Sir, - I would like to welcome the letter from Jim Woolridge of Earthwatch (October 1st). This represents a timely contribution to the debate on the impending energy crisis. Jim is quite correct in his statements on fusion and the articles to which he referred did over-simplify the situation.
I think we will both agree on two facts:
Fission-based nuclear reactors have a risk of catastrophic failure (Chernobyl) and produce unwanted waste which is costly and dangerous to process (Sellafield).
The production of electricity from oil, coal and peat produces an unacceptable risk in terms of global warming and climate change which will lead in the next century to a major world-wide catastrophe.
In response to the above crisis, I believe that every country has a responsibility to investigate and be aware of all alternatives which have the potential to provide low-risk replacements for fission and fossil fuel-based energy production. Among the best examples are solar, wind, geothermal and fusion sources.
I agree with Jim that today's fusion experiments involve the production of radioactive materials, but all the alternatives have some drawbacks; just imagine the environmental disaster that a multi-gigawatt wind farm would represent to the west of Ireland. We all wish to have risk-free energy sources, but how can we achieve this goal without pursing the necessary research and development?
I have read several safety assessments of fusion technology. In 1995 the Safety and Environmental Assessment of Fusion Power (SEAFP) report commissioned by the European Union concluded: "Fusion reactors have a great potential for safety. There is no possibility of uncontrolled power runaway . . . There would be no rupture of the confinement due to internal events, or external events [which one would expect every 10 million years]. Only hypothetical external events which are extremely energetic may cause failure of all confinement and tritium release of the order of one kilogram. The release of one kilogram could result in a dose to the public of about 0.25Sv, which approaches but stays below limits at which evacuation would be mandatory."
In Ireland, consecutive governments have taken the view that the energy crisis is someone else's problem. I hope Jim's letter represents the start of a new consensus that Ireland should invest in research into alternative energy sources (including fusion) and that the Irish people can develop the expertise so that we will no longer be accused of being disinterested and ill-informed in such important matters. - Yours, etc.,
Head of Research Unit Association, EURATOMDCU, Dublin 9.