Amanda Biernacki

Thompson Research Consulting, Inc.

222 Paulson Ave.
Bellmore, NY 11710

April 16, 2015

Jane Bennett, Executive Vice President

Ben Dowd, Vice President of Human Resources
Dravo Engineering
30 Johnson Plaza
Austin, TX 78705

Subject: Nuclear Fusion Report

Dear V.P. Bennett and V.P. H.R. Ben Dowd,

The formal report on nuclear fusion entitled, Nuclear Fusion: Complexities and
Controversies, was submitted. It was received at 11:00 am on April 16, 2015 at 30
Johnson Plaza, Austin TX, 78705.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this report, contact me at

amandabiernacki@trc.com.

Sincerely,

Amanda Biernacki
Amanda Biernacki
 Nuclear Fusion:
Complexities and Controversies

Prepared for:
Jane Bennett, Executive Vice President
Ben Dowd, Vice President of Human Resources

Prepared by:
Amanda Biernacki
Thompson Research Consulting, Inc.

April 16, 2015

1
Contents
Executive Summary.3
Introduction..4
The Technical Element of Nuclear Fusion..4
The Controversial Element of Nuclear Fusion8
Conclusion..14
Works Cited...15

2
 Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to educate the non-technical staff of Dravo Engineering on
the topic of nuclear fusion power, and sustainability as a whole, in order to create a more
unified stance on sustainability issues. Widespread disagreements regarding sustainability
have been found among the staff by Dravos Corporate Responsibility Committee. By
displaying how sustainability issues are both technical and controversial, this report aims
to resolve some of these workplace disagreements.

Nuclear fusion is a difficult topic to comprehend, especially for those who do not have a
technical background. Those who are unfamiliar with nuclear fusion often confuse it with
nuclear fission, the more common form of nuclear energy. Fusion power is a technical
chemical process, which scientists are attempting to artificially reproduce using
Tokamaks. Three of the most commonly debated issues regarding fusion power are its
commercial sustainability, its affects, and its funding. Scientists have been conducting
research concerning nuclear fusion since the 1950s but still have not been able to make it
commercially sustainable. Arguments have developed concerning whether fusion power
would be beneficial or harmful. The United States has spent billions of dollars on fusion
research, but progress in this field has been extremely slow. This has caused an
overwhelming amount of controversy surrounding this energy source. Some say research
should be abandoned altogether. However, if made sustainable, fusion power could
become the most affordable clean energy source to date.

Fusion power is one of the most complex and controversial sustainability topics. It is a
perfect example to display how technical and controversial sustainability topics can be.
Through nuclear fusion, the report aims to educate the non-technical staff of Dravo
Engineering and to unify the organization in its stance on sustainability.

3
Introduction

As many of you are aware, Dravos Corporate Responsibility Committee has recently
found widespread disagreements regarding sustainability among the companys non-
technical staff members. Formal reports regarding each controversial energy-related issue
were requested in order to address these disagreements. The purpose of the reports is to
educate the non-technical staff so that they understand relevant issues and controversies.
The topic of nuclear fusion was approved for one of these reports. The purpose of the
report is to educate Dravo Engineerings non-technical staff so that they understand
relevant issues and controversies surrounding fusion power.

The report will address the technical element of nuclear fusion as well as detail the
controversies surrounding fusion power. The topic of nuclear fusion is most likely
difficult for the non-technical staff members to comprehend, but it is a relevant
controversy that they should be aware of. Little is known about fusion power, which
often creates controversy. Conflicts and confusions regarding fusion power can be
avoided through educating non-technical employees on the potential of nuclear fusion, as
well as its drawbacks.

This formal report to be distributed among non-technical employees will give all
employees an equal understanding of this confusing and controversial topic. This will
create a more unified position among employees regarding nuclear fusion and the larger
topic of sustainability as a whole. Through education on energy-related issues such as
fusion power, Dravos employees can become more unified in their sustainability beliefs.
This report will outline the technical and controversial elements of nuclear fusion power.

The Technical Element of Nuclear Fusion

Nuclear fusion is a difficult topic to comprehend, especially for those who do not have a
technical background. Fusion power is a highly technical process, which even experts
have struggled to perfect. In fact, scientists have been conducting research concerning
nuclear fusion since the 1950s and still have not been able to make it commercially
sustainable.

Fusion vs. Fission

Those who are unfamiliar with nuclear fusion often confuse it with nuclear fission, the
more common form of nuclear energy. Nuclear fission creates energy by splitting a large
atom into two smaller atoms. However, nuclear fusion creates energy by combining two
smaller atoms into a larger one.

4
 Nuclear Fission Nuclear Fusion

Figure 1. The difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

A fusion reaction is a lot more difficult to produce than a fission reaction. This is because
of the Coulomb Barrier (Murphy, 2012). The atoms in a fusion reaction repel when
pushed towards each other. This will be explained in more detail later. Because nuclear
fission is easier to achieve, these are the types of reactions used in commercial nuclear
power plants. However, nuclear fission produces large amounts of nuclear waste, which
is difficult to dispose of. On the contrary, fusion reactions do not create nuclear waste.
This is one reason fusion power is seen as a better alternative to fission power (Young,
2007).

A fission reaction will not occur naturally in nature, but a fusion reaction does. The sun,
as well as other stars, generates energy through fusion reactions. These reactions occur
because the force of gravity pulls together Hydrogen atoms with such force that they
combine with each other to create larger Helium atoms. When this happens, energy is
released. Some of the energy is released into space as Kinetic energy, or sunlight (Young,
2007).

How Fusion Power Works

The Fusion Reactions

As previously discussed, nuclear fusion consists of reactions in which two smaller atoms
combine to create a larger one. A variety of fusion reactions are necessary to create fusion
power. These reactions take place between different forms of Hydrogen, called isotopes.
Isotopes of an atom have the same number of protons (p), but a different number of
neutrons (n) (Murphy, 2012).

Hydrogen Isotopes

Name Symbol Structure Structure Diagram

2 1 proton
Deuterium D H 1 neutron
1

3 1 protons
Tritium T H 2 neutron
1
Figure 2. Hydrogen isotopes used in fusion reactions (Murphy, 2012).

5
There are two types of nuclear fusion reactions. A D-D reaction, occurring between two
Deuterium atoms, is the simpler of the two types. In this reaction, two Deuterium atoms
are combined to create an isotope of Helium (Murphy, 2012).

D + D 4He

(1 p + 1 p) + (1 p + 1 n) = (2 p + 2 n)

Though a D-D reaction is simpler conceptually, a D-T reaction is easier for scientists to
create. Because of this, D-T reactions are the where scientists are focusing all of their
resources. However, the problem with D-T reactions is that there are no natural resources
for Tritium. 0.0115% of natural Hydrogen is comprised of Deuterium. Because of this,
Deuterium can be found anywhere Hydrogen is found. This includes water. Tritium
cannot be found naturally in nature, so scientists must create this before a D-T reaction
can occur. This can be done by hitting a Lithium isotope, either 6Li or 7 Li with a neutron
(Murphy, 2012).
6
Li + n 4He + T

(3 p + 3 n) + (1 n) = (2 p + 2 n) + (1 p + 2 n)

Or
7
Li + n 4He + 4H 4He + T + n

(3 p + 4 n) + (1 n) = (2 p + 2 n) + (1 p + 3 n) = (2 p + 2 n) + (1 p + 2 n) + (1 n)

After Tritium is obtained, a D-T reaction can take place. The D-T reaction happens as
follows.

D + T 5He 4He + n

(1 p + 1 p) + (1 p + 2 n) = (2 p + 3 n) = (2 p + 2 n) + (1 n)

As previously mentioned, these reactions are difficult to achieve because of the Coulomb
Barrier. The isotopes used in these reactions are positively charged. Because of this, they
repel when they get close to each other. This is similar to how magnets will repel if both
positive sides are pushed toward each other. Scientists must get the isotopes so close to
each other that the reaction takes place regardless of the Coulomb Barrier. This is done
with fusion reactions called Tokamaks (Murphy, 2012).
Tokamaks: Artificially Creating Fusion Reactions

In order to overcome the Coulomb Barrier, large amounts of kinetic energy are required.
This can be achieved by heating the particles to well over 100 million F. The reaction is

6
difficult to contain because there are no materials that can be exposed to such
temperatures without melting. Scientists use tokamaks to contain these reactions
(Murphy, 2012).

Scientists I. Tamm and A. Sakharov were the first scientists to use the word tokamak in
the early 1960s. The word comes from Russian and means toroidal chamber with
magnetic coils (Snchez, 2014). Since the 1960s, tokamak technologies have increase.
Modern tokamaks are able to withstand the temperatures needed for fusion reactions to
take place. The largest tokamak in the world today is the ITER, or the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. The reactor is located in southern France. The
ITER is able to sustain temperatures over 300 million F. Most of the worlds investments
in fusion research, including the investments of the United States, are used to fund the
ITER (ITER Organization, 2015).

Tokamaks are doughnut shaped vacuum vessels. Plasma, consisting of the positively
charges atoms previously described, is heated inside. Scientists keep the plasma away
from the walls of the tokamak by using strong magnetic fields. As seem in figure 3,
superconducting magnetic coils surround the plasma. A similarly charged magnetic
current is run through the plasma. The magnetic currents repel each other, essentially
pushing the plasma away from the walls of the tokamak. This is how the tokamak is able
to contain such high temperatures without melting (ITER Organization, 2015).

Figure 3: Diagram of a tokamak (European Nuclear

Society, 2015).

7
The Controversial Element of Nuclear Fusion

Nuclear fusion power is a controversial sustainability topic. Three of the most commonly
debated issues regarding fusion power are its commercial sustainability, its effects, and
its funding. The following section will discuss these controversies by explaining the
arguments held for both sides.

Is commercial fusion power possible?

The possibility of commercial fusion power has been debated since research began in the
early 1950s. Though scientists are currently able to create artificial fusion reactions, these
reactions are costly. More money is put into creating fusion power than could ever be
recouped by selling the power. Currently, there is not sufficient evidence to prove
whether or not fusion power can be developed for practical use. Arguments for and
against the possibility of commercial fusion power are equally strong. This has led to a
large amount of controversy surrounding the possibility of fusion power.

Pro
Why fusion power is possible

Though once considered science fiction, fusion power is now considered a possibility.
Since the early1950s, scientists have made huge progress in terms of fusion power
research. Tokamaks are now bringing more legitimacy to the field of fusion power than
ever before, and advancements with ITER are bringing hope to the future of fusion
power sustainability.

The sun overcomes the Coulomb Barrier with a combination of heat and gravitational
force. Though the gravitational force of the sun cannot be recreated on Earth, scientists
now believe that they may be able to compensate for this lack with more heat.

The ITER Tokamak can reach temperatures as high as 302 million F, ten times the
temperature at the core of our Sun. Scientists believe that these high temperatures may
be the breakthrough for sustainable fusion power that they have been looking for. The
Tokamak has been designed to produce 500 MW of output power for 50 MW of input
power, which is ten times the amount of energy put in.

It is impossible to tell whether ITER will be successful until the project is completed.
The reactor is set to be complete by the year 2027, though this year is expected to
change when an updated schedule is released in June 2015. However, if the project is
successful, commercial fusion power could be fully commercially sustainable by the
year 2050 (ITER Organization, 2015).

8
 Con
Why fusion power is impossible

The question of fusion powers achievability goes beyond whether scientists can create a
fusion reaction in which more energy is produced than is used in the process. Scientists
can currently do this with what is known as the hydrogen bomb. However, the hydrogen
bomb is uncontrolled. The fusion reactions within a reactor must be safely contained. In
order for fusion power to work, scientists need to learn how to contain a star safely
within a reactor using less energy than is being created. Many believe this is impossible.

The sun is the ideal example of fusion power. The sun pulls together atoms with a
combination of heat and force that is able to overcome the Coulomb Barrier and create
fusion reactions. The force that pulls these atoms together is gravity (Francis, 2013).

In order to understand the controversy, one must first understand Einsteins famous
equation, E=mc2. This formula is used to explain the relationship between mass (m) and
energy (E). An objects energy, including its gravitational pull, is directly proportional to
the mass of the object. Meaning, the larger an object is, the larger its gravitational pull
(Jones, 2015).

This gravitational pull is not only what creates the suns fusion reactions, but it is also
what contains the reaction. The suns gravity keeps the reactions contained. The sun is
1,300,000 times the size of Earth, so it would be impossible for scientists to create a
reactor with a gravitational pull equivalent to that of the sun.

In order for fusion power to work commercially, scientists need to contain the reaction
using less energy than that which is produced. The sun is able to do this because of its
large mass. However, the masses of the reactors used by scientists are nowhere close to
the mass of the sun. Many scientists believe that without this gravitational pull, fusion
power will never be practical (Francis, 2013).

Would fusion power be beneficial?

Fusion power is often considered the ideal fuel source. Fusion power is cleaner than any
other fuel source and could lead to unlimited fuel availability on earth. Because of this,
many view fusion power as the answer to the worlds energy crisis. However, others fear
that unlimited fuel availability could actually be harmful. The idea of unlimited fuel
availability has caused a considerable amount of controversy surrounding fusion power. It
is impossible to tell what the effects of fusion power would be. While some believe that
commercial fusion power would be beneficial, others fear that it could lead to dangerous
effects.

9
Pro
Why fusion power would be beneficial

Nuclear fusion is cleaner than any other fuel source currently used. Since the industrial
revolution began in 1790, greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing. Almost all of
these increases have resulted from human activities. Electricity is the largest contributor
to the United States greenhouse gas emissions. 32% of gas emissions in the United
States come solely from electricity. This is up from only 11% in 1990.

Our electricity use is expected to continue growing, and with that our output of
greenhouse gasses. Increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a contributing
factor to climate change (Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). Nuclear fusion does
not release any greenhouse gases. Replacing current energy sources with fusion would
decrease the impact of humans on the environment and possibly eliminate fuel usage as
a contributor to climate change and global warming (Environmental Protection Agency,
2014).

Figure 4: Sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States (Environmental Protection Agency,
2014).

Unlike nuclear fission, fusion power does not create long lasting nuclear waste. Nuclear
waste disposal is a huge problem with current nuclear power plants. Nuclear waste can be
harmful to both people and the environment if not handled properly (Hansen, 2001).
Finding safe places to store nuclear waste is increasingly a problem in the United States.
Thousands of tons of potentially deadly nuclear waste are currently being stored at
various locations around the country (Weeks, 2011). Fusion power could eliminate the

10
concern for nuclear waste storage in the United States. Fusion reactors would be a perfect
alternative for nuclear fission reactors because there is no nuclear waste resulting from
the process.

Nuclear fusion power could mean limitless fuel availability. This is because fusion power
relies on the combination of Hydrogen atoms into Helium atoms. As is shown in the
chemical formula H2O, Hydrogen atoms can be found in water. Approximately 71% of
earths surface is covered in water. Water is so abundant on earth that it would be almost
impossible to run out. Fusion power can essentially convert water into fuel through the
process of combining Hydrogen atoms into Helium. This is why nuclear fusion is
considered to be an unlimited fuel source (Snchez, 2014).

Con
Why fusion power would be harmful

As discussed in the above section, nuclear fusion power could mean limitless fuel
availability because of its reliance on Hydrogen atoms found in water. This has given
many a cause for concern. Instead of viewing this fact as beneficial, some experts believe
this could be harmful to society (Snchez, 2014). These concerns stem from the fairly
new and widely discussed scientific concept of planetary boundaries.

The concept of planetary boundaries was first introduced in 2009 by a group of

internationally respected scientists. The concept states that there are nine planetary
boundaries within which humanity can thrive. However, if these boundaries are crossed,
irreversible and detrimental environmental changes could take place. The nine planetary
boundaries are as follows:
Stratospheric ozone depletion
Biodiversity loss and extinctions
Chemical pollution
Climate change
Ocean acidification
Freshwater consumption
Land system change
Nitrogen and phosphorus flows to the biosphere and oceans
Atmospheric aerosol loading

It is commonly believed that unlimited fuel availability would remove an incentive for
restraining energy usage. Unlimited fuel availability could lead to a rapid increase in
development and consumption. These increases could cause added pressure on the
boundaries mentioned above.

Because this is a fairly new scientific concept, research is still being done to determine
exactly where these boundaries are and what the effects of crossing them would be.
However, it is widely accepting that crossing these boundaries would lead to huge and

11
 unavoidable environmental changes.

Many fear that, because of human nature, society would inevitability cross these
boundaries if limitless fuel were available. Because of this, many believe that
commercial fusion power would be harmful for the environment and all of humanity
(Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2015).

Should the United States continue funding fusion research?

Between the years of 1977 and 1984, more than $1 billion was spent annually on fusion
power research. Because of the slow progress of fusion research, federal funding for
fusion power has largely decreased. Though funding for fusion power has decreased, a
significant amount of money is still spent yearly on fusion power. The United States total
budget for research in 2015 is over $800 million (Fusion Power Associates, 2015).

Figure 5. United States yearly spending on fusion power research adjusted for inflation (Fusion Power
Associates, 2015).

Additionally, fusion power research is progressing slowly. Research began in the early
1950s, but scientists still have not been able to safely sustain a fusion reaction long
enough for commercial use.

The large costs of fusion research, coupled with the slow progress in the field, lead many
to think that the United States government should eliminate fusion funding from its
annual budget. However, others believe that the future benefits that could result from the
commercial use of nuclear fusion power will outweigh the current economical costs.

12
Pro
Why the U.S. government should continue funding fusion power research

Many believe that the United States investment in fusion power research is both
beneficial and necessary. Though fusion powers commercial sustainability is uncertain,
many believe the investments are worth the risk.

As energy use increases, alternative forms of energy are becoming necessary. Most
current forms of energy are either limited in availability or harmful to the environment.
Fusion power is one of the only energy sources that would be both unlimited with
virtually no harmful effects on the environment, though the later is disputed.

Many believe it is the moral duty of the United States as one of the wealthiest nations in
the world to fund fusion power research. Recent trends in the environmental movement
have caused alternative fuel sources to come to the forefront of only social and political
debates. Many believe that if a major change is not made, the world will be destroyed
for future generations. Though this statement is extreme, energy crisis are undoubtedly
coming to the forefront of political debates.

In addition, many believe it is important for the United States to invest in nuclear fusion
research in order for the country to stay competitive in the technological field. The
United States is not the only country investing in fusion power. Other countries
including France, Germany, and China are investing as well. If the Untied States does
not invest now, the country could miss out on a huge breakthrough in fuel technology.

Commercially sustainable fusion power would have a huge impact on world economies.
It would create huge profits for those who invest. If the United States does not invest,
the country could miss out on a huge financial opportunity in the future (Giffin, 1993).

Con
Why the U.S. government should stop funding fusion power research

13
The United States government spends millions of dollars each year on nuclear fusion
research. However, as previously discussed, the possibility of commercial fusion power
is highly debated. There is no guarantee that fusion power will be successful.

It is rare that publicly funded research and development projects are as costly, time
consuming, and uncertain as fusion power. Many believe that spending this much
money on nuclear fusion research is unreasonable.

Many feel that fusion power spending cannot be justified, especially when so many
other issues such as crime, poverty, and a poor economy are underfunded. The United
States is currently in over $18 trillion debt. Nuclear fusion research is often viewed as
an unnecessary use of taxpayer dollars. Also, the disagreements regarding the
commercial sustainability and benefits of fusion power only act as more reason to end
public funding of fusion power.

There are so many other sustainable forms of energy that can be pursued. Nuclear fusion
is still in the experimental stage. Though scientists are closer to sustainable fusion power
than they were in the 1950s, the process is still not ready to be used commercially.
However, technologies such as wind turbines, solar panels, and nuclear fission reactors
are already available for commercial use. Investments in other alternative fuels would
have immediate benefits that fusion power investments do not (U.S. Energy Information
Administration, 2014).

Figure 6. Kilowatts hours of energy that could be using the United States 2015 budget for nuclear fusion
research ($817.08 million) (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2014).

14
Conclusion

In conclusion, nuclear fusion power is a genuinely difficult and controversial subject.

Little is know about fusion power because it is still in the experimental stage. Many
controversies surround nuclear fusion because of the large costs of research and slow
progress in the field. However, nuclear fusion could be the answer to many of the worlds
energy crises. Like many other sustainability issues, the complex and controversial nature
of fusion can lead individuals to have very different viewpoints on the topic. Through
gaining an understanding of the technical and controversial elements of sustainability
issues, disagreements can be avoided in the workplace.

Works Cited
Breaking the wall to control fusion power: How Tokamak research is paving the way for
successful fusion energy reactors [Video file]. (2012). In Films On Demand.
Retrieved February 25, 2015, from HELIN.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2014, July 2). Greenhouse Gases. Retrieved April 16,
2015, from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/index.html

European Nuclear Society. (2015, April 3). Tokamak. Retrieved April 16, 2015, from
https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/t/tokamak.htm

Francis, M. (2013, July 26). Will we ever have reliable nuclear fusion power? Retrieved
April 27, 2015, from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130726-will-we-ever-
have-nuclear-fusion

Fusion Power Associates. (2015, January 1). US Budget History. Retrieved April 15,
2015, from http://fpa.ucsd.edu/OFESbudget.shtml

Grandoni, D. (2015, January 20). Why It's Taking The U.S. So Long To Make Fusion
Energy Work. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
2015/01/20/fusion-energy-reactor_n_6438772.html

Giffin, R.D. (1993, January 22). Nuclear Fussion. CQ Researcher, 3, 49-72. Retrieved
from http://0-library.cqpress.com.helin.uri.edu/xsite/logout.php?action=force&

Hansen, B. (2001, June 8). Nuclear waste. CQ Researcher, 11, 489-504. Retrieved from
http://library.cqpress.com/

Hickman, L. (2011, August 23). Fusion power: Is it getting any closer? Retrieved April
15, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/23/fusion-
power-is-it-getting-closer

ITER Organization. (2015, January 1). ITER - the way to new energy. Retrieved April
16, 2015, from https://www.iter.org/mach

15
Jones, A., & Robbins, D. (2015, January 3). Einstein's Special Relativity. Retrieved April
27, 2015, from http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-special-
relativity.html

Murphy, T. (2012, January 1). Nuclear Fusion. Retrieved April 16, 2015, from
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/01/nuclear-fusion/

Snchez, J. (2014). Nuclear fusion as a massive, clean, and inexhaustible energy source
for the second half of the century: Brief history, status, and perspective. Energy
Science & Engineering, 2(4), 165-176. Retrieved February 23, 2015, from Wiley
Online Library.

Stockholm Resilience Centre. (2015, January 22). The nine planetary boundaries.
Retrieved April 27, 2015, from http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/
research-programmes/planetary-boundaries/planetary-boundaries/about-the-
research/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html

The Economist. (2014, October 16). Nuclear Fusion: A Big Bet on Small. Retrieved
April 15, 2015, from http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-
technology/21625861-lockheed-martin-thinks-it-can-make-fusion-power-reality-
within-decade-big-bet-small

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2014, April 1). Levelized Cost and Levelized
Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2014.
Retrieved April 15, 2015, from http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf
/electricity_generation.pdf

Weeks, J. (2011, January 28). Managing nuclear waste. CQ Researcher, 21, 73-96.
Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/

Young, A. (2007, January 1). Living in the Atmosphere of the Sun. Retrieved April 15,
2015, from http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_solarenergy.php

16