Comments related to FESAC burning plasma recommendations

1
Comments related to FESAC burning plasma
recommendations

• S.C. Prager
• University of Wisconsin
• January, 2003
• not speaking on behalf of FESAC burning plasma
  panel

2
Topics

• Why a dual path strategy?
• Why a time deadline for ITER negotiations?
• Why core program part of FESAC plan?
• Fusion program without a BPX or a 35 year plan?

3
Fusion program priorities pre-1995

1. ITER
2. TPX
3. TFTR
4. The core program (only tokamaks)

ITER future uncertain decision hoped for
1998 Burning plasma experiment desired Core
program subordinate no non-tokamaks
4
The restructured fusion program(1996)

• Basic plasma science and technology
• Configuration innovation and optimization
• Burning plasma science

core
need both core and burning plasma program,
now. core is the foundation (including key fusion
science issues, non-tokamaks as well as
tokamaks) Plan robust to fusion program size
5
A timely, dual-path strategy for a BPX optimizes
the chance for realization

• Dual path advance both ITER and FIRE
• try ITER first
• Timely set time deadline (or guideline) for
  ITER negotations

6
Why timed? Why dual-path?

• A BPX is scientifically urgent
• A BPX is programmatically urgent
• The ITER negotiation outcome is highly uncertain
• (and has been for many years, for external
  reasons)
• Our BPX strategy should be robust to an ITER
  no-go
• ITER and FIRE are both attractive options for a
  BPX
• A time deadline and FIRE option encourages a
  positive ITER conclusion to negotiations

7
The dual path strategy

1. Convey the need for a burning plasma program
2. Promote the two options
3. Pursue ITER first, fully
4. If ITER no-go, proceed strongly with FIRE

A strategy of 3-only increases risk without
benefit
8
Why is core program part of FESAC BP plan?

• Core program fusion science issues are as
  critical as burning plasma science.

e.g., turbulent transport materials macrostabili
ty current sustainment techniques configuratio
n optimization

• Core program needed to support BPX

e.g. Theory diagnostic development experimental
support human resources
9

• Core program funding is currently too small to
  support its mission
• The core program should be increased as we begin
  the burning plasma program

10
What if the ITER or FIRE are not funded
now?(i.e., not on a 35 year plan)

• The fusion program will be unbalanced, progress
  impeded, DEMO delayed, less attractive to young
  scientists

• But, the remaining core program would
• address key fusion issues
• likely produce new discoveries, breakthroughs
• advance toward fusion power
• attract young scientists