Suzanne Elston
Straight Goods
May 1, 2000

Taxpayer-funded bid for proposed $12 billion fusion reactor project re-ignites nuclear controversy

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project – or ITER for short – may soon be coming to a neighbourhood near you. The $12 billion project (down from the original $20 billion estimate) is an international plan to build the world’s first fusion reactor. The ITER (pronounced ‘eater’) partners – Russia, Japan, the United States and Europe – first agreed to undertake the project following a Geneva summit in 1985/86. Canada has been a member of the European party since the beginning.
When the U.S. withdrew from the project in 1998, critics hoped that it would collapse, but instead the three remaining partners renewed their commitment to proceed. The U.S. has made it clear that if progress were made in making site and construction decisions, it would consider re-joining the project.

The cost for all this prosperity is babysitting the massive, discarded radioactive hull of ITER for a hundred or more years after the project ends

Three countries – Canada, Italy and Japan – are currently expressing an interest in hosting the massive project that will cost $6 billion to build over an eight-year period. The remaining $6 billion will be for operational costs during ITER’s projected 20 year life span.
Canada has a very good chance of being selected as the host country. The Darlington and Bruce nuclear generating stations are the two Canadian sites being considered. The preferred Canadian site will be named in May, and Canada will submit its bid to the ITER council in April 2001; it’s expected that a final decision will be made in July 2002 at the G8 meeting. Canada’s bid is being supported by matching million dollar grants from both the federal government and province of Ontario, per year, for a three-year period.
Supporters of the ITER project see this as a bonus for Canada. Dr. Peter Barnard is chairman and CEO of ITER Canada. "From Canada’s point of view, this is an opportunity to be the host of the world’s largest research facility", said Dr. Barnard. "This will mean a brain gain – not brain drain. In addition to attracting the world’s top scientists, ITER will allow us to keep some of the best and brightest minds in Canada."

Dr. Barnard also believes the chosen host community will benefit. The project will generate 3,000 long-term construction jobs as well as 300 to 400 engineering and technical jobs once the project is operational. It is expected that 200 to 300 international scientists would also join the project, bringing both prestige and influence to the host community. The cost for all this prosperity is babysitting the massive, discarded radioactive hull of ITER for a hundred or more years after the project ends.
The impetus behind ITER is clearly coming from those with a vested political interest. It’s supported by both the federal and Ontario provincial governments and in October, Canada will be hosting the international ITER Council.
Members of ITER’s board of directors include Clarington Mayor Diane Hamre and Milton McIver from Bruce County, Power Workers’ Union president John Murphy and Pierre Charlebois from Ontario Power Generation (OPG). Both the Power Workers and OPG see ITER as an incredible opportunity to breathe some new life into Canada’s failing nuclear program. Locating ITER at Bruce would provide new jobs for workers displaced by nuclear shutdowns. If the Darlington site is selected, OPG could sell off its high priced stockpile of tritium (ITER’s primary fuel) at $35 million per kilogram. At either location, OPG will be the default supplier for ITER’s massive power needs.
The big question is whether ITER represents the way of the future, or yet another nuclear boondoggle. Critics are quick to point out that there is a serious credibility gap here. When nuclear power was first introduced, it promised to provide electricity, "too cheap to meter." Darlington’s initial $3.5 billion price tag ballooned to over $14 billion by the time it was completed. It’s important to clarify who would be responsible for similar cost overruns on ITER.
 
"When you make a commitment to build something of this size, something else doesn’t get done. We have to ask ourselves what we would be missing if we were to pursue the ITER option." – energy economist David Argue

Dr. Barnard notes that fusion is quite a different technology than fission. Rather than splitting atoms to create energy, fusion smacks them together at tremendous speeds. While radioactive tritium is the breeder (or starter) fuel for the reactor, according to fusion theory, once a reaction is achieved it should only require lithium and hydrogen to sustain it.
"In theory this is an energy source that many people see as the long-term energy solution for the world", said Dr. Barnard.
Energy economist David Argue disagrees. "Politically, ITER’s being sold as the next great simple solution", said Argue. "Concentrating on big energy projects flies in the face of everything we learned over the last 30 years. We have to face our energy problems in a multi-faceted way."
"$12 billion sure could do a lot for energy efficiency and conservation – and we already know that these things work," said Argue, "When you make a commitment to build something of this size, something else doesn’t get done. We have to ask ourselves what we would be missing if we were to pursue the ITER option."
Dr. Barnard agrees with Argue’s position on renewables. "We should be investing in energy efficiency and renewables as well", he said. But he also believes that potential long-term gains of ITER are worth the investment. "Fusion is perhaps the ultimately renewable source, but it’s a long way off."
A very long way indeed. The first fusion power station isn’t scheduled to be built until at least 2030. In the meantime, ITER won’t produce a single megawatt of usable electricity. Instead it is expected to use between 150 and 500 megawatts during test cycles. That’s a lot of juice.

Suzanne Elston is a syndicated newspaper columnist, radio commentator and motivational speaker, but considers being a parent her most important job. Her most recently published work is a contribution to Sweeping the Earth: Women Taking Action for a Healthy Planet. Along with her husband Brian and their three wonderful children, she lives in their the family’s 1827 farmhouse. Suzanne can be contacted at selston@tvo.org. Suzanne’s Straight Goods column appears bi-weekly.

Get More/Do More
ITER Canada’s website is at http://www.itercanada.com.

For information on the international ITER effort, check out http://www.iter.org.

The Energy Council of Canada (www.energy.ca) seeks to forge a better understanding of energy issues among the public and private sectors and the country at large, through discussion and exchange of information on all forms and aspects of energy.

http://www.jet.efda.org and http://www.fusion.org.uk – The Joint European Torus undertaking in England is the first fusion facility in the world to achieve significant production of controlled fusion power in 1991. JET is the world’s largest magnetic confinement fusion experiment, which aims at confirming the scientific theory of fusion and the scientific feasibility of nuclear fusion for power generation.

From the man who first coined the expression, "negawatt", there is another way. Check out Amory Lovins’ Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org) for really innovative ideas and great practical information on energy efficiency and sustainable use of resources as a path to global security

The World Energy Efficiency Association (www.weea.org) is a non-profit organization composed of developed and developing country institutions and individuals charged with increasing energy efficiency. WEEA’s mandate is to assist developing countries in accessing information on energy efficiency, serve as a clearinghouse for information on energy efficiency programs, technologies and measures, disseminate this information worldwide, and publicize international cooperation efforts in energy efficiency. Sounds like a plan to me.