A Strategic Plan for U.S.
Burning Plasma ResearchInterim Report
Mike Mauel, Columbia University, Co-Chair
Mel Shochet, University of Chicago, Co-Chair
February 1, 2018
Meeting of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC)
Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center; Gaithersburg, MD 20878

http://nas.edu/fusion1Outline• Study Origin• Interim Report:(1) Importance of burning plasma research, and(2) Status of U.S. program• Towards the Final Report:

Long-term strategic guidance for U.S. fusion research, in
two scenarios: (1) is and (2) is not an ITER partner• Discussion
2

Study Origin
CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016
PUBLIC LAW 114–113—DEC. 18, 2015(129 STAT. 2410) That not later than May 2, 2016, the Secretary ofEnergy shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of bothHouses of Congress a report recommending either that theUnited States remain a partner in the ITER project after
October 2017 or terminate participation, which shall include, asapplicable, an estimate of either the full cost, by fiscal year, of all
future Federal funding requirements for construction, operation, andmaintenance of ITER or the cost of termination.

3

U.S. Department of

ENERGYDepartment of Energy | May 2016

Study Origin

U.S.
Participationin the ITER
Project
May 2016

Recommendation on U.S. Participation in the ITER Project
United States Department of Energy

Message from the Secretary
Table of Contents
12Report on the Continued U.S. Participationin the ITERDC
Project|
1
Washington,
20585• ITER remains the best candidate today to demonstrate sustained burning

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
Results of Recent Reviews ................................................................................................... 2
2.1
2013 Management Assessment...................................................................................... 3
2.2
Results of the 2015 Management Assessment .............................................................. 4
2.3
Results of the Independent Review of the Schedule Presented in November 2015 ..... 5
3
Factors Influencing the U.S. Recommendation ................................................................... 6
3.1
Importance to U.S. Fusion .............................................................................................. 6
3.2
Project Management ...................................................................................................... 7
3.3
Foreign Policy/International Implications ...................................................................... 8
3.4
Opportunity Costs in the U.S. and Effects on the Office of Science Budget................... 9
4
Costs of U.S. Contributions to ITER Construction .............................................................. 10
4.12025 First Plasma Construction Cost Profile................................................................. 11
4.22028 First Plasma Construction Cost Profile................................................................. 12
4.3
Potential Costs Associated with U.S. Withdrawal ........................................................ 13
5
U.S. Requirements for ITER Project Improvements and Next Steps ................................. 13
5.1
U.S. Requirement for Regular Independent Reviews ................................................... 14
5.2
Increased Transparency into DAs to Assess Risk .......................................................... 14
5.3
Key Performance Indicators/Milestones to Track Performance .................................. 14
5.4
Next Steps for U.S. ITER Project .................................................................................... 15
5.5
Limit on Cash Contributions.......................................................................................... 16
5.6
National Academy of Sciences Study of the U.S. Fusion Program ............................... 16
6
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 16
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... 18

plasma, which is a necessary precursor to demonstrating fusion energy power.

• Having fully assessed the facts regarding the U.S. contributions to the ITER
project, I recommend that the U.S. remain a partner in the ITER projectthrough FY 2018 and focus on efforts related to First Plasma. …

• The DOE will request that the National Academies perform a study of
how to best advance the fusion energy sciences in the U.S. …

• This study will address the scientific justification and needs for strengthening
the foundations for realizing fusion energy given a potential choice of U.S.
participation or not in the ITER project, and will develop future scenarios ineither case.
4

Statement of Task: Two Reports
A committee of the National Academies … will be formed to study the state and potential ofmagnetic confinement-based fusion research in the U.S. and provide guidance on a long-term
strategy…
✓ Interim Report:• Describe and assess the current status of U.S. research that supports burning plasma

science, including current and planned participation in international activities, and describeinternational research activities broadly.

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

➡ Final Report: In two separate scenarios in which, after 2018,(1) the United States is a partner in ITER, and(2) the United States is not a partner in ITER:
provide guidance on a long-term strategic plan (covering the next several decades) for anational program … which includes supporting capabilities and which may include participation ininternational activities, given the U.S. strategic interest in realizing economical fusion energy inthe long term.
5Committee MembershipMichael Mauel, Columbia University, Co-ChairMark Herrmann, LLNL

Melvyn Shochet (NAS), Univ Chicago, Co-Chair

Frank Jenko, IPP Garching andUniversity of Texas, Austin

Christina Back, General Atomics

Stanley Kaye, Princeton University

Riccardo Betti, University of Rochester

Mitsuru Kikuchi, National Institutes for Quantum
and Radiological Science and Technology

Ian Chapman, UK Atomic Energy Authority

Susana Reyes, LBNL

Cary Forest, University of Wisconsin, Madison

C. Paul Robinson (NAE), Advanced Reactor
Concepts, LLC

T. Kenneth Fowler (NAS), Univ of California,
Berkeley

Philip Snyder, General Atomics

Jeffrey Freidberg, MIT

Amy Wendt, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Ronald Gilgenbach, University of Michigan

Brian Wirth, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

William Heidbrink, University of California, Irvine

David Lang, NRC Study Director

6https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24971/interim-report-of-the-committee-on-a-strategic-plan-for-us-burning-plasma-researchInterim Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research

PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

INTERIM REPORT OF THE
COMMITTEE ON A STRATEGIC PLAN
FOR U.S. BURNING PLASMA RESEARCH

Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research
Board on Physics and Astronomy
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

Contents
SUMMARY

1

1

BACKGROUND

6

2

THE COMMITTEE’S INFORMATION-GATHERING PROCESS

12

3IMPORTANCE OF BURNING PLASMA RESEARCH

14

4STATUS OF U.S. RESEARCH THAT SUPPORTS BURNING PLASMA SCIENCE

22

5

ASSESSMENTS

33

6

TOWARD COMPLETION OF THE FINAL REPORT38

A Consensus Study Report of

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

APPENDIXESAWHAT IS MAGNETIC FUSION?

41

B

STATEMENT OF TASK44CAGENDAS FROM COMMITTEE MEETINGS

46

D

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF MAGNETIC FUSION ENERGY AND STRATEGIES FOR FUSIONENERGY DEVELOPMENT CONSULTED BY THE COMMITTEE
48

7

Background (1)“Achievement of government consensus on rejoining ITER, along with broad
support within the U.S. scientific community, was a major accomplishment overthe past decade.”• (Dec, 2002) Interim Report of NAS Burning Plasma Assessment• (Jan, 2003) President George W. Bush ITER announcement• (2003; Updated 2007) U.S. DOE/OS lists ITER as highest priority• (2006) Agreement to Establish ITER
• (2008) International Design Review• (2010) ITER construction begins• (2012) By French Order, ITER becomes “first of a kind” licensed
basic nuclear fusion facility, defining strict compliance rules for
procurement and construction
8

Background (2)[NRC BP Assessment 2004, p. 39]: “once the [ITER] decision is made, fulfillingthe international commitment to help construct the ITER facility and participate in
the ITER program will necessarily become the highest priority in the program.”• (2005, 2011, 2013) U.S. narrows research to support ITER burning plasma science• (2014) ITER receives 40% of U.S. fusion program budget• (2014) U.S. GAO and ITER Council review cost & schedule growth of ITER
• (2015) Benard Bigot becomes new ITER Director and implements management reforms• (2015) DOE A Ten-Year Perspective to "build the scientific foundation needed to develop afusion energy source"• (2016) Resource-loaded plan to first plasma approved by ITER Council• (2017) U.S. DOE approves project execution plan (SP-1) for U.S. contributions to ITER
• “Today, ITER construction and fabrication occurs throughout the 100-acre ITER site…”
9

Data Gathering for Interim Report
1. Government reports on U.S. participation in ITER.
2. Previous reports on burning plasma research and strategy for a burning
plasma experiment (7 NRC Reports, 3 PCAST, 1 SEAB Report).
3. U.S. DOE fusion strategy reports- A Ten-Year Perspective, U.S. DOE/OS (2015)- Recent Workshops: Computing at Extreme, PMI, and Transients- Annual budget requests (FY2003-17)- Many FEAC/FESAC Reports
4. Community input
5. Physical and engineering sciences literatureand expertise of the committee’s membership10Data Gathering (1):U.S. Participation in ITER Project• U.S. GAO, Actions Needed to Finalize Cost and Schedule Estimates for U.S.
Contributions to an International Experimental Reactor, Report to Congress(GAO-14-499, June 2014).

• Report ITER Council Review Group (ICRG) Independent Review of the ULTS
(April, 2016).

• U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Participation in the ITER Project, Report toCongress (May 2016).

• Project Execution Plan for the U.S. ITER SP-1 (Project: 14-SC-60), DOE/OS/
FES (January 2017).

• Ned R. Sauthoff, “Perspectives from the U.S. ITER Project,” presented to NAS
Committee for a Strategic Plan for U.S. BP Research (August 29, 2017).

11

Data Gathering (2):Strategy for U.S. Participation in BP Experiment• Pacing the U.S. Magnetic Fusion Program, chair: Irvin White, National Academy
Press (1989).

• Realizing the Promise of Fusion Energy, chair: Richard Meserve, Secretary of Energy
Advisory Board (SEAB, August, 1999).

• Interim Report, Burning Plasma Assessment Committee,(NRC, 20 December 2002).

★ Burning Plasma: Bringing a Star to Earth, chairs: John F. Ahearne and Ray Fonck,(NRC, Prepublication Release: September 2003).

• A Review of the DOE Plan for U.S. Fusion Community Participation in the ITER
Program, chair: Pat Colestock (National Academies Press, 2008).

12

Data Gathering (3):Fusion Strategy from U.S. DOE• Facilities for the Future - A Twenty Year Outlook, U.S. DOE Office of Science(November, 2003; Updated 2007).

• U.S. DOE fusion annual budget requests (FY2003-17).
• A Ten-Year Perspective, U.S. DOE Office of Science, Report to Congress (2015);
several DOE Workshops, e.g. Computing at Extreme, PMI, Transients, …

“The overall mission of the FES program is to expand the fundamental understandingof matter at very high temperatures and densities and build the scientific foundationneeded to develop a fusion energy source.” - Dr. Patricia Dehmer• More than a dozen FESAC Reports, including…
‣ Prioritization of Proposed Scientific User Facilities, chair: John Sarff,(FESAC, 2013).
‣ Applications of Fusion Energy Sciences Research - Scientific Discoveries and New
Technologies Beyond Fusion, chair: Amy Wendt, (FESAC, 2015)13

Data Gathering (4):Community Input• Perspectives on U.S. Burning Plasma Research Strategy:

Edmund Synakowski (Former Associate Director of Science for FES),
Emily Domenech and Adam Rosenberg (U.S. House Committee on Science, Spaceand Technology Science, Space, and Technology),
Chuck Greenfield and Amanda Hubbard (U.S. Burning Plasma Organization),
Ned Sauthoff, Bernard Bigot, Stewart Prager, and Tony Taylor
David Maurer (University Fusion Association),
Phil Ferguson (Virtual Laboratory for Technology).

• White papers to the Committee• Community workshop on strategic directions for U.S. MFE research, University of
Wisconsin-Madison (July 2017).

14

Data Gathering (5):Physical and Engineering Sciences Literature• Members of the committee referenced over 100 published journal articles

49 Nuc Fusion, Phys Plasmas; 33 Fusion Eng Des, Fus Sci Tech, J Nuclear Mat• Eight of the eleven Nuclear Fusion Awards were presented to United Statesscientists working on scenarios, transport, stability, transient control, boundary, andpedestal physics: Tim Luce (2006), Todd Evans (2008), Steve Sabbagh (2009), John
Rice (2010), Pat Diamond (2012), Dennis Whyte (2013), Phil Snyder (2014), and
Rob Goldston (2015).

• More than 1/3 all articles published in Nuclear Fusion have U.S. co-authors

15

Importance of Burning Plasma Research“The committee reaffirms the importance of burning plasma
research to the development of fusion energy, as well as to plasma
science and other science and engineering disciplines.”

1. Importance to the Development of Fusion Energy:
Controlling a Burning Plasma
2. Importance to the Development of Fusion Energy:
Fusion Technology
3. Importance to Plasma Science and Other Science16

(1) Importance to the Development of Fusion Energy:
Controlling a Burning Plasma“A burning plasma experiment would address for the first time all of the scientificand technological questions that all magnetic fusion schemes must face. Such an
experiment is the crucial element missing from the world fusion energy science
program and a required step in the development of practical fusion energy.”[NRC BP Assessment 2004, p. 16]• A burning plasma experiment will represent the first time that a confined fusion plasma isdominated by fusion-born alpha particles• A burning plasma experiment advances understanding of plasma transport properties fromthe core to the boundary• A burning plasma experiment enables critical tests to control plasma transients• A burning plasma experiment advances divertor science necessary for a fusion power source• A burning plasma experiment tests integrated scenarios that simultaneously test therequirements for stability, confinement, fuel purity, and compatibility with plasma-facing
components needed for a fusion energy source17(2) Importance to the Development of Fusion Energy:
Fusion Technology“While burning plasma science has progressed since the 2004 NAS burning plasma
assessment, significant advancements in fusion technology are needed for aburning plasma reactor.”• Fusion blanket design, tritium breeding, fuel processing• Fusion safety, remote handling, and waste management• Fusion materials science• Plasma heating and current drive systems for fusion• Integrated systems engineering for fusion18

(3) Importance Plasma Science and Other Science“The process of creating a fusion-based energy supply on Earth has led totechnological and scientific achievements of far-reaching impact that touch every
aspect of our lives.”• FESAC (2015), Applications of Fusion Energy Research: Scientific and Technological Advances
Beyond Fusion: advances span a wide variety of fields in science and technology, for example…

• Mathematical theory of solitary waves in everything from plasmas to water waves to Bose-Einstein
Condensates with applications in the fields of optics, fluid mechanics, and biophysics• Chaos in Hamiltonian systems• Important plasma processes like magnetic reconnection, kinetic turbulent processes in magnetizedplasma, nonlinear wave-particle interactions and resonances, and multi-scale phenomena in space andastrophysical plasma• Better understanding of irradiated materials• “Burning plasma research acts as an important driver for the development of novel concepts andmethods at the interface between plasma physics, materials science, applied mathematics, andcomputer science, with wide visibility and impact.”

19

Status of U.S. Research that Supports
Burning Plasma Science“Since the NRC report in 2004, the U.S. has undertaken an enormous effort inexperimental, theoretical, and computational research in support of burning plasma
science. The U.S. research program motivated world-leading contributions to scienceand technology in support of ITER and other major international fusion experiments.
However, the closure of domestic fusion research facilities and the failure either to
upgrade or to start new medium-scale experiments, together with substantiallydecreased funding to fusion nuclear science and technology research, creates concern
as to whether the United States will continue to be a scientific leader in the field.”

1. Burning Plasma Science
2. Fusion Technology and Engineering Science
3. U.S. Research and Participation in International Fusion Activities
4. Role of ITER in Today’s U.S. Burning Plasma Research Activities
20(1) Status of U.S. Research:

Burning Plasma Science“U.S. fusion scientists and engineers have contributed a substantial number of new,innovative ideas to the study of burning plasma science.”• Theory and Simulation to Understand and Predict Burning Plasma Dynamics‣ U.S. scientists are recognized internationally as world leaders in basic theory and simulation.

• Medium-Scale Fusion Research Facilities‣ Significant accomplishments resulted from pioneering experiments conducted using mediumscale facilities, DIII-D, NSTX-U, and Alcator C-Mod.
‣ A strength of the U.S. program is the close coupling between theoretical and experimental
research.
‣ The current U.S. research strategy has increasing focus on international participation innewer long-pulse experiments with superconducting magnets. “However, presentations to thecommittee … did not foresee how international cooperation by itself will allow the U.S. fusion
researchers to maintain a world leadership.”21

(2) Status of U.S. Research:

Fusion Technology and Engineering Science“Many of the program contributions to burning plasma science are interrelated toadvancements in fusion technology and engineering science.”• Fusion technology advances have been driven by ITER research needs and by next-stepgoals to fully enable the fusion energy system, e.g.

‣ Fusion fuel cycle, fusion materials, fusion materials modeling, fusion plasma power
handling, superconducting magnets, and liquid metals.
‣ Progress in the definition of requirements for a Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FSNF) for
integrated testing of fusion components and in the understanding of lithium blanket concepts• Although there have been significant advances in U.S. capabilities since the NRC Burning

Plasma study in 2004, many research needs for fusion technology and engineering science
remain unresolved, e.g.

‣ Fusion plasma material interactions, fusion blanket materials, fuel cycle safety, breeding andfueling, and opportunities for advanced materials and manufacturing guided by new highperformance computing tools
22

(3) Status of U.S. Research:

U.S. Participation in International Fusion Activities“Fusion energy research is international. The U.S. participates actively in Europe
and Asia, and international scientists from around the world participate in fusion
experiments and research programs within the U.S.”• U.S. Participation in Fusion Activities in Europe (JET, ASDEX, TCV, MAST-U)• U.S. Participation in Fusion Activities in Asia
‣ The United States is actively playing a significant role in developing new fusion programs in
Asia, notably in EAST (China), KSTAR (ROK), HL-2A (China), J-TEXT (Japan),…

• U.S. Participation in the International Tokamak Physics Activity‣ ITPA operates under the auspices of ITER and provides an international framework forcoordinated fusion research. Presently, the United States chairs four of the seven ITPA
Topical Working groups.

• International Participation in the U.S. Program‣ International collaboration with U.S. researchers in burning plasma science involves all partsof the program, including experimental facilities and theory, simulation, and modeling23

(4) Status of U.S. Research:

Role of ITER in Today’s U.S. Burning Plasma Research“DOE Ten-Year Perspective (2015) (p. 8), “the global magnetic fusion researchcommunity is focused primarily on the commencement of the ‘burning plasma’era.”• Global focus on ITER is reflected in the U.S. fusion energy science research program• DOE plan goals include “urgent scientific questions … required for ITER”, “formulating ITER

operational scenarios”, and building “essential expertise for U.S. scientists who may
participate in research operations on ITER and future burning plasma experiments.”• Research in support of ITER has facilitated enhanced multi-national collaborative activities
through the ITER-sponsored ITPA Topical Groups• Majority of U.S. ITER construction remains within the U.S. resulting in advancements in U.S.
domestic industrial capabilities and capacities• U.S. has been a key contributor towards the approval of ITER’s construction license• ITER plays a central role in today’s U.S. burning plasma research activities, and participationin the ITER project provides formal mechanisms for U.S. scientists to take leading roles in theinternational effort to develop fusion energy.
24(1) Assessments:

Importance of Burning Plasma Research• Burning plasma research is essential to the development of magnetic

fusion energy and contributes to advancements in plasma science,materials science, and the nation’s industrial capacity to deliver hightechnology components.

• Construction and operation of a burning plasma experiment is a critical,

but not sufficient, next step toward the realization of commercial fusionenergy. In addition to a burning plasma experiment, further research isneeded to improve and fully enable the fusion power system.

25

(2) Assessment:

Status of U.S. Burning Plasma Research• The U.S. fusion energy science program has made leading advances inburning plasma science that have substantially improved our confidence
that a burning plasma experiment such as ITER will succeed inachieving its scientific mission.

• Recent closures of domestic experimental facilities without new starts,

as well as a reduction of fusion technology efforts, threaten the health of
the field in the United States.

• Although our international partners have national strategic plans leading
to a fusion energy demonstration device, the United States does not.

26

(3) Assessment:
Any Fusion Strategy Requires a Burning Plasma Experiment• Any strategy to develop magnetic fusion energy requires study of a burning
plasma.

• The only existing project to create a burning plasma at the scale of apower plant is ITER, which is a major component of the U.S. fusion energy
program.

• As an ITER partner, the United States benefits from international

cooperation to combine the scientific and engineering expertise, industrial
capacity, and financial resources• A decision by the United States to withdraw from the ITER project could
isolate U.S. fusion scientists from the international effort and would require
the United States to develop a new approach to study a burning plasma.
27

(4) Assessment:

The U.S. Needs a Long Term Strategy• If the United States wishes to maintain scientific and technical leadership in this field, thecommittee concludes that the United States needs to develop its own long-term strategicplan for fusion energy.

• In the development of the final report, the committee views the following elements asimportant to its guidance on a long-term strategic plan:‣ Continued progress towards the construction and operation of a burning plasma
experiment leading to the study of burning plasma,‣ Research beyond what is done in a burning plasma experiment to improve and fully
enable commercial fusion power,‣ Innovation in fusion science and technology targeted to improve the fusion power system
as a commercial energy source, and‣ A mission for fusion energy research that engages the participation of universities,
national laboratories, and industry in the realization of commercial fusion power for thenation.
28

Towards Completion of the Final Report• February 1-2 (Cadarache):‣ Development and Status of EU fusion energy strategy• February 26-28 (General Atomics):‣ Near and long-term vision of fusion energy research at General Atomics‣ Critical technologies to fully enable fusion power‣ Chinese, Japanese, ROK fusion energy strategies‣ Role and potential for private sector contribution to fusion‣ Further considerations for a U.S. fusion strategy• April 11-13 (tentative) (PPPL):‣ Near and long-term vision of fusion energy research at PPPL
‣ Technology innovations, including HTSC magnets‣ Further considerations for a U.S. fusion strategy• May-June (T.B.D. NRC): Committee work
• September - October: Final Report Released29

Towards Completion of the Final Report• To the extent possible, the final report will include considerations of thehealth of fusion research sectors within the U.S., the role of international
collaboration, the capability and prospects of private-sector ventures, theimpact of science and technology innovations, and the researchstrategies that may shorten the time and reduce the cost required todevelop commercial fusion energy.

• Anticipate the final report will present strategies that incorporate

continued progress toward a burning plasma experiment, researchbeyond that done at a burning plasma experiment in order to improveand fully enable commercial fusion power, a focus on innovation, andparticipation of universities, national laboratories, and industry in thenational program.
30

http://nas.edu/fusion

Call for Community Input
Community input is critical in developing a long-term strategy to support U.S. efforts in fusion energy. Whatare (i) the scientific and engineering challenges and opportunities associated with advancing magnetic
confinement fusion as an energy source and (ii) the critical elements of a long-term strategy for the U.S.
burning plasma science and technology research program? We invite you to share your thoughts. To upload
comments or documents for the committee, please fill out our community input form.

The committee welcomes input in any form:
Just click…
Note: All input provided will become part ofthe committee's public record.
31