FPN04-48
FESAC ITER Deadline Passes
July 28, 2004
Following the two-week 2002 Fusion Summer Study
(FPN02-48), at which over
280 fusion scientists gathered to discuss the major next-step in the U.S.
fusion program, a panel of the DOE Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory
Committee (FESAC) met in Austin, Texas, to recommend "a burning plasma
program strategy to advance fusion energy." The Panel, chaired by Prof.
Stewart Prager (U. Wisconsin), recommended that the U.S. rejoin the
international ITER project with the understanding that "The Department of
Energy concludes, by July 2004, that ITER is highly likely to proceed to
construction and terms have been negotiated that are acceptable to the
United States." They said, "Demonstrations of likelihood could include
submission to the partner governments of an agreement on cost sharing,
selection of the site, and a plan for the ITER Legal Entity." The Panel
found that ITER, FIRE (a U.S. design) and Ignitor (a potential Italian
project) were all viable routes to study burning plasmas. Though they
favored ITER, they said that "If ITER does not move forward, then FIRE
should be advanced as a U.S.-based burning plasma experiment with strong
encouragement of international participation." They also said, "If Ignitor
is constructed in Italy, then the United States should collaborate in the
program by research participation and contributions of related equipment,
as it does with other major international facilities." The Panel cautioned
DOE that the recommended program could not be accomplished on a flat
budget, saying "A strong core science and technology program is essential
to the success of the burning plasma effort, as well as the overall
development of fusion energy. Hence, this core program should be increased
in parallel with the burning plasma science initiative." The full FESAC
endorsed the report in a September 13, 2002 letter to DOE Office of
Science Director Ray Orbach
(FPN02-63).
A year later, in September 2003, the National Research Council, an arm of
the National Academies, issued the report of its Burning Plasma Assessment
Committee, chaired by Ray Fonck (U. Wisconsin) and John Ahearne (Sigma Xi)
(FPN03-57).
The 170-page report concludes that "a burning plasma experiment
is critically needed to advance fusion science," that "undertaking a
burning plasma experiment cannot be done on a flat budget," and that "if
negotiations proceed successfully, the fusion science program will move
ahead with the ITER endeavor." The Committee recommended that "the United
States should participate in ITER," and that "if the ITER negotiations
fail, the United States should continue, as soon as possible, to pursue the
goal of conducting a burning plasma experiment with international
partners." The Committee stated "A strategically balanced U. S. fusion
program should be developed that includes U. S. participation in ITER, a
strong domestic fusion science and technology portfolio, an integrated
theory and simulation program, and support for plasma science. As the ITER
project develops, a substantial augmentation in fusion science program
funding will be required in addition to the direct financial commitment to
ITER construction." The Committee acknowledged that it did not review the
needs and prospects for inertial confinement fusion.
Since 2002, the U.S has maintained a substantial effort on the design of
the FIRE option as a contingency in case ITER did not proceed. That work
is currently targeted for termination on September 30. N. Anne Davies,
director of the U.S. fusion program, told a July 26-27 meeting of FESAC
that if ITER failed to proceed the U.S, would have to reassess its program
strategy.