Fusion Energy Advisory Committee Letter to Martha Krebs

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.”