AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD, GA, GIT, LLNL, INEEL,

1. FIRE Collaboration http://fire.pppl.gov AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD, GA, GIT, LLNL, INEEL, MIT, ORNL, PPPL, SNL, SRS, UCLA, UCSD, UIIC, UWisc FIRE Critical Issues and Plans Discussion Dale Meade FIRE Physics Validation Review DOE Germantown, MD March 30, 2004

3. Plan A: A Decision is made to Construct ITER • FIRE activities would be completed ASAP, and NSO activities would be directed toward other areas within its charter. • The thrust of the NSO/FIRE activities will be to make progress on fully exploiting the capability of ITER with an emphasis on those features required for an attractive tokamak fusion power plant presently envisioned by ARIES-RS. This would include: • development and optimization of metallic PFCs, • development of RWM technology (insulation, feedback control,..) • disruption mitigation techniques under high power density conditions • plasma control tools (ICRF, LHCD, Pellets, ..) • development of diagnostics for ITER (esp. AT modes) • An example is the synopses submitted for 20th IAEA FEC “High-b Steady-State Advanced Tokamak Regimes for ITER and FIRE”

5. Plan B: No Decision is made to Construct ITER • An alternative to ITER must be put forward before interest in BPP is lost. • Put FIRE forward immediately as recommended by: • FESAC - FIRE should “be advanced as a U.S.-based burning plasma experiment with strong encouragement of international participation” • Energy Policy Act of 2003 - introduced in the Senate on Feb 11, 2004 - “If at any time during the negotiations on ITER, the Secretary determines that construction and operation of ITER is unlikely or infeasible, the Secretary shall send to Congress, as part of the budget request for the following year, a plan for implementing the domestic burning plasma experiment known as FIRE, including costs and schedules for such a plan.” • Similar recommendation has been made for the EU program by Airaghi (2000) • “In the same 2-year period(2001-2002), due to the uncertainty over the outcome of the international negotiations, Europe should study an alternative to New-ITER, which would be suitable to be pursued by Europe alone. For example, a copper magnet machine which would still achieve the required objective of demonstrating a burning plasma under reactor conditions even if this would delay the integration of the superconducting technologies.”

6. FIRE as an Alternative if ITER Does not Go Forward • Is the FESAC finding: “ITER and FIRE are each attractive options for the study of burning plasma science. Each could serve as the primary burning plasma facility, although they lead to different fusion energy development paths.” still valid? • If not what areas are deficient? Are there any proposed remedies? • If still true? Are there areas that can be improved? Suggestions?

8. Broaden Involvement in Burning Plasmas • Establish a US Burning Plasma Program, initially this can be informal like TTF, or High Temperature Diagnostics Workshops. Formalize structure later, connect to ITPA. • Evaluate potential FIRE sites in the US and abroad. • International Collaboration on FIRE/Alternate BP FESAC BP strategy-FIRE NRC -BPX Alt ASAP, FIRE as possibility EU has explored other options e.g.,Airaghi-2000, CEA-CAD-1999

9. Plan B: Major Near Term Activities (to = July 04) • Physics Validation Review (update of Snowmass and NSO reviews) Mar 30, 04 • Formation of a national FIRE organization Aug 04 • Initiation of discussions with potential international collaborators Aug 04 • Form FIRE Project Management team Sep 04 • CD-0 Approve Mission Need Oct 04 • Community Workshop on Prep for FIRE Conceptual design Nov 04 • Finalize Plan for FIRE Conceptual Design Nov 04 • Initiate FIRE Conceptual Design ( 9 months duration) Dec 04 • Initiate R&D program in support of FIRE CDA • Initiate studies of potential construction sites for FIRE • Completion of FIRE Conceptual Design Sep 05

10. Update the FIRE Cost Estimate

11. Areas of Major FIRE Activities for the Near Term • • Advanced Tokamak Modes (ARIES as guide) • (k, d, A, SN/DN, bN, fbs, ……) • - RWM Stabilization - What is required and what is feasible? • - Integration of detached Divertor and Advanced Tokamak • - Plasma Control (fast position control, heating, current-drive, fueling) • • High Power Density Handling • - Divertor R&D: High heat flux, low tritium retention • - First Wall and Vacuum Vessel R&D • • Diagnostic Development and Integration with First Wall/fusion environment • • Integrated Simulation of Burning Plasmas • - exploration of fusion-dominated plasmas (self organized?)

12. Concluding Remarks • If there is a positive decision to construct ITER, the FIRE project team is enthusiastic about joining this activity to fully exploit the capabilities of ITER. • If there is not a decision to move forward with ITER in the “next month or two”, the FIRE Project Team believes that the present FIRE design would satisfy the requirements for a primary burning plasma facility with the additional R&D as described. • In either event, a US Burning Plasma Program should be initiated in the near term. There are a number of high leverage physics R&D items to be worked on for the conventional mode and the advanced mode for FIRE and ITER. There needs to be an increased emphasis on physics R&D for advanced modes, high power density PFCs, BP diagnostics and integrated modeling.