A visualization of a fusion reactor. Photo Credit: Aaron Gage

The Independent by way of the New Zealand Herald published a story today suggesting simple fusion technology could be a decade away. Trouble is, the Herald cited a study published more than a decade ago.

Released in 1997 by University of Florida scientists, the study claims to have developed a way to fuse atoms without resorting to conventional practice – that is, creating the heat and energy equivalent to a small star.

Nuclear fusion is the process by which all stars, including our sun, produce heat and light energy. The procedure occurs in the sun’s molten core, where immense heat forces free atoms to fuse together. This joining releases energy and is also responsible for the creation of nearly every atomic element in the universe. This heat requirement has made fusion technology difficult to develop, costly to maintain and impossible to distill into transportable forms like gasoline containers, making fusion energy science’s ultimate pipe dream.

The 1997 study proposed a new method, however, that required less energy and used existing technology. In their method, hydrogen and boron fuel rods were placed in an accelerator that fired the atoms toward one another at remarkably high velocities, forcing the atoms to fuse into helium nuclei whose motion was converted into electricity. The only by-product was harmless helium gas.

Scientists involved in the study declared they could build a functional prototype for a hydrogen-boron fusion reactor within 10 years. The prototype would be built at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Tallahassee, Fla. No reports from the University of Florida or the Magnetic Field Laboratory indicate anything like a hydrogen-boron reactor has been built.

The Independent wrote of Florida research team’s report, “Although technology is still however very experimental and has yet to be fully proven, a feasibility study into this new fusion process has been kicked off, and if it is found to be viable, it could become commercially available in as little as a decade, here’s hoping.”

The Independent’s readers, however, were less than charmed by the paper’s retroactive hopefulness: “Shame on you Independent,” wrote one reader, “this is very poor journalism indeed – looks like it’s just been lifted from a PR statement from these researchers by a journalist with absolutely no intention of applying his/her critical faculties.”

Read the original report from the University of Florida, circa 1997.