» N O V 3;’ .. waah§n."'. ' :5 W LC H-In tfé/L23 ._,. ~~: P1 ,‘-'~\, 75 "7' "‘_,;1:t.""*‘3 HE"... F ~}‘§7N ’.' lr.: ";'._ ,7: ‘J 5 ‘flHw¥”wHfiff»xH W ‘I’ ’‘.’'-s 1-?’ Wu; " "- “ ‘“ .. ., - 2- ‘ A 4_«;., :'r::1:.-s.» A. . —.» -- ,’ V’ V‘ I 1 .. '- 3‘ 2': V 7 .2 . ‘ " ~ 2 ' 7, 4* '5‘ :1 ;. ‘ ' _ . J _._M_,,,¢ u o f [\§Q\f , . 1. ‘S v.“"‘. - ,' 1' . v V .~, :- ;.r '5" * ‘ ;; ?4Qic 2va=u3- . Ju.«1‘4' 94:9 -‘ " ” h,.;9’ 3 ' l[J[ni\'/érsitj of W //II///II/I///I/II///II//// /'5/7/ilii/iili///7}?/[I7///77/i/7////Ifl O10-10386060 oNGRE55'ONAAL 'ESEARCH SERVICE ’ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS NUCLEAR FUSION POWER: POTENTIAL ENERGY SOURCE ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB76ou7 AUTHOR: Raleigh, Lani Science Policy Research Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CDHGBESSIOHAL RESEARCH SERVICE %nAJOR ISSUES srsrzu DATE ORIGINATED DATE UPDATED% <.>.2z.<.>.§z2§ Q§_é.1Zz_8i.Q FOR ADDITIOBAL IHFOREATION CALL 287-5700 0317 CRS- 1 IB760Q7 UPDATE-O3/17/80 ggsnn nnrzngrrog Nuclear fusion is a potential source of energy which poses comparatively fewer environmental problems than current fission plants and relies on low-cost, readily available, inexhaustible fuels. In a reactor based on fusion power, the fusion reaction would replace the conventional coal/oil fire box or fission reaction as the source of heat used to produce steam for the generation of electricity. However, in contrast to coal, oil, and fission power, the scientific feasibility of fusion power remains unproven. Some issues of congressional interest are: the adequacy of present funding and program strategy to achieve commercial fusion power at the earliest date possible, the level of funding for energy~related basic research required to advance fusion technology, and the commercial feasibility of fusion power. pgcxcnogun gHDcPG§ICY gggggggg griffin E§§lQE_l§§§§QLQ§l gissiggg In a nuclear reactor, when U235 atoms are struck by neutrons, they split into medium weight atoms, releasing energy and an average of 2-1/2 more neutrons in the process. The extra neutrons produced cause a chain reaction. They collide with other U235 atoms and cause them to fission, thereby releasing more neutrons and causing still more reactions and so on. Energy is released in the form of heat. This heat is then transferred to a coolant. The coolant, when heated, generates steam which is used to power onventional turbine engines. i Ensign; Unlike nuclear fission reactors which extract the energy that results from splitting heavier elenents into lighter fragments, nuclear fusion reactors would utilize the energy released when lighter elements combine to form heavier elements. Host proposed nuclear fusion power plants are based on the reaction wherein one atom of deuterium and one atom of tritium (both gases, and isotopes of hydrogen) collide and fuse to form an atom of helium. The reaction releases energetic neutrons which are absorbed by and heat the surrounding coolant. The coolant, when heated, generates steam, which is used to power conventional turbines for the production of electricity. One difficulty in achieving nuclear fusion is heating the fuel mixture of deuterium and tritium to a hot "plasma" state, in which the electrons have been stripped from the nuclei, and the nuclei are colliding with sufficient force to overcome their mutual repulsion, thus enabling. fusion to occur., Another great problem in attaining nuclear fusion is the confinement of this plasma at sufficient density for a sufficient duration so that enough reactions take place to return more energy than is used to heat and contain the plasma. Thee different approaches .to fusion may be categorized by the method used to heat and contain the plasma. hagnetig Coniinegeng For the plasma to renain at the required temperatures, it cannot touch any zlid walls or cooler gases. In the traditional design approach, the confinement of plasma is attempted with a nagnetic field. Plasmas will freely slide along in the direction of the nagnetic field lines but tend not CBS- 2 IB76047 UPDATE-03/17/80, to flow through the lines. Thus,g in the magnetic confinement approach, plasma containment is attempted by interposing magnetic fields between the plasma and the walls of an otherwise evacuated chamber. uagnetic confinement systems fall into two basic categories: open-end and closed systems. The most advanced open-ended system is the magnetic mirror scheme, so called because in this configuration the magnetic field lines close together and intensify toward the ends. Thus, charged particles moving toward the ends, where the field strength is highest, are reflected back toward the middle. The particles may‘ be ‘reflected back and forth numerous times before they escape. Another plasma confinement scheme is the closed toroidal system. This design attempts to improve plasma confinement by bending the plasma column into a torus, thus eliminating the ends. The tokamak, a doughnut-shaped tube, and its variations are to date the most successful magnetic confinement devices. Generally, in magnetic containment schemes, fuel would be introduced either continuously or periodically into the reaction chamber where it would be heated and compressed into a dense plasma to produce fusion. The flux of energetic neutrons, which are a product of the reaction, would heat at coolant, such as molten lithium, flowing within the walls oft the reaction chamber. The heated lithium would then be passed through a heat exchanger where it would generate steam to power a conventional turbine generator. Inertial Confinement Inertial confinement represents an entirely different approach to designing nuclear fusion reactors. The basic concept involves focusing short burst of high energy laser light or charged particle beam onto a minute pellet or a glass microsphere containing a deuterium-tritium (D-T) gas mixture. The energy of the laser light or particle beam, striking band heating the outer layer of the pellet, causes it to explode. This explosion drives the contents of the pellet inward, creating an extremely dense, hot core region where fusion reactions occur. Theoretically, this inward thrust will eventually result in inertial confinement of the plasma for a sufficient length of time to allow a significant number of fusion reactions to occur. Design proposals for inertial confinement reactors include a large spherical reaction chamber with very strong walls. Fuel pellets would be exploded in the reaction chamber at the rate of one or so per second. Asa in the magnetic containment schemes, heat would be created in the molten lithium by the capture of reaction neutrons. The heat from the lithium would be used to produce steam to power a conventional turbine generator. Azailahilit: of Fn§i2n-Enel Ideally, a fusion reactor could operate on a deuterium—deuterium reaction. However, since ignition, of a D-D reaction is difficult, present first-generation reactor designs are based on the easier to ignite deuterium—tritium reaction. A fusion plant operating onwa D-T cycle would be limited by the availability of lithium with which to breed tritium. Initial estimates indicate that reserves of high quality lithium ores and lithf salts would be sufficient tom operate fusion plants for several thousand years. T ’ s v CRS- 3 IB76047 UPDATE-O3/17/80 Recently, however, concern has surfaced over the relatively small rate of current lithium production and the increasing demand for this versatile, light metal. Lithium already has a variety of industrial uses and shows teat promise in new types of storage batteries. Unless lithium exploration is expanded and production is increased, those seeking lithium for muse in fusion plants will have to compete with other buyers to obtain the limited, supplies. p p = The supply of deuterium, the other half of the D-T fuel used in fusion plants, is virtually unlimited. A portion of all natural hydrogen is actually the heavier deuterium and is readily separated from seawater. Thus, the world ocean could supply fusion fuel for many thousands of years. one resource, which isi unrelated to fusion fuel requirements, but essential for some fusion devices, is helium. Helium has unique yphysical properties. It is the only element which does not solidify at temperatures approaching absolute zero (-273 C), it has excellent heat transfer properties, is transparent to radiation, and does not become radioactive. In fusion devices, helium may be used to cool lasers and large superconducting magnets. It is also a candiate reactor coolant. Helium is found in the atmosphere and ind natural gas deposits. when natural gas is processed for fuel, helium is lost to the atmosphere unless it is extracted for use or stored. Each year nearly 13 billion cubic feet of helium escape into the atmosphere. Currently, helium conservation legislation requires the Federal Government to provide for Federal agency needs only. psome fear that as natural gas supplies dwindle, and as helium-dependent energy technologies grow in importance, there will be a shortage of the resource unless the Federal Government assumes responsibility vr conserving helium to meet future needs. Technically, there remains the possibility of atmospheric extraction, but this method is exorbitantly expensive, $2000 per thousand cubic feet, compared to $13 per thousand cubic feet for recovery from natural gas. §nzir9nmen:al.;n2e2t Fusion power generation is expected to involve a minimal hazard from nuclear by-products. Tritium gas, which would be collected from the lithium coolant for use as fuel, has a low energy beta radioactivity and a short half-life (approximately 12.5 years). It is therefore not as hazardous as radioactive plutonium-239, strontium, cesium, or many other fission by-products. Nevertheless, since all radioactive elements must be considered ultimately harmful, measures which protect the venvironment against their distribution must be taken. AnOther environmental consideration involves the reactor vessel itself. Since the neutrons in the DHT reaction are very energetic and will cause the reactor structure to become radioactive after several years of operation, there is a problem of structure disposal or storage. Current efforts to develop materials which are more impervious to tritium and intense neutron fluxes may reduce the environmental problems of tritium release and disposal of radioactive materials. The fusion fuel cycle involves relatively little handling and shipping of hazardous materials. A small amount of tritium is needed to begin vplant operation. Thereafter, the tritium component of the fuel is made within the cns- up In76ou7 UPDATE-O3/17/80 plant. Unlike fission plants, a fusion plant would not produce plutonium which is necessary for nuclear weapons manufacture. Finally, a fusion plant using conventional steam turbines to driv- electric generators would have waste heat problems similar to those of conventional power plants. more advanced direct conversion fusion schemes would operate at higher efficiencies and produce less waste heat. §gsiog_hconomics The Department of Energy estimates that the total funding requirement for the first complete fusion power plant of commercial size, 500 megawatts electric, is expected to be $15 to $20 billion. However, since there are as yet no final plans for an operating commerical fusion reactor, the economic costs of a fusion plant are at present speculative. New technological developments and quantity manufacturing may result in unforseen cost reductions. Thus, at this point, fusion power plant costs are impossible ito predict accurately. Nevertheless, cost estimates of reactor components are valuable to the extent that they indicate a general order of magnitudel and help to identify particularly sensitive areas for which further cost-reducing development could have a major impact. For example, the ability to minimize radioactivity in the secondary (heat exchange) system would greatly minimize maintenance costs. The development of durable materials will also reduce costs. Such identification of technical problems that may present economic barriers to the implementation of fusion power is useful for directing basic research and for determining the cost feasibility of nuclear fusion vis-a-vis other alternative energy technologies. State of the Art No fusion scheme has demonstrated scientific feasibility, or the pability to produce as much energy as is consumed in the process. Both ymagnetic and inertial confinement devices have a host of theoretical and engineering problems that must be solved before fusion becomes a practical alternate technology. While work continues on efforts to predict plasma behavior, a major problem involves engineering difficulties which prevent testing theoretical hypotheses. Many of these problems require further knowledge of materials. one of the most important of these arises from the unavoidable interactions of components of the hot plasma and its fusion products with the surrounding solid “first wall“ of the containment device. Such interactions can result in a variety of mechanical problems such as blistering, sputtering, and embrittlement. other materials problems involve the, development of large superconducting magnets, magnet shields, and system coolants. uh vproblem critical to laser— fusionl schemes is the development of lasers with durability, high efficiency, high energy, high. repetition rate, short wavelength, and short pulse length. OTHER FUS IOH TECHNOLO GIE‘ S methane Productiog_y;a_§g§ion cns— 5 IB76ou7 UPDATE-O3/17/80 Efforts are underway to develop a method to use fusion neutrons to produce methane, the principal ingredient in natural gas. The neutrons produced in a fusion reaction would he used to break down water molecules into their constituent elements, hydrogen and oxygen.- If hydrogen could be produced zheaply, it could be easily converted to methane which could be fed directly into the natural gas distribution network as a substitute for the fast diminishing supply of natural gas. gissigggrusion Hybrid Reactor The D-T fusion reaction releases an exceptionally energetic rneutron (1n negaelectronvolts) that is used in a lithium blanket to generate the tritium atom consumed in the reaction. These neutrons could also be used to breed plutonium from uraniua either in a cooling blanket or in a reactor core surrounding the fusion reaction. Such a concept is called a "hybrid." much controversy exists concerning the fission-fusion hybrid reactor. Those who favor the hybrid see it as a way of contributing significantly to near-term energy requirements. Critics claim that the hybrid represents the worst aspects of fusion and fission, and that, in a rush to achieve a net power gain from a fusion device, those who advocate the hybrid reactor could be implenenting a very costly, environmentally dangerous power source. pone of the dangers of a hybrid reactor is that, in addition to being attractive as power producers, they are alsop very effective breeders of fissile material. I Qirect Conversion In more advanced theoretical concepts, fusion energy would be converted directly into electricity. In a fusion reactor, based on a D-D or D—3He cycle, most of the energy would be carried away by charged reaction by-products (as opposed to a D-T reaction where the energy is carried away by uncharged neutrons).d In a mirror-types magnetic confinement device the charged particles would exit from the open ends of the fields. The negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions could be separated hand collected on electrodes, therebyl building up a store of potential (kinetic) energy. This manner of collecting the reaction energy would be approximately 90% efficient as compared with the 30-uo% efficiency for a conventional thermal cycle. '.':F.hr93_razaz-E.21aa.n;al<.2 JRi99atr°n)_ The riggatron scheme involves building small,i disposable or recyclable, tokanak fusion reactors which would last 30 days rather than 30 years. Theoretically, the riggatron resembles the larger tokamak devices. However, its major. radius“ is approximately one—eighth .the size of tthe more conventional tokanah but its nagnetic field, plasna densities, and neutron fluxes are greater. Another difference is that the riggatron uses copper magnets rather thani the wlarge superconducting magnets planned for the tokanak. According to riggatron proponents, the copper magnets would be less expensive and would permit ohmic heating of the plasma, a simpler means than his currently planned for conventional magnetic confinement approaches. iBy placing the riggatron magnets nearer the plasma thanl in conventional approaches, the materials degredation problems are aggrevated. In addition, cns- 6 IB760u7 UPDATE-03/17/80 neutron radiation transmutes the copper into radioactive isotopes of copper, cobalt, and nickel. Thus, the endurance for a riggatron unit would probably not exceed #0 days. At that point, according to riggatron proponents, ‘the unit could be »replaced or recycled., ‘Since the used units would be radioactive, they would have to be stored for three weeks, long enough to lose their radioactivity. Then, the nickel and cobalt would be removed and the unit would be sent back to the power plant. Since the cost of a fusion device increases as its, size increases, one advantage of the smaller tokamak would be its reduced cost. In addition, its proponents point out that its smaller size would permit modular use, for example, as a replacement for coal- or oil-fired boilers in existing power plants at a cost of "only 10 percent of the cost of a new plant." Further, proponents claim that the riggatron could produce power at 50 to 60 mills per kilowatt-hour (exclusive of transmission but including copper recycling). They also state that they could provide a fusion power demonstration device by 1982 at an overall cost of $55 million. - Proponents of the riggatron approach have submitted their proposals to the Department of Energy (DOE) which, after two technical reviews, has rejected the idea concluding that the concept is based on engineering assumptions which cannot be supported. DOE therefore decided not to continue riggatron support. However, the debate still continues. Although the Senate never «acted on the DOE civilian authorization bill for FY79, the House-passed version contained an amendment for an additional $7 million to study the riggatron device. Given this background, whether or not to fund the riggatron approach promises to be an issue in future congressional consideration of authorization and appropriation legislation. gps. PROGRAMS Although there are some private sector efforts, the primary source of support for the fusion research effort is the Federal Government. The magnetic confinement program, which began in 1951, and the inertial confinement program, which began in 1962, are both managed by the Department of Energy (DOE).y DOE is supporting fusion research at its major national laboratories-—Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (Los Alamos, N. Hex.), Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (Berkeley, Calif.), Sandia Laboratories (Sandia, N. uex.), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, Tenn.). Fusion-related research is also sponsored at a variety of other Federal labs, - universities, and private companies--including the Naval Research Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Princeton Plasma Physics lLaboratory, hassachnsetts Institute of Technology, University of Rochester, University of Wisconsin, General Atomics, KBS Fusion, Inc., and the Electric Power Research Institute. gggnetic Cogfinegggg uagnetic confinement research is focused on the major plasma physics and technical/engineering problems which must be solved before commercial fusion, power becomes a reality. Areas of research include; plasma physics »research associated with heating and confining hot plasmas;v efforts to develop. materials which will withstand intense radiation; development and fabrication of durable,t less expensive. superconducting magnets and magnet .shield research to deternine the compatibility of candidate reactor Coolants wi 4 CRS- 7 IB76OH7 UPDATE—O3/17/80 containment materials; methods to contain radioactive tritium; and the development of reactor designs which will allow sufficient access and maintainability to be commercially viable. These problems are approached through fundamental research and the design, fabrication, and operation of proof-of-principle experiments. Emphasis is placed on the tokamak and mirror fusion devices, since they are the most advanced and show the greatest promise of -proving scientific feasibility. There is, however, a concurrent development of alternate magnetic confinement devices which have features that may make them more attractive for commercial operation. ‘ F Currently, there are numerous small-scale, proof—of-principle devices which are used to improve theories of plasma behavior, to demonstrate the effectiveness of various experimental heating schemes, and to test various reactor components. The next step is to build increasingly larger devices to determine the effects of scaling on plasma performance. The two major scaling experiments in the area of magnetic confinement are the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) and the mirror Fusion Test Facility (HFTF). The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) will be the largest tokamak in the United States. It is expected to produce fusion energy at the energy breakeven level, using a deuterium-tritium (D-T) plasma. It will be used to study the physics of burning plasmas and the engineering aspects of D—T takamak operations with power densities near those required for a commercial reactor. It will be the first fusion device to explore the engineering requirements of remote maintenance, since the use of tritium will lead to low—level contamination of some device components. Located at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, the TFTR is scheduled for completion by March 1982 and is expected to cost $239 million. Experiments on the TFTR are expected > provide the critical physics and technology data base from which a tokamak prototype reactor could be developed. The Mirror Fusion Test Facility (HFTF) is expected to be a major step in exploring conventional mirror characteristics under reactor-grade plasma conditions. The principal purpose of the MFTF is to provide a large-scale magnetic mirror device and supporting facility for performing physics experiments and technology development needed to bridge tthe gap between smaller existing mirror experiments and a mirror fusion experimental reactor. Located at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, the MFTF is‘ expected to be completed by 1981, for an estimated cost of $94.2 million. xgnertial Confinegggp The Department of Energy (DOE) funds the majority of inertial confinement fusion research and development. The primary goal of this effort is weapons technology applications and the secondary objective is the development of a means of commercial power generation. As in the magnetic confinement program, scientific feasibility has not yet been demonstrated. Essential to the achievement of scientific feasibility are the development of a driver with durability, high efficiency, high energy, high repetition rate, and short pulse length, and the fabrication of a target (pellet) which can reach thermonuclear burn. There are currently a number of experiments ich are used to test various driver technologies and targets. The major experiment expected to achieve scientific feasibility is the CRS- 8 IB76ou7 UPDATE-O3/17/80 afiova neodymium glass laser, scheduled for operation in 1983. Ten laser beams will be focused onto a minute target to which 100 kilojoules of energy will be delivered in a billionth of a second at a peak power of 100 terawatts. Nova, which will cost approximately $137 million, will be located at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California. The glass laser at Nova was chosen for this major scaling experiment because it is currently the most advanced driver and can therefore be completed sooner than other driver designs. Heodymiun glass lasers are ideal candidates for military appliations because they are an available technology and exceedingly flexible in terms of power and pulse duration. Civilian applications, however, place much more stringent requirements on a driver requiring high efficiency, high repetition rate, and long lifetime. Thus, in parallel with the effort to demonstrate scientific feasibility with the Nova, other driver technologies, such as gas lasers and charged particle beam devices, are under active development. The major scaling efforts utilizing these driver technologies are the Antares High Energy Gas Laser and Electron Beam Fusion Accelerator experiments. T The Antares 100 kilojoule carbon dioxide laser will be located at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico. The facility will cost $63 million and be operational by early 1984.n The laser system will consist of six power modules which will form 72 beamlines. It is expected to eventually achieve energy breakeven. Construction of the Electron Beam Fusion Accelerator (EBPA) at Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, is now nearing completion. The EBFA. will generate 36 beams of electrons or light ions at a power level of 40 million watts. The facility cost $15 million and experiments are scheduled to begin in mid—1980. The design of the facility will permit the power level to be increased two or more times by doubling the number of ’beamlines, 5‘ this is warranted by the results of the initial experiments. ggsgaggh_and_Qgy§;9pgggt; Fusion power is regarded as a long-term energy resource. At present the DOE development strategy for fusion power includes proving scientific feasibility, constructing demonstration reactors, and initiating commercialization efforts. Scientific feasibility is defined as the extraction of as much energy from fusion reactions as was provided to induce the reactions. lIn magnetic confinement, scientific feasibility is expected by 1983-84. In inertial confinement, DOE predicts that demonstration of scientific feasibility will occur by 1985-86. After scientific feasibility has been demonstrated, the program will move from applied research into a development phase. By the earlyi 19905, Engineering Test Facilities (ETFS) will be constructed for the more promising designs in both magnetic and inertial confinement. These facilities will be integrated systems producing net energy gain using fusion plasma techniques developed in the previous generation of experimental devices. The ETFS will also establish the technological and engineering requirements of each of the major components of a prototype reactor. Qggggstratiggq Demonstration, the next phase of the DOE program, will involve the operation of an Engineering Prototype Reactor (EPE), which wil“ ycombine the elements tested in the superior Engineering Test Facility in pilot plant in which the unknowns of reactor design can be tested and cns~ 9 Inveouv UPDATE-03/17/80 resolved. The first prototype is expected to be constructed in the late 1990s and the early part of the next decade. The EPR will approach for the first time complete energy gain, where the energy produced exceeds all energy consumed in keeping the entire plant running. Finally, DOB expects that demonstration will be completed with the construction of one or more aonmercial demonstration reactors, in which net power gain in excess of 100 megawatts per plant is produced with an economic efficiency that will make fusion reactors attractive for industrial investors. Qgmmgggialigatiggg From the date of the successful operation of the EPR, DOE estimates that another 20 years will be required before fusion energy reaches its Initial Operating Capability, or commercialization stage, defined as production of power equivalent to three or four 1000—megawatt power plants. During this last stage of development, significant private investment is anticipated, although a strong Federal role will probably be necessary to facilitate the transfer of the technology from the public to the private sector. Current expectations are that the Initial Operating Capability stage will be reached between 2020 and 2030. ggmrren FUSION pmocnmgg gagnetig Confinement The four major magnetic confinement fusion programs arei those of the United States, the Soviet Union, the European community, and Japan. All four major magnetic fusion programs emphasize the tokamak and each nation has now embarked upon a major confinement device. The Soviet program is broadly based, but, as in the United States, there is strong emphasis on tokamak esearch. The Soviet T-105 facility (1982-1983) will be roughly the same size as the U.S. TFTR, but it will utilize for the first time a set of large. superconducting magnets which will extend its pulse length capability. Perhaps the largest Soviet project is the T-20 tokamak to be operational by 1983. Ho other device with comparable size and neutron fluxes is currently scheduled for operation in the United States or elsewhere in the same time period. Originally, the T-20 was planned as a pure fusion device. However, it is now reported that the Soviets will build the T-20 as a hybrid reactor ‘r a fusion core surrounded by a blanket of uranium designed to produce ‘plutonium. F members of the. Commission of the European Communities (Buratom) are combining efforts to build a $2flO million Joint European Torus (JET). The JET, scheduled for operation in 198a, will have many times the plasma volume of the TFTB. Also, the capability for. limited deuterium-tritium burning could be added to JET in the late 1980s. The Japanese JT-60 (1982), slightly larger than the TFTR, will not use tritium but will have additional experimental flexibility, including a divertor for removing impurities and the capability of shaping the plasma crossrsection. . Aside from these major efforts, fusion programs also exist in Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Egypt, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands,‘ Portugal,y and South Africa, with “isser efforts in Australia, Czechoslavakia, Denmark, Israel, Poland, Sweden, .-itzerland, and the People’s Republic of China. . cns-10 In76ou7 UPDATE-O3/17/80, Inertial Confinement The Soviet Union, Japan, Great Britain, France, West Germany, Canada, the People's Republic of China, Israel, Argentina, and Spain have inertia‘ confinement fusion programs., Of these the Soviet and Japanese programs at the largest. A Although the Soviets are pursuing some ilaser fusion devices, they are emphasizing particle_beam fusion experiments. They have started construction .on the Angara-5 electron beam machine. when completed, it‘ will have #8 electron beam generators and is supposed to surpass breakeven. The Japanese also have a large inertial confinement fusion program. They are actively investigating glass, gas, and particle beam driver technologies. Their major device is the Gekko 10 kilojoule glass laser. other foreign programs consist of small experiments and research efforts to study plasma physics and target development.‘ ‘ In:erna3i2nal_§2eaeration . There is a significant exchange of scientific personnel and data among those nations conducting fusion research. Much of this scientific exchange is through the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the International Energy Agency (IBA), and the Joint Fusion Power Coordinating Committee (JPPCC). The international cooperative programs include short visits and seminars, long-term working visits, basic plasma physics theory experiments, and many aspects of joint technology development in such areas as materials for fusion reactors, large superconducting magnet systems, ar’ plasma-wall interactions. The purpose of such cooperative efforts is t» allow each nation to obtain the benefits of the backup programs pursued by the others to provide a broad base for future development without unnecessary duplication. Currently under discussion is a proposal by the Soviet Union to build an INTOR (International Tokamak Reactor) which would be the next step beyond the various tokamak machines now under construction. 2;§sa;-zsag§-1229:1222 CBS-.-11 IB7601-$7 UPDATE-O3/17/80 EEQLEE The fiollowing table is an historical summary of money (in millions of dollars) spent for research and development in magnetic and inertial confinement fusion. 2.29 21.; Magnetic Fusion $ 32.6 $ 30.9 Inertial _ Confinement 3.2 9.5 Total 5 §§T§i s EBTE 2125 Magnetic Fusion $317.9 Inertial Confinement 130.0 Total uu7.9 E122 £123 2229 E12. E129 21222 33.2 $ 39.7 $ 57.5 5 95.3 $138.9 3211.2 19.4 33.5 48.6 62.2 71.2 99.fl E373 s 7575 s?6ET§ $?§3T§ $57677 $§?6T5 I 2122 (Appropriated) $348.9 $1u3.2 $E§§T1 Hagnetic Conf. . Op. Exps. Cap. Equip._ ‘Construction Subtotal Inertial Conf. Op. Exps. qcap. Equip. Construction Subtotal TOTAL §:.§2§r9Y C022; Magnetic Conf. Op. Exps. Cap. Equip. Construction Subtotal Inertial Conf. Op. Exps. Cap. Equip Construction Subtotal TOTAL uagnetic Conf. Op. Exps. Cap. Equip. Construction Subtotal Inertial Conf. Op. Exps. Cap. Equip. Construction Subtotal TOTAL CBS-12 2l§Q-- . Authorizatigng as-lain; - E -Sci--§.2:e2s.h.. _§eq.=== Comm. $256.0 $237.6 29.8 30.3_ -25..-.2. 19:59. $364.0 $376.3 $108.8 3 10.aa 8.5 0.0 $126.8 $ 10.4 $509.9 $386.7i $256.0 29.8 91.g $377.0 $114.8 15.5 gppropriatiggg P.L. 96-1§g $138.7 ‘IB76047 UPDATE-03/17/80 V CRS-13 IB76047 UPDATE-O3/17/80 A§mini§r;a2ien_Be3ne§2 For magnetic confinement R8D, the administration budget request focused on the construction of major scaling experiments, including the Tokamaky Fusion Test Reactor and the Mirror Fusion Test Facility. In addition, funds were included for the Fusion Haterials Irradiation Test Facility. The Administration request also provided an increase in funds for the assessment and development of alternate fusion concepts." The FY80 Administration request for inertial confinement fusion was essentially equal to the FY79 level. However, increased emphasis was placed on target development and systems studies, and experimental efforts using newly available facilities such as the Electron Beam Fusion Accelerator at the Sandia Laboratory. The entire inertial confinement fusion request was included under the Atomic Energy-Defense Activities category and no money was requested specifically for civilian applications activities. Antherizatiene For congressional review of the DOE authorization request for fusion R30, icivilian applications (including magnetic confinement programs) and national security and military applications (including inertial confinement programs) are considered separately. giviliag Prgqrams gggsgp on hay 15, 1979, the House Committee. on Science and Technology reported its version (H. Bept. 96-196, Part 3) of the DOE budget for civilian energy B8B programs (H.R. 3000). In contrast to the Administration approach, the Committee recommended that funds be increased for the mainline tokamak schemes and related supporting efforts, and decreased for investigation of alternate fusion concepts, fusion plasma theory, and experimental plasma research. This decision was based partly on the Committee's determination that the most critical need in the fusion program is proof of scientific feasibility, and that the highest priority should be placed on the device which will provide this proof at the earliest possible date. Thus,i the investigation of alternate fusion concepts which may have advantages tfor commercial operation, must take second priority to the pursuit of a tokamak device to prove scientific feasibility. Without at significant increase min the fusion budget, increased emphasis on the tokamak must necessarily come at the expense of the investigation of alternate concepts. The Committee increased the FY80 budget authority for the Fusion Materials Irradiation Test Facility to accelerate its progress so that the development of materials which can withstand intense radiation is achieved for ythe Engineering Test Facility. »In the area of inertial confinement tfusion, the Committee recommended $10.Q million to support activities which are mclearly vfor civilian energyi A applications: the .National Laser Users Facility at mthe University of tBochester (New York) and the civilian application. efforts at KHS Fusion L Joratories. On Oct. 2fi,tH.B. 3000 passed the House, pith an amendment, which restored cns-1n IB76047 UPDATE-O3/17/80 $1 million to the suggested $5.5 million reductioni for investigation ’of alternate fusion concepts. ggpgtgp On June 26, 1979, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported its recommendations (3. Rept. 96-232) for authorizations for DOE civilian energy programs (5. 688). The Committee's recommendatior included an increase in funds for the Fusion Materials Irradiation TESL Facility, and included a provision for a_ study of the desirability of ’establishing a national center for magnetic confinement fusion. The Committee stated that such a study is warranted for such reasons as cost-effectiveness, safety _ and environmental concerns, international cooperation, and scientific competition. There was no language in the Senate recommendations similar to those of the House suggesting an emphasis on tokamak research and a decrease in funds for the investigation of alternate fusion concepts. No further action has been taken. Unlike the House Science and Technology Committee, the Senate Committee hdid not include" fundingl for inertial confinement civilian applications programs in its recommendations for S. 688. The Committee did, however, suggest in its joint report with the Armed Services Committee, ‘that funds for certain civilian applications programs be added to S- 672. National Seguri§y_anQ;§ili3§41_AQQlicatious Proggamg on June 18, 1979, the Senate passed the DOE national security and military applications programs authorizations hill (5. 673), which included inertial confinement BSD programs. On Nov. 9, the House passed its version of the DOE authorization bill (H.R. 2603), then passed 5. 673 in lieu, but with several amendments. The conference report (H. Rept. 96-702) was agreed to by the Senate on Dec. 18, and by the House on Dec. 19. It was signed into law by the President on Dec. 29, 1979 (P.L. 96—16fl). The Senate bill authorized a total of $114.89 million for operating expenses for inertial confinement programs. The House amendment* contained authorizations of $125.09 million, including an allowance for experimentsl at a National Laser User Facility at the University of Rochesterp in New York. The conferees agreed to adopt the House position in order to provide for program adjustments and to offset the impact of unbudgeted inflation. One of the House amendments contained a limitation on the use of funds authorized to be appropriated for supporting ‘research and development incident to the inertial confinement fusion program. The House, intended to support only that portion of the program which deals with the development of technology required to achieve key military applications goals, believing that energy research and development should not be financed as ‘a defense activity. The Senate bill contained no similar vprovision,’ nor did the conference version. 1 7 The House amendments contained line item authorizations for $1 million each for design studies for target fabrication facilities to serve the, Los lhlamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore Laboratories. The conference bill agreed with the Senate bill and included the $2 million for these studies under the authorization for plant engineering and design. ~The Administration requested an additional authorization of $8 million for lthe high energy laser facility (Antares) at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratorj sto compensate for rising costs. The House amendments included the additionali CR5-15 IB76OQ7 UPDATE-03/17/9:0 authorization, but the Senate bill did not. In conference it was agreed that additional authorizations would be deferred without prejudice while the need for additional funds is reevaluated. annrenriaiiens For magnetic confinement, the House Appropriations Committee agreed with the recommendation of the House Science and Technology Committee for an increase in funds for the mainline tokamak schemes and a decrease in funds for investigation of alternate fusion concepts, fusion plasma theory, and experimental plasma reserach. In addition, separate funding was recommended for programs with civilian applications. The Senate agreed with a general decrease for investigation of alternate fusion concepts but not with separate funding of inertial confinement civilian applications prograus.. The appropriations bill, which passed the Congress and was signed by the President (P.L. 96-69) on Sept. 25, 1979, provides $355.4 million for magnetic confinement, reflecting a decrease in funds for alternate fusion concepts; and $391.8 million for inertial confinement, all of which is funded under the Atomic Energy Defense Activities program. 9 nagnetic Conf. Op. Exps. $286.1 Cap. Equip. 38.1 Construction __13;fi Subtotal $403.6 Inertial Conf. Op. Ezps. $159.5 Cap. Equip. 11.0 Construction __§1.S Subtotal $202.0 TTOTAL $605.6 igdministrationpfigguesti The FY81 fusion budget is 13.5% higher than the FY80 budget, with $HO3.6 million requested for the magnetic confinement fusion program, and $202 million for the inertial confinement fusion program. He? initiatives in the magnetic confinement fusion program include a dnstruction start on the Elmo Bumpy Torus machine. In addition, there are new programs in the areas of advanced tokamak designs and alternative. fusion concepts which“ have ‘possible power reactor applications. There is a CBS-16 1376047 UPDATE—O3/17/80. substantial increase in thei budget requested for the development ‘and technology portion of the fusion program which includes work on large magnets and heating schemes. In the inertial confinement fusion programs, there has been a shift 5" emphasis. The Nova glass laser facility constructioni schedule has been stretched out a year with no funds proposed for FY81. Nova received a $56 million appropriation in FY80. Funds were increased for acceleration of work on carbon dioxide and advanced gas lasers as well as light ion and electron beam and heavy ion systems. - 0 gssuns on conGnEssIoHA;_ggHc§gg gggnetig Confinggent The major issues of congressional concern in the magentic confinement RSD program involve the direction and pace of the program. During the 1970s a major portion of DOE funds for magnetic confinement was» spent on the tokamak design. Although other schemes were also funded, the tokamak was emphasized because it was the most advanced and therefore showed the greatest likelihood of demonstrating scientific feasibility, and because it was thought that building large tokamak devices would. yield findings applicable to all fusion schemes.p'i 0 v After criticism from some members of the fusion community that there was too great an emphasis on the tokamak approach, DOE requested a panel of outside experts, chaired by John 5. Foster (TRW), to review the fusion program. In its report, the review group recommended that fusion should be pursued on a broad front, that it is too risky at this stage to select any one concept. The panel suggested that the most promising alternatir concepts_should be supported at a sufficient level for a sufficient time tv test the concepts. (See Final Report on the Ad Hoc Experts Group on. Fusion, pJune 1978.) A building an operating reactor of any type is made. DOE reflected the recommendations of the Foster group in its’ FY80 budget request. The request for funds for established and theorectical alternate concepts was increased. The strategy was to pursue a vbalanced program in which several fusion concepts are explored in parallel before a commitment to In its deliberations over the. FY80 reguest, the House Science and Technology Committee chose to cut funding for alternate fusion concepts and increase funds for main line tokamak development, with the goal of achieving, as rapidly as possible, a machine which will produce energy. The decision -was based partly on the Committee's determination that the most critical need in the fusion program is proof of pscientific feasibility, and that the highest priority should be placed on the device which will provide this proof at the earliest possible date. Since there is, according to the Committee, a ‘ high degreee of confidence that a tokamak may provide this proof in the next few years, alternate concepts are no longer needed as a backup for such pa demonstration. Further, the goal of proving commercial feasibility is second to that of proving scientific feasibility. Thus, the investigation of *alternate fusion concepts which may have advantages for commercial operation, must take second priority to the pursuit of a tokamak device to prove scientific feasibility. Without a significant increase in the fusion budgr to support both goals, increased emphasis on the tokamak must necessarily come at the.ezpense of the investigation of alternate concepts. CBS-17 IB76047 UPDATE—03/17/80 As soon as the Comaittee's recommendations were announced, protests were heard. The budget reductions fell disproportionately heavily on small university programs. Eventually, some of the money was restored to they udget, but too late to be included in the appropriations bill, which had lollowed the original recommendations and and had already been signed into law. After several months of negotiations, money was ireprogrammed so that the effect of the reductions on small university programs was less drastic. Partly as a result of this controversy, in July 1979 the House Science and Technology Committee formed a Fusion Advisory Panel, chaired by Robert Hirsch, manager of exploratory research for Exxoni Research and Engineering Co., and former chief of fusion programs at the Energy Research and Development Administration (DOE's predecessor agency). other members of the panel include: . 0 Harold Furth, Tokomak director‘ at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory; ' E A o Kenneth Fowler, director of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory mirror fusion_program; o Tihiro Ohkawa, director of the fusion division of General Atomic Co.; o Richard Balzhiser, director of fossil fuel and advanced systems for the Electric Power Research Institute; o Joseph Gavin, president of Grumman Aerospace; o Henry Hebeler, president of Boeing Engineering and Construction Co.; 0 John Landis, senior vice president of Stone and Webster Engineering Corp.; to Robert Smith, chairman of the Public Service Electric ‘and Gas Co. of Newark, §.J.; 0 Alvin Trivelpiece, special assistant to the president of ’Science Applications, Inc. of LaJolla, Ca.; ' o Robert Conn of the University of Wisconsin nuclear engineering department, and A o Ersel Evans, vice president of Westinghouse Hanford Co. After ‘several imeetings the Panel has concluded’ that ‘"the magnetic confinement program has reached, and in many[ cases- surpassed, the cgoals publicly set forth in past years.‘ Hagnetic fusion research has consistently been on schedule and very close to cost, even during recent inflationary times." The Panel has further stated that the “magnetic fusion program dis without a doubt ready to. proceed tmucht more aggressively tthan presently projected by DOE...electric power from fusion should be attainable before the turn of the century [and] the total programmatic cost for an accelarated ogram will be lower than for the present istretched out schedule." rThe £4391 recommended the DOE be requested to. prepare an. accelerated ‘program plan. A i CRS~18 IB76OQ7 UPDATE-03/17/80_ In response to the Panel report, the Science and Technology Committee requested DOB to explore the. details of a substantially more aggressive strategy for_achieving the goal of commercial fusion electricity and to prepare for the Committee a detailed schedule, including all significant steps and the cost of each, wfor getting a magnetic fusion electric: demonstration plant on line by 1995 and, alternatively, by 2000. DOE prepared the requested scenarios, emphasizing that the Department's policy for fusion is ained_at developing the‘ highest potential for fusion ener9Y: not at its earliest development. Thus, all scenarios retain the pursuit of research into attractive alternate concepts. Under the first plan, a demonstration plant could be on line shortly after the year 2010. Although near-term funding would not be significantly increased, this_ strategy would be the most costly overall, since it would depend on Federal funds for a longer period of time during which rising costs and inflation would have their effect. The next program strategy aims at achieving demonstration plant operation by the year 2000, and would increase near-term costs by 50%. In the final scenario, demonstration is achieved by 1995, and near-term costs would be doubled. ' The action of the Science and Technology Committee in its budget review and int the formation of. the Fusion Advisory Panel mark a change in congressional oversight of fusion research. In the past, the funding and direction of the fusion program have been determined almost exclusively within the Executive Branch. The Congress has made minor additions and subtractions to the fusion budget, but it has never attempted to ,formulate BSD policy, a matter left largely to the scientists. Now, however, with the scientists in disagreement over the direction of the program and the ever-increasing dollar amounts at issue, the Congress has expressed a need to participate more actively in determining fusion program strate9Ya a need which will become more evident in the annual budget deliberations. Inertial Confinement iIn the inertial confinement fusion program, the issues of debate center on the goal of the program. The primary goal of currentv research efforts is weapons technology applications and the secondary goal is commercial power generation. Proponents of this strategy justify this approach on the basis that at this point in the development of the technolO9Y» both the military ‘and civilian applications require the development of fundamental fusion physics which will lead to demonstration of scientific feasibility. Critics of the program claim that the considerations for military applications and civilian applications are sufficiently distinct so that the program should be divided, in order to prevent the pursuit of military goals from, retarding progress toward the development of a commercial power reactor. Thus far, all funding for inertial confinement fusion programs hast been included in the defense activities portion of the DOB budget. The issue of separation of civilian and military applications‘ research in the inertial confinement ‘ program promises to be of increasing interest as research in this marea progresses. some questions for congressional consideration are the following: (1) At what level should ifusion research be funded? How much additional funds would significantly accelerate the development of a fusion cns—19 IB76ou7 UPDATE-O3/17/80 technology? If the United States adopted a hanhattan Project approach to the development of fusion technology, wwould it be technologically and scientifically feasible to obtain energy for civilian use by 1985? If not by 1985, what date? (2) Is there a signficant amount of energy-related basic research required to further the development of fusion technology? If so, what level of funding is required? which agency or institution should manage basic research efforts? (3) Is there sufficient research in peripheral technologies, such as materials research, to solve the many engineering problems which exist in fusion reactor designs? (4) Is there any duplication of research efforts? Are there any projects which show no promise and can be eliminated from the budget? Is there a danger that a project may be eliminated prematurely? i (5) At present a great majority of DOE's fusion money goes to its major Federal research laboratories. Should more funds be allocated to) private research? a 1 (5) Is Dofifis management policy and coordination of research adequate for the various fusion approaches? (7) Does DOE place too much emphasis on the Tokamak approach? Or, is the Tokamak_approach sufficiently funded to attain its goals within the shortest period of time? 1 “ (8) Has there been significant curtailment of exploratory and auxiliary asearch programs, i.e., are there other promising approaches which are not -eing investigated? 1 1 ‘ w (9) Is the Federal Government taking steps to ensure that sufficient quantities of helium, necessary for the large superconducting magnets planned for future magnetic fusion devices, is conserved for future use? (See Helium Controversy, Archived Issue Brief 78060) \ (10) are there environmental problems connected with fusion technology? Are there foreseeable solutions available for those problems? (11) How do fusion technology's environmental problems compare with those associated with present fission reactors? To advanced technologies, such as the liquid metal fast breeder reactor? To. other advanced (processes ‘using coal? ‘ 1 ( (12) will commerical fusion energy be economically viable? Hill fusion technology be competitive .with pother advanced energy ‘sources? How will capital costs for fusion technology compare with tthose of present fission technology and with other potential advanced energy sources? ‘ (13)) The primary nearrterm goaln of the inertial confinement? fusion program is weapons technology applications. Will the ‘pursuits of military goals retard the attainment of the civilian goal of energy production? (1u)i Should inertial (confinement) research the ideclassified? Does t-assification of research lead to a duplication of efforts? would lack of access to classified military research harm civilian research? CRS-20 IB760fl7 UPDATE-O3/17/80 LEGISLATION The only legislation concerning fusion in 1978 involved authorizations and appropriations for Department of Energy (DOE) fusion R8D programs. No authorization legislation for DOE civilian energy RED programs, including magnetic confinement fusion and inertial confinement civilian applications fusion, was enacted for FY79. The House passed H.R. 12163 on July 17, 1978, but the Senate authorization hill, 3. 2692, never reached the floor of the Senate. H.R. 11686, authorizing funds for national security and military applications programs, including inertial confinement fusion, passed both Houses, was signed by the President on October 23, andbecame P.L. 95-509. DOE appropriations for magnetic confinement and inertial confinement fusion were contained in H.R. 12928, which was approved by both Houses and subsequently vetoed by the President. The House sustained his veto. 3 The entire public works appropriations bill (minus those water projects which had caused the President to veto the bill) was then attached as an amendment to a 1 bill which had already passed the House, H.J.Res. 1139 (continuing appropriations for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) in order to avoid the long process of introducing new legislation, holding hearings, etc. On October 15, the Senate passed the bill, and the House agreed to the provisions. The bill was signed by the President on Oct. 18, 1978, and became P.L. 95-482. gggg 1 P.L. 96-69 (3.3. H388) Makes appropriations for energy and (water development for fiscal year 1980. Introduced June 7, 1979; referred to Committee on Appropriations. Reported from House Appropriations Committee on June 7, 1979 (H.Rept. 96-ZQ3). Passed House on June 18, 1979. Reported from Senate Appropriations Committee July 12, 1979 (S.Rept. 96-242). Passed Senate July 18. Reported from Conference Committee on July 26 (H.Rept. 96-388) and passed the House on Aug. 1. Senate agreed to conference report on Sept. 10. The measure was signed into law on Sept. 25, 1979, andi became P.L. 96-69. [See FUHDIHG section for details.] P.L. 96-164 (3. 673) Authorizes appropriations to the Department of Energy (DOE) for national security programs for fiscal year 1980. Introduced Har. 15, 1979; referred to Armed Services Committee and to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported from committee on Hay 22, 1979 (S.Rept. 96-193). Measure passed the Senate on June 18. Bill passed the House in lieu of H.R. 2603, but with amendments. Conference report (H. Rept. 96-702) filed on Dec. 13. On Dec. 18, the Senate agreed to the conference report. The House agreed to the ‘report on Dec. 19. The measure was signed into law (P.L. 96-16a) Dec. 29, 1979. [See FUNDING section for details.] 3.3. 3000 (staggers) Authorizes appropriations to the Department of Energy (DOE) for civilian CRS-21 IB760Q7 U?DATE~03/17/80 programs for fiscal year 1980. Introduced mar. 15, 1979; referred to Committee on Science and Technology. Reported from committee on may 15, 1979 (H.Rept. 96-196, Part 3). Bill passed House on Oct 20 and has been placed on the Senate callendar. [See FUNDIHG section.for details.] 3. 688 (Jackson) Authorizes appropriations to the Department of Energy (DOE) for civilian programs for fiscal year 1980. Introduced mar. 15, 1979; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported to the Senate from the Committee on June 26, 1979 (S. Rept. 96—232). H.R. 6260 (uccormack)/H.B. 6308 (nccornack) Provides for an accelerated program of research and development of nagnetic fusion energy( technologies leading to the construction and successful operation of a magnetic fusion demonstration plant in the United States before the end of the 20th century to be carried out by the Department of Energy. Introduced Jan. 23, 1980, referred to Committee on Science and Technology. A H.B. 6308 (nccormack)/E.R. 6260 (hccormack) Provides for an accelerated program of research and development of magnetic fusion energy technologies -- identical to H.R. 6260. Introduced Jan. 28, 1980, the bill now has over 100 sponsors; referred to Committee on Qcience and Technology. H.R. 6621 (Pritchard) Authorizes appropriations to the Department of Energy (DOE) for national security and military applications programs for FY81. Bequests $202 million for inertial confinement fusion programs. Introduced Feb. 26, 1980; referred to Committee on Armed Services. H.R. 6627 (staggers) Authorizes appropriations to the Department of Energy (DOE) for civilian programs, including magnetic confinement fusion. Requests $003.6 million for magnetic confinement programs. Introduced Feb. 26, 1980; referred to zCommittee on Science and Technology. 5. 2332 (Jackson) L Authorizes appropriations to the Department of Energy (DOE) for civilian programs, including magnetic confinement fusion. Requests $403.6 million for magnetic confinement »programs. Introduced) Feb. 26, 1980; referred to Committee on Energy and Hatural Resources. 5. 2301 (Jackson) Authorizes appropriations to the Department of Energy (DOE) for national :urity and military applications programs for FY81. Requests $202 million for inertial confinement fusion programs. (Introduced Feb. 26, 1980; referred to Committee on Armed Services. T 1 cns-22 IB76007' UPDATE—O3/17/80. U.S. .Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Public Works for Water and Power Development and Energy Research Appropriation bill, 1979. _Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session. Part 5. Mar. 2, 1978 [Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. off.]_1978. 1066 p. ~ U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee] on Energy and Water Development. Energy and water development appropriations for 1980. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. Part 5. [Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979] 1050 p. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Department of Energy authorization, 1980. Hearing, 96th Congress, 1st session. No. 1, v. 1. Feb. 8, 1979. [Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979] 1070 p. 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Advanced Energy Technologies and Energy Conservation Research, Development, and Demonstration. 1979 Department of Energy authorization (advanced energy technologies and energy conservation). Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session. Vol. V, no. 54. Jan. 26, 27, 30; Feb. 1, 2, 3, 6, 1978. [Hashington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978] 1128 p. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production. Department of Energy authorization, 1980. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. No. 9, v. 3. Feb. 27, 28; Mar. 2, 1979. [Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979] 656 p. ---+- The magnetic fusion energy program -- its objectives and pace. Hearing, 96th Congress, 1st session. [No. 67] Dec. 11, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 56 p. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Fossil and Nuclear Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration. 1979 Department of Energy authorization. Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session. 7 Vol. III, (nuclear energy research), no. 56. Feb. 2, 7, 8, 1978. (Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978] 977 p. -—-- Oversight review of the magnetic fusion program of the Department of Energy. Oversight hearing, 95th Congress, 2d session. Vol. III, no. 86. Sept. 18, 1978. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 150 p. 0.5. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.- Energy: fiscal year 1980, budget request. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. Feb. 7, 1979. 255 p. 0 "Publication no. 96-9" CRS-23 IB76047 UPDATE-03/17/80 §§2Q§2§ A32 C0HGE§§5I0NAL D0C§§§§E§ U.S. .Congress. Committee of Conference, 1978. Public Works for Water and Power Development and Energy Research appropriation bill, fiscal year 1979; conference report to accompany H.R. 12928. Aug. 1%, 1978. [Washington,.U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978] 68 p. (95th Congress, 2d session. House. iReport no. 95—1Q90) U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Public Works for Water and Power Development and Energy Research appropriation bill, 1979; report to accompany H.R. 12928. June 1, 1978. (Washington, 0.3. Govt. Print. Off.) 1978. 1&3 p. (95th Congress, 1st session. Rouse. Report no. 95-1247).7 1 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Armed Services. Authorizing appropriations for the Department of Energy for national security Programs for fiscal year 1979; report to accompany H.R. 11686. hay 3, 1978. [Washington, U.S. Govt. Print- Off.] 1978. 36 p. (95th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 95-1108) 6 in U.S. Congress. vfiouse. Comaittee on Science and Technology. Authorizing appropriations for the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1979; report to accompany H.R. 12163. Apr. 20, 1978. (Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.) 1978. 357 p. ’(95th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 95—1078, Part 1) ‘U.S. Congress. Senate. Acomnittee on Appropriations. Energy and Water Development appropriation bill, 1979; report to accompany H.R. 12928. Aug. 7, 1978.. [Washington, U.S. Govt. Print- Off.) 1978. 125 p. (95th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 95-1069) --- ‘Continuing appropriations, 1979; report to accompany H.J.Res. 1139. Oct. 11, 1978.; [Hashington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.] 1978. 6 p. (95th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 95-1317) ----- Energy and water development appropriation bill, 1980; report to accompany H.R. H388. fwashington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979] (96th Congress, 1st session. ysenate. Report no. 96—2fi2) 5 /. A U.S. Congress. senate. Conmittees on Arued Services and Energy and Hatural Resources. Department of Energy National Security and Hilitary Applications of Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1979; report to accompany S. 2693. June 28, 1978." [Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.) 1978. 30 p. (95th iCongress,v2d session. Senate.l Report no. 95-961) 3.5. Congress. Senate. tconmittee on Energy and EaturalResouces. Authorizations for Department of Energy Civilian Programs, CBS-24 IB760fl7 UPDATE-03/77/80 fiscal year 1979; report to accompany S. 2692. July 5, 1978.‘ fiashington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.] 1978. 307p. (95th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 95-967) 12/29/79 -- S. 673, containing DOE authorizations for national security and military applications programs, was signed into law (P.L. 96*164). - 09/25/79 -- H.R. #388, containing DOE appropriations for nagnetic and inertial confinement fusion programs, was signed into law (P.L. 96-69). 7 08/00/78 -- The Princton Large Torus experiment brought closer the goal of fusion energy breakeven by attaining 0 record temperatures of 60 million degrees Kelvin in a deuterium-hydrogen plasma using neutral beam injectors. I 00/00/77 -— Construction began on the Tokanak Fusion Test Reactor, the first Tokamak designed to burn deuterium and tritium fuel. 00/00/75 -— Largest Tokamak in the U.S.S.R. began operation. -— Largest Tokanak in the U.S. (Princeton Large Torus) began operation. 00/00/68 -- First observation was made of neutrons from a L laser-produced plasma. 00/00/62 ** U.S. laser fusion program began. O0/00/S8 -- U.S.,iU.S.S.R., and United Kingdo: agreed to declassify fusion research. " 7 00/00/51 -*yU.S. magnetic confinement program began., Bethe, Hans A. The fusion hybrid.i Physics today, Hay 1979: 40-51. Chen, Francis F. Alternate concepts in magnetic fusion. Physics today, may 1979: 36-42. Dingee, David. Fusion power. Chemical and engineering news, Apr. 2, 1979: 32-47. Exnit, John L., John Huckolls, and Lowell Wood. Fusion power by laser implosion. Scientific American, June 1974, v. 230, no. 6: 24-37. 1 Fleischnann, Hans H. High-current electron beams. Physics today, Hay 1975: 35+41. 1 CR3-25 IB76047 UPDATE-03/17/80 Hirsch, Robert, and Rilliam Rice. Ruclear fusion power and the environment. Environmental conservation, v. 1, no. 4, Winter 197a, p. 251-261. Kapitza, P.L. Plasma and the controlled thermonuclear reaction. Science, Sept. 7, 1979: 959-964. 7 Kulcinski, G.L. et al. Energy for the long run: fission or fusion? American scientist, January-February 1979: 78-89. Hcseogh, nalcoln.‘ Lasers for fusion. New scientist, July 2a, 1975: 205-207. E R Hetz, William D. Fusion research (I);o what is the program buying the country? Science, June 25, 1976, v. 192: 1320-1323. -~-- Fusion research (II): detailed reactor studies identify more problems. Science, July 2, 1976: 38-40 and 76. ---- Fusion research (III): new interest in fusion-assisted breeders. Science, July 23, 1976, v. 192, p. 307-309. See also letter to the editor "Fusion as an Energy Option“ by Willian C. Gough, Francis R. Chen, and Hichael Lotker, which gives the Electric Power Research Institute's reply to the series of fusion articles. » mills, 3.9. Problems and promises of controlled fusion power. Mechanical engineering, Sept. 1975:, 20-15. E nurakani, Basanori and Eubank, Harold P. Recent progress in tokanak experiments. Physics today, may 1979: 25-32. I ‘ Parkins, W.E. Engineering limitations of fusion power plants. Science, march 1978: 1nO3—1QO8. Raleigh, L.H. “Nuclear Fusion" chapter in "Basic Research Needs in Energy Technologies." Congressional Research Service. Library of Congress.d 76-81SP. Apr. 20, 1976. 286 p. Rose, David. The prospect for fusion. Technology review, December 1976: 21-43. Steiner, Don. ‘Nuclear fusion:1 focus on Tokamak. IEEE spectrum, :July 1977: 32-38. Steiner, Don and John E. Clarke. The Tokanak: hodel T fusion reactor. Science, March 1978: 1395-1#O3. Stickley, C. Martin. fLaser fusion. Physics today, Hay 1978: 50-58. 1 U.S. Dept. of Energy. Directorate of Energy Research. The Department of Energy policy for fusion energy. Washington, September 1978. :27 p.: DOE/ER-0018 -5--ffinal report of the ad hoc experts group on fusion. Washington, June 1978. 16 p. DOE/ER-0008 CBS-26 IB760fi7 UPDATE~O3/17/80 For saleby the Superientendent of Documents, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, D.C. - U.S. General Accounting Office. Fusion -- a possible option for solving long—tern energy problems.‘ Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General. Sept. 28, 1979. 49 p. (BED-79-27) U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service.l Helium controversy [by] Allen P. Agnew and Barbara J. Bascle. Archived Issue Brief 78060 U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Science Policy Research Division. Fact book on non-conventional energy technologies. Prepared for a seminar on new energy technologies: policies and problems. Feb. 21, 1979. Washington, 1979. 198 p. (Report no. 79—#7 SPR) Yonas, Gerold. Fusion power with particle beans. Scientific American, November 1978: 50~61. ,I,, . ;..‘:.;;;.;r";__,-_._ 1 fl ~.:'-’:.v.~ I _:.v,_‘ _ ‘ *’ '“7~'»’‘» '. “:7: z_:~. . F’ H3-,2: H- '5 «M-—)i"‘~ /5» .':.~.—.-.-\ :‘.__ - . t--I‘ -. 1' .v~- _., .JD‘.': '~‘‘;_’,.:‘‘‘/.;—-;‘'>’.L‘‘'\‘‘Y:fi 0!, ‘’t’ "11