According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), for fusion to happen, “light atomic nuclei are compressed under intense pressure and heat to form heavier ones and release energy in the process. The process must be optimized to generate more energy than it consumes” (Verlini). For a little more basic background, “Fusion” is the “good nuclear” and “Fission” is the “bad nuclear.” Fusion is what the Sun does, and if we were able to duplicate a tiny fraction of that here on Earth, it would mean unlimited, Clean energy – no waste. I’m over simplifying, but the only disaster fusion could create is if it didn’t work. If something went wrong, it would basically just burn itself out – at least as far as we know. Fission is the nuclear energy we produce now across the world for electricity. It can be done safely, but no matter what, it produces radioactive waste.
But back to fusion, to break it down, the two things needed for fusion to work and produce energy/electricity are pressure and heat. Of course you need elements to “fuse” together, but it sounds like that is pretty much taken care of as the necessary elements are widely available in nature – mainly sea water:
The main fuels used in nuclear fusion are deuterium and tritium, both heavy isotopes of hydrogen. Deuterium constitutes a tiny fraction of natural hydrogen, only 0,0153%, and can be extracted inexpensively from seawater. Tritium can be made from lithium, which is also abundant in nature.
(Verlini)
So far it looks like there are two methods to attempt fusion. One, mainly focussed on pressure, “inertial,” and one mainly focussed on heat, “magnetic confinement” (Verlini). I won’t attempt to sound like I’m smarter than I really am and try to explain them, so I offer what the IAEA says about it:
In inertial confinement systems, ion beams or laser beams are used to compress a pea-sized deuterium-tritium fuel pellet to extremely high densities. When a critical point is reached, the pellet is ignited through shock wave heating. Fusion power plants using this technique would ignite fuel pellets several times per second. The resulting heat is then used to generate steam that powers electricity-generating turbines.
(Verlini)
In magnetic confinement systems, electromagnets are used to contain the plasma fuel. One of the most promising options, the tokamak device, contains the plasma in a doughnut-shaped chamber. A powerful electric current is induced in the plasma, resulting in an increase in temperature. The plasma is also heated by auxiliary systems such as microwaves, radiowaves or accelerated particles. In the process, temperatures of several hundred million degrees centigrade are achieved.
While scientists and engineers have made significant strides to create the apparatus to conduct the fusion process, “we” still have a little ways to go due to the limitations of our technology to produce either enough pressure or enough heat in a controlled manner to sustain fusion long enough to produce energy – more than is put into it.
I’m certainly no scientist nor an engineer, and I have the utmost respect for them and what they’ve accomplished to this point. So, my following thoughts are meant as a “thinking-out-loud” scenario and some simplified “what-if” questions of which I offer for anyone, with much more ability than myself, to think about and/or scrutinize whether or not it is worthy of further consideration. If what I offer is not worthy of this consideration, then at least it offered a moment of reflection on an interesting subject and no harm done.
Given this, some might be wondering, Why would I offer these thoughts up for ridicule if they are deemed too naive or elementary? To that I answer, any idea is helpful when “brainstorming.” More importantly, I’ve often noticed in my own experiences and the knowledge I’ve gained through history and observing human nature, “we” (the very broad and generalized “mankind”) tend to make things a little more complicated than they need to be. Also, we often place our intellect which is grounded in the machines and technology available at the time higher than the “simplicity” of nature.
We often think nature is too crude for complex mechanisms and that we’ll use our intelligence and technology along with brute force to forge our own solution to a problem. Not to say that some solutions can only be produced in this manner, but I would wager that is more the exception than the rule. The more we explore how “simply” nature, its plants and organisms, can produce, adapt, and function the more we’re astounded. There is a lot more going on there than “we” all realize. It is amazing the things nature can accomplish on such small scales compared to the large complex materials and machines man creates in attempt to produce the same outcome. Again, there are certainly exceptions to this rule and “we” have accomplished some exceedingly impressive things to bring us out of our caves and campfires.
I’m not sure who said it, but sometimes “you just got to get back to the basics” and keep it simple. What is more basic than looking to nature for either inspiration or the means to accomplish our task/s?
At this point, you’re probably asking “what the hell is he talking about” and “what does this have to do with nuclear fusion?” To answer, I return to the “basics” of fusion: pressure and heat. As far as I know, all the fusion reactors that have been built in the world, whether research or realistic attempts, has been in facilities more or less on our Earth’s surface – or within a couple a hundred feet in either direction. But, where has “nature” produced “pressure” and “heat?” For “pressure,” the depths of our oceans help us out there. Obviously, the deeper you go, the more pressure is produced, and I believe the deepest parts of our oceans that we know of are around 3 miles deep where we can only safely send special, unmanned submersibles. Other than volcanoes, the other place for sustained heat is deep within/below our crust. The closer you get to the core the warmer it gets. Obviously, you have to get down there pretty far to see it happen, but I know there are diamond mines in the world (Africa mainly) that have reached far enough depths at which heat is an abundance. I’m sure we can go a little deeper.
So, why not try building nuclear fusion reactors in these places Earth has already provided pressure and heat? Of course this is a very simplistic question, and obviously, it would take a healthy amount of resources and engineering to not only get these highly complex and massive machines to the depths of the Earth or ocean necessary, but also to withstand and survive these extreme environments – safely. I mention “safely” not only for the machines and the people that work on them, but also to ensure nothing “cataclysmic” would happen to the Earth or the ocean whether the systems work or fail. I know I mentioned fusion is “safe,” but you must always prepare for the unknown. While the actual threat may not come from fusion itself, there are still a lot of machines and energy to get that process going.
Again, I’m mainly just “spit-balling” here. Some may already know that it wouldn’t matter where nuclear fusion reactors were built for the process to be successful. However, if any of your first thoughts are, “We’ve already put so much money and resources into what we have today,” or “It would take too much money and time to attempt this,” What if we had started building these “things” at these locations in the first place rather than on the surface of the Earth? Would it be that much more than what we’ve spent so far, and how much would have been saved if it actually worked by now compared to our current accomplishments? Of course, there would need to be initial exploratory testing and research as to whether my ideas would be viable or if it all beneficial. If so, I have no shame in being wrong.
But I’ll end with one other question, “Were these questions ever part of the first discussions when trying to produce manmade nuclear fusion?”
Works Cited
Verlini, Giovanni. “Nuclear Fusion Basics.” IAEA, IAEA, 7 Oct. 2010, www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/nuclear-fusion-basics.