October 25, 1996

Recipients of this FPN should take note that, as indicated in FPN-20, I did not participate in the Fusion Community Retreat, having been dis-invited by DOE at the last moment. This note provides you with the best information I have on what transpired at the retreat. It should not be considered a substitute for the official version that may be issued later.

The retreat took place in Leesburg, VA, October 22-24. Approximately 50 persons attended at the invitation of DOE Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (OFES) chief N. Anne Davies. The description of the overall agenda and first day's activities were as described in FPN-20. Based on statements made to the group by representatives of OMB, OSTP and the House Science Committee, the participants appeared to take as gospel that the fusion budget would be no more than flat for the foreseeable future. Mike Knotek, Battelle Northwest Pacific Laboratories served as overall coordinator for the retreat. Knotek also served as chairman of the FEAC subcommittee that prepared the famous fusion "Restructured Program Strategy." Participants said that Knoted did "a good job." The retreat participants broke into four working groups at the end of the first day. The groups were chaired, respectively, by Tom Simonen (GA), Dave Baldwin (GA), Hutch Neilson (ORNL and PPPL), and Dick Briggs (SAIC). As indicated in FPN-20, the questions posed to the working groups were "What are the major issues facing the fusion program?" and "Where do we want the program to be in the next 5 (and 10) years?" Although the working groups worked independently (with occasional plenary session progress reports), several participants told me that the conclusions of the groups were "remarkably similar."

A first order of business apparently was to re-affirm a belief and commitment to the principles of the Restructured Program Strategy. Little or no dissent was heard on this, although some reservations were expressed as to how DOE/OFES was either interpreting or implementing those principles. As might be expected, all the Working Groups (with various phraseology and detailed differences) asserted that a major goal of the program over the next 5-10 years should be "a comprehensive understanding and predictive capability of plasmas." Much detail was provided as to exactly the areas of plasma science of interest. The groups also endorsed attention to finding "innovative fusion concepts with cost-effective development paths." Very little detail, and almost no examples, were given as to what would be done to achieve this. The overwhelming consensus was that an eventual attractive energy source, and not science for the sake of science, should be the goal of the program. In this context, the Groups all reported supporting continued pursuit of "burning plasma physics" in the context of ITER or, if ITER is not built, through other international collaborations. The Groups also appeared to support the recent FESAC report (FPN-17R, and FPN-18) recommending maintaining efforts in technology and systems studies. Also in keeping with the recent FESAC report, the Groups at least acknowledged the legitimacy of the Inertial Fusion Energy component of the program, although there is still no sign of real enthusiasm for this pathway, probably because most of the participants are working on magnetic fusion. The Groups did, however, mention the ignition achievement expected from the inertial fusion National Ignition Facility, something that DOE Director of Energy Research Martha Krebs forgot to mention in her own vision statement that was distributed at the recent FESAC meeting.

Two topics that were popular with the participants were the need to create better links between plasma science and other branches of science, and an almost paranoid preoccupation with the future of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. The imminent shutdown of the TFTR at Princeton is believed to place the Laboratory at risk and many scientists at many sites seem to want to take responsibility for suggesting what programs should be there in the future. Although there was much discussion of the future roles of universities and laboratories, as far as I can tell the word "industry" was never mentioned during the retreat.

The results of the retreat are being written up in the form of a letter to Martha Krebs, followed up by a somewhat longer summary document. The letter is being drafted by Anne Davies, Mike Knotec, Dave Baldwin, Tom Simonen, Hutch Neilson, Dick Briggs, Stewart Prager ("representing the universities") and Mohamed Abdou ("representing technology"). The draft letter is supposed to circulate early next week. An "official" summary will be delivered at one of the sessions of the American Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics in Denver the week of November 11.

For more information, contact: Stephen O. Dean