Update on the Ongoing Community
Workshop Process
By

D. Maurer, J. Menard, M. Wadefor the Community Workshop
Program Committee
Presented at

UFA General Meeting
Milwaukee, WI

October 23, 2017

1

M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

Community Workshop Program Committee
Jean Paul Allain

University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign

Saskia Mordijck

The College of William and Mary

Larry Baylor

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Jon Menard*

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

John CanikOak Ridge National Laboratory

Tobin Munsat

University of Colorado - Boulder

Troy Carter

University of California - Los Angeles

Gerald NavratilColumbia University

Cami Collins

General Atomics

David Newman

University of Alaska - Fairbanks

Fatima Ebrahimi

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

John Sarff

University of Wisconsin - Madison

David Gates

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Oliver Schmitz

University of Wisconsin - Madison

Martin Greenwald

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Uri Shumlak

University of Washington

David Hatch

University of Texas - Austin

Wayne Solomon

General Atomics

Nathan Howard

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Mark Tillack

University of California – San Diego

Scott Hsu

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Francesca Turco

Columbia UniversityIlon Joseph

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Mickey Wade*

General Atomics

Chuck Kessel

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Francois
Waelbroeck

University of Texas - Austin

Deyong Liu

University of California - Irvine

Steven Zinkle

University of Tennessee - KnoxvilleDavid Maurer*

Auburn University* Co-Chairs
2M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

Goal of Community Workshop Process
The program committee established two over-arching goals for thecommunity work process.
1) Provide an open forum to hear community views on strategic charge
questions I2 and F2 and opportunities in charge F1, and to provide
community feedback on these views.
- Importance of burning plasma research (charge I2)- Key scientific and engineering opportunities (charge F1)- Guidance on a strategic plan if US is/is not partner in ITER (charge F2)2) Identify key aspects of a long-term U.S. fusion strategic plan (both withand without the U.S as a partner in ITER) including both domestic andinternational research, and identify points of community consensus on
the most critical key elements of that plan.

3M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

Important Guidelines for Workshop Process
Goal: Ensure the credibility and broad support from the communityfor any work product resulting from the workshop(s)Principles:- Value input of all workshop attendees- Value full range of ideas - be inclusive, not exclusive- Peer review essential for scientific credibility- Empower workshop leadership, but with appropriate checks
and balances- Engage workshop program committee in full range of decisionmaking
Communication: Engage with community leaders, FES leadership,
and NAS panel co-chair at timely intervals for feedback on process
and goals

4

M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

Brief Timeline of Community WorkshopProcess to Date
Dec 2016: NAS Task Description Released
Jan 2017: Fusion leadership (11 leaders from universities, labs, andindustry) met to discuss community response to NAS charge- Primary discussion focused on ways to organize a community
process that promotes development of a community view for
exciting paths forward for the US program
Feb. 2017: Leadership group “commissioned” D. Maurer, J. Menard,and M. Wade to coordinate development of community workshops
Mar 2017: Program committee establishedApr 2017: Announced 1st Workshop in July 2017 along with call forwhite papers on prospective strategic elements
July 24-27, 2017: 1st Workshop at Madison- focused on presentation and discussion of proposed strategicelements
5M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

Madison Meeting Statistics• Approximately 125 attendees• Included 4 NAS panel members• 31 institutions represented from universities,labs, and industries• 44 plenary talks• 15 institutions represented• 97 Chits generated through online system• Estimated 475 cookies consumed

6

M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

High Level Summary (1)• Agreement that there are many exci9ng opportuni9es
for US leadership• Cri9cal need for a strategic plan/roadmap for fusion
research going forward• The community should lead a on-going strategicplanning process and set scien9ﬁc priori9es; This will
ensure strong community support for the generated
strategic plan

Slides taken directly from D. Maurer’s
Summary Talk of Madison Meeting

High Level Summary (2)• The US program has strengths but it is not healthy
overall (universi9es and technology). The trajectory is in
the wrong direc9on in general• Discussion centered around being a science programvs. energy, but no clear consensus, good issue todiscuss going forward

Slides taken directly from D. Maurer’s
Summary Talk of Madison MeetingSummary of Strategic Elements (1)• Burning plasma is s9ll an essen9al step for our ﬁeld
• The program should have an element that would
focus on developing HTS magnets for fusion
applica9ons; Poten9al game changer.
• Conﬁgura9on research: A wide variety of comments,
more discussion needed going forward• General interest in and support for stellarator
component to US program; Poten9ally transforma9ve

Slides taken directly from D. Maurer’s
Summary Talk of Madison MeetingSummary of Strategic Elements (2)• Theory/computa9on important component; Need tobalance analy9c theory, and compu9ng at variousscales (exa/capacity) for eﬀec9veness and valida9on
purposes• PMI/divertor problems very important, compelling
op9ons need to be evaluated• FNS/TB/blankets are a cri9cal element on the path forfusion energy development; Concerns about 9meline
and number of steps in path to develop a FNSF

Slides taken directly from D. Maurer’s
Summary Talk of Madison MeetingSummary of Strategic Elements (2)• Theory/computa9on important component; Need tobalance analy9c theory, and compu9ng at variousscales (exa/capacity) for eﬀec9veness and valida9on
purposes• PMI/divertor problems very important, compelling
op9ons need to be evaluated• FNS/TB/blankets are a cri9cal element on the path forfusion energy development; Concerns about 9meline
and number of steps in path to develop a FNSF

Slides taken directly from D. Maurer’s
Summary Talk of Madison MeetingStrategic Plan Requires Development of Information
at Several Strategic Levels• Reason for Existence• TimelessVisionGoals• Picture of a SuccessfulFuture• 5, 10, 20 years out• What must be achieved
Key Objectives for success à milestones?

Development Path

• Coordinated setof steps to takeTactics, Elements, Tasks
12

M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

• What needs tobe done now?

Strategic Plan Requires Development of Information
at Several Strategic Levels
From M. Greenwald’s presentation at Madison workshop

13

M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

Program Committee Approach to Developmentof these Different Levels (1 of 5)

1) For purposes of advancing discussion, adapt
NAS charge phrasing “national strategicinterest in next several decades” for next
round of discussions
2) Establish a working group on market
attractiveness of fusion to inform future
deliberations on mission

14

M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

Program Committee Approach to Developmentof these Different Levels (2 of 5)

Establish working group to develop
principles, metrics, and criteria

15

M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

Program Committee Approach to Developmentof these Different Levels (3 of 5)

1) Utilize numerous community studies
conducted over the last decade162) Establish working group to assess theimpact of US access to ITER
- What gaps are created if US is not apartner- What additional gaps are closed if ITER
performs beyond baseline
M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

Program Committee Approach to Developmentof these Different Levels (4 of 5)

Establish working groups to develop key informationon the risk, benefits, and challenges of taking specificstrategic approaches to delivering fusion energy
within the next several decades

17M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

Program Committee Approach to Developmentof these Different Levels (5 of 5)

Defer this activity to post-Austin working group, which willtake the output of the Austin meeting and develop a
strategic roadmap that blends the most attractive featuresof the developed strategic approaches
18

M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

Established Pre-Austin Working Groups• “Principles, Metrics, and Criteria for Assessing Strategic Plan”
Working Group (led by I. Joseph, F. Turco, and H. Neilson):– Develop a comprehensive set of principles, metrics, andcriteria that are important in developing an exciting andcredible strategic plan for delivering fusion energy in thenext several decades.
• “Attributes for Market Attractiveness” Working Group (led byD. Hatch, S. Hsu, M. Tillack):– Develop list of attributes that utilities, energy institutes,environmental agencies, and private investors consider
when assessing the potential for fusion for future energy
markets.

19

M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

Established Pre-Austin Working Groups• “Impact of Access to ITER” Working Group (led by C. Kessel,
T. Munsat, O. Schmitz):– Develop a list of the technical impacts (including
scientific, technological, operational, …) andprogrammatic effects (e.g., reputation, internationalcooperation) of the U.S. losing access to ITER under twoscenarios:• a) the U.S. withdrawing from ITER and ITER continuing; and• b) loss of ITER in worldwide program.
This group should also develop a list of programmatic impactsof ITER succeeding in its mission and identify potential technicalbenefits that would be derived from ITER performing beyond its
baseline level of performance.

20

M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

Established Pre-Austin Working Groups• Strategic Approach Working Groups:– Perform a gaps analysis (where necessary), assess risks,and develop a strategic roadmap with appropriately
staged objectives, for the strategic approaches listedbelow.
– In addition, the WG should discuss and enumerate thebenefits, risks, and challenges of adopting this strategic
approach as the primary pathway to achieve fusionenergy in the next several decades.
– Each of these WGs will be led by a member of theprogram committee to ensure timely development of therequired information

21

M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

Established Pre-Austin Working Groups
Strategic Approach Working Groups (2 of 4+):a) Proceed now towards DEMO* building on the present physics andtechnology basis(led by S. Zinkle (ORNL), W. Solomon (GA), Ebrahimi (PPPL) )b) Deliver key technical achievements (e.g., Qplasma>1, Pelec>0) as soon as
possible, then optimize concept and develop technology for DEMO*(led by G. Navratil (Columbia), C. Collins (GA), N. Howard (MIT))*Here, DEMO is not envisioned to be a specific device or concept but rather simply amarker for the U.S. having the capabilities in place to move forward with the practicaldemonstration of fusion energy. Example DEMO characteristics could include tritium selfsufficiency, net electricity production, and high availability.

22M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

Established Pre-Austin Working Groups
Strategic Approach Working Groups (2 of 4+):c) Extend the present basis by assessing potential innovations in mainline
configurations (e.g. pursue advanced/compact/spherical tokamaks,
quasi-symmetric stellarators, etc) and/or technology (e.g. pursue
improved magnets, blankets, computing, etc), then proceed to DEMO*(led by D.Gates (PPPL), M. Greenwald (MIT), T. Carter (UCLA))d) Develop several alternate concepts to sufficient states of maturity/performance to enable objective comparisons between alternates andmainline configurations, then down-select and proceed to DEMO*(led by J. Sarff (U. Wisconsin), L. Baylor (ORNL), U. Shumlak (U. Washington))e) …Potentially more working groups based on community recommendations

23M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

Plan for Austin and Future Efforts
Austin Workshop• Presentations from the various working groups on the information
they have developed• Breakout discussions (similar to Madison) focused on– Discerning community resonance/dissonance with various
aspects of working group output– Refining (or at least suggesting refinements of) working group
output to seek broad community consensus
Post-Austin• Establish a working group to develop a strategic plan(s) utilizing theinformation developed at the Madison and Austin workshops• Develop working groups (as needed) to define goals, requirements,and potential development paths for specific program elements thatare felt to be an important part of the developing strategic plan
• Spring workshop to discuss strategic plan à report to NAS
24

M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

In Addition, Program Committee Has Received Several
Community Recommendations for Working Groups•

Recommendations generally fall into threecamps:– Mission/Vision– Further develop strategic elements proposed/discussed at Madison– Additional considerations/options for strategic approaches

ProposerWorking Group RecommendationDaniel Andruczyk

Liquid Metals Technologies

Richard Moyer

Mission Statement for OFES Sponsored ResearchCharles Greenfield"Mission and Vision"

Hantao Ji and Troy Carter

Integrated Community Participation

Amanda Hubbard

Strategic elements

Martin Greenwald

Develop Strategic Elements

Amitava Bhattacharjee

Integrated Whole Device Model for Magnetic
Confinement

Dick Majeski

Fast track options for fusion power on the gridRoss RadelFusion Materials Radiation Damage

25

M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

QUESTIONS?
Interested in participating?
- General information:- Want to join a working group:- Have ideas for additional working groups:

26

M.R. Wade / UFA @ APS –DPP 2017/Oct 2017

http://usmfrsd.org
https://goo.gl/zb4TWW
https://goo.gl/zkFv39

Strategic Plan vs. Strategic Approach
Strategic Plan: Comprehensive framework that deﬁnes• The mission – what is to be accomplished• A vision for how the mission will be accomplished with acceptable risk
• Principles for making decisions along the way• A roadmap that outlines how the plan will unfold.
To mi9gate risk to the extent possible, strategic plans typically blend variousapproaches (see below) to achieving the mission into the roadmap leading tomul9ple poten9al branches in the roadmap. The pathway through the roadmap isdetermined by key decision points deﬁning ini9a9on/con9nua9on/termina9on
points for the various branches.
Strategic Approach: One of many poten9al singular paths in which the mission ofa strategic plan could be accomplished. Approaches are typically diﬀeren9ated
through assump9ons with regard to the current situa9on, risk uncertain9es, risk
tolerance, 9me frame, and compe9tor posi9oning.

Example
Situa9on & Mission
Current Situa9on:• April 2• 5000 troops in Kansas
Mission:• By September 30, need toget minimum of 1000
troops to Sacramento
Desired:• Safety of all troops• All 5000 troops in Sacramento
by October 30

Strategic Plan Development
What is most risk-acceptable plan
to ensure 1000 troops arrive inSacramento by September 30???
• 1 team of 5000 on one route• Teams of 3000/2000 on
separate routes• Teams of 1000 on ﬁve routes• None of the above
To arrive at the answer to theques9on above, need to establish:• Principles for decision making• What will be valued!!
• Risk/reward/other considera9ons for
speciﬁc approaches of how to get those
troops there on 9me
Once these ques9ons are answered, can go
about developing the plan oﬀers the best risk/rewardby blending the various approaches appropriately

Strategic Approach
Considera;ons:
What are the beneﬁts of theapproach?
What are the known
challenges?
What uncertain9es introduce
risk to mission?
What’s the probability ofsuccess?
What is the expected 9me
frame for comple9on?
What’s the roadmap for geeng there on 9me?