Fusion Energy Advisory Committee Meets
”...the FY 1996 budget was a de facto decision to end U.S. leadership [in fusion energy.]” --Robert Conn, UC San Diego; Fusion Energy Advisory Committee Chairman
January 26 and 27 drew a somber crowd for the meeting of the Department of Energy’s Fusion Energy Advisory Committee (FEAC.) The committee gathered to discuss recommendations for restructuring the program in the context of recent budget cuts. DOE’s fusion energy program was cut by one-third between fiscal years 1995 and 1996, from $357.2 million to $244.1 million, with advice from Congress to expect approximately level funding for the next few years.
Members of the Strategic Planning Subcommittee (chaired by Michael Knotek of Battelle) and the Scientific Issues Subcommittee (chaired by J.D. Callen of the University of Wisconsin) briefed the full committee on their report. The committee voted to endorse it, and then presented it to DOE’s Director of Energy Research, Martha Krebs. Please see FYI #16 for Krebs’ response. The report, “A Restructured Fusion Energy Sciences Program,” examines three budget scenarios: constant funding at the FY96 level, one higher, and one lower.
Congressional directions called for a program that emphasized plasma science and fusion technologies, participation in the ITER Engineering Design Activity, and more focus on alternatives to the tokamak concept and on low-activation materials. Knotek said the subcommittees tried to formulate a program that they felt “has a future, is responsive to the...guidance from Congress, and gives DOE...something they can go to bat with” for the FY 1997 budget request. He added that the most important element of support for the plan would be a consensus by the fusion and broader scientific community.
Knotek reviewed ten principles the subcommittees used in reformulating the program, including a focus on science, a fusion energy source as the ultimate goal, a domestic program that is complementary to the international effort, maintenance of U.S. leadership in selected “niche” areas, the importance of a strong national plasma physics laboratory, and efforts to strengthen the participation of young investigators. Callen stated that if the U.S. wanted to study burning plasmas - an important next step in fusion energy research - the cost and complexity would necessitate an international effort such as ITER. Another recommendation from the Scientific Issues Subcommittee was that DOE’s Office of Fusion Energy should reinvigorate its stewardship of U.S. plasma science, sustaining basic plasma research and increasing plasma science funding to five percent of the overall fusion budget. It also called for a review of DOE’s inertial fusion research to determine how it might fit into a restructured program.
One result of the budget reductions, Knotek said, was that the U.S. has “abrogated leadership in the international fusion effort” to Europe and Japan, remaining “at best a junior partner.” One participant declared it “stunning” that the U.S. “has decided it will become dependent on other nations” in the fusion effort. Another responded that if not a full partner in the effort, the U.S. should at least remain an accepted participant. A third agreed: “with the domestic situation not too bright, [leveraging off the international effort is] the best horse we’ve got.” Committee members warned that if the U.S. dropped out of ITER, the industrial community would lose the opportunity to participate so it could ultimately compete in the fusion energy market.
FEAC unanimously endorsed the report’s mission statement and goals, and also accepted its other recommendations and findings. The report’s recommendations are described in more detail in FYIs #13 and #14. The full report is expected to be available on DOE’s Office of Fusion Energy Home Page at http://wwwofe.er.doe.gov
