The Policy Implications of Nuclear Fusion:
Executive Summary
This summary is written by David Hess in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the MSc of
Environmental Technology conducted at the Centre for Environmental Policy in Imperial College
London -academic year 2008-2009 – supervisor Tim Cockerill.
Introduction
Nuclear fusion is the process that powers the sun. In this process several atomic nuclei combine
together to form at least one heavier nucleus and energy is released. It is an El Dorado in
energy terms and research offers the promise of a nearly unlimited supply of energy that is
safe, CO2 free, and poses a minimal burden from its radioactive waste. However like the fabled
city of gold it has proven difficult to reach and time frame estimates for the commercialisation
of fusion energy have notoriously receded further into the future, with a folk lore perpetual
time horizon of roughly 40 years.
Objectives
In the thesis two major questions were explored
1. Whether the time frame for fusion development has indeed been shifting as is widely
believed and if so, why?
2. What is the nature of the interaction between fusion and policy and how well can a
potential future fusion power source truly address current policy concerns such as
climate change and energy security?
Methodology
The time frame question was tested via the process of a systematic literature review that aimed to
capture as many as possible of the published estimates for the time frame of the development of
fusion energy over a 20 year period. These estimates were then plotted against the date of
publication. To facilitate the discussion on the interaction between fusion and policy, interviews
were conducted with various fusion stakeholders and nuclear experts. Their opinions guide the
discussion and in the thesis many quotes are included though none are included here. Details of
respondents are given in Table 1, though names and institutions were omitted to ensure
confidentiality.
Table 1: A list of interview respondent aliases, categories and the type of institutions they belong to.
Respondent alias
Respondent A
Respondent category/interview list
Energy policy researcher
Respondent B
Respondent C
Respondent D
Respondent E
Fusion researcher
Policy maker
Nuclear pressure group
Fusion researcher
Respondent institution
Leading UK university energy policy
research group
UK fusion research organisation
DBIS
UK based nuclear trade organisation
UK fusion research organisation
Fusion basics: MFE and the tokamak.
There are many possible technology pathways that may potentially lead to the production of
viable fusion power, however to date the most successful approach is known as magnetic
fusion energy and the most successful fusion producing machine is the tokamak; an example is
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: components of a tokamak. Diagram sourced from JET EFDA website accessed August 2009.
Nuclear fusion has successfully been demonstrated in many machines in the past, however a
viable means of fusion energy production has yet to be demonstrated. Two key difficulties are
achieving and sustaining the necessary temperatures for fusion to take place and keeping the
plasma together long enough to initiate fusion. Over the decades exponential progress has
been made in these areas and progress looks set to continue, however many outstanding
research issues remain. Further progress in all research areas requires an investment in new
experiments and machines. There is a well thought out magnetic fusion development strategy
which is composed of three basic steps
1. Built and operate ITER: The purpose of ITER is to study the properties of a ‘burning’ 1
plasma. It will also test and study a number of key technologies such as the heating,
control, diagnostic and remote maintenance procedures; all essential for a future
fusion power plant (FPP). Eventually it will test the efficiency of tritium breeding2
2. Build and operate IFMIF: The machine proposed to test the effect of D-T radiation on
materials is known as the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF)
3. Build and operate DEMO: DEMO is a full scale demonstration FPP. It must bridge the
gap between experimental reactors and a first of a kind power plant. It must:
demonstrate the possibility of economic viability, help in the formulation of an
acceptable maintenance schedule and ideally it will aim for steady state operation.
1
where more energy is produced from a plasma than is required to heat and contain it
Tritium is one of the fuels of a FPP but does not occur in large quantities in nature and must be produced by the
nuclear fusion process
2
The time frame for fusion – a systematic review
To address the question of the time frame for fusion development and eventual deployment
and to test the ’40 year’ adage; a systematic literature review was conducted that sought to
identify as many as possible of the published time frames for fusion development since 1990.
The year 1990 was chosen as a starting point for the review because of issues of document
accessibility and because of the desire to test whether concerns over the effects of climate
change had brought forward the time frame for fusion development. The hope was to
investigate analytically whether the time frame for fusion was receding and if so to determine
whether there was any apparent date of convergence and what the reasons for this delay are.
Figure 1 plots the date of publication against estimates for fusion development and
deployment. Table 1 explains the legend found in the diagram.
Table 2: Explanation of the legend used in the time frame estimates
Legend entry
MDEMO ref
MDEMO acc
MDEMO dec
MDEMO crash
IDEMO ref
PROTO
Commercial
reference
Commercial
accelerated
Commercial
decelerated
Commercial
crash/pilot
ZIFE DEMO ref
explanation
The estimated date of operation of the first magnetic confinement fusion energy
DEMO plant under a reference scenario.
The estimated date of operation of the first magnetic confinement fusion energy
DEMO plant under an accelerated development scenario
The estimated date of operation of the first magnetic confinement fusion energy
DEMO plant under a decelerated development scenario
The estimated date of operation of the first magnetic fusion plant under a radical
departure from the reference scenario.
The estimated date of operation of the first inertial confinement fusion energy
DEMO plant under a reference scenario.
The estimated date of operation of the PROTO power plant. PROTO used to be the
last step device in the European magnetic fusion strategy
The estimated date of operation of the first commercial FPP under a reference
scenario.
The estimated date of operation of the first commercial FPP under an accelerated
scenario.
The estimated date of operation of the first commercial FPP under a decelerated
scenario.
The estimated date of operation of commercial fusion plant under a radical
departure from the reference scenario.
The estimated date of operation of the Z pinch IFE DEMO plant
Year
2060
2055
2050
2045
2040
2035
2030
2025
2020
2015
2010
2005
2000
1995
1990
MDEMO ref
MDEMO acc
MDEMO dec
MDEMO crash
IDEMO ref
PROTO
Commercial ref
Commercial acc
Commercial dec
Commercial crash
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2002
Year of2000
publication
2004
2006
2008
2010
ZIFE DEMO ref
Figure 2: Published time frame estimates for the deployment of fusion power. Results shown as a function of the year of
publication and include estimates found in all articles regardless of nationality.
Through the course of the investigation it became clear that strategic, political and budget
related factors were more to blame for the shifting schedule of fusion development rather than
any intractable scientific problem. Budget was the most important factor. Three other factors
include
•
•
•
The abandoning of PROTO from the European development schedule. PROTO was a
suggested third tokamak that was to follow ITER and DEMO. Its aim was to demonstrate
the full economic viability of fusion power- providing the full services of a power plant.
The abandoning of PROTO thus brought fusion commercialisation closer, though had no
affect on the date of fusion deployment.
The lengthy delays in the development and construction of ITER. ITER was first proposed
in 1985, however final agreement to construct ITER was only agreed to in 2006, some 20
years after the initial agreement was made and about 10 years after the original design
engineering activities were complete. The long birthing of ITER is responsible for the
stalling of the global fusion development throughout the 90’s.
The restructuring of the US fusion sciences programme in the late 90’s. Linked to the US
pullout of ITER in 1997 was the restructuring of the US fusion science. During the late
90’s a revolution of sorts occurred in which the US fusion programme agenda lost its
goal of energy production and focussed on fusion for science. At the same time funding
for tokamaks was dramatically reduced and investments were made into a host of
potentially cheaper but less advanced fusion designs. To this day it is unclear just how
strong the US government’s commitment is to fusion research for energy.
Interaction between fusion and policy
The second focus question of the thesis explores in depth some of the policy implications of
fusion. It is split into two distinct sections. The first section describes some of the broader social
aspects of fusion research while the second section examines in detail how well fusion research
can satisfy the present day needs of energy policy.
Fusion research perception and policy
Some of the main points discussed in the thesis are as follows
•
•
•
The history of fusion research and its association with nuclear weapons research.
The international nature of fusion research:
The distinction between fusion research for pure scientific ends versus fusion research
for the purpose of producing energy.
These aspects of fusion important to be aware of because they have implications for funding
and research focus. They explain some of the views of fusion advocates and opponents as well
as explaining some of the differences in opinions between different groups of fusion scientists.
Energy policy and implications of fusion energy
This first part of this section highlights some of the current concerns of energy policy. These
particular issues are important to fusion because they are long term in nature and while they
would for the most part be aided greatly if fusion was commercially available, they also drive
change in energy policy and technology that may have implications for future fusion roll out. It
emphasises...
•
•
•
•
Increasing global energy demand. The universal consensus is that energy demand is
growing; driven by the economic development of the developing world.
Growing concerns over energy security; especially the reliability of the supply of gas
and oil.
Climate change and concerns over rising CO2 due in large part to the burning of fossil
fuels for energy
The issues of conventional nuclear power: economic environmental/waste, safety and
proliferation. Many of these issues are shared between fission and fusion though they
perform differently in each case.
Following on from this is an evaluation of the energy policy implications of nuclear fusion.
Results of previous studies...
• Fusion reactors will be safe, with no requirement for the evacuation of the local
population in the case of a worst case accident.
• Radioactive waste from a fusion reactor will be designed to be free from regulatory
control within 100 years so it does not pose a burden to future generations.
• Tritium and radioactive dust are the greatest potential hazard of a fusion reactor.
• The cost of fusion power is uncertain and estimates are constantly evolving with the
choice of technical parameters and other factors such as the cost of electricity. Current
European estimates place the cost of fusion power generation at between 4 and 10 Euro
cents. This will be dominated by capital and fixed costs.
•
The social implications of fusion power are currently poorly understood. Fusion is often
confused with fission which has negative social implications and so attempts are
underway to distance fusion from fission. More work needs to be done in this area.
Key features of first generation design is provided.
• The size of a fusion power plant. 1.5 gigawatts is the expected size but fusion power
benefits massively from economies of scale and so larger reactors may possibly be built
• A FPP will form part of the base load of electrical supply. However currently tokamaks
are incapable of steady state operation and so advances will need to be made.
• Maintenance and component lifespan are currently poorly understood. This highlights
the pressing need for materials research and facilities such as IFMIF and remote
handling experience such as ITER. The highly energetic radiation inside a FPP will
damage components such as the divertor and first wall and require their frequent
replacement.
Fusion has the following implications for energy security
• Resource availability and the security of supply genuinely looks good with large
resources of lithium available in many different countries – most of which are politically
stable. The unconventional reserves of lithium such as in seawater or present in the
Earth’s crust can provide the World’s expected total energy consumption for hundreds
of thousands of years. Helium is another potentially limiting resource since it is currently
produced as a by-product of oil production – however options exist.
• A fusion reactor is a security risk in terms of the threat of terrorist attack and the
possible release of radiation. The expected size of a reactor is also a potential risk in the
case of strain to the supply of electricity if a large generator drops off the grid suddenly.
However a move to a more centralised model of power generation rather than a
decentralised model would largely erase this concern.
Fusion has the following implications for climate change
• Current estimates for the date of fusion deployment mean that it cannot impact on CO2
emissions before 2050- the date by which some countries in the developed world hope
to have achieved near total decarbonisation. The first builders of a FPP will likely be the
countries of what is currently the developing and emerging world.
• An FPP has very low total life cycle CO2 emissions – lower than even most renewables
such as wind and solar.
Conclusions
Fusion power delivers very well on the current dominant issues in energy policy; security and
climate change. Bearing this in mind along with the consistent progress made in fusion research
it represents a lack in joined up thinking that funding for fusion (with the exception of the
recent funds for ITER) has not increased. Given the magnitude of these issues a commitment
must be made not just to a single research machine but to the global fusion development
strategy. The first manifestation of this commitment should be to build and operate the
machine known as IFMIF.