Fusion Energy Advisory Committee Letter to Martha Krebs
FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 25: February 21, 1996
Last month, the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee (FEAC) issued its
report, "A Restructured Fusion Energy Sciences Program." During a
two-day meeting in Washington, FEAC briefed Dr. Martha Krebs,
Director of DOE's Office of Energy Research, about the report's
findings and conclusions (see FYIs #13-16.)
A transmittal letter accompanies the submission of this report to
DOE. Signed by Robert W. Conn, Chair of FEAC, "on behalf of the
Fusion Energy Advisory Committee and its two Subcommittees," the 3
1/2 page letter summarizes the committee's work. Portions of this
January 27 letter follow, with headings added:
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PARAMETERS:
"The Fusion Energy Advisory Committee (FEAC) has proceeded to
address the charge in your letter to us...with the conviction that
the United States must field a program that seizes the
opportunities of today, in a restructured format, to promote
progress in fusion science and technology. This is a time of
tremendous progress and opportunity in fusion. Yet, despite
significant scientific and technical progress, constrained budget
prospects place the United States fusion program at a dramatic
crossroads."
"Your letter to the FEAC referred to the [Energy and Water
Development] Conference Report accompanying the FY 1996
appropriations bill, which indicated the necessity of restructuring
the fusion program's strategy, content and near-to-medium-term
objectives, assuming a constant level of effort [of $250 million
annually] in the base program."
OVER-ALL IMPACTS OF REDUCED FUNDING:
"...the Report recommends that the mission of the U.S. Fusion
Energy Sciences Program be modified to be consistent with both the
most recent programmatic guidance and the level of resources
provided by Congress. The new mission is to advance plasma
science, fusion science and fusion technology...."
"In 1995, the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) reviewed the U.S. magnetic fusion program. In
response to their charge, they recommended a $320 M figure as a
minimum annual funding level for a viable fusion energy program.
This funding level would have allowed the United States to maintain
a leadership role in the world effort to develop fusion power. The
subsequent decision to fund the program below this minimum level
and the guidance to expect flat out-year budgets have completely
changed the position of the U.S. magnetic fusion effort relative to
Europe and Japan. Efforts to build a next-generation world class
experiment in the United States were abandoned, U.S. participation
in the international burning plasma program on ITER was reduced,
and many other important U.S. fusion science activities were
curtailed."
"The historically strong United States leadership role in the world
magnetic fusion energy program came to an end with the decision on
FY 1996 funding. However, we conclude that the United States can
still play an important supporting role in magnetic fusion energy
development, but only by recognizing the new dependence of U.S.
efforts on the activities and decisions of Europe, Japan, and the
Russian Federation."
THREE FUTURE BUDGET SCENARIOS AND THEIR IMPACTS:
"At this (annual constant funding of $250 million) level,
restructuring begins by providing incremental funding to pursue
basic plasma science, to pursue plasma-containment research (plasma
science and alternative concepts), and to achieve greater
utilization of DIII-D and C-Mod. These priorities require,
however, that Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) at the Princeton
Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) cease operation during FY 1997,
foregoing the remaining unique scientific output possible from that
facility."
"At the lower funding levels, (below $250 million per year), it is
not possible to implement the goals of the restructured program,
which include honoring our international commitments to the ITER
engineering design activity (EDA) and obtaining further valuable
scientific benefits from our existing experimental facilities. The
FEAC does not recommend these lower levels of funding."
"At the highest budget level considered ($275 million per year),
the restructuring would proceed with greater effectiveness (e.g.,
exploiting high priority scientific results before shutting down a
major facility; strengthening our support for the international
commitment of the United States to the ITER EDA; and allowing more
vigorous pursuit of the new directions that are at the core of the
restructuring), and we recommend this case to the Department."
FUTURE RESEARCH PROGRAM:
"The FEAC finds that the most cost-effective way for the United
States to maintain a strong research effort in burning-plasma
physics is through continued participation in the ITER EDA and the
ITER process.... It is important to recognize that the ITER EDA is
the single most important mechanism for American industry to
participate in fusion development."
"...as the nation's program-dedicated laboratory for fusion
science, the PPPL must provide the leadership necessary for the
restructured national Fusion Energy Sciences Program to succeed.
The PPPL provided such national leadership for the Tokamak Physics
Experiment (TPX) project, and we want to emphasize the importance
of maintaining this critical resource and capability."
###############
Richard M. Jones
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3095
##END##########
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
