Highlights of Fusion Energy Sciences
Research on the 40th Anniversary of theDepartment of Energy
Presented by G. A. Navratil
Columbia UniversityFusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Meeting
Gaithersburg, MD
1-2 February 2018

40th Anniversary of the DOE• US Department of Energy Created in 1977
– Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977
(Enacted 4 August 1977)– Succeeded theEnergy Research and Development Administration(ERDA 1974-1977)– Succeeded the Atomic Energy Commission(AEC 1946-1974)• Fusion Energy Research in DOE– Office of Energy Research: 1977-1998– Office of Science: 1998-present

How to Organize 40 Years of Remarkable Progress byThousands of Highly Talented People on theGrand Challenge of Producing Practical Fusion Energy?
•Avoid Long Lists of Disconnected Discoveries•

Contextualize Important Steps in Progress toward the Goal of Fusion Energy•Given the roughly 2 weeks to complete this task, this is necessarily a personalview (with input from Dale Meade, Jim Callen, Tony Taylor, Richard Buttery)•Use as input: APS-DPP “Excellence in Plasma Physics” Dawson Prize & Maxwell
Prize Awards, EPS Alfven Prize and Landau-Spitzer Awards, Nuclear Fusion
Paper Awards,•This is US-centric overview – but US has played a leading role in all of theprogress summarized here.

Science versus Energy?
• In a late 1995 Meeting of the FEAC Panel led by Mike Knotekcharged with Restructuring the Fusion Energy Program into what
would become the Fusion Energy Sciences Program of 1996, JohnSheffield challenged my colleague Mike Mauel to answer thequestion (asked too many times over many years):“What fraction of our fusion research program isScience and what fraction is Energy?”

Science versus Energy?
• In a late 1995 Meeting of the FEAC Panel led by Mike Knotek charged withRestructuring the Fusion Energy Program into what would become theFusion Energy Sciences Program of 1996, John Sheffield challenged mycolleague Mike Mauel to answer the question (asked too many times overmany years):“What fraction of our fusion research program isScience and what fraction is Energy?”

90% SCIENCE

90% ENERGY

Science versus Energy?
•In a late 1995 Meeting of the FEAC Panel led by Mike Knotek charged with Restructuring theFusion Energy Program into what would become the Fusion Energy Sciences Program of 1996,John Sheffield challenged my colleague Mike Mauel to answer the question (asked too manytimes over many years):“What fraction of our fusion research program is Science and what fraction
is Energy?”

90% SCIENCE

90% ENERGYStrength of our program in fusion energy is that our science
discoveries are motivated by application to an energy goal,
and the maintaining progress towards the energy goal drives
the fusion program need to advance the science & technology– powerful combination

Four Decades of Fusion Energy Research Progress• 1977 – 1987
– Fusion Plasmas (~10 keV and 1020 m3) Achieved in PLTFour Decades of Fusion Energy Research Progress• 1977 – 1987
– Fusion Plasmas (~10 keV and 1020 m3) Achieved in PLT• 1988 – 1997
– Fusion Plasmas using D-T fuel achieved > 10 MW of fusion
power with an energy gain Q ~ 0.3 in TFTRDT Fusion Experiments in TFTR and JET Reach ~ 10 MW

Four Decades of Fusion Energy Research Progress• 1977 – 1987
– Fusion Plasmas (~10 keV and 1020 m3) Achieved in PLT• 1988 – 1997
– Fusion Plasmas using D-T fuel achieved > 10 MW of fusion
power with an energy gain Q ~ 0.3 in TFTR

• 1998 – 2007– DOE,US fusion community, and NAS identifies achieving aFusion Burning Plasma as next frontier in fusion science andthe US joins the ITER Project in 2003 as a Presidential Initiative

“I am pleased to announce today, that President Bush has
decided that the United States will join the international
negotiations on ITER.”
President Bush has faith in American
science. And he knows the huge energy
challenges for the United States and for theworld that fusion science seeks to tackle.
And let me tell you, he is not one for taking
baby steps when leaps are called for.
By the time our young children reach middle
age, fusion may begin to deliver energy
independence and energy abundance to all
nations rich and poor. Fusion is a promise forthe future we must not ignore.

Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham
30 January 2003
…we know that this experiment is a crucial
element in the path forward to satisfying
global energy demand.

But let me be clear, our decision to join ITER
in no way means a lesser role for the fusion
programs we undertake here at home. It isimperative that we maintain and enhance ourstrong domestic research program … at theuniversities and at our other labs.

Four Decades of Fusion Energy Research Progress• 1977 – 1987
– Fusion Plasmas (~10 keV and 1020 m3) Achieved in PLT• 1988 – 1997
– Fusion Plasmas using D-T fuel achieved > 10 MW of fusion
power with an energy gain Q ~ 0.3 in TFTR

• 1998 – 2007
– DOE,US fusion community, and NAS identifies achieving aFusion Burning Plasma as next frontier in fusion science andthe US joins the ITER Project in 2003 as a Presidential Initiative• 2008 – 2017
– ITER Construction Underway & scalable ITER Baseline Plasmas
demonstrated in C-Mod, DIII-D, …

Four Decades of Fusion Technology Progress• 1977 – 1987

– High Energy Neutral Beams (LBL) Deployed to Produce Fusion Conditions inTokamak Experiments at ORNL & PPPL
– Large Superconducting Coils Constructed & Tested at ORNL

• 1988 – 1997

– Tritium fueling and recovery systems implemented on TFTR
– Carbon PFCs developed as a compatible first wall for fusion regime plasmas inTFTR & DIII-D– High Power ICRF systems used to sustain fusion regime plasmas at > 5T inAlcator C-Mod• 1998 – 2007

– Pellet fueling developed at ORNL for density control and diagnostic applications– Refractory Metal wall PFCs demonstrated in fusion regime plasmas on C-Mod– High power (MW) gyrotron systems used to heat and control fusion regime
plasmas on DIII-D with ECRH and ECCD

• 2008 – 2017

– Active control of heating, fueling, momentum input, and magnetic
configuration of near steady-state fusion regime plasma equilibrium
demonstrated on DIII-D

Four Decades of Fusion Science Research Progress• 1977 – 1987
– First-principles theory on using RF waves to drive the confining
plasma current: N.J. Fisch PRL 1978 – recognized with APS-DPP
Excellence in PP Award 1992 & Maxwell Prize in 2005, and AlfvenPrize 2015
– Experimental demonstration of start-up & sustainment of toroidal
plasma current by lower hybrid waves: Versator II at MIT & WT-2 inJapan APS-DPP Excellence in PP Award 1984; Porkolob received theMaxwell Prize in 2009 & Alfven Prize in 2013
– Experimental measurement confirming the existence of the firstprinciples neo-classical self-driven “bootstrap current” in U. WiscOctupole by Zarnstorff & Prager PRL 1984, later confirmed in TFTR
keV plasmas Zarnstorff PRL 1988, recognized with APS-DPP
Excellence in PP Award 2008
– Discovery of an enhanced confinement regime with plasma
turbulence suppression in 20 keV plasmas in TFTR: Goldston,Hawryluk, Strachen: APS-DPP Excellence in PP Award 1988

Four Decades of Fusion Science Research Progress• 1988 – 1997
– Sheared plasma flow stabilization of turbulence for improved
energy confinement in fusion plasmas: H-Mode & ITB• Theory by Biglari, Diamond & Terry 1988-1990 showed flow shear could
stabilize “turbulent zonal flows”: Diamond recognized with the Alfven
Prize in 2011
• Experimental demonstration of shear flow suppression in L-H edgetransition in DIII-D: Groebner, Burrell, Seraydarian PRL 1990
• Experimental demonstration of ITB in core of tokamak plasmas in TFTR
1996 and DIII-D 1996: Synakowski, Doyle, Burrell, & Groebnerrecognized with APS-DPP Excellence in PP Award 2001

– Measurement of magnetic field pitch angle in a fusion regime
tokamak plasma using the Motional Stark Effect (MSE) in PBXM to determine plasma current and q-profile: Levinton PRL
1989: recognized with APS-DPP Excellence in PP Award 1997

Four Decades of Fusion Science Research Progress• 1988 – 1997
– Fusion Power Plant levels of normalized plasma pressure, b >5% achieved in DIII-D using shaping and strong plasma rotation:
Taylor, Strait, Stambaugh, & Lao recognized with APS-DPP
Excellence in PP Award 1994
– Near breakeven DT fusion plasmas achieved in TFTR 1993-1997
showed alpha heating of the TFTR plasma and classicalCoulomb scattering transport rates were observed for the 3.5
MeV fusion produced alpha particles.

Four Decades of Fusion Science Research Progress• 1998 – 2007– Experiments on DIII-D and NSTX showed the key role ofrotational stabilization of MHD kink modes with a nearby
conducting wall in high-b tokamak: Garofalo, et al PRL 2002
and Sabbagh, et al Nucl Fusion 2006, and demonstration ofactive feedback control of MHD kinks on HBT-EP (Cates, et al
Phys Plasma 2000) and DIII-D (Garofalo, et al Phys Plasmas
2001): Garofalo, Strait, Navratil, Okabayashi recognized withAPS-DPP Excellence in PP Award 2007 and Sabbagh recognizedwith 2009 Nuclear Fusion Prize– Local ECRH was used to suppress the onset of tearing modes
driven by neoclassical current effects (NTMs) on DIII-D (LaHaye,et al Phys Plasmas 2002) in agreement with theory (Hegna, etal Phys Plasmas 1997): Hegna, Zohm, Callen, Sauter, LaHaye
recognized with APS-DPP Excellence in PP Award 2014

Four Decades of Fusion Science Research Progress• 1998 – 2007
– Discovery that edge localized modes (ELMs) in tokamaks whichcause a high heat flux on plasma facing components in thedivertor were suppressed by application of an edge resonant
magnetic perturbation: Evans, et al PRL 2004 and Evans, et al
Nucl Fusion 2005 recognized with 2008 Nuclear Fusion Prize– Quasi-helical symmetry of 3D stellarator magnetic
configuration shown theoretically to have greatly improved
neoclassical particle confinement: Boozer and Nührenberg
recognized with 2010 Alfven Prize.

Four Decades of Fusion Science Research Progress• 2008 – 2017
– Theory by Hu and Betti (PRL 2004) predicted kinetic
stabilization of MHD kink modes at low values of plasma
rotation were confirmed in experiments on DIII-D (Reimerdes,et al PRL 2011) and NSTX (Berkery, et al PRL 2010): Berkery, Liu,Sabbagh, & Reimerdes recognized with 2016 APS-EPS LandauSpitzer Award– A theoretical model (EPED) which explains the onset of ELM
instabilities at the H-mode plasma edge of a tokamak wasformulated to include current gradient and pressure gradientdrive and validated against experiments on DIII-D (Snyder, et alNucl Fusion 2009 and Phys Plasma 2010): Wilson, Ferron,Snyder, and Osborne: recognized with APS-DPP Excellence in PPAward 2013

Four Decades of Fusion Research Progress• 1997 – 2017– Brought the tokamak from it’s 1970 T-3 “proof-ofprinciple” level of Te~1 keV to fusion energy regime
plasmas of 10 keV – 1020 m-3 with DT fuel producing MWof fusion power at Q near 1– Advanced fundamental understanding of the underlying
plasma physics: neo-classical theory, current drive,instability limits and active control, and transport:• to confidently design burning plasma experiment (ITER) with 500
MW sustained fusion power at Q~10
• to pursue promising improvements in tokamak and 3D toroidal
fusion configurations

Four Decades of Fusion Research Progress• 1997 – 2017– Brought the tokamak from it’s 1970 T-3 “proof-ofprinciple” level of Te~1 keV to fusion energy regime
plasmas of 10 keV – 1020 m-3 with DT fuel producing MWof fusion power at Q near 1– Advanced fundamental understanding of the underlying
plasma physics: neo-classical theory, current drive,instability limits and active control, and transport:• to confidently design burning plasma experiment (ITER) with 500
MW sustained fusion power at Q~10
• to pursue promising improvements in tokamak and 3D toroidal
fusion configurations“So I’m optimistic about the future”

Four Five Decades of Fusion Research Progress• 2018 – 2027
– ITER construction complete & first plasma– Disruption Mitigation/Control for tokamaks will beachieved for test in ITER
– Improved divertor power/particle control developed– Experiments on advanced stellarator configurations
will test encouraging theory predictions in fusion
regime conditions.
– Exoscale computing platforms will allow ourequilibrium, stability, transport, and divertor codes tobe benchmarked against experiment and become apredictive tool for design of next-step toroidal fusion
experiments