2017 U.S. Magnetic Fusion
Strategic Research Directions Workshops
By

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

FESAC meeting
Gaithersburg, MD

February 2, 2018
1

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

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 Navratil

Columbia 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 University

Ilon 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
2

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

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.

3

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

Important Guidelines for Workshop Process
Goal: Ensure the credibility and broad support from the community for
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 andbalances- Engage workshop program committee in full range of decisionmaking
Communication: Engage with community leaders, FES leadership, andNAS panel co-chair at timely intervals for feedback on process and
goals

4

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

We All Have the Same Destination But The
Obvious Path to One is Not So Clear to Others

5

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

Brief Timeline of Community Workshop
Process to Date
Dec 2016: NAS Task Description Released
Feb. 2017: Leadership group “commissioned” D. Maurer, J. Menard, andM. Wade to coordinate development of community workshops
Mar 2017: Program committee established

July 24-27, 2017: 1st Workshop at Madison- focused on presentation/discussion of strategic elements
Dec 11-15, 2017: 2nd Workshop at Austin- broader set of issues (attractiveness, impact of ITER, approaches)

6

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

Community Process in Visual From
Strategic
Elements

ApproachApproachApproach
Idea 1 Idea 2 Idea 3
ApproachApproachApproach
Idea 4 Idea 5 Idea 6…
…
….
ApproachApproachApproach
xxx
yyy
zzz

Element Element Element
7
8
9
…

…

….

Working
Groups on
Programmatic
Questions

Strategic
Approach1
Strategic
Approach1

Strategic
Approach1
Strategic
Approach1

Strategic
Approaches
7

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

AustinWorkshopCommunity White
PapersElement Element Element
456MadisonWorkshop

Idea 1 Idea 2 Idea 3
Idea 4 Idea 5 Idea 6
Idea 7 Idea 8 Idea 9
Idea 10 Idea 11 Idea 12
Idea 13 Idea 14 Idea 15
Idea 16 Idea 17 Idea 18
…
…
….
Idea
Idea
Idea
xxx
yyy
zzz

Element Element Element
1
2
3

Towards a
StrategicPlanMadison & Austin Workshop Structure• Morning Sessions devoted to plenary talks– Presentations organized along broad topical lines (Madison) or byworking groups (Austin)•

Afternoon Sessions devoted to breakout discussion of morning talks– Discussion groups• Led by PC members (Madison) and community members (Austin)• Remainder of each group determined by “lottery” with adjustments
made to ensure institutional and topical balance– Each discussion were provided with guidelines and questions but were
empowered to guide discussions at their own choosing• Encouraged (but not forced) to reach consensus on groupperspectives•

Each breakout discussion group presented their “findings” in plenary
session on Friday morning•

Co-chairs produced summary of summaries trying to find consensus points
in the breakout summaries

8

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

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

MadisonSlides 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 (universities and technology). The trajectory is in
the wrong direction in general• Discussion centered around being a science programvs. energy, but no clear consensus, good issue to discuss
going forward

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

MadisonSlides taken directly from D. Maurer’s
Summary Talk of Madison MeetingSummary of Strategic Elements (2)• Theory/computation important component; Need tobalance analytic theory, and computing at various scales(exa/capacity) for effectiveness and validation purposes• PMI/divertor problems very important, compelling
options need to be evaluated• FNS/TB/blankets are a critical element on the path forfusion energy development; Concerns about timeline
and number of steps in path to develop a FNSF

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

Community Process in Visual From
Strategic
Elements

ApproachApproachApproach
Idea 1 Idea 2 Idea 3
ApproachApproachApproach
Idea 4 Idea 5 Idea 6…
…
….
ApproachApproachApproach
xxx
yyy
zzz

Element Element Element
7
8
9
…

…

….

Working
Groups on
Programmatic
Questions

Strategic
Approach1
Strategic
Approach1

Strategic
Approach1
Strategic
Approach1

Strategic
Approaches
13

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

AustinWorkshopCommunity White
PapersElement Element Element
456MadisonWorkshop

Idea 1 Idea 2 Idea 3
Idea 4 Idea 5 Idea 6
Idea 7 Idea 8 Idea 9
Idea 10 Idea 11 Idea 12
Idea 13 Idea 14 Idea 15
Idea 16 Idea 17 Idea 18
…
…
….
Idea
Idea
Idea
xxx
yyy
zzz

Element Element Element
1
2
3

Towards a
StrategicPlanAustin Workshop touched on all levels of strategic planning
due to urgency, goal of community engagement

MissionVisionGoals● WG1 – Principles, Values, Metrics, and Criteria● WG3 – Market Attractiveness Working Group● WG2 – Impact of Access to ITER Physics and Technology Development● SA1 – Use Present Physics and Technology Basis for DEMO

Key Objectives● SA2 – Deliver Key Technical Achievements Then proceed to DEMO
● SA3 – Innovate Tokamaks & Stellarators First, Then Proceed to DEMO

Development Path

Tactics, Elements, Tasks● SA4 – Develop and Advance Alternative Concepts for DEMO
● WG4 – Review/Characterize Key Strategic Elements from Madison● WG5 – Fusion Science / Plasma Physics / Materials Science Integration● WG6 – Future Planning Activities – Moving forward from Austin

Ongoing development/iteration of strategic plan
14

Pre-Austin

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 201814

Population of Pre-Austin Working Groups• Leadership team for each group established by program committee
o Generally consisted of advocates and expert in other areas• Working groups open to everyoneo Subscribed through workshop website
o All correspondence through Google email group
Working Group Name

# Members

WG-1

Principles, Metrics, and Criteria for Assessing Strategic Plan

29

WG-2

Impact of Access to ITER

35

WG-3

Attributes for Market Attractiveness

41

WG-4

Review and characterize key strategic element from Madison
Workshop26

WG-5

Fusion Science/Plasma Physics/Materials Science Program
Integration

30

WG-6

Future planning activities - moving forward from Austin

15

SA-1

Use present physics and technology basis for DEMO

21

SA-2

Deliver key technical achievements then DEMO

23

SA-3

Innovate mainline physics and technology then DEMO

38

Develop and advanceM.R.alternative
concepts for DEMO
Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018
Pre-Austin

16

15 SA-4

WG-1: Principles, Values, Metrics, and Criteria“Develop a comprehensive set of principles, metrics, and criteria that areimportant in developing an exciting and credible strategic plan fordelivering fusion energy in the next several decades.”• WG developed list of:o Essential criteria for a MFE fusion power planto Principles and values to evaluate strategic approaches
o Metrics and criteria to evaluate strategic objectives+ a comprehensive list of
potential “soft” metrics (lessquantitative, more quantitative)

16

Pre-Austin

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

WG-2: Impact of Access to ITER
“Develop a list of the technical impacts (including scientific,
technological, operational, …) and programmatic effects (e.g.,
reputation, international cooperation) of the U.S. losing access to ITER
under two scenarios: a) the U.S. withdrawing from ITER and ITER
continuing; and b) loss of ITER in worldwide program.”• WG developed list of:o Technical deliverables/benefits of U.S. access to ITER

17

Pre-Austin

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

WG-3: Attributes for Market Attractiveness“Develop a list of attributes that utilities, energy institutes,
environmental agencies, and private investors consider when assessing
the potential for fusion for future energy markets”• A survey focused primarily on U.S. market
was developed and distributed tomembers of those communities• To accomplish this, WG asked• Ryan Umstattd, ARPA-E Deputy Director

Utility managers
Government representatives
Energy technology firms
VC & investment groups
Energy policy and consulting
Privately funded fusion ventures
25 total responses

for Commercialization (Acting), provided
additional input in a talk entitled:“Observations on Fusion Power Market Attractiveness”

18

Pre-Austin

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

Example from Survey: Achievements needed tocommit private funds?
Importance

A

B

C

D

E

(A) A plausible reactor concept supported only by scientific analysis, numerical simulations, andpreliminary experimental data(B) Demonstration of fuel conditions (i.e., temperature, density, duration) needed for energy
breakeven(C) Demonstration of net energy gain (fusion energy exceeds "wall plug" energy)(D) Demonstration power plant with nearly continuous thermal energy output(E) Maturation of at least one fusion approach that offers the timely potential for power
production at lower costs than a comparable-capacity nuclear-fission power plant
19

Pre-Austin

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

WG-4 Provided Potential Mapping of Strategic Elements
to the Various Strategic Approaches
Main contributions, updated based on the plans presented at this meeting.
SA-1: Use present physics and technology basis for DEMO
SA-2: Deliver key technical achievements then DEMO
SA-3: Innovate mainline physics and technology then DEMO
SA-4: Develop and advance alternative concepts for DEMO

Burning
PlasmaHTS

Configurations

Stellarator

TheoryEssential orhigh impact
Option ormoderate
impactPMI
program

SA-1
SA-2
SA-3
SA-4
Each Strategic Approach also needs other elements
Many are in the current fusion program, others new or needing enhancement.
20

Pre-Austin

M.R. Wade / Austin Workshop/Dec 2017

FNS
program

WG-5: Fusion Science/Plasma Physics/Materials Science
Unification/Program Integration“Outline a proposal to unify basic and fusion plasma and materials
science into a “Grand Challenge” program approach for the US”

Challenges Identified:• Uniting and fully exploiting capabilities of MFE community• Better integration with neighboring communities that can contribute tofusion research• Need to grow support for fusion research in the larger scientific community

Recommendations Made:• Change the way we organize opportunities for research in order to unite us
and more fully utilize all capabilities• Partner with other agencies, in particular DOE BES, to integrate materials
science research into the MFE program• Bring collaborators from other science areas to MFE• Enhance/improve outreach to other communities

21

Pre-Austin

M.R. Wade / Austin Workshop/Dec 2017

WG-6: Future planning activities –moving forward from Austin“Define the purpose, approaches and governance for follow-on activities,
especially long-term, community-led strategic planning”

22

Pre-Austin

M.R. Wade / Austin Workshop/Dec 2017

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 mitigate risk to the extent possible, strategic plans typically blend
various approaches (see below) to achieving the mission, leading tomultiple potential branches in the roadmap. The pathway through theroadmap is determined by key decision points that define
initiation/continuation/termination points for the various branches.
Strategic Approach: One of many potential singular paths in which themission of a strategic plan could be accomplished. Approaches are
typically differentiated through assumptions with regard to the current
situation, risk uncertainties, risk tolerance, time frame, and competitor
positioning.

23

M.R. Wade / Austin Workshop/Dec 2017

Example
Situation, Mission, & Desired
Outcomes
Current Situation:• April 2• 5000 troops in Kansas
Mission:• Fortify defense regiments in
Sacramento by October 30

Objectives:• Safety of all troops• 1000 troops in Sacramento by
July 31• All 5000 troops in Sacramento
by September 30

Strategic Plan
Development
What is most risk-acceptable plan
to ensure 1000 troops by July 31 and5000 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 answer the question above,
need to establish:• Principles for decision making• What will be valued??
• Risk/reward/other considerations for
specific approaches of how to get those
troops there on time

Strategic Approach
Considerations:
What are the benefits of theapproach?
What are the known
challenges/risks?
What uncertainties introduce
risk to mission?
What’s the probability ofsuccess?
What is the expected timeframe for completion?
What are the required resources(food, water, ammunition, horses, wagons, …)?
What decision points do we anticipate
along the way and metrics for making them?
Once these questions are answered, can develop
the plan that offers the best “risk/reward”
by blending the various approaches appropriately

SA-1: Use Present Physics and Technology
Basis for DEMO
“Proceed now towards DEMO* building on the present physics
and technology basis.”• Assume traditional U.S. definition for DEMO and developed three pathways

27

Pre-Austin

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

SA-2: Deliver Key TechnicalAchievements (e.g., Qplasma > 1, Pelec > 0), then DEMO
“Deliver key technical achievements (e.g., Qplasma > 1, Pelec > 0) as soon
as possible, then optimize concept and develop technology for DEMO*.”
Proposed pathway with successive achievement of key
technical objectives:• Q plasma > 1• Q plasma > 30
• Close the Tritium
Fuel Cycle• Pnet electric > 0

28

Pre-Austin

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

SA-3: Innovate mainline physics andtechnology, then DEMO
“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* .”• Decided it was impossible to achieve the entire charge in time available• Limited goals to something achievableo Skip risk assessment for now
o Gap analysis -> Use gaps defined by the Greenwald Reporto Define innovations for each gap
o Define closing the gaps as the goals
o Group the mainline approaches and innovations into 3 pathways toachieve the goals

29

Pre-Austin

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

SA-3 Efforts Focused on Developing Pathways in Three
Separate Areas
Areas:• Configuration Pathways• Technology Advancements• Theory/Simulation/Modeling

30

Pre-Austin

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

SA-4: Develop and Advance Alternative
Concepts for DEMO
“Develop several alternate concepts to sufficient states ofmaturity/performance to enable objective comparisons between
alternates and mainline configurations, then down-select and proceed to
DEMO*”• Developed potential pathways that enabled configuration optimization
alongside mainline program to enable disruptive innovation

31

Pre-Austin

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

Selected Points of Consensus from the Austin
Workshop Summary Presentation (1)Working Group

Consensus Statements• Burning plasma mission is an essential step on the path to fusionenergyWG-2• Operational and experimental experience (including failures) is very
(Impact of ITER)
valuable. “Reading the papers” is insufficient to understand burning
plasmas & technology.
WG-3(Attractiveness)• Current R&D program should be influenced but not determined bycurrent market trends, noting long development time for fusion• Future R&D program should be flexible enough to respond to emerging
market trends, including future power plants with ~0.2-1.5 GWe• HTS magnet development should proceed
WG-4 (Strategic• Increase emphasis on advanced divertor and PFC concepts
Elements)• Increase emphasis on steady-state high-performance regimes
WG-6 (Moving
Forward from
Austin)32

Austin• Community planning process should continue beyond the NAS study• Another community workshop should occur, if feasible, to synthesize theWG outputs and arrive at consensus on a prioritized list of Sas• Process is producing valuable information for the program moving
forward and is producing valuable guidance for FES

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 201832

Selected Points of Consensus from the Austin
Workshop Summary Presentation (2)Working Group

Consensus Statements

SA-1 (Proceed
now to DEMO)• Path that includes ITER, IFMIF+FNSF+DTT is most reasonable path of
those presented by this SA• However, the US should pursue a more innovative research path thanany of proposed path(s) outlined in this SA• Materials development/qualification should be important element ofprogramSA-2(Deliver Key
Achievements,
then DEMO)• Divided opinions on “Q of a few” mission.
• PRO: could re-invigorate US fusion development• CON: May be too close to previous JET/TFTR performance togenerate new science or attract funding

SA-3 (Innovate,then DEMO)• Recommend complementary approach of utilizing the delineated
innovations as a “toolbox” for all the SAs to consider or use

SA-4 (Develop
Alternate
Concepts for
DEMO)• The US should have a ‘Skunkworks’-like part of the program for rangeof reasons• Program should carry out merit-based, scientific and technologicalreview of magnetic configurations including ongoing evaluation ofprogress and the potential for transformative breakthroughs

33

AustinM.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 201833

Community Process in Visual From
Strategic
Elements

ApproachApproachApproach
Idea 1 Idea 2 Idea 3
ApproachApproachApproach
Idea 4 Idea 5 Idea 6…
…
….
ApproachApproachApproach
xxx
yyy
zzz

Element Element Element
7
8
9
…

…

….

Working
Groups on
Programmatic
Questions

Strategic
Approach1
Strategic
Approach1

Strategic
Approach1
Strategic
Approach1

Strategic
Approaches
34

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

AustinWorkshopCommunity White
PapersElement Element Element
456MadisonWorkshop

Idea 1 Idea 2 Idea 3
Idea 4 Idea 5 Idea 6
Idea 7 Idea 8 Idea 9
Idea 10 Idea 11 Idea 12
Idea 13 Idea 14 Idea 15
Idea 16 Idea 17 Idea 18
…
…
….
Idea
Idea
Idea
xxx
yyy
zzz

Element Element Element
1
2
3

????

Path Forward for Community Process (1)• PC has commissioned white papers on 9 strategic elements emerging
from Madison/Austin workshops:––––

Burning plasma
Developing HTS magnets for fusion applications
Configuration research
Stellarators

–
–
–
–
–

Theory/computation
Plasma-material interactions and divertor
Fusion nuclear materials
Tritium fuel cycle
Sustained high performance tokamaks• White papers will have common format including benefits, current status,
programmatic context, 15-year U.S. research agenda, directions beyond
the 15-year horizon, critics’ objections, and references• Goal is to provide these to NAS panel prior to Feb. 26-28 mtg in San Diego

35

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 201835

Path Forward for Community Process (2)• In process of requesting a white paper from each of the pre-Austin
strategic approach working group covering:– Benefits of this Approach– Essential/important Strategic Elements– Impact of access to ITER
– International Context– Decision Points• Targeting ~ April 15 for sending completed white papers to the NAS panel• Third Workshop??? PC will be discussing in its next conference call
– Good reasons for not having it; good reasons for having it

36

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

36

QUESTIONS?
All information is stored on the community workshop website http://usmfrsd.org

37

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

WG1 – Principles, Values, Metrics, and Criteria● Thorough and comprehensive work by this WG - thank you!
● Principles and Values - Consensus / multi-DG comments● Too many principles / values – examples for consolidation include:○ ‘Focus on Solving Societal Problem’ should not be a principle/value.
○ Combine ‘Scientific Basis’ and ‘Quest for Knowledge’ into one principle/value○ Some proposals to combine ‘US Leadership’ and ‘International Context’ to balancequest for leadership with reality that US cannot lead in every area
● Need to update post-Austin accounting for comments at Austin● Criteria – not much discussion of these● Metrics - Many groups felt the list of metrics was too exhaustive, overly constraining.
Several: suggested that strategic approaches develop metrics for their particular pathways,
suggested that cost/size should be included as a metric.

AustinSlide directly from J. Menards Summary ofSummaries presentation at Madison Workshop

38

WG3 – Market Attractiveness Working Group● Consensus that market attractiveness survey was interesting and illuminatingof current thinking. Regular updating of market trends should be done in future● Consensus that current R&D program should be influenced but not determinedby current market trends, noting the relatively long development time for fusion.
● Consensus that future R&D program should be flexible enough to respond to

emerging market trends, including future power plants with ~0.2-1.5 GWe● Many groups expressed view that mission of the U.S. program should be todevelop innovative, compact solutions for future fusion power plants. This isconsistent with noted U.S. market trend Pelec ~0.2-0.5 GWe from WG-3 survey.
● Some groups noted significant market opportunities may exist internationally forfusion, and future R&D program should remain cognizant of these

AustinSlide directly from J. Menards Summary ofSummaries presentation at Madison Workshop

39

WG2 – Impact of Access to ITER
Consensus points:●Burning plasma mission is an essential step on the path to fusion energy - thereis broad community support for burning plasma physics.
● Operational and experimental experience (including failures) is very valuable.
“Reading the papers” is insufficient to understand burning plasmas & technology.
Important Multiple-Discussion-Group comments:●Remaining in ITER (and provided ITER achieves its projected performance)
would provide critical burning plasma science needed to progress to fusionenergy.
●WG-2 had good list of physics/technical benefits of ITER. Could increaseemphasis on rho-star scaling of transport, disruption PAM, runaways, T handling●Leaving ITER could threaten future US international collaborations

AustinSlide directly from J. Menards Summary ofSummaries presentation at Madison Workshop

40

SA1 – Use Present Physics & Technology Basis for DEMO
●General consensus that of pathways presented, path A is most reasonable

REMINDER: Path A = “Low Risk” = ITER  IFMIF+FNSF+DTT (some in parallel) DEMOPath AB = “Intermediate Risk” = ITER  FNSF+  DEMO
Path B = “High Risk” = No ITER , no Q=5 device  DEMO
● But, also a general consensus that the US should pursue a more innovative

research path than proposed path(s) outlined in this SA● General agreement that materials development/qualification should be importantelement of program● Lack of consensus on placement of “FNSF mission” in plan – some before DEMO,

some after a pilot plant

AustinSlide directly from J. Menards Summary ofSummaries presentation at Madison Workshop

41

SA2 – Deliver Key Technical Achievements, Then DEMO
● Divided opinions on “Q of a few” mission.

○

PRO: could re-invigorate US fusion development, especially if part of a more
ambitious long-term plan, and if US is not a participant in ITER○

CON: May be too close to previous JET/TFTR performance to generate newscience or attract funding, arguably duplicative of ITER mission● Majority of DGs expressed concern over availability of divertor solution for all

the facilities/steps advocated● Several DGs stated concern over overly-optimistic cost and schedule estimates● Several DGs commented in favor of missions that extend beyond ITER

including: high-gain (Q~30), closing the T fuel cycle, and net electric even if forshorter durations (TBD) and modest neutron wall loading (few 10s of dpa)

AustinSlide directly from J. Menards Summary ofSummaries presentation at Madison Workshop

42

SA3 – Innovate Tokamaks & Stellarators, Then to DEMO
●No detailed strategic approaches / roadmaps yet laid out for the 3

configurations (AT,ST,QSS) due to lack of time and information.
● Several groups advocate future road-mapping for each of the 3

configurations to identify common/shared needs for innovation●Several groups recommend complementary approach of utilizing

the innovations outlined in SA-3 as a “toolbox” for all the SAs toconsider or use – again to identify linkages / leveraging acrossconfigurations – potentially improving all of them
●Wide agreement fundamental theory and modeling underpin all

configurations in SA-3 and other SAs more broadly.
●Some discussion of “innovation” v. “transformative”  reminder for

FESAC TEC
AustinSlide directly from J. Menards Summary ofSummaries presentation at Madison Workshop

43

SA4 – Develop & Advance Alternative Concepts for DEMO

● General agreement that the US should have a ‘Skunkworks’-likepart of the program for range of reasons○High risk / high reward disruptive innovation opportunities○

Educational aspect○

Addressing outstanding plasma physics questions● General agreement that the program should carry out merit-

based, scientific and technological review of magnetic
configurations including ongoing evaluation of progress and thepotential for transformative breakthroughs

AustinSlide directly from J. Menards Summary ofSummaries presentation at Madison Workshop

44

WG4 – Review/Characterize Madison Key Strategic Elements
Consensus points:●WG-4 did good job of characterizing Madison key strategic opportunities●HTS magnet development should proceed.
○ Example arguments: favorably impacts a range of configurations, improves

core plasma performance and/or stability, likely enables more compact devices● Should increase emphasis on advanced divertor and PFC concepts.
○Example areas of emphasis:international collaboration, liquid metals (needs
technology development), and ultimately a divertor test tokamak/torus (DTT) foraccess to more DEMO-like divertor/first-wall conditions●Should increase emphasis on steady-state high-performance regimes○Example research emphases: quasi-symmetric stellarator (US strength),advanced current drive techniques (primarily for tokamaks), further exploit
existing US and international tokamak facilities

AustinSlide directly from J. Menards Summary ofSummaries presentation at Madison Workshop

45

WG5 – Integrate Fusion, Materials, Plasma Science● Consensus on importance of broadening participation and integrating outsidescientific communities not directly linked with MFE research (but could help inimportant aspects of MFE research)● Having new initiatives for MFE with a more integrated national team approachis a mechanism for increased program integration going forward.
● Recommend that NAS investigate and/or comment on methods for breaking

down barriers between BES and other offices in SC and FES to reduce stovepiping and to support cross-cutting efforts●More work needed by this WG-5 to identify next steps, best approaches

AustinSlide directly from J. Menards Summary ofSummaries presentation at Madison Workshop

46

WG6 – Future Planning Activities – Moving beyond Austin● Unanimous agreement that working groups should continue to meet to flesh out SAs,
incorporating feedback from Austin● Unanimous agreement that community planning process should continue beyond theNAS study●Consensus that another community workshop should occur, if feasible, to synthesize theWG outputs and arrive at consensus on a prioritized list of SAs●Consensus that process is producing valuable information for the program moving
forward and is producing valuable guidance for FES●Some groups recommend possible merging of some SAs (e.g., SA-1 with SA-2)

AustinSlide directly from J. Menards Summary ofSummaries presentation at Madison Workshop

47

Strategic Approach Working Groups Charge (1 of 2)• Perform a gaps analysis (where required), assess risks, anddevelop a strategic roadmap with appropriately staged
objectives for the strategic approach assigned to the working
group.

• As part of this, the WG should discuss and enumerate thosestrategic elements discussed at the Madison and Austin
meetings that have the potential for improving the prospectsof success for this strategic approach.

• In addition, the WG should identify the benefits, risks, andchallenges of adopting this strategic approach as the primarypathway to achieve fusion energy in the next several
decades.

48

Pre-Austin

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018

Strategic Approach Working Groups Charge (2 of 2)
Key Questions with Respect to NAS Charge F2*:
• Impact of ITER: What would the impact of access to ITER (or lack thereof) haveon the strategic approach?

•

Strategic Elements: What are the most impactful/important strategic elementsfrom the Madison and Austin workshops (and other sources as necessary)
enabling the strategic approach? In addition, what strategic elements
require early attention to implement the overall strategic approach in a timely
manner?

•Scientific/Technology Underpinnings: What new developments in theory,computation, modeling, experiment, diagnostics, and/or technology are
critical to the success of the proposed strategic approach?

•

Decision Points: What are the most important logical linkages (prerequisites,
decision points) between strategic elements constituting the strategic
approach? What are the key decision points within the strategic approach?
i.e. when in the timeline is critical information needed for decisions on followon activities.

•

International Context: In what areas would this strategic approach and theassociated strategic elements support, complement, and potentially leapfrog
activities in the broader international fusion energy R&D portfolio?

49

Pre-Austin

M.R. Wade / FESAC Meeting/ Jan-Feb 2018