A Strategic Plan for U.S.
Burning Plasma Research
Update and Schedule
University Fusion Association Meeting
Milwaukee, WI
October 23, 2017

Mike Mauel, Columbia University, Co-Chair
Mel Shochet, University of Chicago, Co-Chair
http://nas.edu/fusion
1U.S. Department ofDepartment of Energy | May 2016

Study Origin

ENERGYU.S.
Participationin the ITER
ProjectMay 2016

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

Message from the Secretary
Table of Contents
12

Report on the Continued U.S. Participationin the ITERDC
Project|1Washington,20585• ITER remains the best candidate today to demonstrate sustained burning plasma,

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
Results of Recent Reviews ................................................................................................... 22.1
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
3Factors Influencing the U.S. Recommendation ................................................................... 6
3.1
Importance to U.S. Fusion .............................................................................................. 63.2Project Management ...................................................................................................... 7
3.3
Foreign Policy/International Implications ...................................................................... 83.4
Opportunity Costs in the U.S. and Effects on the Office of Science Budget................... 94Costs of U.S. Contributions to ITER Construction .............................................................. 104.1
2025 First Plasma Construction Cost Profile................................................................. 114.2
2028 First Plasma Construction Cost Profile................................................................. 12
4.3
Potential Costs Associated with U.S. Withdrawal ........................................................ 135U.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
6Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 16Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... 18

which is a necessary precursor to demonstrating fusion energy power.

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

• Prior to the FY 2019 budget submittal (late in calendar year 2017 to early 2018), I

recommend that the U.S. re-evaluate its participation in the ITER project to assess if it
remains in our best interests to continue our participation.

• My recommendation to support First Plasma cash and in-kind contributions ispredicated on continued and sustained progress on the project, increased transparencyof the ITER project risk management process, as well as a suite of management
reforms proposed in this report …
2

U.S. Department ofDepartment of Energy | May 2016

Study Origin

ENERGYU.S.
Participationin the ITER
ProjectMay 2016

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

Report on the Continued U.S. Participationin the ITERDC
Project|1Washington,20585

National
Academy of Sciences Study of the U.S. Fusion Program
Tableof Contents
12• The DOE will request that the National Academies perform a study ofIntroduction ........................................................................................................................ 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 .............................................................................................. 63.2Project Management ...................................................................................................... 73.3
Foreign Policy/International Implications ...................................................................... 83.4
Opportunity Costs in the U.S. and Effects on the Office of Science Budget................... 94
Costs of U.S. Contributions to ITER Construction .............................................................. 104.1
2025 First Plasma Construction Cost Profile................................................................. 114.2
2028 First Plasma Construction Cost Profile................................................................. 124.3
Potential Costs Associated with U.S. Withdrawal ........................................................ 135U.S. Requirements for ITER Project Improvements and Next Steps ................................. 13
5.1
U.S. Requirement for Regular Independent Reviews ................................................... 145.2
Increased Transparency into DAs to Assess Risk .......................................................... 145.3
Key Performance Indicators/Milestones to Track Performance .................................. 145.4
Next Steps for U.S. ITER Project .................................................................................... 155.5
Limit on Cash Contributions.......................................................................................... 165.6
National Academy of Sciences Study of the U.S. Fusion Program ............................... 166Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 16Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... 18

how to best advance the fusion energy sciences in the U.S., given thedevelopments in the field since the last Academy studies in 2004, thespecific international investments in fusion science and technology,
and the priorities for the next ten years developed by the communityand FES that were recently reported to Congress.

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

3Committee MembershipMichael Mauel, Columbia University, Co-ChairMark Herrmann, LLNL

Melvyn Shochet, University of Chicago, Co-Chair

Frank Jenko, IPP, Garching

Christina Back, General Atomics

Stanley Kaye, Princeton University

Riccardo Betti, University of Rochester

Mitsuru Kikuchi, National Institutes for Quantum andRadiological Science and Technology

Ian Chapman, UK Atomic Energy Authority

Susana Reyes, LBNL

Cary Forest, University of Wisconsin, Madison

C. Paul Robinson, Advanced Reactor Concepts, LLC

T. Kenneth Fowler, Univ of California, Berkeley

Philip Snyder, General Atomics

Jeffrey Freidberg, MITAmy 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

4

Work Plan

Six Meetings, Interim & Final Reports, Town Halls…
✓ (June 2017) NAS/D.C.
✓ (Aug 2017) NAS/Irvine,CA➡ (Soon 2017) Interim Report‣ (Dec 2017) Austin, TX➡ (~Oct 2018) Final Report• Community Workshops:

U Wisc-Madison (July 24-28 )U Texas-Austin (Dec 11-15)• Open presentations from experts andcommunity‣ (Feb 1-2, 2018) EU• Video Presentations‣ (Feb 26-28, 2018) GA➡ Contributed input from community
submitted online:‣ (~May/June 2018) PPPL

http://nas.edu/fusion‣ (~Aug 2018) NAS/D.C.
5http://nas.edu/fusion
Towards Completion of the Final Report• Committee is working hard to carry out the analyses of the many elements required toguide the nation’s long-term strategic plan for fusion energy development, but we need
your input and help.

• Community input: several site visits, FESAC Transformative Enabling Capabilities
Subcommittee, and your direct input, …

➡ 2nd Community Workshop (Austin) Join a Working Group: Principles, Metrics, andCriteria, Impact of Access to ITER, Fusion Attractiveness, Strategic Approaches, …

• The final report will fully address the Statement of Task
‣ Strategies built upon status and recent advances in burning plasma science, fusion
nuclear science, and the larger international effort.
‣ Consideration include health of fusion research within the United States, continued
progress toward a burning plasma experiment, the role of international collaboration, theimpact of science and technology innovations, and strategies that may shorten the timeand reduce the cost required to develop commercial fusion energy.
6