Ball of Con Fusion – Part 2

In my previous post, I examined our current mix of energy sources and described why our continued reliance on fossil fuels has a wide variety of negative environmental consequences beyond contributing to climate change.  While wind, solar and other renewable sources have the potential to meet a higher percentage of our energy needs, they are not likely to completely fill the gap that would be created by completely abandoning the burning of fossil fuels. My post concluded with a brief discussion of nuclear fusion as a potential fuel for our future energy needs.

Fusion holds the promise of an energy source that does not release CO₂ or other greenhouse gases and generates very little waste.  It would use cheap, abundant seawater as its fuel.  It wouldn’t carry the risks of nuclear fission that led to the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.  Of course, after 60 years of trying, scientists have not yet solved the mystery of a controlled fusion reaction that could be used as a source of power generation. 

However, in February 2014 scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California reported that they had achieved a milestone of sorts in the quest to obtain a controlled fusion reaction.  Their experiment resulted in more energy being generated from the fuel core than the amount of energy that went into it.  A Washington Post article by Joel Achenbach described the breakthrough.  In his article, Achenbach quoted a scientist from the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory as saying, “In 30 years, we’ll have electricity on the grid produced by fusion energy – absolutely.”  Achenbach pointed out that one of the short-term problems of achieving further progress is lack of funds.  Congress appropriated only $500 million for scientific research into fusion in the federal budget for 2014.  He also quoted a New Jersey Congressman as lamenting the fact that the U.S. is losing leadership in fusion energy research to Europe, Japan, South Korea and China.  One wonders, however, why this has to be a competition.  Wouldn’t breakthroughs in fusion research benefit every country on earth?  This would seem to be an area where nations could pool their resources if it could mean achieving success more rapidly.

So if fusion is 30 years away or more, are there any other glimmers of hope out there that hold the promise of cheap, non-polluting energy?  Perhaps you remember something about “cold fusion” being achieved many years ago.  Way back in 1989, scientists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann reported achieving a fusion reaction.  They claimed to achieve it not at intensely high temperatures like those on the sun, but at normal room temperatures.  The early excitement of their discovery soon faded as other scientists were unable to replicate the results.  Also, the science of what happened in the reaction was murky.  Within a few weeks of the Pons/Fleischmann announcement, their discovery was described as “junk science,” and cold fusion as a concept was declared dead by no less an authority than the New York Times.

Despite the storm of criticism, research continued on cold fusion, or as it was renamed “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” or “LENR.”  Twenty years after it had been declared dead, CBS News in an April 2009 report on its 60 Minutes program declared that “Cold Fusion Is Hot Again.”  CBS reported on work being done by Michael McKubre at SRI International, which is an independent, nonprofit research institure.  McKubre’s work seemed to confirm that whatever one calls the reaction, it was producing more energy than it was using.  CBS hired a renowned physicist, Robert Duncan, who was (and still is) Vice Chancellor of Research at the University of Missouri.  CBS News asked him to evaluate the results of experiments at Energetics Technologies – a laboratory in Israel that had reported the largest gains in energy as a result of LENR.  After studying their methodology and reviewing their results, Duncan concluded that “the excess heat was quite real.”

More recently, a January 2014 article by David Hambling in the UK edition of Wired magazine concluded that “LENR is fringe science, but continues to progress stealthily into the mainstream.”  According to the article, much of the current work on LENR is being done in the business world rather than by the government.  Italian inventor Andrea Rossi developed a LENR reactor he calls an Energy Catalyzer or E-Cat.  Derided as a hoax by some, it was reported in May 2013 that the E-Cat’s production of energy was verified by a panel of independent scientists.  Yet plenty of skeptics remain. 

Hambling’s Wired article also mentioned that the U.S. Department of Energy recently announced that it was providing some funding for LENR projects, so at least the U.S. government gives some credence to this technology.  Its advocates claim that commercialization of LENR as an energy source is a lot closer than it is for hot fusion. 

As non-scientists, there’s not much any of us can do to hasten the development of a clean energy source to take the place of fossil fuels.  Perhaps the best we can do is encourage efforts in the most promising technologies by asking our representatives in Congress to stop subsidizing fossil fuels and to start subsidizing energy sources that can meet our needs without poisoning our environment and contributing to global warming.  Beyond that, all we can do is continue to hope for a near term breakthrough in one of these technologies that would permit us to stop extracting and burning fossil fuels.

Ball of Con Fusion – Part 1

So round 'n' round 'n' round we go
Where the world's headed, nobody knows
Just a Ball of Confusion
Oh yea, that's what the world is today.

Those lyrics from the Temptations' 1970 hit Ball of Confusion[1] could easily describe our collective perceptions today about energy use and its impact on the environment.  In this and my next post, I will attempt to untangle the ball of confusion that keeps us tied to the use of fossil fuels to meet America's energy needs.  Burning fossil fuels to heat our homes, propel our cars and power our factories releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.  Most scientists agree that the buildup of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere is caused by humans burning fossil fuels and that buildup is causing global warming and other changes in climate. 

Despite the consensus among scientists, climate change skeptics abound, particularly in the United States.  According to a Pew Research Center poll taken in October of 2013, only 25% of self-proclaimed Tea Party Republicans believe there is solid evidence of global warming.  In fact, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, “Drill, Baby, drill,” was used as a campaign slogan by the Republican Party.  The Republicans continue to strongly advocate continued reliance on oil and other fossil fuels to meet our nation’s energy needs.  Not surprisingly, Republican candidates are overwhelming favored over Democrats in terms of being the recipients of campaign contributions from the fossil fuels lobby.  

But even if you don't believe that burning fossil fuels is causing climate change, it is hard to ignore the other environmental impacts associated with their use. From mining to processing to burning, coal’s negative impact on the environment is well known.  Strip mining and mountain top removal have left ugly scars throughout coal country, and acid mine drainage contributes pollution to streams and rivers daily.  In addition, burning coal contributes a lot more than carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.  The laundry list of pollutants emitted from coal burning power plants includes sulfur dioxide (linked to acid rain), nitrous oxides, various particulates and a veritable cornucopia of hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, arsenic and lead.  Power plants have constructed air pollution control devices to remove many of these pollutants, but then they end up in coal ash and other solid wastes that must be disposed of. Oh, and did I mention the human toll?  Over 100,000 lives have been lost as a result of coal mining during the past century, not to mention the thousands afflicted with Black Lung Disease from years of working in coal mines.  

Oil production likewise results in plenty of pollution besides carbon dioxide emissions.  The damage from major oil spills including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon and the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill has been well documented.  Refining crude oil into its component products also results in air and water pollution.  While a portion of petroleum products are converted into petrochemicals, approximately 80% is manufactured into products that will be burned as fuel.  Most of that will end up as gasoline to fuel motor vehicles.  Motor vehicles contribute carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and smog-inducing volatile organic compounds to the air along with tons of carbon dioxide. 

What about natural gas?  It’s been touted as a transition fuel – as a less polluting substitute for burning coal to produce electricity.  It is true that burning natural gas releases carbon dioxide and little else to the atmosphere.  The CO₂ emitted from burning natural gas is about half the amount emitted from burning coal.  However, a recent study conducted by Stanford University, MIT and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory concluded that methane leaks associated with its production and transportation may be negating any environmental benefits obtained by switching from oil and coal to natural gas.  This is because methane, the chief component of natural gas, has 30 times the heat trapping potential of CO₂.  Also, much of the natural gas today is being extracted from deep shale formations using the controversial method of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking."  Opponents of fracking cite instances of methane migration into groundwater supplies and express concerns about what happens to the hazardous chemicals injected into the ground during the fracking process.  They see these and other negative environmental impacts as reasons to ban this relatively new method or to at least argue for a moratorium on its use until fracking's  risks are better understood.

Overall, the burning of coal, oil and natural gas accounts for 67% of the energy currently produced in the U.S.  Only about 12% of America's energy needs are met by using renewable sources such as wind, water, solar and biomass.  Another 19% is produced using nuclear power.  

So what about nukes?  They are powered by nuclear fission – the splitting of atoms from radioactive material.  It is true that nuclear power plants do not produce greenhouse gases, but increasing their use to generate our power carries its own set of risks.  Since being put into commercial use, there have been at least three well publicized disasters involving nuclear power plants – Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011).  In addition to those major accidents, there have been many smaller instances of things going wrong at nuclear plants around the world.

 

So can renewables meet the future energy needs in the United States?  Some would say it’s possible.  As an example, nearly half of Sweden's  power needs are being met with energy generated from renewable sources.  Various legislative actions, including a carbon tax, have driven down that nation’s reliance on fossil fuels; currently only about 30% of Sweden’s energy is derived from burning them.  But the U.S. is a bit different than Sweden. It has over 300 million more people and a much larger area. 

So if renewables are not the complete answer, is there a power source that can take the dominant place of fossil fuels in the U.S.?  For decades scientists have held out the promise of nuclear fusion as a cheap, non-polluting source to power our electric generating plants.  Rather than splitting atoms, fusion releases heat and energy by combining them.  Our sun and the stars are powered by the fusion of hydrogen atoms under intense heat and pressure which creates helium as a by-product.  The hydrogen to power fusion on earth could be obtained from cheap, abundant seawater.  Unlike fossil fuels, fusion produces no greenhouse gases or other atmospheric pollutants.  And unlike current nuclear plants that rely on fission, fusion does not produce large amounts of dangerous radioactive wastes that need to be safely stored for thousands of years.

Fusion indirectly provides power to us when we utilize solar panels to generate electricity.  It also indirectly supplies power via the prehistoric vegetation that was formed into the fossil fuels we extract and burn today.  Man has learned to use fusion to release massive amounts of power for destructive purposes.  Thermonuclear weapons like the hydrogen bomb use fusion triggered by a smaller fission-based nuclear explosion to create a destructive force 1,000 times more powerful than atomic (fission) bombs.  However, the creation of a sustained fusion reaction to meet peacetime energy needs has been a bit more difficult to achieve. 

Nevertheless, there has been some recent, significant progress toward the use of fusion as an energy source.  In my next post I will take a look at that progress and discuss whether the problems created by burning fossil fuels to supply energy over the past 200 years might be solved by using nuclear fusion over the next 200 years. 

---

[1] Written by Norman Whitfield & Barrett Strong