IFE Planning Breakout Session Summary - April 27, 2007

Questions presented to the breakout group to stimulate discussion:
1. What are the elements of a compelling breakout strategy for IFE?
2. What advances have to be made to make such a strategy credible?
3. What advances can only be made with increased funding?
4. Have views of an IFE development path changed since the IFE FESAC report? If so, how?

* IFE, with the exception of some aspects of HIF, has been funded by Congressional addons and Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD). NNSA is focused on single shot facilities and technologies; OFES is focused on fusion "science" and not energy development. A "home" is needed in DOE that is interested in fusion energy development that would be interested in receiving and implementing an IFE strategic plan. This will require a change of policy in the Executive Branch. Previous fusion community and DOE review panel studies all have shown that MFE and IFE are equally credible as fusion energy approaches. Yet current DOE policy, whether deliberate or not, has the effect of holding back IFE development.

* A defining event for triggering a breakout for implementation of an IFE plan is the anticipated achievement of ignition on NIF in the 2010-2012 time frame. The DOE should be prepared to capitalize on that success. Therefore, specific programs should be carried out in the immediate future in order to be prepared to respond to that event. These include rep-rated driver, target and chamber development, computation and systems studies for IFE. The funding required for these efforts, pre-NIF ignition, is modest compared to the currently funded ICF efforts, approximately $60-70M per year. In recent years, funding for IFE specific research (~$25-30M/yr) has been entirely due to year- toyear Congressional actions. DOE has no visible plans to support such efforts. "Energyrelated" research in the new HEDLP program would be complementary to IFE but is no substitute for a focused IFE effort.

* Concerns about global warming or an oil crisis could also provide a trigger for requesting serious fusion energy development.

* The cornerstone of an IFE breakout strategy is a program aimed at construction of a reprated IFE fusion test facility. The detailed configuration of this facility is not fixed yet, but it is envisaged as the last major facility prior to a Demo. As part of a program leading to construction, subsystem prototypes and component development would be required in order to finalize design and proceed to construction. These include driver development for lasers, heavy ions and Z-pinch drivers, target design and fabrication, chamber technologies and detailed conceptual design. Modularity and separability of subsystems lend themselves to a cost-effective development path as part of a fusion test facility program.

* The readiness to proceed with a fusion test facility, post NIF ignition, depends heavily on obtaining a stable source of funding. Currently funding for all aspects of IFE is in doubt every year.

* As part of the IFE strategic plan, non technical questions should be addressed that answer issues that most likely would be raised by non-technical people, such as why is IFE a desirable product for society.

* The plan should contain items such as vision, detailed R&D tasks, budget and schedule. The plan should stress the cost effectiveness of IFE development in light of the substantial science and technology base being developed by NNSA. It should also describe the potential for a faster development path relative to some previous fusion plans. Since replacement of existing power plants and construction on new ones will likely begin in earnest around 2050, fusion should attempt to put forth a plan that would have a commercial power plant ready for deployment around that time, if possible.

* The IFE strategic plan should include partnerships among labs, universities and industry. Industry involvement in the development will make it more likely that the IFE program will lead to a commercial product. Power plant studies are also needed to provide an attractive long range vision for IFE and to highlight areas in which improvements are needed.

* There are mixed opinions on the extent to which IFE should align itself with fission. While fusion likely has something to offer, it is not clear that the fission community thinks it needs fusion. Nevertheless there are large areas of technological overlap between fusion and fission nuclear. There should be some coordination of the research efforts.

* While the U.S. IFE community should collaborate with the growing international IFE effort, the plan should be capable of being implemented domestically and focused on a product that would be attractive in the U.S. market.

* The general features of IFE described in the 2004 Linford FESAC IFE panel report are still current. However, much progress has been made since then. For example, more serious efforts are underway in the U.S. and elsewhere on fast ignition, more attractive designs and techniques for irradiating targets have been proposed, and a shortened development path has been suggested.

* The current DOE plan to emphasize and expand efforts in HEDLP will strengthen the physics basis for IFE. It is, however, not a substitute for the more urgent need for energyrelated and IFE-focused efforts on IFE development.