Fusion Energy Advisory Committee Research Articles

Report of the FEAC Inertial Fusion Energy Review Panel: July 1996

This report presents the results and recommendations of the U. S. Department of Energy Fusion Energy Advisory Committee (FEAC) review of its Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) program. The subpanel charged with the review was chaired by John Sheffield of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The FEAC, to which the subpanel reported, was chaired by Robert Conn of the University of California at San Diego.

Report from the Planning Workshop for the Fusion Energy Sciences Program

Sixty representatives of the fusion community and the Department of Energy met October 22-24, 1996 in a workshop to chart the short and medium term future of the nation's fusion energy science program. The fusion scientists represented nearly all the institutions and scientific areas covered by the fusion program. Plans were crafted to implement the goals of the restructuring recommended last winter by the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee. The workshop refined the vision of the fusion program, articulated the accomplishments expected over the next 5 years, suggested changes in organizational methodology, reaffirmed the U.S. community's commitment to ITER and agreed to participate in the international collaborative process beyond the Engineering Design Activities toward construction, described future roles for the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory as a national laboratory, and produced the beginning of plans for education and outreach to the larger scientific community and public. Each of these items is discussed below: Taken as a whole, they represent a sea change for the U.S. fusion program. This change was embraced by the workshop attendees. It forms the basis for a fusion and plasma science program which will continue to reap far-reaching benefits to the nation in the near term, and progress toward a renewable and attractive energy source for mankind in the long term. It is expected that the new program will be enduring. It is based upon principles which will evolve, but not be overturned, as the nation's energy and science needs evolve.

The fusion science research plan for the major U.S. Tokamaks: Advisory Report prepared by major facilities review panel, scientific issues subcommittee, and Fusion Energy Advisory Committee

This article is a response to the Office of Energy Research of the US DOE from the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee on a review of major US magnetic confinement facilities. This response was solicited in response to one of the suggestions made as part of the advisory report `A Restructured Fusion Energy Sciences Program` submitted to the US DOE in early 1996.

Alternative concepts: A report to the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee

This article is a response to the Office of Energy Research of the US DOE from the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee on a review of alternate concepts for magnetic confinement devices. This response was solicited in response to one of the suggestions made as part of the advisory report `A Restructured Fusion Energy Sciences Program` submitted to the US DOE in early 1996. The committee was asked to specifically respond to the concept of sperical tokamaks, and to offer suggestions for investment strategies for funding alternate concepts.

Report of the FESAC Inertial Fusion Energy review panel

This article is a response to the Office of Energy Research of the US DOE from the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee on a review of the Inertial Fusion Energy Program. This response was solicited in response to one of the suggestions made as part of the advisory report `A Restructured Fusion Energy Sciences Program` submitted to the US DOE in early 1996. The charge directed that the committee provide an assessment of the content of an inertial fusion energy program that advances the scientific elements of the program and is consistent with the Fusion Energy Sciences Program, and budget projections over the next several years.

A restructured fusion energy sciences program: Advisory report

This Report was prepared to provide recommendations on how to restructure the fusion program in the light of congressional guidance and budgetary realities. It is a response to a charge to the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee to provide advice to the Office of Energy Research of the US DOE. The report is prepared with the objective of restructuring the fusion program`s strategy, content and near- to medium-term objectives, assuming a constant level of effort in the base program. It provides considerations on participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor and other international collaborations, in addition to institutional considerations. It also looks at the broader issues of plasma science which underpin fusion energy, and applications in science, technology and industry.

Focus on Basic Plasma Science

In the article “Fusion plan gathers steam” describing the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing on restructuring the fusion energy program ([22 Mar., p. 1660][1]), Andrew Lawler quotes me as “warn[ing] that the lack of small-scale university fusion experiments is keeping young people from entering the field.” While this statement is likely correct, it was not part of my written testimony nor my remarks at the hearing. As co-chair of a recent National Research Council (NRC) study, Plasma Science: From Fundamental Science to Technological Applications (National Academy Press, 1995), I focused my remarks on small-scale basic research in plasma science. Of all of the areas considered in the NRC study, this was found to be the area of plasma science most in need of support. Because the fusion program is the largest nondefense user of plasma science, the study recommended that the program provide increased support for research in the underlying basic science. Rather than being a critic of the new Department of Energy (DOE) program, I am pleased to say that both the report of DOE's Fusion Energy Advisory Committee, and the testimony of Martha Krebs at the hearing, indicate that they recognize the need to increase support for basic plasma science. Krebs, director of the Office of Energy Research, outlined DOE's plans to significantly increase funding for basic plasma science, beginning in fiscal year 1997, which will be an important step in remedying the current situation. [1]: /lookup/volpage/272/1660a

Fusion Energy Advisory Committee (FEAC): Panel 7 Report on Inertial Fusion Energy

The charge to FEAC Panel 7 on inertial fusion energy (IFE) is encompassed in the four articles of correspondence. To briefly summarize, the scope of the panel`s review and analysis adhered to the following guidelines. (1) Consistent with previous recommendations by the Fusion Policy Advisory Committee (FPAC) and the National Academy of Science (NAS) panel on inertial fusion, the principal focus of FEAC Panel 7`s review and planning activities for next-generation experimental facilities in IFE was limited to heavy ions. (2) The panel considered the three budget cases: $5M, $10M, and $15M annual funding at constant level-of-effort (FY92 dollars), with a time horizon of about five years. (3) While limiting the analysis of next-generation experimental facilities to heavy ions, the panel assessed both the induction and rf linac approaches, and factored European plans into its considerations as well. (4) Finally, the panel identified high-priority areas in system studies and supporting IFE technologies, taking into account how IFE can benefit from related activities funded by the Office of Fusion Energy and by Defense Programs. This report presents the technical assessment, findings, and recommendations on inertial fusion energy prepared by FEAC Panel 7.

Fusion energy advisory committee (FEAC): Panel 6 report on the neutron-interactive materials (NIM) program

Fusion energy advisory committee (FEAC): Panel 6 report on the neutron-interactive materials (NIM) program

Reports of the DOE Fusion Energy Advisory Committee (FEAC), 1991?1992

The FEAC was established in 1991 by DOE director of energy research William Happer, Jr. to provide the department with advice and guidance on directions and priorities for the U.S. fusion energy program. FEAC tasks are assigned to it via a [open quotes]charge letter[close quotes] from the director of energy research. Its procedure has been then to establish panels to address the questions contained in the charge letter. The panels are composed of a mix of FEAC members and other experts appointed by FEAC. The FEAC members are appointed by DOE, with rotating membership. The FEAC panels submit their reports to FEAC, which then decides whether or not to accept the panel's report. FEAC then composes its own letter report to the DOE director of energy research. This letter report is the official report of FEAC to DOE; the panel reports become background input to FEAC. This issue contains the official FEAC letter reports in this article. The charge to the panel was to address options relative to termination of support for BPX. 1. Identify how available funds now used for BPX, as well as a modest increase could be used to strengthen the existing base program for magnetic fusionmore » research. 2. Within the above envelope of funding, identify what follow-on experimental devices for the U.S. fusion program might be planned for use after the completion of experiments at TFTR and before the planned start of ITER operation. For such devices, indicate how they would fit into the international fusion program. 3. What should be the U.S. position on the appropriate scope, timing, and mission of ITER if BPX does not go forward« less

Fusion energy advisory committee report on program strategy for U.S. magnetic fusion energy research

The Fusion Energy Advisory Committee (FEAC) was charged by the Department of Energy (DOE) with developing recommendations on how best to pursue the goal of a practical magnetic fusion reactor in the context of several budget scenarios covering the period FY 1994-FY 1998. Four budget scenarios were examined, each anchored to the FY 1993 figure of $337.9 million for fusion energy (less $9 million for inertial fusion energy which is not examined here).