A Review of the DOE Plan for U.S. Fusion Community Participation in the ITER Program (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

A Review of the DOE Plan for U.S. Fusion Community Participation in the ITER Program Committee to Review the U.S. ITER Science Participation Planning Process Plasma Science Committee Board on Physics and Astronomy Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences ITER title page.indd 1 12/03/2008 6:38pm 

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS  500 Fifth Street, N.W.  Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Govern­ ing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineer­ ing, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Grant No. DE-FG02-07ER54924 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or use­ fulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manu­ facturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Cover: Computer-generated image of the ITER magnet system, including the plasma-facing internal components. For scale, note the size of the person repre­ sented at bottom-center. Image available at http://www.iter.org/ and reprinted with permission of the ITER Organization. Cover design by Steven Coleman. International Standard Book Number-13:  978-0-309-12475-1 International Standard Book Number-10:  0-309-12475-1 Copies of this report are available from the Board on Physics and Astronomy, National Research Council, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001; Inter­ net, http://www.national-academies.org/bpa. Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, ­Washington, DC 20055 or (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America 

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal govern­ ment on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the char­ ter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstand­ ing engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in pro­ viding services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org 



COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE U.S. ITER SCIENCE PARTICIPATION PLANNING PROCESS PATRICK L. COLESTOCK, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Chair ROGER D. BENGTSON, University of Texas at Austin JAMES E. BRAU, University of Oregon CARY B. FOREST, University of Wisconsin STEPHEN HOLMES, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory GEORGE J. MORALES, University of California at Los Angeles THOMAS M. O’NEIL, University of California at San Diego TONY S. TAYLOR, General Atomics DENNIS G. WHYTE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology MICHAEL C. ZARNSTORFF, Princeton University Staff DONALD C. SHAPERO, Director, Board on Physics and Astronomy TIMOTHY I. MEYER, Senior Program Officer (August 2006– September 2007) DAVID LANG, Program Officer (from October 2007) MERCEDES ILAGAN, Administrative Assistant (October 2007– February 2008) CARYN KNUTSEN, Program Associate (from March 2008) BETH C. DOLAN, Financial Associate  

PLASMA SCIENCE COMMITTEE RICCARDO BETTI, University of Rochester, Chair MICHAEL R. BROWN, Swarthmore College LINDA M. CECCHI, Sandia National Laboratories PATRICK L. COLESTOCK, Los Alamos National Laboratory S. GAIL GLENDINNING, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory VALERY GODYAK, OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. IAN H. HUTCHINSON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology CHADRASHEKHAR JOSHI, University of California at Los Angeles ELIOT QUATAERT, University of California at Berkeley EDWARD THOMAS, JR., Auburn University MICHAEL C. ZARNSTORFF, Princeton University THOMAS H. ZURBUCHEN, University of Michigan Staff DONALD C. SHAPERO, Director, Board on Physics and Astronomy DAVID B. LANG, Program Officer CARYN J. KNUTSEN, Program Associate vi 

BOARD ON PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY MARC A. KASTNER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chair ADAM S. BURROWS, University of Arizona, Vice Chair JOANNA AIZENBERG, Harvard University JAMES E. BRAU, University of Oregon PHILIP H. BUCKSBAUM, Stanford University PATRICK L. COLESTOCK, Los Alamos National Laboratory RONALD C. DAVIDSON, Princeton University ANDREA M. GHEZ, University of California at Los Angeles PETER F. GREEN, University of Michigan LAURA H. GREENE, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign MARTHA P. HAYNES, Cornell University JOSEPH HEZIR, EOP Group, Inc. MARK B. KETCHEN, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center ALLAN H. MacDONALD, University of Texas at Austin PIERRE MEYSTRE, University of Arizona HOMER A. NEAL, University of Michigan JOSE N. ONUCHIC, University of California at San Diego LISA J. RANDALL, Harvard University CHARLES V. SHANK, Janelia Farm, Howard Hughes Medical Institute THOMAS N. THEIS, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center MICHAEL S. TURNER, University of Chicago MICHAEL C.F. WIESCHER, University of Notre Dame Staff DONALD C. SHAPERO, Director MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Associate Director ROBERT L. RIEMER, Senior Program Officer JAMES LANCASTER, Program Officer DAVID B. LANG, Program Officer CARYN J. KNUTSEN, Program Associate ALLISON M. McFALL, Senior Program Assistant BETH C. DOLAN, Financial Associate vii 



Preface The development of a plan for the participation of the U.S. fusion com­ munity in the ITER program was mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct; Public Law 109-58, August 8, 2005). The EPAct, in Section 972 (c)(4)(B), also directed that, after completion of the plan, the U.S. Depart­ ment of Energy (DOE) request an external review of its content. Accord­ ingly, on August 10, 2006, the DOE under secretary for science submitted the completed plan to the National Academy of Sciences for review (see Appendix A). In response, the National Research Council (NRC) organized a committee to review the DOE plan with the following charge: The committee will prepare a short report addressing the following tasks: 1. Review the document “Planning for U.S. Fusion Community Partici­ pation in the ITER Program.” Determine whether the plan provides a good initial outline for effective participation of U.S. plasma scientists in research at ITER. 2. Evaluate the following required elements of the plan: (1) an agenda for U.S. research at ITER, (2) methodologies to evaluate ITER’s con­ tribution to progress toward a power source, (3) description of the anticipated relationship between the U.S. ITER research program and the overall U.S. fusion program. 3. The committee will recommend next steps in the development of the plan, including: (a) appropriate elements and/or goals for the ix 

 PREFACE plan; (b) procedures to facilitate further development of the plan; and (c) metrics for measuring progress in establishing robust U.S. partici­ pation in the ITER research program. The Committee to Review the U.S. ITER Science Participation Plan­ ning Process was appointed on October 1, 2007, and met in Washing­ ton, D.C., on December 14–15, 2007. Soon after, the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 110-161, December 26, 2007) became law, under which U.S. contributions for ITER were unexpectedly eliminated. Although this committee was not specifically asked to assess the implica­ tions of the FY2008 budget, it believes that the budget will necessarily affect U.S. researchers’ ability to participate fully in the ITER program, and it therefore felt obliged to address this issue. This report reviews and evaluates the DOE plan and the status of DOE planning based on the above criteria, and recommends next steps in the development of the plan. The committee observes that domestic planning activities have been effective thus far. However, as the ITER project progresses, the organizational landscape will likely change, as will the developing international research agenda. The committee therefore presents a snapshot of the ITER program as it exists at the present time. The full value of the committee’s guidance lies in its recommended ele­ ments and procedures to help position the United States to maximize its participation in and reward from the important international scientific and technical endeavor embodied in ITER. The committee thanks the guest speakers at its December 14, 2007, meeting, including Kathryn Beers, Office of Science and Technology ­Policy; Earl Marmar, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Stanley Milora, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Erol Oktay, Department of Energy; Ned S ­ authoff, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and James Van Dam, Univer­ sity of Texas at Austin and U.S. Burning Plasma Organization. Special thanks are due to our foreign colleagues who participated in the meeting despite the long distances, namely, David Campbell, ITER Organization; Shinzaburu Matsuda, Japan Atomic Energy Agency; and Jerome Pamela, European Fusion Development Agreement. The committee greatly appre­ ciates the time and effort that all of these individuals put into preparing their remarks and participating in discussions. Patrick L. Colestock, Chair Committee to Review the U.S. ITER S ­ cience Participation Planning Process 

Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its pub­ lished report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Gordon Baym, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Michael R. Brown, Swarthmore College, Steven C. Cowley, University of California at Los Angeles, Ronald C. Davidson, Princeton University, Joseph Hezir, EOP Group, Inc., Charles F. Kennel, University of California at San Diego, Christopher Llewellyn-Smith, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority–Culham Division, David Meyerhofer, University of Rochester, John Peoples, Jr., Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, and Clifford Surko, University of California at Berkeley. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many construc­ tive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the con­ xi 

xii ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS clusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by John F. Ahearne of Sigma Xi and Duke University. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an inde­ pendent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. 

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 5 History of the ITER Project, 5 The Present ITER Project, 7 Recent U.S. Developments, 8 Origin of This Study, 10 2 EVALUATION OF THE CURRENT DOE PLAN FOR U.S. 11 PLASMA SCIENCE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN ITER Assessment of Organization and Planning of the U.S. ITER Effort, 11 Key Structural Elements of U.S. Participation in ITER, 13 Comparison to Analogous Efforts of Other ITER Partners, 15 Assessment of the U.S. Research Agenda at ITER, 16 Alignment with DOE/OFES Goals and Previous NRC and FESAC Advice, 19 Areas of Concern, 20 Assessment of Methodologies to Evaluate ITER’s Contribution to Progress Toward a Power Source, 23 Relationship of the U.S. Fusion Program to the U.S. ITER Research Program, 24 xiii 

xiv CONTENTS 3 RECOMMENDED ELEMENTS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 26 OF THE DOE PLAN FOR U.S. PLASMA SCIENCE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN ITER Recommended Goals of U.S. ITER Planning Activities, 26 Recommended Procedures to Facilitate Further Development of the DOE Plan, 27 Recommended Metrics for Measuring Robust U.S. Participation in the ITER Research Program, 29 Metrics Included in the DOE Plan, 29 Recommended Additional Metrics, 31 APPENDIXES A Letter of Request from the U.S. Department of Energy 37 B Meeting Agenda 39