Factors influencing the commercialization of inertial fusion energy

Abstract

Managing the IFE pathway to fusion electricity will involve management of commericalization scope, schedule, cost and risk. The technology pathway to economical fusion power comprises the commercialization scope. Industry assumes commercialization risk in fielding its own pre-pilot plant research programme for this compact-fusion pathway without the benefit of a federally coordinated IFE research and development programme. The cost of commercializing the mass-production of inexpensive targets and insisting on high reliability, availability, maintainability and inspectability has a major impact on the economics of commercializing fusion power plants. Schedule vulnerability for inertial fusion energy arises from the sensitivity of time-based roadmap stages to uncertainties in the pace of scientific understanding and technology development, as well as to unexpected and inexplicable changes of the budgeting process. Rather than rely on a time-based roadmap, a milestone-based roadmap is maximally appropriate, especially for industry and investors who are particularly well-suited to taking the risks associated with reaching the target milestones provided by the government. Milestones must be identified and optimally sequenced and the necessary resources must be delineated. Progress on the above factors, since the outcomes of recent U.S., U.K. and EUROfusion roadmapping exercises were released, are reported.

This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘Prospects for high gain inertial fusion energy (part 2)’.

1. Commercialization project-management perspectives

The scope of commercializing inertial fusion energy (IFE) is defined by the technology pathway to economical fusion power. The series pathway follows the technical feasibility steps of realizing ignition, reproducible modest gain, reactor-scale gain, reactor-scale gain with a cost-effective target, reactor-scale gain with the required repetition rate and reactor-scale gain with the required repetition rate with low debris exhaust in a physical building [1]. In parallel should be addressed the financial viability-specific steps of driver cost-effectiveness, repetition rate flexibility, rapid component replaceability, marketability and economic competitiveness. Augmenting innovation with a comprehensive, systems engineering approach to assess performance is an important factor in fulfilling commercialization scope.

The schedule of commercializing IFE is strongly coupled to the pace of the necessary research and development (R&D) and to the envisioned temporal R&D budget-expenditure profile. Schedule uncertainty is correlated with R&D-pace sensitivity of roadmap-calibrated advancement and to the dynamics of budget-profile modifications. Uncertainties, systematic delays and unexpected disasters in R&D pace reduce prospects for beneficial catalysis of sponsor support and positive perception of societal impact. Industry recruitment success is contingent on industry-partnering advocates convincing the company's development strategists to re-allocate resources in a timely fashion for developing the commercialization ideas and for recruiting academic collaborators to the joint effort [2].

The mass-production of inexpensive targets for IFE systems and insisting on high reliability, availability, maintainability and inspectability (RAMI) are what factor predominantly into the cost of commercializing IFE. Competing in future markets will depend on the cost of electricity and on construction (capital) costs primarily consisting of fusion-specific components (e.g. drivers, chambers, and target fabrication and injection) and balance of plant. Progress on confronting these factors can be managed by establishing a sub-ignition test facility for developing IFE technologies, such as target deployment, in-vessel robotics and operational feedback and control, and by incorporating lessons learned from fusion reactor studies carried out by the magnetic fusion energy (MFE) programme. Levering the engineering and economics prepared for the MFE materials and technology development programme offers obvious value for managing commercialization costs for IFE. The UK should implement a fusion (MFE/IFE) materials science, engineering and technology programme in the near term, discussing opportunities with international partners [3].

The risk of commercializing IFE is very different for an industry-fielded pilot plant programme with and without a federal full-spectrum IFE R&D programme. The two scenarios are distinguished by the confidence in the complex technology in the former case versus the delays and development obstacles in the latter case, which is prone to degrade investor and guarantor psychology. Moreover, financing and business considerations can vary, based on confidence investors have in the readiness and cost-effectiveness of the technology and the extent to which the investment and intellectual property are protected. Beyond the benefits of the existence of a federal IFE R&D programme, the accompanying confidence for the stakeholders, and having passionate champions for inspiration, the benefits of capital from outside the company is significant because recruiting experts and securing hardware are essential for the team to move from prototype to bulk production. Some companies choose to concentrate exclusively on minimizing capital costs in planning for bulk production and in establishing a competitive edge.

Fusion technology leads to spin-offs, as reported in EUROfusion's ‘Fusion Spin-offs' [4] and the US Department of Energy (DOE) Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee's ‘Scientific Discoveries and New Technologies Beyond Fusion' [5]. Spin-off commercialization of IFE development promises a degree of profitability that is anticipated to attract an important base of private partners from new and legacy companies. UK industry has significant expertise in laser construction. Were a next-step IFE facility to be constructed, opportunities for the industry include conventional facility construction (specific to high-energy lasers), integrated computer and control systems, laser technologies and large-scale integrated laser systems, optics technologies, diagnostics and high-speed photonics, remote-handling technologies, tritium handling, tritium-breeding blanket design, power conversion technologies, and target fabrication, injection and handling [6].

2. Road-mapping partnership strategy

Industry is often forced to innovate to cope with the requirements of state-of-the-art research equipment. This push for innovation in the industry has the beneficial effect that the involved companies attain a better competitive position and an increase of their total revenue in related markets. Rather than rely on a time-based roadmap for IFE, with its schedule, cost and risk management challenges, a milestone-based roadmap is more appropriate because industry and investors are well-suited to the government providing the aspirational milestones and industry taking the risks to get there. In that style of collaboration, the government certifies that the industry has met the pre-approved milestone and the investor risk decreases. This is the approach that succeeded with the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services programme in developing a commercial space industry (SpaceX, etc). The IFE roadmap milestones [1] of ignition, definition of a cost-effective driver, target fabrication and positioning, flexible repetition rate, rapid component replacement, low debris exhaust, fusion materials development, plasma-facing components, tritium breeding, tritium fuel cycle, remote handling, and fusion safety analysis tools should first be identified in a comprehensive list. Afterwards, fusion power plant (FPP) costing studies and conceptual design can be performed, ensuring a roadmap-specific pathway to incorporate innovations in science and engineering. Through cooperative partnerships, modelling and costing tools should be made available to private industry.

A roadmap milestones sequence should be optimized for reaching the goal of an FPP. A reactor study [7–9] could be created to define general characteristics of demonstration FPP and the mission structure would ideally be similar to other (EU, UK, USA) fusion roadmaps. Striving for quantitative milestones and metrics as mileage markers, using quantitative dimensional and dimensionless figures-of-merit and gauging technical readiness levels (TRL), the logic framework for mission milestones and decision points can be outlined. Within this framework, facilities that are needed to achieve mission milestones can be prioritized. Compelling near-term deliverables can become the objectives, rather than focusing on detailed cost estimates, for catalysing later-step funding.

The scope of each item in the milestone sequence can be customized for a specific roadmap role. For example, developing 5 min rep-rate laser serves to increase shot statistics in laser-related HED science and applications and to advance proof-of-principle technology for an IFE demonstration facility. Existing large facilities associated with multiple driver options, with or without major upgrades, can be levered at a fraction of full time to demonstrate a pathway to ignition for at least one driver. TRL assessments could avoid cost overruns commonly causing the breakdown of large, multi-owner projects.

Milestone-specific resources for an IFE power system, examples of which are listed next, should be delineated. Government/industry partnerships should play a synergistic role. Theory-based modelling should be employed to predict plasma, materials, and component performance and optimization. Economic analyses should be an integral part of programme planning. A systems engineering approach should be adopted to assess performance and to guide the allocation of R&D funds. A factor that influences the scale of resources is that capital cost should be minimized, even if this means tolerating some increase in the resulting cost of electricity. Along the same lines, higher operating cost might be acceptable if the capital cost is reduced by innovating toward a smaller fusion module. Further innovation can lead to a smaller fusion module, even at higher specific capital cost per megawatt (electric).

There are two major organizations responsible for the European MFE fusion programme: fusion for energy (F4E) which is responsible for the European contribution to ITER construction and other major projects, and EUROfusion which is responsible for the accompanying R&D programme. As the UK and European IFE roadmaps will likely be managed within this structure of fusion research and roadmaps (Roadmap Reference), so too can the roadmap for commercializing IFE.

Junior scientists and engineers, recruited as a part of a human-capital strategy to avoid vulnerability to the long-term vitality of IFE R&D and science and technology (S&T) efforts, will become recipients of invaluable academic, national laboratory and corporate memory transferred from experts and professional leaders. To adequately represent and sustain commercial interests in the worldwide science and technology (S&T) enterprise, there must be a sufficiently large peer community of active S&T explorers and innovators who participate collectively within and throughout the global network [10].

Although planning exercises have taken place, the U.S. does not manage an IFE development program, a decision that was reinforced after 2012 by the National Ignition Campaign, Individual U.S. national laboratories, on the other hand, have invested in IFE research LLNL's LIFE power plant (Laser Inertial Fusion Energy) design uses diode-pumped, solid-state laser technology. Availability and maintainability are emphasized by using Line Replaceable Units which avoids a reliance on advanced materials development. The LIFE objective [11] is to ‘demonstrate the feasibility of a closed fusion fuel cycle, including tritium breeding, extraction, processing, refuelling, accountability and safety in a steady-state power-producing device.’ The LIFE program lasted from 2008 until 2013. Seventeen institutional partners comprised the European Union's High Power Laser Energy Research (HiPER) project [12] aimed at significant energy production. The design, not as complete as the LIFE design, used diode-pumped, solid-state lasers as well and the project existed for the same 2008–2013 period, funded by the EU 7th Framework Programme. France's Laser MegaJoule (LMJ), which has a mission similar to the NIF (National Ignition Facility) mission in the US, which is not about developing a FPP, resembles some parts of the NIF and some parts of HiPER. France's Laser MegaJoule facility began inertial fusion energy experiments in 2015; the NIF in 2009. China's Shenguang-III (SGIII) prototype laser facility (lamp-pumped) is operating at present, with SGIV ignition facility (diode-pumped, solid-state lasers) planned for the near future [13,14].

3. Transition from DEMO to commercially affordable reactors

Planning for a demonstration IFE FPP (referred to as DEMO) is built upon the priority research directions (PRD) of driver-target coupling, target preconditioning, implosion hydrodynamics, stagnation and burn physics, intrinsic and transport properties, and measurement, modelling, validation, and approximation [15]. After such key physics and engineering aspects are demonstrated, research into new target fabrication techniques, such as additional manufacturing, will be instrumental in the transition to commercially affordable FPP, as all concepts in IFE are tied to the quality, quantity and cost of targets. Theory, modelling and simulation form a cross-cutting role, with integrated experiment campaigns, before and during DEMO, at the top of the pyramid. A rate-limiting factor in the planning is that no single administrative home responsible for IFE R&D exists within the DOE.

Market structure and dynamics vary widely across, and often within, national borders and influence economics. Industry recruitment will be essential for a science, technology, innovation and industry basis for the transition from DEMO to affordable commercially devices. The European research roadmap to the realization of fusion energy suggests that the DEMO step toward deploying commercially at large scale should generate hundreds of MW of electricity for several hours at a time, operate with a closed fuel cycle and incorporate features extrapolatable to early commercial power plant [4].

Barriers (e.g. complexity of the technology) and drivers (e.g. availability of complementary resources) exist for technology commercialization by small and medium enterprises (SME) [16]. Although UK companies are benefiting from contracts placed by the ITER Organization and F4E (Fusion for Energy), barriers to industry involvement in ITER include a lack of awareness of SME opportunities within ITER, the EU approach to Intellectual Property Rights may discourage business (common to MCF and ICF), and UK companies' R&D budgets are not focussed on the long-term returns (common to MCF and ICF) [17]. Lack of an agreed IFE roadmap represents a barrier to industry involvement. In ‘ITER: Direct benefits for industry, laboratories and SMEs,' [18] companies share the experience of challenging requirements. A detailed technical review of proposed inertial fusion power production timelines should be undertaken before and a few years after the start of a program dedicated to IFE development. SME interest in forming bid consortia for a demonstration IFE FPP and establishing the requisite supply chains is increasing successful relationships with the broader prospective portfolio of ‘big science' clients.

Industry interest beyond the near (2030) and medium (2050) future will move from R&D and construction of next-step facilities toward a DEMO device. However, outside the fusion community, fusion does not currently appear in any generally accepted energy system scenarios for 2050. Should IFE develop successfully, it could represent a highly attractive alternative to other major base-load electricity generation technologies after 2050. Unfortunately, private companies have had little or no involvement in fusion due to the long timescales to, and uncertainty over, the eventual commercial viability. There is no imperative for them to be involved at present. Likewise, there is negligible risk associated with them being excluded from future commercialization participation if they are not involved at present. Should fusion be demonstrated to have potential commercial viability, it is probable that only large, financially robust companies could effectively undertake the development and supply of commercial reactors, a factor that would limit industrial recruitment. The fusion industry association was launched in 2018 to advocate for policies (private–public partnership, financial support and regulatory oversight) to accelerate the arrival of fusion power, with the intention of increasing private company involvement in fusion.

Intermediate term work toward a FPP will likely require a suite of small facilities to develop and test equipment for remote sensing and component handling and provide a basis for addressing licensing and regulatory issues, required when a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license is pursued for IFE. Due to the high cost of the equipment for RAMI and huge impact of any realized short-comings in performance, full-scale demonstrations of the equipment in a major facility will be needed to inform the decision to build the FPP. Developing the architecture and software for an overall plant control system is a critical area for plant safety. Developing an integrated fusion power plant design having high gain, an efficient driver, and inexpensive targets enables simulated performance to be assessed using a model-based systems engineering (MBSE) approach for predictive engineering (production complexity with model-centric, engineering methodology).

Building industry partnerships to advance fusion development and reinforce the dialogue is a necessary step toward establishing the fusion energy economy that will support the needed technology transfer and a massive global deployment from the status quo. Coupling government and industry efforts adds urgency and alignment with future markets, introduces greater risks and drives commercial solutions. A credible approach to IFE requires an integrated design with high gain, an efficient driver and inexpensive targets. To address conditions relevant to a pilot plant, it will also require a better understanding of beam propagation and target injection in environments that are hostile. Strategic priorities for accelerating fusion energy development and transiting from prototype to FPP have been promoted by Fusion Industry Association as partnering with governments, building a fusion movement and ensuring regulatory certainty [19]. In 2019, the U.S. initiated incentive funding for private–public partnerships for overcoming challenges in fusion energy development and, in 2020, the U.S. Congress enacted budget increases of several per cent to the programs carried out at inertial confinement fusion mission national laboratories.

Data accessibility

This article has no additional data.

Competing interests

We declare We have no competing interests.

Funding

This study was supported by Office of Defense Programs.