Burning Plasma Bringing a Star to Earth (2004) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix D: Fusion Community Recommendations
Appendix D: Fusion Community Recommendations
Pages 148-155
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 148... ...
Fusion Energy 1Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, Review of the Burning Plasma Physics, DOE/SC0041. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
|
From page 149... ...
Specifically, the report said, the workshop "should determine which of the specific burning plasma options are technically viable but should not select among them" and "confirm that a critical mass of fusion scientists believe that the time to proceed is now and not some undefined time in the future."4 The panel also suggested that the DOE charge FESAC with the mission of forming an "action" panel to select among the technically viable burning plasma experimental options and initiate a review by a National Research Council panel with the goal of determining the desirability as well as the scientific and technological credibility of the burning plasma experiment design by the fall of 2003. In summary, the panel believed that "understanding burning plasmas would be an immense physics accomplishment of wide scientific significance and would be a huge step toward the development of fusion energy."5 The panel suggested a course of action that it believed would enable the presentation of an optimal burning plasma experimental plan to the nation no later than July 2004.
|
From page 150... ...
At the end of the 2 weeks the participants completed their task and reached consensus on a set of five conclusions: 1. The study of burning plasmas, in which self-heating from fusion reactions dom inates plasma behavior, is at the frontier of magnetic fusion energy science.
|
From page 151... ...
: · Fundamental understanding of the underlying science and technology, and optimization of magnetic configurations · Plasma physics research in a burning plasma experiment · High performance, steady-state operation · Development of low-activation materials and fusion technologies.7 PRAGER REPORT Following the Freidberg report's strategy, in February 2002 the DOE Office of Science's Acting Director, James Decker, charged FESAC to establish a high-level panel to recommend a strategy for burning plasma experiments. The 47-member panel, chaired by Stewart Prager of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, met in Austin, Texas, August 6-8, 2002, and its strategy recommendation report was adopted by FESAC on September 5, 2003.8 The panel based its recommendations on the Snowmass assessment, with the aim of presenting a strategy to enable the United States to "proceed with this crucial next step in fusion energy science."9 The report states: The strategy was constructed with awareness that the burning plasma program is only one major component in a comprehensive development plan for fusion ener gy.
|
From page 152... ...
152 B U R N I N GP L A S M A Ba sePl hysicsphysicsp Theory & Simulation as physics asammaasPlse m ST,ST,stellarator,stellarator,RFP,RFP,otherotherICCsICCs a Tokamak physics ICC ETR DEMO Ba Ma Decision point jor ITER DEMO Fa cilities cilities Fa roj 14-MeV neutron source Ma VolumetricCComponentompactneTeTutstestronFacilitFacilitsouryyce Ba se iesiesggollo Techno BaseFusionfusionpopowewerr technologiestechnologies lo Techno gies se BasePlasmaPlasmaSusupppportSupportorttechnologiestechnologiestechnologies Ba Theory & Simulation physics masa ST, stellarator, RFP, other ICCs Pl se Tokamak physics ICC ETR DEMO Ba Decision point FIRE Advanced ETR DEMO cilities Steady-state DD(QDT ~ 1-2) Fa roj 14-MeV neutron source Ma Component TestFacility Fusion power technologies Technologies se Plasma Support technologies Ba
|
From page 153... ...
burning plasma program, providing the necessary knowledge base and scientific work force.10 The panel made two primary findings: · ITER and FIRE are each attractive options for the study of burning plasma sci ence. Each could serve as the primary burning plasma facility, although they lead to different fusion energy development paths.
|
From page 154... ...
Hence, this core program should be increased in parallel with the burning plasma initiative. · A burning plasma science program should be initiated by the OFES with addi tional funding in FY04 sufficient to support this strategy.12 GOLDSTON REPORT With the completion of the FESAC part of the Freidberg report's plan of action, and with the continuing work of this National Research Council committee, DOE charged FESAC to develop a plan for the deployment within 35 years of a fusion demonstration power plant, leading to the commercial application of fusion en ergy by midcentury.
|
From page 155... ...
fusion energy sciences program is still suffering from the budget cuts of the mid-1990s and the loss of what it terms "a clear national commitment to develop fusion energy,"18 with concomitant increasing difficulty in retaining technical expertise in key areas. The Goldston plan also estimates that the fusion budget needs to double over the next 5 years to begin to implement the development path foreseen in the report.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.