Riemann's Contribution to Flight and Laser Fusion

public has achieved importance in thefield of high-energy physics with thesynchrotron electron accelerator inHamburg.Question: Recently in Bild der Wissenschaft[Image of Science, an antitechnologyGerman magazine], theSocial Democratic member of parliamentSteger expressed the view thatthe Federal Republic should eventuallyput an end to fusion research—when, say, projects like JET [the JointEuropean Torus] failed to produce thedesired results.It we terminate this research now,it would be comparable to havingended aeronautical research on theeve of the invention of the airplane.Put yourself in 1900, when all theprojects that had been tested untilthen had failed—for example, airrplanes driven by steam engines. Whatif we had given up and said, it won'twork, let's throw in the towel? Theairplane would never have been developed,and people would havegone around saying, we can go n(j>further. We would be living today a$in the era before 1903.So it would be a tremendous mistake,since there is no doubt thatcontrolled fusion is possible in principle.No doubt whatever. It's not aquestion of whether one or anotherproject achieves its goal, or evenwhen it does. Aeronautics is a perfectexample here. There was the Zeppelin,and there was the airplane. Bothworked, and it may be that both inertialfusion and magnetic fusion willwork, or also a third method that weare not yet working on today or thatis not yet known to us. So it would bea mistake to say since the one won'twork, the other won't work: "If theZeppelin fails, forget about that airplaneidea."It would be not only sad, it wouldbe stupid. Because there is no questionbut that fusion will work. Wedon't know whether all the experimentsthat are planned will click orwhether just some of them will. Butthen, even when one experimentfails, you still have the expertise, andthat is the most important investment.You have all the know-how, and itcan be put to work on another project.Question: At your lectures, the questionwas often raised whether we stillneed fission, since fusion is so promising.We need fission in any case. Thefirst fission reactor was brought intooperation in 1942. With fusion we arestill in the situation in which fissionfound itself prior to 1942. By contrast,fission now has decades of technologicaldevelopment behind it. This isconspicuous in the fact that we haveavailable to us nuclear power plantsIf we terminated fusionresearch now, it would becomparable to havingended aeronauticalresearch on the eveof the inventionof the airplane.producing electricity on a large scale.We cannot afford simply to wait untilfusion reactors come on line. Weneed fission if only as an interim solution.If nuclear power plants are notbuilt in the Federal Republic, and thenuclear energy program comes to ahalt over the next 10 years, then thiswill lead, with inescapable certainty,to the economic collapse of the FederalRepublic.Question: What about the problemof waste disposal?This is where lies are spread amongthe people. It is claimed that theproblem of waste disposal has notbeen solved. In fact it is completelysolved, in technical detail. But ofcourse, if you don't build a wastedisposal center, you can't deal withany wastes, any more than you can flythe airplane if you don't build anairport.Question: Many people say weshould rely more on solar energy. TheIIASA report I mentioned says thatsolar energy will be more importantthan fusion over the next 50 years.What is your opinion?By no means. That is completelyinsane. Solar energy is too inefficient.No amount of research can changethat. No matter how much money ispoured into solar energy research, infact, no research can alter the limitsof solar radiation. Then people willsay we should build solar powerplants on or near the Sun. Unfortunately,that cannot be done. Solarenergy is like the emperor's newclothes—it isn't there. The best youcan do with solar energy is to makewarm water. And that is really all.There are even people who proposeto introduce solar power in Sweden.Now, since Sweden is oftenovercast, and is relatively close to theNorth Pole, it isn't clear to me howthis Is supposed to work. It would bea truly hopeless enterprise. The otherargument, that the Third World hasplenty of sun, is also wrong. Evenunder the most favorable conditions,solar energy is still very uneconomical.Solar energy is insanely expensive.Because it is so inefficient, we wouldneed gigantic collector panels. If wewanted to supply the United Stateswith solar power and used the mostfavorable region—the AmericanSouthwest—we would cover thousandsof square kilometers just withcollectors, not to mention what theoutcome of a sandstorm would be.Question: But we could also say thatfusion is a form of solar energy.Precisely. The Sun is actually a giantfusion reactor. If we want to collectsolar energy at the Earth's surface, wecan only do so in two dimensions,that is, by means of collector surfaces.Its incidence is very irregular, andapart from cloudiness, there is nosunshine at night, as everbody knows.FEF NewsOctober-November 1981FUSION 57