National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25331.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25331.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25331.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25331.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25331.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25331.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25331.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25331.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25331.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25331.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25331.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25331.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25331.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25331.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25331.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25331.
×
Page R16

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 FINAL 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 PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

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. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25331 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. Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25331. 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 A. 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 Texas at Austin & Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics 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 GREG EYRING, Senior Program Officer, Study Director (from May to August 2018) CHRISTOPHER J. JONES, Program Officer, Study Director (from August 2018) NEERAJ P. GORKHALY, Associate Program Officer LINDA WALKER, Program Coordinator HENRY KO, Research Associate BETH DOLAN, Financial Associate DAVID LANG, Senior Program Officer, Study Director (until May 2018) ANDREA PETERSON, Program Officer (until August 2017) 1 Member, National Academy of Sciences. 2 Member, National Academy of Engineering. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION v

BOARD ON PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY BARBARA V. JACAK, NAS, 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 CHRISTOPHER J. JONES, Program Officer, NEERAJ P. GORKHALY, Associate Program Officer LINDA WALKER, Program Coordinator HENRY KO, Research Associate BETH DOLAN, Financial Associate DAVID LANG, Senior Program Officer ANDREA PETERSON, Program Officer (until August 2017) PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vi

Preface Following decades of scientific research, including the successful production of 11 MW fusion power in the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor experiment in the United States and 16 MW in the Joint European Tokamak in the United Kingdom, an international agreement to build and operate a burning plasma experiment was formalized in Paris with the signing of the Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint Implementation of the ITER Project in November 2006. The signatories of the ITER agreement—the United States, China, the European Union, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation—are building the world’s largest international scientific research facility, called ITER. When construction is complete, scientists will share in the operation and results of ITER; create, study, and control burning plasma; and demonstrate fusion power production at least 10 times greater than the power needed to sustain the plasma. This will be a scientific and technical achievement and a critical step toward producing and delivering electricity from fusion energy. Since the international establishment of the ITER project, an international design review was completed in 2008; ITER construction began in 2010; and ITER became the first-of-its-kind, licensed, basic nuclear fusion facility in 2012. However, by 2013, ITER’s construction schedule had slipped, and ITER’s costs had increased significantly, leading to questions of whether the United States should continue its commitment to participate in ITER. These concerns resulted in a directive from Congress, appearing in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, that the Secretary Energy report to Congress on U.S. 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 in ITER project management. The Secretary’s report also stated that ITER appears to be technically achievable and is the best candidate today to demonstrate sustained burning plasma. Although fusion power holds the possibility of providing abundant energy, the Secretary’s report noted that significant technical and management risks remain before the project will be completed and recommended “the U.S. 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 of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,1 as follows: To perform a study of how to best advance the fusion energy sciences in the U.S., given the developments in the field since the last Academy studies 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 1 Effective July 1, 2015, the institution is called the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. References in this report to the National Research Council are used in a historical context identifying programs prior to July 1. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vii

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. In response to this request, the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research was established. The committee’s statement of task is given in Appendix A. The statement of task requested the preparation of two reports. The first, an interim report, was released on December 21, 2017, and is reprinted in Appendix I. It presented the committee’s 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. For this report, the second and final report, the committee was asked to provide guidance on a strategic plan for a national program of burning plasma science and technology research given the U.S. strategic interest in realizing economical fusion energy in the long term. Strategic guidance was to be provided in two separate scenarios in which the United States is, or is not, a member in ITER. The committee was also asked to consider the health of the domestic fusion research sectors (universities, national laboratories, and industry), participation by U.S. scientists in international activities, and what role international collaboration should play over the next 20 years. This report represents the consensus of the committee after seven meetings (see Appendix B for the meeting agendas). The first two meetings informed preparation of the interim report. The final five meetings were devoted to the scientific and technical bases for a variety of strategic elements under consideration within the United States and to improve understanding the strategic plans for Europe, China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. The committee visited the two major fusion research facilities within the United States; toured the superconducting magnet facility at Poway, California, where the large ITER central solenoid magnets are being manufactured; and learned first-hand of the European fusion energy strategy during a visit to the ITER construction site. Additionally, the committee heard about the fusion energy strategies of the two largest privately funded fusion ventures within the United States from Bob Mumgaard, chief executive officer of Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) and Michl Binderbauer, president and chief technology officer of TAE Technologies. The committee is very grateful for the input from two weeklong community workshops on Strategic Directions for U.S. Magnetic Fusion Research, hosted by the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in July 2017 and by the University of Texas, Austin, in December 2017. These workshops were highly successful, involved hundreds of researchers across the country, and provided the committee with several dozen technical documents on the scientific and engineering challenges and opportunities associated with advancing magnetic confinement fusion as an energy source. The committee appreciates the tremendous effort of the U.S. fusion energy research community in providing expert input. We are especially grateful for the leadership of the workshop co-chairs, David Maurer, Jon Menard, Hutch Neilson, and Mickey Wade. Several important findings became apparent during the committee’s deliberations, and they are detailed in its two reports. First, the programmatic focus on preparing for ITER experiments has resulted in tremendous progress in the understanding and prediction of a burning plasma. By way of well- instrumented experiments, advanced theory, and state-of-the-art computer simulation, the international community of fusion scientists is much more ready to carry out burning plasma experiments in ITER today than when the Burning Plasma Assessment Committee released its report2 in 2004. Confidence that ITER will achieve its scientific mission has improved. Second, the pace of advancing technology has been rapid, and numerous technology breakthroughs, some of which developed independently from fusion, appear to offer a viable pathway to lower the cost and shorten the time required to demonstrate fusion power. These technologies were described in a report of the subcommittee of the U.S. Department 2 National Research Council, 2004, Burning Plasma: Bringing a Star to Earth, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION viii

of Energy’s (DOE’s) FESAC on Transformative Enabling Capabilities (TEC) Toward Fusion Energy, released in February 2018. The FESAC report identified technologies, especially including high magnetic field and critical temperature superconductors and advanced materials and manufacturing, with the potential to transform fusion power systems to become more economically attractive for commercialization. The application of these new technologies to fusion energy, when combined with the significant progress in understanding the complex processes within a magnetized burning plasma, are the underpinnings for the committee’s strategic guidance for a cost-attractive pathway to fusion power. During the committee’s study, we received encouragement and support from many individuals to whom we are indebted; these include Jim Van Dam of DOE’s Office of Fusion Energy Sciences; Nat Fisch, member of the National Academies Board on Physics and Astronomy; Bill Dorland, chair of the National Academies Plasma Science Committee; and James Lancaster, director of the Board on Physics and Astronomy. The committee is also grateful to the following physicists and engineers who made important technical contributions to the preparation of the interim and final reports: Mohamed Abdou, Hans-Henrich Altfeld, Amitava Bhattacharjee, Bernard Bigot, Richard Buttery, Tony Donné, Gianfranco Federici, Phil Ferguson, Stefan Gerhardt, Chuck Greenfield, Martin Greenwald, Sibylle Guenter, Richard Hawryluk, Dave Hill, Amanda Hubbard, Yong-Seok Hwang, Thomas Klinger, Mike Jaworski, Sam Lazerson, Gyung-Su Lee, Jiangang Li, Tim Luce, David Maurer, Jon Menard, Yuichi Ogawa, Stewart Prager, Soren Prestemon, Juergen Rapp, Ned Sauthoff, Oliver Schmitz, Ed Synakowski, Tony Taylor, Mickey Wade, Dennis Whyte, and Mike Zarnstorff. On a more personal note, we would like to express our sincere appreciation to all members of the committee for their dedicated efforts for more than a year in the preparation of both reports. We are especially grateful to Stanley Kaye, Philip Snyder, Brian Wirth, and Amy Wendt who took leadership in the drafting of the chapters of the final report. We would also like to express our appreciation to the staff of the National Academies, particularly to David Lang and Christopher Jones, for their advice and highly professional guidance in the final preparation of the interim and final reports. We are truly indebted to them for their insights and extraordinary contributions throughout the committee’s study process. Michael E. Mauel and Melvyn Shochet, Co-Chairs Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION ix

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: Richard Buttery, General Atomics, James D. Callen, NAE,1 University of Wisconsin, Madison, Sibylle Guenter, Max Planck Institute of Plasma Physics, Joseph Hezir, EOP Group, Inc., Robert Iotti, ARC Nuclear, Steven E. Koonin, NAS,2 New York University, Jonathan Menard, Princeton University, David Petti, Idaho National Laboratory, Anne 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 Martha P. Haynes, NAS, Cornell University. 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 Engineering. 2 Member, National Academy of Sciences. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xi

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 Background Committee Approach Community and Expert Input Assessments from the Interim Report Structure of the Final Report Notes 2 PROGRESS IN BURNING PLASMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2-1 Research Progress in Support of ITER Plasma Confinement Predictions Plasma Stability and Operational Boundaries Energetic Particle Physics Mitigation of Transients and Abnormal Events Fusion Technology and Engineering Science Research Progress Beyond ITER Toward Fusion Electricity Plasma Exhaust Physics Driving Plasma Current Integrated Burning Plasma Configurations Three-Dimensional Magnetic Fields and Stellarators Theory and Simulation at the Exascale Transformative Enabling Technologies Advanced Algorithms High Temperature Superconductors Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Fusion Blanket Research and Tritium Fuel Cycle Fusion Safety Integrated Systems Engineering for Fusion Summary Notes 3 EXTENDING THE FRONTIER OF BURNING PLASMA RESEARCH 3-1 The Importance of Burning Plasma Research Understanding and Controlling a Burning Plasma Advancing Fusion Technology and Engineering Science The Importance of ITER to the U.S. to the Fusion Research Program United States Partnership in ITER Construction U.S. Research in Support of ITER Burning Plasma Science U.S. Contributions to Fusion Technology Preparing for ITER’s Scientific Mission PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xiii

Extending ITER Performance Understanding Plasma Confinement at the Scale of a Power Plant Exploring and Controlling a Burning Plasma Developing an Alternate Approach without ITER Participation Summary Notes 4 ADVANCING MAGNETIC FUSION TOWARD AN ECONOMICAL ENERGY SOURCE 4-1 Previously Studied Pathways to Commercial Fusion Energy A Compact and Lower-Cost Pathway to Fusion Electricity High-Magnetic Field Strength for Compact Fusion Plasma Power Handing for Compact Fusion Achieving Steady Uninterrupted Operation for Compact Fusion The Technology Pathway to Economical Fusion Power High-Critical-Temperature Superconducting Magnets Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Methods Enabling Technologies for Heating, Measurement, Plasma Control, and Safe Maintenance Blanket and Tritium Fuel Cycle Research Pre-Pilot-Plant Research Program for the Compact Fusion Pathway Systems-Engineering for a Compact Fusion Pilot Plant Advanced Materials Modeling for Fusion Technology Large-Bore, High-Field HTS Magnets for Fusion Developing Long-Lifetime Materials for Fusion Advancing Tritium Science and Blanket Technologies Fusion Neutron Irradiation Facility Sustaining High-Power Density Fusion Plasmas with Optimized Plasma Exhaust Theory and Simulation Stellarator Contributions to Compact Fusion Energy Fusion Enabling Technologies for Plasma Heating, Current Drive, Measurement and Control and Safe Maintenance of Core Components Summary Notes 5 STRATEGIC GUIDANCE FOR A NATIONAL PROGRAM FOR BURNING 5-1 PLASMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ITER: Extending the Frontiers of Burning Plasma Science Beyond ITER: Setting the Nation’s Fusion Energy Goal Toward Fusion Electricity: The Compact Fusion Pilot Plant 2020-2035: Removing the Barriers to Low-Cost Fusion Development Extending the Frontier of Burning Plasma Science Sustaining High Fusion Power Density with High Plasma Confinement Power Exhaust Solutions for High-Power Density Fusion Systems Large-Bore High-Temperature Superconducting Coils Materials that Deliver High Performance and Long Lifetime Blanket Systems that Breed Tritium and Extract High Quality Heat Effective Leadership and Participation in the ITER Research Program Maintaining Readiness to Move to Next Steps After ITER Fusion Science Predictive Modeling and Exascale Computing Promoting Discovery in Fusion Energy Science and Technology Responding to a United States Decision to Withdraw from the ITER Project Sustaining the National Program PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xiv

Budget Implications Notes 6 COMMENTS ON ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND PROGRAM BALANCE 6-1 Organizational Structure and Program Management Expanding the OFES Organization to Meet Program Needs Adopting a Long-term Strategy Toward a Fusion Energy Goal Strengthening Community Organization and Input Further Strengthening of United States Fusion Research Setting Safety and Licensing Standards for Fusion Energy Research Facilities Health of the U.S. Fusion Program International Partnerships Private Sector Relationship Between Private Sector and National Goals Linkages to Other Science and Technology Disciplines Public Outreach Summary Notes APPENDIXES A Statement of Task A-1 B Agendas for Committee Meetings and Site Visits B-1 C Strategic Planning for U.S. Burning Plasma Research from 2000 to 2018 C-1 D Bibliography of Previous Studies Consulted by the Committee D-1 E Published Technical References Consulted by the Committee E-1 F Summary of Input Received from the Fusion Community F-1 G Major Research Facilities of the United States and Other Nations G-1 H Schedule and Budget Implications H-1 I Reprinted Interim Report I-1 J Biographies of Committee Members J-1 K Glossary and Acronyms K-1 PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xv

PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION xvi

Next: Executive Summary »
Final Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $65.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Fusion offers the prospect of virtually unlimited energy. The United States and many nations around the world have made enormous progress toward achieving fusion energy. With ITER scheduled to go online within a decade and demonstrate controlled fusion ten years later, now is the right time for the United States to develop plans to benefit from its investment in burning plasma research and take steps to develop fusion electricity for the nation’s future energy needs. At the request of the Department of Energy, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine organized a committee to develop a strategic plan for U.S. fusion research. The final report’s two main recommendations are: (1) The United States should remain an ITER partner as the most cost-effective way to gain experience with a burning plasma at the scale of a power plant. (2) The United States should start a national program of accompanying research and technology leading to the construction of a compact pilot plant that produces electricity from fusion at the lowest possible capital cost.

  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!