Details of PCAST Report on U.S. Fusion Energy Program
“We do assert...that the absolute importance of having economically affordable, environmentally tolerable, and politically acceptable energy sources adequate to meet society’s energy needs in the middle of the next century is high enough to warrant substantial R&D investments to increase the likelihood of this outcome.” --Report of the Fusion Review Panel
The FY 1996 Energy and Water Development bill, H.R. 1905, is scheduled to be marked up by the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee tomorrow, and by the full Senate Appropriations Committee shortly thereafter. The House version of the bill, which was passed in the House floor on July 12, contains $229.1 million for DOE’s fusion energy R&D program. This is significantly less than recommended in the recently-released report by the Fusion Review Panel of the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (see FYI #98.) Portions of the 67-page report, entitled, “The U.S. Program of Fusion Energy Research and Development,” are highlighted below.
Recognizing that deficit-reduction efforts will drastically change the funding picture for the U.S. fusion energy program, the review panel weighed the benefits of pursuing fusion research, evaluated the goals and feasibility of the program, and considered funding levels. The report states that, given the projected growth in energy demand by the mid twenty-first century, “there is great merit in the pursuit of diversity in energy options.”
The review panel finds the U.S. program’s goal-- “operation of a demonstration reactor by about 2025 and operation of commercial fusion power plants by about 2040"-- desirable, and reasonable if the necessary funds are available. It cites the remarkable progress in fusion research (a 100-millionfold increase in fusion power produced over the last 20 years), and states that “only a rather modest further extension of this progress is now required to reach the performance range needed for ignition.”
The current DOE fusion plan calls for $366 million in FY 1996, rising to $860 million by FY 2002 before dropping off again. However, the report warns of a “strong probability that fusion R&D budgets of this magnitude will not actually be forthcoming.” Even at the Administration’s planned levels, the U.S. spends less on fusion energy than the European Community and Japan, and puts less effort into pursuing alternatives to the tokamak concept. The panel argues that the paucity of U.S. support is “occasioned in part by the belief that much of [the research] could be done more efficiently by state and local governments or by the private sector.” However, it cautions that this view is “not realistic” because “the investments are too large, and the possibility of economic returns is too distant.” It claims that “the characteristics of fusion energy R&D...constitute a classic case for bearing the funding burden at the level of the Federal government and, indeed, at the level of a consortium of governments.”
Examining the elements of the U.S. program, the review panel finds them well-coordinated and complimentary, but concludes that “the necessary ingredients,...although all are present, are not all adequate, and redundancy is weak.” It stresses that the core program in plasma science and fusion technology could be strengthened, with more emphasis on alternative fusion concepts. The report praises the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) as “highly successful” and calls the proposed Tokamak Physics Experiment “highly desirable,” but warns that, if budgets of the U.S. (or any other partner) are not adequate, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) might have to be restructured.
The panel then addresses the question of how to continue progress in fusion research at lower budget levels. It proposes a strategy that would preserve the most indispensable elements at $320 million per year-- “the best that can be done within budgets likely to be sustainable in the current climate, and the least that can responsibly be done to maintain a modicum of momentum toward the goal of practical fusion energy.” In these circumstances, the panel recommends the following key priorities: a strong domestic core program, including alternative concepts; collaboration on an international experiment at about one-third the cost of ITER; and additional international efforts to develop low-activation materials. It suggests a significant delay in construction of TPX, with its eventual construction conditional upon certain factors. The panel attempts to envision a fusion program at $200 million per year, but concludes that “this cannot be done.”
The report closes by urging stable funding for a fusion program at “not less than $320 million per year.” For a copy of the report, contact Chet Gray, DOE Public Inquiries, at 202-586-4670.
