1. DOE Perspective Al Opdenaker Presented By Office of Fusion Energy Sciences Office of Science Department of Energy ARIES Meeting University of Wisconsin April 22, 2002

2. Mission and Priorities of DOE Secretary Abraham, October 24, 2001 Priority that deserves special mention. oUnique contribution we can make to our energy and national security by finding new sources of energy—whether fusion or hydrogen economy or ideas not yet explored—we need to leapfrog status quo and prepare for future requiring revolution in how we find, produce and deliver energy oNot simply because of the many usual reasons, but because success in this mission could well be one of the greatest contributions to our energy and national security for generations to come oThe Department should take this leadership role

3. FY 2003 Fusion Energy Sciences Congressional Budget 137.4 73.9 36.2 247.5 142.5 78.7 36.1 257.3 FY 2003FY 2002 Science Facility Operations Enabling R&D OFES Total DIII-D C-Mod NSTX NCSX 50.9 17.6 26.8 4.0 55.6 22.3 33.1 11.8

4. oEffective budget increase of $29.4 million –Actual increase $9.8 million –Completion of TFTR D&D yields $19.6 million roll-off oKeep each program element as close as possible to FY 2002 level oIncrease operations at facilities to 85% of full, single shift oInitiate NCSX project oPay “Housekeeping” Expenses –TSTA clean up ($3.0 million) –ORNL move to X-10 ($1.0 in FY 03 FY 2003 FES Congressional Budget Highlights

5. Major Fusion Facilities Operating Times 0 15 20 25 30 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 Approp. FY 2003 Pres. Req. Years Weeks DIII-DC-MODNSTX 12 17 12 8 6 16 15 12 21 17 14 17 14 21 10 5 01/29/02 Full Utilization Level

6. Fusion Energy Sciences Budget * Housekeeping includes SBIR/STTR, GPE/GPP, TSTA cleanup, D-Site caretaking at PPPL, HBCU, Education Outreach, ORNL Move and Reserves Tokamak $79.7 General Plasma Science $8.8 Housekeeping* $14.6 Alternates $64.9 FY 2002 December Financial Plan $247.5 M TFTR D&D $19.6 Enabling R&D $32.7 Theory $27.2 IFE $17.0 NSTX $26.8 Tokamak $88.8 General Plasma Science $9.1 Housekeeping* $16.7 Alternates $81.3 FY 2003 Congressional $257.3 M Enabling R&D $33.1 Theor y $27.6 Other Magnetic Alternates $20.6 NSTX $33.1 IFE $16.6 Other Magnetic Alternates $22.6 NCSX $11.8 NCSX $4.0

7. *NSF/NIST/NAS/AF Undesignated Institution Types FY 2003 President’s Request $257.3M Fusion Energy Sciences Funding Distribution Functions Universities 28% Industry 22% Other* 3% Laboratory 47% Science 53% Facility Operations+ 31% Enabling R&D 13% Small Business Innovative Research 3% +Includes NCSX Project

8. Fusion Energy Sciences Funding by Institution FY 2003 Congressional FY 2002 December Fin Plan ($ in Millions) 01/30/2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 GA LBNL LLNL LANL ORNL PPPL MIT Other Universities All Other

9. oOn schedule for completion by end of FY 2002 oWithin planned cost oThe most challenging phase has been completed--cutting and removal of vacuum vessel segments and shipping to waste depository oSeveral major activities remain to be completed Status of TFTR D&D Project

10. oBuild on Snowmass results to recommend a strategy for proceeding with a burning plasma experiment oRecommend roadmap for joint initiative between OFES and OASCR on integrated computational simulation and modeling oConsider whether to broaden program scope and activities to include non-electric applications of intermediate term fusion devices Three New Charges for FESAC

11. oEstablish a high-level panel to use Snowmass results to recommend a strategy for pursuing burning plasma physics experiments –Show how ITER could fit into U.S. program if we decide to participate –Show how FIRE or IGNITOR would fit into U.S. program if we do not join ITER oPanel--(Chair Prager) –All interested FESAC members –Program leaders from major institutions –Selected others oReport by September 2002 oNRC will review FESAC Recommendations by end of 2002 Burning Plasma Physics

12. oProvide a roadmap for a joint initiative with OASCR –A 5-6 year program, costing about $20 million –Use the improved computational models developed by the base theory program –Significantly improve simulation and modeling capabilities oPanel members (Chair Dahlburg) –FESAC members –Experts recommended by ASCAC oObtain fusion community input using workshops –Current status –Vision for simulation of toroidal confinement systems –New theory and math needed –Computer science needed –Computational infrastructure –Validation and use oSummary report by July 15, 2002 Integrated Simulation and Modeling Final roadmap recommendation by December 1, 2002

13. Non-Electric Applications oRealizing the vision of fusion electricity requires long-range development effort (Chair McCarthy) oPast studies have explored ways to use fusion to meet other needs not requiring the levels of physics and technology understanding needed for electricity production –Hydrogen production –High-energy neutrons for many uses, i.e. waste transmutation oFESAC consider if program should be broadened to include non-electric applications of intermediate fusion devices –What are promising opportunities –What steps are needed to include these opportunities in program –What are the possible negative impacts and mitigation strategies oReport by January 2003

14. Office of Fusion Energy Sciences Research Division Facilities & Enabling Technologies Division John Willis, Director (1 Position Vacancy) Michael Roberts,** Director Warren Marton Sam Berk T.V. George Gene Nardella Chair, F&ETD Budget Committee Fac. Ops/Expts, VLT, Magnets V-Chair, F&ETD Budget Committee, PFC, Plasma Chamber Sys, Materials Curt Bolton ESCH, Fac. Ops/Expts Tritium and Safety, Education Fac. Ops/TFTR D&D/Expts/GPP and IFE Technology Heating and Fueling, SBIR/STTR, Fac. Ops/GA ECH, US-JA PCM T.J. Moore* Support Staff John Sauter* Program Support Specialist Marty Carlin*, Personal Assistant/Office Manager Michael Crisp Rostom Dagazian Steve Eckstrand Chuck Finfgeld Darlene Markevich Ron McKnight Erol Oktay Don Priester (Position Vacancy) Atomic Physics, HBCU ARIES System Studies Theory Team Leader C-MOD, Theory University Tokamaks Diagnostics, Education, Outreach IFE, University Liaison, Basic Plasma Science DIII-D, International Tokamaks Theory NSTX Research Division personnel in leading rolls within F&ETD Program: Next Step Options Leader: Curt Bolton (All F&ETD staff part of Budget Committee) *On Call from SC-80 Exploratory Concepts (Alts) Next Step Options, Theory N. Anne Davies Al Opdenaker Shahida Afzal* Suellen Velthuis* Visual Information Specialist Executive AssistantPersonal Assistant Michael Roberts** Director International Activities Sandy Newton* ** Personal Assistant Debra Frame Administration Sandy Newton,* ** Personal Assistant/Office Manager Ray Schwartz F Associate Director of Science for Fusion Energy Sciences (Position Vacant) Arnold Kritz + Modeling and Simulation Esther Ku Assisting in Facility Operations and Enabling Technologies u Principal Acting Director +On Assignment (Lehigh Univ.) **Dual Capacity * Support Staff ARIES Systems Studies

15. Changes at OFES oResponsibility for studies transferred to Anne’s Office oI will be the Point of Contact; Esther will assist me oFunding will continue to appear in the Enabling Technolgies sub-program oMore frequent interactions at Germantown

16. Advanced Design and Analysis Funding $3,125 817 173 1,035 $5,150 $2,006 1,735 198 1,339 $5,278 FY 2003FY 2002 NSO ARIES-MFE Socio-economics Other Subtotal MFE MFE $1,128 $6,278 $ 178 $5,456 ARIES IFE Total Advanced Design IFE $1,945 178 $1,913 -5% 198 +8% ARIES Socio-economics

17. Issues oTotal Budget oMFE versus IFE Balance oFuture Socio-Economics Studies