High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

High-Temperature Superconductivity inPerspective

April 1990

OTA-E-440NTIS order #PB90-253790

Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, High-Temperature Superconductivity inPerspective, OTA-E-440 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1990).

*

For sale by the Superintendent of DocumentsU.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form can be found in the back of this report)

Outside Reviewers

Alastair AllcockBritish Embassy

Takashi AkutsuInternational Superconductivity Technology Center

Michel BadiaEmbassy of France

Ted BerlincourtDepartment of Defense

Larry BlowGeneral Dynamics

Ian CorbettRutherford Appleton Laboratory

Steinar DaleOak Ridge National Laboratory

Renee FordHarrison, NY

Frank FradinArgonne National Laboratory

Robert GottschallDepartment of Energy

Don GubserNaval Research Laboratory

Larry JohnsonArgonne National Laboratory

Robert KamperNational Institute of Standards and Technology

Kemeth KleinDepartment of Energy

Tetsuji KobayashiInternational Superconductivity Technology Center

David LarbalestierUniversity of Wisconsin

Ed MeadE.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.

Richard MorrisonNational Science Foundation

William OosterhuisNational Science Foundation

Claudio OrzalesiEmbassy of Italy

John RowellConductus, Inc.

Regine RoyEuropean CommissionWashington Delegation

Irene RudeEmbassy of the Federal Republic of Germany

Tom SchneiderElectric Power Research Institute

Mike SchuetteUniversity of South Carolina

Lyle SchwartzNational Institute of Standards and Technology

Eugene StarkLos Alamos National Laboratory

Susumu TajimaNikkei Superconductors

Kiyotaka UyedaSuper-GM

Harold WeinstockAir Force Office of Scientific Research

Greg YurekAmerican Superconductor Corp.

High-Temperature Superconductivity In PerspectiveProject Staff

Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director,OTA Energy, Materials, and International Security Division

Peter D. Blair, Energy and Materials Program Manager

Gregory Eyring, Project Director

Laurie Evans Gavrin, Analyst

Jane A. Alexander, Analyst

Administrative Staff

Lillian Q. Chapman Linda L. Lung Tina Brumfield

Contractors

Advanced Materials Technology Technology Management AssociatesLos Angeles, CA Chevy Chase, MD

Granville J. Smith, 11 TMAH ConsultantsSmith and Ross Associates Ridgefield, CTWashington, D.C.

Resource Management International, Inc.Reston, VA

High-Temperature Superconductivity AssessmentAdvisory Panel

Paul E. Gray, ChairmanPresident, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Sidney AlpertUniversity Patents, Inc.

Malcolm BeasleyStanford University

H. Kent BowenMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Uma ChowdhryDuPont Experimental Station

Duane CrumIsland Hill Research

Robert C. DynesAT&T Bell Laboratories

Simon FonerFrancis Bitter National Magnet Laboratory

Jeffrey FreyUniversity of Maryland

William J. GallagherInternational Business Machines Corp.

Eric GregoryIGC Advanced Superconductors, Inc.

William V. HassenzahlLawrence Berkeley Laboratory

Narain HingoraniElectric Power Research Institute

John K. HulmWestinghouse Electric Corp.

Henry KolmEML Research Inc.

William D. ManlyOak Ridge National Laboratory

George McKinneyAmerican Research and Development, Inc.

Michael M. TinkhamHarvard University

Richard WithersMIT Lincoln Laboratory

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel doesnot, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of itscontents.

iv

Foreword

This is the second of two OTA assessments on the subject of high-temperaturesuperconductivity (HTS). The first, Commercializing High-Temperature Superconductivity,was published in June, 1988. These assessments respond to requests from the StateCommittees on Governmental Affairs; Energy and Natural Resources; and CommerceScience, and Transportation; as well as the House Committee on Science, Space, andTechnology to analyze the opportunities presented by this exciting new technology and tooutline Federal policy objectives that are consistent with these opportunities.

This study is complementary to the earlier OTA report. Whereas CommercializingHigh-Temperature Superconductivity considered HTS as a specific case study in the contextof broader issues in U.S. industrial competitiveness and technology policy, the present workfocuses more on the technology itself and the spectrum of potential applications. A centerpieceof this work is an extensive OTA survey comparing industry investment in superconductivityR&D in the United States and Japan (see Chapter 6). In this regard, OTA gratefullyacknowledges the assistance of Japan’s International Superconductivity Technology Centerfor administering the survey in Japan, and of the National Science Foundation for help withthe survey design, distribution, and analysis in the United States.

As the title suggests, this study attempts to put HTS in perspective, both in terms ofcompeting technologies (e.g., the more mature low-temperature superconductors), and interms of the many technical and economic problems that must be overcome before HTS canbe widely used. Although it remains a promising field, the full potential of HTS will not beclear for another 10 to 20 years. Thus, HTS is a test case, not of the U.S. ability tocommercialize anew technology rapidly, but of its ability to look beyond the immediate futureand sustain a consistent R&D effort over the long term. As such, HTS poses a difficultchallenge to government policy makers and industry managers alike.

OTA appreciates the assistance provided by the contractors and Advisory Panel, aswell as the many reviewers whose comments helped to ensure the accuracy of this report.

Contents

Page

Chapter 1. Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 2. High-Temperature Superconductivity: A Progress Report.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chapter 3. Applications of Superconductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Chapter 4. The U.S. Response to High-Temperature Superconductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Chapter 5. High-Temperature Superconductivity Programs in Other Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Chapter 6. Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Effortsin the United States and Japan: An OTA Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Chapter 7. Policy Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

vii

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

CONTENTSPage

OUTLOOK FOR HIGH-TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3LESSONS FROM LTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4PROSPECTS FOR THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF HTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4THE FEDERAL RESPONSE TO HTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5THE U.S. COMPETITIVE POSITION IN SUPERCONDUCTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Low-Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6High-Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

OTA SURVEY RESULTS:U.S. AND JAPANESE INDUSTRYINVESTMENTS IN SUPERCONDUCTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... . . . 8Minor Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Issues That Bear Watching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Key Issues .. .. . .+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY IN A BROADER POLICY CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

FiguresPage

l-1. Superconducting Critical Transition Temperature v. Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3l-2. Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity Research Efforts in

the United States and Japan, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

TablesPage

l-1. Federal Funding for High-Temperature Superconductivity .. .. . .. .. ... ... .... 6l-2. Estimated National High-Temperature Superconductivity R&D Efforts

in Various Countries, 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6l-3. Superconductivity Policy Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Chapter 1

Executive Summary

Superconductors are materials that lose allresistance to the flow of electricity when cooledbelow a critical transition temperature (T,).Ordinary conductors such as copper or alumi-num present some resistance to the flow ofelectric current, causing some of the energy tobe dissipated as light and heat. This is a usefulproperty in light bulbs and toasters, but leads toundesirable power losses in most applications.By reducing losses, superconductors can makeenergy production more efficient and computerscan be made smaller and more powerful.

The phenomenon of superconductivity wasdiscovered in 1911, but practical supercon-ducting materials were not found until the

Figure l-l-Superconducting Critical TransitionTemperature v. Year

I Room temperature300 ‘ --

250 -

200 -

150 -

100 -

— ——————-

50 1

Year

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

1960s. Today, superconducting metals and al-loys are being used in a variety of commercialapplications in electronics and medicine, butthis took many years to come about. One reasonfor the long gestation period is that in order tofunction, superconductors had to be cooled toextremely low temperatures—about 4 degreesabove absolute zero (4 K)—with liquid helium.The high costs and complexity of liquid heliumrefrigeration systems tended to confine theselow-temperature superconductors (LTS) to awell-controlled, laboratory environment.

In 1986, scientists discovered an entirely newfamily of ceramic high-temperature supercon-ductors (HTS) with transition temperaturesabove 30 K—much higher than had previouslybeen thought possible (see figure l-l). Subse-quently, related materials were discovered withtransition temperatures above the boiling pointof liquid nitrogen (77 K). The prospect ofcooling with cheaper and more practical liquidnitrogen fueled expectations of widespreadcommercial applications, and touched off aworldwide race to develop these materials.

OUTLOOK FORHIGH-TEMPERATURESUPERCONDUCTIVITY

Over the past 3 years, the intense worldwideresearch effort on I-ITS has produced remarkableprogress. It appears that within the next 5 years,commercial magnetic field sensors and simplemicrowave devices operating at 77 K are arealistic possibility. But many fundamentalquestions remain unanswered. There is notheory that explains why these materials exhibitsuperconductivity, and no one knows whethernew materials with even higher TCS will bediscovered. (So far, the highest reproducible TC

is 125 K, still far below room temperature,which is about 300 K.)

-3-

4 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

Photo credit: IBM Research

Thin films of HTS material can be used to connect logic andmemory chips in computers, making them smaller

and faster.

HTS continues to be a promising field wherediligence and patience could yield great divi-dends. But a long-term, basic research effort isneeded to avoid wasting large sums on prema-ture development projects. Most observers agreethat it will be 10 to 20 years before HTS couldbe widely used in commercial applications—roughly the same time it took for LTS to movefrom the laboratory to commercial products. Infact, the commercialization of LTS holds sev-eral valuable lessons for HTS.

LESSONS FROM LTSThe preferred materials for applications arethose that are easiest to handle and manu-facture, not necessarily the best supercon-ductors or those with the highest TC.

●

●

●

●

●

●

Even after a superconducting material withadequate properties is developed, it takesmany years to develop a practical conductorfrom that material and to demonstrate itsviability in a commercial prototype.Technical difficulties and unanticipated devel-opment costs can be expected; nevertheless,it is important to provide sustained, reliablefunding through the lifetime of a superconduc-tor R&D project. A successful project that iscarefully managed, but over budget, contrib-utes to the store of knowledge; a truncatedproject is often a total waste of effort.Highly reliable, conservative designs arenecessary, especially in the commercial sec-tor. While it is tempting for engineers to pusha design to the state-of-the-art, reliability iscrucial in consolidating a new beachhead.It is important to pick targets carefully; i.e.,those that are not likely to be “leapfrogged”by a well-entrenched and steadily improvingconventional technology. Commercializationof HTS is likely to be most successful in newapplications where the technology and de-signs are fluid.It is difficult to predict where the futureapplications will be. Few could have pre-dicted in 1979 that the largest commercialapplication of superconductors in 1989 wouldbe in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)magnets.In many applications, lack of commerciali-zation has nothing to do with technicalproblems with superconductivity; rather, it isdue to unfavorable economic conditions. Forexample, even the discovery of room-temperature superconductivity would not sub-stantially improve the prospects for magneti-cally levitated transportation systems in theUnited States, because the costs of suchsystems are dominated by costs of landacquisition and guideway construction.

PROSPECTS FOR THECOMMERCIALIZATION OF HTS

The lessons above illustrate that commercialapplications of superconductivity are not driven

Chapter l--Executive Summary ● 5

cine; electronics/communications; and defense/space.

The greatest near-term (5 to 10 years) impactof HTS is likely to be in electronics/com-munications and defense/space. In the medium-term (10 to 15 years), a variety of medical andindustrial applications are possible. Significantapplications of HTS in the high-energy physics,electric power, and transportation sectors shouldbe considered far-term (>15 years), if they arefeasible at all. LTS is likely to remain the onlyrealistic option for large-scale applications suchas maglev vehicles, high-field magnets, orelectric power generators in the foreseeablefuture.

It is important to bear in mind that theprincipal contributions of HTS may well be inapplications that cannot be anticipated at thisearly stage. It could be a conceptual error toforce the new ceramic materials into the samemold as the metallic LTS materials. Manyobservers think that the biggest applications ofHTS will be in totally new devices that have noteven been considered for LTS.

THE FEDERAL RESPONSE TO HTSThe Federal response to the discovery of HTS

illustrates many of the strengths and weaknessesof U.S. R&D policy as it relates to U.S.industrial competitiveness. On the whole, theresponse has been both substantial and timely.By fiscal year 1990, just 3 years after thediscovery of HTS, Federal agency funding forHTS had grown to about $130 million, with a 10percent increase requested for fiscal year 1991(see table l-l). This was considerably more thanthe government funding of any other country(see table 1-2).

The Administration can point to some signifi-cant successes and even innovations in itsapproach to HTS. The Defense Advanced Re-search Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated aunique program emphasizing the processing ofHTS materials. Three Department of Energy(DOE) Superconductivity Pilot Centers wereestablished at Argonne, Los Alamos, and Oak


Table l-l—Federal Funding for High-TemperatureSuperconductivity ($ millions)

FY 1990 FY 1991Agency (estimated) (requested)

SOURCE: D. AlIan Bromley, Director, Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy, testimony before the Subcommittee on Transportation,Aviation, and Materials, House Committee on Science, space,and Technology, Feb. 21, 1990.

Ridge National Laboratories to carry out collab-orative research with industry. The Pilot Centersare experimenting with both expedited mecha-nisms for contracting and greater industrycontrol over intellectual property, and haveattracted a large number of prospective col-laborators. Mechanisms for rapid exchange oftechnical information among researchers havebeen established and appear to be working well.

The Administration’s approach also con-tained much that was familiar to critics ofFederal R&D policy. The Department of De-fense (DoD) administered the largest HTSbudget, and became the principal supporter ofU.S. industry programs. Also, much of theFederal budget went to support research inFederal laboratories, which heretofore have notenjoyed a good track record in transferringtechnology to U.S. industry. And althoughcoordination of HTS R&D programs withineach mission agency is good, coordination at thenational level is weak. Congress’ attempts toaddress this problem with legislation have metwith only limited success.

The Federal response to the advent of HTS isperhaps best characterized as an attempt tobroaden the R&D activities of the relevantagencies to address industry needs withoutfundamentally changing their missions or theirrelationships to one another. Those who hadhoped that the worldwide race to develop HTSmight stimulate a serious debate about a newFederal role in meeting the challenge of foreign

Table 1-2—Estimated National High-TemperatureSuperconductivity R&D Efforts in

Various Countries, 1989

Government Full-timeHTS budget researchers

Country (millions) (all sectors)

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . $130Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >70West Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . 35France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . 20Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >15Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >2Soviet Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —

1,0001,200

500300200200

<1002,0001,000

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

competition in emerging commercial technolo-gies have clearly been disappointed.

THE U.S. COMPETITIVEPOSITION IN

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY

Low-Temperature

As a result of Federal support for LTSresearch during the 1960s and 1970s, U.S.companies today have strong capabilities inLTS wire and cable production, magnet windingtechnology, superconducting analog electron-ics, and sensors. Federal support for LTSconductor and magnet development--especiallythrough DOE high-energy physics programs—has enabled U.S. companies to take a leadingposition in MRI magnets, the largest commer-cial market for LTS.

But the United States has a weak position inmore speculative—but potentially widespread—commercial applications such as digital elec-tronics, rotating electrical equipment, and mag-netically levitated (maglev) transportation sys-tems. In these areas, U.S. companies havejudged the risks of commercial development tobe too high-or the benefits too small-tojustify sustained investment. Meanwhile, theFederal Government terminated its support forthese programs in the late 1970s and early1980s, although they were continued in othercountries, notably West Germany and Japan.

Chapter I--Executive Summary ● 7

Interestingly, the discovery of HTS has givena higher visibility to the weak U.S. competitiveposition in several applications of LTS, espe-cially maglev transportation systems. Severalrecent reports have recommended restartingthese LTS programs, arguing that otherwise, theUnited States will become dependent on foreignsources for key technologies. But OTA findsthat U.S. companies do not appear to havechanged their assessment of the risks andbenefits. Therefore, if these LTS programs arerestarted, the government will have to bearvirtually all of the substantial developmentcosts.

High-Temperature

The United States, with the largest nationalbudget for HTS R&D in the world (see table1-2), has a comprehensive research effort. Butthere is no reason for complacency. Japan hasemerged as the United States’ strongest compet-itor, and has demonstrated superior capabilitiesin several areas-e. g., synthesis and processingof high-quality materials. Moreover, Japan hasshown the ability to sustain long-term invest-ment in materials research, with a strong com-mitment from its major corporations.

West Germany has a formidable HTS R&Deffort underway, with the most extensive indus-try involvement in Europe. West German com-panies such as Siemens are stronger competitorsin some areas+. g., medical applications ofLTS—than are Japanese firms.

Although the European Community has beenslow to organize cooperative research programsin HTS, the 12 member states represent animmense economic and intellectual potential,with more than a million scientists and engi-neers. In the past, effective collaboration hasbeen hindered by dispersion of resources, isola-tion of researchers, and poor diffusion ofinformation; but anew era in collaborative R&Dcould be dawning as the process of unificationof European markets proceeds beyond 1992.Taken together, the EC countries represent abloc of R&D resources and manpower largerthan either the United States or Japan alone.

OTA SURVEY RESULTS: U.S. ANDJAPANESE INDUSTRY

INVESTMENTS INSUPERCONDUCTIVITY

In late 1988 and early 1989, the Office ofTechnology Assessment (OTA) conducted asurvey of U.S. industrial superconductivityR&D in cooperation with the National ScienceFoundation (NSF). A parallel survey of Japa-nese industrial superconductivity R&D wasconducted jointly with Japan’s InternationalSuperconductivity Technology Center (ISTEC).OTA estimates that the survey captured about 90percent of the U.S. effort, and about 80 percentof the Japanese effort. Among the findings:

●

●

●

●

Japanese companies were investing some50 percent more in HTS R&D (= $107million) than U.S. companies (= $73 mil-lion) in 1988, and their investment in LTSR&D was many times higher than that ofU.S. firms (see figure 1-2).OTA identified 20 Japanese companiesspending more than $1 million of their ownfunds on HTS, compared with 14 in theUnited States. In both countries, HTS R&Dis heavily concentrated in these firms.Among these big spenders, the Japanesecompanies are more likely to have broadersuperconductivity programs—both in termsof the variety of materials being developedand the scope of research. Japanese firmsreported more resources devoted to basicresearch than did U.S. firms.When asked when their first HTS productwould reach the market, Japanese compa-nies projected a later first year-to-market(average year: 2000) than U.S. companies(average year: 1992) in all product catego-ries. The fact that Japanese companies arewilling to spend so much on R&D---eventhough they expect the payoff in commer-cial products to be at least 10 yearsaway—underscores their strong long-termcommitment to HTS. The continuing com-mitment of Japanese companies to LTSreinforces this conclusion.


Figure 1-2--Comparison of IndustrialSuperconductivity Research Efforts in

the United States and Japan, 1988

Internal R&D funding ($ million)200 I

100

60

0United States Japan

Full-time research staff

“ 2 0 0~ — - — - - -

1,000

800 I

600; r II I I

400

200

0United States Japan

In 1988, U.S. industry internal funding for HTS was about $74million, with 440 full-time researchers, compared with $107 millionand 710 full-time researchers in Japan.NOTE: The data in this figure are adjusted to include OTA’s estimate of

research efforts not captured by this survey.


POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS

In 1987, shortly after the discovery of HTS,optimism was rampant and room-temperaturesuperconductivity seemed just around the cor-ner. The United States was seen to be engagedin a heated race to commercialize HTS productsbefore its competitors. By 1989, a more realisticview had taken hold: HTS is a test case, not ofthe U.S. ability to commercialize a new technol-ogy rapidly, but of its ability to look beyond theimmediate future and sustain a consistent R&Deffort over the long term.

The Federal HTS budget grew from $45million in fiscal year 1987 to an estimated $130million in fiscal year 1990-substantially morethan that of any country in the world. OTA findsthat overall, the United States has an HTS R&Deffort that is second to none. Present fundinglevels are sufficient to make progress, althoughperhaps $20 to $30 million more per year couldbe spent effectively (see table 1-3). But OTAalso finds there are serious reasons to doubtwhether U.S. companies will maintain a com-petitive position in HTS in the future (see keyissues section below). The history of erraticFederal support for LTS programs also raisesquestions about whether the Federal effort willbe sustained over the long term.

Minor Issues

Several issues that were earlier thought to beurgent now appear to be of less importance:

Adequate supplies of raw materials, chemi-cal precursors, and powders for HTS are

not a problem now, nor are they likely to bein the foreseeable future.HTS does not appear to raise unmanage-able health or safety problems.Antitrust restrictions are not a seriousinhibitor to U.S. competitiveness in HTStechnology.Fears that the prolific HTS patenting byJapanese companies could block U.S. com-panies from participating in major super-conductivity markets appear to be exagger-ated.

Issues That Bear Watching

There are reasons for concern about severalaspects of the U.S. HTS R&D effort, and thesecould become more serious in the future.

. Federal laboratories may be receiving adisproportionately large share of the HTSR&D budget. In fiscal year 1988, 45percent of Federal HTS funding went tosupport research in Federal laboratories.Although these laboratories continue tomake important contributions, questionsremain about whether they should have

Chapter l--Executive Summary ● 9

●

●

●

such a large share of the HTS budget—especially given the scarcity of resourcesfor universities (see below). Congress couldestablish a single, independent advisorycommittee to tour the major laboratoriesand evaluate the quality and relevance oftheir HTS research.At present, defense and civilian require-ments for HTS technology are similar, butthis could change as the technology ma-tures. About 47 percent of Federal fundingfor HTS in fiscal year 1990 comes fromDoD-considerably more than comes fromany other agency. At the present stage ofHTS technology development, OTA findsthat military and civilian requirements forthese materials are essentially the same,and access to DoD-funded research is notrestricted. But as HTS matures and isincorporated into weapons systems, mili-tary and commercial R&D priorities arelikely to diverge. If DoD funding concen-trates on solving problems of primarilymilitary interest, this could hurt U.S. com-petitiveness in areas such as HTS electron-ics—widely predicted to be one of theearliest and largest application areas ofHTS.If progress in HTS technology continues tobe incremental, small HTS startup com-panies could face a critical shortage ofcapital. Indeed, most small HTS startupsreport that they have received buyout offersfrom large foreign companies.The importance of active U.S. participationin international superconductivity meet-ings and programs is growing, while Fed-eral funding to support these activities isstagnant or declining.

Key Issues .

OTA considers the following issues to beespecially important (see table 1-3):

. U.S. companies are investing less thantheir main foreign competitors in bothlow-andhigh-temperature superconductiv-ity R&D. This is by far the most critical

issue affecting the future U.S. competitiveposition in superconductivity, and in manyother emerging technologies.University research on HTS merits a higherpriority than it presently receives. Univer-sity research-specially that performedby individual investigators—has producedimportant advances in HTS and continuesto play a vital role. But in fiscal year 1988,university research received only 30 per-cent of Federal HTS resources (comparedwith 45 percent for Federal laboratories),and many innovative research proposalscontinue to go unfunded. The fundingshortage affects young investigators enter-ing the field most severely, but even provencontributors have had difficulty gettingadequate support.Coordination of the Federal superconduc-tivity R&D effort can be made moreeffective at the national level. The NationalSuperconductivity and Competitiveness Actof 1988 mandated that the Office ofScience and Technology Policy (OSTP)produce a 5-year National Action Plan forsuperconductivity, as well as an annualreport on the implementation of the Plan.Although several advisory committees onHTS have been appointed during the past3 years—including the ‘‘Wise Men’ advi-sory committee established by PresidentReagan, and the National Commission onSuperconductivity established by Congress—these committees were given only atemporary mandate and cannot provide thelong-term technology monitoring and anal-ysis called for in the National Superconductiv-ity and Competitiveness Act.

There is one important point that relates to allof the above issues: funding stability is essentialto meaningful progress. In the past, erraticfunding both by Federal agencies and compa-nies has caused disruption of superconductivityprograms, and has made it difficult to maintaina pool of U.S. engineering know-how in super-conductivity. In contrast, Japan’s demonstratedability to sustain long-term superconductivity

10 High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

Table 1-3-Superconductivity Policy Issues and Options

IssueOptions Comments

A. U.S. companies are investing less than their main foreign competitors in both low-and high-temperature superconductivityR&D.

The key problem is the lack of patient investment This problem is fundamental to future U.S. competitiveness in all emergingcapital available to U.S. industry. Policy initiatives technologies.that could help would involve meaningful reductionof the Federal budget deficit, and tax policies thatencourage higher saving by individuals and busi-nesses.

B. University research on HTS merits a higher priority than it presently receives.Option 1: Increase NSF’s budget for individual Although NSF’s HTS budget has been increased to support the new Scienceinvestigator grants in HTS at universities by $5 and Technology Center at the University of Illinois, funding for individualmillion. investigators has stayed virtually flat, and many innovative proposals are not

being funded.

Option 2: Provide $10 million per year for several U.S. capabilities in such areas as the synthesis of new HTS materials andyears to NSF to upgrade university equipment for preparation of large single crystals lag those of its major competitors. Recentsynthesis, processing, and characterization of ad- studies have underscored the need for greater investment in materialsvanced materials such as HTS. synthesis and processing at universities. Ten million dollars would substan-

tially upgrade the equipment capabilities of perhaps 25 research groups.

Option 3: Provide funding—perhaps through This was the principal recommendation of the President’s “Wise Men”DARPA—to support the participation of universities Advisory Committee. Properly organized and managed, such consortia canin a limited number of R&D consortia with compa- Iengthen industry R&D time horizons and spread risks, But it is important tonies and government laboratories. be realistic about what these consortia can be expected to accomplish: they

are more likely to enhance generic technology development than to beengines of commercialization.

C. Coordination of the Federal superconductivity R&D effort can be made more effective at the national level.Option 1: Give OSTP the additional resources and One small step in this direction might be to merge the permanent staff of thestaff necessary to monitor industry concerns and National Critical Materials Council with OSTP staff. But without a commit-broker the competing interests of the various fund- ment by the President to give OSTP a leading role in technology policying agencies in superconductivity. decisionmaking—a commitment not demonstrated so far—staffing in-

creases at OSTP are unlikely to have any effect.

Option 2: Establish a standing advisory committee Such a long-term advisory committee-perhaps modeled on the nowon superconductivity reporting to Congress, the defunct “Wise Men” Advisory Committee-could assist policy makers withScience Adviser, and the President, and give it a tough budgetary choices, e.g., concentrating Federal resources into amandate of at least 5 years. limited number of consortia with clearly complementary research objectives.

Strong industry representation on the committee would be critical.

KEY: DARPA: Defense Advanced Research Projects AgencyNSF: National Science FoundationOSTP: Office of Science and Technology Policy

SOURCE: OffIce of Technology Assessment, 1990.

programs is likely to be a major competitiveasset for Japan in the future.

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY IN ABROADER POLICY CONTEXTThe discovery of HTS has come at a time of

increasing doubts about the capability of theUnited States to compete in global high-tech-nology markets. The list of markets in whichU.S. industry has slipped badly is growing: e.g.,consumer electronics, memory chips, automo-biles, and machine tools. Moreover, the U.S.private sector is investing less than its main

competitors in a number of emerging technolo-gies such as x-ray lithography, high-definitiontelevision, and—as shown by the OTA survey—in HTS and LTS. There is a serious questionwhether U.S. industry, as it is currently financedand managed, can compete in markets for thesetechnologies in the next century.

The short-term mind set of U.S. R&D manag-ers is not the result of stupidity or ignoranceabout the importance of R&D to the company’sfuture. Instead, the R&D investment decisionsin both the United States and Japan are theproduct of rational choices made within the

Chapter L-Executive Summary ● 11

prevailing economic and financial environmentsof the two countries. For decades, Japaneseindustry has benefited from higher rates ofeconomic growth, lower effective capital costs,higher savings rates, and more stable financialmarkets than were the case in the United States.All of these factors made it easier for Japanesemanagers to make long-term investments.

Thus, the challenges associated with HTSresearch, development, and commercializationshould be viewed as a microcosm of broaderchallenges to the U.S. manufacturing sector inan increasingly competitive world. It is temptingto rely on Federal R&D initiatives-e. g., newfederally funded industry consortia, or perhapscreating a new civilian technology agency—to

solve the deepening problems. But such initia-tives, while they may be helpful, do not changethe underlying economic and financial pressureson industry that dictate long-term investmentdecisions. The real solution—increasing thesupply of patient capital to U.S. industry-willrequire politically tough fiscal policy choicesthat involve trade-offs among military, eco-nomic, and social goals. If U.S. competitivenesscontinues to decline, it will not be because theUnited States lost the superconductivity racewith Japan, but because policymakers failed toaddress the underlying problems with long-term, private sector investment that HTS helpedto bring into the spotlight.

Chapter 2

High-TemperatureSuperconductivity:A Progress Report

CONTENTSPage

15151517202122

21

2223

2325

252626

Chapter 2

High-Temperature Superconductivity: A Progress Report

No scientific discovery during the 1980s gener-ated more worldwide excitement—and hype—thanthat of high-temperature superconductivity (HTS) in1986. Four years later, the hype has died down, butthe excitement remains. HTS appears less often innewspaper headlines, and it no longer commands theurgent attention of U.S. policy makers. But duringthe past several years there have been remarkableadvances in HTS research.

This chapter provides a progress report on HTS,and an assessment of the R&D challenges thatremain. For readers unfamiliar with the concepts andterminology of superconductivity, a brief primer isprovided in appendix 2-A. Additional informationon the science of HTS and its applications can befound in several studiesl 23 including an earlierOTA report.4

PROGRESS REPORT

New HTS Materials

Perhaps the most interesting development that hasoccurred in the past several years is the realizationthat HTS is a broader phenomenon than had beenfirst thought. The initial discovery of copper oxidescontaining lanthanum (TC = 35 K) in 1986 wasfollowed in 1987 by related compounds containingyttrium (TC around 93 K) and in 1988 by thosecontaining bismuth (maximum TC of 110 K) andthallium (maximum TC of 125 K). Numerous varia-tions on these basic layered copper-oxide com-pounds have also been found to exhibit super-conductivity. This raises the hope that new materialsmay yet be discovered with even higher TCS.

Room-Temperature Superconductivity

A superconductor operating at room temperaturewould be revolutionary. Provided that suitablemanufacturing processes were available, and costswere comparable to ordinary conductors, room-temperature superconductors could replace normal

conductors in virtually all devices involving elec-tricity or magnetism. Over the past 2 years, therehave been occasional reports of observations ofroom-temperature superconductivity, though nonehas been confirmed.5

No one knows yet whether room-temperaturesuperconductivity is possible. At this writing, thereare no accepted theoretical limitations on TC. Buteven if a room-temperature superconductor is possi-ble,

●

●

practical applications may be difficult:

To obtain critical fields and currents at levelshigh enough to be useful, superconductors aretypically operated at temperatures substantiallybelow TC. For practical room-temperature (300K) operation, a T, of 400 to 600 K (261 -621 ‘F)would be required (well above the temperatureof boiling water).At elevated temperatures, vortex lattice pinning(see app. 2-A) becomes much more difficult,due to the higher ambient thermal energy. Thiscould make it impossible for the room-temperature superconductor to carry usefulcurrents even in small magnetic fields.

The search for new material with higher TCS

remains an important quest, along with researchaimed at understanding the fundamental limitationsof the performance of present materials. In thisconnection, further research on novel superconduc-tors --e.g., organics--could lead to new insights.

Progress in Improving HTS Properties

Thin Films

Films of superconductor, usually between 30angstroms and 1 micrometer in thickness, can bedeposited on a base material (called a substrate) toyield conductors used in a wide variety of sensorsand electronic circuits. Several of the techniques fordepositing the films-e. g., sputtering, molecularbeam epitaxy, electron beam evaporation, and chem-ical vapor deposition—have much in common with

]4 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Photo credit: ICI Advanced Materials

Tubes fabricated from bulk high-temperaturesuperconductors can be used for radio-frequency

cavities and conductors.

ing new substrate materials that are less expensiveand more practical.

Bulk Superconductors

Bulk materials include thick films (>1 microme-ter), wires, tapes, and three-dimensional shapes.Bulk conductor forms are used in large-scale appli-cations, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),maglev vehicles, etc. They are made by techniquescommon in metallurgy or ceramics: extrusion, tapecasting, pressing, etc. Typically, they involve com-paction and shaping of nonsuperconducting pow-ders or precursors, followed by firing in an oven toconsolidate the material and create the supercon-ductor. This yields a polycrystalline material con-sisting of partially oriented crystalline grains sepa-rated by grain boundaries.

HTS bulk conductors have generally exhibitedlower critical current densities than thin films,thought to be caused by weakened superconductiv-ity at the grain boundaries. The critical current alsofalls off more rapidly with applied magnetic fieldthan is the case with thin films. But recent advancesin processing have raised the critical currents inshort wires to several tens of thousands of Amps/cm2

Chapter 2--High-Temperature Superconductivity: A Progress Report ● 17

Table 2-I—HTS R&D Challenges

Topic Comment Topic Comment

Basic ResearchTheory/Mechanism of HTS

Abetter understanding will point the way to new materials,improvements in existing materials, and perhaps to newapplications.

Search for New MaterialsSynthesis and characterization of new HTS materials havebeen of tremendous value in guiding theory development,and will continue to be so. Further investigation of novelsuperconductors-e. g., organics-could provide impor-tant insights.

Structure/Property RelationshipsUnderstanding properties such as critical current behavioris vital for virtually all applications. It involves not only basicphysics issues but also the full complexity of the micro-structure.

Appy ResearchProcessing Science

Understanding the relationships among process variables,microstructure, and properties is critical for making bettermaterials reproducibly. New, cheaper processes also needto be developed.

Thin Film ProcessesKey goals include: reducing process temperatures below500 oC so as to be compatible with semiconductorprocessing; finding suitable substrates and depositionprocesses-especially enabling deposition on semicon-ductors; developing processes for making films with ex-tremely clean surfaces and strong superconductivity all theway up to the surface.

Bulk ProcessesKey goals include: finding techniques for improving thesuperconductivity connection between adjacent crystalgrains; introducing strong pinning sites for the magneticvortex lattice; reducing alternating current (AC) losses; andmaking extremeiy thin filaments (several micrometers indiameter).

Applied Research-continuedChemical Stability

Some HTS materials are prone to react with atmosphericwater and carbon dioxide, as well as with cladding andsubstrate materials. Some also readily lose oxygen fromthe crystal lattice. These reactions impair the superconduc-tivity, and raise concerns about long-term stability. Newapproaches are needed to protect the materials andprevent these reactions.

Mechanical PropertiesMechanical properties such as brittleness, strength, andfatigue have received less attention than superconductingproperties, but improvements are critical to reduce costsand increase reliability in actual applications.

Device Engineering R&DThin Film Devices

Key goals include: demonstration of practical JosephsonJunctions (JJs); development of a three-terminal device;patterning of multiiayer structures; developing low-resistance electrical contacts.

Bulk DevicesKey goals inciude: demonstration of long, flexible wireswith 100,000 Amps/cm2 in a magnetic fieid of 5 tesla;braiding and stabilization of composite cable; low-resistance electrical contacts and splicing of sections.

Manufacturing R&DIncludes making large numbers of JJs with uniform switch-ing and threshold characteristics on a chip with high yield;long lengths of wire with reproducible properties; cost-effective nondestructive evaluation techniques.

Systems DevelopmentSuperconducting components have to be integrated intofully engineered systems, with refrigeration, auxiliary elec-tronics, mechanical support, etc.


at 77 K—within a factor of 10 of levels required formost applications. It should be noted, however, thatthese have been realized only in small samples oftest material; reproducing them in long wires posesmajor engineering challenges.

R&D CHALLENGES

While there has been considerable progress overthe past several years, there remains along way to gobefore HTS can be widely used in practical applica-tions. Table 2-1 gives examples of key remainingR&D challenges for both thin film and bulk HTSmaterials. These are grouped in five R&D catego-ries: basic research; applied research; device engi-neering; manufacturing research; and systems devel-opment. They involve improving properties and

processes, as well as integrating the superconductingcomponents into larger systems.

A strong, ongoing basic research effort is essen-tial to support cost- effective development of applica-tions. At this writing, there is no commonly acceptedtheory of HTS. Thus, there is no way of predictingwhich materials should exhibit high critical temper-atures, currents, or magnetic fields. Theory can alsopredict new phenomena. The Josephson effect, thebasis of the device used in superconducting electron-ics, was predicted first by theory and later observedby experiment. If new phenomena are occurring inHTS, then new types of devices may be possible.

Basic research is also needed to establish therelationships among composition, microstructure,and properties-especially critical current density.In some cases, HTS presents new problems that

never had to be faced with LTS. For instance, the esses for HTS must be able to control the propertiesperformance of HTS materials is far more sensitive of these surfaces to a much higher degree.to impurities or minute changes in composition atsurfaces and grain boundaries than is the case with To some extent, research in applied areas can beLTS materials. This means that fabrication proc- carried out in parallel with basic research. For

Chapter High-Temperature Superconductivity: A Progress Report ● 19

Photo credit: Supercon, Inc.

Prototype composite superconductor containing 11,000 niobium-titanium filaments, designed for use inthe Superconducting Super Collider.

example, the critical current can be improvedempirically (applied research) without having fullycharacterized the material (basic research). Simi-larly, the full system has parts that can be designed,built, and tested without the superconducting com-ponent. For instance, the refrigeration requirementscan be approximated early, and developed before thesuperconducting component is completed.

But until the basic parameters of the technology—e.g., the pinning mechanism—are understood, earlyresources spent on manufacturing technology andsystems development may turn out to have beenwasted in light of new developments. No amount of

research on vacuum tube technology would haveproduced a supercomputer; it awaited the discoveryof the transistor and of integrated circuits.

A better feel for all of the requirements that mustbe satisfied for HTS to be used in commercialapplications can be gained by considering two keyapplications of LTS: high-field magnets and Jo-sephson Junctions (JJs). These are the “buildingblocks’ of many present superconductivity applica-tions. JJs illustrate the challenges associated withthin film technology, while magnets illustrate thechallenges of fabricating devices from bulk mater-ials. These are discussed in boxes 2-A and 2-B.

NEW OPPORTUNITIES (larger energy gap). Because the high frequencyresponse of superconductors is limited to frequen-

HTS materials are unique in having extremely cies that do not disrupt the electron pairing, the

Another unique feature of HTS derives from thefact that the superconducting electron pairs arebound together more tightly than is the case for LTS

stronger pairing could enable HTS ‘devices tooperate at frequencies up to 10 times higher thanLTS devices. This could revolutionize the communi-cations industry, making tens of thousands of newsatellite broadcast channels available, and result incorrespondingly higher rates of signal transmissionand processing.

It is even possible that some of the “disadvan-t a g e s of HTS materials could be turned intoadvantages. The sensitivity of the superconductingproperties to oxygen content, crystal direction, andapplied magnetic field could someday be the basisfor new devices.

Chapter 2-High-Temperature Superconductivity: A Progress Report ● 21

A particularly exciting prospect is the possibilityof designing hybrid, layered devices that wouldcombine different HTS materials with semiconduc-tors, optoelectronic materials, and other supercon-ductors to yield novel performance.

CONCLUSIONIn spite of some recent press reports that describe

the new HTS materials as disappointing,g the past 3years have seen rapid progress both in improving thesuperconducting properties of known materials andin finding new materials. Many observers remainoptimistic that present problems can be solved andthat both familiar applications and entirely new oneswill occur—although the time scale for many ofthese is not short.

Experience gained from previous research onLTS—in processing techniques, characterization ofmaterials, and design of integrated systems—willcome in handy, though. And these problems arebeing addressed by large numbers of researchersaround the world; since its discovery in 1986, morethan 12,000 papers have been published on HTS.HTS is an area where continued diligence andpatience could yield great dividends.

Figure 2-l--Schematic of a Tunnel (or Josephson)Junction

SOURCE Business Technology Research, “Superconductive Materialsand Devices,” 1988.

22 ● High-Temperature Superconductive@ in Perspective

APPENDIX 2-A:SUPERCONDUCTOR PRIMER

As the temperature of a superconductor is lowered, acritical temperature TC is reached at which the materialundergoes a transition from the normal state to thesuperconducting state (figure 2-2). The superconductingstate is defined by two characteristics: the ability toconduct an electric current without loss; and the expulsionof magnetic field from the interior of the material(Meissner effect).

Zero ResistanceOrdinary conductors such as copper or aluminum

present some resistance to the flow of electric current,causing some of the energy in the current to be dissipatedinto light and heat. Resistance is a useful property in lightbulbs and toasters, but not for transmitting electricityfrom a power generating station to a factory. With zeroelectrical resistance, superconducting systems do notrequire a continuous supply of power to make up forlosses. This has far-reaching consequences, enablinghigher currents to be carried through wires, higher fieldsin magnets, and further miniaturization of computers.

Strictly speaking, the property of zero resistanceobtains only under special conditions of direct (DC)currents. For alternating (AC) currents, such as the 60cycle currents available from household wall outlets,superconductors do exhibit a small resistance. In general,this resistance is still lower than that of other commonconductors such as copper and aluminum. However, theresistance of these metals decreases with temperature,dropping by roughly a factor of 6 between roomtemperature (300 K) and liquid nitrogen temperature (77K). Thus, the advantage of a superconductor over anormal metal for a given application depends on how thesuperconductor’s losses compare to those of normal wiresat the relevant frequency and temperature.

Meissner EffectA superconductor expels magnetic fields from its

interior by generating electrical currents on the surface.This property, known as the Meissner effect, is whatcauses a small magnet to float above a superconductor,and can be exploited, e.g., to produce frictionless bear-ings. This screening property also makes superconductorsuseful as magnetic shields; e.g., electronics can beshielded against electromagnetic interference from othernearby equipment. Although zero resistance is the prop-erty exploited in most superconductivity applications, theMeissner effect is considered the sine qua non o fsuperconductivity; for while a drop in electrical resistanceto a low value can occur in nonsuperconductors, theMeissner effect is unique to the superconducting state.

Figure 2-2—Temperature Dependence ofthe Resistance of a Normal Conductor

and a Superconductor (schematic)

Superconductor

Normal conductor

— .

O K T c

T e m p e r a t u r e ~

At Tc, the resistance of a superconductor drops to zero.


High-Temperature Superconductors

Chapter 2--High-Temperature Superconductivity: A Progress Report ● 23

Figure 2-3--Superconducting Critical TransitionTemperature v. Year

300

250

200xalsz&e? 150

100

50

Room temperature———— — ———————

Llquld nitrogen— — —— ———— — — — —

Nb 1 Ge

NbNNb j Sn

rPb Nb t

Ha Ia.—I 1 ) ! 1 I I I I 1

Y

CUO*

Ba

Cuo

Ba

Cuo 2

Y

The supercurrent is carried primarily in the CU02 planes.SOURCE: Adapted from T.H. Geballe and J.K. Hulm, “Superconductivity—

The State That Came In From the Cold,” Science, vol. 239, No.4838, Jan. 22, 1988, p. 370.

when cooled to 4 K (-452 oF). This occurred soon after thesuccessful liquefaction of helium, which allowed suchvery low temperatures to be reached.

Although the Leiden group immediately saw manyapplications for a lossless conductor, the superconductorsthey had found could only carry high current densities atlow magnetic fields; as the fields were increased, theyreverted to normal metals. This made them technologi-cally useless.

Over the years, more than 6,000 elements, compounds,and alloys have been found to be superconductors. But formany years no one understood how to get the current-carrying capacity at high magnetic fields up into a usefulrange. The first materials capable of carrying highcurrents in high magnetic fields (“type II” materials—see below) were discovered in the Soviet Union in the1950s.

It was not until 1957 that a theoretical understanding ofsuperconductivity was achieved.1 Using this theory, theJosephson Junction—a superconducting switching de-

2.4 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Photo credit: Argonne National Laboratory

Electron micrograph of the grain boundary between crys-tals of HTS. Striations reflect the stacking of copper-oxygen planes. Because the supercurrent is carried pri-marily in the copper-oxygen planes, this kind of misalign-

ment greatly reduces the current flow acrossthe grain boundaries in the bulk material.

vice useful in electronic circuits and computers—waspredicted and fabricated in 1962.2 In 1955, the firstpractical supermagnet was produced at the University ofIllinois, and in 1960 significant supermagnet advanceswere made at Bell laboratories. During the 1960s,commercial superconducting wire became available, andwas soon used in large superconducting magnets forparticle accelerators and nuclear fision experiments.

During the 1960s and 1970s, supermagnets largelydisplaced electromagnets for research, but it was not untilsuperconductors appeared in magnetic field sensors in the1970s and in MRI magnets in the early 1980s that theybegan to move out of a research environment. Since then,superconductors have slowly been making their way intocommercial applications such as magnetic separators forremoving impurities from kaolin clay and fast electronicsfor high-speed oscilloscopes (see ch. 3).

LTS is nearly 80 years old, while HTS is barely 3. Theperiod between the discovery of LTS and the develop-ment of the first practical conductors (’‘type II’ materi-als) was 50 years; it was another 20 years after that beforeLTS began to be used outside of a laboratory environ-ment. This suggests that the widespread commercializa-tion of HTS may take decades. To be sure, much has beenlearned from the development of LTS that may beapplicable to HTS. But, as discussed below, HTS alsopresents some new challenges that will require realbreakthroughs to solve—not just hard work.

SOURCE: Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Superconductivity Theory

In 1957, Bardeen, Cooper, and Schreiffer, who re-ceived the Nobel prize for their theory (known as the“BCS” theory), proposed that electrons form pairs(known as Cooper pairs) in the superconductor and thatthese pairs are able to carry currents without loss. In thesuperconducting state, the electrons-which are normallyrepelled from one another due to their same electriccharge-feel a net attraction through interaction withvibrations of the crystal lattice, resulting in the formationof Cooper pairs. BCS theory has proven applicable to allknown low-temperature superconductors with only minormodifications. As yet, it is not clear whether BCS theorycan be adapted to explain the new HTS materials.

Critical Properties

A transition from the superconducting state back to thenormal state can occur in any of three independent ways:by raising the temperature above the critical transitiontemperature (TC); by raising the current flow above thecritical current density (JC); or by raising the appliedmagnetic field above the critical magnetic field strength(HC2). Alternatively, lesser changes in these variables cancause the transition if they occur in combination.

For a typical superconducting material, the parametersTC, JC, and HC2define the boundaries within which thematerial if in the superconducting state, and outside ofwhich the material is in its normal resistive state (seefigure 2-5). In general, the actual values of theseparameters depend not only on the type of material, butalso on its processing history, impurities, etc. For a givensuperconducting material, an application is only feasibleif the operating temperature, current, and magnetic fieldfall well within these boundaries. To obtain usefully high

Chapter High-Temperature Superconductivity: A Progress Report ● 25

Crmcal

J

Temperaturetemperature T c K

H C ( 0 )

H c

tleld densky

Material must be maintained below the “critical surface” to remainsuperconducting.SOURCE: Business Technology Research, “Superconductive Materials

and Devices,” 1988.

values of current and magnetic field, superconductors aregenerally operated well below TC—ideally below about1/2 T . Thus, for operation at 77 K, a TC of approximately150 ~ is desirable, higher than the TC of any presentlyknown material. Accordingly, room-temperature opera-tion would require a TC around 600 K, about 621 oF.

Behavior of Superconductors in a Magnetic Field

Superconductors are classified in two types accordingto their behavior in an applied magnetic field (see figure2-6). Type I superconductors, which include most puremetal superconductors, exclude magnetic flux until amaximum field (HC) is exceeded at which point thematerial loses its superconductivity. In general, type Isuperconductors are not technologically important be-cause HC is very low—100 to 1,000 gauss (0.01 to 0.1tesla).3 By comparison, the field of a typical magnet usedin an MRI system is around 15,000 gauss. None of thetype I superconductors remains superconducting in sucha high field.

Virtually all superconductors of technological impor-tance are type II, including the new HTS materials. TypeII superconductors have two critical fields, HCI and HC2.They behave like type I materials at low magnetic fields,below HCI. At fields above HC2, the superconductor isdriven into its normal state. For fields between H.l andH.., the magnetic field penetrates the superconductor,

Type I Superconductor

H

I Normal state

Superconducting state

Material must beat afield and temperature below the HC(T) line toremain superconducting.

H Type II Superconductor (schemstic)

Normal state

M[xed state

H c, (T)

Melssnerstate

— - T

26 ● High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Figure 2-7--Schematic Representation ofFlux Vortices in a Type II Superconductor

Figure 2-8-Effect of Magnetic Field onSuperconducting Transition (schematic)

forming a lattice of vortices or supercurrent ‘whirlpools’(see figure 2-7). These vortices repel one another, andarrange themselves in a regular array so as to be as farfrom one another as possible. As the magnetic fieldincreases toward HC2, more vortices are formed, the latticespacing is decreased, until at HCZ, the superconductivitydisappears.

Critical Current Density

I + Zero magnetic field

o TC

T e m p e r a t u r e ~

An applied magnetic field causes resistance to appear in HTSmaterials below TC.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

A significant fraction of the vortices are pinned in placeby defects, grain boundaries, and other points of weak-ened superconductivity. Also, because of their mutualrepulsion, the unpinned vortices are locked in place.Collectively, this local site pinning and the lattice lockingare known as the pinning force in the superconductor. Atthe critical current the Lorentz force overcomes thepinning force and vortices begin to move. This movementconstitutes resistance, and eventually quenches the super-conductivity. An understanding of how to fabricate LTSconductors with the strongest possible pinning forces hasbeen reached only after 20 years of research.

Increasing temperature can also act to disrupt thesuperconductivity in type 11 materials. At low tempera-tures (around 4 K), the ambient thermal energy is not large

Chapter 2---High-Temperature Superconductivity: A Progress Report ● 27

enough to dislodge pinned vortices. Therefore, thermallyactivated vortex movement has not been a problem withLTS materials. At higher temperatures, though, the higherthermal energy in the crystal can overcome the pinningforces, causing vortices to jump from one site to another(flux creep).

In the presence of a magnetic field, HTS materialsexhibit a small residual resistivity at temperatures consid-erably below TC (see figure 2-8). This phenomenon is notobserved in LTS, and may require HTS materials to beoperated substantially below TC for applications in amagnetic field, i.e., at temperatures of 20 to 30 K ratherthan 77 K. This residual resistivity is due both to poorcoupling between individual grains of HTS and to weak

vortex pinning vis-a-vis thermal energy. Better process-ing techniques will eventually lead to improved intergran-ular coupling. New and stronger pinning mechanisms willhave to be found to counteract the higher thermal energyat higher operating temperatures. Some hope may bederived from the fact that thin films of HTS exhibit farhigher critical currents in the presence of magnetic fieldsthan do bulk single crystals. This suggests that the lowcritical currents in bulk materials may not be intrinsic, butmay be improved by creating microstructure similar tothose in thin films. In any case, materials with higher TC

do not necessarily have higher pinning strength, andtherefore are not necessarily more attractive for practicalapplications.

Chapter 3

Applications of Superconductivity

CONTENTS

3131313237414549525455

56565656575757575758

3-A.3-B.

3-1.3-2.3-3.3-4.3-5.3-6.

MagneticMagnetic

SeparationResonance

Applications in theApplications in theApplications in theApplications in theApplications in theApplications in the

Page

of Impurities From Kaolin Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Imaging . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

TablesPage

Electric Power Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Transportation Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Industrial Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Medical Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Electronics and Communications Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Defense and Space Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

343842455053

Chapter 3

Applications of Superconductivity

INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of this chapter is to assess the

significance of high-temperature superconductors(HTS) to the U.S. economy and to forecast thetiming of potential markets. Accordingly, it exam-ines the major present and potential applications ofsuperconductors in seven different sectors: high-energy physics, electric power, transportation, indus-trial equipment, medicine, electronics/communica-tions, and defense/space.

OTA has made no attempt to carry out anindependent analysis of the feasibility of usingsuperconductors in various applications. Rather, thischapter draws on numerous reviews published overthe past several years. Nor is this discussionexhaustive; instead, the intent is to survey some ofthe noteworthy factors that will determine thepotential for HTS in the different economic sectorscited above. In most applications, HTS competeswith low-temperature superconductors (LTS) aswell as with steadily improving nonsuperconductingtechnologies; therefore, the prospects for LTS—a farmore mature technology—are considered in parallelwith those of HTS.

Following the discussion of applications is asection on the lessons for HTS that can be gleanedfrom nearly 80 years’ experience with LTS. Thechapter concludes with a discussion of the signifi-cance of a higher critical transition temperature (TC)in the context of the broader requirements that mustbe met by any viable commercial technology.

APPLICATIONS

High-Energy Physics

From its inception until the coming of age ofmagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the mid-1980s, the U.S. superconducting wire industry wasalmost entirely dependent on wire procurements byFederal laboratories. This wire was primarily used in

particle accelerator magnets for high-energy physics(HEP) research.l

Accelerators require huge amounts of supercon-ducting wire. The Superconducting Super Colliderwill require an estimated 2,000 tons of NbTi wire,worth several hundred million dollars.2 Acceleratorsrepresent by far the largest market for supercon-ducting wire, dwarfing commercial markets such asMRI,

Superconductors are used in magnets that bendand focus the particle beam, as well as in detectorsthat separate the collision fragments in the targetarea. (Superconducting radio frequency cavities arealso used to accelerate the particles in linearaccelerators.) The magnets typically operate at highfields (around 5 tesla); the higher the operatingfields, the higher the particle energies that can beachieved, and the smaller the size of the acceleratorneeded. Superconducting magnets are essential be-cause they have low losses and enable highermagnetic fields; without them, power requirementsand construction costs would be prohibitive. Thelow operating temperature of LTS magnets alsohelps to minimize scattering of the beam.

Superconducting Super Collider (SSC)

The SSC is a racetrack-shaped collider that isexpected to extend particle physics research to ahigher level of energy—about 20 TeV—than hasever been achieved before.3 Sited in central Texas,the SSC is to be 54 miles in circumference—lotimes the size of the Fermilab Tevatron—and maycost as much as $7.2 billion.4 The superconductingmagnets, which have experienced development prob-lems, are expected to account for about one-third ofthe total SSC construction cost. In fiscal 1990,$225million was appropriated to continue developmentand begin construction of the SSC. The project isexpected to be completed in 10 years.


Photo credit: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Completed superconducting dipole magnets for Fermilab’sTevatron, stacked awaiting installation in the

4-mile accelerator.

With the discovery of superconductivity aboveliquid nitrogen temperature, the possibility arose ofdelaying construction of the SSC in order to be ableto use HTS for the magnets. Potential savings wereanticipated in either of two areas: by operating athigher temperatures and thus reducing the refrigera-tion costs, or by operating at higher fields and thuspermitting a reduction in the size of the ring. Butstudies have shown that-even if suitable HTSmagnets were available today—neither of thesesavings would amount to much.s G 7

In any case, analysts have estimated that it wouldtake at least 12 years to demonstrate an acceleratordipole magnet made from an I-ITS material.8 Fur-thermore, physicists have learned from bitter experi-ence that it is better to be cautious in pushing thestate-of-the-art in accelerator magnet technology.9

Although primary reliance on HTS is ruled out forthe SSC, there maybe niche applications that couldhelp to bootstrap HTS into the next generation ofmachines. One possible use of HTS would be inelectrical leads that supply power between the liquidnitrogen cooling jacket and the LTS magnets atliquid helium temperature, thereby reducing the heatload on the refrigeration system. But in the foresee-able future, LTS wire will continue to be the materialof choice for the critical magnets used in HEPresearch.

Electric Power

Several applications of superconductivity in theelectric power sector have undergone extensiveevaluation and even prototype development: e.g.,fusion magnets, generators, superconducting mag-netic energy storage (SMES), and AC transmissionlines. An overview of the impact of superconductiv-ity on these applications is provided in table 3-1.Other applications not discussed here include mag-netohydrodynamic power generation, transformers,motors, and power conditioning electronics.

Fusion Magnets

Magnetic fusion requires confinement of a heatedplasma in a magnetic field long enough to get it toignite—about 1 second. *O Superconducting magnetsare considered essential for the continuous, high-field operation that would be necessary for acommercial fusion reactor.

Like particle accelerator magnets, Federal fusionmagnet programs have provided a significant gov-ernment market that has driven the development of

Chapter 3—Applications of Superconductivity * 33

superconducting magnet technology.ll As a result,there are no major unsolved technical problems inthe fabrication of large fusion magnets. 12 The lack offollow through on these programs can be attributedto technical, economic, and political issues affectingfusion technology. Because magnet refrigerationcosts are less than 1 percent of total constructioncosts, the advent of HTS is not expected to changethe outlook for fusion.13

Superconducting Generators

Superconducting generators enjoy three potentialbenefits over conventional generators. They offerbetter system stability against frequency changesdue to transients on the grid. Because they canoperate at higher magnetic fields (5 to 6 tesla), thesize can be reduced up to 50 percent; this in turncould reduce capital costs significantly. Finally,efficiency could be increased by 0.5 percent (areduction in losses of around 50 percent). Even thissmall efficiency increase could result in fuel savingsthat would pay back the capital costs of the generatorover its lifetime.14

Although several prototype superconducting gen-erators were designed and constructed at the Massa-chusetts Institute of Technology, General ElectricCo., and Westinghouse Electric Corp. during the1960s to the early 1980s,15 these were never

commercialized because there was no perceiveddemand for new generating capacity.lb Today, theUnited States has no significant ongoing commer-cial LTS generator program, although programs arecontinuing in West Germany, Japan, and the SovietUnion. Siemens in West Germany is proceedingwith plans for an 850 megawatt (MW) commercialsystem, and tests of prototype components areexpected to begin in 1990.17 A consortium ofJapanese companies is developing a 200 MWgenerator for the late 1990s (the “Super-GM”project, see ch. 5).

Most studies indicate that LTS generators are onlycompetitive with conventional generators at veryhigh power ratings (500 to 1,000 MW). But with lowload growth in the 1980s and continuing uncertain-ties about demand in the 1990s, there appears to belittle enthusiasm among U.S. firms to put up theirown cash for R&D on such large machines. *8 Inprinciple, use of HTS could make smaller machinesmore competitive, but estimates differ on how much.The refrigeration system would be much simpler,and this would lead to greater reliability andmaintainability. But the application involves ahigh-field, high-current, wire-wound magnet, spin-ning at high speed, under large centrifugal stresses.HTS wires would have to carry current densities onthe order of 100,000 Amps/cm2 in a 5 tesla magnetic


Table 3-1-Applications in the Electric Power Sector

Application Impact of superconductivity Comments

Fusion magnets Technical feasibility demonstrated with LTS, Superconducting magnets are essential, butunlikely with HTS. fusion is limited by technical problems unrelated

to superconductivity.

Magnetohydrodynamics Technical feasibility demonstrated for LTS, Similar to fusion situation.(MHD) magnets unlikely for HTS.

Generators Technical feasibility of rotors demonstrated with Superconducting designs only economic at highLTS, possible with HTS. power ratings, for which demand is limited. HTS

could make smaller generators more attractive,but faces extreme technical challenges. Virtuallyno active programs in U. S., despite continuingdevelopment programs abroad.

Superconducting Magnetic Technical feasibility demonstrated with LTS, Similar to generator situation, although U.S. hasEnergy Storage (SMES) possible with HTS. an active program due to potential for military

applications.

Transmission lines Technical feasibility demonstrated with LTS, Must be placed underground, making capitalpotentially attractive with HTS. costs high. Superconducting designs only eco-

nomic at high power ratings, though HTS couldmake lower capacity lines more attractive. Mar-ket outlook discouraging.

May provide an early opportunity to demonstrateperformance of HTS in a utility setting.

Minor with LTS, promising for HTS.Auxiliary equipment:Current limitersSwitchesFusesPower leads


field to realize the large decrease in size possible.These requirements make the generator one of themost difficult applications for HTS.

Beyond the turn of the century, there will be amarket for new generators, both to replace olderequipment and to accommodate growth in de-mand.19 The share of superconducting generators inthis market is uncertain. But one thing is clear.Because it is likely to take at least 15 years todemonstrate a commercial system, the United Statesis effectively conceding this market to its competi-tors unless it restarts its LTS generator programsimmediate y.

Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES)

In an SMES system, electric power is stored in themagnetic field of a large superconducting magnet,and can be retrieved efficiently at short notice.Power conditioning systems are required to convertthe DC power in the magnet to AC for the grid whendischarging the SMES, and vice versa when recharg-

ing. SMES has several potential applications inelectric utilities. Large units (above 1 GW-hr capac-ity) could be used for diurnal storage and loadleveling. Smaller units may provide a number ofoperating benefits: e.g., spinning reserve, automaticgeneration control, black start capability, and im-proved system stability.

SMES is also of interest to the military because itcan deliver large quantities of pulsed power toweapon systems such as ground-based lasers forballistic missile defense. The Strategic DefenseInitiative Organization (SDIO) is presently support-ing the development of a 20 MW-hr/400 MWengineering test model (ETM), which could begintests by 1993.20 Because the military design and theutility design are similar except for the powerconditioning system (weapons must receive largeamounts of power quickly and may drain the SMESin a very short time; utilities must have a constantreliable supply from which smaller amounts ofpower are withdrawn on a daily basis), utilities are

Chapter 3—Applications of Superconductivity ● 35

providing a small percentage of the funding throughthe Electric Power Research Institute.

Utilities have experimented with several methodsof storing energy, including pumping water uphill toa reservoir, compressing air, and charging batteriesand capacitors. SMES has several advantages overother types of energy storage systems. For loadleveling, it offers a higher efficiency than any otherstorage technology—90 to 93 percent,21 comparedto 70 to 75 percent for pumped hydro-and canswitch back and forth between charging mode anddischarging mode in a matter of milliseconds. Thisquick response time means that it can contribute tothe stability of the utility system against transientdisturbances. 22

The SMES concept has undergone extensiveevaluation in the United States since the early1970s.23 Most studies indicate that SMES for loadleveling is only cost-effective at very large storagecapacities, around 5000 MW-hr.24 Such an SMESwould be physically very large, perhaps 1,000meters in diarneter.25 To contain the magnetic forceson the coils, the SMES must be buried in bedrock,with total construction costs estimated to be around$1 billion.2b

I-ITS does not appear to offer dramatic reductionsin capital or operating costs for SMES. Withexcellent HTS materials (comparable in cost andproperties to NbTi, except with higher criticaltemperature), one could reduce capital costs by 3 to8 percent.27 HTS would provide only marginalimprovements in the efficiency of the system, sinceonly 2 percent of the power is consumed byrefrigeration (this decreases with increasing SMEScapacity), and 3 to 4 percent of the power is lost inthe power conversion electrical system, the maindeterminant of efficiency. The high electric currents

required could be another stumbling block for HTS.To reduce capital costs of the conductors, highcritical current densities are required-in excess of300,000 Amps/cm2. The best present HTS wires areonly capable of some tens of thousands of Arnps/cm2

at 77 K, and this decreases in increasing magneticfields. HTS materials could, however, be a goodchoice for the power leads connecting the liquidnitrogen jacket to the liquid helium temperatureSMES coil.

In the present economic environment, utilitiesfind such a large SMES unattractive compared withsupplementary gas turbines. Before investing insuch a large project, utilities will require that thetechnical feasibility and economic assumptions bedemonstrated in smaller SMES systems such as theSDIO ETM mentioned above. Small SMES units(less than 100 MW-hr) are also undergoing evaluat-ion for industrial or residential use in Japan.

Power Transmission Lines

Interest in superconducting power transmissionlines dates back to the 1960s, when demand forelectricity was doubling every 10 years. There wasgreat concern about where large new power plantscould be sited safely--specially nuclear plants—and about how such large amounts of power could betransmitted to users without disrupting the environ-ment. Overhead lines often cut swathes throughwooded areas and spoil scenery. Underground lines,a solution to environmental concerns, have otherproblems. Conventional underground cables areabout 10 times more expensive than overhead lines,and consequently account for only 1 percent of thetransmission lines in the United States. Moreover,because of heat dissipation and line impedanceproblems, these lines are limited to small capacitiesand short distances.———

34 ● High.Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Superconducting lines promised to address theseproblems: since their current-carrying capacity is notlimited by heat dissipation they are able to carrylarge amounts of power at relatively low voltage.After the oil embargo of 1973, the emphasis shiftedto the conservation potential of superconductingtransmission. On average, about 4 percent of theelectric power carried by a transmission line is lostdue to resistance. 28 In In principle, most of these losses

could be avoided through the use of superconductingtransmission lines.29

Superconducting transmission lines could carryeither direct current (DC) or alternating current(AC). DC lines are used to carry large blocks ofpower from one point to another. A superconductingDC cable could carry very high currents with noresistive losses. But because the cost of DC lines isdominated by the conversion to AC at either end, asuperconducting line would have to be extremelylong (perhaps several hundred miles) to be economi-cally competitive with cheaper overhead lines. Suchcables are unlikely to be used except where alterna-tives are not available (e.g., for undersea powertransmission), and are not considered further here.

During the 1970s, there were several importantstudies of AC superconducting transmission lines.30

Three major projects were initiated in the UnitedStates, the most extensive of which was at BrookhavenNational Laboratory. The Brookhaven project pro-duced two 115 meter, 80 kilovolt (kV), one-phaselines made from Nb3Sn. The project met all of itsoriginal design objectives, and, through continuouscontact and collaboration with the utilities, main-tained its relevance through its 14-year life span. Butby the time it was completed in 1986, the economiclandscape had changed.

Power consumption is no longer doubling every10 years, and the near-term demand for newtransmission lines of any type appears to be minimal,

going hand-in-hand with the low demand for newgenerating capacity. There is evidence that existingtransmission capacity is almost fully utilized. But atpresent, utilities prefer to build small power plantsclose to the end users rather than large plants faraway.31 EPRI has estimated that a liquid helium-cooled line would have to carry more than 5,000megavolt-amps (MVA) to be cost-competitive.q2

This is much larger than a typical conventional line,rated at 1,000 to 3,000 MVA, and most utilitiestoday are interested in smaller lines in the 200 to1,000 MVA range.33

Transmission lines appear to be one of the fewelectric power applications where the incrementaladvantage of HTS at 77 K over LTS is verysignificant. This is because the long lengths in-volved make the cost of cooling with liquid heliumextremely high, and the demands made on theconductor performance are relatively low. By someestimates, HTS could reduce costs by as much as 30percent compared with LTS. EPRI has estimatedthat, using HTS conductors, lines with capacities aslow as 500 MVA may be economically feasible.3435It is ironic that in this one electric power applicationfor which HTS technology seems potentially suita-ble, the projected demand is lacking.3b

Current Limiters, Switches, and Fuses

These devices are used to control power flows,especially during short circuit conditions in theelectric power system, and thus also reduce the shortcircuit capacity required of other components, suchas cables, transmission lines, generators, and trans-formers.

Superconducting versions of these devices gener-ally rely on controlling currents by switching theconductor from the nonresistive superconductingstate to the normal resistive state. Compared withtheir conventional analogs, these superconductingcomponents offer the advantage that they introduce

28 The Electric Power Research Institute, op. cit., footnote 14, p. 16.

29 There are conventional alternatives. For instance, losses could be reduced by using conventional conductors having a larger cross section, thoughthis would increase conductor weight and require somewhat higher capital investment for towers, etc.

30 TMAH Consultants, op. cit., footnote 15, p. 11.

31 Office of Technology Assessment, op. cit., footnote 18, p. 20.32 EPRI, op. cit., footnote 14. 1988, p. 18.

33 Ibid., p.18.

34 Ibid., p. 18.35 A recent EPRI report concludes that present materials are still far from technical feasibility, though. Electric Power Research Institute, Assessment

of Higher-Temperature Superconductors for Utility Applications, EPRI ER-6399, Project 2898-3 Final Report, May 1989.36 This demand Picture, thou@, could change rapidly in the future due to environmental or Other site-specific considerations.

no losses into the system during normal operation,and switching times can be reduced from 1 to 2cycles (about 20 milliseconds) to less than 1millisecond.

These applications may be especially attractivefor HTS compared with LTS. The new ceramicshave comparatively high resistivity in the normalstate, and liquid nitrogen is a far more efficientcoolant than liquid helium. Moreover, these devicesneed operate only in small magnetic fields, and aresubjected to small mechanical forces. Such small-scale applications could provide an early opportu-nity to gain experience with HTS in a utility setting.

Transportation

Applications of superconductivity in transporta-tion include: magnets for levitation, propulsion, andguidance of high-speed ground vehicles (“mag-lev”); motors and generators for use in ships,aircraft, locomotives, and other ground vehicles;energy storage and propulsion systems for cars; and

magnets for ship propulsion. An overview of theimpact of superconductivity on these applications isgiven in table 3-2. Of these, maglev systems are themost extensively developed, and have received themost attention.

Maglev Systems

Airports and highways are becoming more andmore congested, resulting not only in costly timedelays, but in serious smog problems in heavilytraveled corridors. Community resistance to newroads and airports compounds the difficulties ofexpanding these to fill travel demand. Transporta-tion petroleum consumption alone exceeds domesticoil production, and oil supplies will continue todiminish as travel demand increases. 37 High-speedmaglev vehicle systems offer one solution to theseproblems.

There are two principal levitation concepts formaglev vehicles: attractive-force and repulsive-force, Attractive maglev uses nonsuperconductingelectromagnets mounted on the vehicle that are

37 A.M. Wolsky et al., op. cit., footnote ‘21, p. 169.

38 ● High-Termperature superconductivity in perspective

Table 3-2—Applications in the Transportation Sector


Maglev systems Technical feasibility demonstrated with LTS, Superconducting designs offer some advan-minor with HTS. tages over conventional (attractive) maglev, but

oosts are dominated by land acquisition andguideway construction.

Automobiles Negligible unless room-temperature supercon- Cryogenic systems would be costly and incon-ductors are discovered. venient.

Ships:Electric drive Technical feasibility demonstrated with LTS, May be most attractive in military ships where

possible with HTS. space and flexibility of hull design are at apremium,

Electromagnetic thrust Possible with LTS, unlikely for HTS. Technical and economic feasibility have yet tobe proven in oceangoing vessels; requires large,high-field magnets.


attracted to the underside of steel rails. This conceptwas invented in West Germany and is also called‘‘electromagnetic maglev. One disadvantage ofthis design is that the suspension gap between therails and the car is less than one-half inch, placingstrict demands on track alignment. The system isdynamically unstable and requires precise real-timefeedback to control the suspension height. Thevehicles are also very heavy (the latest weighs 102tons), and require a massive support structure.Nevertheless, full-scale development of this system,called the Transrapid, is now underway in WestGermany, with commercial operation scheduled tobegin in the mid-1990s.38

Repulsive-force maglev, also called “electrody-namics, ’ uses vehicles levitated by superconductingmagnets that induce repulsive currents in a guide-way containing aluminum sheets or coils. Vehiclesare levitated 6 to 10 inches above the guideway. Thisconcept, invented in the United States,39 was devel-oped into scale models in the early 1970s, withsupport from the Federal Railroad Administration,the National Science Foundation, and private com-panies.

Support for all high-speed ground transportationresearch in the United States terminated in 1975,however. Meanwhile, the Japanese have activelycontinued developing a superconducting maglevsystem based on the U.S. “null flux” levitation andpropulsion scheme, and a full-scale model has been

Photo credit: Japan External Trade Organization

Japan’s prototype linear motor car, a magneticallylevitated train.

undergoing tests on a 4.3-mile test track inMiyazaki, Japan for several years.~ 41

Conceptually, the West German and Japanesemaglev systems are railroad systems, in which themaglev suspension is substituted for steel wheels.Viewed as a railroad technology, maglev trains offerseveral advantages over steel wheel trains. Maglevis capable of higher speeds (circa 300 mph) thansteel-on-steel (circa 185 mph, with potential for over200 mph). Maglevs are quieter, operable in a greaterrange of weather conditions, and are less pollutingthan diesel trains (although equivalent to electrictrains). They have fewer moving parts, resulting in

38 The first commercial route is expected to connect the airports of Bonn and Essen.

39 G.R. Danby and J.R. Powell, ‘‘A 300 MPH Magnetically-Suspended Train, ’ Mechanical Engineering, vol. 89, November 1%7, pp. 30-35,

40 S.J. Thompson, Congressional Research Service, “High Speed Ground Transportation (HGST): Prospects and Public Policy,” Apr. 6, 1989, p. 5.41 Construction of a new 27-mile test track has also been approved for the Yamanashi prefecture.


less wear and tear, and are less likely to derailbecause of the close coupling between train andtrack.

Notable disadvantages of maglev center arounddevelopment and construction costs. Developmentcosts for the West German Transrapid system haveexceeded $1 billion, $800 million of which has beensubsidized by the West German government.42

Development costs of the Japanese system have alsoexceeded $1 billion, and construction costs for thenew 27-mile Japanese system are expected to bearound $56 million per mile (not counting tunnelingcosts) .43 Development of a U.S. system is estimatedto cost $780 milliona plus $15 million per mile forconstruction. 45

Maglev is being evaluated along with otherhigh-speed ground transportation options for severalcorridors in Florida, Nevada/California, Texas, andOhio. Given the lack of domestic maglev technologyin the United States, the West German and Japanesesystems are being considered.4b Florida has begun aprocess that could initiate construction of a maglevline (using the West German Transrapid technology)between Orlando Airport and Disney World/EpcottCenter as early as 1990.47 Although the UnitedStates was a world leader in maglev R&D in themid- 1970s, there are no ongoing development pro-grams. 48 However, i t remains unclear whether these

“train-like” maglev systems will be broadly appli-cable in the United States, given the relatively lowerdemand for train travel compared with Europe andJapan.

Going Beyond Railroads-There are other waysof viewing maglev technology than as a simplereplacement for existing rail transportation. In one

concept, lightweight individual vehicles follow oneanother closely along the guideway, each pro-grammed to pull off and stop only at its destina-tion.49 Unlike railroads, this system could be in-stalled along existing interstate highways, andindeed, conceptually resembles an elevated, high-speed freeway lane.

Recent studies have also suggested that maglevmay more usefully be viewed as an airline technol-ogy, rather than a railroad technology .50 Maglevcould be integrated into the Nation’s air transporta-tion system as a substitute for less profitable (andinefficient) short-haul airline flights (those of lessthan 600 miles). Using small maglev systems forthese distances would free up limited gate space aswell as take-off and landing slots for more profitablelong distance flights. Maglev lines could be installedas spokes radiating from major airports that havesizable populations within a limited radius.

Role of Superconductivity--Superconducting mag-nets are essential to repulsive maglev technology;however, the magnets and refrigeration systemstogether account for only 1 to 2 percent of total costs;the major system cost is in construction of theguideway (60 to 90 percent of total system cost) .51If high-speed maglev systems are judged to bepolitically and economically desirable, present LTSmagnet technology is adequate to the task; thus,superconductivity technology is not a bottleneck tothe development of maglev. The discovery of HTSdoes not change this analysis. Although the vehiclescould be made somewhat lighter with HTS magnets,

42 "Perspective,” Business Month, November 1988, p. 11.43 NationaJ Technical Information Service, Foreign Technology, vol. 89, No. 38, Sept. 19. 1989, P. iv.44 See Maglev Technology Advisory Committee, Benefits of Magnetically-Leviated High Speed Transportation for the United States, Executive

Report published by Grurnman Corp. for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, June 1989, p. 30.45 L.R. Johnson et al., Maglev Vehicles and Superconductor Technology: fntegratwn of High-Speed Ground Transportation into the Air Travel System,

Argonne National Laboratory Center for Transportation Research, CNSV-67, April 1989, p. 5.46 See Maglev Technology Advisory Committee, op. cit., footnote 44, p. 30.47 Paul H Reistrup, President of the Monongahela Railway Co., testimony at hearings before the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Oct. 17, 1989.48 Several bills were introduced in the 101st Congress (S-220 and S-221, H. Con. Res. 232) supporting us. maglev programs. The Bush Administration

has requested about $10 million in the fiscal year 1991 budget for maglev feasibility studies.

49 H.H. Kolm and R.D. Thornton, “The Magneplane: Guided Electromagnetic Flight, ’ Proceedings of the Applied Superconductivity Conference,Annapolis, MD, May 1-3, 1972.

50 L. R. Johnson et al., op. cit., footnote 45.

51 Larry Johnson, Director, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, written testimony at hearings before the SenateCommittee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Water Resources, Transportation and Infrastructure, Feb. 26, 1988, p. 4.


the overall gains would be no more than a fewpercent.52

Automobiles

Proposed auto applications include SMES de-vices to supply short bursts of power for starting oraccelerating vehicles (allowing use of a smallermotor for the steady speed operation of the car), andlinear induction motors that would receive powerfrom conducting strips in the roadway (similar to thepropulsion system in maglev). Superconductingmotors for cars are also possible. But most analystsagree that neither LTS at 4 K nor HTS at 77 Kappears to have significant applications in automo-biles in the foreseeable future.

Batteries are far superior to SMES devices inautomobiles because of their comparatively largerenergy storage density, and would be cheaper aswell, due to the inconvenience and cost of coolingthe SMES. And a superconducting linear inductionpropulsion system would require not only an entirelynew vehicle design, but a new infrastructure ofpower strips in millions of miles of roadways and acorresponding number of power distribution substa-tions. According to U.S. auto industry experts,superconductors will not be used widely in carsunless they can operate at ambient temperatures.53

Ship Propulsion

Electric Drive-Present ship drive designs relyon mechanical power transfer—i.e., a long driveshaft and extensive gearing between the power plantand the propeller. All parts of the mechanicalpropulsion system must be in fixed locations,leaving little design flexibility. Moreover, since allpower transfer is mechanical, the system is ex-tremely noisy, with considerable vibration that canbe easily detected—an undesirable feature for mili-tary craft such as submarines.

Electric drive consists of a turbine/generatorsystem coupled electrically to the motor/propellersystem. This provides greater design flexibility,since the two can be located independently, accom-

modating unusual hull shapes. It also offers opera-tional flexibility, e.g., lower inertia in the drivesystem and reduced noise.54

Superconductors can be used in both the generatorsystem and the motor system. Although supercon-ductors can provide somewhat higher efficiencythan conventional generators and motors, the princi-pal advantage on ships appears to be the potential forreduced size and weight. This is especially importantin smaller craft-e. g., destroyers and submarines—where hull space is restricted. Thus, electric driveship propulsion in the United States is mostly ofinterest to the Navy. A superconducting DC ho-mopolar generator and motor prototype system hasbeen constructed and tested on a 65 foot ship at theDavid Taylor Research Center in Annapolis, Mary-land. f5

While LTS materials offer considerable sizereduction over conventional technologies, HTSmaterials appear to offer little advantage over LTSfor this application. An HTS motor and an LTSmotor (both 10 to 15 Tesla, with the same rpm andhorsepower) would have approximately the sameweight and diarneter.5b HTS materials may also beunable to support adequate current densities at thehigh magnetic fields required.

Electromagnetic Thrust Propulsion—131ectro-magnetic thrust drive systems (sometimes calledmagnetohydrodymamic (MHD) drives), rely onseawater flowing through a channel in the hull wherea DC electric current is passed through it. Thiscurrent interacts with a field applied by a largemagnet, resulting in a backward force on the waterthat propels the ship forward.

The propulsion force is proportional to the mag-nitudes of the current and the magnetic fieldstrength. However, the current is limited by theamount that can be passed through seawater withoutcausing excessive power losses due to heating. Thus,the thrust depends on the strength of the magneticfield. It has been estimated that a magnet of 10

52 1bid.52 Superconductor Week, vol. 2, No. 45, NOV. 21, l988, p. 6.

53 Business Technology Research, op. cit., footnote 2, 1988, p. 106.

55 Although such a supconducting DC motor may offer advantages on board small military ships, this may be a niche application only. The marketfor DC motors has been shrinking for years due to replacement by variable speed AC motors (see discussion of motors in industrial section below).

56 M1chael J. SuperCYnSkl, David Taylor Research Center, in a presentation at the Conference on Military Developments sponsored by SuperconductorWeek, Washington, DC, Oct. 31 to Nov. 1, 1988.


tesla is needed for a commercial system to beeconomic .57

Superconducting magnets are the only practicaloption for achieving such large fields. However,large-bore magnets having such high fields would beextremely massive (not to say expensive), reducingpropulsion efficiency. For the same reasons dis-cussed above for large, high-field magnets, this isnot a promising application for HTS. MHD propul-sion has been considered for use on submarinesbecause it eliminates the detectable vibrations asso-ciated with the propeller and generator, although itmay not be acceptable for this application becausethe leakage magnetic field and various gases gener-ated might make the submarine too vulnerable todetection. 58

The MHD drive concept was fust developed in theUnited States in the 1950s, but the United Statescurrently has no active development programs. TheJapanese Foundation for Shipbuilding Advance-ment (an industry association) is building a proto-type MHD-propelled ship scheduled for completionin 1990.59

Industrial Applications

There are many potential applications of super-conductivity in industrial equipment. A partial listincludes sensors for process and quality control;magnets for separation of solid, liquid, and gaseousmixtures; magnets for processing and shaping mate-rials; accelerator magnets for x-ray lithography ofmicroelectronic chips; and windings for industrialmotors. In several of these applications, e.g., mag-netic separation and compact accelerators, the feasi-bility has been demonstrated with LTS. The likelyimpact of superconductivity in some illustrativeapplications is indicated in table 3-3.

Sensors

Industrial sensor applications of superconductorshave been discussed by several authorsm and includeapplications both inside and outside the factory: for

example, inspection of raw materials, monitoring ofmanufacturing functions such as the positioning ofthe work piece and tool, nondestructive inspection infinished parts, detection of corrosion in bridges, orexploration for mineral and oil deposits, etc.

The most commonly discussed superconductingsensors are Superconducting Quantum InterferenceDevices (SQUIDS),61 which are capable of detectingextremely small magnetic fields; however, super-conducting sensors can also be configured to meas-ure small currents, voltages, temperature changes,and electromagnetic radiation emissions. Of course,there are numerous options for sensors using moreconventional technologies: optical, chemical, ultra-sonic, etc., and superconducting sensors may offeradvantages only in certain niches.

Heretofore, LTS SQUIDS have not found applica-tion in industrial settings because their sensitivitytypically far exceeds the ambient magnetic fieldnoise levels, and because of the difficulty of workingwith liquid helium. Although HTS SQUIDS operat-ing at 77 K are inherently more noisy than LTSSQUIDS operating at 4 K, their sensitivity is likelyto be more than adequate for the industrial environ-ment, and they would be far easier to maintain andtransport.

While sensor markets for HTS are not likely to belarge in terms of volume of material, there appearsto be a number of possible niches. One examplemight be an array of HTS SQUIDS for improveddetection of concealed weapons at security check-points. Because sensors are not especially demand-ing in terms of the superconductor material proper-ties, present HTS materials may be adequate, andcommercial HTS SQUIDS could be introducedwithin a few years. The United States appears to be

— .57 D.L. Mitchell and D.U. Gubser, "Magnetohydroynamic" Ship Propulsion With Superconducting Magnets, ” Journal of Superconductivity, vol. 1,

No. 4, 1988, p. 349.58 Frank Hutchison, DARPA, personal communication, September 1988.

59 The “Yamato l,” 38 meters long and 10 meters across, is the product of a 6-year, $350 million effort begun in 1985. The vessel will be built atMitsubishi’s Kobe plant. Superconductor Week, vol. 4, No. 5, Jan. 29, 1990, p. 5.

60 See, for exmple, Thomas P. Sheahan, Industrial Superconductivity, a report to the. Office of Industrial Programs, U.S. Department of Energy!

October 1987.61 For an introduction to SQUIDS and their applications, see R. Fagaly, “SQUID instrumentation and Applications, ” Superconductor Industry, vol.

2, No. 4, Winter 1989, p. 24.


Table 3-3-Applications in the Industrial Sector


Sensors: Minor for LTS, significant for HTS. Operation at 77 K could offer greater reliabilityProcessing and maintainability in the industrial environment.Quality control

Magnetic separation Significant for LTS, potentially promising for Reliability and performance with LTS haveHTS. already been demonstrated in kaolin clay

purification.

Materials processing Moderate for LTS, minor for HTS. Will face strong mmpetition from conventionaland shaping electromagnets.

Compact accelerators Moderate for LTS, minor for HTS. High magnetic fields and high mechanicalstrength are essential.

Motors Minor for LTS, possible for HTS. LTS only economic for the largest sizes (above10,000 hp). HTS motors could reduce theeconomic break-even point, but the conductormust have extremely high performance.


well-positioned to participate in the early marketsfor HTS SQUIDS.C2

Magnetic Separation

A strong magnetic field can be used to separate amixture of magnetic and nonmagnetic materials.Conventional magnets are presently used in a varietyof industrial separation processes, especially for theseparation of strongly magnetic metals from othersolids. Compared with other industrial separationtechniques (e.g., distillation, filtration, chemicalmethods, and membranes), magnetic separationmethods are not widely used, however.

The use of iron cores in conventional electromag-nets limits the attainable fields in magnetic separa-tors to around 2 tesla, and limits the magnetic fieldvolume due to the sheer weight of the iron. Withsuperconducting magnets, a 2-telsa field can beproduced in a larger volume, or continuous fields of5 tesla and above can be produced in a smallervolume. The use of higher fields permits a higherprocess throughput, and makes it possible to sepa-rate smaller particles having weaker magnetism.

Superconducting magnetic separation systemshave recently been demonstrated commercially inseveral countries for separation of discoloring impu-rities from white kaolin clay, a material widely usedin the paper industry (see box 3-A). Supercon-ducting magnets could also be used for removal ofenvironmentally harmful materials from municipal

solid waste and wastewater streams, removal ofsulfur from coal, and pretreatment of water to reducecarbonate scale formation in pipes and fixtures.c3

A promising possibility for the future could be thecombination of chemical and magnetic separationtechniques. Selective chemical attachment of mag-netic tags to specific molecules in a mixture couldfacilitate their separation by magnetic methods.

In principle, HTS magnetic separator systemswould offer significantly lower capital and operatingcosts than LTS systems, since the scale of thesesystems is small enough that the 4 K cryogenicsystems constitute a significant fraction of overallsystem costs. In addition, HTS magnets operating at77 K would be easier to maintain and require shortertimes for warmup and cool down. Unknown factorsare whether HTS materials can achieve high enoughcurrent densities in the ambient magnetic fields,whether they will be sufficiently flexible to bewound into magnets, whether they will be suffi-ciently strong to withstand the powerful reactionforces of the generated fields, and whether they willbe sufficiently reliable and stable in the industrialenvironment.

Materials Processing

Recent laboratory work suggests that magneticfields below 2 tesla applied during processing canhave a pronounced effect on the final microstructureof various materials: e.g., the sintering of ceramics,

62 Federal laboratories such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology and firms such as IBM have announced Progress in developing HTSSQUID technology.

63 S.J. Dale et. al., summary report for RP8009-2, Electric Power Research Institute ER-6682, January 1990.


Box 3-A--Magnetic Separation of Impurities From Kaolin Clayl

Kaolin clay is a naturally occurring white mineral that is used to fill and whiten paper products. It also is usedin china and ceramics. Magnetic separation can improve the whiteness and brightness of low-grade kaolin clay byremoving iron-containing magnetic impurities that stain the clay, thus increasing the clay’s value and utility.Magnetic impurities are trapped in the tnagnetic field of the separator, while the kaolin passes through unaffected.1n 1987, U.S. production of kaolin totaled 8,827,000 short tons, valued at approximately $540 million. The Bureauof Mines projects U.S. demand to be greater than 12 million short tons in the year 2000.2

In 1%7, J.M. Huber Corp., a producer of kaolin clay, sought methods for improving the low-grade clayavailable in Georgia. Based on research conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology National MagnetLaboratory under the National Science Foundation’s Research Applied to National Needs program, the process ofHigh Gradient Magnetic Separation (HGMS) was developed, and the first HGMS separators-using bothconventional and superconducting magnets—were built by Magnetic Engineering Associates, a small Cambridge,Massachusetts firm. Eventually, the technology was licensed to the clay industry worldwide, as well as to thetacortite (a low-grade iron ore) and water purification industries.

By 1973, commercially available magnetic separators for kaolin (using conventional electromagnets) couldprocess 60 tons/hr, Since that time, the magnetic separator has become the standard industry method for producinghigh-quality kaolin clay from low-grade sources.

In May 1986, Huber introduced the first low-temperature superconducting version of the kaolin magneticseparator, with a phenomenal 99 percent uptime in its first year, In the superconducting magnetic separator, theconventional electromagnet is replaced by a superconducting one. In addition, the energizing and de-energizing ofthe magnet are computer controlled. Huber contracted with Eriez Magnetics to build the superconducting version,at a cost of around $2 million, including the refrigeration equipment. It processes 20 tons of kaolin per hour, witha 90 percent reduction in the amount of electricity required compared to a conventional unit. Part of the success ofthis superconducting magnetic separator is due to its conservative design. Its liquid helium refrigeration capacityis twice what is needed for normal operation. In addition, there is a reservoir of liquid helium sufficient to keep thesystem running for over a week in the event of a total failure of the refrigerator. The design life is l@ cycles, whichis over 50 years use for 2 cycles/hour, 24 hours a day. Huber ordered a second, larger unit, and placed it in operationin March 1989.

There are five companies worldwide that have taken superconducting magnetic separators beyond thelaboratory: KHD Humboldt Wedag {West Germany), Cryogenic Consultants Limited (United Kingdom), EriezMagnetics (U.S.A.), Czechoslovakia Kaolin Works, and Oxford Instruments Limited (United Kingdom). Two ofthese companies, Eriez and Czechoslovakia Kaolin Works, make superconducting magnetic separators for kaolinclay. The Czech system produces 15 tons of purified kaolin per hour.

The market for superconducting magnetic separators for kaolin clay is limited, even though demand for kaolinis expected to continue to grow. There are probably less than 20 large kaolin magnetic separators, conventional andsuperconducting, currently operating in the United States. However, the experience with superconducting magneticseparators in this application has important lessons far other applications of magnetic separation.

Magnetic separators in the industrial environment must have high reliability and operating simplicity.Conventional wisdom said that a dirty industrial environment was incompatible with liquid helium use. But the highreliability of the first commercial superconducting magnetic separator-due to its extremely conservativedesign-proved that LTS equipment can work well in an industrial environment.

Also, as demonstrated in the case of conventional kaolin magnetic separation, once economic viability andreliability are demonstrated by one company, competitors will be forced to follow. And the demonstrated operatingefficiency of the kaolin superconducting magnetic separator indicates that there may be other impure rawmaterials-e.g., iron ores previously thought to be too poor a grade-that could be economically produced usingthis technology.

1 This box draws heavily on the contractor report report from TMAHConsultants, “Lessons From Low-Temperature Superconductors,"prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, November 1988.

2 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mineral Facts and Problems, 1985 edition; and U.S. Department of the Interior,Bureau of Mines, Mineral Commodity Summaries 1989.


polymerization of plastics, and the crystal growth ofmetals.w It is even likely that the course of chemicalreactions-especially those involving colloidal mix-tures or precipitation of solids-could be manipu-lated with powerful magnetic fields. These effects,which could be very significant, have not receivedserious study.

Strong magnetic fields on the order of 40 tesla canalso be used for industrial shaping of metals andother conductors. This comes about because amagnet can exert powerful forces on a conductormoving through its magnetic field. These forces aredeveloped without the mechanical friction thataccompanies conventional shaping processes suchas drawing of wire or press-molding sheets.b5 As aresult, costly tool wear would be virtually elimi-nated. Continuous fields of this magnitude wouldinvolve hybrid magnets, and considerable engineer-ing development would be required to overcome theproblem of mechanical stresses on the magnet itselfunder such high fields. The critical current andmagnetic field limitations of present HTS materialsare serious barriers to their use in high-field mag-nets.

Compact Accelerators

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the largeparticle accelerators used in high-energy physicsresearch depend on superconducting magnets andcavities to accelerate, direct, and focus the particlebeams. Smaller versions of these machines (dimen-sions in the tens of square meters) could findapplication in industry settings; notably, in compactsynchrotrons that would generate intense x-raybeams for lithography of microelectronic chips. Useof x-rays could permit the feature sizes of microelec-tronic circuits to be reduced to about 0.1 micrometer,compared with the current state-of-the-art of about0.5 micrometer.bb This capability could usher in anew generation of smaller, more powerful comput-ers and electronics.

Several significant efforts are underway aroundthe world to produce compact synchrotrons for x-raylithography. In Japan, government and industry have

invested an estimated $700 million in seven syn-chrotrons projects for x-ray lithography, and mayspend $1 billion more to devise manufacturingsystems. 67 West Germany, a member of the Joint

European Submicron Silicon project (JEW), isbuilding a $210 million institute to develop x-raytechnology for chip manufacture.b8 In the UnitedStates, IBM has invested some $130 million onR&D and has contracted with the United Kingdom’sOxford Instruments to build a compact synchrotrons,scheduled for completion in 1992. But Federalsupport for R&D has been very modest (DARPAsupports a $30 million program on x-ray lithographyresearch) and other U.S. companies have beenreluctant to get involved.

Compact synchrotrons technology presents a di-lemma for U.S. companies. On the one hand, it couldmake existing chip fabrication technologies obso-lete. On the other hand, capital costs of evencompact synchrotrons systems are extremely high(perhaps $16 to $20 million), and cheaper competingtechnologies based on ultraviolet lasers or electronbeam steppers continue to offer smaller feature sizes(perhaps down to 0.3 micrometers), thus narrowingthe potential advantage of synchrotrons.

Superconducting magnets are the only practicalalternative for producing synchrotrons rings smallerthan about 5 meters in diameter. Present Japaneseprototypes using LTS magnet technology havediameters of about 3 meters, If present LTS proto-types are successful, and these designs are commer-cialized, the industry emphasis on reliability andfamiliarity with the technology may mean that LTSwill be preferred over HTS. Furthermore, if compactsynchrotrons turn out to be an enabling technologyfor a new generation of microchips, it appears thatthe breadth and depth of commitment in Japan willguarantee that Japanese companies will take theearly lead in the commercialization of this technol-ogy

64 Ibid. p.70.

65 1b1d.

66 Brian Santo, ‘‘X-ray Lithography: The Best Is Yet to Come, ’ IEEE Spectrtun, February 1989, p. 49.

67 Mark Crawford, ‘ ‘The Silicon Chip Race Advances Into X-rays, “ Science, vol. 246, No. 4936, Dec. 15, 1989, p. 1382.

68 Ibid.


Table 3-4-Applications in the Medical Sector


MRI magnets Successful application of LTS; minor for HTS. An HTS magnet would lead to savings of only$10 per $700 scan.

Biomagnetics:SQUIDS Demonstrated for LTS; possible for HTS, Thermal noise at 77 K is inherently 20 times

especially in applications not requiring the higher than at 4 K, although present commercialhighest sensitivity. SQUIDS are generally not operated at their

inherent noise limits.

Pickup coils for MEG Demonstrated for LTS; promising for HTS. A 77 K coil could be placed closer to patient’sskull, for a stronger signal.

Room shielding Not feasible for LTS: minor for HTS. Competing technologies, including improved elec-tronic noise discrimination, could be preferable.

Research magnets Successful application of LTS; minor for HTS. Since the technology is in hand, LTS magnetswill be preferable for fields less than about 20tesla.

KEY: MEG = magnetoencephalography; MRI = magnetic resonance Imaging; SQUID = Superconducting Quantum Interference Dewe.


Motors

The potential for superconductors in motor appli-cations has been reviewed recently.b970 In principle,superconductors can lead to higher efficiency (50percent reduction in losses) and reduced size andweight (20 percent reduction in diameter, 60 percentin length, up to 60 percent in weight). Technically,superconducting motors share many of the sameperformance requirements as superconducting gen-erators, but motors may be somewhat less attractive.

As with generators, AC superconducting motorsare only cost-effective in the largest size ranges—above 2,000 horsepower (hp), a tiny fraction of allmotors. EPRI has estimated that, because of the costof liquid helium cooling, LTS motors would only becompetitive above 10,000 hp, though HTS withliquid nitrogen cooling could reduce the threshold ofeconomic feasibility to 5,000-10,000 hp.7] 72

Because they are similar rotating machinery, ACsuperconducting motors and generators share manyof the same technical difficulties: AC losses, largemechanical stresses, and cryogenic seals for rotatingshafts. But motors have a few additional problems:during startup and load variations, motors mayexperience heating and vibrations. Also, a largetorque is needed to start a motor and its associatedload, exerting large forces on motor components.

For HTS to succeed in AC motors, filamentshaving critical current density of 100,000 Amps/cm2

in a magnetic field of 4 to 5 tesla, greatly reduced AClosses, and a high-strength composite conductorswill be required—all major challenges for presentHTS materials, as discussed in chapter 2.

Medical Applications

Medical applications of superconductivity arerelatively recent, having their origins in researchconducted during the 1970s. Examples are magneticresonance imaging and magnetoencephalography.The feasibility of using superconductivity in theseareas has been demonstrated in LTS, and indeed,superconducting MR1 magnets are now well estab-lished commercially and constitute the largest non-government market for superconducting wire andcable. However, the prospects for penetration ofpresent HTS materials into these markets do notappear very promising, as indicated in table 3-4.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Each of the various body tissues, e.g., blood,organs, vessels, and bone, exhibits a slightly differ-ent chemical environment for the hydrogen atomscontained in its constituent molecules. When astrong magnetic field is applied to the body, thesechemical environments can be readily distinguished.

. — .69 A. M. Wolsky et al., op. cit., footnote 21, p. 111.

70 S.J. Dale et al., op. cit., footnote 63.

71 The Electric Power Research Institute, op. cit., footnote 14, p. 23.72 A recent report (S.J. Dale et al., op. cit., footnote 63) indicates that DC HTS motors as smallas 100 hp could be economical with an open liquid

nitrogen cooling system, but this is a hopeful forecast that assumes dramatic improvements in materials properties.


Photo credit: General Electric Medical Systems

Magnetic resonance imaging (M RI) system, the largest commercial application for superconducting magnets.

MRI takes advantage of this fact to produce picturesof cross-sectional slices of the body in which thevarious tissues (especially soft tissues containing alarge percentage of water) and their associateddisorders can be identified. MRI provides a powerfultool for diagnosis of a variety of internal disorders,obviating the need in many cases for invasiveprocedures such as exploratory surgery or excessiveexposure to x-rays.

The MRI technique can be generalized beyondstatic cross-sectional pictures of body organs. Asscanning speeds and data processing speeds in-crease, real time pictures of dynamic body processeswill be possible. At higher fields, MRI of paramag-netic nuclei other than hydrogen, especially sodiumand phosphorus, could give new insights into thebody’s chemical processes, e.g., metabolism.

MRI is notable because it is virtually the onlysuccessful commercial application of superconduc-tivity (see box 3-B). Although MRI is more expen-sive (costing about $700 per scan) than competingimaging technologies such as ultrasound and x-rayCT scanning, it has secured a stable market nichebecause of its superior image quality for soft tissues.Further, for the high magnetic field strength andstability needed for good image quality, supercon-ducting magnets far outshine conventional coppermagnets.

The current market for MRI is about 500 ma-chines (about $1 billion) per year, with prospects forsteady growth into the 1990s. LTS MRI magnetshave become a mature and highly reliable technol-ogy, both for stationary and mobile facilities.However, the cost savings of replacing the LTS

Chapter 3-Applications of Superconductivity ● 47

Box 3-B--Magnetic Resonance Imaging

MRl has its origins in research in Great Britain and the United States in the mid 1970s. The first prototypescanner was built by EMI (Great Britain), and the first superconducting model was introduced just 2 years later, Aslate as 1982, experts were predicting that--due to problems with reliability of the cryogenics and highcost-superconducting magnets would not be attractive for MM systems.1 Although there were some initialproblems with cryostat design (especially for mobile units), these problems were overcome, and present MRlsystems are considered extremely reliable. Most high-resoiution MRI systems today operate at a magnetic fieldstrength around 1.5 telsa, a regime that requires the use of superconducting magnets. (Power dissipation ofconventional resistive magnets becomes prohibitive above about 0.2 telsa) Today, superconductive magnets havecaptured more than 95 percent of the MN magnet market.

MR1 was a godsend to U.S. superconducting wire and magnet manufacturers, coming as it did at a time whenthe Federal Government was scaling back or concluding many of its large-scaie superconductivity programs. Fromonly two systems in the United States in 1980, growth has been such that the 1,000th superconductive MRI magnetwas shippd in 1987,2 Current sales in the United States are around 500 units per year. Major integrated MRIproducers ingmagn magnets and total systems) are General Electric and Siemens (WestGermany), who control over half of the MRI market. About 44 percent of the market is shared by the wire andmagnet vendors-Qxford Superconducting Technology, Intermagnetics General Corp., and Applied SuperConet-ics.3 U.S.-based companies thus have a strong competitive position in the MRI market.

Although MRI has seen significant growth during the past decade, and is now the only successful large-scalecommercial application of superconductivity, growth rates have fallen far short of many early predictions. The mostimportant reason is its relatively high cost. A typical MRI system costs about $2 million, plus siting and installationcosts. Of this, the superconductingm agnet accounts for perhaps $350,000. Installation costs, especially for magneticshielding, can be nearly as high as those of the system itself.4 A typicai MRIscan costs about $700, about 100 timesmore than ultrasound, and 3 to 5 times more than a computer-aided tomography (CAT) x+ray scan. Use of CAT,which had been predicted by some to be displaced by MRI, actually grew by 20 percent in 1988. CAT’s lower costand faster scanning time (2 seconds per body cross-section, compared with 10 to 15 minutes for MRI), togetherwithits superior images for bone, make it preferred for scans of the chest abdomen, or entire body.s MRI providessuperior images of soft tissues.Why Was MRI Successful?

Why has MRI become a successful commercial application of superconducting magnets? Industry analystssuggest several reasons. One is that the medical diagnostics’ industry is inherently a technology-oriented marketaccustomed to incorporating technologies recently developed in the laboratory. A1though costs are high, the valueto the patient of an accurate, early diagnosis-for example, early detection of a tumor-is even higher. Furthermore,these costs are spread through the health insurance system.

Superconducting magnets have demonstrated clear performance advantages over conventional resistivemagnets fur MRI, providing higher fields over larger volumes, and superior field uniformity and stability. Theseadvantages are directly translated into higher image quaiity and greater speed. Also, initial operating experiencewith superconducting MRI magnets was favorable; startup problems were no more serious than had beenanticipated.

Finally, superconductivity was introduced early into the life cycle of MRI, with the first imager built in 1978,and the first superconducting system introduced only 2 years 1ater. Superconductive magnets did not have todisplace a well-established technology that had been optimized over decades. Further, due to prior Federal programsaimed at development of high-performance superconducting wire and cable, there was a match between the needsof the new industry and the capabilities of wire and cable manufacturers. Product development began almost

1 ITMAH Consultants, “Lessoms From Low-Temperature Superconductors,” contractorr report prepared for the Office of TechnologyAssessment, November 1988.

2 Business Technology Research, “Superconductive Materials and Devices,” 1988, p. 39.3 Ibid., p. 49.41bid., p. 154.5 Karen Fitzgerald "Medical Electronics," IEEE Spectrum, January 1989 p. 68.

{continuedonnextpage)


Box 3-B—Magitetic Resonance Imaging--Continued

immediatly, without the need for extensive applied research and engineering expenditures; this lowered thefrom-end costs to the manufacturers. The favorable timing also ensured that magnet design and system designevolved together, making the integration of the superconducting magnet into the overall system easy.

Lessons for HTSWhat lessons for HTS can be drawn from the MRI experience? First, no one could have predicted when modern

superconductor wires were developed 20 years ago that MRI would be the major commercial application ofsuperconductivity today. MRI technology depended not only on the availability of high-field superconductingmagnets, but also on the development of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy as well as imagingconcepts and fast computer signal processing. This makes quite plausible the claim-barely 3 years after thediscovery of HTS--that the biggest future applications of HTS have not yet been thought of.

Second, the penetration of a new technology like HTS is fastest in wholly new areas or early in a new productlife cycle. If there are well-established competitors, the new technology must offer dramatically superiorperformance or lower cost—not just a minor improvement—in order to compete. In fact this conclusion militatesagainst the penetration of the MRI market by HTS magnets, even if they were available today,

Third, the first applications of new technologies like HTS are likely to be in specialized, high-technologymarkets where high performance is the purchase criterion, not low cost. This has also been the pattern in otheradvanced materials, which found early applications in medicine, upscale sporting goods and, almost universally,defense applications.

There are broader policy implications as well. In MRI, U.S. companies have shown that they can seize andmaintain a strong market position over a long period in a highly competitive world market. But this would not havebeen possible without the preceding Department of Energy-funded programs that supported the development ofsuperconducting wire and magnets. Especially notable was a DOE-funded collaboration between the University ofWisconsin arid vendor companies that led to dramatic improvements in the performance of NbTi conductors from1981 to 1988. This illustrated the important role that universities can play in making U.S. industry more competitive.

magnet with an HTS magnet have been estimated at although weak, can be detected by SQUID sensorsonly about 5 percent,73 largely because the magnetand refrigeration costs amount to only a minorfraction of the overall system costs. Clearly, if HTSmagnets with performance and cost at 77 K compa-rable to those of present MRI magnets at 4 K wereavailable, they would be used. But the MRI marketper se is not large enough to drive the additionalR&D investments necessary to develop such mag-nets.

Biomagnetic Applications

The human body produces a variety of magneticfields, from both passive and active sources. Passivesources are typically magnetic particles, e.g., parti-cles from the environment trapped in the lungs, oriron stored in the liver. Active sources are theelectrical currents that accompany body processes,for instance the beating heart, or neuronal activity inthe brain. The currents produce magnetic fields that,

without the need for attached electrodes.

Magnetoencephalography (MEG)—MEG is con-sidered one of the most promising applications ofsuperconductivity to disease detection. First demon-strated in 1968, MEG shows potential for locatingsources of epilepsy deep within the brain without theneed for inserted electrodes; it couId potentiality beused in the diagnosis of a variety of brain disorders,including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease,and head injuries. MEG has also shown the potentialto study normal brain activity during the process ofmuscle action.

Because the magnetic fields produced by the brainare very weak, they are usually measured in amagnetically shielded room. Magnetic noise ampli-tudes in a typical hospital may be 10 nanoteslas,many orders of magnitude larger than the brain’ssignal. The measurement is made using sensitivepickup coils placed as close as possible to the


Photo credit: Biomagnetic Technologies, Inc.

Magnetic fields produced by the brain can bemapped by superconducting sensors in

magnetoencephalography (MEG).

patient’s head.74 Considerable development will stillbe required before the technology can begin to makeits way into diagnostic use. Japan’s Ministry ofInternational Trade and Industry has recently an-nounced the formation of a consortium of 10companies to develop MEG.

Due to their higher thermal noise levels, it appearsthat HTS SQUIDS will not readily replace LTSSQUIDS in the growing markets for biomagneticsensors requiring high sensitivity. However, pros-pects for HTS maybe considerably better in passivesystem elements, such as 77 K pickup coils, whichcould be placed closer to the patient’s skull. Morespeculatively, it may be possible to build magneti-cally shielded rooms using HTS, but here HTS willhave to compete with conventional magnetic shieldsof mu-metal (high nickel alloy steel).

Electronics and Communications

Superconducting circuits offer several advantagesover conventional semiconducting devices, includ-ing higher switching speeds, lower power dissipa-tion, extreme detection sensitivity, and minimalsignal distortion. There has been a long history ofLTS R&Din electronic devices in the United States,primarily sponsored by the Department of Defensewith some support from the National Bureau ofStandards (now the National Institute of Standardsand Technology). As a result of this effort, severalLTS electronic devices are now readily available,

including SQUID magnetometers, Josephson volt-age standards, millimeter wave mixers, and fast datasampling circuits.

Table 3-5 provides OTA’s estimate of the impactof superconductivity on several existing or potentialelectronic devices. The opportunities and barriersassociated with these applications are discussed insomewhat more detail below.

Digital Devices and Computers

Digital devices are those that manipulate informa-tion with discrete levels (’ 1‘s or O’s”) rather thanover a continuous range, as does an analog device.Present superconducting digital circuits rely on theon/off switching of Josephson Junctions (JJs) tocreate these discrete levels, unlike semiconductordigital circuits, which use transistors. Developmentof a practical superconducting transistor remains amajor research goal, but such a device has not yetbeen invented.

Computer applications of superconductors in-clude logic gates, memories, and interconnects. Inprinciple, a computer based on JJs could be severaltimes faster and 100 times smaller than presentcomputers, though this application is somewhatspeculative (see below). Meanwhile, the same de-vices required for JJ computer circuits can also beused in less demanding, smaller scale applications,e.g., fast analog-to-digital converters, shift registers,and memories, as well as circuits to performarithmetic operations.

Whereas the United States scaled back its effortsin superconducting digital devices in 1983, severalJapanese laboratories continued their programs, andnow have produced digital integrated circuits havingas many as 24,000 JJs on a single chip. A prototypeJapanese Josephson microprocessor was recentlyshown to operate at a clock speed 10 times higher,and a power dissipation 500 times lower, than acomparable gallium arsenide microprocessor.75

Experts are divided, though, as to where suchdevices will find application. Because many prob-lems remain with large-scale integration of JJcircuits—particularly for high-density memory—semiconductor researchers interviewed by OTAquestion whether LTS JJ technology will ever be

50 . High-Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Table 3-5-Applications in the Electronics and Communications Sectors


Digital circuits:A-D converters, shift registers,memories, etc.

Computers

Analog circuits:SQUIDS

Signal processing:Amplifiers, oscillators, etc.

Passive devices:Computer wiring,interconnects

Antennae, filters,delay lines, etc.

Communications

New devices

Demonstrated with LTS; possible for HTS.

LTS JJs may be suitable for logic and cachememory, but high-density memory still a prob-lem. HTS/semiconductor hybrid systems arepossible.

Successful application of LTS; significant forHTS if noise problems can be overcome.

LTS performance already impressive. Moderatefor HTS, if high-quality tunnel junctions can befabricated, and if high-frequency losses can bereduced further.

Silicon-based machines do not operate at LTStemperatures. Moderate for HTS at chip andboard level at 77 K.

Demonstrated with LTS; promising for HTS.

LTS circuits already demonstrated at microwavefrequencies (1 to 30 GHz); could open up newregions of the electromagnetic spectrum at evenhigher frequencies. HTS could extend this up tothe THZ range.

If new phenomena are responsible for HTS, thennew devices may be possible.

Many technical challenges remain in HTS JJtechnology.

May be more useful for specialized defensecomputing needs than for general purpose com-puting. Higher power dissipation with HTS aproblem for LSI.

HTS would make use of SQUIDS more commonin many applications not requiring the highestsensitivity.

Conventional systems do not yet requireextremely high frequencies; may be especiallyimportant for military applications and in space.

Line resistance often is not the limiting factor.Copper at 77 K provides a low-cost alternative.

HTS likely to see first use in military/spaceapplications.

Could revolutionize satellite broadcasting.Initially, will be useful primarily for military/spaceapplications.

HTS could be combined with semiconductors oroptical materials to create novel hybrid devices.If a true superconducting transistor with powergain can be developed, this would findwidespread applications.

KEY: A-D = Analog to digital; GHz = Gigahertz; J = Josephson Junction; LSI = Large-scale integration; THz = Terahertz.


suitable for a general purpose computer (though theyacknowledge that it could find application in spe-cialized military applications).

These semiconductor experts consider semicon-ductor devices and processes as the “technology tobeat” for the foreseeable future, not supercon-ducting JJ computers. U.S. managers have beenreluctant to make the large up-fi-ont R&D invest-ments required to overcome the remaining problemsin view of steadily improving semiconductor sys-tems. They note, however, that the development ofa true superconducting transistor with power gain,and fabricated with existing semiconductor proc-esses, could dramatically improve the outlook forsuperconducting computers.76

Advocates of stronger U.S. programs in digitalsuperconducting electronics have a different view.They argue that remarkable progress has alreadybeen made at a level of effort dwarfed by thatexpended on semiconductor electronics. In the longterm, they say, the future of computers, whethersuperconducting or semiconducting, will be at lowtemperatures, and the speed and efficiency ofsuperconducting electronics is likely to win out.Moreover, the stakes are high. In dropping its digitalLTS programs, the United States risks not onlylosing its edge in specialized military applications,but also losing its supercomputer and mainframecomputer industries. Even if the technology goesnowhere, these advocates argue, the most the UnitedStates stands to lose is a few tens of millions of


dollars-a small price to pay considering the stakesinvolved.

There is general agreement among analysts thatthere are opportunities for mixed superconductor/semiconductor computer systems—for example,fast superconducting JJ logic gates coupled to densesemiconductor memory in the same system. MixedLTS/semiconductor systems are feasible, but diffi-cult, since most silicon devices stop functioningaround 40 K, and so require that the LTS andsemiconducting components be kept at differenttemperatures.77 However, silicon devices functionvery well at 77 K, and indeed the trend in circuitsusing Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor(CMOS) technology will be to cool them to liquidnitrogen temperature. Thus, there appears to be somepotential for a marriage between HTS and evolvingsemiconductor computer technology.

Recent research indicates that HTS Josephsondevices may have speeds comparable to LTS de-vices, but because of the larger energy gap in HTS,the Josephson devices dissipate about 100 timesmore energy when the junction switches from the“off’ to the “on’ state.78 This suggests that HTSmay be more appropriate for fast, small-scalecircuits than for large-scale integrated JJ circuits.

Many observers feel that the first applications ofHTS in computers will be in passive elements, suchas interconnects, signal transmission lines, or board-level wiring. In transmission lines, superconductorsoffer lower attenuation and distortion, for a clearersignal. Superconducting lines could be made ex-tremely narrow (perhaps 1 micrometer wide forsignal lines and 10 micrometers for power distribu-tion), thus simplifying the design of the system.79

Such passive elements are also attractive becausethey would be relatively easy to fabricate and makerelatively small demands on the superconductivityproperties, With micrometer feature sizes, though,operating current densities above 1 million Amps/c m2 will be required on the chip. 80 M o r e o v e r ,superconducting interconnects must compete withcopper lines, whose resistance at 77 K is six to seventimes lower than at room temperature, presenting acheap and reliable alternative.

Photo credit: IBM Research

The first HTS SQUID with noise low enough to be useful.Highlighted area shows the polycrystalline microstructure

of the material.

Thus, a role for HTS in computers is possible inthe future, but it is somewhat uncertain. Muchdepends on the development of technologies forcontrolling the properties of surfaces and junctions,which are still fairly primitive for HTS.

Analog Devices

Analog circuits provide a continuous range ofsignal level, in contrast to the discrete nature ofdigital circuits. Analog devices that have alreadybeen fabricated with LTS include SQUIDS, micro-wave and millimeter wave components for detec-tion, amplification, and processing of signals in the10 to 200 GHz range, voltage standards, and infrareddetectors.


SQUIDS are considered to be one of the mostpromising HTS devices in the near term. Magneticfield sensors based on SQUIDS potentially havewide applications in several sectors covered in thischapter, e.g., medicine, industrial equipment, anddefense. Currently available LTS SQUIDS operatingat 4 K provide magnetic field sensitivity and noiselevels near the quantum limit.

Although early SQUIDS fabricated with HTSshowed very high noise levels, these levels werereduced as processing technology improved. At thiswriting, IBM had produced an HTS SQUID usingpolycrystalline thallium-based material that showeda noise level at 77 K comparable to that ofcommercially available LTS SQUIDS.81 H T SSQUIDS could have a big impact in applications notrequiring sensitivity at the quantum limit, or insensors operating in remote locations, tightly con-strained environments, or in instruments requiringportability where a liquid helium cryostat is notpractical.

Because individual SQUIDS place few demandson the superconducting material and are relativelyeasy to fabricate, they are likely to be one of the firstcommercial applications of I-ITS. Several compa-nies, both in Japan and in the United States, viewHTS SQUIDS as good “test products” for gainingexpertise in fabricating HTS materials and devices.But manufacturing HTS SQUIDS in large numberswith uniform switching thresholds (required forlarge-scale digital integrated circuits) remains adifficult challenge.

Passive Devices

Passive devices are those that do not requireconnection to an external power source in order toperform their circuit function. Examples discussedabove under ‘‘computers are superconductinginterconnects and power distribution lines. Alsoincluded in this category are delay line signalprocessors, high-efficiency waveguides and filtersfor microwave circuits, antennae for sending andreceiving radio frequency signals, and shielding forstray magnetic fields. The feasibility of supercon-

ducting analog signal processors, which exhibitmore than 10 times the processing capability of thecompeting conventional technology, has been dem-onstrated with LTS.82 In the near term, such deviceswill be of primary interest to the military, perhaps inhigh-speed communications and radar systems.

The higher binding energy of the superconductingelectron pairs in HTS offers the potential for higherfrequency operation than in the equivalent LTSdevice. Early samples of HTS showed a highfrequency surface resistance that negated this theo-retical advantage. But considerable progress hasbeen made in this area: at this writing, the surfaceresistance of the best HTS materials was 10 timeslower than that of any metal at 77 K (though still notas good as niobium at 4 K). These developments areconsidered very encouraging.

Communications

Presently, television, radar, radio, and telephonecommunications are limited to a fairly narrowfrequency range in the electromagnetic spectrum.Increasing demand for a limited number of fre-quency slots has led to conflicts among commercialbroadcasters. Superconductivity offers the potentialto make tens of thousands of new satellite broadcastchannels available by opening up the millimeter andsubmillimeter regions of the electromagnetic spec-trum. 83 Specific applications include switches, cor-relators, transmission lines, filters, parametric am-plifiers, antennae, shielding, and other receiverparts.

HTS promises to extend the available frequencyrange even higher—perhaps into the terahertz (1011

to 1012 hertz) range, and to do so in a temperatureregime where efficient refrigeration is available.Development of terahertz frequency components forspace communications and imaging applications isone of the major thrusts of the Strategic DefenseInitiative Organization superconductivity R&D pro-gram (see ch. 4). One benefit for civilian technologymight be to increase dramatically the resolution ofradar systems.


Table 3-6-Applications in the Defense and Space ectors


Defense:Sensors

Submarine detectionInfrared detectorsMine detection

Electronics

Pulse power

Kinetic energy weapons

Free electron lasers

Ship propulsion

Space:Sensors

Satellite electronics

Radiation shield

Electromagnetic launch

Magnetic bearings

Possible with LTS; promising for HTS.

Significant for LTS; potentially significant forHTS.

Demonstrated for LTS; possible for HTS.

Possible for LTS, minor for HTS.

Possible for LTS; minor for HTS.

Electric drive demonstrated for LTS, minor forHTS.

Demonstrated with LTS; HTS could offer greatersensitivity.

HTS could enable greater flexibility of designand greater mission capabilities.

Possible for HTS.

Possible for LTS, doubtful for HTS.

Possible for HTS.

HTS offers ruggedness, easier maintenance,lower power requirements.

LTS offers higher speed computer logic usefulfor cryptography, synthetic aperture radar, acous-tic array processing, and other computation-Iimited uses; higher bandgap of HTS couldpermit higher resolution radar, higher speedcommunications, etc.

See energy storage section above. HTS warm-to-cold current leads possible.

Superconductors are essential in some designs,but very high current densities are required.

Superconducting magnets could reduce the sizeof the accelerator needed at the front end oft hefree electron laser.

See Transportation section.

One example is a blometer for planetary obser-vation.

Low launch weight, low power, and reducedcooling requirements are a major plus.

Superconducting loops could provide shieldingagainst high-energy charged particles on long-term manned flights.

Could substitute for first stage rocket in sendingcargo (not people) into space more cheaply fromEarth.

Would eliminate need for lubrication and prob-lem of surfaces seizing up in a vacuum.


Defense and Space Applications criteria as well. Performance is the primary purchase

Many of the applications discussed in previouscriterion, with less emphasis on capital or operating

sections have defense and space analogs: e.g.,costs. These systems are not designed for mass

motor/generator sets for ship propulsion; SMES to production; rather, the superconducting components

power ground-based lasers; antennae and filters for are optimized for specific applications.

ultrasensitive receivers; and high-frequency elec-tronics for high-resolution radar and burst and Often, defense and space applications of super-spread-spectrum communications. These and other conductivity have much in common with theirmilitary/space applications have been reviewed in commercial analogs. However, the defense versionsseveral recent studies,84 and are not covered in detail of these applications must be designed with severalhere (see table 3-6). additional factors in mind: light weight, ruggedness,

Defense and space applications are grouped low power requirements, low maintenance, radiation

together because they have a strong overlap, not only hardness, and the capacity to operate in a widein design-e. g., railgun weapons and electromag- variety of environments. In the long run, thesenetic launchers—but in their cost and performance additional requirements could cause a divergence

“Superconductivity Research andDevelopment Options, ”

“High-Temperature Superconductors, ”


between the military and commercial goals andpriorities for applied superconductivity R&D.

The higher operating temperatures available withHTS can provide solutions to the unique challengesassociated with the military/space environment:

●

●

●

●

Light weight. The potential for reducing thesize and weight of superconducting equipment,such as generators and motors, provides greaterflexibility and mission capability of the vehi-cles on which they are deployed. In space, thereduced launch weight—made possible byeliminating bulky liquid helium refrigerationsystems—is a major plus.Ruggedness. The superconducting equipmentmust be rugged enough to survive the accelera-tion, vibration, and other stresses of spacelaunch. The military is concerned that thesystems continue to operate during battle con-ditions in the field-pitch and roll of navalships, vibrations and jolts of land vehicles, andsharp accelerations of aircraft. The greatersimplicity of HTS refrigeration systems wouldmake them more reliable under these condi-tions.Low power. Power consumption is an impor-tant constraint for both space and military fieldapplications, since in both cases, availablepower is limited. Space systems presentlydepend on battery, solar, or nuclear power;mobile military applications depend on on-board power systems. In addition to limitedpower available, cooling must be provided forthe power dissipated. Passive radiative coolingin space can be used to maintain temperaturesaround 80 K if the heat load is small enough.For larger heat loads, refrigeration can becombined with passive radiative cooling. Thiscombination cooling would take less power tomaintain for HTS than for LTS.Maintainability, Generally, both military andspace applications are designed for minimummaintenance. In space, human mechanics arenot available to keep a system continuouslytuned, and in the military, sophisticated mainte-nance is only available far from the battle lines.A system that requires delivery of liquidcryogen is not as desirable as one that can makethe cryogen from the air or that uses a closed-cycle refrigerator. The military is concerned

with not having to maintain supply lines. Lowmaintenance also means the system is morelikely to be available for use (high readiness).

A related issue is the working lifetime—howlong the system will last in space with the givenstored power and cryogen. Useful lifetime of asatellite may be determined by the abovefactors, rather than the decay of the orbit. Forthe military, the useful lifetime of SQUIDsensors used for antisubmarine patrol could belimited by the time it takes for all the cryogento evaporate. These mission capabilities couldbe dramatically enhanced with HTS.Radiation hardness. Some form of radiationhardness is needed for space and militaryapplications. Space craft do not have theprotective layer of the Earth’s atmosphere toabsorb the damaging radiation from solar flaresand cosmic rays. Without radiation hardening,system lifetime can be extremely short; espe-cially for electronics, in which minute changescan destroy individual components. Althoughnot enough is known about the radiationhardness of HTS, preliminary indications arethat HTS components maybe no more suscepti-ble to disruption by external radiation than LTScomponents. 85

New Applications

Virtually all of the recent assessments of thepotential for HTS involve considering the incre-mental benefits that HTS could bring to applicationsalready known for LTS. For purposes of analysis,they assume that HTS conductors will be essentiallyidentical to LTS conductors, but with a higheroperating temperature. While this kind of analysis isa natural first step, it assumes that the new ceramicmaterials can be put into the same conceptual moldas the older metal alloys.

Many observers think that the biggest futureapplications for HTS will have nothing to do withpresent LTS devices, These applications will notinvolve a simple substitution of HTS into a knownLTS design; rather, they will take advantage of theunique properties of HTS. A particularly excitingprospect is the possibility of designing hybrid,layered devices that would combine different HTSmaterials with semiconductors, optoelectronic mate-rials, and other ceramics to yield novel performance.Given the great variety of materials that exhibit


HTS--e.g., some that conduct the supercurrent withholes and some with electrons-the variety ofpossible devices can only be glimpsed at the presenttime.

While it is difficult to justify significant invest-ment in HTS on the basis of applications that havenot yet been conceived, it is also true that optimismis often essential for success in R&D. If there is anatural tendency to underestimate the difficulty ofsolving the immediate problems, there is also atendency to underestimate the long-term possibili-ties.

LESSONS FROM LTSNearly 30 years after the development of practical

LTS materials, LTS has moved out of the laboratoryto gain a foothold in commercial applications. Thisprocess has not been easy, though, and it offers anumber of lessons that should be considered inforecasting the evolution of HTS technologies.

●

●

The preferred materials for applications arethose that are easiest to handle and manufact-ure, not necessarily the best superconductorsor those with the highest TC. Although Nb3Sn isa superior superconductor in terms of criticaltransition temperature, critical current density,and upper critical magnetic field, it is brittle anddifficult to fabricate, and is consequently rarelyused. Due to its ductility and workability, NbTihas become the workhorse material for LTSmagnet applications, even though its coolingrequirements are more stringent. This suggeststhat factors such as processability and brittle-ness may ultimately weigh as heavily as TC oreven JC in determining the feasibility of usingcertain HTS materials.Even after a practical superconducting mate-rial is developed, it may take many years todevelop a practical conductor from that mate-rial and then to demonstrate its viability in acommercial protype. Although relatively highperformance was achieved with NbTi alloyswithin a year of their discovery, some 10 yearselapsed before a sophisticated NbTi cableconductor was developed. A practical super-conducting cable involves a tremendous amountof engineering, including drawing fine fila-ments of superconductor to reduce AC losses,stabilization with normal conductors forquench protection, channels for coolant flow,

●

●

●

dielectric insulation, etc. Moreover, scaling upfrom small sections to long lengths in prototypeapplications requires significant additional time.These phases of development are basicallyserial, and cannot proceed in parallel. Thissuggests that even if the superconductingproperties of bulk HTS materials can bebrought up to the level of present LTS materi-als, it will still be many years before practicaltapes or cables for large-scale HTS applicationswill be available.Highly reliable, conservative designs are neces-sary, especially in the commercial sector.While it is tempting for engineers to push adesign to the state-of-the-art, reliability iscrucial in establishing a new beachhead. Evenafter LTS has been successfully demonstratedin some commercial applications, it may benecessary to conduct extensive demonstrationsof HTS (perhaps by insertion into the existingLTS design) to convince commercial custom-ers of the reliability of HTS.It is important to pick targets carefully; i.e.,those that are not likely to be “leapfrogged’ bya well-entrenched and steadily improving conven-tional technology. The principal reason whyIBM researchers dropped their Josephson Junc-tion computer effort in 1983 was because theyprojected that by the time the technical prob-lems of a JJ computer could be worked out,conventional semiconductor machines wouldimprove to the point that the advantage of a JJmachine would be minimal. Commercializa-tion of HTS will be most successful in newapplications where the technology and designsare fluid. The most promising applications ofHTS will probably be those that are enabled bythe unique properties of I-ITS, rather than thosein which LTS is already successful.It is impossible to predict with certainty wherethe future applications will be. In the late1970s, for example, no one could have pre-dicted that the largest commercial market forLTS 10 years later would be in MRI systems.In many applications, lack of commercializa-tion has nothing to do with technologicalproblems related to superconductivity; rather,it is due to unfavorable economic conditions orchanging political circumstances. This lessonapplies primarily to large-scale applicationswhere the cost of the superconducting compo-nent is only a small fraction of the capital costs


of the overall system. For example, even thediscovery of room-temperature super-conduc-tivity would not substantially change the pros-pects for magnetically levitated trains in theUnited States.While it is often impossible to anticipateprecisely how much time and money it will taketo overcome the scientific and technical obsta-cles confronting a new technology such as HTS,it is important to provide sustained, reliablefunding through the lifetime of the project. Asuccessfully completed project-even if it costsmore and takes longer than expected— contrib-utes to the store of knowledge; a truncatedproject is often effort lost forever. This lesson,which seems no more than common sense, hasbeen repeatedly ignored in the funding historyof Federal LTS programs. The lesson has notbeen ignored in Japan (see ch. 5), and remainsan important policy objective for HTS if theUnited States hopes to be competitive, asdiscussed in chapter 7.

FACTORS THAT WILLDETERMINE THE PACE OF

HTS COMMERCIALIZATIONThe discovery of superconductivity above liquid

nitrogen temperatures is certainly an exciting devel-opment. As yet, however, HTS remains largely inthe realm of the scientific laboratory, not practicaltechnology. Moreover, commercial applications arenot driven by a higher TC per se. The supercon-ducting transition temperature is only one contribut-ing element to four distinct but interrelated factorsthat will determine the commercial potential of HTSin actual applications: superior performance; lowcost; high reliability; and strong market demand.After 3 years of HTS development, there remainstremendous uncertainty in each of these categories.

Performance

Thin film HTS materials do appear to offer somepotential performance advantages over LTS andconventional technologies: e.g., higher frequencyoperation for electronic circuits, or hybrid super-conductor/semiconductor devices. At 77 K, theperformance of bulk HTS materials has been im-proving steadily, but is still significantly worse thanLTS materials at 4 K-especially their capacity tocarry high currents in a magnetic field. These

properties will undoubtedly improve as the relation-ships among chemical composition, microstructure,and performance become better understood throughcontinued basic research.

In the meantime, the identification of HTS with 77K operation has perhaps been overemphasized.There may be significant opportunities in bothelectronic applications and in power applications forHTS in the 20 to 30 K range, where there is nocompetition from LTS. Cooling in this temperaturerange would be considerably simpler than at 4 K, andwould probably be done with flowing helium gas.

In those applications where superconductivityoffers a clear advantage over conventional technol-ogy, it should not be assumed that HTS willeventually be preferred to LTS. Each type ofsuperconductor may find its own niches. For in-stance, LTS may continue to be preferred in caseswhere greater ductility, low electronic noise, or highvacuum are important, whereas HTS may be pre-ferred where light weight or low maintenance areessential.

cost

There are two principal cost issues: first, the costof the superconducting system compared with acompeting conventional system; and second, theincremental cost savings obtained by using HTSinstead of LTS.

Typically, a superconducting design has a highercapital cost, but a lower operating cost than aconventional design. The requirement for coolingwith liquid helium usually means that LTS systemsare only cost-competitive with conventional systemsat the largest sizes. While HTS can reduce theeconomic breakeven point by simplifying the designand reducing operating costs, savings are generallysmall, usually a few percent. This is because the costof the superconducting component and refrigerationsystem is often only a small percentage of the overallcost. These cost estimates are generally madeassuming that HTS conductors would have the samecost and performance as LTS conductors, but at 77K. But actual HTS conductor costs could end upbeing much higher-depending, for instance, on thecost of compensating for any deficiencies in HTSproperties (such as low strength due to brittleness)and the cost of ensuring reliability.

Chapter 3—Applications of Superconductivity ● 5 7

Reliability

Although the superconducting properties of vari-ous HTS materials are undergoing intense study,very little is known about the long-term reliability ofthese materials under actual operating conditions. Inother ceramic materials, reliability has been aserious issue that has often prevented their use inapplications that require predictable performanceover long periods. Much more will have to belearned about effects such as thermal and mechani-cal cycling, chemical stability, residual stresses, etc.,before designers will feel confident about specifyingthese materials for applications sensitive to materi-als failure.

Potentially, reliability could become an advan-tage for HTS. The dependence of LTS systems oncomplex liquid helium cryogenic refrigeration tech-nology has caused reliability concerns in the past.Although liquid helium refrigeration technology hasmatured substantially, the freedom HTS allows tooperate above 4 K—whether in the 20 to 30 K rangeusing flowing helium, or at 77 K with liquidnitrogen—would simplify the designs greatly andincrease reliability still further.

Market Demand

In many large-scale applications (e.g., maglev,SMES, or electric power generators), superconduc-tivity technology is not the bottleneck to commer-cialization. Instead, high capital costs and uncer-tainty in the market value of the benefits are theprincipal barriers. In the present high cost-of-capitalenvironment, companies often find themselves una-ble to foot the bill for R&D and prototype demon-stration, even though they may have a strong interestin the technology. Government will have to paythese costs if these applications are to go forward.Because HTS typically has only a marginal impacton the costs and benefits in these applications, it isunlikely to change this situation.

FORECASTING THECOMMERCIALIZATION OF HTSNotwithstanding the many remaining uncertain-

ties, these four factors do provide some broadperspectives on the likely pace of commercializationof HTS in the seven economic sectors discussedabove. Below, these sectors are grouped according

to the timing of significant use of HTS: near-term (5to 10 years), medium-term (10 to 15 years), andlong-term (more than 15 years). This analysisassumes incremental improvements in materialsoperating in the neighborhood of 77 K. If supercon-ductors capable of operating at room temperaturewere to be discovered, many applications wouldbecome far more attractive, e.g., superconductingoverhead transmission lines, applications in auto-mobiles, etc., and entirely new markets for super-conductors would open up, e.g., consumer productsand household items.

Near-Term: Defense/Space and Electronics/Communications

These sectors, which have a large overlap, aredriven primarily by high performance considera-tions. High cost can be tolerated if the materialsprovide unique mission capabilities. The potentialfor higher frequency and larger bandwidth of HTScompared with LTS makes HTS attractive formilitary and space applications. And the potentialfor hybrid superconductor/semiconductor systemsoperating at liquid nitrogen temperature makes HTSattractive in electronics. Market demand is not aproblem with military applications, and the large,high-turnover market for electronics provides manypossible niches for new devices, Early applicationsfor HTS could be in sensors and passive microwavedevices. Most of these applications will use thinfilms, where technical progress with HTS has beenmost rapid.

Medium-Term: Medicine, Industry

For superconductivity applications in these sec-tors, the capital and operating costs associated withliquid helium refrigeration are often a significantfraction of overall costs; therefore, even if HTS doesnot offer performance advantages over LTS systems,it may offer lower costs. Early opportunities for HTScould come in industrial sensors, pickup coils forMEG, and perhaps low-field magnets. Many appli-cations in this category need high-field magnets,which will require bulk HTS conductors withhigh-current capacity in high magnetic fields-thearea in which HTS progress has been slowest.Because reliability is so important, HTS may requirelong demonstration periods, and could have diffi-culty displacing a well-entrenched LTS system.


Long-Term: High Energy Physics, ElectricPower, Transportation

In these large-scale applications, the costs of thesuperconducting components are generally a smallfraction of the overall system construction costs;therefore, the cost advantage of HTS over LTS isgenerally small. The use of superconductors isdriven by market demand for the entire system, notby advances in superconductor technology. HTScould find early application in niches such as currentlimiters or warm-to-cold power leads, but designerscannot afford to use an unproven technology incritical components of a multibillion dollar system.Reliability is paramount, and the consequences ofsuperconductor failure could be disastrous and evenlife-threatening. Thus, the more mature LTS tech-nology may be preferred, even if HTS materials withcomparable properties can be developed. In mostcases, HTS would have to displace well-entrenchedconventional or LTS technologies. Finally, theseapplications have stringent requirements for thesuperconductor---e.g., high critical currents andhigh magnetic fields-the areas where technicalprogress with HTS has been slowest.

CONCLUSIONSBased on the discussion above, OTA draws

several conclusions:

● The continuing technical progress in HTS, aswell as the range of potential applications of

●

●

●

superconductivity in the seven sectors re-viewed (also new applications), justifies astrong, continuing Federal effort in both LTSand HTS.

LTS will remain the technology of choice inmany applications, and will be preferred inlarge-scale applications such as high-field mag-nets in the foreseeable future.

From several points of view, small-scale applica-tions of HTS are most promising in the nearterm, while large-scale applications are proba-bly 20 years away, if feasible at all.

Due to government markets and funding inhigh-energy physics, fusion research, analogelectronics, and other defense applications ofLTS, the United States has a strong position inthese technologies; expertise gained in thesetechnologies has also enabled U.S. firms to takea strong position in spinoff medical applica-tions such as MRI and MEG, and in supercon-ducting magnets for industrial processing. TheUnited States has a relatively weak position inmore speculative—but potentially widespread—commercial applications such as digital elec-tronics, rotating electrical equipment, and mag-netically levitated vehicles.

The policy implications of these conclusions aretaken up in chapter 7.

Chapter 4

The U.S. Responseto High-Temperature

Superconductivity

CONTENTSPage

The President’s Superconductivity Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63The Federal Superconductivity Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Key Superconductivity programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 64Coordination Within Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 67Coordination at the National Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 69Coordination Among State and Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Industry Consortia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................... 70International Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... 70

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... 72

TablesPage

4-l. President’s 1987 Superconductivity Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624-2. Provisions of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634-3. Federal R&D Funding in Superconductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644-4. Performers of HTS Research-Summary by Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654-5. Department of Defense Superconductivity Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664-6. Department of Energy Superconductivity Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674-7. National Science Foundation Superconductivity Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684-8. National Institute of Standards and Technology Superconductivity Programs . . . . 694-9. State Government Support for Superconductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

4-10. A Partial List of HTS Consortia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Chapter 4

The U.S. Response to High-Temperature Superconductivity

This chapter begins with a description of theFederal response to the advent of HTS. This isfollowed by a brief critique. An evaluation of theadequacy of this response, as well as that of U.S.industry, is presented in chapter 7.

FEDERAL POLICYThe sense of excitement in the scientific commu-

nity that came with the discovery of new, high-critical-transition-temperature (TC) superconductors was quicklytransmitted to the policymaking community inWashington. To scientists, the discovery was thebreaking of a long-assumed temperature barrier,which cast doubts on the validity of a widelyaccepted theory. To policy makers, the opportunitiesof HTS represented a test case of the United States’ability to quickly transfer the technology out of thelaboratory and into commercial applications.

The President’s Superconductivity Initiative

In July 1987, President Reagan addressed anaudience of more than 1,000 at the Federal Confer-ence on Superconductivity. In his speech, thePresident presented an 1 l-point agenda to promotecooperative research, to move scientific achieve-ments more rapidly into the commercial realm, andto protect the intellectual property rights of scientistsand engineers involved in superconductivity re-search. A list of these proposals and what hashappened to them since 1987 is given in table 4-1.1

The legislative part of President Reagan’s pack-age, consisting of three initiatives, went to Congressin February of 1988. The first initiative proposed torelax the antitrust restrictions on joint productionventures among companies. Similar proposals havebeen made to promote U.S. competitiveness inseveral other technologies, e.g., high-definition tele-vision and semiconductor memory chips; but at thiswriting, the Bush Administration is still consideringits position on the matter.

The second initiative proposed extending patentprotection for process patents, and this was passed aspart of the (Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Actof 1988. The third initiative, which did not result inany legislation, proposed authorizing Federal agen-cies to withhold commercially valuable scientificand technical information from release under theFreedom of Information Act. None of these threelegislative proposals was specific to HTS.

The remaining eight administrative initiativeshave all been implemented in some form. Perhapsthe most influential from a policy point of view wasthe establishment of the “Wise Men” AdvisoryCommittee on Superconductivity (formally, theCommittee to Advise the President on High Temper-ature Superconductivity) operating under the WhiteHouse office of Science and Technology Policy.This seven-member council was comprised of ex-perts in superconductivity from academia, industry,and government. Their report was released inDecember 1988.2

The Wise Men recommended an increase infunding of a few million dollars’ to strengthen thescientific effort at universities, and the establish-ment of tour to six superconductivity consortia, eachinvolving a major research university, a governmentlaboratory, and several private industry members.These consortia are to be focused on applied HTSresearch. and are thereby distinguished from themore basic research-oriented consortia supported bythe National Science Foundation. Since the reportwas published, the debate over HTS and U.S.competitiveness has largely been framed in terms ofthe need for one kind of consortium or another. s

Congressional Initiatives

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act(Public Law 100-418)

As noted above, only one of the President’s threelegislative initiatives has been passed into law: inTitle IX of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness


Table 4-l-President’s 1987 Superconductivity Initiatives

Proposal Action

Legislative:Amend the National Cooperative Research Act to permit joint Did not result in any legislation. New proposals presentlyproduction ventures. under consideration at the Justice Department.

Amend patent laws to increase process patent protection. Passed as part of the Omnibus Trade and CompetitivenessAct of 1988.

Exempt commercially valuable information developed at Fed- No action; this was deemed politically impractical.eral laboratories from disclosure under the Freedom ofInformation Act.

Administrative:Establish “Wise Men” advisory group (President’s Advisory Formed in February 1988; reported to the President andCouncil on Superconductivity). disbanded December 1988. Recommended establishment of

four to six superconductivity consortia involving major re-search universities, companies, and government laboratories.

Establish Superconductivity Research Centers at Federal Four centers established, three at DOE’s Argonne, Lawrencelaboratories. Berkeley, and Ames laboratories, and one for electronic

applications of HTS at NIST/Boulder.

Accelerate implementation of Executive Order 12591 on Ongoing; three Superconductivity Pilot Centers established intechnology transfer from Federal laboratories and cooperative 1988 at Argonne, Oak Ridge, and Los Alamos to conduct jointresearch. research with industry.

Accelerate processing of patent applications. Patent “fast track” established at the Office of Patents andTrademarks, but only 10 to 15 percent of HTS patentapplications were submitted under this procedure.

NIST to accelerate standards development for HTS. Ongoing, but small effort.

Reprogram fiscal year 1987 funds into superconductivity R&D; Virtually the entire HTS budget is reprogrammed money; toplace high priority on superconductivity for fiscal years 1988 make funds available, programs in LTS, advanced ceramics,and 1989. and other materials R&D were cut.

Accelerate military development of electronics and sensor Ongoing; DARPA and SDIO have applications-oriented HTSapplications, including prototype devices. development programs in place.

Seek reciprocal opportunities to participate in joint R&D At this writing, a variety of joint projects are under negotiation.programs with Japan under the Agreement on Cooperation inScience and Technology.

KEY: DARPA: Defense Advanced Research Projects AgencyDOE: Department of EnergyNIST: National Institute of Standards and TechnologySDIO: Strategic Defense Initiative Organization


Act, patent coverage was extended to processpatents. Title V also has a number of provisionsaffecting superconductivity, including the establish-ment of a National Commission on Superconductiv-ity. Table 4-2 presents the sections of the OmnibusTrade and Competitiveness Act that are relevant tosuperconductivity, and to technology generally.

National Superconductivity and CompetitivenessAct of 1988 (Public Law 100-697)

Passed in the waning hours of the l00th Congress,the National Superconductivity and CompetitivenessAct of 1988 called for a 5-year National Action Planfor Superconductivity—to be presented to Congressin August 1989—that would define national goalsfor HTS and delegate responsibilities to the variousFederal agencies to achieve them. This Act stressesthe importance of a long-term commitment to

developing superconductor applications, since theseare seen to be 10 to 20 years away. The Office ofScience and Technology Policy (OSTP) was givenresponsibility for coordinating the Plan with theNational Critical Materials Council (NCMC) andthe National Commission on Superconductivity (thesame Commission mandated in the Omnibus TradeAct). A yearly report is required by Congressdetailing the implementation of the Plan, as well asa program of international cooperation in supercon-ductivity.

But the preparation of the Action Plan did notwork out as Congress intended. The NationalCommission was appointed, but had no formalcharter, and so did not participate in the drafting ofthe Plan. The National Critical Materials Councilhad no active members. The ‘Plan’ that emerged in

Chapter 4-The U.S. Response to High-Temperature Superconductivity ● 63

Table 4-2—Provisions of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988

Action by theRequirement Administration

On superconductivity:Report of the President

National Commission onSuperconductivity

National Critical MaterialsCouncil (NCMC)

On technology generally:Intellectual property rights

National Institute ofStandards and Technology

Technology extensioncenters

Clearinghouses

Competitiveness PolicyCouncil

National Academy ofSciences

Education and training

President must submit budget proposals regarding advanced materials withFY90 budget request.

To form, report, and disband by December 1989. Report to include: the stateof U.S. competitiveness in superconductivity, foreign activities, impacts onU.S. national security of potential dependence on foreign procurement,options for tax incentives, possible benefits of exemptions from antitrustlaws.

Mandates staff increase; continues funding.

Strengthens existing protections of intellectual property rights.

Renames the National Bureau of Standards; increases responsibility foraiding U.S. industry in competing in manufacturing, creates a new post withinthe Commerce Department for technology policy.

Requires NIST to assist in establishing regional technology transfer centers.

Commerce Department is mandated to develop a clearinghouse of Stateand local initiatives for transferring Federal technology; secondclearinghouse of State and local initiatives to enhance U.S. competitiveness.

To advise the President on long-term strategies for U.S. competitiveness.

To review strengths and limitations of existing collaborations where theFederal Government is a partner.

Establish foreign language assistance programs, awards intechnology education,

No action.

Formal charter delayed; firstmeeting Oct. 19, 1989.

No active members during1988 and 1989.

None required.

Renaming occurred;technology policyappointment remainsunfilled as of March 1990.

Three extension centerscreated.

Plan awaiting approval.

Council created, chaired byVice President,

In planning stages.

NSF program forlanguage trainingunder development.

KEY: NCMC: National Critical Materials CouncilNIST: National Institute of Standards and TechnologyNSF: National Science Foundation


December 1989 explicitly recognized the need forgreater Federal coordination and for a cross-agencybudgetary analysis of spending in various researchareas; but it did not contain budget recommenda-tions, nor the 5-year perspective that Congresswanted. 4

FEDERAL GOVERNMENTPROGRAMS

The Federal Superconductivity Budget

Federal funding for HTS R&D rose from $45million in fiscal year 1987 to an estimated $129million in fiscal year 1989. In fiscal year 1990,funding stayed virtually constant (see table 4-3).From 1987 to 1989, LTS R&D funding rose from

$40 million to $58 million.5 Thus, in 1989, abouttwo-thirds of government superconductivity R&Dfunding went to HTS.

Although the Department of Energy (DOE) andthe Department of Defense (DoD) spent about thesame amount on superconductivity overall in 1989,(both HTS and LTS), DoD had the biggest budgetfor HTS R&D, with a 45 percent share. DOE wassecond with 30 percent, and about 20 percent wasallocated by the National Science Foundation (NSF).The National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) and the Department of Commerce (throughthe National Institute of Standards and Technology,NIST) made up most of the rest, with the Departmentof the Interior and the Department of Transportationeach spending less than 1 percent.


Table 4-3-Federal R&D in Superconductivity($ thousands)a

Fiscal year Fiscal yearFiscal year 1989b 1 990’

1988b (estimate) (estimate)

High-temperature:DoD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NASA . . . . . . . . . . . . .DOC (NIST) . . . . . . . .DOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DOI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total HTS . . . . . . . .

Low-temperature:DoD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NASA . . . . . . . . . . . . .DOC (NIST) . . . . . . . .DOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DOI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total LTS . . . . . . . .

43,70026,23816,6003,3002,800

50100

58,00038,49322,4004,9004,800

150100

61,80034,10025,8005,9002,800

——

92,788

16,10028,6273,8002,650

57000

128.843

15,00036,0733,8003,050

47000

130,400

13,20079,300 d

3,0002,000

47000

51,747 58,393 98,000

Total HTS+LTS . . . . 144,535 187,226 228,400

Table 4-4 gives a breakdown of where this HTSresearch was performed in fiscal year 1988. About45 percent was performed in Federal laboratories, 30percent in universities, and 25 percent in industry.6

The wisdom of allocating more HTS R&D resourcesto Federal laboratories than to all of the Nation’suniversities is discussed in chapter 7.

Key Superconductivity Programs

Department of Defense (DoD)

The various defense agencies have had a longhistory of support for superconductivity. DoD beganfunding superconductivity research in the late 1940s,with the establishment of the Office of NavalResearch at the end of World War 11.7 Subsequently,the Air Force has supported research in sensors,airborne generators and signal processing, and theNavy in magnetic and electromagnetic/infrared (EM/IR) detectors and ship propulsion research, amongother projects. Most of the defense agencies havesupported some type of superconducting electronicsresearch, and often were the only Federal agencies todo so. Nevertheless, most of the defense programs inLTS had been completed or scaled back before thediscovery of HTS.89 After the discovery of HTS,many new programs were initiated to explore itspotential for defense applications. Table 4-5 high-lights some ongoing programs within DoD.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA) program, which accounted for over 40percent of DoD’s HTS R&D in fiscal year 1989,deserves special mention because it is unique infocusing on HTS materials processing and prototypeapplications development. 10 DARPA supports some40 contractor teams working on dual-use projects(i.e., those with civilian as well as military applica-tions).

Department of Energy (DOE)

DOE sponsored many programs in LTS prior tothe discovery of HTS (see ch. 3); DOE alsosponsored LTS conductor development for particleaccelerator magnets such as those at Fermilab, and

Chapter 4--The U.S. Response to High-Temperature Superconductivity ● 65

Table 4-4-Performers of HTS Research-Summary by Agency (Fiscal Year 1988)

HTS budget Performed byoutlavs

($ millions) Federal lab University Industry

Department of EnergyEnergy research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Conservation and renewable energy . . . . . . . . . . .Fossil energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Defense programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Department of DefenseAir Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Strategic Defense Initiative Organization . . . . . . . .Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Department of Commerce(National institute of Standards and Technology)

institute of Materials Science and Engineering . . .National Engineering Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .National Measurement Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationOffice of Aeronautics and Space Technology . . . .Commercialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Science Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Department of the Interior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Institutes of Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total HTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15.34.90.37.2

12.24.90.37.2

3.10.00.00.0

0.00.00.00.0

$27.7

7.09.02.0

12.018.0

48.0

1.01.10.7

2.8

2.60.5

3.1

14.5

0.1

0.0

0.0

96.2

2.03.92.03.02.5

1.01.10.7

1.60.5

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

43.0

4.53.00.01.02.5

0.00.00.0

0.50.0

14.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.52.10.08.0

13.0

0.00.00.0

0.50.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

29.1 24.1(loo%) (45%) (30%) (25%)

NOTE: These estimates were made before the more precise figures in table 4-3 became available, but are accurate to within 5 percent.

SOURCE: Technology Management Associates, “The Federal Effort in Superconductivity,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology

more recently, the Superconducting Super Collider.See table 4-6 for a descnption of the more importantDOE superconductivity programs.

Superconductivity Research Centers—Inaccor-dance with President Reagan’s SuperconductivityInitiative, DOE’s Office of Basic Energy Sciencesestablished three HTS Research Centers, at ArgonneNational Lab, Lawrence Berkeley Lab, and AmesLab. A fourth center for electronics applications wasestablished at NIST/Boulder. These Research Cen-ters were assigned complementary missions forI-ITS: Argonne concentrates on bulk materials forwires and cables; Lawrence Berkeley focuses ontheory and on fabrication of thin films for electronicdevices; and Ames concentrates on basic materialsresearch and has responsibility for gathering anddisseminating information on HTS. These Research

Centers have also formed research teams with othernational laboratories; e.g., Argonne works withAmes and Brookhaven labs on bulk applications.The Argonne Center involves about 50 researchers,and has links to both the State of Illinois Institute forSuperconductivity and the National Science Foun-dation Science & Technology Center (see below),making it one of the largest concentrations of HTSexpertise in the world. The Research Centers con-tinue to be supported by funds reprogrammed fromother areas,

Superconductivity Pilot Centers—In September1988, DOE’s Office of Conservation and RenewableEnergy announced the establishment of three Super-conductivity Pilot Centers, at Argonne, Oak Ridge,and Los Alamos National Laboratories. The PilotCenters are intended to bring the enormous expertise


Table 4-5-Department of Defense Superconductivity Programs

Estimated fiscalyear 1989 funds

Agency ($ millions) Comments

High-temperature:DARPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0

SDIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1

Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.7

Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0

Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2

Total HTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.0

Low-temperature:DARPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6a

SDIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0

( 11.4a)

Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7

Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

NSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3

43% of DoD HTS R&D. A unique program focusing on HTS materialsprocessing. Most of the funding goes to small firms.

24% of DoD HTS R&D. Highly applications-oriented; includes radar, radiofrequency cavities, antennae, and shielding.

17% of DoD HTS R&D. Abroad-based R&D program, built around a 5-yearplan.

12% of DoD HTS R&D. A broad-based R&D program including processing andcharacterization. Applications include sensors, communications.

4% of DoD HTS R&D. A broad-based R&D program including processing,theory, and characterization. Applications include sensors and electromagneticlaunchers.

R&D on compact synchrotrons for x-ray lithography.

53% of DoD LTS R&D.

Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage engineering test model: designcompetition.

31% of DoD LTS R&D. Historically the main DoD LTS supporter,

Includes superconducting airborne generator project.

No LTS R&D.

Superconducting electronics.

Total LTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.0

Total LTS & HTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.0

and unique facilities of these National Laboratoriesto bear on problems of interest to commercialindustry. Funded at a level of $6 million in fiscalyears 1989 and 1990, 1] the Pilot Centers aresupporting joint research projects with industry—generally on a 50-50 basis. They differ from theResearch Centers in that they are intended todevelop stronger ties to industry, to provide agateway to the other laboratories’ programs insuperconductivity, and to be a testing ground fornew experiments in technology transfer.

In the past, U.S. companies have been reluctant towork with Federal laboratories, because of theenormous amount of red tape involved. The PilotCenters are structured so as to avoid these problems,

offering expedited contracting procedures, greaterprotection of intellectual property, easier access topatents, and exclusive licenses for jointly developedtechnologies. At this writing all three Pilot Centershave signed agreements with major U.S. companiesinvolved in HTS research.

National Science Foundation (NSF)

In addition to its individual grant programs, NSFsponsors various collaborative superconductivityresearch efforts including: Materials Research Lab-oratories, Materials Research Groups, the BitterNational Magnet Laboratory, the Wisconsin andCornell synchrotrons centers, and a new supercon-


Table 4-6---Department of Energy Superconductivity Programs

Research Programs in Superconductivity,” March 1989.

ductivity Science and Technology Center at theUniversity of Illinois (see table 4-7.)]2

Although total NSF funding for HTS R&D hasincreased steadily, virtually all of these increaseshave gone to support research at large centers suchas S&T Center at the University of Illinois. Fundingfor individual investigator grants appears to haveremained static, despite an increasing number ofoutstanding research proposals. This situation isdiscussed further in chapter 7.

Department of Commerce

All of the Department of Commerce efforts insuperconductivity take place within the NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST(formerly the National Bureau of Standards) hasprovided U.S. superconductivity standards since1969, and developed the standard volt based on anarray of 19,000 LTS Josephson Junctions, amongother projects. The main standards research iscarried out at the Boulder, Colorado facility. Thoughmodest in size, this program provides the crucialfunction of improving the quality of reported super-

conductivity data, enabling meaningful comparisonsof data among different researchers and organiza-tions. NIST has a small but well-regarded supercon-ducting electronic devices program and was desig-nated a Superconductivity Research Center forElectronic Applications in President Reagan’s initi-ative. Table 4-8 provides a breakdown for the NISTsuperconductivity budget for ‘fiscal year 1988 aswell as totals for fiscal year 1989.13

Coordination Within Federal Agencies

Department of Defense (DoD)

The Department of Defense has devoted greaterattention to coordination of its HTS programs thanany other agency. The Defense SuperconductivityResearch and Development (DSRD) Working Group,chaired through the Office of the Secretary ofDefense (OSD), is the formal DoD-wide coordinat-ing committee. In 1987, the DSRD Working Groupprepared a study of possible uses for HTS in militaryapplications. 14 Th i s s tudy i nc luded app rox i rna t i ons

of the costs of research projects in each of theapplications. According to the OSD, the report


Table 4-7-NationaI Science Foundation Superconductivity Programs

Estimated fiscalyear 1989 funds

Special programs ($ millions) Comments

High-temperature:Individual grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Young Investigators program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Superconductivity R&D theory/experiment.

Science and Technology Center (STC) . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Cooperative HTS R&D.

Materials Research Labs and Groups . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 MIT, Stanford, U. Illinois, Northwestern, U. Chicago, Harvard,Cornell, U. Minnesota, U. Wisconsin.

User facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Bitter National Magnet Lab, synchrotrons facilities.

Total HTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2

Low-temperature:Individual grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3

Materials Research Labs and Groups . . . . . . . . . . 0.2

User facilities and instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5

Total LTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0

Total LTS + HTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.2SOURCE: Willlam Oosterhuls, National Science foundation, personal communication, February 1990.

served its initial coordination function well and nowneeds updating.

The Navy, which has the largest superconductiv-ity program of the three services, also has the mostextensive coordination mechanisms.15 A Naval Con-sortium for Superconductivity has been establishedto coordinate R&D efforts, and in 1989 the Navydeveloped a 5-year plan for superconductivity.16

Department of Energy (DOE)

The main DOE coordinating body for materials isthe Energy and Materials Coordinating Committee;its Subcommittee on Superconductivity is chargedwith the internal coordination of superconductorR&D in DOE. At Ames Laboratory, the Center forBasic Scientific Information distributes a widelyread biweekly newsletter, High-TC Update, includ-ing a bibliography of the latest HTS preprints. TheDOE National Laboratories have held a series ofconferences broadcast nationally by satellite thathave made the latest HTS results available to otherresearchers. At DOE’s Office of Scientific andTechnical Information, located in Oak Ridge, Ten-nessee, a computer database has been established toprovide up-to-date technical information on super-

conductivity to U.S. industry. Called the ‘Supercon-ductivity Information System,” it offers a bulletinboard, electronic mail, a database of work inprogress, a preprints database, a database of allDOE-sponsored research, and printed copy of data-base searches.

Coordination of HTS activities also takes placeunder the auspices of the Superconductivity Coordi-nating Committee on Electric Power. This group ismade up of the Electric Power Research Institute,various electric utilities, and numerous Federalagencies, including DOE, NSF, and NIST.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA)

Internal coordination of both HTS and LTSresearch programs is provided through the NASASuperconductivity Working Group, chaired out ofthe Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology andthe Information Sciences and Human Factors Divi-sion. Contacts with the larger industrial and scien-tific community are maintained through the SpaceSystems Technical Advisory Committee, a reviewteam for HTS, with members from industry anduniversities as well as other governmental organiza-

Chapter 4---The U.S. Response to High-Temperature Superconductivity ● 69

Table 4-8--National Institute of Standards and Technology Superconductivity Programs

Fiscal year1988 fundsa

Programs ($ millions) Comments

High-temperature:Materials preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 Includes phase diagrams.

Structure determination and characterization . . . . 0.7 Includes neutron scattering.

Property measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 Includes standards and electronic structure measurements.

Fabrication and devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 Includes thin films and electronics.

Total HTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 a

Low-temperature:Total LTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 Includes JJs, SQUIDS, standard volt, and measurement

standards.Total HTS and LTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3aThere was a 1-year increase of $2 million for HTS in fiscal year 1989 (giving an overall total of $5.3 million for superconductivity), but a large part of thesefunds was spent to repair damage from a fire in a clean room used to fabricate superconducting electronics.

KEY JJ: Josephson Junction; SQUID: Superconducting Quantum interference Device

SOURCE: Federal Coordinating Committee on Science, Engineering, and Technology/Committee on Materials/Subcommittee on Superconductivity, “FederalResearch Programs in Superconductivity,” March 1989:

tions. NASA’s Technology Utilization division is inthe process of forming a NASA consortium (open toany U.S. entity) for research on superconductivityand technology transfer to the private sector. It willbe located at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory inPasadena California, and is expected to beginoperations in 1990.

Coordination at the National Level

The Office of Science and Technology Policy(OSTP) has been the focus of efforts to coordinateFederal HTS programs. As noted above, OSTP hadresponsibility for the National Action Plan onSuperconductivity R&D, released in December 1989.

Committee on Materials (COMAT)

One body under the auspices of OSTP, theCommittee on Materials (COMAT), has played avaluable role.17 COMAT was instituted to coordi-nate materials policy among the various Federalagencies, and all agencies with significant interestsin materials R&D are represented. In 1988 and 1989,the Superconductivity Subcommittee of COMATpublished a comprehensive review of all Federalagency programs and budgets for both HTS and LTS

R&D.18 It has also taken a leading role in definingoptions for future international collaboration inHTS.

COMAT has been viewed by the Administrationas the preferred body for coordinating materialspolicy among all of the relevant agencies. Its actualfunction, though, is best described as informationexchange, rather than active coordination, since itdoes not set an overall agenda for materials R&D,has no control over agency budgets, and does notmonitor or guide individual agency programs. Theneed for national coordination going beyond theactivities of COMAT is recognized in OSTP’sAction Plan. 19

National Critical Materials Council (NCMC)

NCMC, established in 1984,20 is charged byCongress with responsibility for overseeing theformulation of policies for “advanced” and “criti-cal’ materials. It was intended by Congress to be anactive oversight body for coordinating all Federalagencies on materials policy issues. The ReaganAdministration saw NCMC as redundant with exist-ing agencies-especially COMAT—and neglectedit entirely.21 During most of 1988 and 1989, the

1976 by the

OTA-E-351


Council had no active members, although its staffassisted in the preparation of the Action Plan.22

Coordination Among State and FederalAgencies

Many States have seen opportunities in HTS forimproving local economic competitiveness. Severalprovide funding (generally less than $1 million) forHTS research, most of which goes to the main Stateuniversities. Often, these funds are provided withinthe context of broader advanced technology pro-grams; one example is the Ben Franklin Program inPennsylvania, which now supports several super-conductivity projects. A few States have developednew programs dedicated to HTS R&D. The largestState efforts in superconductivity are in Illinois,Texas, and New York (programs in several States areoutlined in table 4-9). These generally involve somecost sharing with the Federal Government. Forexample, the Illinois efforts complement the Federalprograms awarded over the past 2 years, includingthe NSF S&T Center at the University of Illinois andthe DOE Pilot Center at Argonne National Labora-tory.

Industry Consortia

In the 1980s, the R&D consortium has becomeone of the most popular technology policy tools inthe United States aimed at regaining lost marketsand exploring new technologies. The privatelysponsored Microelectronics and Computer Tech-nology Corporation (MCC) and the more recentindustry/government-sponsored Sematech have beennotable examples of this trend. Inevitably, a varietyof consortia have also been proposed as a means ofaccelerating the commercialization of HTS by U.S.firms. Since the release of the Wise Men’s’ Report(see above), which recommended the establishmentof four to six HTS consortia focusing on applica-tions, the number of consortia either established orplanned for HTS development has skyrocketed. Apartial list is given in table 4-10.

Most of these consortia are directed towarddevelopment of HTS electronic devices, and virtu-ally all seek Federal funding. This proliferation ofHTS consortia-all working in similar R&D areas—raises concerns about whether the U.S. effort will be

diluted in a hodgepodge of small consortia, eachbelow “critical mass” in size, and whether Federalfunds will be wasted on duplicative research. Criticsof this situation point to Japan’s InternationalSuperconductivity Technology Center, a single HTSR&D consortium involving all of the major super-conductivity companies under the auspices of theMinistry of International Trade and Industry (see ch.5).

In fact, there is a kind of informal coordinationtaking place among the U.S. consortia. Often, forinstance, members of one consortium are on theplanning board of another, and researchers associ-ated with different constellations of labs havefrequent opportunities to exchange information.Ultimately, market forces and the limitations of theFederal budget will sort out which consortia willsurvive and which will not, but there may be aFederal role in making this process more orderly,Options to address this question are taken up inchapter 7.

International Cooperation

Many laboratories around the world have capa-bilities in superconductivity research comparable tothose in the United States, and past internationalcollaborative programs in LTS such as the LargeCoil Task (see ch. 3) have proven to be extremelyvaluable. 23 Other examples include: the annualU.S.-Japan Workshop on High-Field Superconduc-tors, which met for the sixth time in 1989; theVersailles Agreement on Advanced Materials andStandards, which has an active program for inter-national comparisons of measurements of criticalcurrents and alternating current losses; and theInternational Electrochemical Commission, whichhas established a Technical Committee on Super-conductivity to develop international standards.

U.S. superconductivity researchers have long hadinformal, one-to-one collaboration with their foreigncolleagues. For instance, NSF has had a bilateralagreement with Japan in place for 28 years thatpromotes researcher-directed collaborations in basicscience. In 1987, NSF initiated a new program thatis jointly funded by the United States and Japan to

Chapter 4-The U.S. Response to High-Temperature Superconductivity ● 71

Table 4-0-State Government Support for Superconductivity

State Description of program

CaliforniaThe State Department of Commerce has a program of grant awards for technology transfer of university research to commercial entities,called the Competitive Technology Program. This program receives matching private sector funds. Superconductivity project awardstotal $1.8 million, for a superconductivity applications center, HTS high-frequency electronic devices, and SQUID development.

FloridaThe State has established the Florida Initiative, a consortium composed of 7 State universities, involving 55 principal investigators. Itreceives funds from a pool of $25 million provided by DARPA to the State of Florida for microelectronics research. Of this $25 million,$6.4 million goes to superconductivity R&D. Florida has shown significant interest in magnetically levitated train technology. Thepotential Tampa-Orlando-Miami maglev train project has been canceled; however, a short maglev line from the Orlando airport toDisney World/EPCOT Center is still under discussion.

IllinoisIllinois is home to several large federally sponsored superconductivity programs, many at Argonne National Lab. The University ofIllinois is the principal site of the new NSF Science and Technology Center for Superconductivity. Some State funds are used to leverageFederal and industrial funds at Argonne and the S&T Center, but most of the funding comes from the Federal Government.

MarylandThe University of Maryland (College Park) established a Center for Superconductivity Research intended eventually to haveapproximately 20 full-time researchers (six faculty members). State funding is $1 million for the first year (beginning JUIY 1988); $2million for the second year; and $3 million for the third. Collaboration with industry is expected; negotiations are underway with utilities(for wire fabrication research), and a chemical company (for materials characterization).

New JerseyThe New Jersey Science and Technology Commission’s Governor’s Roundtable issued a report recommending the development ofa New Jersey superconductivity program, focused on high-field magnet fabrication. The Commission recommends a State funding levelof $1-2 million per year to be matched at least one-to-one by non-State sources. The State has seed funding for a fellowship programin which college seniors and first year graduate students can work in academic and industrial labs on superconductivity research.

New YorkThe New York State Institute for Superconductivity (NYSIS) at SUNY Buffalo was established in June 1987. Its focus is on transferringHTS technology into practical applications. It is to have 27 faculty members and over 100 graduate students and postdocs. New YorkState funding is $10 million and this is expected to be leveraged by Federal funds. Of this, $5 million is to be used for lab equipmentand construction; $2.2 million for awards for external researchers; and $2.2 million for researchers within the Center. At this writing, 31awards have been made, totaling $1.4 million; 16 of these have gone to SUNY Buffalo researchers, and 15 to other New Yorkuniversities and businesses.

TexasOf the several consortia located in Texas, most receive no State funding. The Microelectronics and Computer Corporation (MCC)entered into a joint superconductivity research program with the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the University of Houston(TCSUH) in 1988. TCSUH is funded at a level of $30 million over 3 years, receiving $6.5 million from the State of Texas and other fundingfrom DARPA and Du Pont.

KEY: DARPA=Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; MCC.Microelectroncs and Computer Corp.; NYSIS=New York State Institute onSuperconductivity; SQUID= Superconducting Quantum Interference Device; SUNY. State University of New York; TCSUH=Texas Center forSuperconductivity at the University of Houston

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990

get more U.S. researchers into Japanese labora- superconductivity held by the International Energytories. 24 Through this program, Japanese laborato- Agency, 26 and specific mention of HTS in theries formerly closed to foreign researchers are now United States-Japan Agreement on Cooperation inactively seeking foreign scientists. So far, though, Science and Technology. At this writing, severalthis program is undersubscribed by U.S. research- joint superconductivity projects were being negoti-ers.25

ated under the Agreement.

The discovery of HTS has stimulated severalinternational efforts to explore the potential for this Such international programs are likely to becometechnology. Examples include a series of interna- even more important in the future. Yet Federaltional meetings on electric power applications of agency budgets to support these activities are static

72 ● High Temperature Superconductivity in perspective

Table 4-10--A Partial List of HTS Consortia

Consortium type Major partners Comments

Industrial:MCC

Austin, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SuperChipWashington, DC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Superconductor Applications, Inc.Princeton, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University-based:Consortium for SuperconductingElectronics

Cambridge, MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TCSUHHouston, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NSF S&T CenterUrbana, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lehigh University Consortium forSuperconducting Ceramics

Bethlehem, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NY State Institute on SuperconductivityBuffalo, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National lab-based:Argonne

Argonne, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Los AlamosLos Alamos, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oak RidgeOak Ridge, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Jet Propulsion LabPasadena, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bellcore, Boeing, DEC, Du Pont,Motorola, 3M, Westinghouse.

Tektronix, others toannounced.

To be announced.

be

AT&T, IBM, Lincoln Labs, MIT.

Du Pont, plus joint membership ofMCC partners.

University of Illinois, NorthwesternUniversity, University of Chicago,Argonne National Lab.

AT&T Bell Labs, BOC Group, U.S.Navy.

SUNY Buffalo plus partners to beannounced.

Beldon Wire, Du Pont, GE,MagneTek, United Technologies.

American Superconductor, AMP,Hewlett Packard, Du Pent,Rockwell.

Corning Glass, Du Pent, FMC,IBM, GE, Westinghouse.

To be announced.

Merged in 1988 with the Texas Center forSuperconductivity at the University of Houston (TCSUH,see below).

Under the auspices of the Council on Superconductivityfor American Competitiveness (CSAC); has sought$1 billion in loan guarantees from the FederalGovernment; has received seed money from DARPA.

To be based at David Sarnoff Laboratory under thedirection of Stanford Research Institute; has receivedseed money from DARPA.

Most closely resembles the model proposed by the“Wise Men”; seeking up to $5 million from DARPA.

Formed in 1987 with $2.5 million from State of Texas;received $4 million from DARPA in 1988.

Funded by NSF at a rate of $24.5 million over 5 years.

12 full-time researchers.

Initial funding of $10 million from the State of New York;expected to be supplemented with Federal funding.

Location of DOE Pilot Center ($2 million funding); HTSfunding lab-wide is $10-12 million.

Location of DOE Pilot Center ($2 million funding); HTSfunding lab-wide is$11 million.

Location of DOE Pilot Center ($2 million funding); HTSfunding is $6 million.

Under the auspices of NASA; expected to beginoperations in 1990.

KEY: CSAC=Council on Superconductivity for American Competitiveness; DARPA=Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; DOE= Department ofEnergy; MCC=Microelectronics and Computer Corp.; NASA=National Aeronautics and Space Administration; NSF= National Science Foundation;SUNY= State University of New York; TCSUH=Texas Center for Superconductivity and the Unversity of Houston.


or declining. This issue is discussedchapter 7.

CONCLUSIONS

further in been both substantial and timely. By fiscal year1989, 2 years after the breakthrough, the Federalbudget for HTS had grown to nearly $130 million—about the same as the budget for all other advancedceramics R&D combined.

The Federal response to the discovery of HTSillustrates many of the strengths and weaknesses of The Administration can point to some significantU.S. R&D policy as it relates to U.S. industrial successes and even innovations. The mission agen-competitiveness. On the whole, the response has cies moved quickly to redeploy resources and


researchers to HTS. The DARPA program empha-sizing HTS processing is unique. The DOE PilotCenters are experimenting with expedited mecha-nisms for contracting with industry and for disposi-tion of intellectual property, and they have receivedpositive initial reviews from prospective industrycollaborators. Mechanisms for rapid exchange oftechnical information among researchers have beenestablished and appear to be working well.

The Administration’s approach also containsmuch that is familiar to critics of Federal R&Dpolicy. DoD allocates the largest budget, and hasbecome the principal supporter of U.S. industryprograms. Much of the Federal budget goes tosupport research in Federal laboratories, whichheretofore have not had a good track record intransferring technology to U.S. industry. And al-though coordination of HTS R&D programs withinthe mission agencies is strong, coordination at the

national level is weak. Congress attempts to addressthis problem with legislation have met with littlesuccess.

The Federal response to the advent of HTS isperhaps best characterized as an attempt to broadenthe R&D activities of the relevant agencies toaddress industry needs without fundamentally chang-ing their missions or their relationships to oneanother. Those who had hoped that the worldwiderace to develop HTS might stimulate a seriousdebate about a new Federal role in meeting thechallenge of foreign competition in commercialtechnologies have clearly been disappointed.

Is the present Federal response adequate to ensurefuture U.S. competitiveness in HTS? This questionis taken up in chapter 7, following an examination offoreign HTS programs in the next chapter, and thoseof private industry in chapter 6.

Chapter 5

High-TemperatureSuperconductivity Programs

in Other Countries

CONTENTS

History of Japanese Superconductivity programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Japanese HTS Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EUROPEAN COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ...Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .., .. .. ..

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FRANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UNITED KINGDOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. “

ITALY .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .THE NETHERLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SWEDEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SOVIET UNION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .APPENDIX 5-A: MEMBERSHP OF JAPAN’S INTERNATIONAL

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY TECHNOLOGY CENTER .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ...

Boxes

777777798181818383848484858586

87

Page5-A. International Superconductivity Technology Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805-B. Superconductive Generation Equipment and Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

TablesPage

5-l. History of Japanese LTS Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 785-2. Japanese Government Fiscal 1989 Superconductivity Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 795-3. Rezerit Japanese Government High-Temperature Superconductor

R&D Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 795-4. Membership of Japan’s Super-GM Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Chapter 5

High-Temperature SuperconductivityPrograms in Other Countries

How do U.S. and foreign efforts compare inhigh-temperature superconductivity (HTS)? Thischapter briefly assesses foreign programs in super-conductivity, focusing primarily on governmentprograms. l

JAPANHistory of Japanese

Superconductivity Programs

Unlike the case of HTS, where Japanese research-ers have made major advances, the Japanese madefew contributions to the initial development oflow-temperature superconductors (LTS). LTS re-search in Japan began in the early 1960s, and formany years Japanese researchers followed closelythe LTS developments in the United States. It wasnearly a decade before the Japanese began to catchup. During the 1970s, though, the Japanese Govern-ment initiated a number of collaborative LTSprograms, featuring long-term commitment from itsnational laboratories, universities, and companies,that allowed Japan to surpass U.S. capabilities inseveral areas----e. g., Josephson Junction (JJ) technol -ogy,2 maglev transportation, and superconductingrotating machinery. The principal Japanese Govern-ment programs are outlined in table 5-1.

Several observations can be made about theseprograms. First, their goal was and is to developcommercial-not military-technologies. Second,they were long-term programs, typically lasting 8 to10 years. Their funding was sustained at a relativelyconstant level, in contrast to the erratic funding ofcorresponding U.S. programs over this period.Third, they featured strong emphasis on nationallaboratory facilities and personnel, although a largepart (often 50 percent) of the funding and researchwere provided by the participating Japanese compa-nies. Since the discovery of HTS, considerable

thought has been given to how HTS can beintegrated with ongoing LTS programs. Today, theJapanese Government is funding a mix of LTS andHTS programs in parallel, with the intent of incorpo-rating HTS materials into more mature LTS projectsas soon as the new materials can satisfy thenecessary requirements.

The Japanese HTS Budget

Table 5-2 gives a budget breakdown for theprincipal Japanese agencies involved in supercon-ductivity R&D. Major funding comes from theMinistry of International Trade and Industry (MITI),the Science and Technology Agency (STA), and theMinistry of Education (MOE). In 1989, HTS R&Daccounted for slightly less than half of superconduc-tivity R&D budget, compared with two-thirds in theUnited States. Japanese agency budget figurestypically do not include salaries and overhead. Whenadjusted to include these costs, the nominal HTStotal of $43 million in 1989 scales to over $70million 3—still considerably less than total HTSspending of the U.S. Government ($129 million) in1989. Counting researchers in universities, nationallaboratories, and industry, OTA estimates thataround 1,200 researchers are active in HTS R&D inJapan, compared with perhaps 1,000 in the UnitedStates.4

The most important new thrusts in superconduc-tivity are given in table 5-3. These have beendescribed in detail previously.5 Programs especiallywell-known outside Japan are the InternationalSuperconductivity Technology Center (ISTEC) andthe Superconductive Generation Equipment andMaterials (Super-GM) program (see boxes 5-A and5-B). Overall, OTA finds that there is a rough paritybetween Japan and the United States in HTS R&D.This parity does not extend to all technical areas,though: one recent report notes that Japan surpasses—

– 7 7 -

Table 5-l—History of Japanese LTS Programs

Supporting agency,Project R&D Iaboratory Duration Results Comments

MHD power generation

High-energy physics

Supermagnets for fusion research

Maglev tram

Electromagnetic ship propulsion

Basic technology for superconductivityand refrigeration

Superconduct ing magnet ic energystorage (SMES)

Superconductive generationequipment and materials (Super GM)(See box 5-B )

Superconducting quantum electronics

Josephson Junction Devices

New superconducting materials

MITI:ETLvarious companies

MoE:KEKvarious companies

STA:JAERINagoya U., Kyushu UNihon U Osaka U,, MoE

MOT.JNR(now7 regional JR compames)

Ad-hoc group, JapanFoundation for ShipbuildmgAdvancement (organized 1985)various companies

STA.NRIMvarious companies

MIT Ivarious companies

MIT I (NEDO)various companies

MoEunversitles

MIT I:ETLNTT, various companies

MoEuniversities

1966-1975

1971 -present

Early 1970s-present

1970-present

1970-present

1982-1986

1986-?

1988-1995

1979-1981

1982-1989

1984-1986

Mark V supermagnet.

60-Gev collider (TRISTAN) includingsuperconducting magnets for beamcontrol, detection; also rf cavities andrefrigeration systems.

Large Coil Task coil tested 1987. J-60Experimental Reactor. Toroidal andpoloidal coils for new Fusion ExperimentalReactor.

44-seat test vehicle; 7km test guideway;375km/hr manned test.

Model vessel tests (1970 to 1979) Designfor 22-meter, 150-ton oceangoing vesselfor 1990 (“Yamato”) miniature model testedin 1986. Total cost est. 40 million dollars.

Advancement of basic technology relatedto LTS and refrigeration.

Feasibility studies.

Design and construct 70 MW modelgenerator Design components for 200 MWpilot generator.

Advances in fabrication methods for JJsand devices.

Matching funds from companies, whichgained experience in LTS magnetconstruction.

Minor funding from companies.

Program is expected to continue at presentlevels. No specific clans to incorporateH T S .

New50km test guideway planned. FundingIS 95 percent from private sources. Noserious plan to incorporate HTS.

Efficiency is low, requires very highmagnetic field (>1 O tesla).

Researchers became core of the NewSuperconducting Materials Forum andMulticore Project of STA.

Candidate for new national R&D project.Designs for smaller, toroidal SMES beingconsidered by electric utility industry (asopposed to larger, solenoid designs understudy in the United States).

Culmination of many years of research andengineering experience with super-conducting magnets and prototypegenerators, beginning with MHD programHTS materials being developed.

Provided experience base in unversitiesnow being tapped for HTS-basedelectronics R&D.

Program continued after U.S. effortstopped in 1983. Japanese companies nowhave a strong base for future thrusts insuperconducting electronics, including HTS.

Predated discovery of HTS but served as aspringboard for rapid Japaneseinvolvement. Program extended 1 yearafter discovery of HTS.

KEY: ETL: Electrotechnical Laboratory; JAERI: Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute; JJ: Josephson Junction; JNR: Japan National Railroad (now broken up into 7 regional companies); KEK:National High-Energy Physics Laboratory; MHD: Magnetohydrodynamics; MITI: Ministry of International Trade and Industry; MOE: Ministry of Education; MOT: Ministry of Transportation; MW:Megawatt; NEDO: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization; NRIM: National Research Institute for Metals; NTT: Nippon Telephone and Telegraph; STA: Science andTechnology Agency

SOURCE: Advanced Materials Technology, “Assessment Study of the History of Japanese Superconductivity Efforts,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, November1988.

Chapter 5--High-Temperature Superconductivity Programs in Other Countries ● 79

Table 5-2-Japanese Government Fiscal 1989a

Superconductivity Budget ($ millions)Table 5-3-Recent Japanese Government High-

Temperature Superconductor R&D Programs

Agency HTS LTS Total

Ministry of International Trade& Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 24.0 34.6

Science & TechnologyAgency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.3 6.8 31.1

Ministry of Education . . . . . . 7.2 8.7 15.9Ministry of Transportation . . . 0.0 7.0 7.0Ministry of Posts&

Telecommunications . . . . 0.5 0.0 0.5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.6 b 46.5 89.1

aDraft budget. The Japanese fiscal year begins April 1.

often do not include salaries and overhead. When these are included, thetotal is estimated to beat least $70 million.

SOURCE: Adapted from Superconductor Week, vol. 3, No. 8, Feb. 20,1989, p. 6.

the United States in synthesis and processing of HTSmaterials, and in organic superconductor research.6

Japanese HTS programs are well integrated withprevious LTS efforts, both in terms of personnel andresearch goals. For example, the core participants inSTA’S New Superconducting Materials Forum andMulti-Core Project (table 5-3) also participated in aprevious 5-year STA-sponsored LTS project onBasic Technology for Superconductivity and Refrig-eration (table 5-1 ). In Japan’s fiscal year 1988, MITIalso initiated a new 10-year program to developpractical HTS transistors, following on the conclu-sion of an 8-year program to develop niobium JJs.

One common belief about Japanese companies isthat they have become successful competitors be-cause of their ability to work together in consortiaorganized by the Japanese Government. ISTEC, asingle consortium of most major companies in-volved in HTS R&D that was organized under theauspices of MITI, is often held up as a trump cardthat will put Japanese companies ahead in the race tocommercialize HTS. But although the formation ofISTEC is an impressive achievement, its agenda isdeliberately focused at a basic research level--+-e.,materials development—similar to the researchprogram of a university or national laboratory in theUnited States. Members’ motives for joining ISTECare complex, but typically do not include theexpectation that research at ISTEC will lead directlyto commercial applications. For that, the membercompanies are relying on the major efforts underway

AgencylProgram Comments

Ministry of International Trade and Industry:Superconducting materials and process technologies

10-year program beginning 1988, includes funding for ISTECand national laboratories.

Superconducting electron devices10-year program beginning 1988, about half going to theprivate sector, focusing on development of HTS transistors.

Superconducting generator (Super-GM)8-year program beginning 1988, primarily LTS; includesparallel HTS research component.

Science and Technology Agency:Multi-Core project

Coordinated effort of nine STA-funded national laboratoriesparticipating in HTS R&Din four “core” areas: theory/database, processing, characterization, and technologytransfer.

New superconducting materials forumProfessional forum on HTS development with 135 membercompanies and research associations. Interfaces betweenMulti-Core project and private industry efforts.

Ministry of Education:Mechanism of superconductivity

3-year program beginning 1988 involving some 100 research-ers under the direction of Prof. Y. Muto, Tohoku University.

Chemical design and processing of new oxide superconductors3-year program beginning 1989 under the direction of Prof. K.Fueki, Science University of Tokyo.

Development of electronics with new superconducting materials3-year program beginning 1989 involving three researchgroups under the direction of Prof. K. Hara, Chiba Institute ofTechnology.

Special research project on new superconductors3-year program beginning 1987 involving four research groupsunder the direction of Prof. S. Tanaka, University of Tokyo.

Ministry of Posts and TelecommunicationsDevelopment of HTS mixer at terahertz frequencies

HTS characterization and thin films for infrared detectorsCarried out at NIT laboratories.

ISTEC: International Superconductivity Technology Center


at their own R&D laboratories, and the accumulatedexpertise built up over years of experience with LTS,semiconductor processing, and ceramics technol-ogy.

EUROPEAN COOPERATIVEPROGRAMS

The two most important existing European coop-erative programs that sponsor HTS projects areFramework, an EC activity, and the EUREKA


Box 5-A—Intm#ationd Supereonductivity Technology Center (ISTEC)

ISTEC is a consortium of companies organized under the auspices of MITI. Established in January 1988, itslaboratory facilities, located in a building leased from Tokyo Gas, were officially opened in October 1988. ISTECwas established to pursue several activities related to superconductivity: conduct basic R&D on HTS and processingtechnology; review research progress and feasibility of various applications; organize international symposia,seminars, and workshops; promote international exchange of scientists; and disseminate information.Resources

ISTEC has 111 members, under two kinds of memberships: associate and full. Full members participate in thelaboratory and can send one or two researchers each. Full members give an additional one-time donation of 100million yen (about $800,000) and pay an additional annual fee of 12 million yen (about $100,000) to support thelaboratory. Companies pay the salaries of the researchers they send, and a lo-year commitment is expected. Mostcompanies-viewing ISTEC as a training opportunity-are sending relatively young researchers, rather than theirseasoned superconductivity veterans.

Associate members may participate in the seminars and receive the publications, but do not participate in theactual research or intellectual property rights. (However, associate members may share some benefits such asreduced royalty payments for licenses.) Associate memberships require an initial donation of 1 to 2 million yen(about $8,000 to $16,000) and a 0.5 to 2 million yen annual fee. A listing of ISTEC membership as of June 1989is given in appendix 5-A.

At that time, 46 companies had joined as full members, yielding an initial capitalization of about $34 million.In addition, they contributed about $4.2 million in operating expenses. As of October 1989, there were 89 researchstaff, including 77 dispatched from the member companies.

In Japan’s fiscal year 1988, MITI’s contribution was 440 million yen ($3.4 million), which incresed to 890million yen ($6.4 million) in Japan’s fiscal year 1989. These figures do not include salaries. According to oneestimate, ISTEC’S operating budget if salaries are included, comes to about $17 miIlion per year; thus, in Japan’sfiscal year 1989, ISTEC received about one-third of its support from MITLlResearch organization

The research at ISTEC laboratory is organized according to seven groups as follows:1) Characterization and analysis of fundamental properties of superconductors; 2) HTS oxides and search for

new superconducting ceramics; 3) Research on organic superconductors. 4) Fundamental research on chemicalprocessing; 5) Fundamental research on physical processing; 6) Organization of an HTS database; and 7) Researchon high-critical-current density superconductors {presently at the Japan Fine Ceramics Center in Nagoya).

Each group is headed by a leading expert drawn from a major university or national laboratory, and when fullystaffed, will have 10 to 22 members. Research is expected to remain at a very basic level, not directed towardparticular applications, since competing companies are involved.

ISTEC’s policies on intellectual property were finalized in March 1989.2 In general, patent rights are sharedbetween ISTEC and the company that dispatched the researcher who did the work.International Aspects

ISTEC has actively encouraged foreign companies (and individual researchers) to join the laboratory. At thiswriting, though, only four U.S. companies had joined as associate members (DuPont-Japan, Rockwell, IBM-Japan,and Intermagnetics General), plus the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (see app. 5-A). There are twoEuropean associate members, British Telecom and Rhone-Poulenc Japan; there are no non-Japanese full members.Given the substantial investment involved (perhaps $1.5 million the first year and $400,000 per year thereafer-tocover salaries and expenses for two researchers), most U.S. firms would apparently rather invest their external R&Ddollars in domestic collaborations where there is no language barrer, where it is easier for researchers to make thenecessary career adjustments, and where U.S. companies have more control over the R&D agenda.

Chapter 5---High-Temperature Superconductivity Programs in Other Countries ● 81

initiative, a European-based program with close tiesto the European Community.7 While the budgets ofEUREKA and Framework are relatively smallcompared with the overall R&D efforts of thenational member States, these cooperative programsare considered by European observers to be impor-tant for a number of reasons: they allow organiza-tions with different strengths to combine R&Dresources necessary to maintain competitiveness;they are focused on commercial applications of hightechnologies; and they help to lower legal andregulatory barriers within Europe.

Framework

The Framework program of the Commission ofthe European Communities, as its name implies,provides an overall strategy, structure, and financialpackage through which specific R&D programsoperate. Three EC programs within Frameworksupport HTS research: ESPRIT II, Stimulation ofScience (now in its second phase, called Science)and BRITE/EURAM. ESPRIT is a basic/appliedresearch program in information technologies. BRITE/EURAM (1989-1992) is a recent industrial researchprogram that builds on the successful activities oftwo previously separate programs covering researchin industrial technologies (BRITE) and advancedmaterials (EURAM). “Science” was established toaddress three goals: better mobility of researchers,large facilities and projects, and a more integrated,multidisciplinary approach to research.

Several EC projects on HTS research werelaunched in May, 1988. A budget of about $16million has been approved for HTS through 1989.8

Nearly all of the HTS budget is expected to supportcollaborative industrial applied research within themember countries, with matching funds to besupplied by industry. A standing committee ofrepresentatives of key research institutions in themember countries has been established to provideinformation on national HTS programs, staff ex-changes, and scientific meetings.

Eureka

EUREKA is a product of the French concern thatthe United States’ Strategic Defense Initiative wouldvastly add to the U.S. storehouse of commercial

technologies, and represents a civilian attempt byWestern European countries to keep up with thisexpected U.S. technology development. It is a $1billion, industry-led program directed independentlyof the EC. The EUREKA program hosts two LTSsuperconductor projects.9

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OFGERMANY

West Germany has supported superconductivityresearch consistently for the past 20 years. Most ofthe government funding is provided by the Ministryfor Research and Technology (BMFT), which hassupported LTS R&Din three principal areas: generictechnology development (materials, magnets, cryo-genics, devices); energy research (primarily super-conducting generators); and medical technology(magnetic resonance imaging, biomagnetic meas-urements). As a result, West German firms havecapabilities comparable to those of U.S. firms inlarge-scale applications, and are stronger competi-tors in some emerging commercial applications ofLTS-e.g., magnetoencephalography (see ch. 3)—than are Japanese firms.

In 1988, BMFT HTS project funding was about$10 million, 90 percent of which went to researchinstitutes, The remaining 10 percent went to supportindustrial research, and was matched by the recipientcompanies. In subsequent years, BMFT funding hasgrown, and is expected to reach some $33 million.

Some 90 research teams, with a total of about 500research personnel, are estimated to be active in HTSat West German institutes and industrial laborato-ries. Information exchange and coordination amongthese groups is excellent, and is carried out under theauspices of BMFT

Private industry investment in HTS is higher inWest Germany than in any other European country.Major investors include Siemens, Hoechst, Daimler-Benz, Degussa, Dornier, and Villeroy & Boch.Hoechst is concentrating on materials research;Siemens and Daimler-Benz have more of an applica-tions focus (Siemens is developing an LTS genera-tor, for example). However, there appears to be aninformal agreement in effect among these compa-


Box 5-B-Superconductive Generation Equipment and Materials (Super-GM)

Super-GM is an engineering research association that provides an excellent example of a Japanesedemonstration project in action.Goals

Super-GM is an 8-year (Japanese fiscal years 1988 to 1995), $200 million MITI “Moonlight Project” programaimed at producing a 70-MW class LTS generator scale model, and the basic design of a 200-MW class machine.It is expected to be succeeded by a program to develop a 200-MW class prototype machine. The initial 7-MW classsize is considered to be small enough to facilitate construction and transport, and at the same time large enough(about one-third scale) that no unexpected scale-up problems to 200-MW class are anticipated.History

In 1983, the Japan Electric Council looked into the feasibility of various superconductor applications in thepower sector, and classified them in order of priority. Transformers and generators were the two applications thatsurvived this review. However, the efficiency of existing transformers is already very good, and superconductingwires with low alternating current losses are difficult to make, so priority went to the generator. A consensus wasreached in 1985-86 that superconducting generators were going to be important in the 21st century. Generators nowin service are expected to require replacement by the year 2000, and smaller machines will be needed. Theadvantages of superconducting generators were considered to be improved efficiency (by 0.5 to 1.0 percent) andincreased system stability. Therefore, a 2-year feasibility study was initiated by MITI.

After the feasibility study, MITI called for the formation of an industry research association and for proposalsfrom prospective members. MITI then chose the participants and created the vertically integrated structure ofSuper-GM (see table 5-4),Organization

Super-GM consists of 16 member companies and organizations. Membership consists of end users, system andsubsystem manufacturers, superconductor material manufacturers, and associated organizations.

The end users will provide test and evaluation facilities for the various generator designs being pursued inparallel by the systems manufacturers. There is a loose vertical organization to the companies along competingdesign lines (similar to the competition between the Bechtel and Ebasco teams on the SMES program in the UnitedStates), but there is also some horizontal overlap among projects, particularly at the level of the cable/componentmanufacturers.

About 90 percent of Super-GM’s 1988 funding of $12.2 million came from MITI’s Agency for IndustrialScience and Technology (its research coordinating arm) via NEDO (New Energy and Industral TechnologyDevelopment Organization). Industry is responsible for the remainder, which is actually raised through rate hikesby the nine utilities.1 The research is not centralized, although there is a central administrative facility in Osaka: eachparticipating company sends 1 to 2 people to the facility, but conducts its own research in-house. Super-GM hasabout 200 researchers total.Operation

In all, three different kinds of superconducting rotors will be prepared using NbTi conductors. Hitachi andMitsubishi are working on two rotors that are appropriate to somewhat cheaper, smaller (circa 300 MW) generators,and the overall technology is fairly well in hand. Both companies have built and tested experimental LTS generatorsin the past and are planning to produce for the commercial market after the year 2000. Mitsubishi is alsocollaborating with Fujikura and Furukawa to develop rotors using Nb3Sn conductors.

Toshiba is winking on a third design that would be appropriate to a larger (over 1,000 MW), more expensivesystem, and Toshiba is considered to be “challenging the technology” in a more aggressive fashion. Toshiba hasalready built and tested a 3MW prototype to verify its design studies.

There are also two competing refrigeration systems being developed, one by Mayekawa and one byIshikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries. There is a loose coupling between these two efforts.

At the end of 1991, there will be an interim evaluation of the progress of all projects, and some winnowingof the options will take place. In 1995, choices will be made among the three main designs, and another follow-upprogram will be started to develop the prototype 200-MW class machine.

Chapter S-High-Temperature Superconductivity Programs in Other Countries ● 83

Rote of HTSSix companies--Mitsubishi, Hitachi, Toshiba, Furukawa, Sumitomo, and Fujikura-plus the Japan Fine

Ceramics Center---am pursuing seven research projects to develop HTS materials specifically for generators andother electric power applications. Super-GM managers are reluctant to predict when HTS wire will be available,saying only that it is important to stay “flexible” with regard to the insertion of HTS.

Given the fact that LTS conductor technology is so much more mature, the HTS portion of Super-GM maymost accurately be viewed as a good opportunity to pursue HTS materials development and explore newapplications in the electric power sector, rather than as a serious effort to incorporate HTS into the generator design.However, Super-GM managers are delighted that HTS came along when it did, and note that “HTS fever” has givena shot in the arm to the whole superconducting generator program.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Table 5-4-Membership of Japan’s Super-GM Projectto develop superconductor applications. The center

End users:Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc.Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc.Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc.

System/subsystem manufacturers:Hitachi, Ltd.lshikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.Mayekawa Mfg. Co., Ltd.Mitsubishi Electric Corp.Toshiba Corp.

SC material/cable/component manufacturers:Fujikura, Ltd.Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.Kobe Steel, Ltd.Showa Electric Wire and Cable Co., Ltd.Hitachi Cable, Ltd.Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.

Associated organizations:Central Research Institute of the Electric Power IndustryJapan Fine Ceramics Center

SOURCE: Super-GM, 1989.

nies not to publicize industry research results inHTS.10

FRANCEFrench Government laboratories responded quickly

to the discovery of HTS. In 1987, the Governmentsupported some 240 researchers in HTS at the Centrede l’Energie Atomique, Centre National de laRecherche Scientifique (CNRS), Centre Nationald’Etudes des Telecommunications, and universities,at a cost of about $28 million.

A new $1 million HTS research center ($2.4million operating budget) has been built at Caen thatinvolves more than 70 full-time researchers working

is supported by the largest French companies,French national agencies, and several Europeancompanies outside of France.

In the summer of 1987, the Ministry of Researchannounced a 2-year, $8.6 million program to pro-mote cooperative government/industry research proj-ects in HTS, with industry providing matchingfunds. A 2-year follow-on program is now underdiscussion.

In contrast to the rapid response of the FrenchGovernment, French industry has been slower to getinvolved. In 1987, an estimated 60 full-time and 40part-time researchers were active in HTS. Thisresearch is concentrated in just a few companies,chiefly Compagnie Generale d’Electricity (CGE),Thomson-CSF, and Rhone-Poulenc. CGE and Rhone-Poulenc have taken a leading role in a collaborationwith CNRS and French universities to improve theperformance of bulk HTS materials for energyapplications. Thomson-CSF is the industrial leaderin France for applications in the field of supercon-ducting electronics, and employs some 20 full-timeresearchers working to develop HTS electronicdevices.

UNITED KINGDOMThe United Kingdom has a modest, though

well-coordinated, national HTS program. Nationalcoordination is achieved through a joint committeeof the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), andthe Science and Engineering Research Council(SERC), The centerpiece of the SERC HTS effort isthe Interdisciplinary Research Center for Supercon-


ductivity at Cambridge University, funded at aguaranteed minimum of $9 million over 6 years.Complementary research projects are being fundedwith a separate budget of $3.5 million at otheruniversities. DTI has made an additional $12.9million available for joint projects with industry ona matching basis. The Ministry of Defence has asmall intramural program with links to universities,bringing the U.K. annual total to about $18 million.

Industry response to HTS has been mixed. Al-though U.K. companies have developed a strongtechnology base in LTS magnets, the technologybase for superconducting electronics is relativelyweak (and mainly military), as have been the linksbetween academia and industry. Active researchprojects under the DTI program have now started,such as the one at Harwell, where six Britishcompanies have become members of Harwell’s HTSSuperconductivity Club (consortium). Member com-panies are: Air Products, BICC, Ford of Britain,Johnson Matthey, Oxford Instruments, and BOCInternational. Several universities are also involved.The Club has planned a 3-year research programcosting about $6.8 million, half of which will beprovided by DTI. Overall, up to 100 researchers areestimated to be active in industry; key individualcompanies include General Electric Co. (GEC),Plessey, British Aerospace, Imperial Chemical In-dustries (ICI), Cooksons, and Oxford Instruments.

ITALY

Italy has had many projects in energy-relatedareas of LTS technology, including motor/generatorsets, cables and magnet technologies for fusion,particle accelerators, and magnetohydrodynamics(MHD). Italy has a broad-based research program inHTS, including: thin-film processing, cables, mag-netic storage, magnetic separation, shields, cavities,and motors.

Italian researchers quickly reproduced the YBaCuOresults of the Universities of Houston and Alabama,and hosted several early international meetings onHTS. In 1989, Italy’s National Research Councilbudgeted some $10 million to $15 million for HTS,and overall the national effort involves perhaps 200researchers. A consortium of 27 universities hasbeen established at the Superconductivity Applica-

tions Development Center in Genoa, including about100 research positions. Italy’s major superconduc-tivity research centers are at the University of Genoaand the University of Salerno, near Naples.

Although little industrial research on HTS hasbeen published, leading companies appear to beAnsaldo, Montedison, Pirelli, and Florence Indus-trial Metals. Ansaldo is a subcontractor on theBechtel team designing the U.S. SuperconductingMagnetic Energy Storage system and is currentlydeveloping a prototype HTS motor, jointly with theUniversity of Genoa. Ansaldo is also a primarymanufacturer ofHadron Electronenergy projects.

THE

LTS magnets for the EuropeanRing Accelerator and for

NETHERLANDS

fusion

The Netherlands has a small-scale governmentprogram in HTS scheduled to run through 1991. It isdominated by Philips, which has enormous technicaland financial clout. The government is providingabout $4.5 million; another $4.5 million comes fromprivate sources. Philips’ work is coordinated withseveral university laboratories, especially Eind-hoven [University of Technology. Consistent withPhilips’ main business areas, the effort is focused onsuperconducting electronics, with only a small partdevoted to energy applications. Other Dutch institu-tions cooperating in the effort include the Universi-ties of Amsterdam, Leiden, Nijmegen, and Twente,and the Netherlands Energy Research Foundation.Akzo is another Netherlands-based company activein HTS R&D.

SWEDENSweden’s HTS effort consists of a small government/

university/industry joint program in applicationsresearch. ASEA-Brown-Boveri (ABB), Ericsson,the Swedish Defense Research Establishment, andseven Swedish universities are participating.ll Al-though the Swedish program in HTS is very small(about $2.5 million over 2 years), the main player,ABB, has substantial superconductivity experienceand is considered by U.S. company representativesto be a formidable competitor in potential electricpower applications, i.e., generators, transmissionlines, and power conditioning equipment.

Chapter .5--_-High -Temperature Superconductivity Programs in Other Countries ● 85

SOVIET UNIONIt is difficult to obtain reliable estimates of the

Soviet effort in HTS. The budget for the SovietAcademy of Sciences has been estimated at severalhundred million rubles, plus about $40 million inhard currency for purchase of foreign equipment.12

Estimates for the overall number of Soviet HTSresearchers put the figure at about 2,000. However,these researchers often do not have access tostate-of-the-art equipment that is available to U.S.researchers.

Soviet publications suggest that a broad range ofHTS research is being conducted, including researchin thin films for electronics and bulk materials forlarge-scale applications. 13 These publications alsoindicate a continuing commitment to LTS research,particularly in superconducting sensors and elec-tronics, in magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) electricpower production, and in fusion energy.

The Soviet Union has had a stronger program todevelop MHD power plants than any other country.A 500 megawatt (MW) demonstration MHD powerplant is being built at Ryasan. The Soviets arethought to have a 10-year lead in MHD, but theprogram has experienced some delays due to prob-lems with winding the superconducting magnets andis in danger of being canceled.14 The Soviet Unionhas also developed a 300-MW generator based onLTS, similar to U.S.-developed LTS generators.

While Western observers rate the quality of Soviettheoretical work as first-rate, its experimental workhas received mixed reviews. Moreover, the level ofcoordination and information exchange among So-viet institutes is often poor. Many observers considerthe Soviet system to be too bureaucratic to exploitHTS breakthroughs rapidly on a worldwide com-mercial scale, although this situation could improveas present restructuring programs move forward.

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA(PRC)

Since the early 1960s, China has conducted abroad research program in LTS materials, large-scale magnets, generators, magnetic separators, andJosephson Junction devices.15 In recent years, it hasproduced some of the highest performing multifil-amentary NbTi conductors. *G

China has responded to the discovery of HTS withan intensive research program, and it has hostedseveral international meetings on HTS. The work isbeing conducted in a wide variety of researchinstitutes and universities both inside the countryand by visiting Chinese scientists doing joint re-search in foreign laboratories. China has largereserves of rare earths and is the world’s largestproducer of yttrium and other rare earths used insome HTS materials.

As part of an overall program to increase R&D inthe People’s Republic, the National Natural ScienceFoundation of China (a counterpart of the U.S.National Science Foundation) has planned to spend$5.5 million per year (not including salaries) on HTSresearch in universities, out of a $3 billion per yearresearch budget.17

The scope of the Chinese work is broad, and thePRC appears to have allowed researchers to publishfreely, often in English journals. Some 1,000 re-searchers appear to be involved in HTS. *8 Despite ageographically dispersed effort, there appears to belittle duplication of research, suggesting a coordi-nated program.19

Although the Chinese work is prolific, it is judgedby Western observers to be somewhat uneven inquality, due in part to a lack of first-rate equipment.20

As yet there is little indication that an industrialeffort is underway to exploit fully the results of the


research, and no indication of the future status of thegovernment and university programs.

CONCLUSIONSWhile many foreign nations have ongoing HTS

research efforts, it is apparent that the Japanese willbe the strongest competitors of the United States inexploiting the potential of new HTS materials, bothbecause of their solid foundation of LTS develop-ment and because of their strong commitment ofresources to HTS research. The Federal Republic ofGermany will also be a strong competitor; itproduces some of the best LTS materials, and WestGerman companies have a stronger position in someemerging areas-e. g., biomagnetic devices—thando the Japanese.

While OTA finds a rough parity between thequality of U.S. and Japanese HTS R&D, there areseveral areas where Japan has superior capabilities,and there are noteworthy differences in Japan’sapproach to superconductivity. Historically, fundingfor LTS programs has been sustained over a longperiod in Japan, and commitments to new commer-cially oriented LTS projects (e.g., computer elec-tronics, maglev, and electric power generators) arebeing made where funding has long since been cutoff in the United States. The new HTS programs inJapan have drawn heavily on the expertise accumu-lated during these LTS programs, and are beingdesigned to capitalize on previous LTS researchresults.

Based on visits to numerous Japanese laboratoriesinvolved in superconductivity, OTA finds thatNational laboratories like MITI’s ElectrotechnicalLaboratory, and STA’S National Institute for Re-

search on Inorganic Materials and National Re-search Institute for Metals, as well as universities inTokyo, Osaka, and Kyoto, Sendai, and others, areconducting first-rate research in HTS and have muchto offer to U.S. visiting scientists.21 Unfortunately,the quality of this work is not fully appreciated byU.S. researchers, who tend to focus primarily on thework in Japanese industry laboratories.

Several European countries have substantial HTSprograms led by the research efforts of a few largemultinational companies including Philips (the Neth-erlands), Siemens (West Germany), Asea-Brown-Boveri (Sweden/Switzerland), GEC (United King-dom), Thomson (France), and Ansaldo (Italy). Thesecompanies have considerable financial and technicalresources as well as a strong interest in HTS, and arealready formidable competitors of U.S. firms in LTSapplications.

Joint research programs in HTS within the Euro-pean Community are as yet quite small, but aregrowing. The planned unification of the Europeanmarket in 1992 is likely to strengthen the Europeancompetitive position in HTS. The combined HTSR&D budgets of the EC member countries arealready considerably larger than those of the UnitedStates or Japan alone.

Both the Soviet Union and the People’s Republicof China have major efforts underway in HTS, butthese efforts are hampered by a lack of state-of-the-art equipment and unwieldy bureaucracies. Neithercountry appears to have the industrial muscle tocompete effective y in early commercial markets forHTS, but this assessment could change in the longterm.

Chapter 5--High-Temperature Superconductivity Programs in Other Countries ● 87

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

☛

●

●

●

●

●

●

APPENDIX 5-A—MEMBERSHIP OF JAPAN’S INTERNATIONALSUPERCONDUCTIVITY TECHNOLOGY CENTER (JUNE 1, 1989)1

Anelva Corp.Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.British TelecomCentral Japan Railway Co., Ltd.Central Research Institute of the Electric Power IndustryChiyoda Corp.Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc.The Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc.The Dai-ichi Kangyo Bank, Ltd.The Dai-Tokyo Fire& Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.Daido Steel Co., Ltd.The Daiwa Bank, Ltd.Dentsu, Inc.Du Pont Japan, Ltd.East Japan Railway Co., Ltd.Electric Power Development Co., Ltd.Electric Power Research Institute (EPRl)Fuji Electric Co., Ltd.Fujikin International, Inc.Fujikura, Ltd.Fujitsu, Ltd.Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.Hazama-Gumi, Ltd.Hitachi Cable, Ltd.Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.Hitachi Metals, Ltd.Hitachi, Ltd.The Hokkaido Electric Power Co., Inc.The Hokuriku Electric Power Co., Inc.Honda Research and Development Co., Ltd.IBM Japan, Ltd.INES Corp.Intermagnetics General Corp.Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.Japan Air Lines Co., Ltd.Japan Fine Ceramics CenterJEOL, Ltd.Kajima Corp.Kandenko Co., Ltd.The Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc.Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.Kawasaki Steel Corp.Kobe Steel, Ltd.Kumagai Gumi Co., Ltd.Kyocera Corp.Kyushu Electric Power Co., Inc.Marubun Corp.Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Mayekawa Manufacturing Co., Ltd.Mazda Motor Corp.The Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd.Mitsubishi Cable Industries, Ltd.Mitsubishi Corp.Mitsubishi Electric Corp.Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.Mitsubishi Metal Corp.Mitsui & Co., Ltd.The Mitsui Bank, Ltd.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co., Ltd.Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.NEC Corp..

NGK Insulators, Ltd.NGK Spark Plug Co., LtdNippon Mining Co., Ltd.Nippon Sanso K.K.Nippon Steel Corp.Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp.Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd.NKK Corp..

Ohbayashi Corp.Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd.Okinawa Electric Power Co., Ltd.Osaka Gas Co., Ltd.Railway Technical Research InstituteRhone-Poulenc JapanRinnai Co.Rockwell International Corp.Saibu Gas co. Ltd.Sakaguchi Electric Heaters Co., Ltd.Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.Sato Kogyo CO., Ltd.Sharp Corp.Shikoku Electric Power Co., Inc.Shimizu Corp.Showa Electric Wire & Cable Co., Ltd.Sony Corp.The Sumitomo Bank, Ltd.Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.Sumitomo Corp.Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd.Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd.Taikisha, Ltd.Taisei Corp.Takaoka Electric Manufacturing Co., Ltd.Takenaka Komuten Co., Ltd.Toda Construction Co., Ltd.Toho Gas Co. Ltd.Tohoku Electric Power Co., Inc.The Tokai Bank, Ltd.Tokai Electric Construction Co., Ltd.Tokyo Cryogenic Industries Co., Ltd.The Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc.Tokyo Gas Co., Ltd.Tokyu Construction Co., Ltd.Toshiba Corp.Tosoh Corp.Toyota Motor Corp.Ube Industries, Ltd.Ulvac Corp.

Chapter 6

Comparison of IndustrialSuperconductivity R&D Effortsin the United States and Japan:

An OTA Survey

CONTENTSPage

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. ., .. .. .. .. ... ... 91OVERALL TOTALS: UNITED STATES AND JAPAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91CHARACTERIZING THE SURVEYED COMPNIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Company Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. 92Main Business Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 93Reliance on Defense Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Type of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ... .., 95Collaborations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. .. .. . 95

BREAKDOWN OF HTS R&D FUNDING BY SIZE OF RESEARCH PROGRAM . . 96Major HTS Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Midrange HTS Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Small HTS Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

INDUSTRY ATTITUDES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Some Company Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . 99

APPENDIX 6A: ABREAKDOWM OF LTS RESEARCH IN THEUNITED STATES AND JAPAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

APPENDIX 6B: OTA R&D SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

6-1.

6-2.

6-3.

6-4.

6-5.6-6.

6-7.

6-8.6-9.

6-1.6-2.6-3.6-4.

FiguresPage

Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity Research Efforts in the United Statesand Japan, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ..,.”... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Increase in Industrial Superconductivity in the United Statesand Japan, 1987-1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93Funding Sources for HTS Research Performed by Industry in the United Statesand Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Funding Sources for LTS Research Performed by Industry in the United Statesand Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Distribution of Industry HTS Research in the United States and Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Main Business Areas of Companies Performing HTS R&D in the United Statesand Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Characterization of Industry Superconductivity Research in the United Statesand Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97HTS Thin Film and Bulk Processing R&D in the United States and Japan . . . . . . . . 97Comparison of Industry Collaborations in HTS R&Din the United Statesand Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

TablesPage

U.S. Industry HTS programs, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Japanese Industry HTS Programs, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99U.S. Industry LTS Programs, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101Japanese Industry LTS Programs, 1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Chapter 6

Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Effortsin the United States and Japan: An OTA Survey

INTRODUCTIONIn late 1988 and early 1989, the Office of

Technology Assessment (OTA) conducted a surveyof U.S. industrial superconductivity R&D in cooper-ation with the National Science Foundation (NSF).A parallel survey of Japanese industrial supercon-ductivity R&D was conducted jointly with theInternational Superconductivity Technology Center(ISTEC), a consortium of Japanese firms organizedunder the auspices of the Ministry of InternationalTrade and Industry.

In the United States, OTA/NSF attempted tocapture all companies involved in superconductivityR&D. Surveys were received from 360 U.S. compa-nies, of which 217 reported either in-house orcollaborative superconductivity R&D.12 OTA esti-mates that the research at these companies representsabout 90 percent of the U.S. industrial effort.3 InJapan, OTA/ISTEC attempted to capture only themajor superconductivity R&D-performing compa-nies.4 Surveys were received from 92 Japanesecompanies, of which 71 reported either in-house orcollaborative superconductivity R&D. OTA andISTEC estimate that about 80 percent of Japaneseindustrial research was captured by the survey.Unless specifically indicated, the data reported inthis chapter are not adjusted for these differentcapture rates. For a more accurate comparison offunding levels and numbers of researchers, it is

necessary to increase the U.S. data by about 11percent and the Japanese data by about 25 percent.

R&D spending figures quoted throughout thischapter represent only the companies’ own fundsunless otherwise specified. Government funding forresearch performed by industry is considered sepa-rately, This highlights what in OTA’s view is thebest measure of a company’s commitment to super-conductivity —the investment of its own cash.

For simplicity, this chapter focuses primarily onHTS survey results. Additional survey data relatingto LTS are provided in appendix 6-A. The OTAsurvey form used in the United States is included asappendix 6-B (a Japanese translation with slightmodifications was sent to the Japanese companies).

OVERALL TOTALS:UNITED STATES AND JAPAN

Figure 6-1 shows OTA’s estimate of the totalindustry effort in the United States and Japan,measured in both millions of dollars5 and numbersof full-time researchers.6 These data are adjustedaccording to OTA’s estimate of the efforts notcaptured in each country. In 1988, Japanese indus-trial spending on in-house HTS R&D is estimated tobe about $107 million—some 50 percent greaterthan the estimated total of $74 million in the UnitedStates. 7 8 Japanese firms also spent about $44

- 9 1 -


million on in-house LTS R&D compared with $16million by U.S. firms.9

These differences are also reflected in the R&Dstaff totals in the two countries. As of October 1988,OTA estimates that some 440 U.S. industry re-searchers were spending greater than 50 percent oftheir time on HTS, compared with some 710 inJapan.10

Figure 6-2 shows the increase in industry R&Defforts (as captured in the survey) over time. Whencorrected for changes in yen/dollar exchange rates,11

HTS funding grew by about 40 percent and LTSfunding by about 20 percent in both countries from1987 to 1988. The corresponding R&D staff data,taken at three points in time, suggest that theindustrial effort began to level off in both countriesduring 1988. This impression was confirmed byspokesmen for several key companies interviewedby OTA.

Figure 6-3 gives a breakdown of funding sourcesfor HTS research performed by industry in theUnited States and Japan. In the aggregate, compa-nies in both countries spend more of their owninternal funds than they receive from outside sources,by at least 4 to 1.12 Compared with Japan, the U.S.Government is funding about twice as much of theI-ITS R&D performed by industry .13

Comparable data for LTS are shown in figure 6-4.In the United States, 56 percent of the LTS industrialresearch was funded by the Federal Government,while in Japan, only 9 percent was funded by theJapanese Government. This demonstrates the fargreater commitment of Japanese companies to LTS.

CHARACTERIZING THESURVEYED COMPANIES

In both countries, HTS R&D is heavily concen-trated in a few firms. As shown in figure 6-5, the topfive U.S. firms put up 55 percent of the R&D dollars,while in Japan the top five firms paid for 42 percent.The major Japanese companies tended to have moreHTS researched; 9 companies had 20 or morefull-time researchers (comprising 60 percent of allfull-time Japanese researchers captured), comparedwith just 3 companies with 20 or more in the UnitedStates. In the United States, one-quarter of allfull-time researchers work in companies employingthree or fewer I-ITS research staff.

Company Size

With few exceptions, the big HTS spenders arelarge companies, but not all large companies in thesurvey have big HTS programs. In the United States,73 percent of all internal HTS funding came from 61companies with sales of over $1 billion. But 36 outof 61 were investing less than $300,000 in HTS; i.e.,less than the cost of 2 full-time researchers.14

Small companies are sometimes viewed as the‘‘secret weapon’ of U.S. competitiveness. Of the217 U.S. companies captured in the OTA survey,121 are small companies;15 of these, 53 are startupsin the last 5 years. Two of these startups haveinternal HTS R&D programs of over $1 million peryear. Small companies as a group put up only 9percent of total industry funding for HTS, butreceive 44 percent of all Federal funding. (In Japan,just 10 large firms receive 100 percent of govern-ment funding.) Interestingly, small companies in theUnited States account for a much larger fraction ofLTS R&D—57 percent—a reflection of the reluc-tance of most large U.S. companies to spend theirown money on LTS R&D. No small Japanese

Chapter 4-Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Japan ● 93

Figure 6-l-Comparison of IndustrialSuperconductivity Research Efforts

in the United States and Japan, 1988

Internal R&D funding ($ million)200

160

100

6 0

0

United States Japan

Full-time research staff1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

I

United States Japan

companies.

120i

6 0

4 0

2 0

0

1,000

800

600

4 0 0

2 0 0

1987 1988 1987 1988

United States Japan

Full-time research staff

Industry funding and research staff dedicated to HTS grewsubstantially from January 1987 to January 1988 in both theUnited States and Japan. The relatively small increase in researchstaff from January 1988 to October 1988 suggests that this growthwas leveling off in both countries.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Main Business Areas

The main business areas of companies involved inHTS R&Din the United States and Japan are shownin figure 6-6. In both countries, the largest categoryis ‘‘electronics, ’ defined here to include companiesin computers and telecommunications.16 The secondlargest category could be called “advanced materi-a l s . In the United States, companies in the ad-vanced materials category are primarily chemicalcompanies, while in Japan they are primarily metals

94 ● High-Ternperature Superconductive@ in perspective

Figure 6-3-Funding Sources for HTS Research Performed by Industry in the United States and Japan ($ million)

In$66.

$12

United States Japan

8%

In both countries, the bulk of HTS R&D performed by companies is supported by internal funds. The U.S. Government supports nearly twiceas much industry HTS R&D as does the Japanese Government.NOTE: “Government” funding refers to national government funding only. “Internal” funding refers to companies’ own funds; “Other” funding includes State

and local government funding, and funding from other companies.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Figure 64-Funding Sources for LTS Research Performed by Industry in the United States and Japan ($ million)

Government$20

United States

$ 3 59

Other 1%$0.5

over n men t 9%

Japan

$3.3

funding comes predominantly from theU.S. and Japanese industry perform about the same amount of LTS R&D. But in the United States,Federal Government, while in Japan, it comes from internal sources.NOTE: “Government” funding refers to national government funding only. “Internal” funding refers to companies’ own funds; “Other” funding includes State

and local government funding, and funding from other companies.


companies. In the United States, aircraft/defensecompanies invest much more than their counterpartsin Japan. Conversely, Japanese electric utilitiesinvest far more than their U.S. counterparts.

Reliance on Defense Markets

In Japan, the companies receiving governmentfunding for HTS are oriented toward commercialmarkets. Only one company in the Japanese sampledepended on the Defense Agency for over one-quarter of its sales, and it did not receive any

government HTS funds. In the United States, 63firms active in HTS were dependent on the Depart-ment of Defense for more than one-quarter of theirsales. Thirty companies in this group received 58percent of all Federal HTS funds.]7 Virtually all ofthe Federal HTS funding for industry in the UnitedStates comes from the Department of Defense, whilethe primary government funding source in Japan isthe Ministry of International Trade and Industry(MITI).

Chapter & Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Japan ● 95

Figure 6-5-Distribution of Industry HTS Research

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

in the United States and Japan

P e r c e n t o f t o t a l i n t e r n a l f u n d s

Type of Research

Companies were asked to break down theirsuperconductivity R&D (HTS and LTS) into threecategories: basic, applied, and development.18 Theresults, shown in figure 6-7, do not support thecontention that Japanese firms simply appropriatethe basic research of the United States and concen-trate on developing applications. On the contrary,Japanese companies reported spending a largerfraction of their budgets on “basic” research-asdefined by OTA—than did U.S. companies (by amargin of 37 percent to 28 percent). This suggests

that much of the basic research undertaken in U.S.universities or national laboratories is performed inJapan by companies.

Companies were also asked to characterize whethertheir HTS research is directed toward thin films orbulk forms. The results are shown in figure 6-8. Inboth countries, the majority of companies arefunding research on thin films. This is consistentwith the predominance in both countries of compa-nies with main business areas related to electronics—the field in which thin films are likely to find theirbroadest applications. But in Japan the fraction ofcompanies with research in both thin film and bulkmaterials was considerably greater; U.S. companieswere more likely to specialize in one or the other. *9

Collaborations

Most U.S. companies performing superconduc-tivity R&D are involved in collaborations with atleast one outside organization. Of the 217 companiessupporting superconductivity R&D, 183 (84 per-cent) are either engaged in or plan to engage in sometype of collaboration outside their own firm. Simi-larly, 96 percent of the Japanese firms reported somecollaborative R&D.

The relative popularity of various collaborativepartners in 1988 is shown in figure 6-9. Most of theJapanese companies surveyed are members of theMITI-sponsored consortium ISTEC; thus, 91 per-cent reported membership in an industry consor-tium, compared with just 22 percent in the UnitedStates. *(J Apart from this, the collaborative behaviorin the two countries is similar. Universities weremore popular partners than national laboratories inboth countries, although Japanese firms were some-what more likely to be collaborating with a nationallaboratory than U.S. firms. The popularity of collab-orating with other individual firms was about thesame in the two samples. Japanese firms movedmore quickly than U.S. firms to establish collabora-tive arrangements, as evidenced by the compara-tively large number of U.S. firms in the “plans tocollaborate” category as of late 1988.- .


Figure 6-6-Main Businsss Areas of Companies Performing HTS R&D in the United States and Japan

Electronics

Advanced m Aircraft/defense21% 12%

Other21%

United States

Electronics/electrical

Advanced materials29%

Japan

In both countries, companies with the largest efforts tended to have main business areas in electronics or electrical equipment. (These weredistinct categories in the United States, but were inseparable in Japan.) In the United States, aircraft/defense companies play a significantrole, whereas in Japan the electric utilities are more heavily involved.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

In 1988, U.S. companies spent about $8 millionon collaborative HTS R&D performed outside of thecompany, compared with a total of $29 million inJapan. However, these dollar figures may notaccurately reflect the actual amount of collaborationgoing on. In both countries, companies often engagein informal collaborative relationships that mayinvolve interchange of personnel or samples, but donot require exchange of funds. In fact, 67 U.S.companies and 14 Japanese companies report ongo-ing collaborations, but no outside expenditures.

BREAKDOWN OF HTS R&DFUNDING BY SIZE OF RESEARCH

PROGRAMTo compare the structure of the U.S. and Japanese

superconductivity industries more effectively, com-pany programs were classified into three categoriesaccording to their level of internal funding. Thisbreakdown for the United States and Japan issummarized in tables 6-1 and 6-2, respectively(comparable data for LTS are given in appendix6-A). “Major” HTS R&D efforts are those with $1million or more of internal funding. ‘‘Midrange”efforts are those in the $100,000 to $1 million range.“Minor” efforts are those less than $100,000 peryear.

Although these categories are somewhat arbi-trary, OTA thinks they convey a qualitative implica-

tion for future competitiveness: companies withsustained annual R&D investments of $1 million ormore can be expected to be major players in HTS;companies in the $100,000 to $1 million range areconsidered serious; and companies investing lessthan $100,000 are basically “watchers.”

Major HTS Programs

Companies with internal HTS R&D programs ofat least $1 million are likely to be in the competitiveforefront in superconductivity in the 1990s. In bothcountries, these companies account for 75 percent ormore of the total internal funding for HTS. There are14 such companies captured in the United States,compared with 20 in Japan.

In the United States, this group of large HTSspenders included 10 large companies (sales over $1billion), 2 medium-sized companies, and 2 smallstartup companies. Their dependence on Federalfunding varied widely. Of the 14, 7 reportedreceiving no Federal funds; the other 7 received 42percent of all Federal funds--on average $714,000per company—but this was small in comparisonwith the average amount that the company wasputting up: $3.5 million.

In Japan, all 20 of the big HTS spenders hadannual sales of over $1 billion. Government fundingwas concentrated in this group. Although 13 of 20companies did not report receiving any government

Chapter Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Japan ● 97

Figure 6-7--Characterization of Industry Superconductivity Research in the United States and Japan ($

United States$49.8

Japan

20%

Japanese companies reported performing more “basic” superconductivity research than did U.S. companies,NOTE: This data includes total HTS and LTS R&D performed.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

Figure 6-8-HTS Thin Film and Bulk Processing R&Din the United States and Japan (number of compa

In both countries, the majority of companies are performing research on processing HTS thin films. However, in Japan, companies are morelikely to be conducting both thin film and bulk processing R&D.NOTE: Each pie represents the set of all companies with some thin film or bulk processing R&D.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

support for HTS, the other 7 companies received 87percent of all government funding--on average$953,000 per company. These companies were alsoinvesting an average of $3.6 million of their ownfunds.

Among these big spenders, the Japanese compa-nies were more likely to have broader superconduc-tivity programs—both in terms of types of materialsbeing developed, and the scope of research. Forinstance, although in both countries a majority ofthese companies employ research staff who have hadexperience working in LTS, 11 of 20 Japanesecompanies actually have ongoing LTS programs of

over $100,000 per year, compared with just 4 of 14in the United States. As discussed in chapter 2,continuing experience with LTS could have valua-ble carryover to the commercialization of HTS.

While HTS thin films are the most popularresearch area in both countries, 16 of the 20 Japanesecompanies also had R&D programs on bulk materi-als, compared with just 6 of 14 in the United States.This overlap could be important because the cross-fertilization of these two types of research within thesame firm could speed the commercialization ofboth. The greater breadth of the Japanese supercon-ductivity programs reflects the greater horizontal

98 ● High-Ternperature Superconductivity in perspective

Figure 6-9--Comparison of Industry Collaborations in HTS R&D in the United States and Japan

Collaboration with. . .

Universities:Us.

Japan

National labs:Us.

Japan

Other companies:U s .

Japan

University consortia:Us.

Japan

Industry consortia:Us.

Japan

As of late 1988, industry collaboration behavior in HTS research was similar in the two countries, except that most Japanese companiessurveyed were members of the industrial consortium ISTEC.SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1990.

integration of the Japanese firms compared withUs. firms.

Midrange HTS Programs

In 1988,58 U.S. companies spent $100,000 to $1million on HTS R&D (averaging $245,000-lessthan the equivalent of two full-time researchers).This compared with 29 companies in this rangespending an average of $434,000 in Japan. Thesecompanies are maintaining a nucleus of HTS exper-tise that presumably could be quickly expanded ifpromising commercial applications are identified. Inthe United States, the midrange companies ac-counted for 21 percent of the total HTS R&D, andreceived 29 percent of Federal funds. In Japan, theyaccounted for 15 percent of the R&D total, andreceived 13 percent of government funding.

Small HTS Programs

One hundred and fifteen U.S. companies perform-ing HTS R&D-over half of the sample-havesmall efforts; i.e., spent less than $100,000 on HTS

in 1988 (an average of $23,000 each). Thesecompanies can be considered “watchers”; i.e.,long-term competitiveness in HTS cannot be main-tained at such small expenditure levels. The 115 U.S.small efforts together account for only 4 percent ofthe total internal company funds, but receive about29 percent of all Federal funds.21

Owing to the different sampling method used inJapan, many small efforts were not captured in theJapanese sample.

22 The 10 small Japanese programscaptured spend an average of $40,000 each and nonereceives government funds. These 10 companiesaccount for less than 1 percent of captured internalfunds invested in HTS by Japanese firms.

INDUSTRY ATTITUDES

Companies were asked to project the year inwhich they expected to bring their first HTS-relatedproduct to market, and to specify a category for that

Chapter Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Japan ● 99

Table 6-1-U.S. Industry HTS Programs, 1988 (grouped by the amount of company’s own funds)

Major efforts Midrange Smalla Total, all($1 M or more) ($1OOK-$1M) (<$1OOK) companies

Number of companies . . . . . . 14 58 115 187

Number of R&D staff . . . . . . . 446 299 256 1,001 b

(>50% time) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 104 54 361

R&D totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $54.6 M $18.4 M $6.8 M $79.8 MOwn $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $49.6 M $14.2 M $2.7 M $66.3 MFederal $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5.0 M $3.4 M $3.5 M $11.9 MOther $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.0 M $0.8 M $0.6 M $1.4 M


Table 6-2--Japaneae Industry HTS Programs, 1988 (grouped by the amount of company’s own funds)

Major efforts Midrange Small Total, all($1 M or more)a ($1OOK-$1M) (<$1OOK) companies


Number of R&D staff . . . . . . . 558 235 42 835b

(>50% time) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 130 6 555R&D totals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $80.5 M $13.6 M $0.4 M $94.6 M

Own $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $72.7 M $12.6 M $0.4 M $85.7 MFederal $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $6.7 M $ 1.0 M $0.0 M $7.7 MOther $C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1.1 M $0.0 M $0.0 M $ 1.2 M

product. 23 The results show that the anticipatedrelative timing of the products is similar in bothcountries: e.g., powders, wires, fabrication equip-ment, and small-scale electronics-related productswere expected before large-scale applications suchas high-field magnets or electric power equipment.But in Japan, these products were anticipated anaverage of 8 years later than in the United States.24

The average first year-to-market in the United Statesis 1992; in Japan, 2000.

There are several possible interpretations of thisresult. At first glance, it would appear that U.S.companies are more optimistic about early introduc-tion of HTS products. Actually, though, this maysimply reflect the short-term pressures on U.S.managers to produce a product within 3 to 5 years.The willingness of Japanese companies to spend so

much on R&D even though commercial productsmay be at least 10 years away suggests a strongcommitment to HTS technology. The continuingcommitment of Japanese companies to commercialLTS technology—largely abandoned by U.S. com-panies —reinforces this conclusion, and raises thetroubling question of whether U.S. firms are pre-pared to compete vigorously in HTS over the longterm.

Some Company Comments

In addition to the surveys in the United States andJapan, OTA conducted a number of interviews withindustry representatives in the United States onattitudes toward HTS development, Federal Govern-ment R&D policy, multisector collaborations, and a

100 . High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

number of related issues.25 Many survey respondentsin both countries also volunteered opinions onsubjects covered in the survey questionnaire. Sev-eral of these comments and interviews raise doubtsabout the level of commitment on the part of U.S.companies to long-term R&D programs.

The views of several respondents were summedup by one researcher who cited a need to “showresults within 3 to 5 years-although ‘corporate’may claim that they are more patient than that. Theaverage year-to-market for a U.S. company’s firstHTS-based product— 1992—may simply be a re-flection of this time horizon: it falls 4 to 5 years afterthe start of industrial HTS R&D programs. One LTSsystems supplier states that his company “cannotafford to spend 5 years and $10 million withoutsome assurance of a nearer term pay back.” Anotherindustry representative looks for as short a paybackas we can get. ” Said one respondent about theerosion of U.S. technological leadership in LTSelectronics: “we’re not just uncompetitive; we’renot competing at all. ”

One often-cited source of competitive strength forthe United States is the small company. Thought tobe more innovative and enthusiastic, small compa-nies sometimes lack the capital and broad resourcebase of larger companies. U.S. small businessescaptured in the survey predict an average year-to-market for their first HTS products about 3 yearsearlier than larger firms (1990, compared with1993). This may be a reflection of the smallcompany’s enthusiasm and capacity for innovation.Alternatively, it may indicate greater market pres-sures (particularly from its initial investors) toproduce quick results.26 If progress in improving theproperties of HTS materials continues to be incre-mental, sources of private capital for these smallcompanies could dry up, leaving them in a poorposition to compete with larger, better-financedJapanese companies.

U.S. companies are using small-scale products—e.g., powders or simple SQUIDS based on thinfilms-as a safe way of gaining experience withHTS. Small devices and materials are relatively lowvalue-added products, but they are less risky. Thesecompanies plan to approach more challenging buthigher-value-added products--e.g., computers—ata later point. Ultimately, though, the profits to bemade in superconducting systems may be 10 timeshigher than the profits in the materials businessalone. As one LTS materials supplier noted: “theLTS materials business is $10-30 million per year,compared with the total superconductivity productsbusiness of around $300 million per year. ”

The discovery of HTS has caused are-evaluationof the feasibility of various LTS applications,precipitating a number of new paper studies onmaglev transportation, electric power applications,etc. One HTS researcher cited a “much higher levelof enthusiasm for LTS as a result of the HTSactivity—and a higher level of comfort in workingat low temperatures. ’ And the amount of LTS R&Dperformed by U.S. industry did increase by 71percent from 1987 to 1988. But only 15 percent ofthis increase came out of internal funds; 82 percentcame from Federal sources such as the Departmentof Energy’s Superconducting Super Collider andDoD’s Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storageprograms.

Despite the spotlight on superconductivity, indus-try funding for LTS R&D remains low compared tothat for HTS R&D (see figure 6-l). On the otherhand, HTS has not caused companies to be morepessimistic about the prospects for LTS, either.Industry interviewees feel that “LTS applicationsare real” and “realistically will never be replaced”by HTS technologies. OTA reached a similarconclusion in its evaluation of superconductivityapplications in chapter 3.

Chapter Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Japan . 101

APPENDIX 6-A: A BREAKDOWN OF LTS RESEARCH IN THEUNITED STATES AND JAPAN

Table 6-3-U.S. Industry LTS Programs, 1988 (grouped by the amount of company’s own funds)

Major efforts Midrange Smalla Total, all($1 M or more) ($100K-$1 M) (<$1OOK) companies


Number of R&D staff . . . . . . . 63 114 67 244b

(>50% time) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 75 17 115

R&D $ totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.1 M $21.3 M $4.6 M $36.0 MOwn $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8.0 M $6.2 M $0.5 M $14.7 MFederal $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1.8 M $14.3 M $3.9 M $20.0 MOther $C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.3 M $0.8 M $0.2 M $ 1.3 M


Table 6-4--Japanese Industry LTS Programs, 1988 (grouped by the amount of company’s own funds)

Major efforts Midrange Small Total, all($1 M or more)a ($1OOK-$1M) (<$1OOK) companies


Number of R&D staff . . . . . . . 272 51 28 351 b

(>50% time) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 32 14 236

R&D $ totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $33.4 M $4.9 M $0.3 M $38.6 MOwn $ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $29.9 M $4.7 M $0.3 M $34.9 MFederal $ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.3 M $0.0 M $0.0 M $3.3 MOther $C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 M $0.2 M $0.0 M $0.4 M


APPENDIX 6-B: OTA R&D SURVEY

United States Congress

Office of Technology Assessment

SURVEY OF SUPERCONDUCTIVITYf&

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION IN INDUSTRY

Congress has asked for an assessment of the commercial prospects of the new high temperaturesuperconductors. We at OTA are convinced of the importance of an industrial perspective commercializatlon issues. The fallowing questionnaire was designed to capture the views of both U.S. andJapanese lndustry on this Interesting new technology. Please help us to inform the Congress of the stateof industrial superconductor research, and of potential problem areas in the commercialization of thesematerials, by participating in this survey.

The results of the American and Japanese surveys will be presented in an upcoming OTA assessment onhigh temperature superconductivity scheduled for release in mid-1989. You will receive complimentarycopies of this assessment as soon as it is available for release. We hope that you will use this survey as anopportunity to express your views to the Congress and we thank you in advance for participating.

ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR THIS SURVEY WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND WILL NOT BEDISCLOSED TO THE PUBLIC EXCEPT IN AN AGGREGATED FORM THAT DOES NOT PERMITIDENTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENT OR THE RESPONDENT’S ORGANIZATION. The Office of .Technology Assessment is exempt from compliance with Freedom of Information Act requests. OTA Is notseeking proprietary data from any participants. Respondent information will be shared with the NationalScience Foundation, with the understanding that NSF will abide by the stated conditions of confidentiality.Richard E. Morrison [NSF (202) 634425] may contact you regarding NSF’s participation In this survey.

Superconductivity AssessmentOffice of Technology AssessmentEnergy and Materials ProgramU.S. CongressWashington, D.C. 20510-8025

Company Name and Address: Name of Respondent and Title:

Telephone:

( ) Ext.

Reporting year (check ONE only - if possible, please use calendar year)Calendar year OR

Fiscal year beginning , endingMonth day Month day

September 30, 1988

Chapter 6---Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Japan ● 103

If you feel that this questionnaire does not apply to your company (e.g., your company does not conductany business or R&D activity related to superconductivity and is not contemplating any), please indicatethis below and mail the questionnaire back to OTA Fed free to answer any questions which do apply toyour company. Your participation will still remain confidential.

My organization is not conducting or planning to conduct any business or R&Dactivity in superconductivity or superconductivity-related products

OTA would still be interested in knowing why your organization is interested insuperconductivity, however limited this interest may be, and would appreciate yourdescription below of the reasons behind your interest.

RODUCTION

This survey covers both traditional, low temperature superconductivity (LTS) R&D as well as the newer hightemperature superconductivity (HTS) R&D activities. Except as otherwise noted, data for HTS R&D and forLTS R&D are to be reported separately.

if you fed that you cannot complete this questionnaire, please forward it to the person within yourcompany who would be better able to complete it.

if the answer to a given question is zero, indicate by writing “zero” or “0”; do not use a dash and do notleave blank. if you don’t wish to answer the question for any reason, please indicate that you have seenthe question by marking the question in some obvious fashion, such as putting a slash mark across it. Do

ve any question unmarked.

Please read the “Definitions” page found at the back of this survey, and refer to it if you are unsure about aquestion.

For questions on value of sales and number of employees, please report only the data for your companyand its dependent divisions; do not include your parent company, or any independent divisions orsubsidiaries. if your company has foreign-based operations, please report availabie or estimated data forU.S.-based operations only.

Personnel data should be reported as of January of your reporting year.

When reporting total sales, if your company performs contract research or other services, report sales ofresearch and other services as well as components, systems, and other commodities.

Please report R&D which is performed in-house separately from R&D which is contracted out to auniversity, Federal laboratory, industry association or consortium, or another company.

All requested financial data should be provided in thousands of dollars. An expenditure of $25,643 shouldbe rounded to the nearest thousand dollars and be reported as $26K if exact data are not available,reasonable estimates are welcome. To the extent possible, ail data should be reported by calendar year.


A..DESCRIPTION OF COMPANY

1. Provide a description of your organization and its main business areas by checking any and all of thefallowing categories that apply.

Aircraft/aerospace Land/sea transportation

Ceramics/glass Magnets

chemical Medical

Computers/data processing Metals

Contract research Petroleum

Cyogenics Public utility

Defense Research consortium

Electrical/power systems Scientific instruments

Electronics Semiconductors

Energy

Fabrication equipment Superconductor materials

Industrial manufacturing Telecommunications

Industry association Wire/tape mfg.

Other (describe)

2. is your organization a recent start-up (within the past five years)?Yes No

3. What percent of total company sales are to:(Check one for each row)

0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

military markets?

other FederalGovernment markets?

4a. is your company an independent division or subsidiary of another companyYes No Not applicable___

if no, goon to question 5.

4b. What is your parent company

4c. U.S. respondents: is your parent company at least 50 percent foreign-owned?Yes No Not applicable

Chapter 6--Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Jap

5a. Is your’ company a parent of any independent divisions or subsidiaries which are involved insuperconductor R&D or sales?

Yes No Not applicable

comments?

5b. If yes, list the U.S.-based independent divisions or subsidiaries, their locations, and potential contactswithin these companies:

6. What was the value of total sales for your company in 1987? (For purposes of this survey, use theconversion rate $1 = 133 yen.)

No sales $10-100 million

Less than $1 million $100 million to $1 billion

$1-10 million Greater than $1 billion

Not available Not applicable

7. How many people are employed within your organization?

10 or less 51 to 5001 1 t o 5 0 _ _ _ 501 to 10,000 Over 10,000

CONDUCTIVITY

8. Has your company performed low temperature superconductor (LTS) R&D and/or produced LTS-relatedproducts?

Yes No Not applicable

Comments?

9. Approximately when did your organization first become involved in superconductivity (LTS and/or HTS)R&D activities?

Year Month, if known

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

[ 1$

have you obtained financial

Chapter Comparison Industriai Superconductivity R&D Eflorts in the United States and Japan ● 109

Less than 2 5 % 25 to 50% 51 to 7596 76 to 100%

not applicable


$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $

The aim of this section is to discover the attitudes of industry representatives about the commercializationand timing of superconductor-based products, and is not intended as a future prediction measure.

Year

Cryogenic systems Power applications

Ground or sea transportation Tape/Wire

Chapter 6--Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Japan ● 111

Computers/data processing

Cryogenic systems

Electrical machinery

Magnets

Medical applications

Power applications

Scientific instruments

Superconductor powders

Comments?

$

hours

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS SURVEY.

Chapter 6---Comparison of Industrial Superconductivity R&D Efforts in the United States and Japan ● 113

Research and development(R&D) - Research and development includes basic and applied research in thesciences and in engineering, and design and development of prototype products and processes. For thepurposes of this questionnaire, research and development includes activities carried on by persons trained,either formally or by experience in the physical sciences including related engineering, and the biologicalsciences including medicine but excluding psychology, if the purpose of such activity is to do one or moreof the fallowing things:

1) Pursue a planned search for new knowledge, whether or not the search has reference to a specificapplication;

2) Apply existing knowledge to problems involved in the creation of a new product or process, includingwork required to evaluate possible uses; or

3) Apply existing knowledge to problems involved in the improvement of a present product or process.

R&D Scientists and engineers are defined as all persons engaged in scientific orengineering work at a level that requires a knowledge of physical or life sciences, engineering, ormathematics, equivalent at least to that acquired through completion of a four-year college program with amajor In these fields, regardless of whether such persons hold a degree In the field. Exclude techniciansand other supporting staff unless successful performance of their job responsibilities requires having thequalifications above.

Superconductivity - A physical state of a material in which the material presents zero resistance to anelectrical current and simultaneously excludes magnetic fields (the Meissner effect).

HTS - high temperature superconductors These include: LaSrCuO materials; YBaCuO or other 1-2-3materials; BISrCaCuO materials; TlBaCaCuO materials; BaKBiO materials; and other new materials withtransition temperatures above 30K

LTS - low temperature superconductors These include: NbTi materials; NbN materials; NbSn materials;and other known LTS materials.

Industry associations - Consortia are defined as any research organizations comprised ofindustrial members, performing precompetitive research. (e.g., MCC, ISTEC)

7Comments? Section - Use this part of each question to explain anything you wish about your answer or toprovide your answer in a format not compatible with the question as asked.

Chapter 7

Policy Issues and Options

CONTENTSPage

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117MINOR ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117ISSUES THAT BEAR WATCHING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119KEY ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122IMPORTANCE OF FUNDING STABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126SUPERCONDUCTIVITY IN A BROADER POLICY CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Chapter 7

Policy Issues and Options

INTRODUCTIONThe discovery of HTS has come at a time of

increasing doubts about the capability of the UnitedStates to compete in global high-technology mar-kets. The list of markets in which U.S. industry hasslipped badly is growing: e.g., consumer electronics.memory chips, automobiles, and machine tools.Moreover, the U.S. private sector is investing lessthan its main competitors in a number of emergingtechnologies such as x-ray lithography, high--definition television (HDTV), and—as shown in theprevious chapter—in superconductivity research.There is a serious question whether U.S. industry, asit is currently financed and managed, can compete inmarkets for these technologies in the next century.

While there is a reluctance within the Administra-tion and Congress to talk openly about “industrialpolicy,’ there is a growing recognition on both sidesthat changes in the technological relationshipsbetween the Federal Government and the privatesector may be necessary to firm up flagging U.S.competitiveness. This new attitude is reinforced bythe recognition that foreign competitors have tar-geted the most promising emerging commercialtechnologies with coordinated, government/industryefforts. In Japan, the progress achieved by closecooperation between the government and industry islegendary, and the newly industrialized countries onthe Pacific Rim (South Korea, Taiwan. Hong Kong,and Singapore) are following closely behind. InWestern Europe, cooperation among governmentsand major corporations has long been the hallmarkof science and technology programs, and the pros-pect of a unified European market after 1992suggests that U.S. firms can anticipate toughercompetition from these large European companies inthe future, in both European and U.S. markets.

Unfortunately, the growing interest in new Fed-eral policies to promote commercial technologydevelopment comes at a time of growing pressuresto reduce the Federal budget deficit. After all,high-temperature superconductivity (HTS) is onlyone of many emerging technologies---optoelectron -ics, ceramics, and HDTV, to name a few—that couldbecome commercially important in the future. Whenadded to such big-ticket Federal R&D commitmentsas the NASA space station, the Superconducting

Super Collider, mapping the human genome, and theStrategic Defense Initiative, it is apparent thatdifficult budgetary choices will have to be made.

In 1987, shortly after the discovery of HTS,optimism was rampant and room-temperature super-conductivity seemed just around the corner. TheUnited States was seen to be engaged in a heatedrace to commercialize HTS products before itscompetitors. By 1989, as the scope of the remainingchallenges became clearer, a more realistic view hadtaken hold. HTS became a test case, not of theUnited States’ ability to commercialize a newtechnology rapidly, but of its ability to look beyondthe immediate future and sustain a consistent R&Deffort over the long term.

It is now apparent that the real race will begin afterpractical HTS conductors are developed, and willinvolve the incorporation of these conductors intolarger, integrated systems. The race will not be asprint, won by a technical breakthrough; rather, itwill be a marathon, won by painstaking attention todesign, low-cost manufacturing, and high quality—the same factors that determine competitiveness inany other industry. Thus, the so-called "supercon-ductivity race" should be seen in the broader contextof the competitive prowess of the entire U.S.manufacturing sector.

This chapter ranks a series of policy issues raisedby HTS in three categories: first, those considered byOTA to be of minor importance; then, several issuesthat bear watching in the future; and finally, thosethat OTA considers to be of critical importance.Where appropriate, specific options for addressingthese issues are discussed. The importance of stablefunding for superconductivity is stressed, if thepotential of this technology is to be realized. Finally,the chapter concludes by placing HTS in a broaderpolicy context of U.S. competitiveness, noting thatwhile the Federal Government’s R&D policies areimportant. its fiscal policies are even more impor-tant

MINOR ISSUESAs the realization sank in that HTS is a long-term

technology, several issues that were earlier thoughtto be urgent now appear to be of minor importance

–1 17--


Adequate supplies of raw materials, chemicalprecursors, and powders for HTS are not a problemnow, nor are they likely to be in the foreseeablefuture.

At present, the United States is heavily dependenton imports for yttrium, bismuth, and thallium, keyingredients in three of the most promising HTSmaterials.1 These metals are byproducts of theproduction of primary metals, e.g., lead. Since HTSis still at the research stage, the incremental demanddue to HTS materials is relatively small. Moreover,as discussed in chapter 3, the most probable near-term HTS applications are likely to be in electronicdevices, which will require only very small quanti-ties of material. Present supplies appear sufficient tosupport even significant growth in large-scale appli-cations.2

HTS does not appear to raise unmanageablehealth and safety problems, though this deservesfurther study.

There appear to be two principal health and safetyissues associated with HTS: the toxicity of thematerials themselves (and of their chemical precur-sors), and the potential health effects of humanexposure to the high magnetic fields produced bysuperconducting magnets.

The main toxicity problem with HTS materialsappears to be the risk of poisoning by inhalation,ingestion, or skin contact with heavy metals such asbarium, yttrium, bismuth, and thallium.3 For in-stance, thallium-a key ingredient in the HTSmaterial having the highest known transition tem-perature—is dangerous not only because it is ex-tremely poisonous ,4 but also because it readilyevaporates when heated to process temperatures,and can be easily inhaled. Present techniques areadequate to minimize exposure to these heavymetals on a research scale, but further studies areneeded to ensure that laboratory processes are scaledup safely to production quantities. The potential

hazards of disposing of these materials also deservefurther study.

Several large-scale applications of superconduc-tors, e.g., magnetic energy storage, maglev vehicles,and MRI, produce high static magnetic fields, andraise the issue of the potential health effects of publicexposure to these fields. In the past 20 years, therehave been numerous studies investigating the bio-logical effects of both static and time-varyingmagnetic fields. While the health effects of exposureto power frequency (60 hertz) fields remain contro-versial, 5 there is no evidence for adverse effects inhealthy individuals exposed to static fields up to 2tesla (20,000 gauss).6 Nevertheless, because rela-tively small magnetic fields can interfere with heartpacemakers and a variety of paramagnetic bodyimplants, public exposure must be limited to around10 gauss. The shielding and/or exclusion zonerequired to reduce the field to this level can addsignificantly to the cost of the application.

Antitrust restrictions are not a serious inhibitor toU.S. competitiveness in HTS technology.

The first item of President Reagan’s 1 l-pointSuperconductivity Initiative (see ch. 4) proposedexempting certain joint production ventures in theprivate sector from antitrust litigation under theClayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18). This was intended tofacilitate the formation of joint ventures to commer-cialize products featuring HTS, thus permitting U.S.firms to share the risks and expenses. Similarrelaxations of antitrust restrictions have been sug-gested as a means of encouraging the formation ofconsortia to commercialize several other technolo-gies, including semiconductor memory chips(DRAMs) and HDTV. Proposed legislation to relaxthe antitrust laws is under consideration at theJustice Department.

The National Cooperative Research Act of 1984(Public Law 98-462) cleared the way for companiesto form joint ventures or consortia to conduct R&D,

Chapter Policy Issues and Options ● 119

as distinct from commercial production. As dis-cussed in chapter 4, several HTS R&D consortia ofthis type are either being planned or are already inoperation. OTA found no evidence from its industryinterviews that fear of antitrust litigation is holdingback U.S. progress in HTS. In fact, most companiesfeel that HTS is not yet mature enough for commer-cial joint production ventures to be consideredseriously. 7 Therefore, changes in the antitrust lawsare more likely to be driven by the needs of moremature technologies, such as HDTV, rather thanHTS.

Fears that the prolific HTS patenting by Japanesecompanies could block U.S. companies from partici-pating in major superconductivity markets appear tobe exaggerated.

In one year, Japanese companies filed some 5,000patents on various aspects of FITS in Japan. SumitomoElectric Co. alone is said to have filed over 1,000.The U.S. Patent Office reports that 1,200 patentsrelating to superconductivity have been filed in theUnited States since 1985, about 40 percent byforeign companies.8

Some observers have become alarmed by thesedevelopments, worried that the Japanese could“lock up” the technology with patents, and forceU.S. companies into an inferior position. OTA’sanalysis suggests that these concerns are exagger-ated:

●

●

U.S. firms have also taken an aggressiveapproach to patents in HTS. In fact, fiveseparate U.S. laboratories (University of Ala-bama, University of Houston, AT&T, NavalResearch Laboratory, and IBM) have appliedfor patents on the original YBaCuO materials.Resolution of this patent conflict could takeyears; meanwhile the technology moves on.Although it is conceivable that there will be one“best’ ; patentable material, it is at least aslikely that a range of compositions and struc-tures will be available to the designer of HTSproducts. The recent discoveries of muchbroader classes of oxide compositions andstructures supports this view.

These considerations suggest that, although HTSpatents may have value in the context of specific

narrow markets, the possibility of global Japanesedominance of the technology based on a few keypatents seems remote. In the long run, the realsignificance of HTS patents may be as tradingproperty in cross-licensing negotiations betweencompetitors. On the whole, patent attorneys inter-viewed by OTA did not think that HTS raises anypatent issues that are substantively different fromthose encountered in other fields, such as electron-ics, polymers, or pharmaceuticals.

ISSUES THAT BEAR WATCHINGThere are several aspects of the U.S. HTS effort

that may not be a problem now, but are potentialareas of concern for the future.

Federal laboratories may be receiving a dispro-portionately large share of the HTS budget.

In fiscal year 1988, 45 percent of Federal HTSfunding went to support work in Federal laboratoriesof the Department of Defense (DoD), Department ofEnergy (DOE), National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA), and Department of Com-merce (DOC). These laboratories conduct a broadrange of research, from very basic to prototypedevelopment, in support of their agency missions.Some of this research uses the unique facilitiesavailable only in the Federal laboratories, and someis simply not being done anywhere else.

But questions remain about whether Federallaboratories should have such a large share of theHTS budget-especially given the scarcity of re-sources for university research (see below). Toassess the quality and relevance of HTS programs inFederal laboratories, Congress may wish to establisha single, independent advisory committee withstrong industry representation to evaluate the qualityof HTS research at Federal laboratories (includingmilitary laboratories).

Historically, Federal laboratories have not consid-ered it part of their mission to transfer technologiesof commercial interest to U.S. industry. With theadvent of HTS, traditional attitudes and cultures inboth Federal laboratories and U.S. companies havebegun to change. Programs such as DOE’s Super-conductivity Pilot Centers represent good faithefforts to address the needs of industry, and they


have attracted a large number of industry col-laborators. Such experiments are valuable and ifsuccessful, could be extended to other Federallaboratory programs.9

One area of research where a Federal laboratorymakes a unique contribution is the National Instituteof Standards and Technology’s (NIST) work onstandards for making measurements that are repro-ducible and accurate. Standard techniques for meas-uring key HTS materials properties such as criticalcurrent density in the presence of magnetic fields arecrucial for timely progress in developing the materi-als. The need for standard measurement techniqueswas explicitly recognized in President Reagan’s1 l-point Superconductivity Initiative. Nevertheless,the NIST effort in standard HTS measurementtechniques in 1989 was only about $200,000 peryear. 1°

NIST is already recognized as the world leader inLTS standards development. By increasing NIST’sannual budget by about $300,000 (the equivalent offill support for two or three additional staff), theUnited States could also become a world leader instandards for HTS. As HTS matures and begins to beused in applications, a strong U.S. position in HTSmeasurement standards will not only facilitate tradeby U.S. firms, but will help ensure that the UnitedStates has a strong voice in the formation ofinternational standards.

At present, defense and civilian requirements forHTS technology are similar, but this could changeas the technology mutures.

As pointed out in chapter 4, Federal funding forHTS R&D is dominated by DoD (about 45 percentin fiscal year 1989) and DoD provides most of theFederal I-ITS R&D funds going out to U.S. industry.This has raised concerns that DoD involvementmight skew the U.S. agenda for HTS developmenttoward high-cost, specialty materials designed forone-of-a-kind military weapons systems, while for-eign competitors develop low-cost, easily manufac-tured HTS materials well-suited for profitable com-mercial applications. A second concern is that heavymilitary involvement might lead to the lowering ofa cloak of secrecy over Federal HTS R&D efforts,

preventing timely access of U.S. firms to researchresults that could lead to commercial applications.

At the present stage of HTS technology develop-ment, OTA finds that military and civilian agencyobjectives for HTS are the same. The great majorityof DoD-funded HTS R&D (with the possibleexception of some Strategic Defense Initiative work)remains at a very basic or generic level, and theresults are useful for both military and civilianpurposes. Without the DoD HTS programs, the HTSR&D funding pie would undoubtedly be muchsmaller, and many programs of potential value to thecommercial sector would not be going forward at all.For example, the Defense Advanced Research Proj-ects Agency (DARPA) HTS initiative provides anemphasis on HTS processing technologies that isunique among government efforts. Also, without 95percent funding from the Strategic Defense InitiativeOrganization, the Superconducting Magnetic En-ergy Storage project would never have started; only5 percent of the program’s support comes from theelectric utilities.

As HTS matures and begins to be incorporatedinto specialized weapons systems, DoD and com-mercial interests could well diverge. The specialdemands made on materials for military and spaceapplications, e.g., high radiation hardness or ultra-high frequency operation (as well as a lower priorityplaced on cost, manufacturability, or long-termstability), are likely to cause this divergence. Onearea of special concern is superconducting electron-ics, widely predicted to be one of the earliest andlargest commercial application areas of HTS. Withthe exception of a small program at NIST, DoD is theonly Federal agency that considers development ofsuperconducting electronics to be part of its mission,If DoD funding concentrates on solving problems ofprimarily military interest as the technology ma-tures, U.S. commercial competitiveness in HTScould suffer,

Thus far, Federal agencies have not restrictedaccess to I-ITS research results for national securityreasons. However, HTS was one of 22 technologiesrecently identified as critical to future militarymissions. 11 This designation could lead to greater

Chapter 7--Policy Issues and Options . 121

funding, but as HTS is used more widely in weaponssystems, pressures will probably increase to controlaccess to information about the superconductingcomponents and to prevent their export to unfriendlynations. In the past, such restrictions have proven tobe a nuisance for companies interested in commer-cialization of advanced materials, electronics, andcomputer technology originally developed for mili-tary applications,12 and this situation needs to bewatched closely.

Congress could move to forestall these concernsby requiring DoD or other relevant agencies toinform Congress in advance of intentions to placeHTS on the Militarily Critical Technologies List,Commodity Control List, Munitions List, etc.13 Inaddition, it could establish an independent advisorycommittee of government and industry researchersto conduct periodic review of progress in dual-usemilitary projects and report on the extent to whichmilitary and commercial objectives may differ.

If progress in HTS technology continues to beincremental, small HTS startup companies couldface a critical shortage of capital.

In recent years, the manufacture of commercialproducts having LTS superconducting componentshas shifted from large companies to medium andsmall companies. While several large companiesmaintain substantial LTS R&D efforts (often sup-ported in large part by government contracts), mosthave backed away from commercial markets, find-ing them insufficiently profitable in the near term.The only large U.S. company presently producing acommercial LTS product is General Electric Co.,with its MRI system.

OTA’s survey (see ch. 6) identified a dozenventure capital-financed startup companies in HTS.These companies are conducting innovative re-search, and two are spending more than $1 millionper year on HTS R&D. During 1987-1988, firstround venture capital funding for seven of thesefirms was quite plentiful, averaging more than $3million per startup.14 However, a second round

infusion will be needed soon to keep these compa-nies going.

If markets for HTS products develop as slowly asthose for LTS have done over the past 30 years, wemay see large firms backing out, and the venturecapital sources could dry up, leaving the field to anumber of undercapitalized small companies largelysupported by government/military R&D grants andcontracts. It is unlikely that these small companiescould carry the standard of U.S. competitivenessagainst their better-financed and more diversifiedforeign competitors. In fact, most small HTS start-ups report that they have received buyout offers fromlarge foreign companies. If U.S. sources of capitalbegin to dry up, such offers will become more andmore difficult to resist.

The importance of active U.S. participation ininternational superconductivity meetings and pro-grams is growing, while Federal funding to supportthese activities is stagnant or declining.

At present, the United States does not have aqualitative lead over its competitors in superconduc-tivity R&D, and indeed, it lags in several areas ofLTS technology (e.g., large-scale integration ofJosephson Junctions for LTS electronics, and rotat-ing LTS machinery). The pace of HTS researchabroad is rapid, and U.S. scientists—both in Federallaboratories and universities-have an urgent needto know about the most recent developments.

The opportunities for tapping into foreign re-search and for conducting international collabora-tive research are growing, and occur on severallevels: formal government-to-government programs;long-term fellowships for U.S. scientists conductingjoint research in foreign laboratories, and short-termvisits and attendance at international meetings.Examples include the U.S.-Japan Agreement onCooperation in Science and Technology (specificprojects still under negotiation), and the postdoc-toral research fellowship slots in Japan that wererecently made available to U.S. scientists and fundedby the Japanese Government through NSF.15


There is a growing recognition among U.S.scientists of the importance of taking advantage ofthese opportunities. But although it is hard toquantify, there is considerable anecdotal evidencethat Federal agency funding for these activities is notkeeping pace with the demand. Key superconductiv-ity experts in Federal laboratories and universitiesinterviewed by OTA report that funding for travel tointernational meetings is becoming more difficult toget, and the time required for approval of such travelis as long as 3 to 6 months.16

Important international exchange programs couldalso be caught in the budget squeeze. For instance,several new joint superconductivity projects areunder negotiation in the U.S.-Japan Agreementmentioned above,17 but U.S. agencies are expectedto fund the costs of their participation out of otherbudgets. 18 In contrast, Japan has been much moregenerous in supporting the participation of itsscientists in international collaborations.

Many observers have expressed concern that theUnited States gives away more technical informat-ion than it gets from abroad. By failing to supportstrongly U.S. representation in international tech-nology agreements, the Federal Government may beensuring such an unequal exchange.

The importance of U.S. participation in interna-tional superconductivity programs is emphasized inthe National Action Plan for Superconductivity,recently released by OSTP.19 Congress could requirethat OSTP prepare an evaluation of the adequacy ofFederal funding for these international activities aspart of its mandated annual progress report on thePlan, and appropriate additional funds if these aredeemed necessary.

KEY ISSUESOTA considers the following issues to be espe-

cially important in determining the future U.S.competitive position in HTS:

U.S. companies are investing less than their maincompetitors in both low- and high-temperaturesuperconductivity R&D.

The OTA survey results (see ch. 6) illustrate theproblem: Japanese firms are investing at least 50percent more than U.S. firms in HTS R&D, eventhough they don’t expect a payback on their invest-ment until the year 2000. In contrast, U.S. firmstypically projected a payback by 1992.

HTS presents a difficult problem for U.S. indus-try. The materials themselves are evolving rapidly.No one knows when practical conductors will bedeveloped. There is general agreement that the mostimportant applications have not yet been thought of.Profitable markets are not yet in sight. There is noguarantee that any one company will be able toappropriate the full benefits of its R&D investment.In short, HTS is a high-risk, long-term gamble. In theabsence of major research successes in the next fewyears, it seems likely that U.S. firms will havedifficulty continuing even their present levels ofHTS R&D expenditures.

It is tempting to focus on how changes in FederalR&D policy can help companies to adopt a longerterm perspective--e. g., establishing federally fundedindustry consortia. But while such Federal programsmight be helpful, they are almost certainly notdecisive, because they do not change the financialand economic climate in which U.S. companiesmake long-term investment decisions.

This is not to suggest that Federal R&D fundingand Federal markets for superconductivity are notimportant; after all, Federal programs (especiallythose of DOE) kept LTS technologies alive duringthe 1960s and 1970s. Without this support, U.S.companies would not have been able to participatein today’s growing commercial markets for super-conducting magnets and other applications. But it isunrealistic to expect that changes in Federal R&Dpolicies will by themselves solve U.S. competitive-ness problems. Instead, Federal fiscal policies—

Chapter 7—Policy Issues and Options ● 123

especially those that affect the cost of capitalavailable to U.S. industry-are more important. Theavailability of patient capital is the single mostimportant policy objective for encouraging industryto invest in long-term technologies such as HTS (seefurther discussion below).

University research on HTS merits a higherpriority than it presently receives.

In fiscal year 1988, about 30 percent of FederalHTS resources went to support research in universi-ties; about half of this came from NSF. Over the past3 years, individual researchers at U.S. universitieshave contributed significantly to the developmentand characterization of new HTS materials, includ-ing the original discovery of the YBaCuO materialsat the Universities of Houston and Alabama and thediscovery of the thallium-based materials at theUniversity of Arkansas. Yet there is a growing

consensus that universities are not receiving a levelof funding adequate to support the quality ofresearch of which they are capable.20 21 22 N S Fcontinues to report that it is forced to turn down HTSresearch proposals of extremely high quality due tolack of funds. This situation is especially serious foryoung investigators entering the field, but evenproven contributors have experienced difficultygetting funding.

As indicated in chapter 2, major questions remainabout the mechanism of HTS and the relationshipsamong the theory, structure, and properties of thesematerials. Because of the basic nature of thisresearch and the long time-scales involved, much ofit is best carried out in universities. Universities arean important component of U.S. industrial competi-tiveness; not only are they a favorite partner ofcompanies for consulting and collaborative R&D,they also provide a pool of trained graduate studentswho will be hired by these companies.

Option: Increase NSF’s budget by $5 million forindividual investigator research grants in HTS.

While NSF’s spending for superconductivity didincrease from $20.4 million to $26.2 million fromfiscal years 1988 to 1989, virtually the entireincrease went to support the new superconductivityScience and Technology Center shared between theUniversity of Illinois at Urbana, NorthwesternUniversity, and Argonne National Laboratory. Fund-ing for individual university researchers stayedessentially constant. The high quality of proposalsand the strong contributions in the past suggest thatadditional moneys invested in individual materialsresearch grants would be likely to yield highreturns.23

A balance between NSF funding for individualresearchers and multidisciplinary centers is desira-ble for HTS. Individual researchers are better atinvestigating the physics of HTS and looking fornew materials, while the resources and facilities oflarger centers are needed for characterization andprocessing studies.

Option: Increase funding to upgrade universityequipment for synthesis and processing ofHTS by $10 million per year.

The need for greater investment in materialssynthesis and processing at universities has beenhighlighted in a recent report.24 The purpose of this

initiative would be to build up the technologicalinfrastructure of the Nation’s universities in synthe-sis and characterization. U.S. capabilities in suchareas as the synthesis of new HTS materials andpreparation of large single crystals lag those ofJapan. 25 To achieve optimum performance, ad-vanced materials such as HTS must be synthesizedusing methods capable of control at the atomic level.This involves expensive processes, such as multi-— —


gun sputtering, molecular beam epitaxy, and ex-cimer laser deposition. Few U.S. universities havethese capabilities, and as a result few studentsreceive training in the state-of-the-art syntheticmethods that are likely to be crucial in a wide varietyof advanced materials in the future.

A second area where university infrastructure isweak is in characterization of materials. Universityresearchers need access to a variety of expensiveequipment for characterization of materials, e.g.,neutron sources, photon sources, electron micro-scopes, high-field magnets, and magnetometers.Much of this equipment is available only in a fewresearch institutes and Federal laboratories.26

The idea of enhancing university capabilities inHTS is by no means a new one. The new NSFSuperconductivity Science and Technology Centerin Illinois is intended exactly for this purpose, buthas received only baseline levels of funding. Whilethis is a step in the right direction, it does notadequately address the needs of the many researchuniversities across the country. A rough estimate ofthe scale of the program required is $10 million peryear over the next several years, providing equip-ment funding for some 25 research groups across theNation at a level of $400,000 each per year.

If HTS becomes a practical success, this initiativewill have created a vital source of research capabilityand a pool of highly trained students. But even ifHTS remains largely a research phenomenon, thiscapability is likely to pay dividends in numerousother areas of materials science, since such equip-ment is also needed for research on semiconductormanufacturing, optical coatings, etc. Thus, from anational point of view, the investment would havevery high utility and low risk.

Option: Provide funding—perhaps throughDARPA—for a limited number of university-based consortia in HTS.

The principal recommendation of the so-called“Wise Men’s Report” on superconductivity is toestablish four to six HTS R&D consortia, eachinvolving a research university with participation by

Properly organ-government labs and industry.27 28

ized and managed, such consortia could help tolengthen the time horizons of industry R&D and toimprove the coordination of the U.S. HTS effort. Butit is important to be realistic about what theseconsortia can be expected to accomplish. They aremore likely to accelerate generic technology devel-opment and to create a pool of trained graduatestudents than to aid companies directly with com-mercialization of HTS products.29

Japan’s International Superconductivity Technol-ogy Center (ISTEC)-a single consortium of all ofthe major Japanese companies involved in HTS—isviewed by some as a key factor that will put Japanesecompanies ahead in the race to commercialize HTS.But as explained in chapter 5, ISTEC’s researchagenda is focused primarily on materials develop-ment, not product development. For the latter,Japanese companies are relying on extensive in-house R&D programs (see ch. 6). Similarly, researchconsortia in the United States are no substitute forvigorous, independent R&D programs within thecompanies themselves.

There is also the danger that too many consortiacould dilute the U.S. effort. U.S. companies in-volved in superconductivity R&D already havenumerous consortia to choose from, including sev-eral in the private sector, at universities, and atFederal laboratories. (Some of the more prominentconsortia are listed in table 4-10.) Most are seekingFederal funding (usually from DARPA), oftenproposing to do similar kinds of research. Ulti-mately, market forces and limitations of the Federalbudget will sort out which consortia will survive andwhich will not. But the lever of Federal funding canbe used to help consolidate resources into a limitednumber of strong consortia having clearly comple-mentary objectives.


Coordination of the Federal superconductivityR&D effort can be made more effective at thenational level.

At present, U.S. superconductivity policy isessentially the sum of individual mission agencyprograms. Within each agency, coordination hasbeen excellent (see ch. 4), and informal mechanismsfor information exchange, e.g., the Office of Scienceand Technology Policy’s (OSTP) Committee OnMaterials (COMAT) and its Subcommittee on Su-perconductivity, have done an excellent job inproviding a snapshot of the various agency programsand budgets. But there is little in the way of acrosscutting overview of the U.S. effort that couldprovide a sense of coherence and direction. Such anoverview is particularly important in times of fiscalausterity when difficult budgetary choices must bemade-e. g., choosing which of the various HTSR&D consortia competing for Federal supportshould be funded.

It is this lack of a sense of direction that ledCongress (in the National Superconductivity andCompetitiveness Act of 1988, Public Law 100-697)to mandate that OSTP produce a 5-year NationalAction Plan for superconductivity, with the help ofthe National Commission on Superconductivity andthe National Critical Materials Council (NCMC).The Act also requires that the implementation of thePlan be reviewed by OSTP in an annual report toCongress.

OSTP completed its work on the Action Plan inDecember 1989.30 The Plan acknowledges the needfor stronger leadership in coordinating the nationalsuperconductivity R&D effort, and proposes toinitiate a crosscutting budgetary analysis of FederalHTS R&D spending in fiscal year 1991. But the Plandoes not indicate how this analysis would be used toidentify budgetary priorities, nor does it provide the5-year perspective called for in Public Law 100-697.

Although several advisory committees on HTShave been appointed during the past 3 years—including the “Wise Men” advisory committeeestablished by President Reagan, and the NationalCommission on Superconductivity established byCongress—these committees have been given only

a temporary mandate, and cannot provide thelong-term monitoring and analysis called for in theNational Superconductivity and CompetitivenessAct.

Option: Establish a standing advisory committeeof experts on superconductivity to provideadvice to Congress, the Science Adviser, andthe President, and give it a mandate of at least5 years.

There is no need for a “superconductivity czar. ”But a standing advisory committee of experts could:

●

●

●

●

●

identify overlaps and gaps in the Federal effort;help to catalyze a consensus among privatesector groups on promising future directions;suggest rational guidelines for setting prioritieswhere necessary, e.g., on limiting the numberof consortia funded;evaluate the quality and relevance of HTSresearch in Federal laboratories, including mili-tary laboratories; andmonitor follow-through on policy recommen-dations.

Ideally, such a committee would be small, withstrong representation by industry-perhaps mod-eled on the Wise Men Advisory Committee. Itsefforts would need to be supplemented by permanentstaff, most appropriately at OSTP. In addition toproviding assistance to the advisory committeestaff could:

●

●

●

provide a central point of contact for menitor-ing industry concerns;provide a central source of information

the

andreferral regarding ongoing Federal HTS pro-grams and activities of foreign competitors; andmediate disputes where the goals of differentagencies conflict, e.g., disputes about restric-tions on the dissemination of sensitive informa-tion.

Unfortunately, OSTP’s present staff is small andpoorly equipped to take on these additional responsi-bilities. One option for easing the burden on OSTPstaff might be to give these responsibilities to thestaff of the National Critical Materials Council andattach them permanently to OSTP.31


IMPORTANCE OF FUNDINGSTABILITY

There is one key point that relates to all of theissues discussed above, and it is one of the mostimportant lessons derived from the history of LTS:funding stability is essential for meaning/id pro-gress.

The Federal HTS budget grew from $45 millionin fiscal year 1987 to an estimated $130 million infiscal year 1990, with a budget request of $143million for fiscal year 1991.32 Are these fundinglevels sufficient? One early study called for annualHTS R&D budgets around $100 mi11ion;33 this goalhas been met and exceeded.

Today, the Federal HTS R&D budget is largerthan that of any country in the world, approachedonly by that of Japan. In fiscal year 1989, the FederalGovernment spent about as much on HTS as it didon all other advanced ceramics R&D combined, andnearly twice the amount spent by U.S. companies.OTA finds that overall, the United States has an HTSR&D effort that is second to none. Present fundinglevels are sufficient to make progress, althoughperhaps $20 to $30 million more per year could bespent effectively (see options above). But if progressin HTS continues to be incremental, sustaining thesefunding levels in the face of mounting budgetarypressures may be difficult.

Except for the DARPA HTS program, there hasbeen virtually no “new” money going into HTS.Instead, the money has been taken away from otherresearch areas, notably advanced ceramics andLTS.34 Given the pressures of the Federal budgetdeficit, it is appropriate that program managers in thevarious agencies should set priorities, and cut someprojects to make funds available for areas of specialpromise. But while HTS continues to be a promisingarea, these other fields are also promising. As theinitial euphoria over the discovery of HTS wears offand its political visibility is eclipsed by other more

urgent priorities, pressures will build to shift fundsaway to other projects.

Whatever the funding levels, it is essential thatthey be dependable. Universities require stability inorder to support graduate student thesis research.Companies require stability in order to plan theirparticipation and give them the confidence tocommit resources. Historically, Federal LTS R&Dfunding has followed an on-again, off-again coursedue to shifting political and economic winds. Thishas made it difficult to maintain a consistent set oftechnical goals and a stable pool of LTS engineeringknow-how.

The need for funding stability is by no meansunique to HTS; it is a general requirement ofefficient technology development. Mechanisms toimprove stability, such as multiyear congressionalappropriations, or moving to a 2-year budget cycle,have been proposed.35 Options such as Federalfunding for R&D consortia, participation in multi-year international programs, and focused, long-termprojects (for examples in Japan, see ch. 5) representalternatives that could enhance funding stabilityspecifically for HTS.

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY IN ABROADER POLICY CONTEXT

OTA’s finding that Japanese industry is investingabout 70 percent more then U.S. industry in supercon-ductivity R&D would not be so disturbing if it werenot part of a larger pattern. But across a broadspectrum of emerging technologies—advanced ce-ramics, optoelectronics, robotics, etc., the story isthe same. And Japan is not the only country whereinvestment in these technologies is rising faster thanit is in the United States. The common characteristicof all of these technologies is that they involvelong-term, high-risk investments. Clearly, thesekinds of long-term investments are becoming moreand more difficult for U.S. managers to make.36


The short-term mind-set of U.S. R&D managersis not the result of stupidity or ignorance about theimportance of R&D to the company’s future. In-stead, the R&D investment decisions in both theUnited States and Japan are the product of rationalchoices made within the prevailing economic andfinancial environments of the two countries.37 Fordecades, Japanese industry has benefited fromhigher rates of economic growth, lower effectivecapital costs, higher savings rates, and more stablefinancial markets than were the case in the UnitedStates. All of these factors made it easier forJapanese managers to make long-term investments.

Policy proposals aimed at lengthening the invest-ment time horizons of U.S. industry have been thesubject of a voluminous literature. Some haveargued that direct tax incentives to companies, e.g.,extending the R&D tax credit, or reducing taxes oncapital gains realized on longer term investments (5to 10 years), can help to stimulate long-term R&D.Others favor indirect policies that would reducecapital costs through Federal budget deficit reduc-tion and encouragement of higher personal andcorporate savings. Still others favor curbs on mergerand acquisition activity to relieve pressures onmanagers to maximize short-term returns at theexpense of long-term R&D investments and futureearnings. ●

None of these policy prescriptions can be readilytargeted on HTS, nor should they be. Although HTS

remains a promising field, superconductivity at 77 Kdoes not appear to stand clearly above other emerg-ing technologies in its strategic or economic impact.HTS provides only the latest example of a technol-ogy that will require years of steady investmentwithout a well-defined payoff if it is to achieve itspotential.

Thus, the challenges associated with HTS re-search, development, and commercialization shouldbe viewed as a microcosm of broader challenges to

the U.S. manufacturing sector in an increasinglycompetitive world. It is tempting to rely on FederalR&D initiatives---e. g., new federally funded indus-try consortia, or creation of a new civilian technol-ogy agency—to regain a strong competitive posi-tion. But such initiatives, while they may be helpful,do not change the underlying economic and finan-cial pressures on industry that dictate long-terminvestment decisions. The real solution-increasingthe supply of patient capital to U.S. industry-willrequire politically tough fiscal policy choices thatinvolve tradeoffs among military, economic, andsocial goals. If U.S. competitiveness continues todecline, it will not be because the United States lostthe superconductivity race with Japan, but becausepolicy makers failed to address the problems withlong-term, private sector investment that HTShelped to bring into the spotlight.

High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective

Documents

Transcript of High-Temperature Superconductivity in Perspective