Secretary Chu’s FY 2012 Budget Briefing

Posted by Rezwan on Feb 14, 2011 at 04:12 PM
Tools: Print | | (0) Comments

Of course, these numbers don’t tell the whole story.  Shuffling occurs.  The OFES budget shows a steady funding of “Innovative confinement concepts”.  However, as of last year, their approach to “innovative” confinement concepts has been re-interpreted.  Per their most recent solicitation in that area: “The ICC program explores improved pathways to practical fusion power by addressing critical problems that hinder the tokamak concept…”  In other words, they seek “innovative concepts that make the tokamak work, not ones that might make the tokamak irrelevant.” 

Also note that funding for NIF comes from NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration) but does not appear differentiated in this slide show (slide #19).  Does NIF fall under “Weapons Activities”,  “Defence Nuclear Nonproliferation,” “Naval Reactors” or “Office of the Adminstrator?”  Likewise, portions of “High Density Physics” and “Nuclear Physics” would have applications for fusion energy. 

Reducing nuclear dangers

Meanwhile, the budget for reducing nuclear dangers and environmental risks is high:

• Modernize our Nuclear Security Enterprise: $7.6B Part of $85B commitment over next 10 years To promote stockpile management, infrastructure, science technology & engineering
• Reduce the Risk of Proliferation: $2.5B Part of $14.2B commitment over next 5 years To support the President’s goal of securing vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide in 4 years

“Stockpile management” means keeping our nuclear weapons sharp, (radio)active and ready for action.  Having such stockpiles, and indeed nuclear fission as an energy source, increases the problem of proliferation.  These two goals are thus in conflict.  In addition, the proliferation risk is growing due to the need for more energy.  Thus, support of fusion research and development, particularly aneutronic fusion, is an important anti-proliferation measure. 

The relationship between fusion and nonproliferation is noted in the ASP White paper:

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.

In an ideal, rational world, “invest in aneutronic fusion” would come under this heading, with a generous budget.  Perhaps we can get it in for FY 2014.

Data conflicts

Slide 18, shown here:

Is much different from the graph in the Post Partisan Power

According to the footnote:

Source for energy R&D: K.S. Gallagher and L.D. Anadon, “DOE Budget Authority for Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Database,” (Harvard University, June 22, 2009). http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/19119/doe_budget_authority_for_energy_research_development_demonstration_database.html Figures include budgets for all DOE applied RD&D, Office of Basic Energy Science, Fusion Energy Sciences, and Biological and Environmental Sciences research programs (some of which are non-energy related).

A reminder that these charts and graphs are all simulations of reality and data points, but ultimately, it’s not really clear what’s going on or if the money is actually being spent in effective ways.