# Presentation: 018442

## The Evolution of Fission Energy:Lessons for Fusion Energy?

**Mark Haynes**
**General 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

**      ****	****- 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

**                              **
**	****	****	****	**** ****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

**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!

***    ****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 Disappearing

**In 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, 1989
Joseph G. Morone
Edward j. Woodhouse

- _The Demise of Nuclear Power_, 1989
- Joseph G. Morone
- Edward j. Woodhouse