Public	  Comment	  at	  FESAC	  Meeting	  March	  12,	  2015	  Michael	  Zarnstorff,	  Princeton	  Plasma	  Physics	  Laboratory	  	  	  I	  have	  two	  comments.	  	  	  The	  first	  regards	  the	  four	  research-­‐needs	  workshops	  discussed	  this	  afternoon.	  	  This	  morning	  we	  heard	  from	  Dr.	  Orr	  and	  Dr.	  Dehmer	  about	  the	  importance	  of	  community	   consensus	   to	   having	   a	   strong	   program	   and	   to	   enable	   steps	   toward	   our	   goals.	  	  This	  lesson	  was	  also	  learned	  in	  the	  late	  1990s,	  but	  we	  have	  forgotten	  it.	  During	  the	  1990s	  we	   lost	   BPX,	   lost	   TPX,	   lost	   ITER	   the	   first	   time,	   in	   part	   due	   to	   a	   lack	   of	   consensus.	   	   We	  received	  strong	  advice	  that	  we	  would	  not	  go	  forward	  without	  consensus,	  the	  same	  advice	  that	   we	   received	   this	   morning.	   Turning	   this	   around	   required	   a	   succession	   of	   community	  workshops	   and	   two	   Snowmass	   meetings	   (1999	   and	   2002).	   Each	   Snowmass	   meeting	   was	  followed	   by	   a	   FESAC	   prioritization	   study	   and	   report,	   each	   with	   broad	   and	   substantial	  community	  engagement.	  	  These	  were	  followed	  by	  the	  “Burning	  Plasma”	  National	  Academy	  study,	  which	  provided	  external	  review	  and	  endorsement	  of	  our	  goals	  and	  plans.	  	  I	  clearly	  recall	   the	   discussion	   during	   that	   study,	   by	   those	   outside	   our	   field,	   that	   community	  consensus	  was	  absolutely	  essential	  to	  go	  forward:	  to	  reengage	  in	  burning	  plasma	  physics	  and	   to	   rejoin	   ITER.	   We	   must	   not	   forget	   these	   lessons.	   The	   top	   goal	   of	   the	   upcoming	  research-­‐needs	   workshops	   should	   be	   to	   achieve	   community	   consensus	   in	   their	   topical	  areas.	   	   We	   must	   spend	   the	   time	   and	   effort	   needed	   to	   have	   one	   plan	   (likely	   with	   multiple	  parts)	  and	  speak	  with	  one	  voice.	  	  We	  will	  not	  advance	  without	  this.	  	  	  My	   second	   comment	   is	   about	   the	   FES	   strategic	   planning	   process,	   discussed	   by	   Dr.	  
Synakowski.	   I	   strongly	   support	   the	   four	   research-­‐needs	   workshops	   to	   help	   inform	   this	  process.	  But,	  we	  should	  recall	  that	  they	  do	  not	  cover	  all	  the	  high	  priority	  issues	  identified	  in	  past	  reports.	  In	  particular,	  the	  need	  for	  steady-­‐state	  high-­‐performance	  plasma	  confinement	  has	   been	   identified	   repeatedly,	   for	   example	   in	   the	   2007	   Priorities,	   Gaps,	   and	   Opportunities	  Report	  and	   in	   the	   ReNeW	   Report	   as	   Theme	   2.	   	   This	   requires	   the	   integration	   of	   solutions	   to	  the	   plasma-­‐wall	   and	   transients	   challenges.	   	   It	   also	   requires	   advances	   in	   other	   areas	   such	   as	  efficient	  magnetic	  configuration	  sustainment	  and	  control.	  Achieving	  this	  will	  be	  crucial	  for	  fusion	  energy’s	  success	  in	  the	  DOE	  decision	  process	  and	  in	  the	  energy	  market,	  as	  discussed	  by	  Dr.	  Orr	  this	  morning.	  Steady-­‐state	  high-­‐performance	  is	  not	  a	  new	  overall	  initiative,	  as	  we	  have	   had	   significant	   activity	   in	   this	   area,	   but	   it	   may	   need	   new	   ideas,	   approaches,	   and	  investment.	  Research	  on	  this	  topic	  should	  be	  included	  in	  the	  strategic	  plan,	  as	  it	  is	  known	  to	  be	  critical	  for	  both	  the	  ITER	  sustained	  Q=5	  goal	  and	  any	  step	  going	  beyond	  ITER.	  	  	  	  Thank	  you.