UFA small title image

[Home] [Education] [News] [Links] [Member Information] [Download] [Feedback] [Announcements] 


Dear Colleagues,

This letter contains the following news items:





AGENDA FOR THE UFA MEETING AT THE APS

The UFA meeting will be held 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM on Monday November 11 
in  Salon 1-2, Rosen Centre Hotel.

We have the following speakers:

Dr. Anne Davies (Associate SC Director for Fusion Energy Sciences, DOE): 
"Perspective from OFES"

Prof. Steward Prager (University of Wisconsin): “Strategy for a Burning 
Plasma  Experiment.”

Prof. Robert Goldston (Director, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory): ”The 
FESAC Panel on the Fusion Development Path - Status and an Opportunity for 
Input.”

Dr. John Lindl (Fusion Energy Program Leader, LLNL): ”Summary of IFE 
conclusions from Snowmass and other developments in IFE.”



PROGRESS TOWARDS A BURNING PLASMA EXPERIMENT:

This summer the US fusion community has been very busy considering the 
questions associated with a possible burning plasma experiment (BPX).  For 
two weeks in July 280 fusion scientist met at Snowmass for the Fusion 
Summer Study organized by Gerald Navratil, Ned Sauthoff, and Roger 
Bangerter to consider three possible fusion experiments: ITER, FIRE and 
IGNITOR for MFE and to do planning for IFE.  In August, with the results of 
the Snowmass meeting in hand, a fusion energy advisory committee (FESAC) 
panel of about 45 US fusion researchers, chaired by Steward Prager, met in 
Austin to develop a US strategy for building a BPX.  The results from this 
panel were reported to FESAC on September 11.  At this meeting FESAC was 
given a new charge to develop a plan to put fusion on the Grid in 35 
years.  Rob Goldston is chairman of this new panel and more information 
will be reported about this panel in a later UFA News email.

The following is my personal assessment of the Snowmass meeting.  The 
Snowmass meeting was a very successful meeting.  One of the strongest 
results of the meeting is that magnetic fusion research is definitely ready 
to successfully execute a burning plasma experiment.  Both ITER and FIRE 
were endorsed as having the capabilities needed for the required burning 
plasma experiment.  However, ITER was recognized as having more capacity to 
develop fusion technology and to develop advanced tokamak 
physics.  Therefore, the development paths for ITER and FIRE are somewhat 
different.  Most people also recognized that, at the moment, getting 
funding for ITER appears more likely.
The Snowmass meeting was less confrontational than expected in the MFE part 
of the meeting.  It seemed that almost everyone understood the value of a 
tokamak based burning plasma experiment, the real limitations of the pulsed 
tokamak as a power reactor, and the need for a BPX to test and develop 
advanced tokamak (AT) ideas. Almost everyone also recognized the need for 
advances in innovative confinement concepts (ICC), in theory and 
computation, and in technology before practical fusion power can be 
realized.  The education from previous UFA workshops and from the large 
amount of preparation for the meeting were key to the success of the meeting.

Reports from the Snowmass meeting can be found on the FIRE web site: 
http://fire.pppl.gov/snowmass02.html

The following is my personal assessment of the results of the FESAC panel 
on a strategy for a BPX: Based on the results from Snowmass the strategy is 
that the US should try to join the ITER negotiations and become a full or 
junior partner depending on the amount of the additional funding made 
available.  If ITER fails to go forward then we should proceed with 
FIRE.  The panel also stated that the rest of the fusion program must be 
strengthened to realize the full value from a BPX and to speed progress 
towards practical fusion power.

The report of the FESAC panel is on the OFES web site: 
http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/More_HTML/FESAC/Austinfinal.pdf





STATUS OF FY 03 FUSION FUNDING by Mark Haynes (General Atomics)

To briefly recap: both the House and Senate Appropriations committees have 
passed out their respective versions of the FY 03 Energy and Water 
Development spending bill. Neither the full House nor full Senate has taken 
up the bills. The House bill contains $248,495,000 for fusion energy 
sciences and $498 million for ICF which includes $25 million for high 
average power lasers and $4 million for petawatt laser development. The 
Senate Bill contains $259,310,000 million for fusion energy sciences and 
$487,293,000 for ICF which includes $13 million for petawatt development 
and $4.5 million for university grants and other support.
So, what's going to happen? In brief, no one knows. As most of you have 
heard, the Congressional budget process has ground to an inglorious halt in 
the wake of a very high stakes election season and wrangling about overall 
budget levels. The government is already functioning on a continuing 
resolution and it seems to be certain that few, if any of the 13 regular 
appropriations bills (including Energy and Water) will be passed before the 
election in November.

This leaves several BIG questions unanswered before the "little" questions 
like fusion funding can be answered: What will be the assumptions and 
instructions contained in the last continuing resolution passed before the 
election? Will there be a lame duck session of Congress? If there's a lame 
duck session, will it pick up the Appropriations. bills where they left 
off, pass another continuing resolution, or start again from scratch? What 
can be worked out in terms of overall spending levels and how does that 
trickle down to the Energy and Water bill? The answers to the last two 
questions are highly dependent on the outcome of the election and whether 
the Democrats retain control of the Senate and the Republicans retain 
control of the House.

So, there is a great deal of turbulence here and the diagnostics don't seem 
to be giving us useful data. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, even in the face of this huge uncertainty, you should still take 
a minute to call your representative and / or Senator's office to briefly 
renew the acquaintance, enquire about the status of funding and gently 
remind them about the importance and timeliness of fusion research."




Regards,
Tom Jarboe
President of UFA