Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach wants provinces to band together behind an achievable national climate change plan, and is worried Quebec's aggressive new strategy to cut greenhouse gases will create “a headache” for Canada.
He warned there is no quick fix and urged other provinces to resist casting the oil sands, which employ a carbon-intensive extraction process, as the main villain in the country's bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“I don't want to get into the position of where we would add so much cost to our industry while others aren't doing anything similar,” Mr. Stelmach said in an exclusive interview with The Globe and Mail.
Quebec, along with B.C. and Ontario, have all advocated different approaches to reducing emissions from Jean Charest's record-setting targets to carbon taxes to an interprovincial cap-and-trade program. As international talks ramp up ahead of next month's global climate change meeting in Copenhagen, the divisions between the provinces and Ottawa on what the federal government should commit to domestically are becoming increasingly obvious.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has said that Ottawa's plan may ultimately “discriminate” against his province. He said his government does not want to see the progress it has made benefit other provinces by letting them off the hook to do the same.
“If there's money to be found in carbon reductions, we want that money to stay inside our province so we can use it to further green our economy and develop jobs,” Mr. McGuinty told reporters. “We didn't develop this economic value so that it could be confiscated from us and given to another part of the country.”
Like Quebec Premier Jean Charest, Mr. McGuinty said he is worried that Canada could have difficulty marketing products to countries in the European Union if the federal government's targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not ambitious enough.
Earlier, Mr. Charest promised that by 2020, the province will slash greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels. The goal is similar to the target the European Union has adopted and much tougher than Canada's plan to cut emissions by 20 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020.
“We must remember that Quebec feels that because of the hydro power they have, that their carbon emission will be less and that they won't have to do anything,” Mr. Stelmach said. “Well, not necessarily so.”
Mr. Stelmach said the EU can afford to chase more aggressive targets because many countries have been building up to this for years by taking such measures as phasing out energy-inefficient manufacturing plants.
He said it's frustrating his province is being told to slash its emissions when other province are still talking about what they plan to do and not actually doing anything substantial in their own jurisdictions, especially in the area of coal-fired electricity generation.
Despite the brewing disagreement between provinces, Mr. Stelmach is confident common ground can be found and he's busy convincing his fellow premiers that the oil sands are still a major economic asset to the country.
“I'm not saying this in a boastful manner, but I feel that Alberta is positioned well to help take this country out of the recession. And certainly, investment in the oil sands is one area.”
Alberta's opposition parties are upset the Stelmach government is not advocating for a more aggressive national climate change program.
“I'm disappointed in the lack of leadership both at the provincial and federal level,” Alberta Liberal Leader David Swann said. “I'm hoping that we will see some kind of uprising from the people.…”
He said the province is squandering an opportunity to improve the oil sand's international reputation, which has taken a beating in recent months as being an ecological nightmare, by not setting its own caps on emissions.
Uranium Critical Mineral Reclassification signals a US executive order directing USGS to restore critical status, boosting nuclear energy, domestic uranium mining, streamlined permitting, federal support, and energy security amid import reliance and supply chain risks.
Key Points
A policy relisting uranium as a critical mineral to unlock funding, speed permits, and strengthen U.S. nuclear security.
✅ Directs Interior to have USGS reconsider uranium classification
✅ Speeds permits for domestic uranium mining projects
✅ Targets import dependence and strengthens energy security
In a strategic move to bolster the United States' nuclear energy sector, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order on January 20, 2025, directing the Secretary of the Interior to instruct the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to reconsider classifying uranium as a critical mineral. This directive aims to enhance federal support and streamline permitting processes for domestic uranium projects, thereby strengthening U.S. energy security objectives.
Reclassification of Uranium as a Critical Mineral
The USGS had previously removed uranium from its critical minerals list in 2022, categorizing it as a "fuel mineral" that did not qualify for such designation. The recent executive order seeks to reverse this decision, recognizing uranium's strategic importance in the context of the nation's energy infrastructure and geopolitical considerations.
Implications for Domestic Uranium Production
Reclassifying uranium as a critical mineral is expected to unlock federal funding and expedite the permitting process for uranium mining projects within the United States. This initiative is particularly pertinent given the significant decline in domestic uranium production over the past two decades. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, domestic production has decreased by 96%, from 4.8 million pounds in 2014 to approximately 121,296 pounds in the third quarter of 2024.
Current Uranium Supply Dynamics
Despite the push for increased domestic production, the U.S. remains heavily reliant on uranium imports. In 2022, 27% of U.S. uranium purchases were sourced from Canada, with an additional 57% imported from countries including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Australia, and Russia; a recent ban on Russian uranium could further disrupt these supply patterns and heighten risks. This reliance on foreign sources has raised concerns about energy security, especially in light of recent geopolitical tensions.
Challenges and Considerations
While the executive order represents a significant step toward revitalizing the U.S. nuclear energy sector, several challenges persist, and energy dominance faces constraints that will shape implementation:
Regulatory Hurdles: Accelerating the permitting process for uranium mining projects involves navigating complex environmental and regulatory frameworks, though recent permitting reforms for geothermal hint at potential pathways, which can be time-consuming and contentious.
Market Dynamics: The uranium market is subject to global supply and demand fluctuations, and domestic producers may face competition from established international suppliers.
Infrastructure Development: Expanding domestic uranium production necessitates substantial investment in mining infrastructure and workforce development, areas that have been underfunded in recent years.
Broader Implications for Nuclear Energy Policy
The executive order aligns with a broader strategy to revitalize the U.S. nuclear energy industry, where ongoing nuclear innovation is critical to delivering stable, low-emission power. The increasing demand for nuclear energy is driven by the global push for zero-emissions energy sources and the need to support power-intensive technologies, such as artificial intelligence servers.
Former President Trump's executive order to reclassify uranium as a critical mineral, aligning with his broader energy agenda and a prior pledge to end the 'war on coal', signifies a pivotal moment for the U.S. nuclear energy sector. By potentially unlocking federal support, including programs advanced by the Nuclear Innovation Act, and streamlining permitting processes, this initiative aims to reduce dependence on foreign uranium sources and enhance national energy security. However, realizing these objectives will require addressing regulatory challenges, market dynamics, and infrastructure needs to ensure the successful revitalization of the domestic uranium industry.
ACCC energy underwriting guarantee proposes government-backed certainty for new generation, cutting electricity prices and supporting gas, pumped hydro, renewables, batteries, and potentially coal-fired power, addressing market failure without direct subsidies.
Key Points
A tech-neutral, government-backed plan underwriting new generation revenue to increase certainty and cut power prices.
✅ Government guarantee provides a revenue floor for new generators.
✅ Intended to reduce bills by up to $400 and address market failure.
Australian Taxpayers won't directly fund any new power plants despite some Coalition MPs seizing on a new report to call for a coal-fired power station.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission recommended the government give financial certainty to new power plants, guaranteeing energy will be bought at a cheap price if it can't be sold, as part of an electricity market plan to avoid threats to supply.
It's part of a bid to cut up to $400 a year from average household power prices.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the finance proposal had merit, but he ruled out directly funding specific types of power generation.
"We are not in the business of subsidising one technology or another," he told reporters in Queensland today.
"We've done enough of that. Frankly, there's been too much of that."
Renewable subsidies, designed in the 1990s to make solar and wind technology more affordable, have worked and will end in 2020.
Some Coalition MPs claim the ACCC's recommendation to underwrite power generation is vindication for their push to build new coal-fired power plants.
But ACCC chair Rod Sims said no companies had proposed building new coal plants - instead they're trying to build new gas projects, pumped hydro or renewable projects.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said Mr Turnbull was offering solutions years away, having overseen a rise in power prices over the past year.
"You don't just go down to K-Mart and get a coal-fired power station off the shelf," Mr Shorten told reporters, admitting he had not read the ACCC report.
Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg said the recommendation to underwrite new power generators had a lot of merit, as it would address a market failure highlighted by AEMO warnings about reduced reserves.
"What they're saying is the government needs to step in here to provide some sort of assurance," Mr Frydenberg told 9NEWS today.
He said that could include coal, gas, renewable energy or battery storage.
Deputy Nationals leader Bridget McKenzie said science should determine which technology would get the best outcomes for power bills, with a scrapping coal report suggesting it can be costly.
Mr Turnbull said there was strong support for the vast majority of the ACCC's 56 recommendations, but the government would carefully consider the report, which sets out a blueprint to cut electricity bills by 25 percent.
Acting Greens leader Adam Bandt said Australia should exit coal-fired power in favour of renewable energy to cut pollution.
In contrast, Canada has seen the Stop the Shock campaign advocate a return to coal power in some provinces.
The Australian Energy Council, which represents 21 major energy companies, said the government should consult on changes to avoid "unintended consequences".
India Power Sector Payment Crisis strains utilities with electricity theft, discom arrears, coal dues, and subsidy burdens, triggering outages, load-shedding, and tariff stress as record heatwave demand tests grid reliability, billing compliance, and infrastructure upgrades.
Key Points
Linked payment shortfalls, theft, and subsidies driving arrears, outages, and planning gaps across Indias power grid.
✅ Coal India unpaid, fuel risk rises and tariffs face pressure
✅ Outages and load-shedding worsen amid heatwave demand spike
India is among the world leaders in losing money to electricity theft. The country’s power sector also has a peculiar pattern of entities selling without getting the money on time, or nothing at all, while Manitoba Hydro debt highlights similar strains elsewhere. Coal India is owed about Rs 12,300 crore by power generation companies, which themselves have not been paid over Rs 1 lakh crore by distribution companies. The figures of losses suffered by discoms are much higher, even as UK network profits have drawn criticism, underscoring divergent market outcomes. The circuit does get completed somehow, but the uneven transaction, which defies business sense, introduces a disruptive strand that limits the scope for any future planning. Regular and unannounced shutdowns become the norm as the power supply falls short of demand, which this time is expected to touch record highs of 215-220 gigawatts amid the scorching heatwave, and cases like deferred BC Hydro costs illustrate how financial pressures accumulate.
In debt-ridden Punjab, the power subsidy bill is over Rs 10,000 crore, a large portion of which serves farmers. The AAP government plans to provide free electricity up to 300 units for every household from July 1, even as power bill cuts in Thailand show alternative approaches to affordability. The generous giveaways cannot camouflage the state of affairs. Thirty-three government departments had outstanding electricity bills of Rs 62 crore as on March 31, the end of the last financial year. With arrears of Rs 22.48 crore, the biggest defaulter was the Water and Sanitation Department. According to the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, around 40 police stations and posts have been found to be stealing power or failing to clear the bills, while utility impersonation scams target consumers elsewhere. Customary warnings have been issued of snapping supply if the dues are not paid, even as utility penalties for disconnection delays underscore enforcement challenges, but ‘public interest’ and ‘essential services’ will ensure that such an eventuality does not arise.
The substantial fine imposed on a dera stealing power in Tarn Taran, along with the registration of an FIR, is exemplary action that needs to be carried forward. Change is tough, but a new way of working begins with those in positions of power leading by example, be it fixing the payment mechanism, upgrading infrastructure with smart grid initiatives in mind, minimising the use of electricity or a gradual switch to alternative energy sources.
Ukraine Energy Grid Attacks intensify as missile strikes and drone raids hit power plants, substations, and transmission lines, causing blackouts, disrupted logistics, and humanitarian strain during winter, despite repairs, air defense, and allied aid.
Key Points
Missile and drone strikes on Ukraine's power grid to force blackouts, strain civilians, and disrupt military logistics.
✅ Targets: power plants, substations, transmission lines
✅ Goals: erode morale, disrupt logistics, force aid burdens
Russia’s continued strikes on Ukraine have taken a severe toll on the country’s critical infrastructure, particularly its energy grid, as Ukraine continues to keep the lights on despite sustained bombardment. In recent months, Western Ukraine has increasingly become a target of missile and drone attacks, leading to widespread power outages and compounding the challenges faced by the civilian population. These strikes aim to cripple Ukraine's resilience during a harsh winter season and disrupt its wartime operations.
Targeting Energy Infrastructure
Russian missile and drone assaults on Ukraine’s energy grid are part of a broader strategy to weaken the country’s morale and capacity to sustain the war effort. The attacks have primarily focused on power plants, transmission lines, and substations. Western Ukraine, previously considered a relative safe haven due to its distance from front-line combat zones, is now experiencing the brunt of this campaign.
The consequences of these strikes are severe. Rolling blackouts and unplanned outages have disrupted daily life for millions of Ukrainians, though authorities say there are electricity reserves that could stabilize supply if no new strikes occur, leaving homes without heating during freezing temperatures, hospitals operating on emergency power, and businesses struggling to maintain operations. The infrastructure damage has also affected water supplies and public transportation, further straining civilian life.
Aimed at Civilian and Military Impact
Russia’s targeting of Ukraine’s power grid has dual purposes. On one hand, it aims to undermine civilian morale by creating hardships during the cold winter months, even as Ukraine works to keep the lights on this winter through contingency measures. On the other, it seeks to hinder Ukraine’s military logistics and operations, which heavily rely on a stable energy supply for transportation, communications, and manufacturing of military equipment.
These attacks coincide with a broader strategy of attritional warfare, where Moscow hopes to exhaust Ukraine’s resources and diminish its ability to continue its counteroffensive operations. By disrupting critical infrastructure, Russia increases pressure on Ukraine's allies to step up humanitarian and military aid, stretching their capacities.
Humanitarian Consequences
The impact of these power cuts on the civilian population is profound. Millions of Ukrainians are enduring freezing temperatures without consistent access to electricity or heating. Vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, children, and those with disabilities, face heightened risks of hypothermia and other health issues.
Hospitals and healthcare facilities are under immense strain, relying on backup generators that cannot sustain prolonged use. In rural areas, where infrastructure is already weaker, the effects are even more pronounced, leaving many communities isolated and unable to access essential services.
Humanitarian organizations have ramped up efforts to provide aid, including distributing generators, warm clothing, and food supplies, while many households pursue new energy solutions to weather blackouts. However, the scale of the crisis often outpaces the resources available, leaving many Ukrainians to rely on their resilience and community networks.
Ukraine's Response
Despite the challenges, Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of these attacks. The government and utility companies are working around the clock to repair damaged infrastructure and restore power to affected areas. Mobile repair teams and international assistance have played crucial roles in mitigating the impact of these strikes.
Ukraine’s Western allies have also stepped in to provide support. The European Union, the United States, and other countries have supplied Ukraine with energy equipment, financial aid, and technical expertise to help rebuild its energy grid, though recent decisions like the U.S. ending support for grid restoration complicate planning and procurement. Additionally, advanced air defense systems provided by Western nations have helped intercept some of the incoming missiles and drones, though not all attacks can be thwarted.
Russia’s Escalation Strategy
Russia’s focus on Western Ukraine reflects a shift in its strategy. Previously, attacks were concentrated on front-line areas and major urban centers in the east and south. However, by targeting the western regions, Moscow seeks to disrupt the relatively stable zones where displaced Ukrainians and critical supply chains are located.
Western Ukraine is also a hub for receiving and distributing international aid and military supplies. Striking this region not only undermines Ukraine’s internal stability but also sends a message to its allies about Russia’s willingness to escalate the conflict further.
Broader Implications
The attacks on Ukraine’s energy grid have broader geopolitical implications. By targeting infrastructure, Russia intensifies the pressure on Ukraine’s allies to continue providing support, even as Kyiv has at times helped Spain amid blackouts when capacity allowed, testing their unity and resolve. The destruction also poses long-term challenges for Ukraine’s post-war recovery, as rebuilding a modern and resilient energy system will require significant investments and time.
Moreover, these attacks highlight the vulnerability of civilian infrastructure in modern warfare, echoing that electricity is civilization amid winter conditions. The deliberate targeting of non-combatant assets underscores the need for international efforts to strengthen the protection of critical infrastructure and address the humanitarian consequences of such tactics.
The Russian attacks on Western Ukraine's power grid are a stark reminder of the devastating human and economic costs of the ongoing conflict. While Ukraine continues to demonstrate resilience and adaptability, the scale of destruction underscores the need for sustained international support. As the war drags on, the focus must remain on mitigating civilian suffering, rebuilding critical infrastructure, and pursuing a resolution that ends the violence and stabilizes the region.
Philippines Nuclear Energy Policy aims to add nuclear power to the energy mix via executive order, meeting rising electricity demand with 24/7 baseload while balancing safety, renewables, and imported fuel dependence in the Philippines.
Key Points
A government plan to include nuclear power in the energy mix to meet demand, ensure baseload, and uphold safety.
✅ Executive order proposed by Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi
✅ Balances safety, renewables, and energy security
Phillipines Presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo said Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi made the proposal during last Monday's Cabinet meeting in Malacaaang. "Secretary Cusi likewise sought the approval of the issuance of a proposed executive order for the inclusion of nuclear power, including next-gen nuclear options in the country's energy mix as the Philippines is expected to the rapid growth in electricity and electricity demand, in which, 24/7 power is essential and necessary," Panelo said in a statement.
Panelo said Duterte would study the energy chief's proposal, as China's nuclear development underscores regional momentum. In the 1960s until the mid 80s, the late president Ferdinand Marcos adopted a nuclear energy program and built the Bataan Nuclear Plant.
The nuclear plant was mothballed after Corazon Aquino became president in 1986. There have been calls to revive the nuclear plant, saying it would help address the Philippines' energy supply issues. Some groups, however, said such move would be expensive and would endanger the lives of people living near the facility, citing Three Mile Island as a cautionary example.
Panelo said proposals to revive the Bataan Nuclear Plant were not discussed during the Cabinet meeting, even as debates like California's renewable classification continue to shape perceptions. Indigenous energy sources natural gas, hydro, coal, oil, geothermal, wind, solar, biomassand ethanol constitute more than half or 59.6%of the Philippines' energy mix.
Imported oil make up 31.7% while imported coal, reflecting the country's coal dependency, contribute about 8.7%.
In 2018, Duterte said safety should be the priority when deciding whether to tap nuclear energy for the country's power needs, as countries like India's nuclear restart proceed with their own safeguards.
ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.
Key Points
ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.
✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils
✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding
✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity
It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.
Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.
But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.
“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.
Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.
Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.
The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.
When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.
Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.
In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.
A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.
One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat
The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.
“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.
The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.
“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.
Choosing a fuel Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.
Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.
At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.
The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.
“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”
