5-Year Objectives Drafted for DOE’s Fusion Energy Sciences Program

Sixty representatives of the fusion community met for a three-day workshop in October. Their task was to review the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee’s (FEAC) recommendations for a restructured program (see FYIs #13-16, #147-148), and from that, to develop a plan for the Department of Energy’s Fusion Energy Sciences Program for the next five years. Participants based their assumptions on a constant level of funding for those years, and targeted their plan to the three FEAC (now FESAC) policy goals: I) improving understanding of plasma physics; II) pursuing innovative development paths to fusion energy; and III) exploring burning plasmas as a partner in an international effort.

From the workshop, the six discussion-group chairs summarized their conclusions in a two-page November 3 letter to Martha Krebs, Director of DOE’s Office of Energy Research. They identified the following five-year objectives for the fusion program:

- Substantial progress in scientific understanding and optimization of toroidal plasmas, with tokamaks the most mature of several related configurations; - Strengthened general plasma science and education efforts, with connections to other scientific communities; - Significant improvement in integrated modeling, based on theoretical understanding and the experimental experience base and exploiting anticipated advances in large-scale computation; - Active explorations evaluating several non-tokamak fusion approaches, including the scientific and technological bases for an IFE [inertial fusion energy] heavy-ion driver; - Marked progress in the scientific understanding necessary for evaluating technologies and materials required under conditions of high plasma heat flux and neutron wall load; - Membership in an international collaboration to study burning plasma physics and develop related fusion technologies.

According to the letter, participants also “addressed two tough, major issues in the restructuring process: the US role in the large international burning-plasma experiment (ITER); and the role...of our dedicated national laboratory, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL).” Workshop participants “reaffirmed that the ITER program represents a unique opportunity for the United States to participate in advancing the fusion science frontier,” and recommended that “if ITER were not to continue... the U.S. should continue to seek to participate at a similar financial level in an international burning-plasma experiment.”

Regarding PPPL, the letter states that the shutdown of its Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) “signals several changes” for the facility. “As PPPL defines its lead-lab role in this restructured program,” it says, “it will redirect its on-site facilities to focus on exploration of innovative fusion concepts carried out as collaborative national activities. In parallel, PPPL will complete analysis and publication of the TFTR results; collaborate on DIII-D and Alcator C-Mod, enabling their increased scientific productivity; collaborate internationally in areas like DT-tokamak physics;...and nurture core competencies and new activities in fusion science nationally.”

The letter continues, “As well as what’ we would strive to achieve, we also discussed how.’ For example, we agreed that several changes were needed: to restructure the domestic program around the scientific issues and create inter-institutional topical teams addressing and coordinating these efforts in all of the relevant facilities; to establish a national process to develop proposals for innovative, cost-effective concepts to be tested at a variety of scales; and to create a more consensus-based decision-making process for all new initiatives. We also recognized that the balance between human resources and resources available for hardware initiatives would need reexamination.”

Workshop participants also discussed “the need...for the fusion and plasma science community to improve communications with other scientific disciplines and to improve our outreach to the public and to the environmental and educational communities.” In conclusion, the letter notes, “We were very pleased with the consensus we were able to achieve in the workshop. We hope that this letter will give you a sense of the enthusiasm with which the fusion community is meeting the challenges of restructuring.”

The letter is signed by Mohamed Abdou (UCLA), David Baldwin (GA), Richard Briggs (SAIC), Hutch Neilson (PPPL/ORNL), Stewart Prager (U. WI), and Thomas Simonen (GA).