[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NUCLEAR ENERGY INNOVATION
AND THE NATIONAL LABS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 13, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-19
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
95-224 WASHINGTON : 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL ERIC SWALWELL, California
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
BILL POSEY, Florida MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio PAUL TONKO, New York
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan MARK TAKANO, California
STEVE KNIGHT, California BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRIAN BABIN, Texas
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
STEVE KNIGHT, California ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
May 13, 2015
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Alan Grayson, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 6
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Witnesses:
Dr. Mark Peters, Associate Laboratory Director, Energy and Global
Security, Argonne National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 13
Mr. Frank Batten, Jr., President, The Landmark Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 22
Written Statement............................................ 23
Mr. Nathan Gilliland, CEO, General Fusion
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 34
Dr. John Parmentola, Senior Vice President, Energy and Advanced
Concepts Group, General Atomics
Oral Statement............................................... 43
Written Statement............................................ 45
Discussion....................................................... 73
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Mark Peters, Associate Laboratory Director, Energy and Global
Security, Argonne National Laboratory.......................... 92
Dr. John Parmentola, Senior Vice President, Energy and Advanced
Concepts Group, General Atomics................................ 95
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 98
Report submitted by Mr. Frank Batten, Jr., President, The
Landmark Foundation............................................ 99
NUCLEAR ENERGY INNOVATION.
AND THE NATIONAL LABS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy
Weber [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Subcommittee on Energy will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses
of the Subcommittee at any time. Welcome to today's hearing,
entitled ``Nuclear Energy Innovation and the National Labs.'' I
now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement.
Good morning, and I've already welcomed you to the
Committee Hearing this morning. We appreciate you all being
here. Today's hearing will focus on the Department of Energy's
National Laboratories' research capabilities, and the working
relationship with the private sector to advance nuclear energy
technology, both fission and fusion. The Department of Energy
owns 17 national laboratories, 16 of which are operated by
contractors as federally funded research and development
centers. The government owned contractor operated model allows
the labs flexibility to think outside of the box when tackling
fundamental scientific challenges. The Department of Energy
labs grew out of the Manhattan Project, and today provide the
critical R&D infrastructure that will enable researchers in
academia and the private sector to develop the technologies of
tomorrow.
It's pretty clear that the challenges in nuclear science
can be quite complicated, and we'll hear more about that from
our expert witnesses on our panel today. That said, not being a
nuclear physicist or anything of that sort, I'm going to do my
best to simplify what we intend to discuss in today's hearing.
We hope to get a better understanding of what the DOE labs do,
and how their unique research machines and talented group of
researches can enable companies to develop new products. This
is especially relevant for nuclear energy R&D, which requires
large up-front costs, but may lead to revolutionary technology
with long term rewards.
Folks, I would add that the United States has a definite
national interest in maintaining our position at the forefront
of nuclear technology development. Nuclear energy, as you know,
is in a class of its own, with the highest energy density of
any fuel, and yet yields zero emissions, the big goose egg. It
is also highly regulated, often a centerpiece of global,
especially national, politics, and is associated with the
world's strongest economies. In the United States we invented
this technology, and cannot forego, we must not forego the
opportunity to export more efficient and safer reactor systems
that will mitigate proliferation concerns, while increasing
global stability by providing a reliable energy source.
Today we're going to hear from the president of a
charitable organization that has co-invested with a DOE lab to
advance a specific nuclear fuel treatment process to convert
nuclear waste into a useable fuel. We will also hear from the
Argonne National Lab, which invented this fuel treatment
process, as well as private companies developing fusion, and
advanced fission reactors. Needless to say, this is a unique
panel of witnesses. I thank the witnesses for participating in
today's hearing, and I look forward to their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Energy
Chairman Randy K. Weber
Good morning and welcome to today's Energy Subcommittee hearing on
nuclear energy innovation. This hearing will focus on the Department of
Energy's national laboratories' research capabilities and working
relationship with the private sector to advance nuclear energy
technology--both fission and fusion.
The Department of Energy owns seventeen national laboratories,
sixteen of which are operated by contractors as federally funded
research and development centers. The government-owned,
contractoroperated model allows the labs flexibility to think outside
of the box when tackling fundamental scientific challenges. The DOE
labs grew out of the Manhattan project and today provide the critical
R&D infrastructure that will enable researchers in academia and the
private sector to develop the technologies of tomorrow.
It's pretty clear that challenges in nuclear science can be quite
complicated and we'll hear more about that from our expert witnesses.
That said, I will do my best to simplify what we intend to discuss
today.
We will get a better understanding of what the DOE labs do and how
their unique research machines and talented groups of researchers can
enable companies to develop new products. This is especially relevant
for nuclear energy R&D, which requires large up-front costs, but may
lead to revolutionary technology with long-term rewards. The United
States has a national interest in maintaining our position at the
forefront of nuclear technology development. Nuclear energy is in a
class of its own with the highest energy density of any fuel, and
yields zero emissions. It is also highly regulated, often a centerpiece
of global politics, and associated with the world's strongest
economies.
In the United States, we invented this technology and cannot forgo
the opportunity to export more efficient and safer reactor systems that
will mitigate proliferation concerns and increase global stability by
providing reliable energy.
Today, we will hear from the president of a charitable organization
that has co-invested with a DOE lab to advance a specific nuclear fuel
treatment process to convert nuclear waste into usable fuel. We will
also hear from Argonne National Lab, which invented this fuel treatment
process, as well as private companies developing fusion and advanced
fission reactors.
Needless to say, this is a unique panel of witnesses. I thank the
witnesses for participating in today's hearing and I look forward to
their testimony.
Chairman Weber. Mr. Grayson of Florida, you're recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Chairman Weber, and--for holding
this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for agreeing to
participate this morning.
For decades the federal government has provided critical
support for energy research and development. From solar, to
wind energy, to natural gas recovery, many of the technologies
allowing us to transition toward a clean energy economy, and
creating entire new industries, would not be possible without
Federal support, and the same is true for nuclear energy. This
morning we will listen to you all regarding the Federal role in
developing the next generation of nuclear energy technologies.
I'm particularly pleased that, as part of this discussion,
we will learn more about innovative future fusion energy
concepts, concepts that have the potential to accelerate the
development and deployment of commercial fusion reactors
dramatically. Fusion holds the promise of providing a
practically limitless supply of clean energy to the world. In a
sense, we're already dependent upon it, because the energy that
we get from that fusion reactor called the sun, in the sky, is
essential to the existence of life on Earth. It's proving
difficult for people to replicate what the stars are able to do
through sheer gravity, but based upon several developments in
recent years that we'll be hearing about in part today, I am
confident that we'll get there, and I hope far sooner than
people may realize.
I do have my reservations about fission, another subject
that we'll be discussing today. Not about the physical process
itself, but the applicability of that to our energy needs. I
have described fission, in a sense, a failed technology. There
is a problem with spent fuel that doesn't seem to have a
solution after many decades of consideration. We've had three
nuclear disasters worldwide. But the answer to that may not be
the German solution of simply scrapping. The answer to that may
be to do further research, and try to find solutions to these
problems.
In any event, I'm a strong supporter of fusion energy
research, which is entirely different, in terms of its impact
and potential problems, than fission. I believe that now is the
time to build and operate experiments that are capable of
demonstrating that man-made fusion systems can consistently
produce far more energy than it takes to fuel them. I'm eager
to learn about both the costs and the benefits of a wide range
of new nuclear technologies, and I also look forward to hearing
how nuclear energy can play an important role in developing a
modern clean energy economy. Again, I want to thank you all,
our witnesses, for providing your insights today, and I look
forward to hearing from the Chairman and working with the
Chairman on nuclear energy issues moving forward. Thank you. I
yield back the remainder of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grayson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Energy
Minority Ranking Member Alan Grayson
Thank you, Chairman Weber, for holding this hearing, and thank you
to our witnesses for agreeing to participate this morning.
For decades, the federal government has provided critical support
for energy R&D. From solar and wind energy to natural gas recovery,
many of the technologies that are helping us transition to a clean
energy economy and creating entire new industries wouldn't be nearly as
far along as they are today, or would not exist at all, without the
benefit of federal support and public-private partnerships. The same
certainly holds true for nuclear energy.
This morning we are here to discuss the federal role in developing
the next generation of nuclear energy technologies, and how this
support may be better structured going forward. I am particularly
pleased that, as part of this discussion, we will be learning much more
about some innovative new fusion energy concepts that have the
potential to dramatically accelerate the development and deployment of
commercial fusion reactors.
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 based on several
developments in recent years that I know we'll be hearing more about
today, I am confident we will get there--and perhaps far sooner than
many realize. 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.
That said, I am eager to learn more about the costs and benefits of
a wide range of new nuclear technologies over the course of the
hearing.
I certainly support an ``all of the above'' approach toward a clean
energy economy and achieving safer, more cost-effective, and
environmentally friendly ways to utilize nuclear energy can play an
important role in this mix. We just need to make sure that we are
making the smartest investments we can with our limited resources, and
that they are in the best interests of the American people.
Again, I want to thank the witnesses for being willing to provide
their insights today, and I look forward to working with the Chairman
and with all of the stakeholders in this critical area moving forward.
Thank you, and I yield back my remaining time.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman from Florida, and now
recognize the gentleman from Texas, the Chairman of the full
Committee, Chairman Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In today's hearing
we'll examine opportunities for advances in nuclear fission and
fusion energy technologies. We will hear from the Associate
Laboratory Director at Argonne National Lab, the home of the
world's first reactor to demonstrate a sustainable fission
chain reaction. Argonne National Lab is responsible for
foundational research and development in nuclear energy that
has led to many operating reactors and reactor concepts that
will be discussed today. These include the integral fast
reactor, and pyroprocessing. We will also hear from witnesses
who represent private companies and a charitable organization,
all of whom have invested in the development of advanced
fission or fusion reactor designs.
Nuclear energy provides reliable zero emission power. This
technology represents one of the most promising areas for
growth and innovation to increase economic prosperity and lower
the cost of electricity over time. This will help keep the
United States globally competitive. The Department of Energy's
national laboratories provide vital opportunities for the
private sector to invest in innovative energy technologies.
This includes its open access user facilities, which are one of
a kind machines that allow researchers to investigate
fundamental scientific questions. These facilities enable a
wide array of researchers from academia, defense, and the
private sector to develop new technologies without favoring one
type of design. This represents a better approach than simply
picking winners and losers through energy subsidies.
DOE's labs also provide the fundamental research
capabilities that lead to scientific publications or
proprietary research. In this public/private partnership,
private companies take on the risk for commercializing
technology, while the government enables researchers to conduct
specialized research that would not be possible without Federal
support. DOE's national labs keep America's best and brightest
scientists working on groundbreaking research here in the
United States, instead of moving to research projects overseas.
I am hopeful that today's hearing can demonstrate the
importance of foundational research capabilities in the
national labs that will lead to the next generation of nuclear
energy technology. Inevitably, and I hope sooner rather than
later, all Americans will benefit from this research.
Now, Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, I just want to
apologize to our witnesses, I have another Subcommittee meeting
of another Committee that I need to go to briefly, and then
hope to return, so--but do look forward to meeting and hearing
what the witnesses have to say today.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committee Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Today's hearing will examine opportunities for advances in nuclear
fission and fusion energy technologies. We will hear from the associate
laboratory director at Argonne National Lab, the home of the world's
first reactor to demonstrate a sustainable fission chain reaction.
Argonne National Lab is responsible for foundational research and
development in nuclear energy that has led to many operating reactors
and reactor concepts that will be discussed today. These include the
integral fast reactor and pyroprocessing. We will also hear from
witnesses who represent private companies and a charitable
organization, all of whom have invested in the development of advanced
fission or fusion reactor designs.
Nuclear energy provides reliable, zero-emission power. This
technology represents one of the mostpromising areas for growth and
innovation to increase economic prosperity and lower the cost of
electricity over time. This will help keep the United States globally
competitive.
The Department of Energy's (DOE) national laboratories provide
vital opportunities for the private sector to invest in innovative
energy technologies. This includes its open-access user facilities,
which are one-of-a-kind machines that allow researchers to investigate
fundamental scientific questions.
These facilities enable a wide array of researchers from academia,
defense, and the private sector to develop new technologies without
favoring one type of design. This represents a better approach than
simply picking winners and losers through energy subsidies.
DOE's labs also provide the fundamental research capabilities that
lead to scientific publications or proprietary research. In this
public-private partnership, private companies take on the risk
forcommercializing technology while the government enables researchers
to conduct specialized researchthat would not be possible without
federal support.
DOE's national labs keep America's best and brightest scientists
working on groundbreaking researchhere in the United States instead of
moving to research projects overseas. I am hopeful that today's hearing
can demonstrate the importance of foundational research capabilities in
the national labs that will lead to the next generation of nuclear
energy technology.
Inevitably, and I hope sooner rather than later, all Americans will
benefit from this research.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me introduce
our witnesses. Our--Dr. Mark Peters, our first witness today,
is the Associate Laboratory Director for Argonne National
Laboratory's Energy and Global Security Directorate, which
includes Argonne's programs in energy research and national
security. Dr. Peters has worked with the national labs for 20
years. In addition, he serves as a senior advisor to the DOE on
nuclear energy technologies and nuclear waste management. Dr.
Peters received his Bachelor's Degree in geology from Auburn
University, and his Ph.D. in geophysical sciences from the
University of Chicago. Welcome, Dr. Peters.
Our next witness is Mr. Frank Batten, Junior, Chairman and
CEO of Landmark Media Enterprises, and President of the
Landmark Foundation. The Landmark Foundation focuses its
efforts on helping local education and human service
organizations. Mr. Batten received his Bachelor's Degree in
history from Dartmouth, and his MBA from the University of
Virginia. Welcome, Mr. Batten. Am I pronouncing that right?
Mr. Batten. Yeah.
Chairman Weber. Our next witness is Mr. Nathan Gilliland,
okay, Chief Executive Officer of General Fusion. Before joining
General Fusion, Mr. Gilliland served as an entrepreneur-in-
residence with Kliner, Perkins, Caufield, and Byers, one of the
world's largest venture capital firms. In addition, he was the
president and co-founder of Harvest Power, a renewable energy
company that turns organic waste into natural gas and
electricity. Mr. Gilliland received his Bachelor's Degree in
political science from the University of California, Berkeley.
Welcome, Mr. Gilliland.
Our final witness today is Dr. John Parmentola, Senior Vice
President of General Atomics' Energy and Advanced Concepts
Group. Dr. Parmentola oversees a team of nearly 475 from over
90 institutions worldwide who lead the way in international
nuclear fusion and fission research and development. Before
joining General Atomics, Dr. Parmentola served as Director of
Research and Laboratory Management for the United States Army.
In addition, he served as Science and Technology Advisor to the
Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Energy. Dr.
Parmentola received his Bachelor's Degree in physics from
Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, and his Ph.D. in physics
from MIT. Welcome, Dr. Parmentola.
We're going to turn to our witnesses now, and you all are
recognized for five minutes. We ask that you keep your
testimony to five minutes. Dr. Peters, we'll start with you.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MARK PETERS,
ASSOCIATE LABORATORY DIRECTOR,
ENERGY AND GLOBAL SECURITY,
ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Peters. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to thank Chairman Smith, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member
Grayson, Congressman Lipinski, Congressman Hultgren, and the
other distinguished members of the Subcommittee for your
invitation to testify here today on this important subject. My
name is Mark Peters, and I am the Associate Laboratory Director
for Energy and Global Security at Argonne National Laboratory.
And, Mr. Chairman, I've prepared a detailed written testimony
that I request be submitted for the record, and I'll summarize
it here.
Chairman Weber. Without objection.
Dr. Peters. The history of nuclear energy development in
the U.S. is one of cooperation amongst the federal government,
its DOE national labs, universities, and industry. The
breakthroughs and designs achieved by the scientists and
engineers of the national laboratory complex, and Argonne in
particular, inform and drive every nuclear reactor design in
the world today.
The U.S. continues to be the lead source of innovation
globally for the current generation of light water reactors, or
LWRs, and small module reactors, or SMRs, as well as leading in
regulatory process, independence, and rigor. But a 30 year
hiatus in the construction of new U.S. reactor projects has
impacted domestic production capacity, investment in technology
and innovation, and the domestic supply chain.
The country's leadership in global nuclear energy could be
further compromised as the world begins to move beyond the
current generation of nuclear reactors to new designs, known as
advanced, or generation four, reactors that can address the
future challenges of nuclear energy. Other countries are
forging ahead with new reactors that, when coupled with
advanced fuel cycles, can address long running challenges with
nuclear waste management, make significant gains in efficient
use of fuel, and operate even more safely than current
generation reactors, further addressing lingering public
acceptance and confidence challenges.
Without a commitment to advanced reactor technology
development and demonstration in the U.S., our country runs the
risk of defaulting on the return of 7 decades investment in
nuclear SMT and infrastructure. That lead position has allowed
the U.S. to become the recognized world leader of efforts to
control nuclear proliferation, ensure the security of nuclear
materials, and promote safe and secure operation of nuclear
power plants. If the U.S. is to ensure its rightful place at
the forefront of advanced nuclear energy systems, it will
require a new commitment to the type of public/private
partnership that led to the creation of our current fleet of
light water reactors.
Our national labs and universities continue to work closely
with industry to accomplish much of the research necessary to
facilitate advanced reactors, but substantial work remains. A
new generation of advanced reactors will require refinement and
demonstration of new technologies, as well as a test reactor
and demonstration test bed for demonstration of advanced
reactors. More work remains to be done on advanced fuel cycles
and providing options to close the fuel cycle, decreasing the
amount of waste that must be stored, and simplifying geologic
disposal requirements.
Perhaps no effort better illustrates how cooperation
between national laboratories and industry can enable important
breakthroughs in nuclear energy than the long running
collaboration between Argonne and General Electric, Hitachi
Nuclear Energy. This collaboration stretches back to the '50s,
in the days when we were working on experimental boiling water
reactors in collaboration with GE, and more recently in GE's
advanced reactor design known as Prism, which also has its root
in this public/private partnership. And Prism was created using
principles demonstrated at Argonne's Experimental Breeder
Reactor II, or EBR-II, and further refined in the Integral Fast
Reactor, or IFR.
With the creation of EBR-II, and the following design of
IFR, the march towards continued U.S. leadership seemed
inevitable, however, in the 1970s and '80s, a variety of
developments coalesced to move the U.S. away from nuclear
energy and next generation reactors, and closing the fuel
cycle. Today this is buried beneath the fight--rising levels of
greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and once again drive the
U.S. to regain its place at the forefront of nuclear
technology.
So our vast nuclear energy infrastructure, developed over
decades with the combined capabilities of industry and the
federal government, is at a crossroads, where existing nuclear
reactors are set to be retired over the coming decades. While
light water cooled SMRs can serve as a bridge to the next
generation of advanced reactors, many issues remain that can be
addressed by advance reactor technology. If we wish to charter
a way forward towards those solutions, we must once again
engage our public and private resources in a new effort to
build the next generation of reactors. Much of the technology
is developed and demonstrated on a small scale, although
substantial work remains. The next logical step is to unify
these technical efforts and successfully deploy a test reactor
and test bed to demonstrate the advanced reactor systems.
The time we have to demonstrate this technology is short,
due to the age of our current light water reactor fleet. Action
over the short term is required to demonstrate new technologies
by 2030, when retirement of existing nuclear power plants will
accelerate. Thank you, and I look forward to answering any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Peters follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Peters.
Mr. Batten, you're recognized.
TESTIMONY OF MR. FRANK BATTEN, JR.,
PRESIDENT, THE LANDMARK FOUNDATION
Mr. Batten. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Grayson, good
morning. My name is Frank Batten, and I'm the President of the
Landmark Foundation. We're a private foundation that supports
educational, environmental, and human service organizations. I
greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify today regarding a
positive example of a near completed cooperative research and
development agreement, or CRADA. And we did this with the
Department of Energy's Argonne National Lab. The CRADA relates
to what we believe should be an important component of our
country's national energy policy, the--which is the recycling
of used nuclear fuel through a demonstrated U.S. technology
called pyroprocessing. We have no commercial interest in this
area, and no financial agenda, but we believe that the U.S. can
significantly benefit from recycling used nuclear fuel through
pyroprocessing. While private industry can, and should, play a
role, federal government R&D funds are essential if the
benefits of this technology are to be realized.
Pyroprocessing has been the subject of Federal R&D for many
years, and Argonne has led the way. The technology is now
capable of recycling used fuel from the country's nuclear power
plants for re-use to generate electricity in advanced reactors.
Pyroprocessing is good energy policy, it's environmentally
sound, it promotes effective use of resources, it can
contribute to addressing climate change, and it holds the
promise of significantly mitigating the country's used nuclear
fuel disposition issue.
I would like to briefly summarize the success story of our
partnership with Argonne, which relates to the design for a
pilot reprocessing facility. I would also like to brief the
Subcommittee on an analysis undertaken by Energy Resources
International, or ERI. We commissioned and funded the ERI
analysis outside of the CRADA. The ERI report analyzes the
costs and benefits of using pyroprocessing and advanced
reactors on a commercial scale. Now, I've attached a copy of
the ERI report to my testimony, and ask that it be included in
the hearing record.
The Landmark Foundation entered into the CRADA with Argonne
over two years ago. We invested $5 million, and the federal
government invested $1 million in the CRADA. The purpose of the
CRADA is to develop the conceptual design and a robust cost
estimate for a 100 metric ton per year pilot scale
pyroprocessing demonstration facility. The CRADA is a
particularly good use of the public/private partnership
concept. It leverages prior government funded work, it takes
that work to the next level, and it builds a bridge for the
U.S. Government to move forward with the detailed design for
the pilot facility. All of this, we hope, will spur additional
federal funding for a pilot facility.
The ERI report provides a detailed assessment of the costs
and technical factors associated with a realistic fuel cycle
using pyroprocessing and advanced reactors. ERI concluded that
the potential exists to reduce the volume of used commercial
fuel, requiring permanent disposal by 50 percent or more,
avoiding the need for a second geologic repository. Avoiding a
second repository would save the U.S. Government tens of
billions of dollars.
According to ERI, re-use of pyroprocessed fuel also would
simply the design of a first geologic repository, and reduce
the volume of repository space needed by more than 50 percent.
This would significantly contribute to reducing the federal
government's financial liability associated with its obligation
to receive used fuel from its utility standard contract
holders.
I'm pleased to be here today to talk both about the success
of our partnership with Argonne, and the underlying benefits of
further developing the pyroprocessing technology. Thank you for
your time and attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Batten follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Batten.
Mr. Gilliland, you're recognized.
TESTIMONY OF MR. NATHAN GILLILAND,
CEO, GENERAL FUSION
Mr. Gilliland. Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Grayson,
Chairman Smith, thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify today about the emergence of new innovative fusion
energy concepts, and the importance of governmental support in
working with U.S. labs. My name's Nathan Gilliland, Chief
Executive Officer of General Fusion, one of the leading private
fusion energy companies. I'll make five point--key points
today, and have done so in my written statement in more detail,
which I would like to submit to the record.
First, I would echo what Ranking Member Grayson said. The
game changing nature of fusion energy bears repeating. It's
energy production that is safe, clean, and abundant. In a
fusion reaction, one kilogram of hydrogen is equivalent to ten
million kilograms of coal. It's the energy density comment that
you made earlier. Humanity would have abundant energy for
millions of years. There's also no long lived radioactive
waste, no chance of meltdown in fusion reactions. The benefits
to energy security can hardly be overstated.
Second, U.S. support for magnetic fusion programs like
ITER, and inertial confinement programs like NIF, have created
an enormously beneficial source of research. ITER and NIF have
justifiably been the highlights of the U.S. fusion energy
framework, and developed key insights into plasma behavior,
material science, simulation codes, and many others. These
programs should continue to be supported.
Third, because of this historical research, innovation in
alternative pathways to fusion have accelerated. These
alternative approaches, both in private companies and in labs
and university, offer potentially faster and less expensive
concepts, and demonstrable progress is being made, both in
these labs, universities, and the private companies. Of
particular note, work at Sandia, University of Washington, and
Los Alamos are worth noting, as well as the three leading
private companies, Tri-Alpha Energy, which is based in Southern
California, Helion, which is based in Seattle, and ourselves,
General Fusion. The progress of these alternative concepts was
featured last summer in Science and Nature magazines. Novel
fuels are being tested, new simulation tools developed, and
we're all setting records for the stability of our plasma, so
real progress is being made.
Increased commercial viability, lower cost power, and
faster progress are common threads in these alternative fusion
concepts. Alternative approaches are reducing costs by applying
existing industrial technologies to the challenge of fusion,
primarily avoiding costly large lasers, or costly
superconducting magnets. Some have novel ways to protect the
fusion reactor from neutrons, others have simpler ways to
convert heat into electricity, but, of course, there are no
silver bullets. These alternative approaches tend to be less
researched and studied, and are simply newer. The physics have
not been fully explored. But we would argue the viability and
efficacy of these alternative approaches can be demonstrated
for less money. Some will show rapid progress, and others will
not, but, dollar for dollar, progress or failure can be
demonstrated much more quickly.
Fourth, though the majority of fusion research has been
publicly funded, there is a place, and an important place, for
private companies who can build on previous research, and
potentially innovate faster. The Human Genome Project is a
great analogue, and a great example. The NIH built a core of
research that was very strong, and from this private industry
was able to efficiently and rapidly innovate to sequence the
genome. We see parallels in fusion energy. World leading
historical research is being done at labs and universities, and
has led to rapid innovation. And just like every energy
industry, oil and gas, solar, wind, there will be multiple
approaches that succeed in fusion. It's not a winner-take-all
industry.
Fifth, and finally, going forward we'd like to see more
open innovation and information sharing across private industry
labs and universities. For example, we all use computer
simulation. It's a very important tool for us. We'd like to see
co-development of simulation codes, more sharing of simulation
codes. Another thing we'd like to see is greater emphasis on
exchanges of physicists and Ph.D.'s across private industry and
government labs. This leads to better sharing of historical
research, current research, and the private sector would
absolutely put resources into doing this. And labs and
universities can help here at no cost to them.
Ultimately, more cooperation between government supported
efforts and private industry can only accelerate progress.
There is no value in silence. Let's push for more private/
public partnerships, as Dr. Peters mentioned, and I'm sure Dr.
Parmentola will as well. Let's push for more private/public
partnerships to share data, build faster, and accelerate
progress. The world needs fusion, and the faster the better.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilliland follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Gilliland.
Dr. Parmentola, you're recognized.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN PARMENTOLA,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
ENERGY AND ADVANCED CONCEPTS GROUP,
GENERAL ATOMICS
Dr. Parmentola. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Weber,
Ranking Member Grayson, and other members of the Subcommittee
for holding this hearing on this important subject. I believe,
as many others do, that it is important to the future of
national security, energy security, and environmental quality
of the United States that ample supplies of competitively
priced nuclear energy are available.
Unfortunately, it appears that nuclear energy is dying in
the U.S. There are few new plants being built, several have
closed recently, and most of the 99 existing plants will be
closed down within the next 40 years. To place this in context,
last year nuclear was 20 percent of the electricity consumed by
Americans, who paid 80 billion for it. We believe this death
spiral can be avoided, but it'll require active involvement by
the U.S. Government.
The energy market is indicating that existing nuclear power
technology is not commercially viable. For nuclear power to
play any future role, the U.S. will need new safer nuclear
power technologies that will produce significantly cheaper
electricity. However, the private sector will not be able to
develop this on its own. The investments required are very
large, they are risky, and, in any event, will take more than a
decade before they might yield any revenue from electricity
production, and even longer to yield any profit. As these new
options are developed, and private firms begin to see their way
to risk reduction and making profits, private investment will
increase, the government will be able to withdraw, and the
market will decide which would be commercially viable.
Let me now discuss GA's interest in a new advanced test
reactor. We have a new reactor concept that needs a testing
facility. We call it EM-2, and we designed it to address the
four most prominent concerns with nuclear power, its safety,
its cost, its waste, and its proliferation risk. We believe it
is a potential breakthrough technology for the United States,
however, research is required to realize it.
To develop EM-2, a compact gas cooled fast reactor, we
looked at what physics indicates we must do. One, we must go to
higher power densities through a compact reactor core using
fast neutrons. Two, we must go to higher temperatures so a
higher percentage of the heat produced is turned into
electricity. By doing this, we can make the same amount of
electricity in a smaller reactor, small enough that it could be
made in a factory and shipped by truck to a site for
deployment. We believe we could increase the efficiency of
power production from percentages today, in the low 30s, to the
lower 50s.
The bottom line is we believe that we could reduce the cost
of electricity up to 40 percent below that of existing nuclear
reactors, and reduce their waste by up to 80 percent. But to do
this, we have to develop new materials what will be able to
endure the higher temperatures, and endure the more energetic
and neutron rich radiation environment inside the reactor. We
need a new testing facility with high performance
characteristics in which to do this research work. But there
are also a number of other companies and national ads that are
advocating the use of fast neutrons, and going to high
temperatures, albeit with different advanced reactor designs.
These also require a new testing facility that conduct tests
in, say, three years that would show what happens to these
materials in an actual advanced reactor during a period of 30
years.
It would not make business sense for any company, or even
all interested companies together, to pay for the capital costs
to construct such a facility, given the large investment, the
risks, and the very long lead times involved for a return on
investment. Currently there is no U.S. facility with the
requisite high performance characteristics to do this type of
research. The best we have are the advanced test reactor at
Idaho National Laboratory, and the high flux isotope reactor at
Oak Ridge, but neither of these is appropriate for a number of
reasons. The best in the world is in Russia, BOR-60, but this
is being shut down soon for other reasons.
In any event, it would seem odd to develop such a national
security technology in Russia. Therefore, we suggest you
consider building such a facility in the United States. It
would be called the Versatile Advanced Test Reactor. It would
be a highly neutron rich fast reactor capable also of producing
thermal neutrons. We like versatile because it should be
designed in such a way that it could be used to test all new
reactor concepts, whether they involve molten salt, a liquid
metal reactor, a liquid bismuth reactor, a gas reactor, or even
light water reactor.
The Versatile Advanced Test Reactor would be a user
facility in the same way that the DOE Office of Science
managers other highly successful facilities. It would
contribute to the public good by providing the development of
future nuclear energy options. This is an excellent example of
what the government should do because industry cannot, or will
not, do it. The U.S. has a great opportunity to lead the world,
and give nuclear power its best chance to become economically
viable. This Committee could start by enacting a law calling
for a study to be done, with industry participation, to
determine a design for such a reactor, what its capabilities
would be, and what it might cost. We believe that if the U.S.
were to build such a test facility, it would be key to the
development of nuclear reactors that really could spark a true
renaissance of nuclear power in the United States.
Thank you for inviting me to share our views, and for your
interest in finding ways to sustain an extremely important
future energy source for our nation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Parmentola follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Parmentola. I now recognize
myself for five minutes to begin the questioning.
Mr. Batten, you've come here today with a unique story of a
charitable foundation that has invested in a specific process
of nuclear fuel recycling, all for the purpose of jump starting
an advanced reactor technology that would reduce waste,
increase resource utilization, and mitigate proliferation
concerns, obviously. So how do you hope this--I think you
pronounced it CRADA?
Mr. Batten. CRADA, yes.
Chairman Weber. CRADA? Um-hum.
Mr. Batten. C-R-A-D-A.
Chairman Weber. Right, Cooperative Research and Development
Agreement, will make a difference, and what would be the
benefits to the United States from successful pyroprocessing
and IFR, Integral Fast Reactor, deployment? And then I've got a
follow-up question about something you said. How do you hope
this will make a difference?
Mr. Batten. Maybe I'll start with a little bit of
background. I live in Norfolk, Virginia, which is only a few
feet above sea level, so it's--tells how we got into this.
Chairman Weber. How many feet?
Mr. Batten. A few feet.
Chairman Weber. Okay.
Mr. Batten. You know, like, 2, 3, 4 feet, depending on
where you are. And--so we're very concerned about the rising
seas that could be caused by climate change. And so we looked
around for--well, what could we do to help with that transition
to a low carbon energy? And we concluded that lots of people
were working on wind, and solar, and batteries, and, you know,
savings of--energy savings, all of which are very important,
and all of which deserve Federal research dollars. We found out
that not nearly as much attention was being given to nuclear
power.
So within that it seemed like there were two issues. One
was nuclear waste, was there anything that could be done to
reduce the nuclear waste problem, since that's such a hindrance
to the expansion of nuclear power? And pyro processing seemed
like a very promising technology to be able to reduce the
nuclear waste problem. And, of course, advanced reactors, fast
reactors, when coupled with recycling, also lets you use much
more of the energy in uranium. The current, you know, light
water reactors use about one percent of the energy in uranium.
Fast reactors, with recycling, could use 99 percent of the
energy in the uranium.
Chairman Weber. Okay. And I applaud you for that, by the
way. Just kind of a follow-up question, you said in your
comments, if I was following--heard correctly that the
pyroprocessing was developed in the United States?
Mr. Batten. It was developed at Argo National Lab by their
work in Chicago, and also by their work out with the
Experimental Breeder Reactor II. They have a fuel cycle
facility attached to that.
Chairman Weber. Okay.
Mr. Batten. So Argonne really developed that.
Chairman Weber. But do I understand that France uses more
reprocessed fuel, as it were, than we do? Do you know?
Mr. Batten. Yes. France--the U.S. currently is not
recycling fuel. France is reprocessing, use aqueous reprocess.
Chairman Weber. So they're not--they are not using our
technology?
Mr. Batten. That's correct, yes.
Chairman Weber. Okay.
Mr. Batten. The difference is the aqueous reprocessing
produces pure plutonium, which people are obviously concerned
about as a proliferation risk, whereas the pyroprocessing
produces a mixture of plutonium, all sorts of different
isotopes mixed together with other trans-uranics, or those
other elements to the right of uranium.
Chairman Weber. Would you compare and contrast a cost
analysis to the two? Are they roughly the same, or have you--do
you----
Mr. Batten. I do not know the answer to that.
Chairman Weber. Okay. Dr. Parmentola, given the United
States budget constraints--obviously Congress must be careful
with every dollar we spend. That said, as many of you have
already said, there are some activities that the private
enterprise--private companies cannot undertake, but where the
federal government can actually support the research and
infrastructure to support that private investment.
So, Doctor, can you explain how an open access fast reactor
user facility could enable private industry to deploy stranded
capital that is simply waiting to be spent on research and
development for new reactor designs that are more efficient,
and even safer than today's technology? That's my question, but
before you get there, one of the terms I heard bantered around
about this process is, if we would support the development of a
library where, for example, we could have the resources, and
companies could come in, and kind of draw from those resources.
And I think you actually had--or maybe it was Dr. Peters who
called it a test reactor and a test bed. Was that the term you
used?
Dr. Parmentola. Yes, sir.
Chairman Weber. Okay. And so, Dr. Parmentola, can you
explain how that open access fast reactor user facility would
help?
Dr. Parmentola. Yes. First of all, currently there are
companies that are spending R&D in trying to advance their
advanced reactor designs. In the private sector, the amounts of
money that go towards this, at least currently, relatively low.
We focus mainly on the high risk issues that need to be reduced
in order to make decisions about going forward. However, a
large fraction of the issues that need to be addressed require
a new test facility. Now, if such a test facility was built,
this would enable the private sector to be able to go to these
facilities, utilize more of its capital to be able to do the
testing, and reduce the risk associated with realizing these
advanced concepts.
As I said in my testimony, the type of reactor we're
looking for is a high performance reactor. This would speed up
testing, the productivity associated with what companies would
do would go up, and it would enable us to be able to make
decisions, rather significant decisions, about going forth and
actually building these advanced reactors.
Chairman Weber. Okay. Thank you. And back to Dr. Peters,
you pointed out that the U.S.'s non-proliferation mission could
be adversely affected by foregoing the timely development of
advanced reactors for export because that void will be filled
otherwise by supplier nations. Would you elaborate--I think we
probably--most us understand, but would you elaborate on how
exporting reactor technology is a component to the United
States' security and non-proliferation mission, please, sir?
Dr. Peters. Sure. So let me start by saying that the past
shows us that, when you look at the worldwide reactors that are
operating, U.S. export let to that, and the regulatory process
that the U.S. established is also gold standard worldwide, so
the past tells us that we can actually export our technologies
and our ideas, and have a positive impact, and be a leader.
Now, the matter of export's outside of a national labs purview.
It's a policy and industry play, but it--past shows that it can
work in the future. So I would say it definitely should be
looked at very carefully, and I think it does establish
international leadership.
But I do want to make the point also that there's a
component of this that also is related to the R&D and the
necessary infrastructure, because if you--the national labs and
university system in the U.S. is world class in the nuclear
space, but that--we have it now, but if we don't continue
investing, we'll lose that capability, and that's an important
part of getting that seat at the table. Having that world
leading S&T capability is very important. So, from the labs'
and universities' perspective, that continued investment--but
getting on the path of research, development, demonstration,
and ultimately deployment domestically can't do anything but
help international leadership.
Chairman Weber. Along those lines, you said in your
prepared testimony that you provided the NRC will need to
establish a new licensing structure to accommodate the next
generation of more safer, efficient safe rectors. So can you
explain to us further why the NRC will need to establish a new
licensing framework?
Dr. Peters. The NRC has a broader framework, but they have
a set of general design criteria and detailed regulations that
are focused on light water reactors, pressurized reactors, and
boiling water reactors. So if we're going to move forward with
licensing advanced reactors, we have to go and develop general
design criteria, to license those machines.
Now, there is an effort already funded by DOE working with
NRC, and the labs are supporting that, but it needs to be
scaled up, let's say, in terms of budget, and also accelerated
if we're going to actually license these machines.
Chairman Weber. Got you. Thank you. And I apologize to my
colleagues, I'm a little over time. The gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Grayson, you're recognized for questions.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gilliland, some
of the problems associated with using fission for power
generation are meltdowns, radioactive waste, and nuclear
proliferation. There are other problems as well. Can you please
elaborate on your testimony on why fusion may be able to avoid
some of the problems associated with fission?
Mr. Gilliland. Yes, absolutely. Ultimately it starts with
the reaction itself, so--fission is a large atom that can react
spontaneously. Fusion is done with hydrogen only, and it's
impossible for fusion to happen spontaneously, so--it's a
difficult reaction to get started, therefore very difficult, or
impossible, for it to start on its own.
So in a fusion reaction the byproducts are helium and heat,
and--or high energy neutrons, so there's not--there are not
long-lived radioactive waste materials produced at all. Using
hydrogen it is certainly difficult to figure out how that could
lead to proliferation challenges as well. So it, you know, it--
we do have normal safety challenges that any power plant would
have. It's not that it's without risk completely, but certainly
long-lived radioactive waste is not one of them.
Mr. Grayson. All right. Now, your company is developing and
advancing a unique fusion energy design that falls into a
category of fusion energy concepts called magnetized target
fusion. What is that?
Mr. Gilliland. Magnetized target fusion, I think it's worth
stepping back for a second and describing kind of the
mainstream longstanding fusion programs at a high level. ITER
and magnetic fusion use a low density plasma, much less dense
than air, and hold it together with large superconducting
magnets, and hold it together for long periods of time, even
continuously. Laser fusion is sort of the other extreme, where
a little fuel pellet is slammed with lasers in nanoseconds or
picoseconds.
The idea behind magnetized target fusion and other what we
call middle ground fusion approaches is that those extremes are
extremes. They're extremes, makes them expensive. So big
superconducting magnets cooled to 2 degrees Kelvin are
expensive, as are, you know, using the world's largest lasers.
It's not that those pathways aren't viable, they're just--they
appear to be expensive. So the middle ground uses density
between the two, and speed of compression--speeds of shrinking
that plasma that are much slower than laser fusion. So, in our
case, we compress a plasma, called a spheromak plasma, in about
80 microseconds, which is obviously much slower than the
picoseconds or nanoseconds of laser fusion. So the idea is
just--simply put, it's to avoid the extremes, and become much
lower cost, and ultimately more practical.
Mr. Grayson. Now, my understanding is that your design has
no permanent home in U.S. energy research, but is funded by a
temporary ARPA-E program that you noted yourself in your
testimony. Is there a value, in your opinion, to having such
research permanently funded as a regular part of energy
research by the federal government?
Mr. Gilliland. Sure. So I would comment, you know, ARPA-E
has done a great job on a fusion program. I think they are
still in the middle of negotiating with the various recipients,
so, you know, whether or not we are a recipient of that I don't
know at this time.
However, to your question, I think it's vital that the U.S.
support this middle ground, and I think the primary reason is
that a lot of significant progress can be made for small
dollars, so some of these middle approaches are absolutely
viable, some are not. We don't know that--you don't know which
is which yet, but it will not take billions of dollars to
determine that.
So, you know, I think funding is one, but I think in my
testimony I mentioned let's work together, labs and private
companies, around simulation codes. Let's work together around
exchange of Ph.D.'s and physicists. I think there's some simple
things we can do to accelerate progress as well, but ultimately
I do, obviously, support this middle ground of fusion.
Mr. Grayson. What's a rough timeframe that you could
provide, allowing for, no undue optimism, for achieving that
energy production?
Mr. Gilliland. It's a difficult question, there's no
question about that. I think there's an interesting graph that
plots Moore's Law against fusion progress. So, fusion progress
being how much energy out of a reaction are we getting in, are
you--how much are we getting out for what we're putting in? And
it's actually quite interesting, they parallel each other.
So I think the question is--it's, you know, we're nearly
there. I think the large programs had determined that it can be
done, and now it's a question of just how do we it
commercially? How do we do it economically? And I think that's
the question, right? So I think there's two steps involved. One
is building an alpha power plant, or a prototype plant that
demonstrates reliability, and then second building commercial
plants.
So I'm spinning around your answer--or your question a
little bit, but, you know, we're certainly several years away.
I would like to think that we, as a set of alternative
concepts, can get there in, you know, the next five or ten
years, given the basket of options that are out there. I'm
optimistic that, within that basket and that timeframe, we'll
get there.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman from California is
recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Years
ago I used to believe that the environmentalist community was
being, how do you say, alarmist when it came to nuclear energy.
And I have seen a lot of alarmism come out of the environmental
community that has not been accurate, but let me just say that
in the case of nuclear energy, as time has gone on, and more
information has been available, I think the environmental
community over the years has been on target on this issue. The
fact is that nuclear energy, as we are now using it, is very
dangerous, and as now there are--there's leftover waste to deal
with with the way we produce nuclear energy today.
So that's a big concession for me. In the number of debates
that I had with environmental activities, they were right about
that. But we are capable of technologically meeting those
challenges that were brought up. And--whether it's leftover
waste, or whether it's a safer way of producing nuclear energy
that wouldn't have the same type of dangers associated with our
current plants, we can do that.
I especially want to acknowledge our friends at General
Atomics, who have been in the forefront, and spent a lot of
their own money over the years trying to develop a new and next
generation of nuclear energy that is safe, and won't have the
massive leftover waste problem for decades, if not centuries to
come.
I--but the government has to play a role in this as well.
If we're going to have the benefits of nuclear energy, and--
because private companies can't make this jump on their own,
but once that jump is made, our private companies will be able
to then, on their own, to build these next generation of
nuclear power plants.
So I would like to go on the record, absolutely, saying
this idea of having an open access facility is perhaps the most
important thing we can do to provide America's long term energy
interests, because it doesn't mean that just General Atomics,
or any other company that is investing in this, and looking
down this road. It will be available to all of those
approaches. And, after his facility is available, we will know
which is the best one to go with, which is the best way to go.
So this is a--what is not a good use of our money, however,
is something that is aimed at fusion, rather than fission. And
we can do these fission reactors--with all due respect to the
last witness, boy, now we know it's possible. We've spent I
don't know how many billions of dollars to find that it's
possible? No. After spending billions of dollars, we should
actually be at a point where we can--not only is it possible,
but we'll have it ready within two or three years, whatever
that is. But we're nowhere near that with fusion. But we do
know that if we focus on this next generation of fission
reactors, especially modular fission reactors, we actually can
do it, and do the job, rather than just know that it's
possible.
Let me note that we have spent--I would like to ask my
friend from General Atomics, the--in what--the actual
configuration of the next generation of nuclear reactor that
you're working on, the people in Japan were sold a bill of
goods that what they were given was totally safe. And now what
happens, we, you know, we've seen this catastrophe in Japan.
Would the model you're working on, and perhaps the other models
that people are working on, would that protect us from that
type of situation they have in Japan?
Dr. Parmentola. Yes, thank you for the question. And,
actually, I brought some results of our work with me. This is a
revolutionary new cladding. It's made from ceramic materials.
These materials undergo a transition from solid to gas at about
2,600 degrees. They lose their strength at about 2,000 degrees
Centigrade. I point out to people that the metal that exists in
current light water reactors begins to lose strength at about
700, so this increases the safety margin by a factor of almost
three.
Also, these materials even benefit a light water reactor,
and we've developed them for our advance reactor. So there's
another version of this that we're working on to make light
water reactors meltdown-proof. Because this material does not
react with water at any temperature, so you can't have the kind
of runaway reactions that generate huge amounts of heat inside
the reactor that melt the core. It's not possible with these
materials.
So if we invest in materials like this, it has multiple
benefits across a number of reactor designs. Of course, the one
that we're most interested in is EM-2, and EM-2 has a certain
unique characteristic to it in that it utilizes these
materials, but what it does is it provides a high power small
reactor, so you get more bang for your buck, in terms of the
capital investment, and the output of the reactor. And at the
same time, one that is inherently safe because of these
materials that we're developing.
But these materials require significant amounts of testing
to prove them out, so this way we can convince the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission that these type of materials can actually
make fission reactors safe. And that's the principle reason why
we're pursuing this.
Mr. Rohrabacher. If you'd indulge me one more question, Mr.
Chairman? Would that be possible to retrofit some of our
current----
Dr. Parmentola. Yeah.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So some of our current light water
reactors----
Dr. Parmentola. Yeah.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --which have a lot longer life on them
could be refitted with that material?
Dr. Parmentola. Exactly. So I have two types of cladding.
This cladding here, the thin one, goes into light water
reactors. The rods, these rods, are 14 feet tall. They go into
the reactor, and they have fuel inside. This one is for EM-2,
which is a totally different design. We pack more fuel in the
core of EM-2 to increase its power density. But this material
ensures safety.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for holding this hearing. I think it's vitally
important that we not write off nuclear energy as a potential
source for energy. It's--as the witnesses have stated, it's
clean. It will not--it--I don't believe in global warming, but
I do believe in clean air, and this will go a long way to
providing energy for the world, and for the people of the
United States. Thank you very much.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman, who yields back. And
now, Mr. Lipinski, you're recognized.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing, and I would like to say, I do agree with
Mr. Rohrabacher, except for I do believe in global climate
change, but I think together we need to work to bring, you
know, nuclear energy--it's something that we have to, first of
all, maintain America's leadership on the innovation when it
comes to nuclear energy and nuclear technologies, and we need
to transition to advanced nuclear technologies, like fast
reactors. And I hope to get language in the Competes bill
supporting advanced nuclear reactor test facilities. So I think
it's very important that we do move ahead, and research is
critical, and that's what we're here to talk about.
For Dr. Peters, Illinois has been a leader in nuclear
reactors since the first reactor was developed by Enrico Fermi
at Met Lab, now renamed Argonne. Thank you for your leadership
in keeping Argonne, and Illinois, a leader in nuclear energy
innovation. Moving forward, I want to ask, what are Argonne's
research and development priorities, and how do these
priorities compliment work at other national labs, and fit into
the DOE's strategic direction?
Dr. Peters. Morning, Congressman, thank you for the
question. So we at Argonne continue to have strong
capabilities, broadly speaking, in advanced reactor design and
analysis, fast reactors in particular, but also a broader set
of expertise that also supports light water reactor
sustainability, and also thinking extensively about potential
fuel cycle options, either repositories, or closing the fuel
cycle.
So we have that broad set of capabilities, where we also
are working very closely with our sister laboratories, in
particular Oak Ridge National Lab and Idaho National
Laboratory. So we're spending a lot of time, as three labs,
working with DOE, in cooperation with DOE, to ensure that the
labs are working together strategically, not--and complementing
each other, and so I think that's a very healthy conversation,
and it's ongoing, and it's been very positive.
But our strategic interests, we really think it's
important--our primary role would be to really think about
what's the next set of systems that we--one would develop,
demonstrate, and ultimately commercialize, both in the fuel
cycle, as well as reactors for electricity. And then also,
using our foundation in nuclear to also be a part of the
technical basis for securing safe and secure operation
worldwide as nuclear expands.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. And I also want to move on to
other collaborations, specifically between the national labs
and industry, because I think that's important to improve U.S.
research investments by leveraging private sector expertise,
and helping to bring new technology to the market. I know
Argonne has been particularly effective in engaging with the
private sector, for example collaborating with General Electric
on the development of experimental boiling water reactors.
These reactors now make up about 1/3 of the U.S. reactor fleet.
So I wanted to ask you, Dr. Peters, what can we do here in
Washington to support these types of collaborations?
Dr. Peters. The lab--thank you for the question. And the
history of the lab has been that we've been deeply committed to
these partnerships, and that's an important part of it, but
currently the Department of Energy is making it very clear that
they value the labs working in cooperation with industry, so
that's really, really important. So I know the work of this
Committee on thinking about how we continue to enhance tech
transfer, I'll call it, from the labs to industry. Those
conversations are very healthy, and very important.
Again, DOE is deeply committed, but I think we can always
continue to talk about it, and continue to explore ways to
become more efficient. But from the labs perspective, you know,
we do basic science, we do applied science and technology, but
ultimately, regardless of timeframe that it takes, the research
has to ultimately have an impact, and that means getting out to
industry, into the market, and improving peoples' lives. So
that's at the highest levels of commitment that the labs have,
and I think the DOE shares that. They do share that commitment,
and I know you do as well.
So continuing to just look at the detailed processes, and
continuing to figure out how to become more efficient, and
align the values of industry with the Federal R&D
infrastructure are just vital.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. And I'll yield back.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Hultgren, you're
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of
our witnesses. Dr. Peters, it's always so good to see you.
Certainly love being able to tell the great story of all the
good things that are happening in Illinois. Good news for the
rest of the Committee is having you here means they don't have
to listen to me, and they can be much better informed hearing
from you, so----
Chairman Weber. Amen.
Mr. Hultgren. --I'm glad you're here. Hey, watch it.
Illinois is certainly the leading nuclear state in the nation,
and I do appreciate the role the federal government has had in
the development of nuclear technologies. Earlier this year the
Committee passed legislation that I had introduced, among other
things, that would require DOE to examine their capabilities to
authorize, host, and oversee privately funded reactor
prototypes and related demonstration facilities. It was
certainly good to hear from our witnesses today about the
ongoing debate that this department, the research community,
and the industrial base has already been having on this topic.
Wanted to address my first question to Dr. Parmentola, and
also to Dr. Peters. Some argue that open access user facilities
are a more effective mechanism to enable investment and
accelerate technological growth, compared to a cost-share
agreement between the government and the private sector to
deploy new technologies. I wonder, which type of federally
funded investment do you believe is most effective to
accelerate this growth, and wonder if you could explain it?
Dr. Parmentola. Yes. Thank you very much for the question.
So I can only tell you the way industry looks at cost sharing
arrangements. Industry is very conservative. It has to do with
the nature of what we do. We produce products, and we have to
show a bottom line and a profit, so dollars we spend are very
precious. What happens, in my experience, with cost share is
that industry will look at it and take an opportunity to go
with something low risk, and take advantage of the fact that
the government is willing to provide a cost share for it. And
what this does is it reduces innovation, in my opinion, because
what we need in industry is more risk taking. Of course, the
national labs undertake risk taking, but if we're going to try
to advance technology, and get it into the commercial world,
industry has to also undertake risk taking.
So, in my opinion, over 40 years of being involved in the
research and development in this nation, what matters the most,
in terms of high quality R&D, is competition, and being able to
challenge the community. And by the community I just don't mean
universities, I mean national labs and industry, to undertake
high risk, high payoff research. The way to do that is to adopt
standards, very high standards, and also goals--technical goals
that challenge the community and allow industry to compete. And
I think, without a cost share, you're likely to drive industry
towards more risk taking than less risk taking. And it's really
up to the agencies to do this. They have to take charge of this
and actually meet the standards that are required.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you. Dr. Peters, before you answer, let
me add one part to this that I would like to get your comments
on just--and then I'll leave the rest of my time to you. How
would you envision our national labs, such as Argonne,
assisting in the process with NRC? Does the DOE need to take a
more informative role with NRC? So I wonder if you could talk a
little bit about, again, my first question there, but also
following up a little bit on what the Chairman had started.
Dr. Peters. Good morning, Congressman.
Mr. Hultgren. Good morning, Dr. Peters. Continue.
Dr. Peters. So, on the first question, in my testimony I
referred to a test bed, and actually I think it's very similar
to what you're referring to in the legislation. And Dr.
Parmentola used the user facility model as a way to have the
conversation, and I agree with him. You can set up a facility--
a set of facilities that provide the ability to test and
demonstrate advanced technologies, and do it in such a way that
you could either do it in a pretty competitive, more open
sense, or you could actually have aspects of it where
industries actually bring in resources in doing proprietary
work as well. We can--we do that, as you know----
Mr. Hultgren. Um-hum.
Dr. Peters. --at the existing scientific facilities, like
the advanced photon source. There's a model for that. So, to
me, I think there's a lot--I agree with Dr. Parmentola, that
translates. So there's a lot to be done to define what this
test bed would look like, and that would have to be something
the labs, the government, universities, and industry work
together to define the requirement set. But I think they would
be able to push us ahead in a way that you're not necessarily
picking a winning concept, but there's a test bed there for all
to come test their concepts, demonstrate their concepts, and
ultimately that will then lead to what makes sense in the
market.
Mr. Hultgren. Great.
Dr. Peters. On your second question, so--specifically I had
addressed the Chairman's question earlier on the NRC.
Specifically, there's activity already going on between the DOE
and NRC that the labs are supporting, our lab and a few other
labs are supporting, to develop general--what we call general
design criteria. So looking at advanced systems, like a high
temperature gas reactor, or a sodium fast reactor, for example,
and developing detailed general design criteria that one would
use that would inform the regulatory basis going forward.
So, we know what needs to be done. It's more a question of
what's the priority, because right now the NRC is,
understandably, completely focused on regulating the existing
fleet, and also watching the new construction of some of the
Gen Three plus reactors in the southeast. But the--we know what
we need to do. It's just a question of if we want to get to
these advanced machines in a more timely manner, we just have
to increase priority on the effort.
Mr. Hultgren. I agree, and I do believe Argonne, and other
labs, have a pivotal role, a vital role, and I want to make
sure that we can have you be part of that. So, thank you,
Chairman, I appreciate the time. Yield back.
Chairman Weber. Thank you. And, in that context, very
quickly, if I may, according to research, the Manhattan
Project, which was '42 to '46, cost $2 billion, okay? 90
percent of that was in the production of the factories and the
fissile material, and less than 10 percent was actually used in
the R&D for the weapons. In today's dollars, that's $26
billion, with a B, dollars. So who's going to invest that kind
of money?
Thank you for the indulgence, and the Chairman--I mean the
gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chair. I represent Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory in
Livermore, California, in the 15th District, and appreciate our
witnesses here, and also Dr. Peters, what--the work you do at
Argonne, is that correct?
My question is for Mr. Gilliland. And--in your testimony,
you're pretty forceful on the potential power of fusion energy,
and--for example, you write that the game changing nature of
fusion energy bears repeating, energy production that is safe,
clean, and abundant that would change the landscape of energy
forever, and greatly enhance energy security.
At the two national laboratories I work--that I represent,
they do a lot of work in fusion energy. For example, at
Lawrence Livermore, they have the National Ignition Facility,
the largest inertial fusion facility in the world, which is an
amazing research tool, which has produced a wealth of
information, but its primary goal right now is to assist in the
maintenance of the nuclear weapon stockpile. However, we have
long term hopes that it can be a sustainable energy source in
the future.
So, keeping that in mind--and Representative Lofgren, who's
on this Committee as well, she has worked with me on supporting
fusion--but keeping that in mind, do you think, Mr. Gilliland,
that the federal government is spending enough to support
fusion energy research, and if not, do you have a dollar amount
in mind as to how much more we should spend? And would it be
helpful to have an actually dedicated funding source for
research into all different types of fusion, including
inertial, for energy applications?
Mr. Gilliland. I would echo your comments on the National
Ignition Facility, and their leadership in the fusion energy
space. You mentioned that their primary goal is around weapons,
however, they're making huge steps in fusion energy as well. I
think the number is they have improved by about 100 times their
fusion yield in the last three years. So I certainly believe
that continued support, and even enhanced support, of National
Ignition Facility is warranted. Similarly, Sandia has an
alternative approach called Z Pinch, which I won't get into the
details of, but they've also demonstrated a huge amount of
progress. So we're certainly supportive of all of the concepts
of fusion, including magnetic fusion, that General Atomics is
quite involved in.
I think were funding could, you know, and--make a big
difference is in some of the alternative approaches. Most of
the dollars go toward magnetic fusion or inertial confinement
fusion, both of which have benefits, and both of which have
created really a base of research that everyone is benefitting
from. I think the difference is that some of these middle
ground concepts, like ours, and a number of others, do have the
potential to be faster and less expensive because of the--we
don't need lasers or superconducting magnets.
So I think it's a basket of alternatives, and it should be
approached that way. Each have their pros and cons across the
spectrum. So I can't give you a dollar amount, but certainly
support, and enhanced support I think is absolutely warranted
because--the final point I would make is whether it is fission,
or fusion, or others, the world needs more energy, and energy
is fundamental to the entire economy. So it's not one or the
other, it's all.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you. And also, with respect to, you
know, Dr. Parmentola and Mr. Peters suggested that the federal
government should develop a new nuclear reactor facility to
test innovative reactor ideas, now, knowing that we have, you
know, few Federal dollars allocated for this type of research,
and it doesn't look like the trend is going up, it's actually
going down, do you have a--if you had to prioritize between
fusion and nuclear reactors, any thoughts on that?
Mr. Gilliland. How to prioritize between fission and
fusion? Is that your----
Mr. Swalwell. Yeah.
Mr. Gilliland. --that your question? Again, I think they
both have their pros and cons, right? I think fission certainly
has the waste issue to deal with, proliferation and so forth,
but there are certainly a number of viable pathways that
fission has demonstrated, with small modular reactors and so
forth. So I think that it's a little bit of an apple and orange
comparison.
I think a demonstration facility could have both. I don't
know why it couldn't have both. I think creating a regulatory
framework is helpful for all of us, and, again, I don't--I
think it would be beneficial for us all to have it at one
location.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Foster, is recognized.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
opportunity to attend this, despite not actually being formally
on this Subcommittee. The--let's see. First question--first I
would like to say that I'm a big fan of turning up research in
this field. You know, the payoff if one of these comes up with
a home run, and a really viable zero carbon energy source for
our world, is enormous.
But ultimately, you know, the thing that I struggle with is
the business of design studies that look at projected costs of
electricity, which is ultimately the endpoint on this. And so
the difficulty you get into there is you're comparing
technologies with different levels of maturity. And, you know,
ultimately we're resource constrained. You know, we've now
decided to make what's--looks like a--between a $3 and $4
billion bet on tokamak fusion, you know, leveraging that to
roughly 10 times that amount offshore. And, you know, we may or
may not decide to do the same sort of leveraging in making a
U.S. investment into offshore fission technologies that are
being developed.
And so--but ultimately what we're looking for is the
cheapest way of making zero carbon electricity. And--so there
is certainly a role in doing design studies, just say pretend
the technology works, and what would the cost of electricity
be, if it all works according to your dreams? You know, there
are big dangers there, because you can lose that bet, and--or
find that, to make it work, you have to add a lot of costs to
things.
But how do we, you know, how should Congress think about
and handle that? Is this best left to separate--to committees?
You know, the problem is that committees--all--knowledgeable
people on committees are always composed of advocates for their
technology, and you can balance the committee in different ways
and get whatever answer you want, depending on how you choose
to balance those committees.
And so if--so I guess my question is do you think that
we're putting enough effort into the sort of design studies
that I'm talking about, where you say, just pretend the
technology works, does it ever have a chance of being cheaper?
You know, this is something that's often talked about, for
example, in terms of laser driven fusion, that if you just look
at the wall power efficiency, you know, everything you'll have
to do to get the compression, I guess--I--sorry I missed your
presentation, Mr. Gilliland, but, from what I understand, your
technology, you anticipate a higher efficiency, wall plug
efficiency, in terms of getting the fusion to happen. And
that's a, you know, that's a real argument when you look at the
final thing.
But I--my question is, are we putting enough effort into
that, and the right kind of effort, into these design--these
studies of what the theoretical cost of electricity should be,
or are--is--are things just so far away, and such a big
spectrum in their R&D readiness to make those--to be able to
make those sensible comparisons? So anyone wants to comment
on--yeah, Dr. Parmentola.
Dr. Parmentola. I can only talk about how General Atomics
has tried to address the issue that you're raising. We've
looked at basic physics to tell us what we need to do in order
to be able to improve the price point of electricity. Of
course, it's tied to financial models, but when you look at the
financial models, the financial models tell you a story.
So, for example, the biggest driver for costs is the cost
of capital, which has to do with the risk premium associated
with what you're doing. And so we thought about that. What we
need to do there is change the paradigm as to how we fabricate,
manufacture, assemble, and deploy nuclear reactors, okay?
The next most important, which is physics-based, is
efficiency. And we carefully looked at this, and we tried to
look at how we could increase the efficiency of a nuclear
reactor, and we've come up with a design that indicates that we
could get over 50 percent efficiency, which is 20 percentage
points above what we can do today. And I'll remind people that
for every percentage improvement in efficiency, that adds a
half a billion dollars to the bottom line over 30 years. So
you're talking about $10 billion more in the pocket of a
utility who's selling electricity.
Mr. Foster. You're also talking about turning up the peak
operating----
Dr. Parmentola. Correct.
Mr. Foster. --components, and----
Dr. Parmentola. Right, and that's the reason why you have
to go to new materials----
Mr. Foster. Yeah.
Dr. Parmentola. --because the materials can't deal with it,
but this is fundamental research that we have to do. And, of
course, the government should be sponsoring that type of high
risk research because the payoff can be tremendous.
And so the next one is capital costs, right? And, of
course, what you want to do is try to reduce the capital costs.
The thought is, well, if you make reactors smaller, you can
reduce the material costs, but you have to have enough power
output to compensate, right, for the reduction in size. So
that, again, drives to a higher temperature, more--higher power
density, and so on.
The physics tells you what to do, and that translates into
the financial model. Then, of course, it's a matter of
achieving the technical goals through research that you need to
achieve in order to be able to get there. And that's really
what--a facility that we're advocating, this new type of test
facility, user facility. We do. In that user facility, we
create competition, natural competition amongst those who are
trying to achieve these advanced reactors. And, to me, that's
the best way of sorting out which ones are going to survive,
and which ones are not.
Mr. Foster. Um-hum. All right. Well, thank you.
Dr. Peters. Could I make an--is that okay, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Weber. Yes, sir.
Dr. Peters. Morning, Congressman. So I would say you're
aware of the various analyses tools that are done by the
various parties that are out there, as you said already in your
remarks. And you have the DOEEIA does projections, and then, of
course, all the various advocacy groups do their own projects,
as you pointed out. And now you have a QER and a QTR that the
DOE's doing that I think are important steps.
My observation would be that I think you're on the right
track, because I think we haven't yet gotten to where we have
an objective set of tools that can think about advanced
technology, and technology insertion, into the discussion. At
least I am not aware of very many robust objective tools put
there.
So, to me, if we're going to sit here and talk about
important things like fusion, and Generation IV fission
reactors, they're at various stages in their TRL level, right?
And I think we could probably model that. We could understand
that and model it, but we're not really doing it in a
comprehensive way, looking at the whole energy system. So I
think there would be a place for that kind of analysis. I am
not aware of a robust objective program that's going after it,
though.
Mr. Foster. Yeah. Well, we'd have to spend, you know, the
whole----
Dr. Peters. Right.
Mr. Foster. --fission----
Dr. Peters. Right.
Mr. Foster. --space, and that's difficult to assemble.
Dr. Peters. Right. Yeah, and it would be--complex--labs,
universities. It would be a--quite a big undertaking, but very
informative, I think.
Mr. Foster. Right. Thank you, and I guess I'm well over
time, and I should yield back.
Chairman Weber. We'll just take it out of your next five
minutes. But the gentleman yields back, no problem. Mr. Batten,
I, you know, I said earlier that I applaud you, your
collaboration and your efforts and stuff, and thank you again
for being here, but I wanted to give you--and I went way over
my time, Mr. Foster, by the way. What I----
Mr. Foster. I remember.
Chairman Weber. What I wanted to ask was would you
elaborate on your experience with working with Argonne National
Lab in--and what was the best thing about it, the worst thing
about it, the most frustrating thing about it? How could you--I
know I'm putting you on the spot. How could we help improve the
process?
Mr. Batten. Well, this is the first CRADA we had ever
participated in, so it took us a while to just get ourselves up
to speed on the process, and understand the agreement, and that
sort of thing. But after we did that, we had a very good
experience working with the lab, in terms of just kind of
working out the cooperative agreement.
I would say by far the best thing about our experience is
the technical work of the lab. For--I mean, I'm a layperson
scientifically, but my impression is the--Argonne's technical
work has just been superb. And, of course, it built on--that's
because they have great people, but also they have all this
expertise that they've built upon, all their past work.
Chairman Weber. Okay. Dr. Peters' check is in the mail to
you.
Dr. Peters. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Batten. It's true----
Chairman Weber. And----
Mr. Batten. --from my point of view.
Chairman Weber. Well, we love hearing that. Any suggestions
to improve--I know you were kind of on virgin territory there.
Mr. Batten. Right.
Chairman Weber. Any suggestions on how we--improving that
process?
Mr. Batten. I do not have any.
Chairman Weber. No, yeah. So have you produced an outline,
a white paper, on how the next collaborative process will work?
Mr. Batten. Well, I guess the question--I'll maybe answer
that a little bit more broadly, sort of what would the next
steps be. The--what the CRADA produced--the main thing the
CRADA produced was a conceptual design which produced a cost
estimate, and the CRADA report should be out in a couple
months, and we'll know what that cost will be. Because--what we
hope is that Congress will authorize the development of the
pilot facility, but we thought you wouldn't really want to do
that until you had some idea of what it would cost.
Chairman Weber. Well, and that's why, you know, I referred
to it earlier as a kind of a library facility, where, you know,
we could provide the facility, and the books and stuff could be
there for people to come and check out, if you will, and that
would hopefully be an incentive for us to be able to take that
next step you're talking about.
And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Grayson.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you. Uranium is fuel for nuclear
reactors. If the industry were healthy, one would expect the
price of uranium to be going up. In fact, the price of uranium
is now 1/4 what it was eight years ago. What does that tell us
about the market's assessment of the future of nuclear energy?
Dr. Peters?
Dr. Peters. I'm not an economist, but I would say that the
current state of nuclear energy vis-`-vis the role of natural
gas and that, the role of deregulation, et cetera, is having
significant impact on the economics of nuclear reactors as they
currently operate, and also as currently envisioned to be built
in the next, say, decade. But I would say uranium's abundant.
There's plenty of it. I mean, we don't need to mine it, because
we can still use uranium that's been mined decades ago. As part
of various proliferation programs, we can get uranium. So part
of it is that there's hundreds of years of uranium. So one of
the interesting questions would be, why recycle? It's hard to
make an argument to recycle just based on uranium reserves,
because there's plenty of it.
So I--you're asking a very complex question, but I would
say the economics in 2050 that would drive what the energy
system looks like are going to be very different than they are
today.
Mr. Grayson. Dr. Parmentola, is the market basically trying
to tell us that nuclear fission, as a market, is doomed, given
the fact that uranium now costs 75 percent less than it did
even seven years ago?
Dr. Parmentola. Just so you understand, the--General
Atomics is in the uranium mining business. We have uranium
mines----
Mr. Grayson. Um-hum.
Dr. Parmentola. --in the United States, as well as
overseas, you know.
Mr. Grayson. Not doing too well lately, are you?
Dr. Parmentola. So--and my boss is a very astute
businessman, so he's in that business for a reason. And while,
of course, with Fukushima, we saw a decline in the use of
uranium in Japan, Germany has got out of the nuclear reactor
business, Switzerland has sort of followed suit, the demand for
uranium obviously has gone down, but I can tell you that there
have been new deposits found, abundant ones, in Australia. With
China surfacing as a major, major nuclear energy producer, they
have the largest number of reactors on--in development now, 30,
that'll be a lucrative business. India as well.
And I have to say, it's--with fast reactors, it's not just
uranium that is a fuel. Thorium is also. And if you do an
analysis of using both uranium and thorium as a source with
fast reactors, that have a closed cycle, you have enough, based
upon known reserves, including the waste, to last you 2,000
years. That's just known reserves. If I went and--into the
ocean, there's more uranium in the ocean that there is on land.
Mr. Grayson. Water also. There's more water in the ocean
than there is on land.
Dr. Parmentola. Yeah, right, but there's a huge amount of
uranium in the oceans. So the supply of uranium is--and even
thorium is extremely large. I think it's great that a fuel is
cheap, and that you can derive so much benefit out of it. It's
great. Right now I can say to you tritium costs $100 million a
kilogram. Right now, tritium, the known amount of tritium in
the world, is $100 million a kilogram. So one of the challenges
in fusion is to figure out a cost effective, economic way of
producing it, so this way it can self-sustain itself.
Mr. Grayson. All right. I would like to ask Dr. Peters--Dr.
Peters, you used some interesting language in your testimony.
You said that the country's leadership in global nuclear energy
could be further compromised, that our country runs the risk of
defaulting on the return of 7 decades of investment in nuclear
science. By the way, you can't actually default on a return
investment. That's not possible.
Chairman Weber. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Grayson. Sure.
Chairman Weber. Now, this is spoken by a guy that has
informed us that there's more water in the ocean on land, so
you all might just take that with a grain of salt. I yield
back.
Mr. Grayson. Chairman needs to listen more closely to my
quips. That's not correct. And the--we should be careful not to
forfeit the legacy of many brilliant minds, another
questionable mixed metaphor. But here's the thing, what--all
you're describing here is the idea that we would take a step
back from our nuclear fission program, and Germany has taken
two or three or four steps back from its nuclear fission
program. It's planning to shut it down entirely. What does
Germany know that you don't know?
Dr. Peters. Germany buys nuclear electricity from France.
That would be one point that I would make.
Mr. Grayson. Um-hum.
Dr. Peters. So while Germany's made certain--I am not going
to go any further than. So, from my perspective, setting aside
that maybe I mixed metaphors--thanks for the feedback, I would
say that we've invested, as a country, in unbelievable nuclear
capabilities, and if we do not move forward with the next
generation of technologies, that's going to erode. It's eroding
slowly, and if we don't invest in the labs and universities,
and the next generation, we're going to be sitting here a
couple decades from now with no capability, and absolutely no
seat at the table.
Mr. Grayson. But--another interesting mixed metaphor. But,
Dr. Parmentola, Germany has paid the price for its decision to
eliminate its nuclear program. The price is that they are now
the leader in solar technology around the world. They have the
healthiest solar energy market of any major country in the
entire world. Is that a price that we should be willing to pay
as well?
Dr. Parmentola. In my opinion, what--we--no one has a
crystal ball, in terms of what to expect in the future in
regard to the abundance, or lack thereof, of resources that--we
didn't expect natural gas to be so cheap. And, by the way, the
U.S. Government invested 30 years ago, 40 years ago, in the
fundamental technology that enabled fracking to produce this.
So, from an energy security point of view, your best bet is to
have as many energy options as possible, because we can't
predict the future. And nuclear is a technology that can meet
the requirements that people are asking for, in terms of the
economics, the waste reduction, the proliferation risk, and the
safety. There's nothing in the laws of physics that would
prevent that.
What has happened, unfortunately to nuclear, it's been on
the same technology for 60 years. If you look at any major
technology that the U.S. has developed, and continues to
develop, it's all been driven by research, and achieving
performance, higher performance levels. Nuclear has not changed
in 60 years. Its efficiency is back where it was, and we're
using submarine technology that was designed, obviously, for
submarines.
Any other major technology that I can think of has been
driven by research and development and performance. Pick
transportation, either ground or air. Pick communications. Look
at the mobile devices we carry around with us. Look at computer
technology. Computer technology has undergone five paradigm
shifts in the last 100 years, all based upon an advancement in
the fundamental technology to advance computing.
So nuclear stood still, and I think what Dr. Peters is
talking about is the need for a research, and a research driven
community. The nuclear community is not research driven, in my
opinion, and I've been around research for 40 years. It's not.
They want to build things. That isn't the way to develop new
technology. You have to do research that drives. It's discovery
first. Discovery drives invention, and invention drives
innovation. That's the process. Right now, nuclear has remained
stagnant because research is lacking. We haven't gone to higher
performance technologies and materials to drive its
performance. That's what's going to matter in the end.
Mr. Grayson. All right, thanks. I yield back, and thank you
all for your testimony today.
Chairman Weber. I want to thank the witnesses for coming in
today, and for your testimony. It's been very, very
informative, and we appreciate you all being here. With that,
our hearing's adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Mark Peters
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. John Parmentola
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Prepared statement of Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johsnon
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Report submitted by Mr. Frank Batten, Jr.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]