ARIES Documents

Utility Advisory Committee Reports

INTRODUCTION

The joint Fusion Power Plant Studies Utility Advisory Committee and EPRI Fusion Working Group is chaired by Steve Rosen of Houston Lighting and Power Company. The meeting agenda and list of participants are attached as appendices. Presentations and discussions are summarized below. The minutes of the previous (sixth) meeting were approved. Steve Dean presented the Fusion Power Associates Excellence in Fusion Engineering Award to Prof. Farrokh Najmabadi.

DOE UPDATE

Ira Adler discussed the budget situation in Washington. A $7.5M recision was approved recently for the FY95 fusion budget. Congressional fusion budget guidance for FY96 is $229M (House) and $225M (Senate). The department has been asked to reduce the DOE budget by $14.1B over the next 5 years. The impact will include a reduction in the DOE staff from 20,600 to approximately 10,000 by the year 2000.

Bill Ellis asked where the Office of Fusion Energy might be located following a reorganization of the DOE. Dr. Adler responded that combination into an "energy cluster" was proposed, but that it appears as though OFE will remain within the Energy Research branch. The idea to eliminate DOE is probably no longer a serious possibility. The possibility to merge several organizations into a single cabinet-level science department also is unlikely.

Following a description of the congressional budget process, Jack Kaslow asked where there might be support for fusion research. There is not much good news in this area. The strongest support comes from the New Jersey delegation, in the House Appropriations subcommittee. One of the most critical members is Mr. Rohrabacher in the House Authorization subcommittee.

Bill Ellis asked if the guidance for "reduced funding" is meant to be above and beyond the $229M level. Dr. Adler indicated that it probably is.

Prof. Conn indicated that the transfer of close-out costs to other programs should not be considered as a net benefit to the fusion program relative to the previous budget because this was never included in previous budgets. With close-out costs, the budget would be even worse. The real effective purchasing power of the $229M budget would be $180M with the close-out costs, or $245M without them (for the Senate language that recommended transfers of NERSC and other activities previously supported by OFE).

Bill Ellis inquired what is the OFE interpretation of Congress' guidance to continue to support ITER. The answer is not clear. The numbers don't add up if all of the Congressional advice is taken. Probably the guidance is most strongly in favor of maintaining the base program.

Steve Rosen asked if Dr. Adler could comment more on the negative reaction to the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report by our ITER partners. Dr. Adler declined to respond at this time.

Bill Muston inquired whether the ITER mission and objectives includes anything about the schedule. The answer is no.

PRESENTATION TO PCAST

Steve Rosen summarized his presentation to PCAST and indicated that he spoke as a representative of the joint committees and as an individual citizen, and not as an employee of Houston Lighting and Power Company. He emphasized the three criteria that would have to be met by a successful fusion power plant and corresponding Demo: Economics, Public Acceptance, and Regulatory Simplicity.

PCAST PANEL SURVEY

Prof. Conn added his welcoming remarks to the UAC and indicated that Dennis McCloud (TVA) will continue as a member of the committee and will participate in the future.

The committee must consider its future role and whether it will continue to operate. Prof. Conn indicated that the committee's impact has been substantial, and believes continued participation would be beneficial. Due to uncertainties in the program, the committee should wait to decide on its future. He suggested they continue and discuss options at the next meeting.

Steve Rosen noted a citation to the UAC in the Fusion Safety Standard, and indicated that the group should consider whether or not their position was being accurately represented (see below). He also suggested adding agenda items to this meeting to discuss ideas on how this group might react to the current budget situation, and to discuss the future of the group.

Dr. Miller asked if Prof. Conn might comment on the reaction of the PCAST to the speech by Rosen. However, all PCAST meetings were confidential, so that he could not comment.

Jack Kaslow asked how strong is the conviction in the PCAST that we need a new energy source. The PCAST panel is composed of members very familiar with the subject of energy needs, including international issues. They had very strong convictions on this matter.

Steve Rosen asked if the committee considered how much the 2025 goal would slip at the $320/yr. funding level. Prof. Conn was not able to answer that yet.

Dr. Baker asked if PCAST had assumed that the budget would have to rise from $320M some time in the future. In order to complete the mission of the program, the funding level would have to increase, but the time frame exceeds the 10-year planning horizon of the panel.

Bill Ellis asked what is the reaction to the ITER Council decision not to change the mission of ITER, as compared with the PCAST recommendation. Prof. Conn noted that the U.S. can't continue with ITER as currently structured. The current budget projections are even worse than the PCAST level of $320M.

Larry Papay indicated that we need to express our commitment to go forward with ITER.

John McCann asked if the recommendation to continue TFTR suggests upgrades or changes to the machine. Prof. Conn answered that the $50M/yr. budget is for operating expenses, and does not include modifications.

Steve Rosen asked if dropping the Technology Phase of ITER would extend the schedule to reach Demo. Will we need another intermediate machine? Undoubtedly the answer is yes.

Jack Kaslow asked if we change ITER, then how much of the design work would have to be redone. Charlie Baker mentioned that ITER has worked well because each partner came to their own conclusions that it should be done. The U.S. has told ITER through PCAST that we can't go forward as planned. The partners need to consider this and their own situations. They will require some time to digest these changes and be prepared to talk about them. Bob Conn indicated that the partners have incorrectly assumed that the PCAST report is an attempt to change the ITER project. The recommendation to enter into negotiations with our international partners is not meant to suggest an outcome. There are several possibilities, including reduced participation by the U.S. in an ITER program as currently envisioned.

Larry Papay said that Senator Domenici also felt that a scenario for reduced US funding in the context of the full ITER project might lead to the same result as SSC, and that this is a serious concern.

Ira Adler asked if the committee had considered what would happen if the president does not provide a commitment to fusion. Without high-level support, the program is likely to continue to slide.

Larry Papay indicated that the budget would probably be at the $200M level and decline.

John McCann asked if there was any way our ITER partners could influence our government. Charlie Baker answered that some letters from high-level people in the international community may be forthcoming.

Bob Conn indicated that DOE support for the PCAST proposal is lacking. Without this support, it will be difficult to push through any commitment to fusion.

John McCann asked if the panel believes that energy supply is a problem. Prof. Conn indicated that the panel believes the U.S. has a false sense of security regarding energy, and is also not sensitive to the concerns of other countries regarding energy security. Energy has been and likely will be a source of international tension and possibly wars, and it is in the best interest of the U.S. to consider energy supply more seriously.

Jack Kaslow asked Ira Adler if he could comment on the long-term prospects and possibility of more stable funding. Dr. Adler gave a detailed explanation of the budget process and out-year prospects for fusion, which are not good.

UPDATE ON ITER ACTIVITY

Dr. Baker noted that the ITER Interim Design Report, Cost Review, Safety Analysis, and Report on Site Requirements were issued in June 1995 and will lead to a Detailed Report on these issues planned for December 1996. He reviewed the status of the technical activities and distributed detailed documents.

John McCann asked if tritium supply is a pacing factor for ITER. The need for tritium comes mainly from the "technology phase", which is far down the road and does not affect the near-term program pace.

Steve Rosen and John McCann asked for elaboration on what are the real safety concerns for evacuation and what safety systems are included. Both tritium and activation products are important considerations. A pressure suppression pool probably would be included, but safety-quality shut-down systems are not envisioned.

DISCUSSION OF SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

Steve Rosen raised the issue of the UAC work having been referenced in the fusion safety standard. Some of the statements relating to the ability of ITER to meet the "no evacuation" requirement were particularly a subject of discussion. The committee felt it was important to make their position on this matter clear.

1. The committee reiterated its position of supporting a "no- evacuation" policy, consistent with favorable safety performance for fusion as described in the criteria document.

2. The committee is concerned that ITER may set a precedent if it applies relaxed safety requirements. Future commercial plants may not be able to make maximum advantage of the essential beneficial features of fusion if the regulatory structure is somehow established by ITER.

3. The UAC is reluctant to abandon the safety goals specified in the criteria document. They do not endorse a "waiver" of the safety requirements for ITER. Rather, they encourage ITER to attempt to meet the "no evacuation" goal. They can envision why ITER may need to relax their requirements. However, commercial power plants should retain the higher goal.

ITER AND DEMO SITE POWER REQUIREMENTS

Dr. Neumeyer now has a total of six utility responses to his survey, updating the presentation of previous UAC meetings.

He concluded that the reactive power needed to control the ITER plasma may be as high as +200 or -100 MW. Steve Rosen commented that this seems to be a lot of effort to keep the plasma going. He had thought that, once established, the plasma would burn more quiescently.

The electric grid on the east coast and west coast of the U.S. is "stiff" enough to handle ITER loads. The Texas grid probably is not. There is some question whether Europe and Japan could handle ITER on their grids. Japan probably would have to build additional capacity. England, France, and some other countries in Europe probably could handle it. It depends a lot on the quality of the interconnects ("tie- lines") and controls on the grid. The possible need/value of on-site energy storage was discussed.

STARLITE UPDATE

Prof. Najmabadi gave a brief overview of the present status of the Starlite Tokamak Demo Project, delegating the time slot to presentations by Dr. Tillack and Dr. Miller.

Dr. Tillack, on the basis of his extended European visit, reported on the European DEMO blanket Development Programme. The EU blanket program is well-organized and much larger than the U.S. program. It supports laboratory R&D efforts in Germany, Italy and France. The goal of the nearly completed 5-year development effort is to down-select two out of four blanket options for further development and testing in ITER. The four options are: (1) He- cooled solid breeder with Breeder-In-Tube (BIT) configuration, (2) He-cooled solid breeder with Breeder-Outside Tube (BOT) configuration, (3) water-cooled with semi-stagnant Pb-17Li Breeder, and (4) dual (He and PbLi) cooled with flowing Pb-17Li Breeder. MANET (MArtensitic steel for NET) is the structural material chosen a priori for all designs. The EU approach is significantly different from the U.S. approach in that it rolls forward from present knowledge and anticipated ITER tests. The set of design goals was developed by an ad hoc group, and is not based on a comprehensive systems analysis of the requirements. In particular, the EU definition of a "DEMO" does not include requirements nearly as aggressive as the Starlite project has defined Ð particularly in the area of economic competitiveness.

Dr. Miller presented the approach used in the Starlite cost projections. Distinctions between the costing of the first of a kind (FOAK) Demo and the commercial power plant include a possible longer construction lead time, the absence of learning-curve credits, higher contingency costs, and special arrangements consistent with a Demo-specific utility-government financial partnership to spread risk. Cost considerations are used within the project in an iterative manner to guide the design process toward an optimal tokamak Demo as reported results interface with the external world of energy forecasting and policy determination, with implications for the planning of the magnetic fusion R&D program. A coherent linkage between the Demo and the subsequent commercial tokamak power plant is established in response to the present perception of future energy market requirements and goals.

MATERIALS PROGRAM

Dr. Wiffen gave an extended overview of the U.S. program in advanced materials and irradiation facilities. Development of low activation structure material (e.g. V and SiC-composites) are acknowledged to be important to the future Demo. An accelerator- based International Fusion Materials Neutron Source (IFMIS) is undergoing conceptual design with the regime of 14-MeV neutron flux ~ 2 MW/m² and fluence ~ 100 dpa in a few years at 70% availability. The program is responsive to several PCAST priorities.

FUSION FILM PROJECT

Mrs. John DeBello and Michael Bayer of Four Square Productions, Inc., a San Diego film production company, presented a status report on their work-in-progress "STARPOWER," an IMAX-format project on the subject of fusion.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the UAC was tentatively anticipated for December 4-5, 1995, subject to evolving budget and program strategy situations then prevailing. There is some interest in broadening the scope of interest to include Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) issues.

Appendix I:
Meeting Attendees

Ira Adler                   DOE                         301-903-3347
Charles Baker               UCSD/ITER                   619-534-4971
Robert Conn                 UCSD                        619-534-6237
Terrence Davies             UCSD/ITER                   619-534-9830
Steve Dean                  FPA                         301-258-0545
William Dove                DOE/OFE                     301-903-4598
Bill Ellis                  Raytheon                    212-839-3398
Tom James                   UCSD/ITER                   619-534-6544
Jack Kaslow                 EPRI                        603-894-6345
Grant Logan                 LLNL                        510-422-9816
John McCann                 Con Edison                  914-734-5566
Wayne Meier                 LLNL                        510-422-8536
Ronald Miller               UCSD                        619-534-7842
Bill Muston                 TU Services                 214-812-8407
Farrokh Najmabadi           UCSD                        619-534-7869
Charles 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
Dai-Kai Sze                 ANL                         708-252-4838
Mark Tillack                UCSD                        619-534-7897
Lester M. Waganer           McDonnell Douglas Corp.     314-233-8617
Bill Wiffen                 DOE/OFE                     301-903-4963
Clement Wong                General Atomics             619-455-4258

Monday, July 31, 1995

 9:30 AM   Introduction and Welcome                        Robert Conn (UCSD)
 9:15 AM   Approval of Minutes of February 16-17, 1995 Meeting
 9:30 AM   DOE Update                                      I. Adler (DOE)
10:30 AM   Presentation to PCAST                           S. Rosen (HL&P)
11:00 AM   PCAST Fusion Panel Summary                      R. Conn (UCSD)

LUNCH - 12:00 NOON-1:00 PM

 1:00 PM   PCAST Fusion Panel Summary (Continued)          R. Conn (UCSD)
 2:00 PM   Update on ITER Activity                         C. Baker (UCSD)
 3:00 PM   ITER & Demo Site Power Requirements II          S. Rosen/
                                                           W. Ellis/C. Neumeyer
 3:30 PM   Materials Program:  Facilities Used and Needed  B. Wiffen (DOE)
 4:30 PM   Four Square Productions - IMAX Film Project "Starpower"

ADJOURN - 5:00 PM

Tuesday, August 1, 1995
 9:00 AM   Materials Program:  Facilities Used and Needed 
           (Continued)                                     B. Wiffen (DOE)
10:00 AM   Starlite Update                                 F. Najmabadi (UCSD)
11:00 AM   Discussion and Meeting Summary
	   a.	Selection of Items for Next Meeting
	   b.	Date and Location of Next Meeting

ADJOURN - NOON

Top of the page.