October 17, 1997

FPN97-27 Fusion Program Notes

ITER Panel Reports

A Panel of the US DOE Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC), charged with preparing recommendations on U.S. participation in the next phases of the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project, will present its report to the FESAC on October 20. FESAC will then present its recommendations to the DOE.

The Panel was chaired by Hermann Grunder of the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (see FPN97-7R). In their report, the Panel states that it concluded it could best fulfill its responsibility "by considering the fusion energy science and technology portion of the U. S. program in its entirety." They state that "the central near-term goal" of this portion of the program "is the demonstration of a self-heated, energy producing fusion plasma." In bold letters, the Panel states that its central recommendation is: IN CONCERT WITH OUR INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS, A BURNING PLASMA FACILITY SHOULD BE BUILT AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME.

They propose four "elements for a U. S. strategic plan for the next three years" to achieve this objective.

First, "Pursue near-term opportunities for research supporting energy-producing fusion plasma science using existing unique large-scale facilities abroad." They specifically recommend "increased participation in the large foreign experiments, JET and JT-60U, with the objective of establishing advanced tokamak physics in large tokamaks."

Second, "Restructure the fusion energy technology development effort to more broadly support the fusion energy objective of the program." They state that the U. S. "should continue to participate in those aspects of ITER technology R&D which are dual-purpose, in the sense that they are both critical for a variety of approaches to fusion energy and they also help complete the R&D required for the ITER design." They state, "It is important to continue U. S. industry involvement in fusion technology R&D, which at the present time is largely carried out through the ITER EDA (Engineering Design Activities)."

Third, "Continue to participate in and support the ongoing ITER activities at a lower level." They say, "Continued involvement gives us the opportunity to participate in the construction and operation of ITER, should the parties decide to go forward with it."

Fourth, "Undertake design efforts on lower cost fusion-energy-producing plasma concepts." They say, "we believe that it is prudent for the international community to examine options that involve reconsideration of the fundamental trade-offs between cost, risk and mission," saying "these options provide a contingency plan that will be necessary in the event that the financial commitments cannot be secured for the full-mission ITER machine."

The Panel endorsed a $200 million "minimum support level for the plasma science and confinement innovations" portions of the program, which they did not review. For the "fusion energy science and technology" portion which they did review, they recommended funding levels of between $50M and $70M, distributed as follows:

  1. Research on Existing Large Scale Facilities Abroad: $10-20M
  2. Fusion Energy Technology Development: $20-25M
  3. Continued ITER Activities: $15M
  4. Design Efforts on Lower Cost Concepts: $5-10M

The Panel said that their recommendations were in the context that, even though ITER is ready to proceed into construction, "construction phase financing is not presently available (and) a construction decision has been delayed, and a 3-year transition period has been proposed." They said, "If a decision to construct ITER were being sought today, the panel would recommend U.S. participation at an appropriate level."

For more information, contact: Stephen O. Dean