Strategic plan for the restructured U.S. Fusion energy sciences program

Abstract

& m8TRH.JTIQN OF THIS DOCUMENT ISUNUMrrED DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.

THE PCAST ENERGY STUDIES: Toward a National Consensus on Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Policy

“…In the fusion community there was considerable praise for the report's argumentation and balance, but there was also some indignation, among US and international ITER advocates, that the panel had suggested reopening the question of the scale and scope of ITER (15). Little more than a year later, a DOE panel asked to address how to cope with the large budget cuts imposed on the fusion program by Congress recommended that it be restructured as essentially a "science" program (from the mixed "science" and "energy" program it had been) and that the United States not commit to the construction phase of ITER (16). Not long thereafter, the ITER leadership announced a major redirection of effort toward developing a smaller, cheaper, less ambitious design (17).…”

“…The study also caught the attention of US and other industrial-country energy-technology manufacturers with its projection of cumulative developingcountry investments in such technology of 5-7 trillion 1997 dollars between 1990 and 2020 and 10-20 trillion 1997 dollars between 2021 and 2050. 16 Related to the immense potential of this developing-country energy-technology market, which was coming into clearer view in the late 1990s, was the ongoing process of energy-sector reform and deregulation under way then (and now) in many parts of the world, including many countries in the South. This trend was increasing the attractiveness of these markets for mainstream industrial-country energy-technology manufacturers and private financial institutions, leading to a growing private-sector role in North-South energy-technology transfer and cooperation, relative to official development assistance and government initiatives.…”

Economic goals and requirements for competitive fusion energy

“…2 to set the market context for electrical production in the 2025 time-frame for Demo and the 2040 time-frame for early commercial fusion power plants. The identification of specific introduction dates is no longer explicit under the revised US strategic plan for fusion [36]. Included are constant-dollar busbar Cost of Electricity [COE (mill kWh − 1 )] projections for fission, including an evolutionary light water reactor (ELWR) and a passively-safe advanced light water reactor (ALWR), an advanced pulverized-coal (PC) plant, and a combined cycle combustion turbine (CCCT) burning natural gas.…”

“…The IFE HYLIFE-II design [19] meets the new (lower) commercial target, denoted by the solid box. The timing of these target boxes is no longer explicit in the new US strategy [36]. ral gas (NG, open square) are included, together with the (higher) corresponding cases assuming an imposed carbon tax.…”