A Community Plan for Fusion Energy
and Discovery Plasma Sciences
Report of the 2019–2020 American Physical Society Division of
Plasma Physics Community Planning Process

A Community Plan for Fusion Energy
and Discovery Plasma Sciences
ChairsScott Baalrud
University of Iowa
Nathaniel Ferraro
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Lauren Garrison
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Nathan Howard
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Carolyn Kuranz
University of Michigan
John Sarff
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Earl Scime (emeritus)
West Virginia University
Wayne Solomon
General Atomics
Magnetic Fusion Energy
Ted Biewer, ORNLDan Brunner, CFS
Cami Collins, General Atomics
Brian Grierson, PPPL
Walter Guttenfelder, PPPL
Chris Hegna, U Wisconsin-Madison
Chris Holland, UCSD
Jerry Hughes, MIT
Aaro Järvinen, LLNL
Richard Magee, TAE
Saskia Mordijck, William & Mary
Craig Petty, General Atomics
Matthew Reinke, ORNLUri Shumlak, U Washington
General Plasma Science
Daniel Den Hartog, U Wisconsin-Madison
Dan Dubin, UCSD
Hantao Ji, Princeton
Yevgeny Raitses, PPPLDan Sinars, Sandia
David Schaffner, Bryn Mawr College
Steven Shannon, NC State
Stephen Vincena, UCLA

Fusion Materials and Technology
John Caughman, ORNLDavid Donovan, UT KnoxvilleKarl Hammond, U MissouriPaul Humrickhouse, INL
Robert Kolasinski, Sandia
Ane Lasa, UT KnoxvilleRichard Nygren, Sandia
Wahyu Setyawan, PNNL
George Tynan, UCSD
Steven Zinkle, UT KnoxvilleHigh Energy Density Physics
Alex Arefiev, UCSD
Todd Ditmire, UT Austin
Forrest Doss, LANL
Johan Frenje, MIT
Cliff Thomas, UR/LLE
Arianna Gleason, Stanford/SLAC
Stephanie Hansen, Sandia
Louisa Pickworth, LLNL
Jorge Rocca, Colorado State
Derek Schaeffer, Princeton
Sean Finnegan, LANL

Figure 1. Artwork by Jennifer Hamson LLE/University of Rochester, concept by Dr. David
Schaffner, Bryn Mawr College

PrefaceThis document is the final report of the Community Planning Process (CPP) that describes acomprehensive plan to deliver fusion energy and to advance plasma science. The CPP was
initiated by the executive committee of the American Physical Society Division of Plasma
Physics (APS-DPP) to help the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) fulfill acharge from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to develop a strategic plan for the DOE
Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES). In this charge, dated Nov. 30, 2018, DOE Deputy
Director for Science Dr. Stephen Binkley requested that FESAC “undertake a new long-range
strategic planning activity for the Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program. The strategicplanning activity—to encompass the entire FES research portfolio (namely, burning plasma
science and discovery plasma science)—should identify and prioritize the research required toadvance both the scientific foundation needed to develop a fusion energy source, as well as thebroader FES mission to steward plasma science.” The CPP represents the first phase indeveloping a long range strategic plan for FES, and will serve as the basis for the second phase
activity conducted by FESAC.
It is worth noting that enacting the full scope of therecommendations in the strategic plan in this document will require suitable partnerships withother offices and governmental agencies, as well as with private industry and international
partners.

This Community Planning Process has sought to form a consensus plan by the entire U.S.
fusion and plasma physics community. The CPP has encouraged and received broad
engagement from the entire U.S. fusion and plasma physics community by inviting the
involvement of multiple professional societies (including APS, IEEE, ANS, HEDSA, USBPO,
UFA, AVS, and others) and hosting frequent town halls, webinars, hundreds of small group
discussions among subject matter experts, dedicated workshops, and focus group discussions.
Hundreds of whitepapers, initiative proposals, and summary quad charts were submitted by thecommunity throughout the process. This process has been extensively and transparently
documented on a dedicated website (https://sites.google.com/pppl.gov/dpp-cpp). We believethat this process has been a success, not only by yielding the plan presented here, but also bybringing a diverse community together to embrace an ambitious vision for the future.

Executive Summary
Fusion is the fundamental source of energy in the universe. We, and everything around us, arebuilt from elements created by fusion reactions that occurred through the birth and death ofstars that lived long ago. Fusion and plasma—the ionized matter that constitutes 99% of thevisible universe—are inextricably linked. Fusion in the Sun’s burning plasma indirectly powers
our daily lives when we capture sunlight, catch the wind, and release ancient solar energy
stored in fossil fuels. When harnessed on Earth, burning plasmas will directly provide a sourceof safe, clean energy capable of powering our society forever. The shared history of fusion andplasma science exemplifies how basic research translates from a deeper understanding of
nature to important applications, such as plasma processing in the trillion-dollar microelectronics
industry. Foremost of these applications will be the ability to harness fusion energy in areactor—bringing a star to Earth—as one of the greatest achievements of humankind.
This report details a plan to realize the potential of fusion and plasma science to deepen our
understanding of nature and to translate advances into commercialized fusion energy and othertechnologies that benefit society. It provides a consensus report on behalf of the entire U.S.
fusion and plasma science community, which was developed following a community-led processthat emphasized inclusivity and transparency at every stage. The following recommendations
highlight the key output of this process, which are organized into the two crucial andcomplementary areas of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fusion Energy Sciences(FES): Fusion Science and Technology (FST), and Discovery Plasma Science (DPS), as well as
cross-cutting opportunities that span the breadth of fusion and plasma science.
Fusion Science and Technology (FST) research holds the promise of providing limitless,clean, sustainable energy to the world. Recent advances, burgeoning private investment, and arenewed urgency to address U.S. energy needs motivate the transition to a mission-driven
energy program. This community-driven strategic plan emphasizes exciting new research
opportunities in fusion science and technology. It reflects the strong sentiment within thecommunity that research in this area should be driven by the mission to enable construction of afusion pilot plant (FPP) that produces net electricity and thereby establishes the scientific andtechnological basis for commercial fusion energy. By developing the innovative science andtechnology needed to accelerate the construction of a pilot plant at low capital cost, the U.S. will
distinguish itself from its international counterparts and lead the way in the commercialization offusion. To urgently move toward an FPP, cost-effective FPP designs must begin to be
developed. The tokamak is presently the leading concept; however, research on otherpromising concepts, including optimized stellarators, inertial fusion, and alternative concepts,
may ultimately lead to an attractive FPP. A prioritized set of strategic objectives needed toachieve this mission is described in this plan. The plan is broadly consistent with the recent
National Academies Burning Plasmas report, and collectively establishes three key actions in
FST to guide and orient the U.S. fusion program:●

Accelerate the development of the burning plasma physics basis necessary for afusion pilot plant. Understanding burning plasmas, in which heating is dominantly
provided by the energy released by fusion reactions, and resolving challenges
associated with sustained operation, are critical steps toward achieving fusion energy.
The U.S. should sustain full partnership in ITER, as this remains the best option foraccessing burning plasmas at the scale of a power plant. To complete the plasma
physics basis sufficient for an FPP, we should advance theory and modeling capabilities,
utilize existing domestic and international facilities in the near term, and expand
opportunities through public/private partnerships to provide access to burning plasma
conditions. In addition, the conceptual design of a new U.S. tokamak facility capable ofhandling power exhaust at conditions typical of an FPP while simultaneously
demonstrating the necessary plasma performance should begin immediately, with thegoal of beginning research operations on the new facility before the end of the decade.

●

Rapidly expand the fusion materials and technology program. The community
recognizes the need to accelerate research in areas of fusion materials and technology,
which apply to nearly any plausible pilot plant design, and likely set the timescale onwhich any FPP could be successful. The design and construction of a fusion prototypic
neutron source (FPNS) should begin immediately to generate world-leading data on the
degradation of materials when exposed to neutrons from fusion, in order to evaluate
potential solutions for magnets, blankets, and other materials in an FPP. The FPNS
should complement an expanded program for the development of structural andfunctional materials for fusion. Targeted investments should be made in fusion blanket
and plasma facing component programs to provide critical new research capabilities andenhance U.S. leadership.

●

Embrace innovation to drive the achievement of economically viable fusionenergy. Research should focus on developing solutions to well-known challenges infusion energy development by emphasizing exploration and utilization of new, potentiallytransformative science and technologies. Fully realizing the benefits of innovation
requires consideration of the interconnected nature of fusion, which relies on
coordinated research in plasma physics, fusion nuclear science, materials science,systems engineering, and many other fields. This should be addressed by establishinga multi-institutional, multidisciplinary program to develop fusion pilot plant concepts to
help inform research needs and priorities. Our program must closely partner with private
industry to drive innovative technologies that ensure the development of a commerciallycompetitive product.

Discovery Plasma Science (DPS) research encompasses the study of the fundamental
interactions of particles and light in plasmas, the study of astrophysical plasmas from planetarycores to stars, new theoretical and computational techniques to describe plasmas, and thepractical application of plasmas for manufacturing, medicine, and agriculture. Its mission is todevelop and verify a fundamental understanding of plasmas and take advantage of their uniqueproperties to engineer technologies that support a growing economy. This work is organized
into three Science Drivers: Explore the Frontiers of Plasma Science, Understand the Plasma
Universe, and Create Transformative Technologies. In order to establish and maintain U.S.
leadership in plasma science, we require world class facilities and reproducible theory,computation, and measurements. Often disciplines are closely identified with the tools used byits practitioners. For this reason we organize DPS into two complementary areas: High Energy
Density Plasmas (HEDP), which typically relies on intense lasers or pulsed power, and General
Plasma Science (GPS), which uses a broad range of tools.
We have three main
recommendations in DPS:●

Build an intermediate-scale general plasma science facility to study
astrophysically-relevant magnetized plasma phenomena, significantly upgrade HED
infrastructure, such as, LaserNetUS facilities and the Matter in Extreme Conditions
instrument, and co-locate plasma devices at established facilities to leverage community
expertise across the plasma science community.

●

Support world-leading plasma science by ensuring stable funding for a balanced
research portfolio, including single and multiple principal investigator scale projects, andthose hosted at universities, national laboratories and industry. Leverage expertise
outside of the plasma science community to support development of the vital data,
methods, and techniques that support plasma science.

●

Collaborate by developing networks of scientists and facilities to enable a broad rangeof frontier scientific research, and translate discoveries to advance other areas ofscience and engineering.
Current networks, which include LaserNetUS, andcollaborative low-temperature plasma research centers, should be expanded and newcollaborative networks, such as ZNetUS and MagNetUSA, should be formed. Supportand expand partnerships both within DOE and with other agencies where suchcollaborations are likely to have high impact. The NSF/DOE Partnership in Basic Plasma
Science and Engineering as well as the NNSA/DOE Joint Program in HEDLP are
exemplary in this regard, and support for these programs should be continued andexpanded. Many other possibilities are emphasized in this report, including connections
with the missions of DOE-BES, DOE-NNSA, NASA, NIH, DOD and several otheragencies with missions that are advanced by plasma science.

Cross-cutting opportunities represent a number of shared challenges and research needs
that cut across the wide scope of fusion and plasma science and technology. We highlight four
representative recommendations:●

Harness innovations in advanced scientific computing tools and increase capacity
computing to improve fundamental understanding and predictive modeling capabilities.
Plasma and fusion science are drivers of advanced scientific computing and are poised

to benefit from and contribute to national priorities for exascale computing resources,
machine learning, and quantum information science.
●

Pursue innovations in diagnostic development that advance our understanding of basic
plasma science, improve our ability to control fusion plasmas, and enhance survivability
in extreme environments. Improvements in diagnostic resolution will provide new
insights into the fundamental mechanisms governing plasma behavior as well as theirinteractions with materials. New diagnostics that are resistant to radiation effects areimperative to ensure survivability in a fusion plasma environment.

●

Support public-private partnerships across the full breadth of fusion and plasma science.
The private sector, working alongside government funded research, can createtransformational plasma-enabled technologies for improved human health andwell-being, including the realization of fusion energy.

●

Embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion, and develop the multidisciplinary workforce
required to solve the challenges in fusion and plasma science. To support themultidisciplinary workforce needed for fusion energy and plasma science, we must
increase pathways for undergraduates and technical workers, and increase science
literacy by developing community outreach. In so doing, we must commit ourselves tothe creation and maintenance of a healthy community climate of diversity, equity, andinclusion, which will benefit the community as a whole and the mission of FES.

We recommend regular community strategic planning every 5–7 years to keep the planconsistent with evolving progress in science, technology, and external factors. This planning
activity has provided tremendous benefits by bringing the community together to discuss thecommon scientific challenges and vision that make FES a coherent program. As a result, thecommunity has embraced the complementary goals of an energy mission to commercialize
fusion as soon as possible, and the vigorous pursuit of plasma science to advance ourunderstanding of nature and to develop technology that will benefit our society.

Statement on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
The Discovery Plasma and Fusion Science and Technology community recognizes that having
a healthy climate of diversity, equity and inclusion is critical to solve the challenges we face inour field. We acknowledge, as a community, that our current (and historically) unhealthy climate
is a serious problem and we commit to taking immediate action to achieve equitable, diverse,
and inclusive outcomes.
Diversity is expressed in myriad forms, including all ages,socio-economic backgrounds, 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 in equitable 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.
The limited data available show that our community has serious diversity deficiencies; forexample, roughly 9% of the membership of the APS Division of Plasma Physics are women,
which is the lowest percentage among all APS divisions. Recent doctoral awardees in plasma
physics and nuclear engineering are fewer than 15% women and fewer than 5%
underrepresented minorities, below the already poor numbers in all of physics (19% women, 7%
underrepresented minorities) and all of engineering (23% women, 9% underrepresented
minorities).1
If our community is not welcoming and supportive, we will not attract the needed talent andcontinue to lose people from marginalized groups who, at various stages of their careers, findthe barriers and challenges of navigating an unwelcoming community to be an unnecessary
burden, resulting in them taking their talents to a different field. It is our shared responsibility tocreate a healthy climate of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Such a climate not only createsa fair and safe environment for minoritized groups, but benefits the community as a whole andthe mission of FES by leveraging the resources of diversity to advance our collective
capabilities. This report outlines several recommendations (CC-WF) that should be acted upon
to improve the DEI climate in our field.

1

NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates (https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf20301/data-tables/)Figure 2. Artwork by Jennifer Hamson LLE/University of Rochester, concept by Dr. Jeffrey
Levesque, Columbia University.

Table of Contents
Preface
Executive Summary
Statement on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Table of Contents
Discovery Plasma Science

1

Vision1

Mission1

Criteria

4

Programmatic Recommendations

4

Build:

4

Invest in new facilities

4

Upgrade current facilities

6

Co-locate facilities

7

Support:8

Support steady funding of plasma science8

Support fundamental data needs

10

Support science centers

10

Collaborate:

10

Expand networks

10

Expand partnerships

13

DPS-1: Explore the Frontiers of Plasma Science
DPS-A: Understand how intense light couples its energy to matter

15
17

DPS-B: Explore how magnetic fields control transport and influence self-organization inplasmas across scales
18
DPS-C: Advance Understanding of Plasmas Far From Equilibrium and at Interfaces

20

DPS-D: Advance Understanding of Strong Coupling and Quantum Effects in Plasmas 22
DPS-E: Create and Explore Antimatter Plasmas
DPS-2: Understand the Plasma Universe

24
26

DPS-F: Understand plasma interactions between the Sun, Earth, and other objects inthe solar system
29
DPS-G: Understand the origin and effects of magnetic fields across the universe fromstar and planet formation to cosmology
31
DPS-H: Understand the causes and consequences of the most energetic, extreme, andexplosive phenomena found in the cosmos
33
DPS-3: Create Transformative Technologies

35DPS-I: Develop plasma-based technologies that contribute to a stable national energy
infrastructure
37
DPS-J: Develop plasma-based technologies that enable advanced manufacturing

39

DPS-K: Develop plasma-based technologies that improve the physical well being ofsociety

41

DPS-L: Develop plasma-based technologies that provide secondary sources and othernew capabilities, to benefit fundamental science, industry, and societal needs.
43
Fusion Science and Technology

44

Vision Statement

46

Mission Statement

46

Definition of a Fusion Pilot Plant

47

Values47

Science Drivers

47

SD1: Control, Sustain, and Predict Burning Plasmas

47

SD2: Handle Reactor Relevant Conditions

48

SD3: Harness Fusion Power49

Strategic Objectives and Recommendations

49

FST Strategic Objective A: Demonstrate solutions for managing high heat and particle
loads sufficient to design plasma-facing components (PFCs) for a fusion pilot plant
49
FST Strategic Objective B: Determine the structural and functional materials that willsurvive under fusion reactor conditions

56

FST Strategic Objective C: Develop the science and technology necessary to breed,
extract, and safely manage large quantities of tritium
60
FST Strategic Objective D: Advance the tokamak physics basis sufficiently to design alow cost fusion pilot plant
67
FST Strategic Objective E: Advance the stellarator physics basis sufficiently to design alow cost fusion pilot plant
72
FST Strategic Objective F: Innovate the magnet, heating, and current drive technology
needed to reduce the pilot plant capital cost75
FST Strategic Objective G: Develop the balance of plant technology, remote handlingand maintenance approach, and licensing framework necessary to ensure safe andreliable operation of the fusion pilot plant
80
FST Strategic Objective H: Develop alternative approaches to fusion that could lead to alower cost fusion pilot plant, utilizing partnerships with private industry and interagency
collaboration
85
Fusion Science and Technology Program Recommendations
FST Program Recommendation A: Establish a multi-institutional, multidisciplinary
program to develop fusion pilot plant concepts

89
89

FST Program Recommendation B: Participate fully in ITER to advance our capability to
predict, control, and sustain a burning plasma and to obtain the critical science andtechnology input needed to design a fusion pilot plant.
91

FST Program Recommendation C: Deploy various models of public-private partnerships
to develop technology at a lower cost and move towards fusion commercialization
94
FST Program Recommendation D: Develop and utilize a hierarchy of validated models
for predictive integrated modeling, by continuing the partnership between FES andASCR, expanding capacity computing infrastructure, and utilizing advances incomputational architecture and capability.
95
FST Program Recommendation E: Establish a program for developing diagnostics,
measurement, and control techniques that can be used in a reactor environment.
Cross-Cutting Opportunities and Recommendations
Cross-cut TC: Theory and Computation

98
102
102

Cross-cut MD: Advance the development of Measurement and Diagnostics techniques forplasma science and fusion energy
105
Cross-cut ET: Enabling Technology

109

Cross-cut WF: Develop a Diverse and Inclusive Workforce for Fusion and Discovery
Plasma Science, Engineering, and Technology

113

References

120

Appendices123

Appendix A. The Prioritization Assessment Criteria Applied to Fusion Science andTechnology Program Elements

123

Appendix B. Assessing the Needed Capabilities for the New Tokamak User Facility

126

Appendix C. Focus Groups

132

Appendix D. Glossary of Acronyms

137

Appendix E. The Community Planning Process

141

Appendix F. Community Workshops

142

Appendix G. Initiatives

171

Discovery Plasma Science
Discovery Plasma Science (DPS) is an incredibly diverse field of research that advances many
areas of science and technology. An indication of its breadth can be gleaned from theenormous range of density and temperature conditions that it encompasses, from near-vacuum
trapped ion plasmas at micro-Kelvin temperatures, to high energy density plasmas at several
times solid density and tens of millions of degrees. Throughout this range of conditions,advances in DPS research contribute to answering the fundamental questions of science,
including understanding symmetries of nature, the evolution of the universe, and how material
properties change in extremes of temperature, density, and radiation fields. A characteristic ofthese discoveries is that they often enable the development of new technologies on shorttimescales. Plasma science has provided a major impetus to multi-billion-dollar twentiethcentury technologies such as microelectronics and lighting, and it continues to drive twenty-first
century technologies in manufacturing, medicine, agriculture, and national security. As such, we
identify the following Vision and Mission for DPS:

VisionRealize the potential of plasma science to deepen our understanding of nature and to provide
the scientific underpinning for plasma-based technologies that benefit society.

MissionDevelop fundamental understanding of the unique dynamical behaviors of plasmas,
demonstrate that our understanding is true, and identify opportunities where the uniqueproperties of plasmas can be used to engineer technologies that support a growing andsustainable economy.
Within FES, DPS research is organized into two complementary areas that are primarily
associated with the tools that make the science possible:
High Energy Density Plasma (HEDP) research is associated with the science enabled bypulsed power devices and high-intensity lasers. These novel technologies produce matter at
extreme conditions, reaching energy densities in excess of 100 billion Joules per cubic meterand pressures exceeding a million times atmospheric pressure. This field explores theproperties of this extreme state of plasma, recreating conditions of dense astrophysical objects
such as the interior of stars, giant planets, and exoplanets. It also explores exotic physicaleffects associated with the interaction of intense lasers with matter, including the possibility ofcreating pair plasmas from the vacuum.

1General Plasma Science (GPS) utilizes a wide range of theoretical tools, and small to
mid-scale experimental facilities. Within GPS, basic plasma science seeks to develop accurate
theoretical descriptions of the complex emergent behavior of the plasma state, to push it into
new regimes that expand our concept of what constitutes a plasma, and to design experiments
and diagnostics to explore these states and to validate the models. Plasma astrophysics
translates these fundamental discoveries to a better understanding of space and the cosmos,
while low temperature plasma science translates discoveries into new technologies that improve
our way of life by creating a richer, healthier, and more sustainable future.
Independent of the tools used, the field is also organized by categories of scientific questions
that it aims to answer. Although there are many cross-linkages between these, as well as with
FST, this report is organized by three Science Drivers:
Explore the Frontiers of Plasma Science: This driver encompasses research that seeks toadvance the foundational frontiers of plasma science and to push its boundaries into new
regimes. Basic science is a form of exploration that is motivated primarily by our innate curiosity
to understand the world around us. A consistent lesson from the history of science is that thefundamental advances that result from such exploration unlock the potential of engineers toinvent new technologies and astronomers to better understand our place in the universe. In thissense, the “explore the frontiers of plasma” science driver underlies and connects with thewhole of plasma and fusion science. It includes experiments to measure the basic propertiesand dynamical behaviors of plasma as well as theory and computational modeling to describe it.
This planning process highlights five exciting objectives that will transform the plasma science
discipline in the near future:
DPS-A: Understand how intense light couples its energy to matter
DPS-B: Explore how magnetic fields control transport and influence self-organization in plasmas
across scales
DPS-C: Advance understanding of plasmas far from equilibrium and at interfaces
DPS-D: Advance understanding of strong coupling and quantum effects in plasmas
DPS-E: Create and explore antimatter plasmas
Understand the Plasma Universe: Since more than 99% of the visible universe is in theplasma state of matter, our natural curiosity compels us to understand the role that plasma playsin the origins and dynamic nature of our universe. We are inspired by observations of thecosmos brought to us by a multitude of messengers from beyond our solar system including
light, cosmic rays, gravitational waves, and neutrinos. We have also reached out with spacecraft
to collect data from the Sun, to all the planets in the solar system, to the shore of interstellar
space. In concert with such measurements, there has existed a strong synergy with laboratory
experiments that reveal details on the underlying fundamental plasma processes. The earlypioneers in fusion research had backgrounds in space plasma science and plasma
astrophysics, building on the common challenge to understand processes in hot ionized gas toachieve fusion energy. This is a particularly exciting time to continue this shared tradition, as2

new observatories become operational, more advanced satellite missions continue, and new
plasma regimes are created in laboratories. Together, these ultimately allow us to build bettermodels for the plasma universe. We recommend focusing on three key objectives:
DPS-F: Understand plasma interactions between the Sun, Earth, and other objects in the solar
systemDPS-G: Understand the origin and effects of magnetic fields across the universe from star andplanet formation to cosmology
DPS-H: Understand the causes and consequences of the most energetic, extreme, andexplosive phenomena found in the cosmos
Create Transformative Technologies: Fusion energy will represent the ultimate plasma-based
technology, but many other transformative technologies have resulted from plasma science, andcontinue to do so through advances in basic plasma science. Plasma-based technologies havealready transformed the microelectronics and materials processing industries, and they are
posed to do similar things in energy technologies, healthcare, manufacturing, and agriculture.
However, this will only be possible once the underlying science questions needed to engineer
these technologies are solved. These are formative questions involving far from equilibrium
plasma properties, reaction rates, plasma sources, acceleration and laser-plasma interactions
for advanced source development for bright sources of particles and photons, and interactions
with materials. However, history has shown that when these hurdles can be overcome, there isoften a very rapid translation from new discoveries to technologies. This is why a close
connection between the basic science and technology development should be fostered. We
recommend that FES focus on four specific objectives:
DPS-I: Develop plasma-based technologies that contribute to a stable national energy
infrastructure
DPS-J: Develop plasma-based technologies that enable advanced manufacturing
DPS-K: Develop plasma-based technologies that improve the physical wellbeing of society
DPS-L: Develop plasma-based technologies that provide secondary sources and other new
capabilities, to benefit fundamental science, industry, and societal needs.
Completing the science in these drivers and objectives will require the maintenance and growthof a vigorous discovery plasma science enterprise. We recommend a common programmatic
structure to support science across DPS: Build and upgrade the experimental facilities thatprovide basic data. Support scientists in universities, national laboratories and industry to
conduct the research. Collaborate with scientists in neighboring disciplines, in order to translate
plasma science discoveries to advance other fields, as well as to incorporate technologies fromother areas to advance plasma science.

3

Criteria
Development and prioritization of the recommendations described in this section were guided by
the following rank-ordered criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Establish U.S. leadership in plasma science through world class facilities andreproducible theory, computation, and measurements
Create transformational applications of plasmas to benefit society
Maintain breadth of the research program to benefit from innovation and high risk
discovery
Engage the entire community of stakeholders, including national laboratories,
universities, and industry
Capitalize on the potential of interdisciplinary applications of plasma research

We recommend that the prioritization process to be undertaken by FESAC continue to be basedon these same criteria. Below are the highest level Programmatic Recommendations in noparticular order.

Programmatic Recommendations
Build:
1. Invest in new facilities
Invest in an intermediate scale general plasma science facility to investigate the scienceof solar wind plasmas in the laboratory.
FES has a timely opportunity to capitalize on the science of current spacecraft missions aimed
in part at studying the origin and behavior of the solar wind. Technically feasible, but unbuilt, is alaboratory device capable of performing detailed scientific tests complementary to such
missions. To close this clear gap in capabilities, FES should initiate a competitive conceptual
design process to build and then support the operation of an intermediate-scale facility capableof producing and diagnosing the properly scaled physics of phenomena inherent to the solar
wind.
Invest in a multi-PW facility that can access intensities beyond the current state of the art
with multiple lasers, and in high power lasers with greatly increased repetition rates.
Novel regimes of light-matter interactions are predicted at ultra-high-laser intensities that are
beyond the current state of the art as well in lasers with greatly increased repetition rates. These
regimes are likely to benefit multiple applications involving particle and radiation sources andthey are critical to advancing our fundamental knowledge of light-matter interactions. Multi-PW,

4multi-beam laser facilities are required to modernize the domestic research program, making it
competitive with the facilities that are currently under construction worldwide. Another frontierthat should be supported is to increase repetition rate capability of ultra-high power lasers to
exceed greatly that of current lasers, providing testbeds to explore the generation ofhigh-average flux, high-energy particle and photon sources. One possibility includes the Omega
EP-OPAL proposal that combines multiple 25 PW 20 fsec beams and multi-kJ (>10 kJ) multi-ns
beams.
Invest in facilities over a broad range of scales.
A highly functioning plasma program requires a support system with a pyramid-like structure of
projects. Each level feeds physical (science), technological (techniques and diagnostics), andexperiential (people) resources to the next level. A broad number of single-PI, small scale
projects allows for focused physics study, testing ideas and proof of concept as well as free
exploration. These smaller experiments are useful for training students as well as for giving
junior PI’s experience in running labs and managing research groups. These experiments andthe PIs/students that are produced support the next level of intermediate scale facilities which
include user-facilities and multiple-PI projects. These intermediate scale projects can in turntarget science issues and questions that cannot be adequately explored on smaller facilities, aswell as pool effort person-power and diagnostic or infrastructure resources. These experiments
support large systems, larger numbers of researchers and a broader swath of experiments. The
machinery can be higher power/energy and can support a broad diagnostic suite. They are run
by professional technicians rather than graduate students or postdoctoral researchers. These
are necessary for tackling physics questions in realms inaccessible in smaller devices. The
small and intermediate scale in turn support the most expensive large scale projects such as
multi-billion dollar space missions (i.e. Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission or Parker Solar
Probe) for astrophysics, high power laser facilities for extreme plasma conditions,international-level experiments, and technological development in large scale industry for low
temperature plasmas. The results from intermediate and small scale experiments can be used
to compare to findings from these major endeavours.

52. Upgrade current facilities
Improve and upgrade national HED infrastructure at multiple scales, particularly at
LaserNetUS facilities, in power, energy, and repetition rate, with temporally-synchronizedmultiple beams and precise control of laser parameters.
These improvements include significantly increased laser and target repetition rate, andincreased reproducibility, reliability, and peak power of the existing lasers. Investments thatwould increase user access to the LaserNetUS machines is desired, which could involve more
shot time for users or more shots for each selected user. To address, the LaserNetUS
infrastructure technology development should be upgraded in three principal areas:
Increase repetition rate capability: This will require technology development for some
LaserNetUS facilities to improve laser repetition rate and possibly rep-rated pulsed
power devices with advanced thermal management technologies. It will also mandate
rep-rated targetry (fabrication, placement), high-data-rate collection and novel
diagnostics. This area will likely benefit from applications of machine learning, artificial
intelligence, and overall experiment automation.
Increase precision control of the laser drivers: This involves increasing the capabilities ofexisting LaserNetUS lasers in unique ways, such a detailed control of the far field spatial
profile, control of temporal, contrast and spectrum, and precision control of laserparameter stability like pulse energy, pulse shape or focal spot.
Include multi-beam and combined laser-pulsed power capabilities: Significant scientificadvances on multiple frontiers could be explored if LaserNetUS facilities deployedcombinations of capabilities to include: multiple, temporally synchronized laser beams

6

into the same interaction region, two or more PW-class beams with flexible interaction
geometries for quantum electrodynamics (QED)-plasmas studies, PW-class lasers
combined with at least one multi-hundred Joule or kJ nanosecond driver for material
compression and heating, and pulsed power devices at the hundreds of kA or few MA
current level.
Couple long pulse multi-kJ and multi-PW lasers with an x-ray free electron laser (XFEL),
which can be done at the Matter in Extreme Conditions instrument.
An XFEL coupled with various drive capabilities including a petawatt (PW) or multi-PW laser
with one or more beamlines of synchronized pulses at energy of at least 1 kJ, preferably up to 5
kJ, with precision nanosecond pulse shaping will revolutionize HED plasma science. This willallow creation and interrogation of novel plasma states, and compressed states of matter which
can then be probed by the X-ray laser pulses. A key technical requirement here is theapplication of high repetition rate to build statistics when generating and probing exotic states.
Moreover, combining multi-kJ long pulse and ultrafast drivers with an x-ray beam can map theevolution of the key plasma parameters in unprecedented ways. No capability like this currently
exists anywhere else in the world.
Provide upgrades for GPS facilities to leverage current FES investments in frontier-level
science.
Progress on a range of GPS science topics has been possible through the DOE’s shrewd
investments in world-class facilities such as the Basic Plasma Science Facility. FES clearlyrecognizes the scientific advantages of capitalizing on existing investments by its recent
establishment of LaserNetUS for HEDP research. This network affords access for researchers
from around the country who would not normally have the chance to perform experiments at the
network’s facilities. A similar network is recommended for FES’s GPS, magnetized plasma
collaborative research facilities (see MagNetUSA.) This new network can also be a vehicle for
ensuring long-term viability of these facilities and maximizing returns on FES’s investments bypushing cutting-edge operational parameter regimes; advancing the acquisition of broad
diagnostic capabilities; and ultimately preserving frontier-level scientific output. In the realm of
primarily unmagnetized plasma research, DOE is to be applauded for its recent creation of two
new Low Temperature Plasma (LTP) collaborative research facilities. Specific recommendations
for aiding user access to these facilities and for maintaining their long-term scientific relevanceare to be found below.

3. Co-locate facilities
Co-locate plasma devices at established facilities to leverage community expertise
across the plasma science community.
Significant scientific progress could be made if the plasma science community had a small
number of facilities that deployed multiple, temporally synchronized devices in the sameinteraction region. Facilities with co-located plasma devices will have broad application in
multiple science areas and will also be a particularly important tool in understanding dense7strongly coupled plasmas and the physics of very intense electromagnetic wave interactions
with beams and plasmas. In particular, the co-location of a multi-GeV electron accelerator with amulti-PW optical laser will provide a capability to study strong field QED effects. Co-location ofa pulsed power machine at a XFEL or high-energy laser facility could also enable completely
novel investigations of magnetized plasmas. This machine could deliver multi-MA current
pulses in few hundred ns rise times to produce magnetic fields of up to 100 T in cubic cm
volumes. Examples of co-located facilities should include:-Multi-beam and combined laser-pulsed power capabilities, combining both PW-class, ultrafast
lasers and kJ energy nanosecond compression lasers with MA pulse power machines forcompletely novel magnetized HED plasma studies.
-PW short-pulse and kJ-class long-pulse driver with precision diagnostic capabilities (e.g. an
XFEL or future plasma-based advanced sources)-Multi-PW laser and a dense multi-GeV electron beam for precision investigation of quantum
plasmas-Co-locate high precision diagnostics, including a short pulse beam, and/or beams, at facilities
that can compress matter to high densities, temperatures, and pressures.
-Deploy compact pulsed power devices capable of generating large magnetic fields at existing
facilities), including pulse shaping capabilities out to 100–500 ns on a 1 MA or more
pulsed-power machine.
-Collaborative research facilities to leverage diagnostic capabilities across plasma science

Support:
1. Support steady funding of plasma science
Discovery Plasma Science is composed of two complementary principal science pillars, HighEnergy Density Plasmas (HEDP) and General Plasma Science (GPS). Significant funding
variations over the past decade present several challenges for these areas. It is challenging tohire students or laboratory staff and to acquire laboratory space or other resources from leaders
at these institutions when the “demand signal” from the government for this research varies somuch. For the health of the community and long-term research planning, we recommend FES
provide consistent stewardship of HEDP and GPS.
As the importance of the science and applications in DPS grow, formalizing funding in these twocomplementary areas would bring longer-term continuity to the funding profile, and allow thecommunity to plan science priorities on a multi-year time scale. This is particularly important

8

given the need to exploit the proposed mid- to large-scale facilities in aspects of DPS research.
Regularizing this research funding for these two areas would enable effective long-termplanning, and keep the U.S. at the forefront of HEDLP and GPS.

FES budget requests and allocations for HEDLP and GPS. Year-to-year variability andflat or downward trends in funding are inadequate to support healthy DPS research.

92. Support fundamental data needs
On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine
wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend thekind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. — Charles Babbage
Simulations of plasmas, and the analysis of plasma measurements, rely heavily on fundamental
data about the constitutive properties of materials (e.g. strength, opacity) or information about
physical processes, such as cross sections and rate coefficients from atomic, molecular andoptical (AMO) properties. As illustrated by the Babbage quote, these are critical needs thatenable research throughout plasma science, since if the wrong data or models are used as
inputs, we can’t expect to get reasonable answers out. For example, spectroscopic diagnostics
used in HEDP, low-temperature plasmas, astrophysical observation, basic plasma experiments,and fusion energy research, all rely on accurate emission, opacity, and other radiation rate
coefficients. Applications in low-temperature plasmas are also particularly reliant on accurate
reaction rate models, such as collision cross sections. The accuracy, completeness, andaccessibility of available fundamental data is often a limiting factor determining the resolution ofdiagnostics or the accuracy of engineering design models. Dedicated support should be
provided to expand, improve and increase open access to fundamental AMO and other data inareas where it is most pressing to advance plasma science. This is a need common to many
areas of plasma science, but FES is well positioned to take the lead in coordinating theestablishment of accessible and verified databases.

3. Support science centers
DOE science centers are a powerful and effective venue for scientists to self-organize
themselves to solve time-critical, specific common problems from a wide range of backgrounds.
Other successful examples include Physics Frontier Centers sponsored by NSF Physics
Division and more recently DRIVE (Diversify, Realize, Integrate, Venture, Educate) Centerssponsored by NASA Heliophysics Division, both of which involve the laboratory plasma physics
community. We recommend forming DOE science centers with sufficient flexibility andfrequency to address time-critical science problems and allow junior researchers withcomplementary ideas to join during the center lifetime or to propose new centers. Joint science
center ventures (e.g. NASA-DOE) should be explored to pool resources and expertise amongagencies.

Collaborate:
1. Expand networks

10Networks of scientists and facilities enable a broad range of frontier scientific research, and totranslate discoveries to advance other areas of science and engineering. Current networks,
which include LaserNetUS, and low-temperature collaborative research centers, should be
expanded and new collaborative networks should be formed. This could include expansion of
the number of institutions in the existing LaserNetUS network, expanding the capabilities of theexisting facilities and possibly broadening the purview of the existing networks to include
computational, diagnostic development, target fabrication capabilities, and support forinvestigators. This could also include fostering collaborative technology development between
the laser-based LaserNetUS network and the pulsed power-based ZNetUS to create novel
multi-technology drivers. Collaboration with international networks can be beneficial andsynergistic.
Invest further in target fabrication capabilities, and in theory and computation support for
LaserNetUS experiments.
As repetition rate increases across key LaserNetUS platforms, the need for advanced targetry
to deliver numerous, precision samples will increase. The burden of this development cost andexecution may not be sustainable/possible for the academic or national laboratory communities.
Therefore, network infrastructure to share advanced targetry best practices and deployment
cost sharing is needed to enable best use of orders of magnitude increased repetition rates.
With these high throughput experiments utilizing more novel probes will come the need for
careful benchmarking and comparison to state-of-the-art theory and computation. Again, acarefully crafted network to bring together large datasets in concert with model predictions is
critical for the success of revealing new physics.
Establish ZNetUS to coordinate and increase access to DOE supported pulsed power
facilities and computational tools used to model these experiments
We recommend the formation of a ZNetUS consortium of scientists from academia and national
laboratories that would support and enable research on pulsed power facilities across thecountry. Specifically, ZNetUS would help scientists share knowledge about pulsed power
technology development, diagnostic advancements, and new modeling and simulation tools
using magnetohydrodynamics and particle-in-cell techniques that are relevant to pulsed power.
It could also provide guidance for the development of, and access to, a new mid-scale pulsed
power facility (3-10 MA), as well as suggesting improvements to the existing Z Fundamental
Science Program. Finally, by enabling researchers to share knowledge and/or facility access, itwould help expose students at any given institution to a broader range of activities outside theirhome institution.
Establish MagNetUSA as a mechanism for strengthening support for a wide range ofexperimental researchers and for increasing accessibility to DOE supported facilities
Many GPS level plasma devices exist throughout the country at a wide range of accessible
parameter regimes; however, the knowledge regarding the capabilities of each experimentremains fairly insular and access to running experiments on these devices is restricted for many
single PIs, particularly early career faculty or researchers at locations outside of plasma physics
11research hubs. A coordinated network linking these FES-supported devices and their researchpersonnel can expand access to a broader group of people, increasing user pools, improving
diversity of experimental ideas, and potentially even fostering the growth of plasma faculty
positions in the community. With the foundation of an established network, the ability tocoordinate experimental exploration with theory and simulation can be improved. Moreover,training opportunities such as summer/winter schools for graduate students or user-training
sessions for prospective PIs can be more easily established. A network can help maintainconnections and communication among the researchers on these devices, with an aim toward
more clearly seeing gaps in the parameter space so that upgrades to existing facilities can beproposed and implemented judiciously, efficiently, and fairly, in order to keep pace withadvancing scientific needs. Similarly, gaps in the diagnostics capabilities can be identified.
MagNetUSA can help establish new diagnostic frameworks that can be duplicated at multiple
facilities or designed to travel to different sites within the network, promoting accessibility andreproducibility. Essential to the success of collaborative research facilities lies in the support for
new and existing users. Creation and support of MagNetUSA would help remove funding
barriers for the GPS user community to travel to network facilities, perform research there, andto analyze results at home institutions.
Support collaborative research networks in low-temperature plasma science
Recently, FES supported two collaborative low temperature plasma research facilities. These
provide scientists and engineers from around the country access to cutting-edge diagnostics,
experiments, and simulation codes that are not available in most existing single investigator
facilities. Support for this model should be sustained and include pathways for facility upgrades
to meet future user needs, as well as support for users to access the facilities including forexample, travel grants, funding for construction and adjustment of user experiments to thefacility requirements, and to analyze the data obtained. The logistic support should be timely.
Support should also include infrastructure that lowers the barrier for researchers outside of thecore plasma science community to advance interdisciplinary work critical for the translation ofplasma science to disruptive technologies.
In addition to these core user facilities, supporting basic research to advance experimental andcomputational infrastructure is also recommended. Keeping these facilities at the forefront will
require continual evolution, which relies on basic research that does not yet have a technology
readiness level that can be supported by a user facility. Support to develop new and novel
diagnostic techniques as well as advancing computational infrastructure is encouraged.
Establish a network program to build new hardware capabilities and support theacquisition of sophisticated diagnostics to be shared between facilities to maximize
productivity while minimizing costs.
Science relies not only on what can be produced, but also what can be measured, therefore
continual support advancing diagnostics is needed to support our strategic objectives. These12

include, but are not limited to, particle velocity distribution function measurements, laser-based
diagnostics, and X-ray spectroscopy diagnostics.
Establish a network program to foster the development of an open source, programming
ecosystem for plasma physics and advance computational plasma science.
Many areas of frontier plasma science require similar computational methods. Sharing andstandardizing software allows community wide code development, promotes best programming
practices, creates common standards for simulation efforts, and facilitates scientificreproducibility. A common open source codebase and the production of readable, reliable, andmaintainable software should be supported. A model in this regard is the “PlasmaPy” project. In
addition, modeling efforts in frontier plasma science rely on a wide-range of computing needs,
from high-performance to high-throughput. Access to computing facilities specifically aimed at
the discovery plasma science community should be increased.

2. Expand partnerships
The interdisciplinary nature of plasma science presents a tremendous opportunity to translate
FES-funded research to other areas of science and engineering. Doing so will contribute to themission of FES by enabling higher impact of the research it supports as a steward of plasma
science, while also advancing the mission of other agencies and spawning new industries. A
few stakeholders outside of FES already support plasma science either directly, or tangentiallythrough applications. However, much more could be done, and if done carefully, could lead totransformative impacts on science and society. Opportunities that exist throughout DPS aredescribed in more detail throughout this chapter. Each must be considered on a case-by-casebasis since the appropriate course of action will differ. However, one common element to any
successful partnership is that FES, partnering agencies, and the scientific communities involved
must develop a plan together.

13

The NSF/DOE Partnership in Basic Plasma Science and Engineering is exemplary indemonstrating the impact that a well-formed partnership can have. It has funded many of themost prominent results in fundamental plasma science since its inception in 1997, andcontinues to drive this field. This partnership should be expanded because doing so will enable
the fundamental advancements that extend the boundaries of plasma science to new regimes.
The original recommendation made in the NAS/NRC study on Opportunities in Plasma Scienceand Technology panel report Plasma Science: From Fundamental Research to TechnologicalApplication, was for $15M ($24.5M in 2019 dollars) per year for university-scale research. Thisremains an apt target funding level, which is significantly greater than the current level.
The Office of Science-NNSA Joint Program in High-Energy-Density laboratory plasmas
operates a partnership with NNSA in HED physics. FESAC provides technical andprogrammatic advice to FES and NNSA for the joint HEDLP program. The SC-NNSA joint
program was the result of a recommendation from an Office of Science and Technology Policy
interagency task force and is currently funded at $5M. The specific areas of interest are HED
Hydrodynamics, Radiation-Dominated Dynamics and Material Properties, Magnetized HED
Plasma Physics, Nonlinear Optics of Plasmas and Laser-Plasma Interactions, Relativistic HED
Plasmas and Intense Beam Physics, Warm Dense Matter, High-Z, Multiply Ionized HED Atomic
Physics, and Diagnostics for HED Laboratory Plasmas.
Other possible partnerships emphasized in this section are not yet established. It is
recommended that FES first support exploratory committees to assess interest and cost-benefit
analysis. Some of these opportunities are between DOE and other agencies, including NASA,
NIH, USDA, EPA and DOD. Others are between FES and other offices within DOE, including
BES, ARPA-E, NNSA, and DOE Advanced Manufacturing. The recommended first step is tosupport meetings that bring the scientific communities relevant to each potential partnership
together in order to identify potential topics of overlapping interest, and to identify thehighest-impact target research areas. In cases where important mutually-beneficial
opportunities exist, a next step may be to jointly support a committee to make recommendations
regarding the appropriate scale and implementation of a partnership program.

14

Programmatic Recommendations supported by DPS Strategic Objectives

DPS-1: Explore the Frontiers of Plasma Science
Much excitement and opportunity in science comes from exploring new frontiers. History has
shown time and again that following our innate curiosity leads to unexpected outcomes thatdeepen our understanding of nature, and reveal new paths to advanced technology. Modern
plasma science is no exception. It is exploring exciting new territory. Some of this is driven by
new scientific tools that enable the exploration of new regimes of plasma, such as
ultra-high-intensity lasers, advanced light sources, laser cooling techniques, and new diagnostic
methods. Others are driven by new theoretical insights, mathematical methods, or
15computational capabilities. Frontier research topics include the production and trapping ofplasmas made from antimatter, plasmas in extreme radiation or magnetic fields, plasma
self-organization, as well as strongly coupled and quantum degenerate states of ionized matterthat stretch our concept of what constitutes a plasma.
While development of the many applications enabled by plasma dominates the funding
landscape, the future of the field relies on a stable funding commitment to foundational
exploration. Much of this research is carried out in university physics and engineering
departments. Recent trends indicate that the role of plasma research in these departments is
declining. It is imperative to the future of plasma science that this trend be reversed, and astable funding commitment will contribute to that. By its nature, plasma research is not tied to
specific objectives, but is more blue-sky exploration. The rich diversity of plasma physics
research and its applications also makes it challenging to describe it in an integrated manner.
Academic plasma researchers sit in diverse university departments such as physics, applied
physics, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, nuclear engineering, astrophysics, andmore. Each subfield of plasma physics is exemplified by different sets of approximations to thecomplex governing physics equations, different measurement tools, and different researchplatforms. It is therefore not possible to capture all of the opportunities where advances to thefoundational physics can have an impact, but the community planning process has identified asmall number of high-priority needs that the Department of Energy and other funding agencies
can help nurture.
Prioritize support for single-investigator research in fundamental discovery plasma
science.
Small-group or single-investigator research in discovery plasma science, particularly atuniversities, is essential to the advancement of the fundamental frontiers of plasma physics, assuch research allows us to address foundational curiosity-driven questions that is less subject toprogrammatic constraints, and to increase the impact of and interest in the work across thebroader physics community. While large-scale plasma physics facilities garner significant
attention and funding, much of the foundational research in plasma physics does not requirehuge facilities and is done at universities. There is an opportunity to make more rapid advances
in foundational plasma physics at a relatively modest cost by offering more small-scale research
grants. Of the 10 top-ranked universities in the U.S. (as defined by U.S. News and World
Report), only three (MIT, Princeton, U. Chicago) explicitly list plasma physics research as part oftheir physics or astrophysics departments. Most schools do not teach plasma physics at theundergraduate level, and many schools do not teach it at the graduate level. This has translated
into relatively few students in the American Physical Society’s Division of Plasma Physics
relative to other Divisions. Because the course offerings at universities are directly related to theskill sets of the professors at those universities, the most direct way to address this is to fundfaculty and staff at a range of universities in this field. Foundational plasma physics research isan excellent area for doing so.

16

DPS-A: Understand how intense light couples its energy to matter
Simply by shining an intense laser into a plasma, particle energies rivaling those found incosmic rays can be attained within distances less than a meter. While this novel interaction
holds the promise of delivering revolutionary new devices for medicine and industry, it isinherently a highly nonlinear process. Much theoretical and experimental progress must be
made, if we are to create and optimize these future compact photon and particle sources basedon these unique laser-plasma interactions. At the same time, this research also extends into
entirely new directions, like plasma optics, where a plasma is used to combine and synchronize
the photons of many laser beams to create a single beam with an intensity that otherwise
cannot be achieved with conventional optics. These intense laser beams would, in turn, provide
access to new regimes like nonlinear Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), where the very
foundations of physics, like creating matter out of pure vacuum using nothing more than intenselasers, can be tested and to provide a much deeper understanding of how our universe works.
Just as important, an increased understanding and precise control of laser interactions inunder-dense plasma (LPI) can lead to ways of avoiding LPI in situations where it is notdesirable, and enhance LPI in useful situations where nonlinear phenomena dominate. Finally,
the field is ideally suited to take advantage of the recent explosion of Machine Learning (ML)and "Big Data" with new rep-rated high intensity laser facilities that are currently being plannedand built in the U.S. These next-generation laser systems, diagnostics, and analysis tools will
enable the study and control of LPI using techniques that were previously impossible, as well as
directly impact the creation of compact, bright photon and particle sources.
Expert Groups: HEDP

Recommendations
Conduct studies at femtosecond and multi-picosecond time scales, quantify theinteraction of relativistic laser beams with matter in circumstances relevant to LPI, andmake comparisons to state-of-the-art physics models and simulations.
More comprehensive evaluations of how high-intensity (> 1018 W/cm2) lasers interact with matter
needs to be examined at both femtosecond and picosecond time scales. Femtosecond (fs)resolution examinations of how the relativistic interaction of the laser ponderomotive force
directly manipulates electrons must be experimentally executed. For instance, X-ray imaging ofrelativistic HED-plasma interactions at spatial scales of hundreds of nanometers and temporalscales of hundreds of femtoseconds will directly reveal how the solid-density plasma is pushed
and expands due to a combination of laser hole-boring and heating. Ultra-fast imaging over arange of X-ray energies and higher laser intensities or different plasma conditions can offer new
insights into ways to control and optimize laser interactions.

17Support development of first-principles theoretical and computational models forplasmas with self-consistently included QED effects to stimulate growth of a competitivedomestic high-field community.
QED effects are predicted to have a profound effect on plasmas irradiated by ultra-high-intensity
laser pulses (e.g. changing the motion of individual particles and creating matter andantimatter). It is critically important to develop a framework that allows one to include theseeffects into a plasma description. All presently available theoretical and computationalframeworks rely on localized rates of standard QED effects obtained in a vacuum rather than ina plasma.

DPS-B: Explore how magnetic fields control transport and influence
self-organization in plasmas across scales
In many cases, particularly in fusion research, magnetic fields are time-varying and consist ofboth externally imposed fields and fields generated by internal currents. Despite the venerable
history of research in this field, there remain a number of outstanding questions. How domagnetic fields affect mass, mixing, momentum, and energy transport in plasma conditions
ranging from ultracold non-neutral plasmas to the hot, dense plasmas relevant to inertial fusionenergy science? What are the mechanisms behind magnetic field generation and amplification,
magnetic reconnection, turbulence, and particle acceleration? What are the processes forgenerating the strongest magnetic fields on Earth in laboratory plasmas? Transport in highly
magnetized, highly collisional strongly coupled plasmas is not well explored; these are regimes
in which textbook treatments of transport breakdown. An important objective in HED plasma
research is to understand how statistical mechanics couples to quantum mechanics to deliver
self-organized materials, and how intense fields can assemble and maintain cohesive states.
Relativistic laser–plasma interactions in high-field environments are also not well understood.
Plasma transport in strongly magnetized plasmas in which the gyroradius is shorter than the
Debye length, such as those produced in non-neutral plasma experiments and magnetizedinertial fusion, is an area open for exploration. How intense laser fields propagating in
overdense, relativistically transparent plasmas potentially produce MegaTesla fields is a further
area of frontier research in this area. These areas are all ripe for theory and computation
advances coupled with discovery-driven experiments.
Expert Groups: HEDP and GPS

Recommendations
Conduct pulsed-power-based fundamental experiments on magnetic inhibition oftransport on university-scale facilities.
Magnetic fields can strongly decrease cross field transport and diffusion of mass and heat andthereby significantly improve plasmas as fusion energy and radiation sources. This underlies
pulsed power-driven fusion schemes such as MagLIF and magnetized laser-driven implosions.
18Under HED plasma conditions, challenges arise in modeling magnetic field generation due toseveral novel field generation processes including the Biermann battery and Weibel instability,
and in modeling magnetic field evolution under high heat-flux conditions due to collisional
effects such as the Nernst effect in Ohm’s law, and finally the role of instabilities and turbulencein cross-field transport of heat and mass. Benchmarking of these processes through concerted
effort of simulation with fundamental laboratory experiments will put understanding on firm
footing and allow predictions under complex, integrated conditions such as MagLIF or
magnetized ICF compressions.
Support further understanding of the physics of magnetic self-organization by observing
and modeling phenomena across a range of energy and spatial scales.
Examples include creating and analyzing laboratory analogs of astrophysical plasma jets andthe magnetic dynamo in stars, galaxies, and the Earth; further analysis of the high-confinement“H” mode in MFE plasmas and the relaxation to Taylor states in such plasmas; examining theconnection of vortex crystal states in the turbulent relaxation of non-neutral plasmas (and 2D
fluids) to similar plasma phenomena.
Support further understanding of the physics of how electromagnetic energy couples toplasma across length and time scales, including magnetic turbulence and the transition
from nonlinear behavior to turbulence.
The self-consistent emission and absorption of electromagnetic energy is responsible for arange of plasma phenomena including heating in the solar corona and in Z-pinch andmagnetized-liner fusion experiments; ionospheric aurora arising from magnetic substorms; andother wave-particle interactions in various contexts. The influence of electromagnetic degrees of
freedom on the turbulent state of a driven plasma is fundamental to a range of phenomena, but
is incompletely understood. This process underlies transport behavior in both laboratory andastrophysical plasmas, and our lack of fundamental understanding inhibits progress in thesefields. These needs transcend essentially all areas of plasma science, including general plasma
science and HED plasma.
Support studies that advance understanding of strongly magnetized plasmas.
Using magnetic fields to control plasma transport is the basis for much of fusion energy
research, and many other applications of plasma physics. Although this is a topic central toplasma physics, current understanding is limited to magnetization strengths that are weakenough that the magnetic field does not alter the motion of particles at the scale at which theyinteract. Strongly magnetized plasmas, where the gyromotion of particles is at a scale similar toor smaller than the Debye screening length, are fundamentally different. Developing an
understanding of this regime is an area ripe for exploration. It is becoming increasingly exciting
as extreme magnetic fields are being generated in high energy density plasmas, potentially19accessing this regime. It is also encountered in trapped non-neutral plasmas, including
antimatter plasmas.
Support advanced theory that assesses the accuracy of standard magnetized plasma
models (e.g. MHD fluid dynamics), and develops improved models.
Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) theory is often used to describe magnetized plasma but, as asingle-fluid theory, has limitations that must be (and are being) addressed in order to study
phenomena beyond the model across a range of energy and spatial scales; these include
magnetic reconnection in nearly collisionless plasma; collisionless shock formation and stability,
field generation by gradients, energetic tails in velocity distributions, and solar wind turbulence.
Advancing theory in this area includes supporting the development of coupled models in whicha locally kinetic description is matched with a global fluid-like description.

DPS-C: Advance Understanding of Plasmas Far From Equilibrium and at
Interfaces
Laboratory plasmas are often driven by external power and particle sources, and are in contact
with surfaces at substantially different temperatures. The result is that at least portions of theplasma can be in states far from equilibrium. For example, low-temperature plasmas are
partially-ionized systems in which the ions are close to equilibrium with the neutral gas, but theelectrons are hundreds to thousands of times higher in temperature. This can create conditions
under which there is both traditional chemistry (between ions and/or neutrals) as well as
chemistry associated with high-energy electrons that is unique to the non-equilibrium plasmastate. Such plasmas are found in a wide variety of industrial applications, and controlling theelectron energy distribution is a critical aspect of many of these devices. Plasmas near surfaces,
including both solid and liquid surfaces, are invariably far from equilibrium, as strong electricfields called sheaths form in these regions.
Many open questions remain in our understanding of sheaths, and resolving these questions
will be important to advancing applications spanning basic physics to industrial applications. In
some extreme cases, plasmas may have velocity flows comparable to or greater than the
average velocity of individual particles, or a small number of particles with extremely highvelocities relative to the average. Depending on how collisional the particles in the plasma are,these situations can make traditional plasma physics approximations invalid. Moreover,
non-equilibrium particle velocity distributions can affect other important plasma parameters suchas fusion reactivity (in fusion plasmas, only the highest-velocity particles have enoughmomentum to overcome the Coulomb repulsion of charged particles and fuse). The frequent
presence of far-from-equilibrium states is something that distinguishes plasma physics frommany other areas of physics.
Expert Groups: GPS

Recommendations20

Support studies that advance understanding and control of reaction kinetics, ionization
state, and plasma chemistry of non-equilibrium and partially-ionized plasmas.
While many plasma models assume local thermodynamic equilibrium, where electrons, ions,radiation, and internal atomic and molecular structure are all characterized by the same
temperature, most laboratory and astrophysical plasmas are non-equilibrium (e.g. non-thermalradiation fields or non-Maxwellian electron velocity distributions). This recommendationnecessitates more investment in dedicated experiments, theory, and simulation that address thephysics underlying non-equilibrium plasmas, as well as connections to atomic and surface
physics and chemistry research. This will aid in understanding the phenomena in integrated
experiments.
Support studies that advance understanding of sheaths and plasma–boundaryinteractions.
The interaction of plasmas with material surfaces is complex and only moderately understood.
New applications, particularly with regard to liquid surfaces, emitting surfaces, and evaporating
surfaces demand new models. Despite its importance in many applications, the plasmaboundary transition in magnetized plasmas remains poorly understood. Validation of models isparticularly important, and this will require a combination of theory, experiment, andcomputation.
Support studies to understand and control the complex, self-consistent effects that
locally-trapped particles have on plasma transport and waves (damping and instability)
in weakly-collisional plasmas.
Natural and laboratory plasmas often have several distinct locally trapped particle populations,due to the occurrence of local magnetic and/or electrostatic wells. When subjected toperturbations such as plasma waves or field errors, such configurations can exhibit enhanced“superbanana” transport and wave dissipation: the locally trapped particles respond to theperturbations differently from passing particles, creating discontinuities in the collisionlessparticle distribution function at the separatrix (or separatrices) between trapped and passing
particles; and collisional relaxation of these discontinuities causes enhanced rates of entropy
production, wave damping and instability, and transport of particles, momentum, and heat. The
term “superbanana” refers to the single-particle drift orbits near the separatrix energy that are
perturbed by the waves or field errors. This form of entropy production has an important
influence on energy and particle loss in magnetic fusion devices such as stellarators andreversed-field configurations, but can also be studied in smaller, dedicated experiments.

21

DPS-D: Advance Understanding of Strong Coupling and Quantum Effects
in Plasmas
Plasmas are commonly thought of as hot ionized gases, but they often exist in states withbehaviors more akin to ionized liquids, supercritical fluids, and even solids. Thesestrongly-coupled plasmas are dense, cool, or highly-charged systems in which the interactionenergy between particles is much larger than their kinetic energy. They behave in fundamentallydifferent ways than weakly-coupled plasmas, and their properties are only beginning to beunderstood. Strongly-coupled plasmas can be produced in the laboratory using a variety ofplatforms, including non-neutral plasmas, ultracold neutral plasmas, and dusty plasmas. Suchexperiments are well-diagnosed and provide precision measurements used to explore thephysics of strong coupling. These measurements provide a foundational contribution by testing
theoretical models. Some of these experiments may also lead to a platform for quantum
computation or quantum simulation.
High-intensity optical and X-ray lasers and the high-energy U.S. flagship facilities NIF, Z, andOmega produce extremely dense plasmas, enabling studies of the response of the entire
periodic table to extreme pressures, fields, and temperatures. Under extreme conditions wherestrong coupling, electron degeneracy, and thermal effects (such as electron ionization) all
modify atomic properties, complete, internally consistent computational models are difficult tocreate and benchmark-quality data are scarce.
For accurate simulations relevant to HEDP science and IFE, we need to know material
properties—transport coefficients, opacity, equation of state and atomic structure—in diverse
and extreme conditions across disparate length and time-scales. This need for fundamental
materials science and materials tunability/performance at extreme conditions cross-cuts
fundamental HEDP and FST (e.g. point to blanket materials section). How do we tune materials
properties to sustain plasma interface conditions, radiation damage, etc. without knowing thephysics of transformation and rule book for degradation and damage? Key studies infundamental HEDP materials at relevent or surrogate conditions for FST will provide novel, in
situ spatio-temporally resolved measurements of damage. These new measurements areenabled by a number of the above listed DPS recommendations, in particular the MEC, LCLS
multi-PW upgrade and, LaserNetUS, (can say or point to these sections, etc.)
The pursuit of this foundational understanding uniquely bridges our community with planetarymodeling, exoplanets, and condensed matter physics: IFE targets, initially at ambientconditions, make transitions through warm dense material states to hot, dense plasma.
Understanding fundamental changes in atomic and electronic structures under compression andheating requires novel experiments and new modeling techniques. At 10–100 Mbar pressures(created by shock waves or isentropic compression), there are significant uncertainties in therates governing phase transitions on pico- to femtosecond timescales, the equation of state, theconditions at which phase boundaries occur, and the response of materials to gradients in22

temperature and electromagnetic fields. Moreover, in the ultra-dense, strongly coupled,degenerate plasma regime, the macroscopic manifestations of quantum effects might lead tonovel, stable materials not yet realized by any other science discipline.
Expert Groups: HEDP and GPS

Recommendations
Support research to understand the transport properties (thermal, particle diffusion,
viscosity, radiation transport, and nuclear reaction rates) of strongly-coupled plasmas.
Well-diagnosed, university-scale laboratory experiments can make precise measurements oftransport rates. Examples include non-neutral plasmas, ultracold neutral plasmas, dusty
plasmas, and pulsed power devices. Understanding these systems requires the development oftheory and modeling capabilities to describe the influence of strong coupling and magnetization
on transport rates in classical strongly coupled plasmas, as well as the combined influence ofdegeneracy in dense plasmas. Non-equilibrium physics in warm dense matter during thesolid-to-plasma transition must also be investigated (e.g. measure and model the dynamical
processes of the warm- and hot-dense matter with femtosecond temporal resolution).
Support research to understand the phase diagram, atomic and electronic structure ofstrongly-coupled and possibly degenerate plasmas across thepressure/temperature/applied magnetic field diagram through coupled theory, simulationand experimental studies.
Novel heated and compressed HED states can be created using advanced experimental
facilities (lasers, pulsed power, and XFELs), which require precision equation-of-state andtransport property measurements to pressures of ~100 GPa to ~100 TPa. Without thesebenchmark platforms our community will not have credibility in claiming that we understand thefundamental physics well enough to move forward to explore new physics, new regimes, andnovel states. We need to measure and model ionization of matter in ultra-dense states, where
screening and/or Pauli exclusion forces are strong, to realize novel (potentially useful) states ofmatter such as high-temperature superconductors, transparent electrides, and at extreme
temperatures at which even heavy elements can be stripped of most electrons. Also, to Identify
signatures (e.g. line broadening) that can be used to reveal fundamental electronic and ionic
structure and serve as diagnostics for laboratory plasmas.
Study the dynamics of multi-qubit entangled states in laser-diagnosed, strongly-coupled,
pure-ion plasma crystals as possible systems for quantum computation and/or quantum
simulation.
Trapped ions are a contending approach to quantum computation and quantum simulation.
Such systems may exhibit quantum supremacy when they include more than 30-40 quantum
bits. Penning traps can confine hundreds of ions in a crystalline plasma state, providing a proof23

of principle demonstration. Further developments in experiment, theory and simulation will be
required to realize the potential of this promising approach. This is an interdisciplinary research
field as much of the physics of laser manipulation and quantum computation relies upon AMO
science, while the physics of ion traps, decoherence, and the strongly correlated interactions
between ions relies upon plasma science. This is an area in which FES may explore
partnerships to translate the plasma physics advances to quantum computation. This may befostered by the ongoing DOE-wide initiative in quantum information science, and is an example
topic where FES science can provide high-impact contributions to the broader National
Quantum Initiative. Other opportunities where FES science contributes to, and benefits from,quantum computation are described further in the theory and computation cross cut section(CC-TC).

DPS-E: Create and Explore Antimatter Plasmas
Most plasmas deal with the interaction of positively charged ions and negatively charged
electrons. Some exotic plasma situations can introduce antimatter, such as the positively
charged “positron,” the antiparticle of the electron. In such plasmas, the antimatter components
can collide and release light, energy, and/or new particles into the plasma. For example, on
Earth, high-intensity lasers can be used to interact with plasmas to induce pair-production(production of both electrons and positrons). Indeed, it is possible to create such plasmas
through the interaction of a number of exotic particle sources (accelerator rings, nuclear
reactors, radioactive isotopes) with neutral plasmas. In space, exotic neutron stars known as“magnetars” are associated with extreme magnetic fields and are also believed to involve
significant antimatter interactions. Because antimatter is challenging to understand, theseplasmas may offer some unique opportunities to learn more about both antimatter and plasma
physics. Questions that drive this area include: (1) Can trapped antimatter plasmas provide
stringent tests of the fundamental symmetries of nature? (2) What are the properties of anelectron/positron pair plasma? (3) Due to the equal mass of each charge carrier, a trappedelectron–positron plasma is expected to exhibit much simpler properties, such as a vastly
simplified CMA wave diagram, than a traditional electron–ion plasma. In this sense, it
represents the “hydrogen atom” of plasma physics. Can this simplified system be created andprovide high-precision tests of plasma theory? The FES role in this field has been to support
advances in basic plasma physics, often in the context of a multinational collaboration engaged
in this research, as well as fundamental research in nonneutral plasma properties andtechniques at several smaller U.S. institutions. The support of nonneutral plasma physics as a
viable and vibrant subfield of plasma physics has been and remains critical to advances in
antimatter research.
Expert Groups: HEDP and GPS

Recommendations

24Use antimatter plasmas to study the CPT and gravitational symmetry between matter andantimatter, and to investigate the properties of exotic atoms and molecules in which an
electron is replaced by an antiproton.
The study of matter-antimatter symmetry addresses our deepest understanding of nature. It
may also shed light on a major mystery of modern physics, the Baryon asymmetry. One of themost powerful targets for this study is the antihydrogen atom: the simplest stable antimattersystem. As antihydrogen is synthesized by mixing positron and antiproton plasmas, advances innonneutral plasma physics have been, and remain, critical to the field. The antihydrogensynthesis rate is determined by the parameters of these plasmas, and has increased from a
few—at best—antiatoms per day to thousands of antiatoms per day as our ability to understandand control the constituent plasmas has improved. Experimentally, the necessary advances
have included the development of a full suite of appropriate plasma diagnostics, plasmacompression, plasma stabilization, collisional, radiative, evaporative, and expansion plasma
cooling, positron capture, and plasma-based ECR magnetometry. Theoretically, the advances
have included improvements in our understanding of plasma expansion, heating mechanisms,
and the antihydrogen synthesis processes.
Use studies of positron–molecule attachment and lifetimes to investigate fundamental
atomic processes and material properties.
Annihilation of positrons on atoms and molecules is a fundamental process that tests ourunderstanding of QED and many-body processes in atomic physics. In addition, positronscattering off of atoms and molecules using low-temperature positron beams has allowed thefirst state-resolved measurements of vibrational excitation and electronic excitation of molecules
and improved scattering and collisional ionization cross-sections. Positron probes have also
been extensively employed to characterize materials via positron annihilation lifetime
spectroscopy (PAL). Current capabilities include the ability to measure the concentration andsize distribution of voids in materials as well as measure the elemental composition at surfaces.
These already-useful capabilities can be improved and extended through higher accuracy (e.g.
more mono-energetic, and/or spin-polarized) positron beams. The creation and manipulation ofsuch beams is a subject of current research in trapped nonneutral plasma physics.
Create and probe an electron–positron pair plasma from light using an ultra-intenselaser.
Electron-positron pair production, as predicted by QED theory, offers the possibility of a directtransformation of light into matter. The advent of ultra-high power lasers and advances ingamma-ray sources opens the possibility to experimentally realize theoretical predictions to
explore this new light-matter interaction regime. This regime is challenging because one needs
not only high photon energies to surmount the production threshold, but also high photon
densities to overcome the smallness of the cross-section and achieve an appreciable yield.
Laser-driven gamma-ray sources are the key to overcoming these challenges. Several
25

promising approaches have been proposed that rely on such sources. As the energies ofparticles and intensity of EM fields are increased, a new possibility for producing pair plasmaarises, through a cascaded production process of electrons, positrons, and high energy
photons. These cascades come in two types. The first is the shower-type cascade, where theinitial particle energy is repeatedly divided between the products of successive Compton andBreit-Wheeler processes and typically happens in the collision of a high energy particle beamwith an intense laser pulse. The second is the avalanche-type cascade, where the EM field both
accelerates and causes QED processes. In this case, the number of particles grows
exponentially, fueled by the energy transformation from the EM field into electrons, positrons,
and high energy photons. Colliding multiple laser pulses at one spot provides an optimal field
configuration. This field configuration is also advantageous for producing copious amounts ofhigh energy gammas. These types of experiments require the development of ultra-intenselasers, particle accelerators, and gamma-ray sources.
Trap an electron–positron pair plasma in a well-diagnosed laboratory environment to test
foundational plasma physics.
An electron positron pair plasma has many interesting properties (in theory) that have not beentested in experiments. For example, the predicted electromagnetic wave properties in plasmas
consisting of equal mass positive and negative charged particles is very simple in comparison toplasmas in which ions are much more massive than electrons. There are also significant
differences for electrostatic waves such as the ion acoustic wave, and cross-magnetic fieldparticle transport should be significantly altered by the strong modification of drift wave
fluctuations in such a plasma. Electron-positron plasmas can be created at high density (but insmall regions) through pair production in an ultra-intense laser field; or at low density in a large
region through their admixture of electron and positron nonneutral plasmas. Each method has
its own advantages and disadvantages, and both should be pursued. There is also interest in
creating a Bose-Einstein condensate consisting of positronium atoms (a Hydrogen atom inwhich the proton is replaced by a positron). A Positronium gas can be formed by interaction ofcold positron beams with material surfaces. The critical temperature of such a condensate isroughly a thousand times higher than that of a Helium condensate at the same density.

DPS-2: Understand the Plasma Universe
We live in a plasma universe. This is not readily apparent, because the Earth is part of theless-than-one-percent of the visible universe that is not a plasma. However, the transition to theplasma universe begins only about fifty miles above the Earth’s surface, where the thin upper
atmosphere is ionized into plasma by the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation in what we aptly call theionosphere. Further out lies the magnetosphere, a plasma where the Earth’s magnetic fieldshields the surface and life on it from the fast-moving plasma called the solar wind, which
emanates from the Sun. The Sun is a massive sphere of plasma, powered by the release of
fusion energy at its core. This energy finds its way to us as light and heat, and without it, there
would be no life to contemplate its own existence in the plasma universe. Being both nurtured
26

by and sheltered from the effects of plasma, we are free to investigate the rest of the plasma
universe. This universe is a spectacularly varied and multi-scaled subject that touches every
aspect of our place in the galaxy and beyond—from the heliospheric termination shock andinterstellar space to accretion disks around black holes, astrophysical jets, quasars, and active
galactic nuclei.
Fortunately, the same fundamental plasma science applies across all of these scales in theuniverse, including those created on Earth. Laboratory experiments are a growing and powerfultool for understanding the plasma universe by offering unprecedented control of plasma
environments and precision measurements, which complement and are not available totraditional approaches such as spacecraft missions and telescope observations. There exist
major scientific opportunities that deserve urgent support for a drastic expansion of the U.S.
plasma space astrophysics program in the next decade. Understanding the plasma universe
through laboratory experiments, theory, and computational modeling is a critical component infulfilling the DOE FES’s mission of stewarding discovery plasma science. The extremely diverse
nature of space and astrophysical plasmas offers unique opportunities to critically test andexpand our understanding using plasma physics knowledge over a wide range of scales,
boundaries, conditions, and geometries.
Inherent in many of the objective-specific recommendations below is the fact that it is notnecessary to recreate the exact parameters of plasmas observed in space and astrophysics(either in laboratories or simulations) in order to advance understanding of those plasmas. It is
possible to study aspects of properly posed physics questions that can be used to rigorously
test theories inspired by observations or in-situ spacecraft measurements. Historically, ourunderstanding of naturally occurring physical problems can best be advanced by attacking suchproblems with varied, complementary tools.
Ten fundamental plasma processes or effects have been identified that play crucial roles inspace and plasma astrophysics, and need to be investigated and understood. In a random
order, they are:
● Magnetic dynamos● Magnetic reconnection● Plasma turbulence● Collisionless shock waves● Plasma and photon transport properties● Wave-particle interactions● Atomic and chemical processes under extreme conditions● Coupling of multiple physical processes over multiple scales● Effects of boundaries and interfaces between plasmas, and● Physics of flowing plasmas.
These processes or effects occupy a substantial part of the base of plasma physics knowledge.
Our capability to understand and predict space and astrophysical plasma phenomena criticallydepends on the maturity of our understanding of these processes and models built on them.
27

Programmatic Recommendations

The first programmatic recommendation is to synergize three main components: to build
facilities on all scales to provide access to plasma conditions relevant to space andastrophysics; to support communities with the tools that they need to perform research onthese facilities; and to collaborate with relevant units of funding agencies, especially NASA and
NSF, where space and astronomical observations are made. We recommend building anintermediate scale general plasma science facility to investigate the physics of solar windplasma in addition to supporting and continuously upgrading facilities on a broad range ofscales and topics. We recommend establishing a new MagNetUSA and utilize LaserNetUS to
maximize scientific impact of existing facilities and ongoing investments through sharing
research tools and supporting a vibrant and collaborating user community. DOE science
centers can be an effective and flexible platform to form collaborations on the time-critical
topics of interests.
The recent or ongoing high-profile NASA missions such as Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS),
Parker Solar Probe (PSP), and the European Space Agency (ESA) Solar Orbiter, and NSF
initiatives such as Event Horizon Telescope, Multi-Messenger Astronomy, and Daniel K. Inouye
Solar Telescope (DKIST) motivate timely laboratory study of their underlying fundamental
plasma processes, such as magnetic reconnection, collisionless shocks, plasma turbulence,and plasma physics under extreme conditions. In addition to the existing DOE/NSF partnershipon plasma science, we recommend forming a new DOE/NASA partnership for rapid progressin target areas of space missions. Such partnerships can take forms of jointly funded centers or
programs, and should be mutually beneficial.

28

These three components are closely interconnected and interdependent: laboratory facilities
provide well-controlled and well-diagnosed research platforms to study space and astrophysicalplasma processes, while these facilities are used by a well-supported vibrant community, inclose collaboration with space plasma physicists and astrophysicists who explore the plasma
universe. All three of these components need to be well-funded and well-coordinated in order tomake rapid progress in understanding the plasma universe.
Additionally, fundamental theory is needed to translate scales between laboratory plasma
experiments and space/astronomical data. Terrestrial plasma laboratories are necessarily smallin physical scale and less energetic. The second overarching programmatic recommendation in
Understanding the Plasma Universe calls for supporting theory, numerical modeling, andassociated data analyses. Numerical modeling is critical for understanding experimental
results and interpreting observations. Given the current landscape of high-performancecomputing at the cusp of exascale, and the development of novel numerical and data analysis
methods, the time is ripe for their deployment and support at a commensurate funding level withrespect to laboratory experiments and space/astronomical observatories. The broad parameter
range that the plasma universe spans necessitates support for fluid, particle-in-cell, continuum
Vlasov-Maxwell, hybrid, atomic, and molecular codes, under frameworks facilitating interactions
with experiments and observations in a unified, open-source fashion.

DPS-F: Understand plasma interactions between the Sun, Earth, and otherobjects in the solar system
The interaction between our terrestrial neighborhood and the outside plasma universe is a prime
area for exploring plasma phenomena from both a purely scientific point of view, as well as one
that directly impacts the survival of life on Earth and our exploration of the universe. For
example, energetic particles from the Sun can enter the Earth’s protective magnetospherethrough various plasma mechanisms; these particles can be hazardous to communications andnational security satellites as well as space travel. Large fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetic
field caused by the impact of coronal mass ejections (severe geomagnetic storms) can destroy
energy infrastructure by inducing high voltages in power grids. Estimates of the societal andeconomic impact of a severe geomagnetic storm to the United States are the equivalent of ten
simultaneous hurricane-Katrina-level natural catastrophes. This is but one of a multitude ofplasma interactions between the Sun and other objects in our solar system. Although by nomeans exhaustive, a list of other community supported topics and outstanding questions areprovided in the three recommendations of this strategic objective. An overarching
recommendation is for increased cross-fertilization of ideas and support through formal
memoranda of understanding between DOE and other U.S. government agencies such asNASA and NOAA. A successful example of an existing cooperative agreement is the NSF/DOE
partnership in plasma science and engineering. This recommendation is intended to beconsistent with the National Academy of Sciences’ 2007 report, Plasma Science: Advancing

29

Knowledge in the National Interest, in which such partnerships are not intended “to replace or
duplicate the plasma science programs in other agencies.” It is here recommended that thestrengths, interests, and technical expertise of each agency be brought to bear in synergistic
approaches to investigate or support the investigation of common science problems.
Expert Groups: HEDP and GPS

Recommendations
Support studies of fundamental plasma processes at or near the Sun
Studying the interactions between the Sun with the rest of the solar system begins byunderstanding the Sun itself. The Sun is our nearest star and is required for life to exist on
Earth, yet basic processes such as energy transport within and near the Sun are not wellunderstood. For example, the Sun’s atmosphere (the corona) is more than 300 times hotter thanits surface. How does energy flow underneath the surface? What are the dominant mechanismsthat transport energy to the corona and heat it? Is it due to damping of Alfvén waves launchedon the solar surface or due to a large number of small flares driven by surface convection?
Dangerous magnetic storms and large solar flares are the result of stored magnetic energy
being released via impulsive instabilities or magnetic reconnection. How does the magnetic
energy get stored and triggered impulsively for massive Coronal Mass Ejections or CMEs?
Answering such questions represent areas of opportunity for research by an expansion of the
NSF/DOE partnership investment, as well as partnering with NASA, for plasma scientists
specializing in experimental, theoretical, and simulation approaches to these questions.
Support our understanding of the fundamental plasma physics of the solar wind
The next step in the Sun-solar system interaction problem is to understand the fundamental
properties of the solar wind plasma that connects the Sun to the rest of the solar system. Basicquestions about the solar wind remain unanswered. How is the solar wind able to accelerate tovery high speeds against solar gravity? How does the solar wind maintain its temperature via
collisionless dissipation despite the wind’s rapid expansion? How do plasma waves andinstabilities redistribute energy from very large scales to scales small enough to heat thisplasma? In recent decades, much progress has been made by laboratory experiments in
conducting detailed studies of phenomena that complement measurements by rockets andsatellites within the confines and at the boundary of the Earth’s magnetosphere. However, therealm of the solar wind has been largely unexplored in the laboratory due to the lack of anexperimental device in the world that is capable of producing the demanding plasma parameters
required to do so. This represents a blind spot in the community’s ability to deeply understandthe fundamental plasma physics of the vast majority of the solar system and the medium
through which plasma waves and energetic particles travel from the Sun to the Earth. In the eraof missions such as the Parker Solar Probe and the Solar Orbiter, the U.S. has a timely

30

opportunity to create a global leadership role in exploring plasmas relevant to the solar wind in alaboratory facility. This goal can be realized by deploying current technologies to achievelaboratory plasma conditions that reproduce a critical subset of dimensionless parameters
necessary to study the physics of the solar wind as well as other solar and astrophysicalphenomena.
Support research into the interactions of the Sun with planetary magnetospheres andunmagnetized systems
The third component of the plasma interactions between the Sun and our solar system is tounderstand the endpoints of the Sun’s plasma and its effects on planetary magnetospheres andunmagnetized systems throughout the heliosphere. While the specific interactions andsubsequent triggered plasma processes are myriad, (hence beyond the scope of being listed
here explicitly) the following are meant to represent the broad range of topics and outstanding
physics questions in need of further investigation and support:● The physics of energetic ion scattering by waves is pertinent to both planetary
magnetospheres and magnetic fusion energy devices. How are the Earth’s radiation belts
populated by energetic electrons and ions from the solar wind; and, what are the physicalmechanisms by which both high and low frequency plasma waves naturally depopulatethese belts?
● What role do plasma waves play in structuring the earth’s ionosphere, which can (forexample) affect signals from global positioning satellites?
● How do three-dimensional and particle kinetic effects impact magnetic reconnection in the
Earth’s magnetotail and dayside magnetopause?
● At Earth and elsewhere in the solar system, how do flow- and gradient-driven instabilities
grow in the magnetopause and/or plasmapause and how do they contribute to plasmatransport, energy and momentum coupling, wave generation, and turbulence there?
● How do unmagnetized objects like our Moon interact with the solar wind, including
phenomena such as dust dynamics on the Moon’s surface and the wake behind the Moon?
● What are the properties of magnetized collisionless shocks, such as the Earth’s
magnetospheric bowshock in the solar wind? How do such shocks form in the first placeand how do they evolve over time?
As with other recommendations within this strategic objective, it bears re-emphasizing thatprojects and missions by NSF and NASA provide much of the inspiration for research in theseareas. However, further partnerships with those agencies and DOE can encourage collaboration
between scientists traditionally funded separately by these agencies in order to achieve a more
complete understanding of these problems.

DPS-G: Understand the origin and effects of magnetic fields across theuniverse from star and planet formation to cosmology

31

The most prominent effect of plasma physics across the universe is the presence of magnetic
fields on almost all scales at which plasma also exists. Understanding the origin of thesemagnetic fields is a grand challenge problem. This includes the origin of the Earth’s magnetic
field and its evolution, as well as other planets and their moons in our solar system. Further
afield is the solar dynamo, which is regularized to a distinct and still mysterious 22 year cycle,
one of many dynamic behaviors of stellar dynamos. Even farther out are galactic dynamos,
which take a completely different form of dynamics with substantially larger spatial scales andlonger temporal scales.
The effects of magnetic fields have been long recognized outside our heliosphere from thestudy of the interstellar medium of the Milky Way, where magnetic fields constantly interact withthermal and nonthermal plasmas within and in between the molecular clouds. The planetary andsolar structures that form from these clouds require multi-scaled plasma processes, from theinteraction of electrons, to dust grains, to the evolution of accretion disks. We must understandseveral fundamental plasma mechanisms to explain these phenomena.
Our view of the cosmos must be seen through the lens of a plasma universe. Our understandingof this plasma fundamentally alters our understanding of the evolution of the cosmos. Traditional
laboratory astrophysics has made significant contributions to our understanding of the plasma
universe but much more needs to be done to keep up with ever expanding astronomical
databases and their analyses. Further studies of these effects must be supported.
Expert Groups: HEDP and GPS

Recommendations
Support further understanding of the origin of the planetary magnetic fields, stellar
dynamos, and the origin of magnetic fields on galactic and cosmological scales.
Outstanding questions include: How does the geomagnetic field evolve in time and is it going toflip its direction soon? Why do different planets and their moons have different magnetic fields?
Where do the Sun’s small-scale magnetic fields, known as turbulent dynamo, come from? A
critical question is whether a universal mechanism exists for all of these dynamo processes orwhether each dynamo has its own specific conditions and outcomes. Many aspects of these
dynamos should be further studied in the laboratory under well-controlled experimental setups,
in addition to the opportunities in exploring the state and dynamics of the Earth’s metallic
inner/outer core as well as other planets’ cores.
Support studies of magnetic field effects during formation of stars and planets (including
exoplanets) in accretion disks and stellar jets.
The discovery of exoplanets has opened an exciting area of astronomy and plasma
astrophysics. Outstanding questions include: What are plasma properties at the edge of32

atmospheres and the interiors of planets in order to determine exoplanet evolution andhabitability? What are the plasma properties and transport as a function of distance from thehost star, the host star brightness, planet mass, and planetary magnetosphere? More broadly,
what is the role of plasma and magnetic fields in accretion disks where stars and planets arebeing formed? How are magnetic fields generated to facilitate angular momentum transport inaccretion disks, how are they maintained against dissipation, and how do plasmas convert
gravitational energy to radiation during the accretion process? What is the role of magnetic
fields in the collimation, stability, and radiation of stellar jets over long distances? Many of theseprocesses, such as angular momentum transport in accretion disks and jet launching andstability, have been studied successfully in the laboratory, and further investigations into theseand other fundamental processes should be supported.
Dusty plasmas are ubiquitous in space, including the interstellar medium, molecular clouds, andprotostellar-protoplanetary disks. Outstanding questions include how do dust grains interact with
ambient gas and plasma regarding their charging, breakup and magnetization, and how do they
coalesce to grow into planetesimals and eventually into planets (and exoplanets)? The
synthesis and coagulation of dust particles to form large structures can and has been studied bylaboratory dusty plasma experiments. Filamentary instabilities that are excited in dusty plasmas
have been studied in laboratory experiments, and it is possible that they are relevant formechanisms of planetesimal formation and should be studied further by experiments andsimulations.
Support further studies of atomic and molecular spectroscopy in astrophysicalenvironments.
Important tasks include identifying, interpreting, and predicting a large number of atomic andmolecular spectral lines from astronomical observations. Understanding how atomic andmolecular spectral lines are affected or modified is critical for astrophysics and cosmology
research when viewed through the lens of large expanses of plasma, which can range from thecollisionless fully ionized inter-galactic medium to the collisional weakly ionized molecular
clouds in the Milky Way. Continued support should be provided in these areas of laboratory
astrophysics.

DPS-H: Understand the causes and consequences of the most energetic,extreme, and explosive phenomena found in the cosmos
Many objects in the universe, from the crushing pressures of planetary cores to the intensefields of magnetized neutron stars or the event horizon of black holes, challenge our knowledgeof how plasmas and particles, including nuclear and atomic physics processes, behave under
extreme conditions. Laboratory investigations of these phenomena thus provide rareopportunities to test the robustness of plasma physics and to expand its frontiers into uncharted
territories. Plasma mechanisms allow for some of the most energetic acceleration events

33

possible in the universe (such as ultra-high energy cosmic rays), far beyond any powerful
man-made accelerators. However, the mechanisms for these events, which include the mostluminous sources (such as active galactic nuclei) and the most powerful explosions (such as
gamma ray bursts) known in the universe, are not well understood. Material under extreme
pressures like those in the interiors of white dwarfs or Jovian planets can transform into new
plasma states like warm dense matter or exhibit exotic phase transitions, which can only be
studied in detail in laboratory experiments. Such plasma conditions also affect nuclear physics
and can shed light on stellar dynamics and nucleosynthesis models relevant to the big-bang andthe abundances of elements in the cosmos. Plasmas subject to intense fields can further
exhibit new atomic physics, such as the appearance of novel spectroscopic features that could
be used to study astrophysical objects. A solid knowledge base is needed to understand themultiple-scale physics of these plasmas, including under extreme conditions, in order to build
reliable models to explain and predict astrophysical observations.
Expert Groups: HEDP and GPS

Recommendations
Support research to assess the mechanisms by which particles are heated andaccelerated to some of the highest energies observed in the universe.
Cosmic rays are known to be accelerated to ultra-high energies by plasmas from explodingstars (supernovae), extragalactic jets, and gamma ray bursts (GRB). However, it remains
unknown both which processes (for example collisionless shocks, magnetic reconnection,
turbulence) are responsible for these energetic particles, and how these processes accelerate
and heat particles to extreme energies. Experiments can recreate these processes in thelaboratory with appropriately magnetized and scaled conditions, allowing for well-controlled,
reproducible, and well-diagnosed studies of particle acceleration and heating relevant toastrophysics.
Support further understanding of plasma and atomic physics under extreme fields anddensities, from planetary cores to black holes.
Material at the center of planets and stars is subject to extreme densities, temperatures, andpressures, resulting in exotic states of matter. Likewise, plasmas around compact objects suchas black holes are subject to intense fields and pressures. Critical to understanding these
conditions is knowledge of equations of state, opacities, and particle and energy transport,
which are difficult to observe in astrophysical systems. Conversely, these extreme conditions
may manifest new spectroscopic features that can be observed. Laboratory experiments withhigh-power lasers and pulsed-power can now generate plasmas and matter in intenseelectromagnetic fields, under extreme pressures, and subject to strongly non-equilibrium andnon-thermal conditions. Such experiments are essential for understanding the conditions under34

which non-Maxwellian, non-LTE codes are valid, for deriving material equations of state, and for
accurately modeling plasma parameters.
Support further studies of how plasmas affect and moderate nuclear reaction rates,
nucleosynthesis, and abundances in the universe.
Being able to study stellar-relevant plasmas is essential to understanding the rates ofastrophysical nuclear reactions, which in turn are needed for stellar dynamics andnucleosynthesis models. Plasma physics experiments can thus contribute measurements ofgreat value to improve our understanding of these nucleosynthesis processes, including
big-bang and stellar nucleosynthesis. Additionally, the unique properties of plasmas orplasma-generated beams of particles or photons are potentially a powerful tool for producing
better nuclear data for astrophysics.

DPS-3: Create Transformative Technologies
Plasma science plays a critical role in enabling many of the technologies in our modern society.
Controllable plasma chemistry, advanced plasma source design, and fundamental
understanding of the nature of plasma surface interactions are a few areas of needed advancein basic plasma science to continue to advance applications. HEDP science is also positioned
to make broader contributions to society that will be enabled through advanced source
development for bright sources of particles and photons that will advance not only basic plasma
science understanding but also areas of medicine, energy, and manufacturing. For example,
plasma assisted manufacturing contributes to a broad range of industries including aerospace,microelectronics, defense, and energy. Plasma science enables fabrication of devices on theatomic scale, and plays a role in over a quarter of the hundreds of process steps taken tofabricate the ubiquitous electronic devices that drive our nation’s economy. Plasma scienceenables advanced coatings and surface treatments that reduce the weight of commercial
aircraft and make materials impervious to degradation due to chemical or environmental
exposure. Laser plasma interactions provide unique bright radiation sources that could be
employed in many technological areas like non-destructive evaluation of aircraft components orcivil engineering structures. Laser produced tin plasmas are already being used to manufacture
the latest generation of computer chips, a multi-hundred billion dollar a year industry. These
contributions have been enabled by bridging fundamental plasma science with other science
domains and application needs to make plasma science a foundational part of American
leadership in a plurality of industries.
Today, plasma science is positioned to make substantive contributions to a growing portfolio of
applications and industries critical for growing national leadership in existing applications andestablishing leadership in new technologies. To realize this potential, continued advances need
to be made in plasma science, specifically in the areas of plasma based chemistry production,in plasma-based radiation sources and integration of plasma science into new multidisciplinary
efforts. Through this effort, plasma science has the potential to play a key role in ending cancer,

35

feeding an ever growing national and global population, and growing national leadership in hightechnology manufacturing.
Specific disruptive technology themes have been identified where plasma science has a clear
path to make substantive contributions to the growth of the U.S. economy and the well being ofher citizens. These themes serve two roles. The first is to present research focus areas inbasic plasma science that require both a plasma-centered emphasis that falls within the FES
charter and the interdisciplinary collaboration necessary to translate these advances to domains
spanning biology, material science, and environmental science. The second is to motivate andprovide justification for this basic science research by presenting highly impactful applications ofthese efforts that will improve both societal well being and national technology infrastructure. Itis critical that basic science and engineering challenges in plasma science as well asinterdisciplinary areas that intersect plasma science with other areas be addressed. Collectively
these advances will be used to develop disruptive technologies that will have a profound impact
on the economy and society. FES is in a position to take actions that will realize opportunities
spanning the Department of Energy mission and beyond in the areas of energy, medicine,
agriculture, transportation infrastructure environmental stewardship, and advanced
manufacturing. We have defined a set of strategic objectives and concrete recommendations
that will advance plasma science understanding to contribute to these critical areas.
The U.S. programs should invigorate low temperature plasma research and key areas within
HED plasma science at universities and national labs into a sustained program to develop
enabling disruptive technologies based on efficient plasma generation techniques, theunderstanding of the resulting plasma conditions, and complex plasma-surface interactions.
Universities are well suited to develop the basic understanding necessary to develop newtechnologies, for developing these technologies at lower Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
and for workforce development. National labs are well suited to characterize and evaluate
higher TRL technologies for industry and provide a comprehensive study of the plasmas andcomplex plasma-surface interactions that are the basis of most of the enabling disruptive
technologies. Together, universities and laboratories working in these areas present acompelling space for public-private partnerships with pathways for scientific discovery anddeployment of viable solutions to substantive challenges facing our country and planet in the
coming decades.
Increase support for single-PI-scale research projects
Low temperature plasma science is a fast-moving field of research. It is characterized by thepotentially short time of development from concept to engineering devices. Furthermore, manyof these advances do not require large facilities and are aptly carried out in laboratories led byindividual PIs. This fast pace of innovation is well served by support for a broad range ofsingle-PI-scale research grants. Small-scale grants also foster innovative new ideas, andcontinued growth of the field, by enabling new PIs to enter through frequent grant solicitations.

36

There is a strong argument that has been advocated for in this community planning process thatthe DOE should have a well-funded, dedicated, national program for low-temperature plasmas.
The NSF/DOE partnership has been the traditional mechanism for funding such research.
However, this partnership program is oversubscribed as it is tasked with supporting researchacross the entire spectrum of plasma science and engineering. This limits the growth of
low-temperature plasmas, and the industries that it enables. Potential avenues to address thiswould be for the DOE to increase support for LTPs through targeted DOE solicitations, theexisting partnership, and through pursuit of additional multidisciplinary partnerships.
Foster public private partnerships through recommendations made in the Enabling
Technology cross cut
Public/private partnership is a recurring theme across many science drivers identified in thisreport, spanning magnetic fusion, HEDP, and general plasma science. The plasma science
community working in the area of disruptive technologies have historically built strong andextensive partnerships with industry to move plasma science forward, particularly in the area of
integrated circuit fabrication, but also in aerospace and textile industries. It is recommended
that FES leverage the experience of the LTP community in fostering partnerships with industry
to accelerate the maturation of public-private partnerships spanning the entire FES mission.

DPS-I: Develop plasma-based technologies that contribute to a stablenational energy infrastructure
The contributions that plasma science can make to the nation’s energy infrastructure are broadand extend beyond the goal of fusion energy production. Plasma-based technologies can utilize
the unique combination of energetic particles, radiation, and chemistry derived from plasma
discharges to replace industrial processes that have a substantial dependence on finite
resources and high carbon emission. As fossil fuels are displaced, the world’s energy
infrastructure will continue to evolve toward more electricity generation, particularly fromrenewable and nuclear sources. Plasma-based technologies can enable a future based onthese electricity sources. The primary basic plasma science challenges that need to beaddressed to advance this theme center on advancing our understanding of reactive chemistry
formation in non-equilibrium systems and the interaction between the plasma state and an arrayof novel material forms. The fundamental relationship between the non-equilibrium conditions
typical to plasma discharges and the chemical reaction pathways that will enable carbon-freeindustrial processes needs to be advanced. By advancing the understanding of these coupledprocesses the key deliverable of controllable chemical selectivity that is central to the successful
deployment of plasma technology into the energy infrastructure may become possible.
Additionally, the complexity of the plasma boundary, particularly with regard to the diversity ofmaterial forms that will be required to directly interact with the plasma state (liquids, aerosols,
particulate, catalysts, nanoscale structures, etc.), will require a re-examination of the plasma
material interface that adequately describes these interfacial processes.

37Expert Groups: GPS

Recommendations
Support research to study plasma-driven physical and chemical pathways for selective
processing of materials to displace carbon-generating industrial processes.
Engineering advanced chemical reactors will require the development of plasma sources that
can target certain chemical reaction pathways of interest. However, there are basic science
questions that are unanswered that limit the ability to do this. Examples of the fundamental
unknowns that govern these processes include incomplete knowledge of species production
pathways, interaction cross sections, and energy distributions of both charged states and boundatomic and molecular states. Furthermore, these processes are usually closely connected withthe type of plasma source. Advancing the understanding of the coupling from the characteristic
time and length scales that define plasma systems to the time and length scales that definematerial and chemical processes, will enable the development of potentially transformative newtechnologies.
Support interdisciplinary, multiple-PI science centers that enable a scope of work that
extends beyond basic plasma science to capture plasma interaction withenergy-system-relevant metrics.
Advances in plasma science to enable adjacent technologies require integration of multiple
science domains, particularly to deepen our fundamental understanding of how plasmas can bebetter controlled and how plasmas interact with other material phases beyond bulk solidmaterials that have typically been employed. Plasma science research integrated withchemistry, material science, and more broadly with industrial-scale energy intensive systems will
accelerate deployment of plasma science and technology in this area.
Support research to advance understanding of the interaction between plasmas and thewide diversity of materials of relevance to advancing the energy infrastructure.
The outcomes enabled by plasma-based technologies not only depend on the processes
occurring within the plasma, but also on what can be extracted from the plasma. For example,
plasma reactors may produce a chemical of interest to an energy application, but that chemicalmust be extracted from the plasma in order to be useful. Delivering either chemical or physicalproducts relies on understanding the interaction between the plasma and the boundary. For
example, if the boundary is a liquid, one may need to understand the processes of dissociationof a certain radical as it leaves the plasma and enters the liquid. Modern industrial processes
are often associated with the interaction of plasmas with complex materials (liquids, aerosols,
particulates, catalysts, nanoscale structures, etc.). Understanding this complex interaction will
require significant advances in our fundamental understanding of plasma material interfaces.

38Explore partnerships with other agencies within DOE to support these interdisciplinary
goals. These include DOE-BES, DOE Fossil Fuels, DOE Nuclear Energy, and ARPA-E.
This is a highly interdisciplinary driver, spanning energy production, storage, transportation , anddistribution. Additionally, it extends into energy intensive industrial processes such as chemistry
production and fuel reforming, introducing plasma-based alternatives that present a viable green
alternative for many chemical production processes. Key to this science driver is theestablishment of interdisciplinary broad research efforts that are structured to combine plasma
science with chemistry and material science efforts. Collaboration between OFES and other
DOE divisions with a direct energy infrastructure mission such as Nuclear Energy, fossil fuels,
and renewable energy would provide interdisciplinary structure that could accelerate advancesin this area.

DPS-J: Develop plasma-based technologies that enable advanced
manufacturing
Advances in plasma science have made the United States a leader in the technology andmanufacturing sectors that are the cornerstone of the information age. Moving forward, thiscapability should be expanded to sustain and grow this competitive advantage, particularly withregard to substantive efforts underway in other countries such as China that seek to displace
U.S. leadership. This demands advances in basic plasma science that further our understandingof physical and chemical processes that drive manufacturing to a level that enables advanced
manufacturing controls such as machine learning and advanced process control. Extending
plasma capabilities in processing bulk material surfaces to new material interfaces such as
nanoparticles, liquids, bio-inspired materials, and atomic-scale topologies will align plasma
science with advanced manufacturing roadmaps in a plurality of industries serving the nation’shigh technology sector. These include, but are not limited to, high performance computing andquantum information science, incorporation of advanced manufacturing techniques into plasma
science, such as machine learning, and artificial intelligence. Enabling “design for process”
concepts to reverse engineer plasma sources for a given task will further accelerate the time tomarket for these plasma based manufacturing techniques. Advances in plasma-assisted
advanced manufacturing are diverging in scale. On one side, the advance of plasmas at nearatmospheric pressures have enabled processing of new materials on a bulk scale as well asprocessing of new materials that are not vacuum hardened. For example, advances in plasma
assisted manufacturing for large area laminate surfaces for the aerospace industry, UV resistantand super-hydrophobic fibers for the textile industry, and processing of bio-inspired materials
continue to make advances toward substantive contributions in these manufacturing process
flows. One the other side, advances in plasma chemistry formation and control havedemonstrated the potential to contribute to manufacturing processes at the atomic andmolecular scale. For example, atomic and molecular scale assembly of materials andstructures through plasma assisted atomic layer deposition (ALD) and molecular layer
deposition (MLD) processes, synthesis of nanoscale particles, and increased diversity inmaterial accessibility for design of systems in the microelectronic (now more appropriately

39defined as nanoelectronic as manufacturing processes extend to dimensions less than 100
atoms across) systems that have reduced power consumption of devices and enabled
expansive integration of devices and sensors in the internet of things. Across this spectrum
there are overarching challenges where fundamental science and engineering advances are
required to realize sufficient process rates and process control to move this technology tocommercial volumes.
Expert Groups: GPS

Recommendations
Support research to advance understanding of plasma-generated chemical, energetic,
and directional selectivity and control over advanced manufacturing processes.
Advanced understanding of the formation and control of selective and anisotropic chemistry will
be required in order to mimic the historic pace of Moore’s Law and move into new
manufacturing paradigms. The requires the translation of selectivity to highly-controlled material
compositions and structures across a plurality of materials spanning liquids, particles, aerosols,and complex non-planar topologies. It will also require the advance of experimental andcomputational efforts to produce a level of predictable computationally-assisted design that iscomparable to engineering tools in adjacent physical domains such as heat transfer, fluid
mechanics, and mechanical forces. Currently, there is a recognized level of refinement that isrequired to capture the coupled physical, chemical, and material domains with sufficientprecision to predictably design systems that employ plasma based systems for advanced
manufacturing. Even in the semiconductor industry, the most mature and successful industry
that plasma science can point to as having made substantive contributions to advances in hightech manufacturing, the systems that are vital for further advances that rely on plasma
technology still require a level of iterative design and build that is not needed in other areas ofsemiconductor manufacturing such as lithography, bulk material synthesis, or ion implantation.
By advancing the underlying science of plasma based systems incredible increases in
efficiencies, even in established manufacturing technologies such as semiconductor device
fabrication, can be realized while also contributing to new advances in manufacturing across aplurality of high technology sectors. This should include both university and laboratory
engagement. It is likely best served by several single-PI-scale grants.
Support interdisciplinary, multiple-PI science centers to understand plasma’s role inadvanced manufacturing flows including material synthesis, removal, modification,functionalization, and advanced manufacturing modalities
Precision control of manufacturing processes requires high-level understanding of the basic
science that drives that specific process. For example, precise control of laser welding
processes requires inputs spanning radiative transport, heat transfer, and material science toenable weld processes that continue to make advances in manufacturing to this day. Plasma
assisted manufacturing requires a similar effort, both in existing plasma based manufacturing
processes and those that are envisioned to make substantive contributions to the national40

economy in the coming decades. Advancing fundamental understanding of physical andchemical processes in plasma systems is a vital first step in integration of intelligent
manufacturing controls to unit manufacturing processes and process flows where the plasmastate plays a critical role. To this end, convergent efforts spanning plasma science, advanced
manufacturing control methodologies, and specific manufacturing processes are needed. Thisrequires collaboration between universities, national laboratories, and industrial partners.
Form partnerships with DOE-BES, ARPA-E, and DOE’s Advanced Manufacturing efforts.
This is a highly interdisciplinary driver, spanning energy production, storage, transportation, anddistribution. Additionally, it extends into energy intensive industrial processes such as chemistry
production and fuel reforming, introducing plasma-based alternatives that present a viable green
alternative for many chemical production processes. Key to this science driver is theestablishment of interdisciplinary broad research efforts that are structured to combine plasma
science with chemistry and material science efforts. Collaboration between OFES and other
DOE divisions with a direct energy infrastructure mission such as BES, ARPA-E, and DOE’s
Advanced Manufacturing efforts would provide interdisciplinary structure that could accelerateadvances in this area.

DPS-K: Develop plasma-based technologies that improve the physical wellbeing of society
As a steward for plasma science, DOE-FES is uniquely positioned to lead the advance of
science that can make substantive contributions to the physical well being of society with
contributions spanning medicine, agriculture, and environmental science.
This field isinterdisciplinary, but the desired outcomes center on fundamental plasma science challenges,
particularly in areas that rely upon process selectivity, which require advancing the underlying
knowledge of the physics and chemistry that drive reactive plasma systems. It is therefore
imperative for the LTP community to develop an understanding of the role of the plasma in
relevant processes and interactions. An example where this understanding is criticallyimportant is plasma-based engineering of biological processes. This area converges plasma
physics, plasma chemistry and plasma engineering with biology. It focuses on the interaction of
the reactivity produced by low temperature plasmas, usually at atmospheric pressure, with soft
biological matter (e.g. liquids, cells, tissues, food, plants, agricultural products). LTPs provide a
unique, rich environment of reactive oxygen species, reactive nitrogen species, charged
particles, photons, and electric fields. One of the unique features of plasmas compared to othersources of reactivity is the ability to very rapidly change the reactive species production
pathways, thereby enabling feedback systems that customize in real time the reactivity
delivered to objects of interest. As such adaptive plasmas for medical, agriculture and perhaps
material science applications represent emerging areas that require research support. Key toadvancing plasma science in these areas is enabling collaboration across entities outside of theenergy infrastructure sector such as medicine, agricultural science, and environmental science.

41

These can be achieved through public-private partnerships or inter-agency research initiatives
with entities such as NIH, FDA, USDA, and EPA.
Expert Groups: GPS

Recommendations
Support university-scale projects to advance understanding of plasma interactions withbio- and enviro-inspired materials.
Many of the fundamental science questions associated with the interaction of plasmas with soft
matter can be addressed by small-scale single to few PI-led investigations. Universities provide
a natural place to conduct this research not only because it is the appropriate scale, but also
because it is interdisciplinary. Every university has biology, chemistry, physics and engineering
departments, and many have medical colleges. This proximity can foster interdisciplinary
research. The future of this field will also rely on training students in multiple disciplines, which isnaturally done at universities.
Support interdisciplinary, multiple-PI science centers that enable a scope of work that
extends beyond basic plasma science to capture plasma interaction with living systems,
natural resources, and diverse ecosystems.
Of the three disruptive technology objectives outlined here, plasma systems for agriculture,environment, and medicine has arguably the greatest need for interdisciplinary efforts, as itspans science domains that have had little interaction over the last several decades and standto have the greatest substantive advances through interdisciplinary study. These efforts should
include pathways for the evaluation of plasma technology in medical devices and scalable
systems that can provide tangible solutions on the scale of agriculture, environmental
remediation, and human well being and include expertise in biological system response,
ecosystem responses to new technologies, and evaluation of next generation agricultural
systems for irrigation, waste management, nutrient control, and distribution networks.
Explore partnerships with NIH, USDA, FDA, and EPA as well as engagement with DOE’s
current efforts in addressing the energy-water nexus.
As mentioned previously, interdisciplinary research is vital to advance plasma science in thisarea. DOE-OFES has established a strong foundation in plasma science. In order to enable
this foundational work to contribute to disruptive technologies outside of the primary OFES
deliverable of achieving fusion energy, collaborations with adjacent agencies directly tied tothese technology domains should be pursued. Without this, plasma interaction with thesedisparate material systems, vital to advance these technologies, falls between agency level
funding priorities.

42

DPS-L: Develop plasma-based technologies that provide secondary
sources and other new capabilities, to benefit fundamental science,industry, and societal needs.
One of the most promising applications of HED plasmas, with major potential impact forscience, industry and society, is the realization of bright compact sources of high-energy particle
beams and photons. The practical benefits of such sources are numerous and compelling; notonly can advanced radiation sources be used to probe and create novel HED plasma states, butthey also have potential for impacting societally important areas like the fabrication of the future
generations of computer chips to medicine. HED plasmas offer several possible methods torealize promising sources covering photon energies spanning from the extreme ultraviolet to
gamma rays. In the case of laser-driven photon sources, these methods include exploiting
relativistic phenomena in overdense plasmas, radiation from relativistic electrons accelerated in
the plasma wakefields, and coherent and incoherent line radiation and continuum radiation
resulting from atomic processes in dense laser-created plasmas and Z-pinches. Similarly,
different approaches have been demonstrated or proposed for the generation of intense beams
of energetic ions, neutrons and positrons. The realization of useful sources will require thedevelopment of higher efficiency laser drivers, an increase in the high repetition rate of thelasers, new targets, and new diagnostics.
Expert Groups: HEDP

Recommendations
Support the development of laser-driven plasma sources of high energy photons andparticle beams
Important societal needs and fundamental science studies require a new generation of more
powerful, efficient, and compact sources of high energy photons and directed particle beams.
Plasmas are efficient sources of high energy photons ranging from the extreme ultraviolet to
gamma rays. They can be tailored to generate both bright coherent beams and powerfulincoherent radiation. Plasmas can also generate and accelerate particles to form particle beams
of unprecedented flux and energy. New laser technology for secondary sources should be
developed in a coordinated effort amongst agencies. Such sources could reach presently
un-obtainable parameters and open a path to new science and unique solutions to societal
needs.

43

Fusion Science and Technology
Fusion energy science is now sufficiently mature to warrant the mission to construct a fusion
pilot plant capable of the production of net electricity. The transition to a mission-driven programfor fusion energy is motivated by steady advances in plasma science, progress at major new
international facilities such as ITER and W7-X, rapid advancement in computational andmodeling capabilities, and burgeoning investment from private industry. Here we describe acommunity-driven plan to embrace exciting new research opportunities in fusion science andtechnology (FST) that are required to realize the goal of fusion energy. Throughout the CPP, thecontent for this chapter was primarily developed by community members through the Magnetic
Fusion Energy (MFE) and Fusion Science and Technology (FM&T) topical area activities withadditional contributions from the High Energy Density Physics (HEDP) topical area. This planreflects the strong agreement among the community that research in this area should be driven
by the mission to enable economically competitive fusion energy in the United States, in order toaddress the urgent issues of energy sustainability and security. The recommendations madehere are broadly consistent with the recent National Academies Burning Plasmas report, and we
support the recommendations of that report for the U.S. to remain a partner in ITER and to
begin a science and technology program leading to the construction of a fusion pilot plant (FPP)
that would operate as early as the 2040s. The community recognizes that significant additional
investment in fusion materials and technology is needed, as these areas are relatively
under-developed, apply to nearly any plausible FPP design, and likely set the timescale onwhich any FPP could be successful. We recommend establishing a multi-institutional,
multidisciplinary program for exploring FPP designs, together with industry, to drive andintegrate the latest scientific innovations, identify the critical cost drivers of an FPP, and informresearch priorities accordingly (FST-PR-A).
Our research plan for FST is driven by three major themes we call Science Drivers (SDs): 1)
Control, Sustain, and Predict Burning Plasmas; 2) Handle Reactor-Relevant Conditions; and 3)
Harness Fusion Energy. Each Science Driver represents a unique area of scientific inquiry, butthey are interlinked, and all three must be accomplished to achieve fusion energy. In thisstrategic plan for FST, we have identified eight Strategic Objectives (SO) and five FST Program
Recommendations (PR) that each relate to one or more of the Science Drivers. Among theseobjectives and recommendations, the community identified four research areas to be of highest
priority. Expanded research and development efforts are required to develop plasma-facing
components capable of withstanding reactor-relevant conditions (FST-SO-A) and structural andfunctional materials that can withstand FPP neutron fluxes (FST-SO-B). Additionally, blanket
and tritium technology should be aggressively pursued (FST-SO-C). Increased emphasis inthese areas of fusion technology must also be accompanied by a robust research program thatallows for the completion of the tokamak physics basis (FST-SO-D) and the realization of
FPP-relevant plasma conditions.

44

Remaining a full partner in ITER remains the best option for U.S. participation in aburning-plasma experiment (FST-PR-B). New initiatives by private interests to achieve burning
plasmas also hold great promise, although with greater risk, and have galvanized a newgeneration of scientists and engineers. The U.S. fusion program should embrace these
initiatives and seek to support and utilize new private facilities to advance fusion science andtechnology, where possible (FST-PR-C, FST-SO-H.4).
However, ITER and other planned/existing facilities will not be able to fully address the high heat
flux and neutron fluence conditions that will be present in a fusion power plant. To addressthese areas and enable the design of a pilot plant that projects to an economically viable fusion
power plant, new programs and facilities will be needed. The highest priority new facilities
needed for rapid progress towards an FPP are a fusion prototypic neutron source (FST-SO-B.2)
and a high-power-density tokamak facility for developing and testing divertor solutions(FST-SO-D.2). In parallel to these facilities, targeted investments should be made in programs
to provide critical new research capabilities and enhance U.S. leadership. This includes
expanding programs to develop suitable materials for FPP-relevant plasma facing components(FST-SO-A), including completing and operating MPEX, and to advance the science andtechnology required for functional fusion blankets (FST-SO-C). These programs are needed todevelop solutions that are critically important to most fusion reactor concepts.
Confinement is known to be a primary driver of the cost of an FPP, and many importantquestions regarding confinement physics remain. While tokamaks currently represent theleading candidate for an FPP, a robust program is needed to complete the tokamak physics
basis for an FPP, utilizing ITER, DIII-D, NSTX-U, and other domestic and international facilities(FST-SO-D). Examples of critical issues that need to be resolved include disruptions, power
handling, sustainment, and core-edge integration. In parallel, the success of W7X andsignificant recent advances in theory and modeling capabilities motivate the design andvalidation of innovative quasisymmetric stellarator concepts, which represent an area of U.S.
leadership (FST-SO-E) and could offer an attractive path to an FPP. This should be done inaddition to a renewed program to develop select alternative MFE confinement concepts(FST-SO-H.3). The U.S. currently has a significant world lead in Inertial Confinement Fusion
due to the large investment by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Thisshould be leveraged to build an Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) program that offers a distinctly
different and potentially attractive path to fusion energy (FST-SO-H.1-2). When determining
support for alternative confinement concepts, scientific and technical feasibility of the concept asa pilot plant, as well as potential to reduce the cost of a fusion pilot plant, should be major
considerations.
The U.S. fusion program must distinguish itself from those of its international partners byfocusing on developing scientific and technological solutions that will enable fusion energy thatis economically viable in the U.S. market. The commercialization of fusion power will require
licensing of plants, and these activities must start immediately and connect with the design of an
FPP (FST-SO-G). Our program should encourage and prioritize innovations that have the45potential to substantially lower the cost or accelerate the realization of fusion power (FST-SO-F),
while closely engaging with industry to develop promising technologies at lower cost. Researchshould be broadly based to allow for the exploration and utilization of new, potentiallytransformative technologies that could allow us to reach our vision more quickly.
Rapid scientific and technological innovation will require new programs and facilities. 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 fromexisting 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 such transition must be
mindful of the workforce needs and impacts associated with diverting operations budgets toconstruction.
To better understand the views of the community on the prioritization of elements within thisplan, a prioritization assessment exercise was performed at the CPP-Houston workshop.
Building off of the format of the MFE+FM&T Knoxville workshop, presentations, small groupbreakout discussions, reporting back, and eventually polling were all used to gauge thecommunity’s prioritization of 23 FST program elements. These elements, which map directly to
one or more of the recommendations within this strategic plan, were assessed by CPP-Houston
attendees against the criteria of importance to mission, urgency, impact of investment, using
innovation to lower cost, and U.S. leadership and uniqueness. Ordering of the Strategic
Objectives within this report is meant to reflect the rough prioritization of the Objectives captured
through community input and discussion at the MFE+FM&T Knoxville and CPP-Houston
workshops. It is important to note that this ordering does not imply that all recommendations inStrategic Objective-A are higher priority than the recommendations in all other Strategic
Objectives. A detailed description of the polling and prioritization processes, a map of the
program elements to recommendations in this report, charts summarizing the polling of the FST
program elements, and a discussion on the robustness of the polling results can be found in
Appendix A.

Vision Statement
Our vision is for fusion energy to be a major source of safe, economical, and environmentally
sustainable energy in time to address critical energy and security needs of the U.S. and theworld.

Mission Statement
Establish the basis for the commercialization of fusion energy in the U.S. by developing theinnovative science and technology needed to accelerate the construction of a fusion pilot plantat low capital cost.
46

Definition of a Fusion Pilot Plant
The following three deliverables are likely required to demonstrate that fusion has the potential
to be a safe, economical energy source in the U.S., and therefore define the minimum mission
scope for a fusion pilot plant (FPP).
These deliverables are consistent with therecommendations of the 2018 National Academies report.
● Produce net electricity from fusion● Establish the capability of high average power output● Demonstrate the safe production and handling of the tritium, as well as the feasibility of aclosed fuel cycle

ValuesThe Strategic Plan reflects our values:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Prioritize research most important to the FPP Mission
Act with Urgency to address energy security and sustainability
Embrace a Culture of Innovation and Diversity
Maintain Flexibility to benefit from innovation
Establish a firm Scientific Basis
Aspire to U.S. Leadership
Build and strengthen International Collaboration where beneficial
Engage All Stakeholders, including Labs, Universities, and Industry

Science Drivers
The objectives and their associated recommendations in the strategic plan for Fusion Scienceand Technology are driven by underlying scientific questions that are encapsulated in a set ofthree overarching “Science Drivers” (SDs):
1. Control, Sustain, and Predict Burning Plasmas
2. Handle Reactor Relevant Conditions
3. Harness Fusion PowerIn the subsequent sections outlining the Objectives of this Strategic Plan, an explicit linkage isprovided that connects the Objective back to the relevant Science Driver(s). The description ofeach of the Science Drivers follows.

SD1: Control, Sustain, and Predict Burning Plasmas
A critical need in the quest for fusion energy production is the ability to control and sustain aburning plasma. This requires establishing scenarios for maintaining high performance in aburning regime and preventing damage associated with transient events, through the47

development of tools to predict, avoid, and mitigate such events. Burning plasmas, in which
the heating is primarily due to the energy released from fusion reactions, pose challenges tostability and control that are not fully accessible by present experiments and for which significant
uncertainty exists.
Therefore, projecting to this regime with confidence requires thedevelopment of theory and modeling tools, carefully validated against experiments, that arecapable of predicting all the important aspects of plasma behavior, using both reduced models
and integrated simulations spanning alpha particle physics, transport and confinement, stability,
boundary layer physics, and plasma material interactions. This also requires making advancesin diagnostic techniques to measure the relevant plasma quantities with the needed spatial andtemporal resolution, which must be robust in a burning plasma environment and have long-term
survivability (SD2: Handle Reactor Relevant Conditions). The plasma is the energy source in afusion reactor, so it must be integrated with all the support systems and ex-vessel components
in order to Harness Fusion Power (SD3).

SD2: Handle Reactor Relevant Conditions
A fusion pilot plant will produce heat, particle, and neutron fluxes that significantly exceed thosein present confinement facilities, and new innovative approaches to overcoming this challenge
are required. These intense conditions affect all regions of the device in distinct ways, including
the plasma-facing components (PFCs), structural materials, functional materials, magnet
materials, diagnostic materials, and ex-vessel components. For the plasma facing components,
solutions must combine advancements in plasma physics and improvements in a material’s
ability to withstand the sustained heat and particle fluxes of an FPP. This should be recognized
as a shared burden between science and technology, benefiting from an integrated strategy thatdevelops and tests multiple approaches. Critical physics gaps include finding solutions forcontrollable, detached divertors; establishing a predictive understanding of divertor heat loads;
developing methods to accommodate or avoid damaging edge transients; and understanding
SOL transport and material migration. These are all necessary steps to developing the linked
requirements for in-vessel components such as radio-frequency (RF) antennas and first walland divertor PFCs. Many of these engineering and design issues are independent ofconfinement concept, and progress can be made with dedicated test stands and exposure
facilities, coupled with advancements in theory and modeling.
In a fusion pilot plant, high fluxes of 14 MeV neutrons produce unique effects in materials which
are presently poorly understood. A scientific understanding of how materials properties evolveand degrade as a function of neutron energy and fluence is needed to be able to safely predict
the behavior of materials in fusion reactors. Even those components not directly exposed tohigh fluxes of neutrons may be affected by secondary aspects including gamma rays, decay
heat, or radioactive dust that are generally not a concern for surrounding systems in today’s
experimental reactors. Additionally the effects of corrosion, material compatibility, joints, andtritium trapping must be understood in order to construct a fusion pilot plant. Consideration forthe manufacturing tolerances, maintenance, repair and lifetime, including disposal, need to beconsidered at an early stage. Demonstration solutions for Handling Reactor Relevant

48Conditions (SD2) must both ensure sufficient survival of PFCs and integrate near-edge plasma
conditions that allow for a Controlled, Sustained Burning Plasma core (SD1), which ultimately
requires dedicated confinement facilities to validate integrated modeling and simulation. All thematerials in the device must withstand the intense conditions, while having tritium retention
levels compatible with techniques to Harness Fusion Power (SD3).

SD3: Harness Fusion PowerInterlinked with a burning plasma and materials that can withstand fusion reactor conditions are
all the key systems required to capture the power, breed fuel, and ensure the safe operation of
the reactor. Before a device is constructed, materials and components must be qualified, and asystem design must ensure the compatibility of all components. Just as the plasma andmaterials in a fusion reactor will need to advance beyond today’s capabilities, the balance ofplant equipment, remote handling, tritium breeding, and safety systems will also requiresignificant advances. Connected to all of these systems will be the measurement anddiagnostic systems needed to ensure the safe operation of the device and safe work
environment for the site personnel, including surveillance program for materials, stress andmotion detectors for components, tritium detectors, and radiation detectors. All the systems in areactor must work in concert with each other, so all the systems needed to Harness Fusion
Power must help achieve SD1 to Control, Sustain, and Predict Burning Plasmas. Additionally,
the systems for breeding and extracting tritium, the detectors and safety systems, the power
conversion systems, and all other components will be exposed to harsh conditions including
fusion neutrons, high temperatures, corrosive media, and more, so all these components of thereactor must also be designed to accomplish SD2: Handle Reactor Relevant Conditions.

Strategic Objectives and Recommendations
FST Strategic Objective A: Demonstrate solutions for managing high heatand particle loads sufficient to design plasma-facing components (PFCs)
for a fusion pilot plant
The unmitigated power and particle exhaust expected in a fusion pilot plant cannot be sustainedby present materials used in confinement devices.
Presently operating or planned
non-confinement facilities can recreate heat and particle fluxes prototypical of mitigated levels
expected for FPP scenarios, allowing for off-line development of candidate materials sufficient
to warrant testing in existing or future confinement devices. This work should be complemented
by developing a validated predictive modeling capability to assist in identifying PFC solutions
that extrapolate to a fusion pilot plant. The research described below will advance thetechnological readiness level (TRL) of actively cooled solid PFCs, the present leading
candidate, to the point where they could be chosen for use in an FPP design. In parallel, R&D
will be pursued to raise the TRL of liquid metal (LM) PFC approaches that may provide an49alternate PFC solution for an FPP. A decision point to proceed with either solid PFCs or LM
PFCs for the baseline operational phase of an FPP is targeted to occur between the conceptualand detailed FPP design stages (as determined by design studies described in FST-PR-A) anddrives the need for a continuous and staged research and development program of bothconcepts in the near-term. Figure FST-SO-A.1 illustrates the staging of these research tasks.
The research described in this Strategic Objective was recognized by the community as
amongst the highest priorities for the development of an FPP throughout the community
planning process. The development of PFCs is a key element for the FPP Mission and is anurgent task as the timeline to develop and qualify materials has historically been long.
Furthermore, given the potential for materials to last longer (and/or be replaced quickly) and becompatible with a higher fusion power density (and therefore directly impact plant size andcapital costs), it seems clear that the FST-SO-A challenges are of the highest priority for moving
towards an FPP design.

Figure FST-SO-A.1: Linkage diagram for FST-SO-A
Relation to Science Drivers:
Handle Reactor Relevant Conditions: The achievement of a self-heated burning plasma within
an FPP inherently results in the generation of a significant flux of unburned fusion fuel, helium
fusion ash, and intense heat flux that impinge on the PFCs. The PFC system, comprised of thefirst wall (FW), divertor target, and radio-frequency (RF) antenna protective structures, must be
designed to withstand these fluxes and operate for an extended period of time without failure
while also being bombarded by the energetic neutrons produced by the fusion reactions. The
PFC system will face extreme challenges in an FPP, including heat transfer and removal,

50

material damage and transmutation due to plasma and neutron irradiation, tritium fuel retention
leading to possible concerns of inventory control, safety, and self-sufficiency, remote
maintenance and repair. The PFC system is also intimately linked to the structural andfunctional materials that support them, the blanket system that allows the fusion energy to beharnessed for useful purposes, and the radio-frequency launchers that heat the plasma andhelp control plasma currents. The FST-SO-A as described below provides a staged
science-based R&D program organized around four (4) tasks that can lead to a PFC systemthat enables the future development of a credible FPP design.
Expert Groups: FM&T-Plasma Material Interaction and High Heat Flux; FM&T-Fusion
Materials; MFE-Boundary and Divertor Plasma Physics; Plasma and Material Interaction;
FM&T-Measurements and Diagnostics; FM&T - Magnets and Technology
1. Improve our understanding of plasma material interactions in solid materials at
FPP relevant conditions and demonstrate new actively cooled solid-material PFC
solutionsThis task can be addressed in the near-term by upgrades to existing linear plasma
exposure devices (e.g. TPE, PISCES, etc.) and by the completion of the MPEX device inthe mid-2020s. These linear plasma devices need to be used to study PMI in
plasma-facing armor materials under combined high plasma-ion flux irradiation, highheat flux, and neutron irradiation (or energetic ion beams as a neutron surrogate) at
FPP-relevant material temperatures. These experiments will then provide insight into
the impact these multi-effect processes have on the critical FPP issues of tritium
retention and inventory, Tritium Breeding Ratio (TBR), and plasma-facing armor material
property degradation (FST-SO-B). In parallel, the performance limits of the actively
cooled PFC system comprised of plasma facing armor, actively cooled substrate andarmor/substrate joining technology under high heat flux with FPP-relevant cooling isneeded to enable prototyping of actively cooled solid-PFC component designs. The
latter issues require the design and deployment of a dedicated non-plasma high heat
flux test stand, extended to include a He gas cooling capability, that can test component
level PFC designs by the mid-2020s to inform a decision point by mid-2030s on solid
PFCs for an FPP.
Demonstration of an adequate PFC system lifetime and exploration of the influence on
FPP confinement scenarios are also critical issues that require a dedicated research
effort. Given the limited information on material migration and slag management
provided by linear plasma experiments, this issue requires targeted experiments on
existing confinement devices. Experiments in confinement devices can determine firstwall (FW) charge-exchange (CX) neutral flux, composition, and energy spectrum; ion
flux to the FW; and the resulting FW erosion rates and resulting
redeposition/co-deposition occurring elsewhere. When coupled with mapping of lowand high-Z impurity transport, redeposition, co-deposition, and material migration rates

51

in FPP-relevant plasma exhaust scenarios, these experiments will permit validation ofmaterial migration models (FST-SO-D.5, FST-SO-E). These models will then allow
predictions of FW and divertor lifetimes, in-vessel fuel inventory evolution, and impact on
tritium self-sufficiency.
The next generation of confinement devices either proposed as part of this CPP process
or now nearing operation will also be valuable platforms to evaluate the performance of
PFCs. For example, NTUF, which is likely to start operations with solid PFCs, will allow
exposure of divertor materials to, and integration of components with, high power load
operation. When and if off-line tests are successful, NTUF could allow for testing of firstwall material candidates, integration of/with gas cooled components and hot wallconcepts. This experience will be essential to demonstrating the viability of solid PFCs
for an FPP (PMI-HHF EG Strategic Block). However, testing of actively cooled PFC
technologies in this platform will be limited if a short-pulse NTUF concept is pursued.
Future facilities will also serve as platforms for research into material migration and slag
management, but again will be limited to lower fluences. Overall, NTUF will have a
critical role to play in PFC research, and the specific testing capabilities will be
determined as the NTUF design is advanced.
In addition to developing domestic capabilities, the U.S. should continue existing
international collaborations that provide access to facilities with different capabilities,
such as higher fluxes (e.g. MAGNUM-PSI) that can better mimic the conditions expected
near the strike-point at the divertor. The community is also aware of new international
facilities that may come on-line in the near-future and that can complement the domestic
program (e.g. JUDITH2). Gas cooling and related technology, such as using He andoperating confinement devices with hot walls, is also an area where the U.S. has had,and could reclaim, leadership. Many international partners are ramping down theirresearch in this area and focusing their efforts in water cooling instead. World-wide,
experimental facilities that look into gas cooling systems exist, but either run at lower
pressures (e.g. at KIT) or lower temperatures (in Korea) than what the community has
identified as necessary for the FPP mission. Other ideas for cooling technologies andcoolant materials do exist, mainly in the context of blanket research (FST-SO-C).
As these material and PFC studies mature and are used to validate predictive models for
PFC performance, it will be necessary to use these results to advance the readiness ofan actively cooled solid PFC divertor and FW for an FPP, targeting He-gas cooled
designs as a potential area for U.S. leadership. First steps towards this goal can becompleted through the use of the test stands mentioned above combined withexperiments on international linear plasma test stands. Looking beyond such work,
collaborations should be pursued on long-pulse confinement devices, both stellarators(FST-SO-E.3) and tokamaks (FST-SO-D.5) located in the E.U. and in Asia, to provide
opportunities for U.S. teams to contribute in areas like PFC material development,
diagnostics, design/modeling support, and component manufacturing in partnership with52

U.S. industry. In areas where collaborations provide limited experience, high-heat flux
test stands and plasma exposure facilities can be used in conjunction with detailed
engineering design studies and remote handling tests to raise the TRL of actively cooled
PFC systems on a timeline consistent with FPP scoping studies (FST-PR-A).
Finally, recognizing that it is unlikely that existing materials will provide adequate PFC
system performance, it is imperative to initiate and sustain a program for thedevelopment of new, innovative solid materials that will form the basis of the solid firstwall armor, solid divertor targets and the liquid metal PFC substrates through techniquessuch as advanced manufacturing, nano-engineered materials, material by design, virtualengineering, use developments from aerospace and other high heat flux applications,etc. (FST-SO-B.1) As computational techniques such as machine learning become
more easily available, accessible, and efficient, many of these innovative approaches
also become applicable to a wider range of fields. Historically, both within and outsidefusion program research activities, innovation and computational material research havebeen areas of U.S. leadership. The PFC development program presented here would
allow the fusion program to take advantage of these strengths and thereby maintain thisleadership, and in general push for a greater role of the U.S. in world-wide PFC
research.
2. Improve the readiness of liquid metal (LM) plasma facing materials and testslow-flow and/or fast-flow PFC concepts on confinement facilities
This near-term recommendation is composed of several research tasks. First, it isrecommended to use existing and proposed domestic non-plasma LM test-stands (e.g.
LMX, FLIT, etc.) and small-scale plasma experiments (LTX-𝛽, HIDRA) to determine therelevant LM properties and behaviors needed to inform design of PFCs in confinement
device experiments. These properties and issues include (but are not limited to) the
effect of plasma exposure on LMs; free-surface flow stability of LMs in relevant magnetic
field geometries; LM-substrate interactions such as corrosion/erosion in the presence ofplasma, high temperature, and irradiation; LM evaporation, and other loss mechanisms;
and tritium retention and removal in LM PFC candidates. Second, these results need to
be used to predict losses from the LM at FPP relevant FW temperature; LM vapor
penetration into the divertor and main plasma chamber; and impacts on plasma
operations, plasma performance, and machine safety using a combination of small-scale
experiments and initial models. In parallel with these domestically-focused efforts, theprogram should support collaborations with teams investigating LM PFCs oninternational confinement devices, linear plasma facilities and test stands. Further
information on the biggest challenges that LMs face as PFCs, as well as the properties
most important to investigate for this role, can be found the results of previous studies(e.g. FESS) and in the Strategic Block of the PMI-HHF Expert Group. The resolution of
key LM science questions is essential to determine feasibility of LMs as an alternative tosolid PFCs in a timely manner.

53

If the results of these studies show that LM PFCs still appear to be a promising alternate
approach to solving the PFC challenge, then the community should carry out an upgrade
to an existing domestic confinement facility to use LM PFCs, targeting NSTX-U(FST-SO-D.3). In concert with such a confinement experiment, theory and modelingprograms should be expanded to complement this effort and develop a predictive
capability for the self-consistent impact of LM-based PFCs on plasma confinement and,at the same time, predicting the evolution of the LM properties as a result of the plasmainteraction. These studies should be prioritized to generate the information necessary to
determine if LM PFCs will be viable in an FPP. Based on the results of the above LM
PFC R&D effort along with the identified performance limits of solid-material PFCs, a LM
PFC upgrade could be considered for NTUF to provide the necessary FPP design
validation data.
Overall, liquid metal PFC research has been an area of U.S. leadership. There is atenuous basis for this leadership in fast flowing systems that has been acquired via
collaboration with FLiLi system implemented in EAST. However, capillary porous
systems—first developed in Russia—are being incorporated into European confinement
experiments (e.g. FTU and TJ-II). Therefore, despite collaborations with international
facilities (e.g. MAGNUM), and with U.S. expertise being tapped internationally (e.g. by
the COMPASS-U and, potentially, ST40 teams), this leadership is now at risk forslow-flow systems. Successful completion of the roadmap recommended here would
allow the U.S. to regain and then maintain its leadership.
3. Advance the integration of full-physics and reduced material models andedge/divertor plasma models to permit validated prediction of PFC performance
under FPP conditions, in coordination with FST-PR-A.2
In parallel to the above activities, it is crucial to continue to advance and validate themulti-physics, multi-scale theory and modeling capabilities (FST-PR-D.2) necessary tosupport this R&D plan by comparison with single-effect and multi-effect PMI
experiments. In particular, it will be important to be able to predict armor material
evolution under simultaneous plasma and energetic neutron irradiation—including
near-surface morphology, bulk material transmutation and defect production andevolution—and effects on material properties, fuel retention, diffusion and trapping, allwhile operating at high temperature and under high mechanical stresses. Furthermore,
it will be key to develop predictive models of FW and divertor erosion, redeposition,
co-deposition and material migration coupled together with the concomitantedge/SOL/divertor plasma conditions and then validate against dedicated experimentson confinement devices. The resulting validated models will then be used to project
performance of the PFC system under FPP conditions and, ultimately, to make adetermination of the risks and benefits of choosing a solid-material PFC vs. LM PFC
design for the FPP. This effort will require leadership-class computing and advanced54

algorithms to enable use of these models in FPP design efforts. This should be
supported, for example, through including this as a topical area in regular open SciDAC
calls.
The community recognizes that theory and modeling are areas of high impact ofinvestment.
For instance, in areas such as development of new materials,
computational research coupled with and guiding experiments can be significantly morecost effective than purely experimental development.
Furthermore, modeling ofmaterials and plasma-material interactions is recognized by the community as an area ofcurrent U.S. leadership, especially for large scale models and integrated systems, andthat we should strive to maintain.
4. Develop and deploy in situ and ex situ materials characterization tools in bothoff-line test stands and plasma simulators as well as in confinement experiments
to permit more rapid evaluation of PFC system performance and behaviors(FST-PR-F.1)
The most important and impactful in situ and in operando (i.e. while plasma is operating,also called ‘real-time’) PMI diagnostic capability needs include developing the ability tocharacterize material properties such as surface composition and morphology evolution,
heat transfer properties of bulk solid materials and liquid flow (either LM or coolant), andmechanical properties of solid PFC and LM substrate materials under single-effect (e.g.
plasma exposure, high heat flux, or displacement damage) and multi-effect (e.g. plasma
exposure with high heat flux and displacement damage) conditions. Such work in bothoff-line PFC testing facilities and confinement facilities will accelerate the rate ofdiscovery and lead to the development of detailed understanding of the underlying PMI
science and of the implications on PFC performance. Furthermore, improving existing
post mortem materials analysis tools and incorporating capabilities onto existing major
fusion facilities to track surface composition and structure evolution dynamically in situ (ifpossible), would also have high impact. Finally, linking such surface and materials
diagnostics with plasma measurements of e.g. main plasma edge/SOL density,
temperature and flow velocities; impurity atom and ion composition, distribution, flows
and transport processes and with measurements of material erosion, redeposition andco-deposition, and material transport would lead to the ability to quantitatively validate
models and predict these processes that are critical to PFC system performance.
The U.S. currently leads the world effort to develop in situ, “real time” PMI diagnostics. A
strong and focused program will not only allow to maintain the leadership in this area of
innovation, but also greatly contribute to leadership in PMI research.

55

FST Strategic Objective B: Determine the structural and functional
materials that will survive under fusion reactor conditions
The scientific understanding of materials degradation under fusion conditions must be
advanced, and materials must be developed to withstand the harsh operating conditions, inorder to successfully design, license, and operate any fusion pilot plant, independent ofconfinement concept. Many of the conditions are orders of magnitude more extreme in an FPP
than in today’s fusion experiments and fission reactors. Key parameters include the neutronenergy spectrum, neutron flux and fluence, He and H transmutation, operating temperature,
particle flux, heat flux, corrosion effects, stress, and magnetic field. All in-vessel and ex-vessel
structural and functional materials need to be designed to handle their respective reactor
conditions. Functional materials include those for breeding tritium (breeder material, neutron
multiplier, tritium permeation barrier coating), flow channel inserts, materials for diagnostics, etc.
Programs are needed to develop the high temperature structural materials design criteria and tosupport the licensing of a reactor, which will require new experiments or facilities. There are
numerous opportunities to innovate in materials to allow advanced pilot plant designs, such asadditive manufacturing, modern computational materials science, and machine learning. At thisstage, the advances that can be made in materials will benefit all confinement concepts of an
FPP including magnetic fusion energy (MFE) and inertial fusion energy (IFE).
The
recommendations to accomplish this strategic objective are to test and develop materials,
conduct fission and fusion neutron irradiations of materials, and develop high temperature
structural design criteria. These activities must coordinate with the FPP design exploration(FST-PR-A) and the licensing and remote maintenance strategy (FST-SO-G).

56

Figure FST-SO-B.1: Linkage diagram for FST-SO-B
Relation to Science Drivers:
Handle Reactor Relevant Conditions: Today’s materials cannot survive for long in the harshenvironment expected for an FPP. In an FPP, structural and functional materials must survive
several orders of magnitude higher fluence of fusion neutrons and particles than in today’s
devices. Material solutions must be discovered to realize an FPP.
Expert Groups: MFE-Boundary and Plasma and Material Interaction; FM&T-Fusion Materials;
FM&T-Blanket, Tritium, and Systems; FM&T-Plasma Material Interaction and High Heat Flux;
FM&T-Measurements and Diagnostics
1. Expand the fusion materials program to develop structural and functional
materials that will survive the conditions in a fusion reactor
Innovative solutions for structural and functional materials are needed to realize an FPP.
Material degradation is caused by neutron irradiation, coolant corrosion, hightemperature, and helium and tritium embrittlement. In addition, the effect of neutron
irradiation on tritium permeation and retention in structural materials and plasma facing
components need to be considered. Compact FPP designs, which might be more
economically attractive, require developing materials that can withstand higher neutron
fluxes and fluences. This recommendation encompases experiment, theory, andsimulation needed to find such solutions. Examples of opportunities for innovation
include, but are not limited to: development of innovative materials; development ofadvanced manufacturing capability for fusion materials including novel geometries,
joining dissimilar materials, and integrating diagnostics; utilization of modern materials
science methods including computational materials discovery to design innovative alloys
and composites; and utilization of machine learning techniques to enhance radiation
damage characterization, simulations, and materials design. This program is urgently
needed because it will inform the design of key multiple-effects fusion technology andenergy facilities including the blanket component test facility (BCTF) described in(FST-SO-C.5), volumetric neutron source (VNS) described in (FST-SO-C.6 and
FST-SO-B.4), and an FPP.
2. Immediately design, construct, and operate a Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source(FPNS)The energy spectrum of fusion neutrons is significantly different than that of fission
neutrons. Consequently, the effects of atomic displacement damage, solid transmutation
products, and helium gas production on material performance and degradation are
distinctly different between fusion and fission radiation environments. Current progressof fusion materials research is inhibited by the lack of a suitable D-T fusion neutron
source anywhere in the world. The fusion materials community evaluated this need57

through a workshop in 2018 and determined the base requirements of such a facility
include a damage dose rate > 10 dpa/year and helium-to-damage ratio of ~10 appm/dpa
in reference ferritic/martensitic steels. The details of the community findings are in theworkshop report [FPNS 2019]. An FPNS is intended for studying fundamental propertiesof materials which can be achieved with a small irradiation volume of ~50 cc; it is notintended for obtaining engineering data. There are several viable candidates for
producing fusion neutrons for an FPNS. The detailed design should begin immediately
to allow for operation in approximately 5 years. An FPNS would help downselectmaterials for an FPP. Additionally, an FPNS can further research objectives for blanket
and tritium science. Results from FPNS experiments can be used to validate theory andsimulation. The proposed FPNS facility would differ from international facilities, including
IFMIF-DONES, by being operational on a shorter timescale at significantly lower capital
cost and thus enabling a more aggressive timeline for an FPP. Operation of this device
would position the U.S. as a world leader in fusion materials testing. In addition to datacollection from FPNS, which will focus on small scientific sized samples (not engineeringdata) and single effects, there will be a need for integrated volumetric neutron testing.
The strategy for such tests is discussed in FST-SO-C.6.
3. Carry out in-pile fission irradiation testing of fusion relevant materials
Lacking fusion irradiation facilities, we currently rely on irradiation testing using fission
reactors to build an understanding of how fusion-relevant material properties vary as afunction of neutron energy, dose rate, solid transmutation rate, and gas transmutation
rate. Spectral tailoring of a mixed energy spectrum neutron irradiation by thermal
neutron shielding can be done, in order to approximate the fusion neutron spectrum. In
addition, fast neutron irradiations can be relevant for large areas of a fusion reactor thatare farther away from the first wall. Therefore, while the complete understanding of thefusion neutron irradiation effects on structural materials can only be addressed withfusion neutron environments (including the FPNS and future burning plasma
environments), the need for in-pile neutron irradiation will remain essential. In-pile
irradiation may also be useful for blanket component mockup testing (FST-SO-C) given
the large volume of irradiation that is available as compared to FPNS. Nevertheless,given that material damage, transmutation, and gas production in a fusion environment
is different from that in fission, experimental results from in-pile fission irradiation testingneed to be closely coupled with modeling for predicting material behavior in fusion
environments. In the near term, this recommendation would provide the ability todownselect candidate materials for further study using a FPNS. Research is alreadyexisting in this area and can be expanded immediately without the need for new
facilities. The U.S. is already a leader in this area and should continue ongoinginternational collaborations in this area, for example those with Japan and the E.U.

58

4. Develop high-temperature nuclear structural design (HTNSD) criteria that builds
on the ITER Structural Design Criteria (ISDC)
Fusion design criteria will be significantly different and more complex than those used forfission reactors or ITER, and thus need a suitable design methodology. These
differences include transmutations, unique components, gradients in solid structures,
unique safety concern factors, complexity of material systems, and operating
temperatures. Therefore, in order to design an FPP, it is necessary to develop HTNSD
criteria, related to creep, fatigue, and corrosion behavior of structural materials. Today,
the U.S. has not established HTNSD criteria for designing an FPP, and no such effort
exists internationally. This recommendation is also particularly critical for design
qualification and licensing purposes of an FPP, which both require a long-term effort. To
prevent delay on the FPP licensing, this recommendation should begin in the near term
and in parallel with other activities. Data collected in recommendations FST-SO-B.1, 2,
and 3 is input for the HTNSD criteria, and the development of the HTNSD criteria would
also iteratively feedback to guide activities in those recommendations.
This
recommendation should build on the ITER structural design criteria (ISDC) and leverage
opportunities with “Generation IV” fission reactor R&D.
5. Initiate a near term activity that determines the strategy for a cryogenic neutron
irradiation experiment for magnet materials (FST-SO-F)
High field and high temperature superconducting magnets represent a breakthroughtechnology that could lead to a compact FPP. The development and unirradiated testingof superconductor magnets is detailed in FST-SO-F. Superconductor performance isstrongly dependent on the quality of the crystal structure and radiation damage will
determine the service lifetime and economics of the superconducting magnets.
Currently, using existing fission irradiation facilities, magnet materials can be neutron
irradiated at ambient or higher temperatures to start to understand their behavior underirradiation. However, superconductors’ response to neutrons while at their typicaloperating temperature will be significantly different than their behavior during hightemperature irradiation, but very little data on cryogenic irradiation properties ofsuperconductors exists. There are currently no facilities in operation in the world toirradiate superconductors at cryogenic temperatures, and there are no capabilities to test
superconductors during irradiation; these represent critical knowledge gaps to being able
to design and operate an FPP. The first step of this recommendation is to determine thestrategy for cryogenic neutron irradiation of superconducting materials, which could beaccomplished with a purpose build experiment in a fission facility or future fusion neutron
facility. The viability and cost of these options should be evaluated and one option
selected. Once the irradiation strategy is in place, this recommendation will establish thescientific understanding of superconducting magnet materials, joints, and insulation
under neutron irradiation at relevant service conditions.

59

6. Integrate the fusion pilot plant design (FST-PR-A) and materials development withthe remote maintenance equipment and strategy (FST-SO-G)
The behavior of components in a fusion reactor is complex and design-dependent,
requiring research into the critical design-dependent phenomena that might lead to
failure. Integration among FPP design, materials research, and remote maintenancestrategy is needed. Materials development will support the design studies. Near-term
initiation of FPP engineering design activities will provide useful prioritization andscheduling information for numerous fusion materials and technology R&D activities.
The current Fusion Energy System Studies program (e.g. ARIES, FNSF) are not robust
enough to inform materials prioritization and need to be expanded as recommended in
FST-PR-A.
Functional materials used in diagnostics and remote maintenanceequipment will need to be designed to handle the high doses and contamination, for thefusion core, near-core and any transportation route/cask, and the hot cell.

FST Strategic Objective C: Develop the science and technology necessary
to breed, extract, and safely manage large quantities of tritium
There is strong community consensus that a fusion pilot plant needs to demonstrate closure of
the tritium fuel cycle, i.e. demonstrate a tritium breeding ratio (TBR) greater than one. This
includes both the “inner” cycle of plasma fueling, exhaust, and reprocessing, and the “outer”
cycle of tritium breeding and extraction. Because of the inherently low burn fraction of tritium inthe plasma and the need to progress to high availability operation, the tritium throughput in the
inner cycle will greatly exceed any prior experiment. New technologies need to be developed tosupport such operation while minimizing the scale-up required of the tritium plant and theincreased tritium inventories that this implies.
Tritium breeding blanket technology is at a low TRL (~1-2). There is broad community
consensus that substantial increases in effort are necessary to advance tritium breeding blanket
technology, and significant risk associated with not doing so given the necessity for achieving
tritium self-sufficiency in an FPP. Some foundational developments are needed in advance ofintegrated design and testing of potential breeder blanket concepts. These include thedevelopment of different “functional” materials (lithium-bearing solids or liquids that breed
tritium) and compatible structural materials that will survive the fusion nuclear environment. As
soon as these have developed to the point at which a credible down-selection in blanket
concepts can be made, a campaign of progressively integral testing is required to achieve thehigh confidence in the operation of the blanket required for deployment in the FPP. This
includes large-scale non-nuclear component testing in a flexible Blanket Component Test
Facility (BCTF), potentially followed by nuclear testing in a Volumetric Neutron Source (VNS),
which would integrate the same effects but in a prototypic nuclear environment, anddemonstrate actual tritium breeding and extraction. The feasibility, cost, and schedule
associated with options for component-scale irradiation testing (ITER TBM, VNS, early FPP
operation, etc.) first need to be assessed. As the TRL is raised on these technologies, there

60

would be decision points for pursuing different types of blankets, tritium systems, and fuelingsystems that would be specific to design decisions for an FPP. However, in the near term, all
the below recommendations, except Recommendation 8 for pellet fueling, will equally benefit
any fusion concept including tokamaks, stellarators, inertial fusion energy, and alternate
concepts. Recommendation 8 would benefit both tokamaks and stellarators as well as
potentially other magnetic confinement concepts.

Figure FST-SO-C.1: Linkage diagram for FST-SO-C
Relation to Science Drivers:
Harness Fusion Power: This is the primary purpose of the blanket and tritium handling systems
that safely recover tritium and process it for use as fuel. In addition to its central role inproducing the tritium needed to fuel the fusion reactor, the blanket must also remove most of theenergy produced, and is therefore the heart of the power conversion system.
Handle Reactor Relevant Conditions: Along with the divertor, the blanket and integrated firstwall must survive the most difficult conditions of the fusion energy environment, including highincident heat and 14 MeV neutron fluxes. These create high temperature and stress gradientsin materials that are experiencing radiation damage at a high rate.
Expert Groups: FM&T-Blanket, Tritium, and Systems; FM&T-Fusion Materials; FM&T-Magnets
and Technology; FM&T-Measurements and Diagnostics

61

1. Initiate small-scale tests for a variety of functional breeder blanket materials toadvance blanket concept designs
Given the low development level of breeder concepts in the U.S., it is recommended thatmultiple breeder concepts be advanced in parallel until the knowledge base is sufficient
to make a down-selection between these; design constraints (e.g. for a compact device)
may facilitate an earlier decision. For solid breeders, innovative (e.g. advanced or
additively manufactured) porous ceramic designs should be pursued; for these, thecritical issues are identification of the optimal ceramic compound, fabrication, anddetermination of mechanical, heat transfer, and tritium retention properties. Irradiations
in a fission reactor will be required, or in FPNS (FST-SO-B.2) if spectral effects areimportant. For liquid breeders such as liquid metals or molten salts, in addition tomeasurement of the fundamental physical (including tritium transport) properties, thecritical issues are understanding magnetohydrodynamic flows in the presence of large
temperature gradients, and how these influence heat, tritium, and corrosion producttransport, for which the operation of forced convection loops will be required. Because
the blanket is also the heart of the power conversion system, blanket concepts that
support high temperature operation (and therefore high plant efficiencies) should be
pursued. Blanket material/concept development should also seek to minimize tritium
inventories and unwanted tritium permeation. While blanket concepts developed in the
U.S. will likely differ significantly from those developed internationally, collaborations
should be pursued where there are commonalities in the underlying materials andtransport phenomena.
2. Support testing of compatibility between breeder and structural materials required
for a viable integrated design
Existing candidate structural materials may have significant compatibility issues withsolid or liquid breeders at high temperature, which may be exacerbated by highmagnetic fields or high radiation environments, leading to erosion of structural materials,
transport of activated corrosion products, and reduced component lifetime. Compatibilityof blanket materials and related issues such as liquid metal embrittlement need to beinvestigated in small scale experiments, including natural convection loops.
Compatibility issues identified through such work should be mitigated via additional
materials development (FST-SO-B), with input on potential impacts on radioactive waste
generation and related safety issues (FST-SO-G).
3. Construct bench-scale experiments to test tritium extraction concepts andtransport in breeder and structural blanket materials
Tritium bred in the blanket must necessarily be extracted and re-used as fuel. Efficient
tritium extraction is necessary to reduce circulating tritium concentrations, which drive
unwanted tritium permeation. Lower tritium inventories therefore reduce reliance on
62permeation barriers or other mitigation systems, and so efficient extraction supports
tritium accountancy and safety in the FPP. The vacuum permeator is a leading concept
for fast-flowing liquid breeders; initial concept development requires that this and/or
other concepts be tested in a bench-scale forced convection loop to understand therelevant tritium transport phenomena. Such a facility can also be used to investigate
tritium retention and transport phenomena in solid breeder or structural materials.
Prototype extraction system development and testing in a BCTF and VNS or an in-pile
fission loop must follow to qualify the component for FPP operation.
4. Develop models and a multiphysics modeling capability to enable integrated
blanket designs
Computer modelling will play an increasingly important role in fusion design andtechnology, where the complexity of the physical processes involved, and the highlyinterconnected nature of systems and components call for support from sophisticatedand integrated computer simulation tools (FST-PR-D). Models for physical phenomena
critical to blanket design such as neutronics, structural mechanics, electromagnetics,
fluid dynamics, magnetohydrodynamics, heat transfer, tritium and corrosion producttransport, and radiochemistry, validated with data obtained in the preceding experiments,
need to be unified in a multiphysics modeling framework. This should facilitate “loose”
coupling where sufficient and “strong” coupling (parallel execution with continuous
multi-directional data transfer between codes) where necessary, and be capable of
exploiting high performance computing, necessary to meet the computational demands
imposed by complex geometries and phenomena such as high magnetic fields.
5. Design, construct, and operate a Blanket Component Test Facility (BCTF) to
perform non-nuclear testing of integral scale blanket components
As soon as it can be sufficiently informed by the fundamental blanket research outlined
above, work should begin on the design and construction of a BCTF, and on the design
and fabrication of blanket prototypes based on the selected concept(s) to be tested in
the facility with industry involvement. The purpose of the BCTF is to provide for large
component-scale testing in an environment that is as prototypic as possible without
neutrons or radioactive materials. Excluding the latter provides for a more flexible test
facility with greatly reduced safety consequences associated with component failures.
The facility should therefore integrate all non-nuclear features of a fusion nuclear facility
simultaneously in its operation, including the use of actual breeder/coolant fluids at
prototypic temperatures, pressures, and flow rates, surface and surrogate volumetricheating and associated large temperature and stress gradients, magnetic field, vacuum
conditions, coolant ancillary systems (heat exchangers, purification systems, etc.), andsimulated breeding by injection of hydrogen and helium (and subsequent extraction).
The facility should operate over long periods to simulate the lifetime expectations for theblanket in an FPP (e.g. 10 days pulses, with 0.5 day dwell, and a total service of 2.25
63

years). The facility will provide integral effect data that will additionally serve to validate
the multiphysics models recommended above for use in FPP blanket design.
6. Identify a strategy for component-scale irradiation testing, e.g. in a volumetric
neutron source (VNS), that fits within our timeline for the FPP
While most design evolution and integration issues should be resolved in the
non-nuclear Blanket Component Test Facility (BCTF), this will not reveal any integral
effects arising from the fusion radiation environment and the presence of tritium, andunknown such effects may arise more immediately than the anticipated long-termmaterial evolution due to radiation damage. Furthermore, volumetric heat and tritium
generation must be simulated in some way in the BCTF, and may differ in the trueradiation environment in important ways. Low fluence component-scale irradiation
testing will reveal design issues that were not revealed by the non-nuclear BCTF
environment. Additionally, information is ultimately needed about the long-term evolutionof materials in a high fluence environment as it impacts cost through availability. These
two mission needs could be accomplished in one or more facilities. Because of thesignificant risk associated with installing a blanket in the FPP without any knowledge ofsuch effects, a means for component-scale irradiation testing is highly desirable.
The ITER Test Blanket Module (TBM) program addresses the low-fluence mission forinternational programs, but the U.S. is not a member of the TBM program. Opportunities
for collaboration with other TBM partners should be explored, but we may need different
blanket concepts to accomplish a low cost FPP, and it appears unlikely that a U.S.-led
TBM could still be deployed in ITER. TBM data is not openly available to partners in theway ITER data is, and furthermore it is unclear whether data could be obtained on atimeline consistent with our FPP. Regardless of interaction with ITER, the U.S. also
needs a strategy for high fluence evaluation of blanket components. A Volumetric
Neutron Source (VNS) could provide both low- and high-fluence component-scale
irradiation testing. Historically, VNS referred to a tokamak that demonstrated highfluence and high availability, but several alternate concepts have been proposed more
recently, including the gas dynamic trap, shear-stabilized Z-pinch, and beam target
fusion generator. Because there exists some uncertainty regarding the feasibility of suchalternate concepts and the cost and time required to develop them, it is recommended
that a near-term scoping activity be undertaken that would outline requirements forcomponent-scale irradiation testing (e.g. low vs. high fluence missions) and criticallyassess options (ITER TBM, VNS, early FPP operation, etc.) for achieving these.
7. Initiate bench-scale tests of plasma exhaust pumping technologies that enable
continuous operation and facilitate Direct Internal Recycling (DIR)
Because D-T burn fractions are inherently low, fuel has to circulate through the fuelingand exhaust systems many times before it is burned in the plasma. This combined with64

a need for continuous operation in an FPP implies an increased throughput in the tritium
plant, resulting in much larger tritium inventories. In order to reduce this, continuous
pumping systems should be pursued that can separate the D-T mix from other exhaustgases and send it directly to the fuel injectors, bypassing the tritium plant and isotope
separation systems. Such technologies include the super-permeable metal foil pump,which both pumps and separates hydrogen isotopes from other gases, as well as
continuous cryopumping, in concert with other means for removing impurities such asneon.
8. Advance pellet injection technology to meet the fueling and disruption mitigationneeds of a fusion pilot plant
Pellet injection technology has been demonstrated at the proof of principle level for D
pellet fueling. D-T pellet technology has been demonstrated by firing from an injector ina lab setting, but never deployed on a confinement device, and there are remaining
challenges to realizing reliable D-T pellet injection for long pulse operation. Shattered
Pellet Injection (SPI) was developed for the ITER Disruption Mitigation System (DMS)
and is being implemented on many machines to support the design of the system for
ITER. Significant further research is needed to improve the reactor implementation of
the technology. SPI disruption mitigation research should continue to include alternate
concepts such as those employing low-Z powders, and investigate the feasibility of highspeed systems needed for high time response systems. The above technologies should
be advanced through deployment in existing and future devices including ITER, W7-X,
JT-60SA, NTUF, I-DTT, and other international devices to support dedicated research[FST-SO-D.4].
9. Support other innovations in tritium processing technology that reduce the size,
cost, and tritium inventory of the tritium plant
An FPP will need to exhaust and process tritium at a rate one to two orders of magnitude
faster than anything that has been attempted previously and will require an enormous
amount of chemical processing equipment. It will also require continuous 24/7 operation
which also has not been attempted previously with tritium at this scale. If direct internal
recycling is not developed successfully due to the challenges associated with removing
impurities at such high processing rates, process intensification and ingenuity will be
required to reduce building footprint (capital cost) as well as process system holdup andinventory. Process intensification that closely couples heat and mass transport withchemical reaction has the potential to both increase throughput of the Thermal Cycling
Absorption Process (TCAP) isotope separation system and decrease its size.
Modifications to such systems that can accommodate the necessary high processing
rate should be pursued.

6510. Support innovation for measuring tritium inventory
Strict tritium management will be required for an FPP to meet regulatory controls andsite limits, ensure compliance with safety bases, and to maintain continuous facility
operation. Previous operational experience with tritium in fusion facilities has been
limited to TFTR and JET, where the total throughputs were on the order of 100 g. Tritium
accountability for these machines was laborious and had numerous difficulties, and in
the case of JET, led to restrictions of the D-T program. An FPP will have a tritium
throughput of several kilograms a day and will have the additional complexity of tritium
breeding. Thus, it is not possible or desirable to scale these accountability techniques to
an FPP. Similarly, ITER’s accountancy process will require the collection of all the tritium
into hydride beds for calorimetry, which is not feasible for a continuously operating pilot
plant. An ideal analytical method for tritium would be accurate (>99%), fast (seconds orless), in-line (no waste or cross-contamination), reliable and inexpensive – such atechnique does not currently exist. This presents a challenge to safety and licensing, but
it also limits tritium processing concepts. For example, the direct internal recycle process
will be constrained by the ability to quickly and accurately measure tritium concentrationsin the recycle loop. Techniques will be needed for measuring tritium concentrations inliquids such as PbLi, Li, or FLiBe.
11. Perform research and development for tritium permeation barriers and capture
technologies to significantly improve tritium confinement
Current state of the art technologies employed by ITER for confinement and tritium
cleanup will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take up large spaces (10K’s squarefeet). Also, currently ITER will be licensed to release up to 6000 curies per year for
normal operations and up to 18,000 curies for years in which open vessel maintenanceis required. Current known U.S. NRC limits are roughly two orders of magnitude below
these limits so significant progress is needed to ensure that an FPP can be affordable
and can meet emissions requirements to obtain a license. Tritium permeates allmaterials to various degrees, so advanced materials and confinement barriers are an
absolute necessity as the large components of the torus could accumulate a significant
tritium holdup, further increasing accident and safety basis consequence. Once itpermeates, tritium also has significant damaging effects on all classes of materials whichneeds to be further characterized for materials being considered for plasma facing
components. One method that has been suggested to reduce tritium permeation is theuse of barrier coatings. Materials such as SiC, Al, or other materials are known to have
low permeability to hydrogen isotopes and creating coatings of permeation barriers could
make a significant difference in tritium emissions. However, demonstration of uniform
coating methods as well as durability of the permeation barriers and materials in theoperating environment will be important to adopting that strategy.

6612. Develop a comprehensive plan to provide the start-up tritium inventory for a
Fusion Pilot Plant
While continued operations of an FPP will be fueled by tritium bred in the blanket, asignificant initial start-up inventory is needed that depends on the rates of fueling,
exhaust, breeding, extraction, processing, and retention in the machine. There is alimited non-defense related supply of tritium in the world, and by the time an FPP isready to start up there will be even less tritium available due to decay and use by ITER.
Perhaps 1 – 2 kg of tritium is needed, and this will be extremely expensive no matter
how it is obtained. A comprehensive plan needs to be developed to address a supply
chain for this tritium.

FST Strategic Objective D: Advance the tokamak physics basis sufficiently
to design a low cost fusion pilot plant
The Mission laid out in the strategic plan requires innovative new approaches to optimize thetokamak in order to reduce the capital cost of a fusion pilot plant. A number of gaps in thetokamak physics basis need to be closed in order to confidently design a tokamak FPP and toachieve this mission. These include advancing our understanding of energetic particles andburning plasma physics relevant to a high-fusion-gain FPP; transport and stability physics
needed to enable high-average-power output; and scrape-off-layer, divertor andplasma-material interaction physics required for a plasma exhaust solution in an FPP
environment. Critical issues must also be addressed to integrate improved understanding into
operational scenarios for an FPP. Achieving this objective requires a comprehensive,
multidisciplinary science program that uses existing and planned domestic and international
facilities, takes full advantage of our ITER partnership and leverages new opportunities throughprivate-public partnerships, increases confidence in validated theory and modeling, andrecommends a key investment in a new tokamak facility to begin operations between
2025-2030.
The suggested capabilities of this facility, established through previous
community-wide activities [PMI 2015, Transients 2015, Nat. Acad 2018] and this Community
Planning Process, are specified to allow timely closure of physics gaps relevant for tokamak
divertor solutions and their integration with potential FPP operating scenarios. This suggested
new facility is referred to in this report as the new tokamak user facility (NTUF), but we strongly
urge FESAC and the community to consider alternative names.

67Figure FST-SO-D.1: Linkage diagram for FST-SO-D
Relation to Science Drivers:
Control, Sustain, and Predict Burning Plasmas: Understanding how to control, sustain andpredict the behavior of a burning plasma is fundamental for safe and sustained electricity
production from deuterium-tritium (D-T) fusion. Through the operation of ITER, along with thebroadest array of current and planned facilities worldwide, the tokamak has the opportunity todevelop the most comprehensive physics basis of any MFE concept. Control of tokamak
plasmas requires the development of techniques to share multiple actuators so that the plasma
can be initiated, sustained for the desired duration without deleterious instabilities, and safely
ramped down and restarted upon demand. Techniques to diagnose tokamak plasmas are
mature and are used to validate physics-based models and demonstrate sophisticated real time
control algorithms, but these successes must be extended to burning plasmas.
Handle Reactor Relevant Conditions: The strategy for handling the high levels of heat andparticle fluxes that will be encountered in a tokamak-based pilot plant will be driven by testing
innovative plasma divertor concepts and heat flux mitigation approaches at reactor-relevant
conditions. By completing experiments on existing facilities, leveraging upcoming experiments,
and designing, constructing and operating a new tokamak that will achieve reactor levels of
power and particle exhaust, we will improve our ability to develop physics-based exhaust
strategies for the fusion pilot plant.
Expert Groups: MFE-Boundary and Divertor Plasma Physics, Plasma and Material Interaction;
MFE-Transport and Confinement; MFE-Energetic Particles; MFE-Transients; MFE-Scenarios;68MFE-Global Context and U.S. Leadership; FM&T-Plasma Material Interaction and High Heat
Flux; FM&T-Magnets and Technology; FM&T-Measurements and Diagnostics
1. Leverage all opportunities to access, prepare for, and study burning plasma
physics for validated extrapolation of self-consistent alpha heating, the physics ofalpha particle driven instabilities, and helium ash removal for optimization of the
FPP
Execute programmatic recommendation (FST-PR-B), which includes fulfillment of U.S.
commitments to construct and operate ITER and establishment of a U.S. team to fully
participate in ITER during pre fusion power and fusion power operation. This enables
the U.S. to gain critical knowledge to inform the FPP design process, to develop andutilize knowledge of technology and diagnostics in a fusion nuclear environment needed
for FPP control, and to complement science from NTUF to inform compact tokamak pilot
plant scenarios. In addition, the U.S. should position itself to partner with industry to
perform experiments on privately funded D-T tokamaks, such as SPARC and ST-F1,
which are planned in the mid/late 2020s, contingent on demonstration of HTS
technology for fusion magnets. These efforts should include modeling and simulation for
operational scenarios in compact experiments with significant power from alpha heating,and on the development of diagnostics for science and control in a high flux, low fluence
fusion nuclear environment. Research on DIII-D, NSTX-U and collaboration oninternational facilities should be used to help resolve issues identified in the ITER
research plan, targeting areas of U.S. leadership such as ELM control, disruption
avoidance and mitigation (FST-SO-D.4), energetic particle physics, and the developmentof control strategies for high performance burning plasmas.
2. Establish the capability to test tokamak divertor solutions at conditions typical of
an FPP that can also be integrated with FPP operating scenarios by designing andconstructing a new tokamak facility
This new tokamak user facility (NTUF) must have the flexibility to investigate innovative
tokamak divertor solutions, encompassing long-legged concepts and PFC material
options, at heat and particle fluxes that are at the same scale as those projected for thepilot plant as well as the ability to simultaneously achieve core plasma energy
confinement and bootstrap current that project to a high-average-power output,
net-electric pilot plant. This simultaneous achievement of high power density across a
range of core plasma scenarios and divertor solutions represent combined capabilities
that cannot be obtained through international collaboration or a major upgrade to an
existing facility. Without NTUF, there would be significant risk in the integrated exhaust
scenarios when designing a tokamak-based FPP, and teams (FST-PR-A) would need torely on extrapolations of modeling validated in regimes at parameters far away from pilot
plant conditions. These proposed capabilities for NTUF represent a prioritization madeby the community within this planning process, and a more detailed outline of the69

motivation for this facility, how it relates to community input and its context within theworldwide program is given in Appendix B. By combining these capabilities, NTUF
would represent an opportunity to establish U.S. scientific leadership, leverage advancesin theory and modeling (FST-PR-D) and motivate the development of a fusion workforce(Cross-cut WF). NTUF could provide a platform to demonstrate and drive technology
development within this plan, such as PFCs (FST-SO-A), H&CD actuators (FST-SO-F)
and diagnostics (FST-PR-E). To help inform the case for Mission Need for this facility,
FES should support combined physics and engineering teams to establish conceptualengineering design and cost estimates for facilities with the capabilities mentioned
above. Results from NTUF are expected to be necessary to inform decisions fornear-term, industry-driven FPP approaches as well as to contribute to thetechno-economic analysis of the FPP deliverables outlined in FST-PR-A. To becompatible with these timeline requirements, FES should establish the Mission Need forthis new facility no more than one year following acceptance by FESAC of thisrecommendation, and support detailed design and construction so that the completion of
NTUF allows for research output to begin before the end of the decade. While theexisting physics basis is sufficient to proceed urgently with the Mission Need andconceptual design activities, existing facilities should be used to inform the completion of
the detailed design of NTUF. These activities should include development andqualification of innovative and efficient current drive approaches on DIII-D, as well as
development of techniques to avoid or mitigate edge localized modes.
3. Develop the science basis for candidate scenarios that project tohigh-average-power on FPP utilizing domestic and international facilities,
transitioning this research to NTUF and ITER
An FPP will need candidate scenarios that project to high-average-power with integrated
power exhaust solutions. These scenarios encompass both (a) the plasma and neutral
physics that support solutions for the power and particle exhaust through the low
collisionality, opaque pedestal as well as (b) the core-edge integration physics thatenables high-average-power FPP operation. This recommendation combines thebreadth of expertise and knowledge in tokamak physics that exists within the U.S.
community, while focusing and prioritizing the work to help achieve our overall mission
and integrating with ongoing design studies in FST-PR-A. Scenarios in compact FPP
concepts have unique requirements related to establishment, sustainment andconfinement of high absolute plasma pressure core, integrated with boundary solutions
compatible with high power density. By utilizing DIII-D, international collaborations, andthrough completion of the NSTX-U Recovery Project and utilization of NSTX-U, the U.S.
should develop and advance high-confinement, high-non-inductive-fraction scenarios
suitable for long pulse and steady-state operation. A key activity is to use the uniquecapabilities of NSTX-U to study the aspect ratio optimization of the tokamak, extending
the scaling of confinement and stability to lower collisionality. The research activities at
DIII-D can support the development of the physics basis for FPP scenarios through70

utilization of advanced, innovative and flexible H&CD actuators (FST-SO-F).
Additionally, the excellent diagnostic coverage on DIII-D can begin to answer criticalquestions on pedestal and boundary operational space for FPP designs as well as
challenge predictive tools for boundary plasmas. Through physics model validation on
DIII-D, NSTX-U, and international collaborations, the U.S. should further develop power
exhaust scenarios, including extending divertor science and pedestal physics towards
reactor-relevant conditions and investigating the compatibility of core/mantle radiation
with high-confinement plasmas.
While existing domestic facilities can answer important open scientific questions,outlined in many recent community reports [PMI 2015, Transients 2015, ReNeW 2009],
allowing us to maintain timely progress toward an FPP, completion of this objective will
also require access to new facilities. As NTUF becomes better defined through
FST-SO-D.2, a clear plan to transition from existing facilities to NTUF and ITER, as wellas possible collaborations with other international and private facilities, should beestablished. The community supports a transition strategy in which existing facilities are
not decommissioned before NTUF is near operation; that ensures continuity ofexperience and knowledge; and that allows existing domestic devices sufficient
resources to complete essential mission objectives. As ITER moves to first plasma, a
U.S. team should be prepared, using all available collaboration mechanisms, toparticipate in ITER during pre fusion power operation (PFPO) to obtain the non-burning
plasma physics results that can help inform FPP design scoping. The critical researchareas include disruptions (further emphasized in recommendation 4 below), scalings ofconfinement and pedestal behavior with gyroradius-normalized machine size, parametricdependencies of the SOL heat flux width, ELM suppression from 3D fields andcore-edge integration with an opaque scrape-off layer.
4. Advance multiple methods for disruption prediction, avoidance, and mitigation to
inform FPP design
Finding solutions to overcome the disruption challenge is critical to establishing thereadiness of the tokamak at the scale of a fusion pilot plant, and a strategy that
advances multiple prediction, avoidance, and mitigation (PAM) approaches is necessary.
New or improved concepts need to be explored, testing the technology (FST-SO-C.8)
and physics in all available domestic and international experiments. First-principles
physics model development should be continued, leveraging SciDAC programs andcomplementary experimental validation efforts. Use of machine learning and artificial
intelligence approaches to predict and avoid disruptions should be continued, leveraging
improvements in available diagnostics (FST-PR-E) and high performance computing(FST-PR-D). Later in the 2020s, NTUF, ITER and other facilities accessible to the U.S.
community, both international and domestic, should be utilized to demonstrate disruption
prediction, avoidance, and reliable mitigation at high plasma current and energy density.
Participation in the testing of the shattered pellet mitigation system should be71emphasized as a priority for the ITER Pre-Fusion Power Operation phase. Results on
PAM should be coordinated with FPP conceptual design efforts (FST-PR-A) and metrics
of success should be developed.
5. Test tokamak-specific integration of new PFC materials to reduce extrapolation
uncertainties such as material migration and identify potential plasma facing
materials for FPP designs
While the program outlined in FST-SO-A will work to develop and qualify potential solidand liquid metal plasma facing materials and components, there will remain
tokamak-specific challenges that will impact their ultimate performance in an FPP.
Existing domestic facilities, targeting DIII-D, and opportunities through collaboration oninternational long-pulse devices should be used to test advanced solid PFC materials
such as SiC or new W-alloys. This should build on successful demonstrations of thesematerials using test stands and draw on experiences of qualifying new materials outsideof fusion where possible. Following test-stand demonstrations to raise the TRL of liquid
metal PFCs, discussed in FST-SO-A.2, an existing domestic tokamak facility, targeting
NSTX-U, should be upgraded to use liquid metal PFCs and to explore their integrated
effects on the plasma and to validate modeling. These opportunities should build on
investments in fundamental science of plasma material interactions, open up
opportunities for U.S. leadership, and be completed in a timely manner, in order to allow
follow-on research using NTUF and to support FPP design studies (FST-PR-A). Future
FPP operations will require more comprehensive solutions than existing or near-term
devices for managing the consequences of sustained plasma material interactions.
Using available tokamaks, strategies and concepts for active wall conditioning andmaterial flow-through PFC solutions should be developed and tested. NTUF andburning plasma experiments will have access to more FPP-relevenant plasma edge
conditions and research should include improving measurements of the neutral andplasma wall flux necessary to estimate sources of main-chamber erosion and results ofmaterial migration. These data will be needed as input for developing strategies for slag
management, which should be completed in coordination with remote maintenance and
RAMI activities (FST-SO-G).

FST Strategic Objective E: Advance the stellarator physics basis
sufficiently to design a low cost fusion pilot plant
The stellarator has unique features that make it attractive as a fusion energy reactor. It is
intrinsically steady state, can operate at high plasma density to achieve high gain while
potentially relaxing plasma exhaust constraints, has relatively benign responses tomagnetohydrodynamic instabilities, avoids current-driven disruptions, and has low recirculating
power needs. These benefits all provide an opportunity to develop a net electric pilot plant at
low capital cost. The stellarator is unique among magnetic fusion concepts in that it does not72require the plasma to provide critical aspects of its confinement. Rather, as the confining
magnetic field in a stellarator is generated from external magnets, there is considerable
flexibility to develop configurations optimized for performance, reliability, and simplicity. For
example, the concepts of quasi-symmetry and quasi-omnigeneity have emerged to solve thetraditional weakness of the stellarator, poor neoclassical transport at low collisionality, aprediction that has been validated experimentally in HSX and W7-X. With these advances,stellarators now demonstrate confinement properties and scaling that project to an attractive
fusion pilot plant.
In the ensuing decades since the designs of HSX, W7-X, and NCSX, there have been
considerable advances in theoretical understanding of stellarator confinement physics. In
particular, quasi-symmetric configurations represent an approach distinct from those taken by
the international community and offer unique opportunities to optimize for reduced turbulent andenergetic particle losses (in addition to reduced neoclassical losses) while simultaneously
integrating with novel plasma exhaust configurations. This is an area where the U.S. isrecognized as having world leadership. In addition, enhanced computational tool development,
advances in coil technology and design, and the availability of new enabling technologies (suchas additive manufacturing techniques) provide opportunities to design and build simplified
stellarator concepts.

Figure FST-SO-E: Linkage diagram for FST-SO-E
Relation to Science Drivers:
Control, Sustain, and Predict Burning Plasmas + Handle Reactor Relevant Conditions: The
stellarator is intrinsically steady-state and requires no significant active control. The stellarator’s
physics properties are largely dictated by external 3D magnetic field geometry. With significant

73recent advancement in 3D physics understanding and improvement in computational tools, thestellarator is ready to demonstrate improved confinement properties based primarily on
theoretical prediction. As the stellarator is intrinsically steady-state, it also provides a unique
opportunity for studying material erosion, redeposition, and migration on long timescales.
Expert Groups: MFE-Boundary and Divertor Plasma Physics; MFE-Plasma and MaterialInteraction; MFE-Transport and Confinement; MFE-Energetic Particles; MFE-Transients;
MFE-Scenarios; MFE-Global Context and U.S. Leadership; FM&T-Plasma Material Interactionand High Heat Flux; FM&T-Magnets and Technology; FM&T-Measurements and Diagnostics
1. Expand and sustain an integration, design, and optimization effort to identify
candidate stellarator configurations that scale to an FPP
The U.S. stellarator program should employ and continue to develop the theory,modeling and optimization tools (FST-PR-A, FST-PR-D) needed to identify and refine
possible low cost FPP configurations that incorporate recent U.S. advances in optimizing
for reduced neoclassical, turbulent, and energetic particle losses, improved MHD
stability, compatible divertor configuration and magnet design simplicity. The activity
should also be used in the near term to coordinate and finalize optimization and designof new domestic stellarator facilities that are proposed to validate these U.S. innovations(FST-SO-E.2). Through continuously incorporating advances in theory and computation,
results from domestic experiments and international collaboration (FST-SO-E.3), andadvances in enabling technologies, this activity will clarify the pathway to a low coststellarator pilot plant. This should include identifying key decision points such as if andwhen additional stellarator experiments beyond those proposed in FST-SO-E.2 would be
required.
2. Design, construct, and operate one or more stellarators to test innovative
optimizations and demonstrate performance that projects to an economicallycompetitive pilot plant
The construction of new mid-size stellarator experiments is essential to validate recent
U.S. advances in optimization using the approach of quasi-symmetry. These newexperiments must be initiated in the near term in order to make timely decisions on theviability of the stellarator for an FPP. Two devices would be required to explore the two
related yet distinct approaches of quasi-axisymmetry (QAS) and quasi-helical symmetry(QHS). Whereas both configurations have similar neoclassical transport physics,
geometric differences can impact equilibrium and microinstability properties with the
implication that QAS and QHS are predicted to have different global stability andturbulent transport properties. Further, QAS configurations can be found at smaller
aspect ratio than QHS. The HSX program has tested the hot electron physics of QHS,
while no experimental facility to test QAS physics exists. There is a crucial need to test
the hot ion, high beta properties of a quasi-symmetric stellarator to validite the physics
74basis required for FPP. The proposed facilities will pursue the distinct optimizations ofboth quasi-symmetric approaches, while also incorporating unique technology
innovations. Possible capabilities of these new facilities have been discussed throughcommunity-wide activities [Stellcon 2017]. The proposed mid-scale quasi-helicallysymmetric (QHS) device is targeted to demonstrate for the first time turbulent transport
reduction by design of the 3D magnetic field, in addition to good energetic particle
confinement, while simultaneously integrating a novel non-resonant divertor
configuration. The technical readiness to proceed with the design and construction of a
mid-scale QHS stellarator is high and can start immediately [Stellcon 2017]. A small
scale quasi-axisymmetric (QAS) device is proposed to build simpler stellarator coils
using permanent magnets while maintaining optimization towards low turbulent transport
and improved MHD stability.
3. Validate core physics and investigate steady-state divertor and plasma exhaust
solutions in long-pulse, high-performance optimized stellarators
Collaboration with the international stellarator community enables access to highperformance, long pulse stellarator physics. The international stellarators LHD and W7X
rely on different optimization approaches than quasi-symmetry, providing complementaryresearch to broadly validate the physics that forms the basis of the optimization models.
The early success of W7-X marks a new era for stellarator research and the U.S. should
continue as a central partner in exploring the properties of the quasi-omnigenous
configuration.
Furthermore, the U.S. should also pursue collaborative research
opportunities to explore the physics of, and possible solutions for, steady-state divertor
and plasma material interactions enabled by the long-pulse superconducting stellarators(FST-SO-A). International collaboration can provide high scientific return on investment
as both LHD and W7X are operational.

FST Strategic Objective F: Innovate the magnet, heating, and current drive
technology needed to reduce the pilot plant capital cost
Innovations in the technology that will enable low-cost magnetic fusion energy will be needed,
particularly in the areas of magnets, heating, and current drive. Innovations in magnet
technology, where the U.S. has a strong leadership role, can open the pathway to achieving
high magnetic fields that can reduce the size of confinement devices and eventually a fusion
pilot plant. Development of joints for superconducting magnets, for example, could radicallyalter how plants are designed and maintained by enabling access to components inside thetoroidal field coils and by facilitating vertical remote maintenance. Radiofrequency (RF) power
must provide practical solutions for high-efficiency heating and current drive with location control
to access and sustain burning plasma conditions in a reactor. The use of advanced
manufacturing techniques can lead to innovative and cost-effective approaches to thedevelopment of components otherwise too complex to manufacture with traditional techniques,
including launchers that can operate in a fusion nuclear environment. Innovations and75

optimizations in magnets and RF launchers, sources, transmission, and plasma/wave
interactions benefit multiple confinement concepts including tokamaks, stellarators, and many
alternate configurations. The use of public-private partnerships will play an important role inadvancing this area. In addition, it is anticipated that the needed test facilities in this area canprovide a workforce development opportunity as an entry point into the field. Collaboration with
universities and international partners, including ITER, will help reduce costs and duplicatedeffort. Testing of new launcher concepts in confinement devices can provide valuable feedback
for the advancement of innovative design concepts. Note that additional areas of enabling
technologies are covered in other parts of the report, including pellet injection (FST-SO-C.8),
first wall materials (FST-SO-A), and structural materials (FST-SO-B).

Figure FST-SO-F.1: Linkage diagram for FST-SO-F

76

Fig. FTS-SO-F.2

Relation to Science Drivers:
Control, Sustain, and Predict Burning Plasmas: This objective provides necessary technologythat will enable the success of a reactor concept and practical operating scenarios. High-fieldmagnets are needed to confine the plasma, and innovations that allow for higher magnetic fields
and other technologies will define the confinement concept. The electrons and ions will need tobe heated to achieve plasma burn, and current drive will be needed for some reactor concepts.
Modeling coupled with validation experiments on current and future confinement devices will
confirm the scenario development physics for the considered RF heating and current drive
methods. Innovations in the sources and launchers are required to provide the needed
steady-state solutions.
Handle Reactor Relevant Conditions: Magnets and RF launchers will need to operate in a fusion
nuclear environment. The magnet support structure, superconductors, and insulators must
survive the neutron and radiation flux. The RF launchers will be part of the first-wall and must
be constructed out of materials that are able to operate at elevated temperatures in thehigh-heat and neutron/radiation flux environment.
Innovations will be required inlauncher-compatible plasma-facing materials, structural materials, and required coolingtechnology.
Expert Groups: MFE-Energetic Particles; MFE-Scenarios; FM&T-Magnets and Technology;
FM&T-Plasma Material Interaction and High Heat Flux; FM&T-Fusion Materials

771. Establish the experimental capabilities required to develop and test high fieldmagnets and cables
Various facilities are needed to test the anticipated advances in high magnetic fieldtechnology for magnetic fusion energy. Development of prototype cable technology is ahigh priority, and the availability of a recently announced cable test facility at Fermilab
will help with both public (multiple DOE offices) and private cable development. The
establishment of a large-bore magnet test facility is needed to demonstrate prototype
fusion magnets at up to 20 T. Coordination with private industry in this area will beessential to the success of this endeavor, as numerous industry partners and DOE
offices are currently involved in many of these efforts.
2. Integrate achievable magnet technologies into the FPP multiphysics design tools
The practical performance capability and anticipated advances in magnet and cabledevelopment must be coordinated with the design teams for the next generation ofconfinement devices and FPP concepts (FST-PR-A). Innovations in multiphysics design
tools (FST-PR-D) can push innovations in magnet configurations that otherwise would
be too costly or time consuming to pursue for different confinement concepts.
3. Continue to develop and test high-current, high-field cable technologies throughthe FPP conceptual design phase
A variety of magnet-related technologies will need to be advanced for the specificrequirements of next generation fusion devices using superconducting materials.
Radiation damage effects in cable conductors, insulation materials, and magnet
structural materials need to be determined and understood so that effective mitigation
approaches and their design consequences can be accurately assessed. Advances injoints could revolutionize superconducting magnet design, assembly, and remotehandling (FST-SO-G.4). Development of advanced cooling methods and quench
protection will be needed. Work needs to be coordinated with industry to advance
progress and reduce potential duplication of effort.
4. Establish the capability to develop and test RF launcher concepts compatible
with operating in a fusion nuclear environment
There is a need to develop steady-state, high-heat-flux nuclear compatible RF launcher
components/concepts, since many existing launcher concepts are not compatible withthis environment and will not meet the requirements of an FPP. These needs can be
met and the research gaps closed by development of components/concepts using a new
RF Test Facility and by testing on confinement devices as available through FST-SO-D,
FST-SO-E and FST-SO-H activities. The new facility will also be needed to validate

78

near-field RF-plasma interaction models that can be used to predict the impact ofwave-interactions in the scrape-off-layer (SOL) on future confinement devices. A
dedicated non-confinement facility is needed to provide better diagnostic access andoperational flexibility/availability compared to a confinement device. This facility will
reduce risk and raise the maturity of the design of launchers and diagnostics prior to
implementation on a confinement device, since confirmed concepts will be necessary forsuccessful operation of future devices and component failure on a confinement device
cannot be tolerated. The facility will need the appropriate magnetic field and relevant
plasma parameters to simulate the SOL environment, and such a capability would be
unique to the U.S. compared to other RF test facilities worldwide. It is anticipated that
innovative advanced manufacturing techniques (FST-SO-B.1) will be essential to therealization of launchers needed to operate in the first-wall environment, and theconcepts will be tested at high RF powers in the magnetized plasma environment of the
facility. When possible, testing of launcher concepts on confinement devices should bedone to confirm high-power long-pulse compatibility. First-wall compatible launcher
materials will be tested and qualified at high plasma heat-flux in a separate device, such
as MPEX (FST-SO-A.1).
5. Establish a new RF source R&D center to develop the RF technology needed for afusion power plant
A new RF source R&D center is needed to develop the RF generators and power
supplies needed to provide high-efficiency steady-state heating and current drive.
Unprecedented levels of power at extended pulse lengths will be required in an FPP.
The TRL for high-power steady-state generators in the electron cyclotron range of
frequencies (ECRF) is low, particularly for the 200+ GHz gyrotrons needed for ahigh-magnetic field confinement device. Improving the efficiency of ECRF, ion cyclotron
range of frequencies (ICRF), and lower hybrid range of frequencies (LHRF) sources
above the existing level (~50%) will reduce recirculating power requirements for an FPP,
and very long pulse testing will establish source lifetime limits in the intended mode ofoperation. Public-private partnerships will be essential to the success of this endeavor(FST-PR-C).
6. Support the development of reactor-relevant heating and current drive scenarios
through experiments that support model development and validation on bothcurrent and future confinement devices
The validation of heating and current drive models on current experiments needs to besupported to advance operating scenarios needed for a future reactor. The RF SciDAC
effort is a particular strength for the U.S. community, and can be expanded to support
this area, both domestically and internationally. Code development benchmarked byexperiments (through FST-SO-D, FST-SO-E, FST-SO-H, and FST-PR-B activities) andRF diagnostics (FST-PR-E) should be utilized to produce a full predictive understanding79

of RF launchers in a next step device. Scenarios that use RF heating and current drive
methods to reduce the requirements on the central solenoid need increased emphasis in
the tokamak approach. It is particularly important to develop high efficiency heating andcurrent drive methods that are reactor relevant and operate on the desired location in theplasma. While the use of negative neutral beams may be complementary to RF
systems, collaborations with international partners should be pursued if needed. Notethat the model validation area will be coordinated with similar activities in FST-PR-D.

FST Strategic Objective G: Develop the balance of plant technology,
remote handling and maintenance approach, and licensing frameworknecessary to ensure safe and reliable operation of the fusion pilot plant
When moving from plasma experiments of today to an FPP, there are numerous challenges
beyond the plasma and the fusion core. These challenges include the overarching need toensure safe and reliable operation, the balance of plant equipment (BoP), remote handling andmaintenance, and the licensing approach. Licensing an FPP and procuring its BoP equipment
are long-term items, and some constraints related to safety, complexity, or cost can renderunworkable an otherwise promising FPP design.
An electricity-producing fusion nuclear device such as an FPP will need to be licensed. An
agency outside the fusion program, e.g. the NRC, grants the license. Public safety is theprimary issue for licensing. Pathways for release of tritium or other activated products to air,ground and water beyond the site boundary are of particular concern. The fusion program hasa large and integral role in the licensing process because the fusion program provides themodeling, design rules, and materials data that propagate through models of accident scenarios
to develop a credible well-documented safety basis for a license. The near term action items forthe fusion community in this area focus on generating the data that will eventually support thesafety basis for a license.
While we should pay attention to developments in BoP equipment in fission and non-nuclear
applications, fusion has higher operating temperatures, different working fluids, and uniqueconsiderations like tritium safety. Heat exchangers, turbines, and other BoP equipment must be
developed specifically for an FPP to use the heat transfer fluids of helium (He) and/or leadlithium (PbLi).
In an FPP, almost all maintenance must be performed remotely using robotic systems to handle
radioactive materials.
These robotic components must function while exposed todifficult-to-shield gamma rays accompanied by significant decay heat, and work withcomponents that are contaminated with tritium, activated dust/debris, and material deposited on
their surfaces.
The strategies for Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Inspectability (RAMI) in an FPP
significantly impacts the design of its in-vessel components. Also, the power conversion systemand the tritium processing plant have high cost and high impacts on the FPP mission. Early80confirmation that the strategies will work is needed to mitigate costly later redirection that would
delay the safety basis and licensing discussions for a decision-to-build. The R&D approach is touse early small-scale tests for this purpose. The development of appropriate data is linked tomany of the recommendations in FST-SO-C (tritium/blankets/fueling/pumping), FST-SO-A(heat/particle-loads), FST-SO-B (materials) and the aspect of design and systems integrationand the safety basis in FST-PR-A (design activity), FST-PR-B (ITER) and FST-PR-E(diagnostics).

Figure FST-SO-G.1: Linkage diagram for FST-SO-G
Relation to Science Drivers:
Harness Fusion Power: Transitioning from a fusion science program to a program aimed atcommercializing fusion energy will require the advancement of numerous systems needed toHarness Fusion Power. Extracting the fusion energy and interfacing with the grid will be criticaland have unique challenges as compared to current commercial energy sources. We need astrategy for licensing an FPP, and an efficient R&D path for high-cost high-impact systems(RAMI and power conversion).
Expert Groups: FM&T-Magnets and Technology
1. Start a working group to develop a licensing approach for fusion
A fusion pilot plant that produces significant power and electricity will also possesshazardous inventories of tritium and activation products. It will require a licensing
process to ensure safe operations, protection of the public, and sufficient proliferation81

resistance. No regulations in the U.S. deal specifically with licensing of fusion reactors.
Nor is it clear that existing regulations, written for fission reactors and other types ofradiological facilities, are directly applicable to fusion reactors. To mitigate the risk of along lead time for licensing an FPP, a licensing working group should be established thatengages national laboratory experts, gathers lessons learned from ITER (FST-PR-B)
and any other relevant licensing experience (e.g. criteria for selecting licensing basis
events), and engages NRC regulators and industry and public stakeholders to outline
the necessary licensing framework for fusion. The working group should become astanding committee with some group members included in the FPP design studies(FST-PR-A). While the fusion community does not grant a license, it serves as animportant resource to the regulating body as a strategy for licensing fusion is developed.
There is precedent and an important need for the community experts engaging with the
NRC; examples of such interactions include the recent exploration of licensing of
medical isotope facilities and molten salt reactors.
2. Establish a technical basis for fusion reactor safety and licensing
This activity provides technical data for the safety basis for licensing. Starting limited
work in target areas as soon as possible has a high payoff for relatively modest
investment. Moreover, an early look can direct R&D toward more easily licensed
designs. Innovations may lower cost, for example, by shrinking plant size, lowering
tritium inventory and improving safety, and in this way speed and ease the path forlicensing.
As described above, the fusion community does not do the licensing itself, but there isa large body of scientific research that the fusion community must undertake to makelicensing an FPP possible. This research would be completed in coordination with thedesign exploration activity in FST-PR-A, the licensing working group in
Recommendation 1, and the licensing body. The licensing body itself does not performthe research, so we, as the ones applying for the license, must generate all theinformation related to safety and operations. We must prove to the licensing body how
we came to these conclusions about our design and its behavior under various
scenarios, and how we qualified materials, components, and everything else in theplant. There will be iterative interactions with the licensing body because they will give
feedback on areas where more data is needed, and then that research must be
undertaken. It is necessary to have detailed designs for any licensing assessment, sothat happens later in the timeline, but the data gathering relevant to the licensing
should begin immediately because much of it has long lead times (for example,
materials qualification).
The shorthand term of “establishing a technical basis,” as used in the title of thisrecommendation and on the sequencing diagram, actually covers several areas ofscientific research including developing materials properties and component
databases; developing high temperature structural design criteria (HTSDC);

82

developing design rules and ASME/other code development; and analyzing safety,
accidents, hazardous materials, and energy sources in an FPP. The materials
properties database and HTSDC are covered in more detail in FST-SO-B; they can
begin immediately and interact with the licensing working group in Recommendation 1
in an iterative way. It is important to note that materials themselves are not licensed,
so even if materials are chosen for an FPP that have been previously used in otherlicensed nuclear facilities in the U.S., those materials would have to undergo additional
analysis and testing specific to their use in an FPP. The fusion community and FES
would have a very natural role in this research in a parallel way to how materials
research is currently performed at national labs, and to some extent universities, tosupport the licensing applications of commercial fission and medical isotope facilities.
Similarly, as part of analyzing safety, potential accidents, and the tritium inventory andcontrol for an FPP, there is a need for accurate fundamental properties, chemistry, andinteraction data for tritium (for example tritium permeation rates in materials underrelevant conditions). This aspect of the research would fall under FST-SO-A andFST-SO-C with coordination with the licensing working group in Recommendation 1,
and can be initiated immediately.
Licensing an FPP will require quantification of radioactive material inventories and theirlocation. This, in turn, requires experiments and verified and validated tools forneutronics, activation analysis, and plant-scale transport analysis of tritium, activatedcorrosion products, activation products in the form of dust, etc. Although tritium isperhaps the largest single safety factor specific to an FPP, additional potential hazards
come from the combination of radiological (tritium, activated dust/fume), chemical (liquid
metal, molten salt), toxicity (beryllium, lead), and thermal (afterheat). The fusion
community must establish the scientific and technical basis for understanding potential
hazards and their controls in normal and off-normal scenarios. The U.S. has someleadership in licensing (e.g. MELCOR code) and long-established expertise in safety andtritium handling.
3. Develop new, specialized sensors and diagnostics for in- and ex-vessel survey
New sensors, diagnostics, and integrated data acquisition for remote maintenance,
and integrated plasma core and plant control are necessary to ensure worker safety
and comply with licensing requirements. Early on, we need to identify gaps.
Moreover, an early look at areas outside fusion to anticipate progress can direct R&D
toward technology and innovations that may lower cost.
Many traditional instrumentation methods will not work in a fusion environment due tohigh magnetic fields, radiation, service temperature, and contamination. There is also ahierarchy of needs based on their lifetime, the severity of the operating environment andwhen the prospect of likely solutions must emerge. The gap analysis noted above should
engage appropriate expertise, become part of the ongoing design activity (FST-PR-A)and have a strong link with diagnostics development (FST-PR-E). We should leverage83experience outside fusion in controlling complex systems and in related areas such asneural networks, autonomous learning, etc.
Additionally, developing the architecture and software for an overall plant control system
is a critical area for plant safety, and software and automation are important. For an FPP,
the data acquisition system (DAS) and logic network (software) for plasma core andoverall plant control (coupled) must digest a huge amount of real-time data and translate
this into a useful control system. This includes raw data from sensors plus signals that
confirm that the sensors and systems are operating properly. A deployment plan will beneeded with later confirmation that systems are operating properly during shake-down ateach stage (startup with H and/or D, then later D-T operation).
4. Establish strategies for remote calibration, alignment, maintenance, andreplacement of components
Early on, we should investigate and anticipate advances in robotics and measurementthat can simplify RAMI and pursue a design approach that looks to innovation in design
to reduce the potentially large costs related to RAMI. A small effort in this area in thenear term will help avoid major delays or redesigns of an FPP.
The fusion nuclear environment will require advancements in the design of componentsthat are compatible with remote maintenance. The ongoing design activity (FST-PR-A)
should carefully consider the RAMI approach from the start because of its strong impact
on the design of in-vessel systems with the potential to simplify systems. A radical
example is jointed superconducting magnets to enable vertical assembly/disassembly,
which increases the ease of remote maintenance and makes blanket sector designs
more flexible (FST-SO-F). A strategy and methods for re-welding or re-connection ofirradiated material in a high radiation environment needs to be developed with special
attention paid to reduced concentration and release of tritium. The early studies should
target areas with high impact on cost and evaluate the likelihood of successful
developments, and the ongoing design studies should be used to guide R&D
investment. Then and later we should leverage developments in autonomous andintelligent robotic systems in the public and private sector, along with international
experience (e.g. JET, ITER) for fusion facility remote handling and maintenance in areas
where conditions prevent human workers. This links to FST-PR-B (ITER) and FST-PR-C(Industry).
Intermediate work will likely require a suite of small facilities to develop and test
equipment for remote sensing and component handling. Later, due to the high cost of
the equipment for RAMI and huge impact of any shortcomings in performance, we
anticipate that full scale demonstrations of this equipment will be needed for thedecision to build an FPP.
5. Carry out conceptual design and small scale tests of balance of plant equipment

84

Specialized BoP equipment is needed for an FPP due to fusion’s higher operating
temperatures, different working fluids, and unique considerations like tritium safety.
We should start advancing heat exchanger technology by compatibility tests in fluid
loops with materials that can operate at high temperature with He and PbLi coolants.
PbLi is corrosive to many materials, especially at high temperatures, and no material yet
identified works for a long-lived PbLi heat exchanger. Developing/adapting He gas
turbines and compressors is another need, which should leverage related activities
where possible (for example, work within NASA). Again, initial small-scale tests areuseful to confirm productive directions for the R&D path in combination with outreachtoward approaches to Brayton cycle power conversion and high temperature heatexchangers used in fission and aerospace. Solutions for the BoP must address tritium
control, activation product transport, impurity cleanup, temperature ranges for operation,and effects of radiolysis. These near-term activities have connections with the design
activity (FST-PR-A), blanket development (FST-SO-C) and materials development(FST-SO-B).
In the near and intermediate term, we anticipate the need for smaller facilities to develop
and test some BoP equipment (e.g. gas turbines and heat exchangers). Due to the highcost of the BoP equipment for an FPP and the high impact of poor performance on its
mission, we anticipate that full scale demonstrations of this equipment will be needed forthe decision to build an FPP.

FST Strategic Objective H: Develop alternative approaches to fusion that
could lead to a lower cost fusion pilot plant, utilizing partnerships withprivate industry and interagency collaboration
Magnetic fusion energy (MFE), magneto-inertial fusion energy (MIF/MTF), and inertial fusionenergy (IFE) offer distinct paths to the commercialization of fusion energy. While the tokamak
and stellarator MFE configurations are relatively mature, and a focus of this report, neither isready to meet the requirements for a FPP. Other MFE configurations, commonly referred to as“alternate concepts,” offer potential for significant reduction in engineering complexity andtherefore lower cost, often in exchange for increased challenges in plasma confinement or
stability. Some alternate MFE concepts require no plasma current and are therefore inherently
steady-state. Others have moderate or zero toroidal field, reducing magnet requirements.
Elimination of auxiliary heating is another benefit associated with some alternate concepts.
Similarly, IFE concepts offer potential advantages through the separation of driver technology
and target implosion, with tradeoffs in complexity associated with intense driver-target
interactions, high repetition rate, and requirements for the first wall. Compact, pulsed MIF/MTF
concepts that rely on magnetic insulation and compression of the plasma have characteristics
intermediate to MFE and IFE.
This strategic objective aims to develop select alternative IFE and MFE fusion concepts as partof an innovative program that builds on existing U.S. leadership. Many of the efforts now
85supported by industry are based on concepts different from the tokamak. Federal support forfusion research by DOE-ARPA-E also embraces alternate concepts.
Leveraging andcoordinating research across all sectors is one goal of this strategic objective. Doing so will
inject innovation and scientific breadth that benefits all approaches. Research on alternate
concepts develops science and technology that helps advance tokamak and stellarator researchand could contribute to FPP. Also, many of the next steps for the development of alternate
concepts are innovative experiments at the small-to-intermediate scale, creating excellent
opportunities for workforce development.
Within this strategic objective, Recommendations 1 and 2 address the need for an Inertial
Fusion Energy (IFE) program, with a focus on maximizing target gain and the efficacy of thedriver, while lowering cost. This is distinct from the National Nuclear Security Administration’s(NNSA) national-security-oriented mission. The main purpose of the NNSA program isadvancing and delivering inertial confinement fusion capabilities in support of the Stockpile
Stewardship Program (SSP). Additionally, the current DOE-FES Program provides support forthe basic plasma science at HEDP conditions. This program will leverage existing NNSA
capabilities, attract new scientists to these missions, and increase the return on current andfuture U.S. investments. Given that additional requirements in energy gain and efficiency arenecessary to achieve IFE, combined with the concomitant uncertainties in physics, success will
only be achieved through the continuity, sustainment, and growth of a coordinatedmulti-disciplinary research community involving multiple institutions that can prioritize research
important to energy production. Recommendation 3 seeks to establish rigorous criteria andmetrics for evaluating alternate concepts, and recommendation 4 directly supports partnerships
with private industry, and other agencies. All four recommendations are critical to theimplementation and impact of this objective.
Relation to Science Drivers:
SD1: Control, Sustain, and Predict Burning Plasmas: The ultimate goal of alternative concepts
is to explore novel methods for creating and confining burning plasmas other than the tokamak
or stellarator. It is necessary to develop such concepts to sufficient technical readiness so that
their viability can be determined. Alternative confinement concepts may also enable scientificand technological progress that could benefit many approaches to fusion energy.
SD2: Handle Reactor Relevant Conditions: A number of alternative concepts are proposed as
the basis for neutron sources needed to develop fusion materials.
Expert Groups: HEDP topical area, MFE-Transport and Confinement
1. Establish a program that can pursue requirements for IFE
A credible approach to IFE requires an integrated design with high gain, an efficientdriver, and targets that are relatively inexpensive. This motivates the development ofconcepts that are simple and/or robust, which are not a focus of thenational-security-oriented National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) Inertial86Confinement Fusion (ICF) Program. (The primary mission of the NNSA stockpile
stewardship program emphasizes high yield rather than high gain.) This could include
novel approaches to compression, heating, and confinement, such as fast ignition, shock
ignition, and implosions that are magnetized. To address conditions relevant to a pilot
plant, it will also require a better understanding of beam propagation and target injection
in environments that are hostile, and the response of the first wall to intense nuclear andx-ray radiation (FST-SO-B, FST-SO-A). Data is needed outside the NNSA parameter
space in beam-plasma interactions and/or current loss, equation-of-state, opacity,
nuclear processes, and material interactions, with and without magnetic fields.
Assuming use is made of existing facilities, diagnostics, and computational resources, inclose partnership with the NNSA, and other agencies, the potential for progress is
significant. At the same time, it is also necessary to understand the integrated scienceof heavy ion beam accelerators and transport systems, high-bandwidth and deep-UV
lasers, and pulsed power, with greater utility to IFE. Existing capabilities are constrainedin terms of cost, reliability, operability, and peak and average power, and advances in
HEDP, the science and technology of particle beams, solid-state lasers, excimer lasers,
and pulsed power provide exciting new opportunities.
2. Advance technologies relating to the driver, target fabrication, and diagnostics
and modelling that could speed development of IFE
Complementary to scientific understanding (FST-SO-H.1), the viability of IFE requires
advances in driver technology, developing cost-effective methods for target fabrication,
and advances in diagnostics and modeling that address reactor-relevant conditions. The
product of target gain and driver efficiency must approach or exceed 10 to project to anenergy producing pilot plant. Also, the driver must have a path to operating at highrepetition rates (0.1 - 10 Hz) at a reasonable scale-of-capital, with little or no need formaintenance. (For perspective, the fusion-scale facility at LLNL operates at ~3×10–5 Hz,
and has to refurbish its optics on a rolling basis.) This motivates research into
technologies including heavy-ion beams, broadband lasers, Raman and Brillouinamplifiers, plasma optics, and other concepts that advance the basic feasibility of IFE.
The goal (in all cases) should be to reduce the scale and complexity needed for a
cost-effective pilot plant. As all concepts in IFE are tied to the quality, quantity, and costof target(s), this should include research into new fabrication techniques, such asadditive manufacturing, after key physics are demonstrated. Lastly, these efforts should
include support for diagnostics (FST-PR-E) and modeling (FST-PR-D) that function withreal-time data, analysis, and feedback, at high repetition rates, and advances in
Quantum Information Science and Machine Learning. An IFE activity within the
Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science can leverage capabilities developed by
the NNSA, but these tools have restrictions on their use, and we support a review ofrequirements and needs for open design capabilities consistent with national security.

873. Establish a staged, three-tier program to develop promising alternative magnetic
fusion energy configurations using rigorous evaluation and metrics
A three-tier strategy is proposed to provide a staged development approach for alternate
MFE concepts. Tier 1 is focused on validating the physics central to a concept’s basic
viability. Energy confinement is a typical focus at this stage. Tier 2 is a transition to thedevelopment of self-consistent solutions to confinement, sustainment, stability, andboundary interface. There should be enough maturity at the end of Tier 2 to makeinformed assessments of fusion reactor potential, including capital cost. Tier 3 aims at
the demonstration and validation of integrated solutions to confinement, sustainment,
stability, boundary interface, and control. All stages, including Tier 1, must be supportedwith sufficient experimental, measurement, and modeling capabilities to provide clear
answers to basic questions on scientific and technical feasibility. A set of rigorous
metrics must be applied both to enter concept development and to evaluate progression
to subsequent stages. Validated models that describe fundamental behavior andperformance, including scaling parameters, must emerge not later than Tier 2.
Successful progression through the staged approach implies a concept could beconsidered for a pilot plant demonstration that could be a major component of thenational program or target or development by private industry.
4. Leverage private industry and interagency investments (e.g. DOE ARPA-E) inalternative fusion approaches through collaborations in theory, modeling,measurement capabilities, and technology transfer
There are significant opportunities for beneficial public-private partnerships in alternative
fusion approaches. Research being conducted on alternates in the private sector benefit
the government-funded program by absorbing risk while continuing to develop
confinement concepts with potentially reduced engineering costs but at a lower TRL. On
the other hand, as private ventures tend to focus on the development of a single fusion
concept on a focused track, they can stall on technical problems that might be easily
solved at a more resource-rich national laboratory. For this reason, private ventures cangreatly benefit from a relatively modest investment from the government. From theprivate industry perspective, these investments would ideally come in the form offocused, modular grants to address a specific problem, and there are existing models
which could be expanded upon, like the Innovation Network for Fusion Energy(INFUSE).
Programmatic recommendation FST-PR-C describes an overarchingstrategy for coordinated research encompassing all approaches to fusion (tokamaks,
stellarators, alternates, IFE, MIF/MTF) supported by the federal government and theprivate sector.

88

Fusion Science and Technology Program Recommendations
FST Program Recommendation A: Establish a multi-institutional,
multidisciplinary program to develop fusion pilot plant concepts
Fundamental to this strategic plan is the recognition that advances in plasma understanding andtechnology enable consideration of new economically attractive fusion pilot plant (FPP)
concepts. In order to improve the ability of the U.S. fusion program to dynamically respond toinnovations, a coordinated program is needed which continuously evaluates emerging
developments to identify new research priorities and opportunities based on their implications
for FPP concepts. This multi-institutional, multidisciplinary program will develop potential FPP
concepts using validated predictive modeling tools as well as commercially available
engineering tools, coordinating with private and public stakeholders to identify FPP deliverables,and performing techno-economic analysis of these concepts in order to help inform research
priorities.
1. Initiate and sustain a coordinated FPP conceptual studies program which brings
together a broad cross-section of experts from across the domestic fusion
program and private industry, in order to inform U.S. fusion research needs andpriorities as advances in scientific understanding and technological innovation
are achieved
This program would support developing a variety of conceptual designs for FPP options
based upon best current scientific understanding and integrated modeling tools. These
options should span a range of confinement configurations (FST-SO-D, FST-SO-E,
FST-SO-H) and operating scenarios, and be updated following advancements inrelevant modelling capabilities informed by experimental validation activities andtechnologies. Participation in the program should be broad and open to the entire U.S.
fusion community, enabling diverse sets of institutions and researchers to pursue
innovative approaches to developing economically attractive FPP concepts. It is
explicitly recognized by the fusion community that these studies are intended to help
clarify and inform research needs and priorities, and do not represent a commitment on
the part of DOE to further develop or construct any particular FPP concept. Without
implementation of this program, it is unlikely that advances in understanding andtechnology achieved by U.S. investments in fusion energy will be adopted and leveraged
in a timely fashion, resulting in a slower and more expensive FPP development path.

89

2. Integrate predictive plasma and material modeling capabilities (FST-PR-D) with theindustry-standard engineering tools that will be required to carry out FPP costingstudies and conceptual design, ensuring a direct pathway to incorporate
innovations in science and technology enabled by this strategic plan
To enable the success of recommendation FST-PR-A.1, it is vital that the full range of
the U.S. fusion community’s world-leading predictive modeling capabilities (enabled by
FST-PR-D) be fully utilized in developing FPP concepts. These plasma and material
modeling capabilities must be connected to state-of-the-art commercial engineering tools
in order to perform holistic assessments of FPP facility concepts. Considerations ofsafety and licensing requirements and needs identified in FST-SO-G should be
integrated into these joint modeling capabilities. In addition to the development of these
physics and engineering capabilities, improved costing algorithms and tools should be
developed to support necessary techno-economical analysis of potential FPP designs.
Without implementation of this recommendation, U.S. investments in science,technology, and advanced computing cannot be easily adopted or leveraged by FPP
design concepts. These modeling and costing tools should be made available to private
industry though partnership models outlined in FST-PR-C.
3. Establish and engage the appropriate expertise needed to conduct
techno-economic analysis of potential FPP concepts within the U.S. fusion
programDetermining the economic attractiveness of FPP concepts requires growing expertise intechno-economic analysis within the U.S. fusion community. In particular, it is widely
recognized that improved costing algorithms and tools are needed for accurate
assessments of fusion facilities, including the FPP studies entailed within FST-PR-A.1
above. The experts trained and recruited through this effort would be responsible forleading the development of those tools. Without such an effort, the ability of the U.S.
fusion community to confidently perform accurate cost-benefit analyses of FPP concept
innovations will remain limited.
4. Conduct FPP mission scoping, engaging with public and private stakeholders to
identify an optimal set of deliverables for the fusion pilot plant, considering
multiple confinement concepts and operating scenarios
These discussions should establish both relative priorities of FPP deliverables, such as
those suggested in this plan here [FPP-Defintion], and quantitative values to be met.
Potential deliverables would include targets for wattage of net electricity production, howlong power generation should be sustained, and fluence levels achieved. Possible
staged approaches to FPP construction and operation should also be evaluated, in
addition to licensing and regulation considerations developed by [FST-SO-G]. These
deliverables should be periodically revisited to ensure that the FPP concepts remain90well-aligned with a dynamically evolving U.S. energy market. Not developing thesedeliverables in close collaboration with all relevant public and private stakeholders, orallowing them to remain static over long timescales, risks setting the U.S. fusion programon a path which develops FPP concepts that will not be economically attractive.

FST Program Recommendation B: Participate fully in ITER to advance ourcapability to predict, control, and sustain a burning plasma and to obtainthe critical science and technology input needed to design a fusion pilot
plant.
This recommendation echoes the National Academies recommendation that the U.S. should
remain an ITER partner to gain experience with a burning plasma at a power plant relevant
scale while benefiting from the shared cost through international partnership [Nat. Acad. 2018aAppendix H]. Access to burning plasma with a significant fraction of alpha particles, thedominant heating source in a burning plasma, is an essential step in completing the tokamak
physics basis [FST-SO-D] and is required for validation of the theory, simulation, diagnostics,
and tools needed to optimize and achieve successful, high performance operation of an FPP.
ITER will be used to test methods for control of reactor plasma confinement and stability,
plasma interactions with first wall materials, and fusion power output. Critical research during
ITER pre fusion power operation (PFPO, scheduled 2028-2034) is needed to inform FPP design
scoping [FST-PR-A]. ITER is an important step in understanding the optimal application
scheme and advancing pellet injection technology for fueling and disruption mitigation[FST-SO-C.8], and participation in the testing of the shattered pellet mitigation system is apriority [FST-SO-D.4]. Operation of ITER is now on the horizon with First Plasma expected in
2025. As an ITER partner, the U.S. receives full benefit from ITER but provides only a fractionof the cost. The ITER project is on track with execution of project scope through First Plasma
now at over 65 percent, and machine assembly officially scheduled to start in April 2020. We
are now in a position to begin reaping the benefits of our investment in ITER. These
recommendations are essential to ensure that U.S. credibility is maintained, ITER remains onschedule, and remaining risks are resolved to enable ITER to meet or exceed its performancegoals.

1. Fulfill commitments to ITER construction and operation
The U.S. should fund agreed-upon in-kind and cash contributions needed to constructand operate ITER on a schedule compatible with the ITER facility plan. In the near term
this includes fully funding ITER Sub-Project 1 (First Plasma) and Sub-Project 2(Post-First Plasma). This is essential for maintaining U.S. credibility within the global
fusion community and to ensure successful completion of this vital experiment.
2. Develop a U.S. workforce program for domestic and onsite ITER participation91

In order to ensure access to burning plasma knowledge and critical research needed to
inform the FPP, the U.S. urgently needs to establish a team that will enable fullparticipation in ITER during systems commissioning, pre fusion power and fusion power
operation phases. The U.S. should create a centralized, coherent framework to develop
the longer-term workforce needed to effectively participate in ITER experimental
planning and capitalize on the U.S. return on investment. A clear plan to transition theworkforce from existing facilities to ITER and new facilities, such as NTUF, must be
developed through FST-SO-D.2 and as existing facilities complete essential mission
objectives. The U.S. should utilize available collaboration mechanisms and takeadvantage of opportunities to engage workers in existing ITER activities. Immediately,
the U.S. can establish a flexible, rapid response approval mechanism allowing U.S.
institutions
totakeadvantage
of
the
ITER
Project
Associates(https://www.iter.org/jobs/IPA) scheme. DOE should clarify U.S. participation in the IPA
process and implement a mechanism to ensure broad involvement by universities,
industry, and national laboratories in ITER contracts and operation. Enabling
collaborations between universities and ITER could also provide long-term and stable
funding paths to grow new faculty lines in fusion and plasma science [CC-WF.B.7].
3. Utilize existing facilities and funding models to support ITER readiness throughstart of Pre-Fusion Power Operations
The ITER Research Plan (IRP) identifies a number of priority research questions which
require best possible answers prior to embarking on the PFPO campaign, anticipatedwithin the next decade. Contributions to needed R&D from existing world facilities arecoordinated through the International Tokamak Physics Activity (ITPA). The U.S. should
remain engaged in the ITPA organization and increase participation as needed in orderto optimize contributions from existing U.S. facilities toward ITER. Extra priority should
be given to ITPA activities relevant for an FPP. In the near term, DIII-D should be used
to help resolve outstanding ITER scenario issues identified in the IRP. For R&D tasks inwhich a concerted effort is required, the U.S. should use open, competitive Funding
Opportunity Announcements to establish new multi-institution research teams.
4. Leverage ITER involvement to inform decisions for an FPP
Preparation for ITER operation and eventual lessons learned from participation in
operation are expected to resolve questions for an FPP. The U.S. needs to establish
and execute a process to obtain and understand the technology development for thewide range of engineering systems on ITER, generally produced by other Domestic
Agencies, as guaranteed by the ITER agreement. Many of these systems are alreadycompleted or near completion, so gaining this technology knowledge can begin
immediately. Immediate engagement is needed for long lead-time FPP elements. The
R&D results emerging from U.S. participation in ITER will include:92

A. Tritium handling, safety, and licensing components
While relevant information from the ITER Test Blanket Module program may belimited for FPP design [FST-SO-C.6], the U.S. can gain from ITER R&D activities
for tritium fueling, exhaust, processing, and inventory [FST-SO-C], providing
opportunity to translate to an early technical basis for design, manufacturing,commissioning, and start-up operation of large-scale FPP tritium handling. The
U.S. is expected to provide the Tokamak Exhaust Processing System for ITER
Sub-Project 2. The FPP high-temperature nuclear structural design (HTNSD)
criteria will be developed through extension of the ITER Structural Design Criteria[FST-SO-B.4]. ITER participation would advance U.S. modeling capabilities todetermine licensing and balance-of-plant requirements in order to assess overall
FPP performance, safety margins, and costs [FST-PR-D.3, FST-PR-A.2].
Participation enables expanded verification, validation, and uncertainty
quantification activities for a full range of models and workflows to study
parameters and operating regimes not accessible on U.S. domestic facilities[FST-PR.D.5].
Lessons learned from ITER will help develop a licensing
framework [FST-SO-G.1] and strategies for remote handling and maintenance[FST-SO-G.4].
B. Science informing tokamak pilot plant scenarios
The proposed NTUF device [FST-SO-D.2] is ultimately required fordemonstrating the feasibility of the U.S. path toward an economical FPP, as thehigh absolute plasma pressure core and high power density boundary is in adifferent regime than ITER. However, U.S. research during ITER PFPO isneeded to provide key data on other critical gaps to help inform FPP design
scoping. This includes the performance of disruption avoidance and mitigation
technology supplied by the U.S. [FST-SO-D.4]; ELM suppression from 3D fields;
scaling of confinement, pedestal, and scrape-off-layer physics; and control
strategies for high performance burning plasmas. ITER PFPO model validation
will be used to develop power exhaust scenarios [FST-SO-D.3], energetic particle
physics for predictive integrated modeling [FST-PR-D], and reactor-relevant
heating and current drive [FST-SO-F.6]. Experience from ITER can be leveraged
to develop needed RF generators and power supplies [FST-SO-F.5].
C. Knowledge of diagnostics in a fusion nuclear environment for control purposes
The U.S. is expected to deliver seven instrumentation systems for Sub-Projects 1& 2. Not all of the strategies developed for ITER diagnostics may be applicable
to an FPP, but engaging directly with relevant ITER work begins to solve a
number of challenges with diagnostic and instrumentation survivability[FST-PR-E.2], design, and commissioning challenges [FST-PR-E.3, CC-MD].

93

FST Program Recommendation C: Deploy various models of public-private
partnerships to develop technology at a lower cost and move towards
fusion commercialization
Partnering with private industry to advance fusion development is a necessary step on the path
to commercialization of fusion energy within the U.S. Building from examples in commercial
space, fission, and other industries, public-private partnerships will provide private capital toaugment public research through cost-shares, facilities, and capabilities that may not otherwise
be developed within the public program, and transfer technology to be used in the private
sector. Including private industry with the public effort helps to provide urgency and alignment
with future markets, introduces an opportunity to take bigger risks, and drives commercial
solutions.
1. Develop, utilize, and expand programs for public/private partnerships thatleverage lessons learned from DOE and other areas of the federal government
The U.S. should make the Innovation Network for Fusion Energy (INFUSE) a permanent
FES applied research program to support industry’s investment in fusion energy.
INFUSE should be expanded and adapted based on input from the FY19 pilot programand mechanisms should be developed for direct University participation. FES should
also coordinate with ARPA-E to support necessary follow-on FES research from ARPA-E
funded activities and assess the potential for alternate concepts to form an approach toa fusion pilot plant. The U.S. should exploit the ability of government-funded science tobe completed in partnership with privately funded fusion companies.
Using
peer-reviewed proposals, FES should develop best practices for collaboration of publicresearchers on private facilities to further the public scientific research needs (e.g. using
the FRC at TAE as a Discovery Plasma Science and SPARC as a burning plasma
collaborative facility). FES should explore the use of cost-share programs, as was done
for the NASA COTS and DOE SMR programs, focusing on reactor technologies andprototype demonstrations prioritized within the Strategic Objectives. Finally, FES andindustry should look back at lessons learned from early (70’s and 80’s) participation ofprivate industry in fusion as well as PPPs in the early development of fission, both
domestically and abroad.
2. Dialogue should be fostered between government researchers and experts in theprivate sector (e.g. venture capital, finance, private industry, etc.). The private
sector should be recognized as a key stakeholder when developing goals for FES
programs.
Part of the motivation of the U.S. program to push towards a low capital cost fusion pilot
plant is the recognition that this would be more attractive to industry for the eventualcommercialization of fusion power plants.
The dialogue between government94

researchers and experts in the private sector must continue throughout the developmentof the FPP. This continued interaction with all stakeholders will be key for advancing
fusion power, especially as the fusion program embraces the energy mission anddevelops designs and cost estimates for a fusion pilot plant (FST-PR-A).

FST Program Recommendation D: Develop and utilize a hierarchy ofvalidated models for predictive integrated modeling, by continuing thepartnership between FES and ASCR, expanding capacity computing
infrastructure, and utilizing advances in computational architecture andcapability.
Advancing multi-scale, multi-physics theory and modeling capabilities in a diversity of topicalareas is necessary to predict the complex interactions between numerous plasma, material, andengineering processes that will occur within a fusion pilot plant (FPP). These advances are
required to extrapolate with confidence from present experiments to the fundamentally new
physics regimes typical of any FPP. These fundamental advancements also form the basis forthe models that must be used to develop FPP designs in FST-PR-A. There is a hierarchy of
approaches required, spanning from high fidelity simulations to faster reduced complexity
models. This hierarchy of models must be integrated to represent physics processes of theentire plasma, describing dynamics from the plasma core to the first wall. This “whole plasma
model” capability must then be extended, to whole device modeling which integrates plasma
dynamics with the divertor, wall and blanket behaviors, and then finally to whole facility modelingwhich also integrates balance of plant, costing, and licensing concerns to the site boundary, tosupport FPP design and costing activities in FST-PR-A. Carrying out the necessary range ofmodeling and simulation work needed to realize fusion energy in a timely and cost-effective
manner will require continued close partnership between FES and ASCR to fully leverage
current and future computing resources, including U.S. investments in exascale computing. This
work is vital to accelerating the pace of fusion energy development, by both helping to focus
research priorities and providing a means of risk management when extrapolating fromcurrent-day experiments to FPP conditions.
1. Support advancing fundamental scientific understanding of fusion-relevant
plasma and material physics through theoretical and computational exploration to
enable innovation and new conceptual solutions
Support for fundamental theoretical investigations of fusion plasma and material physics
questions is central to this strategic plan. More concretely, these studies provide thefoundation for building the scientific understanding needed to improve our predictivemodeling capabilities. For instance, there are a variety of research gaps where ourfundamental physics understanding is limited, such as how edge localized modes aresuppressed by resonant magnetic perturbations, what controls the L-H power threshold,what limits the maximum achievable pressure in stellarators, and how plasma facing

95

component and structural material properties are degraded by plasma and neutron
irradiation. Developing an improved fundamental understanding of these questions isvital for building predictive physics-based models that can be extrapolated to future
regimes with confidence. Without this foundational work, the risks entailed in
extrapolating current results to future facilities are greatly magnified, and our ability toinnovate efficiently is greatly reduced. One example of how fundamental theoreticalresearch can directly enable transformational innovations and approaches to fusionenergy can be seen in the optimization of stellarator transport and confinement detailedin FST-SO-E.
2. Develop hierarchies of validated predictive models suitable for timely design andoptimization of future facilities
FES should support increased collaboration between theory, computation, andexperiment through means such as SciDAC projects. The goal of these collaborations
should be to build, verify, refine, and validate predictive models of all fusion-relevant
plasma and material processes, at a variety of fidelities and computational costs. This
activity is vital, for example, to deliver validated energetic particle transport models forpredictive, integrated modeling, which are needed to understand and quantify theconsequence of fast-particle interactions with instabilities for current drive, thermal
profiles, wall heating, etc. As identified in the 2015 Integrated Simulation workshop[Integrated Simulations 2015], these model hierarchies should include both high-fidelity
and a range of reduced models, with reduced model predictions verified against analytic
theory and high-fidelity simulation results. Innovations in data analysis and machinelearning should be used to complement traditional model development approaches.
Without building and validating these hierarchies, our ability to accurately design andoptimize FPP concepts in a timely and resource-efficient manner will be limited, ourconfidence in extrapolating beyond current facilities and plasma regimes will not be
warranted, and the risks in the development of FPP concepts will be magnified.
3. Develop physically rigorous and computationally robust model integration
methods to enable predictive whole-facility modeling and optimization of FPP
concepts
Developing these integration methods will require participation from experts in analytic
theory (to ensure the approaches taken are physically rigorous) and computational
scientists (to ensure the algorithms used are computationally robust). This effort should
prioritize improving the ability of the FPP conceptual study program (FST-PR-A) to maketimely decisions which incorporate advances in understanding. Beyond integrating U.S.
leadership capabilities in physics and engineering modeling together, ITER participationand international collaboration should be used to advance U.S. modeling capabilities for
topics such as balance-of-plant and licensing requirements. Implementation of thisrecommendation is critical to building accurate modeling tools capable of describing the96

complex interplays and trade-offs of various physics phenomena and engineering
choices inherent to any FPP concept. Without such a capability, our ability to correctly
assess overall FPP performance, safety margins, and costs will be strongly limited.
4. Invest in computational infrastructure and software engineering needs to enableoptimal utilization of current and future high performance computing platforms
Continued investments in the development of computing frameworks will provide avariety of beneficial returns to the community such as improved data management andanalysis, easier interfaces to experimental data, code couplings and benchmarkings withexperiments, code couplings, etc. Consistent with this recommendation as well as thegeneral cross-cutting recommendations to improve code reproducibility and accessibility,
compatibility with common data standards and formats such as IMAS to support code
benchmarking and expanded accessibility should be encouraged. Support is needed for
dedicated software engineers, who will be tasked with ensuring the continued
functionality of “legacy” production codes on new architectures, and building
standardized software libraries that minimize the overhead of new code development.
Finally, investments in capacity as well as capability computing resources are needed tocontinue advancing our modeling capabilities and sustain U.S. leadership. Without
these investments, U.S. leadership in predictive modeling of fusion plasmas will be atrisk, along with our ability to efficiently utilize the significant DOE investments inadvanced computing platforms.
5. Support expanded verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification activities
for full range of needed models and workflows.
Verification and validation with rigorous uncertainty quantification remains an essential
requirement for confidence in predictive models, particularly as they will likely play
crucial roles in the licensing process. Future validation efforts should focus on regimesthat are relevant to burning plasma conditions. These efforts should also take fulladvantage of ITER participation as well as collaborations with international and private
facilities to study parameters and operating regimes not accessible on U.S. domestic
facilities. Validation platforms can and should include “test-stand” level facilities as welllarger confinement devices. Increased emphasis should also be placed on thedevelopment of synthetic and virtual diagnostics in collaboration with the work outlined in
FST-PR-E, particularly those needed to support the operation of nuclear facilities suchas the FPP. Without these activities, confidence in our ability to accurately design FPP
concepts and extrapolate to FPP regimes will be low, and risks in the operation andlicensing of an FPP will be magnified.

97

FST Program Recommendation E: Establish a program for developing
diagnostics, measurement, and control techniques that can be used in areactor environment.
Advances in diagnostics, instrumentation, data handling and interpretation are broadly needed
for plasma science, fusion materials research, and power plant operation. Development andimplementation of plasma science diagnostics are needed to provide sufficient data for model
validation and the prediction of burning plasma behavior. Diagnostic advancements for fusionmaterials studies are needed to improve the understanding of the interaction of the fusion
environment with materials at a fundamental level. Power plant operation and control will rely
on new diagnostics and instrumentation to monitor proper operation of the facility, including
in-vessel and ex-vessel systems and sensors for data processing and automated real-timedecision making. These sets of plasma diagnostics and engineering instrumentation may
evolve over the operational stages of an FPP. For example, some systems may be needed in
the early phase to confirm adequate operation during commissioning of the plant. Others willneed the robustness to survive in the nuclear environment during extended operation. The
intent of this Programmatic Recommendation is to accelerate progress and increase readinessof diagnostic systems for a fusion reactor.
This set of recommendations emphasizes diagnostic needs specific to magnetic fusion andtechnology programs. Broader aspects of plasma diagnostic development needed to advance
plasma science, to develop the tokamak physics basis, to close gaps, and to validate models
are addressed in further detail in the Cross-cutting section of this report.
1. Develop critical in situ and combined effect diagnostics for fusion materials
research and plasma science needed to validate models, which includes new
capabilities on existing confinement devices as well as on smaller “lab-scale”
experiments
This objective focuses on materials and scrape-off layer plasma characterization
techniques needed to advance the fundamental science underpinning the fusion
technology systems highlighted in this report. As a starting point, the program should
target efforts to improve the scientific productivity of existing materials and surface
analysis tools for fusion-specific problems. Here, a relatively modest investment of effort
to improve data analysis algorithms or detector efficiency could help realize significant
advancements in measurement spatial resolution, sensitivity, and throughput. Criticalmeasurement R&D needs for specific fusion technology areas must also be considered.
For example, within the blanket and tritium fuel cycle topic, this includes fundamental
research on liquid metals, including development of techniques to characterize flows. In
addition, new methods of characterizing corrosion would enable materials compatibility
testing to be achieved on much shorter timescales than is currently possible. From theperspective of plasma-material interactions, there are large uncertainties associated with98

fundamental quantities such as tritium trapping energies, recombination rates, andtransport parameters. Much of the challenge arises due to difficulties withcharacterization due to limitations of existing techniques. This has been a significant
obstacle to modelling how surfaces evolve in a plasma environment, and completely
new measurement approaches are likely needed to precisely quantify these parameters.
To supplement smaller-scale test stands, we recommend the incorporation of improved
materials analysis capabilities into existing major fusion facilities (both linear plasma andtoroidal confinement devices) to track surface composition and structure evolution (i.e.
using in vacuo sample transfer). It is also imperative to establish new diagnostics tocomplement larger-scale facilities that have been proposed to study “combined effects”,
such as concurrent ion beam damage and plasma exposure, or concurrent high heat flux
and plasma exposure.
Existing tools for post mortem characterization provide exquisite detail into material
structure and composition (with resolution down to atomic scale) and should continue tobe used and refined for fusion-specific applications. Available techniques capable oftime-resolved measurements, tracking surface evolution and the dynamic response ofmaterials to plasmas are much more limited. A robust program to develop novel in situ
diagnostics for probing dynamic effects of plasmas on materials (surface
composition/structure) is also suggested.
Finally, it is essential to upgrade
scrape-off-layer diagnostics to improve measurements of incident particle fluxes andheat loading.
2. Initiate the R&D needed to solve diagnostic survivability challenges (materials &electronics) imposed by the nuclear conditions expected throughout a fusion pilot
plant facility
Existing plasma diagnostics and engineering instrumentation will be severely challenged
by the harsh environment of burning plasmas. Because the lead-time associated withcompleting the required materials and component testing is on the order of 10 years or
more, it is recommended that a R&D program be started immediately to develop anunderstanding of the associated degradation mechanisms so that suitablecountermeasures can be developed. This includes characterizing the real-time andlong-term impacts of neutron-, ion-, and gamma-induced damage to insulating materials,
and encompasses radiation-enhanced conductivity, radiation-induced electricaldegradation, thermal conductivity degradation, and mechanical strength degradation.
The effects of radiation on refractive optics, optical fibers, viewports, feedthroughs,
supporting structure, and diagnostic mirrors must also be considered and suitable
alternatives/countermeasures must be devised. It is recommended that testing of
relevant diagnostic materials be initiated as a near-term priority using existing fission
neutron sources. As available test stands come online, materials testing is
recommended using a fusion prototypic neutron source (FST-O-B), within larger scale
component testing to be performed in a volumetric neutron source (FST-O-C).
99

R&D on these topics has been underway as part of the ITER diagnostics program. While
not all of the strategies developed for ITER diagnostics may be applicable to an FPP,
much of the fundamental work is still highly relevant. To take full advantage of the
progress that has been made by the international community, it is recommended that the
U.S. should engage ITER on these topics directly (FST-PR-B).
3. Develop nuclear environment compatible plasma diagnostics and engineering
instrumentation needed for control and safe operation of an FPP and benchmark
these new instruments on available facilities
Keeping in mind the challenges associated with a burning plasma environment, thisrecommendation focuses on developing a suite of new techniques that can survive in a
nuclear environment. The topic of radiation-hardened engineering instrumentation andplasma diagnostics is a required area for innovation. However, to ensure that these newtechniques are available in time to be implemented on an FPP, these activities must be
approached with urgency, given the typical lead-time of ~10 years required for diagnostic
development. As a starting point, it is necessary to establish the diagnostics needed for
anticipated operating modes (e.g. using the ITER classification: machine protection andbasic control, measurements for advanced control, and performance evaluation
physics), leveraging from lessons learned in ITER diagnostic design and commissioning(FST-PR-B). Potential gaps where required time, spatial resolution, or durability may not
be adequate must then be identified. Following completion of these steps, the program
should develop new techniques to replace plasma diagnostics and engineering
instrumentation which are otherwise incompatible with the fusion environment. This may
require development of new radiation-resistant materials and rad-hardened
instrumentation. Furthermore, manufacturing and design approaches to improve
diagnostic integration, in situ calibration, or replacement will need to be established inconcert with the design of remote maintenance systems (FST-O-G). The use of synthetic
diagnostics may be helpful in performing quantitative assessments of existing plasma
diagnostics as well as in the design of new techniques. Where possible, these systems
should be validated on existing confinement devices or subsequent intermediate-scale
facilities.
The needs of plasma diagnostics and engineering instrumentation must be consideredat the outset of the FPP design activity. The FPP may start with extensive diagnostics as
the machine is initially being tested. It is important to keep in mind that the diagnostics
will occupy space needed for tritium breeding blankets. To accomodate adequate tritium
breeding, diagnostics may need to be reduced to a minimum set needed for control andmachine protection. It will be necessary to have diagnostic port design and layouts that
account for the impacts on blankets and other components surrounding the plasma, as
well as regulatory requirements. Strategies for remote calibration, alignment,
maintenance, and replacement will need to be developed to minimize personnel
100exposure. In addition to the plasma diagnostics, the scope must be established for therequired engineering instrumentation and tooling required to assess damage to activatedcomponents and analyze components removed from the nuclear facility. Finally,algorithms and control systems will be needed to manage and analyze the large amountof data produced by the various sensors. This includes automated techniques forreal-time control and safe operation of the facility.
4. Develop advanced control techniques to maintain high-performance burning
plasmas without disruptions or other major excursions
The plasma diagnostic and control techniques for any future pilot plant will have to beadvanced well beyond what is in use on existing devices and what is planned for ITER.
The control systems must be made as robust as possible, since any deterioration ofplasma control could lead to loss of confinement (potentially leading to disruptions),
posing a significant risk of damage to the internal components and surfaces of themachine itself. Improvements are needed to ensure that the reactions of the control
systems in response to transient events are as fast as possible. The control system mustalso enable operation of the device near its limits, where high-performance plasmas areneeded to maximize power output. The functions of the control system will likely need tobe accomplished while relying on a limited set of plasma diagnostics, given thechallenges associated with their survivability in a nuclear environment described above.
It will be essential to develop methods to quickly extract information on the state of theplasma from this limited set of plasma diagnostics. Control of the plasma will also rely
heavily on robust models of how the plasma responds to available actuators.

101

Cross-Cutting Opportunities and Recommendations
Fusion and plasma science spans a diverse range of topics and goals, from understanding
plasma dynamics in the universe to providing technological advances that will improve humanhealth and well-being, including limitless fusion energy to power our future civilization. The twolarge areas of FST and DPS represent the DPP-CPP organizational areas of General Plasma
Science (GPS), High Energy Density Plasmas (HEDP), Magnetic Fusion Energy (MFE) andFusion Materials and Technology (FM&T). Several areas of research having common
importance to this wide breadth of fusion and plasma science were chosen for strategic focus
on cross-cutting opportunities: Theory and Computation (TC), Measurements and Diagnostics(MD), Enabling Technology (ET) and Workforce Development (WF), including Diversity, Equity
and Inclusion. The DPP-CPP discussions on these cross-cut areas aimed to identify scientificand technological opportunities that are largely held in common across all topical areas, and to
identify organizational or strategic frameworks that advance or leverage common areas ofinterest or need among the topical areas for the purpose of advancing fusion and plasma
science broadly. Attention was also given to identifying research methods and tools inneighboring disciplines outside of fusion and plasma science that would advance science andtechnology broadly through coordinated research activities. As such, the recommendations
given below represent opportunities to advance fusion and plasma science broadly if carried out
in coordination within FES and in coordination with adjacent fields of science and technologythat have similar needs and opportunities. In these cross-cut areas, FES should encouragecoordination within the fusion and plasma science realm and in cooperation with othergovernment offices, agencies and the private sector to maximize these cross-cutting
opportunities.

Cross-cut TC: Theory and Computation
Theory and computation provides the basis for interpreting experimental observations andtransforming those observations into physical understanding. This understanding is manifested
through the development of a hierarchy of models, ranging from the formulation of governing
equations and their solutions via analytic (“pencil and paper”) theory, to direct numerical solutionof those governing equations via computer, to semi-empirical scaling relations that combine
insights from theory with calibration parameters drawn from experimental measurements. These
approaches are complemented by purely empirical models of physical phenomena, such as
widely-used confinement scaling laws in fusion energy derived from regression analysis ofexperimental observations or neural networks and other machine-learning–based approaches.
The process of testing a model’s accuracy and fidelity is often referred to as verification andvalidation (V&V), and this process is central to any robust research program. While analytic
theory and small-scale computational analysis form the foundation of the plasma and fusion
communities’ modeling capabilities, large-scale simulations using advanced high-performancecomputing platforms play an ever-increasing role in interpreting and predicting plasma andfusion system behavior. Plasma theory and modeling have historically been an area of U.S.
102

leadership, and maintaining this strength will require continued investment in theory andmodeling research, computational infrastructure, and workforce development. Three
recommendations are identified below to enable the U.S. to maintain leadership in this vital
component of plasma physics and fusion energy research. Each recommendation is viewed asa vital and equally important component of the strategic plan’s approach to ensuring a robust
theory and modeling program that underpins the full range of research and development in both
the FST and DPS areas.

Recommendations
1. Support a broad spectrum of verification and validation activities throughout theentire FES program, to enable the development of physical understanding andfoster innovation
Verification and validation (V&V) are the means by which we test the fidelity andaccuracy of the models that embody our understanding of plasma and material physics.
Carrying out this V&V research requires dedicated support for a broad spectrum ofactivities, from analytic theory to large-scale simulations on exascale computing
platforms. Beyond analytic theory’s central role in developing the new models andconceptual frameworks which enable us to improve our understanding of physicalphenomena, analytic theory is vital for defining the test and use cases around which
many V&V studies are built. Therefore continued robust support for fundamental
theoretical research is an essential foundational component of a healthy research
program and portfolio. Complementary to this sustained support for analytic theory is theneed to continue investments in computational infrastructure and accessibility (describedin greater detail below), to enable the robust V&V of the computational models that
increasingly embody our understanding of physical phenomena. Beyond the specificrecommendations below, it is of paramount importance to ensure that FES-supported
researchers continue to have access to computational resources and tools appropriate
for carrying out V&V studies. In many cases, such as uncertainty quantification studies,a higher premium may be placed upon ensembles of simulations at moderate resolution,rather than a single simulation of the highest possible resolution. These approaches are
sometimes referred to as capacity vs. capability computing workflows. Ensuring support
for capacity computing workflows on future platforms in addition to the traditionallyemphasised capability approach is therefore essential to continued time- andresource-efficient V&V research within the FES portfolio.
2. Harness growth in advanced scientific computing tools to improve fundamental
understanding and predictive modeling capabilities
The efficient use of advanced and high-performance computation has long been ahallmark of the plasma and fusion research activities supported by FES. To sustain U.S.

103

leadership in this area and enable continued productive computational modeling, it isimportant for FES to take a broad and balanced approach to future investments incomputational infrastructure. Continuation of the close partnership with the Advanced
Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program of DOE is recommended, to enable theplasma community to take full advantage of current and future computing platforms,
including coming exascale machines. Towards this end, it is also recommended thatFES increase support for software engineers to partner with FES-funded codedevelopment efforts. These engineers are needed to keep key production codes
running efficiently on new computing platforms, and to provide tools such as
standardized software libraries that can lower the time and financial costs of bothdeveloping new codes and transitioning existing codes to new architectures. This
recommendation reflects the reality that the complexity of software development forthese new platforms (e.g. those making heavy use of GPUs) has increased greatly, andbuilding efficient, scalable codes for them requires specialized expertise in computerscience as well as plasma and material physics. Growing this expertise within the FES
portfolio represents a specific workforce development need and opportunity, particularly
since it provides an opening to connect with disciplines and researchers outside of
traditional plasma physics and fusion energy programs. As such, it is an importantcomponent of the workforce development activities detailed in CC-WF.
It is also recommended that FES maintain support for a broad spectrum of computing
needs and workflows, recognizing in particular the vital roles both capacity and capability
computing play in advancing the frontiers of our understanding. In particular, both FES
management and the community as a whole should be proactive in considering andcommunicating the full breadth of actual computing needs when specifications andrequirements for new high-performance computing platforms are being identified. It is
likely that many other research communities have similarly broad computing needs, andopportunities for greater interaction with other programs (both within and outside ofDOE) on this topic should be pursued. For instance, opportunities to learn from othercommunities such as high-energy physics on how cloud computing resources can be
efficiently utilized as complements to traditional DOE-supported computing platforms.
Finally, it is recommended that FES take a measured approach towards balancing
investments in new areas such as machine learning and quantum computing withongoing research programs using established computing platforms and algorithms,
which in many cases have been optimized for production use through significant
previous DOE investments.
3. Support improvements to the accessibility, interoperability, reproducibility, anduser-friendliness of FES-fundeded codes and their outputs
Given the critical role computational modeling now plays within the FES research
portfolio, and the opportunities for innovation enabled by new modeling capabilities, it isimportant to ensure that FES-funded computational tools are reliable and broadly usable104

by the plasma and fusion communities. It is therefore recommended that FES
encourage open source development of current and future codes as feasible(recognizing limits due to e.g. export control restrictions), as well as implementation ofbest practice methodologies such as the use of version control software. Continued
support for the development and use of common data standards and computing
frameworks is also recommended. In order to increase the accessibility of FES-fundedcodes and tools, it is recommended that FES increase support for hands-on training andinteractions between code users and developers, through means such as visiting scholar
programs and increased travel support. Complementing these activities should be
increased support for, and requirements on, accurate and timely code documentation.
Finally, it is also recognized that the growth in advanced computing, and its role within
the FES program, motivates new approaches to data management and analysis. For
example, the largest and highest-resolution simulations are of necessity limited in
number, and the computing resources needed to perform them obtained through highly
selective (and time-consuming) proposal processes, such as the INCITE and ALCC
programs. It is therefore recommended that FES begin identifying ways to make thedatasets generated by these simulations more widely accessible to the community, toenable a broader cross-section of researchers to use the data in new and innovative
ways. For instance, these data sets could be used to help guide development of new
theoretical approaches, verify and validate reduced models, or form parts of the data
sets needed for building neural nets. This recommendation draws from the observation
that, much like the data obtained from large experimental facilities, these simulations,and the computers used to perform them, represent significant financial investments on
the part of DOE, and therefore the simulation data should be made similarly available tothe broader community. In implementing this recommendation, FES is encouraged to
examine how other fields such as climate modeling or astrophysics and cosmology havemade large simulation datasets publicly accessible.

Cross-cut MD: Advance the development of Measurement
and Diagnostics techniques for plasma science and fusionenergyNew developments in diagnostics, instrumentation, data handling and interpretation are broadly
needed to advance plasma science, fusion materials research, and fusion energy studies. The
diagnostics should push beyond the boundaries of what is possible with existing techniques interms of spatial, spectral, and temporal resolution. These developments are intended to bestrongly coupled with modelling efforts (CC-TC) for which validation data is crucial for an
accurate prediction of plasma behavior. For example, diagnostic advancements for fusionmaterials studies are needed to improve the understanding of the interaction of the fusion
environment with materials at a fundamental level. Advanced diagnostics are also required todiagnose a plasma and to characterize particle and photon beams generated in ultra-intense105

laser-matter interactions. Many of these diagnostics must be robust to survive high-radiation
environments during extended operation. The intent of this Measurements and Diagnostics(MD) cross-cut is to accelerate progress and increase readiness of diagnostics for a fusion
reactor and for plasma-science applications. The high-level objectives for the MD cross-cut
process are to: 1) Identify cross-cutting diagnostics critical to the scientific discovery of plasmas
relevant to the different topical areas; 2) Encourage and shape initiatives that address
cross-cutting opportunities among the topical areas; 3.) Identify diagnostics in disciplines
outside FES that could advance the research activities of plasma science and fusion energy; 4)
Identify organizational and strategic frameworks that advance common areas of interest.
1. Pursue advances in diagnostics development, including innovations that provide
access to a wider range of plasma parameter space and enable survivability inextreme environments
Many existing diagnostics need to be advanced in terms of their spatial, spectral, andtemporal resolution in order to allow new discoveries in plasma and fusion science.
Additionally, new developments of advanced diagnostics are needed to enhance ourfundamental understanding of plasmas in general and take us to the next level in ourefforts of developing a fusion energy source. Innovation is needed to measure plasma,material, and component parameters in extreme environments, such as in an FPP.
These diagnostics can be categorized as those that rely on particles and photons
emitted from the plasma itself, those that rely on external probes, or a combination of
both. Some existing diagnostics that need advancement include, but are not limited to:● Neutron spectrometry (e.g. for diagnosing alpha transport and heating). Diagnosing
alpha transport and heating of fuel ions is essential for understanding the science ofignition and burning plasmas at the NIF, SPARC and ITER. Discovery Plasma Science
may also benefit from this. This can be done by measuring the alpha knock-on
high-energy tail in the neutron spectrum. The challenge of implementing this technique
is to define a system that can measure this high-energy tail that is 10-3 or smaller,
depending on the plasma conditions, than the primary-neutron component. The
diagnostic must have sufficient energy resolution and sensitivity to measure a very small
component in the neutron spectrum, while at the same time be relatively insensitive tobackground.
● High-resolution x-ray spectroscopy of high-Z elements. High-resolution x-ray imaging
spectroscopy of impurities is critical for providing important information of ion
temperature, electron temperature and toroidal/poloidal rotation velocity in MFE
plasmas. For DPS and HEDP, high-resolution x-ray spectroscopy will provide important
information on line/edge shapes and shifts for validation of atomic-physics models, andcollisional-radiative/radiation-transport theories and codes. The needed instrumentation
advancements include improved spectral resolution, broader spectral coverage, and106

higher time resolution, ideally with small port access requirements and small equipment
footprint.
●
Optical Thomson Scattering (OTS). OTS will play a critical role in studying
collisionless shocks, particle acceleration, instabilities and magnetic reconnection inlaboratory astrophysical plasmas, and for studies of the dynamics of under-dense
hohlraum plasmas in ignition experiments at the NIF. In the context of MFE plasmas,
this technique will be essential for studies of the spatial distribution of electron
temperature and density, as well as the impact of non-thermal heating on the electron
velocity distribution. It might also be an important method for studies of confined alphas.
The overarching challenge of OTS is the need to measure a tiny signal in the presenceof a large background; each new implementation of OTS requires advances in laser
technology, detector capability, and/or optical design. For MFE applications, increases in
OTS measurement rep rate are needed to study dynamic processes such as disruptions
and instabilities.
●
Plasma-material interface diagnostics. How material composition and structure
evolve during high-flux plasma exposure is a critical problem throughout fusion andplasma science. A major obstacle to understanding these effects has been thelimitations of existing characterization techniques, given the high magnetic and electricfields present in a plasma discharge. Improvements to existing forms of surface analysis(improving spatial resolution and chemical sensitivity), as well as the development of
new in-situ diagnostics will greatly enhance our understanding of the fundamental
mechanisms governing plasma-induced surface evolution.
● High-resolution gamma-ray spectroscopy for studies of fast particles. This technique
has been identified as an important technique for MFE plasmas as it will provide
essential information about the fast ion behavior and relative density profiles of fuel andimpurity ions. For HEDP, the technique has been discussed for probing alpha transport,
mix and compression. The major challenge of implementing this technique is to find adesign that is sensitive enough to measure very small signals in the presence of large
backgrounds, mainly hard x-rays.
Additional techniques identified as needing advancement are optical and x-ray laser
beam probes, ion beam diagnostics (e.g. Thomson parabolas), ultra-fast diagnostics
such as x-ray streak cameras, and micro/nano probes to better capture kinetic-scale
physics. An issue facing many diagnostic implementations is the need for synthetic
diagnostic data that mimics the characteristics of real data. This synthetic data, which
could be generated by large-scale simulations, provides scenarios for diagnostic
development and testing. It will also be required to train machine-learning analysis
processes.

107

The detection materials and electronics in many these diagnostics must be maderesistant to damage and malfunction caused by high levels (both in terms of fluence andflux) of radiation. This can be achieved by shielding, improved detector materials, and/or
advanced analysis techniques. In the context of FM&T and MFE, this applies to a large
range of diagnostics that must be developed to monitor: the vacuum vessel, thermal
shield, magnetic field coils, in-vessel control coils, in-vessel structures, first wall anddivertor, tritium blanket, auxiliary heating, gas feed, and in-vessel support and remotecontrol. Having these systems will be critical for measuring and controlling the MFE
machine performance for the entire lifetime of the device, especially as the allowable
port space for diagnosing fusion reactors is potentially reduced. The U.S. should
leverage the knowledge gained from the diagnostic systems which are being developed
and deployed for ITER nuclear operation, especially through renewed funding support
for U.S. ITER diagnostics. For DPS and HEDP, this recommendation applies todiagnostics used to primarily diagnose plasmas. Detectors that are immune toelectromagnetic pulse interference and energetic particle bombardment are needed todiagnose plasmas generated by intense lasers, as well as plasmas being investigated in
the radiation environment of space.
2. Support the generation of atomic, molecular, nuclear, and spectroscopic data thatmeets needs in multiple plasma disciplines, support the generation of analysis
tools, and establish central databases and best practices for data management
There are profound advantages to generating critical data and establishing central datarepositories. It meets needs that are shared across plasma science areas; centralizes
the storage and maintenance of data; increases data quality and accuracy; reduces thenumber of updates and redundancies; and generates a higher return on investment.
These generation efforts and databases should include:● High-quality atomic, molecular, and spectroscopic data
● Nuclear data
● Open-source software ecosystem for plasma research● List of calibration facilities and capabilities● Best practices for storing data
Atomic, molecular, spectroscopic, and nuclear data enables many useful diagnostics andis a fundamental part of plasma modeling. While much progress has been made, astructured collaborative effort between the plasma community and atomic, molecular,
and nuclear physics community will facilitate tremendous progress in all areas of plasma
science. Feedback from the plasma modeling and diagnostic communities is critical tothis effort, and will lead to identification of gaps and refinement of atomic and nuclear

108

data, and benchmarking of the derived coefficients. These databases are needed in the
U.S. and internationally; supporting maintenance of these databases in the U.S. would
encourage U.S. leadership in this area.
3. Establish a forum to better guide diagnostic work across the topical areas
There is often a disconnect between the diagnostic communities across the different
topical areas. The seeming chasm in parameter space (1012 in time, 1011 in density)often prevents community members from seeking insight or ideas from the other topicalareas, but in fact there are many commonalities. There are several existing,partially-overlapping, domestic and international diagnostics forums, e.g. the High
Temperature Plasma Diagnostics topical meeting, the International Conference on
Plasma Science, the Laser-Aided Plasma Diagnostics workshop, and the APS-DPP
conferences. It is proposed that a standing task force of expert diagnosticians (~10people) from the different topical areas be formed to leverage and coordinate theexpertise across the topical areas. This group will discuss and identify diagnostic
techniques that are ripe for transfer between topical areas. Establishing this forum in the
U.S., supported with funding by the U.S. DOE, will position U.S. scientists to be leadersin emerging diagnostic technologies for the international fusion energy and plasma
science efforts.

Cross-cut ET: Enabling Technology
The realization of fusion energy and the advancement of plasma science will require advancesin adjacent technology areas such as power delivery, advanced materials, advanced
manufacturing techniques, and algorithms for modelling, control, and optimization. Althoughmore broadly stated here to capture the cross cutting nature of this effort between FES andDPS, these enabling technology categories directly relevant to the fusion energy effort weresummarized in the 2018 panel report delivered to FESAC titled “Transformative Enabling
Capabilities” [TEC 2018]. In that report, advanced algorithms, high critical temperature
superconductors, advanced materials and manufacturing, and tritium fuel cycle systems were
specifically stated, and are aligned with one or more of the topic areas stated here. This cross
cut seeks to advance these mission critical areas with recommendations that will strengthen thedomestic supply chain, integrate enabling technology efforts into FES and DPS facilities at all
scales, and identify FES and DPS mission needs, options, and timelines with regard to enabling
technology development.
There are many examples of enabling technologies that cut across multiple efforts in the fusionenergy and plasma science mission. High critical temperature superconductors can provide not
only magnetic confinement for fusion energy, but also help to replicate astrophysical conditionsin terrestrial laboratories and advance accelerator technology. Plasma facing materials are aubiquitous issue across all fusion energy and plasma science efforts, and advancing the109

development of materials that are resilient to the conditions formed by the plasma state will
broadly advance the field. Advances in algorithms for predictive modelling, optimization, andcontrol of complex systems will become a powerful tool in magnetic confinement and improve
non-recoverable engineering cost and operating efficiencies of existing and future industries
enabled by plasma technology.
Below are recommendations that leverage: existing facilities and facility networks; structuring of
future facilities and pilot experiments; public/private partnership; and increased efficiencies byleveraging both facilities-level infrastructure and small to medium scale experiments. We further
recommend identifying and prioritizing gating technologies that have low technology readinessand thereby present the greatest potential delays to mission deliverables in the next 5-10 years.

Recommendations
1. Create programs to support public-private partnerships across the full breadth offusion energy and plasma science. Create and support “Plasma Science
Technology Networks” to motivate private partnership engagement andcollaboration and strengthen the domestic supply chain for components enablingplasma technology
Public-private partnerships have been successful for accelerating technology readinessand commercializing enabling technologies. For example, previous public-private
partnerships in low-temperature plasmas have been fruitful through semiconductor
industry lead consortia such as the Semiconductor Research Corporation and Sematech
as well as agency driven programs such as the NSF Industry/University Collaborative
Research Center program.
A FES-driven program that promotes industry helps toprovide both the production of fundamental, enabling technologies as well as the needed
drive towards commercialization. A good example of an existing DOE program thatmeets this need is INFUSE. This program should be broadened to further engage all
sectors, including universities and other private companies that provide enabling
technologies for fusion energy and plasma science, and all FES focus areas. Also, itneeds to be structured so that the partnerships can evolve as the TRL levels for theseindustries grow from developmental to commercial. The mechanisms for engaging withthis program should be simplified to encourage broader participation. Diversification ofpartnership frameworks to include consortia, direct research collaboration withlaboratories and universities, and SBIR/STTR proposals should be released that involvecross-cutting technology opportunities. This program should establish a mechanism totest systems developed for non-fusion applications that may fulfill an FES enabling
technology need. For example, material science advances for space vehicles may be
applicable to the FES PMI effort and if applicable, mechanisms for extending technology
to the FES mission should be available.
Finally, this program should identify
commercialization pathways for enabling technology supply chains outside of fusionenergy and plasma science applications in order to diversify markets and provide more110

stability for these industries. Many of the technologies developed in FES have broad
application in other DOE and government offices, so interagency partnerships should be
supported (DPS PR-Collaborate).
Partnership programs should be structured to grow and strengthen the supply chain forthese enabling technologies. Several critical technology areas have non-existent or
shrinking domestic supply chains, and the relatively nascent private fusion technology
supply chain viability will largely depend on streamlined engagements with laboratories
and universities as well as development of supply chain networks similar to those foundin the defense supply chain industry. As an example, several current enabling
technology domestic supply chains that the HEDP community rely on for laser glass,
optics, gain materials, capacitors, gyrotrons, and vacuum electronics have reached acritical point that jeopardizes U.S. leadership in this area.
2. Broadly support advanced materials and manufacturing
The performance of materials under the extraordinary conditions they are subjected to infusion energy systems and basic plasma science experiments is one of the largest
technical barriers for both the fusion energy mission and basic science discovery. For
example, the construction of an FPP still requires advances in structural materials, highcritical temperature superconductors, resilient plasma facing materials, and materials
capable of withstanding extraordinary levels of power transmission as well as power
dissipation. Improving the fabrication of these components is critical for improving the
precision and reproducibility of experiments as well as reducing the cost of fusion energy
systems. For example, advanced techniques such as additive manufacturing canenable new experiments and measurements with features such as dissimilar material
joints, unique geometries with complex internal structures, and embedded sensors.
Additionally, additive manufacturing can provide more economical fabrication of criticalcomponents for both FST and DPS systems. Materials and manufacturing includes theconceptualization, synthesis, and test of materials that meet FES mission needs andexpands the range of operation for laboratory based plasma discovery. A broad
multidisciplinary effort in material synthesis, modeling, measurement, and fabrication willclose the technology gap for multiple expert area objectives.
3. Leverage small- and mid-scale experiments and facilities to developtransformative enabling technology
Small to mid-scale experiments and facilities focused on the research and developmentof enabling technology can provide an entry point to develop the workforce needed toadvance plasma science and technology (CC-WD). Compared to large-scale researchfacilities, smaller-scale experiments/facilities are often more flexible, provide hands-on
work, offer easier diagnostic access, and often provide the chance for combined
experimental and theoretical research. Students and early-career staff are typically partof a small but focused research team that encourages close interactions and111

collaboration. Examples include university experiments and the RF Test and Source
Development Facilities described in FST-SO-F. Additionally, leveraging small andmid-scale experiments enables the evaluation of low TRL technologies and develop theworkforce in plasma science adjacent areas that address enabling technology needs,
contributing to the growth and strengthening of a domestic enabling technology supply
chain. Calls should include single-PI and interdisciplinary multi-PI projects to advancelow-TRL opportunities.
4. Build enabling technology development and evaluation into pilot plant design,
DOE facilities, and collaborative networks
Future facilities should incorporate pathways for engaging with enabling technology
experts in private industry, the national laboratory complex, and academia to develop
and evaluate critical enabling infrastructure.
Integration of enabling technology
development should be a specific evaluation metric for future infrastructure proposals.
Infrastructure level support that enables testing, advancing technical readiness, anddeployment of enabling technology should be decoupled from “basic science”
challenges, similar to infrastructure programs supported through NSF (MRI, SCSC, etc.)
and DOD (DURIP).
5. Initiate a program to identify those enabling technologies that are mission criticalbut are currently at low TRL or have no known solution
Both the fusion energy mission and plasma science effort have multiple enabling
technology needs. Many of these needs are at lower TRL, and some challenges havemultiple technical solutions. A well structured program should be initiated that will
identify enabling technology needs for fusion energy and plasma science. This program
will periodically provide an overview of the state of these technologies that include
expected TRL level and competing technologies that can achieve the same end goals.
An example of such a periodic reporting structure is the “International Technology
Roadmap for Semiconductors” that has been published under a variety of names
annually from 1992–2015. The ITRS identified critical enabling technology in materials,
manufacturing, and design over a ten year cycle, identifying multiple pathways toachieve the device performance scaling defined by Moore’s law, and was instrumental inmoving the industry on an unprecedented pace of doubling product performance every
18 months for almost 25 years. A similar effort for fusion energy and plasma scienceenabling technology that draws experts from the laboratories, academia, and industry todevelop and periodically update a technology roadmap for enabling technology in fusionenergy and plasma science will be a valuable resource that will help the field develop
data-driven timelines and deliverables gated by emerging technologies.

112

Cross-cut WF: Develop a Diverse and Inclusive Workforce
for Fusion and Discovery Plasma Science, Engineering, andTechnology
The fusion and plasma science community is preparing to enter a new phase of expansion anddevelopment, which will require significant growth in our workforce. Increasing diversity andinclusion in the fusion and plasma science community are essential components of any
workforce development program, and these advancements will only be made possible throughdeliberate effort to reach out to and engage underrepresented groups. In addition, significant
consideration must be given regarding how to improve the climate of our community to be more
inclusive of all groups. A multi-stage, comprehensive workforce development program isurgently required to meet our future needs, beginning with public outreach and education toincrease awareness of fusion energy and plasma science careers, along with the creation ofopportunities for undergraduates through internships, apprenticeships, and academic projects,
and retaining the workforce with expanded job opportunities. Universities are an essential link in
the chain of workforce development, but also serve a larger purpose in providing unique andindependent contributions to research that promote a diversity of thought and innovation thatneed to be maintained. Opportunities for university leadership in the plasma/fusion researchcommunity must be expanded to incentivize the addition and retention of faculty, university
scientists, and technical workers. The increase in job opportunities presented by private
enterprises can provide a powerful new tool for enticing new entrants to the fusion community
as well as new avenues to retain our experienced personnel. Obtaining trained personnel tocarry out the development of new facilities and technology programs will require expanded
focus beyond the typical plasma physics development path and into a wider array ofengineering/technology disciplines. The recommendations in this section were developed from
community input in the forms of initiatives/white papers, group discussion at workshops andconference calls, and five focus group discussions. The recommendations are divided into three
categories focusing on: A) Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI); B) Workforce Development Tools;
C) Community Outreach and Engagement. The categories and recommendations within areinterlinked and of equal importance.
A supplementary appendix that contains additional details and background information
regarding the recommendations found in this section can be found here.

Recommendations
Category A: Embrace diversity, equity, and inclusivity to attract thebroadest array of talent and diversity of thoughtThis category provides recommendations based on our Statement on Diversity, Equity, andInclusion, which can be found here.

113

Recommendation A-1: Engage Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) Experts to Advise our
Community and Develop Assessment Toolsi.
We acknowledge that we are not subject matter experts in issues of climate andinclusion. We urgently recommend that DOE supports efforts to bring in outside subject
matter experts to study the social climate within fusion energy/plasma physics fields, andthen take action on expert recommendations to ensure the psychological safety of ourcommunity in this process. There is precedent for this in our field demonstrated by AIP’s
report “The Time Is Now: Systemic Changes to Increase African Americans with
Bachelor’s Degrees in Physics and Astronomy,” which DOE can use as one
evidenced-based standard of practice.
ii.
Develop methods/techniques for performing regular assessments of our community toascertain the effectiveness of these efforts.
iii.
Committee of Visitors (COV) assigned to review the DOE FES program should include a
review of what efforts are being made to monitor and encourage diversity among funding
recipients and DOE facilities.
Recommendation A-2: Implement New/Updated Policies and Codes of Conduct toencourage DEI: While the community is working to engage outside experts and wait for theirassessments, DOE must undertake immediate actions to establish a culture of respect for ourcurrent and future FES community. Policy actions for our current community derived fromevidence-based standards of practice include:i.
Requiring cultural competence, unconscious bias, and bystander intervention training for
program managers and principal investigators. Recommendations on how to increase
the effectiveness of training should be utilized from the 2018 National Academies reporton Sexual Harassment of Women including in-person rather than online training and that
includes active participation with other trainees. The National Academies report also
identified difficulties in understanding how federal agencies deal with cases of sexual
harassment after reviewing their public websites, which can create an unnecessary
barrier for a victim to report incidents of misconduct. DOE Office of Science has general
information on how incidents of harassment can be reported on their website. DOE FES
should investigate how they can more directly assess reports of harassment in theirprogram and ensure that all individuals supported on federal funds (not only the PIs)
understand their rights and abilities to report harassment. This is another topic thatwould greatly benefit from advice from an outside expert in order to ensure the adoptionof best practices.
ii.
Codes of conduct (e.g. APS, IEEE) should be clearly articulated at technical meetings toreinforce to session leaders and attendees how to maintain respectful conversations.
Individual institutions should be encouraged to adopt these codes of conduct within theirown groups and suggest improvements.
iii.
Consider the adoption of double anonymous peer review of proposals. Examples can befound from other federal agencies including NASA.

114

Recommendation A-3: Incorporate consideration and promotion of Diversity, Equity andInclusivity efforts as an integral aspect of the review process for institutions seeking
federal funding from DOE OFES: The DOE should establish a component addressing DEI
efforts through applications to their Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) as part of the“Program Policy Factors.” How the DOE implements such a component can happen in a variety
of ways ranging from requiring additional statements or documents in the application package tointegrating DEI considerations throughout the main project narrative. An effective model of thelatter is the required integration of Broader Impacts in all National Science Foundation (NSF)
proposal submissions. Broader Impacts (which can include DEI issues) are required to beincorporated in and evaluated throughout the main project narrative. The former approach could
be modeled after current additional required documents such as the Data Management Plan
found in NSF proposal packages as well those for the DOE. An additional DEI Statement
document would not necessarily be an integral part of the project, but at a minimum would be
required for consideration for funding. In both cases, the peer reviewers and program
managers should take an applicant’s description of DEI efforts into their overall evaluation andreward proposals for quality attempts and intentions for addressing these issues. While such ameasure is not guaranteed to enact changes within the research community itself, it will force
potential PI’s to articulate how these issues might be addressed within their own research
programs.
Recommendation A-4: Create an accessible environment for all members of ourcommunity: In order for students, scientists, and engineers with disabilities to fully participate
in discovery plasma and fusion energy sciences, the environment must be made accessible tothem. DOE facilities should prioritize the removal of accessibility barriers such as entrances
blocked by one or two steps and signage that is not compliant with legal standards such as
those set by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Websites and databases created with
DOE support should strive to be screen reader (text-to-speech) compatible and otherwise
consistent with ADA standards in order to be broadly accessible. Conferences supported by
DOE should have an accessibility policy in addition to a code of conduct.
Recommendation A-5: Increase funding opportunities for underrepresented groups:
Efforts should be made to expand recruitment pools (geographically, fields of study, types of
institutions, etc.) and identify currently underrepresented areas. New funding opportunities
should be considered for these underrepresented groups. These could include: graduate or
postdoctoral fellowship aimed at women and minorities (e.g. Rackham Merit Fellowship
Program is a public university program to provide financial assistance to students fromunderrepresented groups; DOE funding for Solar Foundation targeting workforce development
for veterans and underserved communities); expand undergraduate internship opportunities for
women, minorities, and students without traditional plasma training; small funding grants
available to women, underrepresented minorities, and early-career scientists.
Recommendation A-6: Create Parental Leave Policies: Family leave policies should be more
uniformly applied to research institutions across the nation. The recent enactment of the Family
115and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “provides up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave in connection
with the birth, adoption, or foster care placement of a child for employees covered by FMLA
provisions applicable to Federal civilian employees.” All institutions receiving funds from federal
agencies must strive to better conform to a 12 week paid leave policy program. If/whenmembers of research teams supported by DOE FES funds are in need of parental leave (suchas during circumstances described in the FMLA), DOE FES should allow funded PIs to continue
to financially support their personnel for up to 12 weeks of paid leave at their existingsalary/benefit level.
In addition, DOE FES should work with PIs to adjust
milestones/deliverables accordingly to accommodate research team members who take familyleave in order to avoid penalizing research programs that enact family leave policies. Research
institutions should make parental leave policies and information transparent and easily
accessible. Furthermore, flexible working hours and telecommunication options should be
supported, including remote presentation options for conferences. Institutions should also
ensure that private lactation space is available (i.e. apply the federal law under section 7 of the
Fair Labor Standards Act).

Category B: Increase the pathways to fusion starting at theundergraduate level, and create more opportunities for participationof technical workers from other fields
Additional details on recommendations B-1 through B-5 including timelines and sample budgets
can be found here.
Recommendation B-1: Establish Student Design Competitions: The goal of the student
design competitions is to show that the realization of fusion as an energy source encompasses
many disciplines and contributes broadly to national science and technology goals. A series ofstudent design competitions can be established to target topical areas identified in the FESAC
Report on Transformative Enabling Capabilities2: advanced algorithms, advanced materials andmanufacturing, and high-temperature superconductors. These FES driven student competitions
can begin as joint competitions between FES and organizations with established designcompetitions (e.g. NASA) to leverage existing university applicant pools. The topics of thestudent projects should be designed to reach a wide variety of universities, colleges, andcommunity colleges and should not rely solely on an institution having an established fusion orplasma physics program. Additionally, a significant fraction (30%) of the project can be scoredon community outreach, especially to the K-12 grades, to promote the student team’s work andthe overarching program goal of realizing commercial fusion energy.

2

R. Maingi, et. al., Summary of the FESAC Transformative Enabling Capabilities Panel Report,
Fusion Science and Technology, 75: 3 (2019)116

Recommendation B-2: Develop Flexible Post-Undergraduate Education Options: Moreformal post-undergraduate educational programs can be established to provide either Capstone
Certificates (9 credits in a concentrated area) or Master of Engineering (30 credits) degrees.
Both of these options can be offered online so that they will be accessible to a wider range ofstudents, including those who are working full-time at institutions around the world. Additional
certificate programs can be developed to address specific knowledge gaps for individuals inother fields to transition into fusion or engineering. DOE should consider the development ofapprenticeship programs, potentially in coordination with universities, to allow for the training ofspecialized workers for positions including technicians, computer science, and electricians.
Successful models have been developed internationally including by the United Kingdom
Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) that could be studied and possibly emulated.
Recommendation B-3: Employ scientists and engineers with BS/MS degrees at FES
facilities: The two large MFE user facilities, DIII-D and NSTX-U, routinely receive many moreexperimental proposals than available run time. In an effort to reach full utilization of thesefacilities, the workforce can expand to employ more scientists and engineers with Bachelor’sand Master’s degrees. Rather than fill measurement support/analyst roles with PhD-trained
staff, which can underutilize their expertise, or Ph.D. students, which can result in year-to-year
variations in quality, these roles could be filled by, long-term, trained technical staff at MS/BS
level, creating a near-term opportunity to broaden the fusion workforce. Oversight could still be
provided through collaborators, including opportunities for student training, but the responsibility
for the day-to-day operations would be transferred to the host, improving its ability to deliver a'Walk-In/Walk-Out' experience for the user. Online education options mentioned above can beused to fill knowledge gaps for the incoming workforce.
Recommendation B-4: Create Private-Public BS/MS development program: This programis similar to the ideas expressed above, but is designed to engage the BS/MS workforce prior tograduation. Upon graduation, individuals in the development program will gain valuableknowledge through rotations at universities, national laboratories, and private companies. As an
example, an individual graduating with an electrical engineering degree can consider rotations
that consist of: diagnostic development, remote handling, and power systems design. The costs
can be split during the rotation period between private and public funds. In addition, students
could concurrently pursue further education through an online graduate degree or certificate
during their rotations, which would allow them to combine the fundamental theory with thehands-on practice of the material. A more focused approach with a participant working at one
institution could be similar to the Graduate Scheme (http://culhamgraduatescheme.com)
program utilized at the Culham Center for Fusion Energy.
Recommendation B-5: Establish Private-Public fellowship program: A Private-Public
Fusion Energy graduate fellowship or Private-Public Fusion Energy Postdoctoral Fellowship canbe established to target gaps identified in FESAC Transformative Enabling Capabilities report as117

well as the Workforce Development report3. As part of the Graduate Fellowship program,awardees would take an internship during their 4th year of graduate study at a private company.
This can be something similar to the existing DOE Office of Science Graduate Student
Research (SCGSR) Program with the addition that students may conduct part of their thesis
research at a private company. Similarly, a Postdoctoral fellow can split time between privately
and publicly funded programs. These positions could be used to transfer knowledge between
institutions - such as the application of advanced algorithms to machine control or the use of adiagnostic on multiple machines. ORISE has significant experience managing student internshipand fellowship programs and could consider expanding its portfolio to embrace private-public
collaborative opportunities.
Recommendation B-6: Create a coordinated paid summer internship program forundergraduate students that would position students in internships at universities, national labs,
and private companies throughout the country. Students would participate in an introductory
workshop/course where fusion and plasma science are introduced and its many challenges
identified. These workshops could be organized by experts from both the Discovery Plasma
Science and Fusion Science & Technology communities. This would be a chance for them toget to know about the big picture of plasma science and fusion, the local subset of thecommunity, and each other. The workshop could be held at different places each year
(universities, national labs, companies) and would bring experts from different fusion andplasma science fields to speak to the summer cohort. Considering that fusion and plasma
science are not taught at many undergraduate institutions, this would be the first introduction to
many of the students to these topics. This could be modeled in part after the PPPL NUF/SULI
One-Week-Course4, but with a broader emphasis beyond plasma physics. After the workshop,
students would go to their summer institutions to continue their internship. Their summer work
can be presented in poster or oral form locally and it can be uploaded to a central website sothat their work can be publicized more broadly, unless the work deals with sensitive intellectual
property and cannot be made public. Afterward, the program would fund the students’attendance and participation at a relevant meeting (APS-DPP, SOFE, ASME, etc.) This model isvery similar to that of the National Undergraduate Fellowship (NUF).
Recommendation B-7: Cultivate and increase faculty tenure lines at universities andcolleges through faculty development grants and collaborative opportunities with
National Laboratories: As a means to address the continued decline in the number ofuniversity faculty lines in the areas of plasma and fusion science, DOE should work with
universities to identify opportunities for increasing the number of joint appointments between
universities and national laboratories (e.g. ORNL, JLab, LBNL, PPPL, etc.) where appropriate to
the lab’s mission scope and the university department’s needs. Important lessons can belearned from the High Energy Physics community to develop lasting collaborations and joint
faculty positions between universities and national/international facilities, such as has been
3

FESAC, Final Report on Fusion Energy Sciences: Workforce Development Needs (2014).

4

https://suli.pppl.gov/2019/course/
118done between CERN, Argonne National Laboratory, and the University of Chicago.
Opportunities to develop more lasting collaborations between universities and ITER, facilitatedthrough DOE national laboratories, could help provide long-term and stable funding paths thatencourage universities to invest in new faculty lines in fusion and plasma science. The DOE
should also implement faculty development grants awarded to a department looking to expand
their plasma science faculty or to develop a plasma program at a college or university withoutone. A model for this type of award is the Faculty Development in the Space Sciences awarded
through the Geophysics Directorate of the NSF. The grant provides funding to a department for
a new faculty member to be hired and full academic support for the first five years, after which
the college or university takes over continued employment of the new line. In particular, thisgrant is aimed not only at departments with established space science programs, but toinstitutions looking to expand their research portfolio. A fusion or plasma science-based faculty
development program could be similarly used for encouraging the expansion of the relatively
low number of plasma faculty in colleges and universities throughout the country.

Category C: Increase literacy of plasma science and fusion energy
and improve student involvement in related degrees/employment
opportunities by developing a community outreach network
Recommendation C-1: Support New Public-Facing Website: U.S. fusion community and
FES should support the creation and management of a centralized website that would serve as
the public face of the U.S. fusion community. The website would feature resources for K-12
teachers/students, internship opportunities, jobs in fusion, fusion news, etc., and would be
curated and managed by a committee composed of members of the U.S. fusion community,from diverse fields and diverse institutions, including private fusion companies. This committee
would be tasked with compiling and curating the content and maintaining it up to date. An
institutionally and thematically diverse committee will help identify a broad range ofinternships/resources/jobs highlighting the multidisciplinary nature of fusion energy and plasma
science research. FES support for this initiative is critical for its long-term impact: Having FES
give its “blessing” gives the website legitimacy within the community and outside of it. It would
also help recruit collaborators and committee members. Monetary support from FES would help
make a more professional website (by hiring web designers), and help keep it up to date, bothcontent-wise and aesthetically.
Recommendation C-2: Support Pre-College Outreach by the Plasma Science and Fusion
Community: A substantial gap in current workforce efforts is the development of plasma
science and fusion energy (PS&FE)-specific pre-college outreach activities that will increase
literacy and improve student involvement in related degrees/employment opportunities. To
address these pressing needs, we recommend the establishment of a Plasma Network for
Outreach and Workforce (Plasma-NOW). Plasma-NOW will consolidate the various outreachefforts in our community under a single umbrella network that will facilitate the exchange ofideas within the PS&FE community and maximize their effectiveness on student/public

119involvement with PS&FE-related programs. To ensure rapid results, we recommend theestablishment of a DOE OFES-sponsored committee that will conduct a survey on best
outreach practices available in the PS&FE community as well as identify how successful STEM
practices can be adapted to the specific needs of the PS&FE workforce development. The
outcome of this effort will result in a report and a strategic plan for PS&FE pre-college
outreach, which will outline the vision and proposed structure of Plasma-NOW.
DOE OFES endorsement of Plasma-NOW will encourage serious input from the PS&FE
scientific community. Additional funding support will enable the committee members to conduct
field studies and engage the PS&FE community in the proposed activities. DOE can further
support these efforts by encouraging submissions of proposals to the open solicitation call by
PIs interested in contributing their time and educational resources to support the Plasma-NOW
efforts. Plasma-NOW will be organized following the example of similar initiatives in other STEM
fields, such as the highly successful NISEnet. A proposed structure for Plasma-NOW is shownin Fig. CC-WF.1.

Figure CC-WF.1: The programs within Plasma-NOW aim to engage students both directly
through contact with scientists, as well as indirectly through teachers and community programs.

References[Nat. Acad. 2020] National Academies, Decadal Survey of Plasma Science (Ongoing)[Facilities 2019] Workshop on Opportunities, Challenges, and Best Practices for Basic Plasma
Science User Facilities, U.S. NSF (2019)[Machine Learning 2019] Advancing Fusion with Machine Learning Research Need Workshop
Report: U.S. DOE FES/ASCR, (April-May, 2019)[FPNS 2019] Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source Workshop: U.S. DOE FES (January, 2019)120

[Nat. Acad. 2018a] National Academies, Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for
U.S. Burning Plasma Research (December, 2018)[Nat. Acad. 2018b] National Academies, Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, andConsequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018)[TEC 2018] Transformative Enabling Capabilities for Efficient Advance Toward Fusion Energy:
U.S. DOE FES (February, 2018)[Strategic Directions 2017] U.S. Magnetic Fusion Research Strategic Directions Workshops,
Madison, WI (July 2017) and Austin, TX (December, 2017)[Nat. Acad. 2017] National Academies, Opportunities in Intense Ultrafast Lasers: Reaching for
the Brightest Light (2017)[Stellcon 2017] Stellarator Research Opportunities, A Report of the National Stellarator
Coordinating Committee: OSTI Entry (June, 2017)[Frontiers 2017] Report of the Panel on Frontiers of Plasma Science: U.S. DOE FES (April,
2017)[UFA 2017] Status of University Fusion Research: UFA report (January, 2017)[Plasma Chemistry 2016] Enabling a Future Based on Electricity Through Non-Equilibrium
Plasma Chemistry (August, 2016)[Transients 2015] Report of the Workshop on Transients: U.S. DOE FES (June, 2015)[Integrated Simulations 2015] Report of the Workshop on Integrated Simulations for Magnetic
Fusion Energy Sciences: U.S. DOE FES (June, 2015)[PMI 2015] Fusion Energy Sciences Workshop on Plasma Materials Interactions: U.S. DOE
FES (May, 2015)[FESAC 2014] Strategic Planning for U.S. Fusion Energy Sciences: FESAC Report (December,
2014)[Workforce 2014] Assessment of the Workforce Development Needs for the Fusion Energy
Sciences: FESAC Report (June, 2014)[IFE 2013] National Research Council. An Assessment of the Prospects for Inertial Fusion
Energy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press (2013)[ICF 2013] National Research Council. Assessment of Inertial Confinement Fusion Targets.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press (2013)121

[Nat. Acad. 2012] National Academies, Program on Technology Innovation: Assessment of
Fusion Energy Options for Commercial Electricity Production. 1025636. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA(2012)[Astrophysics 2010] Workshop on Opportunities in Plasma Astrophysics (January, 2010)[HEDLP 2009] Basic Energy Needs for High Energy Density Laboratory Physics: U.S. DOE SC
and NNSA (November, 2009)[ReNeW 2009] Research Needs for Magnetic Fusion Energy: U.S. DOE FES ReNeW (June,
2009)[Alternates 2008] Report of the FESAC Toroidal Alternates Panel: FESAC Report (November,
2008)[Priorities 2007] Priorities, Gaps, and Opportunities: FESAC Report (October, 2007)[Nat. Acad. 2004] National Academies, Burning Plasma: Bringing a Star to Earth (March, 2004)[FESAC 2003] Fusion in the Era of Burning Plasma Studies: Workforce Planning for
2004–2014: FESAC Report (2003)

122

Appendices
Appendix A. The Prioritization Assessment Criteria Applied
to Fusion Science and Technology Program Elements
Prioritization Assessment Criteria
At the CPP-Houston meeting, the attendees discussed and applied Prioritization Assessment
Criteria (PACs) to help prioritize different elements within the Fusion Science and Technology(FST) program. These criteria were inspired by the Principles, Values, Metrics, and Criteria
Working Group in the 2017 U.S. Magnetic Fusion Research Strategic Directions community
workshops. A revised set of principles were introduced to the CPP process at the 2nd Joint
Workshop for MFE and FM&T at Knoxville, and these principles were adopted as the FST
Values. The PACs, defined below, were developed from a subset of these Values by the MFE
and FM&T program committees prior to the CPP-Houston meeting. The CPP-Houston
attendees considered the PACs during discussion of the strategic plan in breakout groups. The
PACs were defined as the following:
1. Importance to FPP Mission
How essential is the research enabled by this facility or program for ensuring the success of the
FPP?
2. Urgency
How critical is it that this facility/program is started (or continued) immediately to enable atimeline of an FPP by the 2040s?
3. Impact of Investment
Does this facility/program likely provide significant scientific or technological progress relative tothe investment?
4. Using Innovation to Lower Cost
Does this facility/program take advantage of new innovation not previously utilized by the fusion
program that could potentially lead to a lower cost pilot plant?
5. U.S. Leadership and Uniqueness
Would the facility or program provide unique capabilities or make the U.S. a leader in areas thatare required for the commercialization of fusion?

123Process at the CPP-Houston Meeting and Analysis
In an attempt to assess the community’s views on the relative importance of these criteria in
determining prioritization, the PACs were ranked by the attendees at the CPP-Houston meeting
via polling software. “Importance to Mission” was ranked the most important PAC to consider
when performing prioritization, with “Urgency,” “Impact of Investment,” “Innovation to Lower
Cost,” and “U.S. Leadership and Uniqueness” following in order of importance. The FST
strategic plan has a number of objectives and recommendations, and to obtain more detailed
information, each Strategic Objective was subdivided into at least two program elements,
creating a total of 23 elements shown in column A of Table A.1 The approximate mapping ofeach element to the recommendations in the FST plan is shown in column B of Table A.1.
Following the completion of each CPP-Houston plenary presentation, breakout group
discussion, and plenary discussion, the attendees were asked to give a 1-5 score (with 1 low
and 5 high) for each program element for each of the PACs. The polling results are shown incolumns C to H in Table A.1.
The FST-SO-H strategic objective was developed by the CPP Program Committee at a Writing
Retreat that followed the 2nd Joint MFE and FM&T Workshop in Knoxville and the 2nd HEDP
Workshop in Menlo Park. Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) was one of the high priority HEDP areasof research identified at Menlo Park, and a community letter in support of IFE research was
submitted to the CPP process, signed by more than 100 individuals. To create a strategic planwith the two broad themes—FST and DPS—the IFE strategic objects were merged into the FSTplan and organized in FST-SO-H together with new recommendations on alternative MFE
configuration research, which also received a community letter of support. The CPP
participants in the HEDP topical area were therefore not involved in the development of the
PACs, and they did not participate in discussion or polling at the Knoxville workshop. As aresult, while IFE is an important element in the strategic plan moving forward, polling on IFE is
not included in Table A.1.
The total attendance at the CPP-Houston meeting was approximately 180 people. The
self-identified primary associations with the four topical areas were 52% MFE, 19% FM&T, 18%
HEDP, and 11% GPS. Two of the five days of the CPP-Houston meeting were divided into
parallel FST and DPS sessions. On these days, the MFE and FM&T registrants primarily
attended the FST sessions, and the HEDP and GPS registrants primarily attended the DPS
sessions. Typical polls collected ~120 responses, with some extending up to ~150. The pollingfor all program elements was conducted with the FST discussion participants at Houston.
Polling on the elements related to FST-SO-H included a larger group and was open to all
attendees of both the FST and DPS community at CPP-Houston.

124

The color of each cell in Columns C-G of Table A.1 reflects the average value the community
assigned to each program element on a 1 to 5 scale. Each column, C-G, represents a different
criteria and has the same color scheme applied. This color scheme is chosen such that thehighest value in the column is indicated by a dark red color, and the dark blue indicates thelowest value in that column. The color scale spans from dark blue (indicating low values) todark red (indicating high values) with white in the middle, between the highest and lowest values(indicated on Table A.1 below each column). The numerical data that was used to generate thisplot has been removed to address concerns raised by members of the community. Column H in
Table A.1 represents the value for each program element averaged over all 5 prioritizationassessment criteria (an average of Columns C-G). The color scheme used in Column H is thesame as is applied to columns C-G. The order of program elements is determined by sortingthe chart by column H, the average value.

How Polling Data Was Used in This Process
All of the strategic objectives (SOs) and program recommendations (PRs) in this report are
viewed by the community as important for achieving our stated missions. The order of the SOs
in the FST section of this report is intended to roughly reflect the community’s assessment of
the relative priority that should be assigned to each SO. This ordering was proposed before the
CPP-Houston meeting based on a combination of polling results, verbal discussion, and written
feedback generated primarily from the MFE / FM&T Knoxville meeting. Polling data was useful
information in determining this ordering insofar as it gave clear, quantitative evidence that manyof the high-priority elements enjoy broad community support that cuts across the demographics
and institutional affiliations of those who were polled. The feedback from attendees at

125

CPP-Houston confirmed that the ordering of SOs is an appropriate reflection of community
consensus.
The PACs discussed at CPP-Houston and described above are intended to provide morefine-grained information regarding the community’s view of the merits of various program
elements, as related to the stated mission to pursue a low-cost FPP. The intent is that thisinformation, in combination with other information in this report, continued community
discussion, and cost estimates for these elements that will be developed later, will provide abasis for prioritization and sequencing within budget scenarios. It is not intended that the polling
results presented here should be used as the sole basis for any funding or sequencing
decisions, nor has this data been used as the sole basis for determining or indicating priorities
within this report.

Robustness of the Results
The results displayed in Table A.1 appear to be robust. The elements there are ordered by anaverage across PACs, and this ordering is generally consistent with the ranking of the PACs
(e.g. with elements with high “Importance to Mission” also tend to have high average values).
The detailed CPP-Houston polling presented in Table A.1. qualitatively confirms polling dataobtained from the MFE+FM&T Knoxville workshop. The attendees at the Knoxville and Houston
meetings differed significantly, and yet both workshops yielded strongly consistent results.
Therefore, the results appear largely independent of which cross-section of the MFE & FM&T
community was polled. Most importantly, the elements having the highest average values(taken across all PACs) also had small standard deviations. This data, taken together withconsistent polling done at the Knoxville workshop, indicates that there is strong community
consensus that these program elements should be high priorities in FES.

Appendix B. Assessing the Needed Capabilities for the New
Tokamak User Facility
The combined efforts of both Advocacy Groups and Expert Groups have laid out a strong basisof support for the U.S. fusion program requiring a new tokamak facility. These efforts reinforce
and advance the process that began with the community input at Austin and Madison in 2017.
This resulted in the National Academies panel recommending to either upgrade an existing
facility or establish a new facility to accomplish a pre-pilot plant research program todemonstrate sustained, high-power density magnetically confined plasmas. Through feedback
from the FST community, there is strong support for the recommendation that a new tokamak,
rather than an upgraded facility, is necessary to accomplish our goals. The intention of such a“new tokamak user facility” (NTUF) is that, in conjunction with ITER and other accessible
tokamaks, we can sufficiently close the critical gaps related to plasma exhaust and core/edge
integration in planned FPP operating scenarios, investigated through FST-SO-D.3. Here,closing gaps represents the sufficient completion of the physics basis necessary to design an

126

FPP, and does not imply that research into the diverse areas of confinement physics is finished,similar to community progress following the 1999 and 2007 publishing of the ITER Physics
Basis and Update, respectively. Based on community discussions it is expected that no othernew domestic tokamak facility beyond NTUF will be required before designing a tokamak FPP.
This assumption links the scope of NTUF not only to present day capabilities and thoseanticipated from planned international and non-governmental fusion programs, but also to theassumptions of the FPP mission goals. These goals are outlined in the Definition of a Pilot
Plant, and we acknowledge that they are likely to evolve as high priority work under FST-PR-A
is completed. For the tokamak, strategies for producing net electricity at low capital cost are
anticipated to increase power density and exacerbate an already significant power and particle
exhaust challenge, which in turn increases the likelihood that the needed divertor mitigation willaffect the pedestal and core plasmas. Even without the detailed design of an FPP, there is apre-existing motivation from the 2015 Workshop Reports for a facility that can be used to
explore and optimize exhaust solutions that can also simultaneously demonstrate suitable core
performance. Results from a facility like NTUF are needed to distinguish potential FPP
operational scenarios from those that are likely to be achievable. NTUF’s research output is anecessary input into FPP scoping (FST-PR-A), and NTUF’s design can begin without additional
input from FPP design activities. The broad mission space of potential FPPs is already known
from numerous power plant and pilot plant studies (e.g. ARIES, EU-DEMO, ARC, CAT, ST-PP,
etc.), and these provide reasonable estimates of fusion pilot plant heat and particle fluxes.
Potential solutions, spanning a range of divertor geometries and materials are known and wereconsidered by the community in 2015, leading to the recommendation for a Divertor Test
Tokamak. What remains is demonstrating that these proposed divertor solutions are compatible
with the pedestal and core plasmas that are required for sustaining high power density
operation of a tokamak-based FPP.
By considering these constraints, the following two capabilities are recommended for NTUF tosatisfy. These represent a down-selection and prioritization driven by community input.
●●(CAP-A) The flexibility to investigate innovative tokamak divertor solutions,encompassing long-legged concepts and PFC material options, at heat and particle
fluxes that are at the same scale as those projected for the pilot plant.
(CAP-B) The ability to simultaneously achieve these divertor solutions at core plasmaenergy confinement and bootstrap current fractions that project to a high-average-power
output, net-electric pilot plant.

This simultaneous achievement of high power density across a range of core plasma scenariosand divertor solutions represents combined capabilities that cannot be obtained throughinternational collaboration or a major upgrade to an existing facility. Community feedback
confirms that capabilities to “demonstrate reactor-relevant heating and current-drive actuatorsthat utilize minimal, fusion nuclear compatible approaches for feedback control” and “testsolutions for managing divertor and main-chamber PFC material migration and erosion for pulse
lengths and power densities prototypical of a pilot plant and demonstrate sustained, disruption

127free operation” are lower priority to include in NTUF than CAP-A and CAP-B. This prioritization
is motivated by the cost and schedule implications that would prevent progress in other areas of
the FST plan as well as likely delay progress on research obtainable with a more limited scope
NTUF that focus on [CAP-A] and [CAP-B]. Thus while a broad array of design options still need
to be considered for NTUF, the deprioritization of the high duty factor capability is expected toallow both copper and superconducting magnetic coil based designs for NTUF to beconsidered. It is expected that NTUF will not use tritium, as the goal is to complete urgent
research objectives utilizing CAP-A and CAP-B at lower cost and reduced complexity compared
to devices that can pursue burning plasma physics as outlined in FST-SO-D.1.
These capability statements and the material included in this Appendix would provide important
input into DOE’s crafting of formal Mission Need statement, as outlined in Section 4.d in DOE G
413.3-17 “Mission Need Statement Guide.”5 As outlined in FST-SO-D.2, we also need anear-term, FES-funded activity to scope these capabilities into pre-conceptual facility designs.
Rather than characterizing NTUF by engineering metrics, e.g. size, field, aspect ratio, heating
power or cost, community discussions focused on the capability gaps which drive the first stageof the Critical Decision process within DOE. While pre-conceptual studies completed as part of
the Initiative submission process have outlined potential NTUF design options, we emphasize
here and in FST-SO-D.2 that near-term resources are needed to encourage multiple institutions
to advance pre-conceptual design investigations in an open, collaborative manner.
Support for Capabilities from Community Initiatives and Expert Group Strategic Blocks
A comprehensive argument for the need for new tokamak facility is laid out in [Buttery - 2019]
where it refers to the vital need to find self-consistent solutions for sustainment of high pressure
core plasmas that are compatible with pedestal, scrape-off layer, wall and divertor power
handling. The Initiative notes that investigating single issues in separate edge or core focusedfacilities ‘will not give the required predictive capability to project to [FPP], adding more steps tothe fusion path’. This strongly motivates the combination of [CAP-A] and [CAP-B], and rather
than attempt to summarize the arguments we suggest reviewing that Initiative for specificdetails. A similar message emphasizing integration is outlined in [Menard - 2019] Goal 2, notingthat for high-performance core plasmas with high edge power density, “Such integration
appears very challenging with existing and planned facilities and may motivate a new [NTUF]
facility”. It is assumed in all of the capabilities, but specially worded in [CAP-B] that there is nota fundamental restriction that would prevent using NTUF to explore scenarios that would
extrapolate to a pulsed, high-duty factor FPP as outlined in [Mumgaard - 2019]. A device aimed
at [CAP-B], properly equipped with sufficient measurements, would advance Understanding
Plasma Transport, as outlined in the Transport and Confinement Expert Group’s Strategic
Blocks, but would fail to address Demonstrating Integration due to the NTUF’s lack of access toburning plasma core. Similarly, [CAP-B] would address multiple areas within Program Elements

5

https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/400-series/0413.3-EGuide-17-admchg1128

1-3 in the Strategic Blocks developed by the Scenarios Expert Group, but would not fully close
these gaps because of the absence of alpha heating.
Strong support for a [CAP-A] is given in [Canik - 2019], where the arguments are laid out for theneed to focus on the long-legged divertor concept due to the gap in available facilities worldwide
that can study such concepts at high power density. Indirect support for [CAP-A] is alsoemphasized in [Buttery - 2019] which proposes to absorb mission scope of development andqualification of the divertor solution in the new facility. In general, three of the capabilities are tosome degree supported by [Kuang - 2019], which invokes the 2015 PMI Workshop Reportfindings for the need for a U.S. led Divertor Test Tokamak, for which the capabilities correspondclosely to the Priority Research Directions (PRD), e.g. CAP-A/PRD-B and CAP-B/PRD-E. The
recommendation for a facility that combines [CAP-A] and [CAP-B] is within the four Strategic
Blocks developed by the Boundary/PMI MFE Expert Group. Similarly the combined capabilities
address similar themes of core-edge integration that were raised in the Scenarios andTransients Expert Groups’ Strategic Blocks.
Despite not supporting high duty factor operation, NTUF could still contribute to reducing risks
for FPPs by narrowing the uncertainty in main-chamber erosion rates, driven by the reactor
relevant conditions required for [CAP-A], and be a platform for prototyping innovative solutions
for management of large volumes of eroded material (‘slag management’) that are compatible
with high performance plasmas required for [CAP-B]. In [Abrams - 2019] the materials researchthat can be accomplished in a short-pulse, high-power density device consistent with NTUF isoutlined, which could allow NTUF to deliver science under FST-SO-D.5 even without adedicated capability on material migration enabled by high duty factor operation. In [Abrams 2019] and [Unterberg - 2019] there is an emphasis on the need for high temperature walls, ≥600 degC, which could be a design feature to manifest from [CAP-A] as the pre-conceptual
design studies recommended in FST-SO-D.2 are completed. Together, [Unterberg - 2019],[Stangeby - 2019] and [Abrams - 2019] all raise a similar concern about the large volumes oferoded wall material build up and its potential to prevent continuous FPP operation. The shortpulse NTUF as described above can investigate, although not fully demonstrate, innovative
solutions to this challenge. Additionally, ITER and other long-pulse international facilities willoffer windows into the nature of the erosion problem, although they may not be able toinvestigate innovative approaches such as the proposed ‘flow-through’ low-Z coatings,
dedicated divertor design through wall contouring or even remote maintenance throughadvanced robotics. Due to the expected cost and time requirements of high duty cycle
intermediate facilities, demonstration of slag management solutions may not be fully addressed
before an FPP, similar to the full integrated fusion nuclear science mission.
It is also expected that NTUF can be equipped to use liquid metal PFCs, captured as one of the
PFC material options in [CAP-A], which may provide a solution for some erosion and slag
management issues, and can provide an opportunity to inform an important baseline FPP
design decision as mentioned in FST-SO-A. In [Goldston - 2019], a plan for maturation of theliquid lithium PFC technology is laid out that first engages test-stand and existing confinement129

facilities like NSTX-U. In [Menard - 2019], the basic strategy is outlined for establishing Mission
Need for a device that can close the science and technology gaps between present devices andthe FPP, similar to the one being made here for NTUF. An important capability of a new facility
was identified to be the ability to test all ranges of divertor and first wall options including bothslow-flow and fast-flow liquid metals. Also emphasized in [Menard - 2019] is the need toconsider these types of options early in the device design to ensure physics and engineering
requirements can lead to a viable design. For the NTUF on the timeline mentioned in
FST-SO-D.2, this motivates the need to mature the LM technology quickly, as suggested in
FST-SO-A.2, to ensure future testing in NTUF is possible, without delaying the baseline NTUF
design that is expected to use solid PFCs.
In the end, the argument from [Buttery - 2019] remains that if the candidate scenario is notinvestigated in an integrated manner (excluding burning plasma physics, which will be
investigated through ITER and private ventures, FST-SO-D.1), then more steps are added on
the path to the pilot plant. A single step facility with the capabilities described above, combinedwith a burning plasma experiment like ITER, should allow for tremendous progress in thetokamak physics basis. Nevertheless, phasing the operational stages of NTUF will be importantin delivering the science output required for FPP designs (FST-PR-A) in a timely manner,consistent with commissioning of the increasingly complex portions of the facility. For example
the divertor physics mission can be explored initially, expanding in scope to the integrated
scenarios. In this respect, it may be feasible to equitably meet the scientific needs of multiple
Initiative groups on the same facility over time.
Comparison to Present DOE Facilities and Planned Capabilities Beyond DOE[CAP-A]: This capability requires a facility with both toroidal field strength and power density
within proximity of those expected in an FPP. While both MAST-U and TCV will have access tolong-legged divertors, they lack the necessary field strength and power density to meet thiscapability. The Italian DTT is expected to approach the pressure and power density
requirements, but the configuration for the long-legged divertor is not the baseline configuration[DTT Green Book]. There are present predictions for lower current Super-X configurations inthat device, and likely restrictions in heating power due to the large outer gap. Not having adomestic facility with the CAP-A capability risks delaying the sufficient completion of the physics
basis to enable timely FPP construction.
[CAP-B]: The I-DTT will have the power density to explore the divertor solution, but will notsupport the advanced tokamak scenarios in its baseline configuration [DTT Green Book].
DIII-D, JT-60SA and KSTAR can explore advanced scenarios but not at sufficiently high power
density to qualify the scenario for a compact FPP. ITER arguably would be able to investigate
the steady-state, AT regimes (depending on the needed bootstrap current fraction), but not until
after 2040. It also is limited in what H&CD actuators it will use, focusing on electron cyclotron(EC), ion cyclotron (IC) and neutral beam (NB), preventing evaluation of potential improvements
in LH or Helicon at high power density. Moreover, ITER will not have the ability to investigate a
flexible divertor solution, so if the standard lower single null (LSN) solution will not work for FPP,
130

then we receive that information too late to feed into FPP. Similar arguments broadly apply toconditions expected for SPARC. While there is sufficiently high power density, there may beinsufficient divertor flexibility to develop solutions for FPP, and limited ability to investigate highconfinement with high bootstrap current fraction.
As mentioned above it is the combination of these capabilities that would make NTUF uniqueand world leading. This is highlighted further in Figure 1, where its intended operating space issketched along axes of divertor heat flux and average pressure and metrics of normalized coreplasma performance relative to existing and future devices. It is argued that to progress to an
FPP for a tokamak we need to move diagonally within this space, reaching high core
performance at high pressure and mitigate high divertor power density. Different FPP
operational scenarios, such as high-duty factor pulsed or long-pulse steady-state, will differ inthe exact end point. ITER is intended to be placed between the existing devices and FPP, while
also focusing on D-T scenarios which NTUF will not. The near-term larger-scale, D-D facilities
like JT-60SA and I-DTT will tend to operate closer to the top left and bottom right, respectively.
With NTUF we should be able to dramatically reduce the size of the step, for aspects of both
plasma physics and fusion technology, between ITER and FPP. As outlined in FST-SO-D.2,
physics and engineering teams will be required to provide further detail on just how NTUF fills
this space as well as allow the cost and schedule impact to be understood.

Figure A.1: Diagram showing the intended placement of NTUF on axes of absolute parameterssuch as divertor heat flux and average pressure and normalized core plasma performance
relative to ITER, FPP and existing and near-term devices.
References

131[Abrams - 2019] T. Abrams, et al. “Closing gaps in PMI physics and technology in amixed-material environment using short-pulse tokamaks” DPP-CPP Initiative Submission
9/30/19 LINK
[Buttery - 2019] R. Buttery, et al. “Possible Mission and Viability of a Sustained High PowerDensity Facility” DPP-CPP Initiative Submission 10/7/19 LINK
[Canik - 2019] J. Canik, et al. “An Initiative to Establish Power Exhaust Solutions for a Compact
Pilot Plant” DPP-CPP Initiative Submission 7/1/2019 LINK[Goldston - 2019] R. A. Goldston, et al. “Liquid Lithium Divertor V2” DPP-CPP Initiative
Submission 9/30/19 LINK
[Kuang - 2019] A. Kuang, et al. “Construction of a Divertor Test Tokamak (US-DTT) as called
for in the 2015 Plasma Material Interactions Workshop Report” DPP-CPP Initiative Submission
10/7/19 LINK
[Menard - 2019] J. Menard, et al. “Development of Mission Need and Preliminary Design of a
Sustained High Power Density Tokamak Facility” DPP-CPP Initiative Submission 7/1/2019 LINK
[Mumgaard - 2019] B. Mumgaard, et al. “The pulsed tokamak as an early compact power plant”
DPP-CPP Initiative Submission 9/26/19 LINK
[Stangeby - 2019] P. Stangeby, et al. “Developing solid-material plasma facing components forfusion reactors with replenishable wall claddings and continuous surface condition” DPP-CPP
Initiative Submission 9/27/19 LINK
[Unterberg - 2019] E.A. Unterberg, et al. “Outstanding Issues for Solid PFCs in Steady-state
Toridal Devices & A Proposed Long-Pulsed Facility to Tame the Plasma-Material Interface”
DPP-CPP Initiative Submission 10/1/2019 LINKAppendix C. Focus Groups
The DPP-CPP wanted to reach out to groups who may not be as vocal at the workshops, may
have difficulty attending, and/or may have separate concerns that are not as easily voiced in the
big workshops. Thus, we hosted ~1.5 hour discussions, moderated by Laurie Moret and withLauren Garrison as the notetaker, with each of these groups:○ Women○ Underrepresented minorities○ Graduate students○ Early career scientists and engineers

132

Currently, the percentage of women and non-white individuals in the field of fusion and plasma
science is significantly less than their percentage in the U.S. population. Looking forward, GenZ
is projected to have ~50% white and ~50% all other races [Brookings 2018]. If we are notactively recruiting women and non-white individuals, we will be ignoring ~75% of the future
potential workforce. The percentage of women and underrepresented minorities in science
does not simply get better with time—it requires action. Diversity and inclusion is not about
filling a quota or being nice. Diversity and inclusion (across all aspects of personal
characteristics and diversity of thought) is the best strategy for solving challenging
problems—like developing fusion energy. This advantage of diversity is shown in many studies,such as this article in Forbes which states, “Diversity is a key driver of innovation and is a criticalcomponent of being successful on a global scale.”
The following invitation to participate in the focus groups was sent to the DPP-CPP google
group mailing list and to many other relevant mailing lists:-----

We need you! Please sign up to participate in a focus group about the community
driven strategic plan for the DOE Office of Fusion Energy Sciences.

Throughout 2019, the American Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics
Community Planning Process (APS-DPP-CPP) is developing a strategic plan for the
DOE Office of Fusion Energy Sciences.

There are numerous ways that everyone can give feedback and participate in theprocess, such as attending one of the workshops (see the full list of events here:
https://sites.google.com/pppl.gov/dpp-cpp/ ). In addition to the workshops and webinars
listed on the website, we are seeking additional targeted feedback from individuals who
are less likely to attend our workshops. If you self-identify with any of these groups:
women, graduate students, early career scientists and engineers, or underrepresented
minorities and you are in a career or field of study related to any of these topics:
Magnetic Fusion Energy, Fusion Materials and Technology, High Energy Density
Physics, or Discovery Plasma Science, please sign up to participate in a focus groupsession. Signups will be on a first come basis, with the caveat that we may need to limit
slots allotted per institution so that we can hear from a broad group and keep eachsession small. However, additional times may be scheduled if the below options fill up,
133so please let us know if you’d like to participate and aren’t able to sign up during one of
the times below.
+Monday November 4; 1:00-2:30 pm EST; focus group for Women+Monday November 4; 2:30-4:00 pm EST; focus group for Graduate Students+Wednesday November 6; 9:30-11:00 am EST; focus group for Early Career Scientists
and Engineers+Wednesday November 6; 11:00 am-12:30 pm EST; focus group for Underrepresented
Minorities

To sign up, please fill out this short form by November 1 with your informationand desired focus group session
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfAyYVV7eCEG-21hT4jzB5JD-rIxOmPqDE8xNRqMgWD8v8
53A/viewform.

Input from everyone is vital to the success of this effort.

Sincerely,
Lauren Garrison, on behalf of the DPP-CPP chairs-------------Participation in a focus group discussion was open to anyone who self-identified with the topic
group. We did not allow advocates or managers who interacted with but were not themselves amember of a demographic to participate or observe. We limited participants to one of thesessions even if they identified with multiple groups both to allow more participants and because
the same questions were asked in each discussion group. Sign ups were limited to 12
participants per session and because of response an additional discussion time for Early Career
scientists and engineers was added and took place November 7, from 11:30am–1:00pm EST.
Despite more sign-ups, participation in each discussion session ranged from 4–8 participants.
We gathered feedback in three areas:
1. About the process of the DPP-CPP—have people been involved, have they been heard,
what can we do better, etc.

134

2. About the strategic plan we are developing and about OFES—what sorts ofthings/facilities/action items do they most want in the strategic plan, how do they interact
with OFES now and how could it be better, etc.
3. About their current situation and outlook for the field—questions about the atmosphere in
their current position, outlook for careers, discrimination/barriers to their careers, andopinions about the U.S. fusion science and technology program in a global context, etc.
The same script of questions about these three topics was used for each discussion group, butnaturally different participants were more enthusiastic about different questions so all
discussions were not identical. Notes were taken during the calls, but no attribution was madeand no personally identifying details were used for any statements reported out of the focus
groups. All the highlights reported here were echoed by many participants across many or all of
the different discussion groups. That is not to say that every participant would agree with every
statement made here. It is important to remember that the focus groups were very small bydesign to allow for full and supportive conversations of sometimes difficult topics. That meansthat even ideas that were supported by many in the focus group discussions do not necessarily
represent the consensus view of that segment of the community or the community as a whole.
The ideas that appeared to come out strongly from multiple focus groups were presented at the
MFE+FM&T Knoxville Community Workshop in November 2019. Then, those ideas originatingin the focus groups were treated as additional input to the CPP for discussion in the wider
community. Some of the ideas that originated in the focus group discussions were embraced by
the wider community and became part of this report. For example, some ideas forrecommendations in the Workforce Cross-Cut area had their seed in the focus groups, and theidea of urgency was adopted across the Knoxville Workshop and adopted into the Mission
Statement for FST.
Highlights and common themes from the focus group discussions:
1. Urgency
Every focus group mentioned climate change and an urgent need to develop fusionenergy as part of the solution. Younger people are keyed in to the climate issue and aregoing into the fusion field because they see it as a way to have an impact. There is arisk of losing this talent if we do not proceed quickly enough towards fusion energy.
There was a general sentiment that the leaders in the fusion field are not aware of theneed for urgency or are not taking it seriously enough.
2. Excitement
There was a great deal of enthusiasm about the field of fusion and plasma science.
Most participants have a positive outlook on their career in this field going forward.
Many benefits to working in plasma science were mentioned including applications toenergy, climate, health, advanced materials, and much more.
3. CPP Strategic Plan
Everyone was excited about their own area of research and wanted it to continue and be
represented in the CPP strategic plan. However, after the series of questions, a key
135

takeaway from all the focus groups was that any sort of large new facility would be
exciting to bring in new people and help unite the existing community. The participants
felt that having the community agree on building something soon, even if it was not
related to their personal research, would be the best way forward. They wanted more ofa focus on innovation and things that will shake us out of the current stagnation.
Additionally, for the FST section of the plan, materials and technology should beemphasized.
4. FES
While the audience for the CPP Strategic Plan is broader than FES, it is an importantcomponent and a section of the questions in the discussion asked people’s opinions of
the current FES research portfolio and ideas for the future. It was clear that many
people in these focus groups, especially graduate students and early career scientists
and engineers, were not familiar with what FES does or how they could engage with
FES. Funding decisions and proposals are often done at a high level by the leaders at
an institution, so graduate students and early career people did not feel they had any
knowledge of or input to the process. FES and leaders/mentors at each institution could
take action to educate students and early career scientists and engineers about what
FES does, what funding opportunities are available, and how to apply for grants.
5. Discrimination, unconscious bias, harassment, and barriers to advancement
Focus group participants shared some experiences of explicit harassment or
discrimination. There were many more instances of unconscious bias, off color
comments, and uncomfortable situations.
Unfortunately, nearly all focus group
participants had either had a negative experience themself or knew of a colleague’s
negative experience in the field.
Although the focus groups were discussing
discrimination based on gender, age, race, and numerous other identifiers, the trend of
the discussion matches with the findings of the NAS study [Nat. Acad. 2018b], which
described the situation for sexual harassment of women with an iceberg metaphor. The
tip of the iceberg is the small number of very serious incidents that would requiredisciplinary or legal action, but under the water are the vastly more numerous but
individually less serious infractions. The pervasive harassment can be just as damaging
as a single instance of sexual coercion. Participants in the focus groups felt that
unconscious, institutionalized gatekeeping in this field tends to reward people that “looklike” the majority. These microaggressions, uncomfortable comments, and other smaller
incidents add up to create an uncomfortable atmosphere that causes people to leave thefield.
6. Mentoring
Most people in the focus groups felt they were receiving good mentoring, but almost allof this mentoring was informal. Because much is informal, some women and minorities
feel at a disadvantage. Also, there are unique challenges for mentoring when many in
our field are working for one institution but located at a different facility. The field isalways evolving, and some early career people are working in new areas and havetrouble finding mentors in their area at their institution. Because the field is hopefully
expanding and starting new initiatives, this issue of early career scientists and engineers136needing to change research topics and not being able to find mentors in their new areas
was seen as something that would become a larger issue as we move forward.
7. Graduate Students
Graduate students expressed some of the same concerns as the other focus groups but
have some additional unique aspects. Focus group participants in this area discussed
that they sometimes feel looked down upon and are not always taken seriously. Mental
health challenges need to be considered; it was brought up by focus group participantsthat graduate students (in all science, not just plasma) are at a significantly increased
risk for these issues compared to others of their same age. This discussion point in thefocus groups agrees with findings; for example, Evans et al. saw over six times the rateof depression and anxiety in graduate students compared to the general population.
Many schools do not have a plasma program, so graduate students would benefit from
more learning and training opportunities at other universities and national laboratories.
Reaching out to students at universities without a dedicated plasma program could be
important for growing the workforce in the field.
8. Suggestions for improving diversity and inclusion
The focus group participants had many ideas for how to improve conditions in the field.
● Leaders in the field (possibly all PIs) should be required to take training on
diversity issues, unconscious bias, cultural competence, bystander intervention,or similar.
● There should be small funding grants available to women, underrepresented
minorities, and early career scientists. This would help break out of a cycle ofname recognition to attract new people to the field.
● We all need to be more proactive and sensitive about recruiting in areas andregions which we do not normally target.
● There should be a plasma physics graduate or post-doctoral fellowship aimed at
women and minorities.
● We should expand undergraduate internship opportunities for women, minorities,
and students without traditional plasma training.
● There was a desire to see acknowledgement from leaders that diversity matters.
● To change anything, this effort has to be shared among all people, not just theunder groups themselves.
● FES could require a broader impacts section for their grants, similar to NSF.

Appendix D. Glossary of Acronyms
ADA
AI
ALCC
AMO
APS
ARC
ARIES

Americans with Disabilities Act
Artificial Intelligence
ASCR Leadership Computing Challenge
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical
American Physical Society
MIT concept for fusion reactor
Advanced Reactor Innovation and Evaluation Study
137

ARPA-E
Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy
ASCR
Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research
ASME
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
BCTF
Blanket Component Test Facility
BES
Office of Basic Energy Sciences
BoP
Balance of Plant
COMPASS-U EU tokamak facility under facility in Czech Republic
COTS
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services
COV
Committee of Visitors
CPP
Community Planning Process
CX
Charge Exchange
D-T
Deuterium-Tritium
DAS
Data Acquisition System
DEI
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
DIII-D
Tokamak facility at General Atomics
DIR
Direct Internal Recycling
DKIST
Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope
DOD
U.S. Department of Defense
DOE
U.S. Department of Energy
DPP
Division of Plasma Physics
DPS
Discovery Plasma Science
DURIP
Defense University Research Instrumentation Program
EAST
Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (facility in China)
ECRF
Electron Cyclotron Range of Frequencies
ELM
Edge Localized Mode
ESA
European Space Agency
ET
Enabling Technology
EU-DEMO
EU concept for demonstration fusion reactor
FES
DOE Office of Fusion Energy Sciences
FESAC
DOE Office of Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee
FLiLi
Flowing Liquid Lithium
FLIT
Flowing Liquid Torus
FMLA
Family Medical Leave Act
FM&T
Fusion Materials and Technology
FNSF
Fusion Nuclear Science Facility
FOA
Funding Opportunity Announcement
FPNS
Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source
FPP
Fusion Pilot Plant
FRC
Field Reversed Configuration
FST
Fusion Science and Technology
FTU
Frascati Tokamak Upgrade (facility in Italy)
FW
First WallGPS
General Plasma Science
138

GPU
Graphics Processing Unit
GRB
Gamma Ray Burst
H&CD
Heating and Current Drive
HED
High Energy Density
HEDP
High Energy Density Physics
HEDLP
High Energy Density Laboratory Plasma
HIDRA
Hybrid Illinois Device for Research and Applications (facility at U. Illinois)
HSX
Helically Symmetric Experiment (facility at U. Wisconsin—Madison)
HTNSD
High Temperature Nuclear Structural Design
HTSHigh Temperature Superconductor
HTSDCHigh Temperature Structural Design Criteria
ICF
Inertial Confinement Fusion
ICRF
Ion Cyclotron Range of Frequencies
I-DTT
Italian Divertor Test Tokamak
IEEE
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IFE
Inertial Fusion Energy
INCITE
Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment
INFUSE
Innovation Network for Fusion Energy
IPA
ITER Project Associates
IRP
ITER Research Plan
ISDC
ITER Structural Design Criteria
ITER
International tokamak facility under construction in France
ITPA
ITER Tokamak Physics Activity
JET
Joint European Torus (EU facility in UK)
JT-60SA
JT-60 “Super Advanced” tokamak (facility under construction in Japan)
JUDITH2
Electron beam facility in Germany
KSTAR
Korea Superconducting Tokamak Advanced Research (facility in Korea)
LHD
Large Helical Device heliotron (facility in Japan)
LHRF
Lower Hybrid Range of Frequencies
LM
Liquid Metal
LMX
Liquid Metal Experiment (facility at PPPL)
LPI
Laser-Plasma Interaction
LSN
Lower Single Null
LTP
Low Temperature Plasma
LTX
Lithium Tokamak Experiment (facility at PPPL)MAGNUM-PSI Linear facility for PMI in the Netherlands
MAST-U
Mega Ampere Spherical Torus Upgrade (facility in UK)
MD
Measurement and Diagnostics
MEC
Matter in Extreme Conditions (facility at SLAC)MELCOR
Engineering code for nuclear systems
MFE
Magnetic Fusion Energy
MIF
Magneto-Inertial Fusion
ML
Machine Learning
139

MMS
MPEX
MRI
MTF
NASA
NCSX
NIF
NIH
NNSA
NRC
NSF
NSTX-U
NTUF
NUF
OTS
PAL
PAM
PFC
PFPO
PI
PISCES
PMI
PPP
PR
PS&FE
PSP
QAS
QED
QHS
QS
RAMI
RF
SCGSR
SciDAC
SCSC
SD
SMR
SO
SOFE
SOL
SPARC
SPI
SSP

Magnetospheric Multiscale satellite experiment
Material Plasma Exposure Experiment
Major Research Instrumentation Program
Magnetized Target Fusion
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Compact Stellarator Experiment
National Ignition Facility (facility at LLNL)National Institutes of HealthNational Nuclear Security Administration
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
National Science Foundation
National Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade (facility at PPPL)New Tokamak User Facility
National Undergraduate Fellowship
Optical Thomson Scattering
Positron Annihilation Lifetime
Disruption Prediction, Avoidance, and Mitigation
Plasma Facing Component
ITER Pre-Fusion-Power Operation
Principal Investigator
Plasma Surface Interaction Experimental Facility (facility at UCSD)
Plasma-Material Interaction
Public-Private Partnership
Program Recommendation
Plasma Science and Fusion Energy
Parker Solar Probe
Quasi-Axisymmetric
Quantum Electrodynamics
Quasi-Helical Symmetric
Quasi-Symmetric
Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Inspectability
Radiofrequency
Office of Science Graduate Student Research
Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing
South Carolina Statewide Collaboration
Science Driver
Small Modular Reactor
Strategic Objective
Symposium on Fusion Engineering
Scrape-off Layer
MIT/CFS HTS tokamak concept
Shattered Pellet Injection
Stockpile Stewardship Program
140

ST40
TBM
TBR
TC
TCAP
TCV
TFTR
TJ-II
TPE
TRL
UKAEA
V&V
VNS
W7-X
WF
XFEL

Tokamak Energy spherical torus facility in UK
Test Blanket Module
Tritium Breeding Ratio
Theory and Computation
Thermal Cycling Absorption Process
Tokamak à Configuration Variable (facility in Switzerland)
Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (facility formerly at PPPL)
Heliac facility in Spain
Tritium Plasma Experiment (facility at INL)
Technology Readiness Level
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
Verification and Validation
Volumetric Neutron Source
Wendelstein 7-X stellarator (facility in Germany)
Workforce Development
X-Ray Free Electron Laser

Appendix E. The Community Planning Process(A description of the process will be added in an addendum to this report.)

141

Appendix F. Community Workshops
High Energy Density Physics Workshop, July 16-17, 2019, College Park,
MD

142

143

144

Joint MFE and FM&T Workshop, Jul 22-26 2019, Madison WI
Please Note : All submitted initiatives will be discussed in at least one expert group or
cross-cut breakout session. The schedule for these sessions will be posted separately.
The room assignments for breakout sessions are listed on the breakout agenda
Registration is available starting at 7:30 AM Monday and Tuesday mornings in the
Atrium of Engineering Hall. Coffee will be available during registration.
Talks are linked by the speaker’s name (when approved by the author).
Initiative papers are linked to the talk title.
Monday (July 22nd)1800 Engineering Hall, UW-Madison Campus (https://www.map.wisc.edu)
https://fusion.zoom.us/j/337056531 (WS)
Scribe notes
Time

Speaker/Topic

Notes

8:20

Schmitz

Meeting logistics

8:30

SolomonWelcome and Meeting Goals

9:30

Coffee break

Theme I : Identifying the Elements for a
Balanced MFE Program in the 2020s
Chair : Saskia Mordijck
Scribes : Guttenfelder, Petty

Theme I : Materials and Technology Future
Directions
Chair : Paul Humrickhouse
Scribes : Tynan, Donovan

Talks in these sessions will be 12 minutes long with 8 minutes for discussion each1800 Engineering Hall
https://fusion.zoom.us/j/337056531 (WS)
Scribe notes

1610 Engineering Hall

10:00

10:00

NazikianA national initiative toaccelerate ITER researchhttps://zoom.us/j/5669851878 (OS-1)

Scribe notes
NAS report and discussion

145and maximize the US
return on ITER

10:20

Hill

Realize the Full Potentialof DIII-D to Advance
Development of
Cost-Effective Fusion
Power Plants

10:20

10:40

Battaglia

The NSTX-U Facility inthe 2020s: Advancing thePhysics Basis for
Configuration
Optimization Toward a
Compact Fusion Pilot
Plant

10:40

KesselA Critical Integration Step
for Fusion Blankets, theBlanket Component Test
Facility

11:00

Greenwald

Collaborations On The
SPARC Device

11:00

DuckworthHigh Field
Superconducting Magnet
Technology Development
for Fusion Devices andScience Missions

11:20

Bader

A U.S. Intermediate Scale
Stellarator Experiment

11:20

Baylor(Shimada)

Integration of the Fuelingand Pumping in the
Fusion Energy Fuel Cycle

11:40

LazersonInternational stellarator
research in support of alow capital cost pilot plant

11:40

Kolasinski

Facilities Instrumentation
for Components
Removed from a
Compact Pilot Plant

12:00

McCollam

Reversed-field pinch
research toward Ohmic
ignition at highengineering beta

12:00

ShimadaIn-pile fission irradiation toadvance tritium-relatedmaterial and technology
challenges

12:20

Discussion

12:20

Discussion

13:00

Lunch

14:30

Expert Group Breakout Session – Link to Agenda

15:30

Coffee

16:00

Expert Group Breakout Session – Link to Agenda

17:30

Adjourn

Tuesday (July 23rd)

146

Theme II: Science and Technology Challenges on the Path to Fusion
Talks in this session will be 12 minutes plus 8 minutes of discussion each1610 Eng. Hall
Zoom (NH)Scribe notes

1800 Eng. Hall
Zoom (WS)
Scribe notes

2255 Eng. Hall
Zoom (OS-2)
Scribe notes

3534 Eng. Hall
Zoom (OS-1)
Scribe notes

TimePower Handling
Chairs: Matt Reinke& George Tynan
Scribes: Tynan,
Winfrey

Heating andSustainment
Chair: Rich Magee
Scribes: Petty,
Collins

Modeling and
DesignChair: Chris Holland& Brad Merrill
Scribes: Ferraro,
Lumsdaine

Materials,
Blankets,
Diagnostics
Chair: Robert
Kolasinski
Scribes: Donovan,
Zinkle

8:30

Canik - Initiative

Brookman - Init.

Neilson - Initiative

Pint (Katoh) - Init.

8:50

Yoda - Initiative

Diem - Initiative

Lyons - Initiative

El-Guebaly - Init

9:10

Youchison - Init.

Bonoli (Baek) - Init.

Meneghini (Smith) Initiative

Bohm - Initiative

9:30

Baldwin - Initiative

Caughman (Pinsker) -Snead - Initiative

Ferry - Initi

Initiave
9:50

Coffee Break

10:10

Goldston - Initiative

Ono - Initiative

Kessel - Initiative

Nygren - Initiative

10:40

Andruczyk - Init

Raman - Initiative

Ghoniem - Initiative

Sowder - Initiative

11:00

Gray - Initiative

Bongard - Initiative

Ying (Humrickhouse)

Parish - Initiative- Initiative
11:20

Rapp - Initiative

Sabbagh - Initiative

Zarnstorff - Init.

Hu (Taylor) - Init.

11:40

Discussion

Discussion

Discussion

Discussion

12:20

Lunch

13:45

Expert Group Breakout Session – Link to Agenda

15:30

Coffee

15:45

Expert Group Breakout Session – Link to Agenda

17:30

Adjourn147

Workshop Reception
19:00 21:00

Reception for the Joint MFE/FM&T and DPS workshops (cash bar)
Memorial Union, Tripp Commons (2nd Floor), UW-Madison campus(https://www.map.wisc.edu)

Wednesday (July 24th)
Theme III: Cross-cutting Opportunities for the Fusion Energy Sciences
Chair: George Tynan
Scribes: Nygren, HegnaTalks in this session will be 10 minutes plus 5 minutes of discussion each1800 Engineering Hall (held jointly with the DPS workshop)
https://fusion.zoom.us/j/337056531 (WS)
Scribe notes
8:30

Vay

Integrated ecosystem of advanced simulation tools for plasma modeling

8:45

Kolasinski (Allain)High Fidelity Surface Diagnostics for Plasma-Material Interactions

9:00

Field

Adoption of Advanced Manufacturing for Advancing and Implementing
Materials for Fusion Energy Applications

9:15

MurphyEquity and inclusion in plasma physics

9:30

Discussion

10:00

CoffeeTheme IV: The Role of Public/Private Partnership on the Path to Fusion
Chair: Saskia Mordijck,
Scribes: Kolasinski, Reinke
1800 Engineering Hall
https://fusion.zoom.us/j/337056531 (WS)
Scribe notes
10:30

Youchison

INFUSE (15 + 5 min)

10:50

Hsu

ARPA-E (20 + 5 min)

11:15

Holland

Fusion Industry Association (25 + 5 min)

11:45

Discussion

12:15

Lunch

148

13:45

Cross-Cut Breakout Session – Link to Agenda

15:30

Coffee

16:00

Cross-Cut Breakout Session – Link to Agenda

17:50

AdjournThursday (July 25th)
Theme V: The Path to a Fusion Pilot Plant
Chair: Steve Zinkle, Walter Guttenfelder
Scribes: Hughes, Caughman
Talks in this session will be 12 minutes plus 8 minutes of discussion each1800 Engineering Hall
https://fusion.zoom.us/j/337056531 (WS)
Scribe notes
8:30

Wade

Near-Term Initiatives to Close the Fusion Technology Gaps to a
Compact Fusion Pilot Plant

8:50

Katoh (Snead)

Accelerated Development of Materials as the Enabling Technology for
Fusion Energy

9:10

Egle

The Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source (FPNS), an Affordable, Timely
14 MeV Fusion Neutron Irradiation Facility for Near-term Fusion
Material Testing

9:30

Sutherland

The need for a diverse fusion energy research and development
portfolio for the pursuit of economically competitive fusion power

9:50

Coffee Break

10:20

Buttery

A National Research Program to Prepare for a Compact Fusion Pilot
Plant by Resolving the Physics of Sustained High Power Density
Conditions

10:40

MenardDevelopment of Mission Need and Preliminary Design of a SustainedHigh Power Density Tokamak Facility

11:00

Merrill

Developing the framework for licensing a fusion power plant

11:20

KesselThe Compact Fusion Pilot Plant Mission Definition, Design, andRequired R&D Program

11:40

Gates (Maurer)

The Stellarator Path to a low-cost Pilot Plant

12:00

Discussion14912:40

Lunch

14:00

Expert Group Breakout Session – Link to Agenda

15:30

Coffee

15:45

Expert Group Breakout Session – Link to Agenda

17:30

Adjourn

Friday (July 26th)
Theme VI: Summary of Workshop Accomplishments and Moving Forward
1800 Engineering Hall
https://fusion.zoom.us/j/337056531 (WS)
Scribe notes
8:30

MFE and FM&T Expert
Group Discussions (samebreakout rooms as
Thursday afternoon)

10:30

Coffee

11:00

MFE and FM&T Expert
Group Summaries

12:30

Co-Chairs

1:00

Adjourn

Summary, homework, and the path forward

DPS Workshop, July 23-25, Madison, WI
Day 1 – Tuesday July 23, 2019 (What is the status of Discovery Plasma Science?)
Session 1: Day 1 Opening
Location: 1227 Engineering Hall, UW-Madison (https://map.wisc.edu/)
Chair: John Sarff, Scribe: David Schaffner
Zoom connection: https://zoom.us/j/5100133208
8:30-8:40

Meeting logistics – Baalrud

8:40-9:00

Description of Workshop Function, Goals, Outcomes – Baalrud1509:00-9:20

Open Discussion regarding Function, Goals, Outcomes, Definition of DPS

Session 2: Reports on Reports
Location: 1227 Engineering Hall, UW-Madison
Chair: Hantao Ji, Scribe: Stephen Vincena
Zoom connection: https://zoom.us/j/5100133208
In this first session, a number of speakers will present overviews of recent reports on various
aspects of plasma physics related to discovery science.
9:20-10:00

Report of the Panel on Frontiers of Plasma Science – Fred Skiff

10:00-10:40

Report on Workshop on Opportunities, Challenges, and Best Practices for
Basic Plasma Science User Facilities – Earl Scime (Remote)10:40-10:55

Coffee Break (Atrium of Engineering Hall)

10:55-11:35

Report on Enabling a Future Based on Electricity Through Non-Equilibrium
Plasma Chemistry -- Mark Kushner

11:35-12:15

Report on Workshop on Opportunities in Plasma Astrophysics – Ellen
Zweibel

12:15-12:30

Report on NAS Plasma 2020 Progress – Mark Kushner

12:30-2:00

Lunch

Session 3: Group Discussion—Broad Overview of Plasma Science and Discussion ofReports
Location: Mechanical Engineering (ME), across the street from Engineering HallGroup 1: ME1270 - High energy laboratory astrophysics, and solar and magnetosphericlaboratory astrophysics) - Moderator: David SchaffnerGroup 2: ME2180 - Low temperature plasmas, plasma surface interactions - Moderator: Steve
ShannonGroup 3: ME2065 - Single component plasmas, dusty plasmas, laser plasma interactions andtheory - Moderator: Steve Vincena
For the discussion breakouts, participants will split into groups (as listed above). The groups will
be given the same set of topics/questions to go through (Group Discussion Report Worksheet).
Each group will have a discussion moderator or two whose role will be to keep the discussion
moving through the topics and avoiding too many tangents. Each group will also have a
discussion scribe to keep minutes of the discussion.
2:00-3:00

Group Discussion Part 1 (Introductions, start of question discussion)

3:00-3:30

Coffee Break (Atrium of Engineering Hall)

3:30-5:00

Group Discussion Part 2 (Remainder of Questions)1515:00-:5:10

Discussion of Day 2 activities and Adjourn

5:00-5:30

Group Moderators and Scribes meet to consolidate notes and prepare briefreports, incorporate comments from remote participation (remaining
workshop participants can leave)

Reception for Joint MFE/FM&T and DPS workshops
7:00-9:00

Memorial Union, Tripp Commons (2nd Floor) (https://map.wisc.edu/)

Day 2 – Wednesday, July 24, 2019 (Overview of DPS and Joint Cross-Cuts)
Session 4: Joint Session with MFE/FM&T—Cross Cutting Opportunities for the FES
Location: 1800 Engineering Hall, UW-Madison
Chair: George Tynan, Scribes: Nygren, Hegna
Zoom connection: https://fusion.zoom.us/j/337056531
8:30-8:45

Integrated Ecosystem of Advanced Simulation Tools for Plasma Modeling Vay

8:45-9:00

High Fidelity Surface Diagnostics for Plasma-Material Interactions Kolasinski

9:00-9:15

Adoption of Advanced Manufacturing for Advancing and Implementing
Materials for FES – Field

9:15-9:30

Equity and inclusion in plasma physics - Murphy

9:30-10:00

Discussion

10:00-10:10

Coffee Break (Atrium of Engineering Hall)

Session 5: Broad Overview Talks of Discovery Plasmas Science (20+5min)
Location: 1227 Engineering Hall, UW-Madison
Chair: Steve Shannon, Scribe: Daniel Den Hartog
Zoom connection: https://zoom.us/j/5100133208
10:10-10:40

Brief Intro and Brief Reports from Group Moderators and Scribes to discuss
results of Day 1 Breakout, major themes, conclusions, recommendations,etc.

10:40-11:05

Troy Carter (UCLA) - Plasma Lab Astrophysics/Basic Plasma Experiment

11:05-11:30

Bruce Remington (LLNL) - High Energy Lab Astrophysics

11:30-11:55

Hans Rinderknecht (LLE) - Laser Plasma Interactions152

11:55-12:20

C. Fred Driscoll (UCSD) - Single Component Plasmas

12:20-12:45

Peter Bruggeman (U Minnesota) - Low Temperature Plasmas

12:45-1:45

Lunch

Session 6: Breakout into Cross-Cutting Groups with Members of MFE and FM&T
Location: Engineering Hall
Enabling Technology: EH2255
Measurements and Diagnostics: EH2309
Theory and Modeling: EH2239
Workforce Development: EH2345
The remaining time will be spent in a group breakout session where members of thecross-cutting groups from the three topical areas at Madison will meet. After a brief overview oftasks and goals for the cross cutting groups, the remaining time, until about 5pm, will be freetime for cross-cutting groups to organize and discuss without any hard end time.
1:45-2:00

Introduction to Cross-Cutting Group Meetings

2:00-6:00 (orinto evening)

Cross-Cutting Group Meetings

Day 3 – Thursday, July 25, 2019 (Presentation and Discussion of Initiatives)
Session 7: Day 3 Opening
Location: 1227 Engineering Hall, UW-Madison
Zoom connection: https://zoom.us/j/5100133208
8:30-8:45

Day 3 Opening Remarks and Description of Sessions

Session 8: Initiatives Presentation (10+5min)
Location: 1227 Engineering Hall, UW-Madison
Chair: Scott Baalrud, Scribes: David Schaffner, Steve Shannon
Zoom connection: https://zoom.us/j/5100133208
Initiative Presentations Session A
8:45-9:10

Carolyn Kuranz (Report of HEDP Meeting) *20+5min

9:10-9:25

Cary Forest (Stellar Wind Tunnels Presentation)

9:25-9:40

Fatima Ebrahimi (The Plasma Universe Initiative, Reconnection
Presentation)

9:40-9:55

Eva Kostadinova (Controlling Charging in Dusty Plasmas, Presentation)

9:55-10:10

Mike Cuneo (Multi-Scale, Multi-Physics Advanced Plasma Hybrid Algorithms,
Modeling, and Simulation Presentation)153

10:10-10:25

Philip Efithmion (National Initiative in Low Temperature Plasma,
Presentation)

10:25-10:45

Coffee Break (Atrium of Engineering Hall)

Initiative Presentations Session B
10:45-11:00

Mark Kushner (Plasma Physics Challenges in Low Temperature Plasma,
Presentation)

11:00-11:15

Greg Severn (Sheath Physics Initiative, Presentation)

11:15-11:30

Jacob Roberts (Ultracold Neutral Plasmas for Controllable and Precision
Plasma Physics, Presentation)

11:30-11:45

Paul Bellan (Thoughts on Discovery Science, Presentation)

11:45-12:00

Thomas Schenkel (Quantum Information Science and Fusion Energy
Sciences)

12:00-12:15

Jeroen van Tilborg (Light sources from Laser-Plasma Accelerators,
Presentation)

12:15-1:30

Lunch

Initiative Presentations Session C
1:30-1:45

Troy Carter (Facility for the Study of Astrophysical Processes: On behalf ofWalter Gekelman, Presentation)

1:45-2:00

David Schaffner (A Large Scale Turbulent Plasma Wind Tunnel: On behalf ofMichael Brown, Presentation)

2:00-2:15

Steve Shannon (Reactive Low Temperature Plasmas: On behalf of Katharina
Stapelman, Presentation)

2:15-2:45

Coffee BreakSession 9: Reconvene of Expert Groups or Advocacy Groups for Discussion of Initiatives
Location: Mechanical Engineering (ME), across the street from Engineering HallGroup 1: ME1270 - High energy laboratory astrophysics, and solar and magnetosphericlaboratory astrophysics) - Moderator: David SchaffnerGroup 2: ME2180 - Low temperature plasmas, plasma surface interactions - Moderator: Steve
ShannonGroup 3: ME2065 - Single component plasmas, dusty plasmas, laser plasma interactions andtheory - Moderator: Steve Vincena
In the same working groups from Day 1, we’ll gather in these groups to discuss the following
topics stemming from the presented and submitted initiatives as well as plan for a second round154

of initiatives. See the Group Discussion Report Worksheet for a list of specific topics. Group
moderators will get any input from remote participation to include in this discussion.

2:45-4:45

Group Discussion

Session 10: Full Workshop Discussion
Location: 1227 Engineering Hall, UW-Madison
Chair: Scott Baalrud
Zoom connection: https://zoom.us/j/5100133208
4:45-5:30

Final Full Workshop Discussion, Feedback, FarewellHigh Energy Density Physics Workshop, Nov 12 - 14, 2019 Menlo Park, CA

155

156

157

158

Joint MFE and FM&T Workshop, Nov 18-22, Knoxville, TN
Please Note. The agenda of the workshop is going to depend on the progress made eachday. This agenda is subject to change at any time.
For a detailed description of what topics are covered in each overarching and strategic
objectives, see the draft PC plan:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pe0cH7mKfw0ElAmwJZJdTXHhhLOvxu6c/view
Remote Participation
https://tennessee.zoom.us/j/748036175
Plenary sessions will be broadcast at the Zoom number above. If you would like to participate
remotely in discussion sessions, please register here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LRhetIODFhYGqjH_xXKIamiJJ9KLHxkmFJtYNkluo_g

Monday

Time

Topic

Presenter/Lead

Location

7:00

Registration, Breakfast Snacks and Coffee

8:30

Welcome, Logistics

DonovanBallroom-413

8:50

Opening Presentation

GarrisonBallroom-413

9:30

Presentation of Draft Strategic Plan

Grierson/Guttenfelder Ballroom-413

10:10

Clarifying Questions on Draft Plan

Sarff

10:30

Coffee Break

11:00

Full Group Discussion of Draft Plan

12:00

Lunch

1:30

Discussion of Programmatic Direction and Elements Howard

Ballroom-413

1:45

Breakout Discussion on High Level Plan

Breakout Rooms

3:10

Coffee Break

3:30

Breakout Discussion on Programmatic

AtriumBallroom-413
AtriumSarff (Scribe Notes)

All

Ballroom-413

AtriumAll

Breakout Rooms

159

Issues/Approach
4:40

Reconvene for Full Group Discussion

Co-Chairs (Notes)

Ballroom-413

5:20

Polling on High Level Plan and Programmatic

Co-Chairs

Ballroom-413

5:40

Adjourn

Tuesday
Time

Topic

Presenter

7:30 Breakfast Snacks and Coffee

Location
Atrium

8:30 Summary of Monday’s Discussion

SolomonBallroom-413

8:35 Overarching A,B,C / D,E,F

Holland / Donovan

Ballroom-413

9:00 Breakout Discussion on Overarching A,B,C

All

Breakout Rooms

10:10 Coffee Break

Atrium

10:30 Breakout Discussion on Overarching D,E,F

All

Breakout Rooms

11:40 Reconvene for Full Group Discussion

Scribe Notes

Ballroom-413

12:10 Polling on Overarching

Ballroom-413

12:30 Lunch

2:00 Perspectives from Congress

Adam Rosenberg
Staff Director, Energy
Subcommittee,
House
Ballroom-413

2:20 Presentation on NTUF

ReinkeBallroom-413

2:50 Breakout Discussion on NTUF

AllBreakout Rooms

4:20 Coffee Break

Atrium

4:40 Reconvene for Full Group Discussion

Ballroom-413

5:10 Polling on NTUF

Ballroom-413

5:30 Adjourn160

Wednesday
Time

Topic

Presenter

7:30 Breakfast Snacks and Coffee

Location
Atrium

8:30 Summary of Tuesday Feedback

FerraroBallroom-413

Presentation of Strategic Objectives SO-E,
8:30 Materials+SO-B Stellartor physics basis

Zinkle / Hegna

Ballroom-413

9:00 Breakout Discussion on SO E

All

Breakout Rooms

10:10 Coffee Break
10:30 Breakout Discussion on SO-B

AtriumAll

Breakout Rooms

11:40 Reconvene for Full Group Discussion

Ballroom-413

12:10 Polling on SO-E,B

Ballroom-413

12:30 Lunch
2:00 Presentation on SO F,G,H, Tritium and Blankets

Humrickhouse /NygrenBallroom-413

2:30 Breakout Discussion on SO F,G,H

All

Breakout Rooms

4:00 Coffee Break

Atrium

4:20 Reconvene for Full Group Discussion

Ballroom-413

4:50 Polling on SO-F,G,H

Ballroom-413

5:10 Adjourn
5:45 Reception- 8:45 Appetizers + cash bar

Scruffy City
18 Market Square

Thursday
Time

Topic

Presenter

7:30 Breakfast Snacks and Coffee

Location
Atrium

8:30 Wednesday Recap

Garrison

8:30 Presentation of SO-C Innovative Tech + SO-D PFCs

Caughman/Lasa

Ballroom-413

161

9:00 Breakout Discussion on SO-C-Innovative Tech

All

10:10 Coffee Break
10:30 Breakout Discussion on SO-D-PFCs

Breakout Rooms
AtriumAll

Breakout Rooms

11:40 Reconvene for Full Group Discussion

Ballroom-413

12:10 Polling on SO-C + SO-D

Ballroom-413

12:30 Lunch
Presentation on SO-A Tokamaks Part 2 + SO-I
2:00 Remote MaintenanceMordijck/Nygren

Ballroom-413

2:30 Breakout Discussion on SO-A + SO-I

All

Breakout Rooms

4:00 Coffee Break

Atrium

4:20 Reconvene for Full Group Discussion

Ballroom-413

4:50 Polling on SO-A + SO-I

Ballroom-413

5:10 Adjourn

FridayTime

TopicPresenter

7:30 Breakfast Snacks and Coffee

Location
Atrium

8:30 Thursday recap/Successes from the week

Howard/Garrison

Ballroom-413

9:00 Breakout Discussion

All

Breakout rooms

10:45 Reconvene for Full Group Discussion

Moret

Ballroom-413

11:30 Next Steps

FerraroBallroom-413

12:00 Adjourn

DPS Online Webinar Series, November 22, 25, and 26
Three webinars representing the three thematic areas of Discovery Plasma Science were heldin lieu of an on-site community workshop.
Zoom connection information for all DPS webinars: https://zoom.us/j/346612730
Create Disruptive Technologies (Friday, November 22 at 2:00 EST)
Chairs: Steve Shanon and Yevgeny Raitses

162

Understand the Plasma Universe (Monday, November 25, 2:00 EST)
Chairs: Hantao Ji, Steve Vincena, and David Schafner
Advance the Foundational Frontier (Tuesday, November 26, 2:00 EST)
Chairs: Dan Dubin and Daniel Den Hartog

CPP-Houston Workshop, January 13-17, 2020

Week Overview(Plenary Fusion Science and Technology, Discovery Plasma)
MondayPlenary

Tuesday
FST

Wednesday
DPS

FST

DPS

ThursdayFridayPlenary

Plenary163

Welcome,
Intro, Invited
Speaker

FST Objectives
A, B, G

Disc. Plasma
Full Group Pres.

FST Objectives
D, H

Disc. Plasma
Full GroupPres.

Summary ofTues & Weds

Summary of
Week

Overview
andSummariesof the Plan

Breakout
Discussions

Breakout
Discussions

Breakout
Discussions

Breakout
Discussions

Cross-Cut
Presentations

Breakout on
Final
Discussion
TopicsBreakout
Discussions

Breakout
Discussions

Breakout
Discussions

Breakout
Discussions

Cross Cut
Breakouts

Reconvene
and FullGroup
Discussion

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Lunch

Close atnoon

FST Objectives
F, C, E

Discovery
Plasma Full
Group Pres.

Fusion Energy
Full Group Pres.

Breakout
Discussions

Cross-Cut
Presentations

Breakout
Discussions

Breakout
Discussions

Breakout
Discussions

Breakout
Discussions

Cross-CutBreakouts

Breakout
Discussions

Breakout
Discussions

Breakout
Discussions

Full Groupdiscussion

Reconvene
and Report
Back

Reconvene andPolling

Reconvene for
Discussion

Reconvene andPolling

Lunch

FES-wide
Breakouts

Reconvene
Report Back164

Monday 1/13 (FES-Wide Discussion)
Remote connection via Zoom will be provided here: https://mit-psfc.zoom.us/j/6172534785
Time

Activity

Presenter

Location

7:30

Breakfast and Registration

9:00

Welcome and Introduction

SolomonTexas Ball.

9:25

Overall structure of plan

FerraroTexas Ball.

9:45

Cross-cut Overview

Sarff

Texas Ball.

10:05

Coffee

10:35

DPS Overview

Baalrud / Kuranz

Texas Ball.

11:15

FST Overview

Howard / Garrison

Texas Ball.

12:00

Lunch (on your own)

1:30

Goals for afternoon discussion

Co-chairs

Texas Ball.

1:40

Breakout Session

Breakout Groups
Discussion Questions

3:00

Coffee3:30

Breakout Session

4:30

Plenary Reporting from Breakouts

5:30

End of Sessions

6:00

Welcome Reception-appetizers anddrinks provided

Foyer

Foyer

Discussion Questions
Texas Ball.

165

Tuesday 1/14 (Parallel FST / DPS)
Fusion Science and Technology
Remote connection via Zoom will be provided here: https://mit-psfc.zoom.us/j/6172534785
Time

Activity

Presenter

Location

7:30

Breakfast

8:30

Presentation of Prioritization Assessment Criteria:

HowardTexas Ball.

8:45

Fusion Energy Full Group Presentation: SO-A,B,G

Lasa /
Zinkle /NygrenTexas Ball.

9:15

Fusion Energy Breakout Session

Groups /Questions

Breakout
Rooms

10:00

Coffee Break

10:20

Fusion Energy Breakout Session

11:30

Fusion Energy Reconvene: Report Back andPolling

12:00

Lunch (on your own)

1:40

Fusion Energy Full Group Presentation: SO-F,C,E

Caughman /Humrickhouse /Guttenfelder

2:10

Fusion Energy Breakout Session

Groups /Questions

Foyer

Breakout
Rooms
Poll setup /Guidance

Texas Ball.

Breakout
Rooms

Coffee Break when needed (~10 min)Continue Fusion Energy Breakout Session
4:20

Fusion Energy Group Reconvene - Report Back

4:50

Fusion Energy Full Group Polling

5:20

DPS+FST updates and announcements

Breakout
Rooms

Texas Ball.

Discovery Plasma Science
Time

Activity

Presenter

Location

166

7:30

Breakfast

8:30

Discovery Plasma Full Group: Instructions on
goals for morning breakout sessions

8:50

Discovery Plasma Breakout Discussion: Split into
the 4 DPS Drivers; Session #1

10:00

Coffee Break

10:20

Discovery Plasma Breakout Discussion: Split into
the 4 DPS Drivers; Session #2

12:00

Lunch (on your own)

1:30

Discovery Plasma Full Group: Report back frommorning sessions; Instructions on goals forafternoon breakout sessions

3:00

Coffee Break

3:30

Discovery Plasma Breakout Discussion : Session
#3

Foyer
Co-chairs
Discussion
prompts

Woodbine
Breakout
rooms
Breakout
Rooms

Breakout
Rooms

PC members,
Co-chairs

Woodbine

Discussion
prompts

Breakout
Rooms

Breakout room
assignments
5:20

Full group discussion and preparation for tomorrow

5:35

End of Sessions

Texas
Ballroom167

Wednesday 1/15 (Parallel FST / DPS)
Fusion Science and Technology
Time

Activity

Presenter

Location

7:30

Breakfast

8:30

Fusion Energy Full Group Presentation: SO-D,H

Reinke / Sarff

9:00

Fusion Energy Breakout Session

Groups /Questions

Breakout
Rooms

10:00

Coffee Break

10:20

Fusion Energy Breakout Session

Groups /Questions

Breakout
Rooms

11:15

Fusion Energy Reconvene: Report Back andPolling

12:00

Lunch (on your own)

1:45

Afternoon discussion questions and pollingquestions

1:50

Fusion Energy Breakout Session

Groups /Questions

Breakouts

3:05

Coffee Break

3:25

Fusion Energy Breakout Session

GroupsBreakout
Rooms

4:40

Fusion Energy Group Reconvene - Report Back

5:10

Fusion Energy Full Group Polling

5:25

End of Sessions

Presenter

Location

Foyer

Discovery Plasma Science
Time

Activity

7:30

Breakfast

8:30

Discovery Plasma Full Group Presentation:
Presentation and discussion of modified
organization
Link to discussion topics for the day

Foyer
Co-chairs

Watercourt16810:00Coffee Break

10:30

Discovery Plasma Breakout Discussion : All
Science Drivers Combined for Discussion #2

12:00

Lunch (on your own)

1:30

Discovery Plasma Breakout Discussion :Combined for Discussion, Principles forPrioritization

3:00

Coffee Break

3:30

Discovery Plasma Breakout Discussion :Combined Discussion, Principles for Prioritization

5:25

End of Sessions

Watercourt

Watercourt

Watercourt

Thursday 1/16 (FES-Wide Discussion)
Time

Activity

Presenter

Location

7:30

Breakfast

8:30

Summary of Tuesday and Wednesday

Baalrud /FerraroTexas Ball.

8:50

Cross Cut Presentations: Theory. & Comp. /Measurement & Diagnostics

Holland / Frenje

Texas Ball.

9:20

Cross Cut Breakout: Theory. Comp.

Breakoutgroups /Questions

Breakout
rooms

10:20

Coffee Break

10:40

Cross-Cut Breakout: Measure. Diag.

Breakoutgroups /Questions

Breakout
rooms

11:40

Cross-cut Report Back and Discussion

12:00

Lunch (on your own)

1:30

Cross-Cut Presentations: Enabling Tech /Workforce Development

Shannon /DonovanTexas Ball.

2:00

Cross Cut Breakout: Enabling Tech

BreakoutgroupsBreakout
rooms

Foyer

169

Questions
3:00

Coffee Break

3:30

Cross Cut Breakout: Workforce Development

4:30

Cross-cut Report Back and Discussion

5:00

End of Sessions

BreakoutgroupsQuestions

Breakout
rooms
Texas Ball.

170

Friday 1/17 (FES-Wide Discussion)
Remote connection via Zoom will be provided here: https://mit-psfc.zoom.us/j/6172534785
Time

Activity

Presenter

Location

7:30

Breakfast

8:30

Welcome and agenda

ChairsTexas Ball.

8:40

Phase II of the Community Planning Process

Rej

Texas Ball.

9:00

Breakout Sessions-Executive Summary

Discussion
topicsBreakout
rooms

Foyer

Coffee Break (as needed)
Breakout Session continues

Breakout
rooms

10:20

Report back and discussion

Texas Ball.

11:40

Closing Statement and Next Steps

12:00

Meeting Close

SolomonTexas Ball.

Appendix G. Initiatives
During the community planning process the community produced over 300 new and/or revised
initiatives and white papers for consideration. All of these were considered as input to theprocess and formed the basis for the content in this strategic plan. The deadline for initiatives tobe considered at the first round of workshops was July 1, 2019. Many of the initiatives were
evaluated by Expert Groups during and after the first round of workshops, which provided theopportunity for valuable feedback and refinement of initiatives. After that, some initiatives wererevised to be resubmitted and some new initiatives were solicited for areas that did not haveenough coverage. The initiative submission portal was open throughout the CPP. All these
initiatives can also be found on the CPP website.

Date

Title of Initiative

Discussion Group 5 (DG5) summary for NAS
Committee on a Strategic Plan for Burning Plasma
5/30/2019 Research

Lead/Contact
AuthorLink to file

Derek
Sutherland

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UZ
PIYOwYeafyP4cwM4NDPtJEf-qc0mAh171

Development of Flibe (Li2BeF4) Salt Fusion
6/14/2019 Blankets

Charles
Forsberg

https://drive.google.com/open?id=118e
LM6rMKk3OCeVTufyJcmVHLI5bkeiO

Fast Liquid Metal Program for Fusion Reactor
6/15/2019 Divertor

EgemenKolemenhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1yxfx
r1TOpaciKUQejSYQ-uyGVhI06-BP

Strategic implications of the stellarator for magnetic
6/16/2019 fusion
Allen Boozer

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YLE
wyew4zHVVV15o7vpTB2iex1BK6NTW

Initiative to Develop the ASME Construction Code
6/19/2019 and Standard for Fusion Energy Facilities, V.0

William K.
Sowder

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1U1bjfEsH4huMbjhkJODkQaFg8Z48XKo

Fast Time-Response Disruption Mitigation for ST
6/21/2019 and AT Facilities

Roger Raman

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1thQ
SEI6xjHRweq3wTqRCG-7uTCoYnIBe

6/23/2019 The Plasma Universe Initiative (PUI)

Hantao Ji

https://drive.google.com/open?id=14Ip
1figwHUk22NSJcLmCr7BnagQBALYr

Achieving the Ultimate Goal of Radwaste-Free
6/24/2019 Fusion Through Recycling/Clearance

Laila
El-Guebaly

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XThtUstN2mJK6V9etg0cyaevlgbN7K58

6/24/2019 Thoughts on Discovery Science: June 24, 2019

Paul Bellan

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cJSi
ncugFJtI9Fehyf32QdxqTUrlJJlz

6/26/2019 National Fusion Design Initiative

Hutch Neilson

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1VVlf
9jLtqD8voRLhkzo7YnCLXAPJCXkJ

Working Group 1: Principles, Values, Metrics, and6/26/2019 Criteria

Ilon Joseph

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1IqAI
XSjxH6svflYKp40LP2bfVg706Spz

Laser-Plasma Interactions Enabled by Emerging
6/27/2019 Technologies

John P. Palastro XNTiX_wNLNOsTvwGLoNwzIeZsds0s

https://drive.google.com/open?id=12hL

Integrated ecosystem of advanced simulation tools
6/27/2019 for plasma modeling
Jean-Luc Vay

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1awj
bBfFiRNV1hMeIRy73B6vjoHKZEjaQ

6/27/2019 Frontiers in Nuclear-Plasma Physics

Alex Zylstra

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GO
OeUkse_oGrsCM4dMyphs0YsOKHQC
4o

Maria Gatu
6/28/2019 Diagnosing fusion burn using neutron spectrometry Johnson

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1JR
WdiC8txRLuUHBW27SHfJVbtdN7com
L

6/28/2019 Consistent Material Properties

Charles Starrett

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1JW
6SfWkRDN-AFApEMLvbyn5B9ZDXVDdXThe Materials-Design Interface for Fusion Power
6/28/2019 Core Components

Mark Tillack &Nasr Ghoniem

https://drive.google.com/open?id=16f7
Z3beLETnprBPeUBDLab784aeUYEWj

Solving the Challenge of High Divertor Heat Flux
using Helium Cooling and Tungsten-Alloy
6/28/2019 Structures

Minami Yoda

https://drive.google.com/open?id=17w4oWAA6fLWYeLfzU6T-xRxiuiusOIU

The Role of High Repetition Rate Experiments in
6/29/2019 Advancing HEDP Science

Scott Feister

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cPL
4V36DIpsCRox5ry55wBb4vJVEbC4I

Computational predictive capability for fusion LM
6/29/2019 systems including LM-plasma coupling

SergeySmolentsev

https://drive.google.com/open?id=11B1
jB5lf2KjqlDjU-YOucgzTyqphct9w

Accelerated Development of Materials as the
6/30/2019 Enabling Technology for Fusion Energy

Yutai Katoh

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1v81
3BpuPsxasARrw8TGo-l0Ho26d-C5A

172

6/30/2019 Advanced PFCs for Fusion Reactors

DennisYouchison and
Arnie
Lumsdaine

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1oTZ
edf4DgVbgr6buip9UJwiLcFBE3aXu

A National Research Program to Prepare for a
Compact Fusion Pilot Plant by Resolving thePhysics of Sustained High Power Density
7/1/2019 Conditions

Richard J
Buttery

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1895
ECWPfs5C5S0FJxu2cXWzWg4lLYUP
9The Compact Fusion Pilot Plant Mission Definition,
7/1/2019 Design, and Required R&D Program
Charles Kessel

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1euC_TanGtLBD4OAp0VeYPv46U3itYdh-

Plasma Optimization, Preparation of the Plasma
7/1/2019 Scenario for the Compact Fusion Pilot Plant

Charles Kessel

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Klz
qLGJzuyv3u0p7UyGV9KtGS_Je1IYH

A Critical Integration Step for Fusion Blankets, the7/1/2019 Blanket Component Test Facility

Charles Kessel

https://drive.google.com/open?id=14yz
EycNR4Hj17BEdTEqEyMTKFc4JFJFDThe Fusion Energy Systems Studies Integrated
Design and Assessments for the US MFE Program,the Early Phases of CFPP Development Toward
7/1/2019 Industrial PhasesCharles Kessel

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Sdz
JWrcL8UPFgzMHhyEfWGjBOwImxLtQ

Are High-Entropy Alloys Suitable for Fusion
7/1/2019 Applications?

Enrique
Martinez Saez

https://drive.google.com/open?id=11Od
0-9WrYFcAc9aNtH9RAhpF67Itrofx

A national initiative to accelerate ITER research
7/1/2019 and maximize the US return on ITER

Raffi Nazikian

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qzj
UCW-TP25tP1AEJd0OQZXegYqXDuG
6

The Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source (FPNS), an
Affordable, Timely 14 MeV Fusion Neutron
Irradiation Facility for Near-term Fusion Material
7/1/2019 Testing

Brian Egle

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1qjK
95Xc1RfcB4IBsHKEKhXreqkdXyM5r

Commonwealth Fusion Systems and the Path to
7/1/2019 Commercial Fusion EnergyAlex Creely

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Dlc
ZfzfJLp2ETotn4R-WFhw8wvjeEit5

High Field Superconducting Magnet Technology
Development for Fusion Devices and Science
7/1/2019 Missions

RobertDuckworthhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=11CT
Hs0apxLDwHJwAGhhNKg0HVHRSu2
cw

7/1/2019 Expand Capacity Computing

Brendan Carrick https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WD
L3Mum1xYQH4k7M4d2YTVbK6TvgpY
Lyons
Qs

National Fusion Magnet and Conductor
7/1/2019 Development Initiative

Xiaorong Wang

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1e4K
Q7aQIOsUooQXkQ_jY2Q6scRFKGenk

The Basis and Potential of Plasma Optics Made
7/1/2019 from Ion Waves

RobertKirkwood

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wI5
na5T_a_mV3UWCg5tl2OCSaBq4D5h2

The need for a diverse fusion energy research anddevelopment portfolio for the pursuit of
7/1/2019 economically competitive fusion power

Derek
Sutherland

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rXw
ryeCv4bjd1HF-jBUnSQudNT6Z0jC0173

Plasma-facing materials and components researchhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1lgV
7/1/2019 needs
Chad M. Parish MzSMPo3_VDaGuKDULJhFFl2tCxYt0
7/1/2019 Quad Chart

Prof. Chris
Orban

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LPy
RYwkdSxT0uvbozzkmTYKEfX5npzn8

Fundamental Understanding of Hydrogen
7/1/2019 Isotope-Materials Interactions in Fusion Reactors

Xunxiang Hu

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Wo
6FYVN7GOmw35Il1zF_Fq7JtDDKehrz

Continued Optimization and Functional Verificationof Cellular Solid Breeder for Transformative Solid
7/1/2019 Breeder Blankets

Alice Ying

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1TZ
Dg8aBvNO_LsjhyYQ6FT8tm6jlMTn-D

7/1/2019 Quasi-Linear model initiative for fast ion transport

Vinicius Duarte

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cgB
GlFMeEfeIxwFZO8VW7zuLPDtBOFX8Developing solid-material plasma facing
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mA
components for fusion reactors with replenishable
51u4pUGx-n2wBnowncI0CBTRG_X_1
7/1/2019 wall claddings and continuous surface conditioning Peter Stangeby J
Some implications of recent technology advanceson divertor physics performance requirements of
7/1/2019 DT fusion tokamaks

Peter Stangeby wyBgcZH7qogfs6dICeKfX2y9GCY8qa

Targeted design of materials for harsh
7/1/2019 environments in fusion energy applications

Yury Osetskiy

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1s1A
r_79vmwDe2xxad2tiuha0yLlZxuTU

Direct Laser Acceleration of electrons by
7/1/2019 high-intensity laser pulses

LouiseWillingale

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZQ
ZT5-gnXfIUyGyWBV5l4VU6zYiD16ND

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zN

InteBaylorgration of the Fueling and Pumping in the
7/1/2019 Fusion Energy Fuel Cycle
Larry Baylor

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NA
aHsvUsMjYTp8i1exFb3883O0tnF6um

LouiseWillingale

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1m7
bV7YJSjhc91633f9aw8Qp7S1HFavZRAn Initiative to Establish Power Exhaust Solutions
7/1/2019 for a Compact Pilot Plant

John Canik

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1H2
UX3yNG9vtJLJgduqV0mXxwsbVQOH
k1

7/1/2019 A Large Scale Turbulent Plasma Wind Tunnel

Michael Brown

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hgA
mn_XQhDsuQ0OZ4fwRxdbFtRMIy6YL

7/1/2019 Direct Laser Acceleration

Adoption of Advanced Manufacturing for Advancing
and Implementing Materials for Fusion Energy
7/1/2019 Applications
Kevin Field

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Y3
mmWx64oMW08Hp0xfbMBa3q9JHCa
HpV

The NSTX-U Facility in the 2020s: Advancing thePhysics Basis for Configuration Optimization
7/1/2019 Toward a Compact Fusion Pilot Plant

Devon Battaglia

https://drive.google.com/open?id=11Ul
AeKQWGQKRE7Pd4cgSkw6s26FJG3l7

7/1/2019 Liquid Metal Divertor

Rob Goldston

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Oy
DVbKA2CMXu2dsxDn0ObyhIn9scces
X

Frontiers in high-energy-density and relativistic
physics enabled by EP-OPAL: a multi-beam
7/1/2019 ultrahigh-intensity laser user facility

Hans
Rinderknecht

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18uy
w8QJ_c5NAul3XBIRCETg9y-Ema6-m

Arturo7/1/2019 National Fusion Science Undergraduate Internships Dominguez

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CU
3ve-ZZsC_c-wdHIqQ8WzDXyRAosVar

174

Innovative X-ray Crystal Spectrometers for High
7/1/2019 Energy Density Science

Lan Gaohttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1x1p
7dc9qV5EhT1UdDh_J271_9K0wc4Gd

Reliable Long-Pulse Plasma Heating and Current
7/1/2019 Drive using ICRF

John
Caughmanhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1BG
ui4lJQAVcx0ySHqqYPDUcuNyOKHT2
X

Realistic testing and simulation of synergistic
7/1/2019 effects in PMI

Tatyana Sizyuk

https://drive.google.com/open?id=16hp
TQRN35QeJ_75k9dvFgprKr30XjPBN

7/1/2019 Controlling charging in dusty plasmas

EdwardThomas, Jr.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=12vg
NScxonLXtTqlaqCAYyFeIsyBEbi-x

Integrated Simulation Tool for Various Effects of
7/1/2019 Plasma Transients

Ahmed
Hassanein

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CN
9_A6Zp0kFQ2UnbbT9eICTxd5N2V4sp

Strategy for Advancing the Technical Readiness of
7/1/2019 Liquid Metal Plasma Facing Components

Travis Gray

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dBF
LR1-4gPue4Rkzk5MWXIqKmi8cDVp_

Addressing critical Plasma-Material Interactions
7/1/2019 gaps with the new linear divertor simulator MPEX

Juergen Rapp

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1L3
WZC08yXLb1umTRqaiJNogGL9Wic0aE

7/1/2019 The Stellarator Path to a low-cost Pilot Plant

David A. Gates

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1JUnLrt9ri-dE4yyBT-yie1To2Lb2qUW

Plasma-Material-Interaction Challenges and Path
towards RF Sustainment of Steady State Fusion
7/1/2019 Reactor Plasmas

Paul T. Bonoli

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gM
b5paNALVKiZIkGzurOvAShTld90eP4

Computational Modeling of Non-Equilibrium Warm
7/1/2019 Dense Matter Systems

Tadashi Ogitsu

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1njw
3iuf_8xkqovYybYZ_-jwT2l6O465n

Establishing an understanding of radiofrequency
7/1/2019 heating and current drive for a compact pilot plant

MichaelBrookmanhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1zG8
UAL8wskGIjPMsfJQ0G5-7ZxHi__xW

Towards an Integrated Fusion Design and Materials
7/1/2019 Development Program
Lance Snead

https://drive.google.com/open?id=17-p
eak1kXJLd2eOpXEBJ5JOal7GOuyRu

Reversed-field pinch research toward Ohmic
7/1/2019 ignition at high engineering beta

Karsten
McCollamhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1HaT
tMjGsw9y4V0t1piCiRJkpzsRp5FTy

International stellarator research in support of a low Samuel
7/1/2019 capital cost pilot plant
Lazersonhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1V8t
4oWBXa48NLXuApwshj_2XUR4svdkK

7/1/2019 Efficient X-ray detection at high energies (>10 keV) Sabrina Nagel

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1d_f
6Qxz5kDW4zZiP9_E1chEkp0niyB_Y

Plasma Optics for Increasing Laser Performance to Robert
7/1/2019 Access New Physical Processes
Kirkwood

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CKf
WY_c_D3sMJyfKfwgU8VJrGOe97uW8

A Virtual Integrated Multi-physics, Multi-scale
Simulation Predictive Capability for Plasma
Chamber Blanket and Fuel Cycle Component
7/1/2019 Design and Performance Evaluation

Alice Ying

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1FItS
BA2tkkAwvyU8fYmfLm_WfmIo_Bcv

The PlasmaPy Project: Building an Open Source
Software Ecosystem for Plasma Research and7/1/2019 Education

Nick Murphy

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Jb0
dhCDMjXXnK9mbWvewQbQlgpzx5x-Q

Enabling scientific reproducibility in plasma
7/1/2019 research

Nick Murphy

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BsV_ZxDiSdsOiij8iTRHLHcK0eMweyu9175

7/1/2019 Equity and inclusion in plasma physics

Nick Murphy

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1svp
SBpx_7HbMRStTNCG97Kb20XgvwZuw

In-pile fission irradiation to advance tritium-related
7/1/2019 material and technology challenges

MasashiShimadahttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1kPb
92_bDAVS-Y4ZnQs2-I14PGHLx1-T8

John D. Moody

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LZT
XBRYmPRqSuVQ4H8JnRtCO3Nj0h8RM

7/1/2019 Physics of plasmas in extreme fields

Stepan Bulanov

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RT
VRV2Un2Sr_LRUug1EA3eNqpSfPQq
Sc

Advanced RF Source Technology and7/1/2019 Development Center

Stephanie Diem ZiM9Ij5FxkL9X0T57l5aLEV_YaGl_

Developing the framework for licensing a fusion
7/1/2019 power plant

Brad Merrill

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WIQyCI1t0BADSRasft7Yv4EcH1It04-P

Near-Term Initiatives to Close the Fusion
7/1/2019 Technology Gaps to a Compact Fusion Pilot Plant

Mickey Wadehttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1JUh
ZzZpknHr80xKDN1Vyx-Sd71nRP7Wg

Quantum Information Science and Fusion Energy
7/1/2019 Sciences

ThomasSchenkelhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1V0
GOgPUo4k82OJ9FQOjKz1bLaE-jlL6a

Physics and applications of ion acceleration driven
7/1/2019 by high-repetition-rate PW lasers

Carl Schroeder

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1n8
MF4V5T2ogwFL_MQBoLAcdK8dH-InZ
Y

Advancing Fusion Technology Workforce
Development at the University of
7/1/2019 Wisconsin-Madison Fusion Technology Institute

Tim D. Bohm

https://drive.google.com/open?id=16Ve
W3KBvEY-zQGk8SEJTLYykm9V1xOU
e

7/1/2019 Magneto inertial fusion experiments on NIF

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Twl

Realize the Full Potential of DIII-D to Advance
7/1/2019 Development of Cost-Effective Fusion Power Plants David N Hill

https://drive.google.com/open?id=17U
U6w7a2nCOA4UQmrdkZspCG_IkDfSk
W

Initiative: Facility for the study of Astrophysical
7/1/2019 Processes

WalterGekelmanhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=16E
WEjgZR2RbdTjlv2ARoR_3QOWOc06ud

7/1/2019 Compatibility Issues for Fusion Energy

B. Pint

https://drive.google.com/open?id=13V
UniaDRpRknzLwIZtLTJ8joGtoePY33

Accelerating Fusion Through Integrated Whole
7/1/2019 Device Modeling

Amitava
Bhattacharjee

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1tWq
DC0mwUpDfiUwmAE9to9FbFOP54gA
q

7/1/2019 Low-temperature atmospheric-pressure plasmas

Chunqi Jiang

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1MP8SmsQdNlM6ESJ5vAMHPm_SVldG2j
J

Integrated RF Program to Develop Fusion Reactor
7/1/2019 Relevant Actuators

Masayuki Ono

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RK
ZjGmwpbhx9aQmccgfH1MYBvfj0C03y

Nuclear reactions and fusion processes in plasmas Thomas
7/1/2019 of varying density and temperature
Schenkelhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1Zej
5ikUdZQD3Gv6UknJn9td_a631QXjIFusion Nuclear Analysis Advancements for the
Fusion Materials and Technology Strategic
7/1/2019 Planning Process

Tim D. Bohm

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sZR
Yq4xEGNy3bsZbj0yS5MiPIQODJ0V1

7/1/2019 Microprobe quad chart

Michael Brown

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1z1X
4HKD-azf42tCzX6KYHyfXJ_a4BlN3

176

Federated Data Analysis utilizing AI/ML for efficientcollaborative research among big experiment,
7/1/2019 simulation and personnel resources
C.S. Chang

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NZv
I2q4SbktDqNrWh0bFVCMJ9NmmFex
E

Utilizing Outreach Activities for Workforce
7/1/2019 Development

Stephanie Diem XM0-Fiqn9ryVdmDCXgzbZ71UoIOhH

7/1/2019 Pulsed Power User Facility

Will Fox

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ixc
CCljBORBRUKtRi_Mt-j-7_G8ymrg-

Development of Mission Need and Preliminary
Design of a Sustained High Power Density
7/1/2019 Tokamak Facility

Jon Menard

https://drive.google.com/open?id=16nE
6P0DiKFlxjdWWAv7MeIBI0TeYWhc_

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SQi

Advancing toward in-situ plasma facing component
7/1/2019 surface diagnostics
Sara Ferry

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jQk
Ki3LwcyrTlSSltPb7QfnTlXVFCLhT

Laser-plasma accelerators: next generation x-ray
7/1/2019 light sources for high energy density science

Félicie Albert

https://drive.google.com/open?id=17D
wddPByzQUtcnPHju_1ue9Qq1x_VtGP

7/1/2019 GDT_VNS_Initiative

Cary Forest

https://drive.google.com/open?id=13A2
RtJZvIseBjXGuoLE3RdXb-pjJaJQN

Robust kinetic simulations for improved
7/1/2019 understanding and predictions

Genia Vogman

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1B_nqQUUxr4k0sq7sQIIk0ZIiq7K3BMR3

7/1/2019 GDT Volumetric Fusion Neutron Source

Cary Forest

https://drive.google.com/open?id=19m
a5QpflOaAgJQYLI7nQi9Gr78ca8h-A

Initiative to Simplify Optimized Stellarators and Test
7/1/2019 Key Properties
M.C. Zarnstorff

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EsT
w2abKXm8-AqXeZVdxlnMLgG-fwE3q

Generation ITER - Exciting opportunities for early
7/1/2019 career researchers and the US fusion program

F. M. Laggner

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1u9A
EpO2J0C1mEJYVtrDIa-F9BlzZtZDX

Frontier HED Science on the LCLS MEC
7/1/2019 Instrument

Andrew
MacKinnon

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Cl0j
6OFrmLnP5cDIKGol81UwLFbpFnA-

Cusp-confined spheromaks spinning in a hot
7/1/2019 sheath

Daniel Prater

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1__y
0X1NhVtwhxkuV9hUA4Cml7SYOCbsJ

LaserNetUS: a high intensity laser network for
7/1/2019 frontier plasma science in the U.S.

Gilliss Dyer

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Gjk
9JP1M2xub-00X820mtF4PE7Wi5Q6I

Cusp-Confined Spheromaks for MFE and7/1/2019 Discovery Plasma Science

Daniel Prater

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Cx
RuLd-qHs1YHC6ewZ1CQp-qWoCmaV
4m

7/1/2019 Investigations into a Hot Sheath

Daniel Prater

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WP
NgsO8qeKbKyYWVZlCqoWDlqOx32g
PP

PFC Testing in a Flexible US High Heat Flux Test
7/1/2019 Facility

Richard E.
Nygrenhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=18Q
KnIQo1BZ3AKAUGytPGTkGJpK8R5u
Ve

7/1/2019 Thermal Management of Plasma Probes

Richard E.
Nygrenhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1zBv6LYWjJYuPqZVxKXKEIDfwHev8eft

A Near Term Initiative on Advanced Manufacturing
7/1/2019 in Fusion Applications

Richard E.
Nygrenhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1A1L
infBXPBWswvxxob50x_k-FUvCn0Zx

7/1/2019 Smart Tiles

Richard E.
Nygrenhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1Rx
M5ZcZhyd8LNfzlMZleWbqrM-F9h42w

177

Negative Triangularity Tokamak as a Fusion
7/1/2019 Reactor Option

Max Austin

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18A
WINb9yRStsn9dlmUQ_hel-gKR_sfYF

7/1/2019 Neutral H sensor for C-X flux on wall and divertor

RobertKolasinski

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cQ5cMNmIBqkoYM5Ji6CJ-bvXSSHGivi

High Fidelity Surface Diagnostics for
7/1/2019 Plasma-Material Interactions

RobertKolasinski

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WtK
hfuDCHTg9zaVSP1-AWDOUpoqJmi6i

Instrumentation required for monitoring magnetic
7/1/2019 fusion device and performance

RobertKolasinski

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hQ6
h8Rec-bRfVoaF0lTSkyRro2M0jxaN

Facilities Instrumentation for Components
7/1/2019 Removed from a Compact Pilot Plant

RobertKolasinski

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LXc
qYLidLbdNcNLxAnvxVedUOQy00Vyx

Smart Pyrometry for Measure Liquid Lithium
7/1/2019 Surface Temperature

Richard E.
Nygrenhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1cZk
V3KXgthqhDTAD9shNTA60Cyw4Bc-y

A National Initiative for Disruption Elimination in
7/1/2019 Tokamaks

S.A. Sabbagh

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uKy
UJ2c6a7ypxvnpuftSNh2TV1G7zUNg

The Plasma Universe Initiative (PUI) - with updated
7/2/2019 authorship
Hantao Ji

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PDz
4wXoAyJgN7wubAIj0pN3Hr9y9N45M

7/2/2019 A Diagnostic Plan for FES HEDP Physics

Steven Ross

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1w-Z
IOax9kCw6EmZaCSYfOijEpuwriJvP

Establishing an understanding of radiofrequency
7/2/2019 current drive for a compact pilot plan

MichaelBrookmanhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1tor
QS_Hk5jOdrIgpakv5DSqtlA3DKN5Y

Capturing Appropriate “Strength of Coupling”
Knowledge Base for Reactive Low Temperature
7/2/2019 Plasmas

Katharina
Stapelmann

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1_Bi
22QChLocAzU7tEHjUqZP2sJQbJiwm

7/3/2019 Dynamics and Stability of Astrophysical Jets

Chikang Li

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LZs
S-m7-daCf_P1ebq0sqlca5AFecuHI

OMFIT: One Modeling Framework for Integrated
7/3/2019 Tasks

Sterling Smith

https://drive.google.com/open?id=13A
W5uqNxKbCE7TyDSxAprBuEpWKRs
ULY

Spectroscopic studies of WDM/HDM using X-ray
7/3/2019 free electron laser

Hae Ja Lee

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1P2d
NnqKc5fIiLz1e88F5hMdY3pSTJdSW

7/5/2019 white paper

Marty Marinak

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1B9d
LUBLae4oc_sRHPgD0V9bTbIzR-1_D

Improvements in simulation capabilities and7/5/2019 necessary steps

Marty Marinak

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1J6tv
acszMGe_1eH1zMbTU0gtKAvABUwe

Developing a robust temperature diagnostic for
7/5/2019 HED hydrodynamics experiments

Mike
MacDonald

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1h2qi
gN1y8_ONnD3MNl4mn8n7FSSU3egS

Plasma Physics Challenges in Low Temperature
Plasma Chemical Conversion for Environment,
7/7/2019 Biotechnology and Energy (v11 advocate update)Mark Kushnerhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1lHH
0VITEtELjYCw2MULuMCGk8E80YUyJ

Advanced Radio Frequency Source Technology
7/8/2019 and Development Center

Stephanie Diem Q-8jSHPREiFthBtRkPl4EjpcYApVt

Science and Technologies That Would Advance
7/8/2019 High-Performance Direct-Drive Laser Fusion

StephenObenschain

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SkY

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1FJe
q8jHqDgF4IPYizIlaIk-GCJOQNeYW

178

National Strategy for Liquid Metal PFC Research
7/9/2019 for Fusion

DanielAndruczyk

7/10/2019 National Initiative in Low Temperature Plasma

Philip Efthimion Z-akXvbPBPuCkM_U3ScbLBPue7pZq

Astro2020 papers on inclusion, education, and7/11/2019 research infrastructure

Nick Murphy

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Qh
wngm9c5JfFgE_xYiMEQXEHNWYC877m

7/11/2019 Inertial Fusion Energy Driver Technology

Constantin
Haefner

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yzx
dC4a6bCneUx_dySHlxDPfqdcbuaGe

Contrained relativistic HED experiments and7/12/2019 simulations

Sasi
Palaniyappan

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-DV
JGHuhYCMJ9SigiXowLDT3TI7mbkMi

Pulsed power development needs: drivertechnology, workforce, and experimentally
validated, multi-scale models & algorithms(seamless integration from PIC/kinetic to
7/12/2019 radiation-XMHD)Ryan McBride

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GN
8A6g4xiBcbPs_glEm36K7EjbDxnPZB

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1040
GQbRvun6-Xr7tCK7uBwg89R67I0eR
https://drive.google.com/open?id=16Z4

Benchmarking NLTE Atomic Physics of Open-Shell Marilyn
7/13/2019 Ions in Plasmas
Schneider

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1joBr
7UNXvcc3ZBYFFgSLHw9t0B_lyF1p

Advanced Radio Frequency Source Technology
7/15/2019 and Development Center

Stephanie Diem

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Hw
hNptwUQ1_TCx5vIKdMb6gEXOVfK_X
y7/15/2019 Quantum plasma

G. Collins

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1c2u
vPX9VbA1nvE3HCqn6lilK_qjrOrz9

C.M. Greenfield

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1X16
Pyq1U_zCO7NEzhWdIkSTCSqC5Aha
P

Full Participation in ITER: The US Fusion
Community’s First Opportunity to Study a Burning
7/15/2019 Plasma at High Gain

Diagnosing fusion burn using neutron spectrometry Maria Gatu
7/16/2019 v2
Johnsonhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=13Lb
DJuY-vJpyrQCWy7AuidIbPa_Q9NBz

Pulsed Power Science and Technology
7/16/2019 Development

Ryan McBride

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1l9F
p10ZqdX5cBFc9Oeum_iWqrqwJkrfV

Low-Cost, Scalable Power Plants Based on Heavy
7/16/2019 Ion Fusion

Peter Seidl

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1hel
CQ4YL4fmR1Vo02KJKp9m9-VTTTIxk

7/16/2019 Collaborations On The SPARC Device

MartinGreenwald

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Coa
jjWPJXk_3Ugtq2nK29MZb6aK7p-TG

Benchmarking NLTE Atomic Physics of Open-Shell Marilyn
7/16/2019 Ions in High-Temperature Plasmas
Schneider

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Vzb
yEyBCR6dWOM5yYJsK_DszfBEiJAIp

Multi-Scale, Multi-Physics Plasma Hybrid
7/16/2019 Algorithms, Modeling, and Simulations

Michael Cuneo

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1u0N
0z-tguG3KwUTrKBcDeKE-oeG1AlP6

7/17/2019 Collisionless SOL initiative_v3 - Richard Majeski

Dick Majeski

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1H6T
eCrMi0g0Zx70g1Eq8JKnJRAvUkt62

ECFS Final Statement on the NAS Report on a
7/17/2019 Strategic Plan for Burning Plasma Research

ECFS

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1P2x
GVMeK9Wc7Qy2LCVnVqbVdse2utz9x

A.E. Jaervinen

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wK
3H6FUsmL6B4Lm7H6-3axTnJF8vDs9
C

Tokamak Capabilities Required for Relevant
7/18/2019 Boundary Model Validation

179

Ultracold Neutral Plasmas for Controllable and7/18/2019 Precision Plasma Physics

Jacob Roberts

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1FtcI
wWwjNkpn1fxOTNNAGIly95EhK3bu

A tri-particle backlighter platform for precision
radiography of fields and flows of
7/18/2019 high-energy-density plasmas

Chikang Li

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ecv
s3rQLh0-iKOGh_wmNopjML9zjP13b

Mitigation of scrape-off layer power flow with lithium
7/19/2019 plasma-facing surfaces
R. Majeski

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1c2tv
CGeFbjPHrvchMKxLLqcqqKUgYwTTReversed-field pinch research toward Ohmic
7/19/2019 ignition at high engineering beta, v. 2

Karsten
McCollamhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1Ra0
NzdOTMpo2xsKJyNVEQPMLKsil4lp1

The Centrifugally-Confined Mirror as a Pathway to
7/19/2019 Fusion

Ian Abelhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=19sF
74VCt-oZBaOVgk7oVoZ6R7U2UN2Od

Enhance Physics Basis of NTMs -- to Predict,
7/19/2019 Avoid, Control, Suppress

Eric Howellhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1_3N
QLDBhokZVEFU2oqRZ2wNiM3a-1LY0

Innovation Network for Fusion Energy - A
7/21/2019 Private-Public Partnership Opportunity

Ahmed Diallo

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1nmI
UXvi-OKtIm96QcnpYKUPDAvUDTGp6

Advancing Fusion Energy with Predictive
7/22/2019 Theory-Based Models

Orso Meneghini

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1H6
B4MDNL9zFNN5X2k_kTSJ5D9aEeVY
8g

7/22/2019 Light sources from Laser-Plasma Accelerators

Jeroen van
TIlborg

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EF
MKDGSexFbB6WLwpVvMmdVkwmRk
LdyX

7/24/2019 Theory-based scaling of SHPD mission metrics

J.M. Parkhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1z6q
qcZRPAHKQ2AkNhyM8ceVYwZfMrzZS

High-energy, high-brightness, compact, tunable
X-Ray source based on moderate power laser
7/25/2019 system

DmitriKaganovich

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RE
RgjWnYfdGcchq5_xoDVwGd4QsaCbKz

IMPORTANCE OF THEORY, COMPUTATION AND
PREDICTIVE MODELING IN THE US MAGNETIC Fatima
9/11/2019 FUSION ENERGY STRATEGIC PLAN
Ebrahimi

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Z_9
cSoLmxR5fCsmAafL1lGK0Nslrky3N

9/17/2019 Overview of FNST Gaps - White Paper

Richard E
Nygrenbhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1fAr
mqy3fFdTQXS_aziOLwEo_oczKogwQ

Joints for Superconducting Magnets – A Game
Changer That Can Rank Confinement Concepts
9/19/2019 and Radically Change Remote MaintenanceRichard E
Nygrenhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1hE4
hZLfPeHypu2Xs92SUxoGOvBVegCYz

9/19/2019 National Fusion Design Initiative, v2.0

Hutch Neilson

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1vm_
RdCyqu7in0kyTxdEjN1qP2Q8AlO8D

Addendum to the Initiative White Paper
9/23/2019 Collaborations on the SPARC Device

MartinGreenwald

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BDRgaKWaW8PAK3SUrJOGD2QtxYRfD
SpConstruction of a Divertor Test Tokamak (DTT) as
called for in the 2015 Plasma Material Interactions
9/24/2019 Workshop Report

Adam Kuang

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Pwr
Pgp-oe3ivWuQcY8zEDZQhyDD7mGb
4Computational predictive capability for fusion LM
9/25/2019 systems including LM-plasma coupling

SergeySmolentsev

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1R2l
mtpawVZOKrK6feW6EbeLbvJyJoLsb

180

9/26/2019 Pulsed tokamaks as an early power plant

Bob Mumgaard

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1MfPHHpTiUijPjrNvMYTEMbTKbf4w2K3

FINCH: The Fusion Integrated Nuclear Component Caroline
9/26/2019 Hall
Sorensenhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1FqK
yTMQznvZXPXNK13Rigc0ViCHNjbB4

Tools for Today's Fusion Nuclear Science and9/26/2019 Technology Development

Kevin Woller

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ns3
eHRn2EUBjBt85wINb1F6gKiKh2AZC

PMI STUDIES IN DISPLACEMENT-DAMAGEDFIRST WALL AND DIVERTOR TARGET
9/26/2019 MATERIALS

Matt Baldwin

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1a_J
nGkHlfpreurYY2xIymL4OJfZqcwt6

Nick Murphy

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ylI8
nw5WHDMvNLCRM8yYzcpE4w5G2UxaRevised version. Developing solid-material plasma
facing components for fusion reactors with
replenishable wall claddings and continuous
9/27/2019 surface conditioning

Peter Stangeby

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Xrx
aMAMRKV3QBelKZPEfDA0_tDpdhSWz

5D and 6D Kinetic simulation of pedestal andscrape-off plasma dynamics on extreme scale
9/27/2019 computers

C.S. Chang

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1oj5e
lpv_TF70zD33rfEux6_TzisN4Uha

Tokamak Energy: the spherical tokamak route tofusion power using high temperature
9/27/2019 superconductor magnets

StevenMcNamara

https://drive.google.com/open?id=17H2
k0hXXKQJ-7xwe0JZBLxyamZYKqTy8

Development of effective disruption mitigation
9/27/2019 solutions for reactor-grade devices

NicholasEidietis

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Uoz
Qbhrh9NF3HjcBvXiWX2c6JvNXXDCIAn Integrated Program to Develop Scalable
Solenoid-Free Startup Scenarios for Spherical and9/27/2019 Advanced Tokamaks

Michael W.
Bongardhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1hW
DLcUXT91W0GXVkQ8emyXaVErFWc
ax_

A proposal for an alternative fusion energy concept
research and development program for the pursuit Derek
9/27/2019 of economical fusion power
Sutherland

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gsB
0MJEbziSfnTNz9j2oiYRnz-uifpEv

9/27/2019 An Alternatives Program for Magnetic Fusion

Ian Abelhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1HY
52f-PwJ7f7d3fGiaAspf3JwgWPRKVz

9/27/2019 Abridged Pilot Plant Design Initiative

Hutch Neilson

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wpz
UvkXQWABpUNv9ZIzuYRaE79nOTiw
C

Development of effective disruption mitigation
9/27/2019 solutions for reactor-grade devices

NicholasEidietis

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cam
BsJ80kmT19QTDvJLHq_3rHbW6YKQbA Comprehensive US Research Program to
9/27/2019 Accelerate the Path to Commercial Fusion Energy

CFS and the
SPARC teams

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DX
ad-JQfazHQIE84RVYdTxAjSa8VM2m
X

Roger Raman

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1u3h
wPDnkcQdf00nu5rmqRAUBHOb064m
N

Conferences on equity and inclusion for plasma
9/26/2019 science

Demonstration of solenoid-free start-up of low
inductance plasma for advanced ST or tokamak
9/27/2019 scenarios using transient Coaxial Helicity Injection

Development and validation of models for the
R.M. Churchillhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1_52
9/27/2019 divertor heat flux using kinetic first-principles codes and C.S. Chang 1213NOyqXb6SX6Nq1fVTMag6PtVR9181

9/27/2019 Summary of AI for Science Townhall meetings

C.S. Chang

https://drive.google.com/open?id=10Kf
gsOxDYbLvOozn-2EX0ZkR6fwg31c9

Advanced Radio Frequency Source Technology
9/27/2019 and Development Center (revised)

S.J. Diem

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YJy
Ea1dBrzFtaIWACchMZUOLJWCaDe6
V

Utilizing Outreach Activities for Workforce
Development via Private-Public Partnerships
9/27/2019 (updated)

S.J. Diem

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1y6D
UcuLgaBxOcrfnTWOuNmZPo_Pprzxh

The PlasmaPy Project: Building an Open Source
Software Ecosystem for Plasma Research and9/27/2019 Education (version 2)

Nick Murphy

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ASf
6PiOHIKAz1tY_GAZm8bFEj_hguf1t

Reversed-field pinch research toward Ohmic
9/27/2019 ignition at high engineering beta, v. 3

Karsten
McCollamhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1tUv
4iI5cX3gCo60TqL29DYZ4KCxBUAZE

9/27/2019 Negative Triangularity Tokamak

Max Austin

https://drive.google.com/open?id=14s3
SgfSCFMteRYEGbBoaq8jJytdD_cuB

9/27/2019 Expand Capacity Computing - Revised

Brendan C.
Lyons

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ogz
Mdd8mTSKW6tKb703hHrMjJhoNEGebRevised: IMPORTANCE OF THEORY,COMPUTATION AND PREDICTIVE MODELING IN
THE US MAGNETIC FUSION ENERGY
Fatima9/27/2019 STRATEGIC PLAN
Ebrahimi

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1I7Z
qDd07HL4EUrfIOR6d5MSdPm0Uu2LA

9/27/2019 High Power Microwave Power for ICF and MCF

Andrew Stan
Podgorski

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LB
DGp5WJrszJ9At4P6__ge6ylygQxmy7

9/28/2019 Supplement to DIII-D Initiative White Paper

David Hill

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lLz
VRygN5XtWHjV8g7yO4ineO0IwTwrp

Reversed-field pinch research toward Ohmic
9/28/2019 ignition at high engineering beta, v. 3.1

Karsten
McCollamhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1cTv
R5aBIJD2fLS-rPejiiuUPlDIM_vw2

9/30/2019 NSTX-U in the 2020s - v2 and addendum

Devon Battaglia hl3TIL4z5vljCqZokdwVSs3jVo6vx

Mitigation of the Impacts of Edge Localized Modes
9/30/2019 in Tokamaks

T.M. Wilks

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1N93
KIBsfsXaYdkxR_1e53vMZ3UvpQcmW

Closing gaps in PMI physics and technology in amixed-material environment using short-pulse
9/30/2019 tokamaks

Tyler Abrams

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SHr
bcQ-eTx2jQhvnV1pf3P7q0Mw-8B-9

5D and 6D Kinetic simulation of pedestal andscrape-off plasma dynamics on exascale scale
9/30/2019 computers,

C.S. Chang

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1o2q
K2SMOh-un0kkpPsz2YBDBNY1MGk_
W

9/30/2019 Liquid Lithium DIvertor V2

Rob Goldston

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1db1
DSrUaAYlOSuw2h2QIl8OGpIAsl5HV

Outstanding Issues for Solid PFCs in Steady-state
Toroidal Devices & A Proposed Long-Pulsed
9/30/2019 Facility to Tame the Plasma-Material Interface

Zeke Unterberg Zg5g1PhJ3cUEuS7c0hiEr-YnNFiv9

Outstanding Issues for Solid PFCs in Steady-state
Toroidal Devices & A Proposed Long-Pulsed
10/1/2019 Facility to Tame the Plasma-Material Interface - V2

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kO6

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fTW

Zeke Unterberg

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1u9
Wr1za6U6P8QBu7Z9nCNvaNoPDYY
Meb

182

Development and validation of models for thedivertor heat flux using kinetic first-principles
10/1/2019 codes_v2

R.M. Churchillhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=13ela
and C.S. Chang 6P23g_yPoT_idB-AgdEcvmKIk3bL

The PlasmaPy Project: Building an Open Source
Software Ecosystem for Plasma Research and10/2/2019 Education (version 3)

Nick Murphy

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1V6y
wgCT-HSRP8A9h3yvN2e3r9y1iMMQk

10/4/2019 A U.S. Intermediate Scale Stellarator Experiment

Aaron Bader

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WD
f4Te7rb9hjgDDMQloKu_vvBPPxZIvJ

10/5/2019 Full U.S. Participation in ITER in the 2020s

Hutch Neilson

https://drive.google.com/open?id=10l-w
znZwOzAWVB8F460dYJf4igdFyD1Q

International stellarator research in support of a low
https://drive.google.com/open?id=16dp
10/7/2019 capital cost pilot plant v2
Novimir Pablant qOj5O7i55Ol6gNxkI479WpqDwl8PC
Revised: Construction of a Divertor Test Tokamak(US-DTT) as called for in the 2015 Plasma Material
10/7/2019 Interactions Workshop Report
Adam Kuang

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lioV
E-eazlZbow4-uVqW-ZlrNY5n5DQU

10/7/2019 Stellarator Path to a Pilot Plant

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1vZn
44oFKmc-VgOyA7fsww1Te7XE1jw6PDavid Gates

Possible Mission and Viability of a Sustained HighPower Density Facility (supplement to Buttery white Richard J
10/7/2019 paper)
Buttery

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NK
wgcpkcZGA2mbit0HZkcAgQQQwvK4z
8

10/9/2019 Collisionless SOL initiative_rev

Dick Majeski

https://drive.google.com/open?id=12PV
Nl4ZtiPFAjZSie59yYs2S7VEVEDot

10/11/201
9 Engineering and Physics Mission for a SHPDXRob Goldston

https://drive.google.com/open?id=12R
DhVVbeem4lTvlSKToNUeoicN-6I7f-

Coupling Near-surface Processes and Bulk
10/13/201 Material Performance via Large-scale Modeling and
9 Simulation
Jaime Marian

https://drive.google.com/open?id=107q
IB5l-ePZkU36z2vH20HWMFwUXE3Ya

The cup of coffee challenge for fusion and the role
10/17/201 of ITER - An addendum to the ITER initiative white
9 papers

Raffi Nazikian

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Tjh
b1uScPCbjGNidmvZ1_Wh-LJWBO5IZ

10/18/201 Overview of and Reasoning for a Stellarator
9 Strategic Block in the U.S. Fusion Program

Oliver Schmitz

https://drive.google.com/open?id=14m
UnyQx7U_N4cDn7nCdiJlJFN1ouhgiO

10/18/201 Initiate Collaboration with QST on new Japanese
9 tokamak JT60SA

Matthias
Knolker

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1d0vi
nsN0-32aANLEX7S-nMcRZZn11VjO

The Importance of Partnership Between National
10/24/201 Facilities and ‘Frontiers’ Fundamental Science
9 Programs

Richard Buttery j--goWND8S3gUMztptP8_xY9fAIN

11/1/2019 Plasma is turbulence, and turbulence is plasma

Ilya Dodin

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Jg1
sfMbsTbl5vDq1cNMArk_-prHmd6DV

Magnetized HED platform for studies of electron
11/1/2019 and ion magnetization

Arijit Bose

https://drive.google.com/open?id=12G
B5BMbVv1us1WsxNvYEQhn3wd1r61
KL

11/4/2019 Non-Thermal Plasmas as Emerging Technologies

David Gohttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1Hhi
SxkhnPXhCFjFgyaMaJCG0Qw4jGKnU

11/4/2019 The Plasma Genome Initiative

David Gohttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1CqF
M9lLBmNF6EWwqrO5ORv37ZwEjHZ
WO

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Lyrz

183

11/4/2019 Regional Plasma Centers of ExcellenceDavid Gohttps://drive.google.com/open?id=13uw
geb0TtoE1UEahWPXa_Q-UeWa9GT3
A

Meta-stable and exotic material synthesis throughexaggerated non-equilibrium plasmas and extreme
11/4/2019 synthesis conditions
David Staack

https://drive.google.com/open?id=15ml
xbMNPndEgJ5VDlby0OrIYW-WcqSFh

Short-Pulse, Time-Domain Microwave Power and11/4/2019 Power Delivery System for Fusion Version 1

Andrew S.
Podgorski

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1oZXhFP2EIuNv065ECyPIoOmFSi_8EYpo

11/5/2019 Investigating Cross-Scale Coupling

Paul M. Bellan

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1K0l
w5-r6JK7oiI_VDLao81EhS84ekXf9

Major Scientific Challenges and Opportunities inUnderstanding Magnetic Reconnection and Related
11/5/2019 Explosive Phenomena in Magnetized Plasmas
Hantao Ji

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SIN
slXfpvnUA27-nnN4C_sK4eRIN06wr

Bulk Materials Synthesized by Nonequilibrium
11/6/2019 Plasma

Eiljah Thimsen

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ir6S
W9RA1vdA0oWZ7vlKGf5b5CikFM7s

The role of plasma science in enabling new
11/6/2019 aerospace technologies

John E. Foser

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1y5T
X9f-KVNyuSqmOACkozj5VOP7NJcT0

Material-Dependent Charging by Nonequilibrium
11/6/2019 Plasma

Elijah Thimsen

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1W7_vYWmH2eURULTLrqGRDZhB2HQYu
EoF

11/6/2019 Enhanced Adsorption for Plasma Catalysis

Elijah Thimsen

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1TrlK
Z8U-54q7-M_72Jbxp02aeiJZZK1-

11/6/2019 Self-Organization in Low Temperature Plasmas

Kentaro Hara

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RxS
tq3J0Ob_RyjGQTt1CeIf--pbr_jlm

Advancing Computing Capabilities for Low
11/6/2019 Temperature Plasma Modeling

Kentaro Hara

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ioM
JpDMQaE9nRpbkXmZ1iS9Gg8EcJpk1

11/6/2019 Long Life, High-Current Hollow Cathodes

John D.
Williams

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1xZ1
MwCwWSxLvQq8rNHQmMzDmxtYsM
emU

Cross Disciplinary Development of Advanced
11/6/2019 Plasma Diagnostics

Alexandros
Gerakishttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1v8O
FcxIrrsDaDD-loXaEuLETD8hUa67y

Plasma-Assisted Combustion of Heavy
Hydrocarbons at Elevated Pressures and11/6/2019 Temperatures

AndreyStarikovskiy

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ijC3P-wDyr_GHr6npp1DppTijywseoCy

Liquid Plasma: Physics of electric breakdown of
11/6/2019 liquid dielectrics at sub nanosecond time scales

AndreyStarikovskiy

https://drive.google.com/open?id=105C_9H40cGs5kVfCQB_EiBkY3Lzw0hW5

11/7/2019 Extreme Plasma Astrophysics

DmitriUzdenskyhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1sUz
pDqEe9jYLtgLavQFpAvbOJfT4BsRN

11/8/2019 Plasma Propulsion Research in Academia

Benjamin Jorns N9NlfFUDUY056u0bRbZVurLBhM6XM

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1g7g

Plasmas for Novel Reconfigurable Electromagnetic Sergey
11/8/2019 Systems
Macheret

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PPlt_d3KUwjEB5ucTGOga2RR7UTkh8vq

Ultracold Neutral Plasmas: A Controllable
11/8/2019 Laboratory for Precise Plasma Physics

Jacob Roberts

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1I2fw
Nl5Spjt_tSVhg_VQy-sFeth5WC-6

The Material Properties of Weakly Collisional,
11/8/2019 High-Beta Plasmas

Matthew Kunz

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pRI
wl1lOUADcfWkgpXi6zkOabSATbTXL

184

Exposure to Plasma Physics Theory at
11/8/2019 Undergraduate Institutions

Gregory Howes vlPaW8S8UqpxGEcjYTMNP2fQLciwW"Disruptive Technologies" in Plasma Sciences:
Plasmas and the Control of Electromagnetic
11/9/2019 Waves.

Mark A.
Cappelli

11/11/201 Critical Need for a National Initiative in Low
9 Temperature Plasma ResearchPhilip Efthimion oEHKtVtTYiDbCQLiZuop5_y-v4-0

Plasma Physics Challenges in Low Temperature
11/11/201 Plasma Chemical Conversion for Environment,
9 Biotechnology and Energy

Mark J.
Kushner

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1AqdMCO23HrlT6knf8xHchoVOVh9tX55

11/11/201
9 Plasma-NOW

Evdokiya
Kostadinova

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lS_
5_WD7PsbWWoA_sfUS5i6okv4MkGG
c

11/11/201 Controlling charging in dusty plasmas - Revised
9 11-11-19

EdwardThomashttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1Qti3
hhiy35Y-fnLkRA-yPC2-ou1zOQmD

11/11/201 Implementation model for Discovery Plasma
9 Science

EdwardThomashttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1Rdb
4BDkQW_ggJc0YL_z3e-sAFcRCMIGp

11/13/201 Advancing the Predictive Understanding of
9 Low-Temperature Plasmas

Benjamin T. Yee

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zz
WzNyV2MRDMsggjMFLG4PQF_AohQ
036

Inertial Fusion Energy Systems: Repetitive
11/13/201 Driver-Target Coupling in Hostile Fusion Chamber
9 Environments

Michael Cuneo

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1s-n
QeNJ4cEu780dfLYqmgs-OzlYOvspK

11/17/201
9 Sheath Physics Initiative

Greg Severnhttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1TDc
4f_ETQ2KFitslLl2aYaIDj_tgou5A

11/17/201
9 The Divertor Test Tokamak (DTT) facility

Piero Martin

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18Qx
583ttfDOwag7irACTAH7Tpm1Md_kc

11/18/201 USFusionEnergy.org: A public-facing URL for US
9 Fusion

ArturoDominguez

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1H8
NimOM5LoBIMNmRHXhP-jzR3rYzyw8p

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lXX

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1e2O
PGqEpAx7fxMvlyxcCGOM-tqUmppnu

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ILNIAssessment and validation of plasma-molecule and11/20/201 atom-photon interaction detached divertor
9 scenarios
Mathias Groth

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Dq
QpcJqms3lwBSHO_5T-c5C4nACXtkLa

Closing gaps in PMI physics and technology in a
11/21/201 mixed-material environment using short-pulse
9 tokamaks v2

Tyler Abrams

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1AKe
JpaOI0P5DHwBLdOl0V6e_fW_d3XuI

11/25/201 Advocacy for an inertial fusion energy program
9 within FESAlex Zylstra

https://drive.google.com/open?id=18b
mZ3OWaMP3_VyeYtLIu2ZnqT7Nr8ad
A

11/26/201
9 Non-Equilibrium Plasma Applied to Biosciences

David Graves

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1O83
4I1r3Ky1gdhif6d67-7o_uq8E0u3Q

11/27/201 Maximizing the Scientific Impact of Laboratory
9 Experiments for Discovery Plasma Science

WilliamDaughton

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1VSI
hciD5lMh7FWNxekGTZ9nTJ9A3cuU1

185

11/29/201 Diagnosing fusion burn using neutron spectrometry David
9 v3
Schlossberg

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rmA
amZ5k3UC7ytX4xHyc8_lPDDipStNXHigh Fidelity Simulations of High Gain Cylindrical
11/29/201 Pellets for Inertial Fusion Energy using a
9 High-Energy Heavy-Ion Driver (HFSHG)

Alexander T.
Burke

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YEz
4kju-RTjoztOxekYlRsPt1d9Zf5RU

11/29/201 Cross Cutting Diagnostics: Leveraging expertise
9 across the Entire plasma physics community

David
Schlossberg

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1vnB
Q9KvnfDotnp82gWKZrcr0249zAIb_

Cross Cutting Diagnostics: Leveraging expertise
12/1/2019 across the Entire plasma physics community, v2

DaveSchlossberg

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kJL
evhNZst4FLLWN8xwBGypCK7YD-raC

Challenges in the areas of plasma medicine and12/4/2019 plasma agriculture

Alexander
Fridman and
Danil Dobrynin

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1N54
EN-rYEGivBu3AxoOvS_RfChme_Ywd

Turbulence and order in magnetized flowing
12/4/2019 plasmas

FatimaEbrahimi

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Q3I
xpLfmUwNGzdaJq7dqjK6CGNXibWTa

12/12/201 Priorities for Fusion Fuel Cycle Technology
9 Development for a Fusion Pilot Plant

Dave Babineau

https://drive.google.com/open?id=15L7
1j3Ez3Wx-Y_blHOfa48ovNzzSvdrs

Letter of Support for the Inclusion of Alternative
Magnetic and Magneto-Inertial Fusion Energy R&D Derek A.
1/13/2020 in the DOE-FES Portfolio
Sutherland

2/27/2020 Workforce Development - Supplemental Appendix

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1C-K
YwsDVj7eIJ25dtdzUsVPiF-CyU4Wx

Workforce
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Ka
Development
w2DKTQPFgNxNDjtoMenaGqEFByq5
Cross-Cut Team NU

186