The Evolution of Fission Energy:

Lessons for Fusion Energy?

Mark HaynesGeneral Atomics

Thesis

Many differences between fission and fusion development, but there are important lessons to be learned from fission’s evolution

• It’s a nuclear energy source - Major Successes - Major and Bruising Failures - Near Death Experience - Likely Resurrection

• Expensive multi-year government funding program

• Mutual understanding between communities is important

Why Should We Care About Lessons from Fission?

…”nuclear power is dead - dead in the near term as a hedge against rising oil prices and dead in the long run as a source of future energy. Nobody really disputes that.”

Forbes Magazine

Feb. 11, 1985

What Caused the Near Death of Fission?

• Campaign of overbuilding (7% growth assumption)• High Inflation / High Interest Rates• Construction mismanagement • Construction delays and spiraling expense • Growing public fears and mistrust / Strengthening

anti-nuclear movement• Three Mile Island• Subsequent zealous regulation / extensive plant

re-designs and modifications• Plant cancellations and financial fallout• Lack of solution for spent fuel• Frozen technological development

Effects of “Near Death”

• >75 plants cancelled (28 under construction)

• 30 years of no new orders

• Gas cooled reactor orders are cancelled, breeder program is cancelled, reprocessing facilities stopped

• Loss of federal funding for LWRs, gas reactors and fast reactors

• U.S. owned industry almost disappears and foreign countries take over leadership

Focus On:

• Evolution / Selection of Technology• Industry • Safety and Public Fears• Funding

Fission: Rapid Development

• 1939: Bohr comes to America and announces Hahn-Strassman-Meitner discoveries

• 1942: Chicago Pile1: First fission “ignition”• 1951: EBR I goes critical - electric power• 1957: First commercial reactor, Shippingport

reaches full power (adapted Naval carrier reactor)

- Early proof that fission would work - 15 years from Chicago to commercial

Fusion Development: Not So Rapid

• 1947 - First Kilo ampere plasma, Imperial College• 1951 - Argentina claims they’ve harnessed controlled

fusion• 1958 - 2nd Geneva Convention on PUA• 1968 - Results from Russian T-3 Tokamak• 1993 - 10 MW from TFTR• 2003 - ITER site selected• 2005 - NIF fires first 8 beams• 2010? - NIF first ignition• 2012? - Ed Moses Elected President / Rob Goldston Sec. Of

Energy• 2016? - ITER first Plasma• 2022? - ITER Q of 10• 2030? - First Demo?

~50 years and going: root of fusion’s credibility problem

• 1940s Labs focus on breeders• 1947 Navy begins pursuit of submarine reactor:

emphasis on compact and quick development• For civilian power: over 100 feasible reactor

types, But..• In 1952 AEC, unable to divine the best reactor,

begins a reactor competition: “…like breeding horses to get a Kentucky Derby winner.”

• Original “Derby field” chosen from reactors already in lab pipeline: fast breeder, homogenous, PWR, and sodium graphite.

• International collaboration not significant

Evolution of Technology - Fission

Evolution of Technology: Fission (continued)

• 1940s - 1950s: struggle over industry involvement• 1954 Atomic Energy Act: provides for non-

governmental ownership of nuclear power plants• By 1958, AEC developing 11 reactor types with

private industry• LWR’s advance more rapidly, were larger and more

numerous and being built w/o support from AEC• Ultimately LWRs win out because of their level of

development for Naval propulsion: subs and carriers• Safety not primary decision criteria: ease and

rapidity of commercial adaptation was primary• High Temp. Gas Reactors and Fast Reactors slated

for longer-term• The technological die was cast

So What If the Die Was Cast?

• LWRs: workhorse reactors that are safe and reliable, but they are sub-optimal

- Cannot tell public they are melt-down proof

- 65% of energy is wasted - Thirsty - Low temperatures limit flexibility - One way ticket on spent fuel

• Nuclear future largely dictated by electric utilities

• Safety considerations drive costs, complexity, location, public acceptance, etc.

Evolution of Technology - Fusion

• Evolved in international environment• Early success of Russian tokamak focused

development• Alternate concepts not as evolved and are

budget-limited • Still driven primarily by labs and

universities in U.S. and internationally• Still considered primarily in context of

electric power

• Many energy producing test reactors built in U.S. (Over 50 reactors at INL alone)

Every fission reactor produced some net energy!

Cradle to Commercial: Fission

Cradle to Commercial: Fusion

• Europeans / Japanese - “one step to demo” from ITER

• U.S. strategy TBD• But, we talk as if there will be one

demo after ITER and then it’s “On to commercial!”

If fission is any guide: Not just one demo!

Reactor Wars - Fission

• Many possible reactor types• Long-standing and sometimes ugly

struggle between LWRs, Fast Reactors and Gas Reactors

• Technological leaps impeded by forces of status quo (existing reactor vendors, utilities, lack of funding, etc.)

• Mutual attacks lend ammunition, comfort and aid to anti-nuclear advocates

• Contributed to demise of federal nuclear R&D in mid-1990s.

• May be changing

Reactor Wars - Fusion

• Many possible reactor types• Past internal strife, sometimes ugly, over

dominance of tokamaks, need for more alternates funding, etc.

• Mutual attacks lend ammunition, comfort and aid to anti-fusion advocates

• A primary cause of mid-90s budget disaster: $366M down to $225M

• Establishment of community cohesion has been good for the overall budget

• Still issues

1994 - 1997: U.S. Funding Retreat

• Fission: Fast Reactor, gas cooled reactor and LWR funding stopped - anti-nuclear / deficit reduction / “anti-pork” sentiment - Death blow to government-industry cooperation

• Fusion: Cut from $366M to $225M - Unhappiness with discord in community / looming ITER and TPX costs, etc. / deficit reduction

Advancing Fission Technology Today

• LWR technology: primarily left to industry (foreign industry dominates)

• True next generation (“Gen IV”) technology: - Largely responsibility of government - Expense beyond any one company /

industry - Power industry (and public) not really

interested in any new technology until proven and near to implementation

- Every nation’s nuclear industry (except in U.S.) either substantially owns, subsidizes or otherwise protects its nuclear industry, particularly in terms of Gen IV.

Over the Past Two Decades, The U.S. Nuclear Technology and Supply Industry Has Been DisappearingIn 1975, 100% of Nuclear Technology, Fuel, Equipment,

Construction, etc. was U.S. owned, but today…– Reactor Designers - Of original 5 in U.S. (General Electric, General Atomics,

Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering, and B&W), only GE and GA are U.S. owned.

– Uranium Mining - 95% of our uranium is imported, few U.S. mines presently open

– Conversion - Only one U.S. uranium converter remains– Enrichment - most enrichment service is imported through Russian HEU

deal and other. Sole remaining U.S. enrichment plant utilized old inefficient technology. New modern capacity licensed, but is foreign sourced.

– Fuel Fabrication - Only one remaining U.S. owned nuclear power fuel fabricator

The Loss of U.S. Industry in Fission

Why Is U.S. Owned Nuclear Industry Important?

• Energy independence• Increase export sales to meet growing world demand

for nuclear power • Essential element of effective non-proliferation policy

– Can provide technologically knowledgeable watchdogs around the world

– Can provide non-proliferative technology alternatives for export and “reward”

– Can provide for material accounting, safeguards and security

Current U.S. Nuclear Industry Currently Dominated By Foreign-owned and Subsidized Companies.

U.S. Industry

• Fission: - U.S.-owned industry almost gone. - Foreign governments own/support their own

industry and have invested during down times.

- U.S. government has not invested since 1990s - U.S. government currently makes no

distinction between U.S.-owned or foreign-owned

• Fusion: - U.S. Industry largely gone w/mid-90’s decline

in budgets.

- ITER will help.

An Issue for Fusion? An Issue for the U.S.?

Funding Status Today

• Fission: Substantial funding ramp-up for Gen IV reactors (GNEP, NGNP), but since U.S. has little of its own industry remaining, French, Japanese, Russian and South African industry may be best positioned to benefit

• Fusion: Funding holding its own but domestic program not growing. Not considered to be an energy option yet.

U.S. Leadership Per Se

• Fission: U.S. was leader for first 3 - 4 decades. During 90s, U.S. leadership lost to: French and Japanese (Russians, Chinese and South Africans running hard)

• Fusion: U.S. still among leaders, but depending on next few years, may or may not be positioned to take advantage of ITER, NIF, etc. Just being part of ITER is not sufficient to be a leader!

Fission and Fusion Development: Different Times

1940s - 1950s: - High degree of trust in government and

industry- Government w/more freedom and less

scrutiny - public safety & health “antenna” not as “developed”

Today: - General distrust of government and

industry - Intense scrutiny- Near perfect info (Web, C-Span, CNN, etc.) - extreme health paranoia

Public Perception/Acceptance of Risk

• Familiar hazards more acceptable• Voluntary risks more acceptable• Personal control of risks more

acceptable• Risks judged in relation to perceived

benefit• Potential for catastrophe

Fission has fared poorly by this formula. How about fusion?

Safety Issues: Real and Perceived

• Fission: - Melt-down - Waste - Accidental radiation releases - Uranium mining - Proliferation - Transportation accident, etc.

• Fusion: - Lithium (w/tritium inventory) reactivity w/air

and water- Tritium leaks- Proliferation(?) - Disposal of large amounts of activated materials

Can the public distinguish real from perceived risk? Big from little risk?

Conclusions

• Hurry up and get to burning plasma and ignition• As fusion becomes “more real”, never

underestimate the importance of the safety and waste issues

• Possibly take safest, least waste producing designs and engineer to be most economic, not vice versa

• More than one demo will be needed: keep multiple options open

• “Reactor wars” are bad. Work out issues within community

• U.S. industry involvement important and healthy - not OK to just import fusion reactors!

• U.S. leadership in fusion will not come from reliance on other countries or just ITER

“How did decades of development, several hundred billion dollars invested, and the lifelong commitment of thousands of scientists and engineers produce a technological white elephant that the American public does not want?”

The Demise of Nuclear Power, 1989Joseph G. MoroneEdward j. Woodhouse