Uneventful Hearing on U.S. Fusion Energy Program
The Department of Energy’s fusion energy research program was the subject of an afternoon hearing before the House Subcommittee on Energy on April 21, 1994. The hearing was billed as an opportunity for the subcommittee to receive testimony from, as subcommittee chair Marilyn Lloyd (D-TN) said, those who were not largely the “traditional insiders.” Aside from Rep. Dick Swett (D-NH), who chaired the hearing, it attracted little Member interest.
Swett said American taxpayers have spent approximately $10 billion on fusion research, and noted that decades of additional research will be needed. He was critical of DOE’s focus on the tokamak concept for fusion energy, saying that the department was “betting only one number on the roulette wheel.” Swett called for a fundamental restructuring of the fusion program to allow more diversity, which is directly counter to the sentiments of a major player in fusion policy on Capitol Hill, Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA). Johnston, who chairs the two most important Senate subcommittees with jurisdiction over the DOE fusion program, sponsored Senate-passed S. 646, a bill strongly supporting the proposed International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (which is based on the tokamak design.) This bill is now before the House science committee.
The first witnesses was Dr. Martha Krebs, Director of DOE’s Office of Energy Research. Krebs explained that DOE wants to have an operating fusion demonstration plant by 2025, and an operating commercial power plant by 2040. Noting tight budget constraints, she said that DOE is focusing on the tokamak design for several reasons, citing extensive evaluations of different fusion approaches, as well as international support for the tokamak concept. Pursuing a different approach would require the U.S. to fund the alternative in whole, rather than in part. Krebs continued that DOE also supports inertial fusion energy research, and testified it will not be until after 2020 that it will be possible “to make a choice between them.” DOE’s inertial program was characterized as “small,” with a much larger inertial weapons program at the Department of Defense.
Responding to questions, Krebs admitted that the last review of DOE’s fusion program was in 1990, and said “certainly we could do that” when asked if the department could perform another review. However, she resisted Swett’s suggestion to significantly reduce tokamak funding to allow funding of other approaches, saying that it “would have a tremendous negative impact” on DOE’s ability to deliver on the projected fusion energy schedule.
The subcommittee received testimony from a number of other witnesses who discussed the current DOE program, including Princeton’s Tokamak Physics Experiment and ITER, and future energy demand. Although questions were raised, none seemed to pose a significant challenge to the program. Of greater worry is the degree to which Congress is willing to fund a research program designed to meet projected energy shortages that are 30 to 60 years in the future, when discretionary spending caps are making it difficult to meet current needs. Said one witness, “Please do not give up. We are winning.”
