Nuclear fusion has, for many years, been seen as the pinnacle of grid-scale electrical generation, waiting only on the development of a practical reactor. Fusion, after all, powers the sun (and all the other stars) that pours its light and energy down upon us every day, that same sun without which life on Earth would not be possible. Practical fusion power would change everything: Clean, cheap, abundant, high-density energy, if only we could make it work.
Ah, but that practical reactor - ay, that's the rub. A practical grid-scale fusion reactor has been 20-40 years in the future since I was a young man, and I'm no spring chicken.
Still, we've seen some interesting developments in the last few years. In a recent interview, the BBC's Climate Editor, Justin Rowlatt, spoke with the United States Energy Secretary Chris Wright on the topic, and Secretary Wright, speaking in his official capacity, made some surprising claims.
Don't worry too much about planet-warming emissions, the US Energy Secretary has told the BBC, because within five years AI will have enabled the harnessing of nuclear fusion – the energy that powers the sun and stars.
Chris Wright told me in an interview that he expected the technology to deliver power to electricity grids around the world within eight to 15 years and that it would rapidly become a big driver of greenhouse gas reductions.
His claims will likely surprise even enthusiasts for the technology.
Bear in mind my background is in biology and not physics, but I remain skeptical. Still, Secretary Wright seems very certain, and he's correct in pointing out the massive impact this would have on, well, everything. Still, some very high-forehead people have been trying to make this work since the 1950s, and we have yet to see a practical reactor that can produce sustainable output.
Yet.
Harnessing the energy released when atoms fuse together could produce vast amounts of low carbon energy but most scientists believe commercial fusion power plants are still a long way off.
"With artificial intelligence and what's going on at the national labs and private companies in the United States, we will have that approach about how to harness fusion energy multiple ways within the next five years," said Mr Wright.
"The technology, it'll be on the electric grid, you know, in eight to 15 years."
Now, some major names in technology, like Microsoft, are betting big on fusion power. That's an even more interesting development, as it seems unlikely a tech company would pour money into a scheme like this without doing some due diligence. Of course, there's still a big difference between testing a concept and a practical device; some questions remain, questions I asked some time ago and which still seem to be unanswered:
What are the startup costs? How much to build a reactor like this, transport it, hook it into the local grid, and fuel it for the initial run?
How often would it require refueling? How much does that refueling cost? Fusion reactors depend, not just on hydrogen, but on rare isotopes of hydrogen, including deuterium and tritium. Those aren't easy to come by, and that cost has to be figured in; fusion, like any other energy, has to be commercially viable. This raises another question: What would the cost per kW/hr be compared to more conventional power plants?
Also: How will this tech function in a variety of environments? It seems like there would be at least some exposure of the plant to local conditions, from well-below-zero temps here in Alaska to triple-digit temps in Arizona, not to mention differences in humidity, altitude, and other local conditions.
So, yes, I'm still skeptical; you can count me firmly in the camp of "I'll believe it when I see it."
Read More: Will Virginia Be the Test Bed for Grid-Scale Fusion Power?
Gov't Research Lab Claims Practical Fusion Power by 2040 - How Will Climate Scolds React?
Of course, when the day comes that we do have practical fusion power, won't the climate scolds be set back on their heels? Suddenly, our modern, independent, high-technology lifestyle becomes cheaper and cleaner. The scolds have always scorned fission power, which is clean, safe, and practical now, because of the (relatively small) amounts of radioactive waste produced. There are even smaller amounts of residue from fusion power, mostly from the neutron bombardment of the reactors, which can produce short-lived radioactive isotopes. But all in all, a fusion plant would offer everything the climate scolds claim to want - and it would offer that without surrendering to the scolds' claim to control over our lifestyles, our economy, and our liberty.
It will be interesting to see how they thread that needle.
I do not doubt that, one day, the technological problems will be resolved, and that we will one day have practical, reliable, grid-scale fusion energy for electricity generation. I may live to see it. I'm pretty confident my grandchildren will. That will be a world-changing technology, the pinnacle of high energy density, at least until someone cooks up a working matter/anti-matter reactor; I would expect that to be, not decades away, but more likely centuries.
But as I'm always saying, we solve today's problems with tomorrow's technology. That may be the case with fusion power, which is, still, at the moment, tomorrow's technology - not today's. So, I'm glad our Energy Secretary seems confident about the prospects, but as I said, I'll believe it when I see it.
