[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF
U.S. FUSION ENERGY RESEARCH
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 6, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-50
__________
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
28-937PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida AMI BERA, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia PAUL TONKO, New York
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana BILL FOSTER, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida MARK TAKANO, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California MARC A. VEASEY, Texas, Ranking
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma Member
MO BROOKS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma JERRY McNERNEY, California
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California, Vice PAUL TONKO, New York
Chair BILL FOSTER, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida MARK TAKANO, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
March 6, 2018
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Subcommittee on
Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives
Written Statement............................................ 16
Witnesses:
Dr. Bernard Bigot, Director-General, ITER Organization
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 21
Dr. James W. Van Dam, Acting Associate Director, Fusion Energy
Sciences, Office of Science, Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 40
Dr. Mickey Wade, Director of Advanced Fusion Systems, Magnetic
Fusion Energy Division, General Atomics
Oral Statement............................................... 48
Written Statement............................................ 50
Dr. Mark Herrmann, Director, National Ignition Facility, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 58
Written Statement............................................ 61
Discussion....................................................... 70
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Mark Herrmann, Director, National Ignition Facility, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory.................................. 90
THE FUTURE OF U.S. FUSION ENERGY RESEARCH
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 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. The 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 ``The Future of U.S.
Fusion Energy Research.'' I recognize myself for five minutes
for an opening statement.
Today, we will hear from a panel of experts on the status
of U.S. fusion energy research and discuss what we can do as a
nation to advance this critical area of discovery science. The
goal of fusion research is to create a star here on Earth and
control it to the point that we can convert its immense heat
into electricity. Easy, right? In the center of stars like our
sun, extreme temperatures, pressures, and gravitational
conditions create a unique natural environment for fusion to
occur. On Earth, scientists push the boundaries of experimental
physics in a number of ways to duplicate these reactions, with
the hopes of eventually generating fusion energy as power we
can use in everyday activities.
The potential benefits to society from a fusion reactor are
beyond calculation: the fuel is abundant and widely accessible,
the carbon footprint is zero, and the radioactive waste
concerns are minimal. Despite these incentives, Fusion Energy
Science remains one the most challenging areas of experimental
physics today.
Generally speaking--and don't worry, I'll leave the
detailed explanation to our panel of expert witnesses--Fusion
Energy Science is the applied study of a plasma, or ionized
gas, and is dependent on three main conditions: plasma
temperature, density, and confinement time. During this
hearing, you'll hear terms like ``inertial confinement'' and
``tokamak.'' These are different techniques and devices used by
scientists to control these three quantities in their
experiments as they work to successfully generate fusion
energy.
The Department of Energy (DOE) supports fusion research
primarily through its Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program
within the Office of Science. Domestically, it funds robust
research through its national labs and partnerships with
industry.
At Lawrence Livermore National Lab, the National Ignition
Facility, or NIF, pursues ignition in the lab by using a high-
energy laser to induce inertial fusion and provide critical
science for DOE's nuclear stockpile stewardship mission.
The DIII-D National Fusion Facility, a DOE user facility
managed by General Atomics, is the largest magnetic fusion
facility in the United States. This program seeks to provide
solutions to operational issues that are critical to the
success of tokamak-style fusion reactors like the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project. Considered
the leading research innovation--initiative in fusion science,
the ITER project is a major international collaboration to
design, to build, and to operate a first-of-a-kind research
facility to achieve and maintain a successful fusion reaction
in the lab.
Though located in France, ITER is also a U.S. research
project. Over 80 percent of total U.S. awards and obligations
to ITER are carried out in the United States. As of December
2017, the U.S. ITER Organization has awarded more than $975
million in research and engineering funding to approximately
600 U.S. laboratories, companies, and universities.
The DOE's fiscal year 2019 budget request for ITER is $75
million, well below the required commitment level to keep the
project on track. If enacted, this may result in damaging
delays to the ITER project and sends the wrong message to the
international fusion community about America's commitment to
its international agreements and our leadership in science.
When determining the next steps for the domestic U.S.
fusion energy program, we must consider the importance of
access to the ITER reactor for American researchers and
America's standing and credibility as a global scientific
collaborator. If the United States is going to lead the world
in cutting-edge science--and we hope it does--we cannot take
our commitments to our international partners lightly.
I want to thank our accomplished panel of witnesses for
their testimonies today, and I look forward to a productive
discussion about this exciting area of research.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentlewoman from California, for her opening statement.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. Just a note that the
actual Ranking Member is in Texas today. It's the election day
in Texas. So I'm happy to be able to fill in, and I thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for the wonderful
witnesses that we have before us.
As the Chairman has said, fusion is the process that powers
the sun and stars, so we know it works, but, as all the
witnesses here will be able to discuss in far more detail than
me, controlling and harnessing a fusion plasma here on Earth is
one of the most difficult challenges that our nation and indeed
the world's top scientists and engineers are working to
address.
That said, if we're successful, then fusion has the
potential to provide abundant, reliable, emission-free, and
practically limitless energy to meet a large portion of our
electricity needs in the foreseeable future. Given the huge
potential benefits of developing a viable approach to fusion
energy, I believe that this is an area we should be strongly
investing in.
Unfortunately, that's not what we're seeing in the
Department of Energy's recent budget request for fiscal year
2019 which would cut the Office of Science's fusion research
program by about 11 percent and would also entirely eliminate
ARPA-E, which is currently supporting a portfolio of innovative
fusion projects that could point the way to producing fusion
energy quickly and at a lower cost.
Lastly, as I'm sure will learn more about from Dr.
Herrmann, the budget for the DOE NNSA inertial confinement
fusion program, including support for the National Ignition
Facility at Lawrence Livermore National lab, would be slashed
by 20 percent. Now, the focus of this program is actually of
course not on energy but on ensuring the reliability of our
nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. Yet, because there is
currently no ongoing federally supported program to develop
inertial fusion concepts specifically for energy applications,
this weapons-relevant work is currently the only way that many
of these concepts are able to advance. So these major cuts
could be, you know, very bad for both our national security and
our energy future.
I'd like to note, as the Chairman has, that support for the
U.S. contribution to ITER would receive an increase in this
request but that the actual level of $75 million is below our
obligation. The most recent official estimates we've received
from the Department projected our contribution to be at least
$230 million in fiscal year 2018 and $240 million in fiscal
year 2019.
And it reminds me, you know, several years ago we were
concerned, and expressed concern at this Committee, about
whether our international partners would in the end live up to
their obligation. They have, and it's now the United States
that is at risk of being the deadbeat, so I'm hopeful that we
can address that.
These lower investments, you know, do not reflect Dr.
Bigot's tenure and the progress that has been made at the site,
and we look forward to hearing from him.
I'll just note that the good news is that Fusion Energy
Science research has always had bipartisan support here in the
Committee and in the Congress. It's always hard to fund what
you believe in, but I'm hopeful that we will make progress in
that regard again on a bipartisan basis.
And I've had a personal interest in fusion energy since my
time first began here in Congress, and I'm hopeful that that
long-term interest will finally pay dividends in ignition at
one of our leading science facilities.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the hearing and
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentlelady.
Let me introduce our witnesses. And, Doctor, I'm coming to
you first. Is it--I'm sorry. I now recognize the Ranking Member
of the full Committee, Chairman Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to see
you so eager to get on with the hearing, too, and a good
hearing it is.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman's time is expired.
Chairman Smith. Stop while I'm ahead. Thank you again, Mr.
Chairman.
Today, we will hear about the status of fusion energy
research and the prospects of future scientific discoveries in
fusion energy. The basic purpose of fusion energy is to create
the equivalent of the power source of a star here on Earth. By
creating and controlling the same nuclear reactions that occur
in a star within a fusion reactor, heat from these reactions
could be converted into renewable and reliable electricity. It
is no surprise that fusion has captured the imagination of
scientists and engineers for over half a century.
The Department of Energy has supported basic research in
fusion energy since 1951. The DOE Office of Science Fusion
Energy Sciences program funds research and science
infrastructure at DOE national labs. At the Princeton Plasma
Physics Laboratory, scientists conduct fusion research through
the National Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade user facility.
NSTX-U is a magnetic confinement fusion device called a
spherical tokamak that is currently the most powerful device of
its kind in the world.
At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the National
Ignition Facility uses the world's largest and highest-energy
laser to generate fusion power in the lab with an alternative
technique called inertial confinement fusion.
DOE also funds world-class fusion research through its
partnerships with industry. At General Atomics, a defense
contractor based in California, the DIII-D National Fusion
Facility is a tokamak fusion research facility that operates as
a DOE user facility through the Office of Science. DIII-D
enables scientists from laboratories, private sector
organizations, and universities around the world to carry out
experiments in cutting-edge fusion research. Someday, the
results of this research may provide the scientific foundation
for producing power through fusion. This would obviously reduce
carbon emissions by a huge amount with major implications for
climate change.
The ultimate goal in Fusion Energy Science is to provide a
sustainable, renewable, zero-emissions energy source. While we
cannot predict when fusion will be a viable part of our energy
portfolio, it is clear that this is critical basic science that
could benefit future generations.
One major step toward achieving this goal is the ITER
project. ITER is a multinational, collaborative effort to build
the world's largest tokamak-type fusion reactor in southern
France. Sponsored by the European Union, India, Japan, China,
Russia, South Korea, and the United States, the ITER project
can help answer fundamental challenges in plasma physics and is
a key step in achieving commercial fusion energy.
The Director-General of ITER, Dr. Bernard Bigot, will
provide an update on the project's advances and challenges for
the Committee today. I want to specifically thank him for his
leadership of this complex and challenging international
research project.
By contributing nine percent of the cost to construct ITER,
American scientists will be able to access 100 percent of the
discoveries achieved through the project. That's why it is
imperative that the U.S. meet its obligations to ITER and fully
fund fusion research at the Department.
According to the research community, a minimum of $163
million for in-kind contributions and $50 million in cash
contributions in fiscal year 2019 is necessary to maintain the
scheduled U.S. contribution to the project. Unfortunately,
DOE's fiscal year 2019 budget request for ITER is only $75
million. Reduced annual funding will only delay ITER
instruments being built here in the United States and cause
construction delays that increase overall project cost.
With countries like India, Japan, China, and Russia
partnering through ITER to produce and share cutting-edge
fusion research, we cannot afford to lose our seat at the
table. In addition, we cannot expect to receive international
support for our domestically hosted global research projects
like the high-priority Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility at
Fermilab if we do not honor our international obligations.
Basic research, like fusion science, provides the
underpinnings for groundbreaking new energy technology.
Achieving commercial fusion energy technology will require
strong U.S. leadership and consistent investment in discovery
science. To maintain our competitive advantage as a world
leader in science, we must meet our international commitments
and continue to support the research that will lead to next-
generation energy technologies.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice
Johnson:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman.
Let me now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today
is Dr. Bernard Bigot, Director-General of the ITER
Organization. In his distinguished career, Dr. Bigot has held
senior positions in research, higher education, and government.
Prior to his appointment at ITER, he completed two terms as
Chairman and CEO of the French Alternative Energies and Atomic
Energy Commission, or CEA. Dr. Bigot was trained at the ENS
Saint Cloud and holds an agregation, the highest-level teaching
diploma in France, in physical science and a Ph.D. in
chemistry. Welcome, Dr. Bigot.
Our next witness is Dr. James W. Van Dam. Am I saying that
right?
Dr. Van Dam. You are.
Chairman Weber. Okay. Acting Associate Director of Fusion
Energy Sciences in the Office of Science at the Department of
Energy. Previously, Dr. Van Dam was a Research Scientist,
Associate Director, and Director of the Institute for Fusion
Studies at the University of Texas in Austin. He was also
Director of the U.S. Burning Plasma Organization and Chief
Scientist for the U.S. ITER Project Office. Dr. Van Dam
completed his graduate study at University of California
Berkeley and the Institute of Plasma Physics in Japan. He
received his Ph.D. at UCLA and was a postdoc at the Institute
for Advanced Study at Princeton. Welcome, Dr. Van Dam.
Our third witness is Dr. Mickey Wade, the Director of
Advanced Fusion Systems of the Magnetic Fusion Energy Division
of General Atomics. Prior to serving in this role, Dr. Wade was
the Director of the DIII-D national fusion program, the largest
fusion research program in the United States with roughly 500
researchers from over 90 institutions from around the world.
Dr. Wade received his Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from the
Georgia Institute of Technology in 1991. He is the author of
over 30 first-author papers, a fellow of the American Physical
Society, and has served on the editorial boards of Nuclear
Fusion and Physics of Plasma. Welcome, Dr. Wade.
I will now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlelady
from California, to introduce our last witness.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you. I'd like to--although
Lawrence Livermore Lab is not in my district, it's in the
neighborhood, and so I'm pleased to introduce Dr. Mark
Herrmann, who is the Director of the National Ignition Facility
at Lawrence.
As the Director of NIF, Dr. Herrmann manages an
experimental science facility that serves the National Nuclear
Security Administration's Stockpile Stewardship Program, and he
pushes the frontier of inertial confinement fusion and
discovery science. Before coming to NIF, Dr. Herrmann spent
nine years at Sandia National Labs, and prior to that, he was a
physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He's a
fellow of the American Physical Society. He's won numerous
awards for his scientific work and leadership in his field. He
received his undergraduate degrees from Washington University
at St. Louis and completed his Ph.D. from the Plasma Physics
Program at Princeton University. Thank you for being here, Dr.
Herrmann. We look forward to hearing from you.
I yield back.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentlelady.
I now recognize Dr. Bigot for five minutes to present his
testimony. Dr. Bigot?
TESTIMONY OF DR. BERNARD BIGOT,
DIRECTOR-GENERAL,
ITER ORGANIZATION
Dr. Bigot. Thank you very much, Chairman Weber and
distinguished Members of the Committee, for giving me the
opportunity to present you the updated information on the ITER
project.
[Slide.]
Dr. Bigot. This slide shows the current status of the ITER
site with the tokamak building and the assembly hall at the
center. Today, March 6 is precisely my three years anniversary
as ITER Director-General. In March 2015, as you can see, after
seven years, progress was quite slow. At that time, the ITER
project was in urgent need of reform.
[Slide.]
Dr. Bigot. I believe we can say with confidence three years
later, looking at this new slide, that the questions raised by
several ITER members in 2013, 2014 about the capacity to manage
this complex international construction project have been
properly answered.
As of November 2017, the ITER project has crossed a
significant milestone, the completion of 50 percent of the
total construction work scope through First Plasma. These terms
include design, component manufacturing, building construction,
shipping, and delivery assembly and installation. This is no
small achievement. Globally, these project performance
indicators shows the ITER project is progressing with
reliability.
[Slide.]
Dr. Bigot. On the work site, as you see, the Tokamak
Complex, including the tokamak building, the diagnostics
building and the tritium building is advancing rapidly. The
Assembly Hall is complete and turned over for assembly of the
internal equipment. Similar progress is being made on the
cryoplant, magnet power conversion building, the cooling water
system, and other buildings across the worksite.
Fabrication of the ITER components both onsite and globally
worldwide is showing equal momentum. This includes the most
complex and major components such as vacuum vessel sectors
progressing in Korea and Europe, the cryostat manufactured by
India, thermal shield in mass production in Korea, and all
superconducting magnets here in the United States to toroidal
field magnets in Italy and Japan and poloidal field magnets in
Europe, Russia, and China.
Many first-of-a-kind components are requiring an
unprecedented combination of size and precision. The further we
progress, the more this project illustrates the interdependency
of overall performance. This performance also is the best
evidence of organizational reforms since 2015: a clear
decision-making process, profound integration of the work of
the seven ITER members with the ITER Organization, a reliable
schedule, and above all strong international project management
and project culture.
I am pleased to report continuing validation from external
reviews. When I last spoke to this Committee in April 2016, we
had received the report of the independent ITER Council Review
Group, which was followed one month later by the positive and
cautiously optimistic report by the U.S. Secretary of Energy.
[Slide.]
Dr. Bigot. Since that time, we have had reviews on many
aspects of project management, as you see on the slide. Each of
these reviews has found that the ITER project is well-managed,
while helping us to refine further our methods. We are
committed to continuous improvement.
In April 2016, I reported to this Committee that we had set
up technical and organizational milestone to demonstrate to the
ITER Council that the project is staying on track for success.
I am pleased to say that 31 milestones have now been achieved
from January 2016 through First Plasma. We remain on track for
First Plasma in 2025. Again, this consistent progress cannot be
taken for granted. It demands the collective commitment of all
ITER members.
This brings me to my final and most important point, to
thank the Committee for placing this ITER status update in
context because ITER must be understood as an integral element
of U.S. fusion research and the next major step toward a
burning or self-heating plasma, as underlined by the recent
preliminary report of the U.S. National Academies.
ITER is the converging next step in the fusion research
roadmap of the U.S. and every ITER member. The shortfall in the
contribution of any single member, if it impacts the delivery
of components or the capacity of ITER to meet the assembly and
installation schedule, will have a cascading strong effect in
delays, costs, and the description of fusion research for every
other member. It is why I would like to urge the United States
to timely comply with their contribution commitment.
[Slide.]
Dr. Bigot. We are committed at ITER, as you see on this
slide, day and night to make this project the model for
international collaboration in complex science and technology.
We are committed to making ITER a sound investment for the
United States, as for all ITER partners. We look forward to a
long and fruitful collaboration. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bigot follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Bigot.
Dr. Van Dam, you're recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES W. VAN DAM,
ACTING ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES,
OFFICE OF SCIENCE,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Van Dam. Thank you, Chairman Weber and Ranking Member
Lofgren in place of Ranking Member Veasey, and also full
Committee Chair Smith, my former Congressman from Austin,
Texas, and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for this invitation to testify before you today about
fusion energy research.
I am currently the Acting Associate Director for the Office
of Fusion Energy Sciences, and I appreciate this opportunity to
review the status of fusion research and describe programmatic
directions going forward.
The mission of the Fusion Energy Sciences, or FES, program
is to expand the fundamental understanding of matter at very
high temperatures and densities and to build a scientific
foundation needed to develop a fusion energy source. This is
accomplished through the study of plasma called the fourth
state of matter, which is wide-ranging since 99 percent of the
visible universe is plasma.
The FES program addresses several Administration research
and development priorities. Fusion research has the potential
to contribute to American energy dominance by making available
a robust, clean baseload electricity technology. Plasma science
can contribute to American prosperity through the potential for
spinoff applications, establish partnerships within and outside
DOE and increase our research effectiveness, and we also help
train a STEM-focused workforce in key areas of technological
and economic importance, as well as national security.
The DIII-D National Fusion Facility at General Atomics and
the National Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade, NSTX-U, at
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, are world-leading Office
of Science user facilities. The DIII-D scientific team has 439
researchers from 49 U.S. institutions, plus another 164
researchers from 46 institutions and seven other countries. The
DIII-D scientific results are recognized worldwide.
NSTX-U is the world's highest-performance spherical
tokamak, a magnetic configuration invented in the United States
with attractive advantages of compactness and component
testing. NSTX-U is currently not operating while its magnetic
coils are being repaired.
The United States is a world leader in fusion theoretical
modeling and high-performance computer simulations. FES
supports eight multi-institutional Scientific Discovery through
Advanced Computing, SciDAC, centers jointly with the Advanced
Scientific Computing Research Program Office. Fusion
researchers also lead one of the Office of Science exascale
computing projects.
Several multi-institutional U.S. teams conduct research
under international partnerships on superconducting tokamaks
and stellarators with long-duration capabilities not available
in the United States. To test fusion materials under extreme
conditions, the fiscal year 2019 budget request proposes a
linear diverter simulator facility with world-leading
capabilities.
Under the U.S. contributions to ITER construction project,
we are fabricating several hardware systems. One is the central
solenoid, which will be the world's largest superconducting
pulsed electromagnet, the so-called heartbeat of ITER. The U.S.
First Plasma subproject is halfway finished. The United States
has spent $1 billion, 90 percent of which is within the United
States through approximately 600 contracts in 44 States.
The U.S. ITER project is very well-managed. The ITER
Organization has significantly improved its project management
under Director-General Bigot, and we thank him. The
construction progress onsite is very substantial.
FES also supports discovery plasma science through
partnerships with the National Science Foundation and DOE's
National Nuclear Security Administration. U.S. scientists are
world leaders in inventing new plasma measurement techniques.
Strategic directions going forward for the FES program are
informed by several planning efforts, including priorities
described in the document, ``The Office of Science's Fusion
Energy Science Program: A 10-Year Perspective;'' research
opportunities identified in recent community workshops, one of
which was led by Dr. Wade; reports from the Fusion Energy
Sciences Advisory Committee; and reports from the National
Academy of Sciences. Currently, a National Academy study on the
strategic plan for U.S. burning plasma research is underway.
Dr. Herrmann is one of the panel members. And also the National
Academy is now launching the 2020 Plasma Decadal Survey.
Thank you for this opportunity today to describe DOE's
research efforts in Fusion Energy Sciences research, and I look
forward to discussing this topic with you and answering your
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Van Dam follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you. Dr. Wade, you're recognized for
five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MICKEY WADE,
DIRECTOR OF ADVANCED FUSION SYSTEMS,
MAGNETIC FUSION ENERGY DIVISION,
GENERAL ATOMICS
Dr. Wade. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
the Committee for this opportunity to share my views on the
U.S. fusion program. I'd like to stress that these are my views
and not necessarily those of my employer.
I have spent nearly 30 years working in fusion research, 15
of those at Oak Ridge National Lab, and the last dozen at
General Atomics. I'm passionate about fusion energy and maybe
as importantly about the role the United States can play in its
development.
This marks the 80th anniversary of the discovery of the
process the powers our sun and stars, nuclear fusion. We've
made remarkable progress over the intervening 80 years in
figuring out how to harness the enormous potential of fusion
energy. The United States has been at the forefront of this
progress, forging a path that has taken fusion energy from a
dream to a potential energy source for thousands of years.
Critics can no longer say that fusion is 50 years away and
always will be.
As we've just heard from Dr. Bigot, the first phase of
the--of construction of the most ambitious fusion project ever
undertaken, ITER, is now 50 percent complete. In 2025, a little
over seven years from now, ITER will produce its First Plasma.
Just ten years later, ITER will begin an operations phase that
will produce powerplant levels of fusion power for the first
time.
Anticipating this, other nations are increasing their
emphasis on fusion energy, putting together strategic plans to
capitalize on ITER's success. Private enterprises are now
evaluating high-risk, outside-the-box approaches to fusion
energy. Yet as excited as I am about this future, I'm very
concerned that our nation's commitment to fusion is wavering
and the decisions our country is making now will relegate us to
the sidelines in the future. U.S. participation in ITER is in
question. Investment in U.S. fusion capabilities is being far
outpaced by other nations, particularly China. The United
States does not have a comprehensive strategic plan for fusion
development.
The United States has long been a world leader in fusion
energy research, and this continues today. U.S. scientists
continued to discover new phenomena and develop pioneering
solutions to fusion's challenges. The United States is building
the ITER central solenoid. When fully assembled, it will be
nearly as wide as this table, nearly as tall as this building,
and be the most powerful electromagnet in the world. It will be
the heart of ITER, enabling ITER to generate plasma
temperatures that exceed 150 million degrees, about 10 times
the temperature of the sun.
So what needs to be done? I offer two recommendations for
your consideration. Number one, the United States should make a
firm commitment to fully fund the ITER project. The early days
of ITER were very challenging, but it appears the ship is now
sailing in calm waters thanks to the efforts of Dr. Bigot and
the ITER members. I believe ITER is our ticket to be a tier-one
player in fusion development, giving us full access to the
preeminent fusion facility in the world for only nine percent
of the fusion project cost. Over 80 percent of these
contributions are for in-kind projects built in the United
States, creating jobs and associated expertise here. On the
flip side, withdrawing from ITER could isolate U.S. scientists
from the international effort and would require a new U.S.
approach to study burning plasma with an unknown time horizon
and cost.
Number two, the United States should move now to establish
a comprehensive strategic plan that seeks to capitalize on
ITER's success. Fusion energy should be called out in a
national energy policy. A strategic plan with clearly defined
technical objectives should be developed that sets the United
States on an aggressive distinctive pathway to fusion energy.
This pathway should include new investment in world-class
research capabilities that will attract and engage the best
U.S. minds from universities, national labs, and the private
sector. Following through on initiatives, evaluating new ideas,
and developing transformational technologies will all be
required in arriving at the most cost-attractive approach for
fusion development.
In 1962, at the beginning of the Apollo program, President
John F. Kennedy issued a proclamation that I think speaks in to
this hearing today. He said, and I quote, ``We choose to do
these things not because they are easy but because they are
hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the
best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one
that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to
postpone, and one we intend to win.'' Less than seven years
later, an American walked on the moon. It's in the American DNA
to take on the grandest challenges and not just succeed but be
the best. Fusion is one of those grand challenges.
I hope you will join us in forging a path that ensures the
United States is a world leader in making fusion energy a
reality for future generations. Thank you for the opportunity
to speak with you today. I look forward to your questions and
working with you in the future.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wade follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Doctor.
Doctor, is it Herrmann or Herrmann?
Dr. Herrmann. It's Herrmann.
Chairman Weber. Okay. You're recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MARK HERRMANN, DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY,
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Herrmann. Thank you. Chairman Weber, Congresswoman
Lofgren, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before this Committee and offer testimony
on the future of fusion energy research.
As was already mentioned, I'm the Director of the National
Ignition Facility, or NIF, at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, which is sponsored by the National Nuclear Security
Administration. NIF is a football stadium-sized facility
containing the world's most energetic laser. I've had the
pleasure of giving NIF tours to several Members of the
Committee and of course would be happy to show off the
incredible work done by our scientists and engineers to those
of you who haven't had a chance to visit.
NIF's lasers are focused on targets smaller than a pencil
eraser to create conditions of very high temperatures and
pressures called high-energy density or HED. Since greater than
99 percent of the yield of our nuclear weapons comes in the HED
state, HED experiments are a critical component of the science-
based Stockpile Stewardship Program, which has the goal of
ensuring that our nuclear stockpile remains safe, secure, and
effective in the absence of further explosive nuclear
underground testing.
In addition to NIF, the Z-Pulsed Power Facility, and the
OMEGA Laser Facility play complementary roles in the Stockpile
Stewardship Program. Experiments on NIF are providing data in
important regimes to both enhance and test our simulations of
our nuclear weapons. Simulations are incredibly powerful tools,
especially now that we're getting better and better computers,
but it is essential that they be compared to data in order to
avoid getting the wrong answers. NIF, Z, and OMEGA also play a
major role in recruiting and training the scientists and
engineers who are the next generation of stockpile stewards.
One of stewardship's grand scientific challenges
established at the birth of the program is to achieve fusion
ignition in the laboratory. Ignition is when the energy
released from the fusion reactions further heats the fusion
fuel referred to self-heating--referred to as self-heating--
leading to more reactions and a large release of energy.
Pursuit of ignition provides the United States with an
experimental platform to study many incompletely understood
aspects of nuclear weapons performance. In contrast to magnetic
confinement fusion, inertia confinement fusion is obtained by
squeezing the fusion fuel to higher pressures and temperatures
than found at the center of the sun.
Early experiments on NIF ending in 2012 fell far short of
achieving ignition, despite optimistic projections. A number of
experiments were then performed, and many gaps in our
understanding were identified. In 2016, NNSA established a goal
for 2020 to assess the efficacy of NIF for achieving ignition.
Today, we are on track at the halfway point of that goal. In
fact, last year, improvements enabled the fusion yield on the
best implosions on NIF to date to more than double the previous
record yield to over 50 kilojoules. That's 25 times higher than
the fusion yields in 2012. These implosions have demonstrated
modest self-heating, a critical step on the path to ignition
that's akin to trying to light a campfire and having the wood
start to smoke.
Simulations suggest that a 30 percent enhancement in either
the pressure or the confinement time of this plasma would bring
us to ignition, although it is possible to--that the
simulations could be wrong, which is why, of course, we do
experiments.
We are now pursuing several exciting directions for
improving the fusion yield at NIF. If ignition is obtained on
NIF, it would be the first time ever in the laboratory, and
such a breakthrough could open the path--a possible path to
inertial fusion energy, or IFE, that could have significantly
different technological risks than magnetic fusion approaches
we've been hearing about today. An IFE system would work by
using a driver like a laser to ignite targets multiple times
per second. To be clear, NNSA does not have an energy mission,
and IFE research is not being performed at NIF today.
The National Academy of Sciences studied IFE in 2013, and
their report concluded that the appropriate time for the
establishment of a national coordinated broad-based IFE program
within DOE would be when ignition is achieved. However, the
committee also concluded that the potential benefits of energy
from ICF also provide a compelling rationale for including IFE
R&D as part of the long-term R&D portfolio for the--for U.S.
energy. This is an important conclusion of the NAS report.
A number of promising technologies highlighted in the NAS
report as key to eventual IFE systems are making steady
progress, but without an IFE program, the United States is not
in a position to assess the significance of these advances.
A modest IFE investment is all the more justified, given
that the United States leads the world in the high-energy
density science. NIF, for example, operates with 10 times the
energy of the next largest laser in the world, which is in
China.
There are few remaining fields of science where the United
States currently maintains such a lead over the rest of the
world. This world leadership, along with the compelling
scientific opportunities such as the grand challenge of
ignition, have been a magnet for the best and brightest
scientists and engineers to pursue research on the NIF and to
join the Stockpile Stewardship Program.
Today, the rest of the world is aggressively catching up.
NIF-scale lasers are under construction in both France and
Russia, the Chinese are exploring designs for lasers that are
1.5 to 3 times NIF's scale, and in high-intensity lasers the
leadership has shifted from the United States where they were
invented to Europe and Asia, as noted in a recent NAS study.
While the world is investing more in HED science the fiscal
year 2019 President's budget requests reducing funding for the
national ICF program by more than 20 percent relative to fiscal
year 2017, a reduction of more than $100 million. The proposed
budget reduces funding for NIF by more than $60 million, zeroes
support for target fabrication at General Atomics, and includes
major cuts to the OMEGA Laser Facility, putting the facility on
a path to closure over the next three years.
The academic programs that are essential to the field's
future are also zeroed. Together, these cuts cripple our
academic partners and could lead to the loss of a generation of
early-career HED scientists and students. At Livermore, the
proposed cuts will lead to a major disruption in our ability to
provide the HED experiments needed to support both near-term
and long-term stewardship deliverables, and the cuts will
strongly impact the pursuit of fusion ignition, leading to a
multiyear delay of the goals set out in 2020.
We're close--we are working closely with NNSA and our
national partners to manage the impacts of these cuts should
they be enacted and remain focused on the highest priority
deliverables of the stewardship program, but they must--it must
be understood that these cuts will have major negative
implications for U.S. leadership in HED science and fusion
research.
Thank you again for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Herrmann follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Doctor.
I now recognize myself for five minutes.
Dr. Bigot, in your testimony you stress that ITER is an
integrated project whose success relies on the performance of
each of its constituent members. Be as specific as you can.
Could you explain what would happen to the ITER project if the
United States fails to meet our commitments to the ITER
project?
Dr. Bigot. Thank you very much. It's very clear that the
United States has two roles, even three I would say. The first
one is to provide in-kind components, and you understand maybe
that this tokamak facility is a highly integrated facility in
such a way that if a component is not onsite and under
specification, on time, it will stop the whole project.
The most important equipment which is to come soon is the
central solenoid that we spoke about. It is the backbone I
would say of the whole facility. As well there is the tokamak
cooling water system is a system that will extract the heat
from the tokamak. There are also several diagnostics, which are
absolutely needed. You will see that indeed in 2018, 2019,
2020, most of the components have to be completed and to be
delivered. If some of the component is not properly designed on
time, it will impact everything.
The second point is the ITER Organization. Beyond the
responsibility of the United States, ITER Domestic Agency,
National Oak Ridge Laboratory, the ITER Organization has a
responsibility to install and assemble all these components
coming from all over as well. In 2018, early 2019, I have to
place all the nine assembly contracts with some leading
companies in such a way that between 2018 and 2024, six years,
we will be able to assemble these components.
So if the United States doesn't provide the in-cash
contribution, we will be behind budget. Right now, the United
States has not paid the in-cash contribution in 2016, 2017.
It's something around 70 million of euro owed, and for 2018, we
have low expectation if we stay with the 63, so it's very
important that we keep in.
Chairman Weber. Thank you. My time is getting away from us
a little bit. I appreciate that insight.
Dr. Van Dam, let me come to you. Will the Department of
Energy commit to honoring our obligations under the ITER
agreement? What say you?
Dr. Van Dam. Well, I'm speaking on behalf of the
Administration. As you know, the Administration is doing a
review of all civil nuclear-energy-related activities. ITER has
been included in that, and we are waiting for that to provide a
decision about whether the United States stays in ITER or not.
In the meantime, funding is provided for the two highest
hardware systems that we're providing. One was just mentioned,
the central solenoid at General Atomics. The other is the
tokamak cooling water system also mentioned.
Chairman Weber. Of course I served in the Texas Legislature
with Governor Perry for four years. Do you know, is the
Secretary aware of this project or how aware is he maybe I
should ask you?
Dr. Van Dam. That may be beyond my pay grade, but I
certainly hope he is. I know he's had letters from people like
Dr. Bigot and others, and they've been given to us to write
responses----
Chairman Weber. Okay.
Dr. Van Dam. --and there is a visit coming up from state
heads.
Chairman Weber. If I give you his cell phone, will you call
him? Just----
Dr. Van Dam. I remember him fondly from Texas.
Chairman Weber. Dr. Van Dam----
Mr. Foster. Would the Chairman yield for a moment on that?
I can speak from personal experience.
Chairman Weber. Yes, sir. You bet.
Mr. Foster. Yes, no, the Secretary is actually very plugged
into it and very, very enthusiastic about this. He really, you
know, sees his role as an advocate for the entire program of
which--of fusion. I spent a day with him as he visited the two
labs near my district, and so the answer is unquestionably yes.
Chairman Weber. Well, absolutely good to know. I appreciate
the gentleman.
Dr. Van Dam, next question. What type of research in
advanced scientific computing and materials science do you
think should be prioritized in order to support the Fusion
Energy Science program in the next few years?
Dr. Van Dam. Yes. As you know, advanced computing is a
priority of the Administration I think across the government,
and for Fusion Energy Science we are looking to advances in
exascale computing, which would really help us a lot. We have
very, very big codes that we run and have been running for
decades.
Another area is data science, which includes machine
learning, and we think there's a strong potential for quantum
information science to help our field, especially in
applications. Now, was that the entirety of the question or was
there----
Chairman Weber. Yes, and I need to move on. I'm running out
of time here if I may, so thank you for that answer. This is a
question for all of you, so we'll start with Dr. Bigot.
Dr. Bigot, have you thought about or what impact do you
think the commercialization of fusion energy could have on
climate change?
Dr. Bigot. Really, as you know, many have found, okay,
plasma and the burning plasma will deliver an energy without
any impact on the climate. We just release helium if we release
anything, and it is benign, chemically benign, no impact on the
climate, no impact on the environment. So it's one of the most
important advantages we could expect from this technology.
Chairman Weber. Okay. Dr. Van Dam, same question.
Dr. Van Dam. Yes, I would echo that answer and just say
that if you look at certain Asian countries, for example, that
have great problems with pollution and so forth, they are
pursuing fusion very vigorously.
Chairman Weber. Right. And offline at some point I'd be
interested in a discussion about the amount of energy that goes
into the solenoid, the electromagnetic coil, how you get there,
what produces that energy, and what it costs, but we'll do that
at a later date.
Dr. Wade?
Dr. Wade. Yes, I would just echo the same answer. I will
point out that fusion has the potential to be a large baseload
source of electricity, which renewables, without battery
storage, have a challenge doing that. So creating a carbon-free
footprint with a large baseload will sort of transform how
fusion is--and how energy is produced in this world so----
Chairman Weber. Okay. Dr. Herrmann?
Dr. Herrmann. Just echoing my other fellow members here--
committee--the fusion is a game-changer for the future energy
sources of this planet, so it is--it takes a lot of work. It's
very hard to achieve fusion, but I think it's definitely worth
the investment that's been made.
Chairman Weber. I thank you. I now recognize the gentlelady
from California.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I was thinking about all of the great work that
each one of our witnesses is doing, and I was thinking about
the--specifically, the National Ignition Facility, which I've
been interested in since its inception. I think I was there at
the groundbreaking in '97, and certainly when we--there were
some glitches in the construction, but ultimately at the
opening--I remember I spoke at the opening. There was
tremendous optimism at the time that ignition would be achieved
in a very short time frame, and I remember saying all that will
be left will be the engineering and people laughing.
But here we are. It's a slog. It's a slog, and yet the
stakes are very high for humanity and our future not only in
terms of zero-emission energy but potentially even for
remediation of damage that has already been done. So this is an
investment that I think is essential for our future.
In your testimony, Dr. Herrmann, you referenced the 2013
National Academy report that basically says the potential
benefits of energy from inertial confinement fusion provide a
compelling rationale for including inertial fusion energy R&D
as part of the long-term R&D portfolio for U.S. energy.
However, that followed their other statement, which basically
said the appropriate time to establish national coordinated
broad-based inertial fusion energy program within DOE would be
after ignition is achieved. So if you don't make the
investment, you'll never get ignition. Can you help us
understand these two apparently conflicting comments?
Dr. Herrmann. Well, I guess I see it as--that they can be
complementary in this way when ignition is achieved--and I
think it's a when, not an if--it will be, you know, a potential
different path with different risks compared to magnetic
fusion, so it's an attractive option that mitigates risk in
this high--this very technically risky endeavor. At that time
it would be appropriate to have a very broad-based approach,
which would mean we're looking at the drivers, the targets, the
chambers, everything that needs to be put together to develop
an energy source.
Until that time, though, it seems to me that it would be--
would be in a better position if we were doing a small level of
investment, a modest program that is looking at technology
development because technology is moving forward, and then the
United States would be in a position to really assess what are
the impacts of these advances and be in a better position when
ignition eventually happens.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, and I'd just like to note, I mean, 25
years ago when I first started meeting with fusion scientists,
I came into the understanding that there are divisions, you
know, magnetic and it's almost a religious belief. I don't
share those conflicts. Whatever works, I'm for all the science,
and I think as time has gone on, the scientists have gotten to
that position as well.
I understand--you know, actually in 2016, working with
Secretary Moniz, I asked him to put together an assessment of
the current status of federal support for inertial fusion
energy and potential action items. He did with the career
professionals in the Department. Now, we've had some personnel
changes at DOE, but the career professionals are still there,
and it's my understanding that really this is not a partisan
issue. It never has been and hopefully never will be.
So, Dr. Van Dam, do you agree with the recommendations of
the National Academies report that has been referenced in terms
of the development of inertial fusion for energy applications,
that they're still worth addressing? Do you think we should
find a way for strong merit reviewed proposal for inertial
fusion energy research?
Dr. Van Dam. Thank you. And let me begin by saying thank
you so much for your passionate interest in fusion energy, be
it magnetic or inertial or both. The Administration follows the
recommendation from the National Academy report that the
appropriate time for the establishment of a coordinated program
in inertial fusion energy would be when ignition is achieved,
and so at the present time it does not support large-scale
investment by the Office of Science at the present time. I'm
sure that Dr. Herrmann's efforts will bring that to pass soon.
And our investments in FES are then appropriately limited
as well. We do invest specifically in IFE technology through
the SBIR program for drivers and diagnostics. At the same time,
we are supporting the science that underlies IFE----
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Dr. Van Dam. --and HEDLP.
Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask you, Dr. Herrmann, I was stunned by
your testimony that a 30 percent enhancement the models show us
we get to ignition. Now, you've made tremendous changes in
performance of the NIF in your tenure as Director since 2014.
Is that enough to--if--absent significant reductions in
support, can you envision getting that 30 percent? Can you tell
us where you're going to be or your best estimate with even
support?
Dr. Herrmann. I frequently say you have to be an optimist
to work in fusion.
Ms. Lofgren. Or to be in Congress.
Dr. Herrmann. We have, you know, very sophisticated
simulations that guide us in the work we're doing. We find--and
when we do experiments--and we've been developing better
diagnostics--that there are gaps between what our simulations
say and what we observe. If we can close those gaps, then the
simulations suggest that we should be able to get over the
threshold and get to ignition. And we see promising paths
forward. So we're making progress, and that's the reason for my
optimism. But we don't know until we get there----
Ms. Lofgren. Of course not.
Dr. Herrmann. --if we'll be able to get there or not. I
feel like we've gone a big part of the way to where we need to
get to, and so that's--and I think there's a large parameter
space and an incredibly dedicated team of brilliant scientists
and engineers working on it, so I think if we have the
wherewithal to continue, we will eventually get there, but I
don't know.
Ms. Lofgren. I think my time is expired. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Dr. Van Dam, how much money has been spent on trying to
produce fusion energy so far?
Dr. Van Dam. My goodness. By the United States or by--
Mr. Rohrabacher. No, everybody, but United States and then
everybody.
Dr. Van Dam. I would have to take that on as a homework
assignment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You don't know?
Dr. Van Dam. Well, are you talking about integrated over
the past--
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, we're talking about a major project
here. You don't know how much money has been expended so far by
the people who are engaged in this coalition to create fusion
energy?
Dr. Van Dam. Are you speaking of ITER?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I'm not. I'm talking about fusion energy
now.
Dr. Van Dam. We have a current fiscal year 2019 budget
request of $340 million.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We do, right.
Dr. Van Dam. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And----
Dr. Van Dam. To the Congress, and then it's up to you of
course.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Dr. Van Dam. The fiscal year 2017 enacted was $380 million.
Before that it was a bit higher. It was running about $400
million per year.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So you know the budget for the last
two or three years but before that--have we spent billions of
dollars on fusion energy over the years and with our allies----
Dr. Van Dam. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --billions and billions? How much--have we
had any actual realization at all of something other than the
computer models that suggest that we're going to get there, if
we had an ignition of fusion--manmade fusion energy?
Dr. Van Dam. Well, there are two examples, one in the
United States, one in Europe. The U.S. example was the TFTR
tokamak at Princeton. This was the late '90s, and they got very
close to breakeven. The Joint European Torus likewise around
the same time got even--
Mr. Rohrabacher. Very close isn't the----
Dr. Van Dam. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --is not yet, right?
Dr. Van Dam. Well, those were still smaller machines.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. But very close didn't--doesn't work.
Dr. Van Dam. Well, there's breakeven and then there's--
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, we have manmade fusion energy. Do
you have something that went on for a minute worth of fusion
energy? No.
Dr. Van Dam. Well, national security applications, but they
don't last that long.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I mean--okay. Well, let us note that we've
had very little physical evidence that is actually happening.
We've got a lot of computer models here, and let me just note
that I have seen--I've been here for a while. I actually--a lot
of computer models that didn't work, and is it possible that we
will get to the end of this project and it won't work?
Dr. Van Dam. I sincerely hope not, and the best--
Mr. Rohrabacher. That's not--no, no, no, is it possible
that it won't work?
Dr. Van Dam. The best projections from experiments that we
have done over the past decades and our experience, the
database, the computer modeling, and the new technology that we
have, we think it will definitely work.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We think, we think, we think. Okay. Let me
just note this, that I would love to believe in the dream of
fusion energy. I'd love to believe that. And it's very--and
it's possible from what I've heard people say. It's possible we
will get there. But we know that with the expenditure of the
kind of money that we've spent on fusion energy, we could have
developed fission energy alternatives that are for sure not
just computer models but are for sure. And we have nobody--when
you're interviewed about those model saying well, I think--no,
they are very sure General Atomics, for example, has come up
with a number of alternatives that they know they can complete.
And I would suggest that with the limited amount of money
that we have that we should be going for those things that we
know we can actually do when it comes to the nuclear
production--nuclear energy production of electricity. And this
project has been going a number of years. We're spending
billions of dollars, and we still do not know for sure whether
or not there will be the type of ignition that we keep spending
money on.
Let me just note that we do have byproducts that I--let me
tip my hat to General Atomics and others involved in this
project. Mr. Chairman, there are byproducts that we have had
from this research that have permitted the development of new
materials and things such as that that may in the end turn out
to be worth the investment without fusion. But in terms of
actually producing energy, I think the American people deserve
us to go for a for-sure outcome of electricity that we could
spend the same amount of money on rather than something that
could work because the computer models tell us so.
And, Dr. Bigot, go right ahead. I know you're anxious to
refute that or say something good about it. Please use my time
to do that.
Dr. Bigot. If I may just a second--
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Dr. Bigot. --from my point of view we have achieved what
the computing modeling has been able to achieve, which means
the JET we knew, it could not deliver more than 70 percent of
the fusion power it received.
Chairman Weber. Was that 70 or 17?
Dr. Bigot. Seventy, seventy, 7-0, you see? Because of the
size, is it not possible to have a net fusion power, but we had
fusion power but not in the outcome. It's why with ITER we need
a larger tokamak. We need a larger vacuum vessel. And the
expectation is to have 10 times the fusion power that we will
feed in with the heating system, 500 megawatt of fusion power.
So everybody in this audience has to understand there is a
minimum size. If you want to get, okay, fusion power, you need
to have sufficient number of fusion event per unit time in
order to deliver. So my understanding is, so far, the computer
modeling has done very well and is why from my point of view I
am confident that if we are able to assemble properly all the
components making this ITER facility, we will deliver.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Weber. Now, if that hadn't confused you,
Congressman, he can keep talking.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Chairman Weber. I think what he's saying is that we're
making progress, and so I'm glad that he's here and explaining
it to us.
The gentleman yields back. I appreciate that.
Mr. McNerney, you're recognized for five minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairman. I thank the
panel. I have to say I've been an enthusiast for fusion energy
since college, since graduate school. I worked with Los Alamos
labs at the time on inertial fusion. But we have a lot of
progress, and I really truly believe that humanity is going to
depend on fusion power for the long run. I mean, I don't see
any other energy source that's going to really supply our human
race with enough energy in the long-term future than fusion. So
I'm going to continue to support the progress.
Dr. Van Dam, you said that the United States is the leader
in the computer modeling of fusion. What gives us the ability
to be the leader? Is it the computer power that we have or is
it the computer scientists? What is it that gives us that
leadership?
Dr. Van Dam. Yes, a couple of things. We have very advanced
leadership class computing facilities: Oak Ridge and Argonne.
We have a national energy research computer center out in
California, which, when it started, actually was a magnetic
fusion energy computer center and then it broadened into the
entire Office of Science. We have the SciDAC, the Scientific
Discovery through Computing program, which brings together the
subject matter experts in physics and science with applied
mathematicians and computer scientists. And this is very
powerful. I've seen results of computer simulations gone from
half the time required to do them just because the
mathematicians and C.S. people have been involved.
Mr. McNerney. So is our leadership being challenged by the
supercomputers that they're building in China now or other--or
is it just the major infrastructure that we have that allows us
to maintain that leadership?
Dr. Van Dam. Other countries do have very powerful
computers. You mentioned China. We are trying to make up for it
with intelligence and the way we use them, but yes, we do need
to move on. Exascale is a very big priority in the
Administration, and even after that, quantum information
science.
Mr. McNerney. Okay, thank you. Dr. Wade, you mentioned that
there needs to be a comprehensive plan for fusion. Is there an
outline for such a plan that we can consider or are we--I mean,
as my colleague Bill Foster said, it's like fractal. The closer
you look at it, the more sort of different approaches there
are. How can we get our hands around this thing?
Dr. Wade. Well, first off, let me just say that when I
speak of comprehensive strategic plan, I'm talking about
getting to fusion development, fusion energy, not just the next
steps in what fusion energy is----
Mr. McNerney. Right.
Dr. Wade. --and so we have to have a goal and we have to
have an objective for the United States of what that is, on
what time frame, so I think we need to establish that.
I think there are--is the framework of a strategic plan
that has been encouraged through processes that the Fusion
Energy Sciences division has organized through their advisory
committee, but that look more closely at the near term than the
long term, and I think we need to try to understand where we
want to go in the long term to do that. So, for example, right
now we're focused a lot on plasma physics, on--a lot on
confinement.
To ultimately deliver fusion, you have to get into
materials, you have to get into technology for fuel, tritium
fuel cycle handling, things like that. These are technologies
that are not just off-the-shelf things. They're not going to be
developed in another area. They have to be developed within the
fusion context. And so these are things we should be looking at
and trying to figure out where we need to go to be the leaders
in that.
So I think there's a framework in place to start from the
plasma physics side and the burning plasmas that will get an
ITER but we also need to fold into that what technologies we
need to develop in the future and start that work now rather
than later because if we start later, we're just going to make
this a serial process that takes for a--a very long time to do.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Well, we're going to depend on you to
point us in the direction of a plan so that we can at least get
our hands around that.
Dr. Wade. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. Dr. Herrmann, welcome to my little section of
the world here today. I appreciate--I've been to your facility
many times. I appreciate what all is involved, and I understand
that your real mission is the stockpile maintenance and so on,
but you have such a world-class facility. How can we more
expand that facility to use in terms of developing fusion
power? I know that NNSA is very protective of your facility.
How can we expand that a little bit?
Dr. Herrmann. Thanks for the question. So going back to the
very original documents that--the key decisions that led to the
creation of the NIF, it was recognized that inertial fusion
energy was one possible application. This was all when the
Department was the Department of Energy before NNSA was
created. And in those documents it says that some fraction of
the time on the facility would be open to the scientific
community, and so we do open up about eight percent of NIF's
time to the outside academic community. And that has allowed us
to do world-leading science and attract future stockpile
stewards and collaborate with scientists, great scientists at
academic institutions around the United States.
Because there currently isn't really a funding path for
researchers who want to do IFE, we don't really get proposals
in the area of IFE into that open call for time on NIF, and so
I think it's kind of a chicken-and-egg thing. It's hard to get
the researchers to put in proposals because they don't have a
path to get research funding, so if there was such a path, I
think that would be a way that some of that time could be used
for fusion energy research.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you again. I thank the panelists. I'm
going to have some questions for the record since I'm out of
time here. I'll submit those later.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman from California. The
gentleman from Oklahoma is now recognized.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
panel for being here today. We have kind of drifted from the
specifics to the general and back and forth in this
conversation, so first let me turn to Dr. Bigot. Those are most
impressive pictures compared to the last time several Members
of the Committee were onsite at ITER, the progress that's been
made. You said in your written testimony--you used the phrase
in referencing ITER's magnitude and complexity, quote, ``No
country, not even the most advanced, could have done this
alone,'' unquote. Could you expand for a moment on the
magnitude of the overall cost projected for the whole project
and the number of disciplines and the number of engineering and
scientific people required to get to this point?
Dr. Bigot. Thank you very much for this question. Yes,
clearly, with tokamak, which is the largest we have ever
conceived to build in the world, is utilizing many
technologies. First, clearly the magnets, we have to develop
the superconducting materials, nearly 2,800 tons of this
material has to be developed and with high standards. Vacuum;
we need to make a vacuum in a chamber which is nearly 1,000
cubic meters, and we will deal with hydrogen, as you know,
which fuels a lot, so we need to develop some specific pumps
for that. And the United States is performing quite well in
this matter. It is another matter we will need to have the
United States delivering on time. There are also heat
exchanging requirements. We are producing 500 megawatts, and in
a per square meter, we will be able to collect 20 megawatts per
square meter.
So all these technologies are so large and the size of the
material is so important that we don't believe a single country
could develop an industry in order to deliver on a reasonable
time. We will deliver nearly the full construction in 25 years,
and we have the seven largest countries in the world together,
and so you could imagine that even a single one could take
maybe four or five times longer, so it would not be expected.
Just to give you an example, one sector of the large
vacuums, which is manufactured right now in Korea, it takes
four years for the most advanced companies in the world in
order to be able to manufacture these sectors. Why? Because we
need a very high precision. We need also full alignment because
it's a nuclear vessel, so no leaks at all. Every welding has to
be precisely controlled.
So my understanding is very clear. If we are not working
all together, bringing the added value of our expertise and
competence worldwide, it will be very challenging to do it.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Van Dam, various comments have been made about the
different theoretics and the different perspectives, the
different ways of coming about trying to address fusion. Could
you touch for a moment on what varieties of fusion research
programs are being pursued in other countries? We've listened
to discussions about the United States. We know what ITER--the
consortium we're a part of, but what's the rest of the world up
to?
Dr. Van Dam. Yes. The United States I think is a world
leader.
Mr. Lucas. Absolutely.
Dr. Van Dam. No doubt about that. The Europeans have a very
vigorous program in fusion energy and have had for some time,
and we collaborate with them, for example, on the Joint
European Torus, which is in the U.K. and it's being impacted by
Brexit. We work on the W7-X stellarator, which is the world's
largest in Germany. We work on the tokamak in Germany--another
tokamak in Germany. We work with all of the countries in
collaboration.
Japan has a very vigorous program, and I myself have been
going there for almost 40 years to do research. China has a
very strong program right now. They're spending a lot of money
in fusion energy. They're very serious about it, South Korea as
well, India likewise. The Russian Federation used to
historically have a very strong program, and we competed with
them, and it is still strong. They have a lot of legacy work,
but a lot of those scientists have migrated to the United
States.
Mr. Lucas. One last question, Dr. Van Dam, whether you are
the optimist and you believe when the technology breakthrough
comes or you're a pessimist and you believe if the technology
breakthrough comes, describe to us where will the United States
be if we don't participate, if we're not a part of these
efforts, if we're not doing the research? Where will we be if
or when--I would hope when this happens--describe for us just a
moment what the world would be like for those who are not a
part of this energy source?
Dr. Van Dam. The ITER project?
Mr. Lucas. ITER or the concepts of fusion in general. If we
get to the point where we have successful fusion power
generation but we've not participated, we're not a part of any
of the endeavors, we've decided we don't want to spend any
money, describe for a moment what it will be like to be left
out of the next generation of energy.
Dr. Van Dam. Well, fusion and also fission provide baseload
energy, which is something that renewables don't quite provide
and they're also load-following types of energy, which is very
important for large industry and just our standard of living.
If we are not in the ITER project, it may still go forward with
the other six members. You know, we would have to decide what
our program--we still have the same priorities in terms of
burning plasma science but how they would be implemented. And
for the rest of the answer, I would like a crystal ball.
Mr. Lucas. Bottom line is of course if success comes and
we're not a part of it, then we'll become a second-class
economic power because we will not be able to participate in
the current technology at that moment of cost-effective energy
for all purposes. Thank you, Doctor.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for joining us on a very interesting and very
important topic.
As the only member representing the State of New York on
the Science Committee, I want to address a disturbing budget
cut that was brought to my attention. The OMEGA Laser Facility
at the University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser
Energetics has been targeted for severe cuts and a three-year
ramp-down in the fiscal year 2019 budget request. I along with
many of my colleagues strongly believe that OMEGA deserves
continued support and that eliminating the facility would be
detrimental to national security and the continuity of our
nuclear program.
OMEGA provides scientific and technical support for the 400
users from the 55 universities and over 35 centers and national
laboratories that use OMEGA annually to conduct more than 2,100
experiments in cutting-edge research. Currently, demand for
these facilities exceeds available time by a factor of two.
LLE's benefits go well beyond the more than 2,100 experiments
OMEGA conducts annually in support of the ICF program. LLE
employs more than 360 scientists, engineers, and technicians
and support staff. LLE draws 400 scientists from around the
world to western New York every year to carry out fundamental
research, training, and education. LLE provides a strong
stimulus to New York's economy as a source of new startup
companies and a driver of the region's optics, imaging, and
photonics sector. The LLE's OMEGA Laser Facility is a vital
contributor to national security and an invaluable source of
scientific education and leadership.
The LLE is the most cost-effective facility in the science-
based Stockpile Stewardship Program, performing 80 percent of
all the targets shot--used in the national inertial confinement
fusion, or the ICF, and high-energy density physics programs
with only 13 percent of NNSA's ICF budget. LLE is
internationally recognized for its groundbreaking research in
high-energy density physics and high-powered lasers. The OMEGA
Laser Facility indeed is the major DOE facility that trains
graduate students serving as a critical pipeline for future
talent that is critically important to our national and
economic security.
So I would ask any or all of our witnesses, have you heard
any explanation for the cuts to the OMEGA Laser Facility at the
University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics?
Anyone?
Dr. Herrmann. The Department of Energy, the NNSA budget
justification outlined that the resources were shifted to
higher-priority activities, but we haven't gotten any more
details than that in our conversations with the Department.
Mr. Tonko. So again, to each of our panelists if you
choose, what impact with these cuts have on the field, on our
national security, and certainly on the workforce?
Dr. Herrmann. Well, at Lawrence Livermore we work very
closely with the University of Rochester and the Laboratory for
Laser Energetics. OMEGA serves as an important staging ground
for performing experiments before they come to NIF to get the
data we need for the stewardship program. We work closely with
scientists and engineers at the University of Rochester to
develop diagnostics for the National Ignition Facility and to
move the science forward, and they really play an important
role in the entire national community, so I think would be a
very big loss if the OMEGA Laser Facility were shut down.
They're also an important training ground for students who
go into this field and can train many future stockpile
stewards. Our laboratory has hired many of the scientists who
studied or did experiments at the University of Rochester, so I
think it would be a big loss to the national program.
Mr. Tonko. And I would think that human infrastructure
component is a very critical one.
Anyone else from the panel that wants to address the cuts?
So, Dr. Herrmann and Dr. Wade, there have been some notable
efforts made to our progress from those working on innovative
fusion energy concepts, and recently the Tri Alpha was featured
in a cover story of TIME Magazine for achieving a major
milestone while other smaller companies are making progress in
addressing other critical technical challenges. If these
innovative companies and approaches cannot find funding here in
the United States, just where will they go do you imagine?
Dr. Wade. Well, I--to answer your--to give you some
background, these companies like Tri Alpha have made tremendous
progress in looking at the areas that they're looking at, but
as Mr. Weber, the Chairman, said at the beginning of this, the
goal is to get high density, high temperature for long periods
of times, and these confinement concepts are well behind in
terms of the tokamak, in terms of their maturity. They're
making tremendous progress, and they may someday be able to get
to tokamak levels of performance.
The--in terms of investment by other countries, I would
anticipate that China would be involved. China has almost like
an Apollo program in almost every energy sector, and so they're
launching initiatives in a wide range of areas.
Worldwide, if you looked at the rest of the world, the
fusion effort is primarily focused on the tokamak and bringing
that into full maturity, bringing other lines that are at
second level, second-tier along at a slower pace, so I don't
anticipate a large investment worldwide. Probably in China
there'll be some effort, and there may be sovereign countries--
sovereign funds that invest in small startups to give them seed
money to see if they can actually get to the point of making
one of these concepts a reality.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This is an exciting and interesting topic. Let's jump in.
Dr. Wade, you stress U.S. leadership in fusion research is
threatened by large investments by other nations. What level of
investment is required for us to compete here? I'm looking for
a number.
Dr. Wade. Well, that's a very good question. I think that
the level of investment we're making right now is not
sufficient. I think that especially when you look at the
domestic program and the level of funding that it's at, it's
barely at a stage where we can sustain our leadership, much
less exert leadership. If I were recommending a number, I would
recommend a factor to two or three increase in fusion funding
in the United States from the point of view that there are
multiple initiatives that we are unable to fund that I think
would have benefit not just in providing us an alternative to
this mainline approach but to get more people involved in the
fusion endeavor----
Mr. Dunn. Sure.
Dr. Wade. --which I think is very important.
Mr. Dunn. And you mentioned the in-kind donations, which I
think are terrific because we keep some talent here and grow
our knowledge base.
So you've been involved in both the DIII-D project and the
ITER project. What's the major difference between those two?
Dr. Wade. The major difference is--well, ITER is about four
times the size of DIII-D, so it's a much larger facility. DIII-
D is a much more flexible facility in the type of research it
can carry out. It's small. It has many capabilities that allow
it to--the researchers to manipulate the plasma in a way that--
--
Mr. Dunn. But the physics are kind of all the same?
Dr. Wade. The physics is exactly the same; it's just at
larger scale.
Mr. Dunn. Okay. Can you share some of the spinoff
applications that have come out of this program?
Dr. Wade. There have been a huge number of spinoffs in a
variety of areas: microwaves, MRIs. One of the best ones I like
to use is if you're familiar with the recent deployment of the
EMALS system, Electromagnetic Advanced Launch System, on the
Gerald Ford aircraft carrier. This has replaced----
Mr. Dunn. Oh, yes.
Dr. Wade. --all the catapults with electromagnetic systems
so that they can reduce the footprint of the steam required to
do the steam catapults, and this has allowed the--and also much
more controlled takeoff, less stress on the plane, less stress
on the pilots, and so these are spinoffs that not only have--
we're doing this in the--in basic technologies but in very
applied defense technologies also.
Mr. Dunn. Do you interact with the MagLab in Tallahassee,
FSU?
Dr. Wade. We have interacted with them not--we do not have
a strong collaboration, but we have had discussions with them.
Mr. Dunn. So one thing you said earlier impressed me. You
seem very, very confident that the ITER facility is going to be
able to achieve the sustained fusion and actually even it
sounded like you were saying--and it will be commercially
viable. Can you share your optimism with us?
Dr. Wade. Yes, I believe ITER is--I have very high
confidence ITER will succeed. I have worked in this field a
long time, and I have watched the progression of our
understanding, and I believe our understanding is sufficient to
have high confidence if technically ITER--with its systems can
deliver the technical capability, the physics will be there to
deliver the power that is projected. And I think that that
launches us into a new era in fusion development. I think that
countries, nations, people worldwide will recognize that this
is a real energy source for the future and we can launch
aggressively into that. And if the United States isn't there at
the table ready to do something, we're going to be left behind
by other nations in delivering that technology for the world.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much. So, Dr. Bigot, so it
certainly sounds like he has a lot of faith in you. Do you
share his optimism?
Dr. Bigot. Yes, I share. As I say to you, we have the
background of several decades of works on smaller devices and
smaller facilities, which demonstrate that the physics is
robust, okay, the modeling is robust, and my expectation is if
we are able to assemble this larger-scale facility, we will
deliver.
Mr. Dunn. Well, Godspeed to all of you. Thank you very much
for being here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I guess I'd like
to start out by seconding Representative Tonko's, I guess,
unhappiness with the zeroing out of LLE. You know, I think this
will be tremendously damaging, including to NIF. I mean, you're
absolutely right. I mean, it sort of serves as something
analogous to what a test meme used to serve for for high-energy
physics where I worked for decades that you actually need when
you have a bright idea for a new experiment, you need a low-
cost way of testing it out.
In addition, when you look at the way forward, one of the
most promising ways to actually get, you know, to ignition is
to switch over to direct drive and--which means you then have
to then compress in all directions simultaneously, which is
something that can be done today, albeit at a lower energy at
Rochester. And so, you know, the wisdom of cutting this is
really something I don't appreciate.
The other thing is, you know, we're seeing it more and
more, this statement that, well, there just isn't enough money.
And so I'd like to try to put that in context. Since the
economic recovery started, house--the net worth of Americans
has gone up by $45 trillion. Well, what we're debating here
largely, the investment--the U.S. investment in ITER will maybe
be $4.5 billion, okay? And so we're talking about spending, you
know, 1/10,000 of the increase in, you know, the U.S. wealth
that's happened on something that can provide energy in
principle for millennia.
And so, you know, there's I think a pretty strong case to
be made that, you know, especially now that the economy has
recovered, we are actually--this is going to be money well
spent. And I--but I--and I do appreciate the bipartisan
enthusiasm we've seen from--almost bipartisan enthusiasm for
fusion generally, though I would also like to point out that
for those of my colleagues that don't appreciate the difference
between fission and fusion, then I'd be interested in knowing
whether they're volunteering their district to be the storage
location for all of the fission end-products at the end of the
energy production.
All right. Now, a few specific questions. You know, one of
the things that I've always found useful to look at in
understanding whether a project is on track is you look at the
contingency reserve, which you highlighted in your previous
testimony, that you've established, you know, a project
reserve, which I guess in the United States we talk--is
contingency. And so I always used to track the amount of
contingency remaining versus the fraction of project completed
and to see if this extrapolates above or below zero to see if
your project's heading for trouble. And is that something that
you have over the last, I guess, three years been tracking and
what's--what would that graph look like?
Dr. Bigot. Thank you for this important question. There is
contingency, for example, in the U.S. program. For providing
the in-kind U.S. contribution, the United States, according to
their regulation, has decided to put some contingencies, so
contingencies are in-kind for the production. Some of the
countries behave differently, but this is on the responsibility
of the ITER members.
Within the ITER Organization, when I came in, I was
requested to provide the best technically achievable schedule
at the lowest cost without contingency. Since that time, we
have developed risk management, and I request all my colleagues
on the amount of money--that we call the ``overall project
costs'' for the ITER Organization--to make an eight percent
saving every year, in such a way that I am building up some
contingencies in order to phase in the risk.
Mr. Foster. Now, is this contingency fungible across
national boundaries?
Dr. Bigot. Yes.
Mr. Foster. Like if country X gets in trouble on their
project, can the contingency from savings from country Y be
used to bail them out or is there----
Dr. Bigot. No.
Mr. Foster. --a firewall?
Dr. Bigot. No, there is a firewall--
Mr. Foster. Oh.
Dr. Bigot. --exactly. For the in-kind contribution, there
is a firewall. Each ITER member is responsible to deliver the
in-kind contribution. But for the ITER Organization, the cost
of the assembly, for example, the commissioning and all these
things it is according to the share the United States is nine
percent, Europe 45 percent, all the non-European countries is
also 9 percent.
And I would want to point out something very clearly. For
the United States participating in the ITER project costs nine
percent of the value of the project, but they will have access
to 100 percent of this facility, so I guess it's clearly a good
investment.
Mr. Foster. And sort of the benefit of scientific
collaboration, since science began, that if you collaborate,
you learn more. So let's see.
Dr. Van Dam, you mentioned that there was an ongoing
administrative--the Administration was going to review the
nuclear program generally and science specifically, and you
were involved in, you know, the budget pass-back and all of the
things which came to the conclusion, for example, that you had
to shut down LLE and preserve DIII-D and all these sort of
Sophie's Choice decisions that you have to make during the
budget decisions. And could you describe--you know, obviously,
you can never discuss those in public. That's--for reasons we
understand, but could you describe the list of scientists above
you in the org chart that are going to be involved in those
sort of decisions?
Dr. Van Dam. Well, yes. Directly above me is the Deputy
Director for Science Dr. Steve Binkley. You probably know him.
Mr. Foster. Sure, I know him well. Yes.
Dr. Van Dam. And above him should be the Director of the
Office of Science, which at the moment is still vacant.
Mr. Foster. All right. And if you continue up----
Dr. Van Dam. Yes.
Mr. Foster. --the org chart, where do you encounter Ph.D.
scientists above that in the org chart making these decisions?
Dr. Van Dam. Well, Dr. Binkley is certainly a Ph.D.
scientist.
Mr. Foster. Right.
Dr. Van Dam. Then, above him would be Mr. Paul Dabbar, who
is the Under Secretary for Science, then the Deputy Secretary
and the Secretary himself.
Mr. Foster. All right. So you've just given us the complete
list of, say, Ph.D. scientists who are going to be involved in
making these crucial decisions about which facilities can
survive in different budget scenarios, for example?
Dr. Van Dam. Well, Dr. Binkley has a Ph.D.
Mr. Foster. I understand. He's also a permanent employee
of----
Dr. Van Dam. Yes--
Mr. Foster. --not a----
Dr. Van Dam. --not a political--
Mr. Foster. Yes, because I'm personally very nervous that
we're making these really important decisions with, you know,
frankly no one home, you know, with a--with science credentials
in making these decisions, and there are real risks to the
program if that proceeds.
Anyway, I think I've gone past my time.
Dr. Van Dam. May I briefly defend Paul Dabbar, Under
Secretary of Energy, who worked in technology for----
Chairman Weber. Briefly.
Dr. Van Dam. I'll finish.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Florida is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Van Dam, when I was in college 40-some years ago in
electrical engineering, they said that we're about 30 years
away from actually producing electricity through fusion. And
now I hear that we're still 30 years away. I'm wondering, has
there been any--let's say in the last, I don't know, 10 or 15
years, has there been any progress or notable progress towards
the goal?
Dr. Van Dam. Well, I was also a student 40 years ago and I
heard the same thing. I think people did not realize how
challenging this endeavor is. It is a very complex endeavor.
It's often called a grand challenge problem. I think we have
made tremendous progress, and the National Academies study in
fact will be documenting that when they do their final report
at the end of the year. We've made great progress in control of
plasmas just like with airplanes, in high-resolution
diagnostics, high-performance computing, and just the--and also
the technology that goes along with it, the heating technology,
the magnet technology, and so forth. We have a recent FESAC
report on transformative enabling technologies that will enable
us even to accelerate faster.
Mr. Webster. So--okay, so it seems like back then, there
were these goals that were necessary and things that needed to
happen to sustain the reaction. And I'm wondering is there one
thing or two things that we need to do over the next, let's
say, ten years from now in order to say, okay, we've made real
progress? Could you name those?
Dr. Van Dam. That's a great question, and I'm sure my
neighbors would be happy to answer as well. I think we need to
stay in the ITER project, and the computing is a very, very big
priority for us and for the Administration because it lets us
take bigger steps forward with confidence having codes with
predictive capability. The experiments I think are extremely
valuable. We have these very high-performance experiments, 100-
million-degree plasmas, and we're understanding them at a very
precise level.
Mr. Webster. What was the temperature?
Dr. Van Dam. Like 100 million degrees. It's quite
impressive. And we have these diagnostics that can actually see
exactly what's going on, coupled with the codes that actually
can compute both postdictive and predictive and interpret
what's going on. And material studies, we need that
desperately.
Mr. Webster. Is that where we're putting the money?
Dr. Van Dam. In the 2019 budget we've proposed this linear
diverter facility at Oak Ridge. It's called MPEX, Material
Plasma Exposure facility----
Mr. Webster. At our----
Dr. Van Dam. --Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Mr. Webster. Yes.
Dr. Van Dam. That's one thing we're doing.
Mr. Webster. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Weber. All right. And----
Mr. Foster. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Weber. Yes, sir?
Mr. Foster. --would it be all right if I had an additional
question?
Chairman Weber. Well, we have a meeting right following
this----
Mr. Foster. Okay.
Chairman Weber. --so I would encourage you to get with
maybe Dr. Van Dam over the Fusion Advisory Science Committee,
which offers--has Ph.D.'s and offers that advice, but I do need
to close it out.
I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the
Members for their questions. The record will remain open for
two weeks for additional comments and written questions from
the Members. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]