Nuclear Fusion and Our Future

Is Fusion Power a Safer and Superior Alternative to Fission Power And Which Method of Fusion is the Most Promising for Future Energy Generation?

Dissertation by FĂĄbio Ribeiro Brady Extended Project Qualification - 2016-2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1 - Comparing Fusion Power with Fission Power .................................................................. 2 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Scientific Challenges and efficiency ..................................................................................................................... 3 Risks posed by the process of Fusion and Fission in Power Plants ...................................................................... 5 The risks posed by the waste products to human life and the environment ...................................................... 8 Economic Viability .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Relative energy produced per kilogram of fuel and avaliblity fo fuel ................................................................ 11

Section 2 – Comparing techniques of achieving nuclear power ....................................................... 12 Comparing Magnetic confinement with inertial confinement .......................................................................... 12

Section 3 - Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 14 Is Fusion power a safer and superior alternative to fission power? .................................................................. 14 Which method of fusion is the most promising for future energy generation? ............................................... 15

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 16 Appendix ................................................................................................................................... 19

1

SECTION 1 - COMPARING FUSION POWER WITH FISSION POWER INTRODUCTION

Nuclear power stations have been using the method of nuclear fission to generate electricity for over half a century1. This involves splitting up relatively heavy atomic nuclei with more than 200 nucleons (protons and neutrons) to release energy2. The two common isotopes used for this method are uranium-235 and plutonium-2393. The energy released, which is in the form of kinetic and gamma radiation, heats up a coolant which is pumped through the reactor core. The coolant then is taken to water which it heats up to produce high pressure steam to turn turbines4. However, there is an alternate method of harnessing the energy within the atomic nucleus; nuclear fusion, which will be the subject of my dissertation. Fusion involves, joining two light nuclei such as hydrogen to make a heavier nucleus to release energy. This also happens to be the power source of stars.

In this dissertation, I shall be comparing fusion against its nuclear counterpart; fission. I shall investigate the following factors to decide which method is safer and overall more beneficial to humanity and the welfare of the planet as a whole: scientific viability and efficiency, threats posed by the process and by-products to human life and to the environment, economic viability, amount of energy produced per unit fuel required and availability of the fuel.

Energy production is a major world issue. As the world’s population increases and the finite resources of fossil fuels become depleted, the human race must look for new ways to meet the energy demand whilst considering the impact on the environment.

There are immediate advantages to nuclear power, such as the energy richness of the fuel compared to fossil fuels and the absence of carbon emissions. I want to investigate which type of nuclear power plant, fission or fusion, should be powering our future alongside renewables. I will also be investigating leading techniques for achieving nuclear fusion practically for the generation of electricity nation wide. Furthermore, I shall investigate if fusion is likely to be an attractive energy source in the foreseeable future and which method of fusion is most likely to be powering homes in the coming decades.

https://www.wired.com/2012/06/june-27-1954-worlds-first-nuclear-power-plant-opens/

1

Author: Marion Brnglinghaus, European Nuclear Society. "Nuclear Power Plants, World-Wide". Euronuclear.org. 2016.

Web. 6 Nov. 2016 - https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm K. Johnson, S. Hewett, S. Holt, J. Miller (2015) ‘Advanced Physics for You’ (2nd ed.) Oxford University Press – The authors have written several physics textbooks written last year with up-to-date information 2

3"BBC

- GCSE Bitesize: Nuclear Fission". Bbc.co.uk. N.p., 2016. Web. 6 Nov. 2016.http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_aqa_pre_2011/radiation/nuclearfissionrev1.shtml - 9 July 2016 - This is written by a non-biased source written very recently 4

K. Johnson, S. Hewett, S. Holt, J. Miller (2015) ‘Advanced Physics for You’ (2nd ed.) Oxford University Press

2

SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGES AND EFFICIENCY

Firstly, I shall explore the challenges faced by scientists and engineers alike to operate nuclear power plants. As of May 2016, there are currently no commercial nuclear fusion reactors whereas there were around 444 nuclear reactors providing, in 2012, 10.9 percent of the world's electricity5. This huge imbalance of use of the two methods and preference to build fission reactors is not because fusion is a new technology or concept (research into fusion and its relation to the Sun dates back to 1920s with Francis Aston and Arthur Eddington6), but because of the engineering and scientific obstacles to overcome. Such challenges are a key reason behind the hindrance to commercial fusion energy and will decide when fusion power will be providing energy for the grid.

Keeping two hydrogen nuclei from fusing is the second strongest fundamental force in the universe; electromagnetism. Scientists have to achieve temperatures of over 100 million degrees Celsius to emulate conditions inside a stellar core in order to get the two nuclei close enough to fuse. The primary issue here is building a container that can withstand such temperatures and there are no materials as of yet which can do this.

Attempts to get around this work by using electromagnetism itself to build a magnetic and electrostatic field container or “magnetic bottle� exploiting the very force keeping the nuclei apart.

The charged particles of the hot plasma within it will be repelled by the walls of the container. Any contact with the container will cause serious damage to the reactor vessel and the plasma will cool halting any fusion reactions.

Another challenge related to this method is that any irregularities in the hot plasma can amplify and disrupt the reaction7. Techniques of controlling this plasma to make it as uniform as possible involve complex and intricate control of the magnetic confinement of the plasma using more magnets surrounding the vessel.

Other methods of fusion avoid the need of a magnetic container by using lasers to heat a pellet of hydrogen isotopes. I will explore these techniques of fusion in more detail in the next section.

5"Number

Of Nuclear Reactors - World Nuclear Association". World-nuclear.org. N.p., 2016. Web. 6 Nov. 2016.http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/global-number-of-nuclear-reactors.aspx "World Statistics - Nuclear Energy Institute". Nei.org. N.p., 2016. Web. 6 Nov. 2016.-http://www.nei.org/KnowledgeCenter/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics Sources are both nuclear power supporting statistics organisations both with near coherent statistics so there is some uncertainty in the number of power stations. The number varies by 3 between the websites.

6"Discovery

Of The Energy Source In Stars | Eurofusion". EUROfusion. N.p., 2016. Web. 13 Nov. 2016 .

7"One

Step Closer To Controlling Nuclear Fusion". Phys.org. N.p., 2016. Web. 6 Nov. 2016.- http://phys.org/news/201201-closer-nuclear-fusion.html This information of the website was provided by Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne in 2012

3

However, the fission of uranium-235 (or plutonium-239) nuclei does not require great forces to be overcome. This makes fission reactions easier to initiate and hence why fission is more widely used to generate electricity worldwide.

All that is required for fission to occur is the bombardment of the fuel nuclei with slow-moving neutrons such that the nuclei become unstable by absorbing the neutrons and then splitting8. As the nucleus splits, it produces two various daughter nuclei, energy and several neutrons which can go on to split more nuclei triggering a chain reaction.

The difficulties related to this is being able to control this chain-reaction. This is achieved by using control rods made from either cadmium or boron to absorb excess neutrons maintaining a safe reaction rate.

Another technical difficulty which is overcome in commercial fission reactors is that the neutrons produced in the splitting of a nucleus are fast-moving. They must be slowed down for them to be absorbed as previously stated. This is done by using a material called the moderator in which the neutrons collide with. The moderator lies in-between the fuel rods which contain the nuclei9.

There are technical difficulties related to fission but these are not as great as those faced by scientists and engineers working on fusion energy. These challenges related to fusion are the limiting factor to fusion’s journey to commercial power. This leads me to the efficiency of the reactions. By efficiency, I mean how the energy input compares to the energy output for the generation of electricity.

At the time of writing, one fusion reactor has claimed to have produced a net gain of energy at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California10. More energy was released than was used but for only many fractions of a second. Impractical for generating electricity to the grid. However, ITER, a fusion reactor under construction in southern France is expected to produce ten times more energy than was needed to initiate it11.

For now, our current techniques and technologies make the efficiency of fission reactors much greater than that of fusion ones as a huge energy input is required in fusion to heat up the particles.

The energy input for the Joint European Torus (JET), a fusion reactor in Culham, Oxfordshire, can consume approximately 1% of the UK’s total electricity usage at any one time.12

8

K. Johnson, S. Hewett, S. Holt, J. Miller (2015) ‘Advanced Physics for You’ (2nd ed.) Oxford University Press

9

K. Johnson, S. Hewett, S. Holt, J. Miller (2015) ‘Advanced Physics for You’ (2nd ed.) Oxford University Press

Ball, Philip. "Laser Fusion Experiment Extracts Net Energy From Fuel".2016.-http://www.nature.com/news/laserfusion-experiment-extracts-net-energy-from-fuel-1.14710 10

11

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/index_en.cfm?pg=fusion&section=realisation-of-iter

ITER & the Environment. Iter.org. Retrieved 21 May 2013.

"How Much Power Is Needed To Start The Reactor And To Keep It Working? | Eurofusion". EUROfusion. N.p., 2016.

Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

12

4

RISKS POSED BY THE PROCESS OF FUSION AND FISSION IN POWER PL ANTS

This chapter will consider whether functioning fusion and fission reactors and their maintaining pose threats to the environment and human life and if so, to what extent.

Although both processes do not release any green-house gases which contribute to climate change, there are some other risks associated with the fuel used and accidents that may occur. The unstable nuclei used in fission for fuel are very radioactive and toxic, spelling disaster for biological organisms if it escapes and contaminates the environment. Such an event can occur in the event of a nuclear “meltdown”.

A meltdown is the melting of the reactor core due to overheating as the rate at which the heat is removed by the coolant is less than the heat produced form the chain reaction. Excessive temperatures, such that the reactor core’s melting point is surpassed, may be as a result of a loss of coolant so that less heat is being taken away from the reactor vessel or criticality excursion which is where the reaction goes out of control, as by nature, chain reactions of neutrons hitting and splitting uranium nuclei increase exponentially.

To avoid meltdowns, the reactor is surrounded not only by a steel pressure vessel containing the high-pressure coolant but also by a 5m-thick concrete shield to stop neutrons sand radiation escaping13. Despite such precautions, the mid-nineteenth century to now has seen these chain reactions get out of hand resulting in a meltdown. The nuclear catastrophe of Chernobyl in 1986 saw an uncontrolled reaction lead to chemical explosions. This resulted in large amounts of radiation being released into the atmosphere which was carried across Europe by wind. It is predicted that this event resulted in up to 4,000 total human deaths from cancers.14 Fission, as shown by history, is a dangerous process. Despite strict safety protocols, accidents have occurred and many have resulted in deaths. It can be argued that the technology and safety has become more stringent since Chernobyl but in 2011, after the coolant systems were damaged, the fission power plant in Fukishima in Japan underwent a meltdown.

Nuclear accidents pose serious risks to the environment and human life as the breaching of the reactor vessel may result in the mixing of the fuel and coolant causing hydrogen explosions which can destroy any concrete shielding, like in Fukishima where 30 people died as a result of such explosions. Radioactive materials that escape into the environment can potentially lead to radiation poisoning of people and animals nearby. Radioactive material may also enter food chains if it contaminates water systems. Detectable levels of radiation in fish have been found in the north

13

K. Johnson, S. Hewett, S. Holt, J. Miller (2015) ‘Advanced Physics for You’ (2nd ed.) Oxford University Press

14Sovacool,

Benjamin K. (2008). "The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907– 2007". Energy Policy 5

pacific and it is highly likely to be related to the Fukishima disaster where radioactive material was leaked into the ocean15. This poses threats of dangerous mutations and cancers in marine life.

Radioactive material releases ionising radiation which is directly related to an increase risk of cancer.

Studies have shown that even workers on nuclear fission facilities are at a greater risk of developing cancer than the average person who does not live near or work in a nuclear power plant 16.

However, in fusion reactors, a meltdown is not possible. The total amount of fusion fuel in the vessel is very small at any point in time. Upon any disruption or breakoff of the fuel supply, the plasma cools within seconds and the process ceases17. The process of fusion does release high-energy neutrons which irradiate the container such that it becomes the only radioactive material produced as a result of the process unlike in fission. I will explore in the next chapter the risks associated with the wastes of both fission and fusion plants in more detail.

Both fusion and fission require radioactive fuel. In fusion, tritium (an isotope of hydrogen) fuel emits a type of ionising radiation called beta radiation which cannot penetrate skin however is toxic when inhaled. The techniques for the safe storage and handling of tritium (which also has applications in medicine) are well developed. ITER has been designed to protect against tritium release and against workers' exposure to radioactivity.18 The tritium fuel is mainly produced inside the plant. This means the total amount of tritium present on the site can be kept very low (to a few kg) minimising risks of exposure to workers.

Tritium fuel can be produced by the reaction itself as neutrons escaping from the plasma interact with a lithium blanket surrounding the reaction vessel. Lithium does need to mined however which does require a vast energy expenditure to clear land and to be dug out of the ground. The other necessary fuel for fusion is Deuterium, another isotope of hydrogen, which is easily extracted from distilling sea water19. It is widely available and harmless. I will compare the availability of fuels for the processes in a later chapter.

To obtain the fuel for a uranium nuclear power plant, uranium ore must be mined. This requires land to be cleared and destroyed and a vast sum of energy to be expended which often comes from fossil fuels, a finite resource which contributes to climate change. Furthermore uranium miners are

"Risks To The Marine Food Chain From On-Going Radiation Contamination Problems At The Damaged Fukushima Nuclear Plant In Japan". Truthliesdeceptioncoverups.info. N.p., 2016. Web. 6 Nov. 2016.http://www.truthliesdeceptioncoverups.info/2013/10/risks-to-marine-food-chain-from-on.html 15

http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7508/77?variant=full-text&ehom - “Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries� published in 2005. Although not recent, the results of the study are reliable as there was a large sample size with 407 391 workers individually monitored.

16

17

https://www.fusenet.eu/node/38#main-content

18

https://www.fusenet.eu/node/38#main-content

19

https://www.iter.org/sci/FusionFuels

6

at an increased risk of developing cancers due to the higher exposure to radioactive radon gas, one of uranium’s decay products.20

http://journals.lww.com/healthphysics/Abstract/1976/06000/Lung_Cancer_in_Uranium_Miners_and_Long_term.1.aspx [see Appendix 2 for more information] 20

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0140673692908662 published in 1992 in the scientific journal The Lancet.

7

THE RISKS POSED BY THE WASTE PRODUCTS TO HUMAN LIFE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Next, I shall compare the effects of wastes produced by both processes.

The by-products produced by nuclear fission power plants are categorised into low, intermediate and high waste depending on the level of their radioactivity. All of which pose medium to long-term threats to both human life and to the environment21. Every four years, a typical nuclear fission plant must replace 200 fuel rods. Spent fuel rods are highly radioactive and have half-lives of thousands of years so are therefore classified as high-level waste. They are stored in glass blocks and in sealed containers underground under constant surveillance in controlled areas. However, there is some uncertainty in how long this common storage method can remain intact. Some of this fuel can actually be re-used to make more fuel or to even supply weapon grade fuel to make nuclear warheads which is poses a clear threat to the human race itself and to the environment.

Intermediate-level waste includes old reactor components and various other used parts which must be encased in cement inside stainless steel drums. These may be 100 times less radioactive than the high-level waste however they too must be stored underground. Low-level waste, such as laboratory instruments and protective clothing is only slightly radioactive in comparison but is also placed in steel containers and then stored in concrete lined vaults. Liquid wastes, such as cooling water are cleaned and then discharged into the sea.

Direct exposure to the by-products themselves can cause serious harm and death but when underground and stored, the environment is shielded for the ionising radiation. We cannot therefore conclude because they are stored away the wastes are no longer an issue. Current disposal methods are not long-term solutions and will serve as burdens for future generations to deal with.

Alongside being expensive to build packaging and storage sites, storage areas are finite. If the amount of waste keeps increasing and the number of waste storage sites keeps increasing, the risks of accidents particularly in transport and risk of exposure to workers increases too.

Some of the wastes of nuclear fusion reactors are the radioactive plant components. These were irradiated by the high energy neutrons released by fusion and release radiation on the order of 50 milliSieverts compared to 10,000 Sieverts released by spent fuel rods22 (a radiation dosage of One Sievert is estimated to cause 5.5% chance of eventually developing cancer in a human [see Appendix 1]) 23. This is the only harmful waste and can be disposed of conventionally within 100 years compared to the thousands of years for the 200 spent fuel rods which are produced every four years

21

K. Johnson, S. Hewett, S. Holt, J. Miller (2015) ‘Advanced Physics for You’ (2nd ed.) Oxford University Press

Alvarez, Robert. "Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools In The U.S.: Reducing The Deadly Risks Of Storage - IPS". Institute for Policy Studies. N.p., 2016. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

22

Gutenberg, Project. "Nanosievert | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - Ebooks | Read Ebooks Online". Gutenberg.us.

N.p., 2016. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

23

8

in fission reactors. It will therefore not be a long-term issue24. An additional by-product of fusion is helium, a harmless gas.

24

CCFE Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, “Fusion – A clean future” May 2016

9

ECONOMIC VIABILITY

This chapter will examine the economics of both methods such as the costs of construction of the reactors and of the electricity produced by both methods.

Building a nuclear power plant varies in cost but is often in the range of £6 - £8 Billion, with the most expensive ranging up to over £18 Billion such as the new Hinkley Point C nuclear power station 25 26.

This will make the Hinkley reactor the most expensive structure on earth. A typical power plant however, such as the Olkiluoto plant in Finland, which was built recently in 2014 and was priced at £7.29 billion pounds27.

Construction of the ITER complex started in 2013 and the building costs are over US$14 billion as of June 201528. This however is an experimental reactor. Commercial fusion reactors of the future may be of a similar price or even more expensive. Since there are no fusion reactors generating electricity for the grid, there are also no figures relating to the cost of electricity generated by fusion for consumers in order to compare it with fission costs. However, due to the vast amount of energy produced per gram of fusion fuel, the cost of fusion-generated electricity is predicted to be comparable to electricity from fossil fuels or nuclear fission making it economically competitive 29.

The energy richness of fuels will be compared in the next chapter. It is evident that associated to both fission and fusion is a large price-tag. It may be a few decades before commercial fusion reactors are functioning but it is likely they are to be similar in cost to fission reactors.

However, estimates for the economic loss of the Fukishima disaster clean up is around £100 billion.

This does not include the effect on the income of local fisherman, as 56% of all catches where contaminated30. Since fusion reactors cannot undergo meltdowns, this will not be an economic problem commercial successors of ITER will face.

25

"The Cost Of Nuclear Power". Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., 2016. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

Farrell, Sean and Terry Macalister. "Work To Begin On Hinkley Point Reactor Within Weeks After China Deal Signed". the Guardian. N.p., 2016. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

26

"Hinkley Point 'Still Worth The Cost' As Price Tag Soars - BBC News". BBC News. N.p., 2016. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

27

"Suomenkin Uusi Ydinvoimala Maksaa 8,5 Miljardia Euroa". HS.fi. N.p., 2016. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

Energy, Fusion. "Fusion For Energy - Understanding Fusion - ITER - Our Contribution". Fusionforenergy.europa.eu. N.p., 2016. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

28

29

CCFE Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, “Fusion – A clean future” May 2016

30

"Costs And Consequences Of The Fukushima Daiichi Disaster | PSR". Psr.org. N.p., 2016. Web. 20 Nov. 2016.

10

RELATIVE ENERGY PRODUCED PER KILOGRAM OF FUEL AND AVALIBL ITY FO FUEL

The fuels of fusion are Deuterium and Tritium. Deuterium can be readily extracted from ordinary water and Tritium can be produced in a fusion power plant from Lithium, a light metal which is abundant in the Earth’s crust.

The earth’s crust is estimated to comprise of 0.0017% Lithium compared to 0.00018% Uranium for nuclear fission; in the other words, Lithium is almost ten times more abundant in the earth’s crust than Uranium31. Nevertheless, all this metal is not readily available to mine. Although it is difficult to give an accurate estimate to the amount of these metals available to mine, surveys put to the world reserves of Lithium at 13 million tonnes32 in 2016 compared to around 6 million tonnes of Uranium in 201433. These are both finite resources but Lithium is more readily available and will last many more generations especially since current rates of production of Lithium are less than that of Uranium [see Appendix 3,4 respectively].

Fusing one kilogram of Deuterium and Tritium (in a ratio of 40:60) will produce 93,600,000 kWh of energy, four times greater than the 22,500,000 kWh produced by one kilogram of Uranium-235 fission fuel34. Although the energy richness of fusion fuels is greater, this result is compromised by the fact that the efficiency of current reactors for fusion are low as previously stated in chapter 1.

Overall, the fuel for fusion is more available and produces more energy per unit mass than fission.

"Abundance In Earth's Crust For All The Elements In The Periodic Table". Periodictable.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 26 Nov. 2016 32 Ober, Joyce. "USGS Minerals Information: Lithium". Minerals.usgs.gov. N.p., 2016. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.

33 "Uranium Supplies: Supply Of Uranium - World Nuclear Association". World-nuclear.org. N.p., 2016. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.

31

34

http://www.mpoweruk.com/energy_resources.htm accessed 26/11/16

11

SECTION 2 – COMPARING TECHNIQUES OF ACHIEVING NUCLEAR POWER COMPARING MAGNETIC CONFINEMENT WITH INERTIAL CONFINEMENT

Fusing light nuclei can be achieved by following several approaches, but two in particular are promising receive more investment and research than the others due to their potential as serving as future commercial fusion reactors. These are magnetic confinement fusion (MCF) and inertial confinement fusion (ICF).

MCF manipulates strong magnetic fields to slowly compress the hot deuterium-tritium gas inside of low density. This combined with other heating elements such as sending a large current through it causes the gas to become a hot plasma with temperatures exceeding 100 million degrees Celsius35.

The hot nuclei of the plasma then come close enough to fuse releasing energy. ICF on the other hand directs an extreme pulse of energy such as from a laser or particle beam onto a tiny deuteriumtritium pellet. This tremendous energy influx vapourises the outer layer of the pellet resulting in energetic collisions which drive the outer layer of the pellet inwards increasing the inner density by a thousand-fold causing the temperature to reach the point of ignition for fusion.36 Whilst MCF brings the nuclei together to fuse relatively slowly, ICF accomplishes fusion in a time interval of 10-11 to 10-9 seconds. The nuclei are like charges so repel, but because the inward force of the pellet is so great and the collisions are of such high-speeds, the nuclei cannot move away from each other quick enough to avoid fusion as a result of having inertia, the property of an object of mass to resist motion, hence the term inertial confinement. The confinement is just the inertia of the compressed fuel.

These two methods have been by far the most successful at producing energy through fusion. The record amount of power produced by any fusion experiment so far is 16 megawatts, generated by a magnetic confinement reactor, namely the JET reactor at the Culham Science Centre in Oxfordshire.

The advantages of MCF is that it can more easily release energy continuously than ICF can, according to the varying electricity demand at any one time. The energy release of ICF is very much instantaneous and harder to store for use. A concept a commercial ICF facility would have to adopt in order to circumvent this issue would be to repetitively launch the pellets of pure deuterium– tritium into the middle of a large empty target chamber. These would then be uniformly illuminated by multiple laser beams that would enter from holes in the chamber wall.37 This has not been achieved yet. Another advantage of MCF is that the reactor chambers can many metres across so can hold a greater volume of fuel and therefore release more energy. In current ICF reactors, the pellets contain much less fuel. They are often less than a centimetre in length to maximise the energy on the pellet per unit area provided by a laser or other energy source. This means MCF has a greater capacity to produce more energy from fusion. 38 35

M. Kaku “Physics of the Future: The Inventions That Will Transform Our Lives” 2011, Penguin Books

"Inertial Confinement Fusion". Hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu. N.p., 2016. Web. 27 Nov. 2016.

Bodner, Stephen E., Andrew J. Schmitt, and John D. Sethian. "Laser Requirements For A Laser Fusion Energy Power Plant". N.p., 2016. Print.

38 "Inertial Confinement Fusion". National Nuclear Security Administration. N.p., 2016. Web. 28 Nov. 2016.

36 37

12

An advantage of ICF is that no magnetic fields are required to confine the plasma. This is an advantage because there is no need for large coils of wire and metal to surround the reactor vessel chamber which makes any repairs and maintained very difficult. It is also very difficult to control a plasma within the chamber, it often has irregularities and bulging which cause the reaction to cease or not operate at full capacity.

13

SECTION 3 - CONCLUSION IS FUSION POWER A SAFER AND SUPERIOR ALT ERNATIVE TO FISSION POWER?

The prospect of a commercial fusion energy reactor will theoretically be a safer alternative to humans and pose less of a threat to the environment than fission plants. This is due to the radioactivity of nuclear fission wastes being significantly more radioactive than that of a fusion plant and due to the impossibility of a meltdown in a fusion power plant. Fusion reactors may be a relatively new piece of lab equipment in comparison, but they are still by design less likely to result in accidents, particularly ones that threaten life such as the handful of nuclear catastrophes related to fission plants which caused radiation poisoning of people. This makes fusion a safer alternative to fission.

On the other hand, fission today is the superior method of the two for generating electricity as a result of its net gain of power. Fusion is difficult to achieve and current technologies have meant that our fusion reactors cannot serve the basic function of a power plant which is to generate more electricity than what was used to initiate the process. Fission plants do this well.

Nevertheless, the potential benefits of harnessing fusion energy are so great. In a few decades the next generation of nuclear fusion power plants will be built such as ITER and they will be a superior alternative than their fission counterparts given the heavy rate of investment and rate of development into this promising technology. Electricity of the future will be partly generated by new fusion reactors, of which will produce more energy per kilogram of fuel than fission, produce no long-lived radioactive waste or greenhouse gases, have an abundant energy source and which can actually produce its own fuel. At which point, some time in the not too distant future, fusion energy will be a far more beneficial and superior alternative to fission.

14

WHICH METHOD OF FUSION IS THE MOST PROMISING FOR FUTURE ENERGY GENERATION?

Both magnetic confinement and inertial confinement fusion are definite candidates to generate electricity in future for our cities as a result of their potentially large power output and attractive attributes for environmentalists. However, MCF, the use of magnets to confine a plasma for fusion is the most promising. This is because the reactor vessels can be more easily scaled up than counterpart methods to contain a larger volume of plasma to generate more electricity and the reactions can produce a power output which is more continuous and therefore more practical for supplying cities with electricity. Fusion in this way is also a more self-sustaining process meaning that once the initial energy is supplied, the energy from the reaction can cause other nuclei to come close enough to fuse unlike in ICF where this cannot happen so easily by design. Plans have already been proposed for the construction of a prototype commercial MCF reactor named DEMO (DEMOnstration power station) which will be built upon the ITER site in decades to come.39

"ITER Future And DEMO - Fusion - Euratom Energy - Research & Innovation - European Commission". Ec.europa.eu. , 11 August 2015, 22 Dec. 2016 <http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/index_en.cfm?pg=fusion&section=iter-future> 39

15

BIBLIOGRAPHY "Abundance In Earth's Crust For All The Elements In The Periodic Table". Periodictable.com. 2016, 26 Nov. 2016 <http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/CrustAbundance.an.log.html> Starr, Steven. "Costs And Consequences Of The Fukushima Daiichi Disaster | PSR". Psr.org. 31 Oct. 2012, 20 Nov. 2016 <http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-health-policy-institute/responses/costs-andconsequences-of-fukushima.html?referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/> "Discovery Of The Energy Source In Stars | Eurofusion". EUROfusion. 3 Aug. 2005, 13 Nov. 2016 <https://www.eurofusion.org/2005/08/discovery-of-the-energy-source-in-stars/> Moylan, John. "Hinkley Point 'Still Worth The Cost' As Price Tag Soars - BBC News". BBC News. 14 July 2016, 20 Nov. 2016. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36794172> "How Much Power Is Needed To Start The Reactor And To Keep It Working? | Eurofusion". EUROfusion. 13 Nov. 2016. <https://www.euro-fusion.org/faq/new-how-much-power-is-needed-to-start-the-reactor-and-to-keep-it-working/#> Nave, Rod. "Inertial Confinement Fusion". Hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu. 27 Nov. 2016 <http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/finert.html> "Inertial Confinement Fusion". National Nuclear Security Administration. 28 Nov. 2016. <https://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ourprograms/defenseprograms/stockpilestewardship/inertialconfinementfusion> "Number Of Nuclear Reactors - World Nuclear Association". World-nuclear.org. 6 Nov. 2016. <http://www.worldnuclear.org/nuclear-basics/global-number-of-nuclear-reactors.aspx> Guérin, Nicolas. "One Step Closer To Controlling Nuclear Fusion". Phys.org. 13 Jan. 2012, 6 Nov. 2016. <http://phys.org/news/2012-01-closer-nuclear-fusion.html> Sheridan, D."Risks To The Marine Food Chain From On-Going Radiation Contamination Problems At The Damaged Fukushima Nuclear Plant In Japan". Truthliesdeceptioncoverups.info. 6 Nov. 2016. <http://www.truthliesdeceptioncoverups.info/2013/10/risks-to-marine-food-chain-from-on.html> "The Cost Of Nuclear Power". Union of Concerned Scientists. 20 Nov. 2016. <http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclearpower/cost-nuclear-power#.WEQgAKKLS34> "Uranium Supplies: Supply Of Uranium - World Nuclear Association". World-nuclear.org. 26 Nov. 2016. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx> Alvarez, Robert. "Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools In The U.S.: Reducing The Deadly Risks Of Storage - IPS". Institute for Policy Studies. 24 May 2011, 13 Nov. 2016. <http://www.ipsdc.org/spent_nuclear_fuel_pools_in_the_us_reducing_the_deadly_risks_of_storage/> "Nuclear Power Plants, World-Wide". European Nuclear Society, Euronuclear.org. 6 Nov. 2016 <https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm> Ball, Philip. "Laser Fusion Experiment Extracts Net Energy From Fuel". 12 Feb 2014, 4 Dec 2016 <http://www.nature.com/news/laser-fusion-experiment-extracts-net-energy-from-fuel-1.14710>

16

Bodner, Stephen E., Andrew J. Schmitt, and John D. Sethian. "Laser Requirements For A Laser Fusion Energy Power Plant". 1 Nov 2012, 2 Dec 2016 <https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridgecore/content/view/S2095471913000017> “Fusion – A clean future” CCFE Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, May 2016, 4 Dec 2016 <http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/assets/Documents/CPS16.49_May2016_low.pdf> "Fusion For Energy - Understanding Fusion - ITER - Our Contribution". Fusionforenergy.europa.eu. 20 Nov. 2016. <http://fusionforenergy.europa.eu/understandingfusion/ourcontribution.aspx> Farrell, Sean and Macalister, Terry. "Work To Begin On Hinkley Point Reactor Within Weeks After China Deal Signed". the Guardian. 21 Oct. 2015. 20 Nov. 2016. <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/21/hinkley-point-reactorcosts-rise-by-2bn-as-deal-confirmed> Gutenberg, Project. "Nanosievert | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - Ebooks | Read Ebooks Online". Gutenberg.us. 13 Nov. 2016.

"Lung Cancer In Uranium Miners And Long-Term Exposure To Rado... : Health Physics". June 1976, 5 Dec. 2016. <http://journals.lww.com/healthphysics/Abstract/1976/06000/Lung_Cancer_in_Uranium_Miners_and_Long_term.1.aspx> “Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries” 07 July 2005, 5 Dec 2016 <http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7508/77?variant=full-text&ehom> Vahakangas K.H., Metcalf R.A., Welsh J.A, Bennett W.P, Harris C.C, Samet J.M. , Lane D.P. “Mutations of p53 and ras genes in radon-associated lung cancer from uranium miners”7 March 1992, 5 Dec 2016 <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0140673692908662> K. Johnson, S. Hewett, S. Holt, J. Miller “Advanced Physics for You” (2nd ed.) 2015, Oxford University Press M. Kaku “Physics of the Future: The Inventions That Will Transform Our Lives” 2011, Penguin Books Ober, Joyce. "USGS Minerals Information: Lithium". Minerals.usgs.gov 20 Oct. 2016, 26 Nov. 2016.

Sovacool, Benjamin K. "The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907–2007" Sciencedirect.com , 14 March 2008, 5 Dec. 16 <https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=The+costs+of+failure%3A+A+preliminary+assessment+of+major+energy+accident s%2C+1907–2007&oq=The+costs+of+failure%3A+A+preliminary+assessment+of+major+energy+accidents%2C+1907– 2007&aqs=chrome..69i57.295j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8> Long, Tony “June 27, 1954: World’s First Nuclear Power Plant Opens” wired.com, 27 Jun. 2016, 5 Dec. 2016, <https://www.wired.com/2012/06/june-27-1954-worlds-first-nuclear-power-plant-opens/> "BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Nuclear Fission". Bbc.co.uk. 2014, 6 Nov. 2016 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_aqa_pre_2011/radiation/nuclearfissionrev1.shtml> “Safety of Fusion Energy and the Environment” fusenet.eu 5 Dec. 2016 <https://www.fusenet.eu/node/38#maincontent> “ITER – FROM DREAM TO REALITY” ec.europa.eu, 11 Aug. 2015, 5 Dec 2016 <http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/index_en.cfm?pg=fusion&section=realisation-of-iter> “Energy Resources” electropaedia mpower.com 26 Nov. 16 <http://www.mpoweruk.com/energy_resources.htm> "Fuelling The Fusion Reaction". Iter.org. 5 Dec. 2016.<https://www.iter.org/sci/FusionFuels>

17

Koistinen, Olavi, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, 20 Nov. 2016 <http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885> "World Statistics - Nuclear Energy Institute". Nei.org. 6 Nov. 2016.<http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/NuclearStatistics/World-Statistics>

18

APPENDIX [1] http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/nanosievert [2]http://journals.lww.com/healthphysics/Abstract/1976/06000/Lung_Cancer_in_Uranium_Miners_and_Long_term.1.as px “We found strong evidence of an increased risk for lung cancer in white uranium miners. The risk was 6 times greater than normal in white miners (about 64 expected, 371 seen). This was mainly due to exposure to radon gas” 1976 [3] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/eason2/ - 2 × 107 kg Lithium produced per year.

[4] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/uranium-production-figures.aspx -5× 107 kg of uranium produced in 2014

19