Please see committee and report information at: https://www.nap.edu/25331

Michael Mauel and Melvyn Shochet, Co-Chairs
FESAC Briefing: March 13, 20191

Outline• Committee and its process• Assessments in brief• Two primary recommendations• Report structure• Extending the Frontier of Burning Plasma Research (1st Main Rec)
• Advancing Magnetic Fusion towards an Economical Energy Source (2nd Main Rec)• Organizational Structure and Program Balance• Comments on NAS Plasma Decadal and APS-DPP/FESAC Community Planning!2

Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research
The Department of Energy requested two reports.
Interim Report (Dec 21, 2017) presented the committee’s
assessment of the current status of United States fusion researchand of the importance of burning plasma research to thedevelopment of fusion energy as well as to plasma science and otherscience and engineering disciplines.
Final Report (Dec 12, 2018) provided guidance on a strategic plan
for a national program of burning plasma science andtechnology research given the U.S. strategic interest in realizing
economical fusion energy in the long-term. Strategic guidance
provided in two scenarios, in which the United States is, or is not, amember in ITER.
(Full Statement of Task at: https://www.nap.edu/25331)!3

Committee’s Study and Process• 39 presentations from experts from around the world; more than 100 scientific white papers.
• Seven meetings, several teleconferences, and several working groups.
to the major fusion research facilities within the United States, toured the superconducting• Visits
magnet facility at Poway, CA and the large ITER central solenoid magnets, heard from all international
partners, and learned first-hand of the EU strategy during a visit to the ITER construction site.

• Heard about fusion energy strategy from the two largest privately-funded fusion ventures within

the United States: Dr. Bob Mumgaard, Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) and Dr. Michl
Binderbauer, TAE Technologies.

weeklong community Workshops on Strategic Directions for U.S. Magnetic Fusion• Two
Research, hosted by University of Wisconsin at Madison (July 2017) and University of Texas at Austin(December 2017).

• FESAC Report on Transformative Enabling Capabilities Toward Fusion Energy (February 2018);
Rajesh Maingi (FESAC, chair) Arnie Lumsdaine (FESAC, co-chair)This report describes several “revolutionary” ideas that would dramatically increase the rate ofprogress through increased performance, simplification, reduced cost or time to delivery, or improved
reliability/safety.
!4Committee MembershipMichael Mauel, Columbia University, Co-ChairMark Herrmann, LLNL

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

Frank Jenko, IPP Garching and University of Texas, Austin

Christina Back, General Atomics

Stanley Kaye, Princeton University

Riccardo Betti, University of Rochester

Mitsuru Kikuchi, Nat. Inst. Quantum Radiological Sci & Tech

Ian Chapman, UK Atomic Energy Authority

Susana Reyes (FESAC), LCLS-II/SLAC

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 (FESAC), University of Wisconsin, Madison

Ronald Gilgenbach, University of Michigan

Brian Wirth (FESAC), University of Tennessee, Knoxville

William Heidbrink, University of California, Irvine

Chris Jones, David Lang, NRC Study Director

Members of Committee at General Atomics, San Diego, CA!5Assessments of Scientific and Technical Status• (NAS BP 2004 Ch 3) “progress in fusion science and fusion technology has led toconfidence that the global fusion community is scientifically ready to take the burning
plasma step”• (NAS BP 2018 Interim and Final Reports) “significant progress in all important areas
identified in the 2004 report”• Burning plasma physics: ELM control, 100% bootstrap, detachment/core radiation
control, optimized pedestal, world-record pressure, enhanced performance (H > 1), …

• Growth of International Effort: ILW, great progress understanding the integrated S&T
of “Core-Pedestal-SOL-Divertor”, sustained operation of large superconducting
experiments (LHD, EAST, KSTAR, WEST, W-7X), …

• Advancing Technology (FESAC TEC 2018): High-field superconducting magnets,
advanced manufacturing, intelligent control, novel T tech, industrial innovations, …

• ITER Construction Progress: “First-of-a-kind” construction license, 60% complete to
first-plasma!6Assessments of Strategic Planning• Although our international partners have national strategic plans leading
to a fusion energy demonstration device, the United States does not.

• If the U.S. wishes to maintain scientific and technical leadership in thisfield, the U.S. needs to develop its own long-term strategic plan forfusion energy. The following elements are important:• Continued progress towards the construction and operation of aburning plasma experiment leading to the study of burning plasma,• Research beyond what is done in a burning plasma experiment toimprove and fully enable commercial fusion power,• Innovation in fusion science and technology targeted to improve thefusion power system as a commercial energy source, and• A mission for fusion energy research that engages the participation ofuniversities, national laboratories, and industry in the realization ofcommercial fusion power for the nation.

!7

Two Main Recommendations
The Committee’s unanimous conclusion within its Final Report is …
Now is the right time for the United States to develop plans to benefit fromits investment in burning plasma research and take steps towards thedevelopment of fusion electricity for the nation’s future energy needs.
The implementation of these plans should be guided by the committee’s two
main recommendations:• First, the United States should remain an ITER partner as the most costeﬀective way to gain experience with a burning plasma at the scale of apower plant.
• Second, the United States should start a national program of accompanying
research and technology leading to the construction of a compact pilot plant
which produces electricity from fusion at the lowest-possible capital cost.

!8Now is the right time…
This conclusion is based on: (i) significant progress in predicting and controlling high-pressureplasma, (ii) growth of the international and private sector research programs, (iii) ITER
construction is more than half complete and confidence has improved, (iv) new technologies,
such as high-field superconducting magnets, advanced manufacturing and new materials, makepossible a less costly pathway to fusion electricity, and (v) much more …
A national program of research and technology leading to the construction of a compact pilot
plant at the lowest-possible capital cost will engage universities, national laboratories, andindustry in the realization of fusion power.
In the near- and mid-terms, the U.S. program should resolve critical research needs for theconstruction of a compact fusion pilot plant:- Understand the science, production, and control of a burning plasma with ITER,- Demonstrate the science and engineering to sustain a magnetically confined plasma withthe confinement and power-handling properties needed for a compact fusion pilot plant,- Advance very high-field superconducting magnets for fusion,- Expand research in fusion nuclear science, materials science, and tritium and blanket
technologies needed to fully enable fusion electricity, and- Promote promising innovations in burning plasma science and fusion engineering science.
!9Outline of Final Report
Front Matter
Preface
Executive Summary• Chapter 1: Introduction• Chapter 2: Progress in Burning Plasma Science and Technology• Chapter 3: Extending the Frontier of Burning Plasma Research (1st Main Rec)• Chapter 4: Advancing Magnetic Fusion towards an Economical Energy Source (2nd Main Rec)• Chapter 5: Strategic Guidance for a National Program for Burning Plasma Science and Technology• Chapter 6: Comments on Organizational Structure and Program Balance
Appendixes: Statement of Task; Interim Report, Summary of Process and Input, History ofStrategic Planning, Notional Budget Implications, Bios; Acronyms!10First Main Recommendation
The United States should remain an ITER partner as the mostcost-eﬀective way to gain experience with a burning plasma
at the scale of a power plant.

http://www.iter.org

As the world’s largest research facility, ITER will give scientists their first opportunity tocreate, study, and control a burning plasma.
ITER operation will be scientific and technical achievement, and experience with ITER is a
critical step towards delivering electricity from fusion energy.
!11

The Importance of Burning Plasma
Research and ITER to the U.S. Program
Finding: The scientific and technical benefits from the study and operation of
ITER are compelling and critical to the development fusion energy for theUnited States.
Recommendation: Because the scientific and technical benefits from ITER
are compelling and because ITER is the only existing project to create aburning plasma at the scale of a power plant, the Committee recommends
that the United States government fulfill its commitment to construct andoperate ITER as the primary experiment in the burning plasmacomponent of its long-term strategic plan for fusion energy.
Recommendation: A near-term focus of the U.S. DOE OFES research
program should maximize the scientific and technical benefits from its
partnership in a burning plasma experiment.

!12Extending ITER Performance
Finding: Advances in understanding toroidal magnetic
confinement, plasma control, and integrated solutions to wholeplasma optimization point to improvements beyond the ITER
baseline and show how careful design and simulation can be used
to lower the cost and accelerate fusion energy development.
Recommendation: In the longer-term, the U.S. DOE OFES
research program should encourage the development and testingof burning plasma scenarios on ITER that contribute to reliable
operation of a compact fusion pilot plant.

!13

Second Main Recommendation
The United States should start a national program ofaccompanying research and technology leading to theconstruction of a compact pilot plant which produces electricity
from fusion at the lowest-possible capital cost.
A U.S. Fusion Pilot Plant:• Produce fusion power similar to ITER but in a device much smaller in size andcost and employing design improvements to allow net electricity production.

• This compact fusion pilot plant would be a pre-commercial research facility.
• In addition to the production of fusion electricity, it would be staged andultimately be capable of uninterrupted operation for weeks and produce tritium.

• As a pilot plant, its purpose will be learning, but the knowledge obtained
would be suﬃcient to design the first commercial fusion power systems.

!14

Second Main Recommendation
The United States should start a national program ofaccompanying research and technology leading to theconstruction of a compact pilot plant which produces electricity
from fusion at the lowest-possible capital cost.
A U.S. Fusion Pilot Plant:• A compact fusion pilot plant represents a diﬀerent pathway as compared to thosepursued by our international partners.

• The U.S. pilot plant targets lowest possible capital cost (not levelized C.O.E.) inorder to reduce the cost of the development pathway.

• The U.S. pilot plant would be smaller than ITER; not a DEMO larger than ITER.
• The committee’s recommended strategy entails more risk than our international

partners because it requires research in parallel with ITER aimed at improving andreducing the capital cost of fusion through the development of promising
innovations in burning plasma science, materials science, and fusion engineeringscience.
!15

Second Main Recommendation
A new national focus on developing a compact pilot plant in the long term
will help set priorities for the near and mid-term fusion program.
Research needs:• Increase the fusion power density beyond that obtainable in ITER
• Demonstrate uninterrupted operation while also learning how to handle
reliably the high levels of escaping heat from the plasma• Immediately begin new program elements to develop the materials andtechnologies needed to extract the heat and recirculate tritium and, also, topromote the industrial development of very-high-field superconducting
magnets for fusion.

• Finally, encourage the development of technology innovations to simplify
maintenance and lower construction cost.

!16Second Main Recommendation
The committee recognizes that there are scientific and technical risks involved indeveloping a compact fusion pilot plant. Resolving these risks will necessitate
research progress and the design and operation of new facilities.
Significant research challenges:• The control of a continuous high-pressure compact plasma, which will requirea design and construction of new intermediate-scale research facility in the
United States, or a significant upgrade to an existing facility, to establish its
feasibility.

• The qualification of the materials and components that surround the plasma
and are exposed to fusion irradiation.

Question: What are the cost-eﬀective research initiatives, programs, and facilities
to achieve this research progress?

!17

Chapter 6

Comments on Organizational Structure and Program Balance• Organizational Structure and Program Management- Expanding the OFES Organization to Meet Program Needs- Adopting a Long-term Strategy Towards a Fusion Energy Goal
- Strengthening Community Organization and Input• Further Strengthening of United States Fusion Research- Setting Safety and Licensing Standards for Fusion Energy Research Facilities- Health of the U.S. Fusion Program- International Partnerships- Private Sector- Relationship Between Private Sector and National Goals- Linkages to Other Science and Technology Disciplines- Public outreachFive Findings and seven Recommendations aimed to guide implementation of an
expanded U.S. DOE/FES research program and strengthen community participation inburning plasma science, materials science, fusion nuclear science, and engineering science.

!18

Organizational Structure and Program Balance
Recommendation: The committee recommends a new division within U.S.
DOE/FES to manage and organize research in developing technologies needed
to improve and fully enable the fusion power system.
Recommendation: The U.S. DOE/FES should establish a formal strategicplanning process by which, at regular intervals, respected scientific and technicalleaders review progress on short- and long-term goals. … Community input
should be an essential element of this process.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the DOE Fusion Safety Standards
be reviewed for consistency with current regulations and updated to incorporate
the community's increased knowledge of the performance of fusion systems[and] a licensing strategy should be developed that includes transition from
DOE to NRC regulatory authority to ultimately allow for commercialization offusion power.

!19

Figure 2-2. While there are areas of overlap, universities emphasize early discovery and tend to f
research associated with individuals or small groups of faculty members. Companies respond toOpportunities to Encourage and Support Private Sector

Figure 2-2: DOE National Laboratories’ Relationship to Universities and Industry in the E
Innovation System

INDUSTRYDOE &NATIONAL LABSTECHNOLOGY MATURATIONCOMMERCIALIZATIONC

TTechnology available
ffor wide-scale market use

DEMONSTRATION
D

SSystem demonstrated
iin operational environment

SSYSTEM TESTING

SSystem performance
cconfirmed at pilot-scale

DEVELOPMENTD

TTechnology component
vvalidated/integrated

DISCOVERY
D

Concept identified/proven atCllaboratory-scale

Recommendation: The U.S. DOE OFES
should define mechanisms to manage
assignment of intellectual property as ameans to encourage both private and publicly
funded researchers to establish mutually
beneficial partnerships.

UNIVERSITIESLevel of Eﬀort

Finding: Opportunities exist to encourage andsupport private investment in fusion energy
development and the focused, goal-oriented
approach from U.S. industry, which isbeneficial to fusion energy development.

Recommendation: The U.S. DOE OFES
should conduct outreach initiatives thatengage the fusion research community andinform the nation. Public awareness is a The institutional balance of science and technology
research evolves with maturity and technical readinesscritical element in maintaining support.
of thethetechnology.
FromLaboratories
the 2017 Annual Report on theStateof the DOE National
12 Annual Report on
State of DOE National Laboratories.

!20

Next Steps in Planning: NAS Decadal• NAS Decadal Assessment of Plasma Science: “past progress and future
promise of plasma science and technology”‣ Significant progress and achievement: burning plasma research insupport of ITER and research progress beyond ITER towards fusion
electricity.
‣ Frontiers of burning plasma research (integrated with materials
science, fusion engineering science): understanding and controlling aburning plasma, achieving steady operation at high-power density
conditions with high confinement performance and optimized plasma
exhaust‣ Innovations in burning plasma science that can accelerate fusion
development or improve and reduce the cost of fusion as a source ofelectricity!21

Next Steps in Planning: DPP/FESAC• FESAC Long-Range Strategic Planning Activity: “Identify and prioritize”
near- and mid-term research:‣ Understand the science, production, and control of a burning plasma
with ITER,‣ Demonstrate the science and engineering to sustain a magneticallyconfined plasma with the confinement and power-handling properties
needed for a compact fusion pilot plant,‣ Advance very high-field superconducting magnets for fusion,‣ Expand research in fusion nuclear science, materials science, and tritiumand blanket technologies needed to fully enable fusion electricity, and‣ Promote promising innovations in burning plasma science and fusion
engineering science.
!22

Next Steps in Planning: DPP/FESAC• FESAC Long-Range Strategic Planning Activity: “Identify and prioritize the research required
to advance both the scientific foundation needed to develop a fusion energy source, as wellas the broader FES mission to steward plasma science.”
Comments:‣ “Now is the right time for the United States to develop plans to benefit from its investment
in burning plasma research and take steps towards the development of fusion electricity forthe nation’s future energy needs.”
The committee’s strategy guidance goes beyond advancing the “scientific foundation”‣ Remain an ITER partner as the most cost-effective way to gain experience with a burning
plasma at the scale of a power plant.
In the near-term: maximize the scientific and technical benefits from partnership in aburning plasma experiment. In the longer-term: develop and test burning plasma scenarios
on ITER that contribute to reliable operation of a compact fusion pilot plant.
‣ Start (now) a national program of accompanying research and technology leading to theconstruction of a compact pilot plant which produces electricity from fusion at the lowestpossible capital cost.

!23

Please see committee and report information at:https://www.nap.edu/25331

24

Backup Slides
FINAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON A
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR U.S. BURNING
PLASMA RESEARCH

Please see committee and report information at:https://www.nap.edu/25331!25beprovide
as large
a 1000MW
plant,
however,precise minimum
size tofore powera asconfident
basis
on whichtotechnicalproject
torequirements
athecommercial
power
plant.
It isa possfor toa DEMO
facility,
but
did
not
address
theofthefacilityforaDEMO
facility,
but
did
not
addressthetechnical
requirementsofthefacility
to
that
some
level
of
R&D
could
be
accommodatedonDEMO
facility,
but
this
to
be
as
large
as
a
1000
MW
power
plant,
however,thepreciseminimumsizeforaa
ee powerDEMO
hasestablished.
The
Starlitestudy[2]
provided
some
high
level
cri
eas
MW
plant,
however,thepreciseminimumforanotbeaslarge
aslarge
large
a1000
1000
MW
plant,
however,thepreciseminimumsize
foraas beenasasaasa1000
MW
plant,
however,thepreciseminimum
size
aleveltobesizeasforlarge
aofestablished.
1000
MW
plant,
however,thepreciseminimumsizeforshoue power
e power
e power
DEMO
has
not
been
The
Starlitestudy[2]
provided
some
high
level
criteri
that
some
R&D
could
be
accommodated
on
the
DEMO
facility,
but
this
sho
providea minimized.
confident
basis
on
which
to project
to a commercial
power
plant.
Itis
possible
providea criteria
confident
basis
on
which
to theproject
tostudya commercial
power
plant.
Itlevel
istopossi
be
DEMO
has
not
been
established.
The
Starlite[2]
provided
some
high
crit
MO
has
not
been
established.
The
Starlitestudy[2]
provided
some
high
level
criteria
EMO
has
not
been
established.
The
Starlitestudy[2]
provided
some
high
level
criteria
O has
not
been
established.
The
Starlitestudy[2]
provided
some
high
for
alevelDEMO
facility,
but
did
not
address
the technical
of
the
to
DEMO
has
not
been
established.
The
Starlitestudy[2]requirements
providedsomehighfacility
level
cri
for
a
DEMO
facility,
but
did
not
address
technical
requirementsofthefacilitybeminimized.
that some
level
of
R&D
could
be
accommodated
on
the
DEMO
facility,but
thisshouldsome
levelofbasisR&D
betoaddress
accommodated
therequirements
DEMO
facility,
butis
this
shou
for
aafacility
DEMO
facility,
but
did
the
of
the
facility
toprovideato
confident
basis
on notwhich
to projectaon
commercial
power
It
is possaDEMO
facility,
but
did
not
addressthetechnical
requirements
ofthe
the
toto
aDEMO
DEMO
facility,
but
did
not
addressthetechnical
requirements
ofthatthefacility,
but
did
not
addressthetechnical
requirements
ofprovidefacilityfor
DEMO
facility,
but
did
not
addressthetechnical
requirements
ofplant.
thefacilitytoafacility
confident
oncould
which
project
to technicala tocommercial
power
plant.
It
possiblebe minimized.
beminimized.
provideais
confident
basis
on
to
commercial
power
plant.
is
vide
basis
which
power
plant.
ovide
aconfident
confident
basis
which
toproject
project
acommercial
commercial
power
plant.
possiblede a aconfident
basis
onononwhich
totoproject
totoatoacommercial
power
plant.
It It
isItispossible
that
some
level
of R&D
could
be accommodatedon
the DEMO
facility,but
shou
provideapossible
confident
basis
onbewhichwhich
to projectproject totocommercial
power
plant.
Itthisis possi
possi
that
some
level
of R&D
could
accommodated
onaatheDEMO
facility,but
thisItshould
3000
that
some
level
of
bebut
minimized.
some
level
could
the
DEMO
facility,
thisshould
at
some
level
ofR&D
R&D
could
beaccommodated
accommodatedtheDEMO
facility,but
thisshouldome
level
ofofR&D
could
bebeaccommodated
ononontheDEMOfacility,but
thisshould
that
some
level
of R&DR&D could
could bebe accommodated
accommodated onon thethe DEMODEMO facility,
facility, but
but this
this shou
shou
3000
be minimized.
beminimized.
minimized.
minimized.
nimized.
be 3000
minimized.
Compact
Large
Compact
Large

Compact Approach Uses Smaller, Less Costly Facilities

Magnet Energy (GJ)

Fusion Power, MW
Fusion Power, MW
FusionPower,
MWMW
FusionPower,
MW
FusionPower,
MW
FusionFusionPower,
Power,
MW
MW
FusionPower,

Fusion Power (GW)

FusionPower,
MW
FusionPower,
MW
Fusion Power, MW

3000
2500
2500
3000
3000
3000
25002500
3.0
3000
3000
3000
K-DEMO
30
2000
EU
DEMO
K-DEMO
ACT-3
2000
EU
DEMO
2500
2500
ACT-3
K-DEMOFDF-Cu2500
2.5
K-DEMO EU DEMO
20002000
2500
2500
2500
EU DEMO
25 FDF-Cu
1500
ARC-HTSC
1500
K-DEMO
JA
DEMO
2000
EU
DEMO
FDF-CuARC-HTSCK-DEMO
2000
EU
DEMO
FDF-CuJA
DEMO
K-DEMOK-DEMOK-DEMOK-DEMO
15001500
2.0
2000
EU DEMO
2000
EU
DEMO
2000
EU
DEMO
2000
EU
DEMO
20 FDF-Cu
1000
ARC-HTSCFNSF
JACFETR
DEMO
1000FDF-Cu ARC-HTSC FNSF
JA DEMO
CFETR
1500
FDF-Cu1500
FDF-CuFDF-CuFDF-Cu
ACT-1
ARC-HTSC
ARC-HTSC
10001000
JA DEMO
FNSFoFNSF CFETR
1500
1.5
ITER
JA DEMO
1500
1500
1500
15
CFETR
ARC-HTSC
500
ITER
ARC-HTSC
ARC-HTSC
ARC-HTSCo
JA DEMO
DEMO
JA
DEMO
JAJA
DEMO
500
1000
FNSF
1000
FNSF
CFETR
ITER ITER
CFETR
o
o
1000
FNSF
500
1.0
1000
1000
1000
10
FNSF
FNSF CFETR
FNSF
CFETR
500
CFETR
CFETR
00
ITER
ITER
o
o
ACT-1
500
12.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
500
ITER
ITER
ITER
ITER
o
12.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
o
o
o
o
500
5
0.5
500
500
0
500
0
radius,m
2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Major
6.0 6.0
8.0 8.0
10.0 10.012.0 12.0
Major
radius,m0
0 0
Figure1.
Thepower4.0
versusplasmamajor
radiusfor10.0
the10.0
FESS FNSF
and seve
0.0
12.0
4.0Major
8.0
0fusionMajor
radius,m
12.0
2.02.06.06.08.0000
radius,m
Figure1.
Thefusionpower
versusplasmamajor
radius
for
the
FESS
FNSF
and sev2
4
6
88.0 10.0
10 next
122
4operating6.0
6space satisfying
8
10 lies12.0
12
2.0
4.0
8.0
10.0
step facility proposals.
The
constraints
inside the
12.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
2.0
4.0
6.0 8.0
10.0
12.0
2.0
4.0
6.0

next
step
facility
proposals.
The
operatingspaceforsatisfying
constraints
lies
inside thMajorradius,m
FigureFigure
1.
The
fusionpower
versusplasmamajor
radius
the
FESS
FNSF
and
severalMajor
radius,m
1.
The
fusionpower
versusplasmamajor
radius
for
the
FESS
FNSF
and
seve
contour
for
the
FESS
FNSF.
These
devicesaredesignedwithdifferent
targetmeasu
Majorradius,
Radius(m)
Major
Radius(m)
Majorradius,mcontour
for
the
FESS
FNSF.
These
devicesaredesignedwithdifferent
targetmeasu
Major
radius,mm
Major
radius,Majormnext step
facility
proposals.
The operating
space
constraints
lies inside
the rednext
stepfacility
proposals.
The
operatingspacesatisfying
constraints
lies
insidetheMandconstraints,
andassumptions.
FDF
is asatisfying
GeneralAtomics
design[3],
ARC
is sevean
Figure1.
Thefusionpower
versusplasmamajor
radius
for
the
FESS
FNSF
and
Figure1.
Thefusionpower
versusplasmamajor
radius
for
the
FESS
FNSF
and
severalandconstraints,
andassumptions.
FDF
isa
GeneralAtomics
design
[3],
ARC
is
an
contour
for theFESS
FNSF.
Theseversus
devicesare designedwith different
targetFNSF
measurescontour
for
the
FESS
FNSF.
These
devicesaredesignedwithdifferent
targetmeasurPSFC
design[4].
Figure1.
Thefusionpower
plasmamajor
radius
for
the
FESS
and
seve
ure
The
fusionpower
versusplasmamajor
radius
for
the
FESS
FNSF
and
severalgureThefusionpower
versusplasmamajor
radius
for
the
FESS
FNSF
and
severale 1.1.1.
The
fusionpower
versusplasmamajor
radius
for
the
FESS
FNSF
and
severalnext
stepfacility
proposals.
The
operatingspacesatisfying
constraints
lies
insidetheFigure1.
Thefusionpower
versusplasmamajor
radius
for
the
FESS
FNSF
and
seve
step
facility
proposals.
TheFDF
operatingspace Atomics
satisfying
constraints
lies
insidethe red
PSFC
design[4].
Finding: Recent advances motivateanewnational
research
programleadingtotheandnext
constraints,
andassumptions.
isaGeneraldesign
[3],
ARC
is
an
MIT
and
constraints,
andassumptions.
FDF
isare
aspaceGeneralAtomics
design[3],lies
ARC
is
an
next
step
facility
proposals.
The
operatingsatisfying
constraints
insidethecontour
for
the
FESS
FNSF.
These
devicesare designed
different
targetmeasu
stepfacility
proposals.
The
operatingspacesatisfying
constraints
lies
inside
the
red
xt
step
facility
proposals.
The
operatingspacesatisfying
constraints
lies
insidetheredtepfacility
proposals.
The
operatingspacesatisfying
constraints
lies
inside
the
red
next
step
facility
proposals.
The
operatingspacesatisfying
constraints
lies
insidetheM
contour
for
the
FESS
FNSF.
These
devicesdesigned
withwithdifferent
targetmeasures
PSFC
design[4].
constructionofa compact
fusion
pilot
plant
atthe
the
lowestpossible
capital
cost
that
will
PSFC
design[4].
Thetechnical
extrapolation
aFDF
DEMO
toafullsize
commercial
power
plantsrequirecontour
for
FESS
FNSF.
These
devicesaredesignedwithdifferent
targetmeasurourfor
for
the
FESS
FNSF.
These
devicesaredesignedwithdifferent
targetmeasures
ntour
for
the
FESS
FNSF.
These
devicesaredesignedwithdifferent
targetmeasures
ur
the
FESS
FNSF.
These
devicesaredesignedwithdifferent
measuresandconstraints,
andassumptions.
FDF
GeneralAtomics
design
ARC
isMIT
an M
contour
for
the
FESS
FNSF.ofThese
devicesaredesignedwithdifferent
targetmeasurandtarget
constraints,
andassumptions.
is a isGeneralAtomics
design[3], [3],
ARC
is an
The
technical
extrapolationofa DEMO
to fullsize
commercial
power
plantsrequirehighconfidence
in orderto guaranteethat
investment
would
produceandconstraints,
andassumptions.
FDF
isaaprivate
GeneralAtomics
[3],
ARC
an
PSFC
[4].
and
assumptions.
FDF
Atomics
design
[3],
ARC
isan
dconstraints,
constraints,
andassumptions.
FDF
aGeneral
GeneralAtomics
design
[3],
ARC
isan
anMIT
MIT
onstraints,
andassumptions.
FDF
isisaisaGeneral
Atomics
design[3],
ARC
isdesign
MITandconstraints,
andassumptions.
FDF
is beenGeneralAtomics
design[3],
ARCaaisissuccean M
M
PSFC
design[4].
acceleratethefusiondevelopment
Significant
progresshas
madetodesign
predicthighconfidence
in orderto guaranteethat
privateinvestment
would
produce
succe
Thepath.
technical
extrapolation
of
a
DEMO
to
full
size
commercial
power
plantsrequires
The
technical
extrapolation
of
a
DEMO
to
full
size
commercial
power
plantsrequirespower
source.
Inshort,
thisdeviceshouldproduceelectricity
continuously
for
long
PSFC
design [4].
C
design[4].
FC
design[4].
design
[4].
PSFC
[4].
powerdesign
source.
Inshort,
deviceshouldproduceelectricity
continuously
for long
andcreate the high-pressure plasma
required
for
such
athis
reactor.
This
progress
combinedhigh confidence
in
order
to
guaranteethat private
investment
would
producea successfulhighconfidence
in
order
to
guarantee
that
privateinvestment
would
producearequire
succesThe
technical
extrapolation
of
a
DEMO
to
full
size
commercial
power
plantsThe
technical
extrapolation
of
a
DEMO
to
full
size
commercial
power
plantsrequirespower
source.
In short,
thisdeviceshouldproduceelectricity
continuously
forplants
long
power
source.
Inshort,
shouldelectricity
continuouslyThe
technicalofaa DEMO
to
full
size
commercial
power
requireswith
opportunities
todeveloptechnologies
forfusion,suchashigh-temperature
extrapolation
sizecommercial
power
plantsrequiresetechnicaltechnical
extrapolation
aDEMO
DEMO
tofullfull
size
commercial
power
plantsrequiresechnicalextrapolation
ofofaofaDEMO
totofullsize
commercial
power
plantsrequireshighconfidence
inorder
to deviceguarantee
that
privateinvestment
would
produce
along
succe
The
technical
extrapolationofDEMO
toproduce
full
size
commercial
power
plantsrequireshighconfidence
inextrapolation
order
tothisguarantee
that
privateinvestment
would
produceaforsuccessfu
high
order
to
that
privateinvestment
would
produceaa succespowersource.
Inindeviceshouldproduceelectricity
continuously
for
long
hgh
confidence
inorderthat
privateinvestment
would
produceasuccessful
confidence
inorderorder
toguarantee
guarantee
that
privateinvestment
would
produceasuccessful
successful
confidenceintotoguaranteethat
privateinvestment
would
produceaconfidencehighconfidence
inshort,order
to guarantee
guarantee
that
privateinvestment
would
producesuccespower
source.
In short,
this thisdeviceshouldproduceelectricity
continuously
for long
superconducting
magnets
andadvancedmaterials,
now
make
a
compact
devicepowersource.
ersource.
source.
thisdeviceshouldproduceelectricity
continuouslyforlongsource.
Inshort,short,
thisdeviceshouldproduceelectricity
continuouslyforlong In
rwer
InInshort,
thisdeviceshouldproduceelectricity
continuously
for
long
power
source.
In short,
short, this
this device
device should
should produce
produce electricity
electricity continuously
continuously forfor long
longtechnically possible, aﬀordable, and attractive for industrial participation.

!26

building DEMO with an earlier FNSF device and 3) licensing requirements for a precursor FNS
device itself.

A Compact and Lower-Cost Pathway to Fusion Electricity(from Tom Brown, Fusion Engineer PPPL)

Korean DEMO 6.8m
PPPL 4.0m
Pilot Plant

Relative to previous pathways, theFigurecompact
fusionpathway targets smaller device size, lower
1. Device
2size comparison
capital cost, and shorter development steps.
Cost metric for fusion development should not be estimates of leveled C.O.E., but capital cost andthe cost of the development pathway.
A research approach that includes the production of electricity makes overall systems eﬃciency
an essential part of the evaluation of the compact fusion pilot plant.
Although promising concepts exist,
Additional research and engineering will be needed to identify the optimal approach.
!27

Compact Fusion: High-Field Superconducting Magnets andAdvanced Burning Plasma Physics
Recommended

Not Recommended

COMPACT

EXPERIMENT(b) Pulsed, Burning Plasma Experiment

t
imi
rL
Div
ert
o

Toroidal Field (T)

8
6

HT-SC
Compact

500 MW

1000 MW

Toroidal Field (T)

10

ACT-3

ACT-1

4
2

High Confinement:
Low Plasma Current:High Beta:
Steady State:

0
0

2

4
6
Major Radius (m)

8

10

10

8

8

6
4
J

2

H = 1.8
q = 7.2
βN = 3.5
fBS ~ 100%

D

DIII-D010(c) Large, Steady-State DEMO with Current Drive

Toroidal Field (T)(a) Compact, High-Performance, Steady-StateLARGE DEMO

0

2

t
imi
L
r
erto
ITER
Div
LT-SC

JET
Good Confinement:
High Plasma Current:
Low Beta:
Ohmic Pulsed:

4

6Major Radius (m)800 MW
400 MW

1.5 GW

6
Di

4

JT-60SA
LT-SC

EAST
LT-SC
KSTAR
LT-SC

0
10

imit
JA-DEMO
LT-SC

or L
vert

2

H = 1.0
q = 3.1
βN = 1.8
fBS ~ 21%8

2.0 GW

0

2

Improved Confinement: H = 1.31
Reduced Plasma Current: q = 4.1
High Beta:βN = 3.4
Non-inductive CD:
fBS ~ 60%

4
6Major Radius (m)810Magnetic fusion as a function of magnetic field strength, B, and toroidal major radius, R. The fusion powerincreases rapidly with both size and magnetic field, R3B4; the plasma current increases linearly, RB/q; andthe power flux to the divertor is assumed to scale as the product of the plasma thermal power and (B/Rq).

!28

Recent Advances Motivate a New National Program
Finding: Recent advances motivate a new national research program leading to theconstruction of a compact fusion pilot plant at the lowest possible capital cost that will
accelerate the fusion development path. Significant progress has been made to predict andcreate the high-pressure plasma required for such a reactor. This progress combined with
opportunities to develop technologies for fusion, such as high-temperature superconducting
magnets and advanced materials, now make a compact device technically possible,
aﬀordable, and attractive for industrial participation.
Supporting this conclusion:(i)

Combining new high-field superconductors with advanced burning plasma science,(ii) Advances in understanding divertor scaling,(iii) Progress in achieving uninterrupted operation of high-performance confinement,(iv) Growing industrial capability of HTS superconductors,(v) Prospects for advanced materials science and manufacturing,(vi) Ongoing advances in support of ITER, and(vii) Readiness to pursue innovations to harness fusion energy and to breed and process
tritium.
!29

New Near- and Mid-term Research Facilities
Recommendation: In the near- and mid-terms, the U.S.
Department of Energy should resolve critical research needs forthe construction of a compact fusion pilot plant:- Understand the science, production, and control of burning
plasma at the scale of a power plant through participation in
ITER.

Full benefit from ITER

- Demonstrate the science and engineering needed to sustain
a magnetically confined plasma having the highconfinement property and compatible plasma exhaustsystem that are needed for a compact fusion pilot plant.

Steady-State High-PowerNew
Density Research Facility- Advance high-field, high-temperature superconductors anddemonstrate the ability to achieve high magnetic fields
using large, fusion-relevant coils.

New Fusion Magnet Research- Expand significantly the U.S. research program in fusion
nuclear technology, advanced materials, safety, andtritium and blanket technologies needed to fully enablefusion energy.

New

Fusion Nuclear Scienceand Technology

New

Innovations in bothburning plasma scienceand fusion technology- Develop promising innovations in burning plasma science,such as optimized stellarator configurations and innovative
approaches for a low-cost fusion irradiation facility, and fusion
engineering science that reduce the cost and improve thefusion concept as a source of electricity.

!30

The U.S. has been a leader in the Development ofHigh-Field Superconducting Magnets for Fusion

The Large Coil Test Facility managed by ORNL at the International Fusion Superconducting Magnet Test
Facility (IFSMTF). Six large-bore fusion magnets from industries in the United States, Switzerland, Europe
Atomic Energy Community, and Japan operated for two years (1985-1987), reached stable operation at B = 8T,
and successfully demonstrated low-temperature superconducting magnet technology for fusion.

!31

Fusion Nuclear Science
ARTICLEIN PRESS
Essential Missing
Element in the U.S. Fusion Research Program

5

C.E. Kessel et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Neutron irradiation of individual materials in 1) fusion relevant neutron source, 2)
fission reactor and doping, 3) ion bombardment
tokamaks, 2) 1
rintegrated PFCtes

Plasma facing components /plasma material interaction
plasma devices, 3) offline (e.g. HHF, liquid metal)

Tritium science

c
Nu

r
lea

Te

(LiPb) Liquid metal science

ng
i
t
s
paramete rs &Integrated blanket component
testing & ITERTBM progress

integration(wreak nucleart)

Prototypical~oe?>'(~0

Magnets
Helium coolingIntegrated diagnosti testing

Diagnosti cs
Fueli ng/exhau st

Enabling technologies

Heat exchanger

Tritium processing
Heating & curre nt dri

Integrated launcher/guide testin

Plasma development in 1) short pulse DD tokamaks,
KSTAR, JT-60SA), 3) ITERburning plasmas

ong pulse DD tokamaks

AST,

0.25 ng

250 g
T concentration

10-10

50% (D/T = 1)

Predictive simulation development

D areas to support the design, construction and operation of the facility. Highlighting the high-level qualification requirement for fusion coreeutron testing of individual materials, and highly integrated testing of components such as the blanket, divertor, RF launchers, and diagnostics
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Elements of a fusion nuclear science research program
Tritium science and materials science required
leading to the design and construction of a compact fusion
to establish a fusion tritium fuel cycle.
pilottheplant.
(From Kessel,
Eng
2017)
ence.
owledge of whatbest material
form is Fus
TheDesign,
bainitic steel
vacuum vessel arrives at the beginning(Fromof the Tanabe, J Nucl Mater, 2013)
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

nt. The FNSF would advance the materials
fluence and raises the operating tempera!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

facility operation as it must, as do all the life of plant materials near
the fusion core but outside the vacuum vessel. It should be emphasized that the articles being delivered to the FNSF are functioning
industrially produced components, not individual materials.
Materials development and qualification actually permeates all
!

!

!

!

!

elop and qualify materials for the FNSF
r characterization, fission nuclear testing

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!32

Two-Phase Approach to the Fusion Pilot Plant
Recommendation: In recognition of the significant challenges that needs tobe addressed for the construction of a compact fusion pilot plant facility
capable of electricity production, the U.S. DOE OFES plan for a pilot plantshould have a two-phase approach. These objectives of these two phasesare:-In the first phase, the pilot plant should be capable of demonstrating
fusion electricity production for periods lasting minutes and establish
the feasibility of electricity production in a compact fusion system
including the assessment of plasma material interactions, tritium safety,
pumping, recycling, breeding, and extraction.

-

In the second phase, the pilot plant should be capable of uninterrupted
operation for many days allowing fusion materials and component
testing consistent with a commercial power plant, including full fuelcycle blanket testing.

!33

Developing an Alternate Approachwithout ITER Participation
Finding: Without ITER, the United States would need to design, license, andconstruct an alternative means to gain experience creating and controllingan energy-producing burning plasma. The scale of research facilities within
the United States would be more costly. The achievement of electricity
production from fusion in the United States would be delayed.
Recommendation: Nevertheless, if the United States decides to withdraw
from the ITER project, the U.S. DOE OFES should initiate a plan to continue
research that will lead towards the construction of a compact fusion
pilot plant. This should include the construction of an alternative means tostudy the burning plasma regime and an alternate method to engage in theinternational eﬀort in the pursuit of its long-term objective for fusion
demonstration.

!34

In addition to a burning plasma experiment, further researchis needed to improve and fully enable fusion electricity
Reliable maintenancesystems

Very High Field
Superconducting
Magnets

Controlled
Uninterrupted HighPower Density Plasma

Eﬃciently extract heat andgenerate electricity
Eﬃcient Heating,
Fueling, andControl Systems
Schematic Courtesy ofSouth Korea's National
Fusion Research Institute.

Develop materials toreliably handle the heatfrom a burning plasma
Safely breed tritium fromlithium and recirculate
fusion fuels

Research is needed to address science and technology challenges anddemonstrate innovations that reduce the size and cost of fusion electricity.
!35