National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Interim Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24971.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Interim Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24971.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Interim Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24971.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Interim Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24971.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Interim Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24971.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Interim Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24971.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Interim Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24971.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Interim Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24971.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Interim Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24971.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Interim Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24971.
×
Page R10

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.

PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION INTERIM REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR U.S. BURNING PLASMA RESEARCH Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research Board on Physics and Astronomy Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences A Consensus Study Report of

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by the Contract No. DE-SC0013488 from the Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/24971 Copies of this publication are available free of charge from Board on Physics and Astronomy National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Copyright 2017 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested Citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Interim Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24971. PREPUBLICATION COPY–SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. PREPUBLICATION COPY–SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo. PREPUBLICATION COPY–SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

COMMITTEE ON A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR U.S. BURNING PLASMA RESEARCH MICHAEL MAUEL, Columbia University, Co-Chair MELVYN SHOCHET, NAS,1 University of Chicago, Co-Chair CHRISTINA BACK, General Atomics RICCARDO BETTI, University of Rochester IAN CHAPMAN, UK Atomic Energy Authority CARY FOREST, University of Wisconsin, Madison T. KENNETH FOWLER, NAS, University of California, Berkeley JEFFREY FREIDBERG, Massachusetts Institute of Technology RONALD GILGENBACH, University of Michigan WILLIAM HEIDBRINK, University of California, Irvine MARK HERRMANN, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory FRANK JENKO, University of California, Los Angeles STANLEY KAYE, Princeton University MITSURU KIKUCHI, National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology SUSANA REYES, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory C. PAUL ROBINSON, NAE,2 Advanced Reactor Concepts, LLC PHILIP SNYDER, General Atomics AMY WENDT, University of Wisconsin, Madison BRIAN WIRTH, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Staff JAMES C. LANCASTER, Director DAVID LANG, Senior Program Officer, Study Director ANDREA PETERSON, Program Officer (until August 2017) CHRISTOPHER J. JONES, Program Officer NEERAJ GORKHALY, Associate Program Officer LINDA WALKER, Program Coordinator HENRY KO, Research Associate BETH DOLAN, Financial Associate 1 NAS, National Academy of Sciences. 2 NAE, National Academy of Engineering . PREPUBLICATION COPY–SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION v

BOARD ON PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY BARBARA V. JACAK, NAS,1 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Chair ABRAHAM LOEB, NAS, Harvard University, Vice Chair FRANCIS J. DISALVO, NAS, Cornell University TODD DITMIRE, University of Texas, Austin NATHANIEL J. FISCH, Princeton University DANIEL FISHER, NAS, Stanford University WENDY FREEDMAN, NAS, University of Chicago GERALD GABRIELSE, Harvard University JACQUELINE N. HEWITT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology WENDELL T. HILL III, University of Maryland ALAN J. HURD, Los Alamos National Laboratory BARBARA JONES, IBM Almaden Research Center HERBERT LEVINE, Rice University LYMAN A. PAGE, JR., NAS, Princeton University STEVEN M. RITZ, University of California Santa Cruz Staff JAMES C. LANCASTER, Director DAVID B. LANG, Senior Program Officer CHRISTOPHER J. JONES, Program Officer NEERAJ GORKHALY, Associate Program Officer LINDA WALKER, Program Coordinator HENRY KO, Research Associate BETH DOLAN, Financial Associate 1 NAS, National Academy of Sciences. PREPUBLICATION COPY–SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vi

Preface In January 2003, President George W. Bush announced that the United States would begin negotiations to join the ITER project and noted that “if successful, ITER would create the first fusion device capable of producing thermal energy comparable to the output of a power plant, making commercially viable fusion power available as soon as 2050.” In 2007, the United States became an ITER member after signing a binding international agreement with China, the European Union (EU), India, Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), and Russia. The United States and the other ITER members are now constructing ITER with the aim to demonstrate that magnetically confined plasmas can produce more fusion power than the power needed to sustain the plasma. This is a critical step towards producing and delivering electricity from fusion energy. Since the international establishment of the ITER project, ITER’s construction schedule has slipped and ITER’s costs have increased significantly, leading to questions about whether the United States should continue its commitment to participate in ITER. These concerns resulted in a directive from Congress, appearing in the FY2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, that the Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE) report to Congress on United States participation in the ITER project, including budget projections, project schedule, project management, and foreign policy implementations. The Secretary’s report was delivered to Congress in May 2016 and recommended that the United States remain a partner in the ITER project through FY2018. The report acknowledged the significant construction progress made at ITER and the substantial improvements of ITER project management but also noted that significant technical and management risks remain. It remains to be seen whether the United States will continue its ITER membership beyond FY2018 as well as whether project performance will be sustained and the larger costs needed for U.S. obligations for ITER construction can be accommodated in future budgets for the DOE Office of Science. The Secretary’s report stated that prior to the FY2019 budget submittal, “the United States re-evaluate its participation in the ITER project to assess if it remains in our best interests to continue our participation.” In addition to outlining various oversight and management reviews to ensure continued improvement in ITER project performance, the Secretary’s report requested advice from the National Academies “to perform a study of how to best advance the fusion energy sciences in the United States, given the developments in the field since the National Research Council study in 2004, the specific international investments in fusion science and technology, and the priorities for the next ten years developed by the community and the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) that were recently reported to Congress. This study will address the scientific justification and needs for strengthening the foundations for realizing fusion energy given a potential choice of U.S. participation or not in the ITER project, and will develop future scenarios in either case.” PREPUBLICATION COPY–SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vii

In response to this request, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine established the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. The committee’s statement of task is given in Appendix B. The statement of task requests the preparation of this interim report prior to submission of strategic guidance that will be developed later and presented in a final report. Although the committee has not yet completed its work guiding the long-term fusion research strategies in both scenarios, in which the United States is, or is not, a member in ITER, the committee has completed its assessment of the current status of U.S. fusion research and of the importance of burning plasma research to the development of fusion energy as well as to plasma science and other science and engineering disciplines. This interim report is based on the information the committee received in its first two meetings (see Appendix C), from review of a large number of prior reports and studies, which includes DOE’s Project Execution Plan for U.S. Contributions to ITER Subproject-1 released in January 2017 (see Appendix D), and from the first of two community workshops on strategic directions for U.S. magnetic fusion research held at the University of Wisconsin–Madison from July 24 through July 28, 2017. Having completed its assessment of the status and importance of U.S. burning plasma research, the committee anticipates that the final report will present strategies that incorporate continued progress toward a burning plasma experiment and a focus on innovation. The committee will receive input from the second community workshop on strategic directions for U.S. magnetic fusion research to be held at the University of Texas–Austin, December 11-15, 2017, and several site visits. Additionally, a subcommittee of the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) to the DOE Office of Science is expected to complete its report shortly, identifying “the most promising transformative enabling capabilities for the United States to pursue that could promote efficient advance toward fusion energy.” To the extent possible, the committee’s final report will include considerations of the health of fusion research sectors within the United States, the role of international collaboration in the pursuit of national fusion energy goals, the capability and prospects of private-sector ventures to advance fusion energy concepts and technologies, the impact of science and technology innovations, and the design of research strategies that may shorten the time and reduce the cost required to develop commercial fusion energy. PREPUBLICATION COPY–SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION viii

Acknowledgment of Reviewers This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, 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 thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Roger Blandford, Stanford University, Richard Buttery, General Atomics, James D. Callen, University of Wisconsin, Steve Cowley, Corpus Christi College, Robert Iotti, ARC Nuclear, Johnathan Menard, Princeton University, Ann White, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Steven Zinkle, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Marcia Rieke, University of Arizona, and William Dorland, University of Maryland, College Park. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. PREPUBLICATION COPY–SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION ix

Contents SUMMARY 1 1 BACKGROUND 6 2 THE COMMITTEE’S INFORMATION-GATHERING PROCESS 12 3 IMPORTANCE OF BURNING PLASMA RESEARCH 14 4 STATUS OF U.S. RESEARCH THAT SUPPORTS BURNING PLASMA SCIENCE 22 5 ASSESSMENTS 33 6 TOWARD COMPLETION OF THE FINAL REPORT 38 APPENDIXES A WHAT IS MAGNETIC FUSION? 41 B STATEMENT OF TASK 44 C AGENDAS FROM COMMITTEE MEETINGS 46 D PREVIOUS STUDIES OF MAGNETIC FUSION ENERGY AND STRATEGIES FOR FUSION ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CONSULTED BY THE COMMITTEE 48 PREPUBLICATION COPY–SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION x

Next: Summary »
Interim Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

In January 2003, President George W. Bush announced that the United States would begin negotiations to join the ITER project and noted that “if successful, ITER would create the first fusion device capable of producing thermal energy comparable to the output of a power plant, making commercially viable fusion power available as soon as 2050.” The United States and the other ITER members are now constructing ITER with the aim to demonstrate that magnetically confined plasmas can produce more fusion power than the power needed to sustain the plasma. This is a critical step towards producing and delivering electricity from fusion energy.

Since the international establishment of the ITER project, ITER’s construction schedule has slipped and ITER’s costs have increased significantly, leading to questions about whether the United States should continue its commitment to participate in ITER. This study will advise how to best advance the fusion energy sciences in the United States given developments in the field, the specific international investments in fusion science and technology, and the priorities for the next ten years developed by the community and the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) that were recently reported to Congress. It will address the scientific justification and needs for strengthening the foundations for realizing fusion energy given a potential choice of U.S. participation or not in the ITER project, and develops future scenarios in either case.

This interim report assesses the current status of U.S. fusion research and of the importance of burning plasma research to the development of fusion energy as well as to plasma science and other science and engineering disciplines. The final report will present strategies that incorporate continued progress toward a burning plasma experiment and a focus on innovation.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!