Fusion Energy Advisory Committee’s Report on Restructured Program

Consistent with a cut of one-third in funding from last year, Congress instructed the Department of Energy to restructure its Fusion Energy program, assuming “a constant level of effort in the base program for the next several years.” The FY 1995 fusion energy budget was $357.2 million; the program received $244.1 million for FY 1996. DOE asked its Fusion Energy Advisory Committee (FEAC) to make recommendations “in light of congressional guidance and budget realities.” FEAC presented its conclusions to Martha Krebs, DOE’s Director of Energy Research, on January 27. FYIs #15 and 16 will provide more details of the meeting.

The FEAC report was written by a Strategic Planning Subcommittee and a Scientific Issues Subcommittee, and endorsed by the full Advisory Committee at its meeting. The report followed language in the FY 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations conference report, which directed a restructured program to “emphasize continued development of fusion science, increased attention to concept improvement and alternative approaches to fusion, and development and testing of [low-activation materials].” The conference language also stated, “it is crucial that a [restructured program] maintain a strong domestic base and not undermine our credibility as a reliable international partner” in the Engineering Design Activity (EDA) of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER.)

“The underlying theme of the restructuring,” according to the 34-page FEAC report, “is to redirect the program away from the expensive development path to a fusion power plant to focus on the less costly critical basic science and technology foundations.” The program’s new mission would be: “Advance plasma science, fusion science, and fusion technology--the knowledge base needed for an economically and environmentally attractive fusion energy source.” This shift in direction would be indicated by a renaming of the fusion energy program to the Fusion Energy Sciences Program. It would have three critical policy goals: to advance plasma science in support of national science and technology goals such as semiconductors and astrophysics; to develop fusion science and technology and plasma confinement innovations as the core of the domestic program; and to pursue fusion energy science and technology as a partner in international efforts.

The FEAC report analyzes the implications of three funding levels for FY 1997 and beyond. It considers approximately $250 million per year as the constant funding case, as directed by Congress. (Current funding is $244.1 million.) The report then looks at a budget scenario of $275 million, and one “significantly below” $250 million.

The committee concluded that the $250 million, level-funding case would require the closing of one of the major domestic tokamak facilities (TFTR, DIII-D, and Alcator C-Mod.) The committee’s choice was to shut down TFTR (the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor), although they did not analyze the impact of shutdown costs. While they noted that scientific justification existed for two more years of TFTR operation, the committee recommended running it for only half of the 1997 fiscal year. Shutdown of TFTR at that time would allow for increased operation of DIII-D and C-Mod, enable the U.S. to maintain its annual contribution to engineering design for ITER ($55 million), and increase funding for plasma science as well as materials and technology. DOE’s Fusion Energy program office would be downsized as appropriate to the reduced program. The report states that “by incorporating the new mission and goals, the restructured program can fit within a constant annual budget...”

An annual funding level of $275 million, the committee found, would allow for full utilization of TFTR for two more years, more vigorous pursuit of the new directions outlined in the restructured plan, and more productive use of DIII-D and C-Mod. “The goals of the restructured fusion program can be accomplished most effectively at a funding level of $275 million,” the report finds. (See FYI #14 for more details.)

At any level significantly lower than $250 million per year, the committee stated that the twin goals of supporting a strong domestic program and continuing as an international partner in the ITER-EDA would conflict. John Clarke of Battelle argued that a $200 million budget could not both “maintain the international collaboration...[and also] maintain the means to profit from that collaboration.” In addition, the international partners - Japan, the European Community, and the Russian Federation - requested that the U.S. make no unilateral decisions to reduce its support of ITER without further negotiations.

The full report, “A Restructured Fusion Energy Sciences Program,” is expected to be available on DOE’s Office of Fusion Energy Home Page at http://wwwofe.er.doe.gov