Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
1
2 An Assessment of the Prospects for Inertial Fusion Energy
3
4
5
6 PREPUBLICATION COPY—
7 SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
8
9 EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL
10 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2013 AT 11:00 A.M. EST
11
12
13
14 Committee on the Prospects for Inertial Confinement Fusion Energy Systems
15 Board on Physics and Astronomy
16 Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
17 Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
25 Washington, D.C.
26 www.nap.edu
27
OCR for page R2
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
28 THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
29
30 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
31 National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of
32 Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the
33 committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for
34 appropriate balance.
35
36 Support for this project was provided by Contract 10NA001274 between the National Academy of
37 Sciences and the Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Administration. Any opinions,
38 findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do
39 not necessarily reflect the views of the agencies that provided support for the project.
40
41 International Standard Book Number-13: XXX-X-XXX-XXXXX-X
42 International Standard Book: X-XXX-XXXXX-X
43
44 Copies of this report are available free of charge from:
45
46 Board on Physics and Astronomy
47 National Research Council
48 The Keck Center of the National Academies
49 500 Fifth Street, NW
50 Washington, DC 20001
51
52 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW,
53 Keck 360, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 http://www.nap.edu.
54
55 Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
56
57 Printed in the United States of America
58
59
OCR for page R3
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
60
61
62 The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished
63 scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and
64 technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the
65 Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on
66 scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
67
68 The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
69 Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
70 administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
71 responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors
72 engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and
73 recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National
74 Academy of Engineering.
75
76 The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
77 services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to
78 the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
79 Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own
80 initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president
81 of the Institute of Medicine.
82
83 The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to
84 associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering
85 knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies
86 determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National
87 Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government,
88 the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both
89 Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and
90 vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
91
92
93 www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
94
95
OCR for page R5
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
96 COMMITTEE ON THE PROSPECTS FOR INERTIAL CONFINEMENT FUSION
97 ENERGY SYSTEMS
98
99
100 RONALD C. DAVIDSON, Princeton University, Co-Chair
101 GERALD L. KULCINSKI, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Co-Chair
102 CHARLES BAKER, University of California, San Diego (retired)
103 ROGER BANGERTER, E. O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (retired)
104 RICCARDO BETTI, University of Rochester
105 JAN BEYEA, Consulting in the Public Interest
106 ROBERT L. BYER, Stanford University
107 FRANKLIN CHANG-DIAZ, Ad Astra Rocket Company
108 STEVEN C. COWLEY, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
109 RICHARD L. GARWIN, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
110 DAVID A. HAMMER, Cornell University
111 JOSEPH S. HEZIR, EOP Group, Inc.
112 KATHRYN McCARTHY, Idaho National Laboratory
113 LAWRENCE T. PAPAY, PQR, LLC
114 KEN SCHULTZ, General Atomics [Retired]
115 ANDREW M. SESSLER, E. O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
116 JOHN SHEFFIELD, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
117 THOMAS A. TOMBRELLO, JR., California Institute of Technology
118 DENNIS G. WHYTE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
119 JONATHAN S. WURTELE, University of California, Berkeley
120 ROSA YANG, Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
121
122 MALCOLM McGEOCH, Consultant, PLEX, LLC
123
124
125 Staff
126
127 DAVID LANG, Program Officer, Board on Physics and Astronomy, Study Director
128 GREG EYRING, Program Officer, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
129 TERI THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator, Board on Physics and Astronomy
130 JONATHAN YANGER, Senior Project Assistant, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
131 ERIN BOYD, Christine Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Graduate Fellow (January-April, 2011)
132 SARAH NELSON-WILK, Christine Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Graduate Fellow
133 (January-April, 2012)
134
135
136
137 DONALD C. SHAPERO, Director, Board on Physics and Astronomy
138 JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
139
140
v
OCR for page R6
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
141 BOARD ON PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY
142
143 PHILIP H. BUCKSBAUM, Stanford University, Chair
144 DEBRA M. ELMEGREEN, Vassar College, Vice Chair
145 RICCARDO BETTI, University of Rochester
146 ADAM S. BURROWS, Princeton University
147 TODD DITMIRE, University of Texas
148 NATHANIEL J. FISCH, Princeton University
149 PAUL FLEURY, Yale University
150 S. JAMES GATES, University of Maryland
151 LAURA H. GREENE, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
152 MARTHA P. HAYNES, Cornell University
153 MARK B. KETCHEN, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
154 MONICA OLVERA de la CRUZ, Northwestern University
155 PAUL SCHECHTER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
156 BORIS SHRAIMAN, Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics
157 MICHAEL S. TURNER, University of Chicago
158 ELLEN D. WILLIAMS, BP International
159 MICHAEL WITHERELL, University of California, Santa Barbara
160
161 JAMES LANCASTER, Director
162 DONALD C. SHAPERO, Senior Scholar
163 DAVID LANG, Program Officer
164 CARYN JOY KNUTSEN, Associate Program Officer
165 TERI THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator
166 BETH DOLAN, Financial Associate
167
vi
OCR for page R7
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
168 BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
169
170 ANDREW BROWN, JR., Delphi Corporation, Chair
171 WILLIAM BANHOLZER, The Dow Chemical Company
172 MARILYN BROWN, Georgia Institute of Technology
173 WILLIAM CAVANAUGH, Progress Energy (retired), Raleigh, North Carolina
174 PAUL A. DECOTIS, Long Island Power Authority
175 CHRISTINE EHLIG-ECONOMIDES, Texas A&M University, College Station
176 SHERRI GOODMAN, CNA, Alexandria, Virginia
177 NARAIN HINGORANI, Consultant, San Mateo, California
178 ROBERT J. HUGGETT, College of William and Mary (retired), Seaford, Virginia
179 DEBBIE A. NIEMEIER, University of California at Davis
180 DANIEL NOCERA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
181 MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER, Princeton University
182 DAN REICHER, Stanford University
183 BERNARD ROBERTSON, DaimlerChrysler Corporation (retired), Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
184 GARY ROGERS, FEV, Inc., Auburn Hills, Michigan
185 ALISON SILVERSTEIN, Consultant, Pflugerville, Texas
186 MARK THIEMENS, University of California at San Diego
187 RICHARD WHITE, Oppenheimer & Company, New York
188
189 JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Senior Board/Program Director
190 DANA CAINES, Financial Associate
191 DAVID COOKE, Research Associate
192 ALAN CRANE, Senior Scientist
193 JOHN HOLMES, Senior Program Officer/Associate Director
194 LaNITA JONES, Administrative Coordinator
195 ALICE WILLIAMS, Senior Project Assistant
196 JONATHAN YANGER, Senior Project Assistant
197
vii
OCR for page R8
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
198
199
viii
OCR for page R9
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
200
201 Preface
202 Recent scientific and technological progress in inertial confinement fusion (ICF), together with
203 the campaign for achieving the important milestone of ignition on the National Ignition Facility
204 (NIF), motivated the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of the Under Secretary for Science
205 to request that the National Research Council (NRC) undertake a study to assess the prospects
206 for inertial fusion energy (IFE) and provide advice on the preparation of a research and
207 development (R&D) roadmap leading to an IFE demonstration plant. The statement of task for
208 the full NRC study is given below.
209 The Committee will prepare a report that will:
210 • Assess the prospects for generating power using inertial confinement fusion;
211 • Identify scientific and engineering challenges, cost targets, and R&D objectives
212 associated with developing an IFE demonstration plant; and
213 • Advise the U.S. Department of Energy on its development of an R&D roadmap
214 aimed at creating a conceptual design for an inertial fusion energy demonstration
215 plant.
216 In response to this request, the National Research Council established the Committee on the
217 Prospects for Inertial Confinement Fusion Energy Systems. As part of the study, the sponsor also
218 requested that the NRC provide an interim report to assist it in formulating its budget request for
219 future budget cycles (see Appendix B). This interim report had a limited scope and was released
220 in March 2012. 1
221 The committee’s final report represents the consensus of the committee after six meetings (see
222 Appendix C for the meeting agendas). The first four meetings were concerned mainly with
223 information gathering through presentations, while the final two meetings focused on carrying
224 out a detailed analysis of the many important topics needed to complete the committee’s
225 assessment.
226 This report describes and assesses the current status of inertial fusion energy research in the
227 United States, identifies the scientific and engineering challenges associated with developing
228 inertial confinement fusion as an energy source, compares the various technical approaches, and,
229 finally, provides guidance on an R&D roadmap at the conceptual level for a national program
230 aimed at the design and construction of an inertial fusion energy demonstration plant, including
231 approximate estimates, where possible, of the funding required at each stage. At the outset of the
232 study, the committee decided that the fusion-fission hybrid concept was outside the scope of the
1
National Research Council, Interim Report—Status of the Study "An Assessment of the Prospects for
Inertial Fusion Energy,” The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., (2012). Available at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13371.
ix
OCR for page R10
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
233 study. While they are certainly interesting subjects of study, a comparison of inertial fusion
234 energy to magnetic fusion energy or any other potential or available energy technologies (such as
235 wind or nuclear fission) was also outside the committee’s purview.
236 Although the committee carried out its work in an unclassified environment, it was recognized
237 that some of the research relevant to the prospects for inertial fusion energy has been conducted
238 under the auspices of the nation’s nuclear weapons program, and has been classified. Therefore,
239 the NRC established the separate Panel on the Assessment of Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF)
240 Targets to explore the extent to which past and ongoing classified research affects the prospects
241 for practical inertial fusion energy systems. The panel was also tasked with analyzing the nuclear
242 proliferation risks associated with IFE; although that analysis was not available for inclusion in
243 the interim report, the committee reviewed the panel’s principal conclusions and
244 recommendations on proliferation, and these are included in the committee’s final report.
245 The target physics panel exchanged unclassified information informally with the committee in
246 the course of the study process, and the committee was aware of the panel’s conclusions and
247 recommendations as they evolved.
248 The panel has produced both a classified and an unclassified report; the timing of the latter was
249 such that the unclassified report was available to inform this committee’s final report; the
250 Summary of the panel’s unclassified report is included in Appendix H. The statement of task for
251 the panel is given in Appendix B and the panel’s meeting agendas appear in Appendix D. The
252 panel’s unclassified report, Assessment of Inertial Confinement Fusion Targets, has been
253 released simultaneously with the committee’s final report.
254 Over the course of the study, the inertial confinement fusion community provided detailed
255 information on the current status and potential prospects for all aspects of IFE. This information
256 and the associated interactions with the community were essential to the committee’s work. The
257 committee recognizes the enormous amount of time and effort that this work represents and
258 thanks the community for its extensive input and help with its task. Finally, we are particularly
259 grateful to the members of this committee who worked so diligently over nearly two years to
260 produce this report.
261 Finally, we would like to express our deep appreciation to the staff at the National Research
262 Council, particularly to David Lang and Greg Eyring, for their highly professional contributions
263 at every stage of the committee's deliberations and preparation of the report. We are truly
264 indebted to them for their insights and extraordinary contributions throughout the entire process.
265
266 Ronald C. Davidson, Co-Chair Gerald L. Kulcinski, Co-Chair
267
268 Committee on the Prospects for Inertial Confinement Fusion Energy Systems
x
OCR for page R11
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
269 Acknowledgment of Reviewers
270 This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives
271 and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review
272 Committee of the National Research Council (NRC). The purpose of this independent review is
273 to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published
274 report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for
275 objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft
276 manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to
277 thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
278 Douglas M. Chapin, MPR Associates
279 Philip Clark, GPU Nuclear Corporation, retired
280 Michael I. Corradini, University of Wisconsin
281 Todd Ditmire, University of Texas, Austin
282 R. Paul Drake, University of Michigan
283 Douglas Eardley, University of California at Santa Barbara
284 Arjun Makhijani, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
285 Gregory Moses, University of Wisconsin
286 Burton Richter, Stanford University
287 Robert H. Socolow, Princeton University
288 Frank N. von Hippel, Princeton University
289 Steven Zinkle, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
290
291 Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and
292 suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they
293 see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by
294 Louis J. Lanzerotti, New Jersey Institute of Technology. Appointed by the NRC, he was
295 responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in
296 accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully
297 considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring
298 committee and the institution.
299
xi
OCR for page R12
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
300
301 Contents
302
303 Summary
304
305 1 Introduction
306
307 2 Status and Challenges for Inertial Fusion Energy Drivers and Targets
308
309 3 Inertial Fusion Energy Technologies
310
311 4 A Roadmap for Inertial Fusion Energy
312
313 Appendixes
314 A: The Basic Science of Inertial Fusion Energy
315 B: Statements of Task
316 C: Agendas for Committee Meetings and Site Visits
317 D: Agendas for Meetings of the Panel on the Assessment of Inertial Confinement Fusion
318 (ICF) Targets
319 E: Bibliography of Previous Inertial Confinement Fusion Studies Consulted by
320 the Committee
321 F: Foreign Inertial Fusion Energy Programs
322 G: Glossary and Acronyms
323 H: Summary from the Report Of The Panel on the Assessment of Inertial Confinement
324 Fusion (ICF) Targets (Unclassified Version)
325 I: Technical Discussion of the Recent Results from the National Ignition Facility
326 J: Detailed Discussion of Technology Applications Event Profiles
327
328
xii
OCR for page R13
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
xiii
