Fusion Energy– The Future Or the End?

And do we need Endless Energy

Opening note. I wrote and published this privately online two years ago. Since that time there has been progress made in the technology. I see no reason to include current technological developments in this article because I find no evidence that helps the scientific knowledge on which this article is based. If you would like to show me errors in my interpretation, please do so. If you only wish to challenge that the technology, explain how the science is wrong to support your claim the technology would be beneficial.

Daily reports are telling us how we are closing in on creating fusion energy as a viable source of energy creation here upon this earth.  We are told this is the ultimate solution with no detrimental environmental effects. Every “new” technological breakthrough is always hailed as the solution and as being cleaner and as being the ‘solution”.  Let’s dismiss out of hand that anything is a perfect panacea and let’s examine what detrimental effects might occur.  

I’m not going to explain fusion as I presume any reader knows what fusion is.  But the first thing I do wish to mention is that while fusion is the “energy” that powers the universe via stars it is in no way natural energy outside of stars.  I have queried a thousand ways to seek information on external uses of fusion.. The search is circular, and frustrating.  I am told fusion exists “mostly” in stars, so I ask  “where does fusion exist in the universe outside of stars and I am told fusion exists mostly in stars.  I query where does it lessly exist if it mostly exists only in stars and I am told it exists mostly in stars.  So I am going to make an unfounded assumption that where it does not exist is upon the earth and that it is our belief we can recreate fusion energy upon the earth is fallacious (not in the sense of technologically impossible but that is by nature impossible.  We might create fusion energy but it will not be the same fusion that creates and empowers stars)  So in making that presumption it would follow that no matter how natural fusion is within stars it is totally unnatural outside of stars.  Thus if we succeed in harnessing and utilization of fusion energy upon the earth it will be totally unnatural, it will be the equivalent of an otherworldly invasion by taking extraterrestrial sources and attempting to import them upon earth.  We have some methods to determine already that bringing alien species from one topography to another upon the earth always forces an alteration in the new topography to allow the species to thrive, it will unbalance the existing species and inevitably some older species die and some older species will  be overthrown. Nature designed a delicate system of species to thrive in every habitat and unbalancing the system by a new species will alter that balance.  If you want to argue nature has no design you are free to do so but the design of nature is one of a very delicate balancing act that may not be pre-planned but is planned in a way that the result is an interrelationship between species and environment.  Man, on the other hand, often sets about designing his environment and mostly failing to realize his plans are not up to the same natural designs of nature. Because something is technologically possible, does not make it intellectually superior nor does  technological development mean intellectual advancement if that technology unbalances the natural design of nature. And the intellectual disaster of technology it assumes a superiority of what can be done without regard to natural development and in my worthless opinion that is intellectual ignorance. From the earliest days of man’s attempt to redesign the earth there have been those who pointed this out, and those making a personal benefit deluding the many, of man’s  superiority to nature .  Today many are looking for sustaining alternatives that are going to be “cleaner” and that will somehow miraculously alter the effects of man’s actions and at the same time allow us to continue to survive in an unnatural method.  This is the  promise of fusion.  All the energy we want— with no negative effects.

So before discussing possible drawbacks to fusion energy itself, let’s look at the drawback to having all the energy we want.  If we do have all the energy we want, will our wants ever cease?  So that we will always continue to want more energy than we have if we continue to supply energy for our wants rather than only the energy for our needs.  And the more energy that is supplied the more that energy is used to destroy the environment that we live in, and the more it leads to living in an unsustainable environment.  So I wish to propose a moral question to you. Say it is immoral to have an abortion, or immoral to take drugs, or immoral to kill your neighbor.  And suppose it is immoral to steal from your neighbor, why then is it not immoral to want what your neighbor has.  Why then is it not immoral to fight a war?  Why is it then not immoral to develop stimulants (including pain pills, antibiotics, etc)?  And why is it not immoral to impregnate a woman who doesn’t want to be impregnated?  There is a method to this reverse order here in that I wish you to continue to reflect backwards on what is considered immoral and forward to the causes of the immorality.  The nature is to have what we want no matter the cost and then to condemn those who try to obtain it.  Well let’s reflect on what morality is.  Is morality not trying to get what you want from an abortion to stealing and then being condemned because of proprietary rights superseding wants.  And yet are we not daily bombarded with the message to want more and more?  Well our consumption of energy is a moral issue in that we are bombarded daily with the concept to use more energy and so the question becomes how to obtain more.  In our refusal to see energy consumption from the moral perspective we never seem to reflect on whether we should have the amount of energy we want.  If I am allowed to have the energy I want, why can’t I have the abortion I want, or the drugs I want,  or kill whom I want, or take whatever I want.  Especially since I am taught to want more  So morality must be rephrased to needs.  Does a woman who has been impregnated against her will need an abortion?  If my neighbor is offensive and I am high do I need to be high and do I need to kill him, and if I don’t need that, do I need to fight for a country based on their needs?  For instance Putin wants to conquer Ukraine but no need to do so while the Ukranians need to defend themselves and didn’t want to be invaded.  Finally I hate stealing to the degree anyone does.  I seldom have more than I need but if you need what I do have then I will give it to you, but if you steal  from me then you are trying to take what I need because you want what I need.  And someone who wants a bigger house but doesn’t need a bigger house but will not share that bigger house with those who need a house, does he need to complain of stealing what he wants by someone who needs what his wants prevents them from having.  If morality is not a question of needs but a question of wants, then the consumption of energy by our species takes away the needs of other species to survive, then is not our want of such energy an act of immorality?  And if that is the case then shouldn’t we not want to create an endless source of energy to supply energy for all of our wants instead of only seeking enough energy to supply our needs?  As long as the presumption of energy consumption is based upon supplying more energy than we need to satisfy our wants does it matter its environmental impact when we know a “cleaner” energy will create more wants and therefore more consumption and thus negligible or greater impact upon the environment which ultimately leads to our demise because even a small fire by the hunter-gatherers impacted the environment. When they burned wood the wood was transformed.  When a tiger brings down a prey he alters the environment but the environment allows for this and absorbs the impact into a natural phenomenon that allows the next prey to grow and the next predator to succeed.  But massive impacts cause massive alterations and the massive amount of energy humankind wants, makes for a far greater alteration.  And no matter how we provide more energy it will continue to imbalance nature to a greater degree depending on the greater the generation of the energy.  Now think for one minute—technology itself is only something we think grants us power over nature but in actuality it only alters the environment forcing nature to adjust and the adjustment will lead to an environment that was not the one we evolved within.  

So suppose fusion is the energy source that will provide a limitless amount of energy for all of our wants. That is not a good thing.  We don’t have any experience beyond stars with fusion energy.  That experience teaches us that stars burn out, that the process of fusion is not limitless but limited to the amount of energy that each star has the resources to use.  But our sun has, compared to earth, an infinite quantity of fusible resources and can burn for another five and half billion years.  But it is limited.  And those who tell you fusion energy will be unlimited are telling you nonsense.  A fusion reactor will continually need to be refueled and a very limited amount will actually be capable of being reused.  So right there is a myth greater than Noah's ark, if you believe that to be mythical nonsense, it is a story of no less nonsense than proposing unlimited energy via fusion..  The available resources upon earth to sustain fusion are limited—probably to a maximum of 100 years, and the amount of resources that are upon the earth that will be necessary to be consumed to maintain fusion generation in the quantity to supply all of our needs will be the most resource draining technologies that we have ever consumed and by the end of that time what will be left is dry oceans, and no living species.  We are told the beauty is there will be not only no greenhouse effect but a lessening of the effect.  But to lessen the greenhouse effect will cause the temperature to drop—potentially to 0 F, or 255 Kelvin.  Any water would be frozen and no plants or animals could survive.  We may not want too much greenhouse effect but we certainly don’t want too little.A slight increase in the greenhouse effect is survivable, a slight decrease is not.

 Okay here is the utopic picture (Source unknown, from google search):

“Since nuclear fusion is such a powerful way to generate energy, and since a fusion reactor can potentially be so compact, it could eventually replace all other forms of energy production anywhere in the world. That would mean that generating energy from fossil fuels would no longer be necessary. In fact, just one kilogram of fusion fuel can provide the same amount of energy as 10 million kilograms of fossil fuel. So the planet's electricity production could be entirely carbon neutral.

Clean and safe

Unlike the nuclear fission in modern day reactors, fusion is much safer. Since no radioactive waste is produced, the dangers of a meltdown are non-existent. There is also no danger of fusion going into a runaway reaction.

More expansive space flight

Engines fueled by fusion will radically transform our ability to explore space. For instance, fusion could make it possible to travel to Mars in a month, instead of the six months currently projected for flight to the red planet.

Limitless fuel

Fusion also provides a virtually limitless supply of fuel. It can be produced using seawater as an input, which means we can get all the fuel we need from the ocean, rather than having to drill for more limited sources, as we do with oil. Fusion could end most of the world's strife that revolves around limited resource extraction. Because the fuel supply is nearly limitless, this also means that fusion power could potentially be dirt cheap.

Basically, fusion energy is powerful, plentiful, cheap and clean. There is no end to the ways such an energy source could radically transform the world. But, of course, this all depends on the viability of Lockheed Martin's claims. We shall have to await more details about the company's design before we can know for sure.

Yes, fusion power plants will look from afar just like other power plants. Many people connect the view of the cooling towers with the danger of radiation and nuclear power plants. Truth be told, any thermal power plant uses some kind of cooling tower. Many power plants, be it gas, coal or nuclear power plants, use this type of tower to reduce the temperature of water/steam that has been run through a turbine to produce electricity.”

I have no idea who wrote that gobbledy gook.  It lacks even one sentence of scientific reality.  In other words, every single line is lying , probably to convince those to believe so the developers can become wealthy and/or obtain (monetary) power for themselves.  Not one sentence of scientific truth.  Not one sentence.  Repeat until you get this into your head—it is all a lie.

That’s the promise.

Point 1–clean and safe.

Daniel Jassby who worked in the Princeton Plasma Laboratory conducting fusion experiments for over 20 years says it is anything but clean or safe.  Since fusion on the sun is possible due to an intense gravitational confinement the result is a harmless helium isotope.  But on earth we are restricted to much less particle density and confinement that lacks the singular gravitational confinement of the sun.  The result is we have to use heavier hydrogen isotopes—deuterium and tritium.  And these have 24 times more radioactivity than the singular hydrogen isotope.  And our water on earth is over 99.98% protium.  So we have a singular problem in that extracting deuterium would upset the natural balance of the ocean which could potentially eliminate all marine species.  On the other hand if too much deuterium increased in the oceans it would have a massive change on the climate and could increase the greenhouse effect to a potentially higher level than carbon fuels.  Now we have known this, as we already use deuterium for cooling fission power plants and the water is highly radioactive and needs to be contained and is one of the major issues of containment in spent nuclear power plants.  Unlimited amounts of deuterium escaping in the atmosphere would be too heavy to collect in clouds and so would all gather in the greenhouse gas belt and the volume of deuterium also being more than protium would increase the greenhouse effect to double the amount of normal water vapor.  Deuterium is 0.156 of our ocean water volume but 0.312 of our ocean water mass.  So as we mentioned in our article on use of water power, the increase in greenhouse is not simply co2 from burning fossils but from increased release of methane into the atmosphere and the increased water vapor that doesn’t return to earth caused by the lessening of water volume due to damming and irrigation that causes increased evaporation and ultimately less rainfall until the oceans become to warm and their is increased rainfall.  But of course only half of the evaporated water gathers in the clouds and the other half descends higher in the atmosphere into what we call the greenhouse layer. 

So if deuterium escapes it would increase the mass of water vapor.  And when we attempt to contain it, we have a problem with heavy water that cannot be easily disposed of.  But in fusion we also use tritium.  That is because to fuse the hydrogen on earth if we only use deuterium the heat required is nearly double the temperature of the sun. So we need to use a mix of deuterium-tritium and still require a temperature hotter than the temperature of the sun.  Another problem is tritium is nearly non-existent in the earthly environment and would need to be primarily collected from fission because tritium is largely only collectable as a by-product from fission.  So to fuel our fusion plants we would need to extract tritium from fission reactors.  But if tritium escapes into the atmosphere is it safe?  Well we are told it is because  tritium’s radioactive half-life is only 12.6 years.  But of what point is that if you plan to continue using tritium to supply most of our energy needs then that half-line of 12.6 years would have no end date as it would be continually re-entered into our environment

We are also told there could be no possibility of a fusion reactor “melting down”.  Well we were told that about fission reactors too, weren’t we?  If you want to believe that about fusion, consider that there is no known insulation that tritium does not eventually burn through.   Yes the nuclear companies—the fission companies—tell us it doesn’t—but all research done by non-power plants and non-governmental studies show it does and leakages in the vicinities of all nuclear fission power plants have detected  tritium in the water.  Now power companies tell us the tritium detected was not from leakage from the reactors but already present in the environment.  Mighty strange sense that would mean fission reactors were only built on sites that already contained tritium in the environment, mighty strange in itself since it almost does not exist anywhere within the earth’s environment.   Also mighty strange since physicists tell us they haven’t found any type of insulation that tritium doesn’t eventually corrode and leak through. 

So that is proof positive of fusion reactors cleanliness and harmlessness to the environment, right?  So let's look at the economics—first of all let's state the obvious.  Fusion won’t work without intense pressure and a vacuum is needed to contain the pressure and since tritium will corrode the insulation necessary to maintain that vacuum and since the heat necessary to maintain the fusion will be so intense the life of a fusion plant will more than likely have no more than five years tops.  Add that to the fact that construction of the containment facilities and the mining of  the materials necessary for that containment, though currently plentiful (primarily lithium and nickel) would increase environmental degradation by mining.  The need to frequently build new containment facilities and to continually need a supply of  tritium means we will need to continue to use fission to capture the tritium as a by-product.  Of course it would be an economic boon for those profiting. And people in want of more and more electricity  for more and more gadgets they are told they need will continue to impoverish themselves as their utility bills will have to triple. As far as being cheaper for the consumer that would be true only if you don’t think tripling the cost of your utility bills isn’t more expensive.

There is also the suggestion we can mine asteroids for tritium.  I don’t think it has been established for certain that tritium exists even on asteroids or to what extent if it does.  Of course it’s also been proposed that we mine asteroids for water if the earth begins to run short.  I’m not sure why we would do such a thing since it has been established that asteroids have mostly deuterium water and would not be usable within the earth’s environment for the sustenance required for earth’s life forms.  I am also unclear why we concern ourselves overly in searching for water in extra-earth systems at all as if it is only water that indicates that earth-like lifeforms might exist.  For earthly-type life it has to be protium water.  When we talk about water on Mars being available if we could warm the atmosphere, once again we are talking nonsense because the polar ice on mars has been analyzed to be primarily deuterium ,so even if it were to flow in valleys as some propose could be done it would neither sustain us or any of our foodstuffs.  If we actually did attempt to ‘colonize’ Mars we would have to import all the necessary water from earth.  Of course we can reduce the deuterium through a platinum catalyst that can reduce deuterium from 145 parts per million to 125 parts per million.  That is the upper limit acceptable for water facilities on earth.  However the norm in water upon earth is one deuterium water molecule per 20 million and a continued diet would destroy the cellular structure by doubling the water volume within our bodies and our cells would “explode”.   So while we might have to attempt mining on asteroids to get deuterium for fusion power plants it is ridiculous to listen to nonsense about importing water from asteroids or creating water on Mars.  Maybe Elon Musk is smart but he’s pretty stupid if he thinks he can survive on Mars simply by melting polar ice and producing water.  And maybe scientists are pretty smart to develop fusion energy on earth but it’s pretty stupid to tell people it is an endless form of energy or even that it is a renewable form of energy. But supposing we could mine for tritium on extraterrestrial surfaces what would the cost of that be and now you’re probably no longer talking about tripling your utility bill but increasing potentially 3000 times. And what resources would need to be consumed on earth to get to asteroids to mine them  And why would we think mining on an asteroid with an already unstable orbit not just completely destabilize the orbit or have any effect on other orbital bodies. Well that’s really smart technological thinking but absolutely and completely moronic scientific thinking.  Technology says create what you can and that will be better than what was prior.  Scientific thinking should be before we do anything let’s determine what the consequences are going to be.

Before we finish we must talk about something else.  The efficiency of fusion is so low that it will consume nearly three times the energy it produces.  This is the problem when we try to convert any energy form into a controlled energy to provide electricity.  Most of the natural energy of any source, whatever the source we use to extract the energy from.  is consumed in the process of extraction.  So the talk of “natural” or “clean” or “alternative” energy are fairy tales, dreams  that will always lead to nightmares.  To be natural or clean or even environmentally neutral we have to use it naturally without attempting to control it.  Once we try to convert it into a controlled source we increase the need to use even more resources, because so much more is wasted.  All the energy expended to extract the energy needed for the energy use under controlled circumstances is wasted energy and all wasted energy adversely affects the natural environment. Now technologists interested in selling all energy scoff that how efficient a source of energy is not relevant to how much energy is needed to create it.  Well that is as absurd as saying if you carry a bucket of water and half of it spills out all you need to is carry a larger bucket and the spillage doesn’t matter.  It is also absurd scientifically because we already know the part of fossil fuels that is not consumed is environmentally harmful and is creating the so-called global warming. (So called not because the environment is not transforming, but so-called that it is only fossil fuels that are creating the problem and a false ideology that somehow if we transform our energy reliance on fossil fuels we magically end our degradation of the environment.) It is not the methods we use that create environmental harm, but the manner in which we try to conform the environment to our own wants that creates the environment to need to adjust.

Since the creation of fusion energy on earth presents us with a conundrum of negative efficiency that means all of the massive amounts of promised energy will require nearly double the amount of energy consumption to create than the massive amount  created; which means more overall negative effect upon the earth’s environment than any other energy source we could use.  The promise of cleanliness at the site of generation even if it is 100% true and there is never a leakage or meltdown and it seems wonderful  physically after the creation of the energy; the environmental degradation needed in creating it is always going to be greater than the “green” energy it provides. Now it just so happens that the “greenest”, most efficient energy of any energy source  man has attempted is natural gas.  Now everyone is screaming.  I am not speaking of coal, or oil, or any refined natural gas products.  The efficiency of natural gas simply piped into a stove is around 90% (depending on the efficiency and system designed to supply it.  That means less than ten percent would escape into the atmosphere which would be on par with a wood fire.  If there was not a lot of need it could be the least environmentally offensive source of energy  and used sparingly by a much smaller population probably not do much to increase greenhouse gasses.  Now something happens when we convert it at power plants—the efficiency at the most efficient plants, at times of less than optimal use drops to around 60% but can drop even lower to 48 or 49% .  Still doing less environmental damage than any other energy source.  My point being not that if seven and a half billion people use only natural gasses that will be the solution.  What the people do not tell you about any energy source is the degradation caused first, by extracting it at the source(and extracting natural gas creates a very serious problem, secondly by processing into a controllable supplier of electrical energy, thirdly by the necessity of constructing the system to supply the power, fourthly by the amount used, and fifthly by the amount of energy lost in the process.  All of that energy in each of the steps that is used to create the energy affects the environment in a negative manner or at least in a manner that compounds and leads to environmental change.  To only look at the end by-product’s polluting effects is misleading and allows us to delude ourselves into thinking some energies are better, or less degrading to the environment.  It must be compounded by the entire process and the amount of use.  So to promise endless electricity will never be environmentally sound. What we need from our energy sources is vastly decreased use and vastly increased efficiency. 

So to sum I am going to plagiarize Daniel Jassby’s summation:

To sum up, fusion reactors face some unique problems: a lack of a natural fuel supply (tritium), and large and irreducible electrical energy drains to offset. Because 80 percent of the energy in any reactor fueled by deuterium and tritium appears in the form of neutron streams, it is inescapable that such reactors share many of the drawbacks of fission reactors—including the production of large masses of radioactive waste and serious radiation damage to reactor components. These problems are endemic to any type of fusion reactor fueled with deuterium-tritium, so abandoning tokamaks for some other confinement concept can provide no relief.

If reactors can be made to operate using only deuterium fuel, then the tritium replenishment issue vanishes and neutron radiation damage is alleviated. But the other drawbacks remain—and reactors requiring only deuterium fueling will have greatly enhanced nuclear weapons proliferation potential.

These impediments—together with the colossal capital outlay and several additional disadvantages shared with fission reactors—will make fusion reactors more demanding to construct and operate, or reach economic practicality, than any other type of electrical energy generator.

The harsh realities of fusion belie the claims of its proponents of “unlimited, clean, safe and cheap energy.” Terrestrial fusion energy is not the ideal energy source extolled by its boosters, but to the contrary: It’s something to be shunned.

Now the final rub in all of this that you might wish to consider is the way a star creates energy.  First of all the heat of course is the byproduct, or the “waste” of the fusion that fires the sun.  The heat we feel from the sun, or the use of any energy source is created as a result of transforming one thing into something else.  If I burn wood the result is no longer wood, but a transformation of the wood into a new chemical composition, ash.  Now we can also burn stone, although it takes a much higher temperature.  Stones around a firepit will only char but will remain stone.  But increase the temperature enough and stone becomes “rockwool” chemically transformed and not stone.  But just as in the mating of species the offspring is different from the parent, but genetically similar.  So yes we can detect certain elements of the tree in the ash, or of the stone in the wool.  But it is still a transformation and not chemically identical.  And certainly as any star burns its fuel, it chemically transforms from mostly fusing hydrogen into helium.  As the heavier helium grows in weight then the force of gravity begins to collapse the star upon itself and then the consequence depends on the mass of the star.  Energy is the byproduct of the transformation and the idea of endless energy is the byproduct of ignorance.

And so to answer our question posed in the title, the more energy used, the less energy available and the sooner the end of the energy available.  Don’t look to the promises of the technologist, look at the chemistry and physics of the universe.

As a footnote, you might do some research on the potential of fusion weaponry.  I have included some articles in the notes.  Fusion weaponry was first thought of before fission weapons.  There are many plans and many delivery systems designed that could potentially work to make the weapons possible.  What has never been accomplished was the fusing.  If fusion energy becomes possible and available fusion weapons are right behind.  You might want to know that all of the countries who have invested heavily in creating fusion reactors have also invested heavily in technologies and research to make fusion weapons deliverable if the technology of fusing can itself be developed.