Keynote Address by Dr. N. Anne Davies
Associate Director for Fusion Energy Sciences
Office of Science
US Department of Energy
at the Symposium on "Cost-Effective Steps to Fusion Power"
Marina Del Rey, CA
January 25, 1999
Sponsored by FPA and UCLA
Time Allotted: 30 Minutes
Title: "How Do We Get There From Here?"
Outline:
Greetings and Introduction
Where Is There?
How Do We Get from Here to There?
Summary Conclusions
Greeting and Introduction:
|
"How Do We Get There From Here?" Presented at the Symposium on "Cost-Effective Steps to Fusion Power" Sponsored by Fusion Power Associates and UCLA
By N.
Anne Davies Marina Del Rey,
CA |
I appreciate the opportunity to speak at this symposium on "Cost-Effective
Steps to Fusion Power", which has such timely and important
discussion topics as fusion concepts, pathways to fusion power,
and critical science and technology issues.
While the US fusion program has been restructured from fusion
energy development to innovation driven research focused on fusion's
scientific foundations, we must preserve our long term energy
vision. The restructuring process has created opportunities to
explore cost-effective pathways to this vision, with steps that
are more affordable, deliver an improved fusion product, and provide
the greatest return on investment of federal research funds.
It is such gatherings as this symposium that stimulate and focus
our thinking about where we are going and how to get there. Therefore,
I have chosen as the title to my talk "How Do We Get There
From Here", which I will break into two parts.
First, I will address the question of "where is there?"
Our effectiveness training has taught us to begin with the end
in mind and, as we all know, if we don't know where we are going,
we will never get there.
Second, I will address the challenging question of "how do
we get from here to there?".
"Where is There?"
The dream of harnessing the power of the sun and the stars on a human scale has been one of the great technical challenges of this century, attracting thousands of the best and brightest scientists and engineers around the world to fusion research.
"There" for the fusion program has really not changed since its early days. It has always been the vision of fusion researchers to achieve the scientific and technological means for producing safe, clean, abundant, and affordable energy for future generations.
"There", as defined in the mission statement of today's fusion program," remains, as always, "an economically and environmentally attractive fusion energy source."
If we did not believe that fusion has a very good chance of realizing this potential, I do not think that we could commit ourselves so passionately to such a long term and difficult undertaking.
Even now, though, we know we need to find lower cost approaches, both in the cost of the development path and in the ultimate cost of electricity. We also know we have a lot of work to do to fulfill the environmental promise of fusion. Some of us joined a group of environmental activists for a workshop last summer and gained a better appreciation for the work we have to do in that arena.
One of the challenges before us is to understand the customer
for fusion so that our fusion product will not only be attractive,
but compete effectively with alternatives in the marketplace of
the 21st century and beyond.
We have viewed the primary customer to be the electric utility
industry, which has recently become a moving target due to changes
resulting from deregulation, restructuring, and market-based electricity
pricing.
|
Optimism for Fusion in Long Term
o "Rehabilitation" of nuclear energy o Environmental issues, such as climate change o Global population growth and resource depletion issues |
First, the possible "rehabilitation" of nuclear energy,
with funding for innovative research in that field. As the utility
industry restructures, one could imagine the emergence of large
nuclear operating companies that have a long term view and, because
of a high comfort level with nuclear technologies, might embrace
fusion and "recycle" former nuclear fission sites into
fusion facilities.
Second, environmental issues, such as climate change, will persist
and perhaps grow more threatening with continued fossil fuel burning.
Third, global population growth, desire for standard of living
improvements, and resource depletion issues strongly favor fusion
in the long term.
The viability of fusion in the energy marketplace will depend
on its cost, reliability, and development path requirements relative
to competing new energy sources. Therefore, we must study the
evolution of the future marketplace in terms of projections for
population growth, energy demands, and competing energy sources
to define the competition for fusion and to set requirements for
the performance, reliability, and cost of fusion energy systems.
This will guide us in quantifying the target for an "attractive
fusion energy source" so that we can best aim the direction
of the research.
|
Systems
Studies Activities
|
Later this year, our systems studies effort will begin two tasks
that address issues of the future marketplace for fusion, which
will aid in our thinking about how to integrate fusion into the
planning and vision of the larger energy research community.
A strategic planning and forecasting task will assess the role
of fusion in the long term vision of a sustainable global energy
strategy. Strategic pathway analysis will consider a range of
scenarios to deal with future social, economic, and environmental
conditions, such as limits on greenhouse gases. This will determine
how fusion can best fit, given its environmental and economic
characteristics, as well as better define the goals and requirements
for fusion. Initial efforts will focus on the role of large fusion
power stations, macro-economic modeling of global energy markets,
and outreach to other communities.
A fusion applications task will explore the full range of fusion
applications based on projected supply, demand, and cost factors.
The potential of large output fusion devices for hydrogen production
will be evaluated. Conceptual design studies of fusion neutron
sources for both near term non-electric applications and fusion
test facilities will define costs, benefits, and risks associated
with development paths that might attract new clients for fusion.
This attention to a wider range of fusion applications and test
facilities highlights the importance of maintaining a portfolio
of confinement concepts for both near and long term energy applications.
In addition to performing these tasks, our Advanced Design program
will continue to investigate improvements in both advanced tokamak
and non-tokamak concepts that could lead to more attractive end-products.
These activities will help us to better understand where "there" is for the long term and to identify possible near term opportunities for customers on the way to realizing fusion's ultimate potential as a central power station electricity producer.
In closing on this first subject, I would like to address a concern
expressed by some that the vision of a new electric power source
in the distant future may not be sufficient to sustain support
for the fusion program. This is more of an issue for the US than
for Japan and Europe, which have different energy supply situations
and societies more willing to accept a long term view.
Nearer term applications are seen in this context as a means to provide society with more immediate returns on its investment in fusion research. In this regard, magnetic and inertial fusion offer very different possibilities because of inertial fusion's established connection to Defense Programs' stockpile stewardship activities. While magnetic fusion has not pressed hard to find a possible nearer term customer for fusion-grade plasmas, it is time now to fully explore all possibilities and determine if there is potential to expand fusion's customer base and build a stronger underpinning of support for the program.
"How Do We Get From Here to There?"
A brief retrospective on the history of the US fusion program will help in understanding what is meant by "here".
In terms of today's dollar, US fusion program funding grew rapidly
during the 1970's to an all-time peak near the end of that decade.
Since then, funding has declined significantly. Today, the program
seeks to end the long budget decline and stabilize spending as
a basis for strategic program planning.
25 years ago, a fire was lit under the fusion program as oil prices soared in response to an OPEC-driven supply crisis.
There has been a remarkably strong correlation between fusion
research funding and crude oil prices. Despite the substantial
successes in fusion research during the past two decades, such
as the achievements in pushing temperature, density, and confinement
parameters to reactor-grade levels, funding for fusion appears
to remain in lock step with supply and demand circumstances for
oil. Today, the world is awash in cheap and plentiful oil.
The oil shocks of the 1970's led to ambitious plans for fusion
energy development, but budgets did not come to implement these
plans. In the 1980's, planning was driven largely by Cold War
politics that created ITER as a centerpiece of international collaboration
and a major next step in fusion energy development. The end of
the Cold War began an erosion of the political support for sustaining
a significant US role in the ITER project.
By the mid-1990's, the influences of cheap oil, the perception that electricity from fusion would cost too much, and the efforts of Congress to reduce budget deficits combined to precipitate the events leading to program restructuring from schedule driven energy development to the scientific underpinnings of fusion energy.
Clearly, the constraints on the fusion program have changed. Prior to restructuring, time was the primary constraint and funding was expected to grow as needed to meet schedule demands. Now, funding is the primary constraint.
During the first half of this decade, the "how" of getting
there was embodied in a fusion energy development strategy with
a time line and, for magnetic fusion, a tokamak-based facility
mix supporting the objective of an operating fusion based demonstration
power plant by about the year 2025.
In the mid-1990's, the divergence between actual budgets and funding
needed for a demonstration power plant strategy became quite large.
Without the budget growth needed to build and operate the necessary
facilities, the demonstration power plant strategy had to be abandoned.
|
FY 1996 Congressional Direction
|
Following guidance from Congress, the US fusion program began to restructure its strategy, content, and objectives by emphasizing fusion science, concept improvement, and alternative approaches, including inertial fusion, while maintaining its effort on low-activation materials development. The new strategy also had to consider international cooperation as the means of building major new facilities.
The January 1996 report of the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee (FEAC), "A Restructured Fusion Energy Sciences Program" is the foundational document that has guided the restructuring process.
|
U.S. Fusion Energy Sciences Program Mission "Acquire the knowledge base needed for an economically and environmentally attractive fusion energy source."
Program Goals I. Understand the physics of plasmas
II. Identify and explore innovative approaches to fusion science and technology
III. Explore the science and technology of energy producing plasma, as a partner in an international effort |
|
U.S.
Fusion Energy Sciences Program
|
The FEAC report also guided the formulation of the program's five
year objectives, which evolved from the deliberations at the October
1996 community workshop held in Leesburg, Virginia.
A way of characterizing the restructuring process is one of how
we have changed the pathway toward a fusion energy source. The
previous pathway was heavily oriented toward advancements in the
development of fusion energy technologies, requiring large annual
cash flows and leading expeditiously to a fusion energy source
based on the tokamak.
The restructured pathway is oriented toward advancements in fusion science, which can be accomplished with more modest annual expenditures. As such, it is certainly seen as more "affordable" than the previous pathway.
The new pathway emphasizes innovation to increase the likelihood of discovering improved concepts, including advanced tokamak ideas, that could lead to a more economical development path and, ultimately, to a more attractive fusion energy system. Of course, the pathway will need to turn in the direction of energy technology development when the fusion program is ready to move seriously toward a practical energy source.
The restructuring of the program has proceeded about as fast as possible, given budget limitations, although not so fast as some would have liked, with the shift of resources from tokamaks and technology to alternates, including inertial fusion energy.
However, while we are now able to draw the broad brush strokes of a strategy for the restructured fusion program, we are not able to provide much of the specifics. By the end of 1999, it is our goal to provide more detail in conjunction with the preparation of a new program plan that will accompany the submission to Congress of the Administration's FY 2001 budget request.
Reviews of the Fusion Program
| 1998 | Report on the Nature and Level of U.S. Participation in Possible ITER Activities | FESAC |
| 1997 | Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the 21st Century | PCAST |
| 1996 | A Restructured Fusion Energy Sciences Program | FEAC |
| 1995 | The U.S. Program of Fusion Energy Research and Development | PCAST |
| 1995 | Energy R&D: Shaping our Nations Future in a Competitive World | SEAB |
| 1992 | Letter: Townes to Watkins | SEAB |
| 1992 | Report on Program Strategy for U.S. Magnetic Fusion Energy Research | FEAC |
| 1990 | Report of the Technical Panel on Magnetic Fusion of the Energy Research Advisory Board | FPAC |
| 1989 | Pacing the U.S. Magnetic Fusion Program | NRC |
| 1987 | Star Power | OTA |
| 1986 | Report of the Technical Panel on Magnetic Fusion | ERAB |
| 1984 | Magnetic Fusion Energy R&D | ERAB |
| 1982 | Future Engineering Needs of the Magnetic Fusion Committee on Magnetic Fusion | NRC |
| 1980 | Report on Magnetic Fusion Program | ERAB |
| 1978 | Final Report of the Ad Hoc Experts Group on Fusion | Foster |
These reviews will provide the "working consensus" for the new program plan, which will consider pathways for both energy and science goals, address needs for both magnetic and inertial fusion energy, and deal with issues of overlaps, international collaboration, and funding constraints.
|
Fusion Program Reviews in 1999
|
|
SEAB Review
|
|
NRC Review
|
|
FESAC Review
|
Following the issuance of the FESAC Panel report on opportunities and requirements of a fusion energy sciences program, FESAC will lead a community assessment of the fusion program. The review will include recommendations for further redirection, given flat budgets, recommendations on proof-of-principle fusion science experiments, and program content, emphasis, and balance (such as tokamak vs non-tokamak and magnetic vs inertial fusion energy). A report is expected in September.
|
Fusion Summer Study
|
There are several other activities in 1999 that will provide input
to or have bearing on these review and planning efforts.
Members of the magnetic and inertial fusion communities are
preparing a draft roadmap that includes both magnetic and inertial
fusion energy approaches in a unified framework. It will serve
as input to the SEAB Review and Fusion Summer Study.
The Next Step Options (NSO) activity will investigate opportunities
for advancing the scientific understanding of fusion energy, with
emphasis on plasma behavior at high energy gain and for long duration.
This year's effort will focus on developing criteria for evaluating
design options, investigating an advanced physics version of BPX
as an option for a burning plasma experiment, and keeping abreast
of world progress on devices such as Ignitor, KSTAR, and ITER,
through watching briefs. An interim report is expected in mid-March
for use in the SEAB Review, and draft white papers are expected
in July for use in the Fusion Summer Study. By late September,
a preconceptual design of an advanced physics BPX-like device
is expected. In FY 2000, this activity will investigate other
options, as well.
In response to the call for a new international agreement on fusion
science by the Secretary of Energy in September 1998, the US has
proposed an annual forum for leaders of the four major fusion
programs. Such a forum would enable program leaders for the first
time to review progress in collaborative activities, evaluate
and improve effectiveness of major collaborations, consider possible
enhancements of joint efforts, and involve leaders of other fusion
programs.
A panel of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) is conducting a study of international cooperation
in energy R&D and deployment. The panel, building on the earlier
PCAST Energy R&D Study, will review the US's international energy
R&D portfolio and recommend ways to improve collaboration on energy
R&D. The panel is expected to complete its work by the end
of March, after which PCAST is expected to report to the President
in early May.
The collective outputs of these activities will have a strong
bearing on the way in which the US fusion program addresses the
basic issues of the question "how do we get from here to
there".
As we move forward with our planning, we must keep an eye on the progress and directions of our international partners. Should the ITER parties decide to go forward with construction, which would be a major event in the worldwide effort to develop fusion as an energy source, we would want to assess opportunities for US involvement and evaluate them in light of the domestic programmatic and budgetary circumstances at that time.
|
Benefits
of the SSI Toward Fusion Research
|
|
Summary Conclusions
|
Summary Conclusions
In her October 1998 charge letter to FESAC, Dr. Martha Krebs,
Director of DOE's Office of Science, noted that "...the Department
and the community are focused on continuing the program shifts
begun three years ago. However, fusion will never be simply a
science program; it must have an energy vision, as well. This
dual nature of the program will always cause tension within the
community. The continued call for clearly defined progress toward
energy application, from Congress and others, will highlight that
tension."
The review and planning activities of 1999 will address both sides of the dual nature of the program: science and energy. There will undoubtedly be strenuous tension created in the process. However, it is important to the health of the fusion program that a broad consensus be forged on a strategy for moving fusion research forward in cost-effective steps. Divisiveness will not serve the program well at this juncture, and I am pleased by the collaborative approach the community leaders are taking in preparing for these activities.
A program plan will be completed at the end of 1999 to guide the US fusion research effort into the next century. It must take into account the realities of projected budget constraints, support progress toward fusion science goals and, at the same time, allow measurable progress toward energy goals. Also, the critical infrastructure must be maintained in a way that allows the US to launch a fusion energy development program at some future time when called upon by the Nation.