Context for an NAS study on
burning plasma research and amagnetic fusion strategy
Edmund J. Synakowski
Associate Director, Office of Science
Fusion Energy Sciences
For the Committee addressing “A Strategic Plan for U.S.
Burning Plasma Research”
National Academies June 5, 2017

DOE requests an NAS study on strategic priorities
for fusion energy for the long range, and theplace of burning plasma science• Progress in magnetic fusion energy research has been tremendous on
many fronts in the last 20 years, and serves as the underpinning of thecommunity’s readiness for studying high gain, energy producing
burning plasmas• However, while study of the self-heated plasma state – burning
plasma – is essential, it has not yet been achieved in the laboratory
and remains the leading grand challenge for fusion energy science• The 2004 NAS study states burning plasma science represents anessential next step for fusion• Many countries are developing and acting on plans that embraceburning plasma research and aim to impact the world energy scene in
the 2nd half of this century

U.S. Fusion Energy Sciences program supports
both fusion and plasma science▪ Advance the fundamental science ofmagnetically confined plasmas for fusionenergyThe mission of the U.S. Fusion Energy
Sciences (FES) program is to expand thefundamental understanding of matter atvery high temperatures and densities
and to build the scientific foundations
needed to develop a fusion energy
source. This is accomplished by thestudy of the plasma state and its
interactions with its surroundings.
3▪ Pursue scientific opportunities and grandchallenges in high energy density plasma
science▪ Support the development of the scientificunderstanding required to design anddeploy fusion materials▪ Increase the fundamental understanding ofplasma science beyond burning plasmas

The science of fusion and plasmas extends from thelaboratory to the stars and beyond
Sun: interior…

magnetic confinement
for energy

gravitational
confinement
magnetic confinement near the sun

NIF hohlraum

inertial confinement

aurora

The study being requested by DOE focuses on magnetic
confinement fusion for energy

Sun: interior…

magnetic confinement
for energy

gravitational
confinement
magnetic confinement near the sun

NIF hohlraum

inertial confinement

auroraVision: fusion could create baseload power withzero carbon emissions• A little mass of the fuel, D and
T (isotopes of hydrogen), isconverted into a huge amountof energy in the neutron andthe helium• D is plentiful• T can be generated fromlithium (plentiful)• Helium is a byproduct• Zero carbon emissions

In the last two decades, there has
been significant scientific advance (1)• The causes of cross-field transport of heat and fuel in prototypicalmagnetic fusion reactor experiments are now known• This “standard model” for confinement based on an understanding ofunderlying turbulence at ion and electron scales is maturing• Macroscopic stability has gone from “well-characterized stability
limits” of the fusion plasma to “controlled, with precision”• Active feedback control reduces risks of deleterious instabilities in a reactor• Increases the fusion power for a given magnetic confinement system size

• While still a leading challenge, candidate materials for withstanding
fusion’s harsh heat fluxes and neutron fluences are being developed,and “materials by design” promises to advance them furtherIn the last two decades, there has
been significant scientific advance (2)• Computing and detailed measurement have ushered in an ageof predictability that can impact fusion’s development path
• Validated, whole device modeling is within reach
Turbulence

Materials

Fast Ions

Simulation of turbulence, DIII-D
tokamak plasma cross section

L. Sandoval et al.,Phys. Rev. Lett (2015);
PSI-SciDAC (PI: Brian
Wirth)

In the last two decades, there has
been significant scientific advance (3)• Megawatts of fusion power have been generated in the laboratory• Joint European Torus (JET)– “Preliminary Tritium Experiment” (1991):
90/10 DT, PDT > 1 MW
– Subsequently: 50/50 DT• Q=0.65 (transient breakeven)• Q=0.2 (long pulse)• 16 MW fusion power, 100 discharges• Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR)– Dec 1993 to Apr 1997: 1000 discharges
with 50/50 D-T fuel
– PDT = 10.7 MW, Q=0.2 (long pulse)– Results:– Favorable isotope scaling– Self-heating by alpha particles– Alpha-driven instability– Tritium and helium “ash” transport– Tritium retention in walls and dust
– Safe tritium handling (1M curies)Yet, despite progress in performance that rivals
that of computer chips, the critical step to thereactor regime remains to be taken• The burning plasma" state, where the fusion fuel heats
itself, is required• To achieve it, what is needed is to take the next step toreactor scale
Burning plasma regime
Breakeven: Q = Pfusion / Pin = 1
Burning Plasma: Q = 5
Ignition: Q = ∞Essential, new burning plasma science
will be revealed at reactor scale• Strong coupling– The critical elements in theareas of transport, stability,
boundary physics, energetic
particles, heating, etc., will bestrongly coupled nonlinearly
due to the fusion self-heating• Size scaling of confinement– Due to much larger volume
than present experiments, size
scaling of fundamental
processes becomes important• Large population of highenergy alpha particles– Affect stability andconfinement

NAS report in 2004: “There is now high confidence in the readiness toproceed to the burning plasma step because of the progress made infusion science and fusion technology. Progress toward the fusionenergy goal requires this step, and the tokamak is the only fusion
configuration ready for implementing such an experiment.”
12

The U.S. program is shaped around supporting
burning plasma science

Burning Plasma Science
Foundations Focusing on domestic capabilities; major and university facilities in partnership,targeting key scientific issues. Theory and computation focus on questions
central to understanding the burning plasma state

Challenge: Understand the fundamentals of transport, macro-stability, waveparticle physics, plasma-wall interactions

Long Pulse

Building on domestic capabilities and furthered by international partnership
Challenge: Establish the basis for indefinitely maintaining the burning plasmastate including: maintaining magnetic field structure to enable burning plasma
confinement and developing the materials to endure and function in thisenvironment

High PowerITER is the keystone as it strives to integrate foundational burning plasma
science with the science and technology girding long pulse, sustained
operations.
Challenge: Establishing the scientific basis for attractive, robust control of theself-heated, burning plasma state

Discovery Science
Plasma Science Frontiers & Measurement Innovation
General plasma science, exploratory magnetized plasma, HEDLP, and diagnostics
13

FES research is carried out at
a diversity of US institutions
350

Spending $M

53

universities

300

12

businesses

10laboratories

71
250

200

90

150

LCLS

100

142
50

NSTX-U0

FY 2015
14

DIII-D

Fusion Energy Sciences
FY 2017 budget highlights
This budget proposes
investments in areas ofstrategic importance, as
described in the FES TenYear Perspective plansubmitted to Congress

Community workshops in2015 have been highly
successful in identifying
research opportunities
and how to address themBurning Plasma Science: Foundations••••

DIII-D

Vigorous research and operations of NSTX-Upgradeand DIII-D, including upgrades
Enhanced off-site research participation, including
with MIT researchers
Research on smaller platforms at universities isbeing aligned with the larger programs
SciDAC targets whole device modeling, of highstrategic importance

NSTX-U

Burning Plasma Science: Long Pulse• U.S. research collaborations on international
superconducting facilities by three lab-universityindustry teams• Materials science forfirst-of-a-kind, worldleading research

Computing &tungstendamage(Wirth,Lawrence
Prize)

W7-X – Chancellor Merkel andPrinceton U. VP for PPPL Smith

At DIII-D (San Diego): Remotecontrol of EAST (China)

DOE’s view today regarding ITER’s
potential impact on magnetic fusion– The tokamak will
inform any credible
magnetic fusionenergy approach
regarding alphaphysics, and is far andaway the mostmature platform forgetting to this physics– ITER is still theplatform best
positioned for thisThe US is a 1/11th partner in the world’s major
step forward in fusion research: ITER
ITER will demonstrate the scientific andtechnical feasibility of fusion energy

ITER (“the way”) is the essential next step indevelopment of fusion• As of today: 10 MW, 1 sec, gain < 1• With ITER: 500 MW, > 400 sec, gain ≥ 10 (andITER Phase-II to achieve 3000 seconds, gain = 5)
• Uncharted science, leveraging US intellectual
investments• Major contributions from US industry

The world’s biggest fusion energy research
project (“burning plasma”)• 15 MA plasma current, 5.3 T magnetic field, 6.2
m major radius, 2.0 m plasma minor radius, 840
m3 plasma volume, superconducting magnets

An international collaboration• 7 Member partners, representing 50% ofworld’s population• EU the host Member, site in France
17

The international ITER project has experienced
major challenges

Management Assessment recommendations:

18•

Delays: Previously the ITER Council approveda schedule targeting 2019 first plasma.
Present technically achievable schedule is2025, at best•

Cost: CD-1 Cost Range for the US
contributions was $1.1-2.2B. Latest estimate(being reassessed) > $4B•

The 2013 Management Assessment,
performed biannually, revealed profoundmanagement challenges at the international
ITER Organization (IO). This encouraged
accelerating replacement of the Director
General to the spring of 2015

ITER Progress under the new DG

ITER Director General Bernard Bigot
photo ITER

19•

The new DG has brought in new senior
management and reorganized the ITER Organization•

Focus on team-based collaborative efforts toaccomplish goals with the Members•

Establishment of a construction reserve fund to pay
for design changes•

Acceleration of pace of construction•

An achievable updated schedule is due to the ITER
Council in November 2016•

Confirmation of construction progress by both anindependent Management Assessment and by anindependent Schedule Review

View of the ITER construction site: May 2017

View of the ITER construction siteView of the ITER construction site: April 2017

View of the ITER construction site: April 2017

Contrast with February 2015

ITER Site as of November 2015

Tokamak Assembly Hall at the left background; tokamak pit in the center foregroundITER Site Progress (through August 2016)26

U.S. Fabrication of ITER Hardware Progressing
CS Module 1
being
prepared forinsulation

Central Solenoid (CS)fabrication facility is inoperation at General
Atomics- U.S. Toroidal Field(TF) conductor
contributions arecomplete- All U.S. supplied
TF conductor has
been delivered
and accepted- Final conductordelivered to EU
winding facility in
January 2017

A 61,000 gallon drain tank fortokamak cooling water system

Electrical
Power
Transformer
s delivered
to the ITER
site for thesteady-stateelectrical
network
Electrical Power
Transformers
delivered to the
ITER siteFrom the Secretary’s Report to Congress(May 2016)
Department of Energy | May 2016
Report on the U.S. Participation in the ITER ProjectMessage from the Secretary
ITER remains the best candidate today to demonstrate sustained burning
plasma, which is a necessary precursor to demonstrating fusion energy power.
Having fully assessed the facts regarding the U.S. contributions to the ITER
project, I recommend that the U.S. remain a partner in the ITER project throughFY 2018 and focus on efforts related to First Plasma. The U.S. along with all ITER
Members across the world have witnessed and acknowledged the significant
progress made at ITER by the new leadership, but there is still much that remains
to be done. Prior to the FY 2019 budget submittal (late in calendar year 2017 toearly 2018), I recommend that the U.S. re-evaluate its participation in the ITER
project to assess if it remains in our best interests to continue our participation.
My recommendation to support First Plasma cash and in-kind contributions ispredicated on continued and sustained progress on the project, increasedtransparency of the ITER project risk management process, as well as a suite ofmanagement reforms proposed in this report that we expect will be agreed uponby the ITER Council. At this time, our continued participation in the fashion
recommended is consistent with DOE’s science mission and is in the bestinterest of the nation. The report discusses the critical issues that factored in thisrecommendation. (bold added for emphasis here)
Sincerely,

Ernest J. Moniz

http://science.energy.gov/fes/

The DOE report to Congress states thatthe Department will seek an NAS study
on magnetic fusion

From the body of the report:• The DOE will request that the National Academies perform astudy of how to best advance the fusion energy sciences in
the U.S., given the developments in the field since the last
Academy studies in 2004, the specific international
investments in fusion science and technology, and thepriorities for the next ten years developed by the communityand FES that were recently reported to Congress.

• This study will address the scientific justification and needs
for strengthening the foundations for realizing fusion energy
given a potential choice of U.S. participation or not in the
ITER project, and will develop future scenarios in either case.

DOE has recently developed a
10 year strategic plan•

Per Congressional direction, the plan assumes
ITER moves forward. It has five major themes:– Massively parallel computing with the goal ofvalidated whole-fusion-device modeling will enable atransformation in predictive power, which is required
to minimize risk in future fusion energy development
steps.
– Materials science as it relates to plasma and fusion
sciences will provide the scientific foundations for
greatly improved plasma confinement and heatexhaust.
– Research in the prediction and control of transient
events that can be deleterious to toroidal fusion
plasma confinement will provide greater confidence inmachine designs and operation with stable plasmas.
– Continued stewardship of discovery in plasma sciencethat is not expressly driven by the energy goal willaddress frontier science issues underpinning great
mysteries of the visible universe and will help attract
and retain a new generation of plasma/fusion science
leaders.
– FES user facilities will be kept world-leading throughrobust operations support and regular upgrades

30

Community engagement workshops•

Following the FESAC Strategic Planning and Priorities Report (2014), FES sought further
community input about scientific challenges and opportunities through a series oftechnical workshops in 2015 on priority research areas

Workshop

Date (2015)

Location

Chair / Co-Chair

Workshop on Plasma-Materials
Interactions

May 4-7

PPPL

Rajesh Maingi (PPPL) / Steve Zinkle(Tennessee)

Workshop on Integrated Simulationsfor Magnetic Fusion Energy Sciences

June 2-4

Rockville, MD

Paul Bonoli (MIT) / Lois McInnes (ANL)

Workshop on Transients

June 8-12

General Atomics

Charles Greenfield (GA) / Raffi Nazikian(PPPL)

Workshops on Plasma Science
Frontiers (two)August 20-21 &Oct. 22-23

Washington, DC area

Fred Skiff (Iowa) / Jonathan Wurtele (UCBerkeley)

Community workshop reports•

Each workshop is delivering a report that describes– scientific challenges– implementation options to address the challenges•

Three reports are completed and available online:– Plasma-Materials Interactions– Integrated Simulations for Magnetic Fusion Energy– Plasma Transients
http://science.energy.gov/fes/community-resources/workshop-reports/•

Fusion Energy Sciences
Workshop
Plasma Science Frontiers

The fourth report was just completed– Frontiers of Plasma Science
http://www.orau.gov/plasmawkshps2015/default.htm•

FESAC commended the workshops:– “At this FESAC meeting…we heard from the workshop chairs about the enormous communitywide effort to carry out these workshops, and the high degree of consensus in identifying priority
research directions within these topics. We heard from FES that the workshop results are being
used to help explain and shape the Fusion Energy Sciences program within the U.S. government.
We were pleased to hear the workshop chairs unanimously express their satisfaction with boththe community’s support of the workshop goals and with FES’s response to the results.” [Letter to
Dr. Cherry Murray, Jan 14, 2016]

FES and the community have been engaging instrategic planning activities for some time (1)❖ FESAC’s report, Priorities, Gaps, and Opportunities: Towards a Long Range Strategic
Plan for Magnetic Fusion Energy, which has proved to be a major influence on FES
program planning (2007).
❖ On Whole Device Modelling: FESAC Fusion Simulation Project Panel Final Report (2007)❖ In 2008, FESAC evaluated magnetic confinement configurations other than tokamaks.
This resulted in the Report of the FESAC Toroidal Alternates Panel❖ From June 2009 through January 2010, FES conducted a series of four Research Needs
Workshops (ReNeW), which resulted in the following reports: Research Needs for
Magnetic Fusion Energy Sciences (2009);Advancing the Science of High Energy Density
Laboratory Plasmas (2009);Research Needs for Fusion-Fission Hybrid Systems(2009);and Basic Research Needs for High Energy Density Laboratory Physics (2010)33❖ Regarding international partnerships, a FESAC study yielded Opportunities for andModes of International Collaboration in Fusion Energy Sciences Research during the ITER
Era (February 2012).

FES and the community have been engaging instrategic planning activities for some time (2)❖ In April 2012, DOE charged FESAC to assess priorities among and within the elements of the non-ITER
part of the magnetic fusion energy sciences program, with special focus on research that supportsburning plasma science, long-pulse/steady-state plasma operation, and fusion materials science. The
report, Priorities of the Magnetic Fusion Energy Program (January 2013), made progress in prioritizing
among the thrusts in the 2009 Research Needs for Magnetic Fusion Energy Sciences report. Due toissues with conflict of interest, the report did not answer the full charge.
❖ In 2013, DOE charged the federal advisory committees of all six Office of Science program offices toevaluate facility priorities for the next decade. FESAC responded with Report of the FESAC Subcommittee
on the Prioritization of Proposed Scientific User Facilities for the Office of Science (2013).
❖ In 2014, Congress tasked DOE to develop a strategic plan for the next ten years. It was to assume U.S.
participation in ITER and assess priorities based on three funding scenarios. This led to a FESAC report,
Report on Strategic Planning, that again was challenged by conflict of interest issues. This report, theother activities listed here, and other considerations led to the FES Ten Year Perspective, issued in 2015
to Congress.
❖ A series of five community-led workshops were carried out in 2015 to identify research opportunities in
the areas identified in the 2015 report34

What about fusion beyond ten years,
towards mid-century?

35

Much has happened since theNAS report in 2004
For example,• There have been major investments in research facilities
overseas, and international partners seek to grow U.S.
participation• The potential for computational research to transform thefusion landscape in ways we don’t fully appreciate is real
• Developments in fusion-related technologies, e.g., materials,
high Tc magnets, precision engineering, control systems• Other countries have developed plans that extend to midcentury

We seek guidance on long-term strategic
priorities. The landscape is complex•

International investment
besides ITER has been
aggressive and smarto New superconducting facilities in CN,
KO, and the EU– tokamaks andstellarators, a cousin of the tokamak
some see as a preferred optiono What is the place of collaborative
research in the long term?
General Atomics Remote Control
Room supports 3rd shift operation of
EAST by US scientists•

Private industry activity is
growingo37aW7-X stellarator – Max Planck
Institute, Greifswald

The EU and China have developed roadmaps
that have ITER as a centerpiece that aim to getelectricity on the grid by mid century
European roadmap,
published by European
Fusion Development
Association (EFDA),
2012

China has a roadmap,
with a stronger
separate emphasis on
demonstrating closing
the fuel cycle andmaterials testingJapan and Korea also have developed roadmaps
that have ITER as a centerpiece that aim to getelectricity on the grid by mid century
Japan’s roadmap includes ITER
operations in parallel with theirown emergent superconducting
tokamak, JT-60SASouth Korea has aroadmap as well
as a legal
framework forfusion energy
development
phasesWe ask the NAS to look beyond ten years
and out several decades• DOE is interested in NAS’s view on strategic priorities in a researchworld with ITER and without ITER, looking out over the next several
decades• Assume a vigorous ITER program• Given U.S. capabilities and Administration emphases in fusion and relatedsciences, in what direction should magnetic fusion energy research point?
• Consider the state and evolution of experiments, computation, materials
science, global developments, university/lab/industry involvement• Also look at the case where the US is not involved with ITER
• What should be the major features of the US research program?
• Consider the state and evolution of experiments, computation, materials
science, global developments, university/lab/industry involvement