By the middle of next year a site could be chosen, followed by a year of negotiations and then construction.
Bob Stasko, manager of the Canadian Fusion Fuels Technology Project, and Bob James, of the Canadian ITER siting board, both hope that Canada will be seen as the logical location for the internationally funded $10-billion project.
There are four partners in the ITER project: Russia, Japan, the United States of America and the European Union. In all, 30 countries have joined the project, aligning themselves with partner countries. Canada is participating through the European countries.
The quest for fusion power is now about 40 years old. It was first started in the 1950s, but did not see any great advancement until the 1960s when the first study of plasma physics began. In the 1970s methods to contain plasmas were developed, including the Tokomak reactor. The 1980s saw research advance to where plasmas were heated to temperatures that were ten times hotter than the centre of the sun.
From this great store of heat, it is hoped that a safe, sustainable power source will be created.
To those involved, the benefits of fusion over todays fission reactors are seen as many. There is no possibility of a massive energy release from a fusion reactor. Even if all the control systems were to fail at once, there would not be a repeat of the Chernobyl disaster. There is not enough fuel in a fusion reactor to sustain a reactor for more than a few seconds if any systems were to fail.
Fusion has the potential to provide us with limitless, clean, safe, benign power using advanced fusion cycles that dont even produce significant amounts of radiation, Stasko said. Nuclear power without radiation is almost an oxymoron for most people, but in order to get from here to there, we have to build the ITER reactor.
Goodbye, China Syndrome
Unlike uranium fission plants, fusions deuterium and tritium fuels are metered into a fusion
reactor vessel, as they are burned in small amounts.
Fission plants require large amounts of uranium (tens to hundreds of tonnes) which makes their interiors highly radioactive. This can be accidentally released if there is a systems breakdown.
Fusion is the flip side of fission. The fusion process itself is delicate it is hard to initiate and sustain and there is no chance of a reactor meltdown. If there was an air leak into a reactors vacuum vessel, or a disruption of the reactors magnetic system, the fusion reaction would stop abruptly. Goodbye, China Syndrome.
The reactors would also feature the fail-safe of being placed in a sealed containment building with filtered ventilation.
The environmental impact of a fusion reactor is seen as negligible. There will be some atmospheric emission of radioactive material, but it is expected to be one hundredth the amount, or less, of a fission plant. The end product of the fusion reaction will be helium which is not considered to be harmful to the environment.
Fuel for the reactor consists of deuterium and lithium (for later stages in the experiment) which will be required in small quantities and are not radioactive. An initial charge of tritium would be required, but the reactor should be able to sustain its supply after that. Tritium will be stripped from the helium, before venting, and reused.
The major waste product from such a plant will be parts of the plant itself. The reactor vessel will be exposed to neutron radiation from the fusion of deuterium and tritium. The process is called activation. If low-activation materials can be found, the radioactivity produced may last only a few decades, which is considered a short life by nuclear standards.
This should mean less waste than from a fission plant, although a major overhaul could result in a significant collection of short-life radioactive waste.
Fusion Quest
The next step in fusion technology is to increase the efficiency of the fusion reactor. The present
record of 10 MW of fusion power was achieved by the Tokomak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) in
Princeton, New Jersey. That was last year.
Its hoped that 24 to 40 MW will be achieved by the end of the century. The ITER project, which wouldnt be in operation until 2008 at the earliest, is aiming to generate 1500 MW of fusion power.
The next step in fusion generation will be to create reactors that actually produce more power than they use. There are three milestones on this road: breakeven, ignition and electricity demonstration.
Breakeven is when the fusion power that is produced equals the power needed to create and heat plasma. The TFTR has reached 25 per cent of breakeven, and 50 per cent could be seen by the year 2000.
Ignition will allow the fusion energy that is produced to maintain the plasma in a hot state without external heating. This plateau is expected to be reached by the ITER project.
Electricity generation will be achieved when there is enough energy from ignited fusion plasma to create steam.
Stasko said ITER will be used to learn about the many unknowns of working with a fusion plasma, and if a plasma reactor can work continuously. A key goal is to determine what effect there will be on the materials used to make the reactor.
We have to get at least one full year of operation before we can take samples of material to see how its characteristics have changed due to neutron radiation, Stasko said. This is the all singing, all dancing version: it proves the physics; it lets you do the plasma experiments; it gives us ignition (a big milestone); it lets us do the neutron activation of material assessments and ultimately it lets us put various breeding materials in there.
There is, in other words, nothing like the ITER reactor in the world at this time.
Because of the cost involved in such an undertaking, few if any countries would be able to take on this project itself. The ITER project was conceived as a way to end Cold War tensions and show, for the first time, international co-operation in the field of nuclear development.
For the CFFTP this meant an opportunity to showcase its strengths in an area that has faced continued funding cutbacks. Provincial funding, with the exception of Ontario Hydros co-operation and funding, has all but dried up for fusion research. Federal funding is facing, at best, an uncertain future.
The federal government wanted Canada to be in a position, if fusion technology became a viable option, where we would have enough knowledge and enough capability to go our own way, Stasko said. It was a laudable goal, but we quickly realized what we had to do, vis-ê-vis the small budget we have versus the billions that are spent internationally, was target the niche opportunities. They related to tritium technology, the fueling cycle and remote handling because of both what happens in our nuclear plants in terms of power refueling and in respect to Spar Aerospace and the experience they have in remote handling. Canadian experience with safety and licencing was seen as an asset because of our experience with tritium technology and handling. We parlayed these things into what became, in fact, a small but significant component of the international program.
Location: Canada
Since ITERs inception in 1988, the Canadian participants have seen this country as the ideal host
for the reactor.
The host is expected to put in a disproportionate share of the cost, Stasko said. But, with Canada being a small country, this wouldnt necessarily be the same case.
Canadas contribution is about two per cent of the total project cost. Because Canada is such a small country, Stasko reasons that it should not be expected to contribute a larger amount. And, if the reactor was to be built here, it would represent a significant savings over other sites thereby reducing the need for a larger Canadian investment.
Its cheaper for everyone to put it in Canada, he said. Thats the hinge-pin of our proposal.
Existing infrastructure, the high productivity of our labor force, the low dollar and Canadas international image are all seen as positives.
Its got be near a major city, James said. It will need highly qualified, professional people.
The Canadian Siting Board is suggesting both the Bruce and Darlington nuclear plants would be ideal locations due to their proximity to Toronto. Pickering is not being considered due to a lack of available land space around the facility.
Both sites feature access to water for cooling. Access for ocean-going vessels will also be necessary for some of the large components of the reactor.
And, theres an enormous advantage in having land that is already cleared and already available, James said.
Both these sites also share in the advantage that they have already been approved from an environmental and geological/seismic standpoint. They are both licenced for nuclear generation activities.
James said this easy access to approved lands should help Canadas efforts to locate the reactor here. Because it is an experimental machine, and will only be active for short times, it doesnt make sense to spend a great deal of money on locating, testing and getting site approvals .
And it has major electrical energy requirements, he said. It has a standby requirement of probably 150 to 200 MW and it has a peaking requirement of 600 MW on top of that. You need a very strong grid to provide that without causing serious frequency fluctuations.
With Ontario Hydros grid able to withstand such demand, James believes Canada should, again, seem a logical choice.
Other countries may have to create a major energy storage scheme or dedicated generators either of which would add to the projects cost.
Another, and perhaps the most major, factor in Canadas bid is the availability of tritium; Ontario Hydro has the worlds largest non-military supply.
The current world-wide demand results in Ontario Hydro being able to sell a few per cent of its production capacity, James said. ITER would require essentially the whole supply, and theres no other nation that has the level of civilian tritium that they require.
The U.S., which has a large military cache, wont make tritium available for civilian uses. As it decays with age, a constant supply is kept in store for its weapons programs.
The Russians have also said they are not prepared to make tritium available from their weapons programs, James said.
Tritium transportation costs would be high if ITER was built elsewhere, and these movements could be subject to political whims crossing through areas that are opposed to nuclear power, James added.
Uncertain Future
There is no commitment at this stage that ITER will be built, James added. Its not as though all parties are obliged to contribute to the construction costs, so a siting decision and a decision to construct are tightly interwoven. Therefore, it wont come down to a situation where one country can be outvoted. It is a question of which is a consensus; it has to be a decision they can all live with.
The original concept was to have the four member countries contribute 25 per cent of the costs. But, with budgetary problems in the U.S. and political realignment in Russia, they will not likely be able to contribute their full shares. That will leave the European Union and Japan as major contributors. Should either of these factions pull out of the project, it is likely doomed.
Its essential that these two countries are comfortable with the siting decision, James said.
Should ITER locate in Canada, it would mean work during the construction period for an average of 3,000 people for 10 years (possibly from 1998 to 2008). Once in operation, expected to last until 2028, it would create about 1,000 high-technology jobs and an additional 1,000 support service jobs. It will also host an additional 600 foreign workers during its 30-year life.
Although the total cost of the project will probably be about $10 billion, not all of this money will be spent in Canada.
There will be an agreement as to what high-tech equipment the parties will contribute, James said.
Large components of the reactor will be built in partner countries and then shipped to Canada
But there will still, clearly, be a lot of money spent in the host country.
Construction costs will be about $2.4 billion. Its estimated the countrys gross domestic product tally could be boosted by more than $11 billion if ITER is located here.
Were not in the position of building a factory and that there are no returns until the factory is finally in production, James said. Essentially, from day one there will be a net financial benefit for both the provincial and federal governments.
Canadian Siting Board
The Canadian ITER Siting Board is made up of representatives from a wide variety of organizations including Ontario Hydro,Canadian Manufacturers Association, Canadian Federation of Labor, Electro-Federation Canada, University of Toronto and the involved municipalities and regions.
The board has identified the benefits of having the project in the country and is now asking for endorsements from the provincial and federal governments.
Of concern, is funding cuts to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) and a complete cut of federal money for fusion. A reduction in funding could have a two-pronged effect. There will be fewer research programs to produce the kind of workers ITER would need, and it could be seen internationally as a lack of support from the federal government on behalf of its nuclear projects.
All government programs have been reviewed with the intent of cutting them back for deficit reduction purposes, Stasko said. In the science and technology areas, in spite of government protestation that more money had to go into research and development and those high-tech jobs were all aspiring to, they cut back tremendously.
Physics programs have been reduced significantly, Stasko said. The only physics R&D work, funded by the feds through AECL, will now be tied to the sale of CANDU reactors.
They basically zeroed our budget for future R&D as of March next year, Stasko said. This was all done without a real assessment of what that would do to any possibility of us putting a credible proposal together for ITER.
During the last few years about 75 per cent of the fusion R&D work being done by the CFFTP in this country centred on ITER. Funding was believed to be secure until, at least, the end of the design phase, but recent cuts have indicated otherwise.
Its not a science program where people are doing very advanced R&D that doesnt have an immediate application, Stasko said. In an area like fueling technologies, if our program does not deliver it will set back the whole (ITER) project schedule.
Stasko said the billions of dollars of capital investment, should ITER be built here, would more than pay for the about $3 million the government had annually invested in ITER-related research.
It comes back to credibility, good faith and the question of whether you are a reliable partner, James said.
Stasko predicts that as the benefits of the ITER project become better known in political circles, some level of funding will be restored.
A sad legacy for Canadian fusion research would be to see the Canadian model adapted by other countries as it is cast aside here, Stasko said.
Countries like Korea have modeled their recently announced $300 million fusion program after Canada, because the international community was saying Canada has the best small program of any country based on what they get for what they put in.
Worst of all would be Canadas exclusion from a world-wide first. Because everyones ci-vilian fission program developed out of weap-ons work, it was initially very secretive, Stasko said. Part of the deal with ITER is to share information with the partners.
James said some of the countries have struggled to make good on their commitments because they believe in the moral imperative of living up to their part of the project.
One of the things people keep saying is that this is such a good precedent for international projects, it better work, Stasko said. If it doesnt, they may say theres no point in trying this type of international technology co-operation again.