National Research Council’s

Burning Plasma
Assessment Committee
Interim Report Summary

R. Fonck for the BPAC
Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee
Gaithersburg, Md
March 6, 2003

BPAC Charge
An assessment of a program of burning plasma experiments and its role in magnetic fusion
research will be carried out by an NRC study committee. The study will have threecomponents.

• An assessment of the importance of a burning-plasma experimental program to: fusion energy
sciences and technology and the development of fusion as an energy source, plasma physics,and science in general.

• An assessment of scientific and technical readiness to undertake a burning plasma
experimental program.

• An independent review and assessment of the plan for the U.S. magnetic fusion burning

plasma experimental program as developed by the Department of Energy through the FESAC
and Snowmass processes. The committee will make recommendations on the program strategy
aimed at maximizing the yield of scientific and technical understanding as the foundation for
the future development of fusion as an energy source.

Criteria for judging experiments will include the prospects for achieving technical objectives,
extracting scientific and technological understanding and making progress of broad andgeneric applicability, and contributing to the next steps in the experimental program.

BPAC MembershipJohn F. Ahearne, co-chair, Sigma Xi/Duke University
Raymond Fonck, co-chair, University of Wisconsin
John N. Bahcall, Princeton University
Gordon A. Baym, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Ira B. Bernstein, Yale University
Stephen C. Cowley, Imperial College London
Edward A. Frieman, SAIC
Walter Gekelman, University of California, Los Angeles
Joseph Hezir, EOP Group, Inc.
William M. Nevins, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Ronald R. Parker, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Claudio Pellegrini, University of California, Los Angeles
Burton Richter, Stanford Linear Accelerator CenterClifford M. Surko, University of California, San Diego
Tony S. Taylor, General Atomics
Michael A. Ulrickson, Sandia National Laboratories
Michael C. Zarnstorff, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Ellen G. Zweibel, JILA, University of Colorado
NRC Staff
Donald C. Shapero, Director, BPA
Michael Moloney, Study Director
Timothy Meyer, Program Associate

BPAC Work Plan - I• First meeting held in Washington D.C. on September 17/18 2002––Heard from DOE (Orbach and Davies), OSTP (Looney), ITER (Lackner), FIRE(Meade), IGNITOR (Coppi), Snowmass (Navratil/Sauthoff), FESAC (Pager)
Organized approach to letter interim report.

• Members work between meetings• Second meeting November 18/19 2002, Washington DC––Main focus of second meeting was interim letter report.
Heard from OSTP (Marburger), DOE/ITER(Davies & Sauthoff) and Robert Hirsch.

• Interim report cleared review & submitted December 20, 2002.

BPAC Work Plan - II
• Third Meeting Jan 17, 2003
–Heard about DOE (Davies), FESAC/Austin (Prager), Fusion Power (Dean), FESAC/35(Goldston), Restructured Program (Mauel), Tokamaks (Stambaugh), Multimachine(Navratil)• Members work between meetings• Fourth meeting to be held in May 2003
• Final report is due mid-2003

Interim Report•

Addressed two topics– Importance of Burning Plasma for fusion energy– Scientific and Technical Readiness to undertake a BP experiment•

Other relevant issues left to final report•Available at: http://www.national-academies.org/bpa or:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10591.html

Interim Report:
Recommendations• Subject to the conditions listed below, the committee
recommends that the United States enter ITER
negotiations while the strategy for an expanded U.S. fusion
program is further defined and evaluated.
• A strategically balanced fusion program, including
meaningful U.S. participation in ITER and a strong
domestic fusion science program, must be maintained,
recognizing that this will eventually require a substantial
augmentation in fusion program funding in addition to thedirect financial commitment to ITER construction.

Interim Report:
Recommendations (cont’d)• The fusion program strategy should include cost estimatesand scenarios for involvement in ITER, integration withthe existing fusion science program, contingency planning,and additional issues as raised in this letter. The UnitedStates should pursue an appropriate level of involvement inITER, which at a minimum would guarantee access to alldata from ITER, the right to propose and carry out
experiments, and a role in producing the high-technology
components of the facility, consistent with the size of theU.S. contribution to the program.

Observations in Text
• “The study of the science and technology ofburning plasmas is a critical missing element in
the restructured program of the Department ofEnergy’s Office of Fusion Energy Science”• “The progress made in fusion science and fusion
technology increases confidence in the readinessto proceed with the burning plasma step”– See sections on science and technology issues and readinessObservations in Text(cont’d)• Two caveats:– …the fusion community is aging and has long range demographicproblems.
– …a technology program without a strong science base, or ascience program without a strong technology base, will leave theUnited States in a position where it cannot build effectively on thedevelopments coming from more advanced programs abroad…

• Potential that “…could be at risk of dropping out ofeven the “among the world leaders” group …”

Actions in Moving toNegotiations
••
•

•
•

Develop an estimated total cost of full participation in the ITER
program…
Analyze several scenarios for U.S. involvement.
Assess the impacts of U.S. participation in ITER on the corefusion science program, including opportunities to increaseinternational leverage in the core program…
Develop other options for a burning plasma experiment in case
ITER construction is not approved by the negotiating parties.
Establish an independent group of experts to support the U.S.
ITER negotiating team on scientific and technical matters.

Value and Interest• Scientific importance– Nonlinear behavior of confined plasma with self-heating– Plasma confinement and stability at large scales– Self-heating effects on equilibrium and confinement– Alpha particles effects on equilibrium and confinement– Operating strategies for energy-producing plasmas• Technological Importance– Behavior & integrity of materials -partial– Tritium processing and inventory control– High-heat-flux components– Blanket design tests - partial– Remote handlingScientific Readiness Issues• Confidence in confinement projections• Understanding of operational boundaries• Mitigation/avoidance of abnormal events• Ash and impurity control• Measurement capabilities• Plasma control techniquesTechnical ReadinessIssues• Manufacturing of necessary components• Component operation in nuclear environment• Adequate plasma-facing components• Tritium throughput control• Remote maintenance• Fueling, heating, and current drive techniquesDesire Community Input!
•The NRC BPA committee welcomes input from the plasma andfusion science research community– Any comments, pro or con the proposed BP experiments, aresolicited– Suggestions for committee issues•

How to give input– Written comments, suggestions to NRC-BPA via• http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bpa/projects_bpac.html• E-mail to: burningplasma@nas.edu• note: all comments received are public access materials– Contact co-chairs or any committee members