Australia should follow road to nuclear fusion
Written by The Age - Melbourne, Victoria, Australia - Aug 27, 2006
Why is the Prime Minister's inquiry into nuclear power ignoring the
safer, cleaner option, asks Stephen Cauchi.
As you read this, the world's biggest science project, the $A130
billion International Space Station, is whirling around the planet.
Its partners include not only established space players such as the
United States and Russia, but Canada, Japan, Brazil and most of
Europe. Australia is not involved.
The world's second-biggest science project is a nuclear fusion
reactor, the $A15 billion International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor project (ITER), now being built in France. Fusion is next-
generation nuclear power - unlike conventional fission plants, it
uses hydrogen instead of uranium and produces no long-term
radioactive waste. Unfortunately, fusion is not yet commercially
viable and won't be for decades. The ITER partners are the US, the
European Union, India, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea.
Australia is not involved.
Our lack of interest in either should be no surprise, given the
Federal Government's attitude to science funding. Lucrative
commercial research is in favour. "Public good" science - whose
benefits are not measurable on a balance sheet - is not.
In the case of the International Space Station, universally panned as
a white elephant, we were probably wise to steer clear. But research
into a clean energy such as nuclear fusion should be considered given
the seriousness of global warming and looming oil shortages.
Nevertheless, support for ITER is not on the Federal Government's
agenda. In fact, the inquiry into nuclear power announced by the
Prime Minister in June will only consider whether Australia should
use conventional nuclear power.
The downside of existing nuclear power is that it's expensive - far
more so than fossil-fuel power such as coal - and it produces large
amounts of radioactive waste. Its main attraction is that it produces
no greenhouse gases, which in coal-rich Australia is the only reason
it's under consideration.
On the other hand, at least we know fission works. Nuclear fusion is
not expected to be commercially viable until 2036 at the earliest,
which is when ITER is expected to be retired.
But if the nation is going to go nuclear, should we not play a role
in developing a better, safer form of this energy?
The Australian ITER Forum, a group of more than 100 scientists and
engineers, lobbies for Australian involvement in ITER. It will be
holding a major workshop in Sydney in October.
In June, the forum's chairman, Australian National University nuclear
physicist Matthew Hole, wrote in The Age that "(fusion) powers the
sun and the stars. If harnessed, it offers the possibility of a
virtually limitless supply of clean energy . . . like fission, fusion
produces no greenhouse gases. Unlike fission, in which the
radioactive waste is a byproduct of the reaction, the fusion process
is intrinsically clean, with waste generated only indirectly through
neutron activation of the shield of the reactor. Based on existing
technology, fusion power plants could be recycled in 100 years."
Green groups such as Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation
Foundation and Friends of the Earth disagree. Why, they ask, are
countries spending billions on developing nuclear fusion when
renewable energies such as wind and solar are available? And won't
fusion worsen the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation?
Renewable energy is to be encouraged, but it is not yet able to
generate enough electricity to cover the world's present needs, let
alone the needs of the future. The fact is there is heavy demand for
nuclear energy now, and this will likely be the case in the future.
Why should it not be fusion?
As for concerns about weapons proliferation, all nuclear weapons,
including those that incorporate a fusion reaction, can already be
constructed from conventional nuclear technology. Weapons that
incorporate a fusion reaction - hydrogen, or thermonuclear, bombs -
have been available since the 1950s. Such bombs must be triggered by
a fission reaction first, which means the prerequisite for such
weapons is a fission power plant of the type Australia is
considering.
"If you wanted to build a thermonuclear bomb, building a fusion power
plant is the last thing you would do," Hole said in June.
"The assertion that it's in some way related to weapons proliferation
is just nonsense, because it's a benign technology, it has no
capability to produce a weapon. It's just a no-brainer."
The benefit of conventional nuclear power is that it produces no
greenhouse gases. But its side-effects - large amounts of radioactive
waste and weapons proliferation - are too serious to ignore.
Fusion deals with these concerns. If Australia does go down the
nuclear road, it should join the many nations that are developing it.
Australia needs to get back to the front on fusion power
Matthew Hole and John O'Connor
Written by The Age - Melbourne, Victoria, Australia - Jun 8, 2006
THIS week, the federal cabinet has announced the terms of reference
for the inquiry into nuclear power generation. Driving the debate are
the urgent need to develop responsible energygeneration policies in
response to climate change, the increasing cost of oil and the
opportunity to develop Australia's significant uranium reserves. Such
a discussion, if properly founded on frontier scientific technology,
environmental impact assessment and economics, will provide a
valuable foundation for policy.
But the scope of the inquiry should not be limited to power
generation using nuclear fission. Rather, the inquiry should include
all generation schemes, encompassing all forms of nuclear power,
renewable energy and clean coal. The debate also should recognise the
long-time scales of energy development and deployment (a matter of
decades).
In this context, it is also prudent to consider next-generation
nuclear power options, including generation IV fission technology and
nuclear fusion.
Fusion, a process discovered by eminent Australian Sir Mark Oliphant,
powers the sun and stars. If harnessed, it offers the possibility of
a virtually limitless supply of clean energy. As its name implies,
fusion energy is released by joining light nuclei (typically
deuterium and tritium, isotopes of hydrogen) in high pressure,
extremely high temperature "plasma" contained by magnetic fields.
Like fission, fusion produces no greenhouse gases. Unlike fission, in
which radioactive waste is a byproduct of the reaction, the fusion
process is intrinsically clean, with waste generated only indirectly
through neutron activation of the shield of the reactor. Based on
existing technology, fusion power plants could be recycled in 100
years. Research into the use of advanced alloys and ceramics suggests
that this period could be even shorter.
Deuterium, a fusion fuel, is naturally abundant in water. Any country
with access to water automatically has access to deuterium, thereby
reducing geopolitical tensions based on energy supplies. Per kilogram
of fuel, fusion releases four times more energy than fission, and a
staggering 10 million times more than coal. World deposits of
deuterium are sufficient to power civilisation for millions of years:
access to fuel will therefore no longer be an issue, economically or
politically.
More importantly, the fusion reaction is inherently safe. Turn off
the heating power and the reaction ceases. There can be no chain
reactions, no reactor meltdowns and no explosions.
Reproducing star-like conditions on Earth is an incredible
technological and scientific challenge.
Despite the difficulties, progress in fusion power has exceeded the
spectacular improvement in computer power. In 30 years, power output
has increased by a factor of more than 1 million. Present experiments
have a power output of tens of MW. Fusion power has entered the pre-
prototype power plant stage, with the imminent construction of the
next generation 500MW fusion experiment, the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor.
The experiment will explore the burning plasma regime in which the
heat of the confined products of reaction (helium, the gas used in
balloons) is comparable with the external heating. In continuous
operation, the reactor will yield five times more power than is
required to sustain the reaction, while in pulsed mode, the power
gain could be as high as 30.
On May 24, the research ministers of seven nations and alliances (the
United States, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, India and the
European Union) initialled the reactor's implementing agreement. Once
ratified by the host governments (planned for December 2006),
construction will begin in Cada racheinthesouthofFrance.
The reactor is the world's largest science project and spans more
than 30 of the most developed nations. Despite Australia's foundation
role in fusion research and substantial contributions to fusion
development, it is not involved.
A group of more than 100 scientists and engineers have formed the
Australian ITER Forum, which aims to develop the case for an
Australian role in the project, both by participation and the
formation of an International Centre of Research Excellence in Fusion-
Related Research.
With Federal Government support, the Australian forum has scheduled a
workshop for October 12-13 called Towards an Australian involvement
in ITER. It will bring together the research community, industry,
government and the reactor partners to formulate a role for Australia
in the project.
Dr Matthew Hole, from the ANU, is chairman of the Australian ITER
Forum. Professor John O'Connor is head of the school of mathematical
and physical sciences at the University of Newcastle.
