Starpower: the U.S. and the International Quest for Fusion Energy

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Starpower: the U.S. and the International Quest for Fusion Energy Starpower: The U.S. and the International Quest for Fusion Energy October 1987 NTIS order #PB88-128731 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Starpower: The U.S. and the Internna- tional Quest for Fusion Energy, OTA-E-338 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1987). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-619854 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (order form can be found in the back of this report) . Foreword Fusion research, offering the hope of an energy technology with an essentially un- limited supply of fuel and relatively attractive environmental impacts, has been con- ducted worldwide for over three decades. In the United States, increased budgetary pressures, along with a decreased sense of urgency, have sharpened the competition for funding between one research program and another and between energy research programs and other components of the Federal budget. This report, requested by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and endorsed by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, reviews the status of magnetic confine- ment fusion research and compares its progress with the requirements for develop- ment of a usefuI energy technology. The report does not analyze inertial confinement fusion research, which is overseen by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. OTA analyzed the magnetic fusion research program in three ways: (1) as an energy program, by identifying important features of the technology and discussing its possi- ble role in the energy supply mix; (2) as a research program, by discussing its role in training scientists and developing new fields of science and technology; and (3) as an international program, by reviewing its history of international cooperation and its prospects for even more extensive collaboration in the future. OTA could not have conducted this work without the valuable assistance it re- ceived from many organizations and individuals. I n particular, we would like to thank the advisory panel members, workshop participants, and outside reviewers, who pro- vided guidance and extensive critical reviews to ensure the accuracy of the report. Responsibility for the final report, however, rests solely with the Office of Technology Assessment. Magnetic Fusion Research Advisory Panel William Carey, Panel Chair Executive Officer, American Association for the Advancement of Science Ellen Berman Betty Jensen Executive Director Nuclear and Environmental Program Manager Consumer Energy Council of America Research and Development Public Service Electric & Gas Co. Linda Cohen Assistant Visiting Professor of Economics Hans Landsberg University of Washington Senior Fellow Emeritus Resources for the Future Paul Craig professor of Physics Lawrence Lidsky Department of Applied Science Professor of Nuclear Engineering University of California, Davis Massachusetts Institute of Technology Harold Forsen Irving Mintzer Manger of Research and Development Senior Associate Bechtel National, Inc. World Resources Institute T. Kenneth Fowler Robert park Associate Director Executive Director Magnetic Fusion Energy Office of Public Affairs Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory American Physical Society Melvin Gottlieb Murray Rosenthal Director Emeritus Associate Laboratory Director for Advanced Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Energy Systems Oak Ridge National Laboratory L. Charles Hebel Manager, Research Planning Eugene Skolnikoff Corporate Research Technical Staff Director Xerox Corp. Center for International Studies Massachusetts Institute of Technology Robert Hirsch Vice President Herbert Woodson Arco Oil & Gas Co. Director Center for Energy Studies Leonard Hyman University of Texas, Austin Vice President Merrill Lynch Capital Markets NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents. iv OTA Project Staff on Magnetic Fusion Research Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA Energy, Materials, and International Security Division Peter D. Blair, Energy and Materials Program Manager Gerald L. Epstein, Project Director Dina K. Washburn Contractors Wilfrid Kohl Leonard Lynn Paul Josephson Lynn Powers Fusion Power Associates Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories Administrative Staff Lillian Chapman Linda Long Barbara J. Carter Workshop Participants and Other Outside Reviewers Workshop 1: Fusion Research Chuan Sheng Liu Judy Bostock Chairman Operations Research Analyst Panelists Department of Physics and U.S. Office of Management and Robert Seamans, Workshop Chair Astronomy Budget Senior Lecturer University of Maryland, College Melvin Gottlieb Aeronautics and Astronautics Park Director Emeritus Department Thomas Ratchford Princeton Plasma Physics Massachusetts Institute of Associate Executive Officer Laboratory Technology American Association for the Paul Huray Sibley Burnett Advancement of Science Senior Policy Analyst General Manager John Sheffield General Science Applied Superconetics Division Associate Director for U.S. Office of Science and GA Technologies Confinement Technology Policy Ronald Davidson Fusion Energy Division Paul Josephson Director Oak Ridge National Laboratory Program in Science, Technology Plasma Fusion Center Herbert Woodson and Society Massachusetts Institute of Director Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Energy Studies Technology Stephen Dean University of Texas, Austin Wilfrid Kohl President Director Fusion Power Associates Contributor International Energy Program Harold Forsen N. Anne Davies Johns Hopkins School of Manager of Research and Assistant Director Advanced International Studies Development Office of Fusion Energy Linda Lubrano Bechtel National, Inc. U.S. Department of Energy Professor T. Kenneth Fowler School of International Service Workshop II: International Associate Director The American University Cooperation Magnetic Fusion Energy Leonard Lynn Lawrence Livermore National Eugene Skolnikoff, Workshop Assistant Professor Laboratory Chair Department of Social and Director Harold Furth Decision Sciences Center for International Studies Carnegie-Mellon University Director Massachusetts Institute of Princeton Plasma Physics Technology Charles Newstead Laboratory Foreign Affairs Officer Harold Benglesdorf Melvin Gottlieb Bureau of Oceans and Vice President International Environmental and Director Emeritus International Group Princeton Plasma Physics Scientific Affairs International Energy Associates Laboratory U.S. Department of State Limited Robert Hirsch Douglas R. Norton Diana Bieliauskas Chief of International Planning Vice President Program Officer Arco Oil & Gas Co. and Program Office Office of Soviet and East European U.S. National Aeronautics and Robert Krakowski Affairs Space Administration Group Leader National Academy of Sciences Systems Study Group Herman Pollack Justin Bloom Los Alamos National Laboratory Research Professor President Department of International Affairs Lawrence Lidsky Technology International, Inc. George Washington University Professor of Nuclear Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology vi Michael Roberts Harold Feiveson Richard Barnes Director Center for Energy and U.S. National Aeronautics and International Programs Environmental Studies Space Administration Office of Fusion Energy Princeton University Lee Berry U.S. Department of Energy Bill Keepin Oak Ridge National Laboratory Richard Samuels School of Engineering and Applied Joan Lisa Bromberg Professor of Political Science Science Laser History Project Massachusetts Institute of Princeton University Technology Daniel Chavardes Carlo La Porta Embassy of France U. John Sakss Director of Research Chief of International Program Solar Energy Industries Association Daniel Cohn Support Office René MaIès Massachusetts Institute of U.S. National Aeronautics and Technology Senior Vice President and Space Administration Principal Donald L. Cook Decision Focus, Inc. Sandia National Laboratories Workshop Ill: Energy Context Michael Mauel Tony Cox Robert Fri, Workshop Chair Assistant Professor Embassy of the United Kingdom President Department of Applied Physics Resources for the Future and Nuclear Engineering John Deutch Truman Anderson Columbia University Massachusetts Institute of Technology Director Irving Mintzer Program Planning and Analysis Senior Associate Thomas J. Fessenden Oak Ridge National Laboratory World Resources Institute Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Charles Backus Eric Reichl Thomas G. Finn Assistant Dean Retired, Conoco Coal Corp. U.S. Department of Energy College of Engineering and Applied Science Arthur Rosenfeld William Hogan Arizona State University Director Lawrence Livermore National Center for Building Science Laboratory Charles Berg Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Professor and Head of Department John Holdren Department of Mechanical John Siegel University of California, Berkeley Engineering Vice President Paul Koloc Northeastern University Atomic Industrial Forum Phaser Corp. Jan Beyea Don Steiner Dennis Mahlum Vice President of Science Institute Professor Battelle Pacific Northwest National Audubon Society Department of Nuclear Laboratories Engineering and Engineering Paul Craig Physics George Miley Professor of Physics Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute University
Recommended publications
  • OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Engineering Physics
    oml ORNL-6868 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Engineering Physics LOCK H * M D NJA Jt rim Or" and Mathematics Division ^ Progress Report for Period Ending December 31,1994 R. F. Sincovec, Director MANAGED BY LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY UCI*13673 {36 W5) This report has been reproduced directly from the ilabie copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Scientific and Techni- cal Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37> s available from (615) 576-8401, FTS 626-8401. Available to the public from the National Teci rmation Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd.,; d, VA 22161. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, com• pleteness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process dis• closed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily consti• tute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. ORNL-6868 Engineering Physics and Mathematics Division ENGINEERING PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS DIVISION PROGRESS REPORT FOR PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1994 R.
    [Show full text]
  • Rulemaking for Enhanced Security of Special Nuclear Material
    Rulemaking for Enhanced Security of Special Nuclear Material RIN number: 3150-AJ41 NRC Docket ID: NRC-2014-0118 Regulatory Basis Document January 2015 Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Background .............................................................................................. 1 2. Existing Regulatory Framework .......................................................................................... 3 2.1 Regulatory History ............................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Existing Regulatory Requirements .................................................................................... 8 3. Regulatory Problem .......................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Generic Applicability of Security Orders .......................................................................... 13 3.2 Risk Insights .................................................................................................................... 16 3.3 Consistency and Clarity .................................................................................................. 27 3.4 Use of a Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Structure. ........................................... 29 4. Basis for Requested Changes ........................................................................................... 30 4.1 Material Categorization and Attractiveness ..................................................................... 30 4.2
    [Show full text]
  • Regulations for the Control of Radiation in Mississippi Rule 1.1.18 for Applicable Fee
    Title 15: Mississippi State Department of Health Part 21: Division of Radiological Health Subpart 78: Radiological Health Chapter 1 REGULATIONS FOR CONTROL OF RADIATION IN MISSISSIPPI Subchapter 1 General Provisions Rule 1.1.1 Scope. Except as otherwise specifically provided, these regulations apply to all persons who receive, possess, use, transfer, own, or acquire any source of radiation; provided, however, that nothing in these regulations shall apply to any person to the extent such person is subject to regulation by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.1 SOURCE: Miss. Code Ann. §45-14-11 Rule 1.1.2 Definitions. As used in these regulations, these terms have the definitions set forth below. Additional definitions used only in a certain section will be found in that section. 1. "A1" means the maximum activity of special form radioactive material permitted in a Type A package. "A2" means the maximum activity of radioactive material, other than special form, LSA and SCO material, permitted in a Type A package. These values are either listed in Appendix A, Table A-1 of Subchapter 13 of these regulations or may be derived in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Appendix A of Subchapter 13 of these regulations. 2. "Absorbed dose" means the energy imparted to matter by ionizing radiation per unit mass of irradiated material at the place of interest. The units of absorbed dose are the rad and the gray (Gy). 3. "Accelerator" means any machine capable of accelerating electrons, protons, deuterons, or other charged particles in a vacuum and of discharging the resultant particulate or other radiation into a medium at energies usually in excess of 1 MeV.
    [Show full text]
  • 602 Public Law 88-4S8~Aug. 22, 1964 [78 Stat
    602 PUBLIC LAW 88-4S8~AUG. 22, 1964 [78 STAT. such agency, if the assistance or progam will promote the welfare of the Trust Territory, notwithstanding any provision of law under which the Trust Territory may otherwise be ineligible for the assist­ ance or program: Provided^ That the Secretary of the Interior shall not request assistance pursuant to this subsection that involves, in the aggregate, an estimated nonreimbursable cost in any one fiscal year in excess of $150,000: Provided further. That the cost of any program extended to the Trust Territory under this subsection shall be reim­ bursable out of appropriations authorized and made for the govern­ 48 use 1681 note. ment of the Trust Territory pursuant to section 2 of this Act, as amended. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to finan­ cial assistance under a grant-in-aid program." SEC. 2. Subsection 303(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (48. 76 Stat. 64. Stat. 1082), as amended (47 U.S.C. 303(1)), is hereby amended by inserting the words: ", or citizens of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands presenting valid identity certificates issued by the High Com­ missioner of such Territory," immediately following the words "citi­ zens or nationals of the United States". Revolving fund, abolishment. SEC. 3. The revolving fund authorized by the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1956 (69 Stat. 141, 149), to be available during fiscal year 1956 for loans to locally owned private training companies in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, which revolving fund has been continued by subsequent annual appropriation Acts, is hereby abolished, and the total assets of the revolving fund are contributed as a grant to the government of the Trust Territory for use as a development fund within the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Regulatory Commission § 70.5
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission § 70.5 section 51 of the act, determines to be intermediates, which are unsuitable for special nuclear material, but does not use in their present form, but all or include source material; or (2) any ma- part of which will be used after further terial artificially enriched by any of processing. the foregoing but does not include Strategic special nuclear material source material; means uranium-235 (contained in ura- Special nuclear material of low strategic nium enriched to 20 percent or more in significance means: the U235 isotope), uranium-233, or pluto- (1) Less than an amount of special nium. nuclear material of moderate strategic Transient shipment means a shipment significance as defined in paragraph (1) of nuclear material, originating and of the definition of strategic nuclear terminating in foreign countries, on a material of moderate strategic signifi- vessel or aircraft which stops at a cance in this section, but more than 15 United States port. grams of uranium-235 (contained in Unacceptable performance deficiencies uranium enriched to 20 percent or more mean deficiencies in the items relied in U-235 isotope) or 15 grams of ura- on for safety or the management meas- nium-233 or 15 grams of plutonium or ures that need to be corrected to en- the combination of 15 grams when com- sure an adequate level of protection as puted by the equation, grams = (grams defined in 10 CFR 70.61(b), (c), or (d). contained U-235) + (grams plutonium) + United States, when used in a geo- (grams U-233); or graphical sense, includes Puerto Rico (2) Less than 10,000 grams but more and all territories and possessions of than 1,000 grams of uranium-235 (con- the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • State-Of-The-Art Mobile Radiation Detection Systems for Different Scenarios
    sensors Review State-of-the-Art Mobile Radiation Detection Systems for Different Scenarios Luís Marques 1,* , Alberto Vale 2 and Pedro Vaz 3 1 Centro de Investigação da Academia da Força Aérea, Academia da Força Aérea, Instituto Universitário Militar, Granja do Marquês, 2715-021 Pêro Pinheiro, Portugal 2 Instituto de Plasmas e Fusão Nuclear, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal; [email protected] 3 Centro de Ciências e Tecnologias Nucleares, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Estrada Nacional 10 (km 139.7), 2695-066 Bobadela, Portugal; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: In the last decade, the development of more compact and lightweight radiation detection systems led to their application in handheld and small unmanned systems, particularly air-based platforms. Examples of improvements are: the use of silicon photomultiplier-based scintillators, new scintillating crystals, compact dual-mode detectors (gamma/neutron), data fusion, mobile sensor net- works, cooperative detection and search. Gamma cameras and dual-particle cameras are increasingly being used for source location. This study reviews and discusses the research advancements in the field of gamma-ray and neutron measurements using mobile radiation detection systems since the Fukushima nuclear accident. Four scenarios are considered: radiological and nuclear accidents and emergencies; illicit traffic of special nuclear materials and radioactive
    [Show full text]
  • Article Thermonuclear Bomb 5 7 12
    1 Inexpensive Mini Thermonuclear Reactor By Alexander Bolonkin [email protected] New York, April 2012 2 Article Thermonuclear Reactor 1 26 13 Inexpensive Mini Thermonuclear Reactor By Alexander Bolonkin C&R Co., [email protected] Abstract This proposed design for a mini thermonuclear reactor uses a method based upon a series of important innovations. A cumulative explosion presses a capsule with nuclear fuel up to 100 thousands of atmospheres, the explosive electric generator heats the capsule/pellet up to 100 million degrees and a special capsule and a special cover which keeps these pressure and temperature in capsule up to 0.001 sec. which is sufficient for Lawson criteria for ignition of thermonuclear fuel. Major advantages of these reactors/bombs is its very low cost, dimension, weight and easy production, which does not require a complex industry. The mini thermonuclear bomb can be delivered as a shell by conventional gun (from 155 mm), small civil aircraft, boat or even by an individual. The same method may be used for thermonuclear engine for electric energy plants, ships, aircrafts, tracks and rockets. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Key words: Thermonuclear mini bomb, thermonuclear reactor, nuclear energy, nuclear engine, nuclear space propulsion. Introduction It is common knowledge that thermonuclear bombs are extremely powerful but very expensive and difficult to produce as it requires a conventional nuclear bomb for ignition. In stark contrast, the Mini Thermonuclear Bomb is very inexpensive. Moreover, in contrast to conventional dangerous radioactive or neutron bombs which generates enormous power, the Mini Thermonuclear Bomb does not have gamma or neutron radiation which, in effect, makes it a ―clean‖ bomb having only the flash and shock wave of a conventional explosive but much more powerful (from 1 ton of TNT and more, for example 100 tons).
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapons Databook
    Nuclear Weapons Databook Volume I11 U.S. Nuclear Warhead Facility Profiles Nuclear Weapons Databook Volume I11 U.S. Nuclear Warhead Facility Profiles Thomas B. Cochran, William M. Arkin, Robert S. Morris, and Milton M. Hoenig A book by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. BALUNGER PUBLISHING COMPANY Cambridge, Massachusetts A Subsidiary of Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. Copyright a 1987 by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or trans- mitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the publisher. International Standard Book Number: 0-88730-126-6 (CL) 0-88730-146-0 (PB) Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 82-24376 Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress CataloGng-iii-PublicationData U.S. nuclear warhead facility profiles. (Nuclear weapons databook ;v. 3) "A book by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc." Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Nuclear weapons-United States. 2. Munitions-United States. I. Cochran, Thomas B. 11. Natural Resources Defense Council. 111. Title: US nuclear warhead facility profiles. IV. Title: United States nuclear warhead facility profiles. V. Series: Cochran, Thomas B. Nuclear weapons databook ;v. 3. U264.C6 1984 vol. 3 355.8'25119'0973 87-14552 [U264] ISBN 0-88410-172-X (v. 1) ISBN 0-88410-173-8 (pbk. : v. 1) ISBN 0-88730-124-X (v. 2) ISBN 0-88730-125-8 (pbk. : v. 2) ISBN 0-88730-126-6 (v. 3) ISBN 0-88730-146-0 (pbk.
    [Show full text]
  • Starpower: the US and the International Quest for Fusion Energy
    Appendix B Other Approaches to Fusion The main body of this report has discussed magnetic The issues addressed by inertial confinement fusion confinement fusion, the approach to controlled fusion research in the United States concern the individual that the worldwide programs emphasize most heav- targets containing the fusion fuel; the input energy ily. However, two other approaches to fusion are also sources, called drivers, that heat and compress these being investigated. All three approaches are based on targets; and the mechanism by which energy from the the same fundamental physical process, in which the driver is delivered–or coupled–into the target. Due nuclei of light isotopes, typically deuterium and tri- to the close relationship between inertial confinement tium, release energy by fusing together to form heav- fusion target design and thermonuclear weapon de- ier isotopes. Some of the technical issues are similar sign, inertial confinement fusion research is funded among all the fusion approaches, such as mechanisms by the nuclear weapons activities portion of the De- for recovering energy and breeding tritium fuel. How- partment of Energy’s (DOE’s) budget. Inertial confine- ever, compared to magnetic confinement, the two ap- ment research is conducted largely at nuclear weap- proaches discussed below create the conditions nec- ons laboratories; its near-term goals are dedicated essary for fusion to occur in very different ways, and largely to military, rather than energy applications, and some substantially different science and technology a substantial portion of this research is classified. issues emerge in each case. There are two near-term military applications of in- ertial confinement fusion—one actual and one not yet Inertial Confinement Fusion1 realized.
    [Show full text]
  • Fusion-The-Energy-Of-The-Universe
    Fusion The Energy of the Universe WHAT IS THE COMPLEMENTARY SCIENCE SERIES? We hope you enjoy this book. If you would like to read other quality science books with a similar orientation see the order form and reproductions of the front and back covers of other books in the series at the end of this book. The Complementary Science Series is an introductory, interdisciplinary, and relatively inexpensive series of paperbacks for science enthusiasts. The series covers core subjects in chemistry, physics, and biological sciences but often from an interdisciplinary perspective. They are deliberately unburdened by excessive pedagogy, which is distracting to many readers, and avoid the often plodding treatment in many textbooks. These titles cover topics that are particularly appropriate for self-study although they are often used as complementary texts to supplement standard discussion in textbooks. Many are available as examination copies to professors teaching appropriate courses. The series was conceived to fill the gaps in the literature between conventional textbooks and monographs by providing real science at an accessible level, with minimal prerequisites so that students at all stages can have expert insight into important and foundational aspects of current scientific thinking. Many of these titles have strong interdisciplinary appeal and all have a place on the bookshelves of literate laypersons. Potentialauthorsareinvitedtocontactoureditorialoffice: [email protected]. Feedback on the titles is welcome. Titles in the Complementary Science Series are detailed at the end of these pages. A 15% discount is available (to owners of this edition) on other books in this series—see order form at the back of this book.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Distant Nuclear Fusion 1. Introduction 2. ITER
    Distant Nuclear Fusion By John Benson January 2021 1. Introduction When we look up at night and view the stars, everything we see is shining because of distant nuclear fusion. — Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980, p. 238) I have been posting papers to Energy Central since 2017, and weekly posts since 2018. During this time, I have occasionally come across a subject and considered writing a post on it. The reason I haven’t is because, even though it is an advanced technology for producing energy, it will not produce any usable electric power for decades. There are currently two experiments that are designed to reach “break-even” fusion within the next several years, but this means that the experiment will inject as much energy into the inner, or core process as comes out in the form of high energy neutrons. Forget any energy-conversion efficiencies outside of the core – no electric energy will come out of these initial facilities in spite of huge amounts going in. One of these two projects, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is in Saint-Paul-lez-Durance, France. The other, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) is here in my home town of Livermore, California. ITER is scheduled to turn on in 2025, and reach full power by 2035. NEF has been running for over a decade. ITER cost $25 billion. The cost of NIF is a bit difficult to parse. The official cost is $3.5 billion, but there were several earlier experiments that led up to NIF, and NIF has been expanded and modified since it was commissioned in 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • The US and the International Quest for Fusion Energy
    Chapter 4 Fusion Science and Technology Chapter 4 Fusion Science and Technology Great progress has been made over the past for lack of funds; science had a higher funding 35 years of fusion research. Nevertheless, many priority. In addition, fusion technologies that re- scientific and technological issues have yet to be quire a source of fusion power to be tested and resolved before fusion reactors can be designed developed have had to await a device that could and built. Fundamental questions in plasma sci- supply the power. Until recently, the fusion sci- ence remain, especially involving the behavior ence database has not been sufficient to permit of plasmas that actually produce fusion power. such a device to be designed with confidence. Other plasma science questions involve the be- This chapter discusses the various confinement havior and operation of the various confinement concepts under study, the systems required in a concepts that might be used to hold fusion fusion reactor, and the issues that must be re- plasmas. solved before such systems can be built. It then To date, engineering issues have not been stud- outlines the research plan required to resolve ied as extensively as plasma science issues. For these issues and estimates the amount of time and many years, engineering studies were deferred money that such a research plan will take. CONFINEMENT CONCEPTS’ Most of the fusion program’s research has fo- Table 4-1 lists the principal confinement schemes cused on different magnetic confinement con- presently under investigation in the United States cepts that can be used to create, confine, and and classifies them according to their level of de- understand the behavior of plasmas.
    [Show full text]