This issue includes the following topics:
The pace of change continues to be rapid. I would like to
highlight three areas that will have important impacts on our
profession: the National Ignition Facility (NIF) construction
activities, the ITER construction decision, and the new ANS strategic
plan.
NIF: The $1.2 billion NIF project now has $500 million committed to
it through fiscal year 1998. Congress declined to appropriate all the
money up front but it has voted the full requested appropriation each
year of the project. It hasn't been a shoe-in. Each year there was
considerable controversy. The remaining funds are within the
$4.5 billion per year Stockpile Stewardship Program that Congress has
supported, but we expect considerable debate each year, even though
the Stewardship total is about half what the budget for nuclear
weapons was during the 1980s. The fact that the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty (CTBT) is before the Senate for ratification should, in fact,
strengthen Congress' resolve to support the Stewardship program.
There is a three-story hole in the ground at LLNL in which the
football stadium sized building is being built. Contracts are being
inked all over the country. The total ICF Program appropriation for
FY98 (including NIF) is $415 million. Anti-nuclear-weapons
organizations filled suit and asked the judge for an injunction to stop
construction. While the DOE has agreed to additional environmental
studies, the judge has signaled several times that he will not stop
construction. Thus, every indication to date is that NIF construction
will be completed on schedule with the first cluster of eight beamlines
available at the end of FY2001 and full construction complete in 2003.
While NIF is being built for National security purposes, it will answer
fundamental questions about the viability of inertial fusion as a source
of electric power and contribute to fundamental sciences. DOE has
accepted the recommendations of several studies and directed the
NIF/ICF team to plan for expanded international collaboration on
unclassified NIF experiments (about 80% of the total).
ITER: The fact that a three year transition period is being inserted
between the end of the Engineering Design Activities and a formal
construction decision (see C. Baker's article below) was a
disappointment to many who wanted to see a construction decision
immediately. Many of us have devoted much of our careers to trying
to make fusion energy happen, and we'd all like to see it progress
rapidly. During this period, many will be interacting with Congress to
enhance interest in fusion energy.
As your Chairman, I have participated in the Fusion Energy
Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) meetings on what to do about
the ITER situation. As many of you know, a subcommittee chaired by
Herman Grunder of CEBAF recommended strong support of ITER if a
construction decision came forth soon. However, if it did not, the
panel recommended studying lower cost options with our international
partners. OFES is currently considering a new international strategy
in addition to an ITER participation and will ask the FESAC for its
reaction to the new strategy at the end of January. None of us have
seen it yet.
The multi-billion dollar price tag for ITER could be one stumbling
block in an era where it is difficult to secure funding for large science
projects and new energy sources are just not a Congressional priority.
This is one key reason why fusion energy is being approached on an
international basis. However, it may be that we should also try to find
lower cost ways to continue developing fusion energy.
I'm sure that if NIF had cost even $2 billion, it would not be
under construction today, even with the strong National security
implications and the pending CTBT debate. Our country, and, it
appears to some extent, much of the world is continuing to back away
>from large science. We must figure out if there is a way to make the
fusion energy option available to future generations with smaller
budgets, at least until one or more of several factors changes current
thinking. Fortunately, there are several scenarios that could cause just
such a change in thinking. Fixing global warming could become more
of an accepted national issue. Power companies that are operating
closer and closer to the margin could suffer more blackouts. Some
scientific or technological event could cause another "sputnik" type of
awakening to the importance of investing in science and technology.
It is hard to predict if or when such things will make the climate more
receptive. In the meantime I have found that there are many scientists
and engineers who get even cleverer when they are told they cannot
have as much money as they assumed was necessary and the whole
field benefits from this imaginative thinking in the face of a challenge.
I would urge us in the fusion community to respond positively to the
current challenge and see how we might meet it.
ANS: The American Nuclear Society has also been shrinking as the
nuclear power industry shrinks. ANS President Stan Hatcher initiated
a strategic planning exercise to update the ANS's strategic long-range
direction in order to meet this challenge. One of the elements of this
rethink process was a pair of two-day planning sessions involving
representatives of the ANS Board, the Staff, the Divisions, and the
Committees. I attended representing FED. These were very lively
sessions and there was much debate about what the major focus of
ANS should be. Ultimately, the group did write a new plan. It was
submitted to the full Board and adopted at the Winter Meeting in
Albuquerque. The new ANS Mission Statement is:
"
The American Nuclear Society serves its members in their
efforts to develop and safely apply nuclear science and
technology for public benefit through knowledge exchange,
professional development, and enhanced public
understanding."
1) ANS will be the recognized leader for the advancement
of nuclear science and technology,
2) ANS will be its members' primary resource for
professional development and knowledge exchange,
3) ANS will be recognized by the public as a credible
source of nuclear science and technology information, and
4) ANS will be an active contributor to and participant in
nuclear science and technology public policy issues.
Milestones and strategies were set in order to achieve these goals
by 2003. Two Task Forces were established to help implement these
goals: 1) Task Force on Infrastructure, Stan Hatcher Chair, and 2)
Task Force on Financial Strategies, Denis O'Brien Chair.
This represents a significant change in direction for the ANS with
a much stronger emphasis on being a better professional society. Many
of the strategies such as stronger student support are things that our
Division has emphasized for years. Here is another case where a
challenge may bring about positive changes that we would all like to
see. I urge those of you who might want to give input on this change in
directions to give me your thoughts and/or pass them on to the above
two Task Force Chairmen. Anyone wishing a copy of the new ANS
Strategic Plan can E-mail Clement Wong, our Secretary/Treasurer, at
wongc@gav.gat.com.
Plans are continuing for the ANS sponsored 13th Topical Meeting
on the Technology of Fusion Energy. This meeting will be embedded
in the ANS Annual summer meeting to be held from June 7-11, 1998
at the Opryland Hotel in Nashville. The call for papers released in
October, is available on our web page at
http://www.ornl.gov/fed/ans98/ans98.html
This web site will be updated with more details as we finalize the
plans and program for the meeting. Please check it out periodically.
Remember, one-page paper summaries are due on January 9.
Chairman's Message
Reminder: 13th Topical Meeting - Nashville, June 7-11,
98
Nomination Requirements:
The award's purpose is to recognize a significant research accomplishment, of journal publication caliber, by a student in the fusion science and engineering area, and to encourage student involvement in future fusion energy programs.
Mail nominations to:
Professor Gerald L. Kulcinski Chair FED Honors and Awards Committee University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Engineering Physics, 1500 Engineering Drive, #443 Madison WI 53706-1687
Nomination deadline is March 30, 1998.
Please make this announcement known to your colleagues and students.Thank you for your cooperation.
On Sunday 15 November 1997, your Division Board met and
approved the following list of candidates. Early next year you will
receive a ballot with the names of the candidates. It is important for
all of you to return your ballot. Last year, 29% of our membership
returned their ballots. Let us see if we can improve on this percentage.
Also if you are interested in serving on the Executive Committee or
running for office, please let the Board know. The Chairman of the
nominating committee for 1999 will be Dr. W. Hogan. You can
either contact him or any current member of the Board to express your
interest.
The following is a list of candidates for 1998. They are listed by
office seeking and alphabetical, not in recommendation.
Again, please return the ballot you receive this spring.
1998 Candidates
CHAIR:
VICE CHAIR: Vote for one (1)
Secretary/Treasurer: Vote for one (1)
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CANDIDATES: Vote for three (3)
ITER is in the sixth year of the presently-defined Engineering
Design Activities (EDA) phase and is at a critical stage regarding its
future. Looking back a number of important achievements have been
accomplished. First, the ITER Project will meet its primary
deliverable for the EDA, namely, to provide the information required
to make a decision to proceed to construction. The EDA Agreement
never envisioned a formal construction decision before the end of the
EDA. Furthermore, the ITER Process of developing and
implementing a truly international project team has been successful
and serves as an excellent model for other international, large-scale
scientific endeavors.
The ITER design effort is an unprecedented effort to address
and solve the real-world challenges of producing practical fusion
energy. It serves as an effective driver for the science and technology
of fusion energy. International and national technical reviews were
carried out this year, all of which concluded that the design meets
ITER's mission requirements and is a suitable basis to proceed. Site
evaluation activities are underway in Japan, Italy and Canada. The
Parties are expected to provide detailed technical information on
candidate sites in 1998. A coordinated, worldwide physics effort has
been established to support ITER, which is stimulating further plasma
science research. Much of the supporting technology R&D has been
completed. Prototypes of key components are being fabricated and
will be ready to be tested in the next phase.
On the international front, a recent review of the entire
European fusion program concluded that ITER should be Europe's
highest priority, even if built outside of Europe. The Russian
Federation Government has formally authorized its officials to enter
into negotiations for the construction phase. The Japanese Atomic
Energy Commission has formed a high-level ITER Committee to
evaluate and recommend a Japanese position regarding construction
and siting of ITER in Japan - an interim report is expected in early
1998.
Because of constraints due to budgetary, political and
licensing processes in the Parties, it is necessary to consider a
Transition Phase between the end of the EDA and a formal
construction decision. The Explorers from each Party have agreed on
the outline of general tasks to be done in the Transition Period. The
ITER Project Director, in consultation with the Home Team Leaders,
has prepared a work plan for the Transition Phase for consideration by
the ITER Governments. The U.S. Home Team is interacting with the
Fusion Community to obtain input on proposed U.S. tasks in the
Transition Phase. This will also depend on negotiations between the
ITER Director and Home Teams.
The DOE's Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee has
also been charged to evaluate the U.S. role in the Transition and
Construction Phases of ITER. FESAC has issued an interim report
which supports continued U.S. participation but with a restructuring of
its content and balance.
The following areas are being considered for U.S.
participation in the Transition Phase:
- Complete testing of technology prototypes and
related R&D (part of the originally planned U.S.
obligation to the EDA). This has high value for the
U.S. program because the results (e.g., information
on magnets, high heat flux components, plasma
heating and fueling, diagnostics, tritium handling)
are relevant to almost all future fusion experimental
devices including alternate concepts.
- Continue physics analysis and experiments to
improve ITER's performance including possible
design modifications to reduce costs. More effort is
expected on plasma diagnostics and definition of
planned experimental operating modes. This
directly supports the goals of the restructured U.S.
Fusion Energy Sciences Program.
- Planning for the application of state-of-the-art
Information Management Technology, to both the
construction of ITER and its experimental phase.
This builds on and adds to U.S. leadership in this
vital area for the future.
- Design and analysis in selected areas of special U.S.
expertise to assist in licensing actions and to prepare
for long-lead procurements. This directly supports
the implementation of a burning plasma experiment
somewhere in the world.
- Continued participation by U.S. industry to provide
for increased readiness and risk reduction for a
future decision on ITER construction.
A study of alternate fusion product applications and markets
is being led by L. Waganer of The Boeing Company within the ARIES
study effort directed by the University of California, San Diego. This
study is being conducted to assess alternative uses for fusion other than
generation of central station electrical power. A complete range of
products derived from the fusion process is being examined to explore
common categories of applications and markets served by these
products. These products may employ a variety of fusion confinement
approaches and a range of fusion fuels. Thus the products may be
associated principally with energetic neutrons, high-energy charged
particles, or intense radiation from the fusion process. The products
considered include, but are not limited to, hydrogen production,
tritium production, transmutation of nuclear waste, dissociation of
chemical waste or warfare agents, desalination of water, space
propulsion, radioisotope production, detection and remote sensing,
radiography/tomography, radiotherapy, and altered (tailored) material
properties.
A methodology based on the success or failure of previous
large national and international technology development projects was
developed to assess proposed fusion product applications. This
evaluation methodology qualitatively evaluates a complete range of
proposed fusion applications in terms of general categories of market
potential, environmental considerations, economic impact, risk, and
public perception. This evaluation will enable a more concentrated
effort on those applications with the highest potential to best serve
humankind and yet be a successful economic endeavor. An additive
utility function of attribute weights and scores was chosen to describe
and compare the collective attributes of the fusion product
applications.
The intent of the study was to evaluate the products rather
than the confinement concept or the fusion fuel. Many of the
evaluation attributes, such as necessity, uniqueness, market potential,
prestige, and public support, are related solely on the product itself.
The remaining evaluation attributes have varying degrees of
dependence of both the product and the confinement concept and the
fusion fuel. The impact on the available resources, the environment,
and the Gross National Product (GNP) is largely dependent on the
product itself, but also to some degree on the confinement concept and
the fusion fuel chosen. The attributes of investment, technical
maturity, and time to market are strongly influenced by the
confinement concept and the fuel used.
The range of fusion products was evaluated with the
methodology, first by the author, then by a small team assisting the
author and a few product advocates, and then by the entire ARIES
team. This broadening constituency has helped to reduce bias
introduced into the data. Sensitivity studies of the chosen attribute
weighting values showed minimal changes in the resultant rankings.
The preliminary ranking showed transmutation of nuclear waste,
dissociation of chemical compounds, and production of hydrogen fuels
to be the more promising products. This is because they all had
significant market potential, could help the environment, and would
have positive public support. Investment was reasonable, except for
the hydrogen production; but offsetting that negative was a significant
improvement in the GNP. These combinations of factors help make
these applications the most favored. The application of land mine
detection and remote sensing was next in that they require modest
technology advances, investment, and time to market (positive
attributes) which more than offset the minimal public support,
prestige, improvement to the environment, and necessity for the
product. Space propulsion has positive attributes because it uniquely
can power a deep space probe almost indefinitely and would probably
have a high prestige value. However, a large investment, long time to
market, and technical maturity tend to bring its scores down. Large,
central station electrical power production and local station electrical
power production are products that are rated with positive potential,
but the lack of economic competitiveness, the required large
investment, technical maturity, and time to market draw down the
other positive attributes. The remainder of the fusion products were
judged to have overall positive values, but at similar or less values to
that of electrical production. The only product judged to have a
negative utility was the fusion-fission breeder. It had the same
negative attributes as hydrogen and electricity production (costs,
technical maturity, time to market) with the added negative attributes
of minimal or no necessity, minimal environmental improvement, and
little to no public or government support. It would improve the GNP
and improve the natural resources, but this was not sufficient to offset
the negative aspects of this product.
The application of the methodology is subjective and is
dependent upon the current knowledge base of the products and the
market environment. The methodology is flexible enough to allow
new inputs and weighting factors to be employed to reassess the
potential for the fusion applications in the evolving marketplace.
For more information on the assessment methodology and the
preliminary results, see a preprint of L. Waganer's paper, "Assessment
of Markets and Customers for Fusion Applications" presented at the
17th IEEE/NPSS Symposium on Fusion Engineering, October 6-9, 1997
(http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/hienergy/waganerSOFE.htm).
International Activities
- Some Topics from the Fusion Program in Japan
- Under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission of Japan,
the ITER Project Review Committee met in Tokyo on October 8.
The committee consists of 23 prominent people from a broad
spectrum of disciplines not limited to fusion. The committee has
met seven times this year and expected to publish an interim
report early 1998.
- On October 1996, JT-60U in JAERI achieved a QDT equivalent of
~ 1.05 in an advanced tokamak mode with reversed shear. This
November, an advanced divertor configuration with a compact,
closed divertor and W-shaped divertor plates demonstrated good
helium exhaust capability, as measured by helium concentration
of less than 10%. A long-pulse record was also set when a 10-keV
plasma was sustained for 9 seconds by a time integrated
heating of 203 MJ.
- Large Helical Device (LHD) construction is in the final stage of
assembly in the National Institute of Fusion Sciences (NIFS). The
installation of the bell-jar type cryostat over the superconducting
helical coils started on October 30, 1997. First plasma is expected
for end of March 1998.
- ITER Central Solenoid (CS) Coil manufacturing is in full swing,
and the first superconducting heat treatment for the 11th and 12th
layers of the CS Model Coil was completed in August 22, 1997.
Uniform temperatures have been confirmed along the 4-m high
winding for the duration of 240-hour heat treatment.
Superconductor activation of the 11th and 12th layers of the CS
Model Coil has been successful. By the end of October, winding
of the Outer Module of the CS Model Coil was completed and a
half of the heat treatment at 650 8C was finished.
- An ultra intense laser beam (100 TW, 100 J in 0.5 ps pulse) was
completed at the Institute of Laser Engineering (ILE), Osaka
University to demonstrate the fast ignitor concept of inertial
confinement fusion. It is called "GEKKO XII Petawatt Module."
The ultimate goal of the beam is to illuminate a high density
target imploded by 12 beams from the GEKKO XII high power
laser (15 kJ in 1 ns pulse).
- The closest counterpart of the ANS Fusion Energy Division in
Japan is the Fusion Nuclear Technology Division of the Japan
Atomic Energy Society. The Chairman of the Executive
Committee is Professor Masahiro Nishikawa of Osaka University.
The division, which has about 300 members, hosted the Fourth
International Symposium on Fusion Nuclear Technology
(ISFNT4) in Tokyo this past April and also sponsors a Summer
School on Fusion Reactor every year.
- IEA Activities in Fusion Research
BACKGROUND: Under International Energy Agency (IEA)
auspices, there are currently eight active agreements for international
collaboration covering a wide range of fusion research efforts. On
January 29, 1997, at the 26th meeting of the IEA Fusion Power
Coordinating Committee (FPCC), the annual review of the progress in
each of the agreements indicated continuation of productive work in
each area. Five of these agreements are oriented toward specific fusion
experimental facilities, and three are oriented toward cross-cutting
topics as noted below:
"Project Agreements"
"Topical Agreements"
"Inactive Agreement until a new task is identified"
PURPOSE: There are four Parties with large fusion programs,
namely, the European Union (EU) and its Member States, Japan (JA),
the Russian Federation (RF) and the United States (U.S.). The IEA,
with Russia now participating in agreements as an Associate
Contracting Party, provides a critical forum where these and other
countries with fusion programs (namely, Canada and now China) are
working directly together to develop more coordinated and efficient,
agreement-based activities in the fusion program internationally. The
mode of using Implementing Agreements provides a formal mechanism to
integrate several related domestic activities into a single multinational
collaboration while dealing with the legal, financial and administrative
aspects of collaboration. This integration enhances the individual
activities and avoids needless duplication and redundancy. The Agreements
have been valuable in maximizing work in technical areas in which there are
real opportunities for mutual benefit, bringing together scarce human,
financial and material resources to accomplish necessary research and
development in more comprehensive, cost-
effective and/or rapid ways than practical by individual programs.
This Implementing Agreement mode complements the
information exchange mode provided by the IAEA through its
workshops, conferences, and the journal of Nuclear Fusion which
operate through programs of work recommended by its International
Fusion Research Council, the analog to the IEA's FPCC. Without the
prior experience derived from joint multilateral activities under IEA
agreements as well as the INTOR experience under IAEA auspices, it
would have been significantly more difficult, and perhaps impossible,
to reach an informed, multinational consensus to pursue the design of
an international neutron irradiation test facility, now in process under
IEA auspices, or the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor (ITER) project, now in process under the auspices of the
IAEA.
The IEA framework also allows the U.S. to continue to play a
useful role in a broad range of fusion activities even after its recent
program reductions. For example, while the U.S. stellarator program
remains active, this modest program does not have the benefit of a
large-scale domestic facility. Through the IEA Stellarator agreement,
however, the U.S. program does play an active role with JA, the EU,
and the RF, working to carry out a vigorous international program
involving U.S. scientists as key players, bringing to bear their
strengths in theory, modeling, diagnostics, and small experiments.
This same integration and multiplication of individual efforts is
carried out in the other agreements as well. With their close
coordination by individual executive committees who develop and
approve annual programs of work, the IEA agreements can directly
address and continue to support our recently restructured program.
HIGHLIGHTS (26th IEA-FPCC meeting on January 29, 1997 in Paris, France):
The FPCC, during its annual meeting, endorsed the extensions for two
IEA Implementing Agreements for five more years. The agreements
which were extended are Plasma Wall Interaction in TEXTOR and the
Environment, Safety, and Economic Aspects of Fusion Power.
A highly successful conceptual design activity for an
International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility was completed and
the participants, the U.S., the EU, JA, and the RF, agreed that
domestic technical reviews are needed before going on to a more
detailed engineering design activity.
The FPCC supported the exploration of a Japanese proposal
for an Annex III to the IEA Stellarator Agreement to support
international collaboration on the JA National Institute for Fusion
Science's new stellarator, the Large Helical Device in Toki.
The FPCC endorsed the proposed participation by the
People's Republic of China (PRC) in the Fusion Materials Agreement.
Subsequently, the IEA Committee on Energy Research and
Technology (CERT) approved the PRC's participation as an Associate
Contracting Party in the IEA Fusion Materials Agreement.
INITIATIVES: One of the newest activities is a set of tasks: one
addresses the technical issues arising from a recently completed
conceptual design of a high flux neutron source, and another is a
feasibility study of a high volume neutron source. Another new
activity is the exploration of the current and future uses of remote
access to and participation in experiments.
NEXT IEA-FPCC MEETING: The 27th IEA-FPCC meeting is
scheduled for January 28, 1998 in Paris, France.
JET has conducted a broad-based campaign to address issues of fusion
power production and the physics of high performance plasma confinement
in the geometry and operating conditions foreseen for the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, ITER, currently in an advanced
design state.
The key points are:
For further information, contact Tom Elsworth (telsw@jet.uk) or visit
the JET Web site: http://www.jet.uk.
The ANS-FED Newsletter is issued twice yearly, in June and
December. All issues are available at our Web site:
http://www-ferp.ucsd.edu/ANS. At some point in the near future, we will
rely heavily on electronic distribution of our newsletter. This will
result in considerable savings in reproduction and postage expenses.
The current intent is to send electronic copies of the newsletter to ANS
members who have E-mail addresses and to some non-ANS members
in the U.S. and abroad. Hard copies will be mailed UPON REQUEST
to ANS members who do not have E-mail addresses.
The following request is addressed to ANS members who have
received in the past hard copies of the newsletter: Please send
immediately your E-mail address to
Elguebaly@engr.wisc.edu
(or bathke@lanl.gov)
or send a request in writing to receive hard copies
of future issues. Write to:
L. El-Guebaly, University of Wisconsin, 1500 Engineering Dr.,
Madison, WI 53706 or
C. Bathke, MS-F607, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
P. O. Box 1663, Los Alamos, NM 87545.
Please share this newsletter with your colleagues. Contact us if you
wish to be added on the electronic distribution list.
Nominations for upcoming FED Elections
John Davis
Past Chair
Chair of Nominating Committee
Dr. Wayne A. Houlberg
105 Claremont Rd.
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
E-mail: houlbergwa@ornl.gov
Dr. Clement Po-Ching Wong
P.O. Box 85608
San Diego, CA 92186-56-8
E-mail: wongc@gav.gat.com
Dr. Sandra J. Brereton
mailcode:L-493
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
PO Box 808
Livermore, CA 94550
Email:brereton1@llnl.gov
Dr. Laila El-Guebaly
Fusion Technology Institute
431 Engineering Research Building
1500 Engineering Dr.
Madison, WI 53706-1687
E-mail: elguebaly@engr.wisc.edu
Dr. Mohamed Bourham
North Carolina State University
2109 Burlington Engineering Labs.
Raleigh, NC 27695-7909
E-mail: Bourham@ncsu.edu
Dr. Charles R. Martin
625 Indiana Ave. NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 2004
E-mail: charlesm@dnfsb.gov
Dr. Stan Milora
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
PO Box 2009
Building9201-2, Mail Stop 8071
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
E-mail: miloras1@ornl.gov
Dr. Hutch Neilson
Princeton University
PO Box 451
Princeton, NJ 08543
E-mail: hneilson@pppl.gov
Status of ITER in U.S.
By: C. Baker, US Home Team Leader
Assessing Alternate Product Applications and Markets For Fusion
By: L. Waganer, The Boeing Company
By: Michael Roberts, Director, International and Technology Division,
Office of Fusion Energy Sciences, Office of Energy Research, US DOE
IEA Agreement on Toroidal Physics in, and Plasma Technologies
of, Tokamaks with Poloidal Field Divertors (ASDEX)
IEA Agreement on Plasma Wall Interaction in TEXTOR
IEA Agreement on the Three Large Tokamak Facilities
IEA Agreement for Research and Development on Reversed Field
Pinches (RFP)
IEA Agreement on the Stellarator Concept
IEA Agreement on Environmental, Safety and Economic Aspects
of Fusion Power
IEA Agreement on Fusion Materials
IEA Agreement on Nuclear Technology of Fusion Reactors
IEA Agreement on Superconducting Magnets (Large Coil Task)
Editorial Message