1 / 10

Comments related to FESAC burning plasma recommendations

Comments related to FESAC burning plasma recommendations. S.C. Prager University of Wisconsin January, 2003 not speaking on behalf of FESAC burning plasma panel. Topics. Why a dual path strategy? Why a time deadline for ITER negotiations? Why core program part of FESAC plan?

cordeliaj
Download Presentation

Comments related to FESAC burning plasma recommendations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 • ITER • TPX • TFTR • 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 • Convey the need for a burning plasma program • Promote the two options • Pursue ITER first, fully • 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? e.g., turbulent transport materials macrostability current sustainment techniques configuration optimization • Core program fusion science issues are as critical as burning plasma science. • 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

More Related