Engineering 0011 – Budny 1:00
Group #L18
Disclaimer—This paper partially fulfills a writing requirement for first year (freshman) engineering students at the University
of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering. This paper is a student, not a professional, paper. This paper is based on publicly
available information and may not provide complete analyses of all relevant data. If this paper is used for any purpose other than
these authors’ partial fulfillment of a writing requirement for first year (freshman) engineering students at the University of
Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering, the user does so at his or her own risk.
NUCLEAR FUSION: A MORE EFFICIENT ALTERNATIVE FOR ENERGY?
Victoria Baquiran ([email protected])
I believe that nuclear fusion is a more efficient alternative
for energy as it creates no greenhouse gases, yields no nuclear
waste, and has virtually limitless fuel available because the
atoms used in the process are just different forms of hydrogen,
which can be created inside the reactor. It also provides over
400,000 full-time jobs for the public.
Fusion reactors are already in use, such as the
Wendelstein 7-X (W7-X) stellarator in Germany [5]. Nuclear
fusion creates an enormous amount of heat. If the machine can
withstand it, it could pave a new course for fusion power. It
may take the technology from a minimal energy supplier to a
wide-scale project to power entire cities or countries.
INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS NUCLEAR
FUSION?
Nuclear fusion is the process that powers our galaxy’s
sun and the stars in the universe. They create an enormous
amount of energy that humans are now able to replicate using
fusion reactors. In simple terms, nuclear fusion occurs when
two light atoms fuse together to form a single heavier atom.
However, the mass of the new atom is less than both of the
original atoms combined. This is because the “missing” mass
is emitted as energy [1]. This process is what physicists have
been trying to replicate in order to create a clean form of
energy that is self-sustaining. In addition, it could power the
world, instead of fossil fuels and nuclear plants. Fusion
reactors are the technology that can harness this energy and is
far more efficient than the sources of power nowadays.
Nuclear energy is not a new topic of discussion to
physicists. In fact, nuclear power plants are a common form of
energy and produce about 11% of the world’s electricity
production in 2012 [2]. However, they do have problems that
negatively impact the Earth. Radioactive waste and pollution
are the biggest issues, along with the costs to keep them
running. Fusion reactors have less environmental impacts and
are easier to control than nuclear reactors.
Fusion reactors are the technology I am focusing on
because I believe there is an alternative form of energy that is
cleaner and more environmentally friendly than the use of
fossil fuels and coal. I have always been interested in nuclear
energy and have researched the disasters that have occurred
with nuclear plants, such as the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 [3].
Also, growing up with movies like “Wall-E” and learning the
effects of various kinds of pollution has impacted me to strive
to learn more about forms of energy that will not negatively
impact the planet and will replace depleting amounts of oil,
gas, and fossil fuels.
With finite sources of energy on Earth, nuclear fusion
seems like the a viable alternative. However, there are
conflicting opinions of nuclear fusion as an effective energy
source. For example, James Conca, a member of the American
Nuclear Society, has expressed the pros of nuclear energy,
such as greater protection against pollution and lower carbon
emissions [4]. On the other hand, nuclear fusion costs billions
of dollars, which can arguably be used for funding towards
renewable energy.
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
11.01.16
NUCLEAR FUSION: HOW IT WORKS AND
THE INVOLVEMENT OF ENGINEERS
The topic of “nuclear fusion” deals with engineers just as
much as physicists or chemists. Engineers are present in the
construction of the fusion reactor and make sure that methods
of maintenance and repair are developed. Engineers should
pay especially close attention when it comes to nuclear forms
of power. This branch of engineering will be dealing with what
could be the next generation’s main form of energy. The
International Atomic Energy Agency has projected that the use
of nuclear power from 2020 to 2050 may increase up to 94%
[6]. Nuclear engineers will be necessary for maintenance of the
technology and ensure the continuation of the reactor.
As explained before, fusion reactors create an immense
amount of heat. Engineers must understand the materials
necessary to withstand the high temperatures of the system. In
addition, confining the radioactivity is pertinent for the safety
and success of the reactor. These feats are considerable,
however it should be worth the chance to achieve a limitless
source of power.
This chance of a limitless source of power is not as easy
as it sounds as the process of fusion is not a simple one. The
W7-X, for example, has a multitude of steps to create energy.
Hydrogen and must be heated to extreme temperatures to
create plasma, which is a substance that can conduct electricity
and respond to a magnetic field. It is immensely thin and
fragile, so it must be cooled and suspended in the air using a
magnetic confinement system. The plasma must be suspended
so that it does not melt the walls of the machine. It then is
confined into a circular bottle while deuterium and tritium,
1
Victoria Baquiran
which are different forms of hydrogen, fuse to produce helium.
The product of this fusion releases 17.6 megaelectron volts.
This is ten times more energy than what a traditional nuclear
plant would emit in one reaction. In contrast to traditional
methods, fusion reactions are safer, cleaner, and more efficient
[7].
The W7-X creates an immense amount of energy. Not
shockingly, it is the largest nuclear fusion reactor in the world
to date. It is the better version of a tokamak, which is a
powerful magnetic field made to confine plasma [5].
Tokomaks can only be turned on in short bursts and can suffer
from magnetic disruptions that may stop the reactor from
processing plasma. They cannot operate continuously. The
W7-X is part of a new form of fusion reactors known as
stellarators. Stellarators, on the other hand, can operate
continuously.
The difference in build with tokomaks and stellarators is
the way their magnetic fields are twisted. In tokomaks, the
magnetic and electric fields themselves are twisted like a
Twizzlers rope with plasma flowing in between fields. The
problem with this is that there is no way to control the
increasing magnetic currents, which is why tokomaks can only
be turned on in short bursts. However, with stellarators, the
plasma itself is twisted. There is no longer an induced electrical
current, allowing the system to work continuously since there
is no dangerous increase in magnetic currents. This explains
why stellarators are becoming a more popular choice over
tokamaks [8].
identical stellarator machines. According to the National
Academy of Science, it could save another $8.4 because of the
tons of sulfur dioxide emissions [9].
Fusion energy is a cheaper alternative to even
mainstream nuclear plants. William Anderson, a manager of
process control at Areva Inc. (a nuclear company based in
France), has stated that “Sustainable fusion would completely
change the energy playing field, especially with systems like
The W 7-X. It is a complete game changer if we can figure out
how to control and sustain it” [10]. That is one of the bigger
issues, how to build and sustain the system. With the proper
funding, fusion energy could become the main power source
in the next fifty years instead of the current ones that create
pollution and harm the Earth.
With the amount of carbon emissions that energy sources
like coal and fracking produce, irreversible climate change has
spoiled the planet. Fracking is the process of drilling into the
earth to release the gas under the crust [11]. It gives access to
resources of oil and gas that humans use daily. The problem
with fracking is that it causes small earth tremors and releases
carcinogenic chemicals that can contaminate groundwater.
The need for renewable sources of energy is increasing,
especially because there is not an endless amount of fossil fuels
on earth.
Fusion reactors would have an impact all over the world.
Since it would create limitless energy, the cost for electricity
would deplete significantly. Gas and oil costs would no longer
fluctuate because fusion energy does not rely on fossil fuels.
Countries that do not have immediate energy would benefit
from this as it would be limitless and cheap. The money saved
from not emitting carbon emissions could pay for the creation
of reactors in 3rd world countries. Fusion reactors would have
an impact on everyone on Earth, not just those fortunate
enough to live in rural areas.
I believe fusion reactors would be the best alternative for
energy sources humans use today. Ever since I was a child, the
consequences of pollution and deterioration of the ozone layer
have been hammered into my brain through commercials,
billboards, and online ads. Fusion energy is limitless and selfsustainable and would lower carbon emission levels
significantly. This would be a better alternative to the harmful
sources of energy used today.
NUCLEAR FUSION: IS IT WORTH IT?
A limitless source of power seems almost too good to be
true, but there are still the drawbacks of the creation and
experimentation of fusion reactors. It takes an extensive
amount of time to construct these systems, for example W7-X,
which took nineteen years to build. It is not a simple task to
erect several of these to match the amount of nuclear reactors
in the world. It is as if scientists are trying to make a “mini
star” on Earth to mimic the way that actual stars emit energy.
Along with the time it takes to build this technology, the
cost is colossal. Daniel Clery, a theoretical physics scientist
from York University in the UK, has explained that it took over
1.4 billion US dollars to fund the cost of the W7-X [7]. If
energy from fusion were to be harnessed as a main power
source, it would have to be a worldwide effort. In the United
States, research for fusion receives less than $600 million per
year while the Department of Energy receives over $3 billion
[8]. There would have to be a major shift from using coal,
natural gas, and fossil fuels in order to receive the funding that
is necessary.
While money is a major issue, fusion energy would end
up being the better option financially. It would save up to $25
billion every year that is wasted due to 573 million tons of
greenhouse gas emissions all over the world [4]. That could be
used to build go into further research or build over fifteen
SAFETY FIRST!
Nuclear fusion is safer than other forms of energy, such
as mining and nuclear plants, by far. Compared to nuclear
power plants, nuclear fusion systems do not leave radioactive
material leftover and have no greenhouse gas emissions. In
addition, it is easier to shut down a fusion reactor compared to
a usual nuclear reaction. This prevents nuclear disasters like
the Chernobyl Accident in 1986.
The Chernobyl Accident has left a dark cloud over the
idea of nuclear energy since its demise. It was caused by
flawed nuclear reactor design and inadequately trained
personnel [3]. It had caused the deaths of thirty individuals and
2
Victoria Baquiran
left the city of Chernobyl, Ukraine in ruins. Hundreds of other
individuals were also affected by the massive amounts of
radiation in the area.
The safety of workers has been a top priority in nuclear
testing and experimentation since the Chernobyl Accident.
With fusion reactors, it would be impossible for an event like
this to take place. Since it is so difficult to get a fusion reaction
started, it can be immediately stopped by removing the
injection of fuel. There is no radioactive waste, meaning it is
better for the environment and has no negative effects on the
planet.
negative pollutants in the air that governments pay billions to
try and contain. This could go towards systems where energy
is scarce and money is an issue in 3rd world countries. This
would revolutionize energy sources for the future generations
and bring a cleaner outlook of the world we live in.
SOURCES
[1] “How Fusion Works.” Culham Centre for Fusion Energy.
Accessed 10.30.16.
http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/How_fusion_works.aspx
[2] “Nuclear Energy Around the World.” Nuclear Energy
Institute. Accessed 10.29.16.
http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/NuclearStatistics/World-Statistics
[3] “Chernobyl Accident 1986.” World Nuclear Safety and
Security. Accessed 10.29.16.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-andsecurity/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx
[4] J. Conca. “What About Nuclear Power Isn’t Good?”
Forbes Energy. Accessed 10.28.16.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/07/07/whatabout-nuclear-power-isnt-good/#5fe24e334805
[5] M. Stone. “World’s Largest Fusion Reactor is About to
Switch On.” Gizmodo. Accessed 10.30.16.
http://gizmodo.com/worlds-most-insane-fusion-reactor-isabout-to-switch-on-1741199892
[6] “IAEA Issues Projections for Nuclear Power from 2020
to 2050.” IAEA Department of Nuclear Energy. Accessed
10.30.16.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-issuesprojections-nuclear-power-2020-2050
[7] D. Clery. “The Bizarre Reactor That Might Save Nuclear
Fusion.” Science Mag. Accessed 10.29.16.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/bizarre-reactormight-save-nuclear-fusion
[8] N. Scharping. “Why Nuclear Fusion is Always 30 Years
Away.” Discover Science for the Curious. Accessed 10.29.16.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/bizarre-reactormight-save-nuclear-fusion
[9] M. Thiemens. “The Future of Airborne SulfurContaining Particles in the Absence of Fossil Fuel Sulfur
Dioxide Emissions.” National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America. Accessed 10.30.16.
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13514.short
[10] W. Anderson. Conversation regarding fusion energy
versus traditional nuclear plants. Process control at Areva Inc.
Nuclear Facility. 10.30.16.
[11] J. Wihbley. “Pros and Cons of Fracking: 5 Key Issues.”
Yale Climate Connections. Accessed 10.31.16.
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/05/pros-andcons-of-fracking-5-key-issues/
CONCLUSION: NUCLEAR FUSION IS A
FORMIDABLE ALTERNATIVE FOR
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
Changing from fossil fuels and natural gas to fusion
energy would be a worldwide effort. However, there have been
strides to making this happen. The W7-X in Germany has been
in use since the start of 2016. Another fusion power plant, JET
(Joint European Torus), has been online since 1983 [5]. It has
been pumping out enough energy to power 50,000 households.
This technology has been a base for current reactors and has
been built upon since its conception.
Engineers have been around nuclear reactions since the
beginning and have made significant strides to the system.
From traditional nuclear plants to environmentally-friendly
fusion reactors, engineers have designed and maintained these
energy powerhouses. With the projected growth of nuclear
power estimates, engineers will be more involved than ever
with the conception of new ideas and forms of maintenance of
reactors.
Safety is the utmost priority when it comes to working
with nuclear sources. Fusion reactors would not have
meltdowns like traditional nuclear power plants because of the
way it is maintained. This would ensure the safety of the
workers and keep the public safe from dangerous radiation and
radioactive material.
In my opinion, fusion reactors are the best alternative of
energy to power the planet. Fossil fuels are not going to last
forever. At some point, humans will have depleted the world
of its resources. Replicating the methods of how the sun and
stars create energy would yield an endless amount of energy
that could power more than a traditional nuclear plant. It is
cost-effective and would save billions of dollars not just for the
US, but for many other countries as well.
Pollution and carbon emissions have ravaged the earth
and a clean, renewable form of energy is necessary if humans
want to be able to sustain themselves. With the receding of the
ozone layer, it becomes more of an issue for the future of
climate change. Irreversible damage has already been done,
but at least the damage can be slowed down or even halted to
prevent further problems.
It would cost billions to create more fusion reactors.
However, this money would be made up from not having
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
3
Victoria Baquiran
Special thanks to Cara Anderson and her father for being
a source. He helped put in a lot of information in this paper. I
bet he’s the best manager at that nuclear plant. Cara you’re the
best for putting up with my complaining. I don’t know what I
would do without you.
To my study group, Karli, Grace, Emmy, and Cara, for
being so supportive and clearing up a bunch of confusion on
this paper. They always put a smile on my face, even in the
hardest times. And they make every assignment way more
entertaining than it should be.
This goes out to Karleigh Vanness, who works super hard
even if her best friend is not here anymore. She inspires me to
push myself harder and harder. And thanks for putting up with
my random trumpet playing at night.
Last, but not least, thanks to my parents for allowing me
to receive the best education possible and being so
understanding about my life choices. Thank you guys for the
support and the love.
4