Editor and General Manager
Energy—its sourcing, use and impact—is arguably one of the most pressing concerns on the planet. If those scientists who are most concerned are as accurate as they are numerous, global warming, widely attributed to current energy policy and fossil fuel use, threatens society, the environment and economies on an unprecedented scale.
While atmospheric CO2 has been higher in the planet’s cyclical climate history, it is widely accepted that human activity is driving the current increase. Hundreds of millions of years ago, on a warmer planet, sea levels rose and other widespread environmental changes occurred, as they are expected to do now. The causes then were “natural.” During these periods, Earth was either free of humans or sparsely inhabited by early hominids. Modern humans, who densely populate the planet, have not seen the likes of the current warming trend, which is likely to continue its upsurge.
Emissions will not be curbed anytime in the near future—the appetite for energy is too big and the will to change too small, at least among some of the major players. Getting consensus on implementing changes has been difficult for those leaders who have sought to do so. Too many of their peers are not interested in mitigation or are unable to muster enough support in their homelands, making widespread and sustained effort unattainable. (The folks in Europe, generally, are on board, and recent polls suggest a majority of the American public are now concerned about the impact of global warming.) In the Western world, perhaps culture is partly to blame: there is an underlying belief that technology can solve any problem, if only sufficient thought and resources are applied. No need to change lifestyles; history has shown that an answer, maybe even a hero, will materialize.
While solar, wind and other “natural” power sources will find their place over time, current reading suggests that the most viable candidate to replace fossil fuels is nuclear fusion. As with any savior, it is cloaked in hype and mystery, the main mystery being getting it to work. ITER (an acronym for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is the name of a fusion project being developed by a multination consortium. When completed, it will have cost in the tens of billions of dollars, weigh over 23,000 tons and contain within its giant magnets a short-lived but sustained fusion reaction. It is hoped.
Perhaps more promising is a project at Lockheed Martin, whose compact fusion reactor, according to company scientists, is scalable and, they say, based on a technology that adopts the best features of various designs. The company is seeking partners in development: they are hoping that in five years there will be a prototype that will demonstrate the ability to sustain a reaction for as much as 10 seconds; five years after that the goal is to have an initial production version.
California-based Tri Alpha Energy is using a linear reactor that they say is simpler (a relative term to be sure) and will lead to a commercial product in 10 years. Tri Alpha has already generated a sustained reaction of 4 milliseconds, which, as achievements go, is bigger than it sounds, and makes Lockheed Martin’s five-year goal of a 10-second-long sustained reaction seem momentous.
The aforementioned groups and others involved in similar work have their supporters and detractors. It is important that all but the most ill-conceived continue to get funding; each project that succeeds, and even those that don’t, will contribute to a greater understanding of how to build a device that will essentially house a miniature sun.
In general, those who don’t believe in climate change, or at least allow questions about the science to serve as an excuse for inaction, identify as conservative. They are anything but. If there is high likelihood that a given behavior will have a harshly negative outcome, and workable options exist that would mitigate the worst of that outcome are ignored, well, that may be conservative in the political sense but in any other context it is the opposite: it is reckless. Government support for both public and private projects, and the support of industry and investors, should remain strong and, indeed, increase. Fusion technology has great promise and has the potential to provide jobs, reduce pollution, slow the growth in atmospheric CO2 levels and serve as the primary source for powering everything from planes to homes and trains to factories. Hopefully, sooner rather than later, it will marginalize fossil fuels as an energy source. At least, it will be a needed replacement for the time when the planet no longer holds any meaningful reserves of coal and oil.
Steve Ernst is editor and general manager, American Laboratory/ Labcompare; [email protected].