I was reading an article on Yahoo about an experimental fusion reactor that is going to built in southern France. Advocates of the project, that will cost approximately $12.8 billion, state that fusion could supply as much as 10-20% of the world's energy by the end of this century. I found the article confusing, as it spoke about fusion in terms of the sun's energy, generating energy with sea water and then spoke of radioactive waste. It left me puzzled as to what is being used in the fusion reactor to generate the energy and why, as opponents proclaim, radioactive waste will be a by-product. The article cleared up my confusion a bit by defining fusion for the non-physicists like me. According to the article, fusion powers the sun and other stars and "involves confining hydrogen at extreme temperatures and pressure to create a highly energetic gas." Per the article, "at 180 degrees, the gas undergoes nuclear fusion, releasing energy that can be used to generate electricity." I believe what this article is then saying is that the hydrogen source would be the sea water, which would create an energy source akin to the one that powers the sun and stars. Is the radioactive waste product created because the sun also has radiation? In other words, the same type of energy that powers the sun and stars would create a similar type of radiation? I'm still a bit confused on that one, since I thought the only hydrogen by-product was water--maybe that's only true with fuel cells and similar uses of hydrogen.

I don't feel too bad about failing to comprehend this project, as the scientists obviously have yet to master the fusion process, as well. Although it sounds a bit science-fiction-ist, perhaps this kind of grandiose plan is what we need to really address the future of energy. The radioactive aspect of this project sounds scary. Yet, I think this article once again reminds us that if we want to curb global warming, we need to think about how to do it on a grand scale. Do we need to resort to reactor concepts or concepts that have not been perfected and may not even work? It doesn't sound like the best plan, but if we don't try some new ideas and insist on sticking with the status quo of coal and oil, we know where we are headed with climate change. It's tough for me to accept that any option that involves radiaoctive waste is a good option. Hopefully, we will think of some ways to propel wind power and solar power, such that we don't need to resort to fusion or traditional nuclear power. As hard as it may be for me to accept though, nuclear power and this fusion concept are likely here to stay.