Options for the future of nuclear fusion research in Europe
The European Commission has prepared a paper outlining imaginable scenarios for the future of European research into the development of nuclear fusion as an energy source. The paper, produced as a contribution to the debate on the Fifth RTD Framework Programme, was requested by the Council in May 1997. It outlines six scenarios, with estimated costs, ranging from stopping research at European level, through continuing at the current level, to stepping up efforts in Europe independently of Japan, Russia and the USA. The harnessing of fusion holds out the promise of potentially safe and clean energy, with virtually inexhaustible fuel resources. However, as a commercial power source fusion energy is still decades away, and therefore the bulk of the costs of its development must be borne by public authorities. Currently, the Community's Fusion programme brings together all fusion research in the EU and Switzerland, with the long-term goal of "the joint construction of prototype reactors". European expenditure on fusion research amounts to almost ECU 500 million per year during the Fourth Framework Programme (1994-1998), of which the Community budget accounts for about 40%. Current efforts, in particular the Joint European Torus (JET) and similar facilities in Japan and the USA have been focused on developing the basis for designing and operating a full-scale experimental reactor (the "Next Step"). Research at this level has shown Europe to be a leader in fusion research worldwide, and demonstrated the high level of know-how of European scientists. The EU, along with the USA, Japan, and Russia, is contributing to the design of the "Next Step", the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) which is designed to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion power production, as well as its safety and environmental potential. Following the success of this, a demonstration reactor would be constructed, capable of producing significant quantities of electric power. As far as the construction of ITER is concerned, decisions of the various partners are not expected before the turn of the century. The six imaginable scenarios outlined by the Commission, with the estimated Community funding required for the Fifth Framework Programme period (1999-2002), are as follows: - Close down Community fusion research altogether: In this scenario, fusion research worldwide would be slowed down, and in the event that countries outside Europe continued and succeeded, Europe would lose the future market. Even in this scenario, fusion would still require some ECU 40 million to ECU 350 million from the Community budget during the Fifth Framework Programme, depending on how quickly European research is halted; - Science-driven/watching brief: Here joint basic research would be continued, but without the overall goal of building a prototype reactor. This could be combined with a "watching brief" on fusion development elsewhere, provided that an experimental reactor was constructed. Having no focus, this scenario would rapidly reduce European influence and know-how almost as much as the previous scenario, although the Commission estimates the need for Community funding at ECU 750 million for the Fifth Framework Programme period; - Extending the current Engineering Design Activities for ITER: Under this scenario, the ongoing activities in preparation for the construction of ITER which are scheduled to be completed in July 1998 would be extended, with no decision taken on the construction of ITER until late in the Fifth Framework Programme. This scenario would, of course, have to be agreed with the other partners in ITER, but would basically involve continuing existing activities at a similar cost, around ECU 900 million for the period 1999-2002; - Starting the construction phase of ITER outside the EU: If all the parties commit themselves to participation in ITER, final preparations would be started in 1998, and actual construction in 2002. To maintain sufficient influence, the Community share would have to be at least 20%. Costs to the Community budget would be minimized, totalling around ECU 925 million for FP5. For the period after 2002, Community funding for fusion would be around ECU 250 million to ECU 275 million per year. Constructing ITER outside the EU would, however, mean that the benefits accruing to Europe would be lessened; - Starting construction of ITER within the EU: Assuming a timetable as above, this scenario would make best use of EU investments in fusion already made and maximize EU influence in the development of fusion. Europe would perhaps have to bear around 60% of the costs with the host Member State contributing almost half of this amount. Under this assumption, Community funding would amount to some ECU 975 million during FP5, and, beyond 2002 would be in the region of ECU 325 million to ECU 375 million per year; - Constructing an ITER-like reactor independently in Europe: If Europe proceeds alone, the benefits, in terms of intellectual property protection and market potential, would be maximized, while the operation and management of the project would be simplified. The costs would inevitably be higher for Europe, with the Community budget perhaps supporting some 66% of the costs. The host state would have to fund a further 25% of the costs, with the remaining costs coming from other sources. On the basis of these assumptions, Community funding would total some ECU 1,100 million over FP5, and would then be around ECU 550 million to ECU 600 million in the years after 2002. The Community strategy cannot be decided in isolation, since decisions on ITER depend on all the partners. The Commission suggests, bearing in mind the potential benefits and the 30 years of work already undertaken, that Europe must maintain the integrated nature and the reactor orientation of the Community effort in fusion R&D, therefore ruling out the first two scenarios. Equally, for the time being, the Commission rules out the final scenario, given the expense of this option and the benefits of global partnership. Whilst considering the construction of ITER to be the best option, the Commission is of the opinion that moving to construction now would be premature, whether in the EU or outside. It therefore favours scenario 3, effectively continuing present levels of effort during a three-year period of active preparations before taking a decision on the construction of the Next Step, preferably within the ITER framework, towards the end of the Fifth Framework Programme.