Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Study of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems SUPPORTING PAPER 3 CONTROLLED NUCLEAR FUSION: CURRENT RESEARCH AND POTENTIAL PROGRESS The Report of the Fusion Assessment Resource Group . Supply and Delivery Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems National Research Council NAS-NAE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES WASHINGTON, D.C. 1978 NQV £0 1978 LIBRARY
International Standard Book Number 0-309-02863-9 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 78-7l304 Available from: Office of Publications National Academy of Sciences 2l0l Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 204l8 Printed in the United States of America ii
PREFACE In June l975, the National Research Council (NRC) undertook a comprehen- sive study of the nation's prospective energy economy during the period l985-20l0, with special attention to the role of nuclear power among the alternative energy systems. The goal of the study is to assist the Amer- ican people and government in formulating energy policy. The Governing Board of the National Research Council appointed an NRC-wide Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems (CONAES) to conduct the study. CONAES consists of l5 members drawn from diverse disciplines and backgrounds. The committee developed a three-tiered functional structure for the study. The first tier is CONAES itself. The ultimate findings, judgments, and conclusions of the study will be embodied in its final report. To provide scientific and engineering data and analyses, a second tier of four panels was formed to examine (l) energy demand and conser- vation, (2) energy supply and delivery systems, (3) risks and impacts of energy supply and use, and (4) syntheses of diverse models of future energy economies, respectively. Each panel, in turn, established a number of resource groupsâ22 in allâas the third tier, to address in detail an array of more particular matters, such as buildings and trans- portation systems, solar energy, breeder reactors, coal technologies, health and environmental implications, and alternative consumption pat- terns and economic models. In all, more than 200 informed individuals served on or contributed to the work of the panels and resource groups. The National Research Council customarily publishes only the final reports of its committeesâand then only after the report has been reviewed by a group other than its authors according to procedures ap- proved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Insti- tute of Medicine. However, because such a large volume of information and analyses was assembled for consideration by the committee, and be- cause of the diversity and scope of that information and the accompanying judgments, the panel reports and approximately l0 reports by the resource groups are being published as supporting papers. Each of these has been considered and used by CONAES but has not undergone the critical review procedure normal to the NRC. The report of the Fusion Resource Group has, however, been subjected to a thorough and expert peer review for accuracy, consistency, and clarity. iii
It must be recognized that some conclusions of the panel and resource group reports may be at variance with the conclusions of the CONAES re- port. The findings reported in these documents are those of their authors and are not necessarily endorsed by CONAES or the National Research Council. This report covers the work of the Supply and Delivery Panel's Fusion Assessment Resource Group. The report was designed to inform the Panel and CONAES of the current state of fusion technology and to provide an estimate of its future progress. It is published, with the other support- ing papers, to enhance the general understanding of the intricate and wide-ranging implications of energy in the coming decades and to acquaint the reader with the variety and complexity of the material with which CONAES has had to deal. iv
COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS HARVEY BROOKS (Co-Chairman), Benjamin Peirce Professor of Technology and Public Policy, Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard University. EDWARD L. GINZTON (Co-Chairman), Chairman of the Board, Varian Associates. KENNETH E. BOULDING, Professor of Economics, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado. ROBERT H. CANNON, JR., Chairman, Division of Engineering and Applied Science, California Institute of Technology. RICHARD R. DOELL, Research Geophysicist, U.S. Geological Survey (Retired l976). OTIS DUDLEY DUNCAN, Professor of Sociology, University of Arizona.* EDWARD J. GORNOWSKI, Executive Vice President, Exxon Research and Engineering Company. JOHN P. HOLDREN, Professor, Energy and Resources Program, University of California at Berkeley. HENDRIK S. HOUTHAKKER, Henry Lee Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, Harvard University. HENRY I. KOHN, Professor, Radiation Biology, Shields Warren Radiation Laboratory. STANLEY J. LEWAND, Vice President, Public Utilities Division, The Chase Manhattan Bank. LUDWIG F. LISCHER, Vice President of Engineering, Commonwealth Edison Company. *Resigned from CONAES l978.
JOHN C. NEESS, Professor of Zoology, University of Wisconsin. DAVID ROSE, Professor, Nuclear Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. DAVID SIVE, Attorney at Law, Winer, Neuberger and Sive. BERNARD I. SPINRAD, Professor, Nuclear Engineering, Radiation Center, Oregon State University. VI
CONAES SUPPLY/DELIVERY PANEL W. KENNETH DAVIS (Chairman), Vice President, Bechtel Power Corporation. FLOYD L. CULLER (Deputy Chairman), President, Electric Power Research Institute. DONALD G. ALLEN, President, Yankee Atomic Electric Company. PETER L. AUER, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University. JAMES BOYD, Consultant, Washington, D.C. HERMAN M. DIECKAMP, President, General Public Utilities. DEREK P. GREGORY, Assistant Vice President, Energy Systems Research, Institute of Gas Technology. ROBERT C. GUNNESS, Former Vice Chairman & President, Standard Oil Company of Indiana. JOHN W. LANDIS, Senior Vice President, Stone and Webster Engineering. MILTON LEVENSON, Director, Nuclear Power Division, Electric Power Research Institute. ERIC H. REICHL, President, Conoco Coal Development Company. MELVIN K. SIMMONS, Assistant Director, Solar Energy Research Institute. MORTON C. SMITH, University of California, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. A. C. STANOJEV, Vice President, Ebasco Services Inc. vii
FUSION ASSESSMENT RESOURCE GROUP PETER L. AUER, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University. KEITH BRUECKNER,* Professor, Physics Department, University of California, at La Jolla. SOL J. BUCHSBAUM,** Vice President, Network Planning & Customer Services, Bell Laboratory. WILLIAM C. GOUGH, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the Manager. HENRY HURWITZ, JR., General Electric Research and Development Center. GERALD KULCINSKI, Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of Wisconsin. MICHAEL LOTKER, Energy Consulting Division, Booz, Allen and Hamilton. MARSHALL N. ROSENBLUTH, Professor, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University. DON STEINER, Fusion Energy Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. *Keith Brueckner participated in a major way on the assessment of inertial confinement, but did not play a role in the assessment of magnetic confinement. **Sol Buchsbaum was unable to participate physically in the work of this resource group, but did offer valuable advice on a number of occasions. viii
CONTENTS BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1 Fusion, a Form of Nuclear Energy l Fusion Fuel Cycles 2 Fusion Applications 3 METHODS OF APPROACH 5 Magnetic Confinement 5 Inertial Confinement 7 PROSPECTS FOR MAGNETIC CONFINEMENT 9 Scientific Feasibility 9 Engineering Feasibility ll PROSPECTS FOR INERTIAL CONFINEMENT l4 Scientific Feasibility l4 Engineering Feasibility l5 TECHNOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF D-T FUSION l7 The Power Balance l7 The Tokamak Reactor Concept l7 The Mirror Reactor Concept l9 The Inertial-Confinement Reactor Concept 20 Reactor Design Requirements 20 Materials Consideration 22 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH PURE D-T FUSION 24 Routine Releases 24 Reactor Safety and Waste Disposal 24 Thermal Effects 26 Resource Requirements 26 Alternative Fusion Fuels 27 ix
OTHER APPLICATIONS OF FUSION 29 Fissile Fuel Production 29 Chemical Fuel Production 3l Nuclear Waste Disposal 3l Summary 32 CONCLUSIONS 33 Summary 36 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 37 APPENDIX: FUSION-FISSION HYBRID AND ACCELERATOR BREEDING CONCEPTS 4 5