A Report of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee

Powering the Future
Fusion & Plasmas

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science2020

Contents

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmasi
ii

Preface
Executive Summary
1	Chapter 1: Introduction
and Overview
21	Chapter 2: Recommendations
and Budget Scenarios
51
Appendix
52
Appendix A: Recommendations
55
Appendix B: Public – Private Partnerships
62	Appendix C: DEI, Workforce, and Outreach
68
Appendix D: Charge Letter
70
Appendix E: Membership
71	Appendix F: Process and Meetings
75
Appendix G: Acronyms

The production of this report was sponsored by
the US Depar tment of Energy, Office of Science,
Fusion Energy Sciences in the year 2020.

Preface

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

This report provides a decade-long vision for the field of fusion energy andplasma science and presents a path to a promising future of new scientificdiscoveries, industrial applications, and, ultimately, the delivery of fusion energy.
We identify critical areas for research and development and prioritize investments to maximize impact. The research community worked for more than a year
to develop a wealth of creative ideas designed to accelerate fusion energy
and advance plasma science. The effort culminated in the consensus Community
Planning Process report. Our work is based heavily on that report, and we
extend our sincere gratitude to our colleagues for their efforts. Following the
research community’s lead, we worked through consensus to generate thisreport. Many ideas were heard and were thoughtfully deliberated until a sharedview on each issue emerged. This process allowed us to discuss and appreciate our different points of view and come to consensus language. Ultimately, we
speak with one voice in conveying a vision for a vibrant program that will bringsignificant benefit to society.

Troy Carter, chair
University of California,
Los Angeles

Arianna Gleason
SLAC National Accelerator
Laboratory

Rajesh Maingi
Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory

Erik Trask
TAE Technologies

Scott Baalrud
University of Iowa

Christopher Holland
University of California, San Diego

David Schaffner
Bryn Mawr College

François Waelbroeck
University of Texas, Austin

Riccardo Betti
University of Rochester

Paul Humrickhouse
Idaho National Laboratory

Oliver Schmitz
University of Wisconsin,
MadisonAnne White
Massachusetts Instituteof Technology

Tyler Ellis
Commonwealth Fusion Systems

Charles Kessel
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Uri Shumlak
University of Washington

Don Rej, ex officio
Los Alamos National Laboratory,
retiredJohn Foster
University of Michigan

Ane Lasa
University of Tennessee, Knoxvillle

Lance Snead
Stony Brook University

Cameron Geddes
Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory

Tammy Ma
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory

Wayne Solomon
General Atomics

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma scienceiExecutive Summary

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Fusion is the merging of nuclei to release the energythat powers stars; plasmas are ionized gases,
the fourth state of matter that makes up stars. The
two are inextricably linked. Their shared history
exemplifies how basic scientific research translates
from a deeper understanding of the universe totechnologies that benefit society.
Now is the time to move aggressively toward the deployment of fusion energy,
which could substantially power modern society while mitigating climatechange. Scientific and technological innovations enable a unique US vision foreconomically attractive fusion energy, with the goal of a fusion pilot plant by
the 2040s. The foundation of a US fusion energy industry is central to this visionand the industry has already taken root, with approximately $2 billion of private
capital invested to date.
The technological and scientific achievements arising from plasma research aresignificant and far-reaching. The US vision for fusion energy is enabled bybreakthroughs in the physics of magnetically confined plasmas, in which record
confined pressures have recently been achieved. Plasma physics helps us
understand not only the confined plasmas that could power an energy-generating
fusion reactor, but distant stars and other objects, such as supernovae and blackhole accretion disks, that capture our imagination. Understanding the exotic
states of matter created using the most intense lasers in the world requires deep
knowledge of plasma physics. Plasmas transform society, enabling the development of industry-changing technologies, especially the plasma-enabled manufacturing at the heart of the trillion-dollar information technology industry.
Partnerships will accelerate progress. Partnership in the international ITER
fusion project is essential for US fusion energy development, and so is supporting the continued growth of the private-sector fusion energy industry. Public –private partnerships have the potential to reduce the time required to achievecommercially viable fusion energy. The diversity of topics addressed by plasma
science is reflected in the wide range of federal agencies that are committed
to supporting its development. Increased coordination among those agencies iswarranted to maximize progress in research and development.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma scienceii

Executive Summary

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Fusion and plasma research in the US are leading the world, and continued
leadership requires nurturing and agility. The US is poised to take the global leadin the development of a private-sector fusion energy industry, but that opportunity will be lost without strong support. Similarly, the US leadership position
in some key research areas is threatened by the absence of investment in major
new facilities to address critical gaps in the relevant science and technology.
For the first time, scientists have created a long-range plan to accelerate thedevelopment of fusion energy and advance plasma science. Earlier, the community undertook a year-long study that identified new opportunities and developed guidance for prioritization. That effort resulted in the Community Planning
Process report, which forms the basis for the strategy detailed here. This report
calls for important redirections in the Department of Energy ( DOE ) Fusion
Energy Sciences ( FES ) research programs and is embodied by six technology
and science drivers in two thematic areas.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma scienceiii

Executive Summary

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Fusion Science and Technology

The Fusion Science and Technology area should
focus on establishing the scientific and technicalbasis for a fusion pilot plant by the 2040s:– Sustain a Burning Plasma. Build the science and technology required to confine
and sustain a burning plasma.
– Engineer for Extreme Conditions. Develop the materials required to withstandthe extreme environment of a fusion reactor.
– Harness Fusion Power. Engineer the technologies required to breed fusion fueland to generate electricity in a fusion pilot plant by the 2040s.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

iv

Executive Summary

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Plasma Science and Technology

The Plasma Science and Technology area should
focus on new opportunities to advance fundamental
understanding and, in turn, translate theseadvances into applications that benefit society:– Understand the Plasma Universe. Plasmas permeate the universe and are theheart of the most energetic events we observe.
– Strengthen the Foundations. Explore and discover new regimes and exotic
states of matter and utilize new experimental capabilities.
– Create Transformative Technologies. Unlock the potential of plasmas to transformsociety.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma sciencev

Executive Summary

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

This plan makes the difficult choices necessary toembark on these critically important journeys.
From the process, recommendations emerged that
express an optimized path to achieving ourgoals. Overarching recommendations are madethat identify important programmatic changes:– Addressing the technology and science drivers will require continuing investmentin the design, construction, and operation of facilities that provide importantnew capabilities. Therefore, resources for ongoing investment need to be established in the program. Opportunities for developing small and midscale facilitiesaligned with the plan are also needed. Preconceptual design toward new experimental facilities should be a part of regular program activities to better prepare
for future strategic planning.
– To achieve efficiencies and maximize technical progress across all the elementsof this strategic plan, it will be necessary to build on the existing successful
partnerships with the National Science Foundation (NSF), ARPA-E, and the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and explore opportunities to form newpartnerships with other agencies and with industry. The successful Innovation
Network for Fusion Energy (INFUSE) program should be expanded and new public–
private partnership programs, including milestone-based cost-share programs,
should be developed.
– This long-range planning process should be repeated regularly to enable periodic
review and update of the strategic plan with strong community engagement.
– Policy changes should be developed and implemented that improve diversity,
equity, and inclusion within the research community and allow discipline-specificworkforce development.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma sciencevi

Executive Summary

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

The strategic plan is developed through a seriesof recommendations, not in priority order, on
needed programs and experimental facilities:– A fusion pilot plant design effort should begin immediately to develop cost-attractive
fusion solutions on the fastest time scale possible.
– The fusion pilot plant goal requires increased investment in research and development of fusion materials and other critical technology. Emphasis is neededon fusion materials science, plasma-facing components, tritium-breeding blanket
technology and the tritium fuel cycle. Several key experimental facilities arerecommended. The Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source (FPNS) will provide uniquematerial irradiation capabilities, and the Material Plasma Exposure eXperiment( MPEX ) and high-heat-flux testing experiments will enable solutions for theplasma-facing materials. Blanket research and the associated Blanket Component
Test Facility (BCTF) will provide the scientific understanding and basis to qualify
fusion power system blankets for an FPP.
– The successful tokamak plasma confinement concept must be advanced to meetthe stringent requirements of a fusion pilot plant. A sustained burning plasma
at high power density is required simultaneously with a solution to the power
exhaust challenge of mitigating the extreme heat fluxes to materials surrounding
the plasma. US partnership in ITER provides access to a high-gain reactorscale burning fusion plasma, and an accompanying US ITER research team andprogram to exploit that facility must be developed. Present tokamak experiments in the US and abroad can address key issues in the near term, and newopportunities in the private sector should be leveraged and supported. Addressing
the core/exhaust integration challenge requires a new tokamak facility, theEXhaust and Confinement Integration Tokamak Experiment (EXCITE).
– The plan embraces the development of innovative ideas that could lead to morecommercially attractive fusion systems and address critical gaps. The quasisymmetric stellarator is the leading US approach to developing disruption-free,
low-recirculating-power fusion configurations and should be tested experimentallywith a new US stellarator facility. Liquid-metal plasma-facing components havethe potential to ameliorate some of the extreme challenges of the plasma-solidinterface and may reveal new plasma operating regimes. Inertial fusion energy
research can leverage significant investments in the US to establish new technologies and approaches to energy production. Private investment in alternative
fusion plasma configurations has enabled breakthroughs that have potential as
fusion energy sources. Strengthening those elements will provide both scientificopportunity and programmatic security.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma sciencevii

Executive Summary

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas– A sequence of mid- to large-scale facilities will establish a leadership role infrontier plasma science. To strengthen plasma foundations, the Matter in
Extreme Conditions Upgrade (MEC-U) will provide a world-class user facility inhigh-energy-density science by co-locating a high-intensity (petawatt-class)laser and a long-pulse shock compression laser with the Linac Coherent
Light Source free electron laser. Additionally, a multi-petawatt laser will push thefrontier of laser intensity and reveal fundamental quantum electrodynamic
processes of creating matter and plasma directly from light.
To understand the plasma universe, a new Solar Wind facility will close key sciencegaps in plasma turbulence, connecting laboratory experiments with space andastrophysical observations; and a mid-scale Z-pinch facility will allow access tostrongly magnetized high-energy-density matter relevant to astrophysics andfusion energy research. To create transformative technologies, a high-repetitionrate high-intensity laser system will dramatically increase the rate at which
high-energy-density plasma experiments can be conducted, with the potential tosignificantly advance the development of plasma-based accelerators.
– A plasma-based technology research program will provide the scientific basis toenable the next generation of technological inventions. Plasmas can enabletransformative technologies in manufacturing, microelectronics, biotechnology,
medicine, and aerospace. Fulfilling this potential will require a dedicated,nimble research program able to take advantage of the translational nature ofthis research by connecting the basic science with the breadth of applications.
– Programs that support foundational plasma science research should be emphasized. Foundational science fosters creative exploration that sets new directions
for the field, addresses fundamental questions of nature, and explores novel
states of matter.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma scienceviii

Executive Summary

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Our prioritization of needed programs and facilities
was applied to address three funding scenarios:
constant level of effort, modest growth (2% yearly),
and unconstrained but prioritized.
In the constant level of effort scenario, programs in fusion materials and technology
are grown, the MPEX facility is completed, and construction of FPNS begins.
Important scientific and technical progress continues in other areas. However,
US leadership in fusion and plasma science is at risk in this scenario. New
activities to address other key gaps are significantly delayed, and many opportunities for innovation and enhanced US leadership cannot be acted upon.
To provide needed resources for fusion materials and technology programs andfacilities, operations and research programs on existing domestic tokamak
facilities DIII-D and NSTX-U, which aim to address fusion pilot-plant design gaps,
will have to be modestly reduced in the near term. One domestic tokamak
facility will likely need to cease operations mid-decade to free the resources
required to make progress on FPNS. A nascent ITER research team is developed,
and some shift of resources to collaboration with international and privatesector facilities is possible. A limited plasma technology program will be established. Almost all other strategically selected enhancements of experimental
capabilities and new program activities will be delayed. Importantly, completingthe ongoing MEC-U project is not possible under this constrained scenario
as defined by the charge. New facility concept studies will be pursued to build
a basis for deliberations on these important facilities.
The return on the investment of the relatively small increment from the constantlevel of effort to the modest growth scenario is substantial. Fusion materials andtechnology research is further strengthened and FPNS is accelerated. Increased
focus is given to addressing the core/exhaust integration challenge, such thatdesign and star t of construction of the EXCITE facility may be possible.
Fundamental plasma research and plasma technology program areas are modestly grown, and networks are established and bolstered. However, substantial
risks and missed opportunities remain. A similar reduction of activity on existing
tokamak programs as in the constant level of effort scenario is envisioned.
Other new major facilities are not possible in this scenario, so important researchgaps are unaddressed and US leadership opportunities are unfulfilled.
In the unconstrained scenario, the complete strategy as summarized above canbe implemented, but prioritization and staging of items beyond the constrained
scenarios is proposed. Additional investment beyond the modest growth scenario will have significant return. Major scientific advances would be enabled,
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma scienceix

Executive Summary

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

and progress toward realizing practical fusion energy would be accelerated.
FPNS would be further accelerated to ensure operations as soon as possible.
Additional facilities and program enhancements have been identified that capture
the opportunities provided by the full breadth and creativity of the program.
Priority order for additional facility investment is expressed thusly: the MEC-U
project and the EXCITE facility at equal priority; a new quasi-symmetric stellarator
device; the blanket component test facility; the Solar Wind facility; a facility
for full-size component-level high-heat-flux testing; a multi-petawatt laser facility;
and, in collaboration with other agencies, the high-repetition-rate laser facility
and the midscale Z-pinch could be pursued. Research programs would bebolstered first to accompany new facility investments. With careful staging of new
facility construction, program pivoting, and aggressive utilization of partnerships, we believe that what is recommended in this scenario can be accomplishedin a timely manner and under realistic budgets.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma sciencexChapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Introduction
andOverview

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

1Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Fusion and plasmas: Powering the future
The US is at a critical moment in the effort to develop fusion as a carbon-neutral,sustainable source of energy. The past decade has seen significant progressin the physics and engineering necessary to confine high-temperature plasmas
for fusion. Important technological breakthroughs include high-temperature
superconductors that enable the advances in magnet technology required
to achieve that confinement. We are on the verge of entering an era of burning
plasmas, with the international ITER experiment set to begin operation thisdecade. At the same time, privately financed fusion research and development( R&D ) has experienced rapid growth that has spurred an emerging fusionenergy industry. For US fusion research, these developments have created aunique and ambitious path toward a low-capital-cost fusion pilot plant (FPP) thatwill form the basis for economically attractive fusion electricity.
Fusion energy and plasmas are inextricably linked. A fusion reactor requires aconfined, controlled, burning plasma at its core. For that reason, fusion research
has historically been an important driver for the development of plasma physics
as a fundamental field. The link between the two fields is strong but does not
fully define either one. Fusion energy requires R&D into materials resistant toneutron irradiation, into technologies for breeding fusion fuel, and into enabling
technologies like magnets. The field of plasma science and engineering is
intellectually diverse, is highly interdisciplinary, and has myriad applications
beyond fusion energy.
Plasma science and engineering has advanced significantly over the past
decade, and future opportunities abound. Extreme states of matter have been
produced and studied using the world’s most intense lasers developed from
Nobel Prize-winning research in chirped pulse amplification. Understandingof the most energetic events in the universe requires deep knowledge of plasma
physics. Such research is essential to interpreting electromagnetic signaturesfrom events like black hole mergers in this era of multimessenger astronomy.
Plasmas enable technologies essential to our everyday lives, including plasmaprocessing of semiconductor devices, which is key to the trillion-dollar information
technology industry. There is potential to expand these applications with significant societal benefit; for example, plasma-enhanced chemistry could help
address energy security and climate change by providing ways to make products
from carbon-free electricity, purifying water and developing new medical
treatments.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science2Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

This report details opportunities to accelerate the development of practicalfusion energy and to advance the frontiers of plasma science and engineering.
Importantly, it outlines a strategy for the Department of Energy ( DOE ) Fusion
Energy Sciences (FES) to act on these opportunities.
Embracing opportunities to form partnerships that accelerate progress in R&D is
an important theme of this report. Partnership opportunities exist within thefederal government, internationally, and with industry. DOE FES is the primaryfederal sponsor for fusion research, but other agencies have made importantinvestments, including DOE Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy(ARPA-E), DOE Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR), and the DOE
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Because the field is interdisciplinary in nature and offers a multitude of applications, many federal agencies
invest in broader plasma science and engineering, including the National Science
Foundation (NSF), NASA, DOE High Energy Physics (DOE HEP), the Office ofNaval Research (ONR), and the Air Force Office of Science Research (AFOSR).
Better coordination among agencies involved in various aspects of fusion andplasma research could result in more efficient use of federal resources and enable
more rapid progress in advancing plasma science and engineering and indeveloping fusion energy.
Fusion energy and plasma science research are global endeavors. Many nations
recognize the promise of fusion energy and have made significant investments
in R&D. International collaboration has been critically important to progress. Thishas been particularly true in the quest to address a top priority for the global
fusion research community: Experimental access to a burning plasma, in whichenergy released by fusion reactions is the dominant heating mechanism. Theinternational community, with the US as a key partner, is collaborating to construct
the ITER experiment in France to achieve this goal. At the time of this writing,the ITER project is more than 70% complete toward first plasma. The Burning
Plasma Report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, andMedicine ( NASEM ) highlighted the importance of the ITER project to the US
fusion program and stated that it provides the most compelling path to accessing
a burning plasma at reactor scale. However, significant R&D is required inaddition to ITER to produce electricity from fusion. Additional investment supporting that R&D is needed to advance the science and technology of a fusion
pilot plant in a timely manner. While other international parties are consideringa reactor scaled directly from ITER , the NASEM report recognized that thisapproach is too large and expensive to be economically competitive in the US
market when compared with other carbon-neutral energy technologies.
Consequently, the NASEM report instead set forth a unique US vision for fusionenergy using scientific and technological innovations to target the development
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

3Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmasof a low-capital-cost FPP. That emphasis on developing innovative, world-leading
solutions makes the near-term investments in R&D even more critical asother nations continue to invest in new fusion facilities that advance their own
approaches to fusion energy development.
Research in fundamental plasma science is also vibrant and growing internationally, with activity spanning scales ranging from the subatomic to the cosmic,
from low-temperature atmospheric plasmas to the most extreme conditions in
the universe. Over the past few decades, shrewd investments by DOE in worldclass facilities have placed the US at the forefront of pioneering plasma
research. However, such scientific leadership requires agility and continuous
nurturing. In some instances, the US is losing its leadership position. For example,
the 2018 NASEM report Opportunities in Intense Ultrafast Lasers: Reaching for
the Brightest Light, highlights how the US has already lost leadership in the highintensity lasers that are essential for high-energy-density science. Although
the chirped-pulse laser amplification technology that led to petawatt lasers wasdeveloped in the US, the vast majority of high-intensity laser systems are now
being built in Europe and Asia. This long-range plan describes a path to regain
a leadership position in fundamental plasma science and its applications in the US.
Fusion energy and plasma science research advances fundamental science,but also translates to direct commercial application. The ultimate goal of fusionenergy research is the development of commercial fusion power. The fusionenergy industry is already taking root, but realizing the ultimate goal of producing power will require additional support to help it become firmly established.
The past decade has seen about $2 billion invested worldwide in fusion energy
development in the private sector. Internationally, the United Kingdom and China
have already established multi-hundred-million-dollar partnership programs
to attract private fusion energy companies. Therefore, it is imperative that the US
strengthen partnerships in the private sector to accelerate the development offusion power in the US and maintain a leadership position in the emerging fusionenergy industry. For decades, plasma technologies have played a ubiquitousrole in manufacturing, crucial for the fabrication of microelectronic circuits,
lighting, optics, advanced materials, materials processing, and much more. The
future looks even more promising. Recent research suggests that plasmas will
influence much of the future economy; they will play a decisive role in technologies
that convert electricity from carbon-free sources to the products that drive
society, and in future medical treatments, aerospace, particle accelerators,
advanced X-ray sources, and agriculture. Countries that can solve the science
questions that make these technologies possible and can facilitate technology
transfer from academic research to commercial applications will position themselves to lead tomorrow’s economy. This long-range plan outlines ways in which the
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

4Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

US can take the lead in both commercial fusion energy and other plasma-based
technologies.

This report marks the first time a strategic planning process for DOE FES has
been undertaken that addresses both fusion energy and plasma science and thathas had a significant community-led portion of the process. The strategic planning process involved two stages: a community-driven stage followed by a stage
led by the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC), using input
from the community process. The year-long Community Planning Process (CPP),
was organized by the American Physical Society’s Division of Plasma Physics.
The process was invaluable and resulted in the consensus CPP report that not
only enumerates scientific and technological opportunities, but also provides
guidance for prioritization. The CPP report formed the basis for this strategic planand remains an essential companion to this report for those looking for more
technical detail on specific initiatives. The technical bases for the considerations
in both reports were made based on white papers submitted to CPP and theexpert groups that evaluated them. This report presents a strategic plan basedon the resulting new program elements and facilities.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

5Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Technology and Science Drivers
As acknowledged by the recent burning plasma and plasma decadal reports by
NASEM and by the CPP report, fusion science and technology has reached alevel of maturity that calls for FES to broaden its focus from the plasma core ofa fusion reactor toward a comprehensive energy mission. At the same time, thesereports show that plasma science and technology outside the fusion energy
mission deepens our understanding of the universe and lays the foundation for
creating transformative technologies ranging from microelectronics and medicine to particle accelerators and new materials such as advanced alloys, ceramics, and materials for magnets.
The energy mission is driven by the urgent desire to address climate change
and energy security on a time scale that requires activities to resolve the criticalchallenges of fusion energy in the next two decades. This mission-driven program is founded on the steady progress in plasma science, ITER construction,
predictive integrated-modeling capabilities, and a burgeoning investment inprivate fusion enterprises. However, the least developed domain in the mission
portfolio is in fusion materials and technology (FM&T). Fulfilling the energy
mission demands a shift in the balance of research toward FM&T, which connects the three science drivers: Sustain a Burning Plasma, Engineer for Extreme
Conditions, and Harness Fusion Energy. The program’s renewed attention toeconomic viability distinguishes it from other ITER partners. It leverages US innovation, leadership, and technology advances to address the key gaps in fusion
plasma science, nuclear science, materials science, and the enabling technologythat will be required to construct an FPP, anticipated to be the key remaining
step to enable commercial fusion energy. Critical gaps in FM&T will have to beclosed for any choice of plasma core in an FPP, and without immediate investment
those gaps could become pace-limiting. Such a program will create US leadership in a broad range of disciplines through innovation and rigorous scientificinquiry.
A critical need in the quest for fusion energy production is the ability to sustain
a burning plasma by controlling and predicting its dynamics. Burning plasmas, inwhich the heating is primarily due to the energy released from fusion reactions,pose challenges to stability and control that are not fully addressable in current
experiments and for which significant uncertainty exists. Addressing thosechallenges requires establishing scenarios for maintaining high performance ina burning regime and preventing damage associated with transient events
through the development of tools to predict, avoid, and mitigate such events. The
tokamak approach for the plasma core is the most technically advanced andA long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

6Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

mature confinement concept. A tokamak FPP will require completing criticalresearch on existing domestic facilities, and significant participation in the
ITER research program. ITER participation will increase knowledge in burning
plasma physics and in materials science and technology. New collaborations
with industry potentially offer pathways to accelerate access to burning plasma
conditions. Complementing these priority areas is research into non-tokamak
confinement approaches, including stellarators, inertial fusion energy, and otheralternate confinement approaches. Investment in the alternate approaches isimportant both as a risk-mitigation strategy for the tokamak approach and tosupport innovations that could accelerate progress toward an FPP and commercial
fusion energy.
An FPP will produce heat, particle, and neutron fluxes that significantly exceed
those in present confinement facilities, and new approaches and materials need
to be developed and engineered for the anticipated extreme reactor conditions.
Those intense conditions affect all regions of the reactor in distinct ways, including the plasma-facing components (PFCs); structural, functional, magnet, anddiagnostic materials; and ex-vessel components. In an FPP, high fluxes of 14 MeV
neutrons produce damaging and poorly understood effects in materials. A scientific understanding of how the properties of materials evolve and degrade due
to fusion neutron exposure is needed to safely predict the behavior of materials
in fusion reactors. Even those components not directly exposed to high fluxes
from the plasma still experience a complex multifactor environment that includes
high temperatures, tritium migration and trapping, material interfaces, and highstresses. Innovative approaches and new developments will lead to integrated
solutions to those harsh conditions.
Interlinked with a burning plasma and materials are the key systems required toharness fusion power, breed fuel, and ensure the safe operation of a reactor.
Before an FPP is constructed, materials and components must be qualified anda system design must ensure the compatibility of all components. Just as theplasma and materials in a fusion reactor will need to advance beyond today’s
capabilities, the balance of plant equipment, remote handling, tritium breeding,and safety systems will also require significant advances.
The research encompassed by these three technology and science drivers isessential to lowering the risks to an acceptable level for an FPP and will allow the
US to pursue a swift, innovative, and economically attractive path to fusionenergy production. The societal benefit of establishing a new carbon-neutral
power source and developing the industry that supports it cannot be understated. Such a power source would be one of the most transformational technologies in the field of plasma science. On the road to achieving this scientific
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

7

Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

grand challenge are myriad additional spinoff technologies and fundamental
investigations that can reveal new knowledge about the universe.
The field of plasma science and technology is a rich and diverse landscape,from the search for accurate theoretical descriptions of the complex emergent
behavior of the plasma state to the production of matter at extreme conditions
that exceed even those at the core of giant planets or stars. Low-temperatureplasma science can also play a critical role in the development of new technologies. Expanding the fundamental understanding of plasmas and their interactions with their surroundings across wide ranges of temperature and density
underpins not only fusion physics but the practical application of plasmas for
manufacturing, medicine, and agriculture. The plasma science and technology
component of the FES mission is impelled by three main drivers: Strengthen theFoundations, Understand the Plasma Universe, and Create Transformative
Technologies. Together these drivers tackle the plasma questions of highest
scientific impact and urgency, and they foster innovation by spurring exploration
as dynamic as the processes in plasmas themselves. The programs, initiatives,and facilities identified here represent an opportunity to increase US leadershipby strengthening investment in research areas of high potential, while moving
forward with new capabilities and facilities and tapping the collective wisdom of
the scientific community through a series of networks, collaborations, andpartnerships.
Strengthening the foundations of plasma science deepens our fundamental
understanding of nature. Exciting new experimental capabilities are unlocking
unprecedented plasma regimes, while new theories and computational methods
provide the insight to decipher them. Extremely intense lasers are making
compact particle accelerators possible and may soon reach nonlinear quantum
electrodynamic (QED) regimes in which pair plasmas will be created directlyfrom light. Pulsed-power facilities compress matter to such high density that the
behavior of the resulting warm dense plasma is fundamentally different fromknown states of condensed matter or plasmas. Because the plasma has highelectrical conductivity, magnetic fields can be compressed to approach
strengths only found in astrophysical objects such as white dwarfs. Couplingthese drivers with X-ray free electron lasers allows exquisite measurementsof these novel states of plasma. At the same time, tabletop-scale experiments
create and trap exotic states of antimatter and strongly correlated plasmas,
which can be so sensitively diagnosed that they can be used to test fundamental
symmetries of nature. Strengthening the foundations of plasma science will
require facilities and computational hardware at a range of scales, theoreticalresearch that charts next steps, and a hierarchy of computational techniquesthat connect the microscopic to the macroscopic.
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science8Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Understanding the plasma universe is essential to learning about the origins andthe evolution of the universe. Nearly every aspect of the cosmos is influenced
by plasma, from lightning and aurora in Earth’s atmosphere to stellar winds thatfill the space between planets and stars; from accretion disks surrounding supermassive black holes at the centers of the galaxies to the particle jets launchedfrom the most distant and ancient quasars. All these systems are strongly
affected by plasma behaviors that are not yet understood, including magnetic
reconnection, turbulence, and particle energization. Viewing astrophysics
through the lens of plasma physics is crucial, given recent advances in multimessenger astronomy and spacecraft missions. As spacecraft such as theParker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter “touch the Sun,” knowledge of plasmamechanisms will play a key role in interpreting this frontier of space exploration.
In addition to theoretical and computational studies, exploration of the plasma
universe can be conducted through experiments on Earth. The breadth of
conditions observed in the plasma universe requires a wide-ranging laboratory
approach, from high-energy-density laser experiments to magnetized plasma
facilities at multiple scales.
Plasma science and technology lays the foundation for creating transformativetechnologies unique in implementation and application. The realization of an
FPP opens the door to ubiquitous carbon-free electricity. Plasma-based technologies promise unique pathways to bring that electricity to the products thatpower society. That power could revolutionize the way chemicals are manufactured. Such technologies promise the realization of novel materials that cannot
be manufactured by conventional means, such as functionalized nanoparticles
for drug delivery and new materials relevant to quantum information systems.
The next generation of rockets, powered by fusion, may enable human exploration of the solar system and beyond with faster transit times. The next generationof ultrafast, compact electronic devices, such as cell phones and computers,
will rely on plasma science to fuel advances in semiconductor manufacturing.
Novel, precise therapies for cancer and for antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections
are now within reach, buoyed by advances in atmospheric-pressure plasmas
and plasma-based ultracompact accelerators.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

9Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Sidebar 1

Technology and Science Drivers

Fusion Technology& Science Drivers

Plasma Technology& Science Drivers

Sustain a burning plasma

Understand the plasma universe

Build the science and technology
required to confine andsustain a burning plasma.

Plasmas permeate the universe
and are the heart of the mostenergetic events we observe.

Engineer for extreme conditions

Strengthen the foundations

Develop the materials required
to withstand the extreme
environment of a fusion reactor.

Explore and discover new
regimes and exotic states ofmatter, enabled by newexperimental capabilities.

Harness fusion power

Create transformative technologies

Engineer the technologies
required to breed fusion fuel andto generate electricity in afusion pilot plant by the 2040s.

Unlock the potential of plasmas
to transform society.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

10Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Programs and facilities to execute the strategic plan
Aligning the program with the six technology and science drivers will require
redirection of programs and development of new facilities. Collaborations withinternational and privately funded research programs are important componentsof the strategy, and participation in ITER is considered essential for obtaining
access to a high-gain burning plasma. Rigorous scientific inquiry is cultivatedby leveraging current leadership, partnerships, and priority research areasthat advance general plasma science and high-energy-density physics whileemphasizing the potential of plasma-based technology for translational
research. Success in all of these areas will require robust support for foundational cross-cutting research in theory, modeling, and computation; diagnostic
development; and transformative enabling technologies. The multidisciplinary
workforce needed for fusion energy and plasma science requires that the community commit to the creation and maintenance of a healthy climate of diversity,
equity, and inclusion, which will benefit the community as a whole and themission of FES.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science11

Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Research Program Areas
New or expanded research program areas are urgently needed to fulfill themission of developing our fundamental understanding of plasmas and to movetoward a fusion energy source — with FPP readiness by the 2040 s. These
research program elements are described here at a high level, targeting thespecific technology and science drivers identified above, and are not in priority
order (prioritization is provided in the budget scenarios in Chapter 2).
FPP System Design and Integration: A central overarching priority is to form adomestic multi-institutional, collaborative FPP mission, design, and study program. This effort will provide the resources and coordination to integrate criticalresearch advances made across the FES portfolio into attractive FPP concepts.
It will need to merge advances in the understanding of burning plasma physics
with the capabilities of new fusion materials and technologies. Attention also
needs to be paid to licensing and safety-related issues (e.g., tritium and activation product transport and stored energy sources including the plasma, magnets, and cryogens). An integrated plant design requires consideration forbalance of plant equipment and remote handling capabilities and should address
the reliability, availability, maintainability and inspectability (RAMI) of the plant.
Participation by private and public stakeholders is essential to ensure economic
attractiveness. Innovations made outside the public program are appropriately
considered in developing these concepts. An essential component underpinning this effort is a strong theory and computation program, including the advancement of multiscale, multiphysics theory and modeling capabilities necessary to
predict the complex interactions between numerous plasma, material, andengineering processes that will occur within an FPP. A vital part of the programis the continued development of validated models at a range of complexities
and experimental fidelities, along with the predictive integrated modeling capabilities that utilize them. Creating such models will require continued close
partnership between FES and ASCR to fully leverage US investments in highperformance computing, including coming exascale machines. Moreover, accelerated progress and increased readiness of multiple systems are needed tosafely design and operate a fusion reactor; those components include advances indiagnostics, instrumentation, data handling, and automated real-time decision
making. This design effort should give significant attention to activities contrasting tokamak-based concepts with concept studies for different plasma cores likestellarators, alternates, or inertial confinement fusion energy (IFE). It should also
include activities agnostic to the plasma core. Additionally, designs for concept
exploration or for devices aiming to extend the performance of successfully
tested innovative concepts should be pursued to provide an information basis forthe design, decision, and pursuance of new facilities.
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

12Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Fusion Materials and Technology: Critical developments are needed in fusionmaterials, magnets, and heating and current drive actuators. Technology
advances are needed to handle the extreme conditions expected in future fusion
reactors and to harness fusion energy and breed fuel. In addition to advancing
key research on existing facilities such as linear plasma devices and in-pile
fission irradiation, resource enhancement must allow timely resolution of critical
FPP design questions. Because of the significant time scales involved in facility
development and subsequent research, immediate action is needed. Increased
investment in theory and simulation supporting the research on these facilities
is also needed. Focus is given to the development of plasma-facing materials
and components, structural and functional materials, and fusion blanket and fuelcycle elements needed for an FPP. Diagnostic advances for fusion materials
studies are needed to understand the interaction of materials with the fusion
environment. Magnets are an integral feature of magnetic fusion configurations,and it is desirable to develop magnets with higher fields, operating temperatures,and reliability, which are constructed with streamlined manufacturing processes
and reduced production costs. All of these factors improve the performance
and/or lower the costs of an FPP. Private industry has made significant progressin developing the relevant magnet technology, including high-temperature
superconducting magnets, and the federal program should complement and,
when possible, collaborate with those activities. Launching structures forradio-frequency plasma heating and current drive actuators must be made of
new materials in order to withstand the neutron and plasma environment, haveintegrated steady-state cooling, and have more acceptable long-pulse reliability.
Efficiency improvements in the source, the transmission, and the plasma coupling must be developed to enhance FPP competitiveness. The development ofmaterials and technology appropriate for the nuclear conditions of a fusion
reactor is a critical need in the international effort to develop fusion energy. The
US is poised for leadership in this area through targeted investments in uniquefacilities. Collaboration and partnering with the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy inthe areas of materials development, generation of qualification-level data,and improved technologies for materials and component irradiation should becultivated.
Fusion Plasma Core: The tokamak is the most technically advanced approach for
use as a fusion reactor power core. The ITER international experiment is thelargest single investment by DOE FES, and a US ITER research team needs to beformed to leverage it. That team will make essential contributions to achieving
the high gain mission for ITER, exploit unique access to a burning plasma at thereactor scale, and enable US scientists to close the nuclear science and engineering gaps in order to build an FPP. Access to burning plasmas could also be
possible in the US-based privately funded SPARC tokamak as early as mid-decade.
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

13

Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

SPARC will be parallel and complementary to international fusion efforts, including
ITER, and to other ongoing private-sector fusion endeavors. The existing DIII-D
and NSTX-U national tokamak facilities are key to preparation for the study ofburning plasmas in ITER and in other planned and future private devices.
Additional research on these facilities, in combination with private and international collaborations, continuing support of existing university tokamak programs, and utilization of US expertise in theory and simulation, is needed to findsolutions to remaining technical gaps. These gaps include disruption prediction,
avoidance, and mitigation; plasma-facing component integration; and FPP relevant scenario development. Advances in technology and in our understanding of plasma physics have opened paths to lower capital cost tokamak FPPs,
but have also brought scientific and technical challenges that must be overcome.
These challenges motivate the construction of a new world-leading domestic
tokamak, which would be uniquely situated to develop integrated solutions in a
useful time frame. In order to mitigate risks associated with the tokamak
approach, alternative pathways to fusion are also pursued, which could lead tomore economic fusion power in the longer term by capitalizing on US expertise.
Quasi-symmetric stellarators are considered, as are alternate plasma coresolutions beyond the tokamak and stellarator. These alternate pathways aresupported at three levels, from basic validation of the physics, through development of self-consistent solutions, to demonstration of integrated solutions.
A reestablished IFE program takes advantage of US leadership in high-energydensity physics and progress that the NNSA has made toward high yield ininertial confinement fusion.

General Plasma Science Program (GPS): GPS research explores the fundamental
behaviors of plasmas. This includes foundational theoretical descriptions ofplasma dynamics, numerical methods to model multiscale behavior, and experiments that test whether our understanding of plasmas is accurate. Such foundational research serves as the basis for all areas of plasma science andtechnology, ranging from the laboratory to astrophysics. Although motivatedprimarily by the desire to understand nature, many of the physics processes
studied have direct relevance to fusion and other technological applications. The
GPS program funds research at a range of scales, including operations andconstruction of the Basic Plasma Science Facility at UCLA, the Wisconsin Plasma
Physics Laboratory, the Magnetized Dusty Plasma Experiment at Auburn, and the
Facility for Laboratory Reconnection Experiments at Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory. A major component of the GPS research program is the long-standing
NSF – DOE Partnership in Plasma Science and Engineering.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

14

Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

High-Energy-Density Laboratory Plasmas (HEDLP): HEDLP research explores
and applies novel regimes resulting from the extraordinary ability to concentrate
power — in many cases more power than the world’s total electric generating
capacity in an area smaller than the end of a human hair — for a brief fraction of
a second. That ability creates new states of matter that include condensed matter,warm and hot dense matter, and plasmas relevant to astrophysical phenomena,
stellar properties and processes, and fusion reactors. Self-organized,
far-from-equilibrium plasmas are probed and controlled, enabling unique applications such as new accelerators and materials. This program has a successful
history of partnering with DOE NNSA, NSF, and DOE HEP to fund research on
several midscale laser, pulsed-power, and X-ray free electron (XFEL) facilities.
Plasma-Based Technology Program: Technologies in the plasma science andtechnology (PST) portfolio include low-temperature plasmas and plasma-based
accelerators. These technologies benefit the public by enabling cell phones,
computers, advanced drinking water purification, and security and medical
methods. They underlie key industries such as semiconductor manufacturingand materials processing, which directly fuel the economy through innovationand maintaining core competence and leadership in those industries. A plasmabased technology program that consolidates and focuses critical efforts will
facilitate technology transfer and realize the promise of this area.
Networks: Collaborative networks of researchers and facilities can provide
enormous value as a coordinating organization and mechanism for leveraging
resources and capabilities. LaserNet US is a successful model that brings
together 10 unique midscale laser facilities and opens up opportunities toa large number of new users. In a similar vein, the establishment of a MagNet
centered around basic magnetized plasma and laboratory space/astrophysics,
a ZNet for pulsed-power science and technology, and an LTP-Net for low-temperatureplasmas could similarly support growth and enable collaborative research intheir respective areas. These networks can encourage cross-fertilization as
researchers work on multiple facilities and will facilitate the training of students.
Coordination and access to computational/theoretical models, diagnostics, andother resources in support of experiments can also be established. These
network structures also position the US to be more competitive, because investments, technology development, and future planning can be implemented morestrategically by engaging the full community.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

15

Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Facilities
New mid- to large-scale facilities are urgently needed to meet the goal of FPP
readiness by the early 2040s and to realize the goals of plasma science andtechnology. The elements of the following list are grouped by topical area andare not in priority order.
Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source (FPNS): The science of material exposure tofusion neutron fluxes is a key gap in the international fusion program. No facility
exists that can generate the necessary fluence, energy spectrum, and helium
production level in the lattice of candidate materials. FPNS concepts that utilize
existing facilities like accelerators or commercial units, combined into a costeffective system, can be a fast track forward. FPNS provides leadership opportunities based on existing expertise in nuclear materials in the US program byenabling the fundamental explorations of fusion nuclear material science, whichneeds to be combined with a reinvigorated neutron theory and computation
program. Moreover, accelerated access to fusion neutron exposure is an area of
extreme interest to the fusion industry and has significant opportunities fornear-term public – private partnerships.
Material Plasma Exposure eXperiment (MPEX): MPEX is under construction and will
provide a unique capability to study plasma-material interactions under conditions
that are prototypical for a reactor divertor regime as far as the near-wall plasma-material interface is concerned. The ability to expose irradiated materials tothese plasma conditions and conduct rapid turnaround in-situ and ex-situ
material characterization are the most impor tant project elements that need tobe met as key program deliverables toward an FPP.
High-Heat-Flux ( HHF) testing facilities: Testing capabilities to explore propertiesof materials and plasma-facing components, both solid and liquid, under highheat fluxes address a key gap toward FPP material definitions. Experimental
capabilities to conduct fundamental testing on coupon levels (centimeter scale)are a necessary testbed for model validation of material properties. The couponlevel testing is a prerequisite for component-level testing (tens of centimeters
to meters scale) to qualify components for an FPP. Accordingly, testing facilities
for both levels of high-heat-flux materials research are required.
EXhaust and Confinement Integration Tokamak Experiment (EXCITE): High-magneticfield approaches to a tokamak-based FPP raise specific scientific and engineering
challenges. High-divertor-power exhaust solutions need to be integrated withsustainment of high-power-density plasma cores, which are needed for generationof significant fusion power. Both the NASEM Burning Plasma Report and the CPP
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science16

Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

report identify the need to address these challenges in an integrated fashion,rather than at separate facilities. This requirement motivates the need forconstruction of a new domestic tokamak, previously referred to as NTUF (NewTokamak User Facility) in the CPP report.
Blanket Component Test Facility (BCTF): The CPP report outlines an R&D programon blanket materials and transport phenomena that culminates in the design
and fabrication of blanket-section prototypes, which undergo staged testingin a Blanket Component Test Facility (BCTF) and Volumetric Neutron Source (VNS).
The CPP report describes a BCTF that integrates all non-nuclear features of afusion blanket and its ancillary systems (prototypic, at-scale complex structuresand coolants) under prototypic conditions of temperature, pressure, magnetic
field, and mechanical stress, with surrogate surface and volumetric heating andinjected hydrogen or deuterium in place of tritium. Concepts successfully vetted
in the BCTF, and fission and/or fusion irradiations, could potentially proceed
to full nuclear testing and tritium production in the VNS . Further definition anddevelopment of these facilities and research plans should be undertaken by
the program and the community.
Midscale Stellarator: A proof of concept experiment is needed to demonstrate
improved steady-state plasma confinement in combination with a novel nonresonant divertor. Development of this research line provides risk mitigation forthe mainline tokamak approach and could lead to a commercially more attractive fusion system. This stellarator facility would therefore be a discovery-oriented
facility that could stimulate a great deal of innovation.
Volumetric Neutron Source (VNS): Recognizing the critical need for integral-effectirradiation testing of components or subcomponents, such as blanket modules,
the CPP report recommended pursuit of a VNS for this purpose without specifying particular metrics or a confinement concept that would provide fusion neutrons.
Multiple VNS concepts have been proposed and a concept assessment study
should evaluate any plasma physics developments required to realize eachconcept, determine the relevance of these configurations to tokamak/FPP components, and assess them against quantitative metrics (e.g., on neutron flux
or fluence) to be achieved in advance of FPP operation. This initial assessment
activity should identify either a suitable concept for further development, construction, and operation, or identify an alternate approach (e.g., fission reactor
irradiation or early phase testing in FPP) that best meets this mission need.
MEC-Upgrade: An upgrade to the Matter in Extreme Conditions (MEC) end-station
at the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) would enable the co-location ofa PW-laser operating at 1–10 Hz repetition rate and a multi-kJ long pulse laser
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

17

Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

with our only domestic XFEL. This would enable us to tackle physical and chemical changes at fundamental time scales and explore new regimes of densematerial physics, astrophysics, planetary physics, and short-pulse laser-plasmainteractions. The MEC-U proposal has achieved Critical Decision 0 and is currently in preparation for CD-1, also having received line-item status in the FY 2020
Congressional budget.
Solar Wind Facility: How the solar wind is accelerated, heated, and driven turbulent is among the most persistent and important open questions in plasma
science. It is an opportune moment to develop, in concert with advanced space
missions, a next-generation experimental facility to isolate, control, and diagnose plasma phenomena responsible for the complex solar wind behavior,at relevant scales. This facility would leverage and coordinate existing laboratory
space/astrophysics research groups, as the experimental conditions needed
to pursue solar-wind-related questions can also benefit research in broader
astrophysical contexts. Such a venture would be a prime opportunity to coordinate
among interested funding agencies, primarily NSF and NASA, but also ONR
and AFOSR.
Multi-Petawatt Laser Facility: Tens-of-petawatt laser systems can produce lightpressures in the exapascal regime, copious amounts of radiation, and extremely
bright beams of energetic particles, including electrons, ions, neutrons, or
antimatter. The novel capabilities enabled by multi-PW lasers open new frontiersin R&D such as particle acceleration and advanced light sources, high-field
physics and nonlinear quantum electrodynamics (QED), and laser-driven nuclear
physics. As identified in the BLI report, there is a need for the US to develop
ultrahigh-intensity technology and build an open-access laser user facility withmultiple beamlines at 10–100 PW peak powers.
High-Repetition-Rate Laser Facility: New high-repetition-rate (10 Hz to kHz) laser
systems coming online represent a fundamentally new system architecture
for high energy density (HED). The greater than 1000 times increase in shot rateover today’s systems, coupled to emerging technologies such as machinelearning and additive manufacturing, will result in an enormous acceleration in
the rate of knowledge acquisition. Such high-rep-rate high-energy lasers further
open the door to unprecedented temporal and spatial resolution of HEDP
phenomena, including GeV-class electron beams and precision HED pumps andprobes. Recent community reports from NASEM and BLI have clearly outlined
the urgent science case and FES mission-relevant needs for a short-pulse, highpeak-power, high-average-power laser system. This may be an area for partneringwith DOE HEP, which may take the lead on this facility.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science18

Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Midscale Z pinch: Extremely strong magnetic fields over macroscopic volumes
are only accessible via pulsed-power facilities, which open up the physics ofplasmas in a way that other plasma drivers cannot. Current US facilities areeither very large and complex (the 26 MA Sandia Z-Machine with < 1 shot/day)or too small (~1 MA or less) to address the breadth of science expressed by thecommunity. There is clear interest in establishing a pulsed-power facility at anintermediate size (up to 10 MA) accessible to the academic community, with ahigher shot rate than Z, yet still capable of fielding fusion-relevant and HED
experiments. Further, such a facility could explore driver technologies andpulsed-power science for next-generation larger-scale pulsed-power devices
such as a 60 MA “Z-Next.” This facility would provide an opportunity for FES topartner with another agency, such as NNSA or NSF, which might take the lead.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

19

Chapter 1

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Process and Prioritization Criteria
The following criteria express the principles used to prioritize projects and programs discussed in this report. Consensus criteria and guidance for prioritization
within program areas were developed by the research community during the
CPP process. That guidance is incorporated in the criteria below, which were used
for prioritization of the entire portfolio. In applying the criteria and following thecharge language, we assume that the ITER construction project will be successful, and we thus focus on the non-ITER portion of the budget.
Alignment: Align projects and programs with the technology and science drivers
to achieve the fusion mission, specifically the path to an FPP, and to advancefundamental plasma science and enable societally beneficial plasma applications.
Balance technological development with scientific discovery, recognizing theimportance of both as the sources of innovations that benefit the entire program.
Urgency: Prioritize the most expeditious path to fusion energy and other plasma
technologies that provide compelling solutions to urgent issues such as sustainable, carbon-free power production, advanced medical therapies, and more
efficient industrial processes.
Innovation: Embrace innovative research, new developments in technology, andinterdisciplinary connections to address key challenges. Reduce the time and cost
to develop usable fusion energy and other plasma applications.
Impact: Implement a logical sequence of programs that increases scientific andtechnological progress relative to investment, reduces the risks associatedwith the FPP mission and the technology and science objectives, and takes into
account time constraints and impacts on the overall program.
Leadership: Establish and maintain US leadership, including world-leading
facilities, science, and industries that attract international participation.
Recognize federal, industry, and international efforts in fusion and plasma
development and form partnerships whenever possible.
Stewardship: As experimental capabilities are developed and program transitions
occur, ensure the continued productivity of an essential workforce to maintainscientific and technological progress. Engage all stakeholders in executing the
program, including national laboratories, industry, and universities.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

20Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Recommendations
andBudget Scenarios

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science21

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

The fields of fusion energy research and plasma
science and engineering were described in
Chapter 1, along with the scientific and technologicalopportunities they present. In this chapter, we
present recommendations on how the Departmentof Energy (DOE) Fusion Energy Sciences (FES)
research program should capitalize on those opportunities. Acting on the recommendations below
would create a research and development (R&D)
program that would move aggressively towardpractical fusion energy, deepen our understandingof plasma science, and create transformativeplasma technologies. Realization of the strategicplan, including enabling the progress needed
to confidently prepare for a fusion pilot plant (FPP)by the 2040s, will require timely implementationof all of these recommendations.This requires
substantial additional resources to be added to theprogram compared to the FY19 budget.
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

22

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

The recommendations are grouped into two categories. Overarching Recommendations are independent of specific programs or facilities andviewed as essential to successful execution of the
DOE FES research program. Project and Program
Specific Recommendations are grouped into threesubcategories: Fusion Science and Technology
Program, Plasma Science and Technology Program, and Cross-cutting that apply to all programs.
The order of presentation of these recommendations does not imply priority; all recommendations
should be acted on to fully realize the strategicplan. Prioritization of activities is expressed throughthe budget scenario descriptions below.

FusionA long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

Plasmas23

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Overarching Recommendations
The Community Planning Process (CPP), completed early in 2020, resulted in thefusion and plasma science research communities coming to consensus on new
directions for FES-funded research. This first recommendation aligns the strategicplan with the consensus view, as summarized in Chapter 1:– Recommendation: Align the program with the six technology and science drivers
in order to establish the scientific and technical basis for a fusion pilot plantby the 2040s and advance fundamental understanding of plasmas that translates
into applications that benefit society.
Experimental research and technology development in fusion energy and plasma
science require state-of-the-art facilities, often at large scale. US participationin the international ITER experiment is critical to accessing burning plasmas
at reactor scale. The US has invested significantly over the past decade in thedesign and construction of ITER and will continue to do so over the coming
decade to ensure access. However, additional high-priority research gaps will
require the development of large-scale facilities to be successfully addressed.
Outside the important investment in ITER, there has been little investment overthe past decade in the development of major new experimental capabilities.
Addressing the technology and science drivers will require continuing investmentin the design, construction and operation of facilities that provide importantnew capabilities. Such investment is necessary to maintain a vigorous scientificprogram and to achieve necessary breakthroughs in numerous areas. This
strategic plan provides a framework for sequencing the development of those
new capabilities.
– Recommendation: Resources for ongoing design and construction of major new
experimental facilities should be established in the DOE FES budget.
Although large-scale facilities are essential to make progress in many areas,
important aspects of the technology and science drivers can be successfully
addressed through the development of small and medium-scale experimental
facilities. Such facilities are amenable to siting at universities, where investments
can have high impact, provide leadership opportunities to faculty and juniorscientists, and help develop the workforce needed to execute this strategic plan.
– Recommendation: Opportunities should be provided for developing newexperimental capabilities at a range of scales, as appropriate to address thegoals of this strategic plan.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science24

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

The strategic plan should be regularly updated to adapt to new scientific discoveries, technological breakthroughs and other changes in the R&D landscape.
– Recommendation: This long-range planning process, including a strong communityled component, should be repeated no later than every five years in order toupdate the strategic plan.
Strategic planning is most effective if ideas for major new experimental capabilities are developed to the preconceptual stage, preferably with mission need andscope well defined and a preliminary cost range established. The Critical
Decision process within DOE provides a framework for accomplishing this goal,
and utilizing this process to routinely refine the design of needed new experimental facilities is highly desirable.
– Recommendation: Maturation of preconceptual designs, scope, and costing for
proposed new experimental facilities should be part of regular program activities.
Fusion and plasma science research has strong and growing commercial connections to US industry. These connections exist across the whole portfolio
of industry applications, and an opportunity exists for DOE to take a more activerole in translating advances stemming from federally funded research into
commercial applications. Public – private partnerships (PPPs) should be formed
with private industry and used as a paradigm for accelerating fusion andplasma science research to benefit both the government-funded program andprivate companies. Research conducted in the private sector can benefit fromfederally supported programs by offering more cost-effective pathways to retire
risk in key gap areas while establishing the industrial infrastructure critical forthe next steps in fusion energy and plasma technology. Access to public facilities and programs can be leveraged to solve technical problems by privatecompanies that do not have the public sector’s capabilities. Public – private
partnership should be used as a tool to stimulate industry involvement. DOE FES
has already established successful PPP programs, notably the Innovation
Network for Fusion Energy (INFUSE). These activities should be expanded, and
new PPP programs, including milestone-based cost-share programs, should
be developed. Investment in PPP activities should align with priorities in thestrategic plan and be balanced by robust investment in federally funded programs
to maximize effectiveness of the partnership. Further discussion of specificopportunities in PPP is offered in Appendix B.
– Recommendation: Expand existing and establish new public – private partnershipprograms to leverage capabilities, reduce cost, and accelerate the commercialization of fusion power and plasma technologies.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

25

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Research and development in fusion energy and plasma science and technology
is inherently interdisciplinary. Given the broad range of applications where thesefields have relevance, there is also a range of federal agencies that currently
provide research support, including the Air Force Office of Sponsored Research,
DOE ARPA-E, DOE Advanced Scientific Computing Research, DOE High Energy
Physics, DOE National Nuclear Security Administration, NASA, the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and the Office of Naval Research. Coordination among
these federal programs has led to extremely successful research programs; theNSF – DOE Partnership in Basic Plasma Science and Engineering and the Joint
Program in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas with the NNSA and FES areprominent examples. Expanding on those successes and increasing program
coordination, including cooperative construction and support of experimental
facilities, could make better use of federal resources and enable more rapid
progress toward development of fusion energy and advancement of plasma
science and engineering.
– Recommendation: Explore and implement mechanisms for formal coordination
between funding agencies that support fusion and plasma science research.
Successfully addressing the challenges of bringing fusion power to the grid andadvancing the frontier of plasma science requires innovation, creativity, anda talented, multidisciplinary and diverse workforce. Barriers to assembling thisworkforce should be addressed in order to achieve the goals in this strategic plan.
First, the fusion and plasma community is not accessing the available talent poolin our current workforce. Data show that our research community has significant
deficiencies in workforce diversity, with participation from women and underrepresented minorities below national averages for other subfields of physics andengineering. This is not just an issue of recruiting talent, but also of retaining
talent, something that is affected by the culture within the community and that
could be addressed through embracing equity and inclusion.
Second, DOE lacks the tools necessary to direct development of the needed
workforce to execute this strategic plan. The Office of Management and Budget
recently implemented a policy change that significantly limits workforce andoutreach programs at DOE. The new policy was intended to reduce duplicationof education and outreach activities at federal agencies, but it had the unintended consequence of eliminating discipline-specific outreach and workforce
programs that were not being duplicated at other agencies.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science26

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Below we offer overarching recommendations on diversity, equity, inclusion,
and workforce development. We dedicate Appendix C to more specificrecommendations.
– Recommendation: DOE and FES should develop and implement plans toincrease diversity, equity, and inclusion ( DEI) in our community. Done in consultation with DEI experts and in collaboration with other institutions, this should
involve the study of workplace climate, policies, and practices, via assessment
metrics and standard practices.
– Recommendation: Restore DOE’s ability to execute discipline-specific workforce
development programs that can help recruit diverse new talent to FES-supported
fields of research.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science27

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Program and Project Specific Recommendations
The following recommendations address specific elements of the Fusion
Science and Technology (FST) and Plasma Science and Technology (PST)
program components. As with the earlier recommendations, resource priorities
across and within program components are delineated in the budget scenarios,
which follow this section, and not by recommendation ordering.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science28

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Fusion Science and Technology
The recommendations described below are aimed at realizing the overall goal ofestablishing the technical basis for an FPP by the 2040s. It is therefore implicit that all
recommendations are implemented in time to be consistent with achieving that goal.
The underlying theme guiding the strategic plan is the need to move aggressively
toward the deployment of fusion energy. The design, construction, and operationof a fusion pilot plant (FPP) is recognized as a critical milestone toward that goal.
The coordinated program delineated here develops FPP concepts that canadvance to engineering designs and rapidly adapt to innovations and advancesin understanding. Physics modeling efforts also must be brought together withengineering tools in order to address issues beyond the fusion core, includingbalance of plant equipment, licensing, remote handling, maintenance, andreliability. Cutting-edge physics, materials and engineering, and integrated
models need to be applied to viable confinement concepts and operating scenarios so as to continuously inform research needs and priorities. Both the
public and private sectors have a diverse range of stakeholders for an FPP, andthey will all need to participate in such a coordinated effort.
– Recommendation: Initiate a design effort that engages all stakeholders to establish the technical basis for closing critical gaps for a fusion pilot plant, utilizing
and strengthening the world-leading US theory and computation capabilities andengineering design tools.
Construction of a viable FPP will require significant technology development
beyond the burning plasma itself. Critical enabling technologies such as plasmafacing components, structural and functional materials, and breeding-blanket
and tritium-handling systems are not yet advanced enough for an FPP. The timerequired to develop these technologies at present levels of support is incompatible with the goal of a fusion pilot plant by the 2040s. Increased support forthese program areas is therefore critical, as is an increased emphasis on foundational fusion materials and technology research. That emphasis includes the
expansion of theory and modeling work that supports advancing technology
readiness levels (TRLs), accelerating development of diagnostics and measurement systems that will function in fusion nuclear (irradiation-hardened) environments, and rapidly maturing enabling technologies. This includes the expansionof theory and modeling efforts that support advancing technology readinesslevels, such as the development of validated models at a range of complexities
suitable for inclusion in integrated modeling capabilities needed to accelerate
the development and qualification of new materials.
– Recommendation: Rapidly expand the R&D effort in fusion materials and technology.
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science29

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Fusion nuclear facilities including an FPP will require new materials to be conceived,
developed, and qualified for nuclear use. This process is well understood fornuclear components having a clear path that includes laboratory development,
standardized testing, and regulatory oversight and approval. While mixed spectrum fission reactors are and will remain the primary workhorse for R&D andfor obtaining qualification-level data of irradiated materials, they do not produce
the appropriate spectrum for materials irradiated in a fusion reactor core. In
this region, the fusion-born neutrons will produce significant, yet largely unknown,
effects on structural and nonstructural components of the first wall, divertor,and blanket. To develop materials that withstand high levels of fusion neutron
irradiation and can be qualified for FPP service, an irradiation facility that can
produce the required damage and transmutation rates is necessary. The Fusion
Prototypical Neutron Source (FPNS) recommended here should be highly reliable and have the flexibility to increase the damage rate. The primary utilityof this facility will be to translate the measured effects of the fusion spectrum
and transmutation products into codes with predictive capability. Toward thatend a comprehensive program of modeling, advanced characterization, andhigh-temperature nuclear-structural design criteria is necessary. These tools,
along with the construction of an FPNS, will build upon the US leadership in fusionmaterials technology.
– Recommendation: Immediately establish the mission need for an FPNS facility
to support development of new materials suitable for use in the fusion nuclear
environment and pursue design and construction as soon as possible.
Physics-based understanding of plasma-material interactions (PMI), including
the development of predictive capabilities for the material response and exhaust
solution, is necessary to construct and qualify plasma-facing components(PFCs) for an FPP. Reaching these capabilities will require support for the completion of the scientific infrastructure, of which the Material Plasma Exposure
eXperiment (MPEX) is a central piece. MPEX is a linear plasma exposure device
that will be uniquely equipped to access prototypical plasma conditions in afusion reactor divertor. The MPEX is currently in the design-to-build process.
Additionally, high-heat-flux testing via a coupon-level (centimeter-scale samples)facility early and a component-level (tens of centimeters to 1 meter scale)facility later will allow for development of materials and qualification of components for an FPP. Together with the existing PMI facilities, these world-leading
capabilities will allow for validation of PMI models that will form the base of PFC
design tools for an FPP.
– Recommendation: Develop the scientific infrastructure necessary for the study ofplasma-materials interactions needed to develop plasma facing components
for an FPP by completing the MPEX and additional high-heat flux testing facilities.
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science30

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Closure of the fusion fuel cycle via successful breeding and extraction of tritium
will be critical for the sustained operation of an FPP. However, breeding-blanket
technologies are presently at a low technology readiness level and are unlikely toadvance to this demonstration stage without significantly increased R&D support. In the near term, this should entail a variety of separate effect test stands
and subcomponent fission reactor irradiations to understand fundamental tritiumtransport properties and phenomena in solid and liquid breeder materials, aswell as associated modeling and model validation efforts. Tritium technologies
related to fueling and exhaust from the plasma, and subsequent processing, will
be demonstrated at significant scale in ITER. The program should involve tritium
experts in the US ITER team so as to maximally benefit from this technology
demonstration. It should also support additional R&D of technologies necessary
to significantly reduce the size, cost, and tritium inventory of a plant based on
ITER technologies. Since there is no current path for the US to deploy a test
blanket module in ITER, this program should also develop a strategy for componentscale blanket testing in a nuclear environment and support preconceptual
design and costing studies for facilities such as a blanket component test facility( BCTF ), fission irradiations (e.g., HFIR , ATR ), fusion irradiations (e.g., FPNS ),and volumetric neutron source ( VNS ), that accomplish both missions on a timescale necessary to enable the FPP.
– Recommendation: Significantly expand blanket and tritium R&D programs.
To confidently design a low-capital-cost tokamak FPP, several gaps in tokamak
physics understanding need to be closed. These include advancing understandingof transport and stability physics for sustaining disruption-free, high-averagepower-output operation; energetic particle and burning plasma physics relevant
to a high-fusion-gain FPP; and plasma-material interactions and material choices
for exhaust solutions. Critical issues must also be addressed to integrate
improved understanding into operational scenarios for an FPP. Important issues
in tokamak physics can be addressed immediately through a comprehensive,
multidisciplinary science program utilizing the world-leading DIII-D and NSTX-U
facilities alongside important smaller-scale facilities at universities. Particularareas of emphasis on DIII-D include resolving the disruption and transientschallenge and informing long-pulse steady-state operation. Areas of emphasis
for NSTX-U include low aspect ratio physics, PMI control, and liquid metal PFC
evaluations. A broader set of opportunities on DIII-D and NSTX-U to close key gaps
in a timely fashion should be pursued when doing so proves cost effective andaccelerates progress toward an FPP. The success of ITER and other future highcurrent tokamaks assumes that the disruption and runaway electron prevention/
avoidance/mitigation techniques developed on existing machines translate topractical solutions for those future devices. If such solutions cannot be developed,
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science31

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

then a stronger focus on advanced tokamak or spherical tokamak approaches
that utilize lower current, higher beta, and/or higher bootstrap fractions andwhich have been shown to be less disruptive than high-current scenarios will be
required, as well as more vigorous pursuit of alternate confinement concepts
including optimized stellarators. Collaborations on planned public and private
domestic and international facilities, particularly those that focus on long-pulse
conditions inaccessible in the US, will provide unique contributions to advancetokamak physics in these areas.
– Recommendation: Utilize research operations on DIII-D and NSTX-U, and collaborate with other world-leading facilities, to ensure that FPP design gaps are
addressed in a timely manner.
In addition, the US should fully exploit its participation in ITER to gain experience
with a burning plasma and fusion technology while benefiting from the sharedcost through an international partnership. ITER is the baseline path to a reactorscale burning plasma and provides unique technology advances that will
accelerate the FPP development path. To ensure timely involvement by the prefusion-power operation phase starting in 2028, the US urgently needs to establish
a framework for developing an appropriate workforce. This should be centrallyorganized, with participation in system design and commissioning efforts in thenear term and activities ramping up as the project moves toward first plasma.
Other near-term opportunities include integrated modeling for scenario development of the first operational phases and establishing data standards. Once
operations begin, there should be a particular emphasis on further advancement
and qualification of disruption prevention, avoidance, and mitigation solutionsin preparation for final demonstration in ITER DT plasmas; significant US R&D could
support this area.
– Recommendation: Ensure full engagement of the US fusion community in ITER byforming an ITER research team that capitalizes on our investment to access ahigh-gain burning plasma.
Even with existing and planned facilities, it will not be possible to address all
outstanding physics issues needed for the US vision of a tokamak-based FPP,
followed by an economically attractive power plant. In particular, this vision
requires demonstrating integrated strategies for handling exhaust heat fluxes wellbeyond what is expected in existing or planned devices, while simultaneously
supporting sustained high core plasma performance. Specifically, these solutions
must be demonstrated to be compatible with FPP-relevant disruption prevention,
avoidance and mitigation solutions developed using current domestic tokamaks,
collaborations, and ITER operation. A range of options for closing this Integrated
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science32

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Tokamak Exhaust and Performance ( ITEP ) gap were considered, including
upgrades to existing facilities and collaborations on both private and international
tokamaks. While those options provide opportunities to partially bridge thisgap, none were judged sufficient to address the fundamental core-edge integration challenge encapsulated by the ITEP gap. Closing that gap is necessary toensure FPP readiness. Building upon the recommendations of the NASEM Burning
Plasma report, we recommend the construction of a new domestic tokamak,
named EXCITE (EXhaust and Confinement Integration Tokamak Experiment), as
the optimal solution for closing the ITEP gap. The envisioned EXCITE design
would offer a unique combination of flexible power exhaust capabilities, plasmafacing component options, control actuators, and access to plasma conditions
that would enable continued US leadership in tokamak physics into the 2030s. At
the same time, EXCITE is envisioned as a modestly sized high-field device
utilizing short-pulse, non-nuclear operation to enable design and construction
on an acceptable time scale at manageable cost. This approach requires animmediate, significant design and costing effort to advance solutions to the ITEP
gap and confirm the EXCITE mission and scope. The activity should make fulluse of world-leading US integrated modeling capabilities to develop preconceptual designs for EXCITE. The designs will be utilized in a detailed assessment ofcost and technical feasibility and compared to alternative gap-closure approaches
such as enhanced collaborations and upgrades. The design effort should include
participation from private industry and international groups to accelerate the
EXCITE schedule and reduce costs.
– Recommendation: Immediately establish the mission need for an EXCITE facility
to close the integrated tokamak and exhaust gap and aggressively pursue
design and construction.
A tokamak with solid plasma-facing components is currently the primary path tocommercial fusion. Four innovative areas aimed at addressing key vulnerabilitiesof this approach will potentially lead to more economically attractive commercial
fusion power systems while leveraging areas of US leadership.
– Stellarators offer intrinsically disruption-free operation with low recirculating
power. The optimized quasi-symmetric stellarator concept is a unique US design
approach that is complemented by international collaboration at the W7-X andLHD stellarators. A new domestic midscale US stellarator experiment should be
realized.
– Liquid metal plasma-facing components potentially expand the reactor-wall
power limits and alleviate lifetime constraints due to material erosion. Low-recycling,liquid lithium walls may open up pathways to high plasma confinement andcompact FPP designs. Development of liquid metal plasma-facing-component
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science33

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

concepts in non-plasma test stands and existing magnetic confinement facilities
should be targeted and should build on PFC concepts developed in the existing
domestic program.
– Inertial fusion energy (IFE) utilizes advances in lasers, pulsed power technology,
and other innovative drivers to achieve fusion at high fuel density. The enormous
progress made with indirect drive at the National Ignition Facility, direct drive,
magnetic drive inertial confinement fusion ( ICF ), and heavy ion fusion underpin
the promise of IFE. An IFE program that leverages US leadership and current
investments should be targeted.
– Breakthroughs in alternate magnetic-confinement concepts, beyond tokamaks
and stellarators, could lead to a lower-cost FPP and subsequently more economically attractive fusion power. Examples of such concepts include those that
require no plasma current; have moderate or zero toroidal magnetic field; andare compact, pulsed plasma targets that may eliminate auxiliary heating. A
program that supports innovative magnetic fusion energy concepts should beconsidered.
– Recommendation: Strengthen the innovative and transformative research program elements that offer promising future opportunities for fusion energy
commercialization: stellarators, liquid metal plasma-facing components, IFE, andalternate concepts.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

34

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Plasma Science and Technology
Fundamental plasma science explores new regimes and deepens our understanding of nature. It includes theories that propose foundational descriptions ofplasmas and their nonlinear, multiscale, collective behavior; computational
methods required to predict outcomes of those theories; and experiments thattest theoretical predictions and validate models. The knowledge these discoveries
provide makes possible the innovative plasma-based technologies that will
advance the field. The future of plasma science will rely on consistent support
through contiguous grant cycles, even when spending fluctuates for construction
projects and large program elements.
– Recommendation: Provide steady support for fundamental plasma science toenable a stream of innovative ideas and talent development that will lay thescientific foundation upon which the next generation of plasma-based technologies can be built.
Advances in energy compression with intense lasers and pulsed-power facilities
have made it possible to squeeze matter to extreme pressures, creating exotic
dense plasma states similar to those thought to exist in the interiors of giant
planets and stars. However, our ability to diagnose or probe the structure anddynamics of these high-energy-density (HED) plasmas is inherently difficult due
to the very dense and rapidly evolving conditions. Transformational measurement techniques are necessary to develop a physics-based understanding topursue some of the grand challenges in HED physics, including, for example,
warm dense matter (WDM) material properties, relativistic laser-plasma interactions, magnetic field generation, and plasma particle acceleration. X-ray freeelectron lasers can give such sensitive measurements of HED plasma states thatthey provide an atom’s eye view with attosecond precision and significantly
advance the state-of-the-art. Not only is MEC-Upgrade the central piece neededto achieve these HED science goals, it can also lead to breakthroughs in our
understanding of materials needed for fusion.
– Recommendation: Complete the design and construction of MEC-Upgrade.
Technologies derived from plasma science investments have had a transformative
effect on modern society. The translation of discoveries in low-temperatureplasmas, for example, has created the semiconductor manufacturing industry,
which provides advanced personal electronics. Plasma-based technologies
will continue to improve quality of life with advances in environmental-hazard
clean up in air, soil, and drinking water; advanced methods for medical treatment
and imaging; and electronics. Plasma-based chemical processing has the
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

35

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

potential to revolutionize industry by enabling the production of new materials
and an innovative means to recycle plastics and other wastes. It will address
climate change by greatly improving the efficiency of typically energy-intensive
chemical processes and by offering ways to convert carbon-free electricalenergy into the products that power society. Translation of basic plasma science
research into actual technologies can be accelerated by a more organized
and formal investment, including partnerships with industry and other federal
agencies — for example, NSF, the National Institutes of Health ( NIH ), theDepartment of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
– Recommendation: Establish a plasma-based technology research program
focused on translating fundamental scientific findings into societally beneficial
applications.
High-intensity lasers are opening new fields across plasma physics, from highenergy-density science and laboratory astrophysics to new diagnostics andparticle sources for science and industry. Two recent reports, NASEM ’s
Opportunities in Intense Ultrafast Lasers: Reaching for the Brightest Light, andthe 2019 Brightest Light Initiative Workshop Report, enumerate the reasons
to invest in intense ultrafast lasers. A new organization should be developed tomaintain the vitality of this research field in the US and to make available thenecessary petawatt-scale and high-repetition-rate laser technologies. FES could
lead in coordinating a high-intensity-laser research initiative to support needs
in discovery science and advance energy technologies. This would resolve
fragmentation where no single national funding agency has responsibility for thefield as a whole. Agencies making investments in this area include DOE FES,
DOE High Energy Physics (HEP), DOE Accelerator R&D and Production (ARD&P),
DOE NNSA, the NSF, and DOD.
– Recommendation: Coordinate a High-Intensity-Laser Research Initiative incollaboration with relevant DOE offices and other federal agencies.
Advanced lasers that go beyond the state of the art in high peak power and invery high average power (kilowatts and beyond) would open new frontiers in thelaser-based science of particle acceleration, advanced light sources, high-field
physics, nonlinear quantum electrodynamics, laser-driven nuclear physics,
laboratory astrophysics and exotic materials. Competition in this arena is fierce,with scores of multi-petawatt lasers planned in Europe and Asia and petawattclass high-repetition-rate laser facilities already in operation internationally.
However, the US has an opportunity to stay competitive by leveraging decadeslong investments and know-how in laser technology, while combining competencies
in multiple emerging technologies — machine learning, advanced manufacturing,
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science36

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

diagnostics, and edge computing — to develop a formidable capability that willrapidly accelerate the HED field.
– Recommendation: Pursue the development of a multi-petawatt laser facility
and a high-repetition-rate high-intensity laser facility in the US, in partnership withother federal agencies where possible.
Networks provide an organizational structure that supports collaboration byincreasing access to experimental facilities, diagnostics, and computational tools.
LaserNetUS is an existing, very successful program that partially supports
facility maintenance and operation, coordinates users, and evaluates proposals.
The program allows researchers that otherwise lack access to state-of-the-art
facilities to conduct frontier experiments; it would enable workforce development
and facilitate coordination and collaboration. This or a similar model would likely
have a comparable impact in other areas of plasma science and technology,
including in low-temperature plasmas, laboratory-magnetized plasmas, andpulsed power. In addition to access to experimental facilities and user support,
networks should include access to resources for computational modeling anddiagnostics. Networks are also a mechanism to organize the community input thatdefines next-generation user facilities.
– Recommendation: Support networks to coordinate research and broaden accessto state-of-the-art facilities, diagnostics, and computational tools.
Space and astrophysical plasma physics are enjoying an exciting time of discovery, as advances in spacecraft missions and remote observations provide
insights into previously inaccessible regions in the solar system and beyond.
The Parker Solar Probe spacecraft is orbiting close enough to the Sun to directly
measure the solar wind at its origin. The mechanisms by which the solar windis accelerated and heated are among the most persistent and important open
research topics in plasma science. Recent advances in deep space imaging
have culminated in the first visualization of an accretion disk — the turbulent,rotating plasma that is generated as material is gravitationally pulled towarda black hole. Understanding these phenomena presents a timely opportunity for
FES to establish a new laboratory-based space and astrophysical plasma program. Controlled laboratory experiments, for example, can isolate, control, anddiagnose plasma phenomena responsible for the complex behaviors seen inplasma systems throughout the cosmos. A partnership could be establishedwith NASA in a focused laboratory space/astro plasma physics program, taking
advantage of a recent NASA– DOE memorandum of understanding affirming
mutual interest in collaborative activities pertaining to energy-related civil space
activities. The existing partnership between DOE and NSF could also be
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science37

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

leveraged for such an activity, including collaboration on needed facilities in thisarea. There is a need within the community to advance the capabilities of experiments, and to develop a solar-wind-relevant midscale experiment, to better
compliment the advances in spacecraft technology and observation. Laboratory
experiments can be a crucial intermediate between observation and computer
simulation. In particular, they can provide specific conditions and environmentsthat can be modeled in great detail in simulation frameworks.
– Recommendation: Strengthen support of laboratory-based research relevant
to astrophysical and space plasmas through increased programmatic and facility
funding as well as expansion of partnership opportunities.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science38

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Cross-cutting Recommendations
To successfully carry out this plan, foundational research activities that reach acrossthe breadth of the FES portfolio must be robustly and continuously supported.
Fundamental theoretical research, separate from computation, remains essential
for developing new models, insights, and innovations in topics across plasma
and fusion science and technology. Foundational theory work also enables the FES
community to continue to take advantage of and expand advanced scientificcomputing and the tools that can further improve our fundamental understanding
and predictive modeling capabilities, including new methods in machine learning(ML), artificial intelligence (AI), and quantum information science (QIS). This work
is also essential for fusion and plasma research to take full advantage of US investments in exascale computing. All of these investments in theory and computation
are vital to the continued development of variously complex validated models,
including integrated modeling capabilities, an area in which, historically, the US
has shown strength and leadership. A continued close partnership between FES
and the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program is therefore
essential to realizing these opportunities and to sustaining investment in computational user facilities and capacity computing resources. A healthy program fordeveloping diagnostics, measurement, and control techniques for a reactor environment, and the broader environment of plasmas is needed to support progress
toward an FPP and toward deeper understanding of plasma science. Community
consensus favors increased support for programs to develop critical enabling
technologies that advance plasma and fusion science and technology and reducethe cost of resulting applications, including an FPP. In each of these cross-cuttingareas, the CPP report identified a wealth of needs and opportunities that should be
addressed and pursued.
– Recommendation: Ensure robust support for foundational research activities that
underpin all aspects of plasma and fusion science and technology.
Models and diagnostics in many areas of plasma science rely heavily on fundamental data for physical processes such as cross sections and rate coefficientsand for materials properties such as strength and opacity. These essential
elements of plasma physics and nuclear science should be more strongly
supported. In many instances, models are limited by the absence of accurate
input data rather than by a lack of knowledge of plasma physics. Research thatboth supplies and verifies such fundamental data is essential to advance inmany areas of plasma science, including development of models. That type of
research does not currently have a clear source of funding.
– Recommendation: Support research that supplies the fundamental data required
to advance fusion energy and plasma science and engineering.
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

39

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Budget Scenarios
Prioritization of projects and research programs is expressed through addressing
the constant level of effort, modest growth, and unconstrained (but prioritized)budget scenarios as described in the charge. It should be emphasized that no
additional recommendations are made in addressing the budget scenarios.
Measures taken to address the constrained scenarios do not represent additional
stand-alone recommendations outside the very specific budget scenario being
addressed. While the constrained scenarios require difficult choices, they
represent a balanced program with prioritization and emphasis on critical elementsthat advance the fusion energy mission and sustain scientific impact and technological progress. Importantly, the implementation of activities described in theconstrained scenarios allows for continued growth should more favorable budgets develop in the future. Nonetheless, the constrained scenarios do not provide
sufficient resources to confidently prepare for FPP construction by the 2040s,
and large projects in the plasma science and technology area are unfunded.
That lack of funding has consequences: It will cost the US its position as a global
leader in fusion energy and plasma science and will compromise future developments with important societal implications. Therefore, we do not recommend
either of the two constrained scenarios — namely, the constant level of effort
or modest growth — and point to the substantial return on investment that comeswith pursuing programs and facilities enumerated in the unconstrained but
prioritized scenario.
In all three scenarios, there is a conscious decision to direct resources to theactivities identified by the community as the most essential and urgent to enable
construction of an FPP. That decision includes a strategic pivoting toward R&D
in fusion materials and technology (FM&T). The pivot is necessary because FM&T
R&D is on the critical path to an FPP, independent of the eventual choice of
FPP plasma core(s). The strategic plan in all scenarios emphasizes innovation inboth physics and technology as a means of establishing a unique leadership
opportunity for the US fusion and plasma community, and recommends corresponding programs be supported in parallel with facility developments. Following
the charge, the scenarios start from the FY 2019 budget and specifically focus
on the non-ITER construction project portion. The FY 2019 budget did not include
significant resources dedicated to design and construction of facilities. For thatreason, in the two constrained scenarios below, any recommended new construction is funded by redirecting resources from current facility operations andA long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science40

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

research programs. This redirection is consistent with the consensus view of theresearch community, as expressed in the CPP report:“The community recognizes that designing and constructing major new facilities
may not be possible without progressively redirecting resources from existing
facilities. Given the possibility of constrained budgets, there is significant support
among the community to pivot resources from existing facilities to fund new
programs and facilities, if necessary, so that new facilities can be operational
within ten years or less. The resources and research programs of existing
facilities should immediately evolve to reflect the priorities of this plan. Any suchtransition must be mindful of the workforce needs and impacts associated withdiverting operations budgets to construction.”
In addressing the scenarios, redirection is confined within each of the two thematic
areas (FST and PST). The PST portion of the FY 2019 enacted budget is relatively
small, and redirecting it, even in its entirety, would be insufficient to support yearlycosts for proposed major facility construction. As a result, under the two constrained budget scenarios, major facility construction in the PST area is notpossible. Importantly, that shortfall results in not completing the ongoing MECUpgrade project in the two constrained budget exercises. This project is headed
toward Critical Decision 1 during FY 2021 and, notably, has received line-item
status in the congressional budget, with significant resources allocated to theproject in FY 2020 and in FY 2021. The message to be taken from the budget
scenarios below is that new resources are required to support design, construction, and operation of the critically important MEC-Upgrade facility, and thatmessage is consistent with actions already taken by Congress to support thisproject in FY 2020 and FY 2021. Table 1 (see page 42) summarizes program andfacility actions for each scenario.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science41

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Table 1
Summary of the three budget scenarios. Please referback to report text for details. The unconstrained
scenario fully reflects the recommendations in thisreport; the two constrained scenarios would resultin loss of US leadership in key areas.

Yes, enhance

Yes, enhance••

Yes, but reduce

Yes, but reduceYes•• 		• 		Stellarator and Alternates
Operations and Research

Yes, but flat

Yes

Yes, enhance

IFE program

Yes, but limited

Yes, but limitedYes

FPP Design Effort

Yes, but limited

Yes

Yes, enhance•• 		• 		
					
•
•
•
• 			

GPS Program

Yes, but reduce Yes
Yes, enhancemodestly						 		HEDP Program

Yes, but reduce Yes
Yes, enhancemodestly				 		Understand thePlasma Universe

Engineer for
Extreme Conditions

Yes, enhanceStrengthen theFoundations

Sustain a
Burning Plasma

FM&T Programs
US Tokamak Operations
and Research

Harness Fusion
Power

Unconstrained

Create Transformative
Technologies

Technology and Science Drivers
Modest Growth
Loss of US leadership& missed opportunuties

Scenarios
Constant Level of Effort
Significant loss of US
leadership & significant
missed opportunities

Portfolio Elements

Research, Operations, and Small Scale Construction• 		 •••

Plasma-Based Technology
ProgramYes, but limited

Yes

Yes, enhance			

Theory and Computation

Yes

Yes

Yes, enhance

•

•

•

•

•

•
•

•
•

•

•
•

•

New Construction of Midscale+ Facilities••• 			 •

MPEX

Yes

Yes

FPNS

Yes, but highly
delayedYes, but delayed Yes		

Yes		
			

MEC Upgrade*No, but develop
further *No, but develop Yes
further *			 		•EXCITENo
		

Yes, but highly
Yes
delayed		

Mid-Scale Stellarator

No

No

BCTF

No

No

Solar Wind Facility

No

No

HHF-Component

No

No

Multi-PW Laser

No

No

•

•

•

• 				
• 				
Yes		•• 			•
Yes				
• 		•Yes		• 				
Yes				
• 		•
Yes

•
•

High Rep. Rate Laser
No
No
			

Yes, withpartnerships				

Midscale Z-Pinch
No
No
			

Yes, withpartnerships				 		

VNS

No

Concept Study			

•
• 			
			
•
•
Yes, enhance• 			 •
Yes, upgrade				•••Yes				
•
•
•

No

•

•

•

•
•
• 			

Collaborations and Networks
ITER research team

Yes

Yes

Private fusion collaborations

Yes, enhance

Yes, enhanceInternational fusion collab.

Yes

Yes

LaserNetUS

Yes

Yes, enhance

ZNet, MagNetUS, LTPNet

No

Yes, but limited

Yes, fullYes, enhance•••*Critical Decision 1 expected for MEC-U during FY 2021, and the project has received line-item status in the
congressional budget, with significant resources allocated to the project in FY 2020 and 2021. However,definition of Constant and Modest Growth scenarios for this exercise were extrapolated from the FY 2019 enacted
budget, where resources to enable this project are not present.
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science42

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

In the constant level of effort budget scenario, formation of a nascent ITER
research team and design of FPNS are initiated immediately. FPNS construction
should commence as soon as possible and would likely need to start in thesecond half of the decade, with operations not beginning until the 2030 s.
Establishment of EXCITE mission need and initial design should also proceed
immediately. Although EXCITE construction costs likely cannot be accommodated
within this scenario, it is vital to develop a conceptual design and, if possible,
a full construction-ready design in the event budget outlooks improve. Additional
options to help close the integrated tokamak exhaust and performance (ITEP)
gap, including enhanced collaboration with private companies and international
partners, must be developed as well. Increased investments in FM&T enablesignificant growth in programs (including blanket and tritium breeding research),
completion of MPEX on schedule, and the buildup of a domestic collaborative
FPP conceptual design effort in the early 2020s. FM&T investment also allows theconstruction of a high-heat-flux coupon-scale testing facility for PFC development in the second half of the 2020s.
The increased emphasis on these FM&T activities requires a reduction in tokamak
research and operations, which are being used to resolve FPP design gaps in
the areas of disruptions, burning plasma physics, plasma-facing materials, andoperating scenarios. In particular, a modest but immediate reduction in operations funding to the existing major tokamak facilities (DIII-D and NSTX-U) would
be required, with a more significant reduction in the mid-2020s, and would likely
result in the cessation of operations of one of the two major tokamak facilities.
The continued growth of the ITER research team and expanded private andinternational collaborations would give increased access to the burning plasma
regime and help offset the reductions in research at the existing facilities. This
pivoting of tokamak research and facility utilization should proceed at a pacethat enables total tokamak research funding to continue at a stable level, withchanges in facility emphasis and timing clearly communicated in advance to
avoid significant workforce continuity challenges. A more aggressive ramp-downof existing facilities (DIII-D and NSTX-U) and programs was considered, but it
was concluded that such an approach would only marginally advance timelines
at the expense of losing workforce expertise deemed essential to closing
the ITEP gap and would delay closure of the remaining tokamak physics gaps.
Foundational research activities in theory, modeling, and measurement innovations, together with all other existing program priorities (including INFUSE,
stellarators, liquid metal plasma facing components (PFCs), RF technologies,etc.) continue to be supported at current levels in this scenario, and those
activities and priorities should similarly pivot toward FPP-relevant needs. A modest

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science43

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

IFE program, focused on developing enabling technologies, is supported throughredirection of existing HEDP funds.

Preconceptual development of facilities that are not started within the 10-year
horizon of this charge (e.g., midscale stellarator, blanket-component test facility,or volumetric neutron source) are also supported. It is important to note thatthe technology readiness levels of the required elements for an FPP would likely
remain low, creating significant risk in proceeding with an FPP in the 2040s.
In the PST portfolio of activities, FES should maintain its level of commitment tofunding single-principal-investigator researchers, to operations of collaborative
research facilities, and to LaserNetUS. FES should specifically form a program
focused on plasma-based technology by transitioning support for similar research
currently funded through the centers and the NSF – DOE partnership. It is important for FES to continue to develop preconceptual plans for new facilities andarticulate mission needs while planning for future upgrades to existing facilities.
Funding for these activities would be modest, consistent with identifying R&D
needs to bring facility planning to the next critical decision level. The funds would
be redirected out of current plasma science facility or experimental user support. In the case of the MEC-Upgrade, a small level of support similar to current
funding levels should be extended for pre-project R&D and project planning to
reduce the risk associated with entirely new technologies.
Additionally, FES should encourage community organization toward new networks
in the areas of magnetized plasma laboratory research (MagNet), pulsed-powerplasma research (ZNet), and low-temperature plasma science (LTPNet). Under aconstant level of effort budget scenario, this activity will be limited to improving
communications and sharing resources within the research community. Particularly
in a constrained scenario, it is imperative that FES reaffirm its commitment tofunding-agency partnerships including NSF, NNSA, and ARPA-E and that it
explore the potential for new partnerships with other NSF divisions and directorates,
NASA, NIH, the Office of Naval Research ( ONR), DOE Basic Energy Sciences(BES), and the Airforce Office of Sponsored Research (AFOSR).
It is important to emphasize that within the constant level of effort scenario, the
new initiatives and pivoting of program elements are only achieved at great cost
to existing areas of US strength, and many time-critical opportunities for future
innovation, impact, and leadership are missed. The pivot to increased FM&T
research is vital for the fusion energy mission, but it cannot proceed in this
scenario at a pace sufficient for FPP readiness by the 2040s. Likewise, establishinga new plasma technology program requires reductions of other vital plasma
science and technology research efforts. In this scenario, the opportunity to
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science44

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

build MEC-Upgrade is lost, initiation of EXCITE construction is highly unlikely,
and the US tokamak program is significantly reduced. Many additional opportunities for innovation throughout the portfolio, including some PPP possibilities,
cannot be acted upon. And although some domestic tokamak research can be
redirected to ITER and collaborative efforts on international and private facilities,
the resources to take full advantage of these opportunities are not available.
Without adequate resources, possibilities for US leadership are limited in collaborating on international facilities not predominantly funded by the federal program. Therefore, while the measures taken to address this budget scenario helpalign the FES program with the technology and science drivers, the ability to
act with urgency, enable innovation, and drive US leadership is highly constrained.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science

45

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

In the modest growth scenario (2% above inflation), the FPNS schedule is accelerated by 2–3 years, with operations targeted to begin by the end of the 10-year
period of this plan. The related structural and functional materials programs
are also expanded. Significant funding becomes available to accelerate the effort
on the ITEP gap in the latter half of the 2020s, which may allow construction
to begin on the EXCITE facility. An expanded ITER research team also becomes
possible in the later 2020s. With modest growth, the technology and sciencedrivers are significantly advanced by more robustly funding research programsin general plasma science (GPS) and HED. Additional investments are madein enabling technologies that support plans for new facilities needed to move thefield forward. Cross-cutting research that connects topical areas such as multiscale simulation codes, advanced computing, and diagnostic development
should be better supported to increase impact across the FES portfolio. Smallenhancements to the existing PST facilities and networks are pursued to extend
their lifetimes and increase their availability. Even small investments in new
network coordination (e.g., LTPNet and MagNet) will enable leadership in thoseareas. Other strategic advancement of existing and modest-scale new programs
can be evaluated and executed consistent with the recommendations in thisreport, the priorities listed below, and the guidance from the CPP report. Given
that much of this advancement could happen in the later 2020s, future longrange planning activities will also be able to provide more detailed guidance forprioritization.
The return on the investment of the relatively small increment from the constantlevel of effort to the modest growth scenario is substantial. It accelerates thefusion energy mission and gives excellent science per incremental dollar bycontinuing to support the high-impact work being done across the program.
Furthermore, it aids the development of emerging technologies and innovative
R&D to ensure continued progress, while also looking toward new facilities.
However, there are still significant costs incurred and opportunities missed inthis scenario. Most notably, meeting the goal of FPP readiness by the 2040s
remains highly unlikely, significant reductions to the US tokamak program arestill required, and some important time-sensitive opportunities for US leadershipsuch as construction of MEC-Upgrade cannot be acted upon.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science46

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

In the unconstrained, but prioritized, scenario, we have chosen to: (1) invest in
the required facilities and program activities to confidently prepare for an FPP
by the 2040 s and ( 2 ) invest in high-impact facilities and programs to significantly advance plasma science while maintaining and extending US leadership in
important areas. This can be accomplished using significantly increased but
realizable resources, and thus the scenario is not truly unconstrained; it could
instead be called “aggressive growth.” A truly unconstrained scenario, requiring
substantially more resources, could be envisioned, aimed at further reducing
the timeline to commercial fusion power.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science47

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

	It is important to emphasize that, as stated in the charge, the prioritized activities
listed here are in addition to or enhancements of those described in the constrained scenarios. In this unconstrained, but prioritized, scenario, the FPNS facility
is accelerated further, with operations anticipated in the latter half of the 2020s.
Additional facilities and program enhancements have been identified that takeadvantage of the opportunities provided by the full breadth and creativity of the
program. The following facilities and their supporting research programs arerecommended, in prioritized order, with the timeliness and urgency of the activities
in supporting the strategic plan factored in:
1 At equal priority:– Design, construct, and operate EXCITE by 2030 to close the integrated tokamak
	
exhaust and performance gap.
– Construct and operate the MEC-Upgrade to enable cutting-edge science in	laser-plasma interactions, warm dense matter, and dense material physics
via the co-location of a high-energy and high-repetition-rate laser with an X-ray
free electron laser (XFEL).
2	Design, construct, and operate a new Stellarator Facility to demonstrate theoretically predicted advantages of an optimized stellarator configuration.
3	Design, construct, and operate a Blanket Component Test Facility to perform
non-nuclear testing of integral-scale blanket components.
4	Design, construct, and operate a new Solar Wind Facility, potentially in partnership with other federal agencies, to investigate the fundamental processes inmagnetized, high-beta plasmas relevant to such phenomena as accretion disks
and stellar winds.
5	Design and begin construction of a component-level High-Heat Flux Testing
Facility for plasma-facing component (PFC) development.
6	Construct and operate a large-scale multi-petawatt laser facility, potentiallyin partnership with other federal agencies, for novel studies in high-field physics
and the exapascal pressure regimes.
7	Design, construct, and operate a high-repetition-rate laser facility, likely incollaboration with other agencies, for precision studies of complex high-energydensity phenomena.
8	Design, construct, and operate a midscale Z-Pinch facility, likely in collaboration
with other agencies, for magnetized high-energy-density plasma studies.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science48

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

	As emphasized above, programs should be created or expanded as needed tosupport all facility research and operations activities. Beyond the appropriate
support for facilities, the following new or expanded programs are recommended
in priority order:
1 At equal priority:– Strengthen FST programs (structural and functional materials, blanket and	tritium fuel cycle, magnet development, and solid and liquid PFCs), increase
support for research and operations on existing tokamaks in the early 2020s, andensure optimal support of the national FPP design effort.
– Strengthen programs in GPS and HED to optimize progress and discoveries	(consistent with priorities expressed here and in the CPP) in frontier plasma
science and the plasma universe.
2	Strengthen support for the plasma-based technology program, with significant
expansion in the number of grants, establishment of multiple technology-related
centers, and a robust technology transition program.
3	Strengthen additional fusion science programs to optimize progress (stellarator
physics, heating and current drive technologies, balance of plant technology),
and ensure optimal support of the ITER research teams in the mid to late 2020s.
4	Increase operations support and aggressive upgrades to the LaserNetUS network to expand the base of users while allowing for a diverse set of capabilities
that maintain US competitiveness.
5	Establish a program to develop innovative fusion core concepts using rigorous
evaluation and metrics.
6	Expand the IFE program to more aggressively pursue IFE requirements andtechnologies.
7	Explore options for component-scale irradiation testing in a VNS.
8	Strengthen and expand networks to coordinate and leverage researchersand facilities in pulsed power, basic magnetized plasma experiments, and lowtemperature plasmas.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science49

Chapter 2Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

These new and expanded programs should be pursued as feasible within a given
budget scenario, weighted against the new facility recommendations using
the prioritization criteria expressed throughout this report. With this scenario, allnecessary elements could be advanced to the appropriate technology readiness level to enable an FPP by the 2040s. Clearly, this scenario grows the FES
program significantly beyond the constant level of effort or modest growthscenarios and requires an expanded workforce. However, with careful staging of
new facility construction, program pivoting, and aggressive utilization of public–
private partnerships, we believe that much of what is recommended in this
scenario can be accomplished in a timely manner and under realistic budgets.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science50Appendix

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Appendix A: Recommendations
55
Appendix B: Public – Private Partnerships
62	Appendix C: DEI, Workforce, and Outreach
68
Appendix D: Charge Letter
70
Appendix E: Membership
71	Appendix F: Process and Meetings
75
Appendix G: Acronyms
52

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science51

Appendix

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Appendix A:
Recommendations
Overarching Recommendations– Align the program with the six technology and science drivers in order to establish the scientific and technical basis for a fusion pilot plant by the 2040s andadvance fundamental understanding of plasmas that translates into applications
that benefit society.
– Resources for ongoing design and construction of major new experimental
facilities should be established in the DOE FES budget.
– Opportunities should be provided for developing new experimental capabilities
at a range of scales, as appropriate to address the goals of this strategic plan.
– This long-range planning process, including a strong community-led component,
should be repeated no later than every five years in order to update thestrategic plan.
– Maturation of preconceptual designs, scope, and costing for proposed newexperimental facilities should be part of regular program activities.
– Expand existing and establish new public – private partnership programs toleverage capabilities, reduce cost, and accelerate the commercialization offusion power and plasma technologies.
– Explore and implement mechanisms for formal coordination between funding
agencies that support fusion and plasma science research.
– DOE and FES should develop and implement plans to increase diversity, equity,and inclusion ( DEI) in our community. Done in consultation with DEI experts andin collaboration with other institutions, this should involve the study of workplace
climate, policies, and practices, via assessment metrics and standard practices.
– Restore DOE’s ability to execute discipline-specific workforce development
programs that can help recruit diverse new talent to FES-supported fields ofresearch.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science52

Appendix A

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Program and Project Specific Recommendations
Fusion Science and Technology– Initiate a design effort that engages all stakeholders to establish the technicalbasis for closing critical gaps for a fusion pilot plant, utilizing and strengthening
the world-leading US theory and computation capabilities and engineering
design tools.
– Rapidly expand the R&D effort in fusion materials and technology.
– Immediately establish the mission need for an FPNS facility to support developmentof new materials suitable for use in the fusion nuclear environment and pursue
design and construction as soon as possible.
– Develop the scientific infrastructure necessary for the study of plasma-materials
interactions needed to develop plasma facing components for an FPP by completing the MPEX and additional high-heat flux testing facilities.
– Significantly expand blanket and tritium R&D programs.
– Utilize research operations on DIII-D and NSTX-U, and collaborate with otherworld-leading facilities, to ensure that FPP design gaps are addressed in atimely manner.
– Ensure full engagement of the US fusion community in ITER by forming an
ITER research team that capitalizes on our investment to access a high-gain
burning plasma.
– Immediately establish the mission need for an EXCITE facility to close theintegrated tokamak and exhaust gap and aggressively pursue design andconstruction.
– Strengthen the innovative and transformative research program elements thatoffer promising future opportunities for fusion energy commercialization:
stellarators, liquid metal plasma-facing components, IFE, and alternate concepts.

Plasma Science and Technology– Provide steady support for fundamental plasma science to enable a streamof innovative ideas and talent development that will lay the scientific foundation
upon which the next generation of plasma-based technologies can be built.
– Complete the design and construction of MEC-Upgrade.
– Establish a plasma-based technology research program focused on translating
fundamental scientific findings into societally beneficial applications.
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science53Appendix A

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas– Coordinate a High-Intensity-Laser Research Initiative in collaboration with
relevant DOE offices and other federal agencies.
– Pursue the development of a multi-petawatt laser facility and a high-repetition-ratehigh-intensity laser facility in the US, in partnership with other federal agencies
where possible.
– Support networks to coordinate research and broaden access to state-of-the-art
facilities, diagnostics, and computational tools.
– Strengthen support of laboratory-based research relevant to astrophysicaland space plasmas through increased programmatic and facility funding as well
as expansion of partnership opportunities.

Cross-cutting Recommendations– Ensure robust support for foundational research activities that underpin all aspectsof plasma and fusion science and technology.
– Support research that supplies the fundamental data required to advance fusionenergy and plasma science and engineering.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science54Appendix

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Appendix B:
Public–Private Partnerships
Introduction
Public – private partnerships (PPPs) are highly recommended as a means of rapidly
and efficiently enhancing scientific and technological capabilities. Both generaland fusion-specific plasma science and technology programs will benefit fromrobust PPPs. Scientific insights gained from basic and applied plasma science
research lead to innovations that ultimately are developed into technologies inpartnership with industry. Strategic PPPs can be effective in resolving common
technical problems that face fusion and plasma science, in creating a competitiveenergy source in the US market, and in developing technologies that use plasma
processes. Because the nature and missions of the private companies in basic
plasma science and fusion energy development differ, and the breadth andmaturity of existing PPP programs also differ, the PPP mechanisms for each area
are described separately.

Fusion Science and Technology
There is broad agreement across stakeholders that having commercial fusionenergy generation developed and based in the US is in the best interest of
the DOE and the nation. The fusion energy endeavor is receiving from private
entities new and significant contributions intended to address the clean energy
market. Currently 22 private entities have raised nearly $2 billion in private
capital to develop fusion energy concepts, with some targeting commercializationby the 2030s. Partnership between the public program and private activities
can be effective in resolving common technical problems facing fusion as acompetitive energy source. Although public and private strategies differ intechnical focus and deliverables, significant overlaps exist that are beneficial toboth parties and can accelerate progress toward the common goal of bringing
fusion power to the grid.
Many private fusion companies are preparing to build facilities to demonstrate that
their technologies scale, can be integrated, and can produce fusion-powerrelevant plasmas. Examples include burning plasma facilities, next-generation
spherical tokamaks, high-temperature field-reversed configurations, high-current
pinches, compact stellarators, spheromaks, converging plasmas, impactors,
and laser-driven IFE ignition, all aiming toward design of full-scale power plants.
International competitiveness is an important consideration in the identificationof possible PPP programs, given that the UK, Europe, China, and other countries
are supporting development of their burgeoning domestic fusion industries.
An Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) report describing the responsibilityof government and industry in the development of fission nuclear power
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science55

Appendix B

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

highlighted two salient points: 1) the significant scope of shared partnership andresponsibility between government and industry in establishing a new typeof energy generation technology, and 2) the gradual transition from governmentled to industry-led activities approaching and realizing commercialization.
Candidate PPP programs can take different forms based on the maturity andmission of the technology and on the capital required. The DOE currently has
PPP programs to aid in the maturation of low-technology-readiness-level (TRL)
technologies and is considering other programs, including a milestone-based
cost-share program to demonstrate fully integrated mid-TRL technologies. With 22
members of the Fusion Industry Association (FIA) engaged in at least one of
the strategic objectives or program recommendations from the CPP report, there
exists significant potential for partnership with the public program to close gaps
in those technical areas.
Low-TRL Maturation Programs: Existing technology maturation programs havebeen successful and should be expanded to enhance the scope and scale forclosure of key technology gaps. Examples are ARPA-E ALPHA, ARPA-E BETHE,
ARPA-E/FES GAMOW, INFUSE, and Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small
Business Technology Transfer (STTR). These were established both to help
refine specific private-industry fusion-energy concepts and to develop platform
technologies that would be useful across many fusion-energy concepts. Highinterest from the private sector in programs like INFUSE has been evident: Many
more applications from private companies were received than could be funded.
Given industry demand, additional resources in these programs would enableprivate fusion activities to grow and even accelerate.
– ARPA-E ALPHA creates tools to develop lower cost pathways to fusion energy– ARPA-E BETHE delivers more advanced, lower-cost fusion technologies
through concept development of less advanced concepts, component development of mature concepts, and capability teams to accelerate development of
all concepts– ARPA-E/FES GAMOW prioritizes R&D in technologies among fusion plasma/balance of plant, high-duty cycle drivers, and cross-cutting areas such as materials
and additive manufacturing– INFUSE accelerates fusion energy development in the private sector by reducing
impediments to collaboration involving the expertise and resources available at
DOE laboratories– SBIR/STTR develops innovative techniques, instrumentation, and concepts thathave applications to industries in the private sector

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science56

Appendix B

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

As the possibility for commercialization grows, partnerships in which industry may
bear a greater burden of the cost become advantageous. Completion of prototype products can be done more quickly as private companies driven by market
needs focus on efficient product delivery. A milestone-based 50/50 cost-share
program should be created for partnerships to develop enabling technologies
that are larger scale than projects funded through INFUSE, ARPA-E, and SBIR/STTR . Such a program could focus on the development of specific components
or enabling technology for the fusion program. Examples could include magnets,
high-power microwave and radiofrequency sources, neutron sources for materials
irradiation, systems for tritium breeding blankets and tritium processing, andplasma-facing components. Some of these technologies could have applicability
beyond fusion. Superconducting magnets and cables, for example, have broadcommercial applicability in fields such as energy transmission and medical
imaging. A cooling technology that can demonstrate power handling of greaterthan 10 MW/m2, which is needed for tokamak divertors, may also be applicableto applications such as energy concentration for high-energy particle acceleratorsor heat removal from advanced semiconductors.
Integrated Facility Cost-Share Program: We support the concept of a milestonebased cost-share program that can demonstrate integrated facilities having thepotential to more rapidly and cost-effectively close technological gaps in order toachieve fusion energy. Such an activity should be executed as a parallel investment to augment the public long-range plan. This approach would maintaina robust strategy in the federal program while supporting high-risk, high-reward
private industry efforts to allow multiple shots on goal in the effort to develop
fusion energy.
An example of a new fusion-centered program with private industry was recently
proposed by the FIA; it sought near-term investment in order to be relevant for
current commercial timelines. The program is based on the NASA Commercial
Orbital Transportation Services ( COTS ) cost-share program. That program,centered on a partnership in which private industry took over more routine
operations in low-Earth orbit, proved successful in delivering a space launchvehicle at about 90% lower cost than the public program. Although NASA knew
how to accomplish launches to low-Earth orbit, industry innovated with technologies and approaches that demonstrated more cost-effective solutions. Dueto the success of the program, that approach is being applied by NASA andother agencies to lower TRL technologies. In the FIA-proposed fusion program,
DOE would leverage private-sector creativity to develop new US-based capabilities
that would enable fusion commercialization and research access to new user
facilities. The program would be driven by market needs and would leverage thefocus of private companies for fast and efficient product delivery. Each privateA long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science57

Appendix B

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

sector participant would meet the milestones agreed upon with DOE to receive thepublic funds in a proposed 50/50 cost-share agreement. The program would
follow a portfolio approach that has multiple awardees in a competitive process.
Details should be worked out between DOE and industry stakeholders so that
programs could begin as soon as possible.
Facility Development and Shared Programs: The FST program needs experimental
facilities that can close the program gaps in a timely fashion and private entities
that can help where mutually beneficial activities are identified. Including privatesector input in the design of these facilities has the potential to reduce bothcosts and development time through private-sector efficiencies. DOE can also
look to other PPP models, such as the approach utilized for the DOE Advanced
Reactor Demonstration Program. In addition, shared access to operating publicand private-sector facilities can be an efficient method to close technical gapsof mutual interest. Generally speaking, the public program should seek to procure
available capabilities and equipment from the private sector.
Information Access: To best equip the public and private sectors for success,
FES -funded programs should share information between parties. A pathway for
information transfer from public to private partners should exist for public programs. For example, access to ITER design information should be provided to
US-based companies by FES. This access will help leverage the investments
and technological developments that are occurring and maximize the US investment in ITER. Similar responsibilities lie with private entities that participate
in PPP s. Clear delineation of intellectual property protection should occur as
programs are formed, with the expectation that progress, milestones, anddiscoveries will be shared whenever possible. Coordination of efforts among all
parties might best be made by consolidation within the FPP preconceptual
design effort to minimize duplication of effort and advance the pace of discovery.
Mature Stage Programs: New PPP programs to further aid in the commercializationof fusion energy should be considered. The most aggressive private industry
plans seek to put fusion power on the grid in the early 2030s. If these companies
succeed, mature stage PPP programs will be needed in advance of groundbreaking for the power-producing facilities, which could occur as soon as the
mid to late 2020s, which is within the time frame of this strategic plan. For example,
loan guarantee programs have been used to help deploy several successfullarge-scale energy projects through the DOE Loan Programs Office. DOE could
also consider the development of a long-term power purchase agreement
program, which would simplify financing for future private-sector fusion power
facilities.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science58

Appendix B

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Plasma Science and Technology
Basic plasma science research discoveries can lead to innovations that allow US
industries to maintain global leadership in their fields. Historically, insight gained
from basic plasma science has led to many societally important contributions.
Plasma accelerators offer practical applications for cancer treatment and diagnostic imaging. Atmospheric pressure plasmas transfer green-energy-derived
electricity to electrons and ions in gas or liquid phase for chemical processing,treatment of disease, water and air purification, material processing, and light
production. Advances in low-pressure multifrequency RF discharge technology
can position US industry to maintain leadership in semiconductor manufacturing.
The semiconductor industry is an instructive example of how partnerships
between universities, government, and industry can come together to successfully revitalize a field. Such a partnership enabled plasma science to play a
key role in US semiconductor device processing. In the 1980s, the US had fallen
behind in semiconductor manufacturing. The establishment of the Sematech
consortium, a partnership of 14 US semiconductor companies and the federal
government, focused on improving manufacturing capability. The consortium
allowed the US to reclaim its leadership role, and the semiconductor industry now
holds nearly 50% of the global market share.
An ecosystem that provides a pathway for forming partnerships with industry todevelop and share plasma science innovations does not exist beyond the DOE
SBIR/STTR program. Vehicles that facilitate such partnerships are necessary forcontinued innovation by bridging the gap between science discovery and theformation of new technologies. Such partnerships also allow for the resolution of
ongoing and arising engineering problems in industry through applied research.
The need for PPPs in the semiconductor arena in particular was highlighted
in the 2020 decadal study, which suggested that a private-public incubator be
established that prioritized research focused on breakthroughs in the 5- to
10-year time frame to strengthen US leadership in this trillion-dollar market. This
incubator would involve collaborative activity between academia, startups, andestablished companies, with the end goal of advancing research and disruptive
breakthroughs for the purpose of commercialization.
Shared Research Programs: Research consortia that bring together public andprivate sectors to solve common technical problems should be encouraged.
Currently, we stand at the threshold of an exciting era in plasma science andtechnology in which fusion and plasma research offer potentially transformative
applications. With the growth of industrial applications, the potential for research
consortia increases, as does the likelihood of problem-solving partnerships
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science59Appendix B

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

between private companies and universities. With Sematech as the exemplar, newareas for collaboration abound:– Control of atmospheric pressure plasmas for chemical processing, the treatment of disease, water and air purification, and light production– Advances in low-pressure plasma discharges to improve semiconductor
manufacturing– Plasma accelerators that offer practical applications for cancer treatment anddiagnostic imaging
Questions raised in private industry that are fundamental and not aligned withcommercial goals are often left unanswered. Researchers in universities are well
suited to address foundational issues that may not have immediate applicability
to a particular company. By pooling resources, public – private consortia can share
the burden and reward.
Shared research programs can also shepherd scientific discoveries derived
from FES -funded research to technological implementation, either throughstart-ups or licensing. The model suggested here is akin to that utilized in the
NSF. The NSF Partnership in Innovation program provides a funding vehicle
for single investigators to carry out customer discovery and develop technology
based on prior research. Such programs provide a framework for partneringresearchers with interested industrial entities.
Additionally, the current FES SBIR/STTR program should be leveraged to betteralign with mission goals. FES should convene a community workshop that brings
together universities, national laboratories, and the private sector to outline
research needs in order to focus the program on market-driven technologies. Thus
the program is responsive to new developments and opportunities. This approachis in contrast to the current approach where SBIR/STTR grants and contracts areawarded separately from FES priorities.
To maintain competitiveness a framework is required that facilitates the transfer
of technology derived from DOE-funded PST research into innovations that will
benefit society. We propose that the recommended newly established PST program
contain vehicles that support PPP options, including single investigator innovation development and partnering with industry to address technical challenges
that affect overall US global leadership.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science60Appendix B

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Summary
Development of public – private partnerships is recommended as a new paradigm
for appropriately chosen program elements. To maintain and enhance competitiveness, a clear framework is required in order to facilitate developing FES-funded
research into innovations that will benefit society. The programs describedabove have been demonstrably successful and should be implemented within
FES . Initiatives are proposed to leverage shared public – private interests for
maximal mutual benefit. Appropriate resources should be provided for these
programs so that strong partnerships can be established. Sharing information
on an annual or biennial basis is important so that public programs remain
adaptable and private programs can benefit from public accomplishments.
Growth of PPP programs will encourage the public and private sectors to work
closely to more rapidly develop fusion energy and plasma technologies for the
betterment of the US and the world.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science61

Appendix

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Appendix C:
DEI, Workforce, and Outreach
The success of this strategic plan requires innovation, creativity, and a multidisciplinary and diverse workforce. This appendix details actions that can achievea more diverse, equitable and inclusive ( DEI ) environment for the growth of
the needed workforce. The Community Planning Process (CPP) report presented
consensus views on the needs in these areas:“Diversity is expressed in myriad forms, including all ages, socio-economic
backgrounds, races, ethnicities, genders, gender identities, gender expressions,
national origins, religious affiliations, sexual orientations, family education level,
disability status, political perspective — and other visible and nonvisible differences.
Equity ensures equal opportunity and the impact of those opportunities inequitable outcomes for all persons; requiring zero tolerance for bias, harassment,
and discrimination. Inclusion is the deliberate effort to ensure that our community is a place where differences are welcomed and encouraged, different
perspectives are respectfully heard and where every individual feels a sense of
belonging.”
Data show that the fusion and plasma science research communities havesignificant deficiencies in workforce diversity, with participation of women andminorities below national averages for other subfields of physics and engineering. This means we are not accessing the available talent pool, and that lackis a clear barrier to our success. The problems involve more than recruiting
talent into the field. Retaining diverse talent is affected by the culture within thecommunity, and a community that is not welcoming and supportive will havea difficult time retaining diverse populations. Embracing equity and inclusion is
the key to addressing this issue.
A recent policy change by the Office of Management and Budget placed significant limits on workforce and outreach programs at DOE. This policy, intended
to reduce duplication of education and outreach activities at federal agencies,
had the unintended consequence of eliminating discipline-specific outreachand workforce programs that were not being duplicated at other agencies.
Specifically, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) limits eliminated an
important graduate fellowship program and placed restrictions on undergraduate
research programs executed by DOE. However, DOE has been able to continue
offering opportunities for undergraduates through the Science Undergraduate
Laboratory Internships (SULI) program, which brings students to national laboratories for research experience. What was lost was a broader undergraduate
research program that placed students at a wide range of institutions, including
universities and industries, where they could participate in a broad spectrumof FES research. A new program created by DOE, the Office of Science Graduate
Student Research (SCGSR) Program, provides resources that enable students
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science62

Appendix C

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

to spend a portion of their graduate programs working with mentors at nationallabs. Although the program is useful, it does not replace the former graduate
fellowship program. The SCGSR cannot be used as a tool to recruit graduate
students into the field. It is designed specifically to help students already committed to working in a research area to obtain access to cutting-edge facilities
and national lab researchers so that they can complete their thesis work. A
graduate fellowship program, however, can target a diverse population of undergraduate students and be used to recruit them into areas supported by DOE.
The following sections detail actions that FES can take to address DEI, workforce,and outreach needs. Though listed separately, the three areas tie together:
Effective expansion of the fusion and plasma science workforce requires tapping
into the full talent pool, which better reflects the diversities of race, gender,
background, and identity, and enacting policies aimed at improving the work
climate in the community and institutions to increase recruitment and retention.
The dual efforts of improving DEI and developing workforce, in turn, stem from
effective outreach that ranges from energizing the imagination of K–12 students
and the general public to actively attracting undergraduates and graduate
students into the field. This includes expanding and retaining plasma and fusion
faculty at colleges and universities throughout the nation. In addition, there are
significant opportunities for recruitment of established scientists and engineers
working in areas other than fusion and plasma into both the federal programand private fusion and plasma-focused companies. Progress on any one of thesefronts will improve all three desired outcomes.
Since the CPP report was community based, many of the recommendations are
aimed at the fusion and plasma science research community as a whole rather
than at any single funding agency. The CPP report made some recommendations
on DEI and workforce, all of which should be acted on. Here we have identified
specific recommendations that are actionable by DOE or other federal agencies.
We call out a second set of recommendations that DOE could advocate inpartnership with other federal agencies and research institutions.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science63Appendix C

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Recommendations actionable by FESDiversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
For a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment in the field of fusion andplasma science and technology, we recommend the following actions:– Conscious or unconscious bias based on gender, race/ethnicity, or other personal and scientifically irrelevant characteristics can interfere with an equitable
funding process and should be discouraged by FES-funded programs. The
impact of such bias can be minimized by, for instance, implementing doubleanonymous peer-reviewing of proposals. Similar review processes have beensuccessfully implemented in other agencies, such as NASA and NSF. These review
processes often utilize a two-step approach, where evaluation of institutional
and personnel capabilities is carried out after an initial anonymous technical review.
– Policies that promote work-life balance are essential to achieve better genderand financial-background equality and will improve the overall diversity of theworkforce. Although FES has limited power in implementing parental leave
policies, a topic that is part of a broader national conversation, the agency cantake further action to support family-friendly policies among its funding recipients. For instance, FES should work with principal investigators to adjust milestones
and deliverables to accommodate research team members who take familyleave. FES has already adjusted deadlines due to the exceptional conditions
during COVID-19, which proved that the avenues for these deadline changes exist.
– DEI and workforce improvements should weigh into the awards process. This canbe achieved by implementing a requirement in proposals for the considerationof DEI efforts as an integral aspect of the review process for institutions seeking
funding from DOE FES.

Workforce development
To attract the best talent and recruit individuals with the skills that the program
needs, and to retain them and grow our workforce, we recommend the following:– As recommended in Chapter 2, restore DOE’s ability to execute discipline-specificworkforce development programs that can help recruit diverse new talent
to FES -supported fields of research. We recognize that this requires action
beyond DOE.
– Reinstate and create fellowships to help recruit and retain top students froma diverse applicant pool into FES research areas. Fellowships for new graduate
students are critical to recruitment. Expand direct support for students andA long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science64Appendix C

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

postdocs during their tenure (such as internships and SULI for undergraduate
and SCGSR for graduate students) and for early career scientists (such as
the DOE Early Career Research Program). These programs improve recruitment,
facilitate collaboration, and mitigate power imbalances. Programs shouldemphasize broadening the recruitment pool and increasing opportunities for
women, underrepresented minorities, and other underrepresented groups. The
programs should support work at national laboratories, universities, and privatecompanies.
– Expand and create programs designed to increase and retain faculty positionsat universities and colleges, including faculty start-up grants to incentivize
departments to increase their existing fusion or plasma science faculty numbers
or to start such a program outright. Although existing Early Career Awards(ECAs) support new junior faculty, no program exists within FES that encourages
colleges or universities to hire fusion or plasma science faculty in the first place.
Such programs have been successfully implemented at other funding agencies(e.g., NSF’s Faculty Development in the Space Sciences Program). Such programs can address equity and diversity by expanding and aiming such efforts
at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges andUniversities (TCUs), and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs). Efforts to support
retention of faculty should also include expanding ECAs to non-tenure-trackresearchers at universities and implementing joint university/national lab faculty
development programs.

Outreach
Recruiting the best workforce requires reaching out to a broad sector of the
public at every educational level. Although we are aware of the limitations imposed
by OMB regulations, we request that FES support outreach to attract a diverse
future workforce and publicly promote the role of plasma and fusion in society.
There is an opportunity to use FES resources to promote plasma science and,in particular, fusion science. Actions to do that should come from FES, given that
NSF does not currently support fusion science research or outreach, and thus
such outreach can be conducted only by national labs. The goal of these outreachactivities is to create a broad entrance to the plasma and fusion science andtechnology workforce pipeline, which will allow access to the wide variety of
specific skills required to execute the program.
These FES resources can support the development of a new public-facing website for plasma science and fusion, potentially in collaboration with other programsor agencies, and in coordination with existing resources of this kind. Such
A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science65Appendix C

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

resources could also support pre-college outreach to engage the youngest minds
with the FES program and inspire students to consider careers in plasma and fusion
science. Student outreach approaches could include student design competitions,which have proven successful for the promotion of other scientific fields.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science66Appendix C

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Collaboration with Other Agencies and Institutions
In addition to highlighting recommendations considered directly actionable
within FES, the committee encourages FES to engage with other federal agencies
and stakeholders on broader DEI and workforce development recommendations
laid out in the CPP report.
– Institutions should engage DEI experts to advise our community and develop
assessment tools. Such programs, including those led by the American PhysicalSociety Division of Plasma Physics, have been successfully implemented at
FES-funded institutions.
– FES-funded institutions and events should adopt and update policies that promotea welcoming workplace environment, including articulating and adopting codesof conduct for conferences and workshops that outline parameters for respectfulinteractions among attendees; requiring training on bias, cultural competence,and bystander intervention; and investigating how to assess reports of harassment.
– DOE and FES-funded institutions should create a welcoming and accessible
environment, compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, for all membersof our community. All institutions funded by or working in the several fields of
FES should expand recruitment pools (geographically, fields of study, types of
institutions, etc.) and identify underrepresented areas with linkages to the workforce development topics outlined above.
– Create parental leave policies by working with institutions on more uniform familyleave policies to economically support up to 12 weeks of leave taken under
the Family and Medical Leave Act. This includes allowing continued support for
personnel during principal investigator leave, supporting flexible hours and telecommuting, and access to lactation space.
– Institutions funded by or working in fields of FES should develop flexible postgraduate education options and facilitate employment of scientists and engineers
with BS/MS degrees at FES facilities. The facilities should have BS/MS development programs.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science67Appendix

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Appendix D:
Charge Letter

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science68Appendix DPowering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science69Appendix

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Appendix E:
FESAC LRP Subcommittee Members
Troy Carter, chair
University of California,
Los Angeles
Scott Baalrud
University of Iowa
Riccardo Betti
University of Rochester
Tyler Ellis
Commonwealth Fusion Systems
John Foster
University of Michigan
Cameron Geddes
Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory
Arianna Gleason
SLAC National Accelerator
Laboratory
Christopher Holland
University of California,
San Diego

David Schaffner
Bryn Mawr College
Oliver Schmitz
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Uri Shumlak
University of Washington
Lance Snead
Stony Brook University
Wayne Solomon
General Atomics
Erik Trask
TAE Technologies
François Waelbroeck
University of Texas at Austin
Anne White
Massachusetts Instituteof Technology
Don Rej, ex officio
Los Alamos National
Laboratory, retired

Paul Humrickhouse
Idaho National Laboratory
Charles Kessel
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Ane Lasa
University of Tennessee,
Knoxvillle
Tammy Ma
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory
Rajesh Maingi
Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science70Appendix

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Appendix F:
Process and Meetings
This report is the culmination of a two-year, two-phase strategic planning process. The first phase, the Community Planning Process ( CPP ), was the primarymechanism for all members of the fusion and plasma science community toprovide input. The second phase, the FESAC Long Range Planning (LRP) study,
used the CPP report as a starting point. During its 10-month study, the FESAC
subcommittee sought inputs from the community and other sources, including
community focus groups, workshops, and briefings from several federal agencies
that support plasma and fusion related activities. That input, along with discussions at weekly subcommittee meetings, facilitated the development of this LRP
report. The activities are described in more detail below.

CPP Process
The CPP, organized under the auspices of the American Physical Society (APS)Division of Plasma Physics ( DPP), was a year-long, community-led process that
occurred just prior to our FESAC LRP activity. The findings of the CPP reportwere based on the synthesis of community-generated white papers, webinars,
town halls at fusion and plasma meetings, and five major workshops. The report
described opportunities in fusion and plasma science in order to improve ourunderstanding of them and to facilitate the translation of science to societally
beneficial applications. The CPP report included discussions of 1 ) Fusion
Science and Technology, 2 ) Discovery Plasma Science, and 3 ) Cross Cutting
Opportunities. The CPP report achieved significant community consensus, andits initiatives and priorities formed the basis for our prioritization and development of the budget scenarios in this report.

Community Focus Groups
The FESAC subcommittee gathered input through community focus groups. Nine
focus group sessions were carried out through June and July 2020, with a totalof 90 participants. Representatives from all program areas, across all demographic
categories, and with a wide range of experience levels participated. The focus
group sessions had three objectives:– Address the question of resource division between fusion science and technology(FST) and discovery plasma science (DPS; called plasma science and technology
in this report)– Determine program synergies and identify cross-cutting opportunities– Gather feedback on the LRP report formulation process

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science71Appendix F

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Virtual Workshop
On August 20, 2020, a virtual workshop was held to gather additional informationfrom the community. The meeting provided an opportunity for the fusion andplasma research communities to exchange ideas and understand the prioritiesof each program area. An additional objective was to merge the mission andvision statements, along with the values developed in the two communities, intoa single strategic plan. Input provided by the workshop informed developmentof a process to merge the plans and allocate resources between the two areasin the constrained budget scenarios. The workshop included approximately 200
participants.

Stakeholder Federal Agency Briefings
The FESAC subcommittee was briefed by representatives from other government
agencies and projects with synergistic research interests. The goals of thebriefings were to provide insight into plasma-related focus areas and their funding footprint in the various agencies, discuss the potential for partnerships,
and learn about the execution of large projects and public – private partnerships
by other government agencies. The committee received presentations from thefollowing individuals and agencies:
On synergistic topical reports– Prof. Mike Mauel (Columbia University), on the 2019 NAS report A Strategic Planfor U.S. Burning Plasma Research– Prof. Roger Falcone (University of California, Berkeley), Dr. Felicie Albert(Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), and Prof. Jon Zuegel (University ofRochester) on the 2018 NAS report Opportunities in Intense Ultrafast Lasers:
Reaching for the Brightest Light– Prof. Mark Kushner (University of Michigan) and Prof. Gary Zank (University of
Alabama in Huntsville) on the 2020 NAS Decadal Assessment of Plasma Science(a presentation to FESAC)– Prof. Carolyn Kuranz (University of Michigan), Dr. Lauren Garrison (Oak Ridge
National Laboratory), Dr. Nathan Ferraro (Princeton Plasma Physica Laboratory),
Dr. Nathan Howard (MIT), and Prof. John Sarff (University of Wisconsin) on the
CPP Report

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science72Appendix F

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

From other agencies– Ms. Ann Satsangi (National Nuclear Security Administration)– Dr. Scott Hsu (ARPA-E)– Dr. Thomas Zurbuchen (NASA)– Dr. Vyacheslav Lukin (National Science Foundation)
On public – private partnerships– Dr. Alan Lindenmoyer (NASA) on the Commercial Orbital Transportation
Services (COTS) program– Dr. Dave Petti (Idaho National Laboratory) on the Next Generation
Nuclear Plant (NGNP)– Dr. Adrian Collins (Idaho National Laboratory), on the Versatile Test
Reactor (VTR)

Subcommittee Meetings
As with many other activities in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic obviated all plans
for the subcommittee to meet in person. The entire subcommittee met weekly via
Zoom for the duration of our activities, for discussions aimed at understanding
overall program needs and for synthesizing the strategic plan. Additional weekly
meetings included separate DPS and FST meetings to develop program-specificpriorities and multiple meetings of smaller subgroups tasked with drafting
specific portions of the report or addressing issues for later discussion by thelarger group. The overarching goal of the meetings was to formulate a plan forthree budget scenarios: constant level of effort, modest growth, and unconstrained
but prioritized. Cost estimates for program elements and facilities informed thedevelopment of the three budget scenarios in the FESAC Charge (see AppendixC) but were not the sole basis for the scenarios. Status updates were provided
at regular virtual FESAC meetings on March 16, June 23–24, and August 24.

Costing and Budget Scenarios
DOE Fusion Energy Sciences ( FES ) briefed the subcommittee several times onbudgets and provided details of the FY 2019 budget that is called out in theCharge along with historic budget information and information on the FY 2020
budget enacted. FES also provided information on costs for ITER operations
during the 10-year window of the Charge. Subgroup meetings took place toestablish which program elements and user facilities from the CPP report would
need to be costed by outside experts. Once the list of those facilities was finalized, outside experts provided cost estimates. Program elements were costed by
the subcommittee. The program elements and facilities cost estimates wereA long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science73Appendix F

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

used in exercises to understand the three budget scenarios in the FESAC Charge.
The subcommittee determined that the cost estimates of facilities and program
elements could only be used to provide a range of plausible costs, given that thefacilities were at a low level of development (a few were even at the preconceptual level). Given the range and the associated uncertainty, the subcommittee
decided not to include cost estimates in this report or in the budget scenarios.
The resulting budget scenarios are a combination of prioritization within the
program as derived from the CPP report and costing exercises targeting eachbudget scenario.

High-Heat-Flux Facilities
The CPP recognized high-heat-flux testing of materials as a critical step in thedevelopment of plasma-facing components for future fusion reactors. However,
the CPP did not specify how to fulfill this need. Given the safety-driven limitationsof international collaborations in the study of nuclear materials (such as thedifficulty of transporting activated samples) and the lack of capability forhigh-repetition, multi-megawatt heat-flux exposure currently in the US , we concluded that two new facilities are needed for FPP preparation: a coupon-scale(sample sizes of centimeters) high-heat-flux exposure facility for candidate
material testing and model validation that form the basis for FPP plasma-facing
component designs, both solid and liquid; and a component-scale facility(sample sizes of tens of centimeters up to 1 meter, as needed) for qualificationof components and related systems, such as active cooling.

Implementation
This long range plan and its recommendations are advisory input to DOE Officeof Science and DOE Fusion Energy Sciences (FES). Implementation of these is
the responsibility of DOE.

Acknowledgements
The successful completion of this activity and report resulted from the efforts ofseveral individuals beyond the subcommittee itself. We sincerely thank Jeff Hoyand Carl Strawbridge for their assistance with cost estimation; Jim Dawson andMartha Hanna for professional editing of the final report and Michael Branigan
for art direction and design; Sam Barish for critical insight from FES throughout
the process; and Laurie Moret for facilitating consensus, during both the CPP
and LRP activities.

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science74Appendix

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

Appendix G:
Acronyms
ASCR

Advanced Scientific Computing Research program

AI/ML

Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning

AFOSR

Air Force Office of Scientific Research

APS DPP

American Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics

ARPA-E

Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy

BCTF

Blanket Component Test Facility

CD

Critical Decision

CPP

Community Planning Process

DEI

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

DOD

Department of Defense

DOE

Department of Energy

DPS

Discovery Plasma Science

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

EXCITE

EXhaust and Confinement Integration Tokamak Experiment

FES(Office of) Fusion Energy Sciences

FM&T

Fusion Materials and Technology

FPNS

Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source

FPP

Fusion Pilot Plant

FST

Fusion Science and Technology

GPS

General Plasma Science

HED

High-Energy Density

HEP

High-Energy Physics

HEDLP

High-Energy-Density Laboratory Plasmas

HEDP

High-Energy-Density Plasmas

HHF

High-Heat-Flux

ICF

Inertial Confinement Fusion

IFE

Inertial confinement Fusion Energy

INFUSE

Innovation Network for Fusion Energy

ITEP

Integrated Tokamak Exhaust and PerformanceLM

Liquid Metal

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science75Appendix G

Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas

MEC-U

Matter in Extreme Conditions instrument Upgrade

MPEX

Material Plasma Exposure eXperiment

MFE

Magnetic confinement Fusion Energy

NASA

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASEM

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

NIF

National Ignition Facility

NIH

National Institutes of Health

NNSA

National Nuclear Security Administration

NSF

National Science Foundation

NTUF

New Tokamak User Facility

ONR

Office of Naval Research

PFC

Plasma-Facing Component

PFPO

Pre-Fusion Power Operation

PMI

Plasma-Material Interaction

PPP

Public – Private Partnership

PST

Plasma Science and Technology

QIS

Quantum Information Science

R&D

Research and Development

RFRadiofrequency

SBIR

Small Business Innovation Research

STTR

Small Business Technology Transfer

TRL

Technology Readiness LevelUSDA

US Department of Agriculture

VNS

Volumetric Neutron Source

WDM

Warm Dense Matter

XFEL

X-ray Free Electron Laser

A long-range plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science76Art direction and design; Sandbox Studio, Chicago; Illustration: Ana Kova

A long-range plan to deliver
fusion energy and toadvance plasma science

Powering the Future
Fusion & Plasmas

usfusionandplasmas.org