There's no doubt - as I've been saying for years - that practical fusion power would be a global game-changer if it can be made to work on a commercial scale. Every major advance in human technology and society has been accompanied by an increase in energy density in the primary fuel/energy source, from wood to charcoal to coal to oil and gas and, finally, nuclear fission; the next step in that progression and, indeed, the last step, would be nuclear fusion.
Fusion power would be the ultimate, the acme. Fusion power would be (hopefully) cheap, clean, and essentially unlimited. If that is, it can be made to work on a commercial scale. That's the rub. So far, practical fusion energy is 40 years away and has been for half a century. Forty years from now, it may well be - still - 40 years away.
That may be changing. Recently, I wrote about Commonwealth Fusion Systems in Virginia, but now a scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory likewise reports that his facility may well be producing grid-level electricity with nuclear fusion by 2040.
According to Don Spong, a fusion theorist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, electricity from a government-funded fusion pilot plant may be fed to the grid as early as 2040-2045. He provided an update on international fusion research recently to a Friday Lecture Series class of the Oak Ridge Institute for Continued Learning.
“When I first started getting into fusion in graduate school decades ago, a professor told me, ‘It’s a nice field to go into, but I don’t think you’ll see it come to fruition in your career, maybe not even your lifetime,” Spong said, adding that he hopes he will witness the start of commercial fusion power in his lifetime.
That will be great if they can pull it off; but, as noted, it always seems to be 40 years away. Maybe that's because so many of these projects are government-funded, and as someone once pointed out, there is nothing so close to perpetual motion as a government-funded project.
Since the 1950s, most fusion experiments have been funded by governments, including England, Germany, Japan, Soviet Union and the United States. In 1988, three years after the idea of international collaboration on fusion research was jointly proposed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev at the Geneva Summit, the initial agreement for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) was signed by the European Union, Japan, the Soviet Union and the United States.
But we've kicked around the benefits of workable fusion power before - as well as the possibility of it actually happening.
See Related: Will Virginia Be the Test Bed for Grid-Scale Fusion Power?
Fusion Power Could Change Everything – but It's Always Forty Years Away
And there's the issue of scaling up. One reactor is proof of concept, but other questions will have to be considered in kicking this up to the next level. Such as:
What are the startup costs? How much to build a reactor like this, transport it, hook it into the local grid, and fuel it for the initial run?
How often would it require refueling? How much does that refueling cost? Fusion reactors depend, not just on hydrogen, but on rare isotopes of hydrogen, including deuterium and tritium. Those aren't easy to come by, and that cost has to be figured in; fusion, like any other energy, has to be commercially viable. This raises another question: What would the cost per kW/hr be compared to more conventional power plants?
Also: How will this tech function in a variety of environments? It seems like there would be at least some exposure of the plant to local conditions, from well-below-zero temps here in Alaska to triple-digit temps in Arizona, not to mention differences in humidity, altitude, and other local conditions.
And then there's this: Let's say this fusion reactor goes live, and works. Let's say that it starts delivering cheap, reliable electricity to the grid. What will the climate scolds say?
In a logical world, the "green energy" types would laud the advent of fusion power as reliable, clean, and high-energy density. Also, truly emissions-free. But we already have an energy source that is reliable, clean, high energy density, and emissions-free, that being nuclear fission. Few, if any, in the "green energy" movement are advocating for nuclear power, be it fission or fusion. It defies logic.
But then, logic was never these people's strong suit.
Fusion power will be great, if and when anyone can make it work. But until someone does, you can count me firmly in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp.
