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

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."

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California, Chairman

CONTENTS

May 5, 1993:

WITNESSES

Dr. N. Anne Davies, Associate Director for Fusion Energy, U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy, Washington, DC; accompanied by Dr. Harold K.
Forsen, senior vice president for research and development, Bechtel
Corp., Washington, DC

Dr. Paul-Henri Rebut, director, international thermonuclear experimental
reactor, San Diego Co-Center, La Jolla, CA; accompanied by Dr.
Charles C. Baker, international thermonuclear experimental reactor,
U.S. home team leader, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
TN; and Dr. Ronald C. Davidson, director, Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory, Princeton, NJ

Dr. Klaus H. Berkner, associate laboratory director, operations, Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA; accompanied by Dr. Bogdan_C.
Maglich, chief scientist, Advanced Physics Corp., Irvine, CA; Dr. Ed-
mund Storms, staff member, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los
Alamos, NM; and Dr. Randell L. Mills, president, Hydrocatalysis Power
Corp., Lancaster, PA

.............

APPENDIX I

Additional questions and answers submitted for the record

214