Fusion Energy Assessment – Status Report

1. Fusion Energy Assessment – Status Report Tom Mulford John Sheffield Fusion Power Associates Annual Meeting Washington, D.C. December 15, 2011.

2. Objectives/Approach-Fusion Energy Assessment (FEA) • To better understand the potential for fusion power to produce commercial electricity • Utilize existing public information to select a target number of six to seven fusion initiatives for evaluation • For each of the selected fusion power initiatives, provide a timeline to achieve an electric power production facility and identify the major obstacles/challenges to overcome to achieve that goal

3. Industry Executive Oversight CommitteeChampioned the FEA • Mike Wallace, Chairman (Constellation*) • Ashok Bhatnagar (TVA) • Don Brandt (Pinnacle West) • Dave Christian (Dominion) • Joe Donahue (Progress Energy) • Steve Kuczynski (Southern Company) • Rick Kuester (We Energies) * When FEA began

4. Advisory CommitteeCoordinated the FEA • Tom Christopher (NPPA Consulting) • Gene Grecheck (Dominion) • Andrew Kadak (Exponent) • Tom J. Mulford, (EPRI)

5. Technical Assessment CommitteeProvide Fusion Expertise • Albert J. Machiels (EPRI) • Martin Greenwald (MIT) • Hermann Grunder (Director Emeritus ANL) • Stan L. Milora (ORNL) • John Sheffield (University of Tennessee) • John Soures (LLE-Rochester)

6. Required Input from Participants Invited participants were asked to address the following key elements in their three hour FEA presentations • Conceptual design of electric plant • Technology readiness level • Research needs, schedule, cost and potential funding sources • Plan for resolving technical challenges including component testing • Overall schedule including the need for prototype, a demonstration plant and first commercial plant. • Best estimate and basis for the cost of power

7. Additional Information Requested – If Available • What are the expected power plant parameters, including estimated COE (give details of the costing assumptions), and how long will it take to construct the plant? • What is the product, electricity, hydrogen, support of fission…? • What is the expected plant availability (capacity factor). The basis for this estimate: scheduled operational time for each component, and its expected replacement time? How is unavailability assigned, the mean time to failure, the meantime to repair or replace for each component? What is presently unknown and how will you obtain the data required to confirm the assumptions? • What is the basis for component cost estimates and how will you confirm these estimates? • What is the physics basis? What is known and what is yet to be confirmed, and how will you confirm it? • What materials will you use and from where do you expect to obtain the data base for performance at the expected heat, plasma, and neutron fluxes and fluences—steady state or repetitively pulsed as appropriate? • How long is the expected development path? • What characteristics make this approach the best (one of the best) to achieving commercial fusion energy? • If you were a critic, what would you criticize?

8. Participating Fusion Technologies • MFE: From Physics to DEMO. Advanced Tokamaks and STs Provide Support for a Fusion Nuclear Science Facility and a Fusion-Fission Hybrid – Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory • Fusion-Fission Hybrids Based on STs – University of Texas • Magnetized Target Fusion. Compress Compact Torus with Thick Liquid Metal Liner - General Fusion (Canada) • LIFE– a DPSSL, Indirect Drive Based Approach to IFE – Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

9. Participating Fusion Technologies • A KrF Laser, Direct Drive Approach to IFE – Naval Research Laboratory • A Pulsed Field Reversed Configuration Fusion Reactor – Helion, Inc. • A Fusion-Fission Hybrid Based Upon an Advanced Tokamak - Georgia Institute of Technology

10. Current TAC Focus and Activity Preparing input on the scientific and technological status and risks associated with each technology, including: • the estimated cost and timescale to plant operations • the maturity of the economic evaluations • the level of detail and rigor in the power plant delivery plans • the investments made to date • considerations of likely licensing pathways • the industrial readiness of the technologies • the integration maturity of the proposed designs with regard to power plant operations and maintenance • the level of engagement by each project with regard to requirements from the end-user (utility and vendor) community

11. General TAC Conclusions (to date) Collectively the groups made a compelling argument that fusion energy can be made practical in one or more ways. They provided a good sense of the challenges ahead and of the R&D required to overcome those challenges. Each proposed a timeline for fusion development, though under different assumptions of risk and resources. There are broad difference in the level of maturity for the physics and technology that underlie the different approaches; however, there are also a large number of cross-cutting issues evident. Notable perhaps are needs in: • Safety and licensing • Materials • Tritium fuel-cycle • Remote handling Work in these areas would generally benefit all concepts

12. Going Forward • Complete TAC input on the scientific and technological status and risks associated with each technology – January 2012 • Prepare a draft report that documents the elements and conclusions of the FEA – April 2012 • Review draft report content with EOC and obtain input on continuing activities to develop a strategic plan (or roadmap) for commercialization of fusion energy for power production using one or more of the selected fusion technologies as input – May 2012 • Finalize and publish final report on the FEA activities and recommendations – June 2012

13. Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity