In the article, “How can Southeast Asia’s clean energy transition be sped up?”, Daubach (2019) highlighted a highly potential clean energy called nuclear fusion. According to Daubach, Moniz who is the Chief Executive of the Energy Futures Initiative and Nuclear Threat Initiative, suggests that Singapore, due to its limitation in space, can implement nuclear fusion. However, it is costly to adopt this energy by 2050 given that the Paris Agreement goal is to be achieved. Daubach also mentions that Chapman, the Chief Executive of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, states that nuclear fusion does not produce harmful gases, has lesser decay time of nuclear waste compared to nuclear fission and only needs a small amount of land. The drawback is that massive quantities of heat and pressure are needed. Chapman comments that the present facilities available are incapable of creating electricity on a large scale. The first nuclear fusion facility is expected to begin operation in 2025 and capable of catering energy for a medium-sized city.
Daubach raises awareness on the pros and cons of nuclear fusion but fails to address the reasons why potential stakeholders are very reluctant to consider it as a source of clean energy.
One reason why stakeholders are reluctant is due to the uncertainty in achieving this energy. Although scientists have taken multiple years of research to achieve this energy, there is no major breakthrough in producing it. As stated by McGrath (n.d.), scientists have taken many years in their attempts to recreate this energy. He remarks that nobody has yet to achieve more energy than the input used to produce it. He believes that it is impossible to have a “demonstration fusion power plant” to function by 2050. This further supports the hesitancy in generating it due to doubts in successfully producing this energy.
Another reason is the long planning and authorisation process to expect before the execution of construction. According to Jacobson (2019), the planning-to-operation (PTO) times of nuclear plants is around 10 to 19 years. He notes that the period within the drafting and utilization of a nuclear reactor comprises of the times to pick out a location, get the site authorization, buy or lease the land, acquire a construction authorization, secure funds and “insurance for construction, install transmission,” settle an electricity contract, construction of the plant, connection to transmission, and acquiring a final operating license. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project itself is estimated to take ten years for construction only. Stakeholders would be more willing to invest in other renewable energy as they will be able to reap the results earlier than nuclear fusion.
The last reason is the heavy emphasis on the safety measures needed in generating this energy. It is important to consider the safety aspects as ignoring it will bring huge consequences. According to Jassby (2018), Iter has cooling towers and uses the cooling water from Canal de Provence channeling water from the Durance River to release the massive heat generated from the reaction. He also mentions that Iter has huge concrete cylinders named the Bioshield that will stop radiation from being released into the environment. Decommissioning nuclear waste will add up to more than 300 million dollars. These measures are expensive and puts pressure towards stakeholders in meeting the requirements. Due to these considerations, nuclear fusion is seen as an unattractive source of renewable energy as other sources of renewable energy are safer.
Based on the reasons that were raised in this reader response, it is understandable why many stakeholders refuse to implement nuclear fusion. These reasons heavily deter stakeholders thus making it a challenge to convince them in generating this energy. I feel that to convince these stakeholders, scientists have to think of ways to overcome these complications first. I am sure that with improvements, the transition to such energy will speed up.
Reference:
Daniel, J. (2017, April 19). Fusion Reactors: Not what they’re Cracked Up to Be. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/
Daniel, J. (2018, February 14). ITER is a Showcase … for the Drawbacks of Fusion Energy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
https://thebulletin.org/2018/02/iter-is-a-showcase-for-the-drawbacks-of-fusion-energy/
Daubach, T. (2019, July 19). How can Southeast Asia’s Clean Energy Transition be Sped Up? Eco-Business.
https://www.eco-business.com/news/how-can-southeast-asias-clean-energy-transition-be-sped-up/
Jacobson, Z. (2019, June 20). The 7 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy is not the Answer to Solve Climate Change. Leonardo Dicaprio Foundation.
McGrath, M. (2019, November 6). Nuclear fusion is 'a question of when not if'. BBC News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50267017
Comments
Post a Comment