The cost of NIF

From Nature

Archive
Volume 491
Issue 7423
Editorial
Article


Ignition switch

The US National Ignition Facility has so far failed to generate fusion energy, but repurposing it as a tool to study nuclear weapons and basic science could be its saving grace.

On a breezy day in 2009, action star Arnold Schwarzenegger, then governor of California, took to the stage to dedicate the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the world’s most powerful laser. “I can see already my friends in Hollywood being very upset that their stuff that they show on the big screen is obsolete,” the governor quipped in front of the recently completed facility, which uses lasers to squeeze fusion energy from a tiny pellet of hydrogen fuel. “Fusion energy may be exactly what will power future generations on the globe,” he added.
Related stories

Laser lab shifts focus to warheads
Laser fusion nears crucial milestone
Superlaser fires a blank

More related stories

Fast-forward three years and the script is somewhat different: the lofty hopes of Schwarzenegger and other politicians who attended the ceremony that day seem less realistic. At the end of September, officials at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in Livermore, California, where the NIF is based, announced that the facility would miss a crucial milestone to produce ignition — releasing as much energy from fusion as is supplied by the lasers. After an intense, six-year effort, the facility remains a factor of ten away from that goal. In the coming weeks, LLNL scientists are expected to lay out an alternative, much longer, path to ignition, while senior officials refocus the laser’s work (see page 170). For now, thanks in large part to the NIF’s role in nuclear-weapons science, politicians will allow the research programme to trundle on at a cost of US$280 million per year. But the great unfulfilled promise of the NIF should serve as a cautionary lesson for scientists who promote Hollywood solutions from their research.

November 7, 2012 6:56 PM

Anonymous said...

Wow. The narrative here reflects almost identically the sentiments about the con job and PR oversell stated by many contributors over a long time in this blog. Almost as if the seeds for the article came from or resonated with these blog posts.

November 8, 2012 12:53 AM

Anonymous said...

NIF = Con Job
Source = Nature Magazine
Moses and numerous LLNL managers and scientists = Con Artists

November 8, 2012 9:41 AM

Anonymous said...

The Nature article was being too kind to NIF. The role of NIF in nuclear weapons science is marginal. It reflects a larger problem where many projects in the NNSA portfolio don't really support the stockpile, but just keep scientists employed as part of a white collar high-income social welfare program for a pool of scientists who spend all their time trying to justify their existence in ways other than demonstrating value and contribution to their customer.

On top of that, our public funds were being spent to con not only the public, but also people like Friedman and Schwarzenegger and numerous other public figures. They were manipulated into contributing to a fantasy narrative. Frankly, I'm surprised at how this was a huge pie in the face for Friedman, it's not easy to swallow the fact of having been manipulated and victimized like that particularly for people act in a role of shedding more light and finding clarity in complex situations. But we really need to focus more on the victimizer and not the victim. Due diligence may have provided Friedman with red flag indicators to stay clear of Moses and his co-conspirators.

This blog is proving to be very valuable because people here are quick to call a spade "a spade" and to point out harsh truths and allegations that the media (like Nature magazine) tends to soften and candy-coat. While the "facts" can be somewhat fuzzy in some of the blog contributions, many others have seeded legitimate questions and doubts, and have pointed out the trail of crumbs that a journalist or investigator can use to find their way towards the truth. Good job everyone.

November 8, 2012 10:10 AM

Anonymous said...

LLNL had been the center of a controversy regarding deuterium equation of state in which their results were repudiated by the scientific community. As far as I know, there was no corrigendums issues regarding the shoddy analysis, raising doubts about the ability by some to perform work in this field or to employ adequate internal technical reviews.

And so it is very important to keep an eye on who is in the role of technical lead for some of the research areas being proposed as part of the shift towards the focus on warheads (e.g., NNSA programmatic mission). For example, some of these people in leadership roles have no business leading experimental efforts and analyses, and may be unflatteringly characterized as "con artists."

November 8, 2012 10:46 AM

Anonymous said...

If I were to read carefully between the lines for both the editorial and the article pieces from Nature, I would have to guess that the most rational next step involves restructuring the organization in which NIF becomes part of the WCI directorate and overseen by their management. This would make sense, since to make good on their promise, you would rely on their expertise to drive and assess the value of the experiments in support of weapons science. I can only speculate about what this means for Ed Moses if indeed such a move takes place. He certainly does not have the technical background for taking over the equivalent level management role in WCI. Being assigned a more subordinate role would probably not work since he is not that kind of person who reports to or feels he should be accountable to others.

Keeping the status quo management structure in which NIF is a standalone directorate will not work. Staffing decisions for who provides what supporting technical role needs to rest in the WCI program management. The reprioritization by NNSA affirms a commitment to funding programs in support of its core programmatic mission needs. This, in turn, reaffirms WCI's role as the core mission program for its NNSA customer, and not as a matrix organization in support of NIF's fusion energy / ignition program.

The reprioritization is a move in the right direction, though not without peril. The high costs associated with operating NIF will not go away, and many needed cuts may be more painful to endure when self-inflicted (as opposed to being imposed by another organization). On top of that, there are other problems that do not simply go away with a re-organization. The current pervasive Edisonian approach towards solving problems is not just a sign of desperation but rather a pervasive way of "doing science in our unique way." Trial and error approaches to figuring out how to solve the alpha heating milestone failure problem using expensive NIF shots at over 1M per shot demonstrate a level of irresponsibility in how one goes about using tax-payer funded resources.

But we'll have to wait and see. LLNL is an unpredictable beast. There is a big battle of egos within a lab where everyone else is the enemy. NNSA is the enemy of LLNL. Sandia and Los Alamos are the enemy. ITER is the enemy. If that is still the case, you should not be surprised when LLNL makes baffling and mind-boggling decisions that appear, to most rational minded people, to go against their own long term interest. LLNL management making insulting comments disparaging Cook's technical abilities and background for example... is not only incorrect but does not help itself at all. Going to Forrestal only to piss off administrators and get escorted out... demonstrates how one can set new lows in eroding trust and goodwill.

There is one certainty however from the insanity that is pervasive in parts of the lab... that the lab is such a rich source of material for this blog.