The Martlet

The current discussion of peak oil is creating a lot of doom-and-gloom scenarios about life after our energy supply runs dry. It makes one wonder, is our future going to be less like Star Trek and more like Mad Max?

Dr. Allen Offenberger thinks our future lies in the former category, thanks to new developments in nuclear fusion power. A leading expert on fusion technology, Offenberger envisions a post-fossil fuel future with unlimited clean energy, most of which would be provided by fusion-driven power plants.

“Fusion is the choice of nature,” says Offenberger. “That is the universal fix — it’s the sun, it’s all the stars, it’s in our biology.” But we’re going to have to get a handle on fusion pretty soon, because Offenberger says it’s the only thing that can generate as much energy as fossil fuels, which are getting harder to find and extract.

Offenberger refers to a term called a cubic mile of oil (CMO). To get an idea of what that looks like, simply imagine a giant cube of oil one mile wide and one mile high. One CMO equals how much oil the world uses in one year. To supply humanity’s energy needs to the mid-21st century, we’d need 270 CMOs — an amount greater than the known recoverable reserves of fossil fuels.

As for the energy alternative fuel sources can provide us, it would take 85 times the total world’s soybean production (often used in biofuel) for 50 years to generate one CMO. Or take the tarsands in Alberta — 50 years of the oilsands’ daily output would create one CMO. “There’s some major issues with almost everything we have as a supply source,” says Offenberger.

Offenberger does say that renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy, will become more prevalent, but will only be able to provide us with about 35 percent of our energy needs.

“For the long haul, we’re down to nuclear and renewables. At the end of the day, that’s it — there’s no choice. So we do have to get serious about it.”

While we can get a lot of nuclear power from our current fission power plants, the public is all too aware of the risks. Besides the risks of meltdowns, as well as creating more dangerous radioactive waste, according to Offenberger, even fission wouldn’t last us too long. “[The uranium supply] would only last a few decades if the whole world converted,” says Offenberger.

That’s why fusion is generating a lot of interest and research worldwide, particularly in the United States, Japan and Europe.

“Why is it interesting? Because a nuclear reaction ends up giving you more than a million times the energy release of a chemical reaction,” says Offenberger.

He compares fusion reaction to coal-based and fission-based power plants.

A coal-fired plant requires 10 000 tonnes of coal per day, and is accompanied by tonnes of emissions.

Compare that to 77 kilograms of fuel for a fission plant, and one kilogram for fusion. Or to look at it another way, 100 tonnes of coal can feed a coal plant for less than hour, while 100 tonnes of fuel for fusion can last seven years.

Fusion provides no greenhouse gas emissions, and unlike the current fission reactors, no risk of a Fukushima-style disaster. And it’s not hard to obtain the fuel, either.

“It really is a universal fuel source,” says Offenberger. “It’s not a matter of which nations have it, so you can cut the geopolitics there.”

While there has been much research into fusion power over the past several decades, Offenberger expresses confidence in new technologies that are being developed and refined, such as Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE), which uses high-energy lasers to trigger fusion reactions in small fuel pellets.

While IFE has not yet proven a success, Offenberger hopes it will be commercially available within the next 20 years.

“I’m fairly optimistic that we’re on the right track. It’s coming, and it will be transformative.”

For the time being, Offenberger is trying to encourage more investment into fusion power, particularly in Canada, which he says needs to contribute to fusion development now rather than wait for a proven success.

“Right now, we’re stuck for decades of carbon, because nothing else can come close,” says Offenberger. “But my point is —and other serious people would say: All the more reason to pour the investment in to get the solutions sooner, rather than just waiting.”