Fusion 'Breakthrough' Won't Save Climate

After half a century of expensive research, engineers recently claimed a major breakthrough in the quest for controlled hydrogen fusion.

Their report generated great enthusiasm, with some observers claiming that fusion will allow the world to replace climate-wrecking coal, oil, and gas and prevent climate disaster.

These enthusiasts were assuming that controlled fusion can actually be developed. But we are still not at all sure that it can ever be done.

Many enthusiasts did note that it could take thirty years before fusion actually generates usable energy.

But we have less than 30 years, according to the current scientific consensus that we need to phase out burning carbon fuels by about 2050 in order to minimize climate disaster.

We're good at developing solar and wind power right now. Our safest course is to expand these existing techologies now, perhaps continuing some fusion resarch but not putting a major portion of our eggs in this uncertain basket.

The money saved by cutting back on fusion research could help pay for faster development of the electrical grids that are essential if the world is to be powered by renewable energy.

Solar energy is already the cheapest source of electricity.

Larger electrical grids maximize the value of solar energy investments by allowing electricity that cannot be used locally to be moved to areas where it can be used.

Grids also reduce the need for costly batteries to even out local supply and demand.

Of course it is possible that continued development of earth-based fusion power will ultimately result in power that is cheaper than solar energy.

In that event, the age of solar energy would gradually come to an end, like other energy technologies (wood, whale oil) have done and are doing (coal, oil, gas).

But continuing to spend tremendous amounts of money on fusion research and development at the present time may not be a good idea.

Money is scarce, and money spent on fusion research could be spent instead on speeding up the building of solar energy equipment and electrical grids.

It is interesting how much hype has been generated by the recent "breakthrough" experiment, which actually produced a lot more hype than it did energy.

The equipment at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California focused 192 high-powered lasers on a tiny target (about the size of a jelly bean) and fused a few hydrogen atoms into helium.

The difference between the energy going into the target and the amount coming out was the equivalent of about three tenths of one kilowatt-hour, an amount for which my power company here in Corvallis, Oregon would change me about three cents..

By contrast, the PV panels on my roof have generated over 10,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually since they were installed in 2019.

We know that PV panels work well and that larger grids up to and including a world-wide grid would enable us to convert almost entirely to solar energy.

It will require an acceleration in installing these facilities if we are to do it by 2050, but that acceleration is already well underway. The main obstacles to doing it in time to save the world climate are political, not technical or economic.

Even if we make optimistic assumptions about the ultimate technical and economic feasibility of fusion power, it will not be available in time to save the climate.

Indeed, one of the most interesting things about recent reports has been the increase in the estimated time before fusion power will be a usable technology.

For the last half century, we had been told that we could have fusion in 10 years.

Now we are hearing that maybe we can have it in 30 years. Some progress.

Ironically, as we increase solar installations, we are already moving to power the world with fusion energy. We already have an excellent, high-powered, fusion reactor.

It's called the sun.

Paul F. deLespinasse is Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Computer Science at Adrian College. Read Professor Paul F. deLespinasse's Reports — More Here.