuclear Free page on the website that lays it all out: https://tinyurl.com/w8tufrxv.
What do we need to do as Sierra Club members? First and foremost - speak up about this massive waste of money in the fight against climate change. Every dollar that goes to nuclear power is one that is lost to effectively fighting climate change. It is not just about greenhouse gasses. We must have clean sources of generation that are cheap and quick to install. Nuclear power does not qualify on any of these points.
Write letters to the editor, post articles on your social media, educate your elected officials. It is amazing how little many of them understand the details of this problem. Emphasize that every dollar spent on nuclear energy is a dollar not spent on effective climate change tactics. We have to work together and stand for the planet.
Links
DOE National Laboratory Makes History by Achieving Fusion Ignition. Press Conference.
https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-national-laboratory-makes-history-achieving-fusion-ignition
Pew Research Center has been measuring public opinion on nuclear energy since 2016.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/23/americans-continue-to-express-mixed-views-about-nuclear-power/
Last month, the nearest star to the Earth was in California.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-fusion-60-minutes-2023-01-15/
The Energy Show by Barry Cinnimon. A balanced report on fusion. Barry has insights and a sense of humor not normally found when writing about fusion. 16 minutes.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/fusion-power-breakthrough-really/id986907878?i=1000590894452
Sierra Club Nuclear Policy https://content.sierraclub.org/grassrootsnetwork/teams/nuclear-free-campaign?_gl=1*162c5m3*_ga*MjAxMTU1NTUyOS4xNjc0MjUwNjE2*_ga_41DQ5KQCWV*MTY3NDcxNzQ1OS4zLjAuMTY3NDcxNzQ1OS4wLjAuMA..&_ga=2.37957472.2105587630.1674717459-2011555529.1674250616.
Why Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) Are Not a Climate Fix. Mark V. Jacobs. Excellent easy to follow presentation. Mark is famous for his plan to run the world on sun and wind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojWCvxKzUgk
World renowned expert Amory Lovins discusses Should Nuclear Be Part of the New Energy Future? 2.4.22, City Club of Eugene on YouTube. Plenty of charts, graphs and hard data.
https://youtu.be/4D9R6l8ThpI.
So, Does Nuclear Fusion Work Now? Sun in a Bottle author Charles Seife takes the National Ignition Facility’s big announcement down a peg. by Nitish Pahwa (Dec. 14, 2022) Slate Magazine. https://slate.com/technology/2022/12/nuclear-fusion-department-of-energy-charles-seife-climate-change.html
In case you missed it:
Critical Public Health & Safety Impacts of Decommissioning Indian Point. Expert panel. Very well done. Site is attractive, user friendly and easy to navigate. Don't skip Tina's introduction about how we got here or Senator Harckham talking about the legislation and the Decommissioning Oversight Board and how fuel rods will remain on site in perpetuity. https://www.grassrootsinfo.org/indianpointforum.
A time lapse map of nuclear explosions around the world from 1945 to 1998. This video came out some time ago but is well worth another look as a reminder of the radioactive pollution that has been unleashed on the world. It starts out slow and really picks up in the 1960's when open air testing was at its peak.
https://youtu.be/LLCF7vPanrY
Marilyn is Energy Co-chair for the Lower Hudson Group. She has been working on nuclear energy issues for many years.