Public Comment to FESAC October 2, 2019 Meeting
Steve Dean, Fusion Power AssociatesConcern
Your current charge was provided to you on 30 November 2018 by then Deputy Director for SciencePrograms, DOE Office of Science, approximately two weeks prior to the release of the National
Academies year-long fusion program study. Your current charge makes no reference on how orwhether you are to take into account the recommendations of that Academies report.
Your current charge letter requests the FESAC “undertake a new long-range strategic planning activityfor the Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program. The strategic planning activity – to encompass the entire
FES research portfolio (namely, burning plasma science and discovery plasma science) – should identifyand prioritize the research required to advance both the scientific foundation needed to develop a fusionenergy source, as well as the broader FES mission to steward plasma science.”
The Academies report states, “This report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma
Research describes a strategic plan for fusion research to guide implementation of the committee’s two
main recommendations:First, the United States should remain an ITER partner as the most cost-effective way to gain experience
with a burning plasma at the scale of a power plant.
Second, the United States should start a national program of accompanying research and technology
leading to the construction of a compact pilot plant that produces electricity from fusion at the lowest
possible capital cost.
It is the absence of this second of the Academies recommended objectives from your current chargethat concerns me most.
The Academies Executive Summary states “A new national focus on developing a compact pilot plantin the long term will help set priorities for the near and mid-term fusion program.”
While one might argue that your current charge could be interpreted to include the Academies second
recommendation of having “a new national focus on developing a compact pilot plant in the long term” to“help set priorities for the near and mid-term fusion program”, I would argue that a more precise charge
from the current Director of the Office of Science, to consider the recommendations of the Academies informulating your proposed strategy, is needed – especially since the current Director was not in placewhen your current charge was written.
My view is that, in preparing a “strategy” for fusion, the first question to ask yourselves is “a strategy foraccomplishing what?” I interpret the Academies report to call for a strategy that leads to “A new national
focus on developing a compact pilot plant in the long term will help set priorities for the near andmid-term fusion program.” Consideration of such a “new national focus” is not currently explicitly
included for consideration in your present charge.
Recommendation
I recommend that FESAC request an updated or revised charge from the current Director of theOffice of Science specifically telling FESAC to consider the recommendations of the National
Academies 2018 report while undertaking "a new long-range strategic planning activity for theFusion Energy Sciences (FES) program".