The Evolution of Fission Energy: Lessons for Fusion Energy?

1
The Evolution of Fission EnergyLessons for
Fusion Energy?

• Mark Haynes
• General Atomics

2
Thesis

• Many differences between fission and fusion
  development, but there are important lessons to
  be learned from fissions evolution

3
Why Should We Care About Lessons from Fission?

• Its a nuclear energy source
• - Major Successes
• - Major and Bruising Failures
• - Near Death Experience
• - Likely Resurrection
• Expensive multi-year government funding program
• Mutual understanding between communities is
  important

4

• nuclear power is dead - dead in the near term
  as a hedge against rising oil prices and dead in
  the long run as a source of future energy.
  Nobody really disputes that.
• Forbes Magazine
• Feb. 11, 1985

5
What Caused the Near Death of Fission?

• Campaign of overbuilding (7 growth assumption)
• High Inflation / High Interest Rates
• Construction mismanagement
• Construction delays and spiraling expense
• Growing public fears and mistrust / Strengthening
  anti-nuclear movement
• Three Mile Island
• Subsequent zealous regulation / extensive plant
  re-designs and modifications
• Plant cancellations and financial fallout
• Lack of solution for spent fuel
• Frozen technological development

6
Effects of Near Death

• gt75 plants cancelled (28 under construction)
• 30 years of no new orders
• Gas cooled reactor orders are cancelled, breeder
  program is cancelled, reprocessing facilities
  stopped
• Loss of federal funding for LWRs, gas reactors
  and fast reactors
• U.S. owned industry almost disappears and foreign
  countries take over leadership

7
Focus On

• Evolution / Selection of Technology
• Industry
• Safety and Public Fears
• Funding

8
Fission Rapid Development

• 1939 Bohr comes to America and announces
  Hahn-Strassman-Meitner discoveries
• 1942 Chicago Pile1 First fission ignition
• 1951 EBR I goes critical - electric power
• 1957 First commercial reactor, Shippingport
  reaches full power (adapted Naval carrier
  reactor)
• - Early proof that fission would work
• - 15 years from Chicago to commercial

9
Fusion Development Not So Rapid

• 1947 - First Kilo ampere plasma, Imperial
  College
• 1951 - Argentina claims theyve harnessed
  controlled fusion
• 1958 - 2nd Geneva Convention on PUA
• 1968 - Results from Russian T-3 Tokamak
• 1993 - 10 MW from TFTR
• 2003 - ITER site selected
• 2005 - NIF fires first 8 beams
• 2010? - NIF first ignition
• 2012? - Ed Moses Elected President / Rob
  Goldston Sec. Of Energy
• 2016? - ITER first Plasma
• 2022? - ITER Q of 10
• 2030? - First Demo?
• 50 years and going root of fusions credibility
  problem

10
Evolution of Technology - Fission

• 1940s Labs focus on breeders
• 1947 Navy begins pursuit of submarine reactor
• emphasis on compact and quick development
• For civilian power over 100 feasible reactor
  types, But..
• In 1952 AEC, unable to divine the best reactor,
  begins a reactor competition like breeding
  horses to get a Kentucky Derby winner.
• Original Derby field chosen from reactors
  already in lab pipeline fast breeder,
  homogenous, PWR, and sodium graphite.
• International collaboration not significant

11
Evolution of Technology Fission (continued)

• 1940s - 1950s struggle over industry involvement
• 1954 Atomic Energy Act provides for
  non-governmental ownership of nuclear power
  plants
• By 1958, AEC developing 11 reactor types with
  private industry
• LWRs advance more rapidly, were larger and more
  numerous and being built w/o support from AEC
• Ultimately LWRs win out because of their level of
  development for Naval propulsion subs and
  carriers
• Safety not primary decision criteria ease and
  rapidity of commercial adaptation was primary
• High Temp. Gas Reactors and Fast Reactors slated
  for longer-term
• The technological die was cast

12
So What If the Die Was Cast?

• LWRs workhorse reactors that are safe and
  reliable, but they are sub-optimal
• - Cannot tell public they are melt-down proof
• - 65 of energy is wasted
• - Thirsty
• - Low temperatures limit flexibility
• - One way ticket on spent fuel
• Nuclear future largely dictated by electric
  utilities
• Safety considerations drive costs, complexity,
  location, public acceptance, etc.

13
Evolution of Technology - Fusion

• Evolved in international environment
• Early success of Russian tokamak focused
  development
• Alternate concepts not as evolved and are
  budget-limited
• Still driven primarily by labs and universities
  in U.S. and internationally
• Still considered primarily in context of electric
  power

14
Cradle to Commercial Fission

• Many energy producing test reactors built in U.S.
  (Over 50 reactors at INL alone)
• Every fission reactor produced some net
  energy!

15
Cradle to Commercial Fusion

• Europeans / Japanese - one step to demo from
  ITER
• U.S. strategy TBD
• But, we talk as if there will be one demo after
  ITER and then its On to commercial!
• If fission is any guide Not just one demo!

16
Reactor Wars - Fission

• Many possible reactor types
• Long-standing and sometimes ugly struggle between
  LWRs, Fast Reactors and Gas Reactors
• Technological leaps impeded by forces of status
  quo (existing reactor vendors, utilities, lack of
  funding, etc.)
• Mutual attacks lend ammunition, comfort and aid
  to anti-nuclear advocates
• Contributed to demise of federal nuclear RD in
  mid-1990s.
• May be changing

17
Reactor Wars - Fusion

• Many possible reactor types
• Past internal strife, sometimes ugly, over
  dominance of tokamaks, need for more alternates
  funding, etc.
• Mutual attacks lend ammunition, comfort and aid
  to anti-fusion advocates
• A primary cause of mid-90s budget disaster 366M
  down to 225M
• Establishment of community cohesion has been good
  for the overall budget
• Still issues

18
1994 - 1997 U.S. Funding Retreat

• Fission Fast Reactor, gas cooled reactor and LWR
  funding stopped - anti-nuclear / deficit
  reduction / anti-pork sentiment
• - Death blow to government-industry
  cooperation
• Fusion Cut from 366M to 225M - Unhappiness
  with discord in community / looming ITER and TPX
  costs, etc. / deficit reduction

19
Advancing Fission Technology Today

• LWR technology primarily left to industry
  (foreign industry dominates)
• True next generation (Gen IV) technology
• - Largely responsibility of government
• - Expense beyond any one company / industry
• - Power industry (and public) not really
  interested in any new technology until
  proven and near to implementation
• - Every nations nuclear industry (except in
  U.S.) either substantially owns, subsidizes
  or otherwise protects its nuclear industry,
  particularly in terms of Gen IV.

20
Over the Past Two Decades, The U.S. Nuclear
Technology and Supply Industry Has Been
Disappearing
The Loss of U.S. Industry in Fission

• In 1975, 100 of Nuclear Technology, Fuel,
  Equipment, Construction, etc. was U.S. owned, but
  today
• Reactor Designers - Of original 5 in U.S.
  (General Electric, General Atomics, Westinghouse,
  Combustion Engineering, and BW), only GE and GA
  are U.S. owned.
• Uranium Mining - 95 of our uranium is imported,
  few U.S. mines presently open
• Conversion - Only one U.S. uranium converter
  remains
• Enrichment - most enrichment service is imported
  through Russian HEU deal and other. Sole
  remaining U.S. enrichment plant utilized old
  inefficient technology. New modern capacity
  licensed, but is foreign sourced.
• Fuel Fabrication - Only one remaining U.S. owned
  nuclear power fuel fabricator

21
Why Is U.S. Owned Nuclear Industry Important?

• Energy independence
• Increase export sales to meet growing world
  demand for nuclear power
• Essential element of effective non-proliferation
  policy
• Can provide technologically knowledgeable
  watchdogs around the world
• Can provide non-proliferative technology
  alternatives for export and reward
• Can provide for material accounting, safeguards
  and security

Current U.S. Nuclear Industry Currently Dominated
By Foreign-owned and Subsidized
Companies.
22
U.S. Industry

• Fission
• - U.S.-owned industry almost gone.
• - Foreign governments own/support their own
  industry and have invested during down times.
  
• - U.S. government has not invested since 1990s
  
• - U.S. government currently makes no
  distinction between U.S.-owned or
  foreign-owned
• Fusion
• - U.S. Industry largely gone w/mid-90s
  decline in budgets.
• - ITER will help.

An Issue for Fusion? An Issue for the U.S.?
23
Funding Status Today

• Fission Substantial funding ramp-up for Gen IV
  reactors (GNEP, NGNP), but since U.S. has little
  of its own industry remaining, French, Japanese,
  Russian and South African industry may be best
  positioned to benefit
• Fusion Funding holding its own but domestic
  program not growing. Not considered to be an
  energy option yet.

24
U.S. Leadership Per Se

• Fission U.S. was leader for first 3 - 4 decades.
  During 90s, U.S. leadership lost to French and
  Japanese (Russians, Chinese and South Africans
  running hard)
• Fusion U.S. still among leaders, but depending
  on next few years, may or may not be positioned
  to take advantage of ITER, NIF, etc.
• Just being part of ITER is not sufficient to be
  a leader!

25
Fission and Fusion Development Different Times

• 1940s - 1950s
• - High degree of trust in government and
  industry
• - Government w/more freedom and less scrutiny
• - public safety health antenna not as
• developed
• Today
• - General distrust of government and industry
• - Intense scrutiny
• - Near perfect info (Web, C-Span, CNN, etc.)
• - extreme health paranoia

26
Public Perception/Acceptance of Risk

• Familiar hazards more acceptable
• Voluntary risks more acceptable
• Personal control of risks more acceptable
• Risks judged in relation to perceived benefit
• Potential for catastrophe

Fission has fared poorly by this formula. How
about fusion?
27
Safety Issues Real and Perceived

• Fission
• - Melt-down
• - Waste
• - Accidental radiation releases
• - Uranium mining
• - Proliferation
• - Transportation accident, etc.
• Fusion
• - Lithium (w/tritium inventory) reactivity
  w/air and
• water
• - Tritium leaks
• - Proliferation(?)
• - Disposal of large amounts of activated
  materials

Can the public distinguish real from perceived
risk? Big from little
risk?
28
Conclusions

• Hurry up and get to burning plasma and ignition
• As fusion becomes more real, never
  underestimate the importance of the safety and
  waste issues
• Possibly take safest, least waste producing
  designs and engineer to be most economic, not
  vice versa
• More than one demo will be needed keep multiple
  options open
• Reactor wars are bad. Work out issues within
  community
• U.S. industry involvement important and healthy -
  not OK to just import fusion reactors!
• U.S. leadership in fusion will not come from
  reliance on other countries or just ITER

29

• How did decades of development, several hundred
  billion dollars invested, and the lifelong
  commitment of thousands of scientists and
  engineers produce a technological white elephant
  that the American public does not want?
• The Demise of Nuclear Power, 1989
• Joseph G. Morone
• Edward j. Woodhouse