In the final report just released, titled "An Assessment of the Department of Energy's Office of Fusion Energy Sciences Program," the report authors state, "Fusion research carried out in the United States under the sponsorship of the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (OFES) has made remarkable strides over the years and recently passed several important milestones." They state, "The Committee concludes, therefore, that the quality of the science funded by the United States fusion research program in pursuit of a practical source of power from fusion (the fusion energy goal) is easily on a par with the quality in other leading areas of contemporary physical science." The committee report states , "A strong case can also be made that a program organized around critical science goals will also maximize progress toward a practical fusion power source," though nowhere in the report do they make that case. The 19-member "Fusion Science Assessment Committee" was chaired by Dr. Charles Kennel, Director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego.
The Committee addresses fusion issues under three topics: (1) Assessment of Quality: Scientific Progress and the Development of Predictive Capability, (2) Program Development: Plasma Confinement Configurations and (3) Institutional Considerations: Interactions of the Fusion Program With Allied Areas of Science and Technology. Although the title of the report might lead one to believe that the entire OFES program was assessed, the preface of the document makes the following disclaimers: "The report focuses on the science of magnetically confined plasma and the programmatic strategy for long-term progress in this area, but it does not directly address inertially confined plasmas . . . . Also, this assessment does not directly address issues surrounding specific technology development and engineering research sponsored by the program . . . . because the committee chose to focus on elements of the program related to basic plasma physics research."
The Committee makes 7 "primary recommendations:"
1. Increasing our scientific understanding of fusion-relevant plasmas should become a central goal of the U.S. fusion energy program on a par with goal of developing fusion energy technology, and decision making should reflect these dual and related goals.
2. A systematic effort to reduce the scientific isolation of the fusion research community from the rest of the scientific community is urgently needed.
3. The fusion science program should be broadened in terms of both its institutional base and its reach into the wider scientific community; it should also be open to evolution in its content and structure as it strengthens its research portfolio.
4. Several new centers, selected through a competitive, peer-review process and devoted to exploring the frontiers of fusion science, are needed for both scientific and institutional reasons.
5. Solid support should be developed within the broad scientific community for U. S. investment in a fusion burning experiment.
6. The National Science Foundation should play a role in extending the reach of fusion science and in sponsoring general plasma science.
7. There should be continuing broad assessments of the outlook for fusion energy and periodic reviews of fusion energy science.
The Committee acknowledges that "Consonant with its charge, the committee has not taken up the many critical-path issues associated with basic technology development for fusion, nor has it looked at the engineering of fusion energy devices and power plants, yet it is the combined progress made in science and engineering that will determine the pace of advancement toward the energy goal."
The entire report has been posted at http://fire.pppl.gov