Cooperation and Competition on the Path to Fusion Energy A Report (1984) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pages 63-70
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 63... ...
The various meetings identified three qualitatively different paths to fusion energy that lie open to the United States. The first is to support in a domestic program the full range of research, development, and prototype plant construction efforts that are needed to optimize the chances for successful fusion power generation, seeking all-out competitive advantage with respect to other world programs, simple parity with them, or somewhere in between.
|
From page 64... ...
The United States, the European Community, and Japan have major programs in magnetically confined fusion that are, currently, similar enough in status and objectives to provide a technical and programmatic basis for future major collaboration. On the basis of
|
From page 65... ...
We found a receptivity to the idea of large-scale international collaboration at both the program leadership and political levels. If one considers that each of the three major programs -- in the United States, the European Community, and Japan -- may well include an engineering reactor and a demonstration reactor (although the latter is not considered in the United States to be a government responsibility)
|
From page 66... ...
There are a number of nontechnical factors that could inhibit large-scale international collaboration unless overcome. The United States is perceived as being an "unreliable partner" based on previous experiences in space sciences, synthetic fuels, and, to some extent, fusion itself.
|
From page 67... ...
Furthermore, there is a precedent of generally successful international cooperation on a modest scale in fusion. These precedents include long-standing information and personnel exchanges, the bilateral agreement between Japan and the United States, the trilateral agreements under the International Energy Agency, and the workshops on the International Tokamak Reactor.
|
From page 68... ...
As a minimum, multiple year contracts and carefully controlled off-budget financing could help. Inasmuch as large devices are prime candidates for international collaboration, the United States should promptly formulate its position with respect to next-generation tokamak experiments relative to the Next European Torus in the European Community and the Fusion Experimental Reactor in Japan.
|
From page 69... ...
It seems self-evident that the United States should not advocate in these meetings what it cannot deliver. Although the United States, the European Community, or Japan might well take the lead in proposing increased collaboration, the committee believes that, because the United States is currently reexamining its program, the initiatives could be taken with greater ease from this side.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.