ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Division Spotlight
Nuclear Installations Safety
Devoted specifically to the safety of nuclear installations and the health and safety of the public, this division seeks a better understanding of the role of safety in the design, construction and operation of nuclear installation facilities. The division also promotes engineering and scientific technology advancement associated with the safety of such facilities.
Meeting Spotlight
2027 ANS Winter Conference and Expo
October 31–November 4, 2027
Washington, DC|The Westin Washington, DC Downtown
Standards Program
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What’s New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
Latest Magazine Issues
Nov 2024
Jul 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
December 2024
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
November 2024
Latest News
Disney World should have gone nuclear
There is extra significance to the American Nuclear Society holding its annual meeting in Orlando, Florida, this past week. That’s because in 1967, the state of Florida passed a law allowing Disney World to build a nuclear power plant.
Robert T. Simmons, Walter B. Lindquist, Bruce Montgomery
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 30 | Number 3 | December 1996 | Pages 1271-1275
Steady-State and Long-Pulse Machine Studies | doi.org/10.13182/FST96-A11963123
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
In September, 1995, the Office of Fusion Energy commissioned a three month study to assess the recommendations made by President's Commission on the Advancement of Science and Technology (PCAST) for a reduced scope of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) mission. The PCAST suggested that a device, operating with a moderate pulse length and corresponding reduced mission for ignition and bum control, could be built at a significantly lower cost than the present ITER design. If such a machine were technically feasible and less expensive than ITER, PCAST reasoned that the U.S. could participate as a full partner in an international collaboration to build such a device.
The study's charter was to develop a design to meet the reduced mission and to compare its cost with ITER using “ITER Physics.” In addition, the study explored the cost and performance sensitivity to variations in design approach and physics performance. Finally, to better understand the cost of such a project in U.S. terms, the design example was also estimated in a U.S. Total Project Cost format.
This paper details the cost estimate approach in arriving at the cost of the PCAST machine. Since the project schedule or funding profile are yet to be established, the cost comparisons based on percentage basis to ITER were more appropriate than absolute dollar comparisons. In addition, the costs of this device were also compared to the Burning Plasma Experiment (BPX) - a short pulse ignition device designed in the early 1990's, and the Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX) - a long pulse, advanced tokamak canceled recently by the Department of Energy (DOE) due to Congressional budget constraints. Comparisons were limited to construction costs since agreements between potential international partners on the PCAST machine could significantly impact the treatment of engineering/physics, R&D, and other costs such as construction management, engineering support during construction, and commissioning costs.
The construction costs of the PCAST device were estimated to be approximately $2,600M. This is approximately 45% of the ITER construction costs, approximately 330% of the BPX estimate, and approximately 685% of the TPX estimate. Due to budget and time constraints, cost scaling was used versus performing a “bottoms up” estimate. This approach involves considerable uncertainty. Additionally, there was also a range of costs associated with future design development. Both considerations were clearly a factor in the PCAST machine where there was relatively little time for detailed evaluation, design development, or optimization. Given these uncertainties, we believe it is most appropriate to describe the construction estimate for the PCAST machine as approximately 50% of the cost of ITER, with a range of 40% to 60%.
Using the U.S. Total Project Cost methodology, the total cost of the PCAST machine was estimated to be approximately $5.8 billion in FY-95 dollars, including contingency allowances.