Written by: Aiai Calmer ‘26
Editor: Jasmine Shum ‘24
Source: The New York Times; https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/13/science/nuclear-fusion-energy-breakthrough.html
On July 30, 2023, a group of scientists stood huddled in the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [1]. They had already achieved a breakthrough in December of the year prior, but one major question remained: Was this breakthrough viable enough to be successfully repeated [2]? Carefully, the scientists focused their laboratory laser on a contained fuel source, fusing two lighter atoms—deuterium and tritium—into a denser one. This was only the second time in history anyone had created a fusion reaction that released more energy than what was originally put in. The physicists were able to provide further evidence supporting fusion as a reliable future clean energy source. The US Energy Department vigorously applauded this accomplishment, deeming it “a major scientific breakthrough decades in the making that will pave the way for advancements in… the future of clean power.” With the rising and evermore pressing concerns over climate change, it makes sense that the US government would invest $700 million in striving toward fusion energy… right [3]?
While this is, without a doubt, a terrific scientific achievement—quite literally, harnessing the power of stars in our hands—there seems to be an invisible question of whether fusion is as “clean” as the US government would like to claim. The journey to find and refine clean energy sources has become a burgeoning issue over the past few decades as the climate change crisis has become an even more pressing concern. Clean energy, also known as renewable energy, is defined as that which “comes from natural sources or processes that are constantly replenished” by the Natural Resources Defense Council. Other clean energy sources include wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower and are being developed alongside nuclear energy. What makes a clean energy source more “clean” than another is a combination of different factors: How much energy is put in for the amount of energy put out, what non-renewable resources you have to use in order to produce the clean energy, environmental consequences of disasters, and a myriad of other concerns.
Fusion’s status as a thoroughly “clean” energy source is debatable at best. Fusion’s predecessor was fission, a process that involves a neutron colliding with a radioactive uranium or plutonium atom and splitting it. The product is a gargantuan release of energy as heat and radiation. Fission was first investigated and refined over the course of World War II for an international security “necessity”—the atomic bomb. After the hydrogen bomb and atomic bomb were produced, it was a natural step for governments to move toward fission as an energy resource. As a result, three major plant meltdowns occurred in Three Mile Island, Fukushima Daiichi, and, notably, Chernobyl.
Out of these three meltdowns, Chernobyl is considered the most catastrophic because it directly caused the deaths of approximately 30 workers on the plant and an indeterminable number of deaths due to radiation poisoning in the area [4]. The short-term effects of radiation sickness (also known as Acute Radiation Syndrome) include extreme burns and increased susceptibility to infections that contribute to a relatively immediate death within days. The long-term effects, although less studied due to data availability, include cancer and genetic mutation across generations. The tragedy of Chernobyl, a part of Ukraine that derives 60% of its energy sources from nuclear power, pushed international governments to scale back on the production of nuclear fission as an energy source and investigate fusion.
There is no denying that fusion is more environmentally friendly than fission. The two elements involved in fusion are deuterium and tritium which are radioactive isotopes of hydrogen. In comparison to the highly volatile radioactive uranium and plutonium, fusion is easily the better option. In addition, the US Department of Energy claims there are no dangerous byproducts as a result of fusion. It seems that there is no reason to not power forward with nuclear fusion research, except for one overlooked question: What about storage?
World governments have struggled with the question of storage since the conception of fission. It is hard enough to grapple with figuring out a physical containment space that is guaranteed leak-proof: Our only two viable options are keeping the material in an open deep cooling pool or storing it in metal cylinders underground. Then, there is the pervasive question of where those containers should go. No land in the entire world is truly “empty space” and expeditions to Antarctica, perhaps our closest option to “empty space,” are costly and the land there is finite too. In the late 20th century, a few countries thought they could get around this issue by dumping radioactive waste produced after fission reactions into the ocean: You can see what outrage this caused. While tritium and deuterium do have a considerably higher decay rate than uranium or plutonium, there is a massive difference in the quantity of the elements required for fission and fusion: One kilogram of tritium produces around 3.003x10^-8 kilowatts per hour (kWh) of energy while one kilogram of uranium produces 24,000,000 kWh. The fact of the matter is that tritium and deuterium are still sources of radioactive waste, however weak, and because of the insane amount of both elements required to produce so little energy, the discussion of storage as a determinant of fusion’s clean energy is critical [5].
There is a lot of work left to make fusion the “clean” energy source the US Department of Energy wants it to be. It could be the way forward as we attempt to mitigate and reverse the effects of climate change, but ultimately the government and its researchers need to simultaneously investigate the cons of fusion in order to minimize its negative effects. Equally, it is important for our society to keep the research accountable to ensure the safety of every global citizen.
Works Cited
Osborne M. Scientists Repeat Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough in a Step Toward More Clean Energy. Smithsonian Magazine [Internet]. 2023 Aug 9; Available from: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-repeat-nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-in-a-step-toward-more-clean-energy-180982683/
Sample I. US scientists confirm ‘major breakthrough’ in nuclear fusion. The Guardian [Internet]. 2022 Dec 13; Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/13/us-scientists-confirm-major-breakthrough-in-nuclear-fusion
Clifford C. Feds commit $50 million to for-profit nuclear fusion companies, chasing the ‘holy grail’ of clean energy. CNBC [Internet]. 2022 Sep 26; Available from: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/26/feds-commit-50-million-to-for-profit-nuclear-fusion-companies.html
Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation [Internet]. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation; 2011. Available from: https://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf
Bolonkin A, Newman Z. Cost of Tritium Fusion Energy [Internet]. Available from: https://vixra.org/pdf/1702.0190v1.pdf; Fuel comparison [Internet]. European Nuclear Society; Available from: https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/#:~:text=8%20kWh%20of%20heat%20can,1%20kg%20of%20uranium%2D235
Comments