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
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
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
Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2018 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. 2018. 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.
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.
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.
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, 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, 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 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
BOARD ON PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY
BARBARA V. JACAK, NAS,1 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Chair
ABRAHAM LOEB, 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, NAS, 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, NAS, 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 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
Preface
In January 2003, President George W. Bush announced that the United States would begin negotiations to join the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (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.”1 In 2007, the United States became an ITER member after signing a binding international agreement with China, the European Union, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, 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 2016 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 fiscal year (FY) 2018. 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 U.S. re-evaluate its participation in the ITER project to assess if it remains in our best interests to continue our participation.”2
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.”3
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.
___________________
1 George W. Bush: Fact Sheet: ITER, January 30, 2003. Available online by G. Peters and J.T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu1/ws/?pid=80124.
2 U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Participation in the ITER Project, Report to Congress, Washington, D.C., May 2016, p. ii.
3 Ibid., p. 16.
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 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.
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 D. Blandford, NAS,1 Stanford University,
Richard Buttery, General Atomics,
James D. Callen, NAE,2 University of Wisconsin, Madison (retired),
Steve Cowley, Corpus Christi College,
Robert Iotti, ARC Nuclear,
Johnathan E. Menard, Princeton University,
Ann White, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and
Steven J. Zinkle, NAE, 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 J. Rieke, NAS, 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.
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
2 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
This page intentionally left blank.
This page intentionally left blank.