Environment

Published on October 26th, 2013 | Total Views: | by Kenneth Mei

2

Fusion: a pipe dream for China’s energy craving?

China has long relied on coal and fossil fuel to provide for its energy needs, with severe environmental and social consequences.  Coal alone accounts for roughly 79% of the electricity generated in China. The runoff from coal mining, emissions from power plants, and waste from coal electricity generation are all creating enormous ecological and environmental problems for China.  Harbin’s coal-fired heating systems, recently ramped up for the winter months, gathered international attention after the visibility in the city was reduced to less than 20 meters by the smog.  This is only one example of the serious challenges produced by China’s coal-intensive approach to meeting its demand for energy.

While the Chinese government recognizes the complications, there are simply few alternatives available that will satisfy China’s seemingly endless energy needs.  China’s experience is by no means unique.  London was known for its coal-driven smog during its industrialization, as were many other major cities.  However, the scale and intensity of China’s environmental concerns surpass anything experienced by developing countries in the past.  In an attempt to diversify its energy portfolio, China has turned to nuclear power.  While nuclear fission produces radioactive waste in the form of spent fuel rods, there is another less well-known alternative: nuclear fusion.

China’s use of coal is causing enormous environmental and ecological damages. (Photo credit: LHOON)

At first glance, nuclear fusion seems to be a perfect solution. First, it generates no radioactive waste except for its inner casing, and even that will only remain radioactive for a couple hundred years; by comparison, nuclear fission waste remains radioactive for millennia.  Second, fusion has no risk of creating a runaway nuclear chain reaction the way fission power plants do.  Third, and most importantly, it uses deuterium, which is naturally present in small amounts in water in the form of D2O, commonly known as heavy water.  In other words, a major fuel source for fusion is plentiful.  The problem with fusion is simple: we can’t currently achieve it sustainably.  The principle is simple: build a box to contain the sun and harness its energy.  Unfortunately, scientists currently lack the know-how to actually build such a box.

Smog in China has become increasingly pervasive in the past decade. (Photo credit: fung.leo)

There are two major methods of containment that are relatively well researched. The first is a type of magnetic containment device, the Tokomak, which was invented in the 1950s by Soviet physicists Igor Tamm and Andrei Sakharov.  Tokomak used a magnetic field to confine plasma fuel in the shape of a torus. The second type is called Inertial Confinement Fusion, which attempts to use a high energy laser to compress and heat a tiny fuel pellet until it reaches fusion.  Both methods have so far failed to achieve sustainable fusion, i.e. fusion that can produce enough energy to sustain its energy inputs.  Both approaches are also encountering numerous unforeseen problems.

The EAST reactor in Hefei is a proof of concept for the ITER project. (Photo credit: Guan Cha)

The Chinese government has been investing heavily into the search for nuclear fusion energy for decades, with little progress to show for it. China has paid for around 9% of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a eighteen billion-dollar multinational joint research and engineering project designed to build the world’s largest Tokomak reactor. China also has its own version of Tokomak, called the EAST, housed in Hefei, China. It is designed as a proof of concept and test bed of parts to be used in the ITER project.  Nonetheless, despite decades of research by many countries, the maximum Q factor (a factor of energy output and energy required for its confinement) that has been achieved is 1.25.  A self-sustaining nuclear fusion reaction will require a Q factor of 5.

Does this mean China should stop its efforts? Absolutely not.  China currently possesses no credible existing alternative to fossil fuels.  While nuclear fusion is likely some ways off and the future is uncertain, fusion may nonetheless hold the key to a cleaner energy future for the world’s largest country.  That’s a prospect worth investing in.

Fusion could enable China’s cleaner future. (Photo credit: EFDA)

Tags: , ,


About the Author

is a 2014 MPIA graduate of IR/PS and the Co-Founder and former Creative Director of China Focus. Born in Berkeley, California, he spent most of his childhood in Taipei, Taiwan where he gained fluency in Chinese and interest in politics. He received his B.A. in Political Science with honor from University of California, Merced. During his time at IR/PS Kenneth focused on International Politics and Management. His interests include China – US relations, cross-strait politics, business development in China, product development, retail markets, technology applicaiton, and real estate. He worked for Getchee, a retail GIS consulting firm and Trinity Public Relations Consultants based in Taipei.



2 Responses to Fusion: a pipe dream for China’s energy craving?

  1. Nicholas Heller says:

    China has also been looking into a long overlooked American invention relating to nuclear fission. The source material is a common heavy element called Thorium, and does not yield waste in the long term (the waste it generates is radioactive for a couple of weeks). Good youtube documentary here.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ9Ll5EX1jc

    • Kenny2rx says:

      That’s an interesting one! Thank you for reminding me about it! I remember reading about Thorium reactors being used on concept cars a few years back. Indeed, Thorium reactor is cleaner than current fission reactors based on Uranium, also having the advantage of consuming nuclear bomb legacy plutonium. However, it still produce radioactive waste that needs to be stored in elaborate facilities. It’s true that we are only looking at storage for hundreds of years instead of tens of thousands of years. But ultimately, the scale of China’s energy demand growth really makes the difference irrelevant. Even just a couple hundred years is beyond the human time scale. Few hundred years is better but yet still unmanageable. In fact, to put time in perspective, first power flight happened just a little more than a hundred years ago, and little more than two hundred years ago, United States was still a British colony. Things can change dramatically in just a few decades, let alone hundreds of years. To cleanly fulfill China’s energy demand, I afraid… even Thorium will not cut it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to Top ↑
  • Find Us on Twitter


  • Like Us on Facebook

  • Our partners:

    l1_irps
    l1_irps
    l1_irps
    l1_irps

Facebook