Review of Burning Plasma Physics. Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC)

Technical Report · Sat Sep 01 00:00:00 EDT 2001

DOI:https://doi.org/10.2172/1206498· OSTI ID:1206498

Berk, Herb ^[1]; Betti, Riccardo ^[2]; Dahlburg, Jill ^[3]; Freidberg, Jeff ^[4]; Hopper, Bick ^[5]; Meade, Dale ^[6]; Navritil, Jerry ^[7]; Nevins, Bill ^[5]; Ono, Masa ^[6]; Perkins, Rip ^[6]; Prager, Stewart ^[8]; Schoenburg, Kurt ^[9]; Taylor, Tony ^[3]; Uckan, Nermin ^[10]

---

1. Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX (United States)
2. Univ. of Rochester, NY (United States)
3. Univ. of Georgia, Athens, GA (United States)
4. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA (United States)
5. Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
6. Princeton Plasma Physics Lab. (PPPL), Princeton, NJ (United States)
7. Columbia Univ., New York, NY (United States)
8. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (United States)
9. Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States)
10. Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)

The next frontier in the quest for magnetic fusion energy is the development of a basic understanding of plasma behavior in the regime of strong self-heating, the so called “burning plasma” regime. The general consensus in the fusion community is that the exploration of this frontier requires a new, relatively large experimental facility - a burning plasma experiment. The motivation, justification, and steps required to build such a facility are the primary focus of our report. The specific goals of the report are as follows. First, the report describes the critical scientific and engineering phenomena that are expected to arise for the first time, or else in a strongly modified form, in a burning plasma. Second, the report shows that the capabilities of existing experiments are inadequate to investigate these phenomena, thereby providing a major justification for a new facility. Third, the report compares the features and predicted performance of the three major next generation burning plasma experiments under current consideration (ITER-FEAT, FIRE, and IGNITOR), which are aimed at addressing these problems. Deliberately, no selection of the best option is made or attempted since such a decision involves complex scientific and cost issues that are beyond the scope of the present panel report. Fourth, the report makes specific recommendations regarding a process to move the burning plasma program forward, including a procedure for choosing the best option and the future activities of the Next Step Option (NSO) program. Fifth, the report attempts to provide a proper perspective for the role of burning plasmas with respect to the overall U.S. fusion program. The introduction provides the basic background information required for understanding the context in which the U.S. fusion community thinks about burning plasma issues. It “sets the stage” for the remainder of the report.

• Research Organization: USDOE Office of Science (SC), Washington, DC (United States). Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC)
• Sponsoring Organization: USDOE Office of Science (SC), Fusion Energy Sciences (FES)
• OSTI ID: 1206498
• Report Number(s): DOE/SC-0041; TRN: US1500817
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY
PLASMA
ITER TOKAMAK
ADVISORY COMMITTEES
COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS
THERMONUCLEAR REACTORS
ENGINEERING
PLASMA HEATING
RESEARCH PROGRAMS
MANAGEMENT
PERFORMANCE
RECOMMENDATIONS