The DOE Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) Fusion Task Force held its third meeting May 26-27 at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), concentrating on inertial confinement. The Task Force also received briefings on "spinoffs" from inertial fusion research and on issues associated with non-proliferation of weapons information and the role of universities in fusion research. This completes the scheduled rounds of information gathering meetings of the Task Force. Previous meetings were held April 29-30 at Princeton (FPN99-19) and March 29-30 in Washington (FPN99-15). The Task Force intends to prepare a draft report during June and issue an Interim Report in July. A final report is not expected unitl end of summer. For information on a possible public meeting of the Task Force in late June, contact Richard Burrow (richard.burrow@hq.doe.gov).

Steve Bodner, Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), opened the meeting with a summary of "Laser Fusion Concepts and Development Strategy." He said that "laser fusion energy has several inherently attractive features," including "easy to access and maintain," due to "physically separated laser, chamber, target explosion, and target factory." He suggested that all issues associated with laser fusion could be addressed "within an affordable development plan," since the energy development program could "leverage defense programs." He indicated that the cost of such an energy-oriented add-on would be about $35 million per year for the next five years and about $60 million per year thereafter. He said an engineering test facility could later be upgraded to a modest (about 300 Megawatt) demonstration power plant. He noted that there were two laser candidate drivers, Krypton Fluoride and Diode-Pumped Solid State (DPSSL), each with different development issues; consequently it would be premature to downselect between them at this time.

John Sethian (NRL) described the Krypton Fluoride laser issues in detail; Howard Powell (LLNL) did likewise for the DPSSL. Ken Schultz (General Atomics) described target fabrication and injection issues, noting that "design studies show plausible manufacturing and injection processes and reasonable costs." Robert McCrory (University of Rochester) described plans to investigate the physics of direct drive targets on the National Ignition Facility (NIF).

Christopher Keane, Director, Office of Secondaries and Inertial Fusion, DOE, addressed issues of international collaboration on inertial fusion research and issues relating to non-proliferation of weapons information. He said that "lessons from NIF suggest that the nonproliferation/inertial fusion energy issue will be manageable." He noted that inertial fusion research is "allowed under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)," and said that "weapons states are obligated to assist NPT signatories in non-weapons applications of nuclear energy." With respect to international collaborations, he noted that there are currently formal collaborations with France and the UK and numerous other collaborations "decided on a case-by-case basis." He said that the DOE recognizes that "science-based (stockpile) stewardship requires a broader-based program" and that his office would be working closely with the DOE Office of Science "to manage this issue."

Michael Key (LLNL) described "Linkages to Other Fields of Scientific Research and Technology Spin-Off." In the former category he cited "strong EM field interactions with electrons; dense plasma spectroscopy; intense EUV to hard x-ray sources and applications; laser particle accelerators, sources and beams; high pressure hydrodynamics and energy transport; laboratory astrophysics; dense matter physics; and planetary science." In the latter category, he cited "laser and pulse power engineering; optics materials and manufacturing; diagnostics and instrumentation; semiconductor and manufacturing; and medical technologies."

Tom Jarboe (University of Washington) and Paul Bellan (CalTech) described "University Participation in Fusion Research," noting that it currently accounts for 17% of the DOE Office of Fusion Energy Sciences budget. They said that "universities are engaged in very diverse activities," specifically citing "on-site experiments (both large and small); off-site collaborations at national labs; analytic theory; numerical computation, simulation; and technology development." They described the university programs in some detail.

On the second day of the meeting, John Lindl (LLNL) described the "cost and performance goals for ion beam fusion; development strategy; synergism between the Defense Programs Inertial Confinement Fusion program and ion beam targets; and focusing requirements." Starting with the economics requirements for a postulated 1 Gigawatt electric power plant selling electricity for 5 cents per kilowatt hours, Lindl calculated the the "plant cost must be less than $3 billion for a 10% return on capital" He suggested that all approaches to fusion should take note of this fact. He then used power plant systems models "to provide guidance on the cost goals for plant subsystems" and performed an example calculation for heavy ion driven fusion energy. For his example, he concluded that the targets must cost less than 30 cents each, implying that the target factory could cost about $200 million and could cost about $20 million per year to operate. He said that "current estimates are about half these costs (for the target factory)." He noted that,even though todays targets cost well in excess of 30 cents, "the total materials cost (of a target) is less than a few cents." He said that "fabricating and filling the high precision fuel capsule is estimated to contribute greater than 90% of the cost of a heavy ion hohlraum target." He calculated that "the target/driver combination for inertial fusion must meet a minimum product of driver efficiency times gain of 20-30." He said that "present ion beam target designs have calculated gains of 60 or more for typical power plant parameters, leading to efficiency-gain products exceeding 20." He said that "ion beam fusion has an attractive development path" and that an ion beam engineerign test facility "could evolve into the demonstration power plant without building a new accelerator." He estimated the cost of the required development add-on for heavy ion fusion to be $20 million per year for the next 5 years and $40-70 million per year thereafter. Roger Bangerter (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) described "Accelerators for Inertial Fusion Energy Production" in some detail, noting that "accelerators are reliable, durable and efficient, with high repetition rates, and offer a plausible method of final optics protection." Per Peterson (University of California at Berkeley) described issues associated with target chambers for inertial fusion energy concepts, development plans, cost and schedule. He estimated thata about $7-8 million per year for the next four years was required to resolve critical issues in this area.

Jeff Quintenz (Sandia National Laboratories) described recent successes in producing x-rays from z-pinches in the Sandia Pulsed Power program. He said that this approach promises a cost-effective way to achieve high yield from fusion capsules. He said that "today's z-pinch x-ray source can be applied to chamber issues" and that Sandia was working with others to "develop z-pinch concepts for energy." He noted also that Sandia had not ruled out eventually coming back to the use of light ions for fusion energy, using pulsed power technology.

The meeting wound up with presentations by Joe Kilkenny (LLNL) on the status and planning for the National Ignition Facility, currently scheduled to begin operations in 2003 and a summary by Mike Campbell (LLNL). Campbell said that "Inertial Fusion Energy provides a complementary approach to Magnetic Fusion Energy; DOE Defense Programs support provides a significant and timely opportunity for developing inertial fusion for energy; inertial fusion energy satisfies requirements for fusion energy development; and an inertial fusion energy portfolio approach allows a breadth of options to be explored."