HEARING SUMMARY ON FUSION ENERGY

The Subcommittee held a hearing on May 5, 1993, in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Subcommittee Chairman Marilyn Lloyd opened the hearing which was convened to review the current state of fusion development, to obtain a better understanding of the Administration's proposed program for the years ahead, and to receive testimony on alternative fusion processes.

Background

What is fusion research? Nationally and internationally, it is a number of scientific programs directed to the pursuit of a source of energy made possible through the joining of one or more atomic particles. Formerly called "controlled fusion" to differentiate it from atomic weapons, the U.S. Government began to research the science of deriving energy from fusion reactions around 1955. Thirty-eight years later, the effort continues. Controlled fusion has been illusive. The theory makes sense, and there is always reference to our sun, which is a fusion reactor. But the sun is a huge globe of gas in the atomic form with a central temperature of 27 million degrees Fahrenheit and a surface temperature of ten thousand degrees Fahrenheit. The density is more than 90 times that of water. At these great temperatures and densities, thermonuclear reactions convert hydrogen into helium, releasing energy which streams outward. The goal of this science program is to produce similar reactions on earth on a micro-scale. An uncontrolled version of such reactions is represented by the hydrogen bomb.

Numerous concepts have been pursued and substantial facilities constructed. Why should this science be pursued any longer? Chairman Lloyd answered this question when the hearing opened, saying, "We seek to provide a reliable source of electric power for future generations. Our oil, our natural gas and coal-remaining world resources-are all limited to a relatively short period of time."

Chairman Lloyd continued, "Columbus reached our shores about 500 years ago. In much less time than that, fossil fuels which provide for today's energy, for all practical purposes will be exhausted. Fusion promises us a virtually unlimited supply of potentially clean energy."

A number of fusion processes have been tried, however. Many facilities have been constructed. There was the "mirror" process at Lawrence Livermore. The concept included an enormous cylinder with magnets wrapped around the exterior and even more elaborate magnets at the ends of the cylinder. As in most experiments, the objective was to press isotopes of hydrogen together with sufficient force, at a high temperature for a sufficiently long time to cause them to "fuse" and release more energy than it took to pro

(v)

vide the reaction. But ion leakage foiled the process by resulting in losses at the ends that could not be stopped.

Meanwhile, the main line scientific effort in the United States, Europe, Japan, and Russia has been primarily directed toward the "tokamak" concept. A Russian invention, the tokamak is a cylinder bent around in a circle (toroid) and the ends joined. Powerful magnets wrap around the cylinder vertically and horizontally. Inside the cylinder an ionized gas is to consist of deuterium and tritium. This ionized gas is then heated. There has been some scientific success in achieving first-order reactions, but the soughtafter sustained reaction has been illusive.

Senator J. Bennett Johnston led the FY 1994 authorization when he introduced S. 656, a bill which shocked the "fusion community". The bill served to basically limit work in fusion physics to the International Thermonuclear Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor Program (ITER). ITER is an international program with four primary participants: the European Community, Japan, Russia, and the United States. This bill served to put the fusion community "on notice" that "time was running out" in an era of tight money supply. S. 656 served to bring forth other scientists not associated with tokamak development, thereby putting more pressure on the "main line" program. The main line program, as proposed by the Administration, also includes a new facility, the Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX), to be constructed at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.

Other potential concepts, such as Heavy Ion Inertial Fusion, and aneutronic mirror fusion science were not included in the President's FY 1994 budget. This served to limit research to one option, the tokamak.

The hearing proceeded on the basis of four major considerations: the ITER, deuterium/tritium experiments at Princeton, the TPX, and other approaches to achieving a scientific breakthrough.

Opening comments

Congressman Fawell addressed the audience, delivering comments made by Dr. Robert L. Hirsch, a well-known and respected fusion scientist and currently a Vice President of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Congressman Fawell conveyed Dr. Hirsch's primary concerns: The tokamak and laser fusion reactors as currently envisioned will be extremely complex, highly radioactive, and are likely to be highly regulated and costly (if they were to be built). 1

While Dr. Hirsch's comments make sense, there are no known alternatives to fusion as a major long-term source of primary power sufficient to meet future industrial and residential electric power requirements.

Congressman Fawell went on to state "no DOE budget documents provide either a cost estimate, a time schedule, or an understandable rationale of why the proposed research is so important."

1 The Committee has not supported funding for a laser fusion device on the basis of inadequate energy density in the driver. The Committee has supported a heavy ion driver in the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

Congressman Scott noted that "we're still at least decades away from realizing any tangible benefits from our extensive efforts in developing this technology."

Congressman Schiff stated, "I think it's time we did an evaluation of our fusion research. Given (that) the dollars for research and development are getting harder to come by, we need to establish where we are and where we're going.'

Congressman Swett mentioned his interest in alternative approaches to fusion stating that other researchers both here in the U.S. and around the world have continued to work in the field of alternative approaches. He commented, "My concern is that if we narrow the scope [of our research too much), we [will] exclude other opportunities and alternative fuels that may be available and not give them the opportunity to grow and develop."

Congressman Bartlett stated, "I think our country, our society in general, has been somewhat paranoid about nuclear power, and I hope that more education can change the public perception."

He continued, “I think that whether or not one makes an investment in an area, that [decision] must consider the potential for societal payoff. I am a very strong fiscal conservative, but I will tell you that in the case of fusion research, because of the enormous benefit to society-fossil fuels are not forever; in the foreseeable future, we're going to run short of oil and gas, and then we're left with coal-more difficult to use-so we must have alternative energy sources. Fusion, although difficult to obtain, is going to be enormously beneficial."

The administration's program

Dr. N. Anne Davies, Associate Director for Fusion, explained the need for continuing materials development in order to reduce residual radioactivity and increase the useful life of fusion reactor components. She said, "Considerable research lies ahead to both create and contain fusion reactions as well as extract the energy in a usable form. Whatever the configuration of the first "earthbound" fusion reactor, significant work and expense lie ahead.

The present major effort is directed toward eventually producing a sustained reaction. To this extent, experiments using deuterium and tritium are to be performed this fall in the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton. Short bursts of fusion are expected, which will yield data related to the dynamics of the plasma and solving the transport problem'." (The transport problem refers to losses that limit the plasma from continuing to burn.)

This work is a science experiment. No energy will be released. A fusion facility which could produce electricity would be equipped with many more subsystems. Subsystems to continuously feed deuterium and tritium have yet to be developed. Subsystems to make tritium through have to be developed in the future. Subsystems to capture the energy gained and provide it in a useful form also have yet to be developed. Clearly, considerable scientific achievements lie ahead, not to mention development of systems through engineering design, testing, and evaluation before fusion can be considered as an energy source.

Scientists throughout the world have long collaborated on fusion science. However, the pace of this cooperation is being accelerated

through the development of the ITER. Three cocenters-one in San Diego, one in Japan, and one in Germany-are participating in the design. According to informal reports, a significant degree of conservatism is being incorporated in the design to assure meeting performance objectives. The ITER is to be the first experimental facility capable of producing a continuously burning plasma. In the interim, scientific experiments continue at facilities in San Diego, D-III-D, and Alcator C-Mod at MIT.

A newly proposed facility, the TPX experiment, is to be a tokamak having a high current drive with the capability to operate on less power input, thereby advancing closer to an eventual reactor. It would be the only experiment in the world in which to verify theories at pulse lengths up to 16 minutes.

While continuing with the development of fusion science, witness Harold Forsen stated, "It is also important to recognize that there are several additional large-scale experiments that are required before the science and engineering of fusion can really be fully evaluated. These experiments should include steady state operation, materials testing, blanket design, and engineering for power production."

Mr. Coppersmith asked about fusion waste products. Dr. Forsen explained how the materials used in constructing a fusion device become radioactive as a result of deuterium being present in the plasma and neutrons resulting from deuterium reactions. He also commented on the need for the development of new materials having "low activation" properties, meaning less likely to become radioactive. He mentioned that such materials, even when radioactive, would be at a low level of radioactivity enabling easier handling techniques.

Congressman Barton questioned prior-year investments asking, "How many billions of dollars have we spent on traditional fusion research? Do you happen to know?" Dr. Davies replied that she did not know but suggested it might be about $8 billion. Congressman Barton then asked if we were anywhere near having a working fusion reactor, one with a self-sustaining ignited plasma. Dr. Davies answered that ITER would be self-sustaining, but it would be about 2005 before it was built.

Concerns about program direction

Congressman Barton expressed his interest in the aneutronic fusion concept while questioning why the program had not been funded. He asked, "Is that purely and simply a factor of all the monies going to the traditional fusion program, or are there some real scientific questions about this alternative in the research community?"

Dr. Davies answered, "that proposal or a scaled-down proposal, we have we issued Requests for Proposals for small experiments, setting aside a million dollars this year, next, and the following year, with the idea that we would try to put more in, depending on what proposals were and how they reviewed."

Congressman Barton went on to state, "I would hope the Department of Energy would really seriously review this particular program (referring to aneutronic fusion, which is under development by at least two non-government organizations) because if it's