1. Fusion Energy Sciences Program Department of Energy Perspective February 23, 2004 www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov E xcellent S cience in S upport of A ttractive E nergy US Department of Energy by Sam Berk OFES Team Leader for Technology

2. 0 1 989995970001 76 94020304 01/14/04 05

3. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 800 Fiscal Year 700 1000 US Fusion Program Budget History (in 2005 $M) Fiscal Year Budget (FY 2005$ in Millions) 777982869092969899788084889193959700017675737494028387818589720304 01/14/04 05 900

4. FY 2005 Fusion Program Congressional Budget Request ($M) 143.9 84.5 27.4 6.8 262.6 FY 2004 Approp. Science Facility Operations Technology SBIR/STTR OFES Total DIII-D C-Mod NSTX NCSX IFE/HEDP 144.0 85.5 27.8 6.8 264.1 FY 2005 Cong. 54.0 21.5 33.6 16.7 13.9 56.0 22.2 34.7 16.7 15.1 136.2 66.2 38.3 6.2 246.9 FY 2003 Actual 51.9 19.2 30.1 11.7 17.0 01/13/04

5. o+$1 M for MST oNo $3 M increase for SciDAC/FSP as planned oNo increase of $0.8 M for NCSX research in support of construction oAll other programs funded at about FY 2004 appropriations level Summary of US Fusion Program FY 2005 Congressional Budget Request ITER oDirect 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 oOperation of facilities reduced from FY 2004 plan of 18 weeks each to 14 weeks each (-$3.2 M) oNCSX kept at FY 2004 level instead of the planned $4.8 M increase oFunding for ORNL move stretched out Facilities Operations ($85.5 M, +$1 M) oFusion Technologies closed out in FY 2004: all IFE work brought to conclusion and ITER- relevant parts of MFE work moved to Plasma Technologies oAll areas of Plasma Technologies: increased budgets and redirection toward ITER oFIRE program completed with Physics Validation Review in FY 2004 oMaterials research reduced $.2 M Technology ($27.8 M, +$.4 M) Science ($150.8 M, +$.1 M)

6. Major Fusion Facilities Operating Times 0 15 20 25 30 FY 2005 Congressional FY 2002 FY 2004 Appropriations Years Weeks DIII-DC-MODNSTX 8 12 18 12 18 10 5 01/13/04 Full Utilization Level FY 2003 Actual 4* 13 14 *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. 14

7. 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

8. Technology FY 2005 Congressional Budget Request ($M) 13.7 3.0 3.1 7.6 27.4 FY 2004 Approp. Plasma Technologies Fusion Technologies Advanced Design Materials Research Total 17.8 0 2.6 7.4 27.8 FY 2005 Cong. 13.6 11.1 5.9 7.7 38.3 FY 2003 Actual 01/13/04

9. ITER TBM-Related Funding ($M) FY 2004 Approp. FY 2005 Cong. 01/13/04 Fusion Technologies MFE Chamber Technologies Plasma Technologies Plasma Chamber Systems.9 01.4 0 Current source of funding: Future source of funding:

11. 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

12. DOE Office of Science Strategic 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 4 th 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”

13. 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 Technology $38.3 Theory & SciDAC $27.7 IFE $17.0 NSTX $30.1 NCSX $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)

14. *NSF/NIST/NAS/AF/Undesignated funds Institution Types FY 2005 Congressional $264.1M Fusion Energy Sciences Funding Distribution Universities 28% Industry 22% Other* 5% Laboratory 45% Functions Science 54% Facility Operations+ 30% Technology 10% SBIR/STTR 3% +Includes NCSX Project ITER Direct 3%

15. Shifts in Priorities and Directions for 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

16. 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

17. Past Allocation Present Allocation Target Future Allocation Structural Material Class Funding 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

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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

21. Shifts in Priorities and Directions for 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

22. 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

23. Past Allocation Present Allocation Target Future Allocation Structural Material Class Funding 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

24. 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)