[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FUSION: THE WORLD'S MOST
COMPLEX ENERGY PROJECT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 11, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-85
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
89-414 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming, Chair
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas MARC VEASEY, Texas
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY WEBER, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
July 11, 2014
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Cynthia Lummis, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 6
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Eric Swalwell, Minority Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 6
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
Dr. Frank Rusco, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, GAO
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 15
Dr. Patricia Dehmer, Deputy Director for Science Programs, DOE
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 28
Dr. Robert Iotti, ITER Council Chair
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 37
Dr. Ned Sauthoff, Director, U.S. ITER Project, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 44
Written Statement............................................ 47
Discussion....................................................... 60
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Pat Dehmer, Deputy Director for Science Programs, DOE........ 76
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted for the record by Representative Lamar S. Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 78
FUSION: THE WORLD'S MOST
COMPLEX ENERGY PROJECT
----------
FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:03 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cynthia
Lummis [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Lummis. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Energy
will come to order. Welcome to today's hearing, entitled
``Fusion: The World's Most Complex Energy Project,'' which a
week ago I didn't even know existed, and now I feel pretty well
informed about this. In front of you are packets containing the
written testimony, biographies, and truth in testimony
disclosures for today's witnesses. And I now recognize myself
for an opening statement. In order to ensure that everybody
gets to ask questions, I am going to keep my statement brief,
because we anticipate that we are going to have votes in about
70 minutes.
I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing on the
Department of Energy, Fusion Energy Sciences program,
specifically focused on the United States participation in the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, also known as
ITER. Today the Energy Subcommittee will discuss the projected
costs and schedule associated with ITER, as well as the massive
potential that fusion energy represents.
This project is one of the most complex scientific and
engineering undertakings in history. As we will hear today,
ITER has, and continues to face, management challenges, lacks a
credible schedule, and the United States program needs a
reliable budget. This Committee has an oversight responsibility
to ensure that the United States efficiently accomplishes its
obligations in accordance with the ITER agreement, and that the
ITER organization continues to remain a solid investment.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses to testify on the
history, challenges, and proposed solutions associated with
ITER. I want to thank our witnesses for participating in
today's hearing, and look forward to their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lummis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Cynthia Lummis
Good morning. In an effort to ensure that all Members are able to
ask their questions I will keep my statement brief.
I would like to welcome everyone to today's hearing on the
Department of Energy's Fusion Energy Sciences program, specifically
focusing on the United States' participation in the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, also known as ``ITER.''
Today, the Energy Subcommittee will discuss the projected costs and
schedule associated with ITER as well as the massive potential that
fusion energy represents. This project is one of the most complex
scientific and engineering undertakings in history--and as we will hear
today, ITER has and continues to face management challenges, lacks a
credible schedule, and the United States' program needs a reliable
budget.
This Committee has an oversight responsibility to ensure that the
United States efficiently accomplishes its obligations in accordance
with the ITER agreement--and that the ITER organization continues to
remain a solid investment.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses to testify on the history,
challenges, and proposed solutions associated with ITER. I want to
thank the witnesses for participating in today's hearing and look
forward to their testimony
Chairwoman Lummis. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, for an opening
statement.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chairman Lummis, for holding this
hearing, and I also want to thank our excellent panel of
witnesses for being here this morning.
Fusion holds the promise of providing a practically
limitless supply of clean energy to the world. We are actually
already dependent upon it every day from that great energy
source in the sky, the fusion reactor in the sky, better known
as the sun. It is essential to the existence--for life here on
Earth for all of us. And, of course, it is a bit trickier for
people to replicate what the stars are able to do with sheer
gravity.
But from my conversations with some of the top fusion
researchers across the world, not just at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, which is in my Congressional District, and
their National Ignition Facility, which I happen to represent,
I have learned that the support of fusion energy research is
something that is critical at this day and age, and now is the
right time to build and operate experiments that can finally
demonstrate that a man-made fusion system can consistently
produce far more energy than it takes to fuel it.
For the magnetic fusion approach, the next step is clearly
ITER. ITER is designed to produce at least 10 times the energy
it consumes, and would be the first experiment of its kind that
enables us to provide researchers the opportunity to explore
and test the behavior of a system where the fusion process
itself provides the primary heat source to sustain its high
fusion reaction rate, also called a burning plasma. As
discussed in a seminal report by the National Academies
entitled, ``Burning Plasma, Bringing a Star to Earth'', as well
as subsequent reports, this experiment is absolutely essential
to proving that magnetically confined fusion can be a viable
clean energy source.
That said, I have several concerns, which I hope we can
address in this hearing. By all accounts, the U.S. ITER Project
Office, under the direction of Dr. Ned Sauthoff, who is here
today, is very well managed, and doing everything it can to
contain costs, and maintain an aggressive schedule. I am also
concerned about the administration's proposed $225 million cap
on annual funding for the U.S. contribution to ITER, which they
have justified solely by saying that this allows sufficient
funding for the remainder of the Office of Science's fusion
program.
This justification, however, falsely assumes that the
administration couldn't simply request a higher budget for
fusion in a particular year as it does for other programs when
they have projects with significant cost profiles. The $225
million cap was not based on a bottom up project estimate that
minimizes the total cost for the U.S. ITER contribution, but,
rather, a political calculation, and this level falls well
below what is necessary to optimize the project schedule, and
minimize the cost to taxpayers.
Given the critical importance of ITER to determining the
viability of fusion as a clean energy source, and the major
contributions of U.S. researchers to advancing the science and
engineering of the field up to this point, I maintain strong
support for this project, along with other key components of
the broader U.S. based fusion research program.
However, this does not mean, of course, that we can provide
an unconditional blank check. The U.S. must maintain vigorous
oversight, and use every means available, with our
international partners, to contain costs and schedule, all
while keeping an unwavering focus on achieving the project's
incredibly important goals for our world's energy future.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Swalwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Minority Ranking Member Eric
Swalwell
Thank you Chairman Lummis for holding this hearing, and I also want
to thank this excellent panel of witnesses for their testimony and for
being here today.
Fusion holds the promise of providing a practically limitless
supply of clean energy to the world. We're actually already dependent
on it--the energy we get from that fusion reactor in the sky, better
known as the sun, is essential to the existence of life on Earth,
including us. Of course, it's a bit trickier for people to replicate
what the stars are able to do with sheer gravity. But from my
conversations with some of the top fusion researchers in the world--and
not just at Lawrence Livermore's National Ignition Facility, which I
happen to represent - I believe we're getting there. This is why I am
such a strong supporter of fusion energy research, and I believe that
now is the right time to build and operate experiments that can finally
demonstrate that a man-made fusion system can consistently produce far
more energy than it takes to fuel it.
For the magnetic fusion approach, that next step is clearly ITER.
ITER is designed to produce at least ten times the energy it consumes,
and would be the first experiment of its kind that enables our
researchers to explore and test the behavior of a system where the
fusion process itself provides the primary heat source to sustain its
high fusion reaction rate, also called a ``burning plasma.'' As
discussed in a seminal report by the National Academies entitled
Burning Plasma-Bringing a Star to Earth, as well as subsequent reports,
this experiment is absolutely essential to proving that magnetically
confined fusion can be a viable clean energy source.
That said, I have several concerns which I hope we can address in
this hearing. By all accounts, the U.S. ITER Project Office, under the
direction of Dr. Ned Sauthoff who is here today, is very well managed
and doing everything it can to contain costs and maintain an aggressive
schedule. But the 2013 ITER Management Assessment to the project's
governing ITER Council found serious issues with the international
organization's management practices, including an overall ``lack of
urgency'' to complete the project on time and on budget due to various
cultural and accounting practices among a number of the project's
partners. I'm told that the new ITER Council Chair, Dr. Robert Iotti,
who is also here today, is taking this Assessment very seriously, and
working to adopt its recommendations and address the issues that the
review identified. I look forward to learning more about Dr. Iotti's
progress toward these goals shortly. I am also concerned about the
Administration's proposed $225 million cap on annual funding for the
U.S. contribution to ITER, which they have justified solely by stating
that this allows sufficient funding for the remainder of the Office of
Science's fusion program. This justification, however, falsely assumes
that the Administration couldn't simply request a higher budget for
fusion in a particular year, as it does for other programs when they
have projects with significant construction cost profiles. The $225
million cap was not based on a bottom-up project estimate that
minimizes the total cost for the U.S. ITER contribution, but rather a
political calculation.
This level falls well below what is necessary to optimize the
project schedule and minimize the total cost to taxpayers. As I believe
both Dr. Sauthoff and Dr. Dehmer would agree, such underfunding
inevitably leads to larger total project costs because the highly
skilled teams required for management and construction of our
components are essentially ``standing armies'' that need significant
annual resources even if budget reductions force the project schedule
to be extended. Moreover, even though some other ITER partners are not
currently meeting their deadlines, my understanding is that much of
what the U.S. is responsible for is or can be decoupled from their
activities. So we could have a far more aggressive, cost-effective
schedule to fabricate our components and have them stored until they
are ready to be integrated into the reactor complex. I look forward to
discussing the potential for this path forward with the panel as well.
Given the critical importance of ITER to determining the viability
of fusion as a clean energy source, and the major contributions of U.S.
researchers to advancing the science and engineering of the field to
this point, I maintain strong support for this project along with the
other key components of the broader U.S.-based fusion research program.
However, this does not mean we can support an unconditional blank
check. The U.S. must maintain vigorous oversight and use every means
available with our international partners to contain cost and schedule,
all while keeping an unwavering focus on achieving the project's
incredibly important goals for our and the world's energy future.
Thank you, and with that I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank Mr. Swalwell, and now recognize
the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me say at the
outset that I appreciate the concerns expressed by you and the
Ranking Member, and I happen to agree with them as well.
Madam Chair, the Energy Subcommittee will hear from a panel
of experts with collectively over a century of experience in
science and engineering. We look forward to their testimony,
and the prospects of nuclear fusion as a future energy source.
Fusion energy research attempts to achieve an invaluable
reward for humankind, a sustainable, renewable, zero emissions
energy source. It also represents one of the greatest
scientific challenges in history. This scientific undertaking
of creating the power source of a star on Earth will require
persistence and commitment. The next step towards achieving
this goal is the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor, called ITER. And, by the way, I hope someone will
explain why we don't call it ITER, even though I know we
commonly accept it as ITER.
The Obama Administration has chosen to underfund ITER in
its Fiscal Year 2015 request. Instead of adequately supporting
ITER, which could eventually lead to global energy security,
the administration's budget request cuts this project by $50
million. The Administration instead prioritizes late stage,
unreliable renewable energy, such as wind and solar. Fusion
energy is in the early stages of research, but experts predict
that it could someday provide a solution to the challenges of
climate change. This is because fusion energy has the potential
to power the world for millions of years, is reliable, and
yields zero carbon emissions. Still, the Administration refuses
to adequately support this science.
Depriving the U.S. ITER program of the funds it needs to
accomplish its goals is not good policy. To maintain our
competitive advantage, we must continue to support fundamental
basic research that encourages the creation and design of next
generation technologies. Fusion energy is the sort of high
risk, high reward research that will benefit future
generations, if we are bold enough to pursue it.
Thank you, Madam Chair, but before I yield back, I would
like unanimous consent to put into the record a letter from the
American Security Project, which highlights fusion energy's
importance for innovation and global energy security.
Chairwoman Lummis. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information apperas in Appendix II]
Chairman Smith. I thought I had yielded back, but I will be
happy to do so.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committeee
Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Today the Energy Subcommittee will hear from a panel of experts
with collectively over a century of experience in science and
engineering.
We look forward to their testimony on the prospects of nuclear
fusion as a future energy source. Fusion energy research attempts to
achieve an invaluable reward for humankind--a sustainable, renewable,
zero-emissions energy source. It also represents one the greatest
scientific challenges in history.
This scientific undertaking of creating the power source of a star
on earth will require persistence and commitment. The next step towards
achieving this goal is the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor (ITER).
The Obama Administration has chosen to underfund ITER in its fiscal
year 2015 request. Instead of adequately supporting ITER, which could
eventually lead to global energy security, the Administration's budget
request cuts this project by $50 million. The Administration instead
prioritizes late stage, unreliable renewable energy, such as wind and
solar.
Fusion energy is in the early stages of research. But experts
predict that it could someday provide a solution to the challenges of
climate change. This is because fusion energy has the potential to
power the world for millions of years, is reliable, and yields zero
carbon emissions. Still, the Administration refuses to adequately
support this science.
Depriving the U.S. ITER program of the funds it needs to accomplish
its goals is not good policy. To maintain our competitive advantage, we
must continue to support fundamental basic research that encourages the
creation and design of next generation technologies.
Fusion energy is the sort of high-risk, high-reward research that
will benefit future generations if we are bold enough to pursue it.
Chairwoman Lummis. I may not be awake yet, Mr. Chairman. I
now yield to the Ranking Member, Mrs. Johnson of Texas.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson Lummis
for calling this hearing today, and I would also like to thank
the witnesses for being here. Nuclear fusion has the potential
to provide the world with a clean, safe, and practically
inexhaustible source of energy. Producing reliable electric
power from fusion would undoubtedly serve as one of the biggest
and most important scientific achievements in the history of
mankind. That is why I am so supportive of a strong research
program that can help us overcome the remaining scientific and
engineering challenges for this potential to become a reality.
The ITER project is the next and largest step toward this
goal. For more than 50 years scientists at our top
universities, national labs, and in the private sector, as part
of a truly global research community, have been conducting
experiments and performing research that has brought the team
to a point where they are confident it is now possible to
actually build a full scale test reactor that produces far more
energy than it uses.
However, it is highly unlikely that a research project of
this size can be achieved by one institution, lab, company, or,
in this fiscal environment, even by a single country. This is
why wthe ITER project has brought together the best scientists
and engineers from the world's largest and most advanced
nations to carry out this experiment.
But managing the dynamics of multiple countries working
together toward a common goal, especially one as complex as
this, is rarely easy, and ITER has proved to be no exception.
Recent reports have documented several issues with the
International Organization's management, which must be
addressed if this project is to succeed.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how
these problems are being dealt with, and to further discussing
ways we can ensure that ITER achieves incredibly important
goals. I thank you, Ms. Chairman, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committeee
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you Chairman Lummis for holding this hearing today, and I
would also like to thank the witnesses for being here.
Nuclear fusion has the potential to provide the world with a clean,
safe, and practically inexhaustible source of energy. Producing
reliable electric power from fusion would undoubtedly serve as one of
the biggest and most important scientific achievements in the history
of humankind. This is why I am so supportive of a strong research
program that can help us overcome the remaining scientific and
engineering challenges for this potential to become a reality.
The ITER project is the next, and largest, step toward this goal.
For more than fifty years, scientists at our top universities, national
labs, and in the private sector--as part of a truly global research
community--have been conducting experiments and performing research
that has brought the teams to a point where they are confident it is
now possible to actually build a fullscale test reactor that produces
far more energy than it uses. However, it is highly unlikely that a
research project of this size can be achieved by one institution, lab,
company, or, in this fiscal environment, even by a single country. That
is why the ITER project has brought together the best scientists and
engineers from the world's largest and most advanced nations to carry
out this experiment.
But managing the dynamics of multiple countries working together
toward a common goal, especially one as complex as this, is rarely
easy, and ITER has proved to be no exception. Recent reports have
documented several issues with the international organization's
management which must be addressed if this project is to succeed. I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how these problems are
being dealt with, and to further discussing ways we can ensure that
ITER achieves its incredibly important goals.
Thank you, and with that I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the Ranking Member. And if there
are other Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
Thank you very much again, witnesses. And before I
introduce you, I will tell you that I had a very lengthy
conversation, very lengthy conversation last night with an old
friend from high school by the name of Jeff Hoy. And who would
have thought--yeah, I can see you all know him. I used to sneak
into his back yard in high school for parties, and we were--and
it has been decades, decades, since we have talked to each
other, and we were laughing at each out about how serendipitous
it is that we would now be talking about ITER in detail, when a
week ago I would never even heard of ITER, and--anyway, it was
very informative, and it was also delightful to sort of re-
acquaint with an old high school buddy.
So, at this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses.
If I mispronounce your name, would you please correct me? Our
first witness today is Dr. Frank Rusco. Is it Rusco?
Dr. Rusco. Yes.
Chairwoman Lummis. What is--how do you pronounce it?
Dr. Rusco. Half my friends call me Rusco, and--but I say
Rusco.
Chairwoman Lummis. Rusco, excellent. Well, I want to do
what you do. Okay. Dr. Frank Rusco, thank you. Dr. Rusco is the
Director of the Natural Resources and Environment Team at the
Government Accountability Office. Dr. Rusco really leads a
broad spectrum of energy issues government-wide. Dr. Rusco
received both his Master's and Doctorate in Economics from the
University of Washington. Thank you for being here.
Now, Dr. Dehmer----
Dr. Dehmer. Dehmer.
Chairwoman Lummis. Dehmer, thank you. Our second witness is
Dr. Patricia Dehmer, Deputy Director for Science Programs at
the Department of Energy. Dr. Dehmer provides scientific and
management oversight for a number of DOE science programs,
including fusion energy sciences.
Our third witness is Dr. Iotti. Did I get----
Mr. Iotti. Iotti, Iotti, either way.
Chairwoman Lummis. Okay. How do you pronounce it?
Mr. Iotti. --Americans--Iotti----
Chairwoman Lummis. Iotti? Okay. Well, I am going to
Americanize it, and I--our third witness is Dr. Robert Iotti,
Chair of the ITER Council. Dr. Iotti became involved in fusion
nearly 40 years ago, working at the Princeton Plasma Physics
lab. Dr. Iotti received his Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering.
And our final witness today is Dr. Ned Sauthoff. Did I get
that right?
Mr. Sauthoff. Perfect.
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you. Director of the U.S. ITER
project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Previously Dr.
Sauthoff was a physics researcher, and head of the Off-Site
Research Department at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab. Dr.
Sauthoff received his Ph.D. in Astrophysical Sciences from
Princeton.
Welcome one and all. As you know, our spoken testimony is
limited to five minutes, and Members then will have five
minutes each to ask you questions. So, again, welcome, and
thank you. I now recognize Dr. Rusco for five minutes to
present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. FRANK RUSCO, DIRECTOR,
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GAO
Dr. Rusco. Thank you. Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member
Swalwell, Chairman Smith, and Ranking Member Johnson, Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss
our recent report on DOE's cost and schedule estimates for the
U.S. ITER project. The ITER project is an important scientific
endeavor, and one that has large potential implications for
basic science, and for the future of energy production. As you
know, the U.S. has committed to providing about nine percent of
ITER's construction costs through contributions of hardware,
personnel, and cash. In addition, the U.S. has agreed to
contribute to ITER's operational and decommissioning costs.
However, since the ITER agreement was signed in 2006, the
project has experienced significant cost increases and schedule
delays. GAO has reviewed the U.S. ITER project twice, in 2007
and 2014. Both reports identified similar concerns about the
reliability of cost and schedule estimates for ITER.
Specifically, in 2007, we reported on the importance of DOE
assessing the full costs of U.S. participation in ITER, and
setting a definitive cost estimate for the project.
We reported that the U.S. had committed to contributing to
ITER without definitive estimates, or a complete project
design, and that the preliminary estimate of about $1.1 billion
could change significantly as a result. We also noted that the
international ITER organization faced a number of management
challenges that might significantly affect U.S. costs.
In our most recent report, published in June 2014, we found
that DOE's current estimate of about $4 billion for the U.S.
ITER project basically did a good job of incorporating the
important characteristics of reliable cost estimates. However,
factors outside of DOE's control continue to prevent it from
setting a reliable cost baseline more than seven years after
the project began. Most importantly, the overall international
project schedule that DOE uses as the basis for the U.S.
schedule is not reliable. This is in part because of long
running management deficiencies within the international ITER
organization that continue today.
For example, an external assessment of the ITER
organization in 2013 found that significant management issues
hindered international project performance. The ITER council
has committed to addressing these issues, and, as part of that
effort, the ITER organization is currently reassessing the
international project schedule, and will report its results to
the council in June 2015. The purpose of the reassessment is to
create a realistic schedule for ITER that will provide all
members, including the U.S., a credible overall project
schedule to which they can link their individual efforts and
cost estimates.
Given the importance of a reliable project schedule for
completion of the ITER project, this next year will be critical
to ITER's long term success. In line with that, we recommended
in our report that DOE continue to formally advocate for timely
implementation of the necessary actions laid out in the
management assessment that are needed to set a reliable
international project schedule, and improve ITER organization
project management.
We urge DOE to be vigilant in its efforts to influence to
the maximum extent possible the ITER organization's development
of this schedule so that, at this time next year, the U.S. will
be in a position to endorse the revised international schedule
and use that to set a definitive cost baseline for the U.S.
project.
In conclusion, the ITER project is at a crossroads. In the
absence of a reliable schedule and improved international
project management, ITER will remain subject to a significant
amount of uncertainty, and may continue to face significant
cost overruns or schedule delays. DOE should do as much as it
can over the next year to push the ITER organization toward a
realistic schedule and improved project management. Only if
this is achieved will DOE be able to provide a firm and
reliable estimate to Congress of the expected U.S. contribution
to the ITER project.
Alternatively, if DOE cannot, upon evaluating the ITER
organization's revised schedule, determine that this schedule
is indeed reliable, it is imperative that DOE provide a
transparent and complete accounting of the schedule's
deficiencies to Congress, so that lawmakers can have the
information to make reasoned budget and other decisions.
Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member Swalwell, and Members of
the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I will
be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rusco follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you, Dr. Rusco.
I now recognize Dr. Dehmer to present her testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. PATRICIA DEHMER,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR SCIENCE PROGRAMS, DOE
Dr. Dehmer. Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member Swalwell,
Chairman Smith, Members of the Committee, I am pleased to come
before you today to discuss the Department's Fusion Energy
Sciences program, which supports work to understand matter at
very high temperatures and densities, and to build the
scientific foundation needed to develop a fusion energy source.
The ITER project is the only planned burning plasma experiment
in the world, and it is an important component of the Fusion
Energy Sciences program. Indeed, our program is configured to
support ITER activities, both now and in the future.
The idea to build a burning plasma device through an
international agreement originated from a Geneva superpower
summit in November 1985, at which time Premier Gorbachev
proposed to President Reagan that an international project be
established to develop fusion energy for peaceful purposes.
Many years, and may project changes later, including a
congressionally directed withdrawal when project costs were
escalating, the U.S. re-entered ITER in 2007.
At that time, the expected U.S. cost for ITER was $1.1
billion, which was a tractable amount in an era of projected
strong budget growth. Indeed, in 2007, President Bush signed
the America Competes Act, which authorized a doubling of
funding for the Office of Science, and other Federal basic
science programs over a period of a decade.
However, since that time, as you well know, the estimated
cost of U.S. ITER contributions has grown to more than $4
billion. The growth arises from several factors, which are
summarized in the GAO report. The project has also seen a
multi-year schedule slip from the original projected completion
date. In contrast to the increased estimate for the cost of
U.S. obligations to ITER, funding for the Office of Science has
grown more slowly.
This makes annual budgeting a challenge. It is made
significantly more challenging each year, owing to stunning new
scientific discoveries and new technologies that have created
imperatives in every program of the Office of Science. For
example, we are in worldwide competitions for the most capable
scientific computers, and for revolutionary X-ray light--laser
light sources that probe matter at the atomic level. Neither
was envisioned a decade ago. Increased urgency has been placed
on research to develop new materials, new chemistries, and new
biological processes for clean and efficient energy.
In addition to cost growth and schedule slip, other issues
have emerged that affect ITER. In late 2013 to third biennial
management assessment of the ITER organization identified
significant management issues that threatened the success of
the project. Eleven recommendations resulted. The U.S. agreed
with all of the recommendations put forward. Key among them is
that leadership, management, and culture within the ITER
project must be improved if it is to succeed.
The U.S. has spent significant time and energy to help ITER
succeed. We have sent our best personnel in the United States
to work at the ITER organization. We have recommended that Dr.
Bob Iotti be the council chair, and he accepted, and we are
very pleased. And we have insisted that all of the management
assessment recommendations be adopted and implemented. The
administration maintains its commitment to our responsibilities
under the joint implementing agreement for ITER, but we insist
on the reforms articulated in the management assessment report.
I would like to close by remarking on the GAO report. As
always, we thank the GAO for its findings and its
recommendations. This was a particularly difficult report, and
the GAO did an excellent job. The Department of Energy agrees
with the four recommendations for executive action. We have
already implemented those recommendations that we can address
more, and we plan to take action on the recommendations that
first require the international organization to baseline the
project.
Finally, I want to thank this Committee for holding the
hearing on ITER, and providing the Department with the
opportunity to testify. We look forward to continuing to work
with you on the complex domestic and international challenges
that we face in fusion research. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dehmer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you, Dr. Dehmer.
And now I recognize Dr. Iotti to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT IOTTI,
ITER COUNCIL CHAIR
Mr. Iotti. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member
Swalwell, Chairman Smith, Members of the Subcommittee. I thank
you very much for the opportunity of appearing before you. I am
presently the chair of the council, but I want to make sure
that you understand I don't represent the view of the council,
but my own as a person who has been involved for over 45 years
in defense and nuclear--commercial nuclear facilities, as well
as fusion facilities.
I could not be as eloquent as the members themselves on the
promise of fusion, or why ITER is so important, so let me just
get to the status of ITER. This is a nuclear facility which is
licensed in France. It is being constructed in Cadarache, and
work is progressing on site. At 6:00 a.m. yesterday morning the
project began pouring the major slab on which the tokamak
itself will sit, and the design, the fabrication, and the
construction of the various component structures, buildings,
and systems that comprise ITER are progressing, both on site,
as well as in the domestic agencies, of the various parties
that contribute to ITER. I brought a booklet to the Committee
that I ask the Committee to be part of this record because,
pictorially, it will show progress, and it will take me
thousands of words to explain what pictures will tell you.
Unquestionably, ITER has had management problems. The
schedule is uncertain, as is its final cost. What is known is
that the schedule is going to be longer, and the cost higher
than had originally been anticipated. And, as mentioned, the
project is preparing an updated schedule, which should be ready
by the middle of 2015. The reasons for the cost and schedule
overruns are varied, but unique to ITER is the ITER
international agreement itself, which causes some of these
problems.
The Director General of the ITER organization is
responsible for the overall design, the licensing, the
construction, the commissioning, and the operation, but the
various buildings, components, systems are provided by--as
contribution in kind by the domestic agencies, and the domestic
agencies have all of the funds. The operations are funded from
those funds, and the funds are subject to budgets that are
allocated to ITER by the various parties. So the Director
General and the ITER organization have really no direct control
on the funds, or on the domestic agencies, so that when there
is any misalignment between the ITER organization and domestic
agencies on any particular topic, decisions would typically
require unanimity, or at the very least consensus cannot be
readily made, leading to delays and cost increases.
Now, funding shortfalls can contribute to those schedule
delays and consequent cost increases. Given the delays and
increases experienced to date, many parties have budget
problems, and the U.S. is not alone. However, the U.S. strategy
to minimize yearly funding until the schedule is known with
high degree of confidence, and ITER performance is improved,
will increase the ITER cost for the U.S., and could delay the
ITER schedule. You know, when the new schedule becomes known,
whether the U.S. will be a critical--or not is uncertain at
this point. But if they are, lest they cause international
delays, they may have to adjust the budget afterwards. The same
failure of any member can affect any of the members.
Now, with regard to the management assessor, the council
has immediately improved its effectiveness and efficiencies. We
used to take up days without concluding anything, and take up a
large fraction on trivial matters. Now they are disposed
instantly by approving a consent package that contains all the
non-controversial, and then the council concentrates on the big
issues. The IO has prepared a detailed action plan, and the
detailed action plan has been acted upon on all actions, so we
are responding to every recommendation of the management
assessors.
Now, some actions pay immediate dividend. We see now we are
meeting milestones on the schedules that before we used to meet
only 50 percent of the time. That is a good sign. On the other
hand, changing culture takes time, so all of the action related
to culture will be work in progress for a bit of time.
Perhaps the most important action taken is on the action of
changing the management of ITER. A formation of a search
committee has already occurred. This committee meets Tuesday in
Paris to elect their own chair, and then start evaluating the
recommendation of--members, potential candidates for Director
General, and other important positions on the project.
So I would like to leave the Committee that, in summary, we
are not just making progress in constructions. We are also
making progress in fixing the management project. Will ITER be
successful? Well, you know, it is an experimental reactor, but
it is based on the knowledge acquired throughout the world, and
all of the fusion devices, so the likelihood of not meeting
performance is low. There are no showstoppers, and the
technological challenges can be met and overcome. So let me
stop right now, and ask the Members--again, thanking them. If
there are any question, I will be happy to answer them.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Iotti follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you, Dr. Iotti. It is an amazing
scientific experiment, but it is also an amazing experiment in
international management of a very complex project. We
recognize the challenges that you face.
I now recognize Dr. Sauthoff to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. NED SAUTHOFF,
DIRECTOR, U.S. ITER PROJECT,
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Mr. Sauthoff. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Lummis,
Ranking Member Swalwell, Chairman Smith, other Members of the
Committee, and other distinguished Members of Congress. As
Chairman Lummis said, my name is Ned Sauthoff, and my role is
the director of the U.S. ITER Project Office, which has been
charged by DOE with executing the U.S. part of the ITER
project. And--so I am the ``evil'' domestic agency, as Bob
would call it.
In any case, I would like to deviate from my prepared text
by responding to Mr. Smith's question about ITER/ITER, okay?
Turns out that ITER is called ITER because it is a Latin Third
Declension noun meaning the journey or the way, and it is the
origin of the word itinerary.
Chairman Smith. Correct.
Mr. Sauthoff. Okay? So I could see why it could be ITER, if
it is in Latin, or ITER, if it is itinerary. So you were right.
Chairman Smith. If the gentleman would yield, and I don't
want to eat up into your 5 minutes, but having taken more years
of Latin than I want to confess, we always pronounced it ITER.
As you say, it means the way, the road, the journey. It is
where we get the word itinerary. So it seems counter-intuitive
to pronounce a word with a long E that starts with an I. And I
know that is more than we want to hear today, so----
Mr. Weber. ITER way, you are both correct.
Mr. Sauthoff. Okay. Well, building on Mr. Smith's comment,
I would like to characterize ITER by a sentence from Virgil's
Aeneid, ``Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.'' Perhaps
someday it will be a pleasure to remember even this.
Chairman Smith. Very good.
Mr. Sauthoff. Okay. So let me move on from that. If I could
have the first slide brought up? Okay. What we will see is the
ITER site. And as Dr. Iotti described, there are buildings
popping up out of the ground. In the foreground you see a
headquarters building. In the middle you see where the tokamak
will be built. In the background you see a building built by
the Indians for building the cryostat, which is too big to
ship. And behind--and beside that you see a poloidal field coil
building, where the Europeans will build magnets that are also
too big to ship, okay?
And then if we focus in on the tokamak building, this is
the basement for the tokamak, on which the tokamak will sit.
And, as Dr. Iotti said, yesterday they started pouring the
concrete of a 1-1/2 meter thick slab on which the tokamak will
be built. That slab is actually not on the ground. It is on 493
seismic isolator pillars because you have to avoid earthquakes,
okay? So it is a rather complex building within a building, and
so what we are in the process of doing now is pouring the
basement floor of the inner building, okay? And that is what
you see there.
If we look at what is going on around the world, you would
see that there are many pieces of hardware being built around
the world. And now let me focus on the U.S. hardware, because I
know you are interested in the U.S. part particularly. These
are pieces of hardware, which we are fabricating, and have
either delivered, or are delivering this year.
If you look in the upper left, that is an 800 meter long
spool of conductor. It is four meters wide, four meters tall,
you know, a meter is, like, a yard, so it is really big. This
is our prototype winding, where we validated all of our
fabrication processes. That conductor has been shipped to
Italy, to ASG in La Spezia, Italy, where the Europeans will
turn it into a coil, a trial coil. We have also shipped 100
meter superconducting coil, a spool, which was built out of
conductors that came from Oxford Superconductor in Carteret,
New Jersey, and Luvata, in Waterbury, Connecticut. And it was
then cabled in New Hampshire, and then it was integrated and
jacketed in Tallahassee, at a small business called High
Performance Magnetics.
So we actually have put money into 40 different states. And
so what we are trying to do is to build up the technological
capability. And let me just elaborate on that. Oxford
Superconductor and Luvata have gotten contracts from other ITER
parties because our investment in those companies has made them
the world leader. There was more than $50 million went to one
of them to provide superconductor to Europe, okay? So here it
is, a case where our investment in ITER enabled U.S. industry
to be world class competitive, and win contracts from another
member.
Below, you see some components which we are providing to
provide site power. And to the right you see one of five drain
tanks of about 60,000 gallons, which have to be put into the
basement before they pour the next floor up. That is why our
schedule is not totally within our control. We have to fit into
the schedule of the building.
And then the last slide here are components that we are
putting into a new building at General Atomics in Poway,
California for us to fabricate the world's highest stored
energy superconducting pulsed magnet in the world, okay? So
this is a case where the U.S. is going to have a capability
which no one else has, and we will have built a magnet that has
more energy in it in a pulsed way than anyone else. So at the
left is a heat treatment furnace, where we can cook it for 100
hours at 650 degrees Centigrade to turn Niobium and Tin into
Niobium-3 Tin. And at the right, you see the first of 11
stations for doing the winding.
So--I am done with the slides now, so you can return to the
camera. So, as others have said, what we are building on here
is an attempt to create a burning plasma. This is a plasma
which emulates the sun, and the key part is that the fusion
reactions themselves keep it hot. And so, within the U.S., we
have done the systems engineering such that we know what we
have to build. We know the system performance requirements for
all the components for first plasma. We know the interfaces so
that we can reliably proceed to fabricate those components with
acceptable risk. Those that are needed post-first plasma need
more design work, so we are not ready to run with those.
But let me just report to you that our team is ready to
run. The funding that we are now getting allows us to walk. We
would prefer to run. It would be cheaper for us to run, and I
am sure some of the questions will relate to that. And I also
wanted to comment that ITER alone does not constitute a U.S.
fusion program. What we have to do is to support ITER design,
and position the U.S. for leadership in ITER research. And that
means we have to be studying the topics that ITER will be
studying on our domestic facilities in such a way that the U.S.
has world leadership capability so that we are part of the
teams that do experiments on ITER. And lastly, let me say that
we also have to move on, before we have a fusion reactor, to
study materials, components, and the like, and that is part of
the strategic planning exercise which is now being conducted.
So I conclude by saying our fusion community is confident,
we are excited about the opportunities before us, and we look
forward to working with you and the Department of Energy in
developing, and planning, and implementing a vibrant U.S.
fusion program.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sauthoff follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you again, all of you, for being
available for questioning today. We will now begin member
questions, reminding Members that Committee rules limit
questions to five minutes. And the Chair will, at this point,
begin. And in order to get us all an opportunity to ask some
questions before anticipated 10:15 votes, I would ask all the
Members to err on the side of brevity.
First of all, Dr. Rusco, thank you again for being here.
Recognizing the complexity of this project, the reliance of 11
nations on each other to do their part to keep this thing on
schedule, and, to the extent we can, as close to a reasonable
budget as could possibly be attained, given the difficulties of
managing all these languages, all these countries, all this
science, it is almost mind boggling.
Your report provides a historic account of the U.S. ITER
project's increasing costs and schedule. What can our
government do to establish a reliable budget and schedule, so
DOE and U.S. ITER have a clear plan to fulfill the U.S.
hardware obligations, and lower overall costs?
Dr. Rusco. Very briefly, the U.S. project is dependent on
the success of the management improvements of the international
organization. That--those must occur, and there must be a
reliable and definitive schedule put out before they can use
the tools, which they are using very well, of cost estimation
to give a reliable cost estimate to Congress. So it is really--
it is--the first step is the international organization has to
improve its management practices in very important ways, and
then it has to come up with a full schedule in consultation
with all the members. And then the U.S., I think, has the tools
to make a reliable cost estimate for our own share of that.
Chairwoman Lummis. Hence I will skip now to Dr. Iotti, and
ask, is that an attainable goal within a reasonable timeframe,
to have just the international scope of work, budget, and
timeline?
Mr. Iotti. The brief answer is yes. Sorry. The brief answer
is yes, and I could elaborate, but I will be even more
confident come this September, where I am going there to review
the progress on coming up with the schedule, the resource--and
where the project will be in the middle of 2015.
Chairwoman Lummis. Who will be responsible between now and
September in preparing the schedule that you will be reviewing?
Mr. Iotti. There is the--a group within the ITER
organization that is preparing the schedule as we speak. And
they already have prepared the front end of that schedule,
which is the 2014 annual work plan, and that is the one that I
was referring to. In the past, when we made this annual work
plan, the project would miss about half the milestones. Now
they are meeting them all. In fact, sometimes they are beating
them. And those that are in jeopardy, they are acted upon right
away to mitigate possible delays, or retreatment entirely. So
there is a whole new spirit of can-do attitude that did not--
was not present in the past.
Chairwoman Lummis. Okay. So there is scope of work, there
is timeline----
Mr. Iotti. Correct. They are all----
Chairwoman Lummis. --and there is----
Mr. Iotti. --together.
Chairwoman Lummis. --budget. Okay.
Mr. Iotti. Correct.
Chairwoman Lummis. All three of those elements are being
handled by the same----
Mr. Iotti. With the cooperation of the domestic agencies.
It is not, you know, that has to be a complete cooperation
between the ITER organization that prepares the overall
schedule and the domestic agencies, because each of the
domestic agencies prepare its own schedule for their own scope,
when then has to be integrated overall. And then the whole
thing has to make sense----
Chairwoman Lummis. Um-hum.
Mr. Iotti. --which is one of the reasons I am going there
also in September, to make sure that everything is right. And
when that has happened, then you can have a high confidence
both in the ITER organization, as well as the domestic
agencies. That is what Mr. Rusco is referring to. Until we have
that, it is very difficult for the U.S. to prepare anything,
okay?
Chairwoman Lummis. Who is preparing the budget for each
country's scope of work within the timeframe?
Mr. Iotti. That you would have to address--for instance,
for the U.S., you would have address Dr. Sauthoff. The domestic
agencies prepare the basic information, which then goes to the
government to request certain budget to enable them to do the
work. That is within the domestic agencies. It is not within
the purview of the overall ITER organization. They just have to
integrate all of those and alert members when they see a
problem.
Chairwoman Lummis. Okay. Dr. Sauthoff, given that, can you
give me the 25 second version of your answer?
Mr. Sauthoff. Yes. My answer is that we have a very good
process for developing schedule and cost estimate. As Dr. Rusco
said, GAO reviewed us, and they said that we have all the
characteristics of a reliable schedule system, and we have most
of the characteristics of a reliable cost system. The only
things they cited as missing had to do with an independent cost
estimate, and a more extensive sensitivity analysis, which is
something we do before baselining. So we have a good system,
and I am proud of our cost estimate of 3.9 billion.
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you, panel. I now recognize Mr.
Swalwell for 5 minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chairman Lummis, and I was also
delighted to hear from Chairman Smith that--his remarks about
how ITER, and investments in fusion research can get us to an
energy source that is carbon neutral. And that, you know,
Chairman Smith, could really change the debate in this town,
and make moot a lot of the back and forth about fossil fuels
versus other sources of energy. I mean, I am a big believer in
the renewables, but an investment in something like this, I
think, could render many of these debates moot, and I think we
would both embrace that, if we could get to that point.
And--so my question first, for Dr. Sauthoff, is--I have
been told that a significant portion of the U.S. contribution
to ITER can be decoupled from the international schedule almost
entirely, and that we have the opportunity to reduce the total
cost to our taxpayers if we simply focus more attention and
resources on those components in the near term. So I guess,
first, is this true?
Mr. Sauthoff. Yes, it is true. Roughly 2/3 of our scope is
aimed at coming up with the first configuration of the machine,
which is the core tokamak, and that is what is sometimes called
the first plasma configuration. It is what you need to
demonstrate that the tokamak itself works. It is roughly 2/3 of
our scope. We know what we have to build well enough that we
can proceed to fabricate at acceptable risk. And if we were to
proceed on an optimal profile, we think we could probably
reduce that cost from 3.9 billion to about 3.4, saving about
half a billion dollars.
Mr. Swalwell. And also, Dr. Iotti, any thoughts on whether
an accelerated contribution could work?
Mr. Iotti. Well, clearly--will lower the cost. I think what
Dr. Sauthoff said is absolutely right. The other thing that,
though, he did not add is I happen to know that in his own
estimate he has a large amount of contingency, something on the
order of--I think it is close to 900 million.
If you accelerate, you retire some of that contingency. My
experience in large project is the sooner you finish, the less
risk you incur of changes, and that also saves some of that
money that would otherwise go to pay for that risk. So the
overall saving, in my opinion, would be larger than the half a
billion, and may be close to 3/4 of it.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Dr. Iotti. And, Dr. Dehmer,
speaking of contributions, I did mention in my opening
statement the $225 million U.S. cap. And was I correct in
describing this as an arbitrary level that the administration
decided what would be politically palatable, or is this
something that was arrived at from a bottom up project estimate
that minimizes the total cost for U.S. taxpayers, and our
contribution to ITER?
Dr. Dehmer. It was not a bottoms up, as you say, but it was
also not arbitrary. Let me give you the context that we were
living in when we made that decision. At the time, the
Department, and as now, the Department leadership was very
supportive of the joint implementing agreement for ITER. But we
were having requests from the project upwards of $350 million a
year. The project had no international baseline, it had no U.S.
baseline, no cost and schedule profiles.
There were rumors of very significant cost growth and
schedule delay, and deliberately many of these rumors were not
put in the open, or kept silent. We have heard about the
management weaknesses, and we heard that very significant
improvements were needed. And all of this came against a
background of sequestration, and many other projects that we
were trying to support at the time.
Therefore, we made a decision that, with no cost and
schedule baselines, with significant management weaknesses, we
could not provide this project with everything that it was
requesting. We had to make a balance across the opposite sides,
and we chose $225 million. We believed that amount would allow
us to go forward, and deliver what we needed to deliver, so as
not to delay the project, but would allow us to do other things
that we needed to do in the Office of Science.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Dr. Dehmer. And knowing what we
know now, listening to the testimony of the witnesses, and that
by and large much of sequestration has been rolled back, do you
anticipate that the next recommendation for funding will
increase beyond today?
Dr. Dehmer. We are in negotiations on that now, and so I
can't talk about that. What I definitely want to say is we are
looking forward to the June 2015 baseline exercise from the
international organization.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Dr. Dehmer. Thank you, Chair, and
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Lummis. The Chair now recognizes the full
Committee Chairman, Mr. Smith of Texas.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me direct my
first question to Dr. Dehmer, Dr. Iotti--I am tempted to say
Dr. Iotti, but I won't--Dr. Iotti, and Dr. Sauthoff. And, Dr.
Rusco, I don't mean to slight you, but the question really is
not for the GAO, and you will see why.
And it is this. I think we have to acknowledge that the
practical delivery of fusion energy is dollars away and years
away, but nevertheless it has incredible potential, and that is
the point of my question. If we are successful in developing
future sources of fusion energy, wouldn't that largely solve
the problem of carbon emissions? And this is something that the
Ranking Member alluded to as well. So, Dr. Dehmer?
Dr. Dehmer. It would help mitigate the problem of carbon
emissions, and the if is a long way off, and----
Chairman Smith. I acknowledge that.
Dr. Dehmer. Yeah. Okay. And----
Chairman Smith. I am talking about the potential.
Dr. Dehmer. Yes, I think everyone agrees that the potential
is very great.
Chairman Smith. Okay. And, Dr. Iotti?
Mr. Iotti. Well, I use an example that I borrow from Dr.
Llewellyn Smith in Oxford. The potential of fusion, in terms of
the issues that you are referring to can be translated in 40
liters of water, and the lithium from one laptop battery----
Chairman Smith. Oh boy.
Mr. Iotti. --can provide the per capita consumption in the
United States for 15 years, and do away with 70 tons of coal.
That is----
Chairman Smith. I have never heard it put that way. That is
a very descriptive and very persuasive answer. I thank you for
that. Dr. Sauthoff, going back to our pronunciation, we may
have to split the difference between ITER and ITER, because we
checked the dictionary, and the correct pronunciation is in
between, as it ITER, I-T. So ITER, or ITER.
Mr. Sauthoff. It depends whether you are going classical,
church, or colloquial.
Chairman Smith. Yes, I was always in the colloquial, and--
--
Mr. Sauthoff. Yes.
Chairman Smith. --that is why we got the ITER.
Mr. Sauthoff. But do you do you veni, vidi, vici or veni,
vidi, vici?
Chairman Smith. Veni, vidi, vici, though, doesn't involve
the I. By the way--from Caesar. But anyway, enough digression,
I guess. If you want to talk about the potential, that would be
great.
Mr. Sauthoff. Okay. The potential is indeed quite great.
The amount of energy that you get out of a nuclear reaction is
more than a million times that of what you get out of a
chemical reaction. And so, per pound of fuel, you get more than
a million times out in either fission or fusion than you get
out of chemistry.
And what we have is a system which will allow us to address
the risk of a fusion system, big risk of the plasma, but we
only know how to do it on a big scale. It will be a central
station plant----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Mr. Sauthoff. --so we won't have addressed portable
electricity and the like, and that is going to take storage. We
haven't yet figured out how to make the Mr. Fusion machine that
Professor Emmett Brown put on the top of his DeLorean in Back
to the Future, and we won't know how to make that power pack
that----
Chairman Smith. Yeah.
Mr. Sauthoff. --Tony Stark had in Iron Man. But we do know
how to make the arc reactor that is in the bottom of the Stark
Tower in Iron Man 2.
Chairman Smith. Okay. These are great answers. Let me ask a
second question of the same three individuals. We will go in
reverse order. And that is, what are the impacts of the
proposed cuts, either on the mission, or on our international
partners? Dr. Sauthoff?
Mr. Sauthoff. Well, we are totally dependent on the other
partners, and they are dependent on us. And what we have to do
is to find a way where we work together such that all of us
deliver all of our parts. And what we have to do there is to
build up both a trust and a way to work together. And, as Dr.
Iotti will--or Iotti, okay--will perhaps talk about, we have
underway various approaches to achieving that interactivity,
and that integration. And what we really need is to have an
integrated team with strong leadership, and effective project
systems that allows us to cooperate, and to achieve our mutual
goals.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Iotti, the impact of
the cuts? And I am afraid you are going to have to be the last
one to answer, because of the time limitation.
Mr. Iotti. There is--as Ned said, we have to work together.
The moment that the other partner sees the U.S. is possibly
wavering because of the budget cuts, it shows--it is much more
difficult for us to influence the other ones, and working
together. That is the bottom line. So we need to deliver just
as much as we expect the other part to delivery. Budget cut can
influence our ability to do.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you all. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you very much. I was excited by
the title of this hearing, ``Fusion: The World's Most Complex
Energy Project'', and--but all we are talking about is ITER.
And I learned, when I first was elected to Congress, that the
competition and disagreement between scientists about whether
you want to do inertial confinement fusion, or magnetic fusion,
it is, like, almost a religious dispute, and people have very
strong views.
But one question I have is how we might--or are we
utilizing the information that we are obtaining out of the
important work that is being done here in the United States,
both at MIT, and at Lawrence Livermore that was mentioned
earlier. How is that being integrated into the design of the
science of this project, if at all? Anybody who could----
Mr. Sauthoff. Okay, let me start. First of all, the design
of ITER has evolved to adapt to the best practices and best
configurations known from the existing research, and the U.S.,
among others, has contributed a lot to that. We have adapted
the ITER configuration recently by adding what are called in--
vessel coils to address things that have been found on U.S. and
other devices. We also have come up with ways of addressing how
to increase confinement, and how to minimize the effects of
instability.
And so these features have been put into the ITER design,
such that the basic ITER has the systems in place, based on our
knowledge to date, and there is a flexibility in all the
peripheral systems to improve how you fuel it, how you heat it,
and how you change the profiles. And so both past research has
contributed, and future research will contribute not only to
the peripheral systems, but how we operate ITER.
Ms. Lofgren. I worry--I support funding for this project, I
will just say that up front, but I worry about completion,
given the terrible economic conditions in Europe, and whether
people who have made commitments in the end are going to be
able to follow through on those commitments. And I am also
mindful that when you have a big construction project like
this, by the time you finish, you know, the technology has
moved forward, and it is dated. I mean, for example, NIF, by
the time it was done, they would now have a facility probably a
third the size. I mean, the lasers would be so different. Not
that it isn't a useable facility, but I am sure the same will
be true of ITER.
And so I guess--here is a question, looking at what--and I
hope we--Madam Chair, we might be able to have a hearing on
some of the other projects in the fusion arena, because it is
very exciting, what is going on at Livermore. I just got a
briefing yesterday from their scientific team, and with their
high step efforts, I mean, they are generating alpha particles
in a very interesting way.
You know, they are--I believe they have created fusion,
although not ignition. And we don't know, it is a science
experiment, whether they will. But let us just say what if they
actually hit their ignition target before ITER is completed.
Would that have an impact on ITER's development? Because they
are making great progress in stability issues and the like.
Would--how would that information be integrated into this
project?
Mr. Sauthoff. Well, if I might be so bold as to start, I
think, first of all, it would be a great accomplishment, and it
will be a great accomplishment when NIF achieves ignition, and
I believe that that will raise the recognition of the potential
for fusion. And I personally believe that we should succeed in
fusion in any way we can----
Ms. Lofgren. I do as well.
Mr. Sauthoff. --and I also believe we should succeed in
multiple ways. Because, in that redundancy, we get reliability,
and we will be able to optimize the systems. And, quite
frankly, I hope that inertial confinement succeeds, magnetic
confinement succeeds, and some of these alternate concepts
succeed.
You know, if we had set out to say we were only going to
build one sort of a car, you know, we wouldn't have the
variety----
Ms. Lofgren. No, I absolutely agree, but the question is
can you incorporate--I mean they have learned a lot on material
science----
Mr. Sauthoff. Yes.
Ms. Lofgren. --moving forward. That, I believe, would be
instructive and useful for this alternate approach----
Mr. Sauthoff. Right.
Ms. Lofgren. --and I agree. Once we get ignition, all that
is left is engineering. And so, you know, that is a big
challenge. But once we clear the science, I have a high level
of confidence on implementation.
Mr. Sauthoff. Yes. I believe that there are areas that can
be synergistic, and materials are among them. The systems are
somewhat similar, but they are also quite different, and that
means that we have multiple paths to success in fusion, and so
we ought to celebrate the differences as well as we celebrate
the similarities.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Chairwoman Lummis. And the gentlewoman's time has expired.
I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie.
Mr. Massie. Ms. Lofgren asked most of my questions, and
better than I could have, but I have the same sort of interest
in this. And some of these research efforts that are global can
almost be described as the analogy to 1,000 monkeys typing on
keyboards, that eventually they will produce the works of
Shakespeare, but this is not one of them. We have only a few
bets to place on fusion, because the projects--the scale of the
projects doesn't lend itself to having a lot of people working
on different approaches. So I think it is very important, when
we place our bets, what we place them on.
Dr. Sauthoff, you said that first plasma was an important
milestone, or at least that is what it sounds like. What is the
next milestone after that? And then, Dr. Iotti, in the event of
100 percent success of this project, what will this experiment
produce? But Dr. Sauthoff, please.
Mr. Sauthoff. Okay. So the first event is a big integrated
systems test that results in a plasma. We call that first
plasma. That means the core tokamak is working.
Mr. Massie. Is that novel? Has that been achieved before?
Mr. Sauthoff. There has never been--it has never been
achieved at this scale. You know, what we will be doing is to
build a system that has more stored energy, and higher forces,
and the like, than anywhere else. What we have to do after that
is then build on top of the basic tokamak. We have to add the
heating system, so that it gets up to thermonuclear
temperatures. We have to add the instrumentation, so that we
can study what is going on. We have--and we have to continue to
optimize.
One of the key things is we have to start a tritium system,
because the fuel is deuterium and tritium, and that is a system
which is very complex, state of the art, beyond the current
state of the art. It is not just like what you do in the
weapons system. What you have to do is do this fast enough
where you can separate different isotopes of hydrogen to
separate out the deuterium, and the tritium, and the protium in
time that you can cycle it back into the tokamak.
So this is a real development. We are doing our part at
Savannah River. We are doing the separation. That then goes to
Europe, that does the isotope separation. We are doing the
exhaust processing, get hydrogen and separate it from other
things. Europe is doing the isotope separation, and then it
goes to China and Korea for injection.
Mr. Massie. Dr. Iotti, the ultimate outcome from this giant
experiment will be what?
Mr. Iotti. Well----
Mr. Massie. When I--I got excited when I saw the----
Mr. Iotti. Two things----
Mr. Massie. --electrical substation. I thought, wow, they
are going to send power out. But then I realized that is the
power coming in----
Mr. Iotti. That is the power coming in----
Mr. Massie. --to the magnets.
Mr. Iotti. --right. It----
Mr. Massie. Okay.
Mr. Iotti. The moment we can say that is the power out----
Mr. Massie. Yeah.
Mr. Iotti. --we will have been successful. Well, first of
all, this experiment is going to allow us to enter the regime
where the plasma itself heat it. We have never been there for
any substantial period of time. So that is the science, if you
will. After you conquer the science, then it becomes an
engineering problem.
So this device by itself will not enable us to immediately
go to a demo plant. We can design a demo plant, but we will
need information on materials. We will need other information
that comes from other facilities that are being built around
the world, by the way. But the fundamental output of ITER will
be the knowledge of the science, and some of the engineering
that is necessary to go to the next step, which will be the--
not just the design, but the actual construction of a
demonstration facility, which will produce power that will be
put in the grid.
Mr. Massie. But not this facility?
Mr. Iotti. Not--this facility will not put power in the
grid----
Mr. Massie. Got you.
Mr. Iotti. --no.
Mr. Massie. I want to use my remaining time to ask Dr.
Rusco a few questions--or one question. I will leave it open
ended. The design of the management of this project presents, I
would imagine, some unique obstacles, and increases the
overhead of completing these goals. What are some of those
unique problems inherent in the management of this project?
Dr. Rusco. Our review mostly focused on the U.S. project,
but the management assessment which we were able to review laid
out some really important challenges. And among the key ones
were a top heavy management culture, and structure, and many
managers from different----
Mr. Massie. Languages?
Dr. Rusco. --and cultures. I don't think that the language
and, you know, cultural aspects are as much of an issue as have
too many managers, and too many layers of decision-making.
Decision-making was not pushed down to the lowest reasonable
level, and so it is a top heavy organization. Another is that
they have an absence of a systems engineering culture, and they
need that.
This is a huge, complex system, and it is a huge project.
And another one is that they are lacking in things like a
nuclear safety culture. And these are big changes, big cultural
changes in an organization that is made up of people from all
the member countries. And I think that that is just inherently
a large challenge.
Mr. Massie. If--can I have just a little more time?
Mr. Iotti. Could I add one more, if I may, because I think
it responds to his question? There is an issue--imagine that
you have a project, and you are the owner of the project.
Normally the owner has the funds, and tell its contractors what
to do. Not so in ITER. It is the reverse. The domestic agencies
have the fund. They are the provider of the equipment to the
owner, the ITER organization, which has no funds. So that is a
big problem. It is not unsolvable.
And, as a matter of fact, one of the reaction to the
recommendation of the management assessment said, improve the
IO/DA interaction. It is a key of the group formed by the
council, which is studying the problem, and is making good
progress. That is something that is unique to ITER.
Mr. Massie. That occurred to me when Dr. Rusco talked about
the problem with the decision process. Well, so many of the
decisions have already been made. You know who you are going to
buy it from, and what they are going to build, so why would it
matter if you made a decision to do something else? You don't
have the money to change the plan, seems like. I yield back. My
time has expired.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentleman, and recognize the
gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Chairman Lummis. I am very excited to
be here, and very excited about the potential of fusion energy.
And, with all apologies to George Gershwin, I say ITER, you say
ITER, but let us not call the whole thing off. And I do have
some particular questions. I have been very fortunate to be
able to go out to the fusion lab at MIT and see the C-Mod
there.
And I have some questions for Dr. Dehmer, because you have
oversight of sort of what I see as two parallel management
structures, one having to do with the Fusion Energy Advisory
Committee, and one having to do with the High Energy Physics
Advisory Board, and the P-5. And there seem to be similarities
on these two, but some key differences, and I wondered if you
could help me think through some of the differences.
In the P-5 panel, there is a feeling that there has been a
better opportunity to incorporate community input, and there
has also been some differences, in that membership in the
strategic planning panel on the fusion side has barred
membership from major U.S. facilities to avoid conflicts of
interest, but this has not been the case in the P-5 panel. And
so that the feedback that I have been getting is that people
feel the P-5 panel has been able to work through solutions in a
better way. And I wondered if you could comment on that, and
the difference in structures, and how we might reconcile these
two parallel structures?
Dr. Dehmer. Yes. Let me talk about that. There are three
committees that I would like to talk about. One is the P-5
HEPAP, one is the FESAC, and the third is the Basic Energy
Sciences Advisory Committee, which went through a similar
exercise about a year ago.
In prior committees under FESAC, there had been some
concern expressed to me verbally, that the committee didn't
appreciate conflict of interest as well as it should. So when
we started this most recent study, I admonished them to be
very, very careful about conflict of interest. Now, you can do
that in a number of ways. You can have your sub-panel composed
of people who have no obvious conflicts of interest, and that
is what the chair of FESAC did. That was Mark Koepke. And that
is also what BESAC did.
The BESAC and the FESAC committees were very, very similar.
Neither one of the sub-panels had members from institutions
that were directly affected. However, in both cases, there were
very open community activities in which communities put white
papers, and other kinds of documents, into the sub-panel, and
had an opportunity to formally brief the sub-panel. That worked
very well for BESAC, and FESAC Mark Koepke chose to adopt that
for FESAC as well.
There is no intent whatsoever to inhibit input from these
major facilities. And, in fact, if you look at the FESAC
webpage for this activity, it is full of calls to the
communities to provide input. And, in fact, they met just this
week. Their meeting concluded yesterday, and they heard from
all of the major facilities, national and international, that
briefed the Subcommittee, and put in white papers for the
Subcommittee. This worked very well for BESAC. I think Mark
Koepke decided to adopt this for FESAC.
Ms. Clark. Great. Thank you very much. I yield back my
time.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentlelady, and yield to the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all
of our witnesses. We most definitely have a very distinguished
panel here today. I think this hearing is very important as we
continue to assess ongoing viability of the ITER program. I
think everyone on this Committee knows about my interest in our
national labs, and I also recognize the need for international
collaboration in some of these large science projects. Because
of the sheer size of such of--as this, there is no way for the
United States just to go it alone.
And it is not just a cost issue, it comes down to portfolio
management. Doing this alone would require nearly all of the
fusion budget, plus increases. We do have to ensure a balance
of projects, because we don't always know where the next
discovery or game changer will come from.
Dr. Dehmer, first of all, I want to thank you for the
incredible work that you have done at the Office of Science. As
I talk to my scientist back in Illinois, one word that keeps
coming back to me is tough. And I don't think that is a bad
thing, neither do they. They know that they have to have their
plans well thought out and put together before they bring them
to your desk. And I have faith that you have been a responsible
steward of the taxpayers' dollars, and I thank you for that.
My first question comes down to our standing in the
international community for these types of international
programs. Our partners obviously get frustrated with the United
States because of our yearly budgets, or sometimes monthly
budgets, compared to the more long term planning in other
nations. I wondered if you could talk briefly about if the
United States pulls out of a program of this size, how do you
believe the international community will react when we want to
join in a host of other--or host other programs?
I wondered if you could also discuss the importance of
domestic research and facilities programs in relation to ITER
and other international partnerships. One last thing, also, how
are these programs interrelated, and what would pitting one
against the other mean for the ability to continue future work
in fusion energy?
Dr. Dehmer. Let me answer the the Office of Science. And we
heard today a lot about aggressively accelerating funding for
fusion, but we simply can't do that, because there are so many
other projects.
We have tried to assess how withdrawal from ITER, and we
aren't proposing to do that, might affect other activities,
both scientific and other, and we simply don't know the answer
to that. I have to say that I have not heard from any part of
the scientific community that they are nervous about the United
States position on ITER. And you well know, with Fermilab in
your district, that international projects are an increasingly
important component of the science portfolio.
And you well know from the P-5 HEPAP report that encouraged
Fermilab to reach out and internationalize the long baseline
neutrino facility, and we are going forward in doing that. And
that will be one of the first examples of a major international
project on U.S. soil.
Mr. Hultgren. I hope we can do it well. And, again, with
our challenges budgeting here, where other nations, I think,
have done a better job of long term planning, as far as science
is concerned, I do think it is important for us to show that we
can follow through if we have a hope of having future projects
that we can work together on.
Dr. Iotti, I wonder--if I understand, that one of the key
management challenges with ITER is the unanimity requirement
for cost of schedule decisions, which allows one member to
stall the decision-making process. Is there agreement on the
council that this is a problem, and how do you plan to address
this issue so that the organization can function?
Mr. Iotti. Yes, the council has recognized the issues. They
formed a working group that is called, surprisingly, IODA
Interaction Group, and the group is making very good progress.
They have defined a process whereby decisions are presented to
a group which is chaired by a senior person in the ITER
organization, but includes all of the most senior persons from
each of the domestic agencies, and has formed kind of an
executive group.
These decisions--the options for the various decisions,
with the pros and cons, are presented to the group, and the
decision then is made jointly by the ITER organization and the
domestic agencies, and presented to the Director General, who
can then still, if necessary. But generally they will come to
an agreement. It will not solve all problems, but it will
considerably ameliorate the issue.
Mr. Hultgren. Real quickly in my last few seconds, Dr.
Dehmer, if I can go back, what lessons has the United States
learned about creating an international decision-making body
for other projects domestically? As you mentioned, I am
thinking about the P-5, the proposal of the international
facility. But I think we have these questions about anything
that we might ever want to host or join. While I do think ITER
management problems can be rectified, is the current management
a case study for how not to manage a program like this in the
future?
Dr. Dehmer. I think we have examples of international
projects that have worked, the Large Hadron Collider----
Mr. Hultgren. Yes.
Dr. Dehmer. --and we have had examples, and ITER is one of
them, where we would modify that agreement, if we had to do it
all over----
Mr. Hultgren. So lessons have been learned with----
Dr. Dehmer. Yes, indeed.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, again, thank you so much. Madam Chair,
thank you so much. Appreciate your generosity.
Chairwoman Lummis. Those were sweeping questions, and very
succinct answers. Very impressive line of questioning. I want
to recognize now the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for
Dr. Sauthoff. We have three major magnetic fusion research
facilities here in the U.S., at MIT, Princeton, and General
Atomics in San Diego. And what I was curious about was if you
would be able to explain how the smaller scale experimental
facilities are contributing to ITER?
Mr. Sauthoff. Okay. Well, the smaller scale facilities in
the U.S. are world class, even though they are not at ITER
scale. There is not an ITER scale facility in the world. But
the U.S. facilities are world class. They have produced results
which have enabled ITER to optimize its design. I mentioned in-
vessel coils, but there are other areas where that has been
done. They have also identified ways where ITER can be operated
more effectively, better modes of confinement, different modes
of stability, better ways of protecting against loss of control
and the like.
Furthermore, they provide a training base for--let us call
it the workforce. We also want to establish a reputation where
the U.S. has the stature to really be effective in
international research, and be able to propose winning
proposals, to win run time, to be members of international
teams that do the research. And so, quite frankly, we have the
ability to study the physics, which can then be extended to the
ITER scale, based on understanding the basic physics, and then
extrapolating it. And that extrapolation uses supercomputer
simulations.
So, really, what I see is devices such as today's tokamaks
giving better understanding, giving rise to better physics
models that are then embodied in supercomputer codes, which
allow us to then extrapolate to the ITER scale.
Mr. Veasey. Would there--were you finished? I am sorry.
Would there still be a strong justification for continuing to
support the current set of U.S. based magnetic fusion
facilities if there were no burning plasma experiment like ITER
in the works?
Mr. Sauthoff. Well, first of all, I hope that situation
doesn't arise. However, you know, if there were no burning
plasma facility in the world, there would be a gaping hole,
because one of the greatest risks has to do with not
understanding the dynamics of a burning plasma, or the effects
of the energetic particles, or the size scaling.
However, there would be many things to learn if there were
not a burning plasma facility. However, the E in fusion energy
would not be fulfilled. What we would be studying is plasma
physics. And so what we really need to do is have a balance
between plasma physics and putting the E into fusion energy.
Mr. Veasey. Interesting. On the facilities again, I mean,
are we sufficiently supporting these facilities, and the
related research programs at universities throughout the
country to ensure the success of ITER?
Mr. Sauthoff. Well, I will transfer it to Dr. Dehmer in a
moment. Of course it would be better if there were more run
time on these facilities. They are starved for run time. A very
small fraction of the available time is used for operation. But
it is a question of balance, and so that is where Dr. Dehmer
comes in.
Mr. Veasey. Dr. Dehmer?
Dr. Dehmer. We do try to balance the amount of run time,
and we have deliberately been pushing to increase the run time,
particularly on NSTX, which is just finishing its upgrade at
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, and we are trying to have
a very, very good run the first year after that upgrade is
finished.
Mr. Veasey. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Without objection, the Chair recognizes Mr. Rohrabacher for
five minutes for his questions. Those bells were just the call
for votes, but this first vote is a 15 minute vote, thereby
allowing Mr. Rohrabacher his complete use of time, so----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Chairwoman Lummis. We are going to complete our hearing,
and still make votes. Perfect.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Chairwoman Lummis. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Sorry
I was a bit in and out. As we speak, that sound in Israel is
the sound of a rocket coming in and blowing innocent civilians
up. We were just briefed by the ambassador, and by an Israeli
military official.
About fusion, as compared to other alternatives--and I am
sorry I missed--I will come back and read your testimony as the
hearings go on, but I have been here during this whole
decision-making process for the last 26 years, and it seems to
me that already what we have got again is a description of
management problems with a multi-billion dollar program, and
this is very serious.
And--especially if we have very limited resources now in
this country. We are borrowing money from China in order to,
you know, in order to do anything, in order to actually meet
our own budget. So these management problems need to be
overcome, I just would like to put that one the record, or we
need to, say, have a serious look at whether we will continue
pouring money into the project.
Madam Chairman, I would suggest that over these years there
have been many spin-offs from the Fusion Energy Research
Program that are very valuable. And I know that, for example,
the railgun that has just been disclosed by our military would
not have been possible without the material and development of
the metals, and the things that were necessary for the fusion
project to move forward. And it actually permitted us to
develop a system that I think will enable us to build a defense
system, so that if those alarms go off, we will actually have a
missile defense system that will protect our people, and save
thousands of lives.
So, in that degree, fusion energy research has been a
benefit to the people of the United States. Perhaps, however,
we should be looking now at whether or not the money we are
going to be putting in to fusion, as compared to the money that
would be putting in to small modular nuclear reactors that are
fission reactors, we know we are going to get a benefit from
that.
We know if we put several billion dollars into that, we
will have a new system of fission reactors that will provide
safe energy for our people, and we are assured of that. Can we
be assured that the billions of dollars that we will need to
pump in to the--to finish this project, this fusion project,
can we be certain that it will result in an energy system for
our country? We know it will if we put it into fusion. Do we
know it--fission. Do we know it will happen if we put it into
fusion? Whoever on the panel wants to go. Maybe each one of you
could say, yes, we know, or no, we don't know. Maybe start at
this end, and just run them down. Go ahead.
Mr. Sauthoff. Okay, I will start. No, we don't--do not have
absolute certainty. But what I think we have to do is act
somewhat as an investor. We have to look at what would be the
return on investment if it were to succeed, and then----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah.
Mr. Sauthoff. --consider what are the probabilities----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Versus risk, and----
Mr. Sauthoff. Yeah. It is--I think we ought to treat it as
a portfolio management problem.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Iotti. I agree with----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So the idea is that no, we do not--
--
Mr. Iotti. We do not know for certain.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --we do not know for certain, but we feel
there is a probability?
Mr. Iotti. Very high probability.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Dr. Dehmer. Exactly the same. Long term, high risk project.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. But we do know that there is an
alternative, in terms of development of nuclear energy for the
use of our people that is far less risky, in terms of--we know
we can produce fission reactors that are small modular
reactors.
Mr. Sauthoff. Yeah.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I mean, I asked that of other witnesses,
and they say absolutely we can, if we had the resources. So,
for the same amount of money, we could have a certain return,
versus--and, due to dealing with fusion, we don't have a
certain return. However, we do have a probability. One last
note our GAO, how does that all add up?
Dr. Rusco. I can't add anything to what they said. It is a
high risk, potentially high reward project.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Lummis. We have had a fascinating line of
questions and answers today. We all thank you for your valuable
testimony, and I thank the Members for their valuable
questions, and thoughtful questions. Members of the Committee
will have additional questions for you, and if they come to
you, we will ask you to respond in writing. The record will
remain open for two weeks for additional comments and written
questions for Members.
Members, we have on the floor eight minutes remaining on a
Motion to Recommit on H.R. 4718, so plenty of time. And, again,
with gratitude towards our panel, this hearing is adjourned.
The witnesses are excused. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]