[Senate Hearing 117-474]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                               



                                                        S. Hrg. 117-474
 
                    THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN
                    SUPPORTING THE COMMERCIALIZATION
                            OF FUSION ENERGY

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 15, 2022

                               __________





[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 







                       Printed for the use of the
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
        
                              ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 48-549          WASHINGTON : 2024   
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                     ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas

                      Renae Black, Staff Director
                      Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
             Luke Bassett, Senior Professional Staff Member
                Rory Stanley, Professional Staff Member
             Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
              Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
                 Brad Williams, Republican INL Detailee
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West 
  Virginia.......................................................     1
Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from 
  Wyoming........................................................     2

                               WITNESSES

Hsu, Dr. Scott, Lead Fusion Coordinator, Office of the 
  Undersecretary for Science and Innovation, U.S. Department of 
  Energy.........................................................     4
Cowley, Dr. Steven, Director, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory    10
Luce, Dr. Tim, Chief Scientist, ITER Organization................    14
Mumgaard, Dr. Bob, CEO and Co-Founder, Commonwealth Fusion 
  Systems........................................................    19

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Barrasso, Hon. John:
    Opening Statement............................................     2
Cowley, Dr. Steven:
    Opening Statement............................................    10
    Written Testimony............................................    12
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    71
General Atomics:
    Statement for the Record.....................................    82
Hsu, Dr. Scott:
    Opening Statement............................................     4
    Written Testimony............................................     6
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    61
Luce, Dr. Tim:
    Opening Statement............................................    14
    Written Testimony............................................    16
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    74
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
Mumgaard, Dr. Bob:
    Opening Statement............................................    19
    Written Testimony............................................    21
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    76


                    THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN



                    SUPPORTING THE COMMERCIALIZATION



                            OF FUSION ENERGY

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in 
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin 
III, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

    The Chairman. Today, we have gathered leaders in fusion 
energy to discuss the path to commercialization of this 
potentially transformational energy technology. I want to make 
a personal note. I had the unbelievable opportunity and some of 
my staff with me, to go to ITER, in France, and it has kind of 
changed who I am and what I think that we can do, and as 
civilization on this earth, what we can, maybe, calm down a 
little bit and treat each other a little nicer because we are 
not fighting over something we do not have to fight over 
anymore, which is energy--so, a lot of promise and hope. This 
March, as I said, I was fortunate enough to visit the 
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, located in 
Southern France, and was graciously provided a tour by Dr. 
Luce. Thank you for making the effort to be here. We would have 
made accommodations any way we could to have you on virtual and 
all that, but you made that effort, and that means--that speaks 
a lot.
    It was my first tour of the fusion facility and it left me 
profoundly reflective of the potential of the technology to 
transform our energy future. Touring a facility dedicated to 
international scientific and engineering collaboration with our 
geopolitical rivals, including Russia, including China--are 
they still paying?--and allies, helps restore faith in what we 
can do together given so much conflict at present. This project 
was initiated in 1985 during the Cold War between President 
Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev to develop fusion energy 
for peaceful purposes. The promise of technology and the 
collaborative approach of nations provides a model for 
technology innovation and competition without conflict by 
focusing on data transparency and mutual benefits. The visit 
left me hopeful that we will be able to meet the challenges of 
climate change and overcome our internal and external political 
pettiness to improve people's lives at home and abroad.
    Domestically, fusion research is at a critical inflection 
point. Private fusion companies are preparing to demonstrate 
their technologies. Our national labs have hit significant 
milestones and private capital has been generously invested in 
the promise of technology. The Fusion Energy Science Advisory 
Committee and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 
and Medicine released reports last year providing a clear set 
of recommendations for commercialization. The Department of 
Energy Office of Science and the National Labs continue to 
advance research to advance computing for predictive and 
modeling capabilities needed for sustainable fusion while also 
enhancing existing facilities and planning for the next 
generation of materials and approaches. The White House Office 
of Science and Technology Policy has similarly spearheaded a 
high-level commitment to fusion energy, and our Committee's 
members and colleagues in the Senate and House have championed 
historic new legislation and investment in the past four years.
    To further support and direct fusion and plasma research 
and development, Congress passed the Energy Act of 2020, the 
CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, and the Inflation Reduction Act 
of 2022. The enactment of these bills provides direction to DOE 
to fully support the U.S. contribution to ITER, pursue 
innovative fusion concepts, and establish a milestone-based 
development program to design and build a pilot fusion plant. 
In addition, these bills will bring to fruition the 
experimental capabilities that we need to advance fusion 
research, including the material plasma exposure experiment 
facility managed by Oak Ridge National Lab. This facility will 
help us understand the material capabilities required in high-
heat environments. It also provides upgrades to meet research 
needs for understanding physical and chemical changes to 
plasmas and fundamental timescales, and exploring new regimes 
of dense material physics, astrophysics, planetary physics, and 
short-pulse laser-plasma interactions. Most importantly, $280 
million has been made available for fusion science construction 
in additional funds for science lab infrastructure that will 
help accelerate projects such as the Princeton Plasma 
Innovation Center.
    The legislative activity this Committee has led is an 
essential step for the federal stewardship of this vital 
technology and the many components and materials that make up 
its supply chain. It is a step made in concert with the 
research and growing business communities, and it is one made 
amid increasing competition around the world. For me, fusion 
provides a vision of and potential pathway toward world peace. 
So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how they are 
involved in bringing this exciting technology to fruition.
    With that, I am going to turn to my friend, Senator 
Barrasso, for his opening remarks.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. 
Thanks for holding this very important hearing today.
    You know, there is that old saying about fusion. They say 
it is 30 years away and always will be. But I believe that is 
no longer the case. Innovators are working to move us beyond 
fusion science, working to demonstrate usable fusion energy. We 
still have a long way to go, but I believe, Mr. Chairman, we 
are turning the corner.
    In March, the White House hosted a summit on commercial 
fusion energy. In the wake of the summit, one of our witnesses, 
Dr. Cowley, was quoted in Newsweek saying, ``I believe that we 
could have fusion electricity by the end of the 2030's.'' There 
have also been recent reports highlighting the steps needed to 
harness fusion energy. These reports included a 2021 study from 
the National Academy of Sciences titled, ``Bringing Fusion to 
the U.S. Grid.'' This hearing is going to help us better 
understand what is needed to commercialize this technology.
    We have enjoyed the benefits of nuclear energy for more 
than half a century. Today's nuclear energy, called nuclear 
fission, is generated when we split a uranium atom. Nuclear 
fusion energy takes the opposite approach.
    Fusion energy is generated when elements, such as hydrogen, 
are combined. This is the process that powers the sun. It is 
also how dozens of elements of the periodic table are created. 
The English physicist Arthur Eddington first theorized the 
existence of nuclear fusion over 100 years ago. But unlike 
nuclear fission, we have not been able to generate electricity 
from fusion energy.
    The Department of Energy leads the Federal Government's 
efforts to develop nuclear fusion energy. The Fusion Energy 
Sciences program is managed by the Office of Science. This 
program remains largely focused on basic scientific research.
    The Department's National Nuclear Security Administration 
supports another type of fusion technology--specifically, the 
National Ignition Facility, which uses a massive laser to focus 
enormous amounts of energy on a tiny target. The primary 
mission of this facility is to support our nuclear weapons 
program. It is also advancing fusion research. Last year, this 
facility took a historic step forward by producing heat from 
fusion reactions. This is an important step toward 
demonstrating usable fusion energy.
    There are 33 private-sector companies developing fusion 
energy systems right now. Backed by over $4.7 billion in 
private investment, these fusion companies are making progress. 
They are eager to partner with the Department of Energy to move 
beyond fundamental scientific research. At the same time, they 
are outpacing the Department by developing technologies that 
are smaller and cheaper. Private-sector companies may 
demonstrate the ability to generate net energy production 
before the Federal Government achieves this milestone. 
Commonwealth Fusion Systems is one such company. To support 
these private-sector efforts, Congress authorized the 
Department of Energy to establish a milestone-based, fusion 
development program in the Energy Act of 2020. The Department 
has been slow to implement the program. And I understand that 
Dr. Hsu was recently brought in to lead this effort. I look 
forward to hearing how the Department is preparing to work with 
the private sector to transition from fusion science to 
commercial fusion energy.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso, I appreciate the 
opening remarks, and now we are going to introduce the panel 
and then we will start our testimonies. So I want to turn, 
basically, and say thank you to all of you.
    Dr. Scott Hsu is the DOE Lead Fusion Coordinator in the 
Office of the Undersecretary of Science and Innovation. Thank 
you for being here.
    We have Professor Steven Cowley, Director of Princeton 
Plasma Physics Laboratory. Thank you.
    Dr. Tim Luce, the Chief Scientist at the International 
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor in France. Thank you.
    And Dr. Robert Mumgaard, CEO of Commonwealth Fusion 
Systems.
    So we will start with Dr. Hsu with your opening remarks, 
sir.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF DR. SCOTT HSU, LEAD FUSION COORDINATOR, 
 OFFICE OF THE UNDERSECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND INNOVATION, U.S. 
                      DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Dr. Hsu. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member 
Barrasso, and distinguished members of the Committee, for your 
longstanding support of fusion energy research, including the 
visionary fusion authorizations in the Energy Act of 2020 and 
the CHIPS and Science Act, as well as your support for fusion 
in the Inflation Reduction Act. It is an honor to appear before 
you today as Lead Fusion Coordinator for the Department of 
Energy to provide testimony regarding federal support for 
fusion commercialization.
    Fusion holds the promise of being an on-demand, safe, 
abundant source of carbon-free primary energy and electricity 
with the potential to transform the way humans generate and use 
energy. However, much work remains to realize this promise. 
Fusion may also enable new defense and space capabilities, 
meaning that the race to fusion is a race for future global 
leadership. Through recent consensus expert reports, the U.S. 
fusion R&D community declared that they are ready to take on an 
energy development mission. This will require a fundamental 
shift in the U.S. fusion energy strategy. Firstly, a greater 
emphasis on developing the needed enabling materials and 
technologies for a fusion pilot plant. And secondly, a greater 
focus on public-private partnerships to ensure commercial 
relevance and better harness the large amounts of private 
capital being invested into predominately U.S.-based fusion 
companies.
    In March of this year, the White House Office of Science 
and Technology Policy and DOE co-hosted a White House summit 
entitled, ``Developing a Bold Decadal Vision for Commercial 
Fusion Energy,'' which aims to seize the opportunity enabled by 
private capital to translate U.S. leadership in fusion science 
into a U.S.-led commercial fusion industry. This entails 
building a strong partnership between DOE and the private 
sector to resolve the remaining scientific and technological 
challenges this decade with the goals of a fusion pilot plant 
and first commercial deployments in the 2030's. In parallel, we 
must prepare the path broadly for fusion commercialization, as 
discussed at the White House summit.
    Following the summit, DOE hosted a workshop in June 
entitled, ``Fusion Energy Development via Public-Private 
Partnerships'' where a broad set of fusion stakeholders had 
inclusive conversations about the Bold Decadal Vision. A key 
piece of this vision is a milestone-based fusion development 
program, as first authorized in the Energy Act of 2020. This 
program, expected to be announced imminently, will support for-
profit entities to pursue applied R&D in partnership with 
national laboratories and universities toward one or more 
viable fusion pilot plant designs. DOE has also formed a fusion 
crosscut team to coordinate fusion-relevant activities across 
the Office of Science, ARPA-E, NNSA, Nuclear Energy, Economic 
Impact and Diversity, and Environmental Management. To realize 
an operating fusion pilot plant on a decadal time scale 
requires increased funding as well as attention to investment 
strategies that can amplify federal funding. For example, ARPA-
E's fusion portfolio has, to date, received follow-on private 
funding six times the original federal funding.
    Let me turn to the role of ITER in the Bold Decadal Vision. 
While I defer to Dr. Luce to speak to ITER's mission and 
updates, I emphasize that there are opportunities to maximize 
ITER's benefits for the Bold Decadal Vision starting 
immediately. Examples include placing more Americans on the 
ground at ITER and enabling streamlined access by U.S. fusion 
stakeholders to ITER's data and vast experiences with such a 
large and complex project. A recent DOE-sponsored ITER 
research-needs workshop discussed these opportunities. 
Regarding international collaborations, more generally, 
governments and private companies from around the world have 
expressed interest in collaborating with our Bold Decadal 
Vision. Collaborative opportunities could include securing 
startup tritium, sharing test facilities, and developing robust 
supply chains, just to name a few examples. There is an active 
Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee charge to assess 
mutually beneficial international collaborations.
    Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, members of the 
Committee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify. As 
your Committee considers further how to support fusion 
commercialization, DOE continues to be guided by the visionary 
authorizations you and your House colleagues have already 
provided, and the incredibly hard work that the fusion R&D 
community put into the recent consensus reports declaring that 
the U.S. is ready for a fusion energy development mission. 
Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Hsu follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Hsu.
    Now we are going to turn to Dr. Cowley for his opening 
remarks.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF STEVEN COWLEY, 
         DIRECTOR, PRINCETON PLASMA PHYSICS LABORATORY

    Dr. Cowley. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and 
Committee members, thank you for the invitation to testify 
today. I am the Director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, 
as Senator Manchin said, and a professor of Astrophysics at 
Princeton University. Princeton manages PPPL for the Department 
of Energy, and it is the lead lab in fusion, and has been since 
1951. We are grateful to this Committee for its longstanding 
commitment to the development of fusion energy. It is indeed an 
honor to be here today.
    Senator Barrasso gave us a very good explanation of what 
fusion is. I will back that up a little bit. It is the power 
source of the sun and all the stars in the universe. It is the 
process of fusing small atoms to make bigger atoms--small atoms 
like hydrogen to make bigger atoms like helium. Indeed, that is 
what the sun is doing and has been doing for 4.6 billion years. 
Fusion is, in many ways, the perfect energy source. It is safe 
and clean. It has no greenhouse gas emissions and no long-term 
radioactive waste. The fuel we need for fusion is extracted 
from sea water. It is abundant and sustainable for millions of 
years. But fusion requires unbelievable conditions--astonishing 
temperatures of over 100 million degrees. So is it even 
possible to do fusion on Earth? The answer is clearly, yes. As 
far back as 1994, we made over ten million watts of fusion 
power at PPPL in a device that used powerful magnets to contain 
and control a 250-million-degree fuel.
    Fusion research took another major leap forward in 2021 
with two remarkable results. First, the National Ignition 
Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory achieved the 
first self-sustained fusion burn from a pellet ignited by the 
world's most powerful laser. That same year, the Joint European 
Torus, in the UK, sustained fusion conditions to release 59 
megajoules of fusion energy. The question, therefore, is not 
whether we can do it, but whether we can make fusion 
electricity at a cost that the consumer wants to pay. I am 
optimistic that we can, clearly, but only if we both harness 
the private sector to drive down cost and utilize the public 
sector--the nation's national laboratories and universities--to 
propel the science and innovation forward. Neither sector is 
sufficient alone.
    What should the Federal Government do now to hasten the 
arrival of commercial fusion and meet the Administration's 
decadal vision that Dr. Hsu describes? I will highlight some 
immediate actions. The National Academies of Sciences, 
Engineering and Medicine, last year, published a report 
bringing fusion to the U.S. grid. That report recommends a 
clear and 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 to 2040 time frame.'' The 
first step toward this is contained in the report's second 
recommendation: ``the Department of Energy 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 to an 
engineering design of a pilot plant that will bring fusion to 
commercial viability.'' This is essential. We must urgently 
form those teams and develop these conceptual designs. I am 
delighted that the CHIPS and Science Act authorizes the Office 
of Science to establish not less than two national teams that 
shall develop conceptual pilot plant designs and technology 
roadmaps. We are ready to go.
    My optimism about fusion's commercial prospects is not only 
rooted in last year's impressive results, but also in recent 
step-changes in our scientific understanding. Notably, advances 
in theory, algorithms, and high-performance computing have 
finally made it possible to predict the turbulence and 
instabilities that dominate all fusion experiments and have 
frustrated progress. These advances have been validated by 
beautiful experiments on the DIII-D tokamak at General Atomics 
and on NSTX at PPPL. Those experiments must continue if we are 
to improve our predictive capability. The solution to the 
fiendishly difficult turbulence problem is a triumph of the 
DOE-funded program. It is not just an intellectual 
breakthrough. It is now possible to design and optimize fusion 
systems on the computer. With industry and university partners, 
PPPL is addressing the need by combining virtual engineering 
and the latest fusion science to innovate computationally. This 
plays into the Department of Energy's leadership in 
computational science that for many years has dominated the 
world in this area.
    These powerful new tools and their potential to shorten the 
time to fusion electricity are also recognized in the CHIPS and 
Science Act, in which the Secretary is authorized to establish 
and operate a national high-performance computing for fusion 
innovation center. This, too, is essential. Finally, we need to 
address the crucial fusion technologies that were set aside 
while we mastered the containment of the hot fuel--technologies 
like materials, and how to actually convert neutrons into 
electricity. Fortunately, the national labs and universities 
have extensive experience and expertise in related 
technologies. I am thinking, for example, of the tritium 
capability at Savannah National Laboratory and the nuclear 
technology and design expertise at Idaho National Lab and the 
materials expertise at Oak Ridge National Lab. These are 
exciting times as we progress towards fusion commercialization. 
The number of applicants for our fusion Ph.D. programs has 
nearly tripled, as students sign up to deliver the perfect 
energy source. It will take immense private, public, and 
international efforts, but I am convinced we are in the end 
game. 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] 
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Cowley.
    And now, visiting us from France, we have Dr. Luce.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF DR. TIM LUCE, 
               CHIEF SCIENTIST, ITER ORGANIZATION

    Dr. Luce. Thank you to the Chair, Senator Manchin, Ranking 
Member, Senator Barrasso, and members of the Committee, for the 
opportunity to discuss fusion energy. As introduced, I am Tim 
Luce. I am presently the Head of Science and Operations Domain, 
and Chief Scientist for the ITER Organization. The ITER 
Organization is responsible for the coordination of the design, 
assembly, commissioning, and operation of the ITER tokamak with 
the goal of demonstration of fusion power production at the 
power plant scale.
    The world needs reliable energy in sufficient quantity to 
support the development of society without adverse impact on 
our environment. To address this need, multiple solutions, both 
for the near-term and in the future should be explored. As has 
been stated already, fusion energy is not yet at the stage to 
satisfy the need for abundant clean energy. However, we know 
that fusion has the potential to supply this energy for 
millennia. Fusion can be realized around the globe, enabling 
ready access to energy, which should reduce one source of 
conflict among nations. But the potential of fusion remains to 
be demonstrated at the scales required for energy production 
for the planet. ITER plays an essential role in this 
demonstration. While proper conditions for fusion power have 
been demonstrated in laboratories around the world for seconds 
at a time, the challenge remains to produce megawatts of power 
with substantially greater output than input.
    A fundamental element of the ITER mission is to validate 
our physics understanding that is it is possible to produce a 
burning or self-heated plasma at the power plant scale. Our 
goal is 500 megawatts output at ten times the input power. A 
second key element is to test some of the essential 
technologies to bring fusion into the energy economy. Now under 
assembly, ITER is more than 75 percent complete for the 
infrastructure and components needed for first plasma 
operations. As a member of the ITER agreement, the U.S. plays 
an essential role. About 85 percent of the capital investment 
in ITER is supplied by in-kind contributions. For the U.S., 
this is the responsibility of the ITER Project Office in Oak 
Ridge, under the direction of the Department of Energy, and it 
continues to deliver a range of systems necessary for ITER 
mission success. Through the research enabled through the 
Office of Fusion Energy Sciences, the U.S. fusion program has 
been a leader in the physics understanding that led to the ITER 
design and continues this leadership with physics R&D directed 
toward the optimization of the ITER research plan. And finally, 
the ITER organization consists of staff from all the members, 
and the U.S. staff play a vital role in all facets of the work 
going on at the ITER project.
    The ITER organization cannot advocate for any specific 
proposals to member governments, but we wholeheartedly support 
the development of roadmaps to fusion energy by the members. 
Preparing to build on the success of ITER will bring the 
maximum return on the ITER investment. In this light, we note 
positively the recent National Academies of Sciences, 
Engineering and Medicine report. The title, ``Bringing Fusion 
to the U.S. Grid,'' places the focus on fusion playing a role 
in the energy supply economy, which is our fervent hope as we 
work toward accomplishing the ITER mission. And it is 
appropriate to note here specific places where ITER has 
contributed or will contribute to a fusion energy roadmap. 
First, ITER will demonstrate our scientific understanding of 
fusion plasmas and inform designers of future fusion pilot 
plants and power plants regarding tradeoffs among key design 
features, such as pulsed versus steady-state operation. Second, 
ITER is providing us with practical experience in licensing a 
fusion facility under nuclear safety regulations. Third, the 
in-kind supply model for ITER components has made and should 
continue to make a positive impact on industry, resulting in 
the development of a new global fusion supply chain and 
workforce. These are essential steps that will support the 
design and construction of a fusion pilot plant, and 
eventually, a fusion economy.
    ITER is a prudent investment as part of a fusion energy 
strategy. For a fraction of the total investment, which 
minimizes the individual risk to the members, each of the 
members receives 100 percent of the ITER science, technology, 
and associated intellectual property. Continued U.S. support 
for ITER is essential for the path to fusion energy and 
provides important experience for a fusion pilot plant. The 
ITER Organization is grateful for the support for fusion by 
this Committee and its counterpart in the House and by 
individual Members of Congress. We acknowledge the support from 
the Department of Energy through the Office of Science and the 
engagement of many U.S. companies contributing to ITER. 
Finally, we are indebted to the individual U.S. researchers, 
engineers, and those in other disciplines in the national 
laboratories, universities, and industry who have made fusion 
their goal and their passion, whether directly toward ITER, or 
in parallel. This passion is necessary to realize our common 
goal of seeing fusion energy take its place in the energy 
economy.
    I thank you for your interest and I welcome any questions 
you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Luce follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Luce.
    Finally, we have Dr. Mumgaard.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF DR. BOB MUMGAARD, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, 
                  COMMONWEALTH FUSION SYSTEMS

    Dr. Mumgaard. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member 
Barrasso, and esteemed members of the Committee, especially for 
the longstanding support for fusion. I think that has led us to 
where we are today. I am Bob Mumgaard. I am the CEO and Co-
Founder of Commonwealth Fusion Systems. What is that? That is a 
fusion company. The company is four years old, with 300 people. 
It is backed by private investment from people like Bill Gates 
and large energy investors who believe in the potential of 
fusion. I am here also representing the Fusion Industry 
Association, which is over 30 members, and I am a founding 
board member there.
    My role in this, Committee, is a bit different because my 
esteemed colleagues here have already explained what fusion is, 
where the science is, and how far we have come, and they are 
exactly right. And really, I am here to talk about the next 
step, where we are investing, and that is, how do we get to 
fusion commercialization? And this is where fusion makes an 
impact in the world because we go from a world about resources, 
you know, under us or shining on us, to a world about resources 
that are what we can do--what our people can do, human 
resources--to take a technology and bring it to scale. And it 
is widely agreed, I think, seen here, that fusion is at an 
inflection point where we are going from the science to energy 
and we are thinking about what that looks like. This has been 
seen by the private markets who have put $4.7 billion in, much 
of that recently. And that is into developing technologies that 
could scale. And this represents, you know, actually, more 
money invested in fusion than in advanced nuclear reactors, for 
instance.
    And of course, other nations also see that inflection point 
and they are acting. They are acting fast. They are acting 
bold. And we at CFS regularly get inquiries from other 
governments about where to build the first fusion power plant, 
where to use what test facilities. And the U.S., long a leader 
in fusion science, risks not leading, but buying fusion energy 
from elsewhere. We are in a race to put that fusion on the grid 
as soon as possible--in the 30s. And the consequences of not 
winning are substantial. And today, we are not where we want to 
be in that race. But I think we are seeing a big change, that 
the key word here is--bold. We are seeing a Bold Decadal 
Vision. And there are some policies that are already underway 
that I think are really going to be supportive. We already have 
a lot of the elements that are bold in the fusion industry 
itself. So you can see pictures of people putting hardware in 
the ground, building things--building things and trying things. 
And that is very exciting. The public programs are now also 
figuring out how to support that.
    And so, where can they help? First, we should note that 
much of what needs to be done is already authorized. We have 
already gone through this. We have looked at it. We have looked 
at the plans. We have passed the things that we need to pass. I 
think about it in four different buckets. So, first, there is 
an alignment activity that needs to happen, which is aligning 
the existing strong programs with an energy mission. And as 
pointed out in the National Academies' report, the DOE should 
focus on a domestic fusion energy industry and all the 
technologies that feed that. To do that, we need the DOE 
national labs and the universities to focus on their core 
strengths, which are scientific computing, innovation of the 
basic science, materials, et cetera, while the private sector 
focuses on its core strengths, which are deploying 
technologies, building things, engineering, market assessments, 
understanding what is attractive. And together, we are going to 
get there faster than we would individually. Second, we need to 
build things. We need to build test stands. Those have been 
identified in the National Academies' report, the FESAC report, 
and we should start doing those right now because other nations 
are doing things in metal that we have only looked at on paper 
for the last couple of years. Those are authorized.
    Third, we need to enable pilot plants. Now, these are 
plants that put power on the grid and importantly, in a 
commercially relevant way. That is really important for the 
companies because that is part of their business plan, to show 
they can do that, and then do that repeatedly as an industry. 
Fortunately, we have examples about how to do that well in 
other areas of science and technology in the United States. We 
have, for instance, the NASA COTS program, which worked with 
SpaceX to be able to go up to the International Space Station 
and provide a new capability that could then be used 
commercially, and now it dominates the launch market. And that 
was enabled because Congress saw that, you know, stable 
funding, being bold, they put up $500 million for the NASA COTS 
program in year one to fund for five years. Everyone could see 
where that was going to go and could go there quickly together. 
That milestone program in fusion is already authorized and 
waiting to be funded and waiting to be actually put in 
implementation. Fourth, we need to ensure regulatory clarity. 
We have a process in place with the NRC right now, and it is 
actually near its conclusion. And so, hopefully, that goes 
well, but Congress should continue to monitor that.
    You know, I am pretty confident that a Bold Decadal plan 
that hits these four things: working together, building the 
necessary test stands, enabling a milestone program for a pilot 
plant, and doing regulatory certainty, will be able to put the 
U.S. into the lead, and it will show that this 
commercialization activity is indeed now, and could result in 
an industry in not the second half of the century, but 
hopefully, in the 30s. So with that, thank you for the 
invitation. I look forward to answering questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Mumgaard follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    The Chairman. Thank you very much to all of you. I 
appreciate very much your opening remarks and you all making 
the effort to be here.
    I will start the questions out, if you will.
    Dr. Luce, first, I want to thank you for traveling so far 
to be with us today. I enjoyed my visit to ITER. My entire 
staff did. You all were very gracious, and we learned a 
tremendous amount, and it was very impressive. It is a 
remarkable effort to the international collaboration 
scientifically--ingenuity and engineering that will demonstrate 
the commercial viability of fusion energy, and it opened my 
eyes, more than any, I believe, to those possibilities 
available to not only the collaboration between nations that 
are not on the best terms and not getting any better since I 
was there, of course, the impact of harnessing fusion. So can 
you describe how the ITER demonstration will assist the effort 
to commercialize fusion energy technology and all, like in the 
United States, I am sure other countries, they all have 
variations of what they are trying to achieve and still 
belonging to that? Are other countries duplicating what we are 
doing? Spending more money and just taking time to do what has 
already been done or more effort into ITER that can give them a 
technology?
    Dr. Luce. Thank you, Senator.
    As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the primary mission 
is to remove uncertainty from the scientific point of view, and 
as Steve said, we have made great progress in predictive, but 
in the end, we need to validate that predictive capability with 
an actual demonstration. And we believe ITER will perform that 
demonstration in a variety of operating scenarios. So this 
enables others to take that information and apply it to design 
of pilot plants or power plants. It can go in parallel or it 
can go in series. It is a matter of a decision from the 
individual member governments how rapidly they want to 
progress.
    The Chairman. Let me ask simply this, in layman's terms. 
What you are doing at ITER at a mammoth scale--and I was just 
blown away with the scale--but fusion has been around for a 
while. People have been working for this for some time. All of 
you have been involved in one way or another. What is ITER 
doing differently than what has already been done, and is there 
anyone else that has done something on a smaller scale that 
gives ITER more of a direction and a pathway?
    Dr. Luce. So indeed, the JET tokamak, operated by the 
European Union, has recently operated at tens of megawatts of 
fusion power, but not yet at gain. So there is a----
    The Chairman. So it takes as much to put as much in and 
take it out----
    Dr. Luce. Correct, slightly more.
    The Chairman. So there is no net. Slightly more.
    Dr. Luce. Correct.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Dr. Luce. Yes. So we need to go to the frontier where the 
dominant heating source is from the fusion reactions 
themselves. That has not been accomplished and it needs to be 
accomplished somewhere. It is a vital first step.
    The Chairman. And that is what the demonstration that we 
saw at ITER has the capability of doing?
    Dr. Luce. Correct.
    The Chairman. Is there anything else in the world that has 
that capability?
    Dr. Luce. There are plans. I think Dr. Mumgaard will tell 
you about their plan to demonstrate that type of capability. I 
will let him talk about what----
    The Chairman. Let me just say this--why would we be 
investing in ITER or investing in that if we are already 
invested in ITER and you are doing something on a much larger 
scale?
    Dr. Luce. I think we are doing things that are 
complementary. And so, it is a way of advancing the program, 
minimizing the risk, and focusing on things that ITER cannot 
do. What Dr. Mumgaard mentioned is absolutely true. The 
technologies you need for a fusion economy are not going to be 
demonstrated properly in ITER. And so, facilities that can come 
along in parallel of that, both in special laboratories or in 
unit demonstrations, are essential.
    The Chairman. Let me go to Dr. Hsu.
    Dr. Hsu, basically, the Energy Act of 2020 and the CHIPS 
and Science Act of 2022 provided the Department of Energy with 
direction to aggressively pursue the development of fusion 
research and technology development. It calls for DOE to 
provide a 10-year strategic plan on and on and on. In April, 
the White House held a summit on developing a Bold Decadal 
Vision for Commercial Fusion Energy, which resulted in three 
new initiatives. The first was the announcement of the 
Department of Energy agency-wide fusion initiative to 
accelerate the viability of commercial fusion. The second was 
naming you, Dr. Hsu, as the Lead Fusion Coordinator, and the 
last was making available $50 million for advancing a fusion 
pilot plant.
    So first of all, I would ask, can you provide the Committee 
with an update on what is going on and where the Bold Decadal 
Vision of Commercial Fusion lies, and how are you spending the 
$50 million?
    Dr. Hsu. Absolutely, thank you, Senator Manchin.
    So the DOE, right now, is, you know, formulating and 
developing its plan for the Bold Decadal Vision. As I outlined 
in my opening remarks, you know, central to that is, as Dr. 
Mumgaard said, aligning the efforts between the public and 
private sector activities. And really, we are focused on 
resolving the remaining scientific and technological challenges 
in order to enable that vision of operating a pilot plant.
    The Chairman. If I may ask, is it redundant to what is 
being done at ITER? Are you duplicating what ITER has already 
done? Are you trying to do something different than ITER needs 
you to do so it helps them?
    Dr. Hsu. It is both. ITER is going to be a scientific tool, 
going forward, where we can do research that cannot be done on 
any single private-sector facility. But on the other hand, ITER 
is not going to do everything that will bring us to commercial 
viability either. For example, we need to really accelerate 
efforts in, let's say, the fuel cycle, as an example, right? 
Tritium breeding. These are areas that the Bold Decadal Vision 
really needs to focus on to accelerate in order to meet the 
time scales.
    The Chairman. I got you.
    Now, we will turn to Senator Barrasso for his questions.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Luce, the Chairman testified that in the last month he 
went to France and it changed his life.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Barrasso. Last month, my staff went to 
Massachusetts and they brought me some pictures.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Barrasso. Dr. Mumgaard, they went to your facility 
and were very impressed. Private fusion companies have now 
raised $4.7 billion, [including from investors like] Bill Gates 
and some others. Can you talk about why they are so confident 
about the prospects of commercial fusion energy? And then, 
specifically, what types of metrics have these investors 
established to assess the company's performance?
    Dr. Mumgaard. Right, so, first, when you think about what 
the private investors are looking at, they are looking at this 
type of panel, what the science has done so far. The statement 
of conviction of something like ITER that fusion is worth doing 
and can be done is a huge factor for them putting in private 
capital to do the next step. That foundation cannot be 
underestimated.
    They are also looking at the quality of the science and the 
predictive capabilities--that we can actually do experiments 
faster and cheaper, that we don't need to guess and check. That 
is key for developing a technology. They are also looking at 
the market pull. You cannot underestimate how big of a problem 
energy security, abundance, and sustainability is. That is a 
trilemma that needs to be solved. And when we solve that, they 
will build a massive industry. Whether that industry is in some 
other energy source or fusion, it is up and open for grabs 
right now.
    And so, they are looking across those [fusion companies] 
and they are saying fusion is serious, and there are serious 
people who are taking fusion seriously with serious dollars.
    Senator Barrasso. So then----
    Dr. Mumgaard. Then looking at the different companies, and 
they see a variety of approaches, which means that more than 
one might work. And so, a portfolio approach can work. And so, 
now they are asking the question, what can we do together to 
make the likelihood of one of those working soon and scalable 
higher?
    Senator Barrasso. So, what metrics are they using, 
specifically? Because you had talked about a plan to 
demonstrate net energy production by 2025, and you know, that 
is a decade earlier than the Department of Energy's 
international fusion demonstration project. I am wondering, 
should we be reprioritizing our investments in fusion research?
    Dr. Mumgaard. The two big headline metrics are, can you 
push a button and make more power out from the plasma than what 
went in? Break-even energy. Above that, there is burning 
plasma, which burning plasma is also very important 
scientifically, but maybe not big headline. The next big 
headline is electricity on the grid. And the decadal plan 
actually breaks that out, and says that's on the goal, 
electricity on the grid, and the National Academies also say 
those are the two big phases of a pilot plant--net energy and 
power on the grid.
    And so, they are looking to see that, but of course, they 
need to see intermediate milestones before to know that we are 
on track. And so, they are tracking not just what the private 
companies are doing, but what the labs--like JET--and others 
are doing as well to indicate are we on track? The key thing is 
time. If we wait, we lose. And that is because the market 
window is really, really, sensitive on time.
    Senator Barrasso. Dr. Hsu, in your testimony, I was struck 
by the fact that when you talked about fusion research, you 
said it has profound impacts for national security. How is the 
Department protecting fusion research from Russia and China? I 
saw yesterday that Presidents Putin and Xi were going to meet 
together.
    Dr. Hsu. Thank you, Senator, that is a very important 
question. Our crosscut team has members on it from NNSA, 
especially because we want to tackle this question more 
seriously. Furthermore, we are also working with the White 
House. They are looking into offering cybersecurity training 
and resources for our private fusion industry. Those are 
starts, but we know we have to pay careful attention.
    Senator Barrasso. So Dr. Luce, as I see Russia and China 
being bad actors along the way, should they be allowed to 
continue participating in international fusion projects?
    Dr. Luce. So historically, fusion has been a bridge to have 
conversations with various political entities with which we do 
not necessarily share the same world view. This goes back to 
Khrushchev visiting the UK in 1957. There is no weaponization 
potential for magnetic confinement fusion, and for the ITER 
agreement, itself, it is a treaty-level agreement. We have 
chosen to work together, and I think it is a realization both 
of the good investment, they get everything from a small 
amount, but also from a common need. If we can reduce one 
source of friction among us, this is a plus.
    Senator Barrasso. Dr. Cowley, if I could ask you--last 
week, Newsweek published an article highlighting how South 
Korean researchers sustained a stable fusion reaction for 30 
seconds. Who are America's main competitors right now in fusion 
research?
    Dr. Cowley. Well, the biggest investment is clearly coming 
from China. And China has a plan to get a pilot plant together 
on a slightly accelerated time scale, even compared to ours. 
Interestingly, they just announced a second machine to try and 
rival what Commonwealth Fusion is doing and go that route, 
which is the more compact route. They are pouring in dollars 
and you know, if you ask what a global competitor is, certainly 
China.
    The other one is obviously Europe and the UK. I should not 
talk too much about the UK, but----
    [Laughter.]
    Dr. Cowley. But there is a plan in the UK to push forward 
the spherical tokamak concept, which is what the machine that 
Princeton is innovating on towards a reactor on a similar time 
scale--to the end of the 2030s--that we are talking about. I 
think China is looking at us and trying to copy the different 
steps that we are taking and it is very interesting that they 
have made a step to copy what Commonwealth Fusion Systems is 
doing. Whether they will move as fast as the private sector in 
the U.S., I have my doubts.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Hirono.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    For Dr. Hsu: as you may know, Hawaii's State Constitution 
requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature in order to site 
a nuclear fission plant in the state, and this provision was 
added in 1978 reflecting public concern about the safety of 
nuclear power and the radioactive waste it generates. Today, we 
are talking about fusion, not fission, so can you describe some 
of the safety issues we need to take into consideration with 
fusion and compare them to the safety concerns associated with 
the fission reactors used in the nuclear plants today? In plain 
English.
    [Laughter.]
    Dr. Hsu. Thank you, Senator. This is indeed a very, very 
important question you ask. So let me start by saying that the 
safety profile of fusion is one of its potential benefits. That 
is why people are excited about it, especially this panel. For 
example, there is no inherent risk for runaway or meltdown as 
you hear about in nuclear energy, and fusion does not need any 
special nuclear materials, for example, plutonium or enriched 
uranium, and it doesn't produce high-level radioactive waste. 
So these are great, great advantages of fusion, both for safety 
and for licensing.
    But we must seriously take into consideration the potential 
safety issues that are specific to fusion. You know, these 
include kilogram or more quantities of radioactive tritium, 
which is one of the fuels for fusion, and that must be securely 
contained. And then the safe handling and disposition of 
potentially large volumes of low-level waste. And fusion, of 
course, will also have hazards associated with any large 
industrial facility.
    Senator Hirono. So since fusion does create some waste, 
what concerns should we have regarding the containment and 
disposal of the waste produced under the fusion process?
    Dr. Hsu. We have to take this seriously and treat it 
carefully. We think we can do it. And in fact, our crosscut 
team in DOE has environmental management as a team member. We 
will leverage our knowledge and capabilities across the agency 
to come up with the right solutions. And I think Dr. Cowley 
seems like he wants to jump in here.
    [Laughter.]
    Dr. Cowley. The total level of radioactive waste from a 
typical fusion power station will be about a thousand times 
lower than from a fission station, and the half-life of that 
radioactivity, most of it, is less than 10 years. And so, by 
200 years after the end of the reactor's lifetime, all of that 
waste can be remanufactured into new fusion plants.
    Senator Hirono. So would you say that the Hawaii 
Constitution's reference to fission, that that would not 
prohibit the development of a fusion plant in Hawaii?
    Dr. Cowley. We believe so.
    Senator Hirono. Okay.
    Dr. Cowley. I am not a lawyer.
    Senator Hirono. Yes.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Hirono. Dr. Hsu, you noted that the pathway to 
fusion energy goes well beyond technological challenges, and 
including, among other priorities, ``public engagement and 
energy justice.'' I very much appreciate your reference to 
energy justice. Can you explain a little bit about what you 
mean by energy justice, and how does DOE plan to engage the 
public on fusion energy and energy justice and other challenges 
you described?
    Dr. Hsu. Yes, thank you again for a wonderful question.
    So these are indeed a high priority of the Bold Decadal 
Vision. We humbly seek to learn from the deployment experiences 
of other technologies--energy and otherwise--in engaging with 
the public and energy justice communities. You know, not only 
are these the right actions to take, but working toward these 
goals will actually help accelerate fusion deployment when the 
technology is ready.
    Senator Hirono. What do you mean by energy justice?
    Dr. Hsu. We want to address how energy technologies have 
harmed particular communities in the past and make sure not 
only that we restore, but also make sure that we do not 
perpetuate those harms.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you. I was particularly taken by that 
concern that you raise and I appreciate that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Now we have Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Cassidy. Thank you, sir.
    Dr. Luce, now if you all have covered this, I apologize. 
But there seems to be a little bit of tension, as my staff 
whispered in my ear. Democrats are going to want to support the 
public programs and Republicans are going to want to support 
the private initiatives. And you will diplomatically say that 
we are going to work together. But I want to explore that a 
little bit. So Dr. Luce, we have heard today that the private 
sector has been making great progress in conjunction with the 
public sector writ large, but that ITER is progressing slowly 
and increasing in cost. So if I had to defend continued 
investment in ITER, in 30 seconds, what would be the elevator 
speech that would allow me to defend the continued investment 
when it seems as if the private sector is racing ahead?
    Dr. Luce. So two key points. For an investment of around 10 
percent, you get 100 percent. So your risk exposure is less in 
terms of cost.
    Senator Cassidy. You lost me there. I am going to give you 
another 10 seconds, if you don't mind. So go ahead.
    Dr. Luce. So the model for the ITER cost is that, for 
example, the U.S. pays nine percent of the construction.
    Senator Cassidy. I got it.
    Dr. Luce. Thirteen percent of operations. They get 100 
percent of the outcome.
    Senator Cassidy. Got it.
    Dr. Luce. So if they were to do that themselves, they would 
have to pay 100 percent. So it is a prudent investment.
    The second thing is, it is already in progress. So you have 
learned, already, lessons that need to be integrated into 
things going on in parallel. As we said before that it is 
largely a scientific removal of doubt and beginning the 
technology journey. Other places, like Dr. Mumgaard said, are 
focusing on the technology journey. This is what industry does 
the best. In terms of public-private, I would have an 
observation. The one place where the U.S. Government has worked 
on technology development is national security. To me, it is 
clear that energy security is national security.
    Senator Cassidy. I accept that.
    Now, going back to establishing certainty, it seemed like 
there is $4.7 billion in private investment, which seems to be 
pretty assured. So I am just making that observation.
    Dr. Mumgaard, you point out how NASA used to be the one 
that sent all the all the rockets into space, and now, we rely 
upon private companies to do it. They do it faster and cheaper. 
And it was clear in context you were drawing an analogy here. 
Knowing that you have to probably be a little diplomatic, but 
frankly, I hope you are not.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cassidy. How would you give a 30-second speech in 
response to the question which I ask?
    Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, just because we have Boeing doesn't mean 
we stop building wind tunnels in the public program. You have 
to keep innovating on the science. You have to keep pushing 
that forward. And if we are right, and we build a giant fusion 
industry, something like ITER makes a whole lot of sense, 
right? Because it is going to continue to be a center of 
excellence to try new things that are too risky for the private 
programs to try. And if we are right, we have a commercial 
fusion industry that allows the public program to focus on the 
next step. And so, when NASA no longer goes to low-Earth orbit, 
and instead has commercial entities to do that, that frees NASA 
to go and do the really cool stuff like go to Europa, because 
they don't have the baggage of running a technology and 
industry.
    And so, this is analogous here, where we are trying to 
build a science----
    Senator Cassidy. I get your point.
    Dr. Hsu and Dr. Cowley, you all are kind of disinterested, 
in my mind at least. I am going to let you arbitrate. Okay, now 
I don't know the capabilities of what ITER has because I have a 
sense that it is trying to prove in concept the process by 
which you would do this. It is going to show that you can have 
sustained increase of temperature to a sufficient degree that 
this reaction can occur. But in putting that much investment 
into hard structures, you cannot really say, well now we want 
to do this. You know, way back when I was taking biochemistry 
and chemistry, we would say, oh, now we want to make this 
reaction, not that. And we would rearrange a few things and 
boom, we were blowing up the lab another way.
    This is going to be billions sunk into capital projects, 
and it is hard for me to think that you are going to be able to 
rearrange everything and see how it works differently. So if 
Dr. Mumgaard is suggesting that there is going to be a basic 
level of pushing the ball forward on science, how much 
flexibility will this newly built infrastructure give to try 
different things?
    Dr. Cowley, you are outside the government, so I am going 
to ask you first, okay?
    Dr. Cowley. I think there is a key thing that ITER is going 
to do, which is, it is an experiment. So they are going to 
study what is going on inside the reaction. When Commonwealth 
Fusion or one of the other private companies actually 
demonstrates fusion, they are going to move forward and try and 
make electricity. But one of the things that has gotten us to 
where we are is by understanding the science of containment of 
the 100-million-degree plasmas.
    Senator Cassidy. Isn't that the baseline of what they are 
attempting to do, and once that is established, you have 
established the understanding?
    Dr. Cowley. No, because, in fact, we contain it with 
magnetic fields that push it in and take it off the walls. And 
there is turbulence that brings the heat from the middle to the 
outside. And if we can reduce that turbulence, we can make the 
whole system smaller. And in fact, pound for pound, the highest 
performing experiment in the world is really General Atomics 
DIII-D in San Diego. They have managed to reduce the turbulence 
to much smaller levels than any of the other machines in the 
world, and that is by understanding what is going on. And 
therefore, they get higher performance. And in the end, it is 
going to be a question of, is the performance good enough to 
make the electricity cheap enough? We do not know the answer to 
that yet.
    Senator Cassidy. And Mr. Chairman, could I ask Dr. Hsu just 
to weigh in if he has anything to add?
    The Chairman. Absolutely.
    Senator Cassidy. Dr. Hsu.
    [Laughter.]
    Dr. Hsu. Thank you, Senator.
    Well, I will not repeat what has been said, but I will add 
a few points. I think the international engagements aspects of 
ITER have a lot of spillover of benefits and we would be happy 
to go into those a bit more, maybe in written responses, in the 
interest of time.
    Maybe I will just mention one, international coordination 
on things like regulatory is very important, if the U.S. wants 
to export fusion as a global product, for example.
    I also want to point to the Office of Nuclear Energy 
example. We have deployed nuclear energy for decades and 
decades, but we still have need for test reactors and other 
facilities to continue optimizing the industry. So that is one 
example where ITER could continue to help, regardless of the 
private-sector time scale.
    And finally, at this very moment, you know, I sincerely 
hope Dr. Mumgaard proves us wrong, but ITER is the surest path 
to a burning plasma at this point in time. And of course, we 
all should continue to reassess based on global developments in 
fusion development.
    Senator Cassidy. Okay. Thank you all.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Now we have Senator Hickenlooper.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you very much, and thank 
you all for your time, your commitment, and all the work you 
are doing. It is--and the Chair has said this before--what you 
are doing has the direct potential to change life on Earth as 
we know it and so many of the challenges we face.
    I want to start with Dr. Mumgaard. Leading fusion companies 
and efforts, the pathways of progress, are getting millions of 
dollars in investment, very exciting for the industry. However, 
there are many smaller companies just starting up like you were 
a few years ago that are--we have several of them in Colorado, 
of course. The newer companies are smaller, do not have the 
track record, attract less funding and attention. They struggle 
to get any federal dollars because of the hurdles, like high 
cost-share requirements and milestone-based funding. What 
should we be thinking about to try and lower barriers and 
direct capital toward the innovative, nascent fusion companies?
    Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, great question.
    We think of it as a ladder. So you have at one level, 
grants like ARPA-E, which are how most of these companies get 
started. That is a grant. But then you also have things like, 
well, if you had access to the labs, so that the science, that 
running supercomputer time, that you could not afford to do as 
a small company, you get access, not just to stuff, but to 
people's minds. So lowering the barrier to collaboration 
between the labs and the companies. And then that means you get 
results, and those results mean that maybe you are in an 
innovation program by tech-to-market from DOE to help find 
connections of people that might invest.
    And so, you get up and up on the ladder and you know, the 
big scale, maybe it is a milestone program, but after that, 
maybe it is the tax incentives and subsidies that we do for any 
energy system. So it is important that we have a ladder that 
doesn't have gaps. And that means it has to be a holistic look 
at it.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Great. And I could not agree more, 
and that is part of our job, but we need your input to make 
sure we do that properly, and that there are not missing rungs, 
gaps, that get in the way.
    Dr. Luce, let me turn to you. It is always great to see a 
lasting international collaborative effort. It is so important 
for so many reasons, but especially for such an important 
energy innovation. At the same time, it is a global race, which 
obviously will at some point hopefully have important energy 
security consequences. Some of the major players in the fusion 
space, like the United Kingdom and Canada, do not participate 
in ITER. And again, as we have seen with Dr. Cowley, that 
British accent does create a sense of real knowing. All the 
movies we have seen about these frontiers.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Hickenlooper. They have an advantage that we should 
recognize.
    How do we balance the collaboration and competition to 
ensure that the U.S. stays ahead of the curve, but also works 
together with our allies to make progress on fusion?
    Dr. Luce. Well, I think you have almost answered your own 
question--that engagement is essential. If you are engaged with 
what the world is doing, then your investments will return more 
because you participate and then you choose what you can do 
best or what you want to focus on, and that enhances the 
investment, basically.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
    Just as a follow-up, any of you can answer--what are some 
of the things we should be learning from other countries, not 
necessarily about a specific scientific innovation, but process 
or approach, if there is something that you should be sharing 
with the Senate?
    You can look at it like Jeopardy, just push the button and 
say ``me.''
    [Laughter.]
    Dr. Luce. Well, one thing, one of the reasons why ITER is 
in France is because it has a unique nuclear regulatory regime 
that is demonstration based. So this has challenges in terms of 
certainty for industry if they are using a proven technology, 
but it allows for innovation. So there is room for 
consideration of how to do regulation that enables innovation.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Got it. I like that, yes.
    Dr. Mumgaard. The UK. So the UK is in the middle of 
executing a very good transition from focusing on plasma 
science to enabling technology development, and building test 
stands that other people are going to come use, and they have, 
you know, grown an entire technology cohort of people in doing 
so. So in terms of the pivot, the UK has done a very good job.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Interesting, really good.
    Anything else? Yes, go ahead.
    Dr. Cowley. I was going to make that point, actually, but--
--
    [Laughter.]
    Dr. Cowley. But again, so is China. And China is putting a 
lot of money into the technology aspect, the materials, how to 
handle the fuel cycle, that is, you know, processing the fuels 
and bringing them in. The turning neutrons into electricity, 
this is something the U.S. program has put aside for a period 
of time and needs to really focus back on, and the decadal plan 
and the National Academies have all focused on saying that if 
we are serious about electricity, that is what we have to do. 
And the Europeans are doing it. The British are doing it--very 
well--and the Chinese are doing it.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Great, perfect. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Hsu, anything?
    Dr. Hsu. Just to hammer that point. What I said in my 
opening remarks is that we are ready for an energy development 
mission for fusion and that requires a fundamentally different 
strategy.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Right. A point well taken.
    Thank you all. I yield back to the Chair.
    The Chairman. Thanks, Senator. Thank you.
    Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of 
you for being here today.
    So in a nutshell for each of you: why fusion? I mean, we 
went the nuclear fission route. Obviously, not only in weapons, 
but then utilizing it for energy. That has seemed to have 
fallen to disfavor for a variety of reasons now. There is some 
effort, I think, to return to it. And then I also remember the 
Super Collider days back in Texas. We were putting billions 
into that when billions was a lot of money, right? And that 
didn't seem to actually happen. So is this really going to 
happen? And why do you think so, and why should it? In layman's 
terms now so that the public actually goes, gosh, we want that, 
right? Because that is a big part of any of this, particularly 
with the massive investment that is required. So, I don't know, 
Dr. Hsu, if you want to start?
    Dr. Hsu. Sure, thank you. It is always good to ask the 
questions right from the basics, so I appreciate that. I think 
a couple of things. One is, fusion has a lot of implications 
for not only energy security, but national security and global 
leadership. So it is a race for future global leadership. That 
is one point.
    The second point is energy abundance. We will need a lot 
and a lot of carbon-free, primary energy going forward, for 
multiple reasons, and we hope we can get there. And fusion is 
kind of the ideal way to do it. It is dense in energy. The fuel 
is theoretically limitless and it can be deployed anywhere. You 
do not rely on weather or climate, et cetera. And so, there are 
many reasons why it would be good to have in our back pocket as 
something for civilization. I will turn it over to my 
colleagues.
    Dr. Cowley. At the PCAST hearing, around December, Jesse 
Jenkins, my colleague from Princeton, talked about what was 
missing in the suite of technologies in order to decarbonize 
America's supply. This is the Net-Zero America project that he 
leads from Princeton. And the key thing that is missing is what 
is now termed ``the firm energy sources.'' These are ones you 
can turn on when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't 
shine, and you can supply energy in all kinds of places. And 
his point was that we do not have enough options in that space. 
At this point, they are basing it on doing an extension of 
nuclear and using carbon capture and storage. And both of those 
have, at this point, unless we develop advanced nuclear, they 
have finite lifetimes, you know, decades possibly they can be 
used for, then we will have used up their potential. And 
therefore, we have to have a firm energy source that goes into 
that space. And that is fusion.
    Dr. Luce [holding up a bottle of water]. This contains 
fusion fuel. This makes it easy. If we used deuterium and 
tritium, everybody has this. It is safe. Our byproduct is 
helium. It is an inert gas. The reactor has in it one gram of 
fuel at any time. It cannot run away. We have demonstrated 
scientific understanding to manipulate, as Steve has said, to 
optimize. Where we need the next frontier is technology. And 
that is where the mystery is and that is where the investment 
needs to be. We do not have the same predictive capability for 
metals, for other things that we have for the plasma physics, 
which is tremendously hard science, but we have really attacked 
it and we have largely solved that problem. We have to show 
that, but it is solved. Now we need to address the technology.
    Dr. Mumgaard. In terms of layman, I go to like the most 
layman thing I can think of--fusion is the energy source that 
is in all the science fiction. It is in all the comic books. 
Why? It's because it is a fundamentally different relationship 
between humanity and energy because it is energy without fuel, 
without consumption. If you have a machine, you have energy, 
full stop, forever, no one can take it away from you, no one 
can stop you from doing it, you have energy. Not only do you 
have energy, you have energy that is 99.9999999 percent the 
energy of the universe. We just saw [the launch of the] James 
Webb [telescope]. That was a very fancy camera in space to take 
a picture of fusion power plants, ancient ones. It is the thing 
of the stars. So it's like a very fundamental difference. And 
it manifests itself in all these different practical ways we 
talk about of energy security, but it is very different.
    Senator Hoeven. Are we really going to get there? Is this 
the fuel of the future and always will be? You mentioned 
General Atomics. I do a lot of work with General Atomics. So I 
was intrigued when you said they have been doing some really 
good work. I think they are really good about actually getting 
a result. They have to be, they are private sector and so 
forth. So they do not have limitless funding, even on the scale 
of some of the really big companies.
    So if you will indulge me for just a minute, Mr. Chair?
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Senator Hoeven. I will come back to you, Professor Cowley. 
Why is it not always going to be the fuel of the future? Are we 
actually going to get there, and when? And if you want to work 
in a little bit on General Atomics that would be good, what 
they are doing because it sounded like you thought they were 
actually getting to something.
    Dr. Cowley. Yes, they have done some beautiful experiments 
at General Atomics that have reduced the loss of heat from the 
experiment so that you can, therefore, make the experiment 
smaller and in the future, make fusion reactors smaller. But 
the reason I am actually optimistic about fusion is we have 
actually done some. We have actually made the fusion reaction 
happen, and last year was a record-breaking year. The 
experiments at Lawrence Livermore Lab actually got a fusion 
burn. So we know that fusion is possible. We now have to apply 
all the power of the private sector in order to drive down the 
costs so that it is then at a cost that the consumer wants to 
pay.
    Senator Hoeven. So it is technologically possible, maybe 
not yet commercially viable? I mean, you actually can do it?
    Dr. Cowley. Exactly. That is a good way to say it.
    Senator Hoeven. That is very interesting. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    And now, by the graciousness of Senator Cortez Masto, 
Senator Kelly.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, 
Senator Cortez Masto.
    Dr. Luce, I want to just follow up a little bit--you said 
for ITER, nine percent of the investment, 100 percent of the 
outcome. Do you mean we just get 100 percent of the results and 
the technology and the intellectual property? Is that what the 
100 percent is?
    Dr. Luce. Indeed, but also, as has been pointed out, I 
think by Scott before, if we are engaged, you get the know-how, 
and know-how is a critical intellectual property that is very 
challenging to capture. You do not want a chef that has read a 
cookbook, you want to chef that is actually been in a kitchen.
    Senator Kelly. Yes, it is the reason why other countries 
have a hard time manufacturing jet engines, even though they 
can get a jet engine and look at it, but they might not be able 
to make it. So yes, I understand that.
    And Dr. Luce, I also want to follow up on the fuel issue. 
You know, mentioning that we have, you know, holding up the 
water and you know, tritium or helium-3 being our fuel that 
would go into a fusion reaction. What is the processing to turn 
this [the Senator holds up a bottle of water] into tritium?
    Dr. Luce. Well, not into tritium. There is deuterium here 
directly.
    Senator Kelly. Right.
    Dr. Luce. So it is a distillation process, a mass 
separation. The important thing that needs to be done for 
fusion is closing the fuel cycle. Tritium has a decay lifetime 
of only about 12 and a half years. So it doesn't exist 
naturally. We need a startup----
    Senator Kelly. Well, it doesn't exist naturally on Earth.
    Dr. Luce. Correct, but we need to make it within the fusion 
power plant. So we need the blanket technology to make the 
tritium fuel and return it, not just to that plant, but to the 
next plants also.
    Senator Kelly. We often hear these--I spent 15 years at 
NASA--and as we talk about going back to the moon, often the 
whole thing comes up about well, there is tritium on the moon. 
We could bring that back and use it in the fusion power plants. 
Is that a realistic source of tritium?
    Dr. Luce. So I think you are thinking of helium-3. There is 
a reaction between deuterium and helium-3, but it is more 
difficult to get it to go than it is the deuterium/tritium. So 
in terms of optimization and advance, I would see that as 
similar as to when you mentioned jet engines. It is like the 
jet engine to the right flyer and there is a progression you 
might go through on a fusion economy. And so, yes, that might 
be a future fuel, but it is not the optimum way to start.
    Senator Kelly. Okay, so you do not feel like fuel is going 
to be an issue once we have the technology developed?
    Dr. Luce. We have to do it, but yes, there is a known way 
to do this, known processes, and we just have to demonstrate 
the industrialization of them.
    Senator Kelly. Dr. Hsu, when I think about this, and I 
cannot remember who mentioned this, but we were, you know, 
talking about when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not 
shining you have a ready source of power. Is it true that if 
batteries became more dense and more efficient that at some 
point this becomes a race between fusion technology and battery 
technology?
    Dr. Hsu. Yes, I will take that. Thank you very much, 
Senator.
    If I may, I want to just go back to the fuel question for 
one second. I think as part of our Bold Decadal Vision, we want 
to be very, very transparent about fusion with the public. It 
is important to mention that in order to breed tritium, we need 
lithium. So lithium and deuterium actually are the input fuels 
for a DT fusion system. Fortunately, we do not need huge, huge 
amounts of lithium because of how energy-dense fusion is, but 
that is very important and it is something that we have to 
tackle. But we think we know how to do it, as Dr. Luce says.
    In terms of a race, so I don't like to look at it as a 
race. I think, right now, we need as many energy technologies, 
and to deploy them and to develop new ones so that we have the 
best chance of meeting our decarbonization goals and finding a 
way forward sustainably. Fusion, though, however, as Dr. Cowley 
said, does have, because it is an on-demand source, it will 
help the overall energy system be lower cost and more reliable.
    Senator Kelly. So you are not concerned? Let's say we are 
able to get battery efficiency up by another 20 percent and 
more dense, that at some point, when you look at the cost to 
generate power that the solar modules have become so cheap that 
you deploy more solar, you store the energy in a battery and 
then you have them, you solve the problem for when the sun is 
not shining or the wind is not blowing.
    Dr. Hsu. So I came from ARPA-E before this, where we looked 
at every energy technology in existence and what I keep coming 
back to is that we need more than 500, 600 exajoules of carbon-
free energy per year by mid-century.
    Senator Kelly. Okay.
    Dr. Hsu. Frankly, I don't know how we are going to supply 
that without multiple----
    Senator Kelly. With what we have.
    Dr. Hsu. Yes.
    Senator Kelly. And I agree. And I am supportive of funding, 
you know, this technology. I think it would be an incredible 
breakthrough for our country. We want to lead on this 
technology because if we do not, somebody else is going to, and 
it does go a long way to solving a lot of issues, what you just 
mentioned, but also, you know, issues surrounding climate. And 
in Arizona, we have hotter days every year. We are looking at 
the potential of, if we continue on the business-as-usual plan, 
at the end of the century there are going to be a lot more days 
over 100 degrees. That means more wildfires, more drought. So I 
want to see this move forward.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Cortez Masto.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am always so impressed with the diverse perspectives on 
this panel. Here I am going to be talking about critical 
minerals and how we mine those here in the state. We have an 
astronaut talking about bringing them from the moon. I think it 
is just so impressive. So I am always pleased to listen to my 
colleague from Arizona and the perspectives that he brings.
    So that is my next question. So just to open it up to the 
panel, nearly everyone on today's panel has discussed the need 
to develop a domestic supply chain in order for fusion energy 
deployment to be successful. What is the potential for domestic 
production of the minerals that are necessary for the 
deployment of fusion energy projects, and how does that fit 
into this panel or this Committee's discussion on identifying 
our current critical mineral domestic manufacturing needs and 
capabilities?
    I am going to open it up to the panel, if anybody would 
like to start. Yes, Dr. Mumgaard.
    Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, so we look at this from a 
commercialization standpoint and we try to get ahead of the 
supply chain. You know, one thing to remember is that because 
there is not a fuel--that the fuel is tritium or sorry, 
deuterium and some lithium--that is not really what we are 
talking about. We are talking about what it takes to build the 
machine, right? That machine is made out of a lot of steel, so 
like, high quality steel. So you have to have that supply chain 
in place, including all the manufacturing and forging. There 
are some unique materials that go into it, like lithium. You 
need lithium. You do not need a lot of lithium, but you need 
lithium, you know, at a scale that is a fraction of the EV 
market. So domestic lithium is important. There are some rare 
earths that are not a lot, like much less than say, a full-out, 
built-out wind market, but you still need those as well--things 
like yttrium. There is some niobium sometimes that you need to 
have, but they are in amounts that are--build a machine and 
then have it for many, many years, not a continual consumption.
    There is a manufacturing problem as well. So, like, you 
need people that can machine things. People that can put 
complicated machines together. Things that kind of look like 
aerospace. People that can construct plants, iron workers, et 
cetera, because you are building an industrial plant.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Okay. Anyone else?
    So let me jump then to the discussion of fiscal resources. 
I was here earlier and I had to run to the Banking Committee, 
but as you were talking with Senator Barrasso, you were talking 
about the need for public-private, really, partnerships to 
validate the demonstration project to move us forward. But what 
is the fiscal funding that is necessary? There is a lot of 
private funding that we are seeing coming in and we want to 
continue that, but is there a role for us at the federal level? 
Should we be looking at more of a fiscal investment here? And I 
am just curious, your thoughts on that, maybe, Professor 
Cowley?
    Dr. Cowley. I think what has been authorized in various 
places is----
    Senator Cortez Masto. Is enough? What we have already 
authorized through the current appropriations and legislation?
    Dr. Cowley. What has been authorized is not what has been 
appropriated, right?
    Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
    Dr. Cowley. What has been authorized is over a billion for 
the federally funded part of the program, a year, and we are at 
about $730 million at this point.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
    Dr. Cowley. I think what is authorized, actually, is quite 
good in outlining what should be done by the public sector in 
order to support the private sector. We need the private sector 
to drive down cost.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Right.
    Dr. Cowley. That is not what we are good at, right? But we 
do need the public sector to, for instance, help develop the 
new materials. We need the public sector to continue to 
innovate the containment so that we can make these things 
smaller and more efficient and we can get to market with 
something that really is cost effective. And so, I think what 
was authorized is actually pretty perceptive about what we need 
right now.
    Senator Cortez Masto. You are saying that Congress was 
perceptive? Is that on the record? That is what you just said?
    [Laughter.]
    Dr. Cowley. Yes.
    Senator Cortez Masto. All right, just checking. Thank you. 
I appreciate it.
    Anybody else?
    I appreciate this conversation today. Thank you very much.
    Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Senator King.
    Senator King. Dr. Cowley, we particularly appreciate your 
comment because like most Americans, I attribute about 20 
points of IQ to the British accent, additional IQ that is, 
incrementally.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator King. My father, who grew up in Alexandria, used to 
say that the Pentagon was the only building in the world where 
you drive straight at it and it keeps getting further and 
further away. I feel like that is where fusion is. I have been 
hearing about fusion for 25 years. It keeps getting further and 
further away.
    A variation of Senator Hoeven's question, Dr. Hsu, will it 
ever work? Is it real or is this a WPA project for scientists?
    Dr. Hsu. Thank you, Senator.
    This is the question that is always on the mind for fusion, 
but yes, I think the answer is yes. Dr. Cowley earlier 
explained why we think fusion will work. In fact, fusion does 
work. It is about getting it to a point where it can be 
economically attractive and competitive. I also want to say 
there was a quote to a Russian scientist that said, you know, 
when will fusion be ready? And he said, ``when society needs 
it.'' And I think we may be at a point where society needs 
fusion.
    Senator King. Dr. Mumgaard, talk to me about when. When?
    Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, it is always very hard to predict when 
technologies will happen. I think if you look at the history of 
technology development, the argument that well, it is always, 
we have always talked about it and it is not here yet. We had 
that argument days before the Wright Brothers flew. We had that 
argument about AI, and look at what AI has done. So it is very 
difficult to predict, but you can look at some indicators, 
right? The diversity----
    Senator King. The private sector is putting money into it.
    Dr. Mumgaard. Right. You have the diversity of approaches, 
you have the diversity of stakeholders who are getting involved 
in it, from investors, from other corporations that are 
starting fusion divisions in oil and gas companies. So there 
are a lot of indicators that say that we are close. We haven't 
yet seen the flight, but we have seen people gliding. We have 
seen people doing wind tunnel experiments and it does feel like 
we are on the precipice of something. And we know that it can 
be made to work. We have experiments like JET and others, and 
also, of course, we look at the----
    Senator King. It is theoretically feasible.
    Dr. Mumgaard. Theoretically feasible, done on earth in 
specialized machines, not quite at the right performance, but 
getting close and then proving historically faster than Moore's 
law within a factor of a few away. And so, feels good.
    Senator King. Well, let me go on the assumption that it is 
possible and then the question is, how do we get there and how 
do we get there as soon as possible?
    Dr. Luce, this strikes me as a world-saving technology. 
This is not just a U.S. technology. And we are used to 
thinking, in fact, in this hearing people have talked about a 
race--we are in a race, you know, with other countries. 
Shouldn't this be a straight-up, international effort? I mean, 
if we have adequate, non-fossil fuel energy in China, that is a 
good thing. They have not won a race. They are helping the 
environment. So I see this as an opportunity for an 
unprecedented worldwide collaboration on a technology that 
could literally save the planet.
    Dr. Luce. So we are proving that that is beneficial through 
the ITER project, and it has, as I said before, it is a common 
need. Everyone will need energy for their civilization to 
develop, no matter what choices they make. However, I think 
there has to be national investment too, to have energy 
security.
    Senator King. Oh, I agree with that. I am talking about the 
mechanics of carrying it out. I think everybody has to be 
invested, but should it, is it, can it be an international 
collaboration as we work through this?
    Dr. Luce. I believe that is effective, but it is not 
complete. So yes, I have spent most of my personal--I have 
spent a lot of my career working internationally. I worked on 
11 different fusion facilities, nine of which were not in the 
U.S. So I have seen the benefits from this and those benefits 
were brought back into the U.S. program and now I am with the 
ITER program, again, working internationally. We get the best 
of the best by collaborating, but then you have to take 
advantage of it. We have known for a long time the potential of 
fusion. I think, as Dr. Mumgaard said in his initial comments, 
the investment of the public sector enables people to take a 
little bit more risk with private money and move forward.
    Senator King. That gets into my final question. If it will 
work, if it has the enormous potential that you all have 
testified to, are we doing enough? Shouldn't this be an 
international Manhattan Project rather than--you mentioned a 
billion dollars that has been authorized. If this has the 
promise that we all think it does, then it seems to me this 
ought to be an even larger investment, both by this country and 
other countries, and maybe it could be a matching proposition. 
We will put up this much money if Germany, Great Britain, 
China, and Japan put up an equivalent amount or some portion of 
that, but if it is that good, this ought to be urgent instead 
of a, you know, a moving-along science project.
    You are nodding. Nodding doesn't go into the record.
    Dr. Cowley. We would love to see something like that. But I 
have to say I am impressed with how the private companies, 
driven by the competitive spirit, are moving very, very quickly 
in this space. Energy industries, $8 trillion a year. You get a 
small percentage of $8 trillion a year, it is a pretty good 
business. And so, you know, when investors look at this and 
say, if this is what it is promised to be, the payoff is just 
so enormous that we are going to see people come in and compete 
on it.
    So I like this sort of dual program where we have a very 
cooperative program on ITER, but then we have a very 
competitive set of startups that are trying to innovate in it. 
I think, actually, you know, that might be an ideal way to go 
forward.
    Senator King. Other thoughts? Dr. Mumgaard?
    Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, I would echo that, that, you know, 
competition is good for some things, but not usually for 
understanding science, right?
    Senator King. Yes.
    Dr. Mumgaard. Science is----
    Senator King. Basic science----
    Dr. Mumgaard. Competition is great for demonstration, for 
developing supply chains, for doing the technology 
commercialization activities, for a variety of solving the 
customer's needs, right? We are not going to invent the right 
fusion power plant without talking to the people that use it, 
but if we have lots of companies that talk to lots of people, 
that is going to be an ecosystem that is going to sort it out 
as it goes. But I agree with the idea that you could have 
competitive companies and cooperative international science. 
And we do that all the time in human health where we build 
pharmaceutical companies that deliver drugs to patients. We 
also do research and we share that research widely--
internationally, and public and private. And so, I see that 
ecosystem being where this is headed.
    Senator King. Final point. I just hope that if you all have 
further thoughts about what our response should be, what we 
could do to further this research and whether it should be more 
money or directed in a different way, please let the Committee 
know. We would be very anxious to work with you on that.
    Thank you. Thank you.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you, Senator, I appreciate 
it. It is quite interesting, all this discussion. I want to 
thank you all again.
    We are going to finish up, but I just have one thing.
    We all know the fusion reactors require strong magnets, 
very cold temperatures, achieve a liquid helium and vast 
computational power. Many of the technologies that we have 
developed have required entirely new fields--new fields and 
materials, science processes achieved, and design specification 
needs for action. So we will start, Dr. Mumgaard, with you, and 
I want to go right down the line here. Do you all have examples 
or do you know of any examples of the major advances that 
fusion researchers brought in related materials and supply 
chains in the market today?
    Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, your observation that fusion is sort of 
like at the top of the technology chain that uses lots of 
things is spot-on. And so, when you think about the 
superconducting magnets, fusion is always the first to use big 
magnets, and those have ended up in MRI. And then this next 
generation of magnets is likely to impact that as well, wind 
turbines, MRI, other things.
    Dr. Luce. Supercomputers--energy research, and 
specifically, fusion energy research in the U.S. was one of the 
drivers for the development of supercomputers for non-defense 
uses.
    The Chairman. Great.
    Dr. Cowley. I hope I can get to it quickly.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. You can try.
    Dr. Cowley. The first one is, 46 percent of the steps in 
making a computer chip are made in plasma reactors that bombard 
the surface and cut the circuits into the chip and lay down the 
whole thing. The whole microchip industry is based on plasma 
processing. That came as a spin-out, partly from the fusion 
program and partly from, you know, Bell Labs in the 1990s.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Dr. Cowley. And it is what drives forward innovation in 
microelectronics. And we are hoping with the Micro Act that 
there again will be support, too, for this kind of research for 
the next generation of microelectronics.
    The Chairman. Great.
    Dr. Cowley. One more thing, very briefly. When two black 
holes collide, as we have seen with the LIGO gravitational wave 
detector.
    The Chairman. Right.
    Dr. Cowley. Around them is a plasma and it is emitting all 
kinds of gamma rays and x-rays, et cetera. The codes that solve 
what happens inside a fusion reactor are now being applied to 
what happens when two black holes collide.
    The Chairman. Wonderful.
    Dr. Hsu.
    Dr. Hsu. I will add one more, related to microelectronics 
processing, but something that came out of the inertial 
confinement fusion program in laser technology is what allows 
the etching of chips at five nanometers. So like, your latest 
smart phones are actually enabled by something that came out of 
the inertial confinement fusion program.
    The Chairman. Wonderful.
    I am going to go to Senator Barrasso real quick and I am 
going to have Senator Cantwell finish up for us.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, I am going to follow up, Mr. 
Chairman, on something that Senator King was asking about. Dr. 
Hsu, and I am going to also ask Dr. Mumgaard to comment on it.
    So how does the Department plan to execute initiatives 
focused on commercialization of fusion technology, because as 
Senator King asked, how do we carry this out? And does it make 
sense for the Department to execute these activities?
    Dr. Hsu. Yes, thank you, Senator.
    So I mentioned earlier, well, many of us mentioned the 
milestone-based program. That is a key component, not the only 
component, but that is an organizing program that tries to 
align the public and private sector activities and to develop 
the plans going toward a fusion pilot plant. But of course, the 
public sector programs, we are in discussion in DOE on many of 
these other needs, for example, growing enabling technologies 
and materials programs. We would be happy to work with your 
Committee to, you know, in going forward with those plans.
    Senator Barrasso. Dr. Mumgaard.
    Dr. Mumgaard. The milestone program is really important 
because that allows certainty. It allows the pilot program to 
say hey, we have got your back, go build these things and we 
are going to help you figure them out and we are going to learn 
a lot from them. So that one is really important. But it is not 
the only thing, but also things like what happens after that. 
So the Loan Program Office, like someday there will be a fusion 
application in the Loan Program Office. There will be 
investment tax credits, things like that, that do on the 
upside, and then earlier than say, a milestone program, doing 
things like an expanded infused program, which allows access 
back and forth is really important, and ARPA-E, which has been 
a huge driver of new innovations.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
having such an important hearing. I really, really appreciate 
it. I wanted to reiterate my open invitation for you to come to 
the Pacific Northwest.
    The Chairman. I am coming. I am coming.
    Senator Cantwell. To go to the national laboratories there 
and to see all the innovation that is happening, particularly 
the fusion innovation that is happening. I think about 90 
percent of the commercial, private-sector investment has been 
made in the tri-cities area. So we are very excited about that 
private capital investment and the continued research that can 
happen.
    I wanted to--I have been listening in and out as I have 
been at other places in the legislative buildings today, but 
you are getting really to the heart of the matter, which is 
that we passed this CHIPS and Science bill. We put a lot of 
money on the table. We did not see in the larger bill that was 
signed by the President, fusion as a qualifying technology. Do 
we need to rectify that? What specifically--I heard many of you 
talking about the next steps for manufacturing--what is it that 
we need to do, Dr. Hsu? Senator Wyden worked on this, but we 
need to get, I think, qualifying tax credits, but Senator 
Manchin and I definitely made sure the R&D investment was at 
DOE for this next generation technology.
    So what kind of test beds do we need to do? What kind of 
things do we need to do to get the manufacturing focus, 
thinking about this from a demonstration perspective? So I just 
want to go down the line.
    Dr. Hsu. Thank you, Senator. I can start. And first, let me 
just say that I and Undersecretary Richmond are planning to 
attend Seattle Fusion Week and we are very excited about that.
    Senator Cantwell. Great.
    Dr. Hsu. We stood up a crosscut team in DOE exactly to 
bring in multiple program equities, including on topics like 
this, manufacturing, and supply chains. These are things that 
fusion science has not focused on as much. And so, we are 
formulating our plans and priorities here. So I cannot say much 
here, but be assured that this is on our radar.
    Dr. Cowley. I think one of the things that has just really 
changed a lot is that high performance computing is now being 
used to optimize the way forward, just in the way it is being 
used in the new space industry, et cetera. And we need to 
actually take all the tools that we need for fusion reactors, 
integrate them and start innovating in the computer. We just 
had a--there is a young woman at Princeton who has just 
designed a new shape for a fusion reactor that is really pretty 
interesting and it came just from the computer and she started 
optimizing things on the computer and it is really going to be 
one of the ways in which we accelerate the pace of innovation, 
right? This is the great strength of a huge part of the DOE 
system, is computation.
    Senator Cantwell. Okay, so more dollars to high-performance 
computing analysis of reactors?
    Dr. Cowley. Of fusion systems, yes.
    Senator Cantwell. Of fusion systems, yes, okay.
    Dr. Luce. So for me, I would note that the U.S. is not 
participating in the test blanket system program in ITER, which 
is how you close the fuel cycle and generate the fusion fuel. 
So the U.S. will need to supplement that in some way if they 
want to be a leader in the fusion economy. The other area, 
which I think requires less investment initially, is materials. 
And as has been said, the materials that can stand the 
radiation environment at very high temperatures so that we get 
very good efficiency of the electricity generation is very 
important, but also, the materials that have to face the plasma 
itself. And there, you can start in the small scale, at 
universities, national labs and with computational capabilities 
in parallel with it, then you can move to industrialize it very 
rapidly. And so, this is a key place where I see that 
investment worldwide is needed to make progress in fusion.
    Senator Cantwell. Is there anybody leading that right now 
in the materials science side?
    Dr. Luce. There is work ongoing in the UK, certainly. There 
is work in Europe that I know about, but in the U.S. the 
funding has been quite short, is my experience.
    Senator Cantwell. Okay. So since we are very familiar with 
this, creating a tech center, tech hub, in materials science, 
specifically focused on fusion.
    Dr. Cowley. There is a key part there, which they are 
having a meeting of EPRI about next week, which is to produce a 
neutron source that mimics a fusion reactor called a point 
neutron source in order to test the materials, and there is a 
meeting, I think it is at Oak Ridge, but I am not quite sure 
where the meeting is. I will be joining via Zoom. I think 
pushing that forward, and it was made a priority in the plan 
that the National Academies put forward to make that test 
facility.
    Senator Cantwell. Okay.
    Dr. Mumgaard.
    Dr. Mumgaard. On the manufacturing front, I just would like 
to point out in the pictures here, the two big boxes are 
actually new factories--Helion in the Pacific Northwest, this 
one in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to make fusion 
components. So actual factories to make pieces. But, you know, 
those are the components we know how to make today. We also 
need to develop the components for tomorrow. And to the point 
about the test stands, the idea of let's build the test stands 
so we can make new materials, things like the neutron source, 
but let's also get the people that are going to take those 
results and turn it into an industrial fabrication in that 
pipeline, let's get them involved. So those are the metal 
makers, the foundries, et cetera. So that they have a seat at 
the table when we are figuring out what the materials are and 
they can take it immediately from the test stand to scale. So 
this goes to the idea of cooperation, not just the test stand, 
not just the manufacturing, they have to work together. And we 
think the materials, particularly, that is a ripe spot for the 
U.S. to lead.
    Senator Cantwell. Great. I agree, because we were just at 
PNNL and saw some of the groundbreaking work that they are 
doing on new metals. The terminology, I cannot think of it 
right now, but it is pretty breakthrough, that is making for, 
you know, mold injecting technology that is being used by the 
auto industry and others, just a very cost-effective way to 
build strong metal for manufacturing.
    How do you do this industrial pipeline for fabrication? 
What is the framework? How do you create that, is what I am 
saying. How--what--who needs to do something that so, again, do 
we take--is that a center of excellence, is that a university 
leading the way in collaboration with the private sector, is it 
Department of Commerce?
    Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, so from our point of view at CFS, we 
have been very successful by going to adjacencies. So like, we 
assemble magnets. Well, people that assemble cars can be taught 
how to assemble magnets and robots that make cars can make 
magnets. And so, you don't want to, I don't think, start from a 
blank slate. I think you want to go and say, hey, where are 
there people that do things that are similar? Let's get them 
all in a room together, figure out what we need to do and then 
go and have the resources to try it at some scale that is 
relevant because if it just ends up as a paper report, we do 
not advance. So a center of excellence or using a national lab 
or building a hub, those, I think, come after you actually know 
what you want to do.
    Senator Cantwell. So this is the experimentation part.
    Yes, Professor Cowley.
    Dr. Cowley. Sorry, I wasn't nodding my head to say 
something, but there is a very interesting thing here which is 
sort of one of those valleys of death from development to 
materials, which is that people in universities and small labs 
make little pieces of material, but actually what you want to 
know is that in a foundry, you can make steel, for instance, 
that is what we call low-activation steel for fusion devices--a 
special kind of steel, right? And to do that, you have to do 
things at probably a national lab type scale, the kind of thing 
that is going on at PNNL, for those kinds of materials.
    Senator Cantwell. Well, the Chairman was very clear about 
this, that he wanted to see, and I think the Ranking Member 
too, that they wanted to see the innovation at the labs who 
have been successful in some of these things in the past lead 
the charge. So we are going to look to that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Let me just tell all of you that we have been almost two 
hours. You can tell the interest and the quality of this 
hearing that you all have brought to us and we appreciate it 
very much. We probably could go on for another couple hours, 
but we have to go vote. And let me just say, we thank you again 
and we look forward to working with you in the future.
    Members will have until close of business tomorrow to 
submit additional questions for the record.
    The Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]