This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

10,098 Members

Post

Does All-of-the-Above Energy Include Long Shots?

Image

An article in Tuesday’s Washington Post described the current funding woes of US research into nuclear fusion, focused on anticipated budget and job cuts at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, MIT and several other sites.  Aside from the general challenge of funding all of the Department of Energy’s programs at a time of huge federal deficits and ballooning debt, it appears that domestic fusion research is being cut mainly to meet our commitments to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) being built in France.  The article goes on to suggest that fusion has been excluded from the list of “all-of-the-above” energy technologies that the administration has embraced.  That raises questions that would merit attention at any time but seem particularly relevant in an election year.

Before discussing its proper priority in US federal energy research and planning, it’s important to recognize, as the article does, that fusion is very much a long-shot bet.  We know that nuclear fusion works, because it’s the process that powers our sun and all the stars.  However, that doesn’t guarantee that we can successfully harness it safely here on earth for our own purposes.  I’ve heard plenty of energy experts who think that the only fusion reactor we need is the one 93 million miles away, which remains the ultimate source of nearly all the BTUs and kilowatt-hours of energy we use, except for those from nuclear (fission) power plants and geothermal energy. 

Unfortunately, the challenges of harnessing the sun’s energy bounty in real time, rather than via the geologically slow processes that produced fossil fuels or the faster but still ponderous growing cycles of biofuels, are distinctly non-trivial–hence the debate about whether and how to overcome the intermittency and cyclicality of wind and solar power through optimized dispersal, clever use of Smart Grid technology, or with energy storage that requires its own breakthroughs if it is to be an economical enabler of wind or solar. A working fusion reactor would provide an end-run around all those problems and fit neatly into our current centralized power grid, with what is expected to be negligible emissions or long-term waste.  Who wouldn’t want that?

Of course fusion power isn’t easy, either; it’s the definition of difficult.  Scientists around the world have been chasing it for at least five decades.  I recall eagerly reading about its potential when I was in my early teens.  Then, it was seen to be 30-40 years from becoming commercial, and that’s still a reasonable estimate, despite significant progress in the intervening decades.  I admit I don’t follow fusion research nearly as closely as I used to, in all its permutations of  stellarators, tokamaks, laser bombardment chambers and other competing designs, all pursuing the elusive goal of “net energy”–getting more energy back than you must put into achieving the temperatures and pressures necessary to fuse the chosen hydrogen isotopes.

So where does a high-risk, high-reward investment like fusion fit into the concept of all-of-the-above energy that now dominates the energy debate on both sides of the political aisle, and in the trade-offs that must accompany any serious energy strategy or plan for the US?  After all, “all of the above” is an attempt to recognize the widely differing states of readiness of our various energy options, the time lags inherent in replacing one set of sources with another, and the need to continue to supply and consume fossil fuels during our (long) transition away from them.  While I’ve never seen an official list of what’s in and what’s out, my own sense of all of the above is that it’s composed of technologies that are either commercial today or that have left the laboratory but still require improvement and scaling up to become commercial.  In contrast, fusion hasn’t left the lab and it’s not clear when or if it will, at least on a timescale that’s meaningful either for energy security or climate change mitigation. No one can tell us when the first fusion power plant could be plugged into the grid, and every attempt at predicting that has slipped, badly. 

Fusion wasn’t mentioned once in the Secretary of Energy’s remarks to Congress concerning the fiscal 2013 Energy Department Budget, and it was only shown as a line item in his latest budget presentation.  Yet I can’t think of any other new technology that’s customarily included in all of the above that has even a fraction of fusion’s potential for delivering clean energy in large, centralized increments comparable to today’s coal or nuclear power plants.  We could spend all day arguing whether that’s as desirable now (or in the future) as it was just a few years ago, but from my perspective it contributes to the option value of fusion.  No one would suggest fusion as a practical near-term alternative, but with the prospect of a shale-gas bridge for the next several decades, it might be an important part of what we could be bridging towards.

Overall, the DOE has budgeted just under $400 million for fusion R&D in fiscal 2013, out of a total budget request of $27 billion.  That’s not insignificant, and devoting 1.5% of the federal energy budget to fusion might be about the right proportion for such a long-term endeavor that is decades from deployment, relative to funding for medium-term efforts like advanced fission reactors and near-term R&D on renewables and efficiency.  The problem is that DOE is cutting deeply into US fusion capabilities, not just at Princeton but also at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia, in order to boost US funding for ITER from $105 million to $150 million next year. Only the fusion budgets for Oak Ridge Laboratory, which is managing the US role in ITER, and for the D.C. HQ grew.

I’m certainly not against international cooperation in science, which has become increasingly important as the costs of “big science” projects expand.  However, even if ITER represented the very best chance to take fusion to the next level on its long path to deployment, the long-term implications of these cuts for US fusion science capabilities look significant.  As with the space program, once the highly trained and experienced fusion workforce and teams are laid off and broken up, it becomes enormously difficult to reconstitute them, if needed.  This is particularly true of those with advanced degrees in fields that have declined in popularity at US universities, or for which the majority of current graduates are non-US students who will return to their countries of origin in search of better opportunities.  I wouldn’t support keeping these programs going just to provide guaranteed employment for physicists, but we had better be sure that we won’t need them later.  I am skeptical that we can be sufficiently certain today of the likely deployment pathways for fusion to be able to make such an irreversible decision with confidence.

I understand that in times like these we must make tough choices; that’s the essence of budgeting.  I’m also sympathetic to those who might think that fusion researchers have had ample time and support to deliver the goods, already.  Yet I can’t help being struck by the contradiction of a DOE budget in which US R&D for such a long-term, high-potential technology is cut, at the same time that Secretary Chu and the President are pushing hard for multi-billion dollar commitments to extend the Production Tax Credit for renewable energy and reinstate the expired 1603 renewable energy cash grant program, a substantial portion of the past benefits from which went to non-US manufacturers and project developers. The total 2013 budget cuts for the US fusion labs are equivalent to the tax credits for a single 90 MW wind farm, which would contribute less than 0.01% of annual US power generation.  Although we clearly can’t fund every R&D idea to the extent researchers might wish, I believe it is a mistake to funnel so much money–about 40% of which must be borrowed–into perpetual supportfor the deployment of relatively low-impact and essentially mature technologies like onshore wind, when the same dollars would go much farther on R&D.

Image Credit: Nixx Photography/Shutterstock

Geoffrey Styles's picture

Thank Geoffrey for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Discussions

Andrew Holland's picture
Andrew Holland on June 28, 2012

Geoff – Great post! Your paragraph at the end is right on point, particularly this:

 I believe it is a mistake to funnel so much money–about 40% of which must be borrowed–into perpetual supportfor the deployment of relatively low-impact and essentially mature technologies like onshore wind, when the same dollars would go much farther on R&D.

It is simply crazy that there’s so little focus on long term R&D, while so much focus (and funding) goes to pushing wind turbines out the door.

I’m afraid that its because of the short-term nature of our political cycle. We want clean energy, yes, but its even more important that we’re able to get it now – on a time frame that the politician can cut the ribbon.


Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on June 28, 2012

Our entire National Environmental/Energy policy priorities will be challenged by November.

People are being reminded that water is the largest climate and energy system component. The exclusive fixation (by some) on CO2 emissions does not impact greenhouse warming while the Western Rocky Mountains are burning instead of breathing, while The Great Plains can’t grow a healthy food crop. I am at a loss to understand the political disregard for basic biology.

This is not a “long shot,” this is certainty, on a scale that dwarfs any set of fossil fuel combustion systems. Water, vegetation, etc. defined us as a nation. At the height of summer, half our nation’s photosynthesis is distressed (to put it mildly). Yet I have to contrive to insert consideration into a web site devoted to the topic.

Throw in rapidly rising tensions in oil producing regions and funding windmills seems insane.

Some day perhaps we can get beyond grade school biology reminders. And maybe someone will know how biology captures the sun’s photons to separate hydrogens in water and plug them on carbon. And maybe someone will know how biology generates electricity. We have a lot to learn quickly. And most environment energy discussions are heading in the wrong direction.

Edward Kerr's picture
Edward Kerr on June 29, 2012

Goeffrey,

As you note, Fusion research has been going on for several decades with little, if any, progress. True, if we were able to harness that power we could decommission all of the wind mills that are flying out the door. (too slowly for my tastes though) You are also correct to point out that all energy is solar in origin, be it fossil or, so called, alternative. Even the uranium that you mention was produced in a stellar reaction. (nova or supernova- 3% loss of matter vs nearly 100% loss of matter) I have to agree with Andrew when he notes that our energy problem is too immediate to pin our hopes on the “long shot” that fusion represents. Still, cutting back on R&D in general is, as you point out, shortsighted.

Thanks for a great post,

Ed

 

Geoffrey Styles's picture
Geoffrey Styles on June 29, 2012

Andrew,

I’ve believed for a long time that we won’t crack our energy problems until we approach them like the Cold War, with long-term, bi-partisan policies that get handed off from one administration to the next.  Update them to reflect new realities (“Tear down that wall!”)  but patience and vision will pay bigger dividends than knee jerks.

Kevin Friesth's picture
Kevin Friesth on July 5, 2012

Geoffrey,

 

If your not a big ploitical contributer you can’t get the DOE to hardly notice or take the time to answer a question let alone attempt to get help for a new technology startup.  Most if not almost all the DOE have funded from ARPA-E was government labs, university projects or some large vc group pet project that has friends of friends to get the handouts.

 

I have a plan to launch this fall with both our interally developed wind turbine and high pressure alkaline mass generation hydrogen electrolyzer systems, using ammonia for energy storage and income revenue streams, our present plan is to launch our technology later this fall once our external technology review and confirmation is completed.  

 

Its only taken this long as we haven’t have huge amounts of external investment as such we have self funded our technology, we also have the advantage that the technology is owned between a cofounder and myself.

 

We plan to show and prove we can deliver electrical generation COE less than any other source known today to include natural gas, coal or nueclear.  We developed it to operate without the need for subsidy support.  We would have been one of those longshots but with confirmation its only a matter of buildout and time.  I don’t personally think they want distruptive innovation they fear it.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »