High-Temperature Superconductivity in

Perspective

April 1990

OTA-E-440

NTIS order #PB90-253790
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, High-Temperature Superconductivity in

Perspective, OTA-E-440 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1990).

*

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this report)
Outside Reviewers

Alastair Allcock

British Embassy

Takashi Akutsu

International Superconductivity Technology Center

Michel Badia

Embassy of France

Ted Berlincourt

Department of Defense

Larry Blow

General Dynamics

Ian Corbett

Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

Steinar Dale

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Renee Ford

Harrison, NY

Frank Fradin

Argonne National Laboratory

Robert Gottschall

Department of Energy

Don Gubser

Naval Research Laboratory

Larry Johnson

Argonne National Laboratory

Robert Kamper

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Kemeth Klein

Department of Energy

Tetsuji Kobayashi

International Superconductivity Technology Center

David Larbalestier

University of Wisconsin

Ed Mead

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.

Richard Morrison

National Science Foundation

William Oosterhuis

National Science Foundation

Claudio Orzalesi

Embassy of Italy

John Rowell

Conductus, Inc.

Regine Roy

European Commission

Washington Delegation

Irene Rude

Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany

Tom Schneider

Electric Power Research Institute

Mike Schuette

University of South Carolina

Lyle Schwartz

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Eugene Stark

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Susumu Tajima

Nikkei Superconductors

Kiyotaka Uyeda

Super-GM

Harold Weinstock

Air Force Office of Scientific Research

Greg Yurek

American Superconductor Corp.
High-Temperature Superconductivity In Perspective

Project Staff

Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director,

OTA Energy, Materials, and International Security Division

Peter D. Blair, Energy and Materials Program Manager

Gregory Eyring, Project Director

Laurie Evans Gavrin, Analyst

Jane A. Alexander, Analyst

Administrative Staff

Lillian Q. Chapman Linda L. Lung Tina Brumfield

Contractors

Advanced Materials Technology Technology Management Associates

Los Angeles, CA Chevy Chase, MD

Granville J. Smith, 11 TMAH Consultants

Smith and Ross Associates Ridgefield, CT

Washington, D.C.

Resource Management International, Inc.

Reston, VA
High-Temperature Superconductivity Assessment

Advisory Panel

Paul E. Gray, Chairman

President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Sidney Alpert

University Patents, Inc.

Malcolm Beasley

Stanford University

H. Kent Bowen

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Uma Chowdhry

DuPont Experimental Station

Duane Crum

Island Hill Research

Robert C. Dynes

AT&T Bell Laboratories

Simon Foner

Francis Bitter National Magnet Laboratory

Jeffrey Frey

University of Maryland

William J. Gallagher

International Business Machines Corp.

Eric Gregory

IGC Advanced Superconductors, Inc.

William V. Hassenzahl

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

Narain Hingorani

Electric Power Research Institute

John K. Hulm

Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Henry Kolm

EML Research Inc.

William D. Manly

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

George McKinney

American Research and Development, Inc.

Michael M. Tinkham

Harvard University

Richard Withers

MIT Lincoln Laboratory

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel does

not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its

contents.

iv
Foreword

This is the second of two OTA assessments on the subject of high-temperature

superconductivity (HTS). The first, Commercializing High-Temperature Superconductivity,

was published in June, 1988. These assessments respond to requests from the State

Committees on Governmental Affairs; Energy and Natural Resources; and Commerce

Science, and Transportation; as well as the House Committee on Science, Space, and

Technology to analyze the opportunities presented by this exciting new technology and to

outline Federal policy objectives that are consistent with these opportunities.

This study is complementary to the earlier OTA report. Whereas Commercializing

High-Temperature Superconductivity considered HTS as a specific case study in the context

of broader issues in U.S. industrial competitiveness and technology policy, the present work

focuses more on the technology itself and the spectrum of potential applications. A centerpiece

of this work is an extensive OTA survey comparing industry investment in superconductivity

R&D in the United States and Japan (see Chapter 6). In this regard, OTA gratefully

acknowledges the assistance of Japan’s International Superconductivity Technology Center

for administering the survey in Japan, and of the National Science Foundation for help with

the survey design, distribution, and analysis in the United States.

As the title suggests, this study attempts to put HTS in perspective, both in terms of

competing technologies (e.g., the more mature low-temperature superconductors), and in

terms of the many technical and economic problems that must be overcome before HTS can

be widely used. Although it remains a promising field, the full potential of HTS will not be

clear for another 10 to 20 years. Thus, HTS is a test case, not of the U.S. ability to

commercialize anew technology rapidly, but of its ability to look beyond the immediate future

and sustain a consistent R&D effort over the long term. As such, HTS poses a difficult

challenge to government policy makers and industry managers alike.

OTA appreciates the assistance provided by the contractors and Advisory Panel, as

well as the many reviewers whose comments helped to ensure the accuracy of this report.
Contents

Page

Chapter 1. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 2. High-Temperature Superconductivity: A Progress Report.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chapter 3. Applications of Superconductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Chapter 4. The U.S. Response to High-Temperature Superconductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Chapter 5. High-Temperature Superconductivity Programs in Other Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Chapter 6. Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts

in the United States and Japan: An OTA Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Chapter 7. Policy Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

vii
Chapter 1

Executive Summary
CONTENTS

Page

OUTLOOK FOR HIGH-TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

LESSONS FROM LTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

PROSPECTS FOR THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF HTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

THE FEDERAL RESPONSE TO HTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

THE U.S. COMPETITIVE POSITION IN SUPERCONDUCTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Low-Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

High-Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

OTA SURVEY RESULTS:U.S. AND JAPANESE INDUSTRY

INVESTMENTS IN SUPERCONDUCTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... . . . 8

Minor Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Issues That Bear Watching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Key Issues .. .. . .+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY IN A BROADER POLICY CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figures

Page

l-1. Superconducting Critical Transition Temperature v. Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

l-2. Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity Research Efforts in

the United States and Japan, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Tables

Page

l-1. Federal Funding for High-Temperature Superconductivity .. .. . .. .. ... ... .... 6

l-2. Estimated National High-Temperature Superconductivity R&D Efforts

in Various Countries, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

l-3. Superconductivity Policy Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Chapter 1

Executive Summary

Superconductors are materials that lose all

resistance to the flow of electricity when cooled

below a critical transition temperature (T,).

Ordinary conductors such as copper or aluminum present some resistance to the flow of

electric current, causing some of the energy to

be dissipated as light and heat. This is a useful

property in light bulbs and toasters, but leads to

undesirable power losses in most applications.

By reducing losses, superconductors can make

energy production more efficient and computers

can be made smaller and more powerful.

The phenomenon of superconductivity was

discovered in 1911, but practical superconducting materials were not found until the

Figure l-l-Superconducting Critical Transition

Temperature v. Year

I Room temperature 300 ‘ --

250 -

200 -

150 -

100 -

— ——————-

50 1

Year

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

1960s. Today, superconducting metals and alloys are being used in a variety of commercial

applications in electronics and medicine, but

this took many years to come about. One reason

for the long gestation period is that in order to

function, superconductors had to be cooled to

extremely low temperatures—about 4 degrees

above absolute zero (4 K)—with liquid helium.

The high costs and complexity of liquid helium

refrigeration systems tended to confine these

low-temperature superconductors (LTS) to a

well-controlled, laboratory environment.

In 1986, scientists discovered an entirely new

family of ceramic high-temperature superconductors (HTS) with transition temperatures

above 30 K—much higher than had previously

been thought possible (see figure l-l). Subsequently, related materials were discovered with

transition temperatures above the boiling point

of liquid nitrogen (77 K). The prospect of

cooling with cheaper and more practical liquid

nitrogen fueled expectations of widespread

commercial applications, and touched off a

worldwide race to develop these materials.

OUTLOOK FOR

HIGH-TEMPERATURE

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY

Over the past 3 years, the intense worldwide

research effort on I-ITS has produced remarkable

progress. It appears that within the next 5 years,

commercial magnetic field sensors and simple

microwave devices operating at 77 K are a

realistic possibility. But many fundamental

questions remain unanswered. There is no

theory that explains why these materials exhibit

superconductivity, and no one knows whether

new materials with even higher TCS will be

discovered. (So far, the highest reproducible TC

is 125 K, still far below room temperature,

which is about 300 K.)

-3-
4 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

Photo credit: IBM Research

Thin films of HTS material can be used to connect logic and

memory chips in computers, making them smaller

and faster.

HTS continues to be a promising field where

diligence and patience could yield great dividends. But a long-term, basic research effort is

needed to avoid wasting large sums on premature development projects. Most observers agree

that it will be 10 to 20 years before HTS could

be widely used in commercial applications—

roughly the same time it took for LTS to move

from the laboratory to commercial products. In

fact, the commercialization of LTS holds several valuable lessons for HTS.

LESSONS FROM LTS

The preferred materials for applications are

those that are easiest to handle and manufacture, not necessarily the best superconductors or those with the highest TC

.

●

●

●

●

●

●

Even after a superconducting material with

adequate properties is developed, it takes

many years to develop a practical conductor

from that material and to demonstrate its

viability in a commercial prototype.

Technical difficulties and unanticipated development costs can be expected; nevertheless,

it is important to provide sustained, reliable

funding through the lifetime of a superconductor R&D project. A successful project that is

carefully managed, but over budget, contributes to the store of knowledge; a truncated

project is often a total waste of effort.

Highly reliable, conservative designs are

necessary, especially in the commercial sector. While it is tempting for engineers to push

a design to the state-of-the-art, reliability is

crucial in consolidating a new beachhead.

It is important to pick targets carefully; i.e.,

those that are not likely to be “leapfrogged”

by a well-entrenched and steadily improving

conventional technology. Commercialization

of HTS is likely to be most successful in new

applications where the technology and designs are fluid.

It is difficult to predict where the future

applications will be. Few could have predicted in 1979 that the largest commercial

application of superconductors in 1989 would

be in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

magnets.

In many applications, lack of commercialization has nothing to do with technical

problems with superconductivity; rather, it is

due to unfavorable economic conditions. For

example, even the discovery of roomtemperature superconductivity would not substantially improve the prospects for magnetically levitated transportation systems in the

United States, because the costs of such

systems are dominated by costs of land

acquisition and guideway construction.

PROSPECTS FOR THE

COMMERCIALIZATION OF HTS

The lessons above illustrate that commercial

applications of superconductivity are not driven
Chapter l--Executive Summary ● 5

cine; electronics/communications; and defense/

space.

The greatest near-term (5 to 10 years) impact

of HTS is likely to be in electronics/communications and defense/space. In the mediumterm (10 to 15 years), a variety of medical and

industrial applications are possible. Significant

applications of HTS in the high-energy physics,

electric power, and transportation sectors should

be considered far-term (>15 years), if they are

feasible at all. LTS is likely to remain the only

realistic option for large-scale applications such

as maglev vehicles, high-field magnets, or

electric power generators in the foreseeable

future.

It is important to bear in mind that the

principal contributions of HTS may well be in

applications that cannot be anticipated at this

early stage. It could be a conceptual error to

force the new ceramic materials into the same

mold as the metallic LTS materials. Many

observers think that the biggest applications of

HTS will be in totally new devices that have not

even been considered for LTS.

THE FEDERAL RESPONSE TO HTS

The Federal response to the discovery of HTS

illustrates many of the strengths and weaknesses

of U.S. R&D policy as it relates to U.S.

industrial competitiveness. On the whole, the

response has been both substantial and timely.

By fiscal year 1990, just 3 years after the

discovery of HTS, Federal agency funding for

HTS had grown to about $130 million, with a 10

percent increase requested for fiscal year 1991

(see table l-l). This was considerably more than

the government funding of any other country

(see table 1-2).

The Administration can point to some significant successes and even innovations in its

approach to HTS. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated a

unique program emphasizing the processing of

HTS materials. Three Department of Energy

(DOE) Superconductivity Pilot Centers were

established at Argonne, Los Alamos, and Oak
6 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

Table l-l—Federal Funding for High-Temperature

Superconductivity ($ millions)

FY 1990 FY 1991

Agency (estimated) (requested)

SOURCE: D. AlIan Bromley, Director, Office of Science and Technology

Policy, testimony before the Subcommittee on Transportation,

Aviation, and Materials, House Committee on Science, space,

and Technology, Feb. 21, 1990.

Ridge National Laboratories to carry out collaborative research with industry. The Pilot Centers

are experimenting with both expedited mechanisms for contracting and greater industry

control over intellectual property, and have

attracted a large number of prospective collaborators. Mechanisms for rapid exchange of

technical information among researchers have

been established and appear to be working well.

The Administration’s approach also contained much that was familiar to critics of

Federal R&D policy. The Department of Defense (DoD) administered the largest HTS

budget, and became the principal supporter of

U.S. industry programs. Also, much of the

Federal budget went to support research in

Federal laboratories, which heretofore have not

enjoyed a good track record in transferring

technology to U.S. industry. And although

coordination of HTS R&D programs within

each mission agency is good, coordination at the

national level is weak. Congress’ attempts to

address this problem with legislation have met

with only limited success.

The Federal response to the advent of HTS is

perhaps best characterized as an attempt to

broaden the R&D activities of the relevant

agencies to address industry needs without

fundamentally changing their missions or their

relationships to one another. Those who had

hoped that the worldwide race to develop HTS

might stimulate a serious debate about a new

Federal role in meeting the challenge of foreign

Table 1-2—Estimated National High-Temperature

Superconductivity R&D Efforts in

Various Countries, 1989

Government Full-time

HTS budget researchers

Country (millions) (all sectors)

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . $130

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >70

West Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >15

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >2

Soviet Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

1,000

1,200

500

300

200

200

<100

2,000

1,000

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

competition in emerging commercial technologies have clearly been disappointed.

THE U.S. COMPETITIVE

POSITION IN

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY

Low-Temperature

As a result of Federal support for LTS

research during the 1960s and 1970s, U.S.

companies today have strong capabilities in

LTS wire and cable production, magnet winding

technology, superconducting analog electronics, and sensors. Federal support for LTS

conductor and magnet development--especially

through DOE high-energy physics programs—

has enabled U.S. companies to take a leading

position in MRI magnets, the largest commercial market for LTS.

But the United States has a weak position in

more speculative—but potentially widespread—

commercial applications such as digital electronics, rotating electrical equipment, and magnetically levitated (maglev) transportation systems. In these areas, U.S. companies have

judged the risks of commercial development to

be too high-or the benefits too small-to

justify sustained investment. Meanwhile, the

Federal Government terminated its support for

these programs in the late 1970s and early

1980s, although they were continued in other

countries, notably West Germany and Japan.
Chapter I--Executive Summary ● 7

Interestingly, the discovery of HTS has given

a higher visibility to the weak U.S. competitive

position in several applications of LTS, especially maglev transportation systems. Several

recent reports have recommended restarting

these LTS programs, arguing that otherwise, the

United States will become dependent on foreign

sources for key technologies. But OTA finds

that U.S. companies do not appear to have

changed their assessment of the risks and

benefits. Therefore, if these LTS programs are

restarted, the government will have to bear

virtually all of the substantial development

costs.

High-Temperature

The United States, with the largest national

budget for HTS R&D in the world (see table

1-2), has a comprehensive research effort. But

there is no reason for complacency. Japan has

emerged as the United States’ strongest competitor, and has demonstrated superior capabilities

in several areas-e. g., synthesis and processing

of high-quality materials. Moreover, Japan has

shown the ability to sustain long-term investment in materials research, with a strong commitment from its major corporations.

West Germany has a formidable HTS R&D

effort underway, with the most extensive industry involvement in Europe. West German companies such as Siemens are stronger competitors

in some areas+. g., medical applications of

LTS—than are Japanese firms.

Although the European Community has been

slow to organize cooperative research programs

in HTS, the 12 member states represent an

immense economic and intellectual potential,

with more than a million scientists and engineers. In the past, effective collaboration has

been hindered by dispersion of resources, isolation of researchers, and poor diffusion of

information; but anew era in collaborative R&D

could be dawning as the process of unification

of European markets proceeds beyond 1992.

Taken together, the EC countries represent a

bloc of R&D resources and manpower larger

than either the United States or Japan alone.

OTA SURVEY RESULTS: U.S. AND

JAPANESE INDUSTRY

INVESTMENTS IN

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY

In late 1988 and early 1989, the Office of

Technology Assessment (OTA) conducted a

survey of U.S. industrial superconductivity

R&D in cooperation with the National Science

Foundation (NSF). A parallel survey of Japanese industrial superconductivity R&D was

conducted jointly with Japan’s International

Superconductivity Technology Center (ISTEC).

OTA estimates that the survey captured about 90

percent of the U.S. effort, and about 80 percent

of the Japanese effort. Among the findings:

●

●

●

●

Japanese companies were investing some

50 percent more in HTS R&D (= $107

million) than U.S. companies (= $73 million) in 1988, and their investment in LTS

R&D was many times higher than that of

U.S. firms (see figure 1-2).

OTA identified 20 Japanese companies

spending more than $1 million of their own

funds on HTS, compared with 14 in the

United States. In both countries, HTS R&D

is heavily concentrated in these firms.

Among these big spenders, the Japanese

companies are more likely to have broader

superconductivity programs—both in terms

of the variety of materials being developed

and the scope of research. Japanese firms

reported more resources devoted to basic

research than did U.S. firms.

When asked when their first HTS product

would reach the market, Japanese companies projected a later first year-to-market

(average year: 2000) than U.S. companies

(average year: 1992) in all product categories. The fact that Japanese companies are

willing to spend so much on R&D---even

though they expect the payoff in commercial products to be at least 10 years

away—underscores their strong long-term

commitment to HTS. The continuing commitment of Japanese companies to LTS

reinforces this conclusion.
8 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

Figure 1-2--Comparison of Industrial

Superconductivity Research Efforts in

the United States and Japan, 1988

Internal R&D funding ($ million)

200 I

100

60

0

United States Japan

Full-time research staff

“

2 0 0

~ 

—-—-- -

1,000

800 I

600; r I

I I I

400

200

0

United States Japan

In 1988, U.S. industry internal funding for HTS was about $74

million, with 440 full-time researchers, compared with $107 million

and 710 full-time researchers in Japan.

NOTE: The data in this figure are adjusted to include OTA’s estimate of

research efforts not captured by this survey.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS

In 1987, shortly after the discovery of HTS,

optimism was rampant and room-temperature

superconductivity seemed just around the corner. The United States was seen to be engaged

in a heated race to commercialize HTS products

before its competitors. By 1989, a more realistic

view had taken hold: HTS is a test case, not of

the U.S. ability to commercialize a new technology rapidly, but of its ability to look beyond the

immediate future and sustain a consistent R&D

effort over the long term.

The Federal HTS budget grew from $45

million in fiscal year 1987 to an estimated $130

million in fiscal year 1990-substantially more

than that of any country in the world. OTA finds

that overall, the United States has an HTS R&D

effort that is second to none. Present funding

levels are sufficient to make progress, although

perhaps $20 to $30 million more per year could

be spent effectively (see table 1-3). But OTA

also finds there are serious reasons to doubt

whether U.S. companies will maintain a competitive position in HTS in the future (see key

issues section below). The history of erratic

Federal support for LTS programs also raises

questions about whether the Federal effort will

be sustained over the long term.

Minor Issues

Several issues that were earlier thought to be

urgent now appear to be of less importance:

Adequate supplies of raw materials, chemical precursors, and powders for HTS are

not a problem now, nor are they likely to be

in the foreseeable future.

HTS does not appear to raise unmanageable health or safety problems.

Antitrust restrictions are not a serious

inhibitor to U.S. competitiveness in HTS

technology.

Fears that the prolific HTS patenting by

Japanese companies could block U.S. companies from participating in major superconductivity markets appear to be exaggerated.

Issues That Bear Watching

There are reasons for concern about several

aspects of the U.S. HTS R&D effort, and these

could become more serious in the future.

. Federal laboratories may be receiving a

disproportionately large share of the HTS

R&D budget. In fiscal year 1988, 45

percent of Federal HTS funding went to

support research in Federal laboratories.

Although these laboratories continue to

make important contributions, questions

remain about whether they should have
Chapter l--Executive Summary ● 9

●

●

●

such a large share of the HTS budget—

especially given the scarcity of resources

for universities (see below). Congress could

establish a single, independent advisory

committee to tour the major laboratories

and evaluate the quality and relevance of

their HTS research.

At present, defense and civilian requirements for HTS technology are similar, but

this could change as the technology matures. About 47 percent of Federal funding

for HTS in fiscal year 1990 comes from

DoD-considerably more than comes from

any other agency. At the present stage of

HTS technology development, OTA finds

that military and civilian requirements for

these materials are essentially the same,

and access to DoD-funded research is not

restricted. But as HTS matures and is

incorporated into weapons systems, military and commercial R&D priorities are

likely to diverge. If DoD funding concentrates on solving problems of primarily

military interest, this could hurt U.S. competitiveness in areas such as HTS electronics—widely predicted to be one of the

earliest and largest application areas of

HTS.

If progress in HTS technology continues to

be incremental, small HTS startup companies could face a critical shortage of

capital. Indeed, most small HTS startups

report that they have received buyout offers

from large foreign companies.

The importance of active U.S. participation

in international superconductivity meetings and programs is growing, while Federal funding to support these activities is

stagnant or declining.

Key Issues .

OTA considers the following issues to be

especially important (see table 1-3):

. U.S. companies are investing less than

their main foreign competitors in both

low-andhigh-temperature superconductivity R&D. This is by far the most critical

issue affecting the future U.S. competitive

position in superconductivity, and in many

other emerging technologies.

University research on HTS merits a higher

priority than it presently receives. University research-specially that performed

by individual investigators—has produced

important advances in HTS and continues

to play a vital role. But in fiscal year 1988,

university research received only 30 percent of Federal HTS resources (compared

with 45 percent for Federal laboratories),

and many innovative research proposals

continue to go unfunded. The funding

shortage affects young investigators entering the field most severely, but even proven

contributors have had difficulty getting

adequate support.

Coordination of the Federal superconductivity R&D effort can be made more

effective at the national level. The National

Superconductivity and Competitiveness Act

of 1988 mandated that the Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)

produce a 5-year National Action Plan for

superconductivity, as well as an annual

report on the implementation of the Plan.

Although several advisory committees on

HTS have been appointed during the past

3 years—including the ‘‘Wise Men’ advisory committee established by President

Reagan, and the National Commission on

Superconductivity established by Congress

—these committees were given only a

temporary mandate and cannot provide the

long-term technology monitoring and analysis called for in the National Superconductivity and Competitiveness Act.

There is one important point that relates to all

of the above issues: funding stability is essential

to meaningful progress. In the past, erratic

funding both by Federal agencies and companies has caused disruption of superconductivity

programs, and has made it difficult to maintain

a pool of U.S. engineering know-how in superconductivity. In contrast, Japan’s demonstrated

ability to sustain long-term superconductivity
10 High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

Table 1-3-Superconductivity Policy Issues and Options

Issue

Options Comments

A. U.S. companies are investing less than their main foreign competitors in both low-and high-temperature superconductivity

R&D.

The key problem is the lack of patient investment This problem is fundamental to future U.S. competitiveness in all emerging

capital available to U.S. industry. Policy initiatives technologies.

that could help would involve meaningful reduction

of the Federal budget deficit, and tax policies that

encourage higher saving by individuals and businesses.

B. University research on HTS merits a higher priority than it presently receives.

Option 1: Increase NSF’s budget for individual Although NSF’s HTS budget has been increased to support the new Science

investigator grants in HTS at universities by $5 and Technology Center at the University of Illinois, funding for individual

million. investigators has stayed virtually flat, and many innovative proposals are not

being funded.

Option 2: Provide $10 million per year for several U.S. capabilities in such areas as the synthesis of new HTS materials and

years to NSF to upgrade university equipment for preparation of large single crystals lag those of its major competitors. Recent

synthesis, processing, and characterization of ad- studies have underscored the need for greater investment in materials

vanced materials such as HTS. synthesis and processing at universities. Ten million dollars would substantially upgrade the equipment capabilities of perhaps 25 research groups.

Option 3: Provide funding—perhaps through This was the principal recommendation of the President’s “Wise Men”

DARPA—to support the participation of universities Advisory Committee. Properly organized and managed, such consortia can

in a limited number of R&D consortia with compa- Iengthen industry R&D time horizons and spread risks, But it is important to

nies and government laboratories. be realistic about what these consortia can be expected to accomplish: they

are more likely to enhance generic technology development than to be

engines of commercialization.

C. Coordination of the Federal superconductivity R&D effort can be made more effective at the national level.

Option 1: Give OSTP the additional resources and One small step in this direction might be to merge the permanent staff of the

staff necessary to monitor industry concerns and National Critical Materials Council with OSTP staff. But without a commitbroker the competing interests of the various fund- ment by the President to give OSTP a leading role in technology policy

ing agencies in superconductivity. decisionmaking—a commitment not demonstrated so far—staffing increases at OSTP are unlikely to have any effect.

Option 2: Establish a standing advisory committee Such a long-term advisory committee-perhaps modeled on the now

on superconductivity reporting to Congress, the defunct “Wise Men” Advisory Committee-could assist policy makers with

Science Adviser, and the President, and give it a tough budgetary choices, e.g., concentrating Federal resources into a

mandate of at least 5 years. limited number of consortia with clearly complementary research objectives.

Strong industry representation on the committee would be critical.

KEY: DARPA: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

NSF: National Science Foundation

OSTP: Office of Science and Technology Policy

SOURCE: OffIce of Technology Assessment, 1990.

programs is likely to be a major competitive

asset for Japan in the future.

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY IN A

BROADER POLICY CONTEXT

The discovery of HTS has come at a time of

increasing doubts about the capability of the

United States to compete in global high-technology markets. The list of markets in which

U.S. industry has slipped badly is growing: e.g.,

consumer electronics, memory chips, automobiles, and machine tools. Moreover, the U.S.

private sector is investing less than its main

competitors in a number of emerging technologies such as x-ray lithography, high-definition

television, and—as shown by the OTA survey—

in HTS and LTS. There is a serious question

whether U.S. industry, as it is currently financed

and managed, can compete in markets for these

technologies in the next century.

The short-term mind set of U.S. R&D managers is not the result of stupidity or ignorance

about the importance of R&D to the company’s

future. Instead, the R&D investment decisions

in both the United States and Japan are the

product of rational choices made within the
Chapter L-Executive Summary ● 11

prevailing economic and financial environments

of the two countries. For decades, Japanese

industry has benefited from higher rates of

economic growth, lower effective capital costs,

higher savings rates, and more stable financial

markets than were the case in the United States.

All of these factors made it easier for Japanese

managers to make long-term investments.

Thus, the challenges associated with HTS

research, development, and commercialization

should be viewed as a microcosm of broader

challenges to the U.S. manufacturing sector in

an increasingly competitive world. It is tempting

to rely on Federal R&D initiatives-e. g., new

federally funded industry consortia, or perhaps

creating a new civilian technology agency—to

solve the deepening problems. But such initiatives, while they may be helpful, do not change

the underlying economic and financial pressures

on industry that dictate long-term investment

decisions. The real solution—increasing the

supply of patient capital to U.S. industry-will

require politically tough fiscal policy choices

that involve trade-offs among military, economic, and social goals. If U.S. competitiveness

continues to decline, it will not be because the

United States lost the superconductivity race

with Japan, but because policymakers failed to

address the underlying problems with longterm, private sector investment that HTS helped

to bring into the spotlight.
Chapter 2

High-Temperature

Superconductivity:

A Progress Report
CONTENTS

Page

15

15

15

17

20

21

22

21

22

23

23

25

25

26

26
Chapter 2

High-Temperature Superconductivity: A Progress Report

No scientific discovery during the 1980s generated more worldwide excitement—and hype—than

that of high-temperature superconductivity (HTS) in

1986. Four years later, the hype has died down, but

the excitement remains. HTS appears less often in

newspaper headlines, and it no longer commands the

urgent attention of U.S. policy makers. But during

the past several years there have been remarkable

advances in HTS research.

This chapter provides a progress report on HTS,

and an assessment of the R&D challenges that

remain. For readers unfamiliar with the concepts and

terminology of superconductivity, a brief primer is

provided in appendix 2-A. Additional information

on the science of HTS and its applications can be

found in several studiesl 23 including an earlier

OTA report.4

PROGRESS REPORT

New HTS Materials

Perhaps the most interesting development that has

occurred in the past several years is the realization

that HTS is a broader phenomenon than had been

first thought. The initial discovery of copper oxides

containing lanthanum (TC = 35 K) in 1986 was

followed in 1987 by related compounds containing

yttrium (TC around 93 K) and in 1988 by those

containing bismuth (maximum TC of 110 K) and

thallium (maximum TC of 125 K). Numerous variations on these basic layered copper-oxide compounds have also been found to exhibit superconductivity. This raises the hope that new materials

may yet be discovered with even higher TCS.

Room-Temperature Superconductivity

A superconductor operating at room temperature

would be revolutionary. Provided that suitable

manufacturing processes were available, and costs

were comparable to ordinary conductors, roomtemperature superconductors could replace normal

conductors in virtually all devices involving electricity or magnetism. Over the past 2 years, there

have been occasional reports of observations of

room-temperature superconductivity, though none

has been confirmed.5

No one knows yet whether room-temperature

superconductivity is possible. At this writing, there

are no accepted theoretical limitations on TC

. But

even if a room-temperature superconductor is possible,

●

●

practical applications may be difficult:

To obtain critical fields and currents at levels

high enough to be useful, superconductors are

typically operated at temperatures substantially

below TC. For practical room-temperature (300

K) operation, a T, of 400 to 600 K (261 -621 ‘F)

would be required (well above the temperature

of boiling water).

At elevated temperatures, vortex lattice pinning

(see app. 2-A) becomes much more difficult,

due to the higher ambient thermal energy. This

could make it impossible for the roomtemperature superconductor to carry useful

currents even in small magnetic fields.

The search for new material with higher TCS

remains an important quest, along with research

aimed at understanding the fundamental limitations

of the performance of present materials. In this

connection, further research on novel superconductors --e.g., organics--could lead to new insights.

Progress in Improving HTS Properties

Thin Films

Films of superconductor, usually between 30

angstroms and 1 micrometer in thickness, can be

deposited on a base material (called a substrate) to

yield conductors used in a wide variety of sensors

and electronic circuits. Several of the techniques for

depositing the films-e. g., sputtering, molecular

beam epitaxy, electron beam evaporation, and chemical vapor deposition—have much in common with
]4 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Photo credit: ICI Advanced Materials

Tubes fabricated from bulk high-temperature

superconductors can be used for radio-frequency

cavities and conductors.

ing new substrate materials that are less expensive

and more practical.

Bulk Superconductors

Bulk materials include thick films (>1 micrometer), wires, tapes, and three-dimensional shapes.

Bulk conductor forms are used in large-scale applications, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),

maglev vehicles, etc. They are made by techniques

common in metallurgy or ceramics: extrusion, tape

casting, pressing, etc. Typically, they involve compaction and shaping of nonsuperconducting powders or precursors, followed by firing in an oven to

consolidate the material and create the superconductor. This yields a polycrystalline material consisting of partially oriented crystalline grains separated by grain boundaries.

HTS bulk conductors have generally exhibited

lower critical current densities than thin films,

thought to be caused by weakened superconductivity at the grain boundaries. The critical current also

falls off more rapidly with applied magnetic field

than is the case with thin films. But recent advances

in processing have raised the critical currents in

short wires to several tens of thousands of Amps/cm2
Chapter 2--High-Temperature Superconductivity: A Progress Report ● 17

Table 2-I—HTS R&D Challenges

Topic Comment Topic Comment

Basic Research

Theory/Mechanism of HTS

Abetter understanding will point the way to new materials,

improvements in existing materials, and perhaps to new

applications.

Search for New Materials

Synthesis and characterization of new HTS materials have

been of tremendous value in guiding theory development,

and will continue to be so. Further investigation of novel

superconductors-e. g., organics-could provide important insights.

Structure/Property Relationships

Understanding properties such as critical current behavior

is vital for virtually all applications. It involves not only basic

physics issues but also the full complexity of the microstructure.

Appy Research

Processing Science

Understanding the relationships among process variables,

microstructure, and properties is critical for making better

materials reproducibly. New, cheaper processes also need

to be developed.

Thin Film Processes

Key goals include: reducing process temperatures below

500 oC so as to be compatible with semiconductor

processing; finding suitable substrates and deposition

processes-especially enabling deposition on semiconductors; developing processes for making films with extremely clean surfaces and strong superconductivity all the

way up to the surface.

Bulk Processes

Key goals include: finding techniques for improving the

superconductivity connection between adjacent crystal

grains; introducing strong pinning sites for the magnetic

vortex lattice; reducing alternating current (AC) losses; and

making extremeiy thin filaments (several micrometers in

diameter).

Applied Research-continued

Chemical Stability

Some HTS materials are prone to react with atmospheric

water and carbon dioxide, as well as with cladding and

substrate materials. Some also readily lose oxygen from

the crystal lattice. These reactions impair the superconductivity, and raise concerns about long-term stability. New

approaches are needed to protect the materials and

prevent these reactions.

Mechanical Properties

Mechanical properties such as brittleness, strength, and

fatigue have received less attention than superconducting

properties, but improvements are critical to reduce costs

and increase reliability in actual applications.

Device Engineering R&D

Thin Film Devices

Key goals include: demonstration of practical Josephson

Junctions (JJs); development of a three-terminal device;

patterning of multiiayer structures; developing lowresistance electrical contacts.

Bulk Devices

Key goals inciude: demonstration of long, flexible wires

with 100,000 Amps/cm2 in a magnetic fieid of 5 tesla;

braiding and stabilization of composite cable; lowresistance electrical contacts and splicing of sections.

Manufacturing R&D

Includes making large numbers of JJs with uniform switching and threshold characteristics on a chip with high yield;

long lengths of wire with reproducible properties; costeffective nondestructive evaluation techniques.

Systems Development

Superconducting components have to be integrated into

fully engineered systems, with refrigeration, auxiliary electronics, mechanical support, etc.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

at 77 K—within a factor of 10 of levels required for

most applications. It should be noted, however, that

these have been realized only in small samples of

test material; reproducing them in long wires poses

major engineering challenges.

R&D CHALLENGES

While there has been considerable progress over

the past several years, there remains along way to go

before HTS can be widely used in practical applications. Table 2-1 gives examples of key remaining

R&D challenges for both thin film and bulk HTS

materials. These are grouped in five R&D categories: basic research; applied research; device engineering; manufacturing research; and systems development. They involve improving properties and

processes, as well as integrating the superconducting

components into larger systems.

A strong, ongoing basic research effort is essential to support cost- effective development of applications. At this writing, there is no commonly accepted

theory of HTS. Thus, there is no way of predicting

which materials should exhibit high critical temperatures, currents, or magnetic fields. Theory can also

predict new phenomena. The Josephson effect, the

basis of the device used in superconducting electronics, was predicted first by theory and later observed

by experiment. If new phenomena are occurring in

HTS, then new types of devices may be possible.

Basic research is also needed to establish the

relationships among composition, microstructure,

and properties-especially critical current density.

In some cases, HTS presents new problems that
never had to be faced with LTS. For instance, the esses for HTS must be able to control the properties

performance of HTS materials is far more sensitive of these surfaces to a much higher degree.

to impurities or minute changes in composition at

surfaces and grain boundaries than is the case with To some extent, research in applied areas can be

LTS materials. This means that fabrication proc- carried out in parallel with basic research. For
Chapter High-Temperature Superconductivity: A Progress Report ● 19

Photo credit: Supercon, Inc.

Prototype composite superconductor containing 11,000 niobium-titanium filaments, designed for use in

the Superconducting Super Collider.

example, the critical current can be improved

empirically (applied research) without having fully

characterized the material (basic research). Similarly, the full system has parts that can be designed,

built, and tested without the superconducting component. For instance, the refrigeration requirements

can be approximated early, and developed before the

superconducting component is completed.

But until the basic parameters of the technology—

e.g., the pinning mechanism—are understood, early

resources spent on manufacturing technology and

systems development may turn out to have been

wasted in light of new developments. No amount of

research on vacuum tube technology would have

produced a supercomputer; it awaited the discovery

of the transistor and of integrated circuits.

A better feel for all of the requirements that must

be satisfied for HTS to be used in commercial

applications can be gained by considering two key

applications of LTS: high-field magnets and Josephson Junctions (JJs). These are the “building

blocks’ of many present superconductivity applications. JJs illustrate the challenges associated with

thin film technology, while magnets illustrate the

challenges of fabricating devices from bulk materials. These are discussed in boxes 2-A and 2-B.
NEW OPPORTUNITIES (larger energy gap). Because the high frequency

response of superconductors is limited to frequenHTS materials are unique in having extremely cies that do not disrupt the electron pairing, the

Another unique feature of HTS derives from the

fact that the superconducting electron pairs are

bound together more tightly than is the case for LTS

stronger pairing could enable HTS ‘devices to

operate at frequencies up to 10 times higher than

LTS devices. This could revolutionize the communications industry, making tens of thousands of new

satellite broadcast channels available, and result in

correspondingly higher rates of signal transmission

and processing.

It is even possible that some of the “disadvantage s of HTS materials could be turned into

advantages. The sensitivity of the superconducting

properties to oxygen content, crystal direction, and

applied magnetic field could someday be the basis

for new devices.
Chapter 2-High-Temperature Superconductivity: A Progress Report ● 21

A particularly exciting prospect is the possibility

of designing hybrid, layered devices that would

combine different HTS materials with semiconductors, optoelectronic materials, and other superconductors to yield novel performance.

CONCLUSION

In spite of some recent press reports that describe

the new HTS materials as disappointing,g the past 3

years have seen rapid progress both in improving the

superconducting properties of known materials and

in finding new materials. Many observers remain

optimistic that present problems can be solved and

that both familiar applications and entirely new ones

will occur—although the time scale for many of

these is not short.

Experience gained from previous research on

LTS—in processing techniques, characterization of

materials, and design of integrated systems—will

come in handy, though. And these problems are

being addressed by large numbers of researchers

around the world; since its discovery in 1986, more

than 12,000 papers have been published on HTS.

HTS is an area where continued diligence and

patience could yield great dividends.

Figure 2-l--Schematic of a Tunnel (or Josephson)

Junction

SOURCE Business Technology Research, “Superconductive Materials

and Devices,” 1988.
22 ● High-Temperature Superconductive@ in Perspective

APPENDIX 2-A:

SUPERCONDUCTOR PRIMER

As the temperature of a superconductor is lowered, a

critical temperature TC is reached at which the material

undergoes a transition from the normal state to the

superconducting state (figure 2-2). The superconducting

state is defined by two characteristics: the ability to

conduct an electric current without loss; and the expulsion

of magnetic field from the interior of the material

(Meissner effect).

Zero Resistance

Ordinary conductors such as copper or aluminum

present some resistance to the flow of electric current,

causing some of the energy in the current to be dissipated

into light and heat. Resistance is a useful property in light

bulbs and toasters, but not for transmitting electricity

from a power generating station to a factory. With zero

electrical resistance, superconducting systems do not

require a continuous supply of power to make up for

losses. This has far-reaching consequences, enabling

higher currents to be carried through wires, higher fields

in magnets, and further miniaturization of computers.

Strictly speaking, the property of zero resistance

obtains only under special conditions of direct (DC)

currents. For alternating (AC) currents, such as the 60

cycle currents available from household wall outlets,

superconductors do exhibit a small resistance. In general,

this resistance is still lower than that of other common

conductors such as copper and aluminum. However, the

resistance of these metals decreases with temperature,

dropping by roughly a factor of 6 between room

temperature (300 K) and liquid nitrogen temperature (77

K). Thus, the advantage of a superconductor over a

normal metal for a given application depends on how the

superconductor’s losses compare to those of normal wires

at the relevant frequency and temperature.

Meissner Effect

A superconductor expels magnetic fields from its

interior by generating electrical currents on the surface.

This property, known as the Meissner effect, is what

causes a small magnet to float above a superconductor,

and can be exploited, e.g., to produce frictionless bearings. This screening property also makes superconductors

useful as magnetic shields; e.g., electronics can be

shielded against electromagnetic interference from other

nearby equipment. Although zero resistance is the property exploited in most superconductivity applications, the

Meissner effect is considered the sine qua non o f

superconductivity; for while a drop in electrical resistance

to a low value can occur in nonsuperconductors, the

Meissner effect is unique to the superconducting state.

Figure 2-2—Temperature Dependence of

the Resistance of a Normal Conductor

and a Superconductor (schematic)

Superconductor

Normal conductor

— .

O K Tc

Temperature ~

At Tc

, the resistance of a superconductor drops to zero.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

High-Temperature Superconductors
Chapter 2--High-Temperature Superconductivity: A Progress Report ● 23

Figure 2-3--Superconducting Critical Transition

Temperature v. Year

300

250

200

x

al

s

z

&

e

? 150

100

50

Room temperature

———— — ———————

Llquld nitrogen — — —— ———— — ———

Nb 1 Ge

NbN Nb j Sn

r

Pb Nb t

Ha I

.—a

I 1 ) ! 1 I I I I 1

Y

CUO*

Ba

Cuo

Ba

Cuo 2

Y

The supercurrent is carried primarily in the CU02 planes.

SOURCE: Adapted from T.H. Geballe and J.K. Hulm, “Superconductivity—

The State That Came In From the Cold,” Science, vol. 239, No.

4838, Jan. 22, 1988, p. 370.

when cooled to 4 K (-452 oF). This occurred soon after the

successful liquefaction of helium, which allowed such

very low temperatures to be reached.

Although the Leiden group immediately saw many

applications for a lossless conductor, the superconductors

they had found could only carry high current densities at

low magnetic fields; as the fields were increased, they

reverted to normal metals. This made them technologically useless.

Over the years, more than 6,000 elements, compounds,

and alloys have been found to be superconductors. But for

many years no one understood how to get the currentcarrying capacity at high magnetic fields up into a useful

range. The first materials capable of carrying high

currents in high magnetic fields (“type II” materials—

see below) were discovered in the Soviet Union in the

1950s.

It was not until 1957 that a theoretical understanding of

superconductivity was achieved.1 Using this theory, the

Josephson Junction—a superconducting switching de-
2.4 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Photo credit: Argonne National Laboratory

Electron micrograph of the grain boundary between crystals of HTS. Striations reflect the stacking of copperoxygen planes. Because the supercurrent is carried primarily in the copper-oxygen planes, this kind of misalignment greatly reduces the current flow across

the grain boundaries in the bulk material.

vice useful in electronic circuits and computers—was

predicted and fabricated in 1962.2 In 1955, the first

practical supermagnet was produced at the University of

Illinois, and in 1960 significant supermagnet advances

were made at Bell laboratories. During the 1960s,

commercial superconducting wire became available, and

was soon used in large superconducting magnets for

particle accelerators and nuclear fision experiments.

During the 1960s and 1970s, supermagnets largely

displaced electromagnets for research, but it was not until

superconductors appeared in magnetic field sensors in the

1970s and in MRI magnets in the early 1980s that they

began to move out of a research environment. Since then,

superconductors have slowly been making their way into

commercial applications such as magnetic separators for

removing impurities from kaolin clay and fast electronics

for high-speed oscilloscopes (see ch. 3).

LTS is nearly 80 years old, while HTS is barely 3. The

period between the discovery of LTS and the development of the first practical conductors (’‘type II’ materials) was 50 years; it was another 20 years after that before

LTS began to be used outside of a laboratory environment. This suggests that the widespread commercialization of HTS may take decades. To be sure, much has been

learned from the development of LTS that may be

applicable to HTS. But, as discussed below, HTS also

presents some new challenges that will require real

breakthroughs to solve—not just hard work.

SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Superconductivity Theory

In 1957, Bardeen, Cooper, and Schreiffer, who received the Nobel prize for their theory (known as the

“BCS” theory), proposed that electrons form pairs

(known as Cooper pairs) in the superconductor and that

these pairs are able to carry currents without loss. In the

superconducting state, the electrons-which are normally

repelled from one another due to their same electric

charge-feel a net attraction through interaction with

vibrations of the crystal lattice, resulting in the formation

of Cooper pairs. BCS theory has proven applicable to all

known low-temperature superconductors with only minor

modifications. As yet, it is not clear whether BCS theory

can be adapted to explain the new HTS materials.

Critical Properties

A transition from the superconducting state back to the

normal state can occur in any of three independent ways:

by raising the temperature above the critical transition

temperature (TC

); by raising the current flow above the

critical current density (JC

); or by raising the applied

magnetic field above the critical magnetic field strength

(HC2). Alternatively, lesser changes in these variables can

cause the transition if they occur in combination.

For a typical superconducting material, the parameters

TC

, JC, and HC2define the boundaries within which the

material if in the superconducting state, and outside of

which the material is in its normal resistive state (see

figure 2-5). In general, the actual values of these

parameters depend not only on the type of material, but

also on its processing history, impurities, etc. For a given

superconducting material, an application is only feasible

if the operating temperature, current, and magnetic field

fall well within these boundaries. To obtain usefully high
Chapter High-Temperature Superconductivity: A Progress Report ● 25

Crmcal

J

Temperature

temperature T c K

H C(0)

H c

tleld densky

Material must be maintained below the “critical surface” to remain

superconducting.

SOURCE: Business Technology Research, “Superconductive Materials

and Devices,” 1988.

values of current and magnetic field, superconductors are

generally operated well below TC—ideally below about

1/2 T . Thus, for operation at 77 K, a TC of approximately

150 ~ is desirable, higher than the TC of any presently

known material. Accordingly, room-temperature operation would require a TC around 600 K, about 621 oF.

Behavior of Superconductors in a Magnetic Field

Superconductors are classified in two types according

to their behavior in an applied magnetic field (see figure

2-6). Type I superconductors, which include most pure

metal superconductors, exclude magnetic flux until a

maximum field (HC

) is exceeded at which point the

material loses its superconductivity. In general, type I

superconductors are not technologically important because HC is very low—100 to 1,000 gauss (0.01 to 0.1

tesla).3 By comparison, the field of a typical magnet used

in an MRI system is around 15,000 gauss. None of the

type I superconductors remains superconducting in such

a high field.

Virtually all superconductors of technological importance are type II, including the new HTS materials. Type

II superconductors have two critical fields, HCI and HC2.

They behave like type I materials at low magnetic fields,

below HCI. At fields above HC2, the superconductor is

driven into its normal state. For fields between H.l and

H.., the magnetic field penetrates the superconductor,

Type I Superconductor

H

I

Normal state

Superconducting state

Material must beat afield and temperature below the HC(T) line to

remain superconducting.

H

Type II Superconductor (schemstic)

Normal state

M[xed state

Hc, (T)

Melssner

state

— - T
26 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Figure 2-7--Schematic Representation of

Flux Vortices in a Type II Superconductor

Figure 2-8-Effect of Magnetic Field on

Superconducting Transition (schematic)

forming a lattice of vortices or supercurrent ‘whirlpools’

(see figure 2-7). These vortices repel one another, and

arrange themselves in a regular array so as to be as far

from one another as possible. As the magnetic field

increases toward HC2, more vortices are formed, the lattice

spacing is decreased, until at HCZ, the superconductivity

disappears.

Critical Current Density

I + Zero magnetic field

o TC

Temperature ~

An applied magnetic field causes resistance to appear in HTS

materials below TC

.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

A significant fraction of the vortices are pinned in place

by defects, grain boundaries, and other points of weakened superconductivity. Also, because of their mutual

repulsion, the unpinned vortices are locked in place.

Collectively, this local site pinning and the lattice locking

are known as the pinning force in the superconductor. At

the critical current the Lorentz force overcomes the

pinning force and vortices begin to move. This movement

constitutes resistance, and eventually quenches the superconductivity. An understanding of how to fabricate LTS

conductors with the strongest possible pinning forces has

been reached only after 20 years of research.

Increasing temperature can also act to disrupt the

superconductivity in type 11 materials. At low temperatures (around 4 K), the ambient thermal energy is not large
Chapter 2---High-Temperature Superconductivity: A Progress Report ● 27

enough to dislodge pinned vortices. Therefore, thermally

activated vortex movement has not been a problem with

LTS materials. At higher temperatures, though, the higher

thermal energy in the crystal can overcome the pinning

forces, causing vortices to jump from one site to another

(flux creep).

In the presence of a magnetic field, HTS materials

exhibit a small residual resistivity at temperatures considerably below TC (see figure 2-8). This phenomenon is not

observed in LTS, and may require HTS materials to be

operated substantially below TC for applications in a

magnetic field, i.e., at temperatures of 20 to 30 K rather

than 77 K. This residual resistivity is due both to poor

coupling between individual grains of HTS and to weak

vortex pinning vis-a-vis thermal energy. Better processing techniques will eventually lead to improved intergranular coupling. New and stronger pinning mechanisms will

have to be found to counteract the higher thermal energy

at higher operating temperatures. Some hope may be

derived from the fact that thin films of HTS exhibit far

higher critical currents in the presence of magnetic fields

than do bulk single crystals. This suggests that the low

critical currents in bulk materials may not be intrinsic, but

may be improved by creating microstructure similar to

those in thin films. In any case, materials with higher TC

do not necessarily have higher pinning strength, and

therefore are not necessarily more attractive for practical

applications.
Chapter 3

Applications of Superconductivity
CONTENTS

31

31

31

32

37

41

45

49

52

54

55

56

56

56

56

57

57

57

57

57

58

3-A.

3-B.

3-1.

3-2.

3-3.

3-4.

3-5.

3-6.

Magnetic

Magnetic

Separation

Resonance

Applications in the

Applications in the

Applications in the

Applications in the

Applications in the

Applications in the

Page

of Impurities From Kaolin Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Imaging . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Tables

Page

Electric Power Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Transportation Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Industrial Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Medical Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electronics and Communications Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Defense and Space Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

38

42

45

50

53
Chapter 3

Applications of Superconductivity

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to assess the

significance of high-temperature superconductors

(HTS) to the U.S. economy and to forecast the

timing of potential markets. Accordingly, it examines the major present and potential applications of

superconductors in seven different sectors: highenergy physics, electric power, transportation, industrial equipment, medicine, electronics/communications, and defense/space.

OTA has made no attempt to carry out an

independent analysis of the feasibility of using

superconductors in various applications. Rather, this

chapter draws on numerous reviews published over

the past several years. Nor is this discussion

exhaustive; instead, the intent is to survey some of

the noteworthy factors that will determine the

potential for HTS in the different economic sectors

cited above. In most applications, HTS competes

with low-temperature superconductors (LTS) as

well as with steadily improving nonsuperconducting

technologies; therefore, the prospects for LTS—a far

more mature technology—are considered in parallel

with those of HTS.

Following the discussion of applications is a

section on the lessons for HTS that can be gleaned

from nearly 80 years’ experience with LTS. The

chapter concludes with a discussion of the significance of a higher critical transition temperature (TC

)

in the context of the broader requirements that must

be met by any viable commercial technology.

APPLICATIONS

High-Energy Physics

From its inception until the coming of age of

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the mid1980s, the U.S. superconducting wire industry was

almost entirely dependent on wire procurements by

Federal laboratories. This wire was primarily used in

particle accelerator magnets for high-energy physics

(HEP) research.l

Accelerators require huge amounts of superconducting wire. The Superconducting Super Collider

will require an estimated 2,000 tons of NbTi wire,

worth several hundred million dollars.2 Accelerators

represent by far the largest market for superconducting wire, dwarfing commercial markets such as

MRI,

Superconductors are used in magnets that bend

and focus the particle beam, as well as in detectors

that separate the collision fragments in the target

area. (Superconducting radio frequency cavities are

also used to accelerate the particles in linear

accelerators.) The magnets typically operate at high

fields (around 5 tesla); the higher the operating

fields, the higher the particle energies that can be

achieved, and the smaller the size of the accelerator

needed. Superconducting magnets are essential because they have low losses and enable higher

magnetic fields; without them, power requirements

and construction costs would be prohibitive. The

low operating temperature of LTS magnets also

helps to minimize scattering of the beam.

Superconducting Super Collider (SSC)

The SSC is a racetrack-shaped collider that is

expected to extend particle physics research to a

higher level of energy—about 20 TeV—than has

ever been achieved before.3 Sited in central Texas,

the SSC is to be 54 miles in circumference—lo

times the size of the Fermilab Tevatron—and may

cost as much as $7.2 billion.4 The superconducting

magnets, which have experienced development problems, are expected to account for about one-third of

the total SSC construction cost. In fiscal 1990,$225

million was appropriated to continue development

and begin construction of the SSC. The project is

expected to be completed in 10 years.
32 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

Photo credit: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Completed superconducting dipole magnets for Fermilab’s

Tevatron, stacked awaiting installation in the

4-mile accelerator.

With the discovery of superconductivity above

liquid nitrogen temperature, the possibility arose of

delaying construction of the SSC in order to be able

to use HTS for the magnets. Potential savings were

anticipated in either of two areas: by operating at

higher temperatures and thus reducing the refrigeration costs, or by operating at higher fields and thus

permitting a reduction in the size of the ring. But

studies have shown that-even if suitable HTS

magnets were available today—neither of these

savings would amount to much.s G 7

In any case, analysts have estimated that it would

take at least 12 years to demonstrate an accelerator

dipole magnet made from an I-ITS material.8 Furthermore, physicists have learned from bitter experience that it is better to be cautious in pushing the

state-of-the-art in accelerator magnet technology.9

Although primary reliance on HTS is ruled out for

the SSC, there maybe niche applications that could

help to bootstrap HTS into the next generation of

machines. One possible use of HTS would be in

electrical leads that supply power between the liquid

nitrogen cooling jacket and the LTS magnets at

liquid helium temperature, thereby reducing the heat

load on the refrigeration system. But in the foreseeable future, LTS wire will continue to be the material

of choice for the critical magnets used in HEP

research.

Electric Power

Several applications of superconductivity in the

electric power sector have undergone extensive

evaluation and even prototype development: e.g.,

fusion magnets, generators, superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES), and AC transmission

lines. An overview of the impact of superconductivity on these applications is provided in table 3-1.

Other applications not discussed here include magnetohydrodynamic power generation, transformers,

motors, and power conditioning electronics.

Fusion Magnets

Magnetic fusion requires confinement of a heated

plasma in a magnetic field long enough to get it to

ignite—about 1 second. *O Superconducting magnets

are considered essential for the continuous, highfield operation that would be necessary for a

commercial fusion reactor.

Like particle accelerator magnets, Federal fusion

magnet programs have provided a significant government market that has driven the development of
Chapter 3—Applications of Superconductivity * 33

superconducting magnet technology.ll As a result,

there are no major unsolved technical problems in

the fabrication of large fusion magnets. 12 The lack of

follow through on these programs can be attributed

to technical, economic, and political issues affecting

fusion technology. Because magnet refrigeration

costs are less than 1 percent of total construction

costs, the advent of HTS is not expected to change

the outlook for fusion.13

Superconducting Generators

Superconducting generators enjoy three potential

benefits over conventional generators. They offer

better system stability against frequency changes

due to transients on the grid. Because they can

operate at higher magnetic fields (5 to 6 tesla), the

size can be reduced up to 50 percent; this in turn

could reduce capital costs significantly. Finally,

efficiency could be increased by 0.5 percent (a

reduction in losses of around 50 percent). Even this

small efficiency increase could result in fuel savings

that would pay back the capital costs of the generator

over its lifetime.14

Although several prototype superconducting generators were designed and constructed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, General Electric

Co., and Westinghouse Electric Corp. during the

1960s to the early 1980s,15 these were never

commercialized because there was no perceived

demand for new generating capacity.lb Today, the

United States has no significant ongoing commercial LTS generator program, although programs are

continuing in West Germany, Japan, and the Soviet

Union. Siemens in West Germany is proceeding

with plans for an 850 megawatt (MW) commercial

system, and tests of prototype components are

expected to begin in 1990.17 A consortium of

Japanese companies is developing a 200 MW

generator for the late 1990s (the “Super-GM”

project, see ch. 5).

Most studies indicate that LTS generators are only

competitive with conventional generators at very

high power ratings (500 to 1,000 MW). But with low

load growth in the 1980s and continuing uncertainties about demand in the 1990s, there appears to be

little enthusiasm among U.S. firms to put up their

own cash for R&D on such large machines. *8 In

principle, use of HTS could make smaller machines

more competitive, but estimates differ on how much.

The refrigeration system would be much simpler,

and this would lead to greater reliability and

maintainability. But the application involves a

high-field, high-current, wire-wound magnet, spinning at high speed, under large centrifugal stresses.

HTS wires would have to carry current densities on

the order of 100,000 Amps/cm2 in a 5 tesla magnetic
34 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Table 3-1-Applications in the Electric Power Sector

Application Impact of superconductivity Comments

Fusion magnets Technical feasibility demonstrated with LTS, Superconducting magnets are essential, but

unlikely with HTS. fusion is limited by technical problems unrelated

to superconductivity.

Magnetohydrodynamics Technical feasibility demonstrated for LTS, Similar to fusion situation.

(MHD) magnets unlikely for HTS.

Generators Technical feasibility of rotors demonstrated with Superconducting designs only economic at high

LTS, possible with HTS. power ratings, for which demand is limited. HTS

could make smaller generators more attractive,

but faces extreme technical challenges. Virtually

no active programs in U. S., despite continuing

development programs abroad.

Superconducting Magnetic Technical feasibility demonstrated with LTS, Similar to generator situation, although U.S. has

Energy Storage (SMES) possible with HTS. an active program due to potential for military

applications.

Transmission lines Technical feasibility demonstrated with LTS, Must be placed underground, making capital

potentially attractive with HTS. costs high. Superconducting designs only economic at high power ratings, though HTS could

make lower capacity lines more attractive. Market outlook discouraging.

May provide an early opportunity to demonstrate

performance of HTS in a utility setting.

Auxiliary equipment: Minor with LTS, promising for HTS.

Current limiters

Switches

Fuses

Power leads

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

field to realize the large decrease in size possible.

These requirements make the generator one of the

most difficult applications for HTS.

Beyond the turn of the century, there will be a

market for new generators, both to replace older

equipment and to accommodate growth in demand.19 The share of superconducting generators in

this market is uncertain. But one thing is clear.

Because it is likely to take at least 15 years to

demonstrate a commercial system, the United States

is effectively conceding this market to its competitors unless it restarts its LTS generator programs

immediate y.

Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES)

In an SMES system, electric power is stored in the

magnetic field of a large superconducting magnet,

and can be retrieved efficiently at short notice.

Power conditioning systems are required to convert

the DC power in the magnet to AC for the grid when

discharging the SMES, and vice versa when recharging. SMES has several potential applications in

electric utilities. Large units (above 1 GW-hr capacity) could be used for diurnal storage and load

leveling. Smaller units may provide a number of

operating benefits: e.g., spinning reserve, automatic

generation control, black start capability, and improved system stability.

SMES is also of interest to the military because it

can deliver large quantities of pulsed power to

weapon systems such as ground-based lasers for

ballistic missile defense. The Strategic Defense

Initiative Organization (SDIO) is presently supporting the development of a 20 MW-hr/400 MW

engineering test model (ETM), which could begin

tests by 1993.20 Because the military design and the

utility design are similar except for the power

conditioning system (weapons must receive large

amounts of power quickly and may drain the SMES

in a very short time; utilities must have a constant

reliable supply from which smaller amounts of

power are withdrawn on a daily basis), utilities are
Chapter 3—Applications of Superconductivity ● 35

providing a small percentage of the funding through

the Electric Power Research Institute.

Utilities have experimented with several methods

of storing energy, including pumping water uphill to

a reservoir, compressing air, and charging batteries

and capacitors. SMES has several advantages over

other types of energy storage systems. For load

leveling, it offers a higher efficiency than any other

storage technology—90 to 93 percent,21 compared

to 70 to 75 percent for pumped hydro-and can

switch back and forth between charging mode and

discharging mode in a matter of milliseconds. This

quick response time means that it can contribute to

the stability of the utility system against transient

disturbances. 22

The SMES concept has undergone extensive

evaluation in the United States since the early

1970s.23 Most studies indicate that SMES for load

leveling is only cost-effective at very large storage

capacities, around 5000 MW-hr.24 Such an SMES

would be physically very large, perhaps 1,000

meters in diarneter.25 To contain the magnetic forces

on the coils, the SMES must be buried in bedrock,

with total construction costs estimated to be around

$1 billion.2b

I-ITS does not appear to offer dramatic reductions

in capital or operating costs for SMES. With

excellent HTS materials (comparable in cost and

properties to NbTi, except with higher critical

temperature), one could reduce capital costs by 3 to

8 percent.27 HTS would provide only marginal

improvements in the efficiency of the system, since

only 2 percent of the power is consumed by

refrigeration (this decreases with increasing SMES

capacity), and 3 to 4 percent of the power is lost in

the power conversion electrical system, the main

determinant of efficiency. The high electric currents

required could be another stumbling block for HTS.

To reduce capital costs of the conductors, high

critical current densities are required-in excess of

300,000 Amps/cm2

. The best present HTS wires are

only capable of some tens of thousands of Arnps/cm2

at 77 K, and this decreases in increasing magnetic

fields. HTS materials could, however, be a good

choice for the power leads connecting the liquid

nitrogen jacket to the liquid helium temperature

SMES coil.

In the present economic environment, utilities

find such a large SMES unattractive compared with

supplementary gas turbines. Before investing in

such a large project, utilities will require that the

technical feasibility and economic assumptions be

demonstrated in smaller SMES systems such as the

SDIO ETM mentioned above. Small SMES units

(less than 100 MW-hr) are also undergoing evaluation for industrial or residential use in Japan.

Power Transmission Lines

Interest in superconducting power transmission

lines dates back to the 1960s, when demand for

electricity was doubling every 10 years. There was

great concern about where large new power plants

could be sited safely--specially nuclear plants—

and about how such large amounts of power could be

transmitted to users without disrupting the environment. Overhead lines often cut swathes through

wooded areas and spoil scenery. Underground lines,

a solution to environmental concerns, have other

problems. Conventional underground cables are

about 10 times more expensive than overhead lines,

and consequently account for only 1 percent of the

transmission lines in the United States. Moreover,

because of heat dissipation and line impedance

problems, these lines are limited to small capacities

and short distances. ———
34 ● High.Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Superconducting lines promised to address these

problems: since their current-carrying capacity is not

limited by heat dissipation they are able to carry

large amounts of power at relatively low voltage.

After the oil embargo of 1973, the emphasis shifted

to the conservation potential of superconducting

transmission. On average, about 4 percent of the

electric power carried by a transmission line is lost

due to resistance. 28 In In principle, most of these losses

could be avoided through the use of superconducting

transmission lines.29

Superconducting transmission lines could carry

either direct current (DC) or alternating current

(AC). DC lines are used to carry large blocks of

power from one point to another. A superconducting

DC cable could carry very high currents with no

resistive losses. But because the cost of DC lines is

dominated by the conversion to AC at either end, a

superconducting line would have to be extremely

long (perhaps several hundred miles) to be economically competitive with cheaper overhead lines. Such

cables are unlikely to be used except where alternatives are not available (e.g., for undersea power

transmission), and are not considered further here.

During the 1970s, there were several important

studies of AC superconducting transmission lines.30

Three major projects were initiated in the United

States, the most extensive of which was at Brookhaven

National Laboratory. The Brookhaven project produced two 115 meter, 80 kilovolt (kV), one-phase

lines made from Nb3Sn. The project met all of its

original design objectives, and, through continuous

contact and collaboration with the utilities, maintained its relevance through its 14-year life span. But

by the time it was completed in 1986, the economic

landscape had changed.

Power consumption is no longer doubling every

10 years, and the near-term demand for new

transmission lines of any type appears to be minimal,

going hand-in-hand with the low demand for new

generating capacity. There is evidence that existing

transmission capacity is almost fully utilized. But at

present, utilities prefer to build small power plants

close to the end users rather than large plants far

away.

31 EPRI has estimated that a liquid heliumcooled line would have to carry more than 5,000

megavolt-amps (MVA) to be cost-competitive.q2

This is much larger than a typical conventional line,

rated at 1,000 to 3,000 MVA, and most utilities

today are interested in smaller lines in the 200 to

1,000 MVA range.33

Transmission lines appear to be one of the few

electric power applications where the incremental

advantage of HTS at 77 K over LTS is very

significant. This is because the long lengths involved make the cost of cooling with liquid helium

extremely high, and the demands made on the

conductor performance are relatively low. By some

estimates, HTS could reduce costs by as much as 30

percent compared with LTS. EPRI has estimated

that, using HTS conductors, lines with capacities as

low as 500 MVA may be economically feasible.3435

It is ironic that in this one electric power application

for which HTS technology seems potentially suitable, the projected demand is lacking.3b

Current Limiters, Switches, and Fuses

These devices are used to control power flows,

especially during short circuit conditions in the

electric power system, and thus also reduce the short

circuit capacity required of other components, such

as cables, transmission lines, generators, and transformers.

Superconducting versions of these devices generally rely on controlling currents by switching the

conductor from the nonresistive superconducting

state to the normal resistive state. Compared with

their conventional analogs, these superconducting

components offer the advantage that they introduce

28 The Electric Power Research Institute, op. cit., footnote 14, p. 16.

29 There are conventional alternatives. For instance, losses could be reduced by using conventional conductors having a larger cross section, though

this would increase conductor weight and require somewhat higher capital investment for towers, etc.

30 TMAH Consultants, op. cit., footnote 15, p. 11.

31 Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 18, p. 20.

32 EPRI, op. cit., footnote 14. 1988, p. 18.

33 Ibid., p.18.

34 Ibid., p. 18.

35 A recent EPRI report concludes that present materials are still far from technical feasibility, though. Electric Power Research Institute, Assessment

of Higher-Temperature Superconductors for Utility Applications, EPRI ER-6399, Project 2898-3 Final Report, May 1989.

36 This demand Picture, thou@, could change rapidly in the future due to environmental or Other site-specific considerations.
no losses into the system during normal operation,

and switching times can be reduced from 1 to 2

cycles (about 20 milliseconds) to less than 1

millisecond.

These applications may be especially attractive

for HTS compared with LTS. The new ceramics

have comparatively high resistivity in the normal

state, and liquid nitrogen is a far more efficient

coolant than liquid helium. Moreover, these devices

need operate only in small magnetic fields, and are

subjected to small mechanical forces. Such smallscale applications could provide an early opportunity to gain experience with HTS in a utility setting.

Transportation

Applications of superconductivity in transportation include: magnets for levitation, propulsion, and

guidance of high-speed ground vehicles (“maglev”); motors and generators for use in ships,

aircraft, locomotives, and other ground vehicles;

energy storage and propulsion systems for cars; and

magnets for ship propulsion. An overview of the

impact of superconductivity on these applications is

given in table 3-2. Of these, maglev systems are the

most extensively developed, and have received the

most attention.

Maglev Systems

Airports and highways are becoming more and

more congested, resulting not only in costly time

delays, but in serious smog problems in heavily

traveled corridors. Community resistance to new

roads and airports compounds the difficulties of

expanding these to fill travel demand. Transportation petroleum consumption alone exceeds domestic

oil production, and oil supplies will continue to

diminish as travel demand increases. 37 High-speed

maglev vehicle systems offer one solution to these

problems.

There are two principal levitation concepts for

maglev vehicles: attractive-force and repulsiveforce, Attractive maglev uses nonsuperconducting

electromagnets mounted on the vehicle that are

37 A.M. Wolsky et al., op. cit., footnote ‘21, p. 169.
38 ● High-Termperature superconductivity in perspective

Table 3-2—Applications in the Transportation Sector

Application Impact of superconductivity Comments

Maglev systems Technical feasibility demonstrated with LTS, Superconducting designs offer some advanminor with HTS. tages over conventional (attractive) maglev, but

oosts are dominated by land acquisition and

guideway construction.

Automobiles Negligible unless room-temperature supercon- Cryogenic systems would be costly and inconductors are discovered. venient.

Ships:

Electric drive Technical feasibility demonstrated with LTS, May be most attractive in military ships where

possible with HTS. space and flexibility of hull design are at a

premium,

Electromagnetic thrust Possible with LTS, unlikely for HTS. Technical and economic feasibility have yet to

be proven in oceangoing vessels; requires large,

high-field magnets.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

attracted to the underside of steel rails. This concept

was invented in West Germany and is also called

‘‘electromagnetic maglev. One disadvantage of

this design is that the suspension gap between the

rails and the car is less than one-half inch, placing

strict demands on track alignment. The system is

dynamically unstable and requires precise real-time

feedback to control the suspension height. The

vehicles are also very heavy (the latest weighs 102

tons), and require a massive support structure.

Nevertheless, full-scale development of this system,

called the Transrapid, is now underway in West

Germany, with commercial operation scheduled to

begin in the mid-1990s.38

Repulsive-force maglev, also called “electrodynamics, ’ uses vehicles levitated by superconducting

magnets that induce repulsive currents in a guideway containing aluminum sheets or coils. Vehicles

are levitated 6 to 10 inches above the guideway. This

concept, invented in the United States,39 was developed into scale models in the early 1970s, with

support from the Federal Railroad Administration,

the National Science Foundation, and private companies.

Support for all high-speed ground transportation

research in the United States terminated in 1975,

however. Meanwhile, the Japanese have actively

continued developing a superconducting maglev

system based on the U.S. “null flux” levitation and

propulsion scheme, and a full-scale model has been

Photo credit: Japan External Trade Organization

Japan’s prototype linear motor car, a magnetically

levitated train.

undergoing tests on a 4.3-mile test track in

Miyazaki, Japan for several years.~ 41

Conceptually, the West German and Japanese

maglev systems are railroad systems, in which the

maglev suspension is substituted for steel wheels.

Viewed as a railroad technology, maglev trains offer

several advantages over steel wheel trains. Maglev

is capable of higher speeds (circa 300 mph) than

steel-on-steel (circa 185 mph, with potential for over

200 mph). Maglevs are quieter, operable in a greater

range of weather conditions, and are less polluting

than diesel trains (although equivalent to electric

trains). They have fewer moving parts, resulting in

38 The first commercial route is expected to connect the airports of Bonn and Essen.

39 G.R. Danby and J.R. Powell, ‘‘A 300 MPH Magnetically-Suspended Train, ’ Mechanical Engineering, vol. 89, November 1%7, pp. 30-35,

40 S.J. Thompson, Congressional Research Service, “High Speed Ground Transportation (HGST): Prospects and Public Policy,” Apr. 6, 1989, p. 5.

41 Construction of a new 27-mile test track has also been approved for the Yamanashi prefecture.
Chapter 3—Applications of Superconductivity ● 39

less wear and tear, and are less likely to derail

because of the close coupling between train and

track.

Notable disadvantages of maglev center around

development and construction costs. Development

costs for the West German Transrapid system have

exceeded $1 billion, $800 million of which has been

subsidized by the West German government.42

Development costs of the Japanese system have also

exceeded $1 billion, and construction costs for the

new 27-mile Japanese system are expected to be

around $56 million per mile (not counting tunneling

costs) .43 Development of a U.S. system is estimated

to cost $780 milliona plus $15 million per mile for

construction. 45

Maglev is being evaluated along with other

high-speed ground transportation options for several

corridors in Florida, Nevada/California, Texas, and

Ohio. Given the lack of domestic maglev technology

in the United States, the West German and Japanese

systems are being considered.4b Florida has begun a

process that could initiate construction of a maglev

line (using the West German Transrapid technology)

between Orlando Airport and Disney World/Epcott

Center as early as 1990.47 Although the United

States was a world leader in maglev R&D in the

mid- 1970s, there are no ongoing development programs. 48 However, it remains unclear whether these

“train-like” maglev systems will be broadly applicable in the United States, given the relatively lower

demand for train travel compared with Europe and

Japan.

Going Beyond Railroads-There are other ways

of viewing maglev technology than as a simple

replacement for existing rail transportation. In one

concept, lightweight individual vehicles follow one

another closely along the guideway, each programmed to pull off and stop only at its destination.49 Unlike railroads, this system could be installed along existing interstate highways, and

indeed, conceptually resembles an elevated, highspeed freeway lane.

Recent studies have also suggested that maglev

may more usefully be viewed as an airline technology, rather than a railroad technology .50 Maglev

could be integrated into the Nation’s air transportation system as a substitute for less profitable (and

inefficient) short-haul airline flights (those of less

than 600 miles). Using small maglev systems for

these distances would free up limited gate space as

well as take-off and landing slots for more profitable

long distance flights. Maglev lines could be installed

as spokes radiating from major airports that have

sizable populations within a limited radius.

Role of Superconductivity--Superconducting magnets are essential to repulsive maglev technology;

however, the magnets and refrigeration systems

together account for only 1 to 2 percent of total costs;

the major system cost is in construction of the

guideway (60 to 90 percent of total system cost) .51

If high-speed maglev systems are judged to be

politically and economically desirable, present LTS

magnet technology is adequate to the task; thus,

superconductivity technology is not a bottleneck to

the development of maglev. The discovery of HTS

does not change this analysis. Although the vehicles

could be made somewhat lighter with HTS magnets,

42 "Perspective,” Business Month, November 1988, p. 11.

43 NationaJ Technical Information Service, Foreign Technology, vol. 89, No. 38, Sept. 19. 1989, P. iv.

44 See Maglev Technology Advisory Committee, Benefits of Magnetically-Leviated High Speed Transportation for the United States, Executive

Report published by Grurnman Corp. for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, June 1989, p. 30.

45 L.R. Johnson et al., Maglev Vehicles and Superconductor Technology: fntegratwn of High-Speed Ground Transportation into the Air Travel System,

Argonne National Laboratory Center for Transportation Research, CNSV-67, April 1989, p. 5.

46 See Maglev Technology Advisory Committee, op. cit., footnote 44, p. 30.

47 Paul H Reistrup, President of the Monongahela Railway Co., testimony at hearings before the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Oct. 17, 1989.

48 Several bills were introduced in the 101st Congress (S-220 and S-221, H. Con. Res. 232) supporting us. maglev programs. The Bush Administration

has requested about $10 million in the fiscal year 1991 budget for maglev feasibility studies.

49 H.H. Kolm and R.D. Thornton, “The Magneplane: Guided Electromagnetic Flight, ’ Proceedings of the Applied Superconductivity Conference,

Annapolis, MD, May 1-3, 1972.

50 L. R. Johnson et al., op. cit., footnote 45.

51 Larry Johnson, Director, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, written testimony at hearings before the Senate

Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Water Resources, Transportation and Infrastructure, Feb. 26, 1988, p. 4.
40 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

the overall gains would be no more than a few

percent.52

Automobiles

Proposed auto applications include SMES devices to supply short bursts of power for starting or

accelerating vehicles (allowing use of a smaller

motor for the steady speed operation of the car), and

linear induction motors that would receive power

from conducting strips in the roadway (similar to the

propulsion system in maglev). Superconducting

motors for cars are also possible. But most analysts

agree that neither LTS at 4 K nor HTS at 77 K

appears to have significant applications in automobiles in the foreseeable future.

Batteries are far superior to SMES devices in

automobiles because of their comparatively larger

energy storage density, and would be cheaper as

well, due to the inconvenience and cost of cooling

the SMES. And a superconducting linear induction

propulsion system would require not only an entirely

new vehicle design, but a new infrastructure of

power strips in millions of miles of roadways and a

corresponding number of power distribution substations. According to U.S. auto industry experts,

superconductors will not be used widely in cars

unless they can operate at ambient temperatures.53

Ship Propulsion

Electric Drive-Present ship drive designs rely

on mechanical power transfer—i.e., a long drive

shaft and extensive gearing between the power plant

and the propeller. All parts of the mechanical

propulsion system must be in fixed locations,

leaving little design flexibility. Moreover, since all

power transfer is mechanical, the system is extremely noisy, with considerable vibration that can

be easily detected—an undesirable feature for military craft such as submarines.

Electric drive consists of a turbine/generator

system coupled electrically to the motor/propeller

system. This provides greater design flexibility,

since the two can be located independently, accommodating unusual hull shapes. It also offers operational flexibility, e.g., lower inertia in the drive

system and reduced noise.54

Superconductors can be used in both the generator

system and the motor system. Although superconductors can provide somewhat higher efficiency

than conventional generators and motors, the principal advantage on ships appears to be the potential for

reduced size and weight. This is especially important

in smaller craft-e. g., destroyers and submarines—

where hull space is restricted. Thus, electric drive

ship propulsion in the United States is mostly of

interest to the Navy. A superconducting DC homopolar generator and motor prototype system has

been constructed and tested on a 65 foot ship at the

David Taylor Research Center in Annapolis, Maryland. f5

While LTS materials offer considerable size

reduction over conventional technologies, HTS

materials appear to offer little advantage over LTS

for this application. An HTS motor and an LTS

motor (both 10 to 15 Tesla, with the same rpm and

horsepower) would have approximately the same

weight and diarneter.5b HTS materials may also be

unable to support adequate current densities at the

high magnetic fields required.

Electromagnetic Thrust Propulsion—131ectromagnetic thrust drive systems (sometimes called

magnetohydrodymamic (MHD) drives), rely on

seawater flowing through a channel in the hull where

a DC electric current is passed through it. This

current interacts with a field applied by a large

magnet, resulting in a backward force on the water

that propels the ship forward.

The propulsion force is proportional to the magnitudes of the current and the magnetic field

strength. However, the current is limited by the

amount that can be passed through seawater without

causing excessive power losses due to heating. Thus,

the thrust depends on the strength of the magnetic

field. It has been estimated that a magnet of 10

52 1bid.

52 Superconductor Week, vol. 2, No. 45, NOV. 21, l988, p. 6.

53 Business Technology Research, op. cit., footnote 2, 1988, p. 106.

55 Although such a supconducting DC motor may offer advantages on board small military ships, this may be a niche application only. The market

for DC motors has been shrinking for years due to replacement by variable speed AC motors (see discussion of motors in industrial section below).

56 M1chael J. SuperCYnSkl, David Taylor Research Center, in a presentation at the Conference on Military Developments sponsored by Superconductor

Week, Washington, DC, Oct. 31 to Nov. 1, 1988.
Chapter 3—Applications of Superconductivity ● 41

tesla is needed for a commercial system to be

economic .57

Superconducting magnets are the only practical

option for achieving such large fields. However,

large-bore magnets having such high fields would be

extremely massive (not to say expensive), reducing

propulsion efficiency. For the same reasons discussed above for large, high-field magnets, this is

not a promising application for HTS. MHD propulsion has been considered for use on submarines

because it eliminates the detectable vibrations associated with the propeller and generator, although it

may not be acceptable for this application because

the leakage magnetic field and various gases generated might make the submarine too vulnerable to

detection. 58

The MHD drive concept was fust developed in the

United States in the 1950s, but the United States

currently has no active development programs. The

Japanese Foundation for Shipbuilding Advancement (an industry association) is building a prototype MHD-propelled ship scheduled for completion

in 1990.59

Industrial Applications

There are many potential applications of superconductivity in industrial equipment. A partial list

includes sensors for process and quality control;

magnets for separation of solid, liquid, and gaseous

mixtures; magnets for processing and shaping materials; accelerator magnets for x-ray lithography of

microelectronic chips; and windings for industrial

motors. In several of these applications, e.g., magnetic separation and compact accelerators, the feasibility has been demonstrated with LTS. The likely

impact of superconductivity in some illustrative

applications is indicated in table 3-3.

Sensors

Industrial sensor applications of superconductors

have been discussed by several authorsm and include

applications both inside and outside the factory: for

example, inspection of raw materials, monitoring of

manufacturing functions such as the positioning of

the work piece and tool, nondestructive inspection in

finished parts, detection of corrosion in bridges, or

exploration for mineral and oil deposits, etc.

The most commonly discussed superconducting

sensors are Superconducting Quantum Interference

Devices (SQUIDS),61 which are capable of detecting

extremely small magnetic fields; however, superconducting sensors can also be configured to measure small currents, voltages, temperature changes,

and electromagnetic radiation emissions. Of course,

there are numerous options for sensors using more

conventional technologies: optical, chemical, ultrasonic, etc., and superconducting sensors may offer

advantages only in certain niches.

Heretofore, LTS SQUIDS have not found application in industrial settings because their sensitivity

typically far exceeds the ambient magnetic field

noise levels, and because of the difficulty of working

with liquid helium. Although HTS SQUIDS operating at 77 K are inherently more noisy than LTS

SQUIDS operating at 4 K, their sensitivity is likely

to be more than adequate for the industrial environment, and they would be far easier to maintain and

transport.

While sensor markets for HTS are not likely to be

large in terms of volume of material, there appears

to be a number of possible niches. One example

might be an array of HTS SQUIDS for improved

detection of concealed weapons at security checkpoints. Because sensors are not especially demanding in terms of the superconductor material properties, present HTS materials may be adequate, and

commercial HTS SQUIDS could be introduced

within a few years. The United States appears to be

— .

57 D.L. Mitchell and D.U. Gubser, "Magnetohydroynamic" Ship Propulsion With Superconducting Magnets, ” Journal of Superconductivity, vol. 1, 

No. 4, 1988, p. 349.

58 Frank Hutchison, DARPA, personal communication, September 1988.

59 The “Yamato l,” 38 meters long and 10 meters across, is the product of a 6-year, $350 million effort begun in 1985. The vessel will be built at

Mitsubishi’s Kobe plant. Superconductor Week, vol. 4, No. 5, Jan. 29, 1990, p. 5.

60 See, for exmple

, Thomas P. Sheahan, Industrial Superconductivity, a report to the. Office of Industrial Programs, U.S. Department of Energy!

October 1987.

61 For an introduction to SQUIDS and their applications, see R. Fagaly, “SQUID instrumentation and Applications, ” Superconductor Industry, vol.

2, No. 4, Winter 1989, p. 24.
42 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Table 3-3-Applications in the Industrial Sector

Application Impact of superconductivity Comments

Sensors: Minor for LTS, significant for HTS. Operation at 77 K could offer greater reliability

Processing and maintainability in the industrial environment.

Quality control

Magnetic separation Significant for LTS, potentially promising for Reliability and performance with LTS have

HTS. already been demonstrated in kaolin clay

purification.

Materials processing Moderate for LTS, minor for HTS. Will face strong mmpetition from conventional

and shaping electromagnets.

Compact accelerators Moderate for LTS, minor for HTS. High magnetic fields and high mechanical

strength are essential.

Motors Minor for LTS, possible for HTS. LTS only economic for the largest sizes (above

10,000 hp). HTS motors could reduce the

economic break-even point, but the conductor

must have extremely high performance.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

well-positioned to participate in the early markets

for HTS SQUIDS.

C2

Magnetic Separation

A strong magnetic field can be used to separate a

mixture of magnetic and nonmagnetic materials.

Conventional magnets are presently used in a variety

of industrial separation processes, especially for the

separation of strongly magnetic metals from other

solids. Compared with other industrial separation

techniques (e.g., distillation, filtration, chemical

methods, and membranes), magnetic separation

methods are not widely used, however.

The use of iron cores in conventional electromagnets limits the attainable fields in magnetic separators to around 2 tesla, and limits the magnetic field

volume due to the sheer weight of the iron. With

superconducting magnets, a 2-telsa field can be

produced in a larger volume, or continuous fields of

5 tesla and above can be produced in a smaller

volume. The use of higher fields permits a higher

process throughput, and makes it possible to separate smaller particles having weaker magnetism.

Superconducting magnetic separation systems

have recently been demonstrated commercially in

several countries for separation of discoloring impurities from white kaolin clay, a material widely used

in the paper industry (see box 3-A). Superconducting magnets could also be used for removal of

environmentally harmful materials from municipal

solid waste and wastewater streams, removal of

sulfur from coal, and pretreatment of water to reduce

carbonate scale formation in pipes and fixtures.c3

A promising possibility for the future could be the

combination of chemical and magnetic separation

techniques. Selective chemical attachment of magnetic tags to specific molecules in a mixture could

facilitate their separation by magnetic methods.

In principle, HTS magnetic separator systems

would offer significantly lower capital and operating

costs than LTS systems, since the scale of these

systems is small enough that the 4 K cryogenic

systems constitute a significant fraction of overall

system costs. In addition, HTS magnets operating at

77 K would be easier to maintain and require shorter

times for warmup and cool down. Unknown factors

are whether HTS materials can achieve high enough

current densities in the ambient magnetic fields,

whether they will be sufficiently flexible to be

wound into magnets, whether they will be sufficiently strong to withstand the powerful reaction

forces of the generated fields, and whether they will

be sufficiently reliable and stable in the industrial

environment.

Materials Processing

Recent laboratory work suggests that magnetic

fields below 2 tesla applied during processing can

have a pronounced effect on the final microstructure

of various materials: e.g., the sintering of ceramics,

62 Federal laboratories such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology and firms such as IBM have announced Progress in developing HTS

SQUID technology.

63 S.J. Dale et. al., summary report for RP8009-2, Electric Power Research Institute ER-6682, January 1990.
Chapter 3—Applications of Superconductivity ● 43

Box 3-A--Magnetic Separation of Impurities From Kaolin Clayl

Kaolin clay is a naturally occurring white mineral that is used to fill and whiten paper products. It also is used

in china and ceramics. Magnetic separation can improve the whiteness and brightness of low-grade kaolin clay by

removing iron-containing magnetic impurities that stain the clay, thus increasing the clay’s value and utility.

Magnetic impurities are trapped in the tnagnetic field of the separator, while the kaolin passes through unaffected.

1n 1987, U.S. production of kaolin totaled 8,827,000 short tons, valued at approximately $540 million. The Bureau

of Mines projects U.S. demand to be greater than 12 million short tons in the year 2000.2

In 1%7, J.M. Huber Corp., a producer of kaolin clay, sought methods for improving the low-grade clay

available in Georgia. Based on research conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology National Magnet

Laboratory under the National Science Foundation’s Research Applied to National Needs program, the process of

High Gradient Magnetic Separation (HGMS) was developed, and the first HGMS separators-using both

conventional and superconducting magnets—were built by Magnetic Engineering Associates, a small Cambridge,

Massachusetts firm. Eventually, the technology was licensed to the clay industry worldwide, as well as to the

tacortite (a low-grade iron ore) and water purification industries.

By 1973, commercially available magnetic separators for kaolin (using conventional electromagnets) could

process 60 tons/hr, Since that time, the magnetic separator has become the standard industry method for producing

high-quality kaolin clay from low-grade sources.

In May 1986, Huber introduced the first low-temperature superconducting version of the kaolin magnetic

separator, with a phenomenal 99 percent uptime in its first year, In the superconducting magnetic separator, the

conventional electromagnet is replaced by a superconducting one. In addition, the energizing and de-energizing of

the magnet are computer controlled. Huber contracted with Eriez Magnetics to build the superconducting version,

at a cost of around $2 million, including the refrigeration equipment. It processes 20 tons of kaolin per hour, with

a 90 percent reduction in the amount of electricity required compared to a conventional unit. Part of the success of

this superconducting magnetic separator is due to its conservative design. Its liquid helium refrigeration capacity

is twice what is needed for normal operation. In addition, there is a reservoir of liquid helium sufficient to keep the

system running for over a week in the event of a total failure of the refrigerator. The design life is l@ cycles, which

is over 50 years use for 2 cycles/hour, 24 hours a day. Huber ordered a second, larger unit, and placed it in operation

in March 1989.

There are five companies worldwide that have taken superconducting magnetic separators beyond the

laboratory: KHD Humboldt Wedag {West Germany), Cryogenic Consultants Limited (United Kingdom), Eriez

Magnetics (U.S.A.), Czechoslovakia Kaolin Works, and Oxford Instruments Limited (United Kingdom). Two of

these companies, Eriez and Czechoslovakia Kaolin Works, make superconducting magnetic separators for kaolin

clay. The Czech system produces 15 tons of purified kaolin per hour.

The market for superconducting magnetic separators for kaolin clay is limited, even though demand for kaolin

is expected to continue to grow. There are probably less than 20 large kaolin magnetic separators, conventional and

superconducting, currently operating in the United States. However, the experience with superconducting magnetic

separators in this application has important lessons far other applications of magnetic separation.

Magnetic separators in the industrial environment must have high reliability and operating simplicity.

Conventional wisdom said that a dirty industrial environment was incompatible with liquid helium use. But the high

reliability of the first commercial superconducting magnetic separator-due to its extremely conservative

design-proved that LTS equipment can work well in an industrial environment.

Also, as demonstrated in the case of conventional kaolin magnetic separation, once economic viability and

reliability are demonstrated by one company, competitors will be forced to follow. And the demonstrated operating

efficiency of the kaolin superconducting magnetic separator indicates that there may be other impure raw

materials-e.g., iron ores previously thought to be too poor a grade-that could be economically produced using

this technology.

1 This box draws heavily on the contractor report report from TMAHConsultants, “Lessons From Low-Temperature Superconductors,"

prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, November 1988.

2 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mineral Facts and Problems, 1985 edition; and U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Mines, Mineral Commodity Summaries 1989.
44 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

polymerization of plastics, and the crystal growth of

metals.w It is even likely that the course of chemical

reactions-especially those involving colloidal mixtures or precipitation of solids-could be manipulated with powerful magnetic fields. These effects,

which could be very significant, have not received

serious study.

Strong magnetic fields on the order of 40 tesla can

also be used for industrial shaping of metals and

other conductors. This comes about because a

magnet can exert powerful forces on a conductor

moving through its magnetic field. These forces are

developed without the mechanical friction that

accompanies conventional shaping processes such

as drawing of wire or press-molding sheets.b5 As a

result, costly tool wear would be virtually eliminated. Continuous fields of this magnitude would

involve hybrid magnets, and considerable engineering development would be required to overcome the

problem of mechanical stresses on the magnet itself

under such high fields. The critical current and

magnetic field limitations of present HTS materials

are serious barriers to their use in high-field magnets.

Compact Accelerators

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the large

particle accelerators used in high-energy physics

research depend on superconducting magnets and

cavities to accelerate, direct, and focus the particle

beams. Smaller versions of these machines (dimensions in the tens of square meters) could find

application in industry settings; notably, in compact

synchrotrons that would generate intense x-ray

beams for lithography of microelectronic chips. Use

of x-rays could permit the feature sizes of microelectronic circuits to be reduced to about 0.1 micrometer,

compared with the current state-of-the-art of about

0.5 micrometer.bb This capability could usher in a

new generation of smaller, more powerful computers and electronics.

Several significant efforts are underway around

the world to produce compact synchrotrons for x-ray

lithography. In Japan, government and industry have

invested an estimated $700 million in seven synchrotrons projects for x-ray lithography, and may

spend $1 billion more to devise manufacturing

systems. 67 West Germany, a member of the Joint

European Submicron Silicon project (JEW), is

building a $210 million institute to develop x-ray

technology for chip manufacture.b8 In the United

States, IBM has invested some $130 million on

R&D and has contracted with the United Kingdom’s

Oxford Instruments to build a compact synchrotrons,

scheduled for completion in 1992. But Federal

support for R&D has been very modest (DARPA

supports a $30 million program on x-ray lithography

research) and other U.S. companies have been

reluctant to get involved.

Compact synchrotrons technology presents a dilemma for U.S. companies. On the one hand, it could

make existing chip fabrication technologies obsolete. On the other hand, capital costs of even

compact synchrotrons systems are extremely high

(perhaps $16 to $20 million), and cheaper competing

technologies based on ultraviolet lasers or electron

beam steppers continue to offer smaller feature sizes

(perhaps down to 0.3 micrometers), thus narrowing

the potential advantage of synchrotrons.

Superconducting magnets are the only practical

alternative for producing synchrotrons rings smaller

than about 5 meters in diameter. Present Japanese

prototypes using LTS magnet technology have

diameters of about 3 meters, If present LTS prototypes are successful, and these designs are commercialized, the industry emphasis on reliability and

familiarity with the technology may mean that LTS

will be preferred over HTS. Furthermore, if compact

synchrotrons turn out to be an enabling technology

for a new generation of microchips, it appears that

the breadth and depth of commitment in Japan will

guarantee that Japanese companies will take the

early lead in the commercialization of this technology

64 Ibid. p.70.

65 1b1d.

66 Brian Santo, ‘‘X-ray Lithography: The Best Is Yet to Come, ’ IEEE Spectrtun, February 1989, p. 49.

67 Mark Crawford, ‘ ‘The Silicon Chip Race Advances Into X-rays, “ Science, vol. 246, No. 4936, Dec. 15, 1989, p. 1382.

68 Ibid.
Chapter 3—Applications of Superconductivity ● 45

Table 3-4-Applications in the Medical Sector

Application Impact of superconductivity Comments

MRI magnets Successful application of LTS; minor for HTS. An HTS magnet would lead to savings of only

$10 per $700 scan.

Biomagnetics:

SQUIDS Demonstrated for LTS; possible for HTS, Thermal noise at 77 K is inherently 20 times

especially in applications not requiring the higher than at 4 K, although present commercial

highest sensitivity. SQUIDS are generally not operated at their

inherent noise limits.

Pickup coils for MEG Demonstrated for LTS; promising for HTS. A 77 K coil could be placed closer to patient’s

skull, for a stronger signal.

Room shielding Not feasible for LTS: minor for HTS. Competing technologies, including improved electronic noise discrimination, could be preferable.

Research magnets Successful application of LTS; minor for HTS. Since the technology is in hand, LTS magnets

will be preferable for fields less than about 20

tesla.

KEY: MEG = magnetoencephalography; MRI = magnetic resonance Imaging; SQUID = Superconducting Quantum Interference Dewe.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Motors

The potential for superconductors in motor applications has been reviewed recently.b970 In principle,

superconductors can lead to higher efficiency (50

percent reduction in losses) and reduced size and

weight (20 percent reduction in diameter, 60 percent

in length, up to 60 percent in weight). Technically,

superconducting motors share many of the same

performance requirements as superconducting generators, but motors may be somewhat less attractive.

As with generators, AC superconducting motors

are only cost-effective in the largest size ranges—

above 2,000 horsepower (hp), a tiny fraction of all

motors. EPRI has estimated that, because of the cost

of liquid helium cooling, LTS motors would only be

competitive above 10,000 hp, though HTS with

liquid nitrogen cooling could reduce the threshold of

economic feasibility to 5,000-10,000 hp.7] 72

Because they are similar rotating machinery, AC

superconducting motors and generators share many

of the same technical difficulties: AC losses, large

mechanical stresses, and cryogenic seals for rotating

shafts. But motors have a few additional problems:

during startup and load variations, motors may

experience heating and vibrations. Also, a large

torque is needed to start a motor and its associated

load, exerting large forces on motor components.

For HTS to succeed in AC motors, filaments

having critical current density of 100,000 Amps/cm2

in a magnetic field of 4 to 5 tesla, greatly reduced AC

losses, and a high-strength composite conductors

will be required—all major challenges for present

HTS materials, as discussed in chapter 2.

Medical Applications

Medical applications of superconductivity are

relatively recent, having their origins in research

conducted during the 1970s. Examples are magnetic

resonance imaging and magnetoencephalography.

The feasibility of using superconductivity in these

areas has been demonstrated in LTS, and indeed,

superconducting MR1 magnets are now well established commercially and constitute the largest nongovernment market for superconducting wire and

cable. However, the prospects for penetration of

present HTS materials into these markets do not

appear very promising, as indicated in table 3-4.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Each of the various body tissues, e.g., blood,

organs, vessels, and bone, exhibits a slightly different chemical environment for the hydrogen atoms

contained in its constituent molecules. When a

strong magnetic field is applied to the body, these

chemical environments can be readily distinguished.

. — .

69 A. M. Wolsky et al., op. cit., footnote 21, p. 111.

70 S.J. Dale et al., op. cit., footnote 63.

71 The Electric Power Research Institute, op. cit., footnote 14, p. 23.

72 A recent report (S.J. Dale et al., op. cit., footnote 63) indicates that DC HTS motors as smallas 100 hp could be economical with an open liquid

nitrogen cooling system, but this is a hopeful forecast that assumes dramatic improvements in materials properties.
46 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

Photo credit: General Electric Medical Systems

Magnetic resonance imaging (M RI) system, the largest commercial application for superconducting magnets.

MRI takes advantage of this fact to produce pictures

of cross-sectional slices of the body in which the

various tissues (especially soft tissues containing a

large percentage of water) and their associated

disorders can be identified. MRI provides a powerful

tool for diagnosis of a variety of internal disorders,

obviating the need in many cases for invasive

procedures such as exploratory surgery or excessive

exposure to x-rays.

The MRI technique can be generalized beyond

static cross-sectional pictures of body organs. As

scanning speeds and data processing speeds increase, real time pictures of dynamic body processes

will be possible. At higher fields, MRI of paramagnetic nuclei other than hydrogen, especially sodium

and phosphorus, could give new insights into the

body’s chemical processes, e.g., metabolism.

MRI is notable because it is virtually the only

successful commercial application of superconductivity (see box 3-B). Although MRI is more expensive (costing about $700 per scan) than competing

imaging technologies such as ultrasound and x-ray

CT scanning, it has secured a stable market niche

because of its superior image quality for soft tissues.

Further, for the high magnetic field strength and

stability needed for good image quality, superconducting magnets far outshine conventional copper

magnets.

The current market for MRI is about 500 machines (about $1 billion) per year, with prospects for

steady growth into the 1990s. LTS MRI magnets

have become a mature and highly reliable technology, both for stationary and mobile facilities.

However, the cost savings of replacing the LTS
Chapter 3-Applications of Superconductivity ● 47

Box 3-B--Magnetic Resonance Imaging

MRl has its origins in research in Great Britain and the United States in the mid 1970s. The first prototype

scanner was built by EMI (Great Britain), and the first superconducting model was introduced just 2 years later, As

late as 1982, experts were predicting that--due to problems with reliability of the cryogenics and high

cost-superconducting magnets would not be attractive for MM systems.1 Although there were some initial

problems with cryostat design (especially for mobile units), these problems were overcome, and present MRl

systems are considered extremely reliable. Most high-resoiution MRI systems today operate at a magnetic field

strength around 1.5 telsa, a regime that requires the use of superconducting magnets. (Power dissipation of

conventional resistive magnets becomes prohibitive above about 0.2 telsa) Today, superconductive magnets have

captured more than 95 percent of the MN magnet market.

MR1 was a godsend to U.S. superconducting wire and magnet manufacturers, coming as it did at a time when

the Federal Government was scaling back or concluding many of its large-scaie superconductivity programs. From

only two systems in the United States in 1980, growth has been such that the 1,000th superconductive MRI magnet

was shippd in 1987,2 Current sales in the United States are around 500 units per year. Major integrated MRI

producers ingmagn magnets and total systems) are General Electric and Siemens (West

Germany), who control over half of the MRI market. About 44 percent of the market is shared by the wire and

magnet vendors-Qxford Superconducting Technology, Intermagnetics General Corp., and Applied SuperConetics.3 U.S.-based companies thus have a strong competitive position in the MRI market.

Although MRI has seen significant growth during the past decade, and is now the only successful large-scale

commercial application of superconductivity, growth rates have fallen far short of many early predictions. The most

important reason is its relatively high cost. A typical MRI system costs about $2 million, plus siting and installation

costs. Of this, the superconductingm agnet accounts for perhaps $350,000. Installation costs, especially for magnetic

shielding, can be nearly as high as those of the system itself.4 A typicai MRIscan costs about $700, about 100 times

more than ultrasound, and 3 to 5 times more than a computer-aided tomography (CAT) x+ray scan. Use of CAT,

which had been predicted by some to be displaced by MRI, actually grew by 20 percent in 1988. CAT’s lower cost

and faster scanning time (2 seconds per body cross-section, compared with 10 to 15 minutes for MRI), togetherwith

its superior images for bone, make it preferred for scans of the chest abdomen, or entire body.s MRI provides

superior images of soft tissues.

Why Was MRI Successful?

Why has MRI become a successful commercial application of superconducting magnets? Industry analysts

suggest several reasons. One is that the medical diagnostics’ industry is inherently a technology-oriented market

accustomed to incorporating technologies recently developed in the laboratory. A1though costs are high, the value

to the patient of an accurate, early diagnosis-for example, early detection of a tumor-is even higher. Furthermore,

these costs are spread through the health insurance system.

Superconducting magnets have demonstrated clear performance advantages over conventional resistive

magnets fur MRI, providing higher fields over larger volumes, and superior field uniformity and stability. These

advantages are directly translated into higher image quaiity and greater speed. Also, initial operating experience

with superconducting MRI magnets was favorable; startup problems were no more serious than had been

anticipated.

Finally, superconductivity was introduced early into the life cycle of MRI, with the first imager built in 1978,

and the first superconducting system introduced only 2 years 1ater. Superconductive magnets did not have to

displace a well-established technology that had been optimized over decades. Further, due to prior Federal programs

aimed at development of high-performance superconducting wire and cable, there was a match between the needs

of the new industry and the capabilities of wire and cable manufacturers. Product development began almost

1 ITMAH Consultants, “Lessoms From Low-Temperature Superconductors,” contractorr report prepared for the Office of Technology

Assessment, November 1988.

2 Business Technology Research, “Superconductive Materials and Devices,” 1988, p. 39.

3 Ibid., p. 49.

41bid., p. 154.

5 Karen Fitzgerald "Medical Electronics," IEEE Spectrum, January 1989 p. 68.

{continuedonnextpage)
48 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

Box 3-B—Magitetic Resonance Imaging--Continued

immediatly, without the need for extensive applied research and engineering expenditures; this lowered the

from-end costs to the manufacturers. The favorable timing also ensured that magnet design and system design

evolved together, making the integration of the superconducting magnet into the overall system easy.

Lessons for HTS

What lessons for HTS can be drawn from the MRI experience? First, no one could have predicted when modern

superconductor wires were developed 20 years ago that MRI would be the major commercial application of

superconductivity today. MRI technology depended not only on the availability of high-field superconducting

magnets, but also on the development of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy as well as imaging

concepts and fast computer signal processing. This makes quite plausible the claim-barely 3 years after the

discovery of HTS--that the biggest future applications of HTS have not yet been thought of.

Second, the penetration of a new technology like HTS is fastest in wholly new areas or early in a new product

life cycle. If there are well-established competitors, the new technology must offer dramatically superior

performance or lower cost—not just a minor improvement—in order to compete. In fact this conclusion militates

against the penetration of the MRI market by HTS magnets, even if they were available today,

Third, the first applications of new technologies like HTS are likely to be in specialized, high-technology

markets where high performance is the purchase criterion, not low cost. This has also been the pattern in other

advanced materials, which found early applications in medicine, upscale sporting goods and, almost universally,

defense applications.

There are broader policy implications as well. In MRI, U.S. companies have shown that they can seize and

maintain a strong market position over a long period in a highly competitive world market. But this would not have

been possible without the preceding Department of Energy-funded programs that supported the development of

superconducting wire and magnets. Especially notable was a DOE-funded collaboration between the University of

Wisconsin arid vendor companies that led to dramatic improvements in the performance of NbTi conductors from

1981 to 1988. This illustrated the important role that universities can play in making U.S. industry more competitive.

magnet with an HTS magnet have been estimated at although weak, can be detected by SQUID sensors

only about 5 percent,73 largely because the magnet

and refrigeration costs amount to only a minor

fraction of the overall system costs. Clearly, if HTS

magnets with performance and cost at 77 K comparable to those of present MRI magnets at 4 K were

available, they would be used. But the MRI market

per se is not large enough to drive the additional

R&D investments necessary to develop such magnets.

Biomagnetic Applications

The human body produces a variety of magnetic

fields, from both passive and active sources. Passive

sources are typically magnetic particles, e.g., particles from the environment trapped in the lungs, or

iron stored in the liver. Active sources are the

electrical currents that accompany body processes,

for instance the beating heart, or neuronal activity in

the brain. The currents produce magnetic fields that,

without the need for attached electrodes.

Magnetoencephalography (MEG)—MEG is considered one of the most promising applications of

superconductivity to disease detection. First demonstrated in 1968, MEG shows potential for locating

sources of epilepsy deep within the brain without the

need for inserted electrodes; it couId potentiality be

used in the diagnosis of a variety of brain disorders,

including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease,

and head injuries. MEG has also shown the potential

to study normal brain activity during the process of

muscle action.

Because the magnetic fields produced by the brain

are very weak, they are usually measured in a

magnetically shielded room. Magnetic noise amplitudes in a typical hospital may be 10 nanoteslas,

many orders of magnitude larger than the brain’s

signal. The measurement is made using sensitive

pickup coils placed as close as possible to the
Chapter 3—Applications of Superconductivity ● 49

Photo credit: Biomagnetic Technologies, Inc.

Magnetic fields produced by the brain can be

mapped by superconducting sensors in

magnetoencephalography (MEG).

patient’s head.74 Considerable development will still

be required before the technology can begin to make

its way into diagnostic use. Japan’s Ministry of

International Trade and Industry has recently announced the formation of a consortium of 10

companies to develop MEG.

Due to their higher thermal noise levels, it appears

that HTS SQUIDS will not readily replace LTS

SQUIDS in the growing markets for biomagnetic

sensors requiring high sensitivity. However, prospects for HTS maybe considerably better in passive

system elements, such as 77 K pickup coils, which

could be placed closer to the patient’s skull. More

speculatively, it may be possible to build magnetically shielded rooms using HTS, but here HTS will

have to compete with conventional magnetic shields

of mu-metal (high nickel alloy steel).

Electronics and Communications

Superconducting circuits offer several advantages

over conventional semiconducting devices, including higher switching speeds, lower power dissipation, extreme detection sensitivity, and minimal

signal distortion. There has been a long history of

LTS R&Din electronic devices in the United States,

primarily sponsored by the Department of Defense

with some support from the National Bureau of

Standards (now the National Institute of Standards

and Technology). As a result of this effort, several

LTS electronic devices are now readily available,

including SQUID magnetometers, Josephson voltage standards, millimeter wave mixers, and fast data

sampling circuits.

Table 3-5 provides OTA’s estimate of the impact

of superconductivity on several existing or potential

electronic devices. The opportunities and barriers

associated with these applications are discussed in

somewhat more detail below.

Digital Devices and Computers

Digital devices are those that manipulate information with discrete levels (’ 1‘s or O’s”) rather than

over a continuous range, as does an analog device.

Present superconducting digital circuits rely on the

on/off switching of Josephson Junctions (JJs) to

create these discrete levels, unlike semiconductor

digital circuits, which use transistors. Development

of a practical superconducting transistor remains a

major research goal, but such a device has not yet

been invented.

Computer applications of superconductors include logic gates, memories, and interconnects. In

principle, a computer based on JJs could be several

times faster and 100 times smaller than present

computers, though this application is somewhat

speculative (see below). Meanwhile, the same devices required for JJ computer circuits can also be

used in less demanding, smaller scale applications,

e.g., fast analog-to-digital converters, shift registers,

and memories, as well as circuits to perform

arithmetic operations.

Whereas the United States scaled back its efforts

in superconducting digital devices in 1983, several

Japanese laboratories continued their programs, and

now have produced digital integrated circuits having

as many as 24,000 JJs on a single chip. A prototype

Japanese Josephson microprocessor was recently

shown to operate at a clock speed 10 times higher,

and a power dissipation 500 times lower, than a

comparable gallium arsenide microprocessor.75

Experts are divided, though, as to where such

devices will find application. Because many problems remain with large-scale integration of JJ

circuits—particularly for high-density memory—

semiconductor researchers interviewed by OTA

question whether LTS JJ technology will ever be
50 . High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Table 3-5-Applications in the Electronics and Communications Sectors

Application Impact of superconductivity Comments

Digital circuits:

A-D converters, shift registers,

memories, etc.

Computers

Analog circuits:

SQUIDS

Signal processing:

Amplifiers, oscillators, etc.

Passive devices:

Computer wiring,

interconnects

Antennae, filters,

delay lines, etc.

Communications

New devices

Demonstrated with LTS; possible for HTS.

LTS JJs may be suitable for logic and cache

memory, but high-density memory still a problem. HTS/semiconductor hybrid systems are

possible.

Successful application of LTS; significant for

HTS if noise problems can be overcome.

LTS performance already impressive. Moderate

for HTS, if high-quality tunnel junctions can be

fabricated, and if high-frequency losses can be

reduced further.

Silicon-based machines do not operate at LTS

temperatures. Moderate for HTS at chip and

board level at 77 K.

Demonstrated with LTS; promising for HTS.

LTS circuits already demonstrated at microwave

frequencies (1 to 30 GHz); could open up new

regions of the electromagnetic spectrum at even

higher frequencies. HTS could extend this up to

the THZ range.

If new phenomena are responsible for HTS, then

new devices may be possible.

Many technical challenges remain in HTS JJ

technology.

May be more useful for specialized defense

computing needs than for general purpose computing. Higher power dissipation with HTS a

problem for LSI.

HTS would make use of SQUIDS more common

in many applications not requiring the highest

sensitivity.

Conventional systems do not yet require

extremely high frequencies; may be especially

important for military applications and in space.

Line resistance often is not the limiting factor.

Copper at 77 K provides a low-cost alternative.

HTS likely to see first use in military/space

applications.

Could revolutionize satellite broadcasting.

Initially, will be useful primarily for military/space

applications.

HTS could be combined with semiconductors or

optical materials to create novel hybrid devices.

If a true superconducting transistor with power

gain can be developed, this would find

widespread applications.

KEY: A-D = Analog to digital; GHz = Gigahertz; J = Josephson Junction; LSI = Large-scale integration; THz = Terahertz.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

suitable for a general purpose computer (though they

acknowledge that it could find application in specialized military applications).

These semiconductor experts consider semiconductor devices and processes as the “technology to

beat” for the foreseeable future, not superconducting JJ computers. U.S. managers have been

reluctant to make the large up-fi-ont R&D investments required to overcome the remaining problems

in view of steadily improving semiconductor systems. They note, however, that the development of

a true superconducting transistor with power gain,

and fabricated with existing semiconductor processes, could dramatically improve the outlook for

superconducting computers.76

Advocates of stronger U.S. programs in digital

superconducting electronics have a different view.

They argue that remarkable progress has already

been made at a level of effort dwarfed by that

expended on semiconductor electronics. In the long

term, they say, the future of computers, whether

superconducting or semiconducting, will be at low

temperatures, and the speed and efficiency of

superconducting electronics is likely to win out.

Moreover, the stakes are high. In dropping its digital

LTS programs, the United States risks not only

losing its edge in specialized military applications,

but also losing its supercomputer and mainframe

computer industries. Even if the technology goes

nowhere, these advocates argue, the most the United

States stands to lose is a few tens of millions of
Chapter 3-Applications of Superconductivity ● 51

dollars-a small price to pay considering the stakes

involved.

There is general agreement among analysts that

there are opportunities for mixed superconductor/

semiconductor computer systems—for example,

fast superconducting JJ logic gates coupled to dense

semiconductor memory in the same system. Mixed

LTS/semiconductor systems are feasible, but difficult, since most silicon devices stop functioning

around 40 K, and so require that the LTS and

semiconducting components be kept at different

temperatures.77 However, silicon devices function

very well at 77 K, and indeed the trend in circuits

using Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor

(CMOS) technology will be to cool them to liquid

nitrogen temperature. Thus, there appears to be some

potential for a marriage between HTS and evolving

semiconductor computer technology.

Recent research indicates that HTS Josephson

devices may have speeds comparable to LTS devices, but because of the larger energy gap in HTS,

the Josephson devices dissipate about 100 times

more energy when the junction switches from the

“off’ to the “on’ state.78 This suggests that HTS

may be more appropriate for fast, small-scale

circuits than for large-scale integrated JJ circuits.

Many observers feel that the first applications of

HTS in computers will be in passive elements, such

as interconnects, signal transmission lines, or boardlevel wiring. In transmission lines, superconductors

offer lower attenuation and distortion, for a clearer

signal. Superconducting lines could be made extremely narrow (perhaps 1 micrometer wide for

signal lines and 10 micrometers for power distribution), thus simplifying the design of the system.79

Such passive elements are also attractive because

they would be relatively easy to fabricate and make

relatively small demands on the superconductivity

properties, With micrometer feature sizes, though,

operating current densities above 1 million Amps/

c m

2 will be required on the chip. 80 Moreover,

superconducting interconnects must compete with

copper lines, whose resistance at 77 K is six to seven

times lower than at room temperature, presenting a

cheap and reliable alternative.

Photo credit: IBM Research

The first HTS SQUID with noise low enough to be useful.

Highlighted area shows the polycrystalline microstructure

of the material.

Thus, a role for HTS in computers is possible in

the future, but it is somewhat uncertain. Much

depends on the development of technologies for

controlling the properties of surfaces and junctions,

which are still fairly primitive for HTS.

Analog Devices

Analog circuits provide a continuous range of

signal level, in contrast to the discrete nature of

digital circuits. Analog devices that have already

been fabricated with LTS include SQUIDS, microwave and millimeter wave components for detection, amplification, and processing of signals in the

10 to 200 GHz range, voltage standards, and infrared

detectors.
52 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

SQUIDS are considered to be one of the most

promising HTS devices in the near term. Magnetic

field sensors based on SQUIDS potentially have

wide applications in several sectors covered in this

chapter, e.g., medicine, industrial equipment, and

defense. Currently available LTS SQUIDS operating

at 4 K provide magnetic field sensitivity and noise

levels near the quantum limit.

Although early SQUIDS fabricated with HTS

showed very high noise levels, these levels were

reduced as processing technology improved. At this

writing, IBM had produced an HTS SQUID using

polycrystalline thallium-based material that showed

a noise level at 77 K comparable to that of

commercially available LTS SQUIDS.

81 H TS

SQUIDS could have a big impact in applications not

requiring sensitivity at the quantum limit, or in

sensors operating in remote locations, tightly constrained environments, or in instruments requiring

portability where a liquid helium cryostat is not

practical.

Because individual SQUIDS place few demands

on the superconducting material and are relatively

easy to fabricate, they are likely to be one of the first

commercial applications of I-ITS. Several companies, both in Japan and in the United States, view

HTS SQUIDS as good “test products” for gaining

expertise in fabricating HTS materials and devices.

But manufacturing HTS SQUIDS in large numbers

with uniform switching thresholds (required for

large-scale digital integrated circuits) remains a

difficult challenge.

Passive Devices

Passive devices are those that do not require

connection to an external power source in order to

perform their circuit function. Examples discussed

above under ‘‘computers are superconducting

interconnects and power distribution lines. Also

included in this category are delay line signal

processors, high-efficiency waveguides and filters

for microwave circuits, antennae for sending and

receiving radio frequency signals, and shielding for

stray magnetic fields. The feasibility of superconducting analog signal processors, which exhibit

more than 10 times the processing capability of the

competing conventional technology, has been demonstrated with LTS.82 In the near term, such devices

will be of primary interest to the military, perhaps in

high-speed communications and radar systems.

The higher binding energy of the superconducting

electron pairs in HTS offers the potential for higher

frequency operation than in the equivalent LTS

device. Early samples of HTS showed a high

frequency surface resistance that negated this theoretical advantage. But considerable progress has

been made in this area: at this writing, the surface

resistance of the best HTS materials was 10 times

lower than that of any metal at 77 K (though still not

as good as niobium at 4 K). These developments are

considered very encouraging.

Communications

Presently, television, radar, radio, and telephone

communications are limited to a fairly narrow

frequency range in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Increasing demand for a limited number of frequency slots has led to conflicts among commercial

broadcasters. Superconductivity offers the potential

to make tens of thousands of new satellite broadcast

channels available by opening up the millimeter and

submillimeter regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. 83 Specific applications include switches, correlators, transmission lines, filters, parametric amplifiers, antennae, shielding, and other receiver

parts.

HTS promises to extend the available frequency

range even higher—perhaps into the terahertz (1011

to 1012 hertz) range, and to do so in a temperature

regime where efficient refrigeration is available.

Development of terahertz frequency components for

space communications and imaging applications is

one of the major thrusts of the Strategic Defense

Initiative Organization superconductivity R&D program (see ch. 4). One benefit for civilian technology

might be to increase dramatically the resolution of

radar systems.
Chapter 3—Applications of Superconductivity ● 53

Table 3-6-Applications in the Defense and Space ectors

Application Impact of superconductivity Comments

Defense:

Sensors

Submarine detection

Infrared detectors

Mine detection

Electronics

Pulse power

Kinetic energy weapons

Free electron lasers

Ship propulsion

Space:

Sensors

Satellite electronics

Radiation shield

Electromagnetic launch

Magnetic bearings

Possible with LTS; promising for HTS.

Significant for LTS; potentially significant for

HTS.

Demonstrated for LTS; possible for HTS.

Possible for LTS, minor for HTS.

Possible for LTS; minor for HTS.

Electric drive demonstrated for LTS, minor for

HTS.

Demonstrated with LTS; HTS could offer greater

sensitivity.

HTS could enable greater flexibility of design

and greater mission capabilities.

Possible for HTS.

Possible for LTS, doubtful for HTS.

Possible for HTS.

HTS offers ruggedness, easier maintenance,

lower power requirements.

LTS offers higher speed computer logic useful

for cryptography, synthetic aperture radar, acoustic array processing, and other computationIimited uses; higher bandgap of HTS could

permit higher resolution radar, higher speed

communications, etc.

See energy storage section above. HTS warm-tocold current leads possible.

Superconductors are essential in some designs,

but very high current densities are required.

Superconducting magnets could reduce the size

of the accelerator needed at the front end oft he

free electron laser.

See Transportation section.

One example is a blometer for planetary observation.

Low launch weight, low power, and reduced

cooling requirements are a major plus.

Superconducting loops could provide shielding

against high-energy charged particles on longterm manned flights.

Could substitute for first stage rocket in sending

cargo (not people) into space more cheaply from

Earth.

Would eliminate need for lubrication and problem of surfaces seizing up in a vacuum.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Defense and Space Applications criteria as well. Performance is the primary purchase

Many of the applications discussed in previous

criterion, with less emphasis on capital or operating

sections have defense and space analogs: e.g., costs. These systems are not designed for mass

motor/generator sets for ship propulsion; SMES to production; rather, the superconducting components

power ground-based lasers; antennae and filters for are optimized for specific applications.

ultrasensitive receivers; and high-frequency electronics for high-resolution radar and burst and Often, defense and space applications of superspread-spectrum communications. These and other conductivity have much in common with their

military/space applications have been reviewed in commercial analogs. However, the defense versions

several recent studies,84 and are not covered in detail of these applications must be designed with several

here (see table 3-6). additional factors in mind: light weight, ruggedness,

Defense and space applications are grouped low power requirements, low maintenance, radiation

together because they have a strong overlap, not only hardness, and the capacity to operate in a wide

in design-e. g., railgun weapons and electromag- variety of environments. In the long run, these

netic launchers—but in their cost and performance additional requirements could cause a divergence

“Superconductivity Research and

Development Options, ”

“High-Temperature Superconductors, ”
54 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

between the military and commercial goals and

priorities for applied superconductivity R&D.

The higher operating temperatures available with

HTS can provide solutions to the unique challenges

associated with the military/space environment:

●

●

●

●

Light weight. The potential for reducing the

size and weight of superconducting equipment,

such as generators and motors, provides greater

flexibility and mission capability of the vehicles on which they are deployed. In space, the

reduced launch weight—made possible by

eliminating bulky liquid helium refrigeration

systems—is a major plus.

Ruggedness. The superconducting equipment

must be rugged enough to survive the acceleration, vibration, and other stresses of space

launch. The military is concerned that the

systems continue to operate during battle conditions in the field-pitch and roll of naval

ships, vibrations and jolts of land vehicles, and

sharp accelerations of aircraft. The greater

simplicity of HTS refrigeration systems would

make them more reliable under these conditions.

Low power. Power consumption is an important constraint for both space and military field

applications, since in both cases, available

power is limited. Space systems presently

depend on battery, solar, or nuclear power;

mobile military applications depend on onboard power systems. In addition to limited

power available, cooling must be provided for

the power dissipated. Passive radiative cooling

in space can be used to maintain temperatures

around 80 K if the heat load is small enough.

For larger heat loads, refrigeration can be

combined with passive radiative cooling. This

combination cooling would take less power to

maintain for HTS than for LTS.

Maintainability, Generally, both military and

space applications are designed for minimum

maintenance. In space, human mechanics are

not available to keep a system continuously

tuned, and in the military, sophisticated maintenance is only available far from the battle lines.

A system that requires delivery of liquid

cryogen is not as desirable as one that can make

the cryogen from the air or that uses a closedcycle refrigerator. The military is concerned

with not having to maintain supply lines. Low

maintenance also means the system is more

likely to be available for use (high readiness).

A related issue is the working lifetime—how

long the system will last in space with the given

stored power and cryogen. Useful lifetime of a

satellite may be determined by the above

factors, rather than the decay of the orbit. For

the military, the useful lifetime of SQUID

sensors used for antisubmarine patrol could be

limited by the time it takes for all the cryogen

to evaporate. These mission capabilities could

be dramatically enhanced with HTS.

Radiation hardness. Some form of radiation

hardness is needed for space and military

applications. Space craft do not have the

protective layer of the Earth’s atmosphere to

absorb the damaging radiation from solar flares

and cosmic rays. Without radiation hardening,

system lifetime can be extremely short; especially for electronics, in which minute changes

can destroy individual components. Although

not enough is known about the radiation

hardness of HTS, preliminary indications are

that HTS components maybe no more susceptible to disruption by external radiation than LTS

components. 85

New Applications

Virtually all of the recent assessments of the

potential for HTS involve considering the incremental benefits that HTS could bring to applications

already known for LTS. For purposes of analysis,

they assume that HTS conductors will be essentially

identical to LTS conductors, but with a higher

operating temperature. While this kind of analysis is

a natural first step, it assumes that the new ceramic

materials can be put into the same conceptual mold

as the older metal alloys.

Many observers think that the biggest future

applications for HTS will have nothing to do with

present LTS devices, These applications will not

involve a simple substitution of HTS into a known

LTS design; rather, they will take advantage of the

unique properties of HTS. A particularly exciting

prospect is the possibility of designing hybrid,

layered devices that would combine different HTS

materials with semiconductors, optoelectronic materials, and other ceramics to yield novel performance.

Given the great variety of materials that exhibit
Chapter 3-Applications of Superconductivity ● 55

HTS--e.g., some that conduct the supercurrent with

holes and some with electrons-the variety of

possible devices can only be glimpsed at the present

time.

While it is difficult to justify significant investment in HTS on the basis of applications that have

not yet been conceived, it is also true that optimism

is often essential for success in R&D. If there is a

natural tendency to underestimate the difficulty of

solving the immediate problems, there is also a

tendency to underestimate the long-term possibilities.

LESSONS FROM LTS

Nearly 30 years after the development of practical

LTS materials, LTS has moved out of the laboratory

to gain a foothold in commercial applications. This

process has not been easy, though, and it offers a

number of lessons that should be considered in

forecasting the evolution of HTS technologies.

●

●

The preferred materials for applications are

those that are easiest to handle and manufacture, not necessarily the best superconductors

or those with the highest TC. Although Nb3Sn is

a superior superconductor in terms of critical

transition temperature, critical current density,

and upper critical magnetic field, it is brittle and

difficult to fabricate, and is consequently rarely

used. Due to its ductility and workability, NbTi

has become the workhorse material for LTS

magnet applications, even though its cooling

requirements are more stringent. This suggests

that factors such as processability and brittleness may ultimately weigh as heavily as TC or

even JC in determining the feasibility of using

certain HTS materials.

Even after a practical superconducting material is developed, it may take many years to

develop a practical conductor from that material and then to demonstrate its viability in a

commercial protype. Although relatively high

performance was achieved with NbTi alloys

within a year of their discovery, some 10 years

elapsed before a sophisticated NbTi cable

conductor was developed. A practical superconducting cable involves a tremendous amount

of engineering, including drawing fine filaments of superconductor to reduce AC losses,

stabilization with normal conductors for

quench protection, channels for coolant flow,

●

●

●

dielectric insulation, etc. Moreover, scaling up

from small sections to long lengths in prototype

applications requires significant additional time.

These phases of development are basically

serial, and cannot proceed in parallel. This

suggests that even if the superconducting

properties of bulk HTS materials can be

brought up to the level of present LTS materials, it will still be many years before practical

tapes or cables for large-scale HTS applications

will be available.

Highly reliable, conservative designs are necessary, especially in the commercial sector.

While it is tempting for engineers to push a

design to the state-of-the-art, reliability is

crucial in establishing a new beachhead. Even

after LTS has been successfully demonstrated

in some commercial applications, it may be

necessary to conduct extensive demonstrations

of HTS (perhaps by insertion into the existing

LTS design) to convince commercial customers of the reliability of HTS.

It is important to pick targets carefully; i.e.,

those that are not likely to be “leapfrogged’ by

a well-entrenched and steadily improving conventional technology. The principal reason why

IBM researchers dropped their Josephson Junction computer effort in 1983 was because they

projected that by the time the technical problems of a JJ computer could be worked out,

conventional semiconductor machines would

improve to the point that the advantage of a JJ

machine would be minimal. Commercialization of HTS will be most successful in new

applications where the technology and designs

are fluid. The most promising applications of

HTS will probably be those that are enabled by

the unique properties of I-ITS, rather than those

in which LTS is already successful.

It is impossible to predict with certainty where

the future applications will be. In the late

1970s, for example, no one could have predicted that the largest commercial market for

LTS 10 years later would be in MRI systems.

In many applications, lack of commercialization has nothing to do with technological

problems related to superconductivity; rather,

it is due to unfavorable economic conditions or

changing political circumstances. This lesson

applies primarily to large-scale applications

where the cost of the superconducting component is only a small fraction of the capital costs
56 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

of the overall system. For example, even the

discovery of room-temperature super-conductivity would not substantially change the prospects for magnetically levitated trains in the

United States.

While it is often impossible to anticipate

precisely how much time and money it will take

to overcome the scientific and technical obstacles confronting a new technology such as HTS,

it is important to provide sustained, reliable

funding through the lifetime of the project. A

successfully completed project-even if it costs

more and takes longer than expected— contributes to the store of knowledge; a truncated

project is often effort lost forever. This lesson,

which seems no more than common sense, has

been repeatedly ignored in the funding history

of Federal LTS programs. The lesson has not

been ignored in Japan (see ch. 5), and remains

an important policy objective for HTS if the

United States hopes to be competitive, as

discussed in chapter 7.

FACTORS THAT WILL

DETERMINE THE PACE OF

HTS COMMERCIALIZATION

The discovery of superconductivity above liquid

nitrogen temperatures is certainly an exciting development. As yet, however, HTS remains largely in

the realm of the scientific laboratory, not practical

technology. Moreover, commercial applications are

not driven by a higher TC per se. The superconducting transition temperature is only one contributing element to four distinct but interrelated factors

that will determine the commercial potential of HTS

in actual applications: superior performance; low

cost; high reliability; and strong market demand.

After 3 years of HTS development, there remains

tremendous uncertainty in each of these categories.

Performance

Thin film HTS materials do appear to offer some

potential performance advantages over LTS and

conventional technologies: e.g., higher frequency

operation for electronic circuits, or hybrid superconductor/semiconductor devices. At 77 K, the

performance of bulk HTS materials has been improving steadily, but is still significantly worse than

LTS materials at 4 K-especially their capacity to

carry high currents in a magnetic field. These

properties will undoubtedly improve as the relationships among chemical composition, microstructure,

and performance become better understood through

continued basic research.

In the meantime, the identification of HTS with 77

K operation has perhaps been overemphasized.

There may be significant opportunities in both

electronic applications and in power applications for

HTS in the 20 to 30 K range, where there is no

competition from LTS. Cooling in this temperature

range would be considerably simpler than at 4 K, and

would probably be done with flowing helium gas.

In those applications where superconductivity

offers a clear advantage over conventional technology, it should not be assumed that HTS will

eventually be preferred to LTS. Each type of

superconductor may find its own niches. For instance, LTS may continue to be preferred in cases

where greater ductility, low electronic noise, or high

vacuum are important, whereas HTS may be preferred where light weight or low maintenance are

essential.

cost

There are two principal cost issues: first, the cost

of the superconducting system compared with a

competing conventional system; and second, the

incremental cost savings obtained by using HTS

instead of LTS.

Typically, a superconducting design has a higher

capital cost, but a lower operating cost than a

conventional design. The requirement for cooling

with liquid helium usually means that LTS systems

are only cost-competitive with conventional systems

at the largest sizes. While HTS can reduce the

economic breakeven point by simplifying the design

and reducing operating costs, savings are generally

small, usually a few percent. This is because the cost

of the superconducting component and refrigeration

system is often only a small percentage of the overall

cost. These cost estimates are generally made

assuming that HTS conductors would have the same

cost and performance as LTS conductors, but at 77

K. But actual HTS conductor costs could end up

being much higher-depending, for instance, on the

cost of compensating for any deficiencies in HTS

properties (such as low strength due to brittleness)

and the cost of ensuring reliability.
Chapter 3—Applications of Superconductivity ● 5 7

Reliability

Although the superconducting properties of various HTS materials are undergoing intense study,

very little is known about the long-term reliability of

these materials under actual operating conditions. In

other ceramic materials, reliability has been a

serious issue that has often prevented their use in

applications that require predictable performance

over long periods. Much more will have to be

learned about effects such as thermal and mechanical cycling, chemical stability, residual stresses, etc.,

before designers will feel confident about specifying

these materials for applications sensitive to materials failure.

Potentially, reliability could become an advantage for HTS. The dependence of LTS systems on

complex liquid helium cryogenic refrigeration technology has caused reliability concerns in the past.

Although liquid helium refrigeration technology has

matured substantially, the freedom HTS allows to

operate above 4 K—whether in the 20 to 30 K range

using flowing helium, or at 77 K with liquid

nitrogen—would simplify the designs greatly and

increase reliability still further.

Market Demand

In many large-scale applications (e.g., maglev,

SMES, or electric power generators), superconductivity technology is not the bottleneck to commercialization. Instead, high capital costs and uncertainty in the market value of the benefits are the

principal barriers. In the present high cost-of-capital

environment, companies often find themselves unable to foot the bill for R&D and prototype demonstration, even though they may have a strong interest

in the technology. Government will have to pay

these costs if these applications are to go forward.

Because HTS typically has only a marginal impact

on the costs and benefits in these applications, it is

unlikely to change this situation.

FORECASTING THE

COMMERCIALIZATION OF HTS

Notwithstanding the many remaining uncertainties, these four factors do provide some broad

perspectives on the likely pace of commercialization

of HTS in the seven economic sectors discussed

above. Below, these sectors are grouped according

to the timing of significant use of HTS: near-term (5

to 10 years), medium-term (10 to 15 years), and

long-term (more than 15 years). This analysis

assumes incremental improvements in materials

operating in the neighborhood of 77 K. If superconductors capable of operating at room temperature

were to be discovered, many applications would

become far more attractive, e.g., superconducting

overhead transmission lines, applications in automobiles, etc., and entirely new markets for superconductors would open up, e.g., consumer products

and household items.

Near-Term: Defense/Space and Electronics/

Communications

These sectors, which have a large overlap, are

driven primarily by high performance considerations. High cost can be tolerated if the materials

provide unique mission capabilities. The potential

for higher frequency and larger bandwidth of HTS

compared with LTS makes HTS attractive for

military and space applications. And the potential

for hybrid superconductor/semiconductor systems

operating at liquid nitrogen temperature makes HTS

attractive in electronics. Market demand is not a

problem with military applications, and the large,

high-turnover market for electronics provides many

possible niches for new devices, Early applications

for HTS could be in sensors and passive microwave

devices. Most of these applications will use thin

films, where technical progress with HTS has been

most rapid.

Medium-Term: Medicine, Industry

For superconductivity applications in these sectors, the capital and operating costs associated with

liquid helium refrigeration are often a significant

fraction of overall costs; therefore, even if HTS does

not offer performance advantages over LTS systems,

it may offer lower costs. Early opportunities for HTS

could come in industrial sensors, pickup coils for

MEG, and perhaps low-field magnets. Many applications in this category need high-field magnets,

which will require bulk HTS conductors with

high-current capacity in high magnetic fields-the

area in which HTS progress has been slowest.

Because reliability is so important, HTS may require

long demonstration periods, and could have difficulty displacing a well-entrenched LTS system.
58 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

Long-Term: High Energy Physics, Electric

Power, Transportation

In these large-scale applications, the costs of the

superconducting components are generally a small

fraction of the overall system construction costs;

therefore, the cost advantage of HTS over LTS is

generally small. The use of superconductors is

driven by market demand for the entire system, not

by advances in superconductor technology. HTS

could find early application in niches such as current

limiters or warm-to-cold power leads, but designers

cannot afford to use an unproven technology in

critical components of a multibillion dollar system.

Reliability is paramount, and the consequences of

superconductor failure could be disastrous and even

life-threatening. Thus, the more mature LTS technology may be preferred, even if HTS materials with

comparable properties can be developed. In most

cases, HTS would have to displace well-entrenched

conventional or LTS technologies. Finally, these

applications have stringent requirements for the

superconductor---e.g., high critical currents and

high magnetic fields-the areas where technical

progress with HTS has been slowest.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the discussion above, OTA draws

several conclusions:

● The continuing technical progress in HTS, as

well as the range of potential applications of

●

●

●

superconductivity in the seven sectors reviewed (also new applications), justifies a

strong, continuing Federal effort in both LTS

and HTS.

LTS will remain the technology of choice in

many applications, and will be preferred in

large-scale applications such as high-field magnets in the foreseeable future.

From several points of view, small-scale applications of HTS are most promising in the near

term, while large-scale applications are probably 20 years away, if feasible at all.

Due to government markets and funding in

high-energy physics, fusion research, analog

electronics, and other defense applications of

LTS, the United States has a strong position in

these technologies; expertise gained in these

technologies has also enabled U.S. firms to take

a strong position in spinoff medical applications such as MRI and MEG, and in superconducting magnets for industrial processing. The

United States has a relatively weak position in

more speculative—but potentially widespread—

commercial applications such as digital electronics, rotating electrical equipment, and magnetically levitated vehicles.

The policy implications of these conclusions are

taken up in chapter 7.
Chapter 4

The U.S. Response

to High-Temperature

Superconductivity
CONTENTS

Page

The President’s Superconductivity Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

The Federal Superconductivity Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Key Superconductivity programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 64

Coordination Within Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 67

Coordination at the National Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 69

Coordination Among State and Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Industry Consortia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... 70

International Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... 70

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... 72

Tables

Page

4-l. President’s 1987 Superconductivity Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4-2. Provisions of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4-3. Federal R&D Funding in Superconductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4-4. Performers of HTS Research-Summary by Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4-5. Department of Defense Superconductivity Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4-6. Department of Energy Superconductivity Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

4-7. National Science Foundation Superconductivity Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

4-8. National Institute of Standards and Technology Superconductivity Programs . . . . 69

4-9. State Government Support for Superconductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

4-10. A Partial List of HTS Consortia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Chapter 4

The U.S. Response to High-Temperature Superconductivity

This chapter begins with a description of the

Federal response to the advent of HTS. This is

followed by a brief critique. An evaluation of the

adequacy of this response, as well as that of U.S.

industry, is presented in chapter 7.

FEDERAL POLICY

The sense of excitement in the scientific community that came with the discovery of new, high-criticaltransition-temperature (TC

) superconductors was quickly

transmitted to the policymaking community in

Washington. To scientists, the discovery was the

breaking of a long-assumed temperature barrier,

which cast doubts on the validity of a widely

accepted theory. To policy makers, the opportunities

of HTS represented a test case of the United States’

ability to quickly transfer the technology out of the

laboratory and into commercial applications.

The President’s Superconductivity Initiative

In July 1987, President Reagan addressed an

audience of more than 1,000 at the Federal Conference on Superconductivity. In his speech, the

President presented an 1 l-point agenda to promote

cooperative research, to move scientific achievements more rapidly into the commercial realm, and

to protect the intellectual property rights of scientists

and engineers involved in superconductivity research. A list of these proposals and what has

happened to them since 1987 is given in table 4-1.1

The legislative part of President Reagan’s package, consisting of three initiatives, went to Congress

in February of 1988. The first initiative proposed to

relax the antitrust restrictions on joint production

ventures among companies. Similar proposals have

been made to promote U.S. competitiveness in

several other technologies, e.g., high-definition television and semiconductor memory chips; but at this

writing, the Bush Administration is still considering

its position on the matter.

The second initiative proposed extending patent

protection for process patents, and this was passed as

part of the (Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act

of 1988. The third initiative, which did not result in

any legislation, proposed authorizing Federal agencies to withhold commercially valuable scientific

and technical information from release under the

Freedom of Information Act. None of these three

legislative proposals was specific to HTS.

The remaining eight administrative initiatives

have all been implemented in some form. Perhaps

the most influential from a policy point of view was

the establishment of the “Wise Men” Advisory

Committee on Superconductivity (formally, the

Committee to Advise the President on High Temperature Superconductivity) operating under the White

House office of Science and Technology Policy.

This seven-member council was comprised of experts in superconductivity from academia, industry,

and government. Their report was released in

December 1988.2

The Wise Men recommended an increase in

funding of a few million dollars’ to strengthen the

scientific effort at universities, and the establishment of tour to six superconductivity consortia, each

involving a major research university, a government

laboratory, and several private industry members.

These consortia are to be focused on applied HTS

research. and are thereby distinguished from the

more basic research-oriented consortia supported by

the National Science Foundation. Since the report

was published, the debate over HTS and U.S.

competitiveness has largely been framed in terms of

the need for one kind of consortium or another. s

Congressional Initiatives

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act

(Public Law 100-418)

As noted above, only one of the President’s three

legislative initiatives has been passed into law: in

Title IX of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness
62 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Table 4-l-President’s 1987 Superconductivity Initiatives

Proposal Action

Legislative:

Amend the National Cooperative Research Act to permit joint Did not result in any legislation. New proposals presently

production ventures. under consideration at the Justice Department.

Amend patent laws to increase process patent protection. Passed as part of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness

Act of 1988.

Exempt commercially valuable information developed at Fed- No action; this was deemed politically impractical.

eral laboratories from disclosure under the Freedom of

Information Act.

Administrative:

Establish “Wise Men” advisory group (President’s Advisory Formed in February 1988; reported to the President and

Council on Superconductivity). disbanded December 1988. Recommended establishment of

four to six superconductivity consortia involving major research universities, companies, and government laboratories.

Establish Superconductivity Research Centers at Federal Four centers established, three at DOE’s Argonne, Lawrence

laboratories. Berkeley, and Ames laboratories, and one for electronic

applications of HTS at NIST/Boulder.

Accelerate implementation of Executive Order 12591 on Ongoing; three Superconductivity Pilot Centers established in

technology transfer from Federal laboratories and cooperative 1988 at Argonne, Oak Ridge, and Los Alamos to conduct joint

research. research with industry.

Accelerate processing of patent applications. Patent “fast track” established at the Office of Patents and

Trademarks, but only 10 to 15 percent of HTS patent

applications were submitted under this procedure.

NIST to accelerate standards development for HTS. Ongoing, but small effort.

Reprogram fiscal year 1987 funds into superconductivity R&D; Virtually the entire HTS budget is reprogrammed money; to

place high priority on superconductivity for fiscal years 1988 make funds available, programs in LTS, advanced ceramics,

and 1989. and other materials R&D were cut.

Accelerate military development of electronics and sensor Ongoing; DARPA and SDIO have applications-oriented HTS

applications, including prototype devices. development programs in place.

Seek reciprocal opportunities to participate in joint R&D At this writing, a variety of joint projects are under negotiation.

programs with Japan under the Agreement on Cooperation in

Science and Technology.

KEY: DARPA: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DOE: Department of Energy

NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology

SDIO: Strategic Defense Initiative Organization

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Act, patent coverage was extended to process

patents. Title V also has a number of provisions

affecting superconductivity, including the establishment of a National Commission on Superconductivity. Table 4-2 presents the sections of the Omnibus

Trade and Competitiveness Act that are relevant to

superconductivity, and to technology generally.

National Superconductivity and Competitiveness

Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-697)

Passed in the waning hours of the l00th Congress,

the National Superconductivity and Competitiveness

Act of 1988 called for a 5-year National Action Plan

for Superconductivity—to be presented to Congress

in August 1989—that would define national goals

for HTS and delegate responsibilities to the various

Federal agencies to achieve them. This Act stresses

the importance of a long-term commitment to

developing superconductor applications, since these

are seen to be 10 to 20 years away. The Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was given

responsibility for coordinating the Plan with the

National Critical Materials Council (NCMC) and

the National Commission on Superconductivity (the

same Commission mandated in the Omnibus Trade

Act). A yearly report is required by Congress

detailing the implementation of the Plan, as well as

a program of international cooperation in superconductivity.

But the preparation of the Action Plan did not

work out as Congress intended. The National

Commission was appointed, but had no formal

charter, and so did not participate in the drafting of

the Plan. The National Critical Materials Council

had no active members. The ‘Plan’ that emerged in
Chapter 4-The U.S. Response to High-Temperature Superconductivity ● 63

Table 4-2—Provisions of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988

Action by the

Requirement Administration

On superconductivity:

Report of the President

National Commission on

Superconductivity

National Critical Materials

Council (NCMC)

On technology generally:

Intellectual property rights

National Institute of

Standards and Technology

Technology extension

centers

Clearinghouses

Competitiveness Policy

Council

National Academy of

Sciences

Education and training

President must submit budget proposals regarding advanced materials with

FY90 budget request.

To form, report, and disband by December 1989. Report to include: the state

of U.S. competitiveness in superconductivity, foreign activities, impacts on

U.S. national security of potential dependence on foreign procurement,

options for tax incentives, possible benefits of exemptions from antitrust

laws.

Mandates staff increase; continues funding.

Strengthens existing protections of intellectual property rights.

Renames the National Bureau of Standards; increases responsibility for

aiding U.S. industry in competing in manufacturing, creates a new post within

the Commerce Department for technology policy.

Requires NIST to assist in establishing regional technology transfer centers.

Commerce Department is mandated to develop a clearinghouse of State

and local initiatives for transferring Federal technology; second

clearinghouse of State and local initiatives to enhance U.S. competitiveness.

To advise the President on long-term strategies for U.S. competitiveness.

To review strengths and limitations of existing collaborations where the

Federal Government is a partner.

Establish foreign language assistance programs, awards in

technology education,

No action.

Formal charter delayed; first

meeting Oct. 19, 1989.

No active members during

1988 and 1989.

None required.

Renaming occurred;

technology policy

appointment remains

unfilled as of March 1990.

Three extension centers

created.

Plan awaiting approval.

Council created, chaired by

Vice President,

In planning stages.

NSF program for

language training

under development.

KEY: NCMC: National Critical Materials Council

NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology

NSF: National Science Foundation

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

December 1989 explicitly recognized the need for

greater Federal coordination and for a cross-agency

budgetary analysis of spending in various research

areas; but it did not contain budget recommendations, nor the 5-year perspective that Congress

wanted. 4

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

PROGRAMS

The Federal Superconductivity Budget

Federal funding for HTS R&D rose from $45

million in fiscal year 1987 to an estimated $129

million in fiscal year 1989. In fiscal year 1990,

funding stayed virtually constant (see table 4-3).

From 1987 to 1989, LTS R&D funding rose from

$40 million to $58 million.5 Thus, in 1989, about

two-thirds of government superconductivity R&D

funding went to HTS.

Although the Department of Energy (DOE) and

the Department of Defense (DoD) spent about the

same amount on superconductivity overall in 1989,

(both HTS and LTS), DoD had the biggest budget

for HTS R&D, with a 45 percent share. DOE was

second with 30 percent, and about 20 percent was

allocated by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) and the Department of Commerce (through

the National Institute of Standards and Technology,

NIST) made up most of the rest, with the Department

of the Interior and the Department of Transportation

each spending less than 1 percent.
64 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Table 4-3-Federal R&D in Superconductivity

($ thousands)a

Fiscal year Fiscal year

Fiscal year 1989b 1 990’

1988b(estimate) (estimate)

High-temperature:

DoD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NASA . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DOC (NIST) . . . . . . . .

DOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DOI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total HTS . . . . . . . .

Low-temperature:

DoD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NASA . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DOC (NIST) . . . . . . . .

DOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DOI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total LTS . . . . . . . .

43,700

26,238

16,600

3,300

2,800

50

100

58,000

38,493

22,400

4,900

4,800

150

100

61,800

34,100

25,800

5,900

2,800

—

—

92,788

16,100

28,627

3,800

2,650

570

0

0

128.843

15,000

36,073

3,800

3,050

470

0

0

130,400

13,200

79,300d

3,000

2,000

470

0

0

51,747 58,393 98,000

Total HTS+LTS . . . . 144,535 187,226 228,400

Table 4-4 gives a breakdown of where this HTS

research was performed in fiscal year 1988. About

45 percent was performed in Federal laboratories, 30

percent in universities, and 25 percent in industry.6

The wisdom of allocating more HTS R&D resources

to Federal laboratories than to all of the Nation’s

universities is discussed in chapter 7.

Key Superconductivity Programs

Department of Defense (DoD)

The various defense agencies have had a long

history of support for superconductivity. DoD began

funding superconductivity research in the late 1940s,

with the establishment of the Office of Naval

Research at the end of World War 11.7 Subsequently,

the Air Force has supported research in sensors,

airborne generators and signal processing, and the

Navy in magnetic and electromagnetic/infrared (EM/

IR) detectors and ship propulsion research, among

other projects. Most of the defense agencies have

supported some type of superconducting electronics

research, and often were the only Federal agencies to

do so. Nevertheless, most of the defense programs in

LTS had been completed or scaled back before the

discovery of HTS.8

9 After the discovery of HTS,

many new programs were initiated to explore its

potential for defense applications. Table 4-5 highlights some ongoing programs within DoD.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

(DARPA) program, which accounted for over 40

percent of DoD’s HTS R&D in fiscal year 1989,

deserves special mention because it is unique in

focusing on HTS materials processing and prototype

applications development. 10 DARPA supports some

40 contractor teams working on dual-use projects

(i.e., those with civilian as well as military applications).

Department of Energy (DOE)

DOE sponsored many programs in LTS prior to

the discovery of HTS (see ch. 3); DOE also

sponsored LTS conductor development for particle

accelerator magnets such as those at Fermilab, and
Chapter 4--The U.S. Response to High-Temperature Superconductivity ● 65

Table 4-4-Performers of HTS Research-Summary by Agency (Fiscal Year 1988)

HTS budget Performed by outlavs

($ millions) Federal lab University Industry

Department of Energy

Energy research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conservation and renewable energy . . . . . . . . . . .

Fossil energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Defense programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Department of Defense

Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Strategic Defense Initiative Organization . . . . . . . .

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Department of Commerce

(National institute of Standards and Technology)

institute of Materials Science and Engineering . . .

National Engineering Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Measurement Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology . . . .

Commercialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Institutes of Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total HTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15.3

4.9

0.3

7.2

12.2

4.9

0.3

7.2

3.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

$27.7

7.0

9.0

2.0

12.0

18.0

48.0

1.0

1.1

0.7

2.8

2.6

0.5

3.1

14.5

0.1

0.0

0.0

96.2

2.0

3.9

2.0

3.0

2.5

1.0

1.1

0.7

1.6

0.5

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

43.0

4.5

3.0

0.0

1.0

2.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.5

0.0

14.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.5

2.1

0.0

8.0

13.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

29.1 24.1

(loo%) (45%) (30%) (25%)

NOTE: These estimates were made before the more precise figures in table 4-3 became available, but are accurate to within 5 percent.

SOURCE: Technology Management Associates, “The Federal Effort in Superconductivity,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

more recently, the Superconducting Super Collider.

See table 4-6 for a descnption of the more important

DOE superconductivity programs.

Superconductivity Research Centers—Inaccordance with President Reagan’s Superconductivity

Initiative, DOE’s Office of Basic Energy Sciences

established three HTS Research Centers, at Argonne

National Lab, Lawrence Berkeley Lab, and Ames

Lab. A fourth center for electronics applications was

established at NIST/Boulder. These Research Centers were assigned complementary missions for

I-ITS: Argonne concentrates on bulk materials for

wires and cables; Lawrence Berkeley focuses on

theory and on fabrication of thin films for electronic

devices; and Ames concentrates on basic materials

research and has responsibility for gathering and

disseminating information on HTS. These Research

Centers have also formed research teams with other

national laboratories; e.g., Argonne works with

Ames and Brookhaven labs on bulk applications.

The Argonne Center involves about 50 researchers,

and has links to both the State of Illinois Institute for

Superconductivity and the National Science Foundation Science & Technology Center (see below),

making it one of the largest concentrations of HTS

expertise in the world. The Research Centers continue to be supported by funds reprogrammed from

other areas,

Superconductivity Pilot Centers—In September

1988, DOE’s Office of Conservation and Renewable

Energy announced the establishment of three Superconductivity Pilot Centers, at Argonne, Oak Ridge,

and Los Alamos National Laboratories. The Pilot

Centers are intended to bring the enormous expertise
66 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

Table 4-5-Department of Defense Superconductivity Programs

Estimated fiscal

year 1989 funds

Agency ($ millions) Comments

High-temperature:

DARPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0

SDIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1

Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7

Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0

Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2

Total HTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.0

Low-temperature:

DARPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6a

SDIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0

( 11.4a

)

Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7

Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

NSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3

43% of DoD HTS R&D. A unique program focusing on HTS materials

processing. Most of the funding goes to small firms.

24% of DoD HTS R&D. Highly applications-oriented; includes radar, radio

frequency cavities, antennae, and shielding.

17% of DoD HTS R&D. Abroad-based R&D program, built around a 5-yearplan.

12% of DoD HTS R&D. A broad-based R&D program including processing and

characterization. Applications include sensors, communications.

4% of DoD HTS R&D. A broad-based R&D program including processing,

theory, and characterization. Applications include sensors and electromagnetic

launchers.

R&D on compact synchrotrons for x-ray lithography.

53% of DoD LTS R&D.

Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage engineering test model: design

competition.

31% of DoD LTS R&D. Historically the main DoD LTS supporter,

Includes superconducting airborne generator project.

No LTS R&D.

Superconducting electronics.

Total LTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.0

Total LTS & HTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.0

and unique facilities of these National Laboratories

to bear on problems of interest to commercial

industry. Funded at a level of $6 million in fiscal

years 1989 and 1990, 1] the Pilot Centers are

supporting joint research projects with industry—

generally on a 50-50 basis. They differ from the

Research Centers in that they are intended to

develop stronger ties to industry, to provide a

gateway to the other laboratories’ programs in

superconductivity, and to be a testing ground for

new experiments in technology transfer.

In the past, U.S. companies have been reluctant to

work with Federal laboratories, because of the

enormous amount of red tape involved. The Pilot

Centers are structured so as to avoid these problems,

offering expedited contracting procedures, greater

protection of intellectual property, easier access to

patents, and exclusive licenses for jointly developed

technologies. At this writing all three Pilot Centers

have signed agreements with major U.S. companies

involved in HTS research.

National Science Foundation (NSF)

In addition to its individual grant programs, NSF

sponsors various collaborative superconductivity

research efforts including: Materials Research Laboratories, Materials Research Groups, the Bitter

National Magnet Laboratory, the Wisconsin and

Cornell synchrotrons centers, and a new supercon-
Chapter 4--The U.S. Response to High-Temperature Superconductivity ● 67

Table 4-6---Department of Energy Superconductivity Programs

Research Programs in Superconductivity,” March 1989.

ductivity Science and Technology Center at the

University of Illinois (see table 4-7.)]2

Although total NSF funding for HTS R&D has

increased steadily, virtually all of these increases

have gone to support research at large centers such

as S&T Center at the University of Illinois. Funding

for individual investigator grants appears to have

remained static, despite an increasing number of

outstanding research proposals. This situation is

discussed further in chapter 7.

Department of Commerce

All of the Department of Commerce efforts in

superconductivity take place within the National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST

(formerly the National Bureau of Standards) has

provided U.S. superconductivity standards since

1969, and developed the standard volt based on an

array of 19,000 LTS Josephson Junctions, among

other projects. The main standards research is

carried out at the Boulder, Colorado facility. Though

modest in size, this program provides the crucial

function of improving the quality of reported superconductivity data, enabling meaningful comparisons

of data among different researchers and organizations. NIST has a small but well-regarded superconducting electronic devices program and was designated a Superconductivity Research Center for

Electronic Applications in President Reagan’s initiative. Table 4-8 provides a breakdown for the NIST

superconductivity budget for ‘fiscal year 1988 as

well as totals for fiscal year 1989.13

Coordination Within Federal Agencies

Department of Defense (DoD)

The Department of Defense has devoted greater

attention to coordination of its HTS programs than

any other agency. The Defense Superconductivity

Research and Development (DSRD) Working Group,

chaired through the Office of the Secretary of

Defense (OSD), is the formal DoD-wide coordinating committee. In 1987, the DSRD Working Group

prepared a study of possible uses for HTS in military

applications. 14 This study included approxirnations

of the costs of research projects in each of the

applications. According to the OSD, the report
68 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

Table 4-7-NationaI Science Foundation Superconductivity Programs

Estimated fiscal

year 1989 funds

Special programs ($ millions) Comments

High-temperature:

Individual grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Young Investigators program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Superconductivity R&D theory/experiment.

Science and Technology Center (STC) . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Cooperative HTS R&D.

Materials Research Labs and Groups . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 MIT, Stanford, U. Illinois, Northwestern, U. Chicago, Harvard,

Cornell, U. Minnesota, U. Wisconsin.

User facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Bitter National Magnet Lab, synchrotrons facilities.

Total HTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2

Low-temperature:

Individual grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3

Materials Research Labs and Groups . . . . . . . . . . 0.2

User facilities and instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5

Total LTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0

Total LTS + HTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.2

SOURCE: Willlam Oosterhuls, National Science foundation, personal communication, February 1990.

served its initial coordination function well and now

needs updating.

The Navy, which has the largest superconductivity program of the three services, also has the most

extensive coordination mechanisms.15 A Naval Consortium for Superconductivity has been established

to coordinate R&D efforts, and in 1989 the Navy

developed a 5-year plan for superconductivity.16

Department of Energy (DOE)

The main DOE coordinating body for materials is

the Energy and Materials Coordinating Committee;

its Subcommittee on Superconductivity is charged

with the internal coordination of superconductor

R&D in DOE. At Ames Laboratory, the Center for

Basic Scientific Information distributes a widely

read biweekly newsletter, High-TC Update, including a bibliography of the latest HTS preprints. The

DOE National Laboratories have held a series of

conferences broadcast nationally by satellite that

have made the latest HTS results available to other

researchers. At DOE’s Office of Scientific and

Technical Information, located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, a computer database has been established to

provide up-to-date technical information on superconductivity to U.S. industry. Called the ‘Superconductivity Information System,” it offers a bulletin

board, electronic mail, a database of work in

progress, a preprints database, a database of all

DOE-sponsored research, and printed copy of database searches.

Coordination of HTS activities also takes place

under the auspices of the Superconductivity Coordinating Committee on Electric Power. This group is

made up of the Electric Power Research Institute,

various electric utilities, and numerous Federal

agencies, including DOE, NSF, and NIST.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA)

Internal coordination of both HTS and LTS

research programs is provided through the NASA

Superconductivity Working Group, chaired out of

the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology and

the Information Sciences and Human Factors Division. Contacts with the larger industrial and scientific community are maintained through the Space

Systems Technical Advisory Committee, a review

team for HTS, with members from industry and

universities as well as other governmental organiza-
Chapter 4---The U.S. Response to High-Temperature Superconductivity ● 69

Table 4-8--National Institute of Standards and Technology Superconductivity Programs

Fiscal year

1988 fundsa

Programs ($ millions) Comments

High-temperature:

Materials preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 Includes phase diagrams.

Structure determination and characterization . . . . 0.7 Includes neutron scattering.

Property measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 Includes standards and electronic structure measurements.

Fabrication and devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 Includes thin films and electronics.

Total HTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8a

Low-temperature:

Total LTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 Includes JJs, SQUIDS, standard volt, and measurement

standards.

Total HTS and LTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3

a

There was a 1-year increase of $2 million for HTS in fiscal year 1989 (giving an overall total of $5.3 million for superconductivity), but a large part of these

funds was spent to repair damage from a fire in a clean room used to fabricate superconducting electronics.

KEY JJ: Josephson Junction; SQUID: Superconducting Quantum interference Device

SOURCE: Federal Coordinating Committee on Science, Engineering, and Technology/Committee on Materials/Subcommittee on Superconductivity, “Federal

Research Programs in Superconductivity,” March 1989:

tions. NASA’s Technology Utilization division is in

the process of forming a NASA consortium (open to

any U.S. entity) for research on superconductivity

and technology transfer to the private sector. It will

be located at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in

Pasadena California, and is expected to begin

operations in 1990.

Coordination at the National Level

The Office of Science and Technology Policy

(OSTP) has been the focus of efforts to coordinate

Federal HTS programs. As noted above, OSTP had

responsibility for the National Action Plan on

Superconductivity R&D, released in December 1989.

Committee on Materials (COMAT)

One body under the auspices of OSTP, the

Committee on Materials (COMAT), has played a

valuable role.17 COMAT was instituted to coordinate materials policy among the various Federal

agencies, and all agencies with significant interests

in materials R&D are represented. In 1988 and 1989,

the Superconductivity Subcommittee of COMAT

published a comprehensive review of all Federal

agency programs and budgets for both HTS and LTS

R&D. 18 It has also taken a leading role in defining

options for future international collaboration in

HTS.

COMAT has been viewed by the Administration

as the preferred body for coordinating materials

policy among all of the relevant agencies. Its actual

function, though, is best described as information

exchange, rather than active coordination, since it

does not set an overall agenda for materials R&D,

has no control over agency budgets, and does not

monitor or guide individual agency programs. The

need for national coordination going beyond the

activities of COMAT is recognized in OSTP’s

Action Plan. 19

National Critical Materials Council (NCMC)

NCMC, established in 1984,20 is charged by

Congress with responsibility for overseeing the

formulation of policies for “advanced” and “critical’ materials. It was intended by Congress to be an

active oversight body for coordinating all Federal

agencies on materials policy issues. The Reagan

Administration saw NCMC as redundant with existing agencies-especially COMAT—and neglected

it entirely.21 During most of 1988 and 1989, the

1976 by the

OTA-E-351
70 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

Council had no active members, although its staff

assisted in the preparation of the Action Plan.22

Coordination Among State and Federal

Agencies

Many States have seen opportunities in HTS for

improving local economic competitiveness. Several

provide funding (generally less than $1 million) for

HTS research, most of which goes to the main State

universities. Often, these funds are provided within

the context of broader advanced technology programs; one example is the Ben Franklin Program in

Pennsylvania, which now supports several superconductivity projects. A few States have developed

new programs dedicated to HTS R&D. The largest

State efforts in superconductivity are in Illinois,

Texas, and New York (programs in several States are

outlined in table 4-9). These generally involve some

cost sharing with the Federal Government. For

example, the Illinois efforts complement the Federal

programs awarded over the past 2 years, including

the NSF S&T Center at the University of Illinois and

the DOE Pilot Center at Argonne National Laboratory.

Industry Consortia

In the 1980s, the R&D consortium has become

one of the most popular technology policy tools in

the United States aimed at regaining lost markets

and exploring new technologies. The privately

sponsored Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC) and the more recent

industry/government-sponsored Sematech have been

notable examples of this trend. Inevitably, a variety

of consortia have also been proposed as a means of

accelerating the commercialization of HTS by U.S.

firms. Since the release of the Wise Men’s’ Report

(see above), which recommended the establishment

of four to six HTS consortia focusing on applications, the number of consortia either established or

planned for HTS development has skyrocketed. A

partial list is given in table 4-10.

Most of these consortia are directed toward

development of HTS electronic devices, and virtually all seek Federal funding. This proliferation of

HTS consortia-all working in similar R&D areas—

raises concerns about whether the U.S. effort will be

diluted in a hodgepodge of small consortia, each

below “critical mass” in size, and whether Federal

funds will be wasted on duplicative research. Critics

of this situation point to Japan’s International

Superconductivity Technology Center, a single HTS

R&D consortium involving all of the major superconductivity companies under the auspices of the

Ministry of International Trade and Industry (see ch.

5).

In fact, there is a kind of informal coordination

taking place among the U.S. consortia. Often, for

instance, members of one consortium are on the

planning board of another, and researchers associated with different constellations of labs have

frequent opportunities to exchange information.

Ultimately, market forces and the limitations of the

Federal budget will sort out which consortia will

survive and which will not, but there may be a

Federal role in making this process more orderly,

Options to address this question are taken up in

chapter 7.

International Cooperation

Many laboratories around the world have capabilities in superconductivity research comparable to

those in the United States, and past international

collaborative programs in LTS such as the Large

Coil Task (see ch. 3) have proven to be extremely

valuable. 23 Other examples include: the annual

U.S.-Japan Workshop on High-Field Superconductors, which met for the sixth time in 1989; the

Versailles Agreement on Advanced Materials and

Standards, which has an active program for international comparisons of measurements of critical

currents and alternating current losses; and the

International Electrochemical Commission, which

has established a Technical Committee on Superconductivity to develop international standards.

U.S. superconductivity researchers have long had

informal, one-to-one collaboration with their foreign

colleagues. For instance, NSF has had a bilateral

agreement with Japan in place for 28 years that

promotes researcher-directed collaborations in basic

science. In 1987, NSF initiated a new program that

is jointly funded by the United States and Japan to
Chapter 4-The U.S. Response to High-Temperature Superconductivity ● 71

Table 4-0-State Government Support for Superconductivity

State Description of program

California

The State Department of Commerce has a program of grant awards for technology transfer of university research to commercial entities,

called the Competitive Technology Program. This program receives matching private sector funds. Superconductivity project awards

total $1.8 million, for a superconductivity applications center, HTS high-frequency electronic devices, and SQUID development.

Florida

The State has established the Florida Initiative, a consortium composed of 7 State universities, involving 55 principal investigators. It

receives funds from a pool of $25 million provided by DARPA to the State of Florida for microelectronics research. Of this $25 million,

$6.4 million goes to superconductivity R&D. Florida has shown significant interest in magnetically levitated train technology. The

potential Tampa-Orlando-Miami maglev train project has been canceled; however, a short maglev line from the Orlando airport to

Disney World/EPCOT Center is still under discussion.

Illinois

Illinois is home to several large federally sponsored superconductivity programs, many at Argonne National Lab. The University of

Illinois is the principal site of the new NSF Science and Technology Center for Superconductivity. Some State funds are used to leverage

Federal and industrial funds at Argonne and the S&T Center, but most of the funding comes from the Federal Government.

Maryland

The University of Maryland (College Park) established a Center for Superconductivity Research intended eventually to have

approximately 20 full-time researchers (six faculty members). State funding is $1 million for the first year (beginning JUIY 1988); $2

million for the second year; and $3 million for the third. Collaboration with industry is expected; negotiations are underway with utilities

(for wire fabrication research), and a chemical company (for materials characterization).

New Jersey

The New Jersey Science and Technology Commission’s Governor’s Roundtable issued a report recommending the development of

a New Jersey superconductivity program, focused on high-field magnet fabrication. The Commission recommends a State funding level

of $1-2 million per year to be matched at least one-to-one by non-State sources. The State has seed funding for a fellowship program

in which college seniors and first year graduate students can work in academic and industrial labs on superconductivity research.

New York

The New York State Institute for Superconductivity (NYSIS) at SUNY Buffalo was established in June 1987. Its focus is on transferring

HTS technology into practical applications. It is to have 27 faculty members and over 100 graduate students and postdocs. New York

State funding is $10 million and this is expected to be leveraged by Federal funds. Of this, $5 million is to be used for lab equipment

and construction; $2.2 million for awards for external researchers; and $2.2 million for researchers within the Center. At this writing, 31

awards have been made, totaling $1.4 million; 16 of these have gone to SUNY Buffalo researchers, and 15 to other New York

universities and businesses.

Texas

Of the several consortia located in Texas, most receive no State funding. The Microelectronics and Computer Corporation (MCC)

entered into a joint superconductivity research program with the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the University of Houston

(TCSUH) in 1988. TCSUH is funded at a level of $30 million over 3 years, receiving $6.5 million from the State of Texas and other funding

from DARPA and Du Pont.

KEY: DARPA=Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; MCC.Microelectroncs and Computer Corp.; NYSIS=New York State Institute on

Superconductivity; SQUID= Superconducting Quantum Interference Device; SUNY. State University of New York; TCSUH=Texas Center for

Superconductivity at the University of Houston

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990

get more U.S. researchers into Japanese labora- superconductivity held by the International Energy

tories. 24 Through this program, Japanese laborato- Agency, 26 and specific mention of HTS in the

ries formerly closed to foreign researchers are now United States-Japan Agreement on Cooperation in

actively seeking foreign scientists. So far, though, Science and Technology. At this writing, several

this program is undersubscribed by U.S. research- joint superconductivity projects were being negotiers.

25

ated under the Agreement.

The discovery of HTS has stimulated several

international efforts to explore the potential for this Such international programs are likely to become

technology. Examples include a series of interna- even more important in the future. Yet Federal

tional meetings on electric power applications of agency budgets to support these activities are static
72 ● High Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Table 4-10--A Partial List of HTS Consortia

Consortium type Major partners Comments

Industrial:

MCC

Austin, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SuperChip

Washington, DC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Superconductor Applications, Inc.

Princeton, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University-based:

Consortium for Superconducting

Electronics

Cambridge, MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TCSUH

Houston, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NSF S&T Center

Urbana, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lehigh University Consortium for

Superconducting Ceramics

Bethlehem, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NY State Institute on Superconductivity

Buffalo, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National lab-based:

Argonne

Argonne, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Los Alamos

Los Alamos, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oak Ridge

Oak Ridge, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Jet Propulsion Lab

Pasadena, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bellcore, Boeing, DEC, Du Pont,

Motorola, 3M, Westinghouse.

Tektronix, others to

announced.

To be announced.

be

AT&T, IBM, Lincoln Labs, MIT.

Du Pont, plus joint membership of

MCC partners.

University of Illinois, Northwestern

University, University of Chicago,

Argonne National Lab.

AT&T Bell Labs, BOC Group, U.S.

Navy.

SUNY Buffalo plus partners to be

announced.

Beldon Wire, Du Pont, GE,

MagneTek, United Technologies.

American Superconductor, AMP,

Hewlett Packard, Du Pent,

Rockwell.

Corning Glass, Du Pent, FMC,

IBM, GE, Westinghouse.

To be announced.

Merged in 1988 with the Texas Center for

Superconductivity at the University of Houston (TCSUH,

see below).

Under the auspices of the Council on Superconductivity

for American Competitiveness (CSAC); has sought

$1 billion in loan guarantees from the Federal

Government; has received seed money from DARPA.

To be based at David Sarnoff Laboratory under the

direction of Stanford Research Institute; has received

seed money from DARPA.

Most closely resembles the model proposed by the

“Wise Men”; seeking up to $5 million from DARPA.

Formed in 1987 with $2.5 million from State of Texas;

received $4 million from DARPA in 1988.

Funded by NSF at a rate of $24.5 million over 5 years.

12 full-time researchers.

Initial funding of $10 million from the State of New York;

expected to be supplemented with Federal funding.

Location of DOE Pilot Center ($2 million funding); HTS

funding lab-wide is $10-12 million.

Location of DOE Pilot Center ($2 million funding); HTS

funding lab-wide is$11 million.

Location of DOE Pilot Center ($2 million funding); HTS

funding is $6 million.

Under the auspices of NASA; expected to begin

operations in 1990.

KEY: CSAC=Council on Superconductivity for American Competitiveness; DARPA=Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; DOE= Department of

Energy; MCC=Microelectronics and Computer Corp.; NASA=National Aeronautics and Space Administration; NSF= National Science Foundation;

SUNY= State University of New York; TCSUH=Texas Center for Superconductivity and the Unversity of Houston.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

or declining. This issue is discussed

chapter 7.

CONCLUSIONS

further in been both substantial and timely. By fiscal year

1989, 2 years after the breakthrough, the Federal

budget for HTS had grown to nearly $130 million—

about the same as the budget for all other advanced

ceramics R&D combined.

The Federal response to the discovery of HTS

illustrates many of the strengths and weaknesses of The Administration can point to some significant

U.S. R&D policy as it relates to U.S. industrial successes and even innovations. The mission agencompetitiveness. On the whole, the response has cies moved quickly to redeploy resources and
Chapter 4--The U.S. Response to High-Temperature Superconductivity ● 73

researchers to HTS. The DARPA program emphasizing HTS processing is unique. The DOE Pilot

Centers are experimenting with expedited mechanisms for contracting with industry and for disposition of intellectual property, and they have received

positive initial reviews from prospective industry

collaborators. Mechanisms for rapid exchange of

technical information among researchers have been

established and appear to be working well.

The Administration’s approach also contains

much that is familiar to critics of Federal R&D

policy. DoD allocates the largest budget, and has

become the principal supporter of U.S. industry

programs. Much of the Federal budget goes to

support research in Federal laboratories, which

heretofore have not had a good track record in

transferring technology to U.S. industry. And although coordination of HTS R&D programs within

the mission agencies is strong, coordination at the

national level is weak. Congress attempts to address

this problem with legislation have met with little

success.

The Federal response to the advent of HTS is

perhaps best characterized as an attempt to broaden

the R&D activities of the relevant agencies to

address industry needs without fundamentally changing their missions or their relationships to one

another. Those who had hoped that the worldwide

race to develop HTS might stimulate a serious

debate about a new Federal role in meeting the

challenge of foreign competition in commercial

technologies have clearly been disappointed.

Is the present Federal response adequate to ensure

future U.S. competitiveness in HTS? This question

is taken up in chapter 7, following an examination of

foreign HTS programs in the next chapter, and those

of private industry in chapter 6.
Chapter 5

High-Temperature

Superconductivity Programs

in Other Countries
CONTENTS

History of Japanese Superconductivity programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Japanese HTS Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

EUROPEAN COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ...

Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .., .. .. ..

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FRANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

UNITED KINGDOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. “

ITALY .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE NETHERLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SWEDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SOVIET UNION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

APPENDIX 5-A: MEMBERSHP OF JAPAN’S INTERNATIONAL

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY TECHNOLOGY CENTER .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ...

Boxes

77

77

77

79

81

81

81

83

83

84

84

84

85

85

86

87

Page

5-A. International Superconductivity Technology Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

5-B. Superconductive Generation Equipment and Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Tables

Page

5-l. History of Japanese LTS Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

5-2. Japanese Government Fiscal 1989 Superconductivity Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

5-3. Rezerit Japanese Government High-Temperature Superconductor

R&D Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

5-4. Membership of Japan’s Super-GM Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Chapter 5

High-Temperature Superconductivity

Programs in Other Countries

How do U.S. and foreign efforts compare in

high-temperature superconductivity (HTS)? This

chapter briefly assesses foreign programs in superconductivity, focusing primarily on government

programs.

l

JAPAN

History of Japanese

Superconductivity Programs

Unlike the case of HTS, where Japanese researchers have made major advances, the Japanese made

few contributions to the initial development of

low-temperature superconductors (LTS). LTS research in Japan began in the early 1960s, and for

many years Japanese researchers followed closely

the LTS developments in the United States. It was

nearly a decade before the Japanese began to catch

up. During the 1970s, though, the Japanese Government initiated a number of collaborative LTS

programs, featuring long-term commitment from its

national laboratories, universities, and companies,

that allowed Japan to surpass U.S. capabilities in

several areas----e. g., Josephson Junction (JJ) technol -

ogy,

2 maglev transportation, and superconducting

rotating machinery. The principal Japanese Government programs are outlined in table 5-1.

Several observations can be made about these

programs. First, their goal was and is to develop

commercial-not military-technologies. Second,

they were long-term programs, typically lasting 8 to

10 years. Their funding was sustained at a relatively

constant level, in contrast to the erratic funding of

corresponding U.S. programs over this period.

Third, they featured strong emphasis on national

laboratory facilities and personnel, although a large

part (often 50 percent) of the funding and research

were provided by the participating Japanese companies. Since the discovery of HTS, considerable

thought has been given to how HTS can be

integrated with ongoing LTS programs. Today, the

Japanese Government is funding a mix of LTS and

HTS programs in parallel, with the intent of incorporating HTS materials into more mature LTS projects

as soon as the new materials can satisfy the

necessary requirements.

The Japanese HTS Budget

Table 5-2 gives a budget breakdown for the

principal Japanese agencies involved in superconductivity R&D. Major funding comes from the

Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI),

the Science and Technology Agency (STA), and the

Ministry of Education (MOE). In 1989, HTS R&D

accounted for slightly less than half of superconductivity R&D budget, compared with two-thirds in the

United States. Japanese agency budget figures

typically do not include salaries and overhead. When

adjusted to include these costs, the nominal HTS

total of $43 million in 1989 scales to over $70

million3—still considerably less than total HTS

spending of the U.S. Government ($129 million) in

1989. Counting researchers in universities, national

laboratories, and industry, OTA estimates that

around 1,200 researchers are active in HTS R&D in

Japan, compared with perhaps 1,000 in the United

States.4

The most important new thrusts in superconductivity are given in table 5-3. These have been

described in detail previously.5 Programs especially

well-known outside Japan are the International

Superconductivity Technology Center (ISTEC) and

the Superconductive Generation Equipment and

Materials (Super-GM) program (see boxes 5-A and

5-B). Overall, OTA finds that there is a rough parity

between Japan and the United States in HTS R&D.

This parity does not extend to all technical areas,

though: one recent report notes that Japan surpasses —

–77 -
Table 5-l—History of Japanese LTS Programs

Supporting agency,

Project R&D Iaboratory Duration Results Comments

MHD power generation

High-energy physics

Supermagnets for fusion research

Maglev tram

Electromagnetic ship propulsion

Basic technology for superconductivity

and refrigeration

Superconducting magnetic energy

storage (SMES)

Superconductive generation

equipment and materials (Super GM)

(See box 5-B )

Superconducting quantum electronics

Josephson Junction Devices

New superconducting materials

MITI:ETL

various companies

MoE:KEK

various companies

STA:JAERI

Nagoya U., Kyushu U

Nihon U Osaka U,, MoE

MOT.JNR

(now7 regional JR compames)

Ad-hoc group, Japan

Foundation for Shipbuildmg

Advancement (organized 1985)

various companies

STA.NRIM

various companies

MIT I

various companies

MIT I (NEDO)

various companies

MoE

unversitles

MIT I:ETL

NTT, various companies

MoE

universities

1966-1975

1971 -present

Early 1970s-present

1970-present

1970-present

1982-1986

1986-?

1988-1995

1979-1981

1982-1989

1984-1986

Mark V supermagnet.

60-Gev collider (TRISTAN) including

superconducting magnets for beam

control, detection; also rf cavities and

refrigeration systems.

Large Coil Task coil tested 1987. J-60

Experimental Reactor. Toroidal and

poloidal coils for new Fusion Experimental

Reactor.

44-seat test vehicle; 7km test guideway;

375km/hr manned test.

Model vessel tests (1970 to 1979) Design

for 22-meter, 150-ton oceangoing vessel

for 1990 (“Yamato”) miniature model tested

in 1986. Total cost est. 40 million dollars.

Advancement of basic technology related

to LTS and refrigeration.

Feasibility studies.

Design and construct 70 MW model

generator Design components for 200 MW

pilot generator.

Advances in fabrication methods for JJs

and devices.

Matching funds from companies, which

gained experience in LTS magnet

construction.

Minor funding from companies.

Program is expected to continue at present

levels. No specific clans to incorporate

HTS. 

New50km test guideway planned. Funding

IS 95 percent from private sources. No

serious plan to incorporate HTS.

Efficiency is low, requires very high

magnetic field (>1 O tesla). 

Researchers became core of the New

Superconducting Materials Forum and

Multicore Project of STA.

Candidate for new national R&D project.

Designs for smaller, toroidal SMES being

considered by electric utility industry (as

opposed to larger, solenoid designs under

study in the United States).

Culmination of many years of research and

engineering experience with superconducting magnets and prototype

generators, beginning with MHD program

HTS materials being developed.

Provided experience base in unversities

now being tapped for HTS-based

electronics R&D.

Program continued after U.S. effort

stopped in 1983. Japanese companies now

have a strong base for future thrusts in

superconducting electronics, including HTS.

Predated discovery of HTS but served as a

springboard for rapid Japanese

involvement. Program extended 1 year

after discovery of HTS.

KEY: ETL: Electrotechnical Laboratory; JAERI: Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute; JJ: Josephson Junction; JNR: Japan National Railroad (now broken up into 7 regional companies); KEK:

National High-Energy Physics Laboratory; MHD: Magnetohydrodynamics; MITI: Ministry of International Trade and Industry; MOE: Ministry of Education; MOT: Ministry of Transportation; MW:

Megawatt; NEDO: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization; NRIM: National Research Institute for Metals; NTT: Nippon Telephone and Telegraph; STA: Science and

Technology Agency

SOURCE: Advanced Materials Technology, “Assessment Study of the History of Japanese Superconductivity Efforts,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, November

1988.
Chapter 5--High-Temperature Superconductivity Programs in Other Countries ● 79

Table 5-2-Japanese Government Fiscal 1989a

Superconductivity Budget ($ millions)

Table 5-3-Recent Japanese Government HighTemperature Superconductor R&D Programs

Agency HTS LTS Total

Ministry of International Trade

& Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 24.0 34.6

Science & Technology

Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.3 6.8 31.1

Ministry of Education . . . . . . 7.2 8.7 15.9

Ministry of Transportation . . . 0.0 7.0 7.0

Ministry of Posts&

Telecommunications . . . . 0.5 0.0 0.5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.6b

46.5 89.1

aDraft budget. The Japanese fiscal year begins April 1.

often do not include salaries and overhead. When these are included, the

total is estimated to beat least $70 million.

SOURCE: Adapted from Superconductor Week, vol. 3, No. 8, Feb. 20,

1989, p. 6.

the United States in synthesis and processing of HTS

materials, and in organic superconductor research.6

Japanese HTS programs are well integrated with

previous LTS efforts, both in terms of personnel and

research goals. For example, the core participants in

STA’S New Superconducting Materials Forum and

Multi-Core Project (table 5-3) also participated in a

previous 5-year STA-sponsored LTS project on

Basic Technology for Superconductivity and Refrigeration (table 5-1 ). In Japan’s fiscal year 1988, MITI

also initiated a new 10-year program to develop

practical HTS transistors, following on the conclusion of an 8-year program to develop niobium JJs.

One common belief about Japanese companies is

that they have become successful competitors because of their ability to work together in consortia

organized by the Japanese Government. ISTEC, a

single consortium of most major companies involved in HTS R&D that was organized under the

auspices of MITI, is often held up as a trump card

that will put Japanese companies ahead in the race to

commercialize HTS. But although the formation of

ISTEC is an impressive achievement, its agenda is

deliberately focused at a basic research level--+-e.,

materials development—similar to the research

program of a university or national laboratory in the

United States. Members’ motives for joining ISTEC

are complex, but typically do not include the

expectation that research at ISTEC will lead directly

to commercial applications. For that, the member

companies are relying on the major efforts underway

Agencyl

Program Comments

Ministry of International Trade and Industry:

Superconducting materials and process technologies

10-year program beginning 1988, includes funding for ISTEC

and national laboratories.

Superconducting electron devices

10-year program beginning 1988, about half going to the

private sector, focusing on development of HTS transistors.

Superconducting generator (Super-GM)

8-year program beginning 1988, primarily LTS; includes

parallel HTS research component.

Science and Technology Agency:

Multi-Core project

Coordinated effort of nine STA-funded national laboratories

participating in HTS R&Din four “core” areas: theory/

database, processing, characterization, and technology

transfer.

New superconducting materials forum

Professional forum on HTS development with 135 member

companies and research associations. Interfaces between

Multi-Core project and private industry efforts.

Ministry of Education:

Mechanism of superconductivity

3-year program beginning 1988 involving some 100 researchers under the direction of Prof. Y. Muto, Tohoku University.

Chemical design and processing of new oxide superconductors

3-year program beginning 1989 under the direction of Prof. K.

Fueki, Science University of Tokyo.

Development of electronics with new superconducting materials

3-year program beginning 1989 involving three research

groups under the direction of Prof. K. Hara, Chiba Institute of

Technology.

Special research project on new superconductors

3-year program beginning 1987 involving four research groups

under the direction of Prof. S. Tanaka, University of Tokyo.

Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications

Development of HTS mixer at terahertz frequencies

HTS characterization and thin films for infrared detectors

Carried out at NIT laboratories.

ISTEC: International Superconductivity Technology Center

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

at their own R&D laboratories, and the accumulated

expertise built up over years of experience with LTS,

semiconductor processing, and ceramics technology.

EUROPEAN COOPERATIVE

PROGRAMS

The two most important existing European cooperative programs that sponsor HTS projects are

Framework, an EC activity, and the EUREKA
80 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Box 5-A—Intm#ationd Supereonductivity Technology Center (ISTEC)

ISTEC is a consortium of companies organized under the auspices of MITI. Established in January 1988, its

laboratory facilities, located in a building leased from Tokyo Gas, were officially opened in October 1988. ISTEC

was established to pursue several activities related to superconductivity: conduct basic R&D on HTS and processing

technology; review research progress and feasibility of various applications; organize international symposia,

seminars, and workshops; promote international exchange of scientists; and disseminate information.

Resources

ISTEC has 111 members, under two kinds of memberships: associate and full. Full members participate in the

laboratory and can send one or two researchers each. Full members give an additional one-time donation of 100

million yen (about $800,000) and pay an additional annual fee of 12 million yen (about $100,000) to support the

laboratory. Companies pay the salaries of the researchers they send, and a lo-year commitment is expected. Most

companies-viewing ISTEC as a training opportunity-are sending relatively young researchers, rather than their

seasoned superconductivity veterans.

Associate members may participate in the seminars and receive the publications, but do not participate in the

actual research or intellectual property rights. (However, associate members may share some benefits such as

reduced royalty payments for licenses.) Associate memberships require an initial donation of 1 to 2 million yen

(about $8,000 to $16,000) and a 0.5 to 2 million yen annual fee. A listing of ISTEC membership as of June 1989

is given in appendix 5-A.

At that time, 46 companies had joined as full members, yielding an initial capitalization of about $34 million.

In addition, they contributed about $4.2 million in operating expenses. As of October 1989, there were 89 research

staff, including 77 dispatched from the member companies.

In Japan’s fiscal year 1988, MITI’s contribution was 440 million yen ($3.4 million), which incresed to 890

million yen ($6.4 million) in Japan’s fiscal year 1989. These figures do not include salaries. According to one

estimate, ISTEC’S operating budget if salaries are included, comes to about $17 miIlion per year; thus, in Japan’s

fiscal year 1989, ISTEC received about one-third of its support from MITLl

Research organization

The research at ISTEC laboratory is organized according to seven groups as follows:

1) Characterization and analysis of fundamental properties of superconductors; 2) HTS oxides and search for

new superconducting ceramics; 3) Research on organic superconductors. 4) Fundamental research on chemical

processing; 5) Fundamental research on physical processing; 6) Organization of an HTS database; and 7) Research

on high-critical-current density superconductors {presently at the Japan Fine Ceramics Center in Nagoya).

Each group is headed by a leading expert drawn from a major university or national laboratory, and when fully

staffed, will have 10 to 22 members. Research is expected to remain at a very basic level, not directed toward

particular applications, since competing companies are involved.

ISTEC’s policies on intellectual property were finalized in March 1989.2 In general, patent rights are shared

between ISTEC and the company that dispatched the researcher who did the work.

International Aspects

ISTEC has actively encouraged foreign companies (and individual researchers) to join the laboratory. At this

writing, though, only four U.S. companies had joined as associate members (DuPont-Japan, Rockwell, IBM-Japan,

and Intermagnetics General), plus the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (see app. 5-A). There are two

European associate members, British Telecom and Rhone-Poulenc Japan; there are no non-Japanese full members.

Given the substantial investment involved (perhaps $1.5 million the first year and $400,000 per year thereafer-to

cover salaries and expenses for two researchers), most U.S. firms would apparently rather invest their external R&D

dollars in domestic collaborations where there is no language barrer, where it is easier for researchers to make the

necessary career adjustments, and where U.S. companies have more control over the R&D agenda.
Chapter 5---High-Temperature Superconductivity Programs in Other Countries ● 81

initiative, a European-based program with close ties

to the European Community.7 While the budgets of

EUREKA and Framework are relatively small

compared with the overall R&D efforts of the

national member States, these cooperative programs

are considered by European observers to be important for a number of reasons: they allow organizations with different strengths to combine R&D

resources necessary to maintain competitiveness;

they are focused on commercial applications of high

technologies; and they help to lower legal and

regulatory barriers within Europe.

Framework

The Framework program of the Commission of

the European Communities, as its name implies,

provides an overall strategy, structure, and financial

package through which specific R&D programs

operate. Three EC programs within Framework

support HTS research: ESPRIT II, Stimulation of

Science (now in its second phase, called Science)

and BRITE/EURAM. ESPRIT is a basic/applied

research program in information technologies. BRITE/

EURAM (1989-1992) is a recent industrial research

program that builds on the successful activities of

two previously separate programs covering research

in industrial technologies (BRITE) and advanced

materials (EURAM). “Science” was established to

address three goals: better mobility of researchers,

large facilities and projects, and a more integrated,

multidisciplinary approach to research.

Several EC projects on HTS research were

launched in May, 1988. A budget of about $16

million has been approved for HTS through 1989.8

Nearly all of the HTS budget is expected to support

collaborative industrial applied research within the

member countries, with matching funds to be

supplied by industry. A standing committee of

representatives of key research institutions in the

member countries has been established to provide

information on national HTS programs, staff exchanges, and scientific meetings.

Eureka

EUREKA is a product of the French concern that

the United States’ Strategic Defense Initiative would

vastly add to the U.S. storehouse of commercial

technologies, and represents a civilian attempt by

Western European countries to keep up with this

expected U.S. technology development. It is a $1

billion, industry-led program directed independently

of the EC. The EUREKA program hosts two LTS

superconductor projects.9

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF

GERMANY

West Germany has supported superconductivity

research consistently for the past 20 years. Most of

the government funding is provided by the Ministry

for Research and Technology (BMFT), which has

supported LTS R&Din three principal areas: generic

technology development (materials, magnets, cryogenics, devices); energy research (primarily superconducting generators); and medical technology

(magnetic resonance imaging, biomagnetic measurements). As a result, West German firms have

capabilities comparable to those of U.S. firms in

large-scale applications, and are stronger competitors in some emerging commercial applications of

LTS-e.g., magnetoencephalography (see ch. 3)—

than are Japanese firms.

In 1988, BMFT HTS project funding was about

$10 million, 90 percent of which went to research

institutes, The remaining 10 percent went to support

industrial research, and was matched by the recipient

companies. In subsequent years, BMFT funding has

grown, and is expected to reach some $33 million.

Some 90 research teams, with a total of about 500

research personnel, are estimated to be active in HTS

at West German institutes and industrial laboratories. Information exchange and coordination among

these groups is excellent, and is carried out under the

auspices of BMFT

Private industry investment in HTS is higher in

West Germany than in any other European country.

Major investors include Siemens, Hoechst, DaimlerBenz, Degussa, Dornier, and Villeroy & Boch.

Hoechst is concentrating on materials research;

Siemens and Daimler-Benz have more of an applications focus (Siemens is developing an LTS generator, for example). However, there appears to be an

informal agreement in effect among these compa-
82 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Box 5-B-Superconductive Generation Equipment and Materials (Super-GM)

Super-GM is an engineering research association that provides an excellent example of a Japanese

demonstration project in action.

Goals

Super-GM is an 8-year (Japanese fiscal years 1988 to 1995), $200 million MITI “Moonlight Project” program

aimed at producing a 70-MW class LTS generator scale model, and the basic design of a 200-MW class machine.

It is expected to be succeeded by a program to develop a 200-MW class prototype machine. The initial 7-MW class

size is considered to be small enough to facilitate construction and transport, and at the same time large enough

(about one-third scale) that no unexpected scale-up problems to 200-MW class are anticipated.

History

In 1983, the Japan Electric Council looked into the feasibility of various superconductor applications in the

power sector, and classified them in order of priority. Transformers and generators were the two applications that

survived this review. However, the efficiency of existing transformers is already very good, and superconducting

wires with low alternating current losses are difficult to make, so priority went to the generator. A consensus was

reached in 1985-86 that superconducting generators were going to be important in the 21st century. Generators now

in service are expected to require replacement by the year 2000, and smaller machines will be needed. The

advantages of superconducting generators were considered to be improved efficiency (by 0.5 to 1.0 percent) and

increased system stability. Therefore, a 2-year feasibility study was initiated by MITI.

After the feasibility study, MITI called for the formation of an industry research association and for proposals

from prospective members. MITI then chose the participants and created the vertically integrated structure of

Super-GM (see table 5-4),

Organization

Super-GM consists of 16 member companies and organizations. Membership consists of end users, system and

subsystem manufacturers, superconductor material manufacturers, and associated organizations.

The end users will provide test and evaluation facilities for the various generator designs being pursued in

parallel by the systems manufacturers. There is a loose vertical organization to the companies along competing

design lines (similar to the competition between the Bechtel and Ebasco teams on the SMES program in the United

States), but there is also some horizontal overlap among projects, particularly at the level of the cable/component

manufacturers.

About 90 percent of Super-GM’s 1988 funding of $12.2 million came from MITI’s Agency for Industrial

Science and Technology (its research coordinating arm) via NEDO (New Energy and Industral Technology

Development Organization). Industry is responsible for the remainder, which is actually raised through rate hikes

by the nine utilities.1 The research is not centralized, although there is a central administrative facility in Osaka: each

participating company sends 1 to 2 people to the facility, but conducts its own research in-house. Super-GM has

about 200 researchers total.

Operation

In all, three different kinds of superconducting rotors will be prepared using NbTi conductors. Hitachi and

Mitsubishi are working on two rotors that are appropriate to somewhat cheaper, smaller (circa 300 MW) generators,

and the overall technology is fairly well in hand. Both companies have built and tested experimental LTS generators

in the past and are planning to produce for the commercial market after the year 2000. Mitsubishi is also

collaborating with Fujikura and Furukawa to develop rotors using Nb3Sn conductors.

Toshiba is winking on a third design that would be appropriate to a larger (over 1,000 MW), more expensive

system, and Toshiba is considered to be “challenging the technology” in a more aggressive fashion. Toshiba has

already built and tested a 3MW prototype to verify its design studies.

There are also two competing refrigeration systems being developed, one by Mayekawa and one by

Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries. There is a loose coupling between these two efforts.

At the end of 1991, there will be an interim evaluation of the progress of all projects, and some winnowing

of the options will take place. In 1995, choices will be made among the three main designs, and another follow-up

program will be started to develop the prototype 200-MW class machine.
Chapter S-High-Temperature Superconductivity Programs in Other Countries ● 83

Rote of HTS

Six companies--Mitsubishi, Hitachi, Toshiba, Furukawa, Sumitomo, and Fujikura-plus the Japan Fine

Ceramics Center---am pursuing seven research projects to develop HTS materials specifically for generators and

other electric power applications. Super-GM managers are reluctant to predict when HTS wire will be available,

saying only that it is important to stay “flexible” with regard to the insertion of HTS.

Given the fact that LTS conductor technology is so much more mature, the HTS portion of Super-GM may

most accurately be viewed as a good opportunity to pursue HTS materials development and explore new

applications in the electric power sector, rather than as a serious effort to incorporate HTS into the generator design.

However, Super-GM managers are delighted that HTS came along when it did, and note that “HTS fever” has given

a shot in the arm to the whole superconducting generator program.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Table 5-4-Membership of Japan’s Super-GM Project to develop superconductor applications. The center

End users:

Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc.

Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc.

Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc.

System/subsystem manufacturers:

Hitachi, Ltd.

lshikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

Mayekawa Mfg. Co., Ltd.

Mitsubishi Electric Corp.

Toshiba Corp.

SC material/cable/component manufacturers:

Fujikura, Ltd.

Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.

Kobe Steel, Ltd.

Showa Electric Wire and Cable Co., Ltd.

Hitachi Cable, Ltd.

Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.

Associated organizations:

Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry

Japan Fine Ceramics Center

SOURCE: Super-GM, 1989.

nies not to publicize industry research results in

HTS.10

FRANCE

French Government laboratories responded quickly

to the discovery of HTS. In 1987, the Government

supported some 240 researchers in HTS at the Centre

de l’Energie Atomique, Centre National de la

Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Centre National

d’Etudes des Telecommunications, and universities,

at a cost of about $28 million.

A new $1 million HTS research center ($2.4

million operating budget) has been built at Caen that

involves more than 70 full-time researchers working

is supported by the largest French companies,

French national agencies, and several European

companies outside of France.

In the summer of 1987, the Ministry of Research

announced a 2-year, $8.6 million program to promote cooperative government/industry research projects in HTS, with industry providing matching

funds. A 2-year follow-on program is now under

discussion.

In contrast to the rapid response of the French

Government, French industry has been slower to get

involved. In 1987, an estimated 60 full-time and 40

part-time researchers were active in HTS. This

research is concentrated in just a few companies,

chiefly Compagnie Generale d’Electricity (CGE),

Thomson-CSF, and Rhone-Poulenc. CGE and RhonePoulenc have taken a leading role in a collaboration

with CNRS and French universities to improve the

performance of bulk HTS materials for energy

applications. Thomson-CSF is the industrial leader

in France for applications in the field of superconducting electronics, and employs some 20 full-time

researchers working to develop HTS electronic

devices.

UNITED KINGDOM

The United Kingdom has a modest, though

well-coordinated, national HTS program. National

coordination is achieved through a joint committee

of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), and

the Science and Engineering Research Council

(SERC), The centerpiece of the SERC HTS effort is

the Interdisciplinary Research Center for Supercon-
84 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

ductivity at Cambridge University, funded at a

guaranteed minimum of $9 million over 6 years.

Complementary research projects are being funded

with a separate budget of $3.5 million at other

universities. DTI has made an additional $12.9

million available for joint projects with industry on

a matching basis. The Ministry of Defence has a

small intramural program with links to universities,

bringing the U.K. annual total to about $18 million.

Industry response to HTS has been mixed. Although U.K. companies have developed a strong

technology base in LTS magnets, the technology

base for superconducting electronics is relatively

weak (and mainly military), as have been the links

between academia and industry. Active research

projects under the DTI program have now started,

such as the one at Harwell, where six British

companies have become members of Harwell’s HTS

Superconductivity Club (consortium). Member companies are: Air Products, BICC, Ford of Britain,

Johnson Matthey, Oxford Instruments, and BOC

International. Several universities are also involved.

The Club has planned a 3-year research program

costing about $6.8 million, half of which will be

provided by DTI. Overall, up to 100 researchers are

estimated to be active in industry; key individual

companies include General Electric Co. (GEC),

Plessey, British Aerospace, Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), Cooksons, and Oxford Instruments.

ITALY

Italy has had many projects in energy-related

areas of LTS technology, including motor/generator

sets, cables and magnet technologies for fusion,

particle accelerators, and magnetohydrodynamics

(MHD). Italy has a broad-based research program in

HTS, including: thin-film processing, cables, magnetic storage, magnetic separation, shields, cavities,

and motors.

Italian researchers quickly reproduced the YBaCuO

results of the Universities of Houston and Alabama,

and hosted several early international meetings on

HTS. In 1989, Italy’s National Research Council

budgeted some $10 million to $15 million for HTS,

and overall the national effort involves perhaps 200

researchers. A consortium of 27 universities has

been established at the Superconductivity Applications Development Center in Genoa, including about

100 research positions. Italy’s major superconductivity research centers are at the University of Genoa

and the University of Salerno, near Naples.

Although little industrial research on HTS has

been published, leading companies appear to be

Ansaldo, Montedison, Pirelli, and Florence Industrial Metals. Ansaldo is a subcontractor on the

Bechtel team designing the U.S. Superconducting

Magnetic Energy Storage system and is currently

developing a prototype HTS motor, jointly with the

University of Genoa. Ansaldo is also a primary

manufacturer of

Hadron Electron

energy projects.

THE

LTS magnets for the European

Ring Accelerator and for

NETHERLANDS

fusion

The Netherlands has a small-scale government

program in HTS scheduled to run through 1991. It is

dominated by Philips, which has enormous technical

and financial clout. The government is providing

about $4.5 million; another $4.5 million comes from

private sources. Philips’ work is coordinated with

several university laboratories, especially Eindhoven [University of Technology. Consistent with

Philips’ main business areas, the effort is focused on

superconducting electronics, with only a small part

devoted to energy applications. Other Dutch institutions cooperating in the effort include the Universities of Amsterdam, Leiden, Nijmegen, and Twente,

and the Netherlands Energy Research Foundation.

Akzo is another Netherlands-based company active

in HTS R&D.

SWEDEN

Sweden’s HTS effort consists of a small government/

university/industry joint program in applications

research. ASEA-Brown-Boveri (ABB), Ericsson,

the Swedish Defense Research Establishment, and

seven Swedish universities are participating.ll Although the Swedish program in HTS is very small

(about $2.5 million over 2 years), the main player,

ABB, has substantial superconductivity experience

and is considered by U.S. company representatives

to be a formidable competitor in potential electric

power applications, i.e., generators, transmission

lines, and power conditioning equipment.
Chapter .5--_-High -Temperature Superconductivity Programs in Other Countries ● 85

SOVIET UNION

It is difficult to obtain reliable estimates of the

Soviet effort in HTS. The budget for the Soviet

Academy of Sciences has been estimated at several

hundred million rubles, plus about $40 million in

hard currency for purchase of foreign equipment.12

Estimates for the overall number of Soviet HTS

researchers put the figure at about 2,000. However,

these researchers often do not have access to

state-of-the-art equipment that is available to U.S.

researchers.

Soviet publications suggest that a broad range of

HTS research is being conducted, including research

in thin films for electronics and bulk materials for

large-scale applications. 13 These publications also

indicate a continuing commitment to LTS research,

particularly in superconducting sensors and electronics, in magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) electric

power production, and in fusion energy.

The Soviet Union has had a stronger program to

develop MHD power plants than any other country.

A 500 megawatt (MW) demonstration MHD power

plant is being built at Ryasan. The Soviets are

thought to have a 10-year lead in MHD, but the

program has experienced some delays due to problems with winding the superconducting magnets and

is in danger of being canceled.14 The Soviet Union

has also developed a 300-MW generator based on

LTS, similar to U.S.-developed LTS generators.

While Western observers rate the quality of Soviet

theoretical work as first-rate, its experimental work

has received mixed reviews. Moreover, the level of

coordination and information exchange among Soviet institutes is often poor. Many observers consider

the Soviet system to be too bureaucratic to exploit

HTS breakthroughs rapidly on a worldwide commercial scale, although this situation could improve

as present restructuring programs move forward.

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

(PRC)

Since the early 1960s, China has conducted a

broad research program in LTS materials, largescale magnets, generators, magnetic separators, and

Josephson Junction devices.15 In recent years, it has

produced some of the highest performing multifilamentary NbTi conductors. *G

China has responded to the discovery of HTS with

an intensive research program, and it has hosted

several international meetings on HTS. The work is

being conducted in a wide variety of research

institutes and universities both inside the country

and by visiting Chinese scientists doing joint research in foreign laboratories. China has large

reserves of rare earths and is the world’s largest

producer of yttrium and other rare earths used in

some HTS materials.

As part of an overall program to increase R&D in

the People’s Republic, the National Natural Science

Foundation of China (a counterpart of the U.S.

National Science Foundation) has planned to spend

$5.5 million per year (not including salaries) on HTS

research in universities, out of a $3 billion per year

research budget.17

The scope of the Chinese work is broad, and the

PRC appears to have allowed researchers to publish

freely, often in English journals. Some 1,000 researchers appear to be involved in HTS. *8 Despite a

geographically dispersed effort, there appears to be

little duplication of research, suggesting a coordinated program.19

Although the Chinese work is prolific, it is judged

by Western observers to be somewhat uneven in

quality, due in part to a lack of first-rate equipment.20

As yet there is little indication that an industrial

effort is underway to exploit fully the results of the
86 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

research, and no indication of the future status of the

government and university programs.

CONCLUSIONS

While many foreign nations have ongoing HTS

research efforts, it is apparent that the Japanese will

be the strongest competitors of the United States in

exploiting the potential of new HTS materials, both

because of their solid foundation of LTS development and because of their strong commitment of

resources to HTS research. The Federal Republic of

Germany will also be a strong competitor; it

produces some of the best LTS materials, and West

German companies have a stronger position in some

emerging areas-e. g., biomagnetic devices—than

do the Japanese.

While OTA finds a rough parity between the

quality of U.S. and Japanese HTS R&D, there are

several areas where Japan has superior capabilities,

and there are noteworthy differences in Japan’s

approach to superconductivity. Historically, funding

for LTS programs has been sustained over a long

period in Japan, and commitments to new commercially oriented LTS projects (e.g., computer electronics, maglev, and electric power generators) are

being made where funding has long since been cut

off in the United States. The new HTS programs in

Japan have drawn heavily on the expertise accumulated during these LTS programs, and are being

designed to capitalize on previous LTS research

results.

Based on visits to numerous Japanese laboratories

involved in superconductivity, OTA finds that

National laboratories like MITI’s Electrotechnical

Laboratory, and STA’S National Institute for Research on Inorganic Materials and National Research Institute for Metals, as well as universities in

Tokyo, Osaka, and Kyoto, Sendai, and others, are

conducting first-rate research in HTS and have much

to offer to U.S. visiting scientists.21 Unfortunately,

the quality of this work is not fully appreciated by

U.S. researchers, who tend to focus primarily on the

work in Japanese industry laboratories.

Several European countries have substantial HTS

programs led by the research efforts of a few large

multinational companies including Philips (the Netherlands), Siemens (West Germany), Asea-BrownBoveri (Sweden/Switzerland), GEC (United Kingdom), Thomson (France), and Ansaldo (Italy). These

companies have considerable financial and technical

resources as well as a strong interest in HTS, and are

already formidable competitors of U.S. firms in LTS

applications.

Joint research programs in HTS within the European Community are as yet quite small, but are

growing. The planned unification of the European

market in 1992 is likely to strengthen the European

competitive position in HTS. The combined HTS

R&D budgets of the EC member countries are

already considerably larger than those of the United

States or Japan alone.

Both the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic

of China have major efforts underway in HTS, but

these efforts are hampered by a lack of state-of-theart equipment and unwieldy bureaucracies. Neither

country appears to have the industrial muscle to

compete effective y in early commercial markets for

HTS, but this assessment could change in the long

term.
Chapter 5--High-Temperature Superconductivity Programs in Other Countries ● 87

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

☛

●

●

●

●

●

●

APPENDIX 5-A—MEMBERSHIP OF JAPAN’S INTERNATIONAL

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY TECHNOLOGY CENTER (JUNE 1, 1989)1

Anelva Corp.

Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.

British Telecom

Central Japan Railway Co., Ltd.

Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry

Chiyoda Corp.

Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc.

The Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc.

The Dai-ichi Kangyo Bank, Ltd.

The Dai-Tokyo Fire& Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.

Daido Steel Co., Ltd.

The Daiwa Bank, Ltd.

Dentsu, Inc.

Du Pont Japan, Ltd.

East Japan Railway Co., Ltd.

Electric Power Development Co., Ltd.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRl)

Fuji Electric Co., Ltd.

Fujikin International, Inc.

Fujikura, Ltd.

Fujitsu, Ltd.

Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.

Hazama-Gumi, Ltd.

Hitachi Cable, Ltd.

Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.

Hitachi Metals, Ltd.

Hitachi, Ltd.

The Hokkaido Electric Power Co., Inc.

The Hokuriku Electric Power Co., Inc.

Honda Research and Development Co., Ltd.

IBM Japan, Ltd.

INES Corp.

Intermagnetics General Corp.

Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

Japan Air Lines Co., Ltd.

Japan Fine Ceramics Center

JEOL, Ltd.

Kajima Corp.

Kandenko Co., Ltd.

The Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc.

Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.

Kawasaki Steel Corp.

Kobe Steel, Ltd.

Kumagai Gumi Co., Ltd.

Kyocera Corp.

Kyushu Electric Power Co., Inc.

Marubun Corp.

Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.

Mayekawa Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Mazda Motor Corp.

The Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd.

Mitsubishi Cable Industries, Ltd.

Mitsubishi Corp.

Mitsubishi Electric Corp.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

Mitsubishi Metal Corp.

Mitsui & Co., Ltd.

The Mitsui Bank, Ltd.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co., Ltd.

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

NEC Corp..

NGK Insulators, Ltd.

NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd

Nippon Mining Co., Ltd.

Nippon Sanso K.K.

Nippon Steel Corp.

Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp.

Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd.

NKK Corp..

Ohbayashi Corp.

Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd.

Okinawa Electric Power Co., Ltd.

Osaka Gas Co., Ltd.

Railway Technical Research Institute

Rhone-Poulenc Japan

Rinnai Co.

Rockwell International Corp.

Saibu Gas co. Ltd.

Sakaguchi Electric Heaters Co., Ltd.

Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.

Sato Kogyo CO., Ltd.

Sharp Corp.

Shikoku Electric Power Co., Inc.

Shimizu Corp.

Showa Electric Wire & Cable Co., Ltd.

Sony Corp.

The Sumitomo Bank, Ltd.

Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.

Sumitomo Corp.

Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.

Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd.

Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd.

Taikisha, Ltd.

Taisei Corp.

Takaoka Electric Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Takenaka Komuten Co., Ltd.

Toda Construction Co., Ltd.

Toho Gas Co. Ltd.

Tohoku Electric Power Co., Inc.

The Tokai Bank, Ltd.

Tokai Electric Construction Co., Ltd.

Tokyo Cryogenic Industries Co., Ltd.

The Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc.

Tokyo Gas Co., Ltd.

Tokyu Construction Co., Ltd.

Toshiba Corp.

Tosoh Corp.

Toyota Motor Corp.

Ube Industries, Ltd.

Ulvac Corp.
Chapter 6

Comparison of Industrial

Superconductivity R&D Efforts

in the United States and Japan:

An OTA Survey
CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. ., .. .. .. .. ... ... 91

OVERALL TOTALS: UNITED STATES AND JAPAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

CHARACTERIZING THE SURVEYED COMPNIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Company Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. 92

Main Business Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 93

Reliance on Defense Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Type of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ... .., 95

Collaborations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. .. .. . 95

BREAKDOWN OF HTS R&D FUNDING BY SIZE OF RESEARCH PROGRAM . . 96

Major HTS Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Midrange HTS Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Small HTS Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

INDUSTRY ATTITUDES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Some Company Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . 99

APPENDIX 6A: ABREAKDOWM OF LTS RESEARCH IN THE

UNITED STATES AND JAPAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

APPENDIX 6B: OTA R&D SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

6-1.

6-2.

6-3.

6-4.

6-5.

6-6.

6-7.

6-8.

6-9.

6-1.

6-2.

6-3.

6-4.

Figures

Page

Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity Research Efforts in the United States

and Japan, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ..,.”... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Increase in Industrial Superconductivity in the United States

and Japan, 1987-1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

Funding Sources for HTS Research Performed by Industry in the United States

and Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Funding Sources for LTS Research Performed by Industry in the United States

and Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Distribution of Industry HTS Research in the United States and Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Main Business Areas of Companies Performing HTS R&D in the United States

and Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Characterization of Industry Superconductivity Research in the United States

and Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

HTS Thin Film and Bulk Processing R&D in the United States and Japan . . . . . . . . 97

Comparison of Industry Collaborations in HTS R&Din the United States

and Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Tables

Page

U.S. Industry HTS programs, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Japanese Industry HTS Programs, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

U.S. Industry LTS Programs, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Japanese Industry LTS Programs, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Chapter 6

Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts

in the United States and Japan: An OTA Survey

INTRODUCTION

In late 1988 and early 1989, the Office of

Technology Assessment (OTA) conducted a survey

of U.S. industrial superconductivity R&D in cooperation with the National Science Foundation (NSF).

A parallel survey of Japanese industrial superconductivity R&D was conducted jointly with the

International Superconductivity Technology Center

(ISTEC), a consortium of Japanese firms organized

under the auspices of the Ministry of International

Trade and Industry.

In the United States, OTA/NSF attempted to

capture all companies involved in superconductivity

R&D. Surveys were received from 360 U.S. companies, of which 217 reported either in-house or

collaborative superconductivity R&D.12 OTA estimates that the research at these companies represents

about 90 percent of the U.S. industrial effort.3 In

Japan, OTA/ISTEC attempted to capture only the

major superconductivity R&D-performing companies. 4 Surveys were received from 92 Japanese

companies, of which 71 reported either in-house or

collaborative superconductivity R&D. OTA and

ISTEC estimate that about 80 percent of Japanese

industrial research was captured by the survey.

Unless specifically indicated, the data reported in

this chapter are not adjusted for these different

capture rates. For a more accurate comparison of

funding levels and numbers of researchers, it is

necessary to increase the U.S. data by about 11

percent and the Japanese data by about 25 percent.

R&D spending figures quoted throughout this

chapter represent only the companies’ own funds

unless otherwise specified. Government funding for

research performed by industry is considered separately, This highlights what in OTA’s view is the

best measure of a company’s commitment to superconductivity —the investment of its own cash.

For simplicity, this chapter focuses primarily on

HTS survey results. Additional survey data relating

to LTS are provided in appendix 6-A. The OTA

survey form used in the United States is included as

appendix 6-B (a Japanese translation with slight

modifications was sent to the Japanese companies).

OVERALL TOTALS:

UNITED STATES AND JAPAN

Figure 6-1 shows OTA’s estimate of the total

industry effort in the United States and Japan,

measured in both millions of dollars5 and numbers

of full-time researchers.6 These data are adjusted

according to OTA’s estimate of the efforts not

captured in each country. In 1988, Japanese industrial spending on in-house HTS R&D is estimated to

be about $107 million—some 50 percent greater

than the estimated total of $74 million in the United

States. 7 8 Japanese firms also spent about $44

-91 -
92 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

million on in-house LTS R&D compared with $16

million by U.S. firms.9

These differences are also reflected in the R&D

staff totals in the two countries. As of October 1988,

OTA estimates that some 440 U.S. industry researchers were spending greater than 50 percent of

their time on HTS, compared with some 710 in

Japan.10

Figure 6-2 shows the increase in industry R&D

efforts (as captured in the survey) over time. When

corrected for changes in yen/dollar exchange rates,11

HTS funding grew by about 40 percent and LTS

funding by about 20 percent in both countries from

1987 to 1988. The corresponding R&D staff data,

taken at three points in time, suggest that the

industrial effort began to level off in both countries

during 1988. This impression was confirmed by

spokesmen for several key companies interviewed

by OTA.

Figure 6-3 gives a breakdown of funding sources

for HTS research performed by industry in the

United States and Japan. In the aggregate, companies in both countries spend more of their own

internal funds than they receive from outside sources,

by at least 4 to 1.12 Compared with Japan, the U.S.

Government is funding about twice as much of the

I-ITS R&D performed by industry .13

Comparable data for LTS are shown in figure 6-4.

In the United States, 56 percent of the LTS industrial

research was funded by the Federal Government,

while in Japan, only 9 percent was funded by the

Japanese Government. This demonstrates the far

greater commitment of Japanese companies to LTS.

CHARACTERIZING THE

SURVEYED COMPANIES

In both countries, HTS R&D is heavily concentrated in a few firms. As shown in figure 6-5, the top

five U.S. firms put up 55 percent of the R&D dollars,

while in Japan the top five firms paid for 42 percent.

The major Japanese companies tended to have more

HTS researched; 9 companies had 20 or more

full-time researchers (comprising 60 percent of all

full-time Japanese researchers captured), compared

with just 3 companies with 20 or more in the United

States. In the United States, one-quarter of all

full-time researchers work in companies employing

three or fewer I-ITS research staff.

Company Size

With few exceptions, the big HTS spenders are

large companies, but not all large companies in the

survey have big HTS programs. In the United States,

73 percent of all internal HTS funding came from 61

companies with sales of over $1 billion. But 36 out

of 61 were investing less than $300,000 in HTS; i.e.,

less than the cost of 2 full-time researchers.14

Small companies are sometimes viewed as the

‘‘secret weapon’ of U.S. competitiveness. Of the

217 U.S. companies captured in the OTA survey,

121 are small companies;15 of these, 53 are startups

in the last 5 years. Two of these startups have

internal HTS R&D programs of over $1 million per

year. Small companies as a group put up only 9

percent of total industry funding for HTS, but

receive 44 percent of all Federal funding. (In Japan,

just 10 large firms receive 100 percent of government funding.) Interestingly, small companies in the

United States account for a much larger fraction of

LTS R&D—57 percent—a reflection of the reluctance of most large U.S. companies to spend their

own money on LTS R&D. No small Japanese
Chapter 4-Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Japan ● 93

Figure 6-l-Comparison of Industrial

Superconductivity Research Efforts

in the United States and Japan, 1988

Internal R&D funding ($ million)

200

160

100

6 0

0

United States Japan

Full-time research staff

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

I

United States Japan

companies.

120

i

6 0

4 0

2 0

0

1,000

800

600

4 0 0

2 0 0

1987 1988 1987 1988

United States Japan

Full-time research staff

Industry funding and research staff dedicated to HTS grew

substantially from January 1987 to January 1988 in both the

United States and Japan. The relatively small increase in research

staff from January 1988 to October 1988 suggests that this growth

was leveling off in both countries.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Main Business Areas

The main business areas of companies involved in

HTS R&Din the United States and Japan are shown

in figure 6-6. In both countries, the largest category

is ‘‘electronics, ’ defined here to include companies

in computers and telecommunications.16 The second

largest category could be called “advanced materials. In the United States, companies in the advanced materials category are primarily chemical

companies, while in Japan they are primarily metals
94 ● High-Ternperature Superconductive@ in perspective

Figure 6-3-Funding Sources for HTS Research Performed by Industry in the United States and Japan ($ million)

In

$66.

$12

United States Japan

8%

In both countries, the bulk of HTS R&D performed by companies is supported by internal funds. The U.S. Government supports nearly twice

as much industry HTS R&D as does the Japanese Government.

NOTE: “Government” funding refers to national government funding only. “Internal” funding refers to companies’ own funds; “Other” funding includes State

and local government funding, and funding from other companies.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Figure 64-Funding Sources for LTS Research Performed by Industry in the United States and Japan ($ million)

Government

$20

United States

$ 3 5

9

Other 1%

$0.5

over n men t 9%

Japan

$3.3

U.S. and Japanese industry perform about the same amount of LTS R&D. But in the United States, funding comes predominantly from the

Federal Government, while in Japan, it comes from internal sources.

NOTE: “Government” funding refers to national government funding only. “Internal” funding refers to companies’ own funds; “Other” funding includes State

and local government funding, and funding from other companies.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

companies. In the United States, aircraft/defense

companies invest much more than their counterparts

in Japan. Conversely, Japanese electric utilities

invest far more than their U.S. counterparts.

Reliance on Defense Markets

In Japan, the companies receiving government

funding for HTS are oriented toward commercial

markets. Only one company in the Japanese sample

depended on the Defense Agency for over onequarter of its sales, and it did not receive any

government HTS funds. In the United States, 63

firms active in HTS were dependent on the Department of Defense for more than one-quarter of their

sales. Thirty companies in this group received 58

percent of all Federal HTS funds.]7 Virtually all of

the Federal HTS funding for industry in the United

States comes from the Department of Defense, while

the primary government funding source in Japan is

the Ministry of International Trade and Industry

(MITI).
Chapter & Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Japan ● 95

Figure 6-5-Distribution of Industry HTS Research

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

in the United States and Japan

Percent of total internal fund s

Type of Research

Companies were asked to break down their

superconductivity R&D (HTS and LTS) into three

categories: basic, applied, and development.18 The

results, shown in figure 6-7, do not support the

contention that Japanese firms simply appropriate

the basic research of the United States and concentrate on developing applications. On the contrary,

Japanese companies reported spending a larger

fraction of their budgets on “basic” research-as

defined by OTA—than did U.S. companies (by a

margin of 37 percent to 28 percent). This suggests

that much of the basic research undertaken in U.S.

universities or national laboratories is performed in

Japan by companies.

Companies were also asked to characterize whether

their HTS research is directed toward thin films or

bulk forms. The results are shown in figure 6-8. In

both countries, the majority of companies are

funding research on thin films. This is consistent

with the predominance in both countries of companies with main business areas related to electronics—

the field in which thin films are likely to find their

broadest applications. But in Japan the fraction of

companies with research in both thin film and bulk

materials was considerably greater; U.S. companies

were more likely to specialize in one or the other. *9

Collaborations

Most U.S. companies performing superconductivity R&D are involved in collaborations with at

least one outside organization. Of the 217 companies

supporting superconductivity R&D, 183 (84 percent) are either engaged in or plan to engage in some

type of collaboration outside their own firm. Similarly, 96 percent of the Japanese firms reported some

collaborative R&D.

The relative popularity of various collaborative

partners in 1988 is shown in figure 6-9. Most of the

Japanese companies surveyed are members of the

MITI-sponsored consortium ISTEC; thus, 91 percent reported membership in an industry consortium, compared with just 22 percent in the United

States. *(J Apart from this, the collaborative behavior

in the two countries is similar. Universities were

more popular partners than national laboratories in

both countries, although Japanese firms were somewhat more likely to be collaborating with a national

laboratory than U.S. firms. The popularity of collaborating with other individual firms was about the

same in the two samples. Japanese firms moved

more quickly than U.S. firms to establish collaborative arrangements, as evidenced by the comparatively large number of U.S. firms in the “plans to

collaborate” category as of late 1988. - .
96 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

Figure 6-6-Main Businsss Areas of Companies Performing HTS R&D in the United States and Japan

Electronics

Advanced m Aircraft/defense

21% 12%

Other

21%

United States

Electronics/electrical

Advanced materials

29%

Japan

In both countries, companies with the largest efforts tended to have main business areas in electronics or electrical equipment. (These were

distinct categories in the United States, but were inseparable in Japan.) In the United States, aircraft/defense companies play a significant

role, whereas in Japan the electric utilities are more heavily involved.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

In 1988, U.S. companies spent about $8 million

on collaborative HTS R&D performed outside of the

company, compared with a total of $29 million in

Japan. However, these dollar figures may not

accurately reflect the actual amount of collaboration

going on. In both countries, companies often engage

in informal collaborative relationships that may

involve interchange of personnel or samples, but do

not require exchange of funds. In fact, 67 U.S.

companies and 14 Japanese companies report ongoing collaborations, but no outside expenditures.

BREAKDOWN OF HTS R&D

FUNDING BY SIZE OF RESEARCH

PROGRAM

To compare the structure of the U.S. and Japanese

superconductivity industries more effectively, company programs were classified into three categories

according to their level of internal funding. This

breakdown for the United States and Japan is

summarized in tables 6-1 and 6-2, respectively

(comparable data for LTS are given in appendix

6-A). “Major” HTS R&D efforts are those with $1

million or more of internal funding. ‘‘Midrange”

efforts are those in the $100,000 to $1 million range.

“Minor” efforts are those less than $100,000 per

year.

Although these categories are somewhat arbitrary, OTA thinks they convey a qualitative implication for future competitiveness: companies with

sustained annual R&D investments of $1 million or

more can be expected to be major players in HTS;

companies in the $100,000 to $1 million range are

considered serious; and companies investing less

than $100,000 are basically “watchers.”

Major HTS Programs

Companies with internal HTS R&D programs of

at least $1 million are likely to be in the competitive

forefront in superconductivity in the 1990s. In both

countries, these companies account for 75 percent or

more of the total internal funding for HTS. There are

14 such companies captured in the United States,

compared with 20 in Japan.

In the United States, this group of large HTS

spenders included 10 large companies (sales over $1

billion), 2 medium-sized companies, and 2 small

startup companies. Their dependence on Federal

funding varied widely. Of the 14, 7 reported

receiving no Federal funds; the other 7 received 42

percent of all Federal funds--on average $714,000

per company—but this was small in comparison

with the average amount that the company was

putting up: $3.5 million.

In Japan, all 20 of the big HTS spenders had

annual sales of over $1 billion. Government funding

was concentrated in this group. Although 13 of 20

companies did not report receiving any government
Chapter Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Japan ● 97

Figure 6-7--Characterization of Industry Superconductivity Research in the United States and Japan ($

United States

$49.8

Japan

20%

Japanese companies reported performing more “basic” superconductivity research than did U.S. companies,

NOTE: This data includes total HTS and LTS R&D performed.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Figure 6-8-HTS Thin Film and Bulk Processing R&Din the United States and Japan (number of compa

In both countries, the majority of companies are performing research on processing HTS thin films. However, in Japan, companies are more

likely to be conducting both thin film and bulk processing R&D.

NOTE: Each pie represents the set of all companies with some thin film or bulk processing R&D.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

support for HTS, the other 7 companies received 87

percent of all government funding--on average

$953,000 per company. These companies were also

investing an average of $3.6 million of their own

funds.

Among these big spenders, the Japanese companies were more likely to have broader superconductivity programs—both in terms of types of materials

being developed, and the scope of research. For

instance, although in both countries a majority of

these companies employ research staff who have had

experience working in LTS, 11 of 20 Japanese

companies actually have ongoing LTS programs of

over $100,000 per year, compared with just 4 of 14

in the United States. As discussed in chapter 2,

continuing experience with LTS could have valuable carryover to the commercialization of HTS.

While HTS thin films are the most popular

research area in both countries, 16 of the 20 Japanese

companies also had R&D programs on bulk materials, compared with just 6 of 14 in the United States.

This overlap could be important because the crossfertilization of these two types of research within the

same firm could speed the commercialization of

both. The greater breadth of the Japanese superconductivity programs reflects the greater horizontal
98 ● High-Ternperature Superconductivity in perspective

Figure 6-9--Comparison of Industry Collaborations in HTS R&D in the United States and Japan

Collaboration with. . .

Universities:

Us.

Japan

National labs:

Us.

Japan

Other companies:

U s .

Japan

University consortia:

Us.

Japan

Industry consortia:

Us.

Japan

As of late 1988, industry collaboration behavior in HTS research was similar in the two countries, except that most Japanese companies

surveyed were members of the industrial consortium ISTEC.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

integration of the Japanese firms compared with

Us. firms.

Midrange HTS Programs

In 1988,58 U.S. companies spent $100,000 to $1

million on HTS R&D (averaging $245,000-less

than the equivalent of two full-time researchers).

This compared with 29 companies in this range

spending an average of $434,000 in Japan. These

companies are maintaining a nucleus of HTS expertise that presumably could be quickly expanded if

promising commercial applications are identified. In

the United States, the midrange companies accounted for 21 percent of the total HTS R&D, and

received 29 percent of Federal funds. In Japan, they

accounted for 15 percent of the R&D total, and

received 13 percent of government funding.

Small HTS Programs

One hundred and fifteen U.S. companies performing HTS R&D-over half of the sample-have

small efforts; i.e., spent less than $100,000 on HTS

in 1988 (an average of $23,000 each). These

companies can be considered “watchers”; i.e.,

long-term competitiveness in HTS cannot be maintained at such small expenditure levels. The 115 U.S.

small efforts together account for only 4 percent of

the total internal company funds, but receive about

29 percent of all Federal funds.21

Owing to the different sampling method used in

Japan, many small efforts were not captured in the

Japanese sample.

22 The 10 small Japanese programs

captured spend an average of $40,000 each and none

receives government funds. These 10 companies

account for less than 1 percent of captured internal

funds invested in HTS by Japanese firms.

INDUSTRY ATTITUDES

Companies were asked to project the year in

which they expected to bring their first HTS-related

product to market, and to specify a category for that
Chapter Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Japan ● 99

Table 6-1-U.S. Industry HTS Programs, 1988 (grouped by the amount of company’s own funds)

Major efforts Midrange Smalla

Total, all

($1 M or more) ($1OOK-$1M) (<$1OOK) companies

Number of companies . . . . . . 14 58 115 187

Number of R&D staff . . . . . . . 446 299 256 1,001b

(>50% time) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 104 54 361

R&D totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $54.6 M $18.4 M $6.8 M $79.8 M

Own $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $49.6 M $14.2 M $2.7 M $66.3 M

Federal $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5.0 M $3.4 M $3.5 M $11.9 M

Other $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.0 M $0.8 M $0.6 M $1.4 M

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Table 6-2--Japaneae Industry HTS Programs, 1988 (grouped by the amount of company’s own funds)

Major efforts Midrange Small Total, all

($1 M or more)a

($1OOK-$1M) (<$1OOK) companies

Number of companies . . . . . . 20 29 10 59

Number of R&D staff . . . . . . . 558 235 42 835b

(>50% time) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 130 6 555

R&D totals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $80.5 M $13.6 M $0.4 M $94.6 M

Own $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $72.7 M $12.6 M $0.4 M $85.7 M

Federal $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6.7 M $ 1.0 M $0.0 M $7.7 M

Other $C 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1.1 M $0.0 M $0.0 M $ 1.2 M

product. 23 The results show that the anticipated

relative timing of the products is similar in both

countries: e.g., powders, wires, fabrication equipment, and small-scale electronics-related products

were expected before large-scale applications such

as high-field magnets or electric power equipment.

But in Japan, these products were anticipated an

average of 8 years later than in the United States.24

The average first year-to-market in the United States

is 1992; in Japan, 2000.

There are several possible interpretations of this

result. At first glance, it would appear that U.S.

companies are more optimistic about early introduction of HTS products. Actually, though, this may

simply reflect the short-term pressures on U.S.

managers to produce a product within 3 to 5 years.

The willingness of Japanese companies to spend so

much on R&D even though commercial products

may be at least 10 years away suggests a strong

commitment to HTS technology. The continuing

commitment of Japanese companies to commercial

LTS technology—largely abandoned by U.S. companies —reinforces this conclusion, and raises the

troubling question of whether U.S. firms are prepared to compete vigorously in HTS over the long

term.

Some Company Comments

In addition to the surveys in the United States and

Japan, OTA conducted a number of interviews with

industry representatives in the United States on

attitudes toward HTS development, Federal Government R&D policy, multisector collaborations, and a
100 . High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

number of related issues.25 Many survey respondents

in both countries also volunteered opinions on

subjects covered in the survey questionnaire. Several of these comments and interviews raise doubts

about the level of commitment on the part of U.S.

companies to long-term R&D programs.

The views of several respondents were summed

up by one researcher who cited a need to “show

results within 3 to 5 years-although ‘corporate’

may claim that they are more patient than that. The

average year-to-market for a U.S. company’s first

HTS-based product—1992—may simply be a reflection of this time horizon: it falls 4 to 5 years after

the start of industrial HTS R&D programs. One LTS

systems supplier states that his company “cannot

afford to spend 5 years and $10 million without

some assurance of a nearer term pay back.” Another

industry representative looks for as short a payback

as we can get. ” Said one respondent about the

erosion of U.S. technological leadership in LTS

electronics: “we’re not just uncompetitive; we’re

not competing at all. ”

One often-cited source of competitive strength for

the United States is the small company. Thought to

be more innovative and enthusiastic, small companies sometimes lack the capital and broad resource

base of larger companies. U.S. small businesses

captured in the survey predict an average year-tomarket for their first HTS products about 3 years

earlier than larger firms (1990, compared with

1993). This may be a reflection of the small

company’s enthusiasm and capacity for innovation.

Alternatively, it may indicate greater market pressures (particularly from its initial investors) to

produce quick results.26 If progress in improving the

properties of HTS materials continues to be incremental, sources of private capital for these small

companies could dry up, leaving them in a poor

position to compete with larger, better-financed

Japanese companies.

U.S. companies are using small-scale products—

e.g., powders or simple SQUIDS based on thin

films-as a safe way of gaining experience with

HTS. Small devices and materials are relatively low

value-added products, but they are less risky. These

companies plan to approach more challenging but

higher-value-added products--e.g., computers—at

a later point. Ultimately, though, the profits to be

made in superconducting systems may be 10 times

higher than the profits in the materials business

alone. As one LTS materials supplier noted: “the

LTS materials business is $10-30 million per year,

compared with the total superconductivity products

business of around $300 million per year. ”

The discovery of HTS has caused are-evaluation

of the feasibility of various LTS applications,

precipitating a number of new paper studies on

maglev transportation, electric power applications,

etc. One HTS researcher cited a “much higher level

of enthusiasm for LTS as a result of the HTS

activity—and a higher level of comfort in working

at low temperatures. ’ And the amount of LTS R&D

performed by U.S. industry did increase by 71

percent from 1987 to 1988. But only 15 percent of

this increase came out of internal funds; 82 percent

came from Federal sources such as the Department

of Energy’s Superconducting Super Collider and

DoD’s Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage

programs.

Despite the spotlight on superconductivity, industry funding for LTS R&D remains low compared to

that for HTS R&D (see figure 6-l). On the other

hand, HTS has not caused companies to be more

pessimistic about the prospects for LTS, either.

Industry interviewees feel that “LTS applications

are real” and “realistically will never be replaced”

by HTS technologies. OTA reached a similar

conclusion in its evaluation of superconductivity

applications in chapter 3.
Chapter Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Japan . 101

APPENDIX 6-A: A BREAKDOWN OF LTS RESEARCH IN THE

UNITED STATES AND JAPAN

Table 6-3-U.S. Industry LTS Programs, 1988 (grouped by the amount of company’s own funds)

Major efforts Midrange Smalla

Total, all

($1 M or more) ($100K-$1 M) (<$1OOK) companies

Number of companies . . . . . . 4 17 34 55

Number of R&D staff . . . . . . . 63 114 67 244b

(>50% time) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 75 17 115

R&D $ totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.1 M $21.3 M $4.6 M $36.0 M

Own $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.0 M $6.2 M $0.5 M $14.7 M

Federal $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1.8 M $14.3 M $3.9 M $20.0 M

Other $C 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.3 M $0.8 M $0.2 M $ 1.3 M

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Table 6-4--Japanese Industry LTS Programs, 1988 (grouped by the amount of company’s own funds)

Major efforts Midrange Small Total, all

($1 M or more)a

($1OOK-$1M) (<$1OOK) companies

Number of companies . . . . . . 12 7 9 28

Number of R&D staff . . . . . . . 272 51 28 351 b

(>50% time) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 32 14 236

R&D $ totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $33.4 M $4.9 M $0.3 M $38.6 M

Own $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $29.9 M $4.7 M $0.3 M $34.9 M

Federal $ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.3 M $0.0 M $0.0 M $3.3 M

Other $C 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 M $0.2 M $0.0 M $0.4 M
102 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

APPENDIX 6-B: OTA R&D SURVEY

United States Congress

Office of Technology Assessment

SURVEY OF SUPERCONDUCTIVITY

f&

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION IN INDUSTRY

Congress has asked for an assessment of the commercial prospects of the new high temperature

superconductors. We at OTA are convinced of the importance of an industrial perspective

commercializatlon issues. The fallowing questionnaire was designed to capture the views of both U.S. and

Japanese lndustry on this Interesting new technology. Please help us to inform the Congress of the state

of industrial superconductor research, and of potential problem areas in the commercialization of these

materials, by participating in this survey.

The results of the American and Japanese surveys will be presented in an upcoming OTA assessment on

high temperature superconductivity scheduled for release in mid-1989. You will receive complimentary

copies of this assessment as soon as it is available for release. We hope that you will use this survey as an

opportunity to express your views to the Congress and we thank you in advance for participating.

ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR THIS SURVEY WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND WILL NOT BE

DISCLOSED TO THE PUBLIC EXCEPT IN AN AGGREGATED FORM THAT DOES NOT PERMIT

IDENTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENT OR THE RESPONDENT’S ORGANIZATION. The Office of .

Technology Assessment is exempt from compliance with Freedom of Information Act requests. OTA Is not

seeking proprietary data from any participants. Respondent information will be shared with the National

Science Foundation, with the understanding that NSF will abide by the stated conditions of confidentiality.

Richard E. Morrison [NSF (202) 634425] may contact you regarding NSF’s participation In this survey.

Superconductivity Assessment

Office of Technology Assessment

Energy and Materials Program

U.S. Congress

Washington, D.C. 20510-8025

Company Name and Address: Name of Respondent and Title:

Telephone:

( ) Ext.

Reporting year (check ONE only - if possible, please use calendar year)

Calendar year OR

Fiscal year beginning , ending

Month day Month day

September 30, 1988
Chapter 6---Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Japan ● 103

If you feel that this questionnaire does not apply to your company (e.g., your company does not conduct

any business or R&D activity related to superconductivity and is not contemplating any), please indicate

this below and mail the questionnaire back to OTA Fed free to answer any questions which do apply to

your company. Your participation will still remain confidential.

My organization is not conducting or planning to conduct any business or R&D

activity in superconductivity or superconductivity-related products

OTA would still be interested in knowing why your organization is interested in

superconductivity, however limited this interest may be, and would appreciate your

description below of the reasons behind your interest.

RODUCTION

This survey covers both traditional, low temperature superconductivity (LTS) R&D as well as the newer high

temperature superconductivity (HTS) R&D activities. Except as otherwise noted, data for HTS R&D and for

LTS R&D are to be reported separately.

if you fed that you cannot complete this questionnaire, please forward it to the person within your

company who would be better able to complete it.

if the answer to a given question is zero, indicate by writing “zero” or “0”; do not use a dash and do not

leave blank. if you don’t wish to answer the question for any reason, please indicate that you have seen

the question by marking the question in some obvious fashion, such as putting a slash mark across it. Do

ve any question unmarked.

Please read the “Definitions” page found at the back of this survey, and refer to it if you are unsure about a

question.

For questions on value of sales and number of employees, please report only the data for your company

and its dependent divisions; do not include your parent company, or any independent divisions or

subsidiaries. if your company has foreign-based operations, please report availabie or estimated data for

U.S.-based operations only.

Personnel data should be reported as of January of your reporting year.

When reporting total sales, if your company performs contract research or other services, report sales of

research and other services as well as components, systems, and other commodities.

Please report R&D which is performed in-house separately from R&D which is contracted out to a

university, Federal laboratory, industry association or consortium, or another company.

All requested financial data should be provided in thousands of dollars. An expenditure of $25,643 should

be rounded to the nearest thousand dollars and be reported as $26K if exact data are not available,

reasonable estimates are welcome. To the extent possible, ail data should be reported by calendar year.
104 . High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

A..DESCRIPTION OF COMPANY 

1. Provide a description of your organization and its main business areas by checking any and all of the

fallowing categories that apply.

Aircraft/aerospace Land/sea transportation

Ceramics/glass Magnets

chemical Medical

Computers/data processing Metals

Contract research Petroleum

Cyogenics Public utility

Defense Research consortium

Electrical/power systems Scientific instruments

Electronics Semiconductors

Energy

Fabrication equipment Superconductor materials

Industrial manufacturing Telecommunications

Industry association Wire/tape mfg.

Other (describe)

2. is your organization a recent start-up (within the past five years)?

Yes No

3. What percent of total company sales are to:

(Check one for each row)

0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

military markets?

other Federal

Government markets?

4a. is your company an independent division or subsidiary of another company

Yes No ___ Not applicable

if no, goon to question 5.

4b. What is your parent company

4c. U.S. respondents: is your parent company at least 50 percent foreign-owned?

Yes No Not applicable
Chapter 6--Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Jap

5a. Is your’ company a parent of any independent divisions or subsidiaries which are involved in

superconductor R&D or sales?

Yes No Not applicable

comments?

5b. If yes, list the U.S.-based independent divisions or subsidiaries, their locations, and potential contacts

within these companies:

6. What was the value of total sales for your company in 1987? (For purposes of this survey, use the

conversion rate $1 = 133 yen.)

No sales $10-100 million

Less than $1 million $100 million to $1 billion

$1-10 million Greater than $1 billion 

Not available Not applicable

7. How many people are employed within your organization?

10 or less 11 to 50 ___51 to 500 501 to 10,000 Over 10,000

CONDUCTIVITY

8. Has your company performed low temperature superconductor (LTS) R&D and/or produced LTS-related

products?

Yes No Not applicable

Comments?

9. Approximately when did your organization first become involved in superconductivity (LTS and/or HTS)

R&D activities?

Year Month, if known
$$$$$

$$$$$$[

1

$

have you obtained financial
Chapter Comparison Industriai Superconductivity R&D Eflorts in the United States and Japan ● 109

Less than 2 5 % 25 to 50% 51 to 7596 76 to 100%

not applicable
110 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $

The aim of this section is to discover the attitudes of industry representatives about the commercialization

and timing of superconductor-based products, and is not intended as a future prediction measure.

Year

Cryogenic systems Power applications

Ground or sea transportation Tape/Wire
Chapter 6--Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Japan ● 111

Computers/data processing

Cryogenic systems

Electrical machinery

Magnets

Medical applications

Power applications

Scientific instruments

Superconductor powders

Comments?

$
hours

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS SURVEY.
Chapter 6---Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Japan ● 113

Research and development(R&D) - Research and development includes basic and applied research in the

sciences and in engineering, and design and development of prototype products and processes. For the

purposes of this questionnaire, research and development includes activities carried on by persons trained,

either formally or by experience in the physical sciences including related engineering, and the biological

sciences including medicine but excluding psychology, if the purpose of such activity is to do one or more

of the fallowing things:

1) Pursue a planned search for new knowledge, whether or not the search has reference to a specific

application;

2) Apply existing knowledge to problems involved in the creation of a new product or process, including

work required to evaluate possible uses; or

3) Apply existing knowledge to problems involved in the improvement of a present product or process.

R&D Scientists and engineers are defined as all persons engaged in scientific or

engineering work at a level that requires a knowledge of physical or life sciences, engineering, or

mathematics, equivalent at least to that acquired through completion of a four-year college program with a

major In these fields, regardless of whether such persons hold a degree In the field. Exclude technicians

and other supporting staff unless successful performance of their job responsibilities requires having the

qualifications above.

Superconductivity - A physical state of a material in which the material presents zero resistance to an

electrical current and simultaneously excludes magnetic fields (the Meissner effect).

HTS - high temperature superconductors These include: LaSrCuO materials; YBaCuO or other 1-2-3

materials; BISrCaCuO materials; TlBaCaCuO materials; BaKBiO materials; and other new materials with

transition temperatures above 30K

LTS - low temperature superconductors These include: NbTi materials; NbN materials; NbSn materials;

and other known LTS materials.

Industry associations - Consortia are defined as any research organizations comprised of

industrial members, performing precompetitive research. (e.g., MCC, ISTEC)

Comments? Section - 7 Use this part of each question to explain anything you wish about your answer or to

provide your answer in a format not compatible with the question as asked.
Chapter 7

Policy Issues and Options
CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

MINOR ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

ISSUES THAT BEAR WATCHING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

KEY ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

IMPORTANCE OF FUNDING STABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY IN A BROADER POLICY CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Chapter 7

Policy Issues and Options

INTRODUCTION

The discovery of HTS has come at a time of

increasing doubts about the capability of the United

States to compete in global high-technology markets. The list of markets in which U.S. industry has

slipped badly is growing: e.g., consumer electronics.

memory chips, automobiles, and machine tools.

Moreover, the U.S. private sector is investing less

than its main competitors in a number of emerging

technologies such as x-ray lithography, high-

-definition television (HDTV), and—as shown in the

previous chapter—in superconductivity research.

There is a serious question whether U.S. industry, as

it is currently financed and managed, can compete in

markets for these technologies in the next century.

While there is a reluctance within the Administration and Congress to talk openly about “industrial

policy,’ there is a growing recognition on both sides

that changes in the technological relationships

between the Federal Government and the private

sector may be necessary to firm up flagging U.S.

competitiveness. This new attitude is reinforced by

the recognition that foreign competitors have targeted the most promising emerging commercial

technologies with coordinated, government/industry

efforts. In Japan, the progress achieved by close

cooperation between the government and industry is

legendary, and the newly industrialized countries on

the Pacific Rim (South Korea, Taiwan. Hong Kong,

and Singapore) are following closely behind. In

Western Europe, cooperation among governments

and major corporations has long been the hallmark

of science and technology programs, and the prospect of a unified European market after 1992

suggests that U.S. firms can anticipate tougher

competition from these large European companies in

the future, in both European and U.S. markets.

Unfortunately, the growing interest in new Federal policies to promote commercial technology

development comes at a time of growing pressures

to reduce the Federal budget deficit. After all,

high-temperature superconductivity (HTS) is only

one of many emerging technologies---optoelectron -

ics, ceramics, and HDTV, to name a few—that could

become commercially important in the future. When

added to such big-ticket Federal R&D commitments

as the NASA space station, the Superconducting

Super Collider, mapping the human genome, and the

Strategic Defense Initiative, it is apparent that

difficult budgetary choices will have to be made.

In 1987, shortly after the discovery of HTS,

optimism was rampant and room-temperature superconductivity seemed just around the corner. The

United States was seen to be engaged in a heated

race to commercialize HTS products before its

competitors. By 1989, as the scope of the remaining

challenges became clearer, a more realistic view had

taken hold. HTS became a test case, not of the

United States’ ability to commercialize a new

technology rapidly, but of its ability to look beyond

the immediate future and sustain a consistent R&D

effort over the long term.

It is now apparent that the real race will begin after

practical HTS conductors are developed, and will

involve the incorporation of these conductors into

larger, integrated systems. The race will not be a

sprint, won by a technical breakthrough; rather, it

will be a marathon, won by painstaking attention to

design, low-cost manufacturing, and high quality—

the same factors that determine competitiveness in

any other industry. Thus, the so-called "superconductivity race" should be seen in the broader context

of the competitive prowess of the entire U.S.

manufacturing sector.

This chapter ranks a series of policy issues raised

by HTS in three categories: first, those considered by

OTA to be of minor importance; then, several issues

that bear watching in the future; and finally, those

that OTA considers to be of critical importance.

Where appropriate, specific options for addressing

these issues are discussed. The importance of stable

funding for superconductivity is stressed, if the

potential of this technology is to be realized. Finally,

the chapter concludes by placing HTS in a broader

policy context of U.S. competitiveness, noting that

while the Federal Government’s R&D policies are

important. its fiscal policies are even more important

MINOR ISSUES

As the realization sank in that HTS is a long-term

technology, several issues that were earlier thought

to be urgent now appear to be of minor importance

–1 17--
118 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

Adequate supplies of raw materials, chemical

precursors, and powders for HTS are not a problem

now, nor are they likely to be in the foreseeable

future.

At present, the United States is heavily dependent

on imports for yttrium, bismuth, and thallium, key

ingredients in three of the most promising HTS

materials.1 These metals are byproducts of the

production of primary metals, e.g., lead. Since HTS

is still at the research stage, the incremental demand

due to HTS materials is relatively small. Moreover,

as discussed in chapter 3, the most probable nearterm HTS applications are likely to be in electronic

devices, which will require only very small quantities of material. Present supplies appear sufficient to

support even significant growth in large-scale applications.2

HTS does not appear to raise unmanageable

health and safety problems, though this deserves

further study.

There appear to be two principal health and safety

issues associated with HTS: the toxicity of the

materials themselves (and of their chemical precursors), and the potential health effects of human

exposure to the high magnetic fields produced by

superconducting magnets.

The main toxicity problem with HTS materials

appears to be the risk of poisoning by inhalation,

ingestion, or skin contact with heavy metals such as

barium, yttrium, bismuth, and thallium.3 For instance, thallium-a key ingredient in the HTS

material having the highest known transition temperature—is dangerous not only because it is extremely poisonous,

4 but also because it readily

evaporates when heated to process temperatures,

and can be easily inhaled. Present techniques are

adequate to minimize exposure to these heavy

metals on a research scale, but further studies are

needed to ensure that laboratory processes are scaled

up safely to production quantities. The potential

hazards of disposing of these materials also deserve

further study.

Several large-scale applications of superconductors, e.g., magnetic energy storage, maglev vehicles,

and MRI, produce high static magnetic fields, and

raise the issue of the potential health effects of public

exposure to these fields. In the past 20 years, there

have been numerous studies investigating the biological effects of both static and time-varying

magnetic fields. While the health effects of exposure

to power frequency (60 hertz) fields remain controversial, 5 there is no evidence for adverse effects in

healthy individuals exposed to static fields up to 2

tesla (20,000 gauss).6 Nevertheless, because relatively small magnetic fields can interfere with heart

pacemakers and a variety of paramagnetic body

implants, public exposure must be limited to around

10 gauss. The shielding and/or exclusion zone

required to reduce the field to this level can add

significantly to the cost of the application.

Antitrust restrictions are not a serious inhibitor to

U.S. competitiveness in HTS technology.

The first item of President Reagan’s 1 l-point

Superconductivity Initiative (see ch. 4) proposed

exempting certain joint production ventures in the

private sector from antitrust litigation under the

Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18). This was intended to

facilitate the formation of joint ventures to commercialize products featuring HTS, thus permitting U.S.

firms to share the risks and expenses. Similar

relaxations of antitrust restrictions have been suggested as a means of encouraging the formation of

consortia to commercialize several other technologies, including semiconductor memory chips

(DRAMs) and HDTV. Proposed legislation to relax

the antitrust laws is under consideration at the

Justice Department.

The National Cooperative Research Act of 1984

(Public Law 98-462) cleared the way for companies

to form joint ventures or consortia to conduct R&D,
Chapter Policy Issues and Options ● 119

as distinct from commercial production. As discussed in chapter 4, several HTS R&D consortia of

this type are either being planned or are already in

operation. OTA found no evidence from its industry

interviews that fear of antitrust litigation is holding

back U.S. progress in HTS. In fact, most companies

feel that HTS is not yet mature enough for commercial joint production ventures to be considered

seriously. 7 Therefore, changes in the antitrust laws

are more likely to be driven by the needs of more

mature technologies, such as HDTV, rather than

HTS.

Fears that the prolific HTS patenting by Japanese

companies could block U.S. companies from participating in major superconductivity markets appear to

be exaggerated.

In one year, Japanese companies filed some 5,000

patents on various aspects of FITS in Japan. Sumitomo

Electric Co. alone is said to have filed over 1,000.

The U.S. Patent Office reports that 1,200 patents

relating to superconductivity have been filed in the

United States since 1985, about 40 percent by

foreign companies.8

Some observers have become alarmed by these

developments, worried that the Japanese could

“lock up” the technology with patents, and force

U.S. companies into an inferior position. OTA’s

analysis suggests that these concerns are exaggerated:

●

●

U.S. firms have also taken an aggressive

approach to patents in HTS. In fact, five

separate U.S. laboratories (University of Alabama, University of Houston, AT&T, Naval

Research Laboratory, and IBM) have applied

for patents on the original YBaCuO materials.

Resolution of this patent conflict could take

years; meanwhile the technology moves on.

Although it is conceivable that there will be one

“best’; patentable material, it is at least as

likely that a range of compositions and structures will be available to the designer of HTS

products. The recent discoveries of much

broader classes of oxide compositions and

structures supports this view.

These considerations suggest that, although HTS

patents may have value in the context of specific

narrow markets, the possibility of global Japanese

dominance of the technology based on a few key

patents seems remote. In the long run, the real

significance of HTS patents may be as trading

property in cross-licensing negotiations between

competitors. On the whole, patent attorneys interviewed by OTA did not think that HTS raises any

patent issues that are substantively different from

those encountered in other fields, such as electronics, polymers, or pharmaceuticals.

ISSUES THAT BEAR WATCHING

There are several aspects of the U.S. HTS effort

that may not be a problem now, but are potential

areas of concern for the future.

Federal laboratories may be receiving a disproportionately large share of the HTS budget.

In fiscal year 1988, 45 percent of Federal HTS

funding went to support work in Federal laboratories

of the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of

Energy (DOE), National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA), and Department of Commerce (DOC). These laboratories conduct a broad

range of research, from very basic to prototype

development, in support of their agency missions.

Some of this research uses the unique facilities

available only in the Federal laboratories, and some

is simply not being done anywhere else.

But questions remain about whether Federal

laboratories should have such a large share of the

HTS budget-especially given the scarcity of resources for university research (see below). To

assess the quality and relevance of HTS programs in

Federal laboratories, Congress may wish to establish

a single, independent advisory committee with

strong industry representation to evaluate the quality

of HTS research at Federal laboratories (including

military laboratories).

Historically, Federal laboratories have not considered it part of their mission to transfer technologies

of commercial interest to U.S. industry. With the

advent of HTS, traditional attitudes and cultures in

both Federal laboratories and U.S. companies have

begun to change. Programs such as DOE’s Superconductivity Pilot Centers represent good faith

efforts to address the needs of industry, and they
120 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

have attracted a large number of industry collaborators. Such experiments are valuable and if

successful, could be extended to other Federal

laboratory programs.9

One area of research where a Federal laboratory

makes a unique contribution is the National Institute

of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) work on

standards for making measurements that are reproducible and accurate. Standard techniques for measuring key HTS materials properties such as critical

current density in the presence of magnetic fields are

crucial for timely progress in developing the materials. The need for standard measurement techniques

was explicitly recognized in President Reagan’s

1 l-point Superconductivity Initiative. Nevertheless,

the NIST effort in standard HTS measurement

techniques in 1989 was only about $200,000 per

year. 1°

NIST is already recognized as the world leader in

LTS standards development. By increasing NIST’s

annual budget by about $300,000 (the equivalent of

fill support for two or three additional staff), the

United States could also become a world leader in

standards for HTS. As HTS matures and begins to be

used in applications, a strong U.S. position in HTS

measurement standards will not only facilitate trade

by U.S. firms, but will help ensure that the United

States has a strong voice in the formation of

international standards.

At present, defense and civilian requirements for

HTS technology are similar, but this could change

as the technology mutures.

As pointed out in chapter 4, Federal funding for

HTS R&D is dominated by DoD (about 45 percent

in fiscal year 1989) and DoD provides most of the

Federal I-ITS R&D funds going out to U.S. industry.

This has raised concerns that DoD involvement

might skew the U.S. agenda for HTS development

toward high-cost, specialty materials designed for

one-of-a-kind military weapons systems, while foreign competitors develop low-cost, easily manufactured HTS materials well-suited for profitable commercial applications. A second concern is that heavy

military involvement might lead to the lowering of

a cloak of secrecy over Federal HTS R&D efforts,

preventing timely access of U.S. firms to research

results that could lead to commercial applications.

At the present stage of HTS technology development, OTA finds that military and civilian agency

objectives for HTS are the same. The great majority

of DoD-funded HTS R&D (with the possible

exception of some Strategic Defense Initiative work)

remains at a very basic or generic level, and the

results are useful for both military and civilian

purposes. Without the DoD HTS programs, the HTS

R&D funding pie would undoubtedly be much

smaller, and many programs of potential value to the

commercial sector would not be going forward at all.

For example, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) HTS initiative provides an

emphasis on HTS processing technologies that is

unique among government efforts. Also, without 95

percent funding from the Strategic Defense Initiative

Organization, the Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage project would never have started; only

5 percent of the program’s support comes from the

electric utilities.

As HTS matures and begins to be incorporated

into specialized weapons systems, DoD and commercial interests could well diverge. The special

demands made on materials for military and space

applications, e.g., high radiation hardness or ultrahigh frequency operation (as well as a lower priority

placed on cost, manufacturability, or long-term

stability), are likely to cause this divergence. One

area of special concern is superconducting electronics, widely predicted to be one of the earliest and

largest commercial application areas of HTS. With

the exception of a small program at NIST, DoD is the

only Federal agency that considers development of

superconducting electronics to be part of its mission,

If DoD funding concentrates on solving problems of

primarily military interest as the technology matures, U.S. commercial competitiveness in HTS

could suffer,

Thus far, Federal agencies have not restricted

access to I-ITS research results for national security

reasons. However, HTS was one of 22 technologies

recently identified as critical to future military

missions. 11 This designation could lead to greater
Chapter 7--Policy Issues and Options . 121

funding, but as HTS is used more widely in weapons

systems, pressures will probably increase to control

access to information about the superconducting

components and to prevent their export to unfriendly

nations. In the past, such restrictions have proven to

be a nuisance for companies interested in commercialization of advanced materials, electronics, and

computer technology originally developed for military applications,12 and this situation needs to be

watched closely.

Congress could move to forestall these concerns

by requiring DoD or other relevant agencies to

inform Congress in advance of intentions to place

HTS on the Militarily Critical Technologies List,

Commodity Control List, Munitions List, etc.13 In

addition, it could establish an independent advisory

committee of government and industry researchers

to conduct periodic review of progress in dual-use

military projects and report on the extent to which

military and commercial objectives may differ.

If progress in HTS technology continues to be

incremental, small HTS startup companies could

face a critical shortage of capital.

In recent years, the manufacture of commercial

products having LTS superconducting components

has shifted from large companies to medium and

small companies. While several large companies

maintain substantial LTS R&D efforts (often supported in large part by government contracts), most

have backed away from commercial markets, finding them insufficiently profitable in the near term.

The only large U.S. company presently producing a

commercial LTS product is General Electric Co.,

with its MRI system.

OTA’s survey (see ch. 6) identified a dozen

venture capital-financed startup companies in HTS.

These companies are conducting innovative research, and two are spending more than $1 million

per year on HTS R&D. During 1987-1988, first

round venture capital funding for seven of these

firms was quite plentiful, averaging more than $3

million per startup.14 However, a second round

infusion will be needed soon to keep these companies going.

If markets for HTS products develop as slowly as

those for LTS have done over the past 30 years, we

may see large firms backing out, and the venture

capital sources could dry up, leaving the field to a

number of undercapitalized small companies largely

supported by government/military R&D grants and

contracts. It is unlikely that these small companies

could carry the standard of U.S. competitiveness

against their better-financed and more diversified

foreign competitors. In fact, most small HTS startups report that they have received buyout offers from

large foreign companies. If U.S. sources of capital

begin to dry up, such offers will become more and

more difficult to resist.

The importance of active U.S. participation in

international superconductivity meetings and programs is growing, while Federal funding to support

these activities is stagnant or declining.

At present, the United States does not have a

qualitative lead over its competitors in superconductivity R&D, and indeed, it lags in several areas of

LTS technology (e.g., large-scale integration of

Josephson Junctions for LTS electronics, and rotating LTS machinery). The pace of HTS research

abroad is rapid, and U.S. scientists—both in Federal

laboratories and universities-have an urgent need

to know about the most recent developments.

The opportunities for tapping into foreign research and for conducting international collaborative research are growing, and occur on several

levels: formal government-to-government programs;

long-term fellowships for U.S. scientists conducting

joint research in foreign laboratories, and short-term

visits and attendance at international meetings.

Examples include the U.S.-Japan Agreement on

Cooperation in Science and Technology (specific

projects still under negotiation), and the postdoctoral research fellowship slots in Japan that were

recently made available to U.S. scientists and funded

by the Japanese Government through NSF.15
122 . High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

There is a growing recognition among U.S.

scientists of the importance of taking advantage of

these opportunities. But although it is hard to

quantify, there is considerable anecdotal evidence

that Federal agency funding for these activities is not

keeping pace with the demand. Key superconductivity experts in Federal laboratories and universities

interviewed by OTA report that funding for travel to

international meetings is becoming more difficult to

get, and the time required for approval of such travel

is as long as 3 to 6 months.16 

Important international exchange programs could

also be caught in the budget squeeze. For instance,

several new joint superconductivity projects are

under negotiation in the U.S.-Japan Agreement

mentioned above,17 but U.S. agencies are expected

to fund the costs of their participation out of other

budgets. 18 In contrast, Japan has been much more

generous in supporting the participation of its

scientists in international collaborations.

Many observers have expressed concern that the

United States gives away more technical information than it gets from abroad. By failing to support

strongly U.S. representation in international technology agreements, the Federal Government may be

ensuring such an unequal exchange.

The importance of U.S. participation in international superconductivity programs is emphasized in

the National Action Plan for Superconductivity,

recently released by OSTP.19 Congress could require

that OSTP prepare an evaluation of the adequacy of

Federal funding for these international activities as

part of its mandated annual progress report on the

Plan, and appropriate additional funds if these are

deemed necessary.

KEY ISSUES

OTA considers the following issues to be especially important in determining the future U.S.

competitive position in HTS:

U.S. companies are investing less than their main

competitors in both low- and high-temperature

superconductivity R&D.

The OTA survey results (see ch. 6) illustrate the

problem: Japanese firms are investing at least 50

percent more than U.S. firms in HTS R&D, even

though they don’t expect a payback on their investment until the year 2000. In contrast, U.S. firms

typically projected a payback by 1992.

HTS presents a difficult problem for U.S. industry. The materials themselves are evolving rapidly.

No one knows when practical conductors will be

developed. There is general agreement that the most

important applications have not yet been thought of.

Profitable markets are not yet in sight. There is no

guarantee that any one company will be able to

appropriate the full benefits of its R&D investment.

In short, HTS is a high-risk, long-term gamble. In the

absence of major research successes in the next few

years, it seems likely that U.S. firms will have

difficulty continuing even their present levels of

HTS R&D expenditures.

It is tempting to focus on how changes in Federal

R&D policy can help companies to adopt a longer

term perspective--e. g., establishing federally funded

industry consortia. But while such Federal programs

might be helpful, they are almost certainly not

decisive, because they do not change the financial

and economic climate in which U.S. companies

make long-term investment decisions.

This is not to suggest that Federal R&D funding

and Federal markets for superconductivity are not

important; after all, Federal programs (especially

those of DOE) kept LTS technologies alive during

the 1960s and 1970s. Without this support, U.S.

companies would not have been able to participate

in today’s growing commercial markets for superconducting magnets and other applications. But it is

unrealistic to expect that changes in Federal R&D

policies will by themselves solve U.S. competitiveness problems. Instead, Federal fiscal policies—
Chapter 7—Policy Issues and Options ● 123

especially those that affect the cost of capital

available to U.S. industry-are more important. The

availability of patient capital is the single most

important policy objective for encouraging industry

to invest in long-term technologies such as HTS (see

further discussion below).

University research on HTS merits a higher

priority than it presently receives.

In fiscal year 1988, about 30 percent of Federal

HTS resources went to support research in universities; about half of this came from NSF. Over the past

3 years, individual researchers at U.S. universities

have contributed significantly to the development

and characterization of new HTS materials, including the original discovery of the YBaCuO materials

at the Universities of Houston and Alabama and the

discovery of the thallium-based materials at the

University of Arkansas. Yet there is a growing

 consensus that universities are not receiving a level

of funding adequate to support the quality of

research of which they are capable.20 21 22 N S F

continues to report that it is forced to turn down HTS

research proposals of extremely high quality due to

lack of funds. This situation is especially serious for

young investigators entering the field, but even

proven contributors have experienced difficulty

getting funding.

As indicated in chapter 2, major questions remain

about the mechanism of HTS and the relationships

among the theory, structure, and properties of these

materials. Because of the basic nature of this

research and the long time-scales involved, much of

it is best carried out in universities. Universities are

an important component of U.S. industrial competitiveness; not only are they a favorite partner of

companies for consulting and collaborative R&D,

they also provide a pool of trained graduate students

who will be hired by these companies.

Option: Increase NSF’s budget by $5 million for

individual investigator research grants in HTS.

While NSF’s spending for superconductivity did

increase from $20.4 million to $26.2 million from

fiscal years 1988 to 1989, virtually the entire

increase went to support the new superconductivity

Science and Technology Center shared between the

University of Illinois at Urbana, Northwestern

University, and Argonne National Laboratory. Funding for individual university researchers stayed

essentially constant. The high quality of proposals

and the strong contributions in the past suggest that

additional moneys invested in individual materials

research grants would be likely to yield high

returns.23

A balance between NSF funding for individual

researchers and multidisciplinary centers is desirable for HTS. Individual researchers are better at

investigating the physics of HTS and looking for

new materials, while the resources and facilities of

larger centers are needed for characterization and

processing studies.

Option: Increase funding to upgrade university

equipment for synthesis and processing of

HTS by $10 million per year.

The need for greater investment in materials

synthesis and processing at universities has been

highlighted in a recent report.24 The purpose of this

initiative would be to build up the technological

infrastructure of the Nation’s universities in synthesis and characterization. U.S. capabilities in such

areas as the synthesis of new HTS materials and

preparation of large single crystals lag those of

Japan. 25 To achieve optimum performance, advanced materials such as HTS must be synthesized

using methods capable of control at the atomic level.

This involves expensive processes, such as multi- — —
124 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

gun sputtering, molecular beam epitaxy, and excimer laser deposition. Few U.S. universities have

these capabilities, and as a result few students

receive training in the state-of-the-art synthetic

methods that are likely to be crucial in a wide variety

of advanced materials in the future.

A second area where university infrastructure is

weak is in characterization of materials. University

researchers need access to a variety of expensive

equipment for characterization of materials, e.g.,

neutron sources, photon sources, electron microscopes, high-field magnets, and magnetometers.

Much of this equipment is available only in a few

research institutes and Federal laboratories.26

The idea of enhancing university capabilities in

HTS is by no means a new one. The new NSF

Superconductivity Science and Technology Center

in Illinois is intended exactly for this purpose, but

has received only baseline levels of funding. While

this is a step in the right direction, it does not

adequately address the needs of the many research

universities across the country. A rough estimate of

the scale of the program required is $10 million per

year over the next several years, providing equipment funding for some 25 research groups across the

Nation at a level of $400,000 each per year.

If HTS becomes a practical success, this initiative

will have created a vital source of research capability

and a pool of highly trained students. But even if

HTS remains largely a research phenomenon, this

capability is likely to pay dividends in numerous

other areas of materials science, since such equipment is also needed for research on semiconductor

manufacturing, optical coatings, etc. Thus, from a

national point of view, the investment would have

very high utility and low risk.

Option: Provide funding—perhaps through

DARPA—for a limited number of universitybased consortia in HTS.

The principal recommendation of the so-called

“Wise Men’s Report” on superconductivity is to

establish four to six HTS R&D consortia, each

involving a research university with participation by

 Properly organ- government labs and industry.27 28

ized and managed, such consortia could help to

lengthen the time horizons of industry R&D and to

improve the coordination of the U.S. HTS effort. But

it is important to be realistic about what these

consortia can be expected to accomplish. They are

more likely to accelerate generic technology development and to create a pool of trained graduate

students than to aid companies directly with commercialization of HTS products.29

Japan’s International Superconductivity Technology Center (ISTEC)-a single consortium of all of

the major Japanese companies involved in HTS—is

viewed by some as a key factor that will put Japanese

companies ahead in the race to commercialize HTS.

But as explained in chapter 5, ISTEC’s research

agenda is focused primarily on materials development, not product development. For the latter,

Japanese companies are relying on extensive inhouse R&D programs (see ch. 6). Similarly, research

consortia in the United States are no substitute for

vigorous, independent R&D programs within the

companies themselves.

There is also the danger that too many consortia

could dilute the U.S. effort. U.S. companies involved in superconductivity R&D already have

numerous consortia to choose from, including several in the private sector, at universities, and at

Federal laboratories. (Some of the more prominent

consortia are listed in table 4-10.) Most are seeking

Federal funding (usually from DARPA), often

proposing to do similar kinds of research. Ultimately, market forces and limitations of the Federal

budget will sort out which consortia will survive and

which will not. But the lever of Federal funding can

be used to help consolidate resources into a limited

number of strong consortia having clearly complementary objectives.
Chapter Policy Issues and Options ● 125

Coordination of the Federal superconductivity

R&D effort can be made more effective at the

national level.

At present, U.S. superconductivity policy is

essentially the sum of individual mission agency

programs. Within each agency, coordination has

been excellent (see ch. 4), and informal mechanisms

for information exchange, e.g., the Office of Science

and Technology Policy’s (OSTP) Committee On

Materials (COMAT) and its Subcommittee on Superconductivity, have done an excellent job in

providing a snapshot of the various agency programs

and budgets. But there is little in the way of a

crosscutting overview of the U.S. effort that could

provide a sense of coherence and direction. Such an

overview is particularly important in times of fiscal

austerity when difficult budgetary choices must be

made-e. g., choosing which of the various HTS

R&D consortia competing for Federal support

should be funded.

It is this lack of a sense of direction that led

Congress (in the National Superconductivity and

Competitiveness Act of 1988, Public Law 100-697)

to mandate that OSTP produce a 5-year National

Action Plan for superconductivity, with the help of

the National Commission on Superconductivity and

the National Critical Materials Council (NCMC).

The Act also requires that the implementation of the

Plan be reviewed by OSTP in an annual report to

Congress.

OSTP completed its work on the Action Plan in

December 1989.30 The Plan acknowledges the need

for stronger leadership in coordinating the national

superconductivity R&D effort, and proposes to

initiate a crosscutting budgetary analysis of Federal

HTS R&D spending in fiscal year 1991. But the Plan

does not indicate how this analysis would be used to

identify budgetary priorities, nor does it provide the

5-year perspective called for in Public Law 100-697.

Although several advisory committees on HTS

have been appointed during the past 3 years—

including the “Wise Men” advisory committee

established by President Reagan, and the National

Commission on Superconductivity established by

Congress—these committees have been given only

a temporary mandate, and cannot provide the

long-term monitoring and analysis called for in the

National Superconductivity and Competitiveness

Act.

Option: Establish a standing advisory committee

of experts on superconductivity to provide

advice to Congress, the Science Adviser, and

the President, and give it a mandate of at least

5 years.

There is no need for a “superconductivity czar. ”

But a standing advisory committee of experts could:

●

●

●

●

●

identify overlaps and gaps in the Federal effort;

help to catalyze a consensus among private

sector groups on promising future directions;

suggest rational guidelines for setting priorities

where necessary, e.g., on limiting the number

of consortia funded;

evaluate the quality and relevance of HTS

research in Federal laboratories, including military laboratories; and

monitor follow-through on policy recommendations.

Ideally, such a committee would be small, with

strong representation by industry-perhaps modeled on the Wise Men Advisory Committee. Its

efforts would need to be supplemented by permanent

staff, most appropriately at OSTP. In addition to

providing assistance to the advisory committee

staff could:

●

●

●

provide a central point of contact for menitoring industry concerns;

provide a central source of information

the

and

referral regarding ongoing Federal HTS programs and activities of foreign competitors; and

mediate disputes where the goals of different

agencies conflict, e.g., disputes about restrictions on the dissemination of sensitive information.

Unfortunately, OSTP’s present staff is small and

poorly equipped to take on these additional responsibilities. One option for easing the burden on OSTP

staff might be to give these responsibilities to the

staff of the National Critical Materials Council and

attach them permanently to OSTP.31
126 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

IMPORTANCE OF FUNDING

STABILITY

There is one key point that relates to all of the

issues discussed above, and it is one of the most

important lessons derived from the history of LTS:

funding stability is essential for meaning/id progress.

The Federal HTS budget grew from $45 million

in fiscal year 1987 to an estimated $130 million in

fiscal year 1990, with a budget request of $143

million for fiscal year 1991.32 Are these funding

levels sufficient? One early study called for annual

HTS R&D budgets around $100 mi11ion;33 this goal

has been met and exceeded.

Today, the Federal HTS R&D budget is larger

than that of any country in the world, approached

only by that of Japan. In fiscal year 1989, the Federal

Government spent about as much on HTS as it did

on all other advanced ceramics R&D combined, and

nearly twice the amount spent by U.S. companies.

OTA finds that overall, the United States has an HTS

R&D effort that is second to none. Present funding

levels are sufficient to make progress, although

perhaps $20 to $30 million more per year could be

spent effectively (see options above). But if progress

in HTS continues to be incremental, sustaining these

funding levels in the face of mounting budgetary

pressures may be difficult.

Except for the DARPA HTS program, there has

been virtually no “new” money going into HTS.

Instead, the money has been taken away from other

research areas, notably advanced ceramics and

LTS.34 Given the pressures of the Federal budget

deficit, it is appropriate that program managers in the

various agencies should set priorities, and cut some

projects to make funds available for areas of special

promise. But while HTS continues to be a promising

area, these other fields are also promising. As the

initial euphoria over the discovery of HTS wears off

and its political visibility is eclipsed by other more

urgent priorities, pressures will build to shift funds

away to other projects.

Whatever the funding levels, it is essential that

they be dependable. Universities require stability in

order to support graduate student thesis research.

Companies require stability in order to plan their

participation and give them the confidence to

commit resources. Historically, Federal LTS R&D

funding has followed an on-again, off-again course

due to shifting political and economic winds. This

has made it difficult to maintain a consistent set of

technical goals and a stable pool of LTS engineering

know-how.

The need for funding stability is by no means

unique to HTS; it is a general requirement of

efficient technology development. Mechanisms to

improve stability, such as multiyear congressional

appropriations, or moving to a 2-year budget cycle,

have been proposed.35 Options such as Federal

funding for R&D consortia, participation in multiyear international programs, and focused, long-term

projects (for examples in Japan, see ch. 5) represent

alternatives that could enhance funding stability

specifically for HTS.

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY IN A

BROADER POLICY CONTEXT

OTA’s finding that Japanese industry is investing

about 70 percent more then U.S. industry in superconductivity R&D would not be so disturbing if it were

not part of a larger pattern. But across a broad

spectrum of emerging technologies—advanced ceramics, optoelectronics, robotics, etc., the story is

the same. And Japan is not the only country where

investment in these technologies is rising faster than

it is in the United States. The common characteristic

of all of these technologies is that they involve

long-term, high-risk investments. Clearly, these

kinds of long-term investments are becoming more

and more difficult for U.S. managers to make.36
Chapter Policy Issues and Options ● 127

The short-term mind-set of U.S. R&D managers

is not the result of stupidity or ignorance about the

importance of R&D to the company’s future. Instead, the R&D investment decisions in both the

United States and Japan are the product of rational

choices made within the prevailing economic and

financial environments of the two countries.37 For

decades, Japanese industry has benefited from

higher rates of economic growth, lower effective

capital costs, higher savings rates, and more stable

financial markets than were the case in the United

States. All of these factors made it easier for

Japanese managers to make long-term investments.

Policy proposals aimed at lengthening the investment time horizons of U.S. industry have been the

subject of a voluminous literature. Some have

argued that direct tax incentives to companies, e.g.,

extending the R&D tax credit, or reducing taxes on

capital gains realized on longer term investments (5

to 10 years), can help to stimulate long-term R&D.

Others favor indirect policies that would reduce

capital costs through Federal budget deficit reduction and encouragement of higher personal and

corporate savings. Still others favor curbs on merger

and acquisition activity to relieve pressures on

managers to maximize short-term returns at the

expense of long-term R&D investments and future

earnings. ●

None of these policy prescriptions can be readily

targeted on HTS, nor should they be. Although HTS

remains a promising field, superconductivity at 77 K

does not appear to stand clearly above other emerging technologies in its strategic or economic impact.

HTS provides only the latest example of a technology that will require years of steady investment

without a well-defined payoff if it is to achieve its

potential.

Thus, the challenges associated with HTS research, development, and commercialization should

be viewed as a microcosm of broader challenges to

the U.S. manufacturing sector in an increasingly

competitive world. It is tempting to rely on Federal

R&D initiatives---e. g., new federally funded industry consortia, or creation of a new civilian technology agency—to regain a strong competitive position. But such initiatives, while they may be helpful,

do not change the underlying economic and financial pressures on industry that dictate long-term

investment decisions. The real solution-increasing

the supply of patient capital to U.S. industry-will

require politically tough fiscal policy choices that

involve tradeoffs among military, economic, and

social goals. If U.S. competitiveness continues to

decline, it will not be because the United States lost

the superconductivity race with Japan, but because

policy makers failed to address the problems with

long-term, private sector investment that HTS

helped to bring into the spotlight.