
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), center, on a visit to the ITER site in March 2022. ITER Chief Scientist Tim Luce, right, testified before Manchin’s committee on Sept. 15. (Image credit – ITER)
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), center, on a visit to the ITER site in March 2022. ITER Chief Scientist Tim Luce, right, testified before Manchin’s committee on Sept. 15. (Image credit – ITER)
On Sept. 22, the Department of Energy launched
The program is the first major step DOE has taken to implement a national policy turn toward supporting commercial fusion energy. That turn was mandated almost two years ago through the Energy Act of 2020
As developments continue to unfold, questions still swirl around what a national policy for commercial fusion power should look like, and on Sept. 15 the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing
Projected time horizons for practical fusion power have recently been becoming more ambitious. The FESAC long-range plan set a target of completing a pilot plant by the 2040s. Hsu, appearing as a witness at least month’s hearing, said DOE’s objective is to resolve “remaining scientific and technological challenges” during the current decade, with a pilot plant and first commercial deployments following in the 2030s.
Another witness, Commonwealth Fusion Systems CEO Bob Mumgaard, stressed that competition is motivating players to move quickly. “We are in a race to put that fusion on the grid as soon as possible in the ‘30s, and the consequences of not winning are substantial,” he warned. In his written testimony
A third witness, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab Director Steven Cowley, singled out China and the U.K. as major competitors. “China has a plan to get a pilot plant together on a slightly accelerated timescale, even compared to ours. And interestingly, they just announced a second machine to try and rival what Commonwealth Fusion are doing and go that route, which is the more compact route,” he said, adding, “Whether they’ll move as fast as the private sector in the U.S., I have my doubts.”
Addressing work in the U.K., Mumgaard remarked, “The U.K. is in the middle of executing a very good transition from focusing on plasma science to enabling technology development at the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority and building test stands that other people are going to come use. And they’ve grown an entire technology cohort of people doing so.”
This week, the U.K. announced
The U.S. is not currently planning to back a particular pilot project. The new milestone-based program supports applications
All applications for the milestone-based program must be led by for-profit companies, though partners may include national labs, universities, and other organizations. The new CHIPS and Science Act has also directed DOE to support at least two “national teams” to develop conceptual designs and technology roadmaps for a pilot plant.
At the hearing, Cowley strongly endorsed that proposal, saying, “This is essential. We must urgently form those teams and develop these conceptual designs. … We’re ready to go.”
Advocating for federal leadership in fusion energy, Mumgaard suggested the government will play a role that complements industry. He remarked, “We need the DOE national labs, the universities to focus on their core strengths — which is scientific computing, innovation at the basic science level, materials, et cetera — while the private sector focuses on its core strengths, which is deploying technologies, building things, engineering, market assessments, understanding what is attractive.”
Responding to a question from Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) about the federal role in view of the large scale of private investment, Mumgaard said, “Just because we have Boeing doesn’t mean that we stop building wind tunnels in the public program. You have to keep innovating on the science. … And if we’re right, and we build a giant fusion industry, something like ITER makes a whole lot of sense, because it’s going to continue to be a center of excellence to try new things that are too risky for private programs to try.”
ITER has been in the works since the 1980s. While it will never produce electricity, it has been aiming to start plasma experiments in 2025 and to conduct experiments that produce more energy than they consume in the mid-2030s. However, the project is preparing to announce
The U.S. is currently contributing about $240 million to the project per year, and the CHIPS and Science Act recommends
At the hearing, senators expressed a range of views about ITER. In his opening remarks, Committee Chair Joe Manchin (D-WV) enthused about a trip he made there
He elaborated, “Touring a facility dedicated international scientific and engineering collaboration among our geopolitical rivals — including Russia, including China … — and allies helps restore faith in what we can do together given so much conflict at present.”
Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY) was more skeptical, pointing to how quickly companies such as CFS might achieve net energy production. “Should we be reprioritizing our investments in fusion research?” he asked. He also expressed wariness about the participation of China and Russia, referring to them as “bad actors.”
Sen. Angus King (I-ME) probed the issue from two opposite angles, asking whether the project exists to provide employment for scientists, but also whether the U.S. and other countries should be spending much more money on fusion given its transformative potential.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) compared fusion to the Superconducting Super Collider high-energy physics megaproject that Congress terminated in 1993. “Are we really going to get there? Is this the fuel of the future and always will be?” he mused.
In discussion with Manchin, ITER Chief Scientist Tim Luce, the hearing’s fourth witness, argued the facility will be important for validating theoretical predictions about plasma behaviors. “We believe ITER will perform that demonstration in a variety of operating scenarios. This enables others to take that information and apply it to the design of pilot plants or power plants,” he said.
In response to other questions about ITER’s value, Luce also argued that, for only the cost of their individual contributions, partner countries will have full access to its science and technology. Asked by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) whether that means the U.S. has access to intellectual property from the project, Luce said it would and stressed that, in addition, U.S. scientists will gain practical know-how in fusion through their participation.
“You don’t want a chef that’s read a cookbook. You want a chef that’s actually been in the kitchen,” he said.