[Home]
[Education]
[News]
[Links]
[Member Information]
[Download]
[Feedback]
[Announcements]
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
|
* U N I V E R S I T Y F U S I O N A S S O C I A T I O N
|
* News and Information Dec 17 2003
|
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
website: http://depts.washington.edu/ufa/home.html
CONTENTS:
1. Recent Fusion News and Planning for 2004
// ----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Recent Fusion News and Planning for 2004
// ----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the last few months, several things have been unfolding:
- The FY04 FES appropriation was agreed in conference (264M, a 6.8M
increase)
- ITER negotations have been moving forward
- The NRC Report "Bringing a Star to Earth" was released
- ITER was identified #1 priority (among 28 science projs) by the DOE OS
- Responding to the NRC, a FESAC Panel has been formed to formulate key
fusion science questions and to prioritize around these questions
(see attachments and links below)
The fusion program will undergo change as we move into what is being
referred to as the "ITER Era". Managing the change on a scientific basis
will need tending.
It is therefore a good time right now for us to contact our congressional
representatives and thank them for taking the time to hear us out and for
their support in the 04 deliberations. It would also be opportune to
brief them on the developments above and how we envision the fusion
program going forward in the ITER era in an optimal way. And to brief
them on our scientific progress in the last year.
(see Mark Haynes' email on this topic, below, and more detail therein)
Several reports, including the NRC Report, have consistently concluded
that the fusion program as restructured with its emphasis on plasma
science, fusion science and technology, innovation and optimization, is
the optimal way to achieve the long term goal of fusion energy. These
reports also identified a burning plasma experiment as the crucial missing
element in the program. If ITER goes forward, the missing element will
begin to be addressed. At the same time, the other crucial legs of the
program will need to be pursued vigorously to maintain the optimal
scientific strategy towards fusion energy.
Like every year, we will have a Fusion Day in the Spring, after the 05
budget is released. This year our presence on the Hill will be especially
important in light of the changes anticipated in the fusion program. In
the 04 budget deliberations, many of us had interactions with staffers on
the Hill where we emphasised the crucial role played by the domestic
program and why an ITER initiative would have to be done in an augmented
budget to maintain an optimal scientific strategy. For this and all the
above reasons, now or at the earliest opportunity is a good time to
contact our representatives. Fusion Day or other later contacts will
prove more fruitful if the groundwork is laid now and consistently.
The following information is attached below:
1. Memo from Mark Haynes on contacting your representatives
2. DOE Facilities for the Future Report
3. Charge to FESAC on Priorities in the fusion program
4. Some info on the FESAC Priorities Panel
5. ITER Negotiations News (Dec 5 2003)
1. Memo from Mark Haynes on contacting your representatives
=============================================================
>From haynes@GA.com Tue Dec 16 17:57:21 2003
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:41:56 -0500
From: Mark Haynes
Subject: Fusion Update
The purpose of this memo is to encourage you to contact your Congressional
offices during the next couple of weeks to thank them for their support in
this particularly important year for the fusion program, and to provide
them with an update on the current situation with regard to the ITER
project.
These contacts will serve to not only give thanks where thanks are due,
but they will also help set the stage for your interaction with those same
offices on the FY05 budget.
BACKGROUND
As you are probably aware, the President signed the Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill into law on December 1st. This bill
contains at least two landmarks for the U.S. fusion program:
1. The most significant increase in Office of Fusion Energy
Sciences funding in several years; and
2. Specific recognition of and strong support for the idea
that ITER funding is not to come from the domestic fusion
energy sciences budget.
In addition, although it has not been finally approved by the Senate, the
conference report on the energy policy bill authorizes substantial
increases in fusion funding over the next 5 years, and also makes the
strong statement that ITER funding should not come at the expense of the
domestic fusion program. (Remember of course that having the
authorization for increased funding is NOT the same as getting the
appropriation for that increased funding).
Very importantly, if ITER moves forward out of the ongoing international
negotiations, its success or failure will likely color the Washington (and
world's) view of fusion for many years to come. It is also clear that
ITER is a Presidential and an Office of Science priority. Hence, it is
very important for the fusion community work to improve understanding of
and support for the ITER project in Congress. As part of this, helping
your Congressional office(s) understand the importance of the ITER project
and how your own research program relates (or doesn't relate) to it is key
to helping to ward off cuts to the domestic fusion program as a means of
financing ITER. (The latest on ITER can be found at http://fire.pppl.gov
In addition, as always, it is very important (perhaps now more than ever)
to continue to educate and update our Congressional offices on the depth
and breadth (university programs, labs, IFE, materials, technology, etc.)
of the domestic fusion program. And finally, it is important to discuss
the importance of the whole DOE Office of Science and the value of its
programs. (More information on the programs and budgets of the DOE Office
of Science can be found at
http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/issues/coalitions/esc/index.html
Please call any of us if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for
your work on this.
Kate Bannan (U of California) (202) 974-6311
Chris Carter (Princeton U.) (202) 639-8420
Jason Van Wey (MIT) (202) 789-1828
Mark Haynes (202) 496-8209
Dobie McArthur (GA) (202) 496-8216
Elaine McCusker (U of Washington) (202) 624-142
Mark Haynes
Vice President, Energy Development
Vice President, Washington Operations
General Atomics
1899 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 496-8209
Fax: (202) 659-1110
e-mail: haynes@ga.com
2. DOE Facilities for the Future Report
=========================================
http://energy.gov/engine/content.do?PUBLIC_ID=14440&BT_CODE=PR_PRESSRELEASES&TT_CODE=PRESSRELEASE
http://www.sc.doe.gov/Sub/Facilities_for_future/20-Year-Outlook-screen.pdf
3. Charge to FESAC on Priorities in the fusion program
========================================================
http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/more_html/FESAC/ProgPrioritiesCharge.pdf
4. Some info on the FESAC Priorities Panel
=============================================
A Priorities Panel has been set up by the FESAC. This panel is
charged with responding to the NRC Report which asks for key scientific
and technology questions of fusion science be formulated and priorities be
set flowing therefrom, under 3 budget scenarios.
The Panel has begun its work. They are currently collecting key science
questions. According to Pat Looney (OSTP) (see FYI, attached below), the
report of this FESAC panel is the most important one for fusion in 6 years
(since the restructuring). At the recent FESAC meeting and the follow-on
FPA meeting, both Looney and Joel Parriot (OMB)
(http://fire.pppl.gov/fpa03_parriott.pdf%20) emphasised their view that
ITER/BPX is the major element of the future and the fusion program needs
to set priorities for the ITER era. The priorities should flow from
science questions. When asked if there was a model report one could
normalize to in asking science questions, Looney pointed to the "quarks to
cosmos" report (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10079.html). The Astro, HEDP,
space communities also have reports posing key science questions.
fyi on Pat Looney's presentation at FESAC
==========================================
FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 156: December 1, 2003
OSTP Perspective on "Balance" and Fusion; Research Business Model
Meeting
FUSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE BRIEFED: "BALANCE," NEXT STEPS:
Calls for balance in federal research funding "means no priorities"
cautioned Patrick Looney, Assistant Director for Physical Sciences
and Engineering at the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP). Looney's warning about the allocation of federal research
dollars came during his presentation to a Fusion Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee meeting on November 17.
Looney was commenting on a recent National Academy of Sciences
report on fusion energy sciences, and how the advisory committee
could best respond to it. "I would like to caution you about the
use of the word 'balance,'" Looney told the committee. Declaring it
a "red-hot word" that was "divisive" he urged the committee to leave
this noun out of their response, saying that it was "just not going
to help."
Judging from Looney's remarks, the Bush Administration is bullish on
fusion energy. Saying that OSTP's physical sciences group had spent
an "extraordinary amount of time" on formulating U.S. policy
regarding ITER, Looney called the proposed facility "the defining
experiment." He was particularly supportive of the NAS report on
fusion energy (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10816.html) as an excellent
basis on which to move forward, saying "we are endorsing the NAS
report and many of the conclusions it drew."
Looney told the committee that "If ITER is going to be successful .
. . [we] need a common basis for dialogue." Instability is
undesirable; all interested parties must agree on the path forward.
The decision making process must be transparent, the administration
should be kept informed, and "surprises" are to be avoided.
Limited budget resources will require program prioritization.
Looney said that "graceful transition pathways" for the fusion
energy sciences program must be detailed, and added, "we cannot
argue for funds in the absence of a plan we all agree on." Fusion
program metrics must be established.
Also important as the fusion advisory committee formulates its
response to the NRC report is for it to consider its audience of
policymakers in the administration and Congress. Looney
recommended that the committee avoid multiple budget scenarios,
instead specifying what research could be expected for the stated
guidance level of funding. Regarding the timing of the advisory
committee's report, Looney said that an interim report by next
summer would be appropriate.
RESEARCH BUSINESS MODELS MEETING IN WASHINGTON
A subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council is
preparing to "begin the process of prioritizing and initiating the
changes needed to improve performance and mechanisms of
accountability of the research enterprise" after a public two-day
meeting in Washington on December 9 and 10. This meeting follows
four regional meetings that were described in
http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2003/137.html.
Public comments sent to the Research Business Models Subcommittee
have been posted at http://rbm.nih.gov/fed_reg_20030906/index.htm
Additional comments can be sent to Michael Holland at the Office of
Science and Technology Policy at mholland@ostp.eop.gov
A website at http://www.masimax.com/rbms/index4.htm has information
regarding the agenda and registration for this free meeting next
week. Sessions have been scheduled for public comment.
###############
Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi@aip.org http://www.aip.org/gov
(301) 209-3094
##END##########
5. ITER Negotiations News (Dec 5 2003)
=======================================
Common Message from Preparatory Meeting for Ministerial Meeting for ITER:
Delegations from Canada, China, European Union, Japan,
the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United
States met in Vienna on 4-5th December, 2003 to advance the ITER
negotiations. The
meeting was held at the headquarters of the IAEA; the meeting
was moderated by IAEA Deputy Director General Werner Burkart. The
delegations
have achieved a major milestone in the ITER negotiations,
namely, full coverage of cost-sharing for the two candidate sites in the
European Union and
Japan. The delegations are confident that this achievement
provides the basis for reaching consensus on the preferred site at the
Ministerial Meeting for
ITER. The Ministerial Meeting for ITER will take place on 20th
December, 2003 in Washington, DC.
[for more detail see http://fire.pppl.gov/]