Today's Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXVI

We’re Saved! Fusion Energy Is Imminent.

This Contemplation has been prompted by a Zerohedge article (reposting of a The Epoch Times one) that highlights ‘progress’ by China towards achieving fusion energy.

---

CLICK HERE

If you’re new to my writing, check out this overview.

---

My initial reaction just to the article headline (China on Cusp of Commercializing US-Pioneered ‘Holy Grail’ Fusion Energy) was clear in my Zerohedge comment on the post: “Another “fusion is just around the corner…we just need financial support” moment. Funny how this has been happening over and over for close to a century now.”

And, sure enough, the article didn’t disappoint.

The article asserts that within the next handful of years (by 2030), China will be the first to master this “‘holy grail’ of energy solutions”. According to the MIT physicists involved in similar research, the lack of financial support by the US has been handicapping them and thus providing the Chinese the opportunity to leapfrog ahead of the US in fusion ‘breakthroughs’.

[NOTE: this article smells very similar to this one put out just three days prior to that of The Epoch Times. Coincidence? I think not. There’s also this one from last year highlighting all the potential benefits of fusion reactors and the need for its funding. It’s ‘interesting’ how every once in a while a new ‘breakthrough’ in the fusion research arena is announced…along with a request for increased funding.]

The possibility of such progress by Chinese scientists apparently provides the Chinese Communist Party with the opportunity to place a stranglehold on steering geopolitics and is just too much for US Representative Randy Weber (R-Texas) who chairs the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Energy Subcommittee. He opened a recent meeting with the following declaration: “Fusion energy technologies must be developed and deployed by nations that uphold democratic values, transparency, and international cooperation—not by authoritarian regimes that might exploit energy dominance as a weapon.”

I could go off on a bit of a political tangent here. Heaven knows I’d like to, especially as it pertains to what amounts to yet another racket by the ruling elite (including privileged academics) to continue pillaging national treasuries; and/or the US assertion that it “...uphold[s] democratic values, transparency, and international cooperation” or “...exploit energy dominance as a weapon” (ah, wasn’t it the US that ‘weaponised’ oil with its petrodollar deal in the 1970s and has engaged in ongoing sordid forays into controlling oil and gas reserves across the planet with its hundreds of globe-spanding military installations and persistent regime change operations?), but will focus upon the prospects of fusion energy riding in to save humanity from its woeful ways.

A Quick Review Of Fusion Energy History

The theoretical basis for the harnessing of fusion energy began with early 20th century proposals regarding how stars fuse hydrogen into helium releasing immense energy. Practical research surrounding this idea accelerated during the Manhattan Project and led to the development of the hydrogen bomb in 1952 that proved fusion was indeed possible (but in an explosive and uncontrolled form).

Garnering control of the process became the focus for the next 20 years. Scientists in the USSR developed the most effective container for the plasma fuel, the tokamak (a doughnut-shaped magnetic bottle). In 1960, lasers were used to compress tiny fuel pellets to achieve fusion conditions, and was called inertial confinement.

iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-is-nuclear-fusion

For the next 30 years or so there occurred both progress and setbacks. Experiments in both the EU and US produced fusion reactions but energy output always failed to exceed energy input. The exorbitant costs and complexity of the research motivated the planning (initiated in 1985) and construction (ongoing) of a massive tokamak (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor–ITER) to try and demonstrate net energy gain–aiming for a 2025 successful demonstration.

The last 25 years has witnessed the ITER continuing to be constructed. It is still well behind schedule (the 2025 start has been pushed to 2035-2040) and over-budget (from an estimated ​​€5 billion to €20 to €40 billion, so far)–quite typical of most (all?) government-supported boondoggles. A number of private industries have entered the fray during this period (and are receiving significant subsidies/funding from governments), with several pursuing supposedly faster and more compact designs using newer technologies such as high-temperature superconductors.

Milestones occurred in 2022 when the US National Ignition Facility achieved ‘ignition’ using inertial confinement. The following year, the Joint European Torus research that predated ITER claimed to have finally achieved positive energy output…for about 5 seconds.

Both of these events were heralded as significant ‘breakthroughs’ bringing commercialised fusion energy ever closer. Any. Moment. Now.

Fusion Is and Always Will Be 20-30 Years Away

An ongoing ‘joke’ regarding the commercialisation of fusion energy is based upon the observation that overly-optimistic timelines regarding its impending success have been repeatedly pushed further into the future. In the late 1990s, researchers claimed they were less than 20 years away from success. In the first decade of the current century that was extended to about 28 years. And only 10 years ago, their estimate was still about 28 years.

More recently, the timeline has been reduced significantly with private business pilot plants supposedly beginning to operate within the next 5-10 years and ITER in 10-15 years.

Hurdles Remaining For Commercialisation

There still remain significant impediments to achieving the promised land of widespread commercialisation let alone successful demonstrations of long-lasting energy output.

It has been argued that these snags are mostly engineering complications and not scientific in nature, so it’s simply a matter of getting some minor materials science and engineering right. And then there’s the economic difficulties to get figured out.

First, there’s the search for developing materials that can withstand the bombardment from high-energy neutrons that make the containment material radioactive and weaker, leading to quickened degradation and failure to contain the fuel. Then there’s the not non-significant scale difference between a small experimental setting and a reliable power plant in both materials and funding. In addition, engineers still have to figure out how to capture efficiently the heat from the reaction to convert it to electricity. Finally, there’s also the lack of sufficient fuel (e.g., tritium) and the costs associated with its procurement to overcome.

Let’s take a deeper dive into this last hurdle in the few listed above for the widespread commercialisation of fusion energy, let alone even small-scale prototypes: fusion reactor fuel.

The primary source of fuel for fusion reactors are two isotopes of hydrogen: Tritium and Deuterium.

iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-is-nuclear-fusion

Fusion enthusiasts point out that the fuel Deuterium (the one most commonly used in current fusion experiments) is widely abundant via sea water and as such could provide millions of years of fusion fuel. What they fail to mention is that while the primary process for extracting this stable hydrogen isotope is well-established (known as the Girdler Sulfide process), it is very technically complex and energy intensive. The industrial plants required to extract Deuterium are major facilities that require huge energy and resource inputs. The few that currently exist do so primarily to produce heavy water for fission reactors.

While Deuterium is the main fuel, Tritium has become very important as research has found that a Deuterium-Tritium mix is more successful for ‘ignition’. However, the process for procuring tritium is much more challenging. At present, the primary source is derived from CANDU heavy-water fission reactors. While there are plans for future fusion reactors to produce their own Tritium, this is currently not possible and depends upon the development and successful application of theoretical and untried technologies (e.g., ‘breeding’ blankets).

A further hiccup to the use of Tritium is the significant gap between current inventories (20-25 kilograms) and the amounts required for any commercial fusion reactors (55-125 kilograms per year for a 1 gigawatt reactor).

So, from a geologic standpoint the main fuel is relatively abundant but does require significant resource inputs to procure. The more efficient fuel mixture is theoretically possible but at present not available except for small, experimental settings, with needed supply demands depending upon as-yet-to-be-hatched technological chickens.

If It Walks, Looks, and Sounds Like A Duck…

If all of the above sounds rather resource intensive (especially in terms of energy), then you’d be spot on. And this is not a non-significant hurdle.

It’s somewhat oversimplified to argue that the ultimate goal of fusion is to achieve a higher energy output than the input required to create the reaction. An efficiency loop must be created where the electricity to heat the plasma must come from the reactor itself and there are a number of inputs that must be considered before any outputs to power grids can take place.

Massive and continuous refrigeration of the superconducting magnets is required–they need to be close to absolute zero. Enormous pumps must be powered to ensure the massive chambers are maintained in an ultra-high vacuum state. The processing of the required fuels must be carried out. And, extensive cooling loops must be maintained to manage the heat from the reactors and the breeding blankets.

The relatively minor energy outputs achieved thus far come nowhere close to being able to meet these needs.

But it’s more than just the energy and engineering needs. These reactors are materially intensive as well.

The high-energy neutron bombardment of reactor walls means conventional steel walls would require replacement frequently (perhaps every handful of years). The as-yet-to-be-developed breeding blankets must be integrated into the reactors and is expected to be exceedingly complex and a resource-heavy endeavour. The superconducting magnets are composed of extremely exotic materials (e.g., Niobium-Tin) and cooled by liquid helium whose supply chains are limited and quite expensive. And, the components are enormous in size; the ITER tokamak weighs 23,000 tonnes.

That’s one hell of a lot of energy and material/mineral resources for an unproven technology that has already consumed massive resources for its multi-decade experiments. So, to date, the quest for fusion energy has been an enormous resource sink with little if anything but a few well-lined pockets and academic careers to show for it.

Jevon’s Paradox, Entropy, and the Human Proclivity To Add New Energy Sources To Our Growth Tendencies

The efficiency trap of Jevon’s Paradox jumps to mind every time I read about the latest ‘breakthrough’ in the energy arena and successful fusion reactors would unlikely be an exception to it should they ever become commercially widespread.

Virtually every time there has been technological innovation that has resulted in resource efficiencies, the consumption of the resource increases rather than decreases and it would not be unprecedented for ‘clean’ and ‘inexpensive’ fusion-produced energy to result in the loosening of constraints on human activity (although, I’m still awaiting for the ‘too cheap to meter’ nuclear energy bonanza promised during its build up in the 1950s; a phrase uttered in1954 by Lewis L. Strauss, then Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, to the National Association of Science Writers in New York City and featured as a headline in the New York Times the next day). And expanding human activity is perhaps the last thing we need on a planet already experiencing the detrimental impacts of human ecological overshoot.

Then there’s entropy. While fusion-derived energy may address humanity’s thirst for energy, this does nothing to address the material sink dilemma. Human complex societies are dependent not just on energy flows but on finite material stocks. And while fusion may (I repeat, may) provide a massive flow of energy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that any activity increases disorder so a massive energy influx would accelerate the planet’s ordered concentrations of natural resources towards waste and pollution.

And given the human tendency to take new energy sources and add them to those already in use (and not ‘transition’ to something new as is commonly discussed), we would experience additional pressure upon the planetary boundaries of Earth, most of which have already been breached due to our extractive and destructive practices.

In other words, the development of fusion-derived power would exacerbate our fundamental predicament of ecological overshoot making not only the cliff higher that we are heading towards, but increasing our speed toward the edge of it

We’re Really Saved This Time! No, Really!

The history surrounding the quest for harnessing the energy from a fusion reaction demonstrates a recurring pattern of ‘breakthrough’ announcements along with requests for further and increased funding, and postponement of commercial viability. Commercial application of the process has always been some years away but at the same time just around the corner, suggesting over-optimism or something more nefarious at play such as the prolongation of revenue streams for those involved in its pursuit.

There exist a number of intractable hurdles in both the technical and resource arenas. Fuel is scarce despite assertions to the contrary, and procurement of it is very energy-intensive with workarounds theoretical and unproven. The research is very materially- and energy-demanding resulting in net output being negative for the most part. In addition, there has yet to be a material created at scale that can withstand the neutron bombardment of the reaction without degrading quickly and requiring perpetual and frequent replacement.

There’s also a socioecological dilemma in that the success of net positive energy from any future fusion reactors would likely add to humanity’s growth-based economies and exacerbate the human ecological overshoot predicament and our breaching of safe planetary boundaries.

Fusion is no saviour in this light but yet another catalyst for even more ecological destruction at the hands of our species. But as is typical for this storytelling ape that when required conveniently ignores the fundamental Laws of Thermodynamics, ecology, and its own behaviour, it has crafted another narrative where the obviously misguided path it is following is wrapped up in a cloak that helps to reduce anxiety and pat itself on the back for its ingenuity and technological prowess.

---

A handful of relevant articles/posts:

Fusion | Peak Everything, Overshoot, & Collapse

Fusion is already running out of fuel | Peak Everything, Overshoot, & Collapse

Fusion: Book review of “Sun in a Bottle” | Peak Everything, Overshoot, & Collapse

Fusion at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory | Peak Everything, Overshoot, & Collapse

Fusion: Tokamak Obstacles | Peak Everything, Overshoot, & Collapse

Why fusion power is Forever Away | Peak Everything, Overshoot, & Collapse

The future of energy: Why fusion power is always ’30 years away’ – NU Sci Magazine

Introduction—Fusion, forever the energy of tomorrow? - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

---

What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:

“Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better.

Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.”

---

If you have arrived here and get something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).

Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).

If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.

Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99

Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.

You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially William Catton’s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.