The DOE Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) Task Force on Fusion Energy began its review (FPN99-10 and FPN99-14) on March 29-30 in Washington, DC. The next meeting is scheduled to be held at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory on April 29-30. A third meeting will be scheduled at LLNL about a month later, with a final meeting planned in Washington about one month after that. The Panel hopes to have an interim report by July 4, with a final report in late summer. All meetings will be open to the public.
The agenda for the first meeting included overview presentations on magnetic and inertial confinement fusion by DOE program managers N. Anne Davies and David Crandall, respectively, and additional overviews by Rob Goldston (PPPL) and Mike Campbell (LLNL), respectively. Talks were also given by Stewart Prager (University of Wisconsin) on the 1995 fusion review by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and by John Sheffield (ORNL), current chair of the DOE Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee.
The Terms of Reference for the review asks the Task Force to "analyze and provide recommendations on the role of each of these technologies (magnetic and inertial) as part of a national fusion energy research program." The Terms state that the analysis "should address whether the current and planned resources within the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences budget are appropriately balanced among the concepts to provide the scientific basis for an informed selection of the best option for development as a fusion energy source." The Terms state that the Task Force "should specifically take into account the relationship to international fusion energy programs, the connection of inertial fusion energy research to the stockpile stewardship activities in Defense Programs, and the broader science and educational goals that may be enabled by these fusion technologies."
Dr. Richard A. Meserve, Partner, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, a member of SEAB and of the National Research Council Energy Board, is chair the Task Force. Dr. Steven E. Koonin, Provost, California Institute of Technology, is the Vice Chair. Koonin has chaired National Academy panels to review inertial confinement fusion in the past and was a recipient of Fusion Power Associates Leadership Award in 1994.
The members of the Task Force, in addition to Meserve and Koonin, are: Ira Bernstein, Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Physics, Yale University, a pioneer fusion theoretical physicist; Edward A. Frieman, Director-Emeritus, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and former Deputy Director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory; Hermann Grunder, Director, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Laboratory, who chaired a panel to review ITER for the DOE Fusion Energy Advisory Committee in 1997 (He was a recipient of Fusion Power Associates Leadership Award in 1998); Robert Hanfling, Senior Advisor, Putnam, Hayes and Bartlett, Washington, DC, a member of SEAB; Larry Papay, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Bechtel Group; Stewart Prager, Professor of Physics, University of Wisconsin, a prominent fusion researcher; Barrett Ripin, Associate Executive Officer, American Physical Society and former inertial confinement fusion researcher at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory; and Allen Sessoms, President, Queens College, CCNY, Flushing, NY, a member of SEAB.
The review was precipitated by language contained in a 1998 Senate Appropriations Committee report. The Senate report "recommends that the Department, prior to committing to any future magnetic fusion program or facilities, conduct a broader review to determine which fusion technology or technologies the U.S. should pursue to achieve ignition and/or a fusion energy device."
DOE Undersecretary Ernest Moniz opened the meeting, saying that it was a good time to have a fusion review for several reasons. One reason, he said, was because "the budget is in a period of relative calm." He noted the changing circumstances relative to the prospects for constructing the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, and the "construction of NIF opportunity." He said the DOE needed a "balanced portfolio for energy in the long-term," and that there was a need for a fusion "roadmap that looked across all opportunities." He said he would like a report, even if it were an interim report, by July 4.
Stewart Prager, University of Wisconsin and a member of the Task Force, then gave the Task Force and overview presentation on the conclusions of the 1995 Fusion Review Panel of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). He reminded the Task Force that the fusion budget was $366 million in FY 1996 and that PCAST had recommended a fusion budget of $320 million per year beginning in FY 1997, in the context of a severe budget reduction mood in Congress. However, the Congress subsequently reduced the fusion budget to $244 million for FY 1997. He said that PCAST had viewed fusion a "an important investment in the development of an attractive and possibly essential new energy source" and as sustaining "an important field of science -- plasma science -- which has generated a panoply of insights and techniques widely applicable in other fields of science and in industry." He said that if the country had not been in a budget cutting mood at the time, the PCAST felt that a program "costing an average of $645 million per year is reasonable and desirable." DOE had estimated that $645 million per year was what would be required to meet the previously established goal of operating a demonstration power plant by the year 2025.
Prager told the Task Force that the PCAST recommended "preserving the most indispensable elements of the program," which he listed as (1) "strong core program in plasma science and fusion technology," (2) "ignition and burn experiment," and (3) "low activation materials program." He said that PCAST believed that the "consequences of a $200 million budget" would be "deep damage to an important and fruitful field of scientific and technological development; the prospects for practical fusion energy; and international cooperation beyond fusion." Prager was a member of the PCAST Fusion Review Panel.
Dr. N. Anne Davies, Associate Director for Fusion Energy Sciences, DOE Office of Science, gave the Task Force a comprehensive overview of the current program. She noted that, after Congress had reduced the FY 1997 budget to $244 million, the program "restructured" itself, abandoning its 2025 goal and renamed itself from the Fusion Energy Program to the Fusion Energy Sciences Program, with a new program mission statement: "Acquire the knowledge base needed for an economically and environmentally attractive fusion energy source." She said the new program goals were "(1) understand the physics of plasmas; (2) identify and explore innovative approaches to fusion science and technology; and (3) explore the science and technology of energy producing plasma, as a partner in an international effort." Davies noted that "Congress did not approve U.S. participation in the 3 year extension" of the ITER agreement and said that the "other 3 Parties are proceeding without the U.S. with a reduced-cost, reduced objective design (of ITER) at about half the original cost, i.e., $5 billion in today's dollars." She said that the U.S. "plans to contribute to (ITER) physics on a voluntary basis and complete commitments to build the 40 ton central solenoid magnet model coil and the divertor cassette and participate in their operational tests." She said that "If the other 3 Parties proceed with construction, the U.S. would want to reconsider its involvement in the ITER program."
In addition to its historic focus on using magnetic fields to confine plasmas, Davies said her office was enhancing its efforts to look at inertial confinement fusion for energy applications. The bulk of that program is supported by DOE's Defense Programs as part of its stockpile stewardship program, Davies said. She said the inertial fusion energy prospects had "been reviewed often," citing reviews in 1990, 1993 and 1996. She said the "questions of scientific merit and energy balance were addressed positively; the potential for inertial fusion energy is real; and the fusion program has had a mandate to pursue two independent approaches to fusion energy development, magnetic and inertial fusion." She said that "target physics is the highest priority inertial fusion activity and that is being developed as part of the weapons research program." She said the responsibility of her office "is to develop the enabling technology for inertial fusion energy," specifically mentioning the development of "drivers" for energy applications.
In conclusion, Davies said, "The fusion program is not an ordinary science program -- it has a specific energy vision as well." However, she said, "The realities of the budget constraints limit the size and scope of the fusion program." She said that the magnetic program was "dependent on international collaboration" and that the inertial confinement energy program was "dependent of weapons research." She said she expected the several reviews currently underway "will lay the foundation for future progress toward fusion science and energy goals."
Dr. David H. Crandall, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Science, described the role of inertial confinement fusion (ICF) in the DOE's stockpile stewardship program. He said the ICF contributes primarily through its ability to access regimes of "high energy density" which allows it to study "weapon physics." He said, "Lasers reproducibly concentrate energy in space and time and thus can create diagnosable, short-lived plasmas at extremely high energy density," such as occur in thermonuclear explosions and in stars. The most advanced facility to reach these conditions will be the National Ignition Facility (NIF) scheduled to be completed in 2002, he said, but he also noted recent breakthroughs in producing x-rays in the Z accelerator at Sandia. Crandall said the "ICF program priorities are established by the Stockpile Stewardship mission," and listed as his top priorities (1) indirect-drive ignition on NIF, (2) support other weapon physics and effects for Stockpile Stewardship, (3) simulation, modeling and theory of ICF & observable weapon physics, (4) physics with z-pinch and pulsed power technology development on Z, (5) direct drive target physics and technology development on Omega and Nike, (6) single-shop complex target fabrication, (7) diagnostic development, and (8) high-yield target design." He said his budget was tight to accomplish these priorities. He acknowledged a tenth priority -- "high repetition rate, efficient driver technology -- has not been included in the DOE FY 2000 budget request to Congress, even though money for that program element had specifically been added to the DOE budget by Congress in FY 2000. Consequently, it was now first among his lowest priority interests, which also included (2) low cost, mass production targets, (3) driver-target standoff, (4) advanced chamber protection and (5) chamber clearing. He thought all these latter programs should be funded by the civilian fusion energy program.
Rob Goldston, Director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, told the Task Force that "Japan and Europe have less energy resources that the U.S. and greater concern about dependence on foreign energy supplies." He said the budgets for fusion energy research in Japan and Europe, respectively, were 1.5 and 2.5 times the budget in the U.S. He noted that both Japan and Europe were operating billion dollar class tokamaks and stellarator facilities, while the U.S. had shut down its only billion dollar class facility, TFTR. Goldston said, "We know we can make fusion energy -- the challenge now is to make it practical." He showed a graph of fusion energy produced (Joules per pulse) since 1970 for both magnetic and inertial facilities. He described the scientific and technological accomplishments of the fusion program in some detail.
Goldston described "key ideas behind the portfolio approach" to developing fusion, leveraging off the over one billion dollar per year international fusion program. He said that "ideas from one configuration help others; hybrid configurations emerge," and that "breadth and complementarity avoids common roadblocks, broadens science and leads to technology spinoffs." He said that the magnetic confinement approaches can be grouped into "externally controlled" and "self organized" configurations and into categories defined by their "stages of development." The latter he labeled "concept exploration," "proof of principle," and "performance extension." He said that the tokamak approach "is the most advanced configuration in magnetic fusion energy," noting it had shown stable operation, good confinement and had an "excellent database supporting other magnetic fusion energy configurations." He listed as issues for the tokamak, its modest power density, pulsed nature and tendency to disrupt, but, he said, "Progress in tokamak performance had been dramatic." He said that the community was now focusing on the "Advanced Tokamak," a system characterized by "high bootstrap current and higher beta," and claimed that "The Advanced Tokamak Leads to an Attractive Fusion Power Plant." He said "the reduced cost ITER has advanced tokamak features" and that "the U.S. should consider requesting participation" if the 3 ITER partners decide to go ahead with construction.
Goldston praised the spherical torus as a "world class innovative fusion experiment," and said that the "spherical torus can advance fusion science and technology using small-size devices." He described several other magnetic configurations, including the compact stellarator, the reversed field pinch, and magnetized target fusion concepts. He described several on-going activities in the U.S., including conceptualization of a billion dollar class, limited-pulse advanced tokamak burning plasma device, and various elements of the U.S. technology program.
Goldston said the time period 2003-2004 "will present opportunities." These included, he said, the possibility that ITER might go into construction internationally, that the spherical torus concept might be ready to advance to "deuterium-tritium performance extension," that one or more proof of principle experiments may have shown "attractive paths forward," and that "existing concept exploration experiments may be ready to move to proof of principle." However, he noted, that "to prepare for decisions in 2003-2004 will require additional funds," because "all existing facilities are underutilized, new proof of principle experiments require funding" and because other elements of the program are currently underfunded. He recommended increasing the budget to $300 million per year, with the increases split approximately equally between magnetic and inertial fusion energy.
Dr. E. Michael Campbell, Associate Director for Lasers, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, told the Task Force that "An expanded inertial fusion energy program, leveraging DOE's Defense Programs, is warranted as part of a broadened Fusion Energy Science Program." This is because, he said, "inertial confinement fusion is one of the two approaches to achieving controlled thermonuclear fusion." He said that "inertial confinement fusion has both national security applications and potential civilian energy applications" and that "the well-coordinated national inertial confinement fusion program has made significant scientific/technical progress towards both applications with numerous scientific/technological spinoffs.
Campbell described the physics and facilities of inertial confinement fusion in some detail, emphasizing the contributions being made to the scientific underpinnings of stockpile stewardship, including equation of state, opacity, radiation flow, hydrodynamics and mix, ignition and thermonuclear fusion, and output and nuclear weapons effects. He said, "The inertial confinement fusion facilities have become important contributors to stockpile stewardship." He also said that "Experiments are being designed for the NIF to examine a wide array of astrophysics phenomena." He said, "A major focus for the next decade is the demonstration of ignition and propagating thermonuclear burn in the National Ignition Facility." The NIF is a multimegajoule 192-beam, 700 terawatt laser facility under construction at Livermore. He said that, despite its thermonuclear yield, the NIF had been deemed to be a "low hazard radiological facility." He said the project has maintained its schedule and expects "first bundle operations and target experiments to begin first quarter FY2002." The full capability of the facility is not expected until two years later.
Campbell said that the NIF "will map out ignition and gain curves for multiple target concepts," so that the results of the NIF experiments will benefit energy-relevant drivers as well. He described a variety of target concepts, including those based on both indirect and direct drive.
Campbell noted that "inertial fusion power plants of the future will consist of four parts: driver, target factory, fusion chamber and steam plant." He said the driver will consist of many beams, run at 5-10 Hz had require an efficiency greater than 5%, dependent on target gain. He said the focusing element must be protected from x-rays and debris and survive for over a year. He said the target must cost less than 30 cents each and the factory must produce about 200 million per year. A means to keep them cryogenic while being introduced into the fusion chamber must be developed. He said the chamber must have a protected first wall and be able to be cleared of debris between shots.
Campbell said that "The path to inertial fusion energy has many attractive features." His list included that the "components are physically separated and can mostly be developed independently," and that "target performance, driver scaling, economics and target fabrication issues can be examined in parallel." He said that repetitively pulsed drivers have "modest initial development costs," noting that "laser drivers consist of many parallel and identical beamlines and that the later stages of acceleration of ion beams are believe to have low risk." Finally, he noted, that the energy program can "leverage investment by DOE's Defense Programs." Campbell described the several promising driver technologies for energy applications, including heavy ions, krypton fluoride and diode-pumped lasers. He also described wall protection concepts for the fusion chamber and target factory concepts.
Campbell endorse the preparation of a common roadmap for magnetic and inertial fusion energy that would "roll back from the end product goal; include a broad portfolio that balance risk and expenditure and encourage innovation; develop a common framework for all approaches, with recognition of differences in approaches; have metrics to judge progress; have peer review; and have assessment periods." He said. "The overall requirements for any fusion energy plant concept" included (1) projected cost of electricity competitive with future sustainable energy sources, (2) total capital cost in line with fission and coal, (3) reliability of components sufficient for greater than 80% plant availability; (4) be environmentally acceptable; (5) have a credible chance of meeting all of the physics and engineering constraints; and (6) have an affordable development plan."
John Sheffield, Chairman of the DOE Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) told the SEAB Task Force that his committee was preparing an "Opportunities Document" describing the "opportunities and the requirements of a fusion energy science program" and including an "assessment of the technical status of the various elements of the program." As part of the preparation, FESAC has assembled two page descriptions of the key topical areas of fusion energy sciences, covering magnetic and inertial fusion energy concepts and supporting technologies, science areas, and near-term applications. Sheffield said a second document was also being prepared which would "develop goals and metrics" for the fusion program elements "to help in prioritizing these opportunities" and as an aide in deciding among proposals for proof of principle experiments. Sheffield said the Opportunities Document would "describe each opportunity in the context of the total program" and would be available in the near future. He said that "The opportunities for exciting research far exceed those that can be pursued at present budget level."
At the April 29-30 meeting at Princeton, the Task Force is expected to receive presentations on the following subjects: (1) Potential for Fusion in the Future Marketplace, (2) Applications other than Electricity, including near-term spinoffs and contributions to other fields of science and technology, (3) International collaborative programs, (4) Key Science Issues of Magnetic Fusion, (5) Magnetic Fusion Budgets. They are also expected to discuss the magnetic fusion "portfolio" and technology programs.
In addition to holding public meetings at which they also reserve time for public comment, the Task Force also welcomes written submissions of opinions. These should be sent to Skila Harris, Executive Director, SEAB, AB-1, USDOE, 1000 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20585. Information on the Task Force is posted on the web (//vm1.hqadmin.doe.gov/seab/new.html) or can be had by calling Richard Burrow (202)586-7092.