Establishing the scientific basis for fusion energy
and for understanding the plasma universe

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES:
Updates and issues, and opportunities for FESAC

E. J. Synakowski
Fusion Energy Sciences
Associate Director
Office of Science
U.S. Department of Energy

Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory
Committee
February 1, 2017

Outgoing FESAC members: Thank you

Amitava Bhattacharjee

Retiring Member

Jin‐Soo Kim

Mark Koepke

Institution

Ellen Zweibel

On FESAC Since

Amitava Bhattacharjee

Princeton Plasma
Physics Laboratory

June 2013

Jin‐Soo Kim

FAR‐TECH, Inc.

June 2013Mark Koepke

West Virginia University

June 2013

Ellen Zweibel

University of Wisconsin

June 2013

Sincere thanks to all of them for their service

New FESAC members as of December 2016
New FESAC chair• Don Rej (LANL)New FESAC deputy chair• Steve Knowlton (Auburn,emeritus)
Rajesh Maingi (PPPL)

Thomas Sunn Pedersen (IPP Greifswald)

Susana Reyes (LBNL)

Amy Wendt (Wisconsin)

Three ex officio members• Earl Scime (Chair of APS‐
DPP)
• Arnold Lumsdaine (Chairof ANS‐FED)• John Verboncoeur(Immediate Past
President of IEEE‐Nuclear
and Plasma Science
Society)FY 2017 appropriations: we are currently in aContinuing Resolution• Presently through April 28• Ultimately full year? We don’t know
• FES is allocating resources as they are made available to us, atabout the FY 2017 Congressional Request level• ITER has been allocated $50M thus far and requires additional
resources if it is to stay on track with the recently baselinedplanFormulating the FY 2018 budget benefited fromFES Budget Planning Meetings in FY 2016
• FES hosted 19 individual meetings with university, lab, andindustry research groups, as well as other community researchcoordination groups (USBPO, National Stellarator Coordinating
Committee, Theory Coordinating Committee)• Feedback received concerning this new style of budget
planning meetings has been quite positive• This year, we are planning the same kind of approach• Schedule for release of the FY 2018 budget has not yet been
establishedProgress at ITER site
Progress Continues at the ITER
Site and at Manufacturers
around the World•

The pace of construction has accelerated.

•

Design is largely completed, and fabricationof components is well under way, with on-site
deliveries that began in 2015.

•

The ITER Council approved the new projectbaseline schedule through First Plasma(2025) at its meeting in November 2016.

•

Full D-T operations should begin in 2035..

•

DG Bernard Bigot, appointed in March 2015,
has:

•

•

reformed the organizational
management,•

brought on a construction manager.

The project is now being managed with a fullunderstanding of the importance of projectrisk management and of keeping to cost andschedule.

October 2016

ITER’s progress has been impressive

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

Ernest J. Moniz

http://science.energy.gov/~/media/fes/pdf/DOE_US_Participation_in_the_ITER_Project_May_2016_Final.pdf

US ITER Project has achieved a major milestone,
as directed in the Secretary’s report• In response to the Secretary’s memo to Congress in May, theU.S. Contributions to ITER First Plasma subproject wasapproved by the DOE Deputy Secretary on January 13, 2017,
for several Critical Decisions (CDs):– Revised CD‐1: alternative selection and cost range– CD‐2: performance baseline– CD‐3: start of construction• The U.S. ITER Project had previously achieved CD‐1 in January
2008 with a cost range of $1.45‐2.2B– Based on further independent project reviews, the cost range wasrevised in December 2016 to $4.7‐6.5B.

The Secretary’s report to Congress also
states that DOE will seek an NAS study

From the body of the report:• The DOE will request that the National Academies perform astudy of how to best advance the fusion energy sciences in
the U.S., given the developments in the field since the last
Academy studies in 2004, the specific international
investments in fusion science and technology, and thepriorities for the next ten years developed by the communityand FES that were recently reported to Congress.
• This study will address the scientific justification and needs
for strengthening the foundations for realizing fusion energy
given a potential choice of U.S. participation or not in the
ITER project, and will develop future scenarios in either case.

NAS Burning Plasma Study scope
STATEMENT OF TASK“Specifically, the committee will prepare an interim report that will:1.

Describe and assess the current status of U.S. research that supports burning plasma
science, including current and planned participation in international activities, anddescribe international research activities broadly.

2.

Assess the importance of U.S. burning plasma research to the development of fusionenergy as well as to plasma science and other science and engineering disciplines.

“The committee will also prepare a final report, building on the interim report, which will:
1. Consider the scientific and engineering challenges and opportunities associated withadvancing magnetic confinement fusion as an energy source, including the scientific andtechnical developments since the 2004 NAS study on burning plasma research.
2. In two separate scenarios in which, after 2018, (1) the United States is a partner in ITER,
and (2) the United States is not a partner in ITER: provide guidance on a long‐term
strategic plan for a national program of burning plasma science and technology researchwhich includes supporting capabilities and which may include participation ininternational activities, given the U.S. strategic interest in realizing economical fusionenergy in the long term.”

The NAS study will use as input the Ten Year
perspective submitted to Congress in 2015•

Several critically important areas for the U.S. fusionenergy sciences enterprise over the next decade– Massively parallel computing with the goal of validated
whole‐fusion‐device modeling– Materials science for greatly improved plasma confinement
and heat exhaust– Transient events, predicted and controlled, for confidence inmachine designs and operation with stable plasmas– Discovery in plasma science to address frontier science issuesof the visible universe and help attract a new generation ofplasma/fusion scientists– FES user facilities kept world‐leading through operations
support and regular upgrades– Leveraging resources among agencies and institutions andstrengthening partnerships with international researchfacilities

12

The Office of Science has issued a charge to you
regarding the potential of enabling science andtechnology breakthroughs•“…It is necessary that the US program be in the best position possible to lever the science andtechnology that will be advanced through burning plasma research on ITER. It will be important that weare involved in pursuits that give us the best chance of enabling the knowledge gained through ITER
research to be effectively levered towards attractive fusion energy.

•“I am asking FESAC to identify the most promising transformative enabling capabilities for the U.S. topursue that could promote efficient advance towards fusion energy, building on burning plasma scienceand technology. Your considerations should be broad, addressing advances that may occur in areas ofengineering, technology, and science. Examples of focus areas could include liquid metals, additive
manufacturing, high critical‐temperature superconductors, exascale computing, materials by design,
machine learning and artificial intelligence, and novel measurements. Please comment on the promise,level of maturity, development requirements, risks and uncertainties, and time horizon for each. Pleaseconsider global strengths and gaps in identifying areas of particular opportunity for the U.S.

•

“We particularly seek examination of developments that can bring the tokamak and stellarator
concepts closer to producing fusion power practically. Identification of R&D that may have generalimpact that both includes and extends beyond these concepts is welcome, but an assessment ofvarious types of magnetic confinement devices is not to be performed…”

This output of this study can serve as input into the NAS burning plasma study

Schedule for the upcoming Plasma Science
Decadal Study• Anticipate launching towards the end of 2017,
after the NAS Burning Plasma Study is underway• We are in discussion with the NAS and the otheragencies that may support this study about how
and when to best proceedReports from Community Engagement Workshops
influenced activities initiated by FES••

In 2015, FES sought community input about scientific challenges and opportunities through a seriesof technical workshops on priority research areas.
The final reports are available from the FES website (http://science.energy.gov/fes/community‐
resources/workshop‐reports/) and the USBPO site (https://www.burningplasma.org)
Workshop

Date

Location

Chair / Co‐Chair

Workshop on Plasma‐Materials
Interactions

May 4‐7, 2015

PPPL

Rajesh Maingi (PPPL) / Steve Zinkle (Tennessee)

Workshop on Integrated Simulationsfor Magnetic Fusion Energy Sciences

June 2‐4, 2015

Rockville, MD

Paul Bonoli (MIT) / Lois McInnes (ANL)

Workshop on Transients

June 8‐12, 2015

General Atomics

Charles Greenfield (GA) / Raffi Nazikian (PPPL)

Workshops on Plasma Science
Frontiers (two)August 20‐21 &Oct. 22‐23, 2015

Washington, DC area

Fred Skiff (Iowa) / Jonathan Wurtele (UC Berkeley)

Theory and Simulation:
Response to Community Workshops•••

SCREAM Center: A national team, co‐led by
Princeton University and LANL, was jointly
funded by FES and ASCR for two years under the
SciDAC program to carry our computational
research on runaway electrons during
disruptions in tokamak plasmas• Addresses several priority research
directions from the Integrated Simulations
and Transients community workshops
SciDAC‐4 solicitation: A joint FES‐ASCR Funding
Opportunity Announcement and a companion
Lab Announcement were issued for the re‐competition of the FES SciDAC portfolio• The solicitation has been structured tofocus on the leading PRDs from the three
MFE community workshops
New theory grants, enabled by the additional
funds provided by Congress in FY 2016, wereselected emphasizing their relevance to the
PRDs of the three MFE workshops

Simulation Center for Runaway Electron
Avoidance & Mitigation (SCREAM)
D. Brennan, Oct 2016

16

FES SciDAC Portfolio Under Review

•

•

•

•
•

The FES Scientific Discovery through Advanced
Computing (SciDAC) portfolio is under review as part of
the SC‐wide SciDAC‐4 re‐competition
A joint FES / ASCR Funding Opportunity Announcement
and a companion LAB Announcement entitled“Integrated Simulation Partnerships in Fusion Energy
Sciences” were issued on November 16, 2016
The focus is on integrated simulations and Whole
Device Modeling (WDM), following therecommendations from the 2015 FES / ASCR
community workshop• also addresses priorities identified in theTransients and PMI workshops
Preproposals have already been received and full
proposals are due on February 21, 2017
Selection of the new FES / ASCR SciDAC partnerships is
expected by mid‐2017

Report of the 2015 workshop on Integrated
Simulations for Magnetic Fusion Energy
Sciences17

FES and Exascale
FES Exascale Requirements Review Meeting (January 2016):• Part of a series of exascale requirements reviews for each of the SC
program offices• Scope: Identify forefront scientific challenges and opportunities infusion energy and plasma sciences whose resolution is essential tomeeting the FES mission and could be aided by exascale computing
over the next decade
Exascale Computing Project (ECP)•••

Component of the DOE Exascale Program, set up as an SC/NNSA
partnership
Follows a co‐design approach to achieve capable exascalecomputing systems
Two projects with fusion relevance are among the ECP application
development awards selected in 2016:

High‐Fidelity Whole Device Modeling of Magnetically Confined Fusion
Plasma, PI: Amitava Bhattacharjee (PPPL) with ANL, ORNL, LLNL,
Rutgers, UCLA, & University of Coloradoo Molecular Dynamics at the Exascale: Spanning the Accuracy, Lengthand Time Scales for Critical Problems in Materials Science, PI: Arthur
Voter (LANL) with SNL & UTK – addresses needs of BES, FES, and NE
www.ExascaleProject.orgo18Workshop report will be available soonInternational Collaborative Research:

Response to Community Workshops

Multi‐institutional teams are a central component of FES research activities.
In the FY 2016 Long Pulse Tokamak re‐competition, two new efforts were approved
and one was renewed, with workshop PRDs taken into account.
Project

U.S. Partner Institutions

EAST

Control and Extension of High GA (lead), Lehigh Univ, LLNL, MIT,
Performance Scenarios to Long ORNL, PPPL, UCLA, & Univ Texas
Pulse (renewal)

19

Control of the Plasma MaterialInterface for Long Pulse
Optimization in EASTPPPL (lead), JHU, LANL, MIT,
ORNL, UT‐K, & UIUC

Disruption Prediction and
Avoidance in High Beta Long
Pulse KSTAR Plasmas

Columbia (lead), MIT, PPPL

Also, a collaborative effort was initiated to build, install,and operate a shattered pellet injector on JET to test
disruption mitigation for ITER. Partners are ORNL, USIPO,USDOE, JET/EUROfusion, European Comm., & ITER Org.

KSTAR

JET

PMI Research and Technology:
Response to Community Workshops•

PMI on DIII‐D:––

Metal Ring Campaign on DIII‐D

High‐Z metal ring campaign and upper divertor
modification were accelerated
New PMI collaboration grants were awarded

MiMES
Reshaped upper divertor tiles –SAS divertor to increase closure•

Lithium Tokamak Experiment: neutral beam
heating/fueling upgrade to explore confinement
improvements due to low recycling liquid Li walls
W-182

•

Facility and infrastructure upgrades at national
laboratories in support of the PMI mission

SRNL‐
Electrochemistryin Extreme
Environments
Characterization
Facilities
INL‐ STAR XPS

LTX – molten lithium pool•

Plasma‐facing materials experiments: enhanced andnew research efforts, including an Early Career Award•

Direct processing of tritium from liquid lithium: newdemonstration initiative in support of liquid metal
plasma‐facing components•

Systems Studies Group: New system‐level study ofliquid metal plasma‐facing components

20Transients Research and Technology:
Response to Community Workshops• Increased priority to validate ITER disruption mitigation systems:• Coordinated closely with the JET program and supported the engineeringand hardware fabrication required to manufacture a shattered pellet
injector for JET.
• New ITER 3‐barrel prototype shattered pellet injector (SPI‐II)
manufactured and tested – currently installed on DIII‐D to conduct
research on the effects of two injectors.

• Enhanced research effort on real‐time control techniques including a new
NSTX‐U collaboration grant and an Early Career Award.

DIII‐D SPI‐I
Shattered Pellet• New international collaboration team chosen for research on “Disruption
Prediction and Avoidance in High Beta Long Pulse KSTAR Plasmas”

SPI-II 7 mm Diameter
Cryogenic Pellets
Pure D2

SPI-II with Gas Manifold• A three‐valve massive gas
injection (MGI) systemthat uses a new double
solenoid design based on
the ORNL MGI design for
ITER was built, installed,
and tested on NSTX‐U andis ready to support
experiments

Ne withD2 shell

NSTX‐U MGI
SystemPure
Ne

Three cryogenically cooled
barrels inside the guard
vacuum

51:49 Ne:D2
Mixture21

PelletDirection

Frontiers of Plasma Science:
Response to Community Workshops
The scientific opportunities and grand challenge questions
articulated in the workshop report have played an activerole in funding decisions for all three sub‐programs (GPS,HEDLP, and EMP) for:• 2016 NSF/DOE Partnership in Basic Plasma Science andEngineering applications• 2016 SC‐Early Career Award Applications
Additionally, input from the workshop report (inconjunction with other reports such as the 2010 Plasma
Decadal Survey) informed the composition of two recent
funding solicitations:• FY 2017 Opportunities in Basic Plasma Science (LAB 16‐
1592); issued in FY 2016
• FY 2018 Plasma Science Facilities (DE‐FOA‐0001713;
LAB 17‐1713); issued January 19, 201722

New solicitation regarding intermediate
scale facilities for discovery plasma science•

This solicitation was developed taking into account considerations
expressed by the research community regarding the need for investmentin this class of facilities– It is consistent with one of the recommendations in the report from the 2015
Plasma Science Frontiers Workshop: “There is a need for the creation andexploration of new regimes in the laboratory” (chapter 4)– It is also consistent with a recommendation in the 2010 Plasma Decadal
Survey: “Several areas of basic plasma science would benefit from newintermediate‐scale facilities.”•

The solicitation consists of a non‐lab Funding Opportunity Announcement
and also a Lab Call•

Proposals are sought for basic science facility research operation,enhancements, or construction requiring <$25M over five years

Dialogue with University Fusion Association• We are aware of concerns expressed through the UFA
regarding on‐campus research enterprises and thedevelopment of faculty.
• The outlook of university departments reported at the past
UFA meeting, and recently to FES directly, is important tounderstand.
• DOE data indicates total university funding has not declined.
However, we look forward to working with the university
community to reconcile the understanding of funding levels,and other factors that may be fundamental to the concerns.

NSTX-U will be offline in FY 2017

Leaking Coil
Water poolMay 20, 2016
Flex‐bus problem
discovered
January 2016
1st H‐mode

July 5, 2016
Water leakJune 28, 2016
Water blockage halts
operations on NSTX‐U

Organic Material

August 24, 2016
Broken cooling tubes
discovered
September 1, 2016
Coil Removed/x‐rayed

October 12, 2016
Coil Autopsy Begins

Recent progress in remote participation
capabilities for overseas partnerships

Research conducted onsite and via fully remote research participationand facility operation leverages progress made in domestic devices
and enables U.S. scientists to gain the knowledge needed to operate
long-duration plasma discharges in ITER and future fusion devices.

The US is on the ground floor inthese early days of W7‐X operations
5 trim coils (blue)

US hardware andscientificcontributions

Feb 3, 2016: Celebration of first hydrogenplasma operation

Infra‐red camera & visible imaging systems

US scientists helped measure flux
surfaces

Head‐of‐State interest in fusion

Remote participation approaches are being
developed with national lab/universities
team: US/Germany W7‐X partnership

W7‐X

This team approach provides one model for university participation
at world‐leading fusion centers in the U.S. and overseas

Remote third‐shift operation
on EAST from GA has continued in 2016
First US‐led 3rd Shift Experiment without U.S. Staff at ASIPP
Data Transfer
MonitorEAST Status

EAST shotclock feed

Real-time
Zoom sessionboundary
to EAST CR display• Experiment on Thursday, April 28, 2016, was very successful– Six‐hour session, 26 tokamak pulses, highest‐priority experiments completed– Good GA‐ASIPP staff communications and EAST data transfer to US– No significant impact to GA staff or added cost from EAST schedule changes– Experiment focused on empirical scalings of error field thresholds for ITER
29

Remote communication and data access tools
enhance scientific effectiveness•

GA Remote Control Room:
–
–
–

•

Operations and physics data display resources:
–
–
–

•

Display hardware and software to provide control
room experience remotely
Accommodates 8 scientists and remotecommunication support staff
Audio/video connection to EAST control room,
headphone links to key individuals
Shot cycle, countdown clock display
Realtime in‐vessel view video image from EAST
Pseudo‐realtime signal traces and plasmaboundary evolution displayed during shot (~100
ms delay)GA Science Collaboration Zone:
–
–
–

•

Pulse schedule prepared at GA Control Room:––•

Pulse schedule validation at EAST–•

Modified Pulse Schedule verified by Physics
Operator at EAST

Execute pulse schedule at EAST––•

Secure remote access to EAST PCS at ASIPP
Pulse Schedule modified between shots by
Physics Operator at GA

Shot initiated by Machine Operator at EAST
Near real‐time displays of selected signals andplasma boundary in Remote Control RoomAnalyze expt’l data in Remote Control Room–Post‐shot mirroring of data at GA

Utilizes 80% of a 1 GB/s network between GA
and ASIPP through specialized tools
Maximum network utilization allows between‐
shot transfer of EAST data
Data mirror at GA serves all US collaborators
GA EAST Data
Repository

30

US/Korea partnership:
US researchers on university/lab teams areleading experiments from the US on KSTAR

US scientists sited at PPPL, led by Columbia University, head up experimentson the KSTAR long‐pulse superconducting tokamak in Korea
Remote participation supplements the on‐site U.S. presence at KSTAR

Recent workshop celebrated 20 years of
NSF‐DOE Partnership

Millions

Annual FES Funding Profile
for the Partnership
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Attendees at Jan 9‐11, 2017 workshop•••

The NSF/DOE Partnership is one of the longest‐running interagency joint programs in
the federal government.
Main objective of original Memo of Understanding (1996) was to “provide enhanced
opportunities for university‐based research in fundamental processes in plasma
science and engineering.”
DOE funding increased from $3.5M in 1999, to $8.7M in 2016. DOE provided
additional funding in 2016 of $6.7M, which increased the award success rate to 28%.

DOE Office of Science leadership changes•

Dr. Patricia Dehmer retired– Deputy Director for Science (SC‐2) for 9
years; also, Acting Director of the Officeof Science (SC‐1) for almost 3 years– Before that, Associate Director of Basic
Energy Sciences program for 12 years– Before that, chemist at Argonne
National Laboratory for 23 years– Retired November 10, 2016•

New SC‐2 is Dr. Stephen Binkley– Formerly, SC Associate Director for
Advanced Scientific Computing
Research– As of January 16, 2017, also serving as
Acting SC‐1
– New AD for ASCR is Barb Helland

Let me express gratitude

Thanks to Al Opdenaker, who
retired January 3, 2017

• 43 years of dedicated service as Engineer at AECERDAUSDOE• Performed various responsibilities over many years, including:• Early work at Nuclear Energy (LMFBR) and Princeton Site Office (TFTR)• Executive Assistant to FES Associate Director and budget manager• Federal representative for FESAC (24 years)• FES program manager for ITER (CDA‐EDA), ARIES reactor studies, technology,
blankets, and tritium science• And more…

34

Other FES personnel news
New Program Managers

Kramer Akli
High‐energy‐density
laboratory plasmas

Matthew Lanctot
International tokamak
collaborations

Bob Bartolo
AAAS Fellow(2nd year)

Seth Aportadera
Summer Intern(from WVU)

2016 Early Career Awards from FESPeter Bruggeman (Minnesota)
Non‐Equilibrium Plasma‐Interactions with Biomaterials,
Biological Solutions and Tissues

Felicie Albert(LLNL)
Laser‐Driven X‐
Ray Sources forHigh Energy
Density Science
Experiments

Egemen Kolemen (Princeton)
On the Physics‐Based Real‐
time Analysis and Control to
Achieve Transient Free
Operations for the ITER Era

Robert Kolasinski (SNL/CA)
Characterizing the
Dynamic Response of
Surfaces to Plasma
Exposure

Scott Baalrud (Iowa)
Transport Properties ofMagnetized High‐Energy‐
Density Plasma

Devesh Ranjan (Georgia
Tech)
Discoveries in Blast‐Wave‐
Driven Turbulence ofAstrophysical RelevanceTwo PECASE winners from FES in five years

Daniel Sinars (SNL)
Announced August 2012

Stephanie Hansen (SNL)
Announced January 20172011 FES Early Career Awardee:“Fundamental instability measurements inmagnetically‐driven z‐pinch liner implosions”

2014 FES Early Career Awardee:“Non‐equilibrium atomic physics in highenergy density material”

Thank you

38