[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FOSTERING A NEW ERA
OF FUSION ENERGY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 17, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-38
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-102PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin VACANCY
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York, Chairman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon RANDY WEBER, Texas,
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan Ranking Member
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico JIM BAIRD, Indiana
JERRY McNERNEY, California MIKE GARCIA, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
C O N T E N T S
November 17, 2021
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Jamaal Bowman, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 15
Written Statement............................................ 16
Witnesses:
Dr. Troy Carter, Director, Plasma Science and Technology
Institute, University of California, Los Angeles and Chair,
Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Long Range Planning
Subcommittee
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Written Statement............................................ 21
Dr. Tammy Ma, Program Element Leader for High Energy Density
Science, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 25
Written Statement............................................ 27
Dr. Robert Mumgaard, CEO, Commonwealth Fusion Systems
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 37
Dr. Kathryn McCarthy, Director, U.S. ITER Project Office
Oral Statement............................................... 47
Written Statement............................................ 49
Dr. Steven Cowley, Director, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 58
Written Statement............................................ 60
Discussion
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Robert Mumgaard, CEO, Commonwealth Fusion Systems............ 92
Dr. Steven Cowley, Director, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. 96
FOSTERING A NEW ERA
OF FUSION ENERGY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m.,
via Zoom, Hon. Jamaal Bowman [Chairman of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Good morning, everyone. This hearing will
come to order. Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to
declare recess at any time.
Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note that,
today, the Committee is meeting virtually. I want to announce a
couple of reminders to the Members about the conduct of this
hearing. First, Members should keep their video feed on as long
as they are present in the hearing. Members are responsible for
their own microphones. Please also keep your microphones muted
unless you are speaking. Finally, if Members have documents
they wish to submit for the record, please email them to the
Committee Clerk, whose email address was circulated prior to
the hearing.
Good morning, and thank you to this excellent panel of
witnesses who are joining us virtually today to discuss recent
breakthroughs and next steps for the Department of Energy's
(DOE's) fusion energy research activities. As our witnesses
will be able to discuss in much more detail, fusion is the
process that powers the Sun and the stars. It is a simple fact
that this fundamental phenomenon is essential to the existence
of vital renewable energy sources like solar and wind energy,
and indeed to life on Earth.
For many decades, top scientists around the globe have
worked to find ways to replicate the conditions enabled by the
immense sheer gravity inside the core of a star to harness this
potentially limitless source of clean energy more directly.
There have been challenges and setbacks along the way, and
significant challenges remaining on the path toward realizing
this transformative goal. But we now have new reasons for hope,
as well as comprehensive roadmaps driven by the research
community to guide us on this path.
On August 8th this past summer, the National Ignition
Facility (NIF) at DOE's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL) produced the first so-called ``burning plasma'' in a
manmade experiment. A burning plasma is a condition in which
the fusion process itself provides the primary heat source to
sustain the fuel's high temperatures that keep the fusion
process going. The achievement of a burning plasma is a
critical step for the development of any viable fusion energy
system.
And on September 5th, less than a month later, Commonwealth
Fusion Systems (CFS) and its partners at MIT (Massachusetts
Institute of Technology) achieved a successful test of a high-
temperature superconducting (HTS) magnet up to a field strength
of 20 tesla, the most powerful magnetic field of its kind ever
created on Earth. Such a magnet could enable fusion systems
that are significantly smaller, lower cost, and faster to build
than what was previously thought possible.
I am also pleased to highlight that the fusion research
community has stepped up in recent years to produce a long-
range strategic plan, which this Committee had directed the
Department of Energy to initiate in the DOE Research and
Innovation Act that was enacted in 2018. It is important for us
in Congress to have a far better understanding of how the
community would prioritize research activities and facility
construction plans under a range of plausible budget scenarios.
I recognize that tough decisions were made by the community in
carrying out this effort, and hope that this hard and thorough
work is better recognized in DOE's forthcoming budget requests
for these programs.
Thank you all again, and I look forward to this discussion.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Bowman follows:]
Good morning, and thank you to this excellent panel of
witnesses who are joining us virtually today to discuss recent
breakthroughs and next steps for the Department of Energy's
fusion energy research activities.
As our witnesses will be able to discuss in much more
detail, fusion is the process that powers the sun and the
stars. It is a simple fact that this fundamental phenomenon is
essential to existence of vital renewable energy sources like
solar and wind energy, and indeed to life on earth. For many
decades, top scientists around the globe have worked to find
ways to replicate the conditions enabled by the immense, sheer
gravity inside the core of a star to harness this potentially
limitless source of clean energy more directly.
There have been challenges and setbacks along the way, and
significant challenges remain on the path toward realizing this
transformative goal. But we now have new reasons for hope, as
well as comprehensive roadmaps driven by the research community
to guide us on this path. On August 8th this past summer, the
National Ignition Facility at DOE's Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory produced the first so-called ``burning plasma'' in a
man-made experiment. A burning plasma is a condition in which
the fusion process itself provides the primary heat source to
sustain the fuel's high temperatures that keep the fusion
process going. The achievement of a burning plasma is a
critical step for the development of any viable fusion energy
system.
And on September 5th, less than a month later, Commonwealth
Fusion Systems and its partners at MIT achieved a successful
test of a high-temperature, superconducting magnet up to a
field strength of 20 tesla, the most powerful magnetic field of
its kind ever created on earth. Such a magnet could enable
fusion systems that are significantly smaller, lower cost, and
faster to build than what was previously thought possible.
I am also pleased to highlight that the fusion research
community has stepped up in recent years to produce a long-
range strategic plan, which this Committee had directed the
Department of Energy to initiate in the DOE Research and
Innovation Act that was enacted in 2018. It is important for us
in Congress to have a far better understanding of how the
community would prioritize research activities and facility
construction plans under a range of plausible budget scenarios.
I recognize that tough decisions were made by the community in
carrying out this effort, and hope that this hard and thorough
work is better recognized in DOE's forthcoming budget requests
for these programs.
Thank you all again, and I look forward to this discussion.
Chairman Bowman. With that, I now recognize Mr. Weber for
an opening statement.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Chairman Bowman, for holding this
hearing, and thank you to our witness panel for joining us this
morning. Today's topic is one that many of us are very familiar
with, but we remain extremely intrigued by: fusion energy.
In the most basic of terms, fusion energy aims to create
the equivalent of a controlled Sun and harness it as a power
source here on Earth. Easy enough, right? But as you might
imagine, the extreme temperatures, pressures, and confinement
conditions required to do this also require a highly
specialized environment. This makes achieving fusion energy one
of the greatest challenges in experimental physics today.
The potential benefits of a fusion reactor are beyond
calculation. The fuel is abundant and widely accessible, the
carbon footprint is functionally zero, and the radioactive
waste concerns are almost nonexistent. If we are serious about
a clean energy future with low power sector emissions, there is
no ambition that fits that bill better than fusion.
The Department of Energy supports fusion R&D (research and
development) primarily through its Fusion Energy Sciences, or
FES, program. In Fiscal Year 2021, the FES received $672
million, but the House-passed bipartisan bill that I was proud
to cosponsor, the DOE Science for the Future Act, seeks to
nearly double that by Fiscal Year 2026. This shows our
overwhelming support for current research efforts and a
bipartisan desire to leverage the untapped potential of fusion.
I'd like to thank my colleague, Energy Subcommittee Chairman
Bowman, as well as Ranking Member Lucas and Chairwoman Johnson,
for their leadership on this bill.
Domestically, DOE funds a diverse portfolio of fusion
energy research through its world-leading national laboratory
system and cutting-edge experimental facilities and resources,
like the National Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade at
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) and the National
Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I
look forward to hearing from esteemed representatives from
these laboratories today.
Internationally, DOE supports U.S. contributions to the
ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)
project, which many of you know is a major international
collaboration to design, build, and operate a first-of-a-kind
research facility to achieve and maintain a successful fusion
reaction in the lab. Although it is located in beautiful
southern France, a significant percentage of total U.S. awards
and obligations to ITER are carried out--pardon me--right here
in the United States, funding research and component
fabrication in American universities, national labs, and in
industry. And while the United States contributes 13 percent of
the cost of ITER, we will actually gain 100 percent of the
scientific discoveries from this project. That's a good
tradeoff, a good deal in my estimation.
This is why funding for ITER is also included in the DOE
Science for the Future Act. Upholding our end of this deal is
imperative to the success of U.S. fusion energy and to
America's standing and credibility as a global scientific
collaborator, excuse me. I look forward to hearing more on this
from Dr. Kathryn McCarthy, the Director of the U.S. ITER
Project Office--as our lights go out here. If we get fusion on
board quickly now, we won't have that problem. Did I mention we
were working on that Chairman Bowman?
Another necessary contributor to fusion research is, of
course, the private sector. Due to robust DOE investment in
this critical science, there are already 13 fusion energy
companies here in the United States. Today, we will hear from
one of these companies, Commonwealth Fusion Systems, a startup
aimed at commercializing fusion energy and has collaborated
with the National Labs through FES's Innovation Network for
Fusion Energy, or the INFUSE program. Together, our witness
panel represents unique areas of fusion energy research. They
each have a story to tell on how we've progressed over the last
decade and where we are headed in the next decade.
No matter how you look at it, achieving commercial fusion
energy technology is going to require strong U.S. leadership
and consistent investment in discovery science. Meeting our
goal of producing unlimited emission-free power through fusion
energy will truly take all of you here today.
I want to again thank again our witnesses for being here
today and yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Bowman for holding this hearing and
thank you to our witness panel for joining us this morning.
Today's topic is one that many of us are very familiar with,
but we remain extremely intrigued by--fusion energy.
In the most basic of terms, fusion energy aims to create
the equivalent of a controlled sun and harness it as a power
source here on earth. Easy enough, right? But as you might
imagine, the extreme temperatures, pressures, and confinement
conditions required to do this also require a highly
specialized environment. This makes achieving fusion energy one
of the greatest challenges in experimental physics today.
The potential benefits of a fusion reactor are beyond
calculation. The fuel is abundant and widely accessible, the
carbon footprint is functionally zero, and the radioactive
waste concerns are almost nonexistent. If we are serious about
a clean energy future with lower power sector emissions, there
is no ambition that fits the bill better than fusion.
The Department of Energy supports fusion R&D primarily
through its Fusion Energy Sciences program. In fiscal year
2021, the FES received $672 million, but the House passed
bipartisan bill I was proud to cosponsor, the DOE Science for
the Future Act, seeks to nearly double that by fiscal year
2026.
This shows our overwhelming support for current research
efforts and a bipartisan desire to leverage the untapped
potential of fusion. I'd like to thank my colleague, Energy
Subcommittee Chairman Bowman, as well as Ranking Member Lucas
and Chairwoman Johnson for their leadership on this bill.
Domestically, DOE funds a diverse portfolio of fusion
energy research through its world- leading national laboratory
system and cutting-edge experimental facilities and resources,
like the National Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade at
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory and the National Ignition
Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I look
forward to hearing from esteemed representatives from these
laboratories today.
Internationally, DOE supports U.S. contributions to the
ITER project, which is a major international collaboration to
design, build, and operate a first-of-a-kind research facility
to achieve and maintain a successful fusion reaction in the
lab. Although it is located in beautiful southern France, a
significant percentage of total U.S. awards and obligations to
ITER are carried out right here in the United States, funding
research and component fabrication in American universities,
national labs, and industry. And while the U.S. contributes 13
percent of the costs of ITER, we gain 100 percent of the
scientific discoveries from this project. That's a good deal!
This is why full funding for ITER is also included in the
DOE Science for the Future Act. Upholding our end of this deal
is imperative to the success of U.S. fusion energy, and to
America's standing and credibility as a global scientific
collaborator. I look forward to hearing more on this from Dr.
Kathryn McCarthy, the Director of U.S. ITER Project Office.
Another necessary contributor to fusion research is, of
course, the private sector. Due to robust DOE investment in
this critical science, there are already 13 fusion energy
companies are here in the U.S. Today we will hear from one of
these companies--Commonwealth Fusion Systems, a startup aimed
at commercializing fusion energy and has collaborated with the
National Labs through FES's Innovation Network for Fusion
Energy (INFUSE) program.
Together, our witness panel represents unique areas of
fusion energy research. They each have a story to tell on how
we've progressed over the last decade and where we are headed
in the next.
No matter how you look at it, achieving commercial fusion
energy technology will require strong U.S. leadership and
consistent investment in discovery science. Meeting our goal of
producing unlimited, emission free power through fusion energy
will truly take all of you here today. I want to again thank
all of our witnesses for being here and yield back the balance
of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
The Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman of the Full
Committee, Ms. Johnson, for an opening statement.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, and good morning
to all. I appreciate you holding this hearing on fusion energy
activities carried out by the Department of Energy.
There are many of us on the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee on both sides of the aisle that strongly believe that
the promise of fusion energy is worth pursuing, and for that
matter, warrants far greater support than the Federal
Government has provided to date. Fusion has been the potential
to deliver clean and abundant energy to the world, all while
producing essentially no greenhouse gas emissions.
I have previously noted that a breakthrough in fusion
energy research would be a major step in enabling our clean
energy future. And in fact there has been a couple of
significant breakthroughs within the last few months, so I am
pleased that we have witnesses here today who will discuss
those in detail. And though there is still more work that needs
to be done, the policy decisions and research investments we
make now could well enable the next key advancements to come
much sooner.
Fusion energy research has had a longstanding support from
the Science Committee. I am proud to say that over the past few
years, this Committee has advanced numerous bills that provide
significant direction for fusion research activities supported
by the Department of Energy. These include substantial
provisions in the Department of Energy Research and Innovation
Act as well as the Energy Act of 2020, both of which were
signed into law.
In June, the House passed the Department of Energy Science
for the Future Act, a bill that I lead with Ranking Member
Lucas and both Chairman Bowman and Ranking Member Weber of the
Energy Subcommittee. This bill would expand upon previously
authorized fusion energy activities, including strong
authorization of appropriations for these programs. It includes
full support for U.S. participation in ITER international
fusion project. And I would say that Congressman Lucas and I
have visited that project.
And I would be remiss if I did not note that this Committee
included $1.24 billion in total funding for fusion energy R&D
and $1.6 billion in total support for fusion facility
construction and equipment in the text that it advances for the
Build Back Better Act.
I was also pleased to see the recent reports released by
both the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) and
the National Academies. These reports outline strategic
investments needed to enable a robust national fusion research
program, including steps required to develop a pilot plant for
fusion energy.
Despite all of this progress made by Congress and the
fusion research community, the Department of Energy has yet to
implement much of the guidance provided by these external
advisory reports, nor has DOE implemented much of the direction
provided in law. We need to do better, especially at this time
when there is so much more work to be done in this field.
I very much look forward to the testimony today from this
panel of distinguished witnesses. And with that, Mr. Chairman,
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Bowman, for holding
this hearing on fusion energy activities carried out by the
Department of Energy. There are many of us on the Science,
Space, and Technology Committee on both sides of the aisle that
strongly believe that the promise of fusion energy is worth
pursuing, and for that matter, warrants far greater support
than the federal government has provided to date.
Fusion has the potential to deliver clean, abundant energy
to the world, all while producing essentially no greenhouse gas
emissions. I have previously noted that a breakthrough in
fusion energy research would be a major step in enabling our
clean energy future. And in fact, there have been a couple of
significant breakthroughs within the last few months, so I am
pleased that we have witnesses here today who will discuss
those in detail. And though there is still more work that needs
to be done, the policy decisions and research investments we
make now could well enable the next key advancements to come
much sooner.
Fusion energy research has had longstanding support from
the Science Committee. I am proud to say that over the past few
years, this Committee has advanced numerous bills that provide
significant direction for fusion research activities supported
by the Department of Energy. These include substantial
provisions in the Department of Energy Research and Innovation
Act as well as the Energy Act of 2020, both of which were
signed into law.
In June, the House passed the Department of Energy Science
for the Future Act, a bill that I lead with Ranking Member
Lucas and both Chairman Bowman and Ranking Member Weber of the
Energy Subcommittee. This bill would expand upon previously
authorized fusion energy activities, including strong
authorization of appropriations for these programs. It includes
full support for U.S. participation in the ITER international
fusion project. And I would be remiss if I did not note that
this Committee included $1.24 billion in total funding for
fusion energy R&D and $1.6 billion in total support for fusion
facility construction and equipment in the text that it
advanced for the Build Back Better Act.
I was also pleased to see the recent reports released by
both the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee and the
National Academies. These reports outline strategic investments
needed to enable a robust national fusion research program,
including steps required to develop a pilot plant for fusion
energy.
Despite all of this progress made by Congress and the
fusion research community, the Department of Energy has yet to
implement much of the guidance provided by these external
advisory reports, nor has DOE implemented much of the direction
provided in law. We need to do better, especially at this time
when there is so much more work to do in this field.
I very much look forward to the testimony today from this
panel of distinguished experts. With that, I yield back.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you so much for your remarks,
Chairwoman Johnson.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee, Mr. Lucas, for an opening statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairman Bowman.
Today, we have an opportunity to examine the status of
fusion energy research in the United States. I look forward to
hearing more about how we can provide robust support for these
high-priority research activities both internationally and here
at home.
Fusion R&D has long enjoyed bipartisan support on the
Science Committee and for good reason. It is exactly the type
of high-risk, high-reward basic research that expands our
fundamental knowledge of science and technology and pushes the
limits of what is possible. Fusion energy has the potential to
produce discoveries that will transform our clean energy
future, keeping America energy-independent and at the same time
the cutting edge of technological progress.
To realize the promise of fusion energy, we must take an
all-of-the-above approach. We must support full funding for
U.S. participation in ITER--the leading international research
project for fusion energy--and we must make major investments
in DOE national laboratories like Princeton's Plasma Physics
Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore's National Laboratory, and we
must support productive partnerships with the rapidly growing
U.S. fusion energy industry.
Last Congress, we passed the Energy Act of 2020, which
includes significant authorizations of DOE's Fusion Energy
Science activities, including an inertial fusion R&D program,
fusion reactor system design activities, an Innovation Network
for Fusion Energy, and explicit direction for U.S.
participation in ITER.
Our bill, H.R. 3593, the Department of Energy Science for
the Future Act, will build on the success of the Energy Act.
Like that bill, DOE Science for the Future Act is
overwhelmingly bipartisan. It's the product of years of
hearings and discussions with stakeholders. The DOE Science for
the Future Act is the first comprehensive authorization of the
DOE Science--Office of Science. This legislation will invest
$50 billion over 5 years, giving the Office of Science and our
National Laboratories the resources they need to continue to
excel.
This landmark legislation includes more than $5.6 billion
for Fusion Energy Sciences, extending and supplementing
authorizations in the Energy Act. But it's not simply an
authorization of research dollars. This legislation provides
essential policy direction and strategic guidance for U.S.
fusion energy R&D based on extensive stakeholder feedback and
reports from the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee and
the National Academies. This is a thoughtful, well-vetted,
overwhelmingly bipartisan bill designed to significantly
improve American research and development.
The House approach to competitiveness legislation has been
thoughtful, deliberate, and strategic. It makes smart
investments to make continuous improvements to American
research and development. So as discussions are starting about
incorporating competitiveness legislation into the NDAA
(National Defense Authorization Act), I believe it's critical
our priorities are included.
This Congress, we've seen a lot of multi-trillion-dollar
spending proposals come and go. We've heard a lot about so-
called opportunities to cut corners and to heavily compromise
on our shared principles. The best path forward for fusion
energy legislation is the DOE Science for the Future Act. We
can't afford to accept--let's just be blunt about it--the
Senate's half-baked proposal, and we can't afford to accept a
social engineering bill with a fraction of our fusion energy
investments, stripped of policy direction and long-term
planning.
I appreciate Chairman Johnson and Chairman Bowman's
commitment to our shared goal of strengthening our investment
in fusion energy, and I look forward to working together to get
this bill signed into law.
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today and
for outlining their plans to make fusion energy a reality for
the next generation. I look forward to a productive discussion.
And I thank you, Chairman Bowman, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Bowman.
Today, we have an opportunity to examine the status of
fusion energy research in the United States. I look forward to
hearing more about how we can provide robust support for these
high-priority research activities both internationally and here
at home.
Fusion R&D has long enjoyed bipartisan support on the
Science Committee--and for good reason. It is exactly the type
of high-risk, high-reward basic research that expands our
fundamental knowledge of science and technology and pushes the
limits of what's possible. Fusion energy has the potential to
produce discoveries that will transform our clean energy
future, keeping America energy independent and at the cutting
edge of technological progress.
To realize the promise of fusion energy, we must take an
all-of-the-above approach. We must support full funding for
U.S. participation in ITER--the leading international research
project for fusion energy--and we must make major investments
in DOE national laboratories like Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and we
must support productive partnerships with the rapidly growing
U.S. fusion energy industry.
Last Congress, we passed the Energy Act of 2020, which
includes significant authorizations of DOE's fusion energy
sciences activities, including an inertial fusion R&D program,
fusion reactor system design activities, an innovation network
for fusion energy, and explicit direction for U.S.
participation in ITER.
Our bill, H.R. 3593, the Department of Energy Science for
the Future Act, will build on the success of the Energy Act.
Like that bill, the DOE Science for the Future Act is
overwhelmingly bipartisan. It's the product of years of
hearings and discussions with stakeholders. The DOE Science for
the Future Act is the first comprehensive authorization of the
DOE Office of Science. This legislation will invest $50 billion
over 5 years, giving the Office of Science and our National
Labs the resources they need to continue to excel.
This landmark legislation includes more than $5.6 billion
for Fusion Energy Sciences, extending and supplementing
authorizations in the Energy Act. But it's not simply an
authorization of research dollars. This legislation provides
essential policy direction and strategic guidance for U.S.
fusion energy R&D based on extensive stakeholder feedback and
reports from the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee and
the National Academies. This is a thoughtful, well-vetted, and
overwhelmingly bipartisan bill, designed to significantly
improve American research and development.
The House approach to competitiveness legislation has been
thoughtful, deliberate, and strategic. It makes smart
investments to make continuous improvements to American
research and development. So as discussions are starting about
incorporating competitiveness legislation in the NDAA, I
believe it's critical our priorities are included.
This Congress, we've seen a lot of multi-trillion-dollar
spending proposals come and go, and we've heard a lot about so-
called ``opportunities'' to cut corners and heavily compromise
on our shared priorities. The best path forward for fusion
energy legislation is the DOE Science for the Future Act. We
can't afford to accept the Senate's half- baked proposal, and
we can't afford to accept a social spending bill with a
fraction of our fusion investments, stripped of policy
direction and long-term planning.
I appreciate Chairwoman Johnson's and Chairman Bowman's
commitment to our shared goal of strengthening our investment
in fusion energy and I look forward to working together to get
this bill signed into law.
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today,
and for outlining their plans to make fusion energy a reality
for the next generation. I look forward to a productive
discussion. Thank you, Chairman Bowman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Ranking Member Lucas, for your
remarks.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. Dr.
Troy Carter is a Professor of Physics and the Director of the
Plasma Science and Technology Institute at the University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA). He chaired the long-range
planning subcommittee of the DOE Office of Science's Fusion
Energy Sciences Advisory Committee. Professor Carter is also
the Director of the Basic Plasma Science Facility, a
collaborative research facility for fundamental plasma science
supported by DOE and NSF (National Science Foundation). His
research focuses on experimental studies and magnetized
plasmas.
Dr. Tammy Ma is the Program Element Leader for High-
Intensity Laser High Energy Density Science at the National
Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
This group pioneered the use of the highest intensity lasers in
the world to investigate novel states of matter, study
laboratory astrophysics, and explore fusion physics.
Dr. Robert Mumgaard is the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of
Commonwealth Fusion Systems. CFS is a private commercial fusion
company with the goal of commercializing a high magnetic field
approach to fusion. Dr. Mumgaard performed his Ph.D. work at
MIT where he substantially contributed to the development of
this approach.
Dr. Kathryn McCarthy is a U.S. ITER Project Director, as
well as Associate Laboratory Director for Fusion and Fission
Energy and Science at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). She
served on the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee from
1999 to 2013 and on the U.S. ITER Technical Advisory Committee
from 2010 to 2013 and has held numerous leadership positions in
the American Nuclear Society. Dr. McCarthy joined Oak Ridge
National Laboratory after 3 years at Laboratory Director--as
laboratory Director for the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. She
previously held a variety of engineering and leadership roles
at Idaho National Laboratory.
Dr. Steven Cowley is the seventh Director of the Princeton
Plasma Physics Laboratory and a Princeton Professor of
Astrophysical Sciences. Prior to joining PPPL, he was President
of Corpus Christi College and a Professor of Physics at the
University of Oxford. Dr. Cowley previously was Chief Executive
Officer of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and head
of the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy. From 2011 to 2017 he
was a member of the U.K. Prime Minister's Council on Science
and Technology and was even knighted by the Queen of England in
2018. So we should actually call you Sir Dr. Steven Cowley, my
apologies, sir.
Thank you all for joining us today. As our witnesses should
know, you will each have 5 minutes for your spoken testimony.
Your written testimony will be included in the record for the
hearing. When you all have completed your spoken testimony, we
will begin with questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to
question the panel.
We will start with Dr. Carter. Dr. Carter, please begin.
TESTIMONY OF DR. TROY CARTER,
DIRECTOR, PLASMA SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, AND CHAIR,
FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
LONG RANGE PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE
Dr. Carter. Thank you. Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member
Weber of the Subcommittee, Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking
Member Lucas of the Full Committee, and distinguished Members
of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing and for
providing me and my colleagues with the opportunity to testify.
My name is Troy Carter. I'm the Director of the Plasma Science
and Technology Institute and Professor of Physics at UCLA. I
serve on the DOE Office of Science's Fusion Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee, or FESAC. I'm speaking today in my capacity
as an academic researcher. I'm not here to formally represent
UCLA or FESAC.
As was already mentioned, I recently chaired a FESAC
subcommittee that was charged with developing a long-range plan
for fusion energy and plasma science research for DOE. The
resulting consensus report, ``Powering the Future Fusion and
Plasmas,'' was a result of a 2-year strategic planning process
with strong engagement from the entire research community,
including universities, national labs, and industry. The report
represents a 10-year strategy for both fusion energy
development and for advancing plasma science and related
technologies. I'll focus my brief comments here on fusion
energy strategy in that report. I'd be happy to take questions
on broader plasma science and engineering.
The main message I want you to take away from my remarks is
that now is the time to move aggressively toward the
development and deployment of fusion energy. Fusion will
provide carbon-free, safe electricity generation that can
substantially power society and mitigate climate change.
Why are we confident that now is the right time? There's
been important scientific and technological process, coupled
with a strongly growing private sector, that positions us to
realize a unique U.S. vision for economical fusion energy with
the goal of an electricity-producing fusion pilot plant. This
unique vision was first laid out in the 2019 National Academies
report, ``A Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research,''
as endorsed by our FESAC report and also by the 2021 National
Academies report ``Bringing Fusion to the U.S. Grid.'' The
strong support for fusion energy research, including from this
Committee and Congress--thank you--has enabled important recent
scientific progress and breakthroughs. Several examples of this
progress is outlined in our report, for example, advances in
our understanding of fusion plasmas, achieving new performance
records.
They will also be brought up by Professor Cowley in this
hearing. He'll offer a few highlights that have occurred since
the report was published, and a couple of them have already
been brought up in the opening remarks. First is the recent
breakthrough at the National Ignition Facility just this past
summer where record gain was achieved, and this was enabled by
recently acquired scientific understanding. Dr. Ma will discuss
this very important result.
Second is the recent demonstration by Commonwealth Fusion
Systems of a high-temperature superconducting or HTS magnet,
the largest of its kind in the world, operating at 20 tesla
that was mentioned earlier. Dr. Mumgaard will discuss this
breakthrough that is really a gamechanger for fusion.
Finally, there's been important progress with the
international ITER project with the delivery of the first two
magnet modules for the ITER central solenoid. This solenoid
will be the largest low-temperature superconducting magnet in
the world, and Dr. McCarthy will talk more about this
achievement of the U.S. ITER Project Office that she leads and
General Atomics.
Alongside this technical promise--progress, we've seen
rapid growth of private sector investment in fusion energy. The
ultimate goal of fusion energy research in the United States is
the development of a commercial fusion power industry, and that
industry is already taking root. At the time of the writing of
our report, about $2 billion had been invested worldwide in
fusion energy development in the private sector, resulting in
the largest of several startup fusion companies. There's been
new investment since with just half--just in the last few weeks
half a billion more announced, and more is coming. This
investment has enabled the startup companies to make impressive
progress on development of new fusion facilities and create
enabling technologies such as the HTS magnet, as I mentioned
earlier.
The scientific progress and technical know-how developed
through the Federal program enabled the founding of these
companies, and we now have the opportunity to amplify Federal
investment through partnering. Through this partnership, we can
accelerate the timeline and reduce the cost to develop fusion
electricity. If we look at our international colleagues, in the
U.K. and China there's already a lot of money flowing through--
into such partnership programs, and they've successfully
attracted private fusion companies through that investment.
It's imperative that the United States develops and implements
new models, strengthens existing ones for partnership between
the public and private sectors.
The consensus FESAC long-range planning report makes
recommendations for actions that DOE should take to reorient
the fusion program toward the rapid development of fusion
energy. It enumerates and prioritizes urgently needed research
programs and experimental facilities.
This Committee and Congress had implored our community to
come together and create a new strategic plan for fusion. We've
now answered that charge and speak with one voice in support of
the resulting strategic plan. Now is the time to act. We need
to implement the plan.
I want to thank this Committee for authorization language
in the Science for the Future Act and in the current
reconciliation bill that was well-aligned with priorities
expressed in our report. We're ready to get to work on making
fusion power a reality and look forward to DOE implementing our
plan. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Carter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Dr. Carter.
Dr. Ma, you're now recognized.
TESTIMONY OF DR. TAMMY MA,
PROGRAM ELEMENT LEADER
FOR HIGH ENERGY DENSITY SCIENCE,
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Ma. Thank you. Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member Weber of
the Subcommittee, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas of
the Full Committee, and all Members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today to offer
testimony on fostering a new era of fusion energy research.
I'm the Program Element Leader for High Intensity Laser
High Energy Density Science at the National Ignition Facility
at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab. I have submitted my
full statement to the Committee, which I ask to be made part of
the hearing record. If I may, I will now summarize in a brief
opening statement.
The National Ignition Facility, or NIF, is the world's
largest, most energetic laser housed in a football stadium-
sized facility. The 192 very energetic laser beams of NIF are
focused onto a miniature capsule the size of a BB containing
fusion fuel. The lasers heat and compress the fuel to
conditions hotter and denser than those found at the center of
the Sun. The goal is ignition, more energy out than we put in
with the lasers.
This past August, a breakthrough fusion yield of 1.35
megajoules was achieved on the NIF, more than 2/3 of the 1.9
megajoules of the laser energy going in. This equates to an
energy gain of 70 percent of that needed for ignition and
represents a 25X improvement over experiments from a year ago.
The tremendous progress over previous results were made
possible by numerous experiments, advances in diagnostics and
targets, improved laser precision, overall better understanding
of the fusion physics, and a very dedicated team of
individuals. This result now places NIF on the threshold of
fusion ignition in the laboratory for the first time and
demonstrates the feasibility of laboratory-scale laser-driven
inertial confinement fusion (ICF) to achieve high fusion yield
conditions.
While the central mission of the NIF is to provide
experimental insight and data for the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA's) science-based Stockpile Stewardship
Program, these same fusion plasmas that we create for national
security applications can also be exploited to be the basis of
a future clean power source by inertial fusion energy (IFE).
Developing an economically attractive approach to fusion
energy is a grand scientific and engineering challenge. It is
without a doubt a monumental undertaking, but the potential
payoff is even greater: clean, limitless, reliable energy that
can not only help address the urgent issue of climate change
but can also provide energy sovereignty and security for the
United States. The profound benefit to future humanity impels
us to support a vigorous and sustained research program into
fusion with a diverse portfolio that maximizes our potential
pathways to success.
Inertial fusion energy is one such innovative approach with
significantly different technological risks to mainstream
magnetic fusion energy research. With the recent game-changing
results on the NIF and our decades of expertise in inertial
fusion science and technology, the United States is well-poised
to lead and capitalize on the potential of inertial fusion.
However, there is currently no inertial fusion energy program
in the United States, and it is not part of a long-term energy
R&D portfolio but should be.
A number of promising technologies key to eventual inertial
fusion energy systems are already making steady progress. In
particular, there have been exciting advances in high-energy
rep.-rated laser and pulsed power technology in the United
States, potentially lowering the cost for a future driver for a
fusion energy system.
Additive and advanced manufacturing are revolutionizing new
materials and techniques critical to fusion energy. Artificial
intelligence and machine learning are being deployed to train
high-performance computational models and improve prediction--
predictive simulation capabilities. The National Academy of
Sciences in 2013 released a report entitled ``An Assessment of
the Prospects for Inertial Fusion Energy.'' Amongst the many
excellent recommendations was that the appropriate time for the
establishment of a national, coordinated, broad-based inertial
fusion energy program within DOE would be when ignition is
achieved. This is the time to begin as we stand at that
threshold.
Inertial fusion energy is a multi-decadal endeavor, and
realizing it will not be easy. It will require the best minds
and bold leadership. But it is a worthy challenge. And that is
exactly where we as a nation excel. Now is the time to
reestablish a vibrant national inertial fusion energy program
and ignite a credible development path toward clean fusion
energy.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ma follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Dr. Ma.
Dr. Mumgaard, you are now recognized.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT MUMGAARD,
CEO, COMMONWEALTH FUSION SYSTEMS
Dr. Mumgaard. Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member Weber, and
other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Bob
Mumgaard. I'm appearing before you today as the CEO of
Commonwealth Fusion Systems. I'm also a board member of the
Fusion Industry Association. I'd like to thank the Subcommittee
for this opportunity to provide an update on the status and
prospects of commercial fusion energy.
After years of study, we are now at the beginning of
fusion's transition from a science to commercialization.
Fortunately, we are building off of a strong base set by basic
research funded by the government. Commercial fusion energy
could be a gamechanger in the clean energy transition, and if
fusion is to make an impact, it will necessarily create an
entirely new industry of the scale of the semiconductor or
aerospace industry with important companies like Boeing and
Intel. The future of fusion industry will bring manufacturing,
skilled jobs, and exports. And importantly, we get to decide
how that industry will work. We can build in inclusion,
diversity, equality at the outset of a technology that is
inherently environmentally just.
Unfortunately, as I look across the U.S. publicly funded
program, it's no longer clear that the United States has broad
world leadership. Much of the program in the United States
today looks the way it looked 10 years ago. We risk stagnation
at the time the rest of the world has aggressively moved
forward. The U.K., Germany, Japan, Italy, they are building
facilities first conceived by the United States. China is
rapidly investing. The U.K. has a governmentwide goal to be
first and is already siting their first plant.
However, from where I sit I see three reasons why I'm very
optimistic the United States can create a definitive lead in
this new industry. First, the growth of the private sector.
Over $2.4 billion in private capital has been invested in the
fusion companies that now number nearly 30. This is a similar
amount of capital as in nuclear fission small modular reactor
companies. This is coming from a large range of investors
across venture capitalists, to university endowments, to large
energy companies. And they are putting capital at risk in
fusion because they understand that the world needs a
fundamentally new source of clean energy if we are going to
meet our decarbonization goals. And these companies are highly
ambitious with a recent survey stating that 84 percent of them
believe that fusion will be on the grid in the 2030's or
earlier. They are now building large facilities that over the
next few years will be world-leading.
And CFS is an example of such a company. We have benefited
from public investment in fusion science whether history or--at
MIT. Our approach is based on the scientifically proven
tokamaks, similar to the design to ITER. But in our case we've
used new technology, new developed and successfully
demonstrated high temperature superconducting magnets that
allow us to shrink that tokamak to 1/40 the size of ITER. And
CFS is currently building the machine, SPARC, at a site in
Devens, Massachusetts. And based on peer-reviewed publications,
we have high confidence that SPARC will be a net energy fusion
machine and will achieve burning plasmas, which we aim to do in
2025, much earlier than people thought was possible. And after
that we will proceed with the commercialization of our first
fusion pilot plant called ARC. We hope to have that online in
the early 2030's and are starting to engage customers who have
interest. In fact, since the last House hearing on fusion, we
have doubled six times over, and we will double again this
year.
We will not wait to make decisions. We are executing. And
we are not alone. The other companies like TAE and General
Fusion, Helion Energy, Tokamak Energy are looking at similar
timeframes and experiencing similar growth. All of these
companies are looking to see which governments are going to be
the best partners. And unfortunately, we are already seeing
defections with a major facility that could have been built in
the United States instead being built in the U.K. It would be
much better if the U.S. public program leveraged the private
sector, aligning with the technical goals and timelines, to
keep it happening here.
The second reason I'm optimistic is that the public program
has produced a consensus plan. Detailed in the National
Academies and FESAC recommendations is a transition of the
public-funded program toward the United States developing
commercial energy. We need to stop some activities and
transition to others, but the researchers are enthusiastic, and
they are ready. We have a new generation of leaders at national
laboratories and universities hungry to develop that
technology. And that plan has been authorized but has not yet
been implemented. In order to be a world leader, we need to
implement that plan and increase its speed aggressively.
The third reason I'm hopeful is the movement toward public-
private partnerships. And we know that when the public and
private sectors work together and recognize what each side is
good at, we create vibrant ecosystems. We saw this in
commercial space with NASA (National Aeronautics and Space
Administration) and SpaceX. We saw it even more recently with
the COVID-19 vaccine. Working together, we can drastically
reduce timelines to not just first-of-a-kind but large markets.
And the recent Energy Act of 2020 passed into law has just such
a milestone-based program for fusion, and that needs to be
implemented.
Commercial fusion energy is within our grasp as a viable
source of clean energy led by the United States if we act now.
I am very excited to have this panel and have this Committee
take a look at this and open the discussion. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mumgaard follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Dr. Mumgaard.
Dr. McCarthy, you are now recognized.
TESTIMONY OF DR. KATHRYN McCARTHY,
DIRECTOR, U.S. ITER PROJECT OFFICE
Dr. McCarthy. Thank you very much. Chairman Bowman and
Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Weber and Ranking Member
Lucas, and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss fusion energy. My name is Kathy
McCarthy. I'm the Associate Laboratory Director for Fusion and
Fission Energy and Science at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and
Director of the U.S. ITER project.
The world is facing an urgent climate and energy crisis.
Here in the United States we need a multipronged approach to
meet our climate and energy goals. Today's nuclear energy from
fission reactors provides abundant baseload carbon-free energy.
Sustaining our current fleet is key to bridging to the near-
term option, which is advanced nuclear reactors. Both current
and advanced nuclear reactors are supported by the recently
passed infrastructure bill, and ORNL is proud to play key roles
in each.
But nuclear fusion is still the Holy Grail for energy.
Fusion has the potential to provide abundant, safe, carbon-free
energy for thousands of years and beyond. The path to fusion
energy has benefited from a number of recent advances,
including expanded scientific understanding of fusion plasma is
key to preparing for ITER operations. ITER tokamak assembly and
overall progress, the United States has already delivered the
first two modules for the heart of ITER, the central solenoid
magnet. Exciting results from the National Ignition Facility at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, accelerated
understanding of plasma performance thanks to high-performance
computing, and progress in the fusion industry with signs of
successful leveraging of national laboratory expertise. It's
important to have multiple paths to fusion under development
given how challenging it is. Having multiple approaches reduces
risk. Our investment in ITER remains vital to U.S. fusion
goals.
The recent National Academies of Science, Engineering, and
Medicine report, ``Bringing Fusion to the U.S. Grid,'' states
that, ``Technology and research results for U.S. investments in
ITER, coupled with a strong foundation of research funded by
the Department of Energy, positioned the United States to begin
planning for its first fusion pilot plant. Much of the
experience gained through the ITER process is relevant to a
pilot plant regardless of its configuration.''
Already the challenge of designing, fabricating,
delivering, and assembling first-of-a-kind components into the
ITER tokamak is yielding practical fusion reactor experience.
Domestic supply chains are being developed, fabrication
challenges are being resolved, and integration issues are being
addressed, all to assemble the world's first nuclear-certified
fusion reactor.
In addition, the U.S. work force and fusion leadership is
being maintained and further developed. For about 9 percent
toward construction costs and 13 percent toward operation
costs, the United States receives 100 percent of ITER's
science, technology, and associated intellectual property.
Recent reports from the scientific and engineering
community have shown that the United States is now ready to add
significant attention to fusion technology to develop a
practical path to a fusion pilot plant. I was a member of the
National Academies Committee that authored the report on
``Bringing Fusion to the U.S. Grid.'' Our report emphasizes the
need for investment in several areas to put the United States
on a competitive path for a future fusion energy industry. Our
final report states that, ``Successful operation of a pilot
plant in the 2025 to 2040 timeframe requires urgent investments
by DOE and private industry. Both resolve the remaining
technical and scientific issues and to design, construct, and
commission a pilot plant.
In addition to what we gain from ITER, a path to a pilot
plant demands operations of facilities such as the DIII-D
tokamak at General Atomics in California and the Material
Plasma Exposure eXperiment, MPEX, now under construction at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. Additional technology testing
facilities and innovations are needed, as outlined in the
report, such as a prototypic neutron source for testing of
advanced structural and functional materials; integrated first
wall and blanket testing to advance fuel producing technology
readiness; and innovations in boundary plasma science, fueling
technologies, and gas processing. All of these efforts will
help fusion reach commercial viability.
U.S. ITER, Oak Ridge, and many of our other national
laboratories are making crucial contributions to advance fusion
science and technology and are engaged with industry to solve
these challenges. These efforts, with an increased focus on
technology, position our Nation to include nuclear fusion in
our long-term carbon-free energy portfolio.
Thank you for your interest and your time today. I welcome
any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. McCarthy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Dr. McCarthy.
At this time we will begin our first round of questions. I
now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Carter, thank you for your testimony. You stated that
the overarching message that you want to convey today is that
now is the time to move aggressively toward the development and
deployment of fusion energy. Can you say more about what is
unique about this particular moment in the course of fusion
energy development in comparison to, say, 5 years ago or 20
years ago? And can we really expect fusion to make a real
contribution to climate action in the United States, for
example, given how quickly we need to get to a zero carbon
grid?
Dr. Carter. Thanks for the question. I would say this. The
landscape has changed dramatically over the last decade. I will
reiterate what I said in my brief remarks. There are really
three reasons for why the time is now. The scientific and
technical progress that I outlined that positions us to make
the next step, the growth of the private sector, that is
tremendously important. It puts into place interest from the
private sector and pushing commercialization.
And another thing that's very important that we lacked even
5 years ago was a vision and a strategy within the U.S. program
to execute and develop fusion energy. To elaborate more
briefly, we've advanced significantly in our predictive
capabilities for fusion plasmas. We've used these to reach
record magnetically confined pressure in tokamaks, for example,
used that understanding to enable the record NIF shot that I
mentioned, reiterate the CFS result. And, again, this is really
a gamechanger for fusion, as Bob pointed out, opening up the
operating space for fusion energy.
Again, this--to reiterate the strategy, we haven't
developed a new strategy since maybe the early 2000's. The
program had been receiving--as a science program, we didn't
really have a vision for where to go. With the National
Academies' report in 2019 and the recent report by FESAC and by
the National Academies to bring fusion to the U.S. grid, we now
have a consensus vision for when--where fusion energy
development needs to go in the United States, and this is
incredibly important.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you. Dr. McCarthy, you discuss how
fusion energy is a natural progression in the development of
nuclear energy technology. I'm wondering if you can elaborate
on why fusion energy is the next step beyond advanced fission.
What are the potential benefits of fusion compared to fission,
including with respect to safety concerns and the challenges
associated with radioactive waste?
Dr. McCarthy. So absolutely. First of all--and you heard a
little bit about this already. Fusion has the potential to
provide practically limitless energy. The fuel is readily
available, and the byproducts of the fuel, byproducts of the
reaction are neutrons and helium for a traditional deuterium-
tritium fuel cycle, which themselves are not radioactive but do
produce some radioactivity when neutrons, for example, are
absorbed by structural materials. But that radioactivity that
results from the fusion operation does not have to be isolated
for the long periods of time that fission reactor waste needs
to be isolated, so that would be one of the advantages.
With respect to safety, fusion reactors are naturally safe
in terms of shutting themselves down and don't pose the hazard
of widespread release of radioactivity.
And I think, you know, one of the important things--and I
think it might have been Troy or Tammy that touched on this a
little bit--is energy justice. This fuel, as I said earlier, is
readily available and broadly available both nationally and
internationally. So I think those are a few of the reasons why
it's the natural progression beyond fission.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much. And my apologies to
everyone. I seem to have skipped Sir Dr. Steven Cowley's
testimony, my bad. Someone on my team will be fired today.
Dr. Cowley, please provide your testimony. I am so sorry,
sir. I will send you flowers. Please forgive me.
TESTIMONY OF DR. STEVEN COWLEY,
DIRECTOR, PRINCETON PLASMA PHYSICS LABORATORY
Dr. Cowley. The flowers are not necessary, sir.
Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, Subcommittee
Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member Weber, and Committee Members,
thank you very much for the invitation to testify today. I am
the Director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory and a
Professor of Astrophysics at Princeton University, which
manages PPPL, the lead national laboratory for fusion and
plasma physics. The entire fusion community is deeply grateful
to this Committee for its long-standing commitment to the
development of fusion energy. It is an honor indeed to appear
before you.
We've heard from several people that fusion is very
desirable, but do we need fusion? The short answer is yes.
Reaching net zero by midcentury will require hundreds of
gigawatts of zero-carbon firm electrical generating capacity.
Firm means sources that are not dependent on the Sun or wind
and can be switched on and off at will. As my Princeton
colleague Jesse Jenkins emphasized at a recent PCAST hearing, a
truly sustainable, firm energy source is needed. Fusion is one
of the very few options and perhaps the best to meet that need
and is therefore essential that we move to realize fusion
electricity production as fast as possible.
I am more optimistic than at any time during my career that
we are on the home stretch to fusion electricity. Why? This
hasn't really been mentioned. The last decade has seen a huge
change in our scientific understanding of fusion systems. In
particular, the advances in theory, algorithms, and high-
performance computing have finally made it possible to predict
the turbulence that dominates all fusion experiments and has
frankly frustrated progress. This is a fiendishly difficult
problem, and its solution is a triumph of the DOE-funded
program.
But it's more than an intellectual breakthrough. For the
first time it is now possible to design and optimize fusion
systems on the computer. Current fusion reactor designs all
require innovations to make them viable candidates for the
first generation of fusion plants. The Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory with industry and university partners is addressing
the need by combining model virtual engineering and the latest
fusion science to innovate computation. This modern methodology
has been remarkably successful in industry from the new space
industry to the automobile industry. And it's a powerful new
tool to shorten the time to fusion electricity.
So what should we do now to hasten the arrival of fusion
electricity? Dr. McCarthy has emphasized the central importance
of ITER, and Dr. Carter has described the community consensus
plan, which the leadership of this Committee has wisely
requested. I will highlight some aspects of the plan.
The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
earlier this year published a report ``Bringing Fusion to the
U.S. Grid.'' That report has two recommendations. And the first
one is a very clear, ambitious goal. The Department of Energy
and the private sector should produce net electricity in a
fusion plant in the United States in the 2035, 2040 timeframe.
The first step toward this goal is contained in the
author's second recommendation. DOE should move forward now to
foster the creation of national teams, including public-private
partnerships, that will develop conceptual pilot plant designs
and technology roadmaps that will lead us to an engineering
design of a pilot plant that will bring fusion to commercial
viability. This is the key. We must urgently form these teams
and develop these conceptual designs. It is critical if we are
to deliver fusion fast that several conceptual designs are
developed. We need to let the ideas compete. By driving design
choices in a modern virtual environment, we can work backward
to determine what must be done now.
Attractive pilot plants demand high confinement. Thus the
promise of superior confinement on the national spheric tokamak
experiment upgrade under construction at Princeton and the
remarkably high performance of the DIII tokamak at General
Atomics, really the highest performing tokamak in the world in
terms of per-unit mass if you like must be cornerstones of the
U.S. program, cornerstones that will help ITER succeed and
reduce the cost and scale of fusion pilot plants.
Finally, we need to accelerate, first, the development of
fusion materials for a fusion power plant; second, the
technology for making electricity from fusion heat; and third,
the systems to breed and separate the fusion fuel tritium in
the plant. These issues are being set aside while we develop
the plasma confinement systems. If we are to speed fusion
electricity delivery, these issues can and should be addressed
in parallel with enhancing confinement and the designs of pilot
plants.
This Committee had the wisdom to authorize the activities
described above in the Energy Act of 2020 and more recently the
Department of Energy's Science for the Future Act. We look
forward to full implementation and funding of these activities,
which will indeed accelerate the arrival of fusion electricity.
Thank you again for your support, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cowley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you so much, Dr. Cowley.
I now recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Weber. Well, thank you, Chairman.
Gosh, I don't--pardon me--quite know where to start. I'll
start backward, I guess, with Dr. Crowley, although you said
he's been knighted, so we're supposed to call him ``Sir.'' What
I want to know from Dr. Crowley is whenever he testifies, does
he get like a surcharge? That's what I want to know.
Dr. Crowley, you said something very interesting. You
actually put a timeframe on it, a 2035 to 2040 timeframe. Are
supercomputers going to be needed to hit that timeframe?
Dr. Cowley. Absolutely. That's the big advantage we have
now that we didn't have, you know, 25 years ago, and it's what
the Department of Energy has spent a great deal of time
developing, yes. If you look at the way engineering is
developed in the new space industry and in----
Mr. Weber. My pods are about to die. I'm sorry, go ahead.
Dr. Cowley. Sorry. And also in the new development of new
nuclear reactors. It's the use of the computer to shorten the
development time is absolutely critical.
Mr. Weber. Well, thank you for that. I'm getting a note
that my AirPods here are low on battery, so let me jump over to
Dr. Carter if I may.
Well, first of all, let me say it's no secret U.S.
leadership in fusion research is being threatened by large
investments made by other nations. Luckily, I'm of the
opinion--I think we would all agree--that the United States has
the advantage of extensive public-private partnerships. In
fact, one of the witnesses said that. This makes it easy for
companies wanting to pursue fusion energy to utilize DOE's
world-class facilities and research. The more players in the
game, the higher the likelihood someone succeeds. And in fact,
Dr. Crowley, you--or Sir Dr. Crowley, you said that several
critical designs needed to be developed and then work backward
to pick the best one, so I'm encouraged that we're all kind of
on that same wavelength.
But I want to go to Dr. Carter. Dr. Carter, based on your
work chairing the FES Long-Range Planning Subcommittee can you
give us a sense of what level of investment is required to
compete with these international investments, please?
Dr. Carter. Well, I can just comment on what we're seeing
in the landscape elsewhere. One important program that's been
brought up already, the U.K., is the STEP (Spherical Tokamak
for Energy Production) program. That investment over the next
few years is on the order of half a million dollars--half a
billion, sorry, dollars. To really get--kick that program off,
it's also been--that level of funding has helped attract
companies, so, as was already mentioned, General Fusion decided
to site their program at Culham Labs because of that, the
resources provided, and the ability to be there.
If you look more broadly beyond that one program, the
United States is falling behind. The level of investment that
was, you know, authorized by this Committee is the level of
investment that will put us on the right path, that accelerated
path, and put us in line more with what the investment is
across the world. You look at China, the investment there is
also tremendous both from the public and private sector, and,
you know, they're basically building one of everything is their
approach to try and--those devices they're building are devices
that are ideas that have come out of the U.S. program. In a
sense, U.K. and China are beating us to the punch on our own
plan for fusion energy development.
Mr. Weber. Well, so with that in mind--thank you--this is
for all witnesses, but I don't have a clock in front of me. How
much--Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
Chairman Bowman. One minute, 25 seconds.
Mr. Weber. OK. If we cannot match other nations dollar for
dollar, what steps if any can we take to maximize the
investment of dollars do we have? And, Dr. McCarthy, I'll go
back to you.
Dr. McCarthy. So I think it's really important--this has
been brought up--is these public-private partnerships. And I'll
emphasize the national teams that Dr. Cowley talked about
because each of these members of these teams brings in a
different sort of perspective. Industry has the goal-driven
point. National laboratories have a breadth of expertise that
doesn't exist elsewhere. Universities have the broad--or the
deep research expertise. You put all of that together, a
diverse team that looks at things from different angles, that's
what's got to happen because these are very challenging
problems to solve. Each of these areas has very challenging
problems to solve. So I would say that is the place to go,
programs like INFUSE, which already exist, but potentially a
larger INFUSE program.
Mr. Weber. OK. Thank you for that. Dr. Mumgaard, same
question for you.
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, I echo the other panelists, that for the
United States to succeed, we're not going to be able to just
match, you know, China dollar for dollar. We're going to have
to leverage what we're really good at. And what we're really
good at in the United States is really at the intersection of
different fields and different types of enterprises. So
entrepreneurship has shown over and over again that it can pick
winners and that can take risks and move very, very quickly. At
the same time, it's not going to do what the national labs do
in terms of deep expertise. It's not going to replace
universities. So if you put them together, you get a really,
really powerful combination. And we've seen that in
pharmaceuticals with NIH (National Institutes of Health)
working with the pharmaceutical companies. We've seen that in
aerospace. We've seen that over and over again that that's how
you produce really the fastest least-resource-intensive path to
a solution, and particularly a solution that can win the
market. It's not good enough just to build a pilot plant. We
need to build a pilot plant that people want to buy. And then
we need to make a pilot plant that people can build many, many
of. And so you need that whole spectrum all in one spot, and
the United States is historically very good at that.
Mr. Weber. Well, good. I appreciate that, and, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Staff. Ms. Stevens is recognized.
Ms. Stevens. Great, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
thank you to panelists for just a great hearing.
Obviously, in your testimonies you touched on and cited
legislation by this Committee to better guide the Department of
Energy's fusion research activities. This obviously includes
the Committee's DOE Science for the Future Act, which our Chair
discussed, as well as significant investments in fusion R&D and
facility construction that we included in the contribution to
the Build Back Better Act.
Just wanted to take a scope from, you know, a handful of
you, Dr. Ma, Dr. Mumgaard, Dr. Carter, and Dr. Crowley. You
know, what might we be missing from legislation at this point,
gaps in the laws that we should be considering to address at
this point? Dr. Ma, go ahead.
Dr. Ma. Thank you for the question. I'll just start by
saying we're very, very appreciative of the support of the
House and in particular this Committee for both the long-term
sustained funding for the NIF and for your commitment to
establishing an inertial fusion energy program.
There are a few areas that I know the fusion community
would like a little more support on. I'll actually hand it over
to Dr. Carter to touch on.
Dr. Carter. I can take it from there. I mean, I'll add my
thanks. I think these laws align very well and bills with what
the priorities are expressed are important and extremely
helpful. Where we may need more help--and I think this I'll
pass to Dr. Mumgaard to expand on--I think we need ways to
expand and improve and better ways to partner with the private
sector to really get this done, so any help we can get to
improve that within the DOE would be helpful.
The other issue I'll raise is to accelerate the timeline,
we need to find ways to speed up development of needed
facilities, experimental and testing facilities. So currently,
you know, we can look at a decade or more to get an important
facility built in the current framework. We need to speed that
up. And likely the answer there, too, is finding ways to
partner with private--the private sector. So any assistance in
those two issues would be very helpful.
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, I'd agree the legislation has been
extremely helpful. It's given clear directives. It's set the
United States on a strategy and it's authorized new facilities,
but we haven't implemented it yet. So if you actually look at
what is in the DOE budget proposal, it's not aligned with the
legislation, so we've got to get that fixed. I know that's not
the role here, but it is something that we're very excited to
see happen.
Additionally, there are some elements that have been
proposed that we need to maybe tune a little bit, so, for
instance, the public-private partnerships. There's multiple
ways to do that, and we've seen that get tried across the DOE,
NASA, and if we think creatively about how to do that, things
like other transaction authorities, things like new temporary
types of offices--or programs inside the DOE, we can probably
tune these pretty well to get really the best of both worlds
and the key challenge being that this is new to the DOE Office
of Fusion Energy Sciences, that this is----
Ms. Stevens. Yes.
Dr. Mumgaard [continuing]. Not what we've done previously,
so we have to learn new skills. But we can pull those skills in
from, say, ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy),
which the legislation did say go work with ARPA-E and NE
(Office of Nuclear Energy). So those types of expansive,
collaborative, new types of thinking about how to set up
programs, that's very, very helpful.
Ms. Stevens. Yes. And the clock's back. OK, let's see. I've
got 1:20. It's hard to tell where I am on the time. But I guess
my follow up question to all this--and thank you, really
helpful feedback there and always interesting when we try and
engage in the, you know, directive of the public-private
partnership space. But I'm curious about that last point that
you were making, Dr. Mumgaard about costs and materials and
particularly, as Dr. Crowley, you know, just answered a
question related to high-performance computing, you know,
supercomputing is very expensive. What else do we need to know
about the accessibility of materials, cost, storage, access
points, you know, multistate collaborations, things along those
lines?
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, I--I'll jump in there.
Ms. Stevens. Yes.
Dr. Mumgaard. You know, fundamentally, fusion is intriguing
because the--you know, the materials that a fusion machine are
made out of are steel and concrete. And so in the long run it
should be economic. It's--if we get better----
Ms. Stevens. Well, steel is expensive now though, you know,
Dr. Mumgaard.
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, but per unit--if you think about it in
terms of per-unit of----
Ms. Stevens. Yes.
Dr. Mumgaard [continuing]. Energy produced, it's much lower
than even a fossil industry building in terms of the capital.
So you have an advantage over the long run. And over the near
term, though, reiterating what Dr. Cowley said, the advances in
computing mean that--you don't have to build as many machines
upfront, which you can do many, many more experiments in the
computer than you can in real life, and that's a big time-saver
and a big cost-saver even though----
Ms. Stevens. Yes.
Dr. Mumgaard [continuing]. It might be a case that
supercomputing----
Ms. Stevens. Well, the access might be expensive, but I'm
out of time. Thank you, Dr. Mumgaard, really looking forward to
the rest of the questions today.
With that, Mr. Chair, I'll yield back.
Staff. Mr. Lucas is recognized.
Mr. Garcia is recognized.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses, very interesting, intriguing technologies, and I
think many of you are hitting it right on the head, a very
hopeful era in our Nation's path to clean energy--sustainable
clean energy.
Dr. Ma, I wanted to touch on what you are doing, this gain
of energy of .7, 70 percent that you have achieved. Can you
talk to sort of what are the next incremental goals that your
team is looking to achieve? And then also, can you talk to--
this is a record that's tied a previous achievement out of the
U.K., right, but they did this back in, what, 1997. So can you
kind of give us a lay of the land as where are--I'll call them
competitor nations are in this progress? What led to the U.K.
effectively stalling out at .7 and not achieving higher, or
have they in other forms, in other technologies? And what do we
need to do either differently or in addition to what's already
been done in order to get to ignition? Just kind of give us an
overview of the roadmap to at least 100 percent ignition.
Dr. Ma. Thank you, Representative Garcia, for the question.
This achievement that we've achieved of a gain of .7 means that
we've effectively gotten close to the same amount of energy out
of the target that we put in with the laser. And from a physics
perspective what that means is we have been able to start the--
use a flame front to basically start the ignition of a piece of
wood to burn. So effectively we are there.
And the next steps for us here on the NIF are we are
repeating the shot now to demonstrate robustness,
repeatability, make sure that we understand the physics
performance and the key metrics to--that affect that
performance. And we do believe that with the NIF we will be
able to demonstrate much higher gains coming up. And in fact
this is part of our NNSA mission to achieve very high fusion
yields for those missions.
You're right that this does compare to a result out of the
U.K. back in 1997 on a tokamak. However, our results on the NIF
is the first time that we have had what we call a burning
plasma where the energy coming out of the plasma exceeds the
thermal heating that went in. And now the burn is very robust.
And so it's like that flame on that piece of wood is growing.
I will have to defer to my colleagues to explain why that
result has stalled on the tokamaks. I'm not completely clear.
But I think we all know that with the current progress that
we've had in emerging technologies, computation, as Dr.
Mumgaard has referred to, where we're poised to make a lot of
great progress soon.
Mr. Garcia. Is it fair to say that 200 percent or so is a
rough target to effectively offset some of the efficiency
losses through the process for actually having greater energy
out versus in or is that not fair and, Sir Cowley, I see you
there looking to speak. Go ahead, sir.
Dr. Cowley. Oh, I guess I should speak up for the U.K.
result. I used to run that facility. And the--it was of course
an immense result in 1997. But the results on NIF is actually
very interesting because the heat from the fusion is
contributing to the gain whereas that wasn't true in the
European facility in 1997. And that's what we mean by burning.
And so if this can be improved at NIF, they will be making most
of the fusion happen because they made fusion happen. And that
is--that's the goal that we really want to do.
Now, what happened in the U.K. program was that those
results resulted in the design of ITER because ITER is--that
machine is called JET, the Joint European Torus, and ITER is
just two times JET.
Mr. Garcia. OK.
Dr. Cowley. That shape and that design is, you know, at
higher field, for instance, is roughly what SPARC is. That's
the most common configuration at that time. And it's really
been sparked by those 1997 results on JET.
Mr. Garcia. Great, OK. So we are leveraging it and
synergizing.
I'm out of time, Mr. Chair. I'll yield back.
Staff. Mr. McNerney is recognized.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair, and I thank the
witnesses. I've been a longtime and enthusiastic supporter of
fusion energy starting with work at Los Alamos National lab
when I was a grad student. And I believe fusion development is
moving quickly and that, once commercially available, will be
an important contributor to our baseload power needs.
The national labs, higher educational institutes, private
companies in the United States are performing some of the most
critical and groundbreaking technology in fusion in the world.
So in testimony today we've heard about two of the U.S.-based
magnetic fusion facilities. I was fortunate earlier this year
to visit the DIII-D in San Diego and witnessed some impressive
research.
Dr. Cowley, in your testimony you mentioned the promise of
DIII-D, tokamak, and the work at Princeton. How important is
the continued improvement of both of these facilities to the
nascent U.S. fusion enterprise, and what scale investments you
think are necessary?
Dr. Cowley. The DIII-D tokamak pound for pound is the
highest performing machine in the world. And that's because
U.S. scientific leadership has allowed us to understand how to
optimize the situation. And one of the things that we need to
understand is that fusion will be cheaper if we can make
confinement better. And that's really being pushed forward
immensely by General Atomics. The machine we're building at
Princeton is to try and leverage that in a more compact
configuration so that we can make smaller, cheaper, faster
fusion devices. It's true that we may have enough confinement
now to go all the way to fusion, but if we get more
confinement, it'll be a better fusion reactor when we get
there. And so it's very critical to keep the confinement
program going because that way we'll get the best out of ITER
and we'll get the best out of our pilot plants.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Do you think there's any policy
change that would facilitate the DIII-D program?
Dr. Cowley. Well, I think that it would be good to see
DIII-D get an upgrade because I think that the team that works
there has had some of the most amazing breakthroughs in the
science. And, you know, this is not my team so I can say it
from a distance. And to keep that going as we're approaching
ITER operation by giving, you know, some kind of upgrade to
that device would be--I think would greatly improve our chances
of getting the best out of ITER, for instance, and the best out
of SPARC and the best out of the pilot plant.
Mr. McNerney. Sure. Sure, thank you.
Dr. Ma, it's good to see you this morning. I visited the
NIF on multiple occasions starting in 2007 and was more than
excited to hear about the breakthrough this August. In your
testimony you commented on how the mission at the Lawrence
Livermore National Lab imposes limits on what research can be
pursued at the lab. Do you have recommendations for how LLNL
and other national lab sites can translate breakthroughs like
the one at Livermore this August into long-term fusion energy?
Dr. Ma. Thank you for the question. Yes, so the result that
we recently had on the NIF demonstrates the basic scientific
feasibility of laser-driven inertial fusion. And with that we
can now start to also validate our simulation codes in this
regime of very high neutron yields. And it gives us a great
amount of confidence that we can now use our codes to further
scale to different ignition designs and test out alternative
concepts.
Now, the NIF is currently the leading experimental
capability for studying these ignition schemes relevant to
inertial fusion energy at near to full-scale, and so because of
that, it's very valuable and we should absolutely use it to
test out other experimental concepts that can help advance our
overall physics understanding and continue to validate our
simulation codes.
Mr. McNerney. So how is artificial intelligence being used?
Dr. Ma. That is a wonderful question. Our experiments are
so incredibly complex. There's sometimes 10,000 different
physics parameters that might go into defining a particular
experiment. So we absolutely need to use high-performance
computing to help us to do the best experiment possible and use
artificial intelligence and machine learning to get a better
handle on all of those different physics parameters and use
that also for advanced capabilities such as multimodal data
understanding, so taking in all our different types of
information and building a more complete picture. And then
also, as we do experiments on these new facilities, subscale
facilities coming up where we can do experiments much, much
faster, we can match that to machine learning to extract
greater insights.
Mr. McNerney. Too many dimensions for the human mind maybe.
Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Staff. Ranking Member Lucas is recognized.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my
opening comment, I'm a strong advocate for investing in U.S.--
the U.S. contributions to ITER, the world's leading
international research collaboration on fusion energy, which
received continued bipartisan support from this Committee. In
your testimony you note that while the ITER project is
physically located in France and much of our contribution to
the project are in fact used to support research, but much of
our contributions are used to focus on research here at home.
Dr. McCarthy, can you please expand on these comments and
explain--providing specific examples if you can--ways in which
U.S. contributions to the ITER program have directly
contributed to scientific discoveries and successes in the U.S.
fusion community? And along with that, what would it mean to
the U.S. research community if we were to fail to meet our
commitments to the ITER program?
Dr. McCarthy. OK. Thank you very much for that question. So
one of the things that the recent National Academies report
looked at was specifically how ITER is contributing and will
continue to contribute to fusion development broadly. And let's
talk, for example, about magnet technologies. We heard about
Commonwealth Fusion's recent accomplishment. This is a great
step toward being able to have more compact and more cost-
effective devices.
The research that was done specifically for the
superconducting magnets for ITER is directly providing the base
for those sorts of accomplishments. And one of the things I
think it's really important to point out is as you actually
build things, as you scale things up--because ITER was designed
based on known technologies all demonstrated at some scale,
sometimes at a much smaller scale, you learn things when you
scale up. You learn things that you wouldn't expect. And so
there's a lot of engineering challenges. And we tend to, in the
fusion program, talk about the plasma, but that is not all
there is. Now, we've got to look at the bigger picture. It
includes things like magnets but also includes things like
blanket technologies materials and things like that.
Other examples, another one is fuel cycle and continuous
fueling because ITER will run on a deuterium-tritium fuel
cycle, and there's a lot of work that's being done there in
terms of the fueling, disruption mitigation, how do you
dissipate the heat in and off normal event? That research is
being done for ITER. And there are many other things as well.
Plasma heating, that is another area.
But it's really important in that practical application,
writing specifications that industry then can develop this
hardware that meets these very exacting specifications that fit
into this machine. That's preparing our U.S. industry for a
future fusion industry.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you. And I guess I address my next couple
questions to whoever on the panel would like to touch it. Given
the panel's various experiences of DOE's Office of Science's
Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, do you have any
recommendations on how the Fusion Energy Sciences program could
be more--could more effectively engage with other relevant
programs within the Office of Science and, for that matter, the
rest of the Department if necessary?
I maybe--may--could I just go to Dr. Ma first, and I'd like
to hear your thoughts on that, and then turn to Dr. Carter with
the same question. After that, whoever else would like to touch
it.
Are you muted, Dr. Ma, or am I muted?
Staff. Dr. Ma, your audio is out.
Dr. Ma. Apologies. How's this? Can you hear me?
Staff. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. Yes.
Dr. Ma. OK. Yes.
Staff. OK.
Dr. Ma. Apologies. Yes, I would say that there--a
recommendation of the report and a feeling amongst the
community is there are many great opportunities for our
different agencies to work more closely together. There are
some great examples now of Fusion Energy Sciences doing joint
calls for proposals with NSF or with the NNSA, and that has--
those have been hugely valuable and fruitful for the academic
community. We can also work more closely with ARPA-E to harness
public-private partnerships as well. And so this is something
that we have not fully realized within Fusion Energy Sciences,
and it's a very economical way as well to grow the overall
research portfolio.
Mr. Lucas. And if the Chairman would humor me, could I ask
Dr. Carter that same question?
Dr. Carter. Yes, I'll just amplify----
Staff. Yes, sir.
Dr. Carter [continuing]. What--oh, sorry. I'll just amplify
what Dr. Ma said. I think that the--we brought up already the
need to do better in the sector--interacting with the private
sector. ARPA-E does that well, and there's already a
collaboration with FES. I think that needs to be amplified. We
also look for help from other agencies that are doing this
already, so look at Office of Nuclear Energy within DOE, look
at NASA. There are other programs that we can learn from. We'll
need unique ideas for Fusion Energy Sciences, but we can learn
from those programs and try to implement them within DOE.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Staff. Mr. Casten is recognized.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks so much to all our
witnesses here.
Dr. Mumgaard, in your testimony you mentioned that if--I
guess you expressed a concern that if the United States doesn't
act now, we run the risk of private companies investing and
constructing their fusion power plants elsewhere in the world
and that Congress and DOE should move quickly to fully fund and
implement milestone-based cost-shared development programs to
ensure that the first fusion power plant is built in the United
States.
Based on the recommendations from National Academies and
FESAC's long-range planning, do you believe that the Department
of Energy is at a point to support these commercialization
plans?
Dr. Mumgaard. The legislation lays out a really good
pathway, but we've not yet seen the activity from the
Department itself, so, for instance, there was a request for
information about the--how to maybe implement a cost-share
program, what various private entities thought would be
helpful. That was submitted almost a year ago, and we've not
yet seen, you know, any sort of calls or establishment of an
office to try to enact those things.
And so, you know, right now, it's--the signals are not
great. And I think that, you know, had a strong contributing
factor for people looking elsewhere. You know, is the United
States' fusion program going to enact these and put in these
new programs and these new facilities, or do you go with
someone like the U.K. who's got steel in the ground and
programs that are open and taking applications?
Mr. Casten. And just to be clear you're talking about, you
know, the N equals 1 commercial plant, right? I mean----
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes.
Mr. Casten [continuing]. You know, I--in another lifetime I
did a lot of stuff on technology deployment and, you know, the
escrow for power generation is always about 20 years from N
equals 1 to 50 percent penetration. That was true for air
derivative gas turbines, combined cycles, the wind turbines
that my friend Mr. McNerney was involved in. Are we--assuming
we got to N equals 1 first, are we doing enough to actually
make sure that we ramp up that curve if we are in fact going to
be a meaningful part of decarbonizing by 2050?
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, it's a great question. And you're
exactly right. You know, N equals 1, it gets you, you know,
only started. You also have to the policies in place to be able
to scale that once you have success. And so in the United
States we have a strong history across other energy
technologies of things like the Loan Guarantee Office, for
instance. You know, how do we get fusion when it's ready ready
for the Loan Guarantee Office? We also need to ensure that we
have the right regulatory treatment. The U.K. has leaned
heavily into that and produced a preliminary report on how they
intend to do it, and the United States' NRC (Nuclear Regulatory
Commission) is also taking a look at that in part of a public
hearing process.
So I'd say that, you know, the longer term view is we're
well-positioned, but this intermediate-term view is a bit
uncertain.
Mr. Casten. OK, thank you. Dr. Carter, I want to get your
thoughts on the same topic. You--you know, you made some
similar comments in your testimony that a consensus FESAC's
planning made recommendations for DOE action to reorient the
U.S. fusion program. Do you have any recommendations, Dr.
Carter, for ways that the Office of Science can improve its
management of Fusion Energy Sciences going forward?
Dr. Carter. Yes, well, we have a--we now have a vision that
needs to be embraced. We need DOE to implement that plan and
work with us in this direction that we know is necessary to
realize fusion energy on an aggressive timeline. I think that
there's likely need for change in the structure of the FES
program. I already mentioned the need to grow. We have programs
like INFUSE that are doing good things, but it's a very small
program now. We need to look for other mechanisms to do
private-public partnership, and that needs to be developed
quickly.
Mr. Casten. OK. Well, thank you both very much. Huge
amounts of support for what you're doing, and I'm a big fan of
the Loan Program Office. And if there's anything we can do to
help make sure that that's structured to get that ramp up once
we get to that first commercialization, please let us know and
keep in touch. Thank you both, and I'll yield back.
Staff. Mr. Feenstra is recognized.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Bowman and Ranking Member
Weber. Thank you to each of the witnesses for their testimony
and sharing their extensive research and experience with us.
You know, the field of fusion energy holds incredible
potential for our energy grid, and I'm so excited about it. The
breakthroughs made since DOE's Research and Innovation Act in
2018 and especially just this past year are just incredible and
outstanding.
The DOE's Ames Laboratory back in my home district is a
world leader in materials science innovation. Several of our
witnesses today mentioned in their written testimony the
importance of developing new materials that can withstand the
extreme condition of fusion reactors.
So my question is to Dr. Crowley and then also Dr.
McCarthy, if you could answer the same thing after Dr. Crowley.
Do you have any recommendations on how to improve coordination
with materials science experts and accelerate the development
of these materials? How could the DOE and its national
laboratories be more--or more effectively contribute to this
effort?
Dr. Cowley. So, I mean, this is a very interesting problem
because we've done a bunch of very low-level studies on the
materials as they're damaged in--by the neutrons that come out
of fusion, but we've never had a test facility to be able to
produce the data in which we can normalize our models onto
that. And DOE has started a process to produce what's called a
point neutron source to actually test materials. If you want to
attract scientists to come into this field and help us solve
the problem of getting optimum materials for fusion, some data
would be fantastic. So getting that point neutron source going,
right, which I believe could be done in a matter of a few
years, right, and getting some data from them so that we
finally know whether our projections of the lifetime of the raw
material in the fusion reactor are good or not, that's an easy
no-brainer to speed fusion forward.
Mr. Feenstra. And, Dr. McCarthy, your thoughts on that?
Dr. McCarthy. Yes, I absolutely agree with Dr. Cowley. And
I want to talk a little bit more about why we need this. So if
you look at the fusion reaction, the deuterium-tritium
reaction, you get neutrons, very energetic, 14 MeV. You can
compare that with the energy of a fission neutron when it's
born, and that's 2 MeVs. So you can just think about how that
14 MeV neutron is going to do more damage to the material.
So we do a lot of testing in fission reactors, but we're
limited--we can do testing in spallation sources as well, but
we're limited because the energy, the spectrum isn't
prototypic. So when you look at actually developing practical,
deployable fusion energy, competitive fusion energy, you've got
to make sure that you don't have to keep changing out the first
wall, for example. You don't have to keep changing out
different components. Fission reactors operate on over 90
percent availability, and that is because they have optimized
things. They're down very, very rarely. We have to be the same
way. So developing these materials is important, and bringing--
for example, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, we bring in our
materials experts who are not necessarily nuclear materials
experts because they provide a different sort of perspective.
And I go back to these diverse teams. So bring them together,
agree with Dr. Cowley on this fusion prototypic neutron source.
That is going to be key to taking everything that's being done
now and getting to practical, competitive fusion energy.
Mr. Feenstra. Well, thank you for that, those comments. So,
Dr. McCarthy, one more thing. So you're the Director of the
U.S. Project Office of ITER, but ITER's central team is made up
of seven core countries, and an ITER staff has scientists,
engineers, and staff from all across the globe. I assume each
of these countries have different incentives to drive research
into fusion energy, as well as barriers to expanding the
research. So what do you see? What are some barriers that we
have here in Congress that we can look forward to or look at
removing, you know, through new policies? Or which new policies
would possibly help?
Dr. McCarthy. So, first of all, what's fascinating is when
you work in an international project like this--and I've been
involved in fusion for half of my career starting with graduate
school--scientists and engineers want to do the same thing.
We're all focused on the same sorts of goals. Now, all of us do
have different politics that we have to deal with. They're
actually shockingly similar. And I can tell you my 3 years in
Canada told me that, huh, their government is a little
different but it's not that different.
So one of the challenges that we in the United States face
is--I think as everybody is aware--appropriations have been
lower than what was baseline for the ITER project. And so in
some areas we had to prioritize things that were on critical
path and delay some other things. Recent appropriations have
allowed us to do some catchup, and that has been very much
appreciated, but we're still $97 million behind. So we're
looking at how do we ramp up? How do we be a good partner in
ITER? And how do we really maximize the benefit from being a
partner in ITER? So I would say that that--that certainly is
one of the areas.
There are also complexities around any sort of
international project having people--we want to have people in
the United States when ITER operates, and there is just
practical considerations in how you do that from a tax
perspective and things like that, so really a big range of
things.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you so much for your comments, and I
yield back.
Staff. Mr. Lamb is recognized.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, and thank you to all of our witnesses
for joining us.
Dr. Mumgaard, I want to say congratulations like many
others have, I'm sure, about the successful test this summer.
And I just wanted to ask about--your testimony touched on the
importance of the cost-share milestone-based approach that was
reflected in our Energy Act at the end of last year. And I was
wondering if you could just say a few words about why that's
important and what it's--what is important for us to make sure
that DOE does going forward consistent with that approach?
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, so that approach is from the NASA COTS
(Commercial Orbital Transportation Services) program. Also, it
has elements that come from the advanced reactor program. The
key thing here is that you want private industry to do what it
does really well, which is to focus on goal-oriented execution,
so, you know, put goals down, execute to those goals as fast as
possible. And private industry is, you know, willing to do that
and take the risks that are part of doing such a milestone-
based approach as long as that, you know, when it gets there,
it knows it's part of an ecosystem that's going to help it get
to the next step.
And so in that cost-share program the key things are, you
know, don't have the public program dictate exactly where to go
or exactly how to get there but do have the public program be
alongside so that when you do get there, you--or if you run
into problems along the way in terms of the science and
engineering, you get some help. And so it's really not just
about money, it's not just about help. It's really about how to
tie those together in a way that really frees up the private
sector to do what it's really good at without duplicating the
work the public side is doing while still bringing the public
side along so that the public side can also then reap the
rewards of having those new types of facilities. And, you know,
that worked to very, very good effect in low-Earth orbit,
which, you know, had a higher TRL (technology readiness level)
level of than fusion does today, but the principles are still
really applicable.
Mr. Lamb. And going forward, what is the sort of important
thing to make sure that DOE kind of stays on track or puts the
money in the right pots, or how would you say we should be
thinking about this for like the next 5 years?
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, so thinking about it as--we want to be
sure that we do a portfolio, so this is not just pick one. This
is do a portfolio approach and run a process that doesn't just
look at, say, only the scientific piece or only the piece
that's really related to what DOE already does. Instead, run a
process that looks holistically. Does this get to a point that
does--that has some commercial validation in it? Are the people
that are reactor developers, are they interested in this? Is
the--are the utilities interested in this? And make sure we
have that viewpoint so that it's not just is the science
interesting or is the engineering interesting. We need to be
able to balance those views. And the best way to do that, of
course, is a portfolio where everyone comes, lays their cards
at the table, and we look at the different profiles of economic
and technical and scientific risk, and we choose a few that
really span that. And that'll give us a good shot at this.
Mr. Lamb. Great, thank you. That kind of leads a little bit
into my next question, which is about what the manufacturing
needs and the manufacturing footprint could look like later. My
State Pennsylvania I think is the biggest State for
manufacturing in the traditional fission pipeline when it comes
to civilian reactors and Navy work. We're certainly up there.
And one of the things I want to make sure of is that we are
well-positioned for both, you know, whatever is coming in the
advanced nuclear fission world and in the fusion world. Do you
have any thoughts on the way that the current supply chain
could prepare itself for, you know, being a fusion supply chain
in the future?
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, it's a great question, and it's
something that we as industry think a lot about because for us
to be successful, it means we have to build many, many, many
power plants. Now, if you want to decarbonize, you're always
talking about thousands of power plants independent of what
technology you choose, and so you have to be sure that you're
able to fulfill that in the long run, so you can't make choices
that aren't manufacturable.
Fortunately, fusion has a couple of things going for it.
You know, it--one, you know, you make a few things and, you
know, you make thousands, not billions. And those things are
high-value and they take skilled laborers in many ways similar
to like an aerospace endeavor. And in fact you see a lot of
crossover in the private sector between aerospace investors and
staff into fusion companies for that exact reason, which also
means that the manufacturing exercises are things like building
turbines or building aircraft components where they are, you
know, manufacturing in terms of milling and forging metals. And
also an area that you can really take advantage of, advanced
manufacturing techniques that are up-and-coming, 3-D printing,
better heat transfer materials by design. All of that impacts
fusion in the same ways it impacts any other sort of mechanical
engineering, structural engineering, thermal engineering, heavy
type of industry. And so we see a lot of crossover there.
Mr. Lamb. Any other witnesses want to address that? I
thought Dr. McCarthy kind of touched on the manufacturing piece
as well, but I didn't know if you had any specific ideas about,
you know, either government programs or things that sort of
traditional nuclear companies could do to get ready for this
era or to take advantage of it when it's here.
Dr. McCarthy. Yes, absolutely. So, first of all----
Chairman Bowman. If you can be as brief as possible.
Dr. McCarthy. Absolutely.
Mr. Lamb. Go ahead, sorry.
Dr. McCarthy. So, first of all, there's a lot of similarity
in components and the specifications and the need to meet the
QA (quality assurance) between fission and fusion. And so if
you look at ITER, for example--and we do have procurements
placed in your State of Pennsylvania--those sorts of activities
are getting the industry ready. There's a lot of crossover.
It's a small percentage of it that is really specialized that
would take additional training.
Mr. Lamb. Glad to hear it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield
back.
Staff. Mr. Meijer is recognized.
Mr. Meijer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
of our witnesses here for joining and sharing. This has been a
really interesting conversation. And I think we're all
incredibly excited at the potential here, you know, for fusion.
You know, we see the news articles from time to time and having
a layman's understanding, it can be hard to get a little bit of
that perspective of scale and potential and when that future is
realizable, so the possibility that we can have generation in
the 2030's could be--I think it's personally incredibly
thrilling.
But I want to piggyback on what my colleague Mr. Lamb had
asked about in terms of staff and talent in order to support
this growing field and industry moving forward so that if we
are reaching that point where there is commercially viable on-
the-grid sources of fusion energy, how do we make sure that, as
we scale that up, that we have the requisite talent in order to
do so.
So, you know, I'm proud to represent Michigan, specifically
west Michigan but just outside of our district is Michigan
State University's FRIB, the Facility for Rare Isotopes, which
supports the nuclear physics mission at the Office of Science
within the Department of Energy. The facility draws talent from
across the country and also across the world in order to
advance discoveries of both rare isotopes, nuclear
astrophysics, fundamental interactions, and applications for
society, whether it's in medicine, homeland security, industry,
or, in this case, leading toward energy production as well. So
how can we expand the existing fusion R&D facilities so we're
able to attract talent from across the country and across the
world and also prepare that for the next generation?
Dr. Cowley. One of the--that's a very good question, and I
think what we've discovered in the last few years at
Princeton--and I know at MIT they've discovered the same thing
and at UCLA--is that there's a flood of young people coming
into the field because they recognize that this is going to be
needed to do something absolutely amazing for the planet. And
so we have, you know, tripled our applications to our Ph.D.
program.
The other thing that the national lab has done--we've done
at Princeton is to initiate an apprenticeship program because
to make fusion systems work is not just about having, you know,
Ph.D.-level physicists or whatever but you've got to have
people who think with their hands and are able to construct
anything and make anything work, right? And we've been running
out of technicians at Princeton Plasma Physics Lab as they age
out, and so we started an apprenticeship program with the State
of New Jersey and started to train, you know, apprentices on a
high level, engineering skills that are needed to do this. This
is the kind of work force that we need to make fusion actually
happen.
Mr. Meijer. And I want to open that question up to any of
the other panelists but just very quick on that front, I also
want to add in--and maybe this is a brief follow up and could
be incorporated with the others--who are we competing with the
most? We mentioned the U.K. earlier as somebody who seems to be
taking a slight step ahead, and obviously we have, you know,
great competition with China on this front and many others. But
on the talent front specifically, who are our greatest
competitors?
Dr. Mumgaard. So on the first question around the pipeline,
I think it's really important to recognize that, as we make
investments into these types of facilities that are recommended
in the report, the prototypic neutron source and some of the
material science elements, those are going to produce fusion
generalists that are going to be Ph.D.'s and master's that come
out of there, and they're going to come out from all over the
world and from all over the United States in terms of
universities that participate in those programs, and that's
really the feedstock that someone like I as an industry wants
to see happen because those people then can enter into, you
know, our growing industry and train other people, people that
we pull from the aerospace industry or from the traditional
nuclear sector, train them up on what fusion is like and the
different principles. And so it's not just the, you know,
Ph.D.-level scientists. It's the whole spectrum that needs to
grow if this is going to take off.
In terms of where we're competing, you know, we're
obviously competing just across all of STEM (science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics) with other areas and
other fields, and so fusion is very, very attractive, but
there's lots of other fields that are very attractive, too, so
more STEM is better across the board.
Internationally, the--we find the, you know, the Germans,
the Italians, and the U.K., those programs are growing new
facilities. And those new facilities are very attractive to
bright researchers. And so we have to have those, you know,
competing facilities in the United States if we want to attract
them.
Dr. Cowley. There's a very interesting development coming
up very, very fast in fusion. And that came out of the German
program. For a long time we've known that three-dimensional
devices, which are--don't have an intrinsic symmetry, might
make very good fusion reactors but they're very complicated.
And it wasn't until we got supercomputers to optimize those
configurations--and this happened in the German program--and
start to use machine learning techniques to optimize the shape
of the coils, et cetera, that we're getting machines that
produce fusion-level performance. And the Wendelstein machine,
which is on the Baltic coast of Germany, has been producing
fusion-level performance in one of these three-dimensional
machines.
And now we're starting to have to compete with, you know,
the tech companies for their machine learning experts and, you
know, their computer programming experts and stuff. I'm very
excited by this because this is just almost pure thought
happening. And we have a collaboration with the Simons
Institute and the Simons Fund in New York to develop some of
these ideas about optimizing three-dimensional machines that
might make the best option for the future in fusion.
Mr. Meijer. Well, thank you. And my time's expired, but I
share the excitement over that multidisciplinary possibilities
between the additive manufacturing, machine learning, fusion
technology. The way that all of that is coming together is
truly exciting.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Staff. Ms. Bonamici is recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much to the Chair and Ranking
Member and to our impressive panel. I very much appreciate this
discussion that we're having about the need for a skilled work
force both as we rebuild infrastructure but also as we
transition to a clean energy economy. And it's something that I
work on frequently as a Member of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce.
And, Dr. Cowley, thank you for mentioning apprenticeship.
It happens to be National Apprenticeship Week. But it really is
a key to--you know, as we're looking at these policies and
going forward, we need to have people with the skills to do the
work.
And so, Dr. Mumgaard, in your testimony you reference the
growth of the renewable energy sector over the past decade and
how in 2019 renewable energy consumption surpassed coal for the
first time in more than 100 years. But how does the development
of fusion energy compare with that sort of advent and the
proliferation of other zero-carbon technologies like solar and
wind, and what can we learn from the U.S. Government's efforts
to support wind and solar? And how can we apply those lessons
in fusion?
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, it's been very interesting to watch
fusion, you know, at this very early stage execute what looks
like a traditional scaleup the way we saw wind and solar, the
way that we've seen nuclear back in the 1950's, and the way
that we see other technologies outside of energy where you
start with a few, you know, few people that are pathfinding
based on the basic science that then sort of pick up momentum,
and the more people join the field. They join at all different
stages of their careers. And hopefully we could get enough
foresight to be able to build the programs that are going to
train the next generation of people that we're going to need.
And if you look at renewables in particular, you know,
renewables had to train everyone from the people that maintain
wind turbines to the people that manufacture solar panels to
the people that figure out where is the best place to build one
and where is the best place to hook it up to the grid. And so
you have to think holistically about that whole chain of going
from the--you know, not just the science but also the feedstock
materials all the way to the point of operating, repairing, and
interconnecting those machines.
And I think fusion has a big advantage. So, one, it looks a
lot like the energy sources that have been done before in terms
that it's a power plant that you go out and you build. In fact,
you could even think about repowering coal power plants----
Ms. Bonamici. Right, right.
Dr. Mumgaard [continuing]. And that would have a lot of the
same people involved, a lot of the same skills. And so we can
possibly do this quicker than what renewables did because it's
a less drastic change and because renewables have paved such a
good roadway for us.
Ms. Bonamici. That's really helpful. Thank you so much.
So, Dr. Cowley, you, I know, have overseen fusion efforts
in the U.K. and now in the U.S., thank you for your work at the
Princeton Plasma Physics Lab. So how do the efforts in the
United States on fusion energy compare to the U.K.'s efforts,
and what should this Committee consider when we're crafting
policies to help promote U.S. leadership in fusion?
Dr. Cowley. For many, many years the United States has been
focused on just the science of fusion. And in that it's been
enormously successful. The ability now to actually calculate
what goes on in the science and the understanding, and the
DOE's Office of Science has done a wonderful job in doing that.
But it has remained divorced from the idea of actually
producing an energy source, and that was never true in any of
the European programs. It--and certainly not true in the
Chinese program. The Chinese program is--has got their plan and
they're going to deliver on it. It's a very conservative plan
actually with not much risk in it. But the U.S. program has
developed the science for the world, right, and it's been--
that--I came here to graduate school and went back to the U.K.,
and we've all learned from the U.S. program. But it's curious
in that the U.S. program has had as its goal fusion science,
not fusion energy.
Ms. Bonamici. And are you seeing a shift? And if so, is it
enough of a shift to have that--the focus beyond fusion energy,
not just fusion science?
Dr. Cowley. I think the United States is uniquely capable
of doing this. I mean, NE, the Nuclear Energy part of DOE, is a
good place to start drawing resources from to be able to design
and construct a program that'll go for energy. And I think what
you've seen from the FESAC plan is that people want to do that.
And we have the industrial base in order to do that. It's--you
know, the--we're working, for instance, with a wonderful
engineering company called Holtec out of Camden, New Jersey,
and out of Pittsburgh on constructing pieces for this. It's
precision engineering the United States can really do. I don't
see any reason why the United States couldn't vault into the
lead in a very short amount of time.
Ms. Bonamici. That's very encouraging, and of course PPPL
and our national labs I expect will be playing a significant
role in bringing this transformative technology to market.
And it looks at my time is expired. I yield back. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Staff. Mr. Gimenez is recognized.
Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From some of the
things I've read about fusion technology, the problem seems to
be the containment vessel, you know, itself. And I think we
spoke about it a little bit. And, Dr. McCarthy, could you talk
about that little bit more, the containment vessel, the
destructive aspects of the fusion reaction itself on the vessel
that's trying to--you know, that's trying to contain it? That
seems to be the big issue with fusion reactors. And how close
are we to finding some kind of solution to that?
Dr. McCarthy. So I think that's certainly one of the
important issues. I talked about what we call the first wall.
That is the wall that faces the plasma. It sees the high heat
flux. It sees the neutron flux. And developing materials to
withstand that are extremely important, and that's why we need,
for example, a prototypic neutron source. But the other piece
that we need--and it's tied to that but it's not--well, it's
tied to it but a little different--is that whole blanket
technology. How do we take the energy that comes out of the
plasma, turn it into usable electricity, for example, or
processing if that's what you want to use it for, in an
efficient way? And you also have to produce fuel so that it's
self-sustaining in terms of the fuel cycle. So it's a bit
bigger than just that first wall.
The other thing we have to look at is the neutron flux on
magnets, on superconducting magnets. That has an impact on
their performance. So there's a large set of things that have
to be looked at. But I would say that a lot of those tie to
materials, and then that goes back to what Dr. Cowley was
talking about and actually several people here on the panel in
terms of the need to invest in materials that will perform over
long periods of time.
Mr. Gimenez. Well, I mean, if you don't have a containment
vessel that actually can contain the reaction, everything else
is moot, right?
Dr. McCarthy. Yes, but so within the--in a fusion machine,
we're actually using the magnetic fields to contain the plasma
and keep it away from that first wall, but you still do get
particles, you get heat flux that the first wall sees. So it's
not exactly the idea of containment like you see in a fission
reactor, right?
Mr. Gimenez. And you haven't solved that problem yet?
Dr. McCarthy. We don't yet have materials that would work
in a commercial plant that would have--that would be able to
sustain that environment--perform in that environment for long
enough periods of time, but there's a lot of good work that's
going toward that.
Dr. Cowley. I would actually----
Mr. Gimenez. Are there fuels that will--are there fuels
that are better than others in order to--in other words, that
they don't emit the same kind of harmful radiation and
destructive radiation that for materials--is there some kind of
fuel that we'd be looking for that could do that, so a
combination of fuel and materials?
Dr. McCarthy. Yes, so there are other potential fuels.
Deuterium-tritium is considered the easiest because it requires
the lowest temperatures, still temperatures about an order of
magnitude hotter than the center of the sun. Other reactions,
for example, deuterium-deuterium produce much fewer neutrons.
They require higher temperatures in terms of heating the
plasma. So what I would say is that when you look at fusion,
the different configuration options, the different fuels,
there's--none of them is the silver bullet that everything is
easier. And what we have to understand is what are the
tradeoffs? What are the problems that we can solve? And that
takes you down a path of do you go for something that requires
higher temperatures? Do you go for something that requires
these materials? And that's where these technology roadmaps
that we talked about earlier are important.
Dr. Cowley. Can I just raise something? Because I think
there's a slight misconception here. We do have materials that
we think will probably work in a fusion reactor. The question
is the lifetime of the wall, right?
Dr. McCarthy. That's right.
Dr. Cowley. The lifetime will be long enough. We do have
materials, but we've never tested them, so we don't know that
for sure. And taking the risk of pushing them in a future
fusion reactor before we've ever tested them doesn't sound like
a very pragmatic thing to do. So it's not like we don't have a
solution to this problem. We think we do, but we need to test
it.
Mr. Gimenez. What do you need from us in order to make that
happen?
Dr. Cowley. I think the first thing is that--what they call
a prototypical neutron source, right, and actually make some
neutrons that are like the fission neutrons. When that neutron
hits a steel--you know, an iron nucleus inside the thing, the
iron nucleus recoils and it makes a little melt spot in the
steel. And the important thing is you get steels that when they
resolidify after that little melt spot, all the atoms go back
into the right place. And we think we have steels that do that,
but we have to demonstrate that we do.
Mr. Gimenez. My time is up. Thank you so much, and I yield
my time back. Thank you, I appreciate it.
Staff. Ms. Ross is recognized.
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, and thank you very much to
Chairman Bowman for holding this important meeting. And I want
to thank all the panelists for joining us today.
As we all know, climate change is an immediate and
existential threat, particularly in coastal States like North
Carolina (NC), and that's where I represent. That's why I've
consistently supported investments in clean energy like wind
and solar. But of course there are amazing potential out there
in emerging clean energy technology like fusion, which is not
intermittent and can serve as that kind of baseload potential
and be good for the environment and for the future of our
energy establishment here in the United States.
And the development that we've seen and that you've told us
about have been remarkable. But the long-term success is going
to be dependent on a robust cooperation among government, the
private sector, and academia. And I represent NC State
University, which is an engineering and STEM university in
North Carolina.
And so, Dr. Carter, NC State's nuclear engineering
department is the only nuclear engineering department in North
Carolina and a premier department in the country. And the
fusion energy industry can only be successful if we maintain a
pipeline of graduates equipped to work in this field. And so I
have questions about whether or not our U.S. universities are
prepared to meet the labor demands in fusion energy and whether
you have any suggestions for what our universities can do to
ramp up.
Dr. Carter. Thanks for that question. First of all, I'm a
product of NC State University, so I----
Ms. Ross. Yay.
Dr. Carter [continuing]. Grew up in North Carolina. I'm
very glad to hear you bring that up. Yes, I mean, as we've
already brought up, we--you--the universities are seeing an
influx of students at the undergraduate level, the graduate
level that are really interested in fusion energy, more than we
can handle. What we need to do is to strengthen the programs
across the board in fusion energy, and this can be--this needs
action at the university level. It needs action at DOE level to
make it happen. We need programs that stimulate this. We need
to give leadership opportunities to universities to lead
programs. You heard about FRIB earlier. And these kind of
programs where the universities really get visibility and
leadership draws new faculty and resources from the university.
So finding ways to do that I think is very important. We stand
ready to do that. The universities that participate in this
planning process are ready to roll up our sleeves and get to
work. We could use some help, though, from the Federal
Government and from other university systems to push for this
change.
Ms. Ross. All right. Does anybody else have anything to add
before I ask my next question? OK.
So my next question is related to the infrastructure law
that we just had the President sign this week. And we are going
to be updating our electric grid, and we've--we're doing it
because of storm damage, we're doing it because we want to put
more renewable energy on the grid, and we've seen difficulties
with getting that energy on the grid. Are there changes to our
electric grid that we are going to need for fusion energy? And
how can we prepare for that now?
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, so we've looked at that pretty
extensively, and we have--CFS has investors who are in the
energy industry. And one of the big advantages is that the
fusion product--and independent of how we get there and what
the configuration looks like, the fusion product is a very,
very flexible energy source. And it comes in a unit size that's
about the right unit size for the way that we build grids
worldwide. So it's not too big, but it's also not so small. And
you can turn it on, you can turn it off. There's--the things
inside the actual plant don't really care that much about their
history. And so that means that, you know, independent of how
we do the electrical grid, we're going to have a spot for
fusion in it, whether that is repowering existing sites that
interconnect or even building out new infrastructure or new
grids to support electrification. You know, fusion is a broad-
based support for that.
Ms. Ross. Well, great. Thank you very much, and I yield
back.
Staff. Mr. Obernolte is recognized.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to our witnesses. This has been an incredibly fascinating
hearing.
My first question is for Dr. Ma. I'd like to continue a
line of questioning that Congressman Garcia had started.
Congratulations on your achievement in August there at the NIF.
That's an amazing breakthrough. You were testifying about the
fact that--in response to Congressman Garcia's question, the
fact that you've achieved about 70 percent of the energy input
in terms of output from the fusion reaction. And he was asking
about the pathway to get to breakeven, which, you know, as we
all know is really what's going to be required for power
generation. Also, as I understand it, you--we're not yet at a
level where that reaction is self-sustaining. So I wonder if
you could talk a little bit more about the pathway from what
you've achieved in August to getting to something that's both
exceeding breakeven and self-sustaining.
Dr. Ma. Yes, thank you. And, first of all, let me
acknowledge the enormous team that made this result happen and
the decades of giants on whose shoulders we stand on and all of
your support over the years.
Well, first of all, the NIF is a scientific demonstration
facility for high yield, and it was never meant to be energy
production. And so even when we achieve gain on the NIF, it
does not mean there's--there will be enough energy coming out
that you could economically run a power system. What needs to
happen is a coordinated inertial fusion energy program in the
United States, which does not exist right now, a program that
could bring together the best minds and develop the
technologies that need to occur to make IFE happen. And some of
those technologies include drivers, i.e., lasers or pulse power
or heavy ions that are economical. We need targets that can be
built robustly and cheaply and mass-produced. We also need a
better understanding of the overall physics. So all of those
things need to come together.
In terms of what our next steps can be as a country now, we
need to develop that framework for an inertial fusion program
and figure out how we can also best leverage public-private
partnerships. We need to develop a roadmap that is credible and
feasible and pulls in our latest understanding with emerging
technologies. And then we need to explore alternative schemes
as well. There are very innovative ideas out there that could
get us to those very high gains that we might need to build a
power plant.
Mr. Obernolte. Well, great, thank you very much. That's
very helpful. We hope to work with you to achieve those goals.
My next question is for Dr. McCarthy. You were talking
about the path to commercial fusion powered energy generation
in the United States. And one of the things I--that you said
that I thought was very pertinent was you were talking about
the lower failure modes that we have in fusion energy
production than we have in fission energy production. And I
think that that's going to be critical because we have kind of
a political problem with nuclear energy in general where some
of the failures of the past are coloring public perception of
fusion energy in the future. And so I wonder if you could talk
a little bit more about those failure modes and about how once
a reactor is self-sustaining, how a fission reactor has lower
failure modes than a--I'm sorry, a fusion reactor has lower
failure modes than a fission reactor because I think that that
articulation is going to be very critical to gaining the
widespread public acceptance that we're going to need to make
this technology feasible.
Dr. McCarthy. So, first of all, I'll start out by saying
fission reactors are safe. They are highly regulated. They have
all those systems in place so that--to mitigate any abnormal
events.
Now, if we look at a fusion reactor, there are some
inherent differences. And one of them that I talked about has
to do with the radioactive waste that's produced. So there are
technical solutions to isolation of radioactive waste.
They're--politically, they've not been successful, so we
haven't moved forward really with long-term disposal for
fission waste. We don't have the same issues with fusion
because we don't have that waste that requires long-term
geologic isolation. That's a big one from the perspective of
public perception.
And then with respect to safety, what we in the industry
call the source term, that's the stuff that could potentially
be mobilized and scattered, the source term in a fusion reactor
is much, much, much smaller than what's in a fission reactor.
And what you have to look at is the combination of source term
plus energy to disperse it. That's kind of how you look at
safety from the big picture. So fusion has some advantages from
that perspective.
But there's a lot that we can learn from fission and a lot
that is applicable from fission to fusion when it comes to how
we do things. Keeping things simple is very important. Fission
is a relatively simple technology. This is one of the fusion
challenges. So where we can simplify things and where we can--
and I think it was Dr. Mumgaard who talked about how important
it is to have the industry connection as we're doing this to
understand what they want. That's one of the things we did in
the National Academies report. The scientist's dream is not
necessarily the utility's dream, and so that connection is
important. And I apologize. I think I've gone over.
Mr. Obernolte. Great. Well, thank you very much. We look
forward to working with you to further the public perception
there.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Staff. Ms. Lofgren is recognized.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want
to thank you and Chairwoman Johnson, the Ranking Members for
this important hearing today. And I wanted to extend a special
welcome and thanks to Dr. Ma for being with us and for the work
that she has done in representing the other scientists who
worked over these many years at the National Ignition Facility.
You know, I was there--this has been a bipartisan effort. I
was--I remember former Congressman Bill Baker leading the
charge. I didn't agree with Bill on a lot of things, but we
agreed on this. And then Ellen Tauscher, who took up the cudgel
and generations of fighting for this. I remember when Ed Moses
was the Director of the lab, and I asked him how will we know
when we get burning plasma, and he said, well, you'll see the
scientists doing handstands. So I was really pleased to be
advised of the handstands right after August 8th by the
Director of the lab, and I--it's a marvelous achievement and I
appreciate it greatly.
You know, the NIF has played an important role, but
you're--as you've mentioned, you're the science piece. You're
not going to be the energy production piece. But you've got
some more things to do. And so here's a question--a direct
question--you don't need to agree with me because--or I know
it's true. There have been fights with NNSA over the years
about the NIF's science experiments versus the nuclear
stockpile mission, which is a primary mission. I don't want--I
mean, there were those over the years who thought that you
could do science on a schedule, you know, and you can't. But
you have achieved what we--I thought would be happening in a
few years when I was at the groundbreaking and then the opening
of the facility. You've achieved the burning plasma now. I want
to make sure that you are getting what you need from NNSA in
terms of the capacity to proceed on the further experiments
because obviously we need the stockpile. Maintenance is a very
important element of our security posture.
But our security posture is also dependent on limitless
clean energy. We need to be able to remove carbon from the
atmosphere because of climate change. We're going to need to do
desalination, which is going to require a limitless pollution-
free energy source because of the droughts that we are having
in the West. So fusion is an essential element of our national
security.
So are you able to say what you would need by way of
support from your governing agency NNSA in order to optimize
the science that still needs to go on at the NIF?
Dr. Ma. So thank you for your comments and your continued
support over the years. The NNSA has been a very good sponsor
for us, and I think on the NIF we have demonstrated the success
of the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program. Very
recently, we've done experiments on plutonium aging that have
been very important for the NNSA mission, equation of State
experiments, et cetera.
You are completely hitting the nail on the head to say that
energy security and energy sovereignty are an important part of
national security. And, as such, NNSA would--and they recognize
that energy security is an important part of that. We are very
focused right now of course on meeting certain milestones, and
we're under pressure, so that is understandable. What would be
very important for us is sustained and robust funding to ensure
that we can continue to have strong scientific experiments on
the NIF, to have a robust what we call discovery science
program where we open up the facility to academics----
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Dr. Ma [continuing]. Worldwide, and a little bit of
flexibility to see the dual use purposes of the inertial
confinement fusion research that we do on the NIF.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, I thank you very much for that very
skillful and diplomatic answer, and I look forward to--you
know, there was a time when NNSA wanted to shut down all of the
science projects a few decades ago, and the Congress rallied
around in a day to put a stop to that. So I'm sure that we will
have a bipartisan effort to make sure that the science gets
done.
Let me yield back with thanks to Dr. Foster for letting me
jump ahead of him.
Staff. Dr. Foster is recognized.
Mr. Foster. Hello. Am I audible and visible here?
Staff. Yes.
Mr. Foster. Great. Well, first, I'd like to echo my
appreciation to the Chairwoman and Ranking Member for their
work on the DOE Science for the Future Act and specifically to
the Ranking Member for his polite restraint in his description
of the Senate counterproposal, and to the scientific community
for their enthusiastic embrace of the House proposal.
Now, Dr. Ma--well, first off, congratulations to you and
the whole NIF team. You know, I understand there was a fairly
celebratory mood at the DPP (Division of Plasma Physics) plasma
physics meeting in Pittsburgh earlier this month, and so say hi
to everyone that I know there, some mutual friends.
You know, one of my pet peeves when I was a practicing
scientist was congressional micromanaging of science, and so
now hereby I get my revenge. Now, I understand that following
your record-breaking 1.3 megajoule shot, there have been a
couple of subsequent shots with more yields in the range of a
half a megajoule, so what is the current best understanding of
what's going to be required first for reproducible yields and
eventually further yield improvements? You know, is there sort
of a detailed roadmap or a flowchart of future shots that might
be provided to us to track progress against?
Dr. Ma. Absolutely, yes. So we--like you said, we have
recently done a few repeat shots, and we did our best to try to
replicate the target, the laser performance, et cetera.
However, we know that when we built the NIF with the 1.92
megajoules of laser energy that the laser has, we were just
right at the hairy edge of what we would need for ignition. So
every little detail counts here. Every bump, every dip, every
speck of dust. Oh, I take that back. We don't even have specks
of dust on our targets. But they all play a role in the physics
performance that we see.
So with those repeat shots, we--the yields were a little
bit lower, and that is because there were some more
imperfections in the target. The laser delivery was not quite
as good. And we're now doing the analyses, and we will go
through the scientific peer-review process to ensure the
community agrees with us. But we are trying to understand those
sensitivities of those different parameters.
Now, going forward, we will continue to test by pushing to
slightly higher velocities, which for us equates to kinetic
energy into the system. And we are testing slightly different
target designs that should give us a little bit higher
coupling. And those experiments will take several years to do.
Because our experiments are so complex, each one takes several
months to actually set up. So stay tuned, but that's what the
roadmap looks like going forward.
Mr. Foster. OK. You also mentioned that heavy ion
accelerators as a potential energy efficient fusion driver at
least for the compression maybe to follow with fast ignition or
something like that. You know, as you may know, I served on the
DOE Heavy Ion Fusion Advisory Board back in the day. And so is
this an effort that's likely to be reenergized following the
NIF yields?
Dr. Ma. We will certainly be looking into heavy ion fusion.
The advantage of heavy ion fusion is you can get much higher
coupling efficiencies of driver energies into the targets.
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Dr. Ma. The heavy ion fusion program was shut down in the
mid-2010's because it was recognized that to do those
experiments you really have to do them at scale. And you need
very----
Mr. Foster. Oh, yes. No, I'm aware of the challenges. I was
just wondering if that's something that people are going to--
you know, and there was a rather demoralizing decade for
inertial fusion generally because of the frustration over NIF
that has now evaporated.
Also at about a decade ago Livermore and the ICF community
put a lot of effort into what was called the LIFE (Laser
Inertial Fusion Energy) project. And this is a fusion-fission
hybrid which uses the fusion base there as a source of neutrons
and the energy produced mainly in a fissile blanket around it.
And potentially that can be used to burn spent nuclear fuel,
burn excess weapons-grade plutonium, all sorts of other side
benefits. Is this an effort that's also maybe worth reviving
now that you're getting the yields that you planned to a decade
ago?
Dr. Ma. So, as a community, we absolutely hope to build off
the good technical work that was done on LIFE, which was a full
systems engineering and looking at all the different
components. However, that is a decision that will need to be
made by DOE, and we will also be holding a basic research needs
for IFE in the next year where we will lay out what the
priority research directions are. And I expect that
continuation of the LIFE work will be a component of that.
Mr. Foster. OK. And now I have used up all my time and
maybe 1 percent of the questions I have. Congratulations to
everyone.
Staff. Mr. Beyer is recognized.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. And Chairman Bowman, thanks
very much for holding this hearing. This is the most exciting
hearing I've seen in 2021 in terms of the potential.
I keep talking about, you know, we have a little more than
$1 billion for fusion energy coming out of a--blessed by the
Science Committee and included in Build Back Better, and in a
bill that could be approaching $2 trillion, this is the stuff
that's most transformational, so I'm really excited that you
guys are leading on this.
Dr. Ma, you talked again and again about inertial fusion
energy. Is that a different idea than what Dr. Mumgaard is
doing at Commonwealth Fusion? Is this a different approach to
fusion energy?
Dr. Ma. Yes, it is. The idea behind inertial fusion is you
use the inertia of the target itself to do the compression and
holding together the plasma long enough for fusion reactions to
occur. With magnetic fusion, you use magnetic fields on a much
lower density plasma to hold that together for actually longer
amounts of time to get that to fuse.
There are pros and cons and advantages to both schemes.
With inertial confinement, one of the major advantages is that
you get to actually separate the target from the driver itself,
so it--whether it's lasers, pulse power, heavy ions, you can
deliver that laser energy separately from the target design.
And so you--it allows for flexibility in how you test out those
two schemes.
There are a lot of overlaps in terms of reactor building,
the materials challenges that we would have, so we do hope to
work together and learn from each other.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you. Sir Dr. Cowley, you know, you talked
a little bit about the National Academies survey, and--which is
pretty optimistic, not as optimistic as the private sector is,
Commonwealth Fusion and Helion and others. Are there specific--
is it possible to lay out the series of specific benchmarks in
technology and science that have to be met in order to get to
commercially available fusion?
Dr. Cowley. Well, first, you fought a war so that you
didn't have to call me sir.
Mr. Beyer. It's still pretty cool.
Dr. Cowley. Yes, that's actually one of the things that I
think we need to really settle in and do after the FESAC plan,
which is a technology roadmap, the kind of technology roadmap
that tech companies put forward when they want a new product or
a chip company puts forward when it wants a new product because
there are lots of little details that could fall through the
cracks and then delay, you know, the delivery process. So the
idea of having fusion pilot plant designs done in this next--
really, we should get started today--is that, as we get those
designs, we can work back from them and say we need to solve
this problem by, you know, 2022, this problem by 2024, you
know, and that kind of technology roadmap. So it's critical at
the moment, yes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much.
Dr. Mumgaard, I've been telling everybody that, you know,
the old DOE was 2060, and then the Academies move it up to
2040, and you guys are saying maybe 2030. Can I say that with
credibility?
Dr. Mumgaard. So, you know, the survey of all the fusion
companies says--the majority say 2030's. And why do we think
that's possible? We think that's possible because it's a
confluence of various technologies that are all happening at
once plus the capital and sort of human infrastructure both on
the stakeholder side and simply on the employees' and
engineers' side that allows us to try things. So, you know, for
instance, when we went to the National Academies in 2018 and
said we want to develop a high temperature superconducting
magnet, you know, the view was maybe that would take 10, 20
years and we did it in 3, and we were able to do that not
because we're smarter than everybody or anything like that, but
we are able to do that because we can apply lessons learned in
how you do really fast iteration of build, try, break, build,
try, break very, very quickly. And some parts of fusion are
conducive to that where you don't necessarily need a
centralized plan that's very, very serial. You can break it
into modular pieces that you can try out, break, and integrate
only when you absolutely need to do that.
And so if you look across the companies, that's a defining
factor of many of them is how do you make problems into things
that you can separate? How do you make problems into things you
can try? How do you get iteration into the loop? And then how
do you couple that with people that are very, very good at
building things very, very quickly?
And so, you know, we think that it is feasible to get these
types of systems online in the '30's. And perhaps more
importantly, the timeline is, you know, set by the climate and
by the energy transition, so there is a huge amount of pull to
go faster. You know, if we all got to choose what is the path
to get there and what is the right time to get there, we make
different choices than what carbon is choosing to force us to
do. And so that impacts, you know, our planet, CFS every single
day, that timeline, how do we make technical decisions that
could enable that timeline. And it's really a good thing for
this Committee today because, you know, we're talking about
what are the investments we need to make now that would give us
a better shot at that, not just CFS but also the pilot program
and also the other companies.
Mr. Beyer. Well, thank you. Yes, I get discouraged by how
slowly we move here, so my new legislative strategy is build,
try, break.
Chairman Bowman. Well, once again, thank you to all of our
witnesses for being here. This was an amazing hearing about a
topic that, you know, I think will take our economy and
humanity into the future, so this is really exciting.
The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
statements from the Members and for any additional questions
the Committee may ask of the witnesses. The witnesses are now
excused. The hearing is now adjourned. Thank you again so much.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Robert Mumgaard
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Steven Cowley
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]