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.
SUMMARY The United States, the European Community, and Japan are actively considering whether worthwhile advantages lie in increased cooperation among their respective programs of research and development in magnetically confined fusion. To help answer that question for the United States, this report examines why cooperation is a policy option, what might be done, and how. LIST OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS For convenient reference the conclusions and recommendations of the study are collected together in this section apart from the arguments that lead up to them. The various supporting arguments are briefly developed at later points in the Summary, whereupon the conclusion or recommendation is stated anew. The most important inferences from the many facts and viewpoints examined by the committee may be expressed in six specific conclusions: o On balance, there are substantial potential benefits of large-scale international collaboration in the development of fusion energy. o A window in time for large-scale international collaboration is now open. o Large-scale international collaboration can be achieved, but not quickly. o International collaboration will require stable international commitments. o There is a host of considerations that must be resolved in the implementation, but these appear workable. o Past cooperation provides a sound basis for future efforts.
Consideration of the above points in the broader context of the status and prospects for magnetic fusion development led the committee to an overall conclusion: / o For the United States in the years ahead, a program including increased international collaboration is preferable to a predominantly domestic program, which would have to command substantial additional resources for the competitive pursuit of fusion energy development or run the risk of forfeiture of equality with other world programs. Having concluded that large-scale international collaboration is the preferable course, the committee makes two recommendations for getting started: o The first priority should be the establishment of a clear set of policies and objectives and a considered program plan for future U.S. fusion activities. o Having carried out the preceding recommendation, the United States should take the lead in consulting with prospective partners to initiate a joint planning effort aimed at large-scale collaboration. THE WORLD'S MAJOR MAGNETIC FUSION PROGRAMS Major magnetic fusion programs are conducted in four areas of the worldâthe United States, the European Community (EC), Japan, and the Soviet Union. The four magnetic fusion programs are of comparable magnitude and are at a comparable stage of development. In each of these programs a "scientific feasibility" experiment based on the most advanced magnetic confinement conceptâthe tokamakâeither has recently started operation (in the United States and the EC) or will start operation within the next one or two years (in Japan and the USSR, respectively). Smaller fusion programs are carried out in several other countries. Broadly speaking, the near-term technical objectives of program planners in the four programs are similar: (l) to maintain a vigorous scientific base program, (2) to initiate a major next-step tokamak experiment, (3) to continue to develop the less mature alternative magnetic confinement concepts, and (4) to expand the fusion technology development program. Pursuit of these objectives is financially constrained, to varying degrees, in each of the four programs. The physics of laboratory plasmas near fusion conditions is primarily an experimental science today. World leadership in fusion generally resides in that country possessing the experimental facilities with the greatest capability to explore the frontiers of plasma physics.
The United States The United States has a strong experimental tokamak program that has established many of the world record plasma physics parameters. Two of these experiments, Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) and Doublet III D, should continue to extend the knowledge of plasma physics for the next five years or so. The United States also has the leading experimental program in the tandem mirror confinement concept, which is the most advanced alternative concept. Smaller programs are going forward in other, less advanced alternative confinement concepts, for example, stellarator, reversed-field pinch, and compact toroid. The United States has a strong program in basic fusion science and has the broadest and longest-established fusion technology program. For the past decade the United States has been the overall world leader in magnetic fusion, although upon occasion other programs have led in particular areas. The European Community The EC program is perceived by its participants to be on the threshold of assuming world leadership in fusion on the basis of a new generation of tokamak experiments, (commonly known by their acronyms as JET, TORE SUPRA, ASDEX-U, and FTU), that will be operating over the next decade. This view is shared by many in the United States. The EC program managers believe that they should maintain their progress toward leadership by constructing a major new tokamak experiment, Next European Torus (NET), to operate in the mid to late l990s. NET has physics objectives of achieving an ignited plasma and a long-burn pulse and, in addition, ambitious technological objectives. Planning and preconceptual design work for NET has been authorized by the Council of Ministers of the European Community and initiated at the technical level; decisions as to whether to proceed to engineering design and to construction are scheduled for l988 and l992, respectively. The EC has programs in the less advanced stellarator and reversed-field pinch alternative concepts. Fusion technology programs are expanding in support of the NET activity. The EC fusion program is carried out in the various national fusion laboratories of its member countries and is partly funded directly by each nation and partly funded by the EC, with only minor participation by European universities. Japan The Japanese fusion program is relatively newer than the other three major programs, but it is moving rapidly toward full parity. The program of the Japanese Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI),
under the Science and Technology Agency, concentrates on the tokamak and on fusion technology. The JT-60 tokamak, which will begin operation within one year, will have confinement capabilities comparable to those of TFTR, although JT-60 is not designed for deuterium-tritium operation. Conceptual design studies are in progress for a new major tokamak experiment, Fusion Experimental Reactor (FER), to operate in the mid to late l990s. FER would have objectives similar to those of NET. The fusion technology program is comparable in strength to the U.S. program, although not so broad. The university fusion program, under the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, has funding comparable to the JAERI base program and conducts basic scientific and technological research that appears even broader than either the EC or U.S. programs. This program investigates several confinement concepts, including tokamak, tandem mirror, stellarator, reversed-field pinch, compact toroid, and bumpy torus. The reversed-field pinch is also being developed under a small program of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry. Of special note is the role of Japanese industry in designing and supplying complete systems to the fusion program; in this respect industrial involvement in Japan is greater than it is in the EC and U.S. programs. The Soviet Union The committee did not look into the fusion program of the Soviet Union. However, it is known that the USSR program is advanced to a level comparable with that of the other three major programs. The USSR program has historically been characterized by strong scientific insight. Past cooperation with the USSR has been technically fruitful and could beneficially be expanded from the rather modest current levels if U.S. policy constraints change. Circumstances may change sufficiently in the future to make renewed scientific cooperation with the USSR desirable from the policy viewpoint of each country, in which case fusion would be a suitable vehicle. Implications for Cooperation Three points made in the foregoing discussion have important implications for increased world cooperation: (l) the programs are at a comparable stage of development, (2) their near- to intermediate-term objectives are similar enough to provide a technical basis for a major expansion of cooperation in the future, and (3) maintaining enough strength to meet national needs will surely be a concern of each program.
PRIOR AND CURRENT COOPERATION An open and informal exchange of scientific information through publications, meetings, and laboratory visits has existed among the United States, Western Europe, Japan, and the USSR since l958, when the subject of magnetic fusion was declassified. The U.S. exchange with Western Europe has been the most extensive, probably because of cultural and political similarities. A formal bilateral agreement with Japan has covered many cooperative activities over the past few years. For example, Japan is contributing approximately $70 million over a five-year period to upgrade the Doublet III tokamak experiment and about $2 million per year to the operation of the Rotating Target Neutron Source II in the United States, as well as sending experimental teams to work on those facilities. In addition, there has been extensive exchange of personnel on other projects and on joint planning activities. There exist formal multilateral agreements among the United States, Japan, and the EC for several cooperative activities under the aegis of the International Energy Agency (IEA). The United States, Japan, the EC, and USSR, under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), are cooperating in the International Tokamak Reactor (commonly known by its acronym INTOR) Workshop on conceptual design of a possible next-step tokamak experiment. The United States and USSR have exchanged personnel and visiting delegations of scientists under formal agreements dating from the l973 Nixon-Brezhnev accord. Previous cooperative undertakings in fusion have been substantial and generally successful. The participants generally believe that they benefited from the cooperation. The technical and program leaders in the U.S., EC, Japanese, and USSR fusion programs have come to know and respect each other through many years of open professional and social contact. This rapport provides an unusual and unique basis to build upon in negotiating and carrying out cooperative activities. This background is important enough to the issue that it should be expressed as a conclusion: o Past cooperation provides a sound basis for future efforts. TECHNICAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREASED COOPERATION As the major fusion programs progress toward larger experiments and expanded technology development, there will be opportunities for increased benefit through enhanced international cooperation. In the following discussion, the term "cooperation" is used as a general one, in the sense of acting with others for mutual benefit on either a small or a large scale. The term "collaboration" is used more
specifically to imply working actively together as approximately equal partners in sizeable enterprises. Major Next-Step Tokamak Experiments The EC and Japan are planning experiments (NET and FER) with ambitious physics and technology objectives. These experiments are intended to be initiated at the end of the l980s, after the essential results from TFTR, JET, and JT-60 are available, and to be operational at the end of the l990s. If the United States initiates a next-step tokamak project within the next several years, then the Japanese and Europeans could be invited to participate in a U.S. project. The Japanese and Europeans might be interested in providing components for the project if those components incorporated technologies that were relevant to their subsequent FER and NET experiments. On the other hand, if a next-step tokamak project is to be delayed beyond the next several years, the United States should explore the possibility of joining with Japan and the EC, on a roughly equal basis, in an international project to plan, design, construct, and operate an experiment with objectives similar to those of FER and NET. The participation could be staged, with decisions on continuation made at the end of each stage. The physics of tokamaks can be also advanced by experiments on intermediate-level devices with special characteristics, such as TEXTOR, ASDEX-U, and TORE SUPRA. Experiments like these offer technical opportunities for useful international cooperation, in preparation for collaboration on the larger devices. Fusion Technology The United States should explore the possibility of joining with Japan and the EC in a three-way effort to identify what information and what new fusion technology facilities will be needed and when, specify the design requirements and experimental programs for such facilities, and identify how the cost and responsibility for constructing and operating these facilities might be distributed equitably among the parties. Agreements among the three parties to participate in a national test facility project of one of them could then be worked out on a case-by-case basis. Alternative Confinement Concepts The United States is developing the tandem mirror, stellara tor, reversed-field pinch, and compact toroid concepts and is investigating
other possibilities at a lower level of effort. Japan is developing the same four concepts, and Europe is developing the stellarator and reversed-field pinch. The development of each concept proceeds through a sequence of steps from small "exploratory" experiments through "intermediate" experiments to larger "scientific feasibility" experiments. In recent years the United States has retreated somewhat from this procedure/ making it more difficult for a concept to advance to the next step or even to continue. The United States should consult with Japan and the EC on cooperation in the development of alternative concepts. This cooperation could take two forms: (l) coordination in specifying the design parameters and experimental programs for intermediate experiments in each country so as to enhance their complementarity and (2) distribution of the responsibility among the three parties for constructing and operating scientific feasibility experiments as national projects in which the other party or parties would participate as junior partner(s). INCENTIVES FOR AN INCREASED LEVEL OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION The U.S. program has benefited from the the prior international cooperation described above in two quite different ways: resources were available to support effort beyond what could be supported in the United States alone, and novel and unique foreign contributions have influenced the U.S. program technically. One example of financial benefit is the Japanese contribution to the U.S. Doublet III tokamak, which allowed the additional heating equipment to be installed that led to the achievement of record plasma parameters. A prime example of technical benefit is found in the invention of the tokamak confinement concept in the USSR. As a consequence, all four major programs have advanced more rapidly and with better direction than would have been the case without cooperation. Similar benefits may reasonably be expected from future cooperation. Greatly increased resources are required to maintain the breadth and depth of the national fusion programs while moving forward to explore a burning plasma in a major next-step experiment and to develop fusion technology. There seems to be an increasing body of opinion among responsible leaders in government and in the fusion programs in the United States, the EC, Japan, and the USSR that a cooperative international pooling of national resources may be required in the present economic environment. Such pooling would allow sharing of the increase in costs otherwise required of each separate program. The JET project is a good example of how national programs can be maintained at the same time that national resources are pooled for an international project.
8 Controlled fusion is the subject of one of the working groups established in l982 by decision of the Heads of State and Government at the Versailles meeting of the Summit of Industrialized Nations. The Heads of State have subsequently endorsed the activities of the working groups. The fusion working group has identified the importance and magnitude of the effort of developing fusion and has concluded that a substantial increase in international cooperation is justified. The extent to which any national or multinational fusion program will be willing to rely on international cooperation rather than its own strength and direction is a policy issue, the resolution of which may place constraints upon such cooperation. Thus the main incentives for increased international cooperation are the expectation of enhanced technical results, probable cumulative savingsâthrough sharing of costs and risksâin human and financial resources compared to those required by a separate program, and long-run merit as seen at the heads-of-state level. The main hesitancy will center on the possibility of weakening the individual programs, but conditions can be set to maintain the desired vigor. For these reasons, we come to the following conclusion: o On balance, there are substantial potential benefits of large-scale international collaboration in the development of fusion energy. FACTORS AFFECTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION There are many technical, political, institutional, and other factors that define the context within which the possibilities for increased levels of international cooperation in fusion must be explored. Some of these factors are favorable and some tend to be constraining. Fusion power plants are at least a few decades from commercialization. This time horizon provides a unique opportunity for cooperation over the next decade or two with little compromise of the competitive position that national industries might seek to create in a commercial fusion market of the future. As that time approaches, it should be possible to accommodate proprietary objectives by an orderly disengagement or by other measures commonly employed in today's technological industries. The points made previously concerning the approximate parity in the status of the world programs, their similarity in objectives, the gathering momentum of the EC and Japanese programs, the existence of technical needs and opportunities, political and administrative receptivity, and the absence of near-term competition in the commercialization of fusion support the following conclusion: o A window in time for large-scale collaboration is now open.
The EC and Japanese fusion program plans have been developed in detail for the next few years and resource commitments have been made accordingly. Furthermore, any major collaboration must meet the requirements of the separate national programs and therefore must be preceeded by substantial joint planning. Thus, international collaboration cannot be expected to produce any substantial annual cost savings from current levels over the next few years, although cumulative savings over the long run, in the sense described above, may be expected. Broader U.S. policy considerations may be at odds with technical opportunities for cooperation. The USSR has proposed joint international construction of the next-step tokamak experiment, yet it is unlikely that U.S.-USSR collaboration is possible in the current circumstances. Japan is willing to discuss further major collaboration, but in the United States there exists a political sensitivity to Japan on economic grounds. On the other hand, the Europeans, with whom collaboration would be the least controversial, show little interest. These points are related to the following conclusion: o Large-scale international collaboration can be achieved, but not quickly. Despite the Magnetic Fusion Energy Engineering Act of l980, the U.S. government is perceived in some quarters as lacking a firm commitment and a realistic plan to develop fusion. A clear policy statement on the goals of the U.S. fusion program and a corresponding plan to meet those goals not only would be helpful for evaluating proposed major international cooperative projects but also would improve perceptions of the U.S. commitment. By contrast, it would be a mistake simply to increase emphasis on international cooperation to compensate for less than a full commitment. The programmatic and technical decision-making process is quite different in the United States, the EC, and Japan. In the United States, major programmatic and technical decisions can be taken by highly placed individuals or small groups, whereas in Japan such decisions are taken only after lengthy review and discussion at lower echelons lead to a consensus. In Europe such decisions are taken only after numerous committee reviews. These styles lead to flexible, and occasionally even erratic, evolution in U.S. policies and programs and to deliberate, and occasionally even cumbersome, evolution in EC and Japanese policies and programs. Accommodation of these different styles of decision making is necessary for large-scale cooperation. The United States is also perceived in some quarters as an "unreliable partner" based on previous experiences in space science, synthetic fuels, and fusion itself. The annual funding appropriation process makes it difficult for the United States to commit to multiyear projects without the possibility of facing a choice later of either going back on the commitment or sacrificing other elements of
10 the fusion program. Requesting explicit budget items for international projects, after clear identification of the obligations implied for subsequent years, may ease the problem. Nevertheless the process makes an investment in a multiyear project appear as a high-risk venture to potential foreign collaborators, as well as to leaders of the U.S. fusion program. As a result, a formal and binding instrument might be necessary to assure potential collaborators on a major project that the United States would fulfill its part of the agreement. All the above factors are embodied in the following conclusion: o International collaboration will require stable international commitments. Technology transfer arises as an issue and a possible constraint in three areas: national security, protection of U.S. industry, and loss of advantage to foreign participants from technology developed by them because of provisions of the U.S. Freedom of Information Act mandating wide access to information held by U.S. government agencies. However, technology transfer does not seem to be a major concern at this time because of the remoteness of significant military or commercial applications of magnetic fusion. There are numerous institutional choices for implementation of international cooperative arrangements. Treaties constitute the most binding commitments of the U.S. government but are the most difficult agreements to conclude. Intergovernmental agreements are much easier to put into place because they can be negotiated at lower governmental levels. Existing international organizations, such as IAEA and IEA, offer auspices under which more extensive international cooperation could be carried out without the necessity of new implementing agreements. An expansion of cooperative activities under these agencies is reasonable. Neither of these agencies or other existing international organizations would be suitable as sponsors for a major international project because they function primarily as coordinators and administrators, not as managers, and because they have their own priorities. However, an existing international organization may provide a framework for initiating a project, as was the case with the European Organization for Nuclear Research (commonly known by its original French acronym CERN). For fusion the most relevant example of a major international project is JET. The project was set up as a Joint Undertaking by the Member States of the European Community in l978 under provisions of the l957 Treaty of Rome, which established the European Community. More generally, a joint international project is complicated, but it can work if it is carefully planned and skillfully executed. Organizations must be created to deal successfully with technical direction, administration, liability, and relationships with local and
11 national host governments. Mechanisms must be adopted for site selection, the capture of perceived commercial value, the ownership and sharing of intellectual property, and policy with respect to licensing technology to nonparticipants. The equitable participation of national industry must be accommodated, and technology transfer will have to be suitably controlled in instances that affect national security. Standards for safety and radiation will have to be harmonized, and subtle changes in the roles and missions of established domestic institutions will have to be faced. The foregoing points all support the following conclusion: o There is a host of considerations that must be resolved in implementation, but these appear workable. OVERALL CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Three widely separated courses seem to be open to the United States on the path to fusion energy: (l) to make the commitment to become the all-out competitive leader in all its aspects, (2) to engage in large-scale international collaboration, or (3) to withdraw with the intent of purchasing the developed technology from others in the future. In actuality, the extreme first and third courses would not likely be so sharply drawn. Degrees of competitiveness, ranging from preeminence down to simple parity with others could be defined. Degrees of withdrawal, from slight to serious forfeiture of equality could be contemplated. Although the committee did not formally analyze the situation in this context, it still forms a useful setting for an overall conclusion, derivable from some of the individual ones stated earlier: o For the United States at this time, large-scale international collaboration is preferable to a mainly domestic program, which would have to command substantial additional resources for the competitive pursuit of fusion energy development or run the risk of forfeiture of equality with other world programs. Given this overall conclusion, two major recommendations follow: o The first priority should be the establishment of a clear set of policies and objectives and a considered program plan for future U.S. fusion activities. Such a position is necessary as the basis for discussions with potential partners and for any long-range commitments that ensue. Concrete near-term and intermediate objectives and a schedule for their attainment would be appropriate elements of the program plan.
l2 The Department of Energy should formulate the position for the review and approval of the Administration and the Congress. o Having carried out the preceeding recommendation, the United States should take the lead in consulting with prospective partners to initiate a joint planning effort aimed at large-scale collaboration. This joint planning activity would have to involve groups at the program leadership level and at the technical leadership level, in appropriate roles, and would have to be a continuing activity over many years. Quite plainly, an opportunity is open for leadership of a cooperative approach to a new technology of global significance.
