ITER fusion project faces more delays

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The world will have to wait even longer to find out whether nuclear fusion will be a viable alternative energy source, it seems. Central experiments for the multibillion-dollar, yet-unbuilt International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), probably won't get underway until 2026, according to an Agence-France Presse (AFP) report, five years later than recent timelines indicated.

The ITER team has broken ground for the test site in Cadarache, France (near Marseille), which will run a smaller reactor "less complete than initially thought," a spokesperson for France's Atomic Energy Commission said in a press conference yesterday.

Even though construction is slated to start this year, plasma-driven experiments won't get going until 2018—and those would be lighter than planned, literally (using hydrogen rather than heavier tritium and deuterium, which will have to wait for 2026). Although fusing hydrogen is easier, the deuterium-tritium reaction has proved to be the most "efficient" in lab experiments (meaning the most energy is released at the lowest temperature), so it's the target combination. Temperatures will still need to be about 270 million degrees Fahrenheit (150 million Celsius) for the reaction to get going.

Fusion—the same process our sun uses to make energy—fuses together atoms using hot plasma, rather than breaking them apart (as in fission) or joining them at room temperature (as in cold fusion). Its proponents hail it as a safer and greener source of energy that would produce little hazardous waste.

Manufacturing for the reactor's nuts and bolts (or at least wires) is already under contract, notes World Nuclear News. A South Korean company has started making some of the 28 tons of niobium-tin wire it will supply for the reactor's magnets. 

ITER is currently backed by seven governments and had an initial price tag of $13.8 billion—which may double by the time it's built, Nature reports. France and the E.U. will pick up half of the tab together, and the other partners (China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the U.S.) will be divvying up the rest. The project, which had its first design more than 20 years ago, seems to be on the cusp of liftoff, but, writes the Principal Deputy Director-General Norbet Holtkamp, "the details of the plan remain to be hammered out."

Listen to a podcast about nuclear fusion.

Map of the ITER location courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe