Fusion Energy Sciences Program

Department of Energy Perspective

February 23, 2004

www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov

EExcellent xcellent SScience in cience in SSupport of upport of AAttractive ttractive EEnergynergy

US Department of Energy

by Sam BerkOFES Team Leader for Technology

0

1

98 9995 97 00 0176

94 02 03 04

01/14/04

05

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

800

Fiscal Year

700

1000

US Fusion Program Budget History (in 2005 $M)

Fis

cal Y

ear

Bud

get (

FY

200

5$ in

Mil

lion

s)

77 79 82 86 90 92 96 98 9978 80 84 88 91 93 95 97 00 01767573 74 94 0283 8781 85 8972 03 04

01/14/04

05

900

FY 2005 Fusion ProgramCongressional Budget Request ($M)

143.9

84.5

27.4

6.8

262.6

FY 2004Approp.

Science

Facility Operations

Technology

SBIR/STTR

OFES Total

DIII-DC-ModNSTXNCSXIFE/HEDP

144.0

85.5

27.8

6.8

264.1

FY 2005Cong.

54.021.533.616.713.9

56.022.234.716.715.1

136.2

66.2

38.3

6.2

246.9

FY 2003Actual

51.919.230.111.717.0

01/13/04

o +$1 M for MSTo No $3 M increase for SciDAC/FSP as plannedo No increase of $0.8 M for NCSX research in support of constructiono All other programs funded at about FY 2004 appropriations level

Summary of US Fusion Program FY 2005 Congressional Budget Request

ITER

o Direct Funding of $7 M: $1 M for procurement of S/C wire and $6 M in reserve to be allocated following decision on organization to host US Project Office and other decisions

o $38 M designated for support of US preparations toward ITER tasks

o +$4 M for ITER direct funding o Operation of facilities reduced from FY 2004 plan of 18 weeks each to 14 weeks each (-$3.2 M)o NCSX kept at FY 2004 level instead of the planned $4.8 M increaseo Funding for ORNL move stretched out

Facilities Operations ($85.5 M, +$1 M)

o Fusion Technologies closed out in FY 2004: all IFE work brought to conclusion and ITER-relevant parts of MFE work moved to Plasma Technologies

o All areas of Plasma Technologies: increased budgets and redirection toward ITERo FIRE program completed with Physics Validation Review in FY 2004o Materials research reduced $.2 M

Technology ($27.8 M, +$.4 M)

Science ($150.8 M, +$.1 M)

Major Fusion Facilities Operating Times

0

15

20

25

30

FY 2005 Congressional

FY 2002 FY 2004Appropriations

Years

Wee

ks

DIII-D C-MOD NSTX

8

12

18

12

1818

10

5

01/13/04

Full Utilization Level

FY 2003Actual

4*

1314

*NSTX operating time was reduced due to the failure of one of the magnetic coils in February. Operations are expected to begin again this month.

141414

Fusion Program Resources in Preparation for ITER ($M)

Elements FY 2004 Approp.

Fusion Plasma Theory and Computation (SciDAC)

DIII-D Experimental Program

Alcator C-Mod Experimental Program

ITER Project (Direct Funding)

Plasma Technology

Total

1.0

3.0

1.0

3.0

0

8.0

01/13/04

FY 2005 Cong.

3.0

10.0

5.0

7.0

13.0

38.0

TechnologyFY 2005 Congressional Budget Request ($M)

13.7

3.0

3.1

7.6

27.4

FY 2004Approp.

Plasma Technologies

Fusion Technologies

Advanced Design

Materials Research

Total

17.8

0

2.6

7.4

27.8

FY 2005Cong.

13.6

11.1

5.9

7.7

38.3

FY 2003Actual

01/13/04

ITER TBM-Related Funding ($M)

FY 2004Approp.

FY 2005Cong.

01/13/04

Fusion Technologies

MFE Chamber Technologies

Plasma Technologies

Plasma Chamber Systems

.9

0 1.4

0

Current source of funding:

Future source of funding:

Office of Science

“These Department of Energy facilities are used by more than 18,000 researchers from universities, other government agencies, private industry and foreign nations.”

- Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham

20 Year Facilities Plan

DOE Office of ScienceStrategic Plan

February 2004

• 4 Strategic Goals for Fusion Program– First goal: Demonstrate with burning plasmas the scientific and

technological feasibility of fusion energy (through ITER project)– Fourth goals: Develop new materials, components, and

technologies needed to make fusion energy a reality

• Strategic Timeline– Toward 4th goal (materials, components, and technologies):

“By 2013, deliver to ITER for testing the blanket test modules needed to demonstrate the feasibility of extracting high-temperature heat from burning plasmas and for a self-sufficient fuel cycle”

Fusion Energy Sciences Budget

Tokamak$86.9

General Plasma Science$11.7

Other*$13.6

Alternates$88.5

FY 2005 Cong.

$264.1 M

NCSX$16.7

Technology$27.8

Theory & SciDAC

$28.6

IFE/HEDP$13.9

NSTX$33.6

01/20/04

ITER$7.0

Other Alts$24.3

$246.9 M

Tokamak$82.8

General Plasma Science

$9.0

Other*$12.4

Alternates$76.7

FY 2003 Actual

Techn

ology

$38.3

Theory & SciDAC

$27.7

IFE$17.0

NSTX$30.1NCS

X$11.7

Other Alts$22.1

Tokamak$89.6

General Plasma Science$11.7

Other*$13.8

Alternates$88.5

FY 2004 Approp.

Technology$27.4

Theory & SciDAC

$28.6

IFE/HEDP$15.1

NSTX$34.6

NCSX$16.7

Other Alts$23.2

$262.6 M

ITER$3.0

*SBIR/STTR GPP/GPE ORNL Move Reserve Environmental Monitoring

($ in Millions)

*NSF/NIST/NAS/AF/Undesignated funds

Institution Types

FY 2005 Congressional$264.1M

Fusion Energy Sciences Funding Distribution

Universities28%

Industry22%

Other*5%

Laboratory45%

Functions

Science54%

FacilityOperations+

30%

Technology10%

SBIR/STTR3%

+Includes NCSX Project

ITER Direct3%

Shifts in Priorities and Directionsfor Blanket R&D

• Shift focus of blanket R&D from science of higher risk concepts (APEX Project for advanced, innovative, and revolutionary) to development issues of lower risk concepts (conventional and evolutionary) that will be basis for Test Blanket Modules (TBMs) in early ITER operation

• Maintain some effort on higher risk concepts that might be tested as TBMs in later stages of ITER operation

Changing Views on Prospects for

Blanket Structural Materials

Recent change in structural materials R&D portfolio balance due to:

– Concerns about prospects for developing insulator coatings to control MHD effects in V/Li blanket

– More positive outlook on prospects of developing advanced (nanocomposited) ferritic steels that can operate at much higher temperatures than present-day steels

Past Allocation

Present Allocation

Target Future

AllocationStructural Material

ClassFunding

Allocation

V alloys: > ½

FS: < ¼

SiC: ¼

V alloys: < 1/2 and declining

FS: > 1/4 with AFS research increasing

SiC: ¼

About 1/3 for each if prospects for insulator

coatings improves

Reduce V alloys further if prospects for insulator

coatings does not improve

Changing Views on Prospects for

Blanket Structural Materials

Change in Portfolio Allocation

US Priorities for Coolant /Breeder Choices with

LA F/M Steel

• Solid Breeder: He-cooled ceramic breeder

• Liquid Breeder: Evaluating options

– Molten Salt (self-cooled and separately cooled) and PbLi (separately cooled)

Recent US Developments Related to

Blanket & Materials R&D

• Reduced budgets for blanket R&D

• Shifts in priorities and directions for blanket R&D

• Changing views on prospects for blanket structural materials

Recent US Developments Related to

Blanket & Materials R&D

• Reduced budgets for blanket R&D

• Shifts in priorities and directions for blanket R&D

• Changing views on prospects for blanket structural materials

Shifts in Priorities and Directionsfor Blanket R&D

• Shift focus of blanket R&D from science of higher risk concepts (APEX Project for advanced, innovative, and revolutionary) to development issues of lower risk concepts (conventional and evolutionary) that will be basis for Test Blanket Modules (TBMs) in early ITER operation

• Maintain some effort on higher risk concepts that might be tested as TBMs in later stages of ITER operation

Changing Views on Prospects for

Blanket Structural Materials

Recent change in structural materials R&D portfolio balance due to:

– Concerns about prospects for developing insulator coatings to control MHD effects in V/Li blanket

– More positive outlook on prospects of developing advanced (nanocomposited) ferritic steels that can operate at much higher temperatures than present-day steels

Past Allocation

Present Allocation

Target Future

AllocationStructural Material

ClassFunding

Allocation

V alloys: > ½

FS: < ¼

SiC: ¼

V alloys: < 1/2 and declining

FS: > 1/4 with AFS research increasing

SiC: ¼

About 1/3 for each if prospects for insulator

coatings improves

Reduce V alloys further if prospects for insulator

coatings does not improve

Changing Views on Prospects for

Blanket Structural Materials

Change in Portfolio Allocation

US Priorities for Coolant /Breeder Choices with

LA F/M Steel

• Solid Breeder: He-cooled ceramic breeder

• Liquid Breeder: Evaluating options

– Molten Salt (self-cooled and separately cooled) and PbLi (separately cooled)