Cooperation and Competition on the Path to Fusion Energy A Report (1984) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF TRIP TO JAPAN
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF TRIP TO JAPAN
Pages 99-112
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 99... ...
Richardson, of the committee staff. The group met in Tokyo with officials of the Science and Technology Agency; the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture; the Ministry of International Trade and Industry; the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute; the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum; and the Nuclear Fusion Council of the Atomic Energy Commission.
|
From page 100... ...
M Kawata, Director-General, Agency of Industrial Science and Technology, Ministry of International Traoe and Industry, Tokyo Meeting with Members of Japan Atomic Industrial Forum Fusion Committee, representing Hitachi, Toshiba, Mitsubishi, and Tokyo Electric Power Company, at Tokai University Club, Tokyo Wednesday, April 11 Briefing of JAERI Fusion Activities by Dr.
|
From page 101... ...
T Miyajima, Chairman, Nuclear Fusion Council, Japan Atomic Energy Commission, at JAERI Headquarters, Tokyo FIGURE 3 Japanese itinerary (continued)
|
From page 102... ...
The Japanese approach to the development of fusion contemplates only one device, the Fusion Experimental Reactor (FER) , between JT-60 and a fusion power demonstration reactor (DEMO)
|
From page 103... ...
The purpose of FER is not only to demonstrate plasma ignition and burning, but also to provide a facility for testing and demonstrating fusion technology. The current JAERI plan is to construct FER on the Naka site, with a decision in the late l980s, after JT-60 results are evaluated, to initiate construction.
|
From page 104... ...
Apparently there is a tacit agreement that any new alternate concept magnetic confinement experiment will be located at IPP. The Monbusho program accounted in l98l for 22 percent of the budget, about a third of which was allocated to the inertial confinement program at Osaka University.
|
From page 105... ...
o Nuclear Fusion Council members indicated that international cooperation must play a larger role than they had previously thought, presumably because of Japanese financial constraints. The Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF)
|
From page 106... ...
policy and inadequate planning and erratic changes in direction at the fusion program management level were cited as major concerns, under the polite term of "flexibility." It was made clear that the strongest possible implementing agreement, perhaps a treaty, would be necessary if the Japanese were to undertake a major collaboration with the United States. In discussions with the JAERI program leaders a distinction was drawn between collaboration and cooperation.
|
From page 107... ...
COLLABORATION ON MAJOR FUSION PROJECTS International cooperation must not impair the national programs. Extensive collaborative projects will have to satisfy the national programmatic objectives of the participating nations.
|
From page 108... ...
The Japanese technical leaders have a uniformly negative view about an experiment with only plasma physics objectives, such as some TFCX options, as an appropriate next-step experiment. They believe that engineering and technology objectives must have a major role in their next-step experiment.
|
From page 109... ...
COOPERATION ON BASIC RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY, AND ALTERNATIVE CONFINEMENT CONCEPTS The U.S.-Japan joint agreement for cooperation in fusion appears to be an adequate mechanism for establishing further cooperative activities in basic science and technology and in research on alternative confinement concepts. One university group would appreciate a recommendation from the committee to increase collaboration at the university level.
|
From page 110... ...
The attitude was that no joint planning had really been done to date, but that there existed a possibility in the l985-1988 time period for useful joint planning. No existing organization, such as the International Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency, is really suitable to manage international collaboration.
|
From page 111... ...
there was an obvious (and well-prepared) reluctance to discuss any alternative that extended beyond the explicit policies expressed in the Atomic Energy Commission planning document of l982.
|
From page 112... ...
Participants in this workshop should be permanent, so as to establish continuity, and should have the stature and background to address the technical and administrative aspects. A cooperative and collaborative program of the type suggested by the JAERI leaders would work to the long-term disadvantage of the United States because the Japanese would gain a disproportionate share of the valuable industrial experience relevant to a next-generation machine.
|
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.