Episode 100 | Fusion Forum | NAYGN Conference (Live)
When I was first approached to hosted a panel for the North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NAYGN) last year (Episode 65), I recommended the conference have a fusion power panel. This year, not only did I host a fusion panel for NAYGN, the panel actually led off their virtual conference.
My panelists were among the most respected in the industry:
Fusion power, in its simplest terms, involves combining two atoms to create a heavier atom (i.e. helium), same as the reaction in stars. The two most common atoms are the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium (DT). A plasma is then created and typically confined with magnets. The most common fusion design is a donut-shaped tokamak.
My panelists' machines vary from this description in the following ways:
- CFS Energy—Combines the well-researched tokamak design with new state-of-the-art, high-temp ReBCO semiconductors
- General Fusion—Uses liquid metal and pistons to compress the plasma (Magnetized Target Fusion design), rather than a magnetic confinement
- ITER—The only non-private entity, instead a multinational, commercial-scale (500-MW) research project combining the most sound elements of the fusion power process
- TAE Technologies—The only non-DT process among the panelists (Hydrogen and Boron-11); also uses a cigar-shaped Field Reversed Configuration design instead of a tokamak.
I led off the panel with a lighter question—what comment to you get most tired of hearing at dinners with friends? Tyler pointed out the most common statement I hear from industry leaders, the technology is always 20 years away. He points out that about $2B in private capital has been raised by fusion companies, adding, "Private dollars don't get invested into things that are perpetually 40 years away."
Artem says he often has to ally safety fears, and untangle fusion with fission. "You cannot run any risk of any nuclear disaster," he says.
The biggest issue for my panelists, aside from material and technological issues, was the regulatory uncertainty. The last thing many fusion folks want is to be lumped in to the same category as nuclear fission. New nuclear plants, particularly the failed VC Summer expansion, fall under the stringent 10.CFR.52 regulations.
TAE believes they can sidestep most of these issues, because their process never involves tritium. Tyler believes the technologies that do involve tritium could be handled under the less stringent Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. "It really recognizes a lot of the key differences of fusion technology versus fission technology," he says, "given that there’s no source material, there’s no special nuclear material. These are really the key attributes that NRC looks at."
Kathryn believes the path to regulatory approval may not be so smooth. "I believe we in the fusion community underestimate the regulatory needs," she says. "In order to use something other than what the fusion reactors are using, you have to change regulations in the NRC."
Cappello adds, "We're all private companies, and we’re going to go where the market tell us to go and who’s willing to put up the money to build these machines. We hope it's North America but that’s yet to be seen depending on how predictable the regulatory regime is."
Most people may be surprised most developed are thinking smaller for a fusion machine. Whereas ITER is planning a 500-MW unit, the other developers believe a smaller 100-300 MW unit may be more ideal. Cappello even suggests unites could be stacked into a 6-pack configuration is utilities want a gigawatt-scale plant. Cappello also believes these units could be located very close to dense population centers.
Does a future with commercial fusion power still need renewable energy, nuclear fission, carbon capture? All agree these, particularly Gen 4 nuclear, will play a part together.
"I'm not sure about the coal plants, but certainly fission, renewables, and fusion together look like a good mix going into the future," says Artem.
Even if technological and regulatory hurdles can be overcome, the time line for global fusion deployment could still take well into this century. "It’ll be a 20-year “burn in” period," says Cappello, "where everyone’s working out the bugs and demonstrating reliability, availability, and maintainability of this new technology.”
Still, the near future is bright with opportunities for professionals who want to craft a future for generations to come. “The most successful people we’ve hired from TAE came not from the fusion field, they came from adjacent fields," says Artem. "They brought with them the broader perspectives on challenging engineering/physics tasks.”
"The thing is, fusion is hard. All of us have technology challenges that need to be solved and that’s why working together is very important," says Kathryn, addressing the young professionals at the virtual conference. "We need you!"
Useful Links: