ASP White Paper:  Fusion as an opportunity for American Leadership and Security

Posted by Rezwan on Feb 07, 2011 at 05:26 PM
Tools: Print | | (2) Comments

Concise and well referenced, this document will restore your enthusiasm for mainline fusion:

Economic studies both in the U.S. and Europe have concluded that fusion electricity will be cost competitive as soon as available. (See Anklam paper attached and European Fusion Development report EFDA-RP-RE-5.0.) The scale of Asian efforts in fusion attests to a clear appreciation of commercial practicality.

Bravo to the writers for leveraging American Exceptionalism:

We have a clear choice now before us as a nation - leadership, or second-rate status.

Be warned, other countries are beating us in the fusion race:

China has a major program in fusion based on the EAST superconducting tokamak and plans for break-even machines. Over the last ten years, China has increased its program ten-fold, and now enrolls more than twice as many graduate students in this area than the United States. They have announced a fast-track goal of net-power demonstration facilities in the 2021-2040 time frame. The U.S. has already lost its position in solar and wind to the Chinese. South Korea has the superconducting KSTAR tokamak and has announced plans to supply power to their grid in the 2040s. Japan, with its JT60-SA, likewise intends to “lead the world.” The Europeans have ITER and an active public support organization. By inaction, the United States will accept a position in the second tier, a customer, not a seller of energy technology.

Bravo also for leveraging national security with this compelling information:

The second, and very strong, reason for rapid action is based on a recent analysis from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory of the consequences of increasing dependence on traditional nuclear power on worldwide stocks of plutonium. Increasing energy demand, and the relative cheapness of nuclear power, even compared to coal, will drive nations toward uranium and fission. Experience shows that countries with such reactors will tend toward reprocessing fuel and purifying plutonium. According to the report, a ten-year delay in commercialization of fusion power, from first implementation in the 2030s to the 2040s, would result in the additional world-wide availability of from 800,000 to 4,000,000 kilograms of plutonium by the year 2100. Just 8 Kg is enough to make a bomb. “Leakage” of just one one-hundredth of one percent of this plutonium will create an unacceptable added risk of nuclear terrorism. The major implications for national security need no emphasis.

mjv1121, care to counter that argument?

The only thing missing from this white paper is a mention of fusion alternatives including aneutronic fusion. 

References to such approaches can be found in a few of the FPA meeting powerpoints.  A standout is Dmitri Ryutov, who states that fusion progress needs “Possible pleasant surprises in physics and technology”. 

In addition to his work with tokamaks and advances in snowflake divertors, Ryutov’s presentation explored the potential “Comeback of axisymmetric mirrors”.  He explains that they are relatively simple, remarkably flexible, and the turn-around time for testing various approaches is short - a few years rather than decades.

The explicit description and support of underfunded alternatives is important.  If not officially stated, these are easily overlooked.  It could be argued that a rising tide will lift all boats.  The white paper does ask for $10Bn for “associated and necessary research and development activities” some of which could be diverted to alternatives. 

Explicit support of alternatives fits in with the overall thesis, especially when you read the last sentence of the report which is drawn from the October 2007 FESAC report summary:

a program carried out so slowly and deliberately as to never make a wrong step may carry more risk than one which tries to move more boldly and accepts that it will make some mistakes and follow some blind paths. The principal strategy to mitigate risk is to implement a sufficiently broad program so that alternative approaches or technologies are available at each step.

Mainline fusion isn’t sufficiently broad enough for our constituency!

Broadening the scope also reinforces the American exceptionalism theme.  We’re so creative, we’ll do MFE, ICF, and we just may come up with something completely different that beats the standard offerings out there.  Foreign powers, eat our alternative dust.

What are the next steps with this white paper?  ASP has made it a priority and is working their network.  We can do likewise.  Share this document to help build up a broader pro-fusion coalition.  Contact your representatives, newspapers and so forth.  Help get fusion well funded in FY’12 budget.  It CAN be done!!!