ARIES Documents
Utility Advisory Committee Reports
Minutes of the Sixth Meeting (February 16-17, 1995, UC San Diego)
Sixth Joint Meeting of the
Fusion Power Plant Studies Utility Advisory Committee
and EPRI Fusion Working Group
INTRODUCTION
The joint Fusion Power Plant Studies Utility Advisory Committee and EPRI Fusion
Working Group is chaired by Steve Rosen of Houston Light and Power. The
meeting agenda and list of participants are attached as appendices.
Presentations and discussions are summarized below. The minutes of the previous
(fifth) meeting were approved with minor revision.
Dean Robert W. Conn opened the sixth combined meeting, hosted by UC San Diego,
by welcoming all attendees. He noted that the proposed FY96 DOE budget of 366
M$ for fusion energy was a "good budget for these trying times". He introduced
Dr. N. Anne Davies, Associate Director for Fusion Energy, Office of Energy
Research, Office of Fusion Energy (OFE).
FUSION ENERGY PROGRAM
Dr. Davies reviewed the status of the fusion energy program. She noted that
the ITER Engineering Design Activities (EDA) was proceeding well under the new
director, Dr. Robert Aymar. An ITER interim design report is due in June 1995
and will include draft cost estimates. The FY96 EDA budget is 82 M$, an
increase of 11 M$. ITER site requirements are being developed. The "party
first" approach [under which a host party (European Union, Japan, Russian
Federation, USA) would be selected to be responsible for subsequent provision
of a site, rather than a direct competition between candidate sites from the
several international parties] to ITER site selection is still under discussion
but is not yet ready for four-party negotiations. The Tokamak Physics
Experiment (TPX) is proceeding with preliminary design and supporting R&D.
Contracts for Systems Integration and Construction Management are nearing
award. The FY96 budget includes 49.9 M$ for construction, contingent upon the
review of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST). The total project cost estimate is now 742 M$, with completion in
2001. The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) has produced 10.7 MW of
deuterium-tritium fusion power in few-second pulses. TFTR has exceeded its
design objectives and is scheduled to be shut down at the end of 1995 to make
way for TPX. The heavy ion accelerator, Elise, part of the OFE 7-M$ inertial
fusion energy program and the laser-driven National Ignition Facility (NIF), a
~1.1 B$ project funded under defense programs, have been approved for start of
construction in FY96. A request for proposals for "innovative experiments in
toroidal magnetic confinement" has been published and 20 M$ has been allocated
for this effort.
Concern was expressed that the energy development goals of the fusion program
are not supported by the current funding levels. Congress seems to be unlikely
to support major funding increases; possible budget recisions have been
proposed and are causes for concern. Several review groups are expected to
report prior to the next (July) meeting of this joint group. These review
committees include the already-mentioned PCAST, the Secretary of Energy
Advisory Board (SEAB) Task Force on Strategic R&D, and the Fusion Energy
Advisory Committee (FEAC). Restructuring within DOE adds to the general
uncertainty. The Office of Technology Assessment has issued a report "The
Fusion Energy Program: The Role of TPX and Alternate Concepts," OTA-BP-ETI-141
(February 1995). The EPRI Fusion Panel has issued a report "Criteria for
Practical Fusion Power Systems," stressing three criteria against which fusion
power plants will be judged: 1) economics, 2) public acceptance, and 3)
regulatory simplicity. Discussion topics included the need to maintain an
energy program focus in the face of tight budgetary prospects so as not to
devolve into a physics program.
TOKAMAK PHYSICS EXPERIMENT (TPX)
Dr. Keith Thomassen (LLNL) reviewed the status of the Tokamak Physics
Experiment (TPX) national program. The goal of TPX is to establish the
scientific basis for a cost competitive continuously operating tokamak power
plant by optimizing plasma performance, testing divertor concepts, and
demonstrating steady-state (> 1000 sec) operation with a deuterium plasma.
The mission of TPX is complementary to that of ITER. There was discussion of
commercial cost targets and possible economies of scale, issues which have been
considered in recent power plant studies. A possible corrosion problem for the
titanium shield cooled by borated water was mentioned in discussion. The
effectiveness of the TPX dispersed management system was questioned; the
speaker thought that this arrangement presented no great problems and that the
system was operating effectively.
MATERIALS PROGRAM
Dr. Mike Billone (ANL) summarized the materials testing and development
program. Materials performance and compatibility issues are central to the
successful performance of ITER, TPX, Demo, and commercial power plants. The
U.S. advanced materials annual budget is ~10 M$, with emphasis on developing
low-activation/high-performance materials for Demo and beyond, as well as
developing a 14-MeV-neutron-source testing facility. Austenitic stainless
steels, adopted for use in ITER, are thought not to qualify for Demo structural
applications, in contrast to ferritic steels (considered viable in the European
and Japanese programs), vanadium alloys, and SiC/SiC composites. Discussion
emphasized the critical importance of suitable materials on the performance of
all the major proposed steps in the fusion program and the need for an
appropriately funded and prioritized R&D program to provide these materials
on a timely basis. While the funding level within the fusion program for
advanced materials was thought to be inadequate, some benefit will be derived
from external programs. Issues relating to joining and the degradation of
properties (e.g., DBTT in ferritic steels) were noted for their safety
implications.
FUSION SAFETY STANDARD
Dr. John DeLooper (PPPL) summarized the ongoing work of the Fusion Safety
Steering Committee in the development of a Fusion Safety Standard in order to
contribute to a suitable fusion regulatory environment and public acceptance of
fusion devices and power plants. The primary safety function of the standard
is to protect the public and to control routine worker hazards. Wholesale or
default application of fission standards to fusion is not appropriate or
desirable; the committee again emphasized that a credible fusion-specific
safety standard should be developed. As systems are identified as dominating
the fusion safety risk, "defense in depth" measures may have to be applied.
One aspect of the public acceptance criterion is the influence of materials and
design choices leading to a Demo or power plant that does not require an
evacuation plan, consistent with accident doses less than 1 rem at the site
boundary. Existing radiation protection standards for plant workers and the
public are anticipated to apply.
STARLITE SAFETY AND LICENSING ACTIVITIES
Prof. Don Steiner (RPI) reviewed the safety and licensing activity of the
Starlite Project. Topics included a review by G. Hofer (Raytheon) of the
jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) based on the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 as amended. The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation was
identified as the probable cognizant entity within the NRC; a suggested early
approach directly to the Commission was not endorsed. Discussion stressed the
need to avoid an inappropriate application of fission-derived regulation to
fusion by default. The interface of this activity with the DOE Fusion Safety
Standard work was noted. Preliminary top-level safety requirements for the
Starlite Demo were presented as related to public and worker impacts.
Conceptual fusion device designs are not yet sufficiently detailed to allow the
application of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) methods; rather, work has
begun on safety hazard analyses. If fusion can be shown to meet strict
(compared to fission) requirements without excess cost, appropriate credit
should be claimed.
STARLITE DEMO MISSION AND GOALS
Prof. Farrokh Najmabadi (UCSD) reviewed the early status of the three-year
Starlite Demo Project, a comprehensive investigation of the fusion Demo,
including its mission, goals, derived requirements, and R&D needs. The
Project strategy and schedule leading to concept selection and conceptual
design were developed. The useful contribution of this joint group in
advancing the Starlite Project was emphasized. Discussion of target ranges for
projected cost of electricity [COE (mill/kWeh)] and capital cost generally
accepted "ballpark" competitive values; explicit methodologies for the Starlite
Demo as a utility/government partnership are under development.
FUSION POWER DEVELOPMENT PATHWAYS
Dr. Steve Dean (Fusion Power Associates) spoke on the issues of fusion power
development pathways. He recalled the 1976 Program Plan and reviewed the
funding and implementation history in the subsequent period as a guide to
present planning and extrapolation. His work in 1991-1992 on the conceptual
Pilot Plant, which had a mission and goals somewhat distinct from the Demo,
also bears on these issues. There was some discussion of combining Demo with
ITER in a phased program. A rationale for fusion research as an "insurance
policy" against future energy shortages was also discussed.
DEMO TESTING NEEDS
Dr. Mark Tillack (UCSD) described the testing needs and development issues for
fusion power core components and technologies. His talk included an overview
of the key components and the unique fusion environmental conditions in which
they must operate, a summary of the critical testing issues for which R&D
is needed, example R&D plans that have been developed in recent years in
national and international studies, a summary of the test facilities required
(including non-neutron test stands, fission reactors, 14 MeV neutron sources,
and fusion test reactors), and a discussion of reliability goals and the
testing requirements imposed by the need for reliable Demo components. His
talk ended with a brief examination of R&D scenarios, particularly
emphasizing the value of dedicated fusion test facilities for in-vessel
components.
A complete development plan for fusion "nuclear" technologies could be very
expensive and require many years, even assuming an aggressive increase in
funding. The alternative to performing adequate technology R&D is to
accept a large risk of failure to meet the Demo goals, particularly those
relating to performance and availability. The chairman acknowledged that
technology R&D presents important considerations for the committee, which
should be revisited in the future - perhaps in the form of presentations on
individual components such as the blanket and divertor.
ITER AND DEMO SITE POWER REQUIREMENTS
Dr. Charlie Neumeyer (Raytheon) reported initial results of a survey of
utilities regarding the impacts of an ITER-class load on their grids, based on
"Specification for Electric Power Capability Assessment" (Dec. 1994).
Responses from three (representative but unidentified) utilities were reported.
Additional responses are anticipated. Issues related to local energy storage,
pulsed reverse power flow, reactive power compensation, and operational
constraints may affect siting and costs for both ITER and Demo. The next step
in this activity is a more detailed evaluation of one or more candidate
sites.
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the joint committee will be July 31 - August 1, 1995 at UC,
San Diego. The agenda will be developed in due course. A presentation on
materials test needs or proposed test facilities was suggested.
Appendix I: Meeting Attendees
Charles Baker UCSD/ITER 619-534-4971
Michael C. Billone ANL 708-252-7146
Robert Conn UCSD 619-534-6237
N. Anne Davies DOE/OFE 301-903-4941
Terrence Davies UCSD/ITER 619-534-9830
Steve Dean FPA 301-258-0545
John De Looper PPPL 609-243-3047
William Dove DOE/OFE 301-903-4598
Tom Dunn General Atomics
Bill Ellis Raytheon 212-839-3398
Tom Flynn Raytheon 212-839-3243
J. Gilleland Bechtel
Steve Herring INEL 208-526-9497
Jack Kaslow EPRI 603-894-6345
Bong Ju Lee UCSD 619-534-7828
Glen Longhurst INEL 208-526-9950
T.K. Mau UCSD 619-534-9711
Dan Mears Technology Insights 619-455-9080
Ronald Miller UCSD 619-534-7842
Bill Muston TU Services 214-812-8407
Farrokh Najmabadi UCSD 619-534-7869
C. Neumeyer Raytheon 609-243-2159
Larry Papay Bechtel 415-768-0275
Steve Rosen HL&P 512-972-7138
Pete Skrgic Allegheny Power 212-336-4320
Don Steiner RPI 518-276-4016
Dai-Kai Sze ANL 708-252-4838
Keith Thomassen LLNL 510-422-9815
Mark Tillack UCSD 619-534-7897
Lester M. Waganer McDonnell Douglas Corp. 314-233-8617
Clement Wong General Atomics 619-455-4258
Appendix II:
Agenda
Joint Meeting
Fusion Power Plant Studies Utility Advisory Committee (FPPSUAC)
and EPRI Fusion Working Group
Feb. 16-17, 1995
University of California, San Diego
Thursday, February 16, 1995
9:30 AM Introduction and Welcome - Robert Conn (UCSD)
9:45 AM Approval of Minutes of October 13-14, 1994 Meeting
10:00 AM DOE Update - Anne Davies (DOE)
10:15 AM Overview of the TPX Experiment - Keith Thomassen (LLNL)
11:00 AM Material Testing and Development - Mike Billone (ANL)
LUNCH - 12:00 NOON-1:00 PM
1:00 PM Fusion Safety Standard - John DeLooper (PPPL)
2:00 PM Starlite Safety and Licensing Activities Don Steiner (RPI)
3:00 PM Mission and Goals of DEMO - Farrokh Najmabadi (UCSD)
A. Operational Characteristics
B. Availability Goals and Implications
for Material Testing Program
ADJOURN - 4:30 PM
Friday, February 17, 1995
8:30 AM Fusion Power Development Pathways - Steve Dean (FPA)
9:00 AM DEMO Testing Needs and Development Pathways Mark Tillack (UCSD)
10:00 AM ITER and Demo Site Power Requirements -
Steve Rosen/Bill Ellis/Charlie Neumeyer
11:15 AM Meeting Summary
a. Selection of Items for Next Meeting
b. Date and Location of Next Meeting
ADJOURN - NOON
Top of the page.
|
