The future - found in Canada?
Imagine a world where water has become a prime commodity, fossil fuel energy sources have almost been exhausted and attention to the environment has become a vital necessity. This is what you need to imagine if you are involved in an international energy project which will not reach fruition for several decades. Knowing where the project will fit into the future, changed world is fundamental to the success of one of the longest-term projects in science, namely the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) fusion project. This is how the imagination of Mr Peter Barnard has to work. Chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of ITER Canada, a Canadian consortium involving a not-for-profit organisation operating with the support of the Canadian federal government, private sector, local and labour organisations, Mr Barnard has recently been currying favour in Europe for ITER-Canada's plan to locate the ITER fusion research centre in Ontario. The timetable of the project demands that bids to host the project be submitted by April 2001 with a decision on the project's location at the end of the following year. ITER-Canada will be submitting a formal expression of interest to European Research Commissioner, Philippe Busquin, shortly. The background is simple. ITER is a project which, in Mr Barnard's opinion, is on the same level as some of the major groundbreaking scientific breakthrough projects of the past. It could bring a source of sustainable, safe and renewable power to a world that, by the time the project is operational, will need it. Its global application made it from the very beginning an international project. But this has been one of the factors holding it back. The project had to be downgraded due to the economic ups and (mainly) downs of those involved. The USA, Russia, Europe and Japan were all participants in the plan to develop the ITER project. However, with the USA deciding to pull out and the Japanese economy still depressed, Europe and Russia were left to take the onus. Economically, this put the project in some danger and rather than scrap it, the project was downgraded to a smaller version, ITER-FEAT. Canada has been working away in the background for the last few years, with a plan to host the ITER-FEAT project as it has two sites that meet many of the conditions laid down. But if successful, one of the first things that they may do is to rebrand the project's name. ITER-FEAT does not appeal to Mr Barnard. 'We need a new brand because nobody can really agree on ITER-FEAT and journalists can have too much fun with a name like that!' The Canadians are in a strong position to host the project, and they know it. With only Japan submitting rival locations, Canada is a favourite to be accepted, for numerous reasons. Japan is putting forward three possible locations for the ITER-FEAT project. However, one of them is in the same Tokaimura area where a nuclear accident occurred last year. The other two are remote locations which commentators see as having little chance of winning the bid. Canada can offer two locations, Darlington and Bruce, both in Ontario, located 60 and 200 kilometres respectively from Toronto. What's more, the vital component of tritium, required for the ITER-FEAT project, is stored on site at Darlington. Quality of life considerations have also been important in forming the preferences for the location. If the location is seen as being attractive, more international scientists are expected to want to work on site on the project. Canada, being one of the most multicultural societies in the world and a natural English speaking country, has a major advantage over Japan, even before analysing the individual sites. But other than pleasant surroundings and having an essential component on site, the Canadian bid also scores points on its proximity to the USA (having the project on its doorstep would be a great incentive to lure it back into the project), not suffering from earthquakes (something Japan's bid cannot boast) and its sites are already serviced (Japan's are not and this, particularly at Japanese prices, would add an estimated extra $1bn to the cost of the Japanese bid). Access to water for shipping is another key aspect, and both locations sit next to a great lake, Darlington on Lake Ontario and Bruce on Lake Huron. Finally, and importantly, fusion is included in the areas which the Canadian nuclear regulator is allowed to regulate, something that cannot be said of many other countries. And the ITER Canada bid has already spent over a year collaborating with these regulators. The Canadians have had their obstacles along the way too. Their bid took a wrong turn in 1997 when the Canadian federal government announced that it would no longer be funding fusion research. Mr Barnard claims that this was due to budgetary considerations and that the move was designed to help reduce the government's deficit. Fortunately for him, the government has recently changed its mind. 'The government was never against fusion, it was an economic issue,' says Barnard. Economics are probably what has changed its mind too. The possibility of extra taxes, more jobs and putting Canada at the head of one of the world's biggest and most prestigious science projects will have been noticed. It has been an easy ride for the Canadian government so far as it has just given its support to the ITER Canada bid. As the bid progresses, more involvement, and resources, will be expected. Who funds the ITER project has yet to be decided and will be key in its development. Originally, a third from Japan, a third from the European Union and a third from the combination of Russia, the USA and Canada was the rough blueprint. Now that may change. The EU's contribution will only be decided once the Sixth Framework programme is in place. The Japanese contribution may be influenced by whether they get to host the facility. And the Canadian, Russian and USA contributions will also have to be revised in light of what happens to the previous two contributions. The latest estimates put Canada's contribution if it wins the location bid at up to 25% and Russia's at 10%. This issue, along with the location of the site, could prove vital in dividing the various strands of the project. As Mr Barnard points out; 'This technology should be non-proprietary, there are no patents on this. Some $35bn has already been invested in the search for fusion success with help provided by over 30 countries.' But while keeping the project multinational remains a noble aim, it has, as Barnard admits, probably slowed down the process. More progress, he says, could probably have been made if the project had been a national one. Now it is his task to convince the major players in the other countries. This has meant taking in Brussels, Washington, London, Moscow and Tokyo on almost a regular basis. In Brussels, visits took in members of the European Parliament (MEPs) as well as of the Commission. Further discussions of the project are due at Canadian/EU bilateral meetings due to be held in May and June. Asked what the Canadian motivation is, a Commission source explains quite frankly. 'Profit in the first place,' he says. 'They have looked at the JET project in England and have seen how 70% of capital has been absorbed into the local economy, through jobs, contracts, etc. But they also sincerely want Canada to play a more global role in fusion.' Now that is something that Mr Barnard is probably imagining most of the time.