Please see the full solicitation for complete information about the funding opportunity. Below is a summary assembled by the Research & Innovation Office (RIO).

Program Summary

The Department of Energy (DOE) Fusion Energy Science (FES) program is embarking on a transformative initiative aimed at creating a fusion innovation ecosystem, the 鈥淔usion Innovation Research Engine (FIRE)鈥�, by forming virtual, centrally managed teams called 鈥淐ollaboratives鈥�, that have a collective goal of bridging FES鈥檚 basic science research programs and growing fusion industries, including the activities supported under the FES milestone-based fusion development program.

At its core, FIRE represents a departure from traditional science programs. It is structured as a framework comprised of Collaboratives with the purpose of bridging the gap between foundational science and practical application. These Collaboratives are envisioned as dynamic hubs of innovation, driving advancements in fusion energy research in collaboration with both public and private entities.

FES envisions the ecosystem surrounding the Collaboratives as a facilitator for collaboration and coordination with the basic science research program and other stakeholders, creating an engine for innovation. FIRE hopes to foster synergy and alignment of goals, accelerating progress towards the realization of fusion energy as a clean, sustainable power source. Moreover, this initiative aims to create new baby直播app opportunities, bolster US-based manufacturing and supply chains, and enable the development of technologies crucial for national security, energy security, and defense.

Achieving a thriving and sustainable fusion energy industry of the future requires addressing key scientific and technology gaps with a diverse set of tools and strategic approaches, including fulfilling the fusion energy mission focused on the following drivers:

  • Sustain a Burning Plasma: Building the science and technology required to confine and sustain a burning plasma.
  • Engineer for Extreme Conditions: Developing the materials required to withstand the extreme environment of a fusion energy system.
  • Harness Fusion Power: Engineering the technologies required to breed fusion fuel and generate electricity in a fusion pilot plant by the 2040s.

The three drivers above represent the key areas that FIRE Collaboratives should prioritize in establishing the science and technology basis for a Fusion Pilot Plant (FPP). These areas have been subdivided into four distinct 鈥淔usion Engine Ecosystems (FEE),鈥� each representing the complex and interconnected relationships between the FS&T drivers. To effectively address FS&T gaps and provide integrated, end-use inspired, and self-consistent solutions, research teams must focus on one or more fusion energy ecosystems and aim to deliver concept-agnostic capabilities to the FES program.

The four distinct fusion engine ecosystems are:

  • FEE1: Fusion Materials and Technology
  • FEE2: Fusion Blanket and Fuel Cycle Systems
  • FEE3: Fusion Enabling Technologies
  • FEE4: Advanced Simulations for Design and Optimization

See the solicitation for full details.

Deadlines

CU Internal Deadline: 11:59pm MST June 17, 2024

DOE Pre-Application Deadline: 3:00pm MST July 9, 2024

DOE Application Deadline: 9:59pm MST August 27, 2024

Internal Application Requirements (all in PDF format)

  • Project Narrative (2 pages maximum, 1-inch margins, text no smaller than 11 point): Please include a clear and concise description of the management plan, objectives, and technical approach of the proposed Collaborative.
  • List of Senior/Key Personnel of Management Team and associated institutions: (1 page maximum)
  • Budget Overview (1 page maximum): A basic budget outlining project costs is sufficient; detailed OCG budgets are not required.

To access the online application, visit:

Eligibility

The lead PI is expected to participate fully in the management of the proposed Collaborative.

The lead PI pre-application or application of a multi-institutional team may not be listed as a senior or key personnel on any other application鈥檚 proposed subaward.

Senior or key personnel listed on a pre-application or application of a multi-institutional team may also be listed as a senior or key personnel, including in any role on a proposed subaward on any number of separate submissions if their total time commitment does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of a full-time equivalent (FTE) appointment as demonstrated on their current and pending support documents.

Individuals receiving their salary and benefits from a DOE/NNSA National Laboratory may not be named as the PI in an application submitted by an applicant other than a DOE/NNSA National Laboratory, regardless of any arrangement between the employing Laboratory and the applicant institution.

Limited Submission Guidelines

Applicant institutions are limited to no more than four (4) pre-applications or applications as a lead institution and no more than one pre-application or application for any individual PI.

Award Information

Period of Performance: 4 years

Ceiling: $5,000,000 per year 听

Floor: $2,000,000 per year

Review Criteria

The internal committee will use DOE鈥檚 evaluation criteria (below) for the selection process.

Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Project

  • What is the scientific innovation of the proposed research?
  • How balanced and comprehensive is the research plan and to what extent does it demonstrate elements of a FIRE Collaborative, listed in Section I of the v?
  • What is the likelihood of achieving valuable results?
  • How might the results of the proposed work impact end-use and other fusion ecosystems?
  • To what extent does the proposed research include use-inspired and/or user-defined research?
  • How does the proposed work compare with other efforts in its field, both in terms of scientific and/or technical merit and originality?
  • Is the Data Management Plan suitable for the proposed research? To what extent does it support the validation of research results? How accessible is the data to other FIRE Collaboratives, fusion programs, international partners, or industry. To what extent will research products, including data and meta data, be made accessible to advance the field of research?

Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach

  • How well does the application justify the need for a well-integrated, coordinated FIRE Collaborative? Consider, for example, whether the stated goals could be achieved by similar researchers working independently, or whether the research challenges to be addressed are those that are likely to be overcome most efficiently by a centrally managed, well-integrated team.
  • How does the proposed research employ innovative concepts or methods?
  • How well justified and adequately developed are the conceptual framework, methods, and analyses, and how likely are they to lead to impactful results?
  • How well does the applicant recognize significant potential problems and how appropriate are the alternative strategies to address these potential problems?
  • How well does the proposed research address the FS&T drivers from the LRP?
  • What new facilities, capabilities, or approaches have the applicants proposed to leverage or develop to achieve the stated research goals? Comment on the distinctiveness of these advances and the impact that they are likely to have on the FIRE Collaborative(s), industry, and other FES foundational science programs.

Strength of the FIRE Collaborative Management Plan

  • How effectively has the applicant presented a comprehensive management plan that includes a strong lead organization, a leadership structure with clear roles and responsibilities, and a qualified and empowered FIRE Collaborative lead?
  • How well does the management plan address research evaluation, adding or modifying research partners and Collaboratives, milestone planning, sunsetting unproductive or completed research, and the handling of research misconduct?
  • How well does the organizational structure align with the proposed research efforts?

Competency of Applicant鈥檚 Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed Resources

  • How well qualified is the research team to carry out the proposed research?
  • How effective the team is in demonstrating 鈥渦ser-defined鈥� research and their engagement with the industry sector?
  • How adequate are the research environment and facilities for performing the research?
  • How adequate are the proposed plans to take advantage of distinctive facilities and capabilities?
  • What evidence does the application present that the lead institution and the FIRE Collaborative lead have proven records of success in program and personnel management of diverse teams of scientific and technical professionals for Collaboratives of comparable complexity and magnitude?
  • What evidence is presented in the application to indicate that the proposed team of researchers is likely to work together in a cohesive and integrated manner?

Quality and Efficacy of the Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research (PIER) Plan

  • Is the proposed Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research (PIER) Plan suitable for the size and complexity of the proposed project and an integral component of the proposed project?
  • To what extent is the PIER plan likely to lead to participation of individuals from diverse backgrounds, including individuals historically underrepresented in the research community?
  • What aspects of the PIER plan are likely to contribute to the goal of creating and maintaining an equitable and inclusive research environment and supporting a sense of belonging among project personnel?
  • How does the proposed plan include intentional mentorship and are the associated mentoring resources reasonable and appropriate?

Reasonableness and Appropriateness of the Proposed Budget

  • How well are the proposed budget and staffing levels aligned with the proposed research? For example, are staffing levels for senior or key personnel greater than a 100% FTE, or less than 25% FTE, based on the proposed time committed to the proposal versus time listed in the current and pending support?
  • How reasonable and appropriate is the budget for the proposed scope?