Why It’s Taking The U.S. So Long To Make Fusion Energy Work

PLAINSBORO, N.J. — Hidden in the woods two miles from Princeton University’s main campus sits a drab white building easily mistakable for a warehouse. Inside is one of the Ivy League school’s most expensive experiments: a 22-foot-tall metal spheroid surrounded by Crayola-colored magnets. About half a dozen blue beams ring the sphere horizontally, while another set, painted red, rise vertically from the floor to wrap the contraption, like fingers clutching a ball.

Last fall, construction workers hustled to finish an upgrade to yet another magnet, this one jutting through the center of the sphere like a Roman column. On a recent November afternoon, Michael Williams, the lab’s head of engineering, weaved his way through workers and up a stainless steel scaffolding to get a better view.

“Fusion is an expensive science, because you’re trying to build a sun in a bottle,” Williams said.

This endeavor in the New Jersey woods, known as the National Spherical Torus Experiment, was created to study the physics of plasma, in the hopes that one day humans will be able to harness a new source of energy based on the reactions that power stars. The project has been shut down for two years to undergo an upgrade that will double its power. The improvement costs $94 million, and is paid for — like the rest of the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab — by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Impressive as it may appear, this experiment is small compared to what once stood there. Earlier in the day, while walking over to the site from his office, Williams pointed out a sign on the National Spherical Torus Experiment building that read “TFTR.” The abbreviation stands for Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor, a bigger, more promising fusion experiment that was scrapped in the mid-1990s.

“I keep telling them to take that down,” he said.

With Congress gridlocked, the money must come from within the department. In October, a Department of Energy advisory committee floated the idea of shutting down the fusion reactor at MIT, and, if necessary, shutting down one of the two other experimental reactors in the U.S. (the one at Princeton or another at General Atomics in San Diego). Even though the resolution was non-binding, the decision drew the ire of many fusion physicists. Fifty experts signed an emphatic letter to the department saying that the “underlying strategic vision that guides this report is flawed.”

“The DOE is committed to creating opportunities for its fusion researchers to assert strong leadership in the next decade and beyond,” said Ed Synakowski, the associate director at the Department of Energy who oversees fusion funding. He said that while the department has proposed closing the MIT lab, it would close one of the other two reactors only under dire budgetary conditions.

Earlier this year, the Obama administration slated the reactor at MIT for closure. An aggressive lobbying effort by Massachusetts politicians was the only thing that kept it open.

The possible closures have put the fusion community on edge. But what some find more worrying is the idea that the young scientific minds needed to tackle this multi-generational problem will instead look for careers in disciplines that are better funded and more stable.

“The older generation,” said Fonck, “we get concerned that the younger generation will say, ‘Well, there’s no jobs in this field.'”

The Huffington Post