Management Information Services, Inc., USA
* Corresponding author
Management Information Services, Inc., USA

Article Main Content

One of the U.S. Electric Power Research Institute’s criteria for practical fusion power is public acceptance. In this analysis we consider the potential public acceptance of ITER-tokamak fusion power. Because ITER-like reactors are not likely to be commercially ready before mid-century, a forecast of public acceptance is very difficult. We break “the public” down into four entities: 1) Rank and file consumers, 2) Governments [local, state, & federal including regulators], 3) NGOs including environmental groups, and 4) Electric utilities. We assert that ITER-tokamaks will be evaluated in the context of fission power because both are nuclear processes. We observe that ITER-tokamak fusion will present radioactive hazards and be extremely expensive. Three possible futures for fission nuclear mid-century are: 1) full acceptance, 2) middling acceptance, and 3) rejection. If fission power is accepted mid-century, then ITER-tokamak fusion stands the best chance of being publicly acceptable, its largest drawback being very high cost. If fission power is of middling acceptance, then ITER-tokamak fusion might be marginally more acceptable because of its much shorter life radioactive waste. If fission power is unacceptable, then ITER-tokamak fusion acceptance will be very difficult.

 

References

  1. J. Kaslow, M. Brown, R. Hirsch, J. McCann, D. McCloud, B. Muston, and B. Snow, “Criteria for practical fusion power systems: Report from the EPRI fusion panel,” Journal of Fusion Energy 13(2), 181-183, 1994.
     Google Scholar
  2. www.iter.org.
     Google Scholar
  3. M. Barbarino, “Charting the International Roadmap to a Demonstration Fusion Power Plant,” IAEA May 11, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  4. www.iter.org/mach/safety.
     Google Scholar
  5. “A Sustainable Energy World Without Nuclear Power,” Climate Action Network March 30, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  6. “Environmental Defense Fund (EDF),” Env. Progress September 12, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  7. “Nuclear energy: our position,” Friends of the Earth 27 November 2017.
     Google Scholar
  8. Green Party U.S. Ecological Sustainability. https://www.gp.org/ecological_sustainability_2016.
     Google Scholar
  9. Nuclear Energy. Greenpeace. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/nuclear/.
     Google Scholar
  10. “Nuclear Power 101,” NRDC May 14, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  11. “Nuclear Power,” Sierra Club November 15, 1986.
     Google Scholar
  12. The Energy Report. 100% Renewable Energy by 2050. https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/384/files/original/The_Energy_Report.pdf?1345748859.
     Google Scholar
  13. “The Science of Sustainability,” The Nature Conservancy October 14, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  14. A. Harder, “Environmental Groups Chang Tune on Nuclear Power,” WSJ Jun 16, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  15. A. S. Bisconti, “Public opinion on nuclear energy: what influences it,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2016.
     Google Scholar
  16. R. Riffkin, “For first time, majority in US oppose nuclear energy,” 2016. Retrieved from Gallup: http://www. gallup. com/poll/190064/first-time-majority-oppose-nuclear-energy. aspx.
     Google Scholar
  17. J. Bowden, “Americans evenly split on nuclear power: poll,” The Hill March 27, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  18. Informed Public Attitudes towards Fusion Energy in Europe. Eurofusion April 2019.
     Google Scholar
  19. D. Wojick, “Dominion Energy proposes 40% rate hike in Virginia to pay for “net zero carbon.” Cost/ CFACT.ORG May 23, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  20. Management Information Services, Inc. and Leonardo Technologies Inc., “Economic Impact Assessment of CCUS Retrofit of the Comanche Generating Station,” prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Energy Technology Laboratory, June 2019.
     Google Scholar
  21. G. L. Kulcinski and R. W. Conn, “The Conceptual Design of a Tokamak Power Reactor,” UWMAK-I. UWFDM-90. April 1974.
     Google Scholar
  22. F. Najmabadi. “ARIES-AT: An Advanced Tokamak, Advanced Technology Fusion Power Plant,” Fusion Engineering and Design 80, 3–23, 2006.
     Google Scholar
  23. D. Maisonnier, D. Campbell, I. Cook, L. Di Pace, L. Giancarli, J. Hayward, A. Li Puma, M. Medrano, P. Norajitra and M. Roccella, “Power plant conceptual studies in Europe,” Nuclear Fusion 47, 1524–1532, 2007.
     Google Scholar
  24. L. J. Perkins, “Fusion - The Competition and the Need for Advanced Concepts,” LLNL September 22, 1993 & March 30, 1994.
     Google Scholar
  25. B. Bigot, “ITER, An Update on Project Progress,” Fusion Power Associates Annual Meeting, December 7, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  26. Fusion Energy - Actions Needed to Finalize Cost and Schedule Estimates for U.S. Contributions to an International Experimental Reactor. GAO-14-499. June 2014.
     Google Scholar
  27. D. L. Jassby. “Fusion Reactors Share Seven Drawbacks of Fission Reactors,” Physics and Society October 2016.
     Google Scholar
  28. R. L. Hirsch, G. L. Kulcinski, D. Chapin, and H. Diekamp, “Likely US Regulatory Considerations for DT Fusion Power Reactors,” Fusion Science and Technology, 76(5), 670-679, 2020.
     Google Scholar
  29. D. Schissel, B. Biewald. “Nuclear Power Construction Costs. Synapse Energy Economics,” EIA. Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants July 2008.
     Google Scholar
  30. W. Rod "Vogtle Cost Upgrade Causes Rethinking of $25B Nuclear Plant's Future," Power Engineering 16 August 2018.
     Google Scholar
  31. “Plant Investment for Nuclear Power Projects,” Atomic Energy Commission, Annual Financial Report, 1959.
     Google Scholar
  32. K. D. Nichols, “The Road to Trinity: A Personal Account of How America's Nuclear Policies Were Made,” New York: William Morrow and Company 1987.
     Google Scholar
  33. L. Irlam, “Global costs of carbon capture and storage,” Global CCS institute 2017.
     Google Scholar