Fusion Power Associates|
2 Professional Drive, Suite 248
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
phone: (301) 258-0545
fax: (301) 975-9869
January 29, 1998
U. S. to Press for ITER Options
In spite of the good news on ITER design and costing, U.S. Department of Energy officials announced at a meeting of its Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) on January 22 that it had begun to press the other Parties (Europe, Japan and Russia) to "evaluate possibilities for reducing the cost of ITER by reducing detailed technical objectives." A FESAC panel that reported last October 20 (FPN97-27) recommended that the U.S. fusion program should "undertake design efforts on lower cost fusion-energy-producing plasma concepts" and they said, "We believe that it is prudent for the international community to examine options that involve reconsideration of the fundamental trade-offs between cost, risk and mission," saying, "These options provide a contingency plan that will be necessary in the event that the financial commitments cannot be secured for the full-mission ITER."
In remarks to the FESAC January 22, DOE Director of Energy Research, Martha Krebs, said "We and our partners are coming to the view that, in case we are financially unable to proceed to the construction of the current design, we should plan to evaluate possibilities for reducing the cost of ITER by reducing detailed technical objectives. I am pleased to say that we are having productive discussions with our ITER partners on such an approach to the continuation of ITER activities. At the next ITER Council meeting, we will discuss formation of a working group to define and evaluate options for a reduced cost ITER."
U.S. fusion program leader, N. Anne Davies, told the FESAC meeting that a fusion community workshop to consider a broad range of ITER options would be held in Madison, Wisconsin, April 20-24.
For its part, the ITER Technical Advisory Committee will say that, in its opinion, the ITER design and accompanying technical data would be sufficient to allow a construction decision to be taken immediately after the presently scheduled end to the EDA (July 1998).
The following is a written statement on ITER distributed by Krebs at the FESAC meeting:
"International cooperation is, and will continue to be, a vital part of our fusion program. Given any credible budget projection, it is also essential to our ability to participate in large scale experiments and to advance the energy portion of the fusion program. I hope to both continue our ITER cooperation, and to expand our cooperation with our partners in other areas. In particular, I would like to see us work together to define development paths to fusion energy -- perhaps a version of our domestic "roadmaps" and to expand our program of cooperation on large machines.
"The ITER framework has proven to be a valuable focusing element in our program both in terms of the technical product and the process by which we work together. We want to continue participation in this process as long as it promises to meet our needs.
"The current ITER design is technically excellent, and I want to compliment the ITER Director, Dr. Aymar, and his supporting teams for producing a design that meets all the specific scientific and engineering objectives set out at the beginning. It was a difficult task, and one that has been very valuable to the progress of fusion -- in fully defining this design, Dr. Aymar has forced the fusion community worldwide to solve many of the specific problems associated with building a fusion reactor to create and control energy producing plasmas.
"Since the beginning of the ITER EDA in 1992, there have been substantial changes in the ability of the ITER partners to finance a project of this magnitude. The funding for the fusion programs of Russia and the United States has been greatly reduced and the expectation that they would fund a substantial portion of ITER construction is in question. Europe and Japan may not be able to make up the shortfall, particularly given the current economic situation.
"We and our partners are coming to the view that, in case we are financially unable to proceed to the construction of the current design, we should plan to evaluate possibilities for reducing the cost of ITER by reducing detailed technical objectives.
"I am please to say that we are having productive discussions with our ITER partners on such an approach to the continuation of the ITER activities. At the next ITER Council meeting, we will discuss formation of a working group to define and evaluate options for a reduced cost ITER.
"I would emphasize that this evaluation of options would be in addition to the tasks already defined for the next phase of ITER, such as site specific designs, interactions with regulators and prototype testing."