Nuclear fusion technology: it sounds like another crazy Simpsons prediction come true. In December, the National Ignition Facility announced a breakthrough in nuclear fusion technology: for the first time, a nuclear fusion reaction created a net gain of energy, and since that reaction doesn’t emit carbon or other pollutants, a lot of people have proclaimed that we are one major step closer to achieving “the holy grail of clean energy.” Guys: this is it. [INSERT CHOIR / HYMNAL MUSIC) The prophecies of science fiction and socially awkward physicists have been fulfilled. The messiah of clean energy cometh. Please rise, and as quickly as you rose, bend the knee for the one and only holy grail of clean energy. [RECORD SCRATCH OR MUSIC STOPS ABRUPTLY] If only that were actually true… [Back to Wait a Minute] Happy Friday, I’m Ethan Brown, and this is Tip of the Iceberg, where I will break down some environmental news and then answer a question from our listeners on the air. Submit questions via Patreon, email, or social media. Patron questions go to the front of the line, so sign up at patreon.com/thesweatypenguin.

The Sweaty Penguin is presented by Peril and Promise: a public media initiative from The WNET Group in New York, reporting on the issues and solutions around climate change. You can learn more at pbs.org/perilandpromise.

So what is this huge breakthrough that is genuinely exciting, but also completely overhyped? A nuclear fusion reaction essentially mimics the process of the Sun, and no, not the one where it sunburns some white people at the beach. Like what happens inside the Sun or other stars, scientists put two hydrogen atoms together at an unfathomable temperature and pressure until they fuse into a single helium atom. Now, the nucleus of a helium atom has a smaller mass than two hydrogen nuclei combined, and because of that, when this nuclear fusion reaction happens, there’s that bit of leftover mass which gets discarded as energy. So as humans, if we could create a reactor that has Sun-like conditions inside it and throw in hydrogen atoms, we would be creating helium and energy, and if we captured that energy, we could use it as electricity. We could also capture the helium and [high pitch] sing Alvin and the Chipmunks songs with it. Christmas Christmas time is here. [normal pitch] Oh, wait, they’re just using it for energy? Well that’s no fun! Can I have the helium then?

Up until this point, it took more energy to heat and pressurize the atoms than the atoms themselves created, which rendered the concept of nuclear fusion as an energy source pretty much moot. But for the first time, scientists successfully achieved that nuclear fusion reaction with a net gain of energy. The amount of energy they created was ever so slightly greater than the amount it took to pressure cook the atoms and generate the reaction. I realize this probably doesn’t sound all that exciting: it’s like if a water gun shot out a drop more water than you originally filled the gun with. Yeah. What are you gonna do about that, Brayden? But for nuclear fusion technology, people have suggested the breakthrough opens up the door for these reactors to become more efficient, and one day, supply the world with limitless clean energy.

So yeah, it’s a cool scientific breakthrough. Whatever Boston janitor that stumbled into the facility and pulled it off after scientists struggled for decades deserves a movie, no question. But as it pertains to today’s clean energy transition, the breakthrough has zero significance. Now, I know you know this because you listen to our podcast every week, right? Right? But there are already carbon-free energy sources that achieve a net gain of energy. Solar. Wind. Hydro. Nuclear fission — which is different from fusion, that’s the nuclear reactors we have today which use uranium. But yeah, basically any other energy source you’ve heard of achieves a way bigger net gain. To use solar as an example, the most conservative estimates have solar panels generating four to five times as much energy as it takes to manufacture them. Others suggest that number could be as high as thirty or more. As panels continue to improve and manufacturing becomes more efficient, that number will only grow. So to say nuclear fusion technology is the only viable clean energy source is like saying Healys are the only viable concept of rollerskates simply because they came in a cooler, flame painted package. Although hot rods do sound like a good addition to nuclear colliders.

Of course, these other energy sources have a massive head start. The first solar panel was constructed in 1883, which makes me so angry they didn’t think to weaponize it. The Anglo-Egyptian War would’ve been so much cooler with less gangrene amputations and more green energy. Though the first solar panel had a very low conversion rate, it produced an electric current that was continuous, constant, and of considerable force. The first windmills for electricity production were built in 1887, one of which powered a home for 25 years. That was like a lifetime back then! The first nuclear fission reactor came to life in 1951, and eventually generated enough electricity to light the facility. All of those prototypes, while underwhelming by today’s standards, handily beat December’s nuclear fusion reaction that not only barely generated an energy gain, but also was just a five second experiment. Yeah. We didn’t create the first potato clock and run around claiming it would soon be our main way to tell time. An experiment is a demonstration of something that could one day be implemented pending major improvements. That said, I’m still holding out hope for the french fry wrist watch to hit the market. 

Looking at solar and wind, not only do they run circles around today’s version of nuclear fusion, but they’ve already started to outcompete fossil fuels. If this were the Bachelor, these clean energy sources would definitely be getting roses first. From 2010 to 2019, unit costs of solar energy decreased by 85%, wind energy by 55%, and lithium-ion batteries by 85%. With these cost reductions, of the wind, solar and other renewables that came on stream in 2020, 62% were less expensive than the cheapest new fossil fuel. Okay so this may not be as exciting as different energy sources vying for undying love from some random emotionally unavailable guy that TV said is hot. But, if today’s clean energy sources are outcompeting fossil fuels already, we don’t need to still be hunting for some “holy grail of clean energy.” In fact, we may have already found it.

In 2021, renewable energy accounted for 19.8% of electricity consumption in the United States. Nuclear fission contributed another 18.9%. And with these carbon-free energy solutions becoming more and more popular not just in the U.S. but around the world, the International Energy Agency’s 2022 World Energy Outlook found for the first time that consumption of all three fossil fuels are on track to plateau and start declining, with coal use falling back within a few years, natural gas use peaking by the end of the decade, and oil demand starting to level off in the mid 2030s. If fossil fuels are naturally approaching a plateau, then these alternative energy sources have truly done a remarkable job becoming both viable and economical. The only other thing set to plateau in the mid 2030s is the number of SpiderMan remakes. I mean how many times does society need to make parkour trendy again? 

That’s not to say these energy sources don’t have flaws. Nuclear fission has led to uranium mining on Indigenous land, requires massive quantities of water, and produces radioactive byproducts. I ask you, what good is an electric car if it makes you grow a third eye? And I know what you’re thinking but no, it can’t actually let you see the road and your blind spots simultaneously. It’s a non-functional eye, like your tonsils but better for school show and tell. Hydroelectric dams have their problems too: they can destroy forest land, alter ecosystems for salmon or other wildlife, and lead to land disputes. Even solar and wind require mineral mining, lots of land, and are intermittent, meaning there are times when the Sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. It’s like waiting for the rain when you need to take a shower. Some of the time, you’re gonna stank for weeks. The mineral mining required by solar and wind sources have also exacerbated human rights issues in some regions. Solar panels, for example, require polysilicon, and 45% of the world’s polysilicon is manufactured in a region of China heavily populated by Uyghur people — an ethnic group experiencing countless human rights violations — and research suggests Uyghur people were coerced through a “labor transfer” program into working in polysilicon manufacturing.

But all of these flaws have something in common: we can fix them. Land and human rights disputes can be solved by reaching out to local communities and finding paths forward that better fit their interests. Radioactive waste can be safely stored, and it’s worth noting that the quantity we’re dealing with is very little — if a person used only nuclear energy for their entire life, the amount of radioactive waste they’d generate would fit inside a coffee cup. That’s not to say that it should be stored in people’s coffee cups, although Taco Bell would probably market the hell out of a Radioactive Coffee Baja Blast. Salmon populations disrupted by hydroelectric dams can be aided by innovations like the salmon ladder or salmon canon, where they, yes, swim into a tube, get shot through the air, and plop back in the river on the other side of the dam. And you thought the commute on the E train from Brooklyn was smelly. And intermittency can be solved with energy storage technologies or just creating a grid with a healthy mix of energy sources so that we aren’t ever relying on just one source. Ultimately, if each individual energy source is very good, they can join forces on the electric grid to become great — competing with each other on price and quality, but also cooperating by providing backup plans for consumers in the case of, say, bad weather.

On the flip side, nuclear fusion is in its infancy as a viable energy source. It’s sucking on a pacifier and… wait, no, that’s– that’s a piece of garbage! Nuclear fusion, put that down! No! You– aww, and you pooped yourself again! And somehow got it in your hair even though you’re wearing a diaper? Come on! It’s true, though. If we copy-paste the timeline of the development of solar panels and wind turbines, we’d be looking over a century into the future before nuclear fusion enters the mainstream, and that whole time, these other clean energy sources would theoretically be improving too. Many researchers overzealously toss out predictions like “nuclear fusion will be viable in thirty years,” but even with an ambitious timeline like that, nuclear fusion would be way too late to the party. It wouldn’t even be fashionably late where everyone thinks it’s cool and must be coming from another party. The clean energy transition is already well underway, and if the world were to follow through on its global climate targets, the transition could be essentially complete in 30 years.

The National Ignition Facility’s nuclear fusion breakthrough was, no doubt, captivating for science enthusiasts. But the fact that solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, and more can already outcompete fossil fuels and produce carbon-free energy with low costs, solid efficiency, and for longer than five seconds — that’s a way more exciting forecast for the future. It’s ready to rock now, it will bring down energy prices while addressing climate change in time, and most importantly, it has a 100% chance of airborne salmon.