The year is 2020. The world has not had even a small war for a decade, and it finally looks like it might stay that way because the United Nations developed methods and political strength to intervene. Affirmative action has achieved its purpose; different races and ethnic groups live quite peacefully side by side. The distribution of resources is not perfect, but energy and other resources are distributed almost equally throughout many nations. Even though energy is distributed equally, it is in very short supply. The price has gone up over 200%. Many businesses can no longer afford to operate their computers; the Information Superhighway which worked beautifully is disintegrating because the energy used to run it now keeps the lights from going out. As population continued to increase and less developed countries became more industrialized, energy demand grew; energy supply, however, did not.
Why? Because in the 1990's and early 2000's, the governments of industrialized nations, in their shortsightedness, failed to seriously consider the possibility that oil and gas reserves would run out. For most of the twentieth century, oil and gas supply which most people had assumed would keep growing it had for almost a century started running out. The demand, however, kept growing along with the economy. The result is a textbook case of demand outstripping supply and the price shooting through the roof.
Is this scenario of doom and gloom realistic or even possible? Yes. Current world oil reserves are 150.6 billion tons. During 1993, world industry and consumers exhausted 47.5 billion tons of oil. Current world natural gas reserves are 142.0 trillion cubic meters of oil. During 1993, world industry and consumers exhausted 64.9 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. The world has between two and three years of energy reserves(Ford). Geologists continue to find more reserves, but someday the earth will run out.
This outlook is slightly pessimistic; the world most likely will not experience such drastic energy shortages. Even if it does not occur, the environmental costs of continuing to depend on oil and gas as primary energy sources are prohibitive. Oil and gas refineries indirectly cause acid rain(6). Chemical scrubbers cost utility companies and other industries millions of dollars every year. Burning and refining oil and gas is destructive to the environment and not viable in the long term.
Nuclear fission, the other major source of energy has very harmful side effects also. In the long term, fission generates waste that will be radioactive for centuries to come. Does the United States really want to leave future generations a legacy of radioactive waste? Sure, the people may decide to hide it underground, but building tunnels deep beneath the earthÕs surface costs quite a bit of money. Furthermore, what happens if someone makes a mistake and the waste accidentally contaminates a city?
The current plan for future energy sources is unviable because no one can make an accurate prediction how long oil and gas reserves will last and because long term use of oil, gas, and nuclear fission devastates the environment. To forestall an energy shortage and to protect the environment, the United States and other industrialized nations need to make alternate sources of energy feasible. This new source should be plentiful and environmentally benign. What other options are available? Thermonuclear fusion has few if any negative side effects. It is clean, has no highly radioactive byproducts, and is nearly limitless(Whitten, Gailey, Davis 1023; DOE(7)). To avert a future energy crisis and protect the environment, Congress should increase funding for fusion research.
To prevent an energy shortage, Congress should increase funding for fusion research, which will make fusion cost effective in time to replace coal and gas(Woerle).
Before explaining the proposal specifics, a basic understanding of fusion is helpful. The Academic American Encyclopedia gives a helpful definition of nuclear fusion:
Nuclear fusion is a type of nuclear [atomic and subatomic particles] reaction in which two atomic nuclei combine to form a heavier nucleus releasing energy . . . nuclei, which are positively charged, must overcome their electrostatic force of repulsion (Groliers)
Overcoming this force of repulsion requires very high temperatures, greater than 10 million Kelvins, attainable by applying large amounts of energy. The potential output of energy, however, is more than enough to make fusion worthwhile. Einstein's well known, E=mc^2, says that the energy obtained from the simplest fusion reaction is 17.6 million electron volts, which is the same as 1.7 trillion joules per mole of reactant(Groliers).
The simplest fusion reaction and the type that the previous figures are based on require two reactants: deuterium and tritium. Ordinary water contains deuterium in "quantities sufficient to meet all the energy needs of societies for many billions of years." Dry lake beds in the western United States and sea water contain the element, lithium, an excellent source for tritium, in very large quantities(Groliers).
Increasing funding for fusion research will make it economically effective sooner. Making 2020 the decade of commercial operation instead of 2040 greatly enhances the chance that industrialized nations will be prepared if and when oil and gas reserves run out.
Would other alternative energy sources be more effective? Solar, hydroelectric, and wind power will not be as effective as fusion. Next to fusion, solar energy may be the second most promising alternative energy source. Solar power is environmentally benign and has a chance of becoming economically efficient and energy efficient. It, however, is not as promising as fusion. According to Mr. Henry, a high school physics teacher, the earth only receives [X] joules per square meter per day. Assuming fifty percent efficiency, one would have to cover the state of [Texas] to provide one major city with enough energy. Hydroelectric power is not viable as a primary energy source because building dams destroys habitats. For a dam to produce significant amounts of energy, it must hold back a great deal of water. This water creates lakes by drowning the surrounding habitat and shoreline. Would reducing harmful oil and natural gas byproducts only to create other environmental problems really make sense? Fusion has none of these detrimental outcomes and therefore, is a better energy source for the future.
Increasing fusion research is politically acceptable. Congress eliminated the Superconducting Super Collider(SSC) because it had no tangible, foreseeable benefits. With a 4.6 trillion dollar debt, Congress probably should cut programs that do not have tangible benefits. Fusion research, however is different from the SSC because it has one very large, tangible benefit--the world will not have to rely on unknown reserves of materials that harm the environment.
Although no one can be sure when, the energy reserves of the
world will eventually fail. When this happens, the United States
needs to be ready with an alternative energy source. Also, because
oil, gas, and nuclear fission harm the environment, the U. S. should
find an alternative. Fusion is the best alternative energy source
because it is environmentally benign and it produces the most
energy. To prepare for the future, the U. S. should invest in fusion
thereby accelerating its development as a viable primary energy
source.
by Nick Hildebrandt
Additional Sources
Non-Web Sources
The Home Page for this technology project.