The DOE Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) Fusion Task Force
(FPN99-15,
19,
22,
27)
issued its Final Report August 9. It is a somewhat revised
version of its July 9 draft report
(FPN99-28).
A PDF file of this report
can be requested from Richard Burrow (richard.burrow@hq.doe.gov) and is
posted on the SEAB web site
(http://www.hr.doe.gov/seab).
The report can also be accessed at
http://www.fusionscience.org/FETfinal.pdf
SYNOPSIS
In its report, the Task Force states, "It is the Task Force's view that the
threshold scientific question -- namely, whether a fusion reaction
producing sufficient net energy gain to be attractive as a commercial power
source can be sustained and controlled -- can and will be solved. The time
when this achievement will be accomplished is dependent, among other
factors, on the creativity of scientists and engineers, skill in
management, the adequacy of funding, and the effectiveness of international
cooperation."
The Task Force says, "Nonetheless, there remain significant barriers to the
realization of fusion as a significant contributor to the worldâs energy
supply. Progress requires advancing fundamental scientific knowledge
(from controlling turbulence, to optimizing the magnetic-field
configuration, to enhancing the fusion power gain), resolving very
difficult materials issues (e.g., developing a vessel that can withstand
high temperatures and intense neutron flux), finding answers to difficult
engineering challenges (e.g., constructing a reliable and repairable
system), and proving economic feasibility (solving these problems in a
manner that does not make fusion prohibitively expensive). Many years of
persistent effort will be required to overcome these challenges. In spite
of the extended effort and expense that will be required, the fusion
program deserves continued support because of its unique energy potential.
Constraints on supply and limits on the atmospheric loading of combustion
products will eventually require that we diminish our reliance on fossil
fuels. Because of this reality, the Department is wisely advancing a
portfolio of energy technologies to meet future energy needs. Indeed, in
light of the promise of fusion and the risks arising from increasing
worldwide energy demand and from eventually declining fossil energy supply,
we simply cannot afford to fail to pursue fusion energy aggressively."
Magnetic Fusion
With respect to the Magnetic Fusion Energy (MFE) program, the Task Force
said that they endorse the "revised focus of the program" away from a
"nearly exclusive focus on the achievement of fusion energy in tokamaks to
a broader program that would also explore scientific foundations and other
confinement approaches." They said "OFES (DOE Office of Fusion Energy
Sciences) has begun to expand the fusion portfolio and it should be
encouraged to continue this effort." They said, "It is our view that the
Department must participate in international activities that enhance our
fusion effort. Communication with the Congress on these points is
essential."
Inertial Fusion
With respect to Inertial Fusion (IFE), the Task Force says, "As is the case
for MFE, progress in inertial fusion has been remarkable. The scientific
basis of inertial fusion has progressed to the point where the driver and
pellet requirements to achieve ignition are known to high confidence and
are within reach." The Task Force noted that "Some considerations favor
heavy ion beams as the driver technology for IFE." But, they said, "Given
the immature state of the technology, it is not appropriate at this time to
select only one driver technology for continued exploration." They also
said that reactor studies "should continue to be used as guides in
establishing the direction and balance of research efforts, as well as to
establish goals that constitute thresholds for further investment."
Balance and Funding
With respect to "balance and funding," the Task Force said, "OFES alone can
not dictate the overall direction of the (world fusion) effort and, as a
result, it should not be expected that the overall fusion program will be
balanced solely in terms of the energy objective. Rather, OFES should be
expected to use its program to leverage activities undertaken elsewhere (in
the world and in DOE Defense Programs) to assure effective collaboration
and coordination and to establish world leadership in selected niche
areas." They said, "In light of the promise of fusion, the Task Force
concludes that the funding for fusion energy is now subcritical." They
said, "Given the large DP (DOE Defense Programs) program in inertial fusion
research, only a relatively modest increase in the OFES budget is needed to
support the IFE activities that should be funded by the OFES program --
endeavors which address issues of significance to the energy objective and
which are not supported by DP." They said, "Since the present funding is
barely adequate to sustain the restructured MFE program, and since OFES is
the sole steward of MFE, any significant increases in IFE funding within
OFES should come from an increment to the present budget. Moreover, DP
should dedicate funds to dual-purpose activities, consistent with DP's
mission statement, that exploit the synergy between the defense work and
IFE science. For example, DP might appropriately take the lead in the
development of high-average-power lasers because of DP's very significant
involvement and accomplishments in the laser field."
Strategy, Management, and Structure
The Task Force states, "While very significant progress in scientific
understanding of plasma and fusion device behavior has been achieved, the
DOE fusion program finds itself at a crossroads. The program is perceived
to lack a strategy and programmatic focus. In fact, the restructuring may
have created an impression of ambivalence about whether energy or science
should dominate the agenda. The frequent guidance by Congress to the
Department should be seen as signs that Congress does not have confidence
in the program management." The Task Force notes that "As a result of the
many thoughtful reviews of the program, augmented (by) the community's
efforts, progress on developing a programmatic strategy is underway." They
say, "Efforts to define a sensible path leading to a substantial energy
contribution from fusion should be given continuing emphasis." They say,
"It is crucial that this planning encompass the identification and timely
resolution of the important engineering and economic problems that must be
overcome if fusion energy is to be a practical energy source."
The Task Force says, "To achieve its goal, the program must be directed by
strong management -- a management that leads the effort toward the fusion
energy goal at reasonable pace, with sufficient budget, with solid
accountability, and high-quality science and technology." They say,
"Management should seek to restore credibility by articulating clear and
sensible milestones and goals and to deliver on them." They state, "Given
constrained budgets, the wide variety of options, and the linkages of one
issue to another, increasingly sophisticated management of the program will
be required."
The Task Force calls for "the application of new management tools and
techniques." They say, "Given the complex nature of the fusion effort, an
integrated program planning process is an absolute necessity." They say,
"Proper management of the fusion program requires a comprehensive planning
system that: provides visibility of program activities; provides the means
to manage by performance; encourages fundamental, innovative scientific
research; drives resource planning; provides linkage of accomplishments to
goals; establishes accountability; encourages the development of trained
personnel; describes activity interrelationships, and aids in integration
among the base programs in OFES and DP and the fusion energy goal of
practical fusion energy."
The Task Force states, "Management of the fusion energy effort is
complicated by the fact that there is a separation of the magnetic (fusion
program) and main locus of the inertial confinement effort in different
parts of the Department. This structure serves as an impediment to the
establishment of a coherent and integrated program to pursue fusion energy.
Although practical constraints no doubt inhibit major shifts in structure,
some strengthened means for overall coordination should be established.
One possible approach, for example, is to give both the responsibility and
authority for integration of the "virtual" combined program to a Deputy
Undersecretary (who might also have responsibility for integrating other
energy technology programs as well)."
Other Issues
The Task Force also commented on the following "Other Issues:" Materials,
Plasma Science, Manpower, Engineering and Computer Simulation. With
respect to Engineering, they stated, "While, given the state of knowledge,
the program should now focus on developing the scientific underpinnings for
fusion energy, the engineering challenges are also immense and early
planning for them is warranted."
Conclusion
In a Conclusion section, the Task Force states, "The fusion program is in a
state of transition and extensive self-examination in the aftermath of the
restructuring and as a result of declining funding. Nonetheless, the Task
Force believes that the foundation for a vibrant and valuable program is
being created. Given the promise of the technology and the significant
scientific advances, continuing support and efforts to strengthen the
program are warranted."