Developing Technology for Inertial Fusion Energy

1. Developing Technology for Inertial Fusion Energy David H. Crandall Advisor to the Under Secretary for Science On National Security and Inertial Fusion US Department of Energy For Fusion Power Associates December 1, 2010

2. Inertial fusion Ignition will cause a new look atInertial Fusion Energy Ignition has been the goal for 50 years Needed and pursued as a tool for nuclear weapon evaluation Also pursued for energy value – FPAC 1990 National Ignition Campaign at NIF completes in 2012 A National Academy of Sciences review of inertial fusion energy potential has been initiated. What Next?

3. The Department of Energy is considering a new program: Inertial Fusion Energy Technology • Under Secretaries D’Agostino and Koonin see the value and want IFET to succeed, NE personnel have also been engaged. • Historically, NNSA does not request energy funds and SC has been reluctant to support technology – change is required. • Ignition is required for starting a substantial program. • The Inertial Confinement Fusion (NNSA) and Fusion Energy Sciences (SC) have appropriate resources and programs to get IFET started. • The Academy review will influence directions chosen. • At its inception IFET will report to Under Secretary for Science.

4. Sustained, Repeated Ignition is the IFET Goal • This would not be a fusion energy power plant. • It must identify and develop technologies that are extendable to economic fusion power. • The near term goal will be to select those technologies for engineering development • Clearly defining the goal and establishing a research and development roadmap is an important first step.

5. Technology includes Driverand Ignition Target • The first Phase is R&D as a basis for technology down select. • Select ignition approach (direct, indirect, shock, magnetized…) through research with existing facilities. • Select driver technology compatible with ignition approach and economic potential (efficiency x gain > 10), also using existing facilities. • Apply open competition and external peer review to establish research path and for technology down select. • Pace of program is uncertain and depends on technical progress, budget choices, and economic attractiveness. • Degree of risk likely to seem high. • The NAS review is the first step in the external peer review process.

6. A Notional Schedule • The next chart will show a notional schedule to realize sustained, repeated ignition with potential as an economic power source. • A DOE team considered and described the potential for IFET for internal consideration of this initiative. • The fastest sensible schedule was thought by the team to be 20 years. • This timeline is not a plan and is not budgeted – it is notional.

7. Notional Timeline for IFE Technology Decide on New Facility for Demonstration Start Separate IFET Review Credibility of Technology Optimize ignition for energy Prepare technology for engineering development Engineering development of selected approaches Design of IFET demo Build and startup IFET demonstration of basic concept 5 year 10 year 20 year • Start with capabilities developed in Fusion Energy Sciences and Inertial Confinement Fusion • Focus on ignition concept and technology required to demonstrate IFET viability • Assume that nuclear weapon applications and energy sciences continue in existing programs

8. Near Term Actions • Achieve Ignition. • Get a broad range of input to the National Academy study. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/BPA/BPA_058425 • Begin engagement with industry in a new way. • Include IFET in DOE’s strategic planning • Consider budget. • Fund R&D explicitly to provide a basis for technology selection for sustained, repeated ignition.