Our world is a world run, literally, by fossil fuels. Industrialized countries alone consume over 43 million barrels of oil every day.[1] With the quantity of oil as yet untapped ranging between 1275 billion barrels and 2120 billion barrels[2], our world will come screeching to a halt sometime around the year 2070. Many environmentalists urge a shift to renewables like solar, geothermal, biomass, and wind, as well as other alternatives such as fuel cells, in hopes it will help solve the problem. While it may be possible, although extremely unlikely, for the United States to move from our reliance on fossil fuels for approximately 88% of our energy to a combination of the above alternatives, it would be a nearly impossible task for developing nation. The cost of these technologies is simply out of the reach for 3^rd world countries, and it is clear that another solution must be developed. Fusion power has the potential to provide the panacea so sought after, but with a decreasing budget and little public support, it is unlikely that fusion research will make the scientific and technological leaps needed to help in time. It is of vital importance to both the United States and the world to dramatically increase the budgets for fusion research, and educate the public about the significance of the technology.

Fusion power has been around for about 15 billion years, or whatever one deems the age of the universe. Carl Sagan once said, "every time you look up in the sky, every one of those points of light is a reminder that fusion power is an everyday reality throughout the galaxy." Every star uses gravitational confinement to crush the elements that comprise it into new elements, and then it crushes them to form yet another set of elements. This process yields incredible amounts of energy, the results of which have made it possible, in our sunï¿½s case, for life to exist on Earth. Stars, however, arenï¿½t the only place that fusion has taken place. In 1932, world-renowned physicists Rutherford, Walton and Harteck detected the release of energy from a small fusion reaction, and later, in 1934, actually succeeded in fusing two deuterons and releasing, among other products, energy.[3] Of course the most notable human caused fusion reactions are those that take place in hydrogen bombs, the first of which was tested in the 1940ï¿½s, and have since made it possible for the human race to wipe themselves out at the press of a button. From this massively destructive technology, however, projects like ZETA ï¿½ the Zero Energy Torodial Assembly, were constructed. The history of fusion research, for the better or worse, has often been driven by politics.

One of the earliest instances of a change in fusion research policy (for non-weapon purposes) occurred in 1951 when the then communist Argentinean dictator, Juan Perï¿½n, announced that his country had an operational fusion power plant. This single announcement was one of the most important events in the history of fusion research for it precipitated the work done by countless American physicist, including Lyman Spitzer at Princeton.[4] Perï¿½nï¿½s claim was later refuted, but the boom in research had begun all over the world. Later that year Soviet physicists Andrei Sakharov and Igor Tamm designed what would be later known as a tokamak, which stands for toroidalnya kamera ee magnetnaya katushka. This donut-shaped, magnetic confinement device would revolutionize both plasma physics and fusion energy technology, and is now our best bet for economically viable fusion power. The design was formally shown off, in classic Cold War ï¿½our technology is better than your technologyï¿½ fashion at the ï¿½Atoms for Peaceï¿½ conference in Geneva. While the Cold War was about keeping secrets, the physics community used the conference as a forum to exchange many important ideas. The conference concluded with the realization that plasma physics, a field of great importance to fusion research, was an area that needed to be heavily focused on by all nations if fusion power was to become a reality. Thanks to the conference, plasma physics became one of the largest areas of theoretical research during the 60ï¿½s.[5] What had started as a very politically motivated move by the USSR ended up as a driving force in fusion research. In fact, great advancements in Soviet fusion research, such as the 1968 tokamak breakthrough in confinement, were probably the only reason both European and American programs started to receive substantial funding.[6] The budget for fusion research hasnï¿½t always been tied to political squabbling; more often, it is tied to short-term thinking.

The portion of the United States budged devoted to fusion has varied greatly since it first showed up in the late sixties. A dramatic increase in the budget for fusion research during the Ford administration (1974 ï¿½ 1977) was somewhat sustained through the Carter (1977-1981) and first part of the Regan administrations (1981-1989). (See U.S. Fusion Energy Sciences Budget History graph. ) Since the end of the Regan administration, however, there has been a dramatic decline in funding, from a high of $900 million in 1977 to a low of $220 million in 2000.[7] One might think that these trends relate to the policies of the particular administration in power, but that wouldnï¿½t make sense with the known, or rather non-existent, energy policy of the Regan administration. Some light is shed on the subject when one examines oil prices during that same time period. (See U.S. Fusion Budget Vs. the Price of Crude Oil graph. ) There is nearly a 1 to 1 ratio (with a slight lag that can be attributed to the sluggishness of the budget process) of funding increases with increases in crude oil prices between the years 1968 and 1999. The peak in funding in the late 70ï¿½s can be accredited to the 1973 energy crisis caused by the Arab-Israeli war and subsequent oil embargo, which caused a huge increase in the price of crude oil to nearly $40 a barrel, as well as the ï¿½natural gas shortage during the bitter winter of 1976-1977.ï¿½[8] In subsequent years, as the price of crude oil dropped to well below $20 a barrel, the funding for fusion research dropped accordingly.[9] It seems clear that in order for fusion science to progress at a rate that will allow eventual fusion-based technologies to combat the many resource/environmental problems that lay ahead, the United States fusion program "must have an energy vision"[10] as the primary focus of the science.

Until recently the primary goals of the United Statesï¿½ fusion sciences program were concentrated on developing the basic science behind plasma physics. While the science was focused on torodial plasma configurations, which are currently the most likely configurations to yield substantial usable energy, the program was not overly concerned with finding an immediate source of cheap, clean energy. (See chart: Restructuring Changes in Fusion Budget ) In 1996, the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee (FEAC) released a report that is an obvious sign the focus of fusion studies is changing. The report, which was titled ï¿½A Restructured Fusion Energy Sciences Program,ï¿½ primarily served to redefine the entire mission statement to reflect a shift from basic science to a much more R&D oriented program. The new mission statement reads, "Acquire the knowledge base needed for an economically and environmentally attractive fusion energy source."[11] This shift will most likely help, at least in the political arena, detach the link between funding for fusion research and crude oil prices. The program now appears to have a much more immediate goal, and politicians tend to want to fund research that is likely to reap benefits as soon as possible, preferably before the end of their terms in office. The many recent reviews and restructurings of the program suggest that it still gathers plenty of interest from those in power at the DOE and the rest of the government, (See chart: Budget History and Dates and accompanying dates. ) but the most pressing problem facing the realization of fusion power, other than perhaps the scientific challenges, is the lack of public awareness and support.

Whether for better or worse, public opinion is one of the most powerful forces in the United States. There has not been a single nuclear (fission) power plant built in the United States since 1976[12], primarily due to public opinion. The accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979, and at Chernobyl in 1986 have forever changed the mind of the public about nuclear fission. Few Americans know the difference between fusion and fission, and so naturally they assume they are both bad because they both happen to have the word ï¿½nuclearï¿½ in them. If the public realized the importance of not only the issues surrounding energy policy, but also a possible solution like fusion, the funding for such research is likely to increase. Public opinion is not as autonomous an entity as the public would like to believe, and can be manipulated just as easily as the stock market. A quick examination of France, which gets more than 75% of its power from nuclear fission,[13] shows a society completely embracing a technology that has proven to be incredibly dangerous in its current implementation. The French government, for lack of a better (or at least more appropriate) term, has brainwashed the entire populace into having complete faith in their power source (and, incidentally, their government.) They did so primarily by feeding off of the countryï¿½s dominant social paradigm (DSP), which in their case is the desire for independence and nationalistic tendencies.

The same kind of thing must be done in the United States, but instead of convincing the populace of something that isnï¿½t true, the United States would be convincing the populace of something that is. To do this one would have to appeal to the primary element in the average US citizenï¿½s DSP: money. The United States is obviously a capitalistic country, and the primary goal of capitalism is to acquire wealth, or at the very least, avoid losing it. Fusion power, when finally attained, will be a nearly free source of energy,[14] so it could be the perfect business venture, yielding nearly 100% profit. Fuel is the primary cost to traditional fossil fuel-based power companies, and without this continuing drain on revenue, fusion companies would soon dominate the market. With simple water being the chief ingredient for fusion, a power company specializing in fusion power could charge a substantially lower price than competing fossil fuel based power companies, and still make an incredible profit.

One could also look at it from the consumerï¿½s point of view. A market dominated by fusion power is a market of nearly free energy, so money normally reserved for the utility bill can be put into ï¿½other thingsï¿½. These ï¿½other thingsï¿½ are also likely to drop in price dramatically because the cost of manufacturing will decrease thanks to the nearly free energy provided by the fusion power plants. Overall, these factors would result in a huge boost in not just the American standard of living, but also the standard of living for the entire world. Cheap, clean fusion power could be sold (or given) to developing nations, solving both their standard of living problems as well as alleviating the potential environmental impacts of their rapid industrialization.

Clearly, the public, armed with education about fusion, would be in full support. Coupled with the new focus of the US fusion program, this could dramatically increase funding and help bring the world that much closer to the arrival of a day where energy is no longer an issue. Fusion is one of the few (or perhaps only) future sources of energy that has both the potential to solve all of the problems currently faced, and at the same time avoid having nearly any down side. With basically no harmful waste, no danger of explosion or meltdown, and no limits on available fuel, the biggest question facing the technology is why it is only getting $220 million for research. Fusion works; it is only a question of time before we can capitalize on the power it offers. How long that time is, and whether it will prevent the coming environmental and economic dangers, depends completely on the attention and funding it is given.ï¿½

More Supporting Charts, Graphs, and Tables[15]: