half as good as the proponents make it out to be, I think it's well worth spending some research dollars to verify, because it, at least on the surface, appears just on a cursory examination, to have tremendous potential."

Congressman Coppersmith asked, "Dr. Davies, if the fusion budget does not increase, how likely is it that moving forward with the new tokamak facility would result in the eventual exclusion of research on alternative fusion concepts?"

Dr. Davies responded, "I believe we are going to have difficulty moving ahead with the tokamak concept if the fusion budget doesn't increase a little bit."

Congressman Coppersmith then questioned Dr. Harold Forsen: “Dr. Forsen, I notice you were quoted in Energy Daily as saying that about ten percent of the budget should be reserved for alternatives. Should the budget not increase in real terms, would that permit a reshuffling of priorities to do that? Is it important enough to do that? Or do you see the crowding-out happening?"

Dr. Forsen responded: "I think it is very difficult if the budget maintains the level that it is now to carry forward with the international programs and domestic programs across the board. We have a real opportunity to make continued progress with the tokamak." But, Congressman Coppersmith said, "Dr. Forsen, I notice you were quoted in Energy Daily as saying that about ten percent of the budget should be reserved for alternatives. Should the budget not increase in real terms, would that permit a reshuffling of priorities to do that?"

Dr. Forsen responded that he didn't know the number showed up in print-but he added, "part of that ten percent really ought to go making the tokamak better, too."

Most scientists believe the most probable path to fusion energy is through the deuterium/tritium reaction. It is widely believed that a helium 3 reaction is more difficult to achieve. With regard to the helium 3 cycle, Dr. Davies said, "There isn't very much of it (helium) on the earth, and it does not fuse with deuterium at the same rate as deuterium and tritium fuse. It's a couple of orders or magnitude less reactive."

Congressman Coppersmith noted $350 million was appropriated for the fusion program and he asked, "How much of that went for ITER research and development?"

Dr. Davies replied, "In this year, $52 million is going to ITER, and we're planning $64.5 million next year." He then asked, "And how much of the $340 million in the current fiscal year was spent on the tokamak research reactor development, research and development generally?"

Dr. Davies said, “Oh, it must be about $188 million."

Congressman Walker noted, "I remember coming here as a relatively new Member (17 years ago) and listening to some of these hearings and being told at that time that we were ten years away from success back in the last seventies, and the time line always seems to be ten years. Now I must admit that today we're maybe becoming a little more honest. It sounds to me more like 20 years today."

Dr. Davies responded saying, "We understand enough of the fundamental science of tokamaks to understand how to design one that will be self-sustaining.

Dr. Davies also mentioned a number of fusion concepts that had been experimented with over the years. She said, "There were ion rings, there were dense z pinches, also electrostatic confinement schemes."

Congressman Walker asked, "If we put money in for alternatives, how are you going to get the community to really respond to some of the new concepts that might, in fact, get in the way of the 20 years of experimentation that has basically gone on along a single track?"

Dr. Davies noted that investments have been made in nontokamak concepts.

At this point, Chairman Lloyd made the following statement: "This Committee should very closely look at the guidance that we're giving you in your Department, because if we're going to say you hurry up, do this as quickly as you possibly can, we're sorry that we haven't moved on it any faster than we have but we can't have it both ways. We can't tell you to maximize your efforts and at the same time tell you to continue to look at every technology that comes along, because I don't think you can do that. And I think that's the dilemma that we have that we want to cut back on the programs, but at the same time, we have to look at what is, in our judgment, . . . the best technology, the best way to spend our money to maximize our return in the quickest possible time.” The ITER Program

According to Paul-Henri Rebut, Director of the ITER, the world is now within a factor of five of the performance required for a fusion reactor. He noted the Joint European Torus (JET) had produced a megawatt of fusion power for more than two seconds. This he said has effectively demonstrated scientific feasibility. The ITER will be the first experimental reactor and is expected to produce over a billion watts. Director Rebut commented on his interest in seeing ITER built, but his paramount objective was in seeing fusion as a major source of energy. He also sees a need for a complimentary program including an intense neutron source for materials testing, but he also believes innovation and development of a different fusion source and education and training of the next generation of scientists and engineers is important.

There has been strong support from the international team leading toward a common goal.

Director Rebut commented on the need for strong participation and leadership by the U.S.

Dr. Charles Baker is the U.S. Home Team Leader. Home Team refers to one of the four equal parties engaged in the design of the ITER; Euratom, Japan, Russia, and the United States. Dr. Baker reported the project as progressing well and noted the ITER is essentially an "engineering test reactor." The U.S. plans to spend approximately $450 million on the design of the ITER along with approximately $1.3 billion from the other three parties.

A number of U.S. companies are involved, including Ebasco, General Atomics, General Dynamics, Grumman, McDonnell Douglas,

Pittsburgh Des Moines, Rockwell International, and Westinghouse. This year, activities will include engineering studies, systems evaluation and technology development. These have been funded at $52 million for the U.S. Home Team.

Dr. Baker emphasized the importance of selecting a U.S. site as a possible location for the construction of the ITER. He cautioned that such a site should be selected within two or three years. Dr. Baker also urged that site selection be expedited, especially since the design of the ITER must accommodate local terrain, soil characteristics, and communication constraints.

Continuing research at the TFTR

Chairman Lloyd questioned Dr. Baker on the definition of specific ITER design tasks assigned to the U.S. Home Team. Dr. Baker cited design of the superconducting magnets. But as he later slated, all four parties are working on the magnets.

The fabrication of superconducting wire will be shared between the parties. Chairman Lloyd then asked Dr. Rebut what ITER will accomplish that JET and TFTR will not. Dr. Rebut said ITER will provide for a self burning plasma without auxiliary heat input as required by JET and TFTR.

Congressman Scott asked about the ITER site and infrastructure requirements. Dr. Baker answered in the affirmative mentioning the need for schooling, employment for wives, the need to attract scientists and engineers. He continued saying, "what we hope to do is have the Department of Energy undertake a process to lay out how we would go about site selection in the United States.

Congressman Scott asked Dr. Rebut about the participation of industry. Dr. Rebut answered by saying industry participation was needed to advance technology development and also in producing equipment.

Dr. Baker offered that ITER was a multi-billion dollar construction project. It would offer opportunities for architect-engineers. He also cited R&D opportunities particularly in advanced materials. Congressman Scott asked if the R&D opportunities would go to U.S. firms, to which the reply was that the $450 million in FY 94 was for U.S. R&D.

Dr. Davidson commented on the work to be done at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory using the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR). It is interesting to note that the TFTR was once thought of as a reactor while that definition is now reserved for the ITER, the first fusion reactor.

The construction of TFTR began in 1976 and one goal was to produce fusion plasma temperatures of 100 million degrees as is required in the ITER. TFTR has passed this goal with temperatures of 400 million degrees.

The plan is to introduce tritium in the TFTR for the first time in the Fall of 1993 and produce 5 million watts of fusion power. In 1994 the power level is to be increased to 10 million watts which would be about 5 times that produced in the Joint European Torus in 1991.

Environmental safety and health compliance requirements have been proceeding well including approval of the environmental assessment (EA), public briefings and DOE approval of the final safe

ty analysis report. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 also calls for the design and construction of a major new national facility for fusion R&D. The facility, called the Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX) is also to be constructed at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.

It is hoped that results from the TPX will eventually contribute to a smaller, more economical fusion reactor that could operate continuously. The TPX is to use some of the existing facilities at Princeton. Design of the TPX is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1994.

Chairman Lloyd asked if the TPX would be completed in time to have an impact on the ITER.

Dr. Davidson responded saying he thought it would impact ITER in several ways. First, he said through superconducting magnet design, and accommodation of higher power densities, through testing advanced diverter concepts and through design of high heat flux components.

Congressman Fawell questioned Dr. Rebut about materials problems and Dr. Hirsch's comments about there being no qualified materials. Dr. Rebut answered by differentiating between "First Wall” (the neutron shield) and the reactor structure. He said the first wall materials will need to be replaced depending on the amount of destruction by the neutrons, and he mentioned the search for low activation materials. He also mentioned the possibility of recycling such materials.

Congressman Fawell asked Dr. Baker if he saw a need to rebuild a fusion reactor every five or ten years. Dr. Baker indicated no, that only the first wall, constituting 10 percent of the reactor would have to be replaced.

Mr. Fawell then asked about the Deuterium-Tritium (D/T) experiments at Princeton and how they would impact decommissioning and decontamination of the TFTR. Dr. Baker replied that it would take a year for the TFTR before it would be ready to decommission and the decommissioning would take two to three years.

Mr. Fawell went on to ask what would be learned from the D/T experiments. Dr. Baker responded they would explore the effects of D/T plasma on equilibrium, stability and the transport process. He also expects to see initial evidence of alpha particles producing some self-heating of the plasma. These experiments will be important in supporting ITER in its ignited plasma stage. (That is in design and construction for ignited plasma.)

Alternative energy concepts

Congressman Swett chaired the part of the hearing which covered alternative fusion concepts. The first witness was Dr. Klaus Berkner, Associate Laboratory Director of Operations at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Dr. Berkner addressed the Heavy Ion Fusion Development Program. He explained the relationship to the defense program and mentioned substantial progress in the last two years. In deference to a Tokamak, the Heavy Ion program uses an accelerator to strike tiny pellets with beams having a hundred trillion watts of power forcing the pellets, which contain deuterium and tritium, to implode and force the deuterium/tritium to fuse, thereby releasing energy.

The heavy ion beams require further development for energy systems. The next step in this program is the development of the Induction Linac System ILSE which was also included in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The conceptual design has been completed and the cost for development is estimated at $4 million and three and a half years to complete. The ILSE has been talked about for five years.

Dr. Berkner stated the Fusion Policy Advisory Committee, in 1990, recommended heavy ions as the proper driver for development of commercial inertial fusion energy.

The National Academy of Science also endorsed the ILSE program, and recently, the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee also endorsed the development of the ILSE.

Dr. Berkener testified that progress in heavy ion fusion research has been successful technically, but has not been adequately funded.

When this program was transferred to the Office of Fusion Energy it was funded at $9 million in 1992. It dwindled to $8 million in 1993 and $4 million in FY 1994. This level of funding is unrealistic. $20 million per year is needed to develop the Heavy Ion inertial fusion system.

Aneutronic fusion was presented by Dr. Bogdan Maglich, Chief Scientist for the Advanced Physics Corporation. Dr. Maglich mentioned that the General Electric Corporation is also involved in researching this technology. The Committee also recognizes that several other scientists are pursuing the same technology.

Dr. Maglich mentioned the use of lithium in tokamaks (which is needed to breed tritium) saying, "They (meaning tokamak scientists) need two fuels that are often ommitted (not discussed). They are highly toxic beryllium, and highly flammable lithium, enormous complexity-wise, and because of the low power density, very expensive per unit of electricity to get generated."

Dr. Maglich continued, "First the size of the fusion reactor, for the past 30 years there has been a tenet that fusion reactors must be large. The larger it can be made, the more likely that it will work. That is why the only power-generating-this is the only power generator in the world whose nonoperating model would cost $10 billion. This is leading to the escalation of money and size of proportions that has completely damaged any chance of getting financial funding for this type of fusion."

Dr. Maglich proposed that a new office be established in the Department of Energy, under entirely new management, which would provide for the development of alternative technologies leading to the generation of electric power from the fusion of light elements. He also stressed the need for industry participation in such developments.

Dr. Edmond Storms acting in his own behalf presented testimony on a non-tokamak approach to producing energy from certain_elements. He stated: "Starting with the work in 1989 by Drs. Pons and Fleischmann, many observations have indicated that it is apparently possible to initiate nuclear reactions in certain metals near room temperature and that these reactions result in significant heat production as well as various low-level nuclear products."