Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Fusion energy’
Date: 2004-06-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: energy policy, energy supply, nuclear energy, nuclear fusion, research and development, security of supply

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/27

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Fusion energy’

(2004/C 302/07)

On 29 January 2004, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules
of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on ‘Fusion energy’.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 June 2004. The rapporteur was
Mr Wolf.

At its 410th plenary session of 30 June and 1 July 2004 (meeting of 30 June), the Committee adopted the
following opinion by 141 votes in favour, with nine abstentions:

This opinion supplements earlier Committee opinions on
It looks at the development of
energy and research policy.
nuclear fusion reactors and their expected safety and environ-
mental benefits. It does that against the backdrop of the global
energy issue. The R&D work required is briefly outlined and
assessed. The opinion also considers the European position in
the current negotiations on the siting of ITER.

Table of contents:

1. The energy issue

2. Nuclear energy — nuclear fission and nuclear fusion

3. Developments to date

4. Fusion power plant: the way ahead

5. Siting ITER

6. Summary and the Committee's recommendations

1. The energy issue

1.3
There are serious obstacles to achieving these objectives,
however, as the Committee has made clear in a number of
opinions. It has addressed the resultant energy question on a
number of occasions, considering various facets of the issue
and exploring potential
Its opinions on the
Commission Green Paper Towards a European strategy for the
security of energy supply (3) and on Research needs for a safe
and sustainable
special
mention.

energy supply (4) are worthy of

solutions (2).

1.4
In these opinions, the Committee stressed that supplying
and using energy puts a strain on the environment, presents
risks, depletes resources and involves the problem of external
dependence and imponderables. The Committee also made the
point that the most important measure for reducing the risks
associated with the security of energy supply — and other risks
– is to ensure the most diverse and balanced possible use of all
types and forms of energy, including all efforts to save energy
and use it rationally. The pros and cons of the various indivi-
dual processes are also briefly outlined, but, for lack of space,
these cannot not be repeated here (5).

Usable energy (1) is the mainstay of our contemporary
1.1
way of life and culture. Its ready availability opened the door to
our present-day standard of living. Unprecedented strides have
been made in the major and emerging industrial countries in
terms of life expectancy, food supply, overall prosperity and
personal freedom. Insufficient energy supply would jeopardise
these achievements.

The need for a secure,

1.2
inexpensive, environmentally
sound and sustainable supply of usable energy is at the heart of
the Lisbon, Gothenburg and Barcelona European Council deci-
sions. EU energy policy is thus pursuing three closely related
and equally important objectives, namely to safeguard and
enhance (1) competitiveness, (2) security of supply and (3) the
environment – all of them linked by the common thread of
sustainable development.

(1) Energy is not consumed, but merely converted and, in the process,
used. That happens through conversion processes such as coal
combustion, the conversion of wind energy into electricity, and
nuclear fission (conservation of energy; E = mc2). However, the
terms ‘energy supply’, ‘energy generation’ and ‘energy consumption’
are also used.

long-term potential. Nor,

In technical terms, however, none of the potential future
1.5
energy supply options and technologies is perfect. None is
wholly free of damaging environmental impacts. None is suffi-
cient to cover all needs, and it is difficult to adequately gauge
their
therefore, can a forward-
looking, responsible European energy policy bank on being
able to secure an adequate energy supply along the lines of the
objectives set out above by using only a small number of
energy sources. This is also true given the need to save energy
and use it rationally.

(2) Promoting renewable energy: Means of action and financing instru-
ments; Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful
heat demand in the internal energy market; Draft proposal for a
setting out basic obligations and
Council Directive (Euratom)
general principles on the safety of nuclear installations and Draft
proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) on the management of
spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. The issues involved in
using nuclear power in electricity generation.

(3) Green Paper: Towards a European strategy for the security of energy

supply.

(4) Research needs for a safe and sustainable energy supply.
(5) Research needs for a safe and sustainable energy supply, points

2.1.3 et seq.

C 302/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2004

1.6
Thus, no secure, long-term, environmentally sound and
economically viable energy supply exists — either in Europe or
elsewhere in the world (1). The key to potential solutions can lie
only in further intensive research and development. Energy
research (2) is the strategic element and essential mainstay of
any long-term, successful energy policy. In the opinion referred
to, the Committee also recommended a consistent European
energy research programme, key elements of which are admit-
tedly already contained in the Sixth Framework Programme for
research and development and the Euratom research and
training programme, but with significantly increased R&D
investment.

The Committee has also made the point that, given the
1.7
slow pace of change in the energy industry,
that
climate gas emissions are a global, not a regional issue, and the
expectation that the problem will further worsen in the second
half of the century, the approach to the energy issue should be
in scale and cover a substantially longer time
more global
period.

the fact

1.8
The problems of finite resources and emissions (green-
house gases) are compounded by the forecast two- if not three-
fold increase in global energy requirements by 2060 as the
result of population growth and the need for less developed
countries to catch up. Any strategy and prospects for develop-
ment must therefore look beyond that timeframe.

1.9
In its recent Opinion on the sustainable use of natural
resources, the Committee also reiterated the point that any
sustainable development strategy must cover a considerably
longer timeframe.

1.10
As the Committee has also noted, these points are not,
however, adequately reflected in either public perceptions or in
open debate. Rather, there is a broad range of opinions at the
extremes respectively over- or under-estimating the risks and
opportunities involved. At one extreme, some people take the
view that there is no energy problem at all, that things have
always worked out so far and that new reserves could be devel-
oped should the need arise (for decades we have been hearing
predictions of forest dieback and claims that oil and gas stocks
are set to run out in just 40 years). At the other end of the
spectrum is the belief that renewables could easily meet the
world's entire energy needs if only all research funding were
channelled into them and society adapted accordingly.

(1) The overall problem was foreshadowed by previous oil crises (e.g. in
1973 and 1979) and the current controversy — centred on the
trade-off between economy and environment — about the alloca-
tion of emissions certificates.

(2) Point 7.4 of Committee opinion says:

‘The Committee therefore
recommends that the Commission draw up an integrated European
energy research strategy, from which a comprehensive future Euro-
pean energy research programme will be derived.’

1.11
There is therefore still no sufficiently consistent global
energy policy, and even within the EU Member States, there are
considerable differences of approach to the energy issue.

2. Nuclear energy — nuclear fission and nuclear fusion

For a given mass of fuel, around a million times more
2.1
energy is released through the fission of very heavy atomic
nuclei and the fusion of very light atomic nuclei than through
chemical processes.

2.2
Around 1928 it was discovered that nuclear fusion was
the hitherto unexplained energy source powering the sun and
most of the stars. Through the sun's rays, therefore, fusion
energy is also the main energy source for life on earth — the
energy which makes plants grow and which is locked up in
fossil fuels and renewable energies.

As soon as nuclear fission was discovered in 1938 —
2.3
and as soon as the potential of its peaceful application as a
huge terrestrial energy resource was recognised — a promising
and dynamic development was set in motion for its exploita-
tion.

2.4
In the course of that development, the objectives of
nuclear fission were achieved astoundingly quickly; the hope of
exploiting nuclear fusion as a virtually infinite terrestrial energy
resource, however, still remains to be realised.

2.5
The practical use of both kinds of nuclear energy is
intended (i) to generate electricity without emitting greenhouse
gases and (ii) to reduce consumption of hydrocarbons (oil and
natural gas) — key fuels in the transport sector — which
produce less CO2 than coal when combusted and are thus also
being increasingly considered — or indeed are already being
used — to generate electricity (3).

2.6
The processes of nuclear fission and nuclear fusion
differ fundamentally in terms of how they work, operating
conditions, environmental and safety aspects, raw material
reserves and availability, etc. In all these areas nuclear fusion
would have conceptual advantages (see points 2.11 et seq.).

Nuclear

fission. Nuclear

2.7
fission has been used for
decades to generate energy. Nuclear fission power plants have
already done much to prevent greenhouse gas emissions (CO2)
and to reduce the dependencies involved in the consumption
and import of oil and gas. This was a factor in reviving the
nuclear energy debate, especially in the context of moves to cut
CO2 emissions and ways and means of achieving this (incen-
tives/penalties). The Committee recently devoted an opinion to
this question (4).

(3) As a result serious fuel shortages are expected to occur sooner.
(4) The issues involved in using nuclear power in electricity generation.

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/29

Fuel for nuclear fission is provided by isotopes (1) of the
2.8
particularly heavy elements in the periodic system: thorium,
uranium and plutonium. The neutrons released during nuclear
fission set off new fission processes in the nuclei of these mate-
rials. This produces an energy-yielding chain reaction that
needs to be controlled. During this process, radioactive — and
in some cases very long-life — fission products and actinides
arise that must be kept away from the biosphere for thousands
of years. This raises concerns and leads some people to reject
nuclear energy use out of hand. Moreover, new fissile
substances are also generated – for
instance plutonium
(from (2)uranium) — which are subject to monitoring as poten-
tial nuclear weapons material.

2.9
Nuclear fission reactors operate on the basis of a ‘pile’.
The nuclear fuel stock — sufficient for a number of years (100
tonnes in a power plant) — is enclosed in the core. Control
processes regulate the number of fission reactions needed to
secure the desired output. In spite of the advanced technology
available to control these processes and to guarantee safety, the
sheer quantity of the energy stored heightens these concerns
even further. Moreover, considerable amounts of after-heat are
also produced, necessitating, for most reactor types, a relatively
long and intensive cooling period once the reactor has been
shut down to prevent the cladding overheating.

2.10
Referring to such concerns, the Committee notes in its
recent opinion on this subject (3), that the fourth generation of
fission power plant is now under development. These will raise
the high passive safety standards of current plants still further.

radioactivity in the reactor's wall material (and may change its
mechanical properties). For that reason, one of the aims of the
relevant R&D programme is to develop material, the radiotoxi-
city (7) of which will drop to the range of coal ash in between
one hundred and, at most, several hundred years. This could,
among other things, potentially make it possible to reuse a
large part of the materials in question, thereby substantially
defusing the question of final storage.

The

requirements

scientific and technological

2.13
for
generating fusion energy are extremely exacting. The basic —
and difficult — task is to heat a gas consisting of hydrogen
isotopes (a deuterium-tritium mix) to temperatures of over 100
million degrees (the gas thereby becoming a plasma (8)), so that
the colliding nuclei reach speeds high enough to facilitate the
desired fusion processes. It is also necessary to hold this plasma
together long enough and to extract and use the energy
thereby generated.

2.14
These processes take place in the fusion reactor's
combustion chamber. The energy contained in the few grams
of fuel that is injected — if not constantly topped up — is only
enough for a few minutes' output, so there can be no undesired
nuclear excursions. Moreover, the fact that,
if any error is
made, the thermonuclear burning process cools and stops (9), is
another inherent safety benefit.

2.11
Nuclear fusion. In terms of the fuel masses employed,
nuclear fusion is the most efficient potentially useable energy
process on the planet. Fusion reactors are facilities for the
controlled generation of fusion processes and the use of the
energy thereby released. They operate continuously as power
plants generating electricity (4) – mainly baseload electricity.
They will be fuelled by heavy hydrogen isotopes (see below).
Helium, a harmless noble gas (5) with useful applications, is the
‘ash’ of the fusion reactor.

2.15
Thus, given these inherent safety qualities, the opportu-
nity to drastically cut long-lived radiotoxic waste levels (fusion
processes do not involve fission products or any long-lived,
particularly hazardous components [actinides]) and the practi-
cally limitless availability of raw materials, the use of fusion
energy would therefore be a very attractive and important
component of
future sustainable energy supply, and would
thus help resolve current difficulties.

2.12
However, during the fusion reaction, which only takes
place when the reaction partners meet each other at very high
speeds (6), additional neutrons are released which produce

(1) Atoms of

the same element, but with different mass (different

number of neutrons in the nucleus).

(2) The issues involved in using nuclear power in electricity generation.
(3) Although short, perhaps hourly interruptions in the fusion process

alone may be necessary.

(4) Helium has an extremely stable nucleus and is chemically inert

(hence its classification as a ‘noble gas’).

(5) Typically 1 000 km/sec.
(6) Radiotoxicity is a measure of the radiation damage caused by a

radionuclide entering the human organism.

Accordingly, in earlier opinions the Committee made
2.16
the point that R&D geared towards the use of fusion energy is
a key element of future energy policy and a prime example of
successful European integration. As such, it must be vigorously
promoted in the European R&D framework programmes and
the Euratom research and training programmes.

(7) At these temperatures, a gas is fully ionised (i.e. the negatively
charged electrons are no longer bound in the atomic shell, but
move freely like the positively charged nuclei), and is thus an electri-
city-conducting medium that can, among other ways, be confined
by magnetic fields. This state is called plasma.
(8) Thermonuclear burning is explained in point 3.9.
(9) Quotation original English.

C 302/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2004

3. Developments to date

The peaceful use of

3.1
fusion energy was first mooted
almost fifty years ago. At that time some countries already had
fusion weapons technology (the hydrogen bomb), and the
move towards the peaceful use of
fusion appeared very
promising, although extremely difficult and protracted.

3.2
Two statements from that period which are still quoted
today make this particularly clear and typify the tension recog-
nised early on between high expectations and the most intract-
able physical and technical difficulties. The first is from H. J.
Bhabha in his opening speech to the first Conference on the
Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy held in Geneva in 1955:
‘I
venture to predict that a method will be found for liberating
fusion energy in a controlled manner within the next two
decades.’ (1) Conversely, in the first general article on the fusion
issue published by the USA (2), R.F. Post wrote: ‘However, the
technical problems to be solved seem great indeed. When made
aware of
to
pronounce the problem impossible of solution.’ (3)

some physicists would not hesitate

these,

3.3
Among the many possible approaches put forward at
the time were proposals for magnetic confinement, which have
now emerged as the most promising means of achieving the
required conditions. Coming to that
realisation, however,
required laborious scientific and technological development
and optimisation, marked by obstacles and setbacks. This
concerns the tokamak (a Russian acronym for toroidal (4)
magnetic chamber), and the stellarator. Both these approaches
are variants of a common basic concept which involves
confining the hot plasma under the required conditions using
appropriately structured ring-shaped magnetic fields.

The pioneering role in this process was played by the
3.4
European JET project
the technical
(Joint European Torus),
blueprint (5) for which appeared twenty or so years later (6).
During this project's experimental phase not only were the
required plasma temperatures achieved for the first time, but in
the 1990s, using the deuterium-tritium fusion process,
it
proved possible to release significant amounts of fusion energy
(some 20 megajoules per experiment) in a controlled manner.
Thus, for a short period, the plasma's fusion energy output
almost equalled the heating energy fed into the plasma.

This success was made possible through the synergy of
3.5
all the resources of the European Community's fusion research
Euratom auspices. The
programme
implemented under
this programme brought
network established as part of
laboratories
together

Euratom-associated

various

the

(1) Rev. Mod. Phys. 28, 338 (1956).
(2) Quotation original English
(3) Toroidal = ring-shaped.
(4) Designed using a variant of the tokamak principle.
(5) JET was thus a realisation of

thereby confirming his prediction.

the method forecast by Bhabha,

(6) Originally the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor,

but today a name in its own right.

in the Member States — with their respective test facilities,
their various individual contributions and their involvement in
the JET project — and gave them a shared identity. This there-
fore is an early example of the European research area in prac-
tice and a clear demonstration of its effectiveness.

3.6
This was, therefore, the first, critical step forward in
worldwide fusion research. The physical principle of generating
and magnetically confining fusion plasma had been demon-
strated.

3.7
Advances on this front were also marked by exemplary
worldwide cooperation, coordinated by organisations such as
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Inter-
national Energy Agency (IEA). European research provided key
input. It worked determinedly to catch up — particularly with
the USA — and is now recognised to hold the leading position
in the field.

Building on an initiative launched seventeen years ago
3.8
by President Gorbachev and President Reagan — later joined
by President Mitterrand — a plan emerged for a joint global
project to develop, and, possibly also as a joint project, to build
and operate ITER (7) — the first test reactor to provide a net
energy gain from the plasma (i.e. where the plasma's power
output from fusion processes is considerably higher than the
energy fed into the plasma). The purpose of ITER is to demon-
strate the technological and scientific feasibility of producing
useable fusion energy by means of a burning plasma.

(also known as

The term ‘burning’

3.9
‘thermonuclear
burning’) describes a process in which the energy released by
the fusion process (or more accurately the energy carried by
the helium nuclei) plays a major part in keeping the plasma
temperature at the extremely high levels required. Experimental
findings to date have shown that that can only be achieved
using sufficiently large facilities (i.e. similar in size to power
plants). ITER was thus designed to an appropriate size.

The programme, therefore,

3.10
is in a transitional phase
between research and development although it is not possible
to make a clear-cut distinction between the two concepts. To
achieve the ITER targets, it is necessary on the one hand to
provide a definitive response to certain physical questions that
can only be answered once a fusion plasma has been kept
burning for a reasonably long time. On the other hand, some
technical building components are also needed to similar speci-
fications and on a similar scale to those that will
later be
required for an operational reactor (e.g. very large supercon-
ductive magnets, a combustion chamber able to withstand the
plasma (8), plasma heating units etc.). This therefore is the first
step from physics to power plant technology.

(7) Plasma–wall interaction
(8) In other words, ten times more energy is generated in the fusion
instruments such as high-

plasma than is put in through special
performance neutral beam injectors or high-frequency emitters.

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/31

3.11
The results of the worldwide planning for ITER include
design data and comprehensive blueprints, as well as proto-
types and tested model components. These results draw on
experiments
experience
conducted to date, starting with JET, the flagship not only of
the European but of the worldwide fusion programme.

and extrapolation from all

the

3.12
ITER's linear dimensions will thus be around twice
those of JET (mean diameter of the plasma ring: 12 meters,
combustion chamber volume: around 1000 m3). The idea is
that ITER will generate some 500 MW of fusion power in
combustion times of initially at least eight minutes, with a
tenfold energy output/input ratio (1) (and a lower output/input
ratio during essentially unlimited combustion times).

3.13
EUR 5 billion (2).

ITER construction costs are estimated at around

In the construction of

3.13.1
ITER, most of these costs
would accrue to those firms that are awarded the contract to
manufacture and fit the various components of the test facility.
A significant European contribution to ITER's construction
would therefore benefit European industry in terms of innova-
tive capacity and general technological know-how and thus
help achieve the Lisbon strategy objectives.

3.13.2
Industry has already benefited in the past from many
fusion programme spin-offs (3). This is expected to be a particu-
larly important side benefit of ITER's construction.

3.13.3
During the ITER construction period, European
expenditure on the entire fusion programme (i.e. both the
Community and the Member States) would be less than 0.2 %
of the costs of final energy consumption in Europe.

3.14
In the course of its development, the ITER partnership
has had various ups and downs (4). Initially, it involved the EU,
Japan, Russia and the USA. The USA withdrew about five years
ago but rejoined in 2003, while China and Korea also came on
board. This partnership has made it possible not only to spread
the planning costs among all the major international energy
research partners, but also to ensure that the project planning
benefits from all available results worldwide.

3.15
scheme as a global project to resolve a global problem.

This has also brought out

the importance of

the

(1) According to COM(2003) 215 final, the cost of the ITER construc-
tion phase is estimated at EUR 4,570 million (at 2000 values).
(2) See, for instance, Spin-off benefits from fusion R&D EUR 20229-
Fusion energy-Moving forward ISBN 92-894-4721-4 and the
brochure Making a difference of
the Culham Science Centre,
Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 3DB, UK.

(3) Lack of space precludes a detailed description of the complex and

volatile political history of the project.

3.16
The joint construction and operation of ITER would
also mean a substantial gain in knowledge and technical skills
for all the partner countries concerned (see also section 5), not
only as regards this new kind of energy system, but also in
terms of overall innovation for cutting-edge technologies.

In terms of

technological development, however,

it
3.17
would be a new departure if, across the world, just one facility
were to be build in line with ITER objectives, in other words if
it were decided to dispense at this stage with any exploration
or testing of contending and equally advanced alternatives, as
had been done, for instance, in the development of aviation,
space exploration and fission reactors.

3.18
This cost-cutting move would thus have to be offset by
a particularly effective back-up programme which also offered
scope for innovative ideas and alternative concepts (5) for redu-
cing development risks. However, these could be studied, initi-
ally, on a lesser scale and thus at lower cost.

4. Fusion power plant: the way ahead

4.1
The accumulated results of the ITER project, expected
some twenty years after building work starts, will provide basic
data for the design and construction of the first electricity-
producing
(DEMO).
Construction work on DEMO could thus begin in around
twenty to twenty-five years.

fusion demonstration power

plant

On the basis of current knowledge, fusion power plants

4.2
should be designed to incorporate the following features:

— baseload electricity provision in block sizes offered by
current power plants; also possible hydrogen production;

— hourly fuel requirement (6) of, say, a 1 GW block (7) (electric
power): approximately 14 g of heavy hydrogen (deuterium)
> as a component of around 420 kg of natural water and
approximately 21 g of superheavy hydrogen (tritium) >
bred from approximately 42 g (8)-Li as a component of
some 570 g of natural lithium;

— fuel stocks available worldwide and far exceeding require-

ments over the foreseeable timeframe (9);

(5) For comparison: a brown-coal power plant requires around 1 000 t

of brown coal.

(6) 1 gigawatt (GW) equals 1,000 megawatts (MW)
(7) Lithium may be extracted from certain rocks, salt

lake brines,
geothermal and mineral water sources, water pumped from oilfields,
and seawater. With the stocks currently known to be available, it
would be possible to meet current total world energy requirements
ten times over for many thousands of years.

(8) The overall problem was foreshadowed by previous oil crises (e.g. in
1973 and 1979) and the current controversy — centred on the
trade-off between economy and environment — about the alloca-
tion of emissions certificates.

(4) Particular mention must be made here of the stellarator.

(9) In northern Japan.

C 302/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2004

— hourly ash production of a block of this kind: around 56 g

of helium (1);

— internal cycle (2) of radioactive tritium, (half-life: 12.5 years)
which is bred from lithium in the blanket of the combus-
tion chamber;

— neutron-induced radioactivity of the combustion chamber
material; depending on the selected material, radiotoxicity
levels will drop to the range of coal ash in between one
hundred and several hundred years;

— no risk of an uncontrolled chain reaction as,

like a gas
is introduced from outside and, once

burner,
switched off, burns off in just a few minutes;

the fuel

— no accident scenarios involving high enough radioactive
evacuation
etc.)

releases
measures extending beyond the confines of the site;

to necessitate

tritium,

(dust,

— also, relatively limited damage in the event of

terrorist
attack because of the intrinsic safety characteristics and the
low levels of radiotoxic substances that can readily be
released;

— plant size comparable to that of existing power plants;

— cost structure similar to that of existing nuclear power
fuel

the costs arise from construction;

plants: most of
supply costs are a virtual non-issue.

4.3
To bring DEMO to fruition, it is necessary not only to
address key issues such as energy output and processes which
limit the combustion time (these issues are to be examined and
demonstrated within the ITER framework), and to apply sophis-
ticated procedures which are already available or remain to be
developed further for that purpose, but also to press ahead
with and consolidate other important technical developments.

These relate mainly to the internal

fuel cycle (the
4.4
breeding and treatment of tritium); power extraction; the capa-
city of certain materials to withstand plasma load (plasma-wall
interaction) and neutron load; repair technology; the optimisa-
tion of remote operations and technological solutions for
extending the combustion time with a view, ultimately, to
achieving a fully continuous burning process. Another particu-
larly important task is to develop appropriate low-activation
structural materials – or structural materials that are activated
only for short periods. More work must be done on that front,
given the need to test and verify such materials over long
periods.

It would, however, be a mistake to believe that DEMO
4.5
marks the final phase of R&D. As the history of technology
shows,
intensive R&D often gets underway only when the
initial prototype is already in place.

(1) For comparison: a brown-coal power plant with the same output

emits around 1 000 t of CO2.

(2) Excluding initial requirements on set-up which can be obtained, for
example, from heavy water moderated fission reactors (Canada).

The history of

4.5.1
initial
prototypes of new technologies are often crude, primitive
devices compared with later, elegant versions that gradually
evolve.

technology also shows that

The present-day optimisation of

4.5.2
the diesel engine
came almost a century after its invention. Fusion power plants
too will certainly also need to be improved, optimised and then
adapted to the requirements of the time.

5. The siting of ITER

Two sites — Cadarache (3)

5.1
in Europe and Rokkasho-
mura (4) in Japan — are currently competing at the highest
government level to house ITER. The outcome will determine
both the financial participation of the various partners involved
and the shape of the requisite back-up programme.

5.2
Before the USA rejoined the ITER partnership and
before China and Korea came on board, there was, realistically
speaking, little doubt that ITER would be located in Europe,
not least because, as with JET, that would be the best guarantee
of its success.

5.3
A new state of affairs has now arisen, however, as the
USA and Korea currently back the Rokkasho-mura location in
Japan, despite the clear and broadly accepted technical advan-
tages of the Cadarache site. If this decision were confirmed,
Europe would lose its leading position and be deprived of the
fruits of investment made and work done to date – with all
that that implies for research and industry.

5.4
The Committee therefore notes, welcomes and backs the
European Council's decision of 25 and 26 March 2004 in
which it
the European
proposal and calls on the Commission ‘to progress negotiations
on the ITER project with a view to its rapid commencement at
the European candidate site.’

reaffirms unanimous

support

for

6. Summary and the Committee's recommendations

6.1
The Committee agrees with the Commission that, in the
long term, the peaceful use of fusion energy has the potential
to play a very important part in resolving questions of energy
supply in a sustainable, environmentally sound and competitive
way.

(3) Near Aix-en-Provence, north-east of Marseilles, France.
(4) In northern Japan.

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/33

6.1.1
nology of the future, i.e.:

This is due to the potential advantages of this tech-

6.5
The results of the ITER project will provide basic data
for the design and construction of the first electricity-producing
fusion demonstration power plant (DEMO). Building work on
DEMO could thus begin in around 20 to 25 years.

— There is an infinite supply of deuterium and lithium as fuel

resources for the foreseeable future.

— There is no generation of

‘climate-change’ gases,

fission

products or actinides.

— The intrinsic safety characteristics prevent any uncontrolled

nuclear excursion (1).

— The radioactivity of the combustion chamber material may
drop to the radiotoxicity of coal ash in between one
hundred and, at most, several hundred years; this substan-
tially defuses the question of final storage.

— Because of these characteristics and the low levels of highly
volatile radiotoxic substances, there would also be only a
relatively limited risk of damage in the event of terrorist
attack.

6.1.2
The potential of fusion energy particularly comple-
ments that of renewables – but with the advantage over wind
and solar energy that it is not dependent on the weather, the
seasons or the time of the day. That is also true of the relation-
ship – adjusted to suit actual requirements – between centra-
lised and decentralised systems.

In a number of opinions, therefore (2), the Committee
6.1.3
has already advocated clear and enhanced promotion of the
R&D programme for fusion energy.

6.2
The Committee is pleased to note that, thanks to the
leadership provided by the European fusion programme and its
JET project, the first, critical stage in global fusion research has
successfully been completed, i.e. to demonstrate the physical
principle of releasing energy from nuclear fusion,
thereby
laying the foundations for the ITER test reactor in which, for
the first time, a burning fusion plasma - with energy output
substantially exceeding input - is to be produced and studied.

Thanks, therefore, to many years of R&D - and the
6.3
requisite investment - it has been possible, through worldwide
cooperation, to reach the decision-making stage of planning
and policy for the construction and operation of the ITER,
which is already approaching power plant dimensions.

6.4
The Committee would also stress the leading, pioneering
input of the European fusion programme, without which the
ITER project would not exist today.

(1) or energy release/time
(2) ‘…enhancing the development of the fusion option.’

6.6
The Committee backs the Commission in its efforts to
prepare Europe strategically so that it can also play a central
role in the commercial exploitation phase and thus, even today,
increasingly use part of its fusion research programme to look
beyond ITER and focus on DEMO.

it

To develop DEMO,

6.7
is essential not only to find
answers to key issues to be examined and demonstrated as part
of the ITER project, but also to press ahead with other major
the magnetic
tasks. Examples include the optimisation of
configuration; material development (improvements in the case
of plasma-induced erosion, neutron damage, decay time of the
induced radioactivity); the fuel cycle; energy extraction; driving
the plasma current and controlling its internal distribution; effi-
ciency; and component reliability.

6.7.1
The Committee also points out, however, that further
such progress will only be attainable through a broad European
R&D back-up programme, tying in the Member States and
requiring a network of physical and especially technical experi-
ments and large-scale facilities that must be available to back
up and complement ITER.

6.8
The Committee feels it is vital to keep up the present
momentum and, with vigour, commitment and the requisite
resources, to rise to a challenge of great scientific and technolo-
gical complexity that is so important for long-term energy
supply. That also involves a serious commitment to carrying
out the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies.

For the future seventh R&D framework programme
6.8.1
and the Euratom programme,
this means giving energy
research as a whole — and the fusion programme in particular
— the markedly increased resources they need for continued
success. It also means making full use of other ITER financing
options.

6.8.2
It also involves ensuring a sufficient supply of physi-
cists and technologists so that an adequate number of European
experts are on hand to operate ITER and develop DEMO. The
Committee would also point to its recent opinion on this
specific issue (3).

6.8.3
It also means that academic institutions and research
centres remain part of the network, not only so as to train
young scientists and engineers in the specialist disciplines
required, but also so that they can use their expertise and
knowledge to contribute to the various tasks and, ultimately,
also act as a link to civil society.

(3) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Euro-
pean Parliament — Researchers in the European Research Area: one
profession, multiple careers.

C 302/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2004

Before the USA rejoined the ITER partnership and
6.11
China and Korea came on board,
realistically
speaking, little doubt that ITER would be located in Europe,
not least because, as with JET, that would be the best guarantee
of its success.

there was,

6.12
A new state of affairs has now arisen, however, as the
USA and Korea currently back the Rokkasho-mura location in
Japan, despite the clear and broadly accepted technical advan-
tages of the Cadarache site. If this decision were confirmed,
Europe would lose its leading position and be deprived of the
fruits of investment made and work done to date — with all
that that implies for research and industry.

6.13
The Committee therefore notes, welcomes and backs
the European Council's decision of 25 and 26 March 2004 in
the European
which it
proposal and calls on the Commission ‘to progress negotiations
on the ITER project with a view to its rapid commencement at
the European candidate site’.

reaffirms unanimous

support

for

Summing up and reiterating this point, the Committee
6.14
calls on the Council, the Parliament and the Commission to
launch initiatives and to genuinely exhaust all possibilities — if
necessary working out new structural approaches to the inter-
labour — to ensure that, whatever
national division of
happens, ITER is located in Europe, given its key strategic role
in the development of a major sustainable energy resource.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

6.8.4
One key task is to take timely steps to secure the
increasingly necessary involvement of European industry in this
very varied field of cutting-edge scientific and technological
In the fusion programme to date, European
development.
industry has mainly been involved in developing and supplying
highly specialised and extremely sophisticated components –
and this experience should be cultivated and maintained.
However, as fusion reactors move closer to becoming a prac-
tical reality, industry should gradually take on a more indepen-
dent, pro-active role.

6.8.5
The considerable investments earmarked for industry
to build ITER and develop DEMO will both strengthen the
economy and, even more importantly, boost expertise and
innovation in a technologically most demanding new area. This
is already becoming clear from the many spin-offs of the fusion
programme to date.

Internationally, Europe faces a multiple challenge. It is
6.9
vital on the one hand to maintain its leading role in fusion
research not only in the face of US dominance in research but
also against the growing strength of the three Asian ITER part-
ners (1). On the other hand, however, it is important as far as
possible to maintain and expand the unprecedented interna-
tional cooperation seen up to now.

6.10
The Committee therefore supports the Commission in
its intention to take up that challenge, and calls on the Council,
the Parliament and the Member States to do the same and not
to give up Europe's leading position in this key area of the
future. This does however present difficulties.

Brussels, 30 June 2004.

(1) China, Japan and (South) Korea.