Senate Slashes Fusion Budget

Posted by Rezwan on Sep 12, 2011 at 01:04 PM
Tools: Print | | (1) Comments | Discuss In Forums

The bill slashes $64M to the Fusion Energy Sciences Program (“OFES”), leaving a funding level of $335M.  The President requested $399.7M for OFES, $476.3 for NIF (“the Inertial Confinement Fusion and High-Yield Campaign”).  The Committee’s full report is here.  The section on OFES is copied below, as is The section on NIF. 

This is not the final budget.  As best I can gather (corrections appreciated), the process goes something like this:

1. The President puts in his FY2012 numbers (DOE request).  Note that OFES and NIF have separate budgets within the Department of Energy (“DOE”) budget.
2. The House of Representatives version of the bill included an extra $6.3M for OFES (more than the President requested) and no change to NIF. 
3. The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee “marks up” the budget, slashing $64M from OFES.  No change to NIF.
4. The Senate Appropriations Committee approves on September 9, 2011.
5. The marked version must still be approved by the full Senate - TBD.
6. Then it will have to go to conference with the bill passed by the House of Representatives to resolve the differences in the two bills before a final vote for passage in both houses.  Negotiations are required and this process is uncertain.
7. Many observers believe that the government will go on “continuing resolution” (which holds spending at FY 2011 levels) until overall federal budget deficit issues are resolved;
8. and then that the Congress will pass one “omnibus” Fy 2012 federal budget instead of a large number of individual bills.

Note that I’ve also included ICC (aka “low budget fusion alternatives”) budgets on the graph for perspective.  FY2011 had them at $24 Million, this budget takes them down to $11 Million (corrections welcome).  The final number is uncertain.  They will need to repackage themselves as something a low budget way to resurrect US leadership in fusion.  Otherwise these projects continue to dissolve away. 

Taking Action

Hopefully LPP will achieve net energy soon and we can ignore this whole process while basking in a burst of radiant plasma (at a suitable distance). 

For those not content to rely on that outcome, additional action is advised.  The information above has been circulating in the fusion research community with this prompt:

Given the severe disruption this Senate action, if included in a final Congressional budget action, would have on either the U.S. ITER effort, the domestic fusion program, or both, we strongly encourage you to notify your Members of Congress very soon to express your concerns both about the impact to the program and the possible impact to your facility.  This is especially important if you have a Member or Members on either the House or Senate Appropriations Committee and most especially important if you have a Member or Members on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. 

Thank you in advance for your help in trying to ensure that the Senate number does not become reality.

This is great, but can we turn this budget crisis into a broader grass-roots fusion advocacy opportunity?  Is it possible to mobilize people for fusion?  Could we take something like the avaaz.org campaign to “Stop Canada’s Deadly Oil” and rework it as a “Fund Fusion so that we don’t need Canada’s Deadly Oil” campaign?   

Join us to discuss it in the forums!

 


FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee recommends $335,463,000 for Fusion Energy Sciences. The Department is directed to submit a 10-year plan, not later than 12 months after enactment of this act, on the Department’s proposed research and development activities in magnetic fusion under four realistic budget scenarios. The report shall (1) identify specific areas of fusion energy research and enabling technology development in which the United States can and should establish or solidify a lead in the global fusion energy development effort and (2) identify priorities for facility construction and facility decommissioning under each of the four budget scenarios. The Department is encouraged to use a similar approach adopted by the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel that developed a 10- year strategic plan for the Department’s high energy physics program.

Of the $24,741,000 requested for the High Energy Density Laboratory Plasma program, $12,000,000 shall be spent on heavy-ion fusion, laser-driven fusion, and magneto-inertial fusion to be evenly distributed among these three areas of science. A recent Department of Energy report on scientific grand challenges for fusion energy sciences identified these three areas of research as critical toward advancing inertial fusion energy. In particular, the Committee does not understand why the Department would redirect funding for magnetized high-energy-density plasma research after the panel report found that this approach has the potential to significantly reduce power requirements compared to conventional inertial confinement fusion and could permit fusion development without building multi-billion dollar facilities.

The Committee is concerned about the impact ITER will have on the domestic fusion energy budget. Based on DOE budget estimates, DOE will be requesting between $300,000,000 to $400,000,000 a year from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 to help build ITER. If current trends of declining or flat budgets continue, almost all of the fusion energy sciences budget will be consumed by ITER. The Committee encourages DOE to find a solution to this problem without compromising the scientific and technical expertise residing at U.S. universities, labs, and industrial partners.

The Committee encourages the Office Fusion Energy Sciences Program to closely collaborate with the Office of Basic Energy Sciences, the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research, the Office of Nuclear Energy, and the National Nuclear Security Administration to address mutual needs for technology development in magnetic fusion, inertial fusion, and next-generation fission reactor concepts. One focus area of these collaborations should be on identifying, characterizing, and developing new materials that can endure the intense neutron and heat fluxes expected in these reactor environments. The Committee expects the Department to consider these nuclear technology needs as it develops its prioritization plan.

The Committee also encourages the fusion energy program take continue taking advantage of high performance computing to address scientific and technical challenges on the path to fusion energy. The Committee supports the Fusion Simulation Program to provide experimentally validated predictive simulation capabilities that are critical for ITER and other current and planned toroidal fusion devices. Given current and future budget constraints, the Committee views this initiative as critical to maintain U.S. world leadership in fusion energy in a cost-effective manner.

 


Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High-Yield Campaign

The Committee recommends $476,274,000 as requested. Within these funds, at least $62,500,000 and $48,000,000 shall be used for inertial confinement fusion activities at the University of Rochester’s Omega facility and Sandia National Laboratory’s Z facility, respectively. The Committee encourages NNSA to increase pulsed power capabilities at the Z facility by increasing available current and attainable pressures and radiation, especially for new radiographic capabilities. The Committee also recommends at least $5,000,000 as requested for the Naval Research Laboratory to continue operating laser facilities focused on laser plasma interactions, target hydrodynamics, and materials—issues which are important for ignition. The Committee recognizes and supports the important work of medium scale laser facilities such as Trident at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Jupiter at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Nike at the Naval Research Laboratory to provide independent peer review of experiments at larger scale facilities, such as the National Ignition Facility, and help resolve scientific barriers to achieving ignition.

The Committee recognizes the National Ignition Facility’s important contribution to resolving a critical stockpile stewardship issue related to radiation transport. Scientists used the National Ignition Facility to conduct non-ignition experiments, which do not require using the full capability of the facility, to achieve temperatures and pressures that exceeded any other facility and address one of the largest sources of uncertainty in calculating weapon performance. These experiments validated physics-based models and increased NNSA’s confidence in assessing the safety, security, and reliability of the stockpile. Despite this success, the Committee remains concerned about NNSA’s ability to achieve ignition—the primary purpose of constructing the facility—by the end of fiscal year 2012 when the National Ignition Campaign ends and the facility should transition to regular ignition operations and pursues broad scientific applications.

The Committee directs NNSA to establish an independent advisory board by January 1, 2012 that can evaluate experiments planned at the National Ignition Facility pre- and post-ignition, identify potential weaknesses with the experimental plan, and recommend, if necessary, alternative approaches to address scientific and technical challenges.

The Committee also strongly supports the advisory committee’s role in setting a strategic direction for inertial confinement fusion and high-energy density physics research and determining how best to use current facilities to advance this scientific field.

If the National Ignition Facility does not achieve ignition by the end of fiscal year 2012 using a cryogenically layered deuterium and tritium target that produces a neutron yield with a gain greater than 1, the Committee directs NNSA to submit a report by November 30, 2012 that (1) explains the scientific and technical barriers to achieving ignition, (2) the steps NNSA will take to achieve ignition with a revised schedule, and (3) the impact on the stockpile stewardship program.

The Committee commends NNSA for taking the first steps in soliciting competitive bids for its full portfolio of target fabrication contracts. The Committee encourages NNSA to consider various criteria when awarding contracts, such as the extent to which the contract spurs innovation, lowers costs, reduces technical risk, and maintains a competitive multi-vendor market to avoid relying on one contractor for all future target fabrication needs. The Committee also encourages NNSA to take advantage of existing and presently underutilized fabrication capabilities to meet increased demands for targets rather than developing and building new infrastructure. The Committee also urges NNSA to develop a longterm plan that assesses the demand for targets for inertial confinement fusion facilities that support the stockpile stewardship program and identifies ways to meet that demand without significant cost increases.