Tuesday, November 16, 1999 APS-DPP Seattle

Open Discussion and Summary

Opportunities and Directions inFusion Energy Science for the Next Decade

1999 Fusion Summer StudySnowmass, CO July 11-23, 1999

� What happened at the Fusion Summer Study?

� Some key issues, discussions, and debates.

� How has the fusion community benefited from theSummer Study?

� Where to find the details?

� Open discussion, questions, and comments.

1

Organizing Committee

Working group coordination and workshop logistics.

Mohamed Abdou UCLA Technology IssuesDan Barnes LANL Emerging Fusion ConceptsJohn Cary UColorado Plasma Science IssuesRich Hawryluk PPPL Co-ChairArnold Kritz Lehigh Plasma Science IssuesGrant Logan LLNL Co-ChairMike Mauel Columbia Co-ChairFarrokh Najmabadi UCSD Energy IssuesCraig Olson SNL Inertial Fusion ConceptsTony Taylor GA Magnetic Fusion Concepts

John De Looper PPPL Workshop Secretariat

2

1999 Fusion Summer Study Prospectus (Part 2): Workshop Goals

Opportunities and Directions in Fusion Energy Sciencefor the Next Decade

: : :

To provide input to this plan, individuals involved with fusion research are invited tocome together to interact with each other and to develop a scientific and technicalbasis for consensus on:

� The key issues for plasma science, technology, and energy and environment forfusion energy development.

� The opportunities and potential contributions of existing and possible future facil-ities and programs to reduce fusion development costs and achieve attractive eco-nomic and environmental features.

The workshop will be open to all members of the international fusion science andtechnology community including experts in all approaches to magnetic and inertial fu-sion energy.

3

1999 Fusion Summer StudyOver 300 Participants for Two Weeks of Collaboration, Intense Discussion, and Debate

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

11 17

OpeningPlenary

ConceptWGs

IssueWGs

ConceptWGs

IssueWGs

ConceptWGs

IssueWGs

ConceptWGs

IssueWGs

14 15 1612 13 14 15 1612 13

18 24

StatusReports

OpenDiscussion

ofDraft Sum.

Reports

ConceptWGs

IssueWGs

ConceptWGs

IssueWGs

SummaryReports

19 20 21 22 2319 20 21 22 23

Workshop Schedule

RodeoFireWorks Skit

OpeningReception

ClosingReception

Hike toTop of

Mountain

Social Hour Social Hour Social Hour Social Hour

Social Hour Social Hour Social Hour

1999 Fusion Summer Study – Opening Plenary SessionH. Grunder “Setting the Stage”

M. Rosenbluth “My Preconceived Notions and Prejudices”F. Wagner “Considerations to the EU Fusion Program”M. Kikuchi “A Rationale for Fusion Energy Development in Japan”

R. Conn “Reflections on Fusion’s History and Implications for Fusion’s Future”D. Ryutov “Deep Restructuring in Fusion”

D. Baldwin “Thoughts on Fusion Priorities”M. Cambell “Meeting the Challenge for Fusion Energy”R. Goldston “Science, Innovation, and Collaboration in MFE”

Wide Institutional Support Another Key to Success

� APS-DPP Executive Committee Accepts Proposal for Meeting (March, 1998)

“There is debate in the community as to the appropriate next-steps in fusion re-search. : : : Now is the right time to assess the outstanding scientific and technologi-cal issues in fusion energy science and reach a better understanding of the facilitiesand programmatic elements needed to resolve them.

“This meeting would be the first broad-based meeting of knowledgeable scientistsfrom all parts of the fusion community, including MFE and IFE, for the shared pur-pose of developing a common framework for the overall development of fusion en-ergy science.”

� Sponsorship by DOE, PPPL, GA, LLNL, MIT/PSFC, LANL, SNL, VTL, ORNL, FPA,and the UFA. Endorsement by ANS Fusion Energy Division.

� Organizing Committee and Working Group Convenors recruited: 55 scientists andengineers representing all parts of the US program define scientific organization.

� Members of NRC Plasma Science Committee and FESAC actively participate. FE-SAC participation helpful during Knoxville planning retreat.

Outstanding and Representative Committee Defined theScientific and Technical Program

Magnetic Fusion ConceptsH. Berk (UT) J. Drake (UMaryland) R. Fonck (UWisc)M. Greenwald (MIT) D. Hill (LLNL) R. Nazikian (PPPL)W. Houlberg (ORNL) J. Sarff (UWisc) R. Taylor (UCLA)T. Taylor (GA) M. Zarnstorff (PPPL)

Inertial Fusion ConceptsJ. Barnard (LLNL) J. Lindl (LLNL) C. Olson (SNL)S. Payne (LLNL) K. Schultz (GA) J. Sethian (NRL)R. Spielman (SNL)

Emerging Fusion ConceptsD. Barnes (LANL) D. Hill (LLNL) A. Hoffman (UWash)J. Kesner (MIT) J. Perkins (LLNL) M. Yamada (PPPL)

Plasma Science IssuesJ. Cary (ColoU) V. Chan (GA) P. Drake (UMich)G. Hammett (PPPL) A. Kritz (Lehigh) M. Peng (ORNL)S. Prager (UWisc) M. Rosen (LLNL) W. Tang (PPPL)

Technology IssuesM. Abdou (UCLA) R. Mattas (ANL) S. Milora (ORNL)J. Minervini (MIT) R. Moir (LLNL) D. Petti (INEL)J. Santarius (UWisc) D. Swain (ORNL) M. Tillack (UCSD)M. Ulrickson (SNL) K. Wilson (SNL) R. Woolley (PPPL)S. Zinkle (ORNL)

Energy IssuesJ. Freidberg (MIT) W. Meier (LLNL) F. Najmabadi (UCSD)J. Navratil (Columbia) W. Nevins (LLNL) J. Perkins (LLNL)N. Sauthoff (PPPL) R. Stambaugh (GA) D. Steiner (RPI)

6

The Results of the Workshop are Produced by theSubgroups and the Working Groups

Each subgroup and working group is asked to “Develop a scientific andtechnical” understanding of:

� Some of the “Key Issues” of fusion research.

� Some of the “Opportunities” to address these issues.

By the end of Snowmass, we should be able to explain technically to thegeneral fusion community:

� Why these issues are “key” and “important”?

� How resolution of these key issues will advance fusion energyscience?

� How “existing and possible future facilities and programs” canaddress the key issues?

7

Subtopical Discussion Groups

� Magnetic Fusion Concepts– Transport in MCC

– Pursuing Burning Plasmas in MCC

– MHD Stability in MCC

– Achieving Steady State Operation

– Plasma Boundary and Particle Control

– MFE Concept Integration and PerformanceMeasures

� Inertial Fusion Concepts– Targets

– Drivers and Standoff

– Inertial Fusion Power Plant Concepts

– IFE Metrics and Development Paths

� Emerging Fusion Concepts– Reactor Issues Subgroup

– Physics Issues Subgroup

– Next Step Issues Subgroup

– Technical Opportunities Subgroup

� Plasma Science Issues– Boundary Sciences Subgroup

– MHD/Beam Science Issues Subgroup

– Wave/Particle Interaction Subgroup

– Turbulence/Transport Science Subgroup

� Technology Issues– Chamber Technology Subgroup (includ-

ing Liquid Walls, Solid Walls, Reliabil-ity/Maintainability, Testing Facilities, WasteMinimization)

– Plasma Technology Subgroup (including Tri-tium, Materials Advances, Profile Control,Magnets, IFE Targets)

� Energy Issues– Long Term Visions for Fusion Power Applica-

tions

– Range of Steps Along Development Paths,Options, Directions, Accomplishments, andDecision Criteria

8

Workshop Resource Use

� Workshop Office

– Staffed, Open and Used 24 hours a day.

– Xerox machine, supplies. Our xerox machine made over 90,000 copies! Collec-tively, we made over two thousand transparencies!

– Messages and Workshop phone and fax.

� Computer Center

– Staffed, Open, and Used 24 hours a day.

– T-1 internet and V.90 modem access.

– 8 Macs, 7 PCs, 10BT hubs, one color laser printer, two black and white.

� Working Group Poster Boards; “Chit” Forms; Community white papers; online refer-ence library

� 21 meeting rooms. Two dedicated shuttle busses and four Village busses from 7:00AM to Midnight.

9

The Proceedings of the 1999 Fusion Summer Study

http://www.ap.columbia.edu/SMproceedings/

The CD-ROM (> 88 MB of technical content) will be delivered “shortly.”

10

The Fusion Summer Study has Developed During Recent Efforts toBuild a Basis for Consensus in Two Key Areas

� Pursuing a Major Next-Step (Magnetic) Fusion Energy Experiment– Oct97 - Jan98: FESAC Grunder Panel, calling for “design efforts on lower cost

fusion energy producing” experiments and broad community input to consideroptions.

– Apr98: Forum on Major Next-Step Fusion Experiments (Madison).

– Jun98 - Jul98: NSO Workshop (UCSD) and Community Report.

– Nov98: NSO design study initiated. ITER-RC design activities. Initial NSO(FIRE) design report released, Jul99.

� Building a Common Framework for Fusion Concept Development in-cluding both MFE and IFE Approaches

– Apr98: 2nd ICC Workshop (PPPL).

– Sep98: MFE-IFE Technical Workshop (PPPL).

– Aug98 - Nov98: Draft MFE/IFE Roadmap, released at APS-DPP.

– Mar99 - Jun99: Community presentations to FESAC, SEAB, NRC. Initial FESACand SEAB documents released, Jun99 - Jul99.

11

The Summer Study Provided a Forum for CommunityEfforts in Four Key Areas

1. Building a common framework for fusion concept development including both MFEand IFE approaches.

Fusion Science needs to address a very large number of key issues. This requiresstudy of a “spectrum of configurations” and approaches.

2. Being prepared to move forward with the next-stage of MFE development.

We are “technically ready” : : : “A well-diagnosed, flexible burning plasma experimentwill address a broad range of scientific issues and enable development and validationof theoretical understanding: : :”

3. Understanding the importance of cross-cutting and innovative technologies to fusionscience.

4. Recognizing that advancements in plasma physics, computation, and diagnosticshave led to realistic opportunities to develop the “scientific basis for fusion energy”through fundamental physics understanding and predictive capability.

12

1. Building a common framework for fusion concept de-velopment including both MFE and IFE approaches.

The following slides illustrate: : :

� MFE Conceptual Skeleton

The portfolio of MFE concepts share a common physics and technology core. Work-ing together they advance understanding of MHD, Transport, and Boundary-Layerphysics. They advance through integrations steps investigating steady-state andburning plasma physics in fusion-relevant regimes.

� IFE Conceptual Matrix

IFE research involves investigation and integration of several driver, target, andchamber concepts.

� Emerging Concept Physics Matrix

The breadth of Emerging Concepts allows the investigation of a wide range of physicsissues (e.g. convective cells, kinetic effects, flow shear, : : :) which many lead to in-novative breakthroughs as well as the general advancement of the field.

13

MFEWG Snowmass 99 by Taylor 4

Elements of a Scientific Roadmap for MFE

Steady-State

Integration

Burning Plasma

MHD Transport Boundary

PlasmaScience &

Technology

Tokamak

ST

Stellarator RFP

FRC

Spheromak

Other Magnetic

TECHNOLOGIES

EC: D. Barnes

Los Alamos National Laboratory -- Fusion EnergyLos Alamos National Laboratory -- Fusion EnergyLos Alamos National Laboratory -- Fusion Energy

Physics Issues/Opportunities in Emerging ConceptsConnect with Mainline Approaches

IssueConcept

ConvectiveCells

KineticEffects

FlowShear

ElectricFields

High βPhysics

Helicity Current Drive/Self-Organization

RFP ! "Spheromak ! "

FRC " " " " "

Ion Rings "

MTF " " " "

Dipole " ! "

Centrifugal " ! !

Mirror/GDT !

Flow Pinch " "

Electrostatic " "

Fast Igniter " " "

Cross section

Tokamak/ST " " ! ! "

Stellarator "

IFE " " "

2. Being prepared to move forward with the next-stage ofMFE development.

The following slides illustrate: : :

� Burning plasma opportunities exist today.

� The Summer Study considered burning plasma issues in the broadcontext of fusion energy development including the challenge of steady-state and high time-average power.

This led to a group consensus that “a burning plasma experimentshould be capable of Advanced Tokamak Research.”

14

Energy Subgroup B July 27, 1999

BURNING PLASMA OPPORTUNITIES

1. Burning plasma experiments are essential to thedevelopment of fusion

2. The tokamak is technically ready for a high gain burningplasma experiment

3. The US should actively seek opportunities to explore burningplasma physics by:(i) Pursuing burning plasma physics through collaboration on potential

international facilities (JET Upgrade, IGNITOR and ITER-RC)

(ii) Seeking a partnership position, should ITER-RC construction proceed

(iii) Continued design/studies of moderate cost burning plasma experiments(e.g., FIRE) capable of exploring advanced regimes

(iv) Exploiting the capability of existing and upgraded tokamaks to explore anddevelop advanced operating regimes suitable for burning plasmaexperiments

Energy Subgroup B July 27, 1999

The Challenge of Steady-Stateand High Time Average Power

IFE High Time Average Power IssuesFirst wall and optics protectionChamber clearing between shotsHigh rep-rate drivers (KrF, DPSSL, HIB)Low cost target production and high rep-rate target insertionProblems of heat removal

These issues are more pressing than burn issues for the ultimate success of IFE.Unfortunately, the group did not get to discuss these issues.

MFE High Time Average Power IssuesNon-inductive current drive and profile control in devices with currentIs a pulsed magnetic system acceptable?StellaratorsThe problems of fluence, erosion and codepositionProblems of operational boundaries (e.g. disruptions)Problems of heat exhaust (both MFE and IFE)

Energy Subgroup B July 27, 1999

MFE High Time Average Power IssuesThe discussion revolved around:

1) whether the burning plasma experiment should be based on conventional orAT tokamak physics,

2) the extent to which AT physics should be explorable in the burning plasmaexperiment,

3) and whether it was more important to first achieve a steady-state ATtokamak and then take the burning plasma step with that AT.

The group reached concensus that:

A burning plasma experiment should be capable ofAdvanced Tokamak Research.

3. Understanding the importance of cross-cutting and in-novative technologies to fusion science.

The following slides illustrate: : :

� The importance of innovative technology to the creation of attractivevisions for fusion energy.

� Liquid-wall technologies as an example of the Snowmass discussions.

15

Creating Improved Vision throughInnovative Solutions

Safety and • Develop new rad-waste managementEnvironmental strategy that minimizes both volume and

hazard

Liquid Walls • Develop liquid wall concepts for both MFE and IFE

Materials • Increase performance limits for lowactivation materials

• Expand scope to include high performancerefractory alloys

Tritium • Explore ways to ensure tritium supplies for future needs ( Develop breeding technology on burning plasma devices?)

:KDW�+DSSHQHG�LQ�WKH�/LTXLG�:DOO'LVFXVVLRQV�DW�6QRZPDVV"

♦ Themes of improved vision,reduced development cost,enabled physics regimes,and physics/technology,MFE/IFE synergy wereevident

♦ Many configurations andconcepts using the liquid wallidea were presented. Thearea is very concept-rich

♦ Facility needs and R&Dpathway were discussed

33D-CFD calculation of liquid Flibe flowpast an elliptically-shaped penetration.

penetration

flow direction

4. Recognizing that advancements in plasma physics,computation, and diagnostics have led to realistic oppor-tunities to develop the “scientific basis for fusion energy”and predictive capability.

The following slides illustrate: : :

� Chamber technology as an example of research “emphasizing scien-tific exploration.”

� Heavy-Ion Fusion Driver Beams as an example of new opportuni-ties for predictive capability in “self-consistent source-to-target simu-lations”.

� Transport simulations illustrate new (and realistic) feasibility to “de-velop comprehensive predictive transport models.”

� Over-arching themes for MFE concept development.

16

Advancing ScienceTechnology Research will continue to offerexcellent opportunities for advancing science by:♦ Enabling Plasma Science♦ Advancing Engineering Sciences

Turbulent velocity fluctuations in free surface flow on a plate:DNS data from T. Kunugi and S. Satake for APEX

Non-Deformable Free Surface

No Slip Solid Wall

Example: Turbulent interaction with free liquid

6QR Z PD VV� & 2 -XO\ � � � �

+ HDY\ , RQ )XVLRQ 'U LYHU % HDPV

s 7D U J H W U H TX LU H P H Q W V V H W W K H LQ F LG H Q W E H D P U H TX LU H P H Q W Vs % H D P S U R S H U W LH V U H V X OW IU R P W K H LQ W H U S OD \ D P R Q J IR F X V LQ J p H OG V �LQ W H Q V H V S D F H F K D U J H � D Q G E H D P H Q YLU R Q P H Q W

, VVXHV $ YR LG H P LW W D Q F H J U R ZW K D Q G K D OR J H Q H U D W LR Q IU R P

s LQ W H Q V H V S D F H F K D U J H H oH F W Vs LQ V W D E LOLW LH V LQ G U LYH U D Q G F K D P E H Us P D F K LQ H LP S H U IH F W LR Q V

2W K H U U H D O�ZR U OG H oH F W V � V W U D \ H OH F W U R Q V � F K D P E H U S U R F H V V H V � � � �

&KDOOHQJH ' H W D LOV R I E H D P G LV W U LE X W LR Q D U H LP S R U W D Q W1 H H G NLQ H W LF G H V F U LS W LR Q � S K D V H �V S D F H G LD J Q R V W LF V

2SSRU WXQLWLHV

s 6 H OI�F R Q V LV W H Q W V R X U F H �W R �W D U J H W V LP X OD W LR Q V E H F R P LQ J S U D F W LF D Os 8 V H 3 ,&� rI � 9 OD V R Y� NLQ H W LF � q X LG K \E U LG � K LH U D U F K \ R I G H W D LOs 1 H Z K LJ K �F X U U H Q W H [S H U LP H Q W V S U R YLG H F U LW LF D O W H V W V

July 1999Snowmass, CO

Goal 1: Comprehensive transport models• Pursue the challenging, yet realistic goal of developing comprehensive predictive

transport models, based on physically reasonable assumptions and well-testedagainst experiments

• Several models reproduce core T(r)with 15-30% RMS accuracy in someregimes. More comprehensivesimulations needed for a wider varietyof regimes and more accuracy.

• Relatively complete simulations arebecoming feasible (with non-adiabaticelectrons, electromagnetic fluctuations,realistic geometry, edge recycling ...).

Numerical Tokamak Turbulence Project

Two over-arching themes have emerged from theMFCWG discussions

Across Magnetic Concepts and Across Scientific Disciplines

• Physics Understanding and Predictive Capability to Develop theScientific Basis for Fusion Energy– Allows (fosters) commonality across concepts and levels of development— Transferability of physics learned from one magnetic concept to another— Rapid development of concepts (possibly skipping a level)— Opportunity to reduce the cost of fusion energy development

Optimal design of experiments/facilities— rapid development• Development and employment of plasma control tools

— Scientific Understanding— Performance optimization— Innovative technological and scientific solutions

⇒ Partnership between technology & physics

Tangible Outcomes� 300 Summary slides

The content of these summary slides address the goals, issues, anddirections of every part of the fusion program.

They were discussed and prepared by the working groups and reflectthe comments of 300 participants.

In my opinion, they are very well written, and they represent (often ona word-by-word basis) the collective contributions from a large numberof contributors.

� A Proceedings comprising > 88 MB of digital content.

17

Intangible Outcomes� Demonstration that the broad and diverse fusion program can work

together as partners for a common goal.

Snowmass represented a collaboration between scientists and engi-neers from government (energy and defense programs), university,national lab, industry, : : : and team-building across institutions.

� Demonstration that we can build a basis for consensus through theinvolvement of the whole.

The Summer Study gave voice to a very large and diverse number ofindividual scientists and engineers. It strengthened their involvementand, consequently, their commitment to the future direction of theirfields.

� An overall endorsement of the general balance of the present U.S.Fusion Energy Science Program and an expression of excitement ofmany opportunities to make progress with an expanded research pro-gram.

18

Closing Comments� The 1999 Fusion Summer Study was our first two-week, open meeting

to discuss options for the future directions of our research.

� We had time for some very intense work and for “building an environ-ment for breaking down barriers and initiating an intellectual dialoguedriven by science and fueled by enthusiasm.”

� I believe, we accomplished our objectives beyond our initial expecta-tions.

� It required considerable time and effort from many outstanding individ-uals.

19

Fortunately,We have a few years to recover…

Snowmass 1999 Fusion Summer Study Survey ResultsThe results of the survey sent to the participants of the 1999 Fusion Summer Study arepresented below. Atotal of 111 responses were received (approximately 33% of participants in the study).

Some Questions for Discussion

� Did the Fusion Summer Study Meet its goals?

� Was the format effective?

1. Invited talks, Contributed Talks, Discussion

2. Midpoint Progress Report

3. Summary Report

4. Proceedings

� Was the division into working groups and subgroups effective?

� Was the length of the meeting appropriate?

� What would you do differently next time?

20