December 8, 1996

On December 6, stories were running on CNN, CBS, Associated Press, various newspapers, and probably elsewhere, based on an article in the December 6 issue of Science, by James Glanz, headlined "Turbulence May Sink Titanic Reactor." The article states that University of Texas Institute for Fusion Studies (IFS) researchers William Dorland and Michael Kotschenreuther have developed a new theory of plasma turbulence "from basic physics principles" and that "according to computer models based on the theory, turbulent heat conduction in ITER will likely be strong enough to seriously undermine its performance." The article quotes ITER chief scientist Marshall Rosenbluth as saying the theory is "a remarkable intellectual achievement." The article says that Dorland and Kotshenreuther presented their results at the recent American Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics meeting in Denver, but that "since March of last year" (they) "have been telling ITER scientists and officials that turbulence could shorten the energy confinement time in ITER to the point where, far from generating 1.5 billion watts in fusion power that ITER's official documents project, it may give back no more than a few times the energy used to heat the plasma in the first place -- much too little to ignite a fusion burn." The article quotes DOE fusion chief Dr. N. Anne Davies as saying, "I'm still personally feeling fairly confident that ITER's designs will achieve ignition." The article states that both IFS scientists will serve on a U. S. panel to review the ITER Detail Design Report (See FPN-23 & 24). The review will be conducted by the DOE's Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC). The article quotes FESAC chairman John Sheffield as saying, "The fat lady hasn't sung yet. The fat lady hasn't gone on stage yet." Nevertheless, this latest U.S. media event is annoying fusion officials in Europe and Japan, where support for the ITER project is strong. A U.S. proposal last January by a panel of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) that ITER be descoped to a project at about half the estimated $10 billion cost caused serious friction among the ITER participating governments. The controversy generated should make the upcoming FESAC January 21-24 meeting at General Atomics in San Diego more interesting than usual.

Although the Science article quotes JET scientist J.G. Cordey, who chairs the ITER expert group on confinement, as saying that the model's fits to experimental data are "statistically questionable," it does not note that the new model is only one of many that have been under constant review and evaluation by the ITER Expert Group on Confinement and Transport. The group regularly recommends experiments on operating tokamaks aimed at verifying predictions of the various models. The article also does not detail several shortcomings of the new theory, which is still under development. According to fusion theorist Dave Baldwin, vice president of General Atomics, the model "does not describe electron energy loss, and it fails for the edge temperature and density profile when compared to current experiments." Sensationalism always wins out over facts, however, whenever the media starts to run with a negative story. CNN, for example, opened their segment on Headline News with the comment, "You may not know an iota about the atom, but your wallet may be the nucleus of fusion research. Each year, American taxpayers funnel $55 million into a project to harness the power of the sun. But new research dims the prospect for its success, and for the return on your money." It then flips to a video clip of Dorland saying, "Our analysis indicates that this device (ITER) will not produce the amount of power desired, because the fuel will be too cold."

For more information, contact: Stephen O. Dean