The Department provided FESAC with a new charge: to "identify issues arising in a path to Demo, with ITER as a central part of that effort." FESAC is asked to "identify and prioritize the broad scientific and technical questions to be answered prior to a Demo; to assess available means (inventory), including all existing and planned facilities around the world as well as theory and modeling, to address these questions; and to identify research gaps and how they may be addressed through new facility concepts, theory and modeling." FESAC established a panel, under the chairmanship of Martin Greenwald (MIT) to address this charge and to report back by October 1. FESAC also reviewed a report from a panel under the chairmanship of Gerald Navratil (Columbia U.) previously charged "to conduct a review and rate the fusion program's progress towards achieving its long-range Program Assessment Rating Tool measures."

At the meeting, Fusion Power Associates president Steve Dean presented FESAC the following letter:

March 1, 2007

To: Stewart C. Prager, Chair, FESAC
From: Stephen O. Dean, President, FPA

I heard that FESAC would interpret its new first charge to "identify issues arising in a path to Demo" as applying only to MFE. I think this would be most inappropriate and grossly unfair to IFE. I ask that you either interpret the charge to apply to both MFE and IFE or ask DOE to revise the charge.

I am providing a letter Ray Orbach sent to former FESAC member John Lindl three years ago in which he states "For MFE, funding for the energy relevant technology R&D will wait for the results of ITER. Similarly, for IFE, we will wait for the achievement of ignition and gain before investing in the technology required for energy applications." In that letter, Orbach also states, "The issue really is the degree to which our Fusion Energy Sciences program should become an energy development program. The Administration position on this issue is that now is not the time for us to invest in energy related R&D for either MFE or IFE." If this restriction is coming off for MFE via your charge, then it should also come off IFE simultaneously.

It would not be sufficient to just consider IFE in the second charge you are being given, as the report on that charge would come much later than the report on the first charge. It is definitely time to move ahead on post-ITER technology. But it is also time to get ready to capitalize on the expected success of NIF.

Three years have passed and I heartily agree that it is time to "identify issues arising in a path to Demo." I would remind the FESAC, however, that NIF is expected to begin its ignition and gain campaign in 2010, many years before ITER achieves a burning plasma. Consequently, if the earlier restriction on energy related fusion R&D and Demo planning is coming off for MFE, it is even more appropriate that it be removed for IFE as well. I would also remind FESAC that, contrary to the implications of paragraph 2 of the charge letter, the community consensus reached at the Snowmass meetings applied to the role, needs and promise of both MFE and IFE and not just MFE.

I suggest that you ask that the opening sentence of the third paragraph of the new charge letter be revised (or interpreted) to read as follows: "To assist planning for the ITER/NIF era, it is critical that FESAC identify the issues arising in a path to Demo, with ITER and NIF as central parts of that effort."

Information on FESAC meetings and reports are posted at http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/fesac.shtml.