Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 136
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
4932 4 A ROADMAP FOR INERTIAL FUSION ENERGY
4933
4934
4935 The statement of task for this study charged this committee to “advise the U.S.
4936 Department of Energy on its development of an R&D roadmap aimed at creating a
4937 conceptual design for an inertial fusion energy demonstration plant.” While crucial
4938 milestones such as ignition and reactor-scale gain have yet to be achieved, the
4939 committee judges that inertial fusion energy (IFE) has made sufficient progress that a
4940 roadmap can be usefully considered as part of planning for an IFE segment of the
4941 long-term U.S. energy portfolio (see Conclusion 1-1). This chapter will consider the
4942 status of the options under consideration that are discussed in the previous chapters
4943 and develop an approach for a composite event-based roadmap.
4944
4945 The committee had extensive discussions as to what type of roadmap would best be
4946 applied to an IFE demonstration plant to meet the needs of DOE and its oversight
4947 committees and agencies. The classical approach to road mapping is to develop time-
4948 based phases and budgetary levels required to complete each phase. The main
4949 advantage for this approach is that a timeline is set and the needed resources are
4950 delineated. However, for IFE, uncertainties in the pace of scientific understanding
4951 and technology development—and the vagaries of the budgeting process—make it
4952 difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a time-based roadmap. Thus, the committee
4953 decided that a milestone-based (or, event-based) roadmap is most appropriate here.
4954
4955 In this chapter, the committee defines the appropriate roadmapping approach that best
4956 fits the needs of DOE, considers the status of development of the IFE options (i.e.,
4957 laser-, ion beams-, pulsed power-based, etc.), lists the critical milestones that each of
4958 the options must reach in order for development of that option to continue, and then
4959 constructs the first element of an event-based roadmap—that portion leading to
4960 ignition. It also lays out a conceptual path of steps leading to success; i.e., the
4961 decision to proceed with the conceptual design of a demonstration plant (DEMO). A
4962 discussion of key terminology leading to a DEMO is given in Box 4-1
4963
4964
4965 Box 4.1 A Description of Programmatic Terms Used in this Chapter
4966
4967 The committee decided that a milestone- or event-based roadmap is most
4968 appropriate for IFE because of the current stage of technical maturity.
4969 However, before describing this road mapping approach, a few
4970 definitions are needed.
4971
4972 1. Technology Application (TA). The committee has defined a
4973 technology application as a combination of a driver-target-chamber
4974 approach that has been discussed in the previous chapters and is included
4975 in this road mapping exercise because of its potential for success,
4976 scientific results to date, and level of development. For simplicity, we
4-1
OCR for page 137
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
4977 define three TAs based on the three main driver approaches: lasers, heavy
4978 ions, and pulsed-power.
4979
4980 2. Integrated Research Experiment (IRE): An IRE tests the
4981 simultaneous operation of several aspects of a fusion reactor, but not
4982 necessarily all of them. For example, a single laser driver module would
4983 be aimed at injected surrogate targets at a rate of up to a reactor’s
4984 repetition rate to test driver quality, target launching, tracking and
4985 interception. Such facilities might be upgraded to include a few modules,
4986 for example, for undertaking scaled implosions for speeding up the
4987 testing of targets. For pulsed power, the equivalent would be
4988 demonstrating repetitive recyclable-transmission-line replacement at high
4989 power without arcing.
4990
4991 3. Fusion Test Facility (FTF): The FTF is a demonstration of repetitive
4992 deuterium-tritium (DT) target shots using reactor-scale driver energy that
4993 generates high gain for the relevant TA. An FTF may be used initially for
4994 demonstrations of gain at very low frequency, followed by an increasing
4995 repetition rate to within an order of magnitude of the repetition rate of a
4996 commercial power plant, accumulating a total number of shots exceeding,
4997 say, 106 per year, or perhaps 105 for pulsed power fusion (since pulsed-
4998 power would operate at a lower repetition rate and higher yield/target
4999 compared to other approaches). As experience is gained with a
5000 successful TA, the FTF might be used to accumulate operating
5001 experience with longer run times.
5002
5003 4. Demonstration reactor (DEMO): A demonstration reactor has to
5004 deliver enough electric power to the grid over five to ten years to enable
5005 industry to judge the potential commercial viability of IFE through the
5006 conduct of reliability analyses, to establish reasonable cost estimates, and
5007 to assess safety sufficiently well to ensure that commitments could be
5008 made for construction and economical operation of commercial fusion
5009 power plants that must operate for more than 25 years.
5010
5011
5012 The demonstration reactor (DEMO), which will test many technologies together at or
5013 near full scale for the first time, will not be expected to work flawlessly as designed
5014 or even economically in its early stages. In fact, the DEMO should be designed for
5015 ease of retrofits, and it will have extensive monitoring capabilities, which will
5016 increase its capital costs. Nevertheless, the DEMO will be built when technology is
5017 at such a level that a successful DEMO could provide the confidence needed for the
5018 private sector to take on IFE as a commercial product, albeit with modified designs
5019 and some initial government assistance. There is a continuum of technology levels
5020 between an FTF and a DEMO, so a sufficiently complete set of driver, target, and
5021 chamber data leading straight to an early DEMO, by-passing an FTF is not precluded,
5022 but highly unlikely.
4-2
OCR for page 138
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5023
5024 In addition, assuming that progress in one or more approaches to practical IFE can be
5025 realized, the issue of organizational structure for conducting the research must be
5026 considered as well as the potential program cost elements. However, since IFE
5027 research is currently funded only at a low level and in varying ways, the rate of
5028 progress will be limited until ignition and ignition with modest gain are attained. The
5029 event-based roadmap provided in this chapter uses these two events (ignition and
5030 modest gain) as early milestones that can be the trigger for the creation of a robust
5031 IFE program.
5032
5033
5034 INTRODUCTION
5035
5036 The development of any science- or technology-based roadmap requires that
5037 guidelines and criteria be established so that options are evaluated on a common and
5038 consistent basis. The committee believes that the guidelines detailed in the DOE
5039 Technology Readiness Assessment Guide 1 are useful and appropriate to the
5040 development of an IFE roadmap, so the committee uses them herein. Figure 1 (from
5041 the DOE guide) shows the integration between technology development and project
5042 management. As can be seen from the chart, creating a conceptual design occurs at
5043 the CD-0 point (yellow box) in a project.
5044
5045
5046
1
U.S. Department of Energy Technology Readiness Assessment Guide, DOE G 413.3-4, October 12,
2009.
4-3
OCR for page 139
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5047 FIGURE 4.1 Process and performance requirements to support plant startup,
5048 commissioning, and operations. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy Technology
5049 Readiness Assessment Guide.
5050
5051 As suggested in DOE G 413.3--4A, 2 a useful and recommended approach to assure
5052 that the various technical components are at a stage of technical maturity necessary to
5053 initiate the next phase in the program is used—the concept of “technology readiness
5054 levels” (TRLs). The TRLs of the overall system as well as its components must be
5055 evaluated and advanced over time. Table 4.1 lists the definitions of the 9 TRLs
5056 discussed in the DOE Technology Readiness Assessment Guide, which has more
5057 detailed descriptions of the TRLs.
5058
5059 Table 4.1: Technology Readiness Levels (TRL’s)
5060
5061 Basic Technology Research
5062 TRL 1: Basic principles observed and reported
5063 TRL 2: Technology concept/application formulated
5064 Research to Prove Feasibility
5065 TRL 3: Proof of concept
5066 Technology Development
5067 TRL 4: Validation in laboratory environment
5068 TRL 5: Integrated component validation in laboratory
5069 Technology Demonstration
5070 TRL 6: Engineering/pilot scale validation
5071 System Commissioning
5072 TRL 7: Prototypical system demonstration
5073 TRL 8: System qualified through test and demonstration
5074 System Operations
5075 TRL 9: Full range of actual system operations
5076
5077 In keeping with the Technology Readiness Guide, the committee has assumed that all
5078 necessary technology options and their components must have met the criteria of TRL
5079 6 for DOE to initiate the conceptual design for an inertial fusion energy
5080 demonstration plant (DEMO). Development activities and test facilities (including
5081 major test facilities such as Integrated Research Experiments (IRE) and a Fusion Test
5082 Facility (FTF), as defined in Box 4.1) will help to advance the TRLs of components
5083 necessary for DEMO. However, components for an IRE and an FTF also must have
5084 reached certain TRLs in order for those facilities to be built. A summary of TRLs for
5085 each IFE option is given in a later section below entitled “TRLs for Inertial Fusion
5086 Energy.”
5087
5088
5089 Technology Applications
5090
5091 There are many possible combinations of drivers, targets and chambers that could be
2
Available at http://tinyurl.com/84qk6qw.
4-4
OCR for page 140
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5092 considered as TAs. For simplicity, we define three TAs based on the three main
5093 driver approaches: lasers, pulsed-power, and heavy ions. These three TAs cover the
5094 main options for targets, drivers, and chambers. With three TAs, the planning task to
5095 develop an event-based roadmap is simpler. For example, the heavy-ion fusion plan
5096 would require the research needed to select between radio-frequency and induction
5097 accelerators and an approach to target design. Similarly, the laser TA must consider
5098 the research needed to decide between DPSSL and KrF laser drivers and between
5099 direct and indirect drive. The focus is to do the research needed to make decisions
5100 and to optimize progress rather than to sustain a particular TA as long as possible.
5101 Thus, eventually, either a single TA would be taken to the DEMO stage or no TA
5102 would be judged to be both technically feasible and economically viable.
5103
5104 For each technical approach, the driver is the most expensive component in the power
5105 plant. In all cases, the driver will consist of a large number of modules. As discussed
5106 in Chapter 2, good progress has been made in developing the repetitively pulsed
5107 systems required for fusion energy. Nevertheless, there remain substantial challenges
5108 in developing systems that would have the reliability, maintainability, and availability
5109 to provide a number of shots that, depending on the driver, is in the range 3 x 106 to 4
5110 x 108 per year. As concluded in Chapter 2, it will be necessary to build and
5111 demonstrate each multi-kilojoule module early in the program.
5112
5113 Recommendation 4-1: When a technical approach is chosen, high priority should
5114 be given to the design and construction of a driver module and to demonstrating
5115 that the individual driver module meets its specifications so that when
5116 aggregated into a complete system, the appropriate gain can be achieved.
5117
5118 Institutional competition has been important in driving innovation in IFE, as it has
5119 been in many fields. At this point in time, however, the IFE community would
5120 benefit from greater cooperation and integration. A recent white paper developed by
5121 the IFE community reached the same conclusion. 3 Without a coordinated approach
5122 to IFE, it will be difficult for the nation to make informed decisions using reliable
5123 cost estimates and confidence levels.
5124
5125 Within heavy-ion fusion, there is almost no difference in the needed research
5126 programs for direct drive and indirect drive in the near term. The beam requirements
5127 for the two options are sufficiently similar that it is not necessary to split the
5128 approaches into two TAs. At some point in the future, however, there is a key choice
5129 to be made between these two options. The existence of a Virtual National
5130 Laboratory for HIF has facilitated thinking about the program as a single TA. The
5131 multiple institutions involved in heavy ion fusion research work together closely and
5132 no institution is threatened when a major decision is made. There are enough internal
5133 advocates of various approaches to maintain innovation, but DOE should monitor this
5134 to assure that innovation remains active.
3
M.Hockaday et al., “White Paper Compilation on Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) Development,” March
30, 2011.
4-5
OCR for page 141
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5135
5136 In contrast, the competition between the various approaches for laser-driven, heavy-
5137 ion-driven, and pulsed-power-driven fusion is led by institutions, each of which
5138 advocates a different approach. The inertial fusion energy effort would benefit greatly
5139 from a joint plan together with an approach to program governance that can make
5140 difficult decisions but is able to retain the strengths of all the institutions. Virtual
5141 laboratories could well serve the decision analysis required to advance inertial fusion
5142 energy research. Two examples of such virtual laboratories are given in Box 4.2.
5143
5144
5145 Box 4.2 Virtual laboratories
5146
5147 1. The Virtual Laboratory for Technology (VLT) was created in 1999 by
5148 DOE's Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (OFES) to coordinate and
5149 represent all magnetic fusion technology activities funded by OFES. It is
5150 an on-going national activity. The scope of activities includes or has
5151 included plasma heating and fueling technologies, magnet systems, plasma
5152 facing components, fusion nuclear technologies including tritium-breeding
5153 blankets, fusion safety analysis, research on advanced materials, and
5154 fusion systems studies and analysis. A wide variety of national
5155 laboratories, universities and industry are or have been members of the
5156 VLT.
5157
5158 2. The Heavy Ion Fusion Virtual Laboratory (HIF-VL) was created in the
5159 mid-1990s. It was created with a formal agreement among LLNL, LBNL,
5160 and the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL). The director of the
5161 HIF-VL has been from LBNL since LBNL has the largest program of the
5162 three laboratories. The two deputy directors are from LLNL and PPPL.
5163 Their meetings and seminars are frequent and are handled by
5164 teleconference. LLNL representatives have offices at LBNL, which also
5165 facilitates communication.
5166
5167
5168 A virtual laboratory can facilitate difficult decisions involving programmatic
5169 direction. For example, LLNL began building a small recirculating induction
5170 accelerator while LBNL was working on the more standard linear induction
5171 accelerator. It became apparent that one could not sensibly carry out both approaches
5172 with realistic budgets, so a choice between the two was necessary. The laboratories
5173 had the requisite expertise to make a technical decision, but DOE did not, so the HIF-
5174 VL took the lead and a decision was reached. An analogous situation for lasers
5175 would be a choice between KrF and DPSSL lasers, for example. If there is not
5176 enough funding to pursue both options, a choice will have to be made. A virtual
5177 laboratory can help keep the discussion of technical decisions at the technical level
5178 and avoids non-technical considerations that can prevent optimal decisions from
5179 being reached.
5180
4-6
OCR for page 142
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5181 Conclusion 4-1: The focus of any formal inertial fusion energy program would
5182 be best served if the program were organized according to the three Technical
5183 Applications (TAs): laser systems, heavy-ion systems and pulsed power systems.
5184
5185 To accomplish this organization, several actions are recommended.
5186
5187 Recommendation 4-2: The national inertial fusion energy program should be
5188 organized according to three Technical Applications: laser systems, heavy-ion
5189 systems and pulsed power systems.
5190
5191 Recommendation 4-3: The Department of Energy should consider the
5192 establishment of virtual laboratories for each Technical Application with
5193 sufficient internal expertise for the various approaches to advance technically
5194 and maintain innovation.
5195
5196 Event-Based Roadmaps
5197
5198 Chapters 2 and 3 discussed the status of the driver options including the targets and
5199 various fusion technologies, respectively, for each approach under consideration for
5200 inertial fusion energy. In doing so, there were several general conclusions that help
5201 govern the development of a composite road map.
5202
5203 The general conclusions stated in Chapter 2 are as follows:
5204
5205 Conclusion 2-1: There are a number of technical approaches, each involving a
5206 different combination of driver, target and chamber that show promise for
5207 leading to a viable inertial fusion energy power plant. These approaches
5208 involve three kinds of target: indirect drive, direct drive, and magnetized
5209 target. In addition, the chamber may have a solid or a thick liquid first wall
5210 that faces the fusion fuel explosion.
5211 Conclusion 2-2: Substantial progress has been made in the last 10 years in
5212 advancing many of the elements of these approaches, despite erratic funding
5213 for some programs.
5214 Conclusion 2-3: In all cases, the drivers build upon decades of research in their
5215 area. Nevertheless, a substantial amount of R&D will be required to show that
5216 any particular combination of driver, target and chamber would meet the
5217 requirements of a DEMO power plant.
5218
5219 Similarly, the general conclusions in Chapter 3 are as follows:
5220
5221 Conclusion 3-1: Technology issues—e.g., chamber materials damage, target
5222 fabrication and injection, etc.—can have major impacts on the basic feasibility
5223 and attractiveness of IFE and thus on the direction of IFE development.
4-7
OCR for page 143
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5224 Conclusion 3-2: At this time, there appear to be no insurmountable technology
5225 barriers to the realization of IFE production, although knowledge gaps and
5226 large performance uncertainties remain.
5227 Conclusion 3-3: Significant IFE technology research and engineering efforts are
5228 required to identify and develop solutions for critical IFE technology
5229 performance issues.
5230
5231 Thus, each of the three TAs, as we have defined them above, has to complete certain
5232 significant milestones or "events" (e.g., ignition) before they can logically move on to
5233 the next step. What is needed is a scientific understanding of gain and target design
5234 for robust operation—not just gain. For example, (1) ignition, (2) reactor-scale gain,
5235 (3) reactor-scale gain with potential cost-effective targets and (4) reactor-scale gain at
5236 high rep rate are examples of milestone events that must be satisfactorily achieved
5237 before going on to the next step as shown below:
5238
5239 interval 1 interval 2 interval 3 interval n interval n+1
5240 -----------(event)------------(event)-----------(event)--//--------(event)-------------DEMO
5241
5242 For each interval one needs to consider:
5243 a. Significant development(s) required;
5244 b. Potential scientific and technological roadblocks;
5245 c. Required facilities, existing or new
5246 (if a new facility is needed, one must indicate when it needs to be started
5247 (CD-0; see Figure 4-1);
5248 d. Synergies with the magnetic fusion energy program; and
5249 e. Estimated costs to accomplish activities in each interval.
5250
5251 The significant events that are listed above are target/driver-centric because ignition
5252 has not yet been achieved in ICF, but target and driver concerns are not the only
5253 issues facing inertial fusion. Chambers (materials) that survive and that are
5254 economical must also be found. For laser-driven systems, optics that survive and
5255 retain their optical quality for a long time in an adverse environment must exist. The
5256 drivers not only must achieve the desired repetition rate, but also must achieve
5257 durability and reliability objectives. The cost of the drivers must be acceptable. A
5258 given TA could march relatively easily through a given set of significant science-
5259 based events, but still fail as a power plant due to technology and economic
5260 considerations.
5261
5262 Each TA will require years of research and development before a DEMO can be designed
5263 in any detail. No TA has yet demonstrated fusion gain, reactor-level driver energy at
5264 repetition rate, or chamber life. 4
5265
4
Appendix J indicates the steps required for each TA to reach the starting point of the DEMO
conceptual design. The specific steps are meant to be illustrative of the conditional requirements that
DOE should set down in its planning process—requirements that should be regularly updated based on
scientific and technological progress.
4-8
OCR for page 144
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5266 In summary, the following criteria (events) must all be satisfied before committing to
5267 a DEMO.
5268
5269 1. First and foremost, ignition must be demonstrated. Absent ignition,
5270 any IFE program will be severely limited in scope.
5271
5272 2. Modest (or adequate) gain must be demonstrated to a level relevant to
5273 that TA 5 to insure that the TA in question has a feasible technical
5274 approach to achieving high gain.
5275
5276 3. Target gain must be demonstrated at the relevant high level, which
5277 varies with each technical approach, depending on the driver efficiency.
5278
5279 A guideline, based on basic power balance considerations, is that the product
5280 of driver efficiency times the gain should be greater than or equal to 10.
5281 Obviously, having a margin on this requirement would be an advantage.
5282 Given below in Table 4.2 are estimates of driver efficiency—supported by
5283 component and sub-system tests—and goals for reactor-scale gain that are
5284 supported by theoretical modeling and computer simulations for the various
5285 approaches.
5286
5287
5288 TABLE 4.2 Driver efficiencies and the minimum gains that will be required to
5289 demonstrate the viability of reactors based on various driver technologies. The numbers
5290 in this table are only illustrative and are not meant to be definitive.
5291
Technology Approach Estimated Driver Efficiency Reactor-scale Gain
( per cent)
D x G > 10
D
Solid-state lasers 16 > 60
KrF lasers ~7 > 140
Heavy-ion beams 25-45 20-40
Pulsed power 20-50 20-50
5292
5293
5294 4. Driver life at energies corresponding to the reactor-scale gain level must be
5295 demonstrated to >107 pulses (except pulsed power, which must be demonstrated
5296 to >106 pulses) and must extend in predictable ways to 100 times greater than 107
5297 (or 106) pulses before commitment to a fusion test facility (FTF) or DEMO.
5298
5299 5. Target fabrication for each TA has to be automated at a level related to the
5300 target consumption in the FTF, and must extend predictably to the DEMO
5
The relevant gain varies with each technical approach and depends on the driver’s efficiency. See
Table 4.2
4-9
OCR for page 145
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5301 consumption level at costs consistent with a competitive cost of electricity.
5302
5303 6. Chamber design, including neutron shielding, tritium breeding, and materials
5304 survival, has to be sufficiently developed to generate a high probability of
5305 successful operation for multiple years. It is not possible to fully test the chamber
5306 design under fusion conditions short of execution of an FTF or DEMO. One of
5307 the strongest reasons for an FTF preceding a DEMO is to validate the chamber
5308 design.
5309
5310 The most appropriate ordering of the milestones in a road map will differ for different
5311 driver/target combinations.
5312
5313 Conclusion 4-2: Despite the significant advances in inertial confinement fusion,
5314 many of the technologies needed for an integrated inertial fusion energy system
5315 are still at an early stage of technological maturity. For all approaches to
5316 inertial fusion energy examined by the committee (diode-pumped lasers, krypton
5317 fluoride lasers, heavy-ion accelerators, pulsed power; indirect drive and direct
5318 drive), there remain critical scientific and engineering challenges associated with
5319 establishing the technical basis for an inertial fusion energy demonstration plant.
5320 It would be premature at the present time to choose a particular driver
5321 approach as the preferred option for an inertial fusion energy demonstration
5322 plant.
5323
5324 It is clear that reactor-scale gain must be uniquely defined for each TA since the
5325 understanding of gain involves laser-plasma interaction physics, hohlraum physics (for
5326 indirect drive only), ablation physics, instabilities and mix, symmetry control, equations
5327 of state, real-world fabrication and alignment tolerances, and temperature control.
5328
5329 Conclusion 4-3: Due to the technical complexity involved, the specific definitions of
5330 modest (or adequate) and high gain should be determined independently for each
5331 Technology Application.
5332
5333
5334 A Composite Roadmap and Decision Analysis for the Pre-Ignition Stage
5335
5336 Given that there are many variables and options to consider before being able to
5337 proceed with the conceptual design of a DEMO plant, the committee believes it
5338 would be most useful to focus on the earliest stage—namely, pre-ignition—by adding
5339 a decision-tree analysis to only this first phase of the roadmap. 6 The immediate
5340 future is the most clear, and it is also the most critical time for IFE as the NNSA
5341 program strives to demonstrate ignition. Therefore, the committee’s analysis was
5342 based on the effort at NIF in 2011 – 2012 to achieve ignition under the National
5343 Ignition Campaign (NIC). Pre-ignition contingency planning was considered in more
5344 detail, but the details have not been included here because events and NNSA’s path
6
Chapman CB, Ward S. 2003. Project risk management : Processes, techniques, and insights. 2nd ed.
Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.
4-10
OCR for page 146
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5345 forward have changed the basis for such a plan; however, the committee believes that
5346 event-based, decision tree analysis (contingency planning) is important for a complex
5347 multi-faceted program such as IFE. 7
5348
5349 Inertial confinement fusion (ICF) research has been driven by NNSA for stockpile
5350 stewardship (SSP) requirements. The decision to build the National Ignition Facility
5351 (NIF), which is designed to operate in single-shot mode and is not currently equipped
5352 to serve as a test facility for rep-rated operation or engineering tests for IFE, was
5353 based upon those requirements. NIF conducted the National Ignition Campaign
5354 (NIC) with the end objective being ignition by the end of FY2012. Having reached
5355 the end of the NIC campaign on September 30, 2012 without achieving ignition,
5356 NNSA has decided to revise the operational program for NIF. 8
5357
5358 Given the substantial investment already made in the NIF, from the NNSA
5359 perspective, laser indirect-drive is the preferred approach for stockpile stewardship if
5360 ignition with sufficient yield for the desired experiments can be achieved. When one
5361 considers the application of ICF for the production of practical electric power in the
5362 context of organizing research through an IFE program, other equally critical steps
5363 become apparent, namely achievement of reactor-scale gain, reactor-scale gain with a
5364 cost-effective target and reactor-scale gain with the required repetition rate.
5365
5366 Conclusion 4-4: The schedule for each Technical Application (TA) is driven by
5367 the time required to demonstrate certain milestones, while the composite inertial
5368 fusion energy roadmap is focused on a single DEMO. Implementation of the
5369 road-mapping process can provide a very useful tool to determine the
5370 appropriate course of action.
5371
5372 Therefore, decisions will need to be made about the continuation of individual TAs in
5373 the absence of significant progress. The dilemma, then, is the balance between the
7
To assist in its thinking about pre-ignition contingency planning across Technology Applications, the
committee prepared several detailed, hypothetical examples. The common elements are included in
the text.
8
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) released its report to Congress on December
8, 2012, entitled, “NNSA’s Path Forward to Achieving Ignition in the Inertial Confinement Fusion
Program” (herein after referred to as “NNSA Path Forward 2012 Report to Congress”). This report
represents the views of the NNSA and was prepared principally by program representatives from the
ICF laboratories and other principal contractors through participation in various working groups. The
NNSA report proposes a time-based (3-year) plan. The report describes the path forward for NIF as
requiring a transition from the NIC to a facility with greater focus on the broader scientific applications
of NIF and a priority on key questions regarding stockpile stewardship. For IFE pre-ignition efforts,
the approach advocated by the NRC committee is event-based (as opposed to time-based) and thus
might not be limited to 3 years, and might include Technology Applications not considered in the
NNSA's 3-year plan.
4-11
OCR for page 150
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5497 Even if ignition should be reached with indirect drive prior to polar direct drive’s
5498 being operational, the funding for direct drive will still be well spent, for it is
5499 desirable to test polar direct drive in the hopes of getting a higher gain (with the same
5500 drive energy) than may be possible with indirect drive. (A technical discussion of
5501 direct and indirect drive is given in Chapter 2.)
5502
5503 As discussed in Chapter 2, the energy required to achieve ignition in laser-based
5504 indirect and direct drive approaches favors direct drive. Moreover, for a fixed laser
5505 energy, the calculated gain is higher for direct drive. Nevertheless, there are important
5506 uncertainties in laser-plasma physics and implosion dynamics that must be addressed
5507 for fusion-scale targets—particularly for shock ignition. The NIF is currently a unique
5508 tool for addressing these issues, some of which could be addressed with NIF in its
5509 present configuration. Others may require modifications such as improvements in
5510 beam smoothness, or ultimately even a different illumination geometry.
5511
5512 Conclusion 4-5: There are potential advantages and uncertainties in target
5513 design as well as different driver approaches to the extent that the question of
5514 “the best driver approach” remains open.
5515
5516 Recommendation 4-7: The achievement of ignition with laser-indirect drive at
5517 the National Ignition Facility should not preclude experiments to test the
5518 feasibility of laser-direct drive. Direct drive experiments should also be carried
5519 out because of the potential of achieving higher gain and/or other technological
5520 advantages.
5521
5522 Conclusion 4-6: It is essential for the IFE program to develop reliable models
5523 and improve the level of physics understanding of the phenomena underlying
5524 experimental tests of the target physics. Knowledge gained through experimental
5525 tests should be used to validate and improve the models, so that there can be
5526 reasonable confidence that the predictions are not restricted to only the region of
5527 parameter space explored in the experimental tests. Models will be important for
5528 optimizing designs from both a technological and economic perspective.
5529
5530 Conclusion 4-7: Achieving higher gains has the potential to provide improved
5531 technical margins and potential economic advantages for the system as a whole.
5532 If calculations are confirmed, fewer targets would be needed to produce a given
5533 amount of power, or the driver repetition rate or driver energy could be
5534 reduced, thereby reducing costs.
5535
5536 TRLs for Inertial Fusion Energy
5537
5538 An important question is what facilities will need to be built to successfully reach the goals
5539 of the IFE program. Table 4.3 is based on the data provided in the prior discussions in
5540 Chapters 2 and 3 on the TAs in terms of what has been done and what is underway in IFE, as
4-15
OCR for page 151
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5541 well as what the magnetic fusion energy program provides and what needs to be done to
5542 reach the conceptual design stage of DEMO and commercial deployment of IFE. In addition
5543 to a number of smaller test facilities (IREs), it assumes that there will be an additional two
5544 major facilities: (1) a Fusion Test Facility (FTF), a staged facility with repetitively targeted
5545 D-T, high gain capsules that would bring all aspects of the technology of IFE up to the TRL
5546 6 level using a prototypical driver that would be determined by the IFE program and (2) the
5547 endpoint of the IFE development program, DEMO, which would complete the TRL process.
5548
5549 Table 4.3: Facilities/Efforts Required to Advance Fusion Energy Technologies to Various
5550 Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs)
5551
Area/TRL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Target physics Weapons OME NIF FTF DEMO
Etc.
Target GA work NIF ATFF/FTF DEMO
Manufacture HAPL
Drivers (a) Depends on system FTF DEMO
Control (b) HAPL NIF FTF DEMO
Diagnostics OMEGA, etc NIF FTF DEMO
Materials (c) MFE IFMIF FTF DEMO
Tritium breed MFE, Lab tests liquids ITER FTF DEMO
Tritium syst. JET TFTR TSTA ITER FTF DEMO
Power handlin ITER, FTF DEMO
Remote handl JET ITER, FTF DEMO
Reliability FTF DEMO
Availability FTF DEMO
Safety NIF ITER FTF DEMO
Waste handling TFTR, JET, fission facilities, ITER, FTF FTF DEMO
5552 (a) The various drivers are at different TRL levels in FY 2012. For example one might
5553 say: NIF single shot laser TRL 9; Rep rate IFE solid state Lasers: TRL 4; Heavy-ion
5554 beams: TRL 3 to TRL 6, if existing but different accelerators are taken into account;
5555 Pulsed power: TRL 5.
5556 (b) Present targets are fixed. Repetitive targeting of D-T targets on the fly will have to
5557 wait for FTF.
5558 (c) The answer depends upon which type of first wall is considered; i.e. thick liquid wall,
5559 thin liquid wall, and solid wall.
5560 NIF: National Ignition Facility; FTF: Fusion Test Facility; DEMO: Demonstration Power
5561 Plant; HAPL: High Average Power Laser Program; ATFF: Automated Target Fabrication
5562 Facility; MFE: Magnetic Fusion Energy; IFMIF: International Fusion Materials Irradiation
5563 Facility; ITER: International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor; JET: Joint European
5564 Tokamak; TFTR: Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor; TSTA: Tritium System Test Assembly
5565
5566 As shown in Table 4.3, NIF and FTF are absolutely critical to move the TAs and their
5567 technological components from TRL levels of 4 or less to 6 for the CD-0 DEMO
5568 decision process. Note also in Table 4.3 that we have assumed that certain
4-16
OCR for page 152
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5569 technologies (e.g., materials, handling, etc.) will be developed, at least in part, using
5570 existing MFE facilities, per Chapter 3.
5571
5572 Conclusion 4-8: There are several technology development areas in which there
5573 is overlap and/or synergy between magnetic fusion energy (MFE) and inertial
5574 fusion energy (IFE).
5575
5576 Recommendation 4-8: The overlap/synergies that exist between MFE and IFE
5577 technology development areas should be exploited. The Department of Energy
5578 should assure that the research program plans for IFE and MFE are
5579 coordinated and that the research results are fully shared between the two
5580 programs.
5581
5582 Cost and Funding Considerations
5583 The further one looks into the future, the more difficult it is to estimate what the
5584 appropriate budget levels should be. Not only are there variables in the budgeting
5585 process, there are also uncertainties as to the probability of achieving the research
5586 objectives and milestones identified in this report, as well as the length of time
5587 needed to achieve these milestones. What makes planning particularly difficult is the
5588 fact that three competitive approaches exist, and, ultimately only one can be selected
5589 as the Technical Application for the DEMO.
5590 Research in inertial confinement fusion is currently funded largely by NNSA and
5591 involves the weapons laboratories (LLNL, LANL, SNL), NRL, and a number of
5592 university-managed laboratories, most notably the Laboratory for Laser Energetics
5593 (LLE) at the University of Rochester and LBNL. The major experimental facilities
5594 are the laser facilities NIF (LLNL), OMEGA (LLE) and NIKE (NRL), and the pulsed
5595 power system Z at SNL. The weapons laboratories and a number of universities house
5596 smaller facilities. A Virtual National Laboratory for Heavy Ion Fusion Science
5597 consisting of LBNL, LLNL, and the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory undertakes
5598 the heavy-ion fusion program; its present work is focused on high-energy-density
5599 physics and heavy ion fusion science, and is funded by the DOE Office of Fusion
5600 Energy Sciences. The magnetized target fusion approach is studied by LANL and the
5601 Air Force Research Laboratory. 12
5602 Previous funding sources for inertial fusion energy R&D have been diverse and have
5603 included Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) funds at the
5604 NNSA laboratories [e.g., Laser Inertial Fusion Energy (LIFE) and pulsed power
5605 approaches], direct funding through the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (e.g., heavy
5606 ion fusion, fast ignition, magnetized target fusion), and Congressionally-mandated
5607 funding. Beginning in FY1999, Congress directed the initiation of the High Average
5608 Power Laser Program (HAPL), to be managed by NNSA. The HAPL program was an
5609 integrated program to develop the science and technology for fusion energy using
12
See Chapter 2 for more discussion on the activities at these institutions.
4-17
OCR for page 153
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5610 laser direct drive. Initially focused on the development of solid-state and KrF laser
5611 drivers, HAPL then expanded to address all of the key components of an inertial
5612 fusion energy system, including target fabrication, target injection and engagement,
5613 chamber technologies and final optics, and tritium processing.
5614 Currently, by far the largest support for inertial confinement fusion comes under the
5615 NNSA Stockpile Stewardship program that supports LLNL's activities (including
5616 NIF), the program on the OMEGA laser at the University of Rochester, the use of
5617 KrF lasers at NRL, and Sandia’s pulsed power efforts on the Z facility. Within this
5618 NNSA program, the major focus was the National Ignition Campaign (NIC) at NIF.
5619 The NIC carried out a 200-shot program on the NIF managed by LLNL. The
5620 sequence of shots was focused on a stepwise progression in driver beam power and
5621 intensity, including shock timing, optical focus, mix and target-hohlraum geometries.
5622 The schedule called for the 200-shot NIC program to culminate in ignition by the end
5623 of FY 2012. As discussed in Box 1.2 and Appendix I, ignition was not achieved by
5624 the end of the NRC.
5625
5626 Conclusion 4-9: While there have been diverse past and ongoing research efforts
5627 sponsored by various agencies and funding mechanisms that are relevant to IFE,
5628 at the present time there is no nationally coordinated research and development
5629 program in the United States aimed at the development of inertial fusion energy
5630 that incorporates the spectrum of driver approaches (diode-pumped lasers,
5631 heavy ions, krypton fluoride (KrF) lasers, pulsed power, or other concepts), the
5632 spectrum of target designs, or any of the unique technologies needed to extract
5633 energy from any of the variety of driver and target options.
5634
5635 Conclusion 4-10: Funding for inertial confinement fusion is largely motivated by
5636 the U.S. nuclear weapons program, due to its relevance to stewardship of the
5637 nuclear stockpile. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) does
5638 not have an energy mission and--in the event that ignition is achieved--the NNSA
5639 and inertial fusion energy (IFE) research efforts will continue to diverge as
5640 technologies relevant to IFE (e.g., high-repetition-rate driver modules, chamber
5641 materials, mass-producible targets) begin to receive a higher priority in the IFE
5642 program.
5643 The largest technology component of the NNSA stockpile stewardship budget deals
5644 with target physics. Based on information provided to the committee, this support
5645 appears to be around $260 million per year. 13 At this stage the objectives for target
5646 physics of the NNSA’s inertial confinement fusion program are relevant to the inertial
5647 fusion energy program. While NNSA will continue to have an interest in target
5648 physics research after ignition is achieved, it will become less critical to meeting
5649 national security objectives, and there will be less overlap with the needs for IFE. For
5650 example, an IFE target may need to have a higher yield than what NNSA would
5651 normally be interested in, and NNSA might not be interested generally in certain
13
Presentation to the committee by Jeffrey Quintenz, “Status of the National Ignition Campaign and
Plans Post-FY 2012,” February 22, 2012, San Diego, California.
4-18
OCR for page 154
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5652 approaches. Accordingly, NNSA is unlikely to undertake technology research of sole
5653 relevance to fusion energy (e.g., chambers).
5654 Conclusion 4-11: If a coordinated national program in inertial fusion energy is
5655 established, one of the first orders of business will be to resolve responsibility
5656 and budgeting for target physics work, understanding that the needs for the
5657 inertial fusion energy program diverges from those for stockpile stewardship.
5658 While existing NNSA facilities (NIF, Z, OMEGA) are critical to the inertial fusion
5659 energy effort, this report has stated that, in order to reach the CD-0 stage for a DEMO
5660 plant, other facilities will need to be built, and these, in turn, must also go through the
5661 various project phases and decisions (CD-0 through CD-4). The largest and most
5662 important precursor facility for inertial fusion energy is the Fusion Test Facility
5663 (FTF). As evident from the preceding discussion, the design of the FTF should begin
5664 at a propitious time in order to start tritium operations of the FTF in a timely manner
5665 and to have data for input to the DEMO project decision process.
5666 Conclusion 4-12: Existing facilities (NIF, Z, OMEGA, NDCX-II, HCX, NIKE,
5667 and Electra) will play critical roles in advancing the Technical Applications
5668 (TAs) and their technological components from Technical Readiness Levels
5669 (TRLs) of 4 or less to TRL level 6 for the CD-0 DEMO decision process. In
5670 addition, to have a successful national IFE program, adequate funds are
5671 required to implement one or more Integrated Research Experiments (IREs), at
5672 least one Fusion Test Facility (FTF), and the upfront costs for the DEMO design.
5673
5674 Based on these considerations, Table 4.4, based on the inputs to Chapters 2 and 3,
5675 provides a rough outline of the near-term programmatic funding requirements if an
5676 inertial fusion energy program were to proceed in a two-step ramping process with
5677 annual budgets of at least $50 million after ignition is attained and some $90-$150
5678 million after ignition plus modest gain has been demonstrated. Table 4.5 indicates an
5679 order-of-magnitude estimate of the future minimum capital cost requirements for an
5680 inertial fusion energy program.
5681 Table 4.4: Estimated Near-Term Inertial Fusion Energy Roadmap Development Cost
5682 Forecast, After Ignition 14
5683 Technology Application Annual Budget (2012$ in millions)
5684 Post Ignition Post Ignition/Modest Gain
5685 DPSSL/KrF Lasers 15 20-30 16 40-60 17,18
14
The values given are capital/development costs and do not include operating costs.
15
Information from the February 22, 2012, presentation by Michael Dunne, LLNL, and subsequent
communications.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
4-19
OCR for page 155
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5686 HIF ~10 20-30
5687 Pulsed Power ~10 10-20
5688 Technology Development 10-20 20-40
5689 Totals 50-70 90-150
5690 It is difficult to provide an overall, programmatic cost estimate since there are several
5691 major uncertainties that have to be resolved, such as the length of time required to
5692 reach the decision on DEMO, the ability to successfully complete milestones in a
5693 timely fashion, the extent to which each Technology Application will be pursued, the
5694 number of Integrated Research Experiments that will be required, and whether more
5695 than one Fusion Test Facility will be built. In 2003, the Fusion Energy Sciences
5696 Advisory Committee (FESAC) made a combined magnetic fusion energy and inertial
5697 fusion energy programmatic cost estimate. 19 Based upon that report and the LIFE
5698 point design forecast, 20 the committee’s order-of-magnitude estimate for facility
5699 capital costs, subject to the DOE G 413.3-4 process, are provided in Table 4.5.
5700 Table 4.5: Estimated Inertial Fusion Energy Roadmap Facility Capital Cost
5701 Forecast 21,22,23
5702 Facility Cost
5703 NIF upgrade (polar drive) 50-60 24,25
5704 NIF upgrade (spherical drive) 26 Unknown 27IRE
5705 300-775
5706 FTF 3,100-4,750
5707 DEMO 6,250-9,500
18
This is the estimated annual cost over three years to build and commission the single beam line laser
source for LIFE
19
FESAC: Fusion Development Panel, "A Plan for the Development of Fusion Energy," March 2003.
20
T. Anklam, et al “LIFE: the Case for Early Commercialization of Fusion Energy,” Fusion Science
and Technology, Vol. 60, pp 66-71 (July 2011).
21
All given values include a 25% contingency.
22
All numbers in millions of dollars. All numbers have been escalated from 2002$ to 2012$ using the
Office of Management and Budget’s GDP (Chained) Price Index (estimate for 2012), except for the
NIF upgrade (polar drive) which is given in as-spent dollars.
23
All costs are capital costs and are subject to the DOE G 413.3-4 process.
24
Cost for the procurement of unique hardware, optics, and controls systems.
25
“Polar Drive Ignition Campaign Conceptual Design,” LLNL TR-553311, submitted to NNSA in
April 2012 by LLNL and revised and submitted to NNSA by LLE in September 2012.
26
If needed to obtain high gain. Some of this cost might be covered as part of the stockpile
stewardship program if sufficient gain is not obtained with indirect drive.
27
The committee is unaware of any detailed cost estimate for this upgrade. The cost would depend on
the options chosen. For instance, if it was deemed desirable to retain both spherical and polar drive
capability (by adding an equatorial beam), the committee presumes the cost would be in the hundreds
of millions of dollars. On the other hand, repositioning the existing beams would presumably cost
much less, but would narrow the options available to researchers.
4-20
OCR for page 156
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5708
5709 The reader should note that the capital cost estimates presented in Tables 4.4 and 4.5
5710 above are early-stage estimates, and, as such, such estimates for future technology
5711 facilities often prove to be underestimates.
5712 The Need for a National Inertial Fusion Energy R&D Program
5713 In addition to target science, there are deep science issues embedded in what is
5714 usually labeled "technology" (e.g., chambers) involving a broad range of scientific
5715 disciplines including: nuclear and atomic physics, materials and surface science, and
5716 many aspects of engineering science. In the next several years, the IFE program will
5717 probably not be involved in engineering development but rather in science and
5718 engineering research aimed at attempting to determine if feasible solutions exist to
5719 very challenging "technology" problems.
5720 An organized program that encompasses all technology options most effectively
5721 determines the roadmap to an inertial fusion energy DEMO plant. Only such a
5722 program will have a broad enough view to ultimately identify the most promising IFE
5723 DEMO design(s).
5724 The committee recognizes how challenging and complex the unresolved issues are
5725 and how much remains to be accomplished and understood if IFE is to become a
5726 practical energy source. Each potential driver and target combination has advantages
5727 and disadvantages, technologies are evolving rapidly, and scientific challenges
5728 remain. If the nation intends to establish inertial fusion energy as part of its energy
5729 R&D portfolio, it is clear that both science and technology components must be
5730 addressed in an integrated and coordinated effort.
5731 The roadmap concept put forward by this committee carries forward all IFE
5732 approaches to some point, at which an off-ramp or continuation decisions are made.
5733 Should the National Ignition Facility achieve ignition with indirect drive and the
5734 nation decide to pursue inertial fusion energy, the required research and development
5735 to pursue IFE as a practical energy option, plus the R&D that NNSA is likely to
5736 support for stockpile stewardship applications, will begin to diverge. In this case, a
5737 nationally coordinated inertial fusion energy R&D program would be needed to
5738 pursue a broad-based roadmap. Inertial fusion energy is an integrated concept, whose
5739 overall probability of success depends on the success of several individual items. If
5740 one component fails a physics test or fails to be cost-effective, the system fails,
5741 regardless of whether or not reactor-scale ignition and gain are reached.
5742 There has been considerable discussion within the committee as to the timing for—
5743 and the extent of—a technology development element, as described in Chapter 3
5744 (chambers, target fabrication, etc.), as part of the early phase(s) of the IFE program.
5745 The committee recognizes that absent ignition within the physics element of the
5746 program, technology would be of limited value as part of the early phase(s) of the IFE
5747 program. There are several reasons to establish a technology element even in the
5748 earliest phases of the IFE program.
4-21
OCR for page 157
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5749 A program is needed that attempts to answer whether there is any IFE Technology
5750 Application that appears to be practical as well as economically viable. Only certain
5751 combinations of targets, drivers and chambers seem to be possible in this sense.
5752 While the emphasis today and in the near future should be on scientific issues related
5753 to driver and target performance, working only on these problems could easily lead to
5754 solutions that are not compatible with practical commercial driver and chamber
5755 options. Such a serial approach can lead to dead ends and will also extend the time
5756 scale to the possible practical implementation of IFE.
5757 Technology R&D is not done in a vacuum and certain answers from the technology
5758 research will be beneficial to the overall IFE program in its earlier phases. The
5759 design of a Fusion Test Facility and DEMO cannot be accomplished absent critical
5760 technology developments even in conceptual stages. If the IFE program is to
5761 continue advancing, there must be supporting technology developments all along the
5762 event paths. And, perhaps most importantly, if there is to be a meaningful IFE
5763 program, it is vital that there be a skilled workforce to investigate the myriad of
5764 technology problems over the coming decades. These trained technical experts will
5765 not be available unless there is meaningful and challenging R&D for them to carry
5766 out early on. That will be possible only if there is a long-term sustained technology
5767 element in the IFE program. Such a program element can be enhanced if synergistic
5768 opportunities between the magnetic fusion energy and inertial fusion energy programs
5769 are identified and incorporated into both programs.
5770 Conclusion 4-13: The appropriate time for the establishment of a national,
5771 coordinated, broad-based inertial fusion energy program within DOE is when
5772 ignition is achieved.
5773 Conclusion 4-14: There is a compelling need for a sustained, long-term
5774 engineering science and technology component in a national inertial fusion
5775 energy program.
5776
5777 Such a program would require a sustained effort initially devoted primarily to
5778 improved understanding of target physics—particularly the relationship between
5779 absorbed energy and gain. Once the target physics is understood, modest gain has
5780 been achieved and there is confidence that reactor-scale gain can be achieved,
5781 funding would then be ramped up and devoted primarily to technology development
5782 of the three Technical Applications, including target manufacture, driver modules,
5783 chamber design, and materials. Technical Application (driver) down select should
5784 occur as part of the technology development phase. The committee’s order of
5785 magnitude estimate to accomplish this in a two step approach is given in Table 4.4.
5786
5787 Recommendation 4-9: An engineering science and technology development
5788 component should be included in a national inertial fusion energy program.
4-22
OCR for page 158
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5789 Conclusion 4-15: The National Ignition Facility (NIF), designed for stockpile
5790 stewardship applications, is also of great potential importance for advancing the
5791 technical basis for inertial fusion energy (IFE) research.
5792 For a national IFE program, it can be utilized for ignition optimization, demonstration
5793 of reactor-scale gain, and reactor-scale gain with more cost-effective targets, as the
5794 target physics of direct drive and indirect drive advance technically. Furthermore,
5795 modification of NIF to accommodate polar direct drive would not preclude further
5796 experiments with indirect drive. This also appears to be consistent with the NNSA
5797 strategy following completion of the National Ignition Campaign (NIC). 28
5798 Recommendation 4-10: Planning should begin for making effective use of the
5799 National Ignition Facility as one of the major program elements in an assessment
5800 of the feasibility of inertial fusion energy.
5801 With the approach described here, there needs to be a serious discussion about how
5802 such a program should be managed. Certainly it is the prerogative and responsibility
5803 of DOE to make such a decision. However, in the interests of cost-effectiveness and
5804 efficiency, the committee is of the opinion that a single programmatic office should
5805 be established. The committee recognizes that, for an extended period, some overlap
5806 will likely continue with programs needed for stockpile stewardship, but that an early
5807 effort will be required to facilitate the transition to a national IFE program and to
5808 minimize the potential for some overlap.
5809
5810 Conclusion 4-16: At the present time, there is no single administrative home
5811 within the Department of Energy that has been invested with the responsibility
5812 for administering a National Inertial Fusion Energy R&D program.
5813 Recommendation 4-11: In the event that ignition is achieved on the National
5814 Ignition Facility or another facility, and assuming that there is a federal
5815 commitment to establish a national inertial fusion energy R&D program, the
5816 Department of Energy should develop plans to administer such a national
5817 program (including both science and technology research) through a single
5818 program office.
5819 It is expected that this would facilitate the management and planning of a focused,
5820 coordinated, cost effective national program, the development of the necessary
5821 technologies, and eventual down-selection among driver options and target designs. A
5822 single program office would also facilitate the transition of the national IFE program
5823 from a science- and technology-based R&D program in the near term to an
5824 engineering-based development program in the long term.
5825 In the interim, while IFE is being funded by several offices, it is important to utilize
5826 to the maximum extent possible existing facilities in the NNSA and Office of Fusion
28
J. Quintenz, NNSA, in a presentation to the committee on February 22, 2012, and “Polar Drive
Ignition Campaign Conceptual Design,” LLNL TR-553311, submitted to NNSA in April 2012 by
LLNL and revised and submitted to NNSA by LLE in September 2012.
4-23
OCR for page 159
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5827 Energy Sciences programs to minimize costs as much as possible. This will also be
5828 true if a national IFE program is established.
5829
5830
5831
4-24
OCR for page 160
PREPUBLICATION COPY--SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5832
5833
5834 APPENDIXES
5835
5836
A-1
