Fusion Advisory Committee Letter to Martha Krebs

Following last month’s meeting of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) (see FYI #147), committee chair John Sheffield wrote to Office of Energy Research Director Martha Krebs. Portions of this five-page letter, dated October 3, follow. The complete letter can be found at http://wwwofe.er.doe.gov

“The FESAC has a few general comments. All of the program elements shown in the provisional budget are important to the future of the program. The budget reduction from Fiscal Year 1996 to 1997 is very hard to handle. With some exceptions, as outlined below, FESAC generally agrees with the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences response to this difficult situation. Any help you can give to alleviate the budgetary problems would be very valuable in optimizing the new program.

“The FESAC reaffirms, unanimously, the importance of proceeding expeditiously to implement the restructured program defined by FEAC [Fusion Energy Advisory Committee, since renamed.] We believe, however, that the fusion community needs to do further work on refining the vision and long-term goals of the program, including a clearer explanation of the approach to the fusion energy goal and an implementation plan.

“A majority of the Committee feels that the provisional budget is generally responsive to the restructuring recommended by FEAC. However, there are concerns in two areas: first, the budget gives the perception of less responsiveness than is the reality; second, some elements important to the future program need greater emphasis.

“The perception issue should be addressed by structuring the budget entries to indicate, more clearly, the changes in direction. In the same way, the extent of national and international collaboration in the various program elements should be made more visible.

“The FESAC recommends that the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, in conjunction with the Department, should redirect some of the effort within the budget labeled `TFTR’ to emphasize more clearly the transition to its future program. This can include new initiatives, as well as increased domestic and international collaborations.”

Sheffield then summarized the committee’s votes on eighteen different questions posed at the September meeting.

“In summary, the Committee supported budget increments in the following areas (votes in parentheses) [17 voting members]: IFE (13), Base Technology (10), Materials (9), Modeling/Theory (8), System Studies (5), International collaboration (4), Alternates (4).”

“No clear position of the Committee emerged for modifying the OFES [Office of Fusion Energy Sciences] budget proposal (as indicated) on the following issue:

“Is the combined ITER plus related technologies straw man budget at the correct level: slightly too high (3); roughly correct (5); slightly too low (5); too low (1); {insufficient information (3)}?

“The FESAC recommends that to the extent possible the proposed budget increments should be met within your discretionary funding. To the extent that funds must be found within the program, the majority of the Committee recommends that budget adjustments should be handled by the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences and yourself, taking into account the sense that economies might be found in the tokamak experimental program {the Committee felt that this budget was slightly too high (11); roughly correct (3); slightly too low (2); insufficient information (1)}; and by allowing for the points of substantial agreement in the detailed comments made by the individual Committee members.

“The FESAC recommends strongly that the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences should organize a retreat soon for members of the fusion community to define the goals of the longer term program and an implementation plan. In addition, a plan needs to be developed on how to sustain critical skills in the future program.

“The FESAC is pleased at the extent of the Department’s support for the program and hopes that its recommendations will help to optimize opportunities for the future success of Fusion Energy Sciences.”