DOE Perspective
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 17

DOE Perspective PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 130 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

DOE Perspective. Presented By. Al Opdenaker. Office of Fusion Energy Sciences Office of Science Department of Energy ARIES Meeting University of Wisconsin April 22, 2002. Mission and Priorities of DOE Secretary Abraham, October 24, 2001. Priority that deserves special mention.

Download Presentation

DOE Perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Doe perspective

DOE Perspective

Presented By

Al Opdenaker

Office of Fusion Energy Sciences

Office of Science

Department of Energy

ARIES Meeting

University of Wisconsin

April 22, 2002


Doe perspective

Mission and Priorities of DOESecretary Abraham, October 24, 2001

Priority that deserves special mention.

  • Unique 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  

  • Not 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

  • The Department should take this leadership role


Doe perspective

FY 2003 Fusion Energy Sciences

Congressional Budget

FY 2002

FY 2003

Science

Facility Operations

Enabling R&D

OFES Total

137.4

73.9

36.2

247.5

142.5

78.7

36.1

257.3

DIII-D

C-Mod

NSTX

NCSX

50.9

17.6

26.8

4.0

55.6

22.3

33.1

11.8


Doe perspective

FY 2003 FES Congressional Budget Highlights

  • Effective budget increase of $29.4 million

    • Actual increase $9.8 million

    • Completion of TFTR D&D yields $19.6 million roll-off

  • Keep each program element as close as possible to FY 2002 level

  • Increase operations at facilities to 85% of full, single shift

  • Initiate NCSX project

  • Pay “Housekeeping” Expenses

    • TSTA clean up ($3.0 million)

    • ORNL move to X-10 ($1.0 in FY 03


Doe perspective

Major Fusion Facilities Operating Times

30

DIII-D

C-MOD

NSTX

Full Utilization Level

25

21

21

21

20

17

17

17

16

Weeks

15

15

14

14

12

12

12

10

8

6

5

0

FY 1999

FY 2001

FY 2003

Pres. Req.

FY 2000

FY 2002

Approp.

Years

01/29/02


Doe perspective

Fusion Energy Sciences Budget

FY 2002

December Financial Plan

FY 2003

Congressional

$247.5 M

$257.3 M

General Plasma Science

$8.8

General Plasma Science

$9.1

Housekeeping*

$16.7

Housekeeping*

$14.6

Tokamak

$79.7

Tokamak

$88.8

TFTR D&D

$19.6

Theory

$27.6

Theory

$27.2

Enabling

R&D

$33.1

Enabling

R&D

$32.7

IFE

$16.6

NSTX

$26.8

NSTX

$33.1

IFE

$17.0

Other Magnetic Alternates

$22.6

NCSX

$4.0

NCSX

$11.8

Other Magnetic Alternates

$20.6

Alternates

$81.3

Alternates

$64.9

* Housekeeping includes SBIR/STTR, GPE/GPP, TSTA cleanup, D-Site caretaking at PPPL, HBCU, Education Outreach, ORNL Move and Reserves


Doe perspective

Fusion Energy Sciences Funding Distribution

FY 2003 President’s Request

$257.3M

Institution Types

Functions

Universities

28%

Facility

Operations+

31%

Science

53%

Laboratory

47%

Enabling

R&D

13%

Industry

22%

Other*

3%

Small Business

Innovative

Research

3%

*NSF/NIST/NAS/AF

Undesignated

+Includes NCSX Project


Doe perspective

Fusion Energy Sciences Funding by Institution

($ in Millions)

80

FY 2002 December Fin Plan

70

FY 2003 Congressional

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GA

LBNL

LLNL

LANL

PPPL

MIT

ORNL

All Other

Other

Universities

01/30/2


Doe perspective

Status of TFTR D&D Project

  • On schedule for completion by end of FY 2002

  • Within planned cost

  • The most challenging phase has been completed--cutting and removal of vacuum vessel segments and shipping to waste depository

  • Several major activities remain to be completed


Doe perspective

Three New Charges for FESAC

  • Build onSnowmass results to recommend a strategy for proceeding with a burning plasma experiment

  • Recommend roadmap for joint initiative between OFES and OASCR on integrated computational simulation and modeling

  • Consider whether to broaden program scope and activities to include non-electric applications of intermediate term fusion devices


Doe perspective

Burning Plasma Physics

  • Establish 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

  • Panel--(Chair Prager)

    • All interested FESAC members

    • Program leaders from major institutions

    • Selected others

  • Report by September 2002

  • NRC will review FESAC Recommendations by end of 2002


Doe perspective

Integrated Simulation and Modeling

  • Provide 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

  • Panel members (Chair Dahlburg)

    • FESAC members

    • Experts recommended by ASCAC

  • Obtain 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

  • Summary report by July 15, 2002

Final roadmap recommendation by December 1, 2002


Doe perspective

Non-Electric Applications

  • Realizing the vision of fusion electricity requires long-range development effort (Chair McCarthy)

  • Past 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

  • FESAC 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

  • Report by January 2003


Doe perspective

Office of Fusion Energy Sciences

N. Anne Davies

Associate Director of Science for Fusion Energy Sciences

Suellen Velthuis*

Al Opdenaker

Shahida Afzal*

Visual Information Specialist

Executive Assistant

Personal Assistant

ARIES Systems Studies

International Activities

ARIES System Studies

Michael Roberts**

Debra Frame

Sandy Newton***

Director

Administration

Personal Assistant

Research Division

Facilities & Enabling Technologies Division

John Willis, Director

Michael Roberts,** Director

Marty Carlin*, Personal Assistant/Office Manager

Sandy Newton,*** Personal Assistant/Office Manager

John Sauter*

T.J. Moore*

Warren Marton

Ray SchwartzF

Program Support Specialist

Chair, F&ETD Budget Committee

Fac. Ops/Expts, VLT, Magnets

Support Staff

ESCH, Fac. Ops/Expts

Chuck Finfgeld

Ron McKnight

(1 Position Vacancy)

Sam Berk

University Tokamaks

Basic Plasma Science

V-Chair, F&ETD Budget

Committee, PFC, Plasma

Chamber Sys, Materials

IFE, University Liaison,

Arnold Kritz+

(Position Vacant)

Modeling and Simulation

Research Division personnel in leading rolls within F&ETD Program:

Exploratory Concepts (Alts)

Gene Nardella

Darlene Markevich

Curt Bolton

Tritium and Safety, Education

Fac. Ops/TFTR D&D/Expts/GPP

and IFE Technology

Diagnostics, Education, Outreach

Next Step Options, Theory

Erol Oktay

Next Step Options Leader:

Michael Crisp

T.V. George

Curt Bolton

DIII-D, International Tokamaks

Atomic Physics, HBCU

Heating and Fueling,

SBIR/STTR, Fac. Ops/GA

ECH, US-JA PCM

Don Priester

Rostom Dagazian

(All F&ETD staff part of Budget Committee)

NSTX

C-MOD, Theory

Esther Ku

Steve Eckstrand

(Position Vacancy)

Assisting in Facility Operations

and Enabling Technologies

*On Call from SC-80

Theory Team Leader

Theory

u

Principal Acting Director +On Assignment (Lehigh Univ.) **Dual Capacity

*Support Staff


Doe perspective

Changes at OFES

  • Responsibility for studies transferred to Anne’s Office

  • I will be the Point of Contact; Esther will assist me

  • Funding will continue to appear in the Enabling Technolgies sub-program

  • More frequent interactions at Germantown


Doe perspective

Advanced Design and Analysis Funding

FY 2002

FY 2003

MFE

NSO

ARIES-MFE

Socio-economics

Other

Subtotal MFE

$3,125

817

173

1,035

$5,150

$2,006

1,735

198

1,339

$5,278

IFE

ARIES IFE

Total Advanced Design

$1,128

$6,278

$ 178

$5,456

ARIES

Socio-economics

$1,945

178

$1,913 -5%

198 +8%


Doe perspective

Issues

  • Total Budget

  • MFE versus IFE Balance

  • Future Socio-Economics Studies


  • Login