[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FROM THEORY TO REALITY:
THE LIMITLESS POTENTIAL
OF FUSION ENERGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 13, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-17
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-450 WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BILL POSEY, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking
RANDY WEBER, Texas Member
BRIAN BABIN, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JIM BAIRD, Indiana HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
MIKE GARCIA, California DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California KEVIN MULLIN, California
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
RYAN ZINKE, Montana MAXWELL FROST, Florida
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
DALE STRONG, Alabama SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
MAX MILLER, Ohio JENNIFER McCLELLAN, Virginia
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia TED LIEU, California
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia SEAN CASTEN, Illinois,
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York Vice Ranking Member
TOM KEAN, New Jersey PAUL TONKO, New York
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York, Chairman
RANDY WEBER, Texas JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
JIM BAIRD, Indiana Ranking Member
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
MAX MILLER, Ohio ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
TOM KEAN, New Jersey VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
C O N T E N T S
June 13, 2023
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brandon Williams, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Jamaal Bowman, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 15
Written Statement............................................ 16
Witnesses:
Dr. Kathryn McCarthy, Director, U.S. ITER Project Office
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
Dr. David Kirtley, CEO, Helion Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 28
Dr. Wayne Solomon, Vice President, Magnetic Fusion Energy,
General Atomics
Oral Statement............................................... 41
Written Statement............................................ 43
Mr. Andrew Holland, CEO, Fusion Industry Association
Oral Statement............................................... 54
Written Statement............................................ 56
Dr. Scott Hsu, Senior Advisor and Lead Fusion Coordinator, U.S.
Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 63
Written Statement............................................ 65
Discussion....................................................... 74
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Kathryn McCarthy, Director, U.S. ITER Project Office......... 90
Dr. David Kirtley, CEO, Helion Energy............................ 91
Dr. Wayne Solomon, Vice President, Magnetic Fusion Energy,
General Atomics................................................ 96
Mr. Andrew Holland, CEO, Fusion Industry Association............. 103
Dr. Scott Hsu, Senior Advisor and Lead Fusion Coordinator, U.S.
Department of Energy........................................... 107
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letters submitted by Dr. Wayne Solomon, Vice President, Magnetic
Fusion Energy, General Atomics
Distinguished Professor William W. Heidbrink, Department of
Physics and Astronomy, UC Irvine........................... 114
Professor Mark E. Koepke, Department of Physics, West
Virginia University........................................ 116
Professors Michael E. Mauel, Gerald A. Navratil, and Carlos
Paz-Soldan, Department of Applied Physics and Applied
Mathematics, Columbia University........................... 118
Dr. Miklos Porkolab, Professor Post Tenure, MIT.............. 119
Professor William M. Tang, Plasma Physics Laboratory,
Princeton University....................................... 121
Distinguished Professor George R. Tynan, Department of
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, UC San Diego......... 123
Studies submitted by Mr. Andrew Holland, CEO, Fusion Industry
Association
``The Global Fusion Industry in 2022,'' Fusion Industry
Association................................................ 125
``The Fusion Industry Supply Chain: Opportunities and
Challenges,'' Fusion Industry Association.................. 156
FROM THEORY TO REALITY:
THE LIMITLESS POTENTIAL
OF FUSION ENERGY
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2023
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brandon
Williams [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Williams. All right. The Subcommittee on Energy
will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized
to declare recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Per agreement between the Chairman and Ranking Member of
the Full Committee, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Beyer of
Virginia be allowed to participate in today's hearing. Without
objection, welcome, Mr. Beyer.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``From Theory to
Reality: The Limitless Potential of Fusion Energy.'' Move to
opening statements, I recognize myself for five minutes.
Good afternoon. Today, the Energy Subcommittee will be
examining the development of fusion energy as it progresses
from scientific experiment to commercial reality. Our
conversation will cover the Department of Energy's (DOE's)
Fusion Energy Sciences program, as well as the Federal
Government's public-private partnerships with the commercial
fusion industry. Fusion is the energy of our Sun and the energy
of every star in the universe. It has long been the dream of
mankind to capture this unlimited clean source of energy to
power our world. Given its potential, the Department of Energy
has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in fundamental
research and development (R&D) through the Fusion Energy
Sciences Program.
Today, fusion is more than just a science experiment.
Commercial fusion is an engineering challenge similar to
putting a man on the Moon. It's an economic opportunity even
greater than the California gold rush of 1849. And it's a
legislative opportunity more consequential to our Nation, as
was the Louisiana Purchase or the Marshall Plan.
I would like to introduce the topic and focus of today's
hearing in a very personal way. I want to tell you of my own
journey from being a fusion skeptic just a few months ago to a
fusion optimist today. Many of humankind's greatest inventions
are inspired by what we observe in creation. The Sun tells us
that fusion is real, for example. Birds testify to the
possibility of flight. Lightning reveals the power and
potential of electricity. But consider this: In none of these
instances do our modern solutions mimic the exact same
mechanics of nature. Modern aircraft do not flap their wings.
Lightning does not power our cities. It was up to the Wright
brothers, Michael Faraday, Thomas Edison, Marie Curie, and many
others to bridge the scientific discovery into the
extraordinary modern world we live in today.
Fusion research funded by our Federal Government, and much
of it through this Subcommittee, has focused on understanding
and recreating the fusion environment of the Sun. What if
humankind's harnessing of fusion power did not require
recreating the Sun here on Earth? What if commercial fusion was
achieved through rapid iterative innovation and the
entrepreneurial spirit like the Wright brothers in their
bicycle shop? The large-scale government-funded fusion
experiments like ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor) or the National Ignition Lab have unlocked invaluable
secrets about the nature of fusion, plasma physics,
superconducting materials, and much else. But the
commercialization of fusion energy into reliable, affordable,
and responsible electricity on the grid will be an
entrepreneurial solution, aligning scientific engineering,
environmental, and economic interests.
As I have met with and evaluated the technology of private
fusion companies over the last several months, I have become
much more hopeful that fusion on the grid may be possible
before the end of the decade. The incredible American spirit of
commercial innovation is making progress at far greater speed
and with far fewer resources than government projects, and I'm
convinced that this Nation must dramatically increase our
public investment in these private efforts to ensure that we
are the first to harness the history-changing energy source.
Over the last five years, Congress has prioritized funding
for fusion energy science and has enacted comprehensive
reauthorizations of DOE's programs, including the 2018
Department of Energy Research and Innovation Act, the Energy
Act of 2020, and, most recently, the CHIPS and Science Act.
These strategic investments, along with the development of new
public-private partnerships, has helped foster a growing
commercial fusion industry in the United States. Private
investment has grown to $2.8 billion last year, with 23 of the
37 private fusion companies located here in the United States
according to the Fusion Industry Association (FIA).
In 2015, ARPA--E (Advanced Research Projects Agency--
Energy) launched the ALPHA (Accelerating Low-Cost Plasma
Heating and Assembly) program to help find low-cost pathways to
fusion with alternative approaches and has funded over $120
million in fusion projects, including partnering with one of
our witnesses today, Dr. David Kirtley.
Just last month, the Department of Energy selected eight
companies to participate in its new $46 million fusion
Milestone-based development program. This program is modelled
on the highly successful NASA program Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services (COTS), which spurred the development
of our space sector. This program is exactly what Congress can
do and must do to ensure that the nascent fusion industry
continues to flourish. It is critical for Congress to continue
to provide robust funding for fundamental research in fusion
and to fund essential public-private partnerships.
As the Energy Subcommittee Chairman, I wanted to share with
you my own journey from skepticism to optimism, and I will work
tirelessly with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
bring U.S. fusion forward from fundamental research to fusion
on the grid.
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today,
and I look forward to our conversation.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Williams follows:]
Good afternoon. Today, the Energy Subcommittee will be
examining the development of fusion energy as it progresses
from scientific experiment to commercial reality. Our
conversation will cover the Department of Energy's Fusion
Energy Sciences program as well as the Federal Government's
public-private partnerships with the commercial fusion
industry.
Fusion is the energy of our sun and the energy of every
star in the universe. It has long been the dream of mankind to
capture this unlimited, clean source of energy to power our
world. Given its potential, the Department of Energy has
invested billions of taxpayer dollars in fundamental research
and development through the Fusion Energy Sciences program.
Today, fusion is more than just a science experiment-
commercial fusion is an engineering challenge similar to
putting a man on the moon; it is an economic opportunity even
greater than the California gold rush of 1849, and it is a
legislative opportunity more consequential to our nation as was
the Louisiana Purchase or the Marshall Plan.
I would like to introduce the topic and focus of today's
hearing in a very personal way. I want to tell you of my own
journey from being a fusion-skeptic just a few months ago, to a
fusion-optimist today.
Many of humankind's greatest inventions are inspired by
what we observe in creation-the sun tells us that of fusion is
real for example. Birds testify to the possibility of flight.
Lightning reveals the power and potential of electricity. But
consider this: in none of these instances do our modern
solutions mimic the exact same mechanics of nature. Modern
aircraft do not flap their wings. Lightning does not power our
cities. It was up to the Wright Brothers, Michael Faraday,
Thomas Edison, Marie Curie, and many others to bridge the
scientific discovery into the extraordinary modern world we
live in today.
Fusion research, funded by our Federal Government and much
of it through this Subcommittee, has focused on understanding
and recreating the fusion environment of the sun. What if
humankind's harnessing of fusion power did not require
recreating the sun, here on earth? What if commercial fusion
was achieved through rapid, iterative innovation and the
entrepreneurial spirit like the Wright Brothers in their
bicycle shop?
The large-scale, government-funded fusion experiments, like
ITER or the National Ignition Lab have unlocked invaluable
secrets about the nature of fusion, plasma physics,
superconducting materials, and much else. But the
commercialization of fusion energy into reliable, affordable,
and responsible electricity on the grid will be an
entrepreneurial solution-aligning scientific, engineering,
environmental, and economic interests. As I have met with and
evaluated the technology of private fusion companies over the
last several months, I have become much more hopeful that
``fusion on the grid'' may be possible before the end of the
decade. The incredible American spirit of commercial innovation
is making progress at far greater speed, and with far fewer
resources, than government projects. And I am convinced that
this nation must dramatically increase our public investment in
these private efforts to ensure that we are the first to
harness this history-changing energy source.
Over the last five years, Congress has prioritized funding
for fusion energy sciences and has enacted comprehensive
reauthorizations of DOE's programs, including the 2018
Department of Energy Research and Innovation Act, the Energy
Act of 2020, and the CHIPS and Science Act.
These strategic investments, along with the development of
new public-private partnerships, has helped foster a growing
commercial fusion industry in the United States. Private
investment has grown to $2.8 billion last year, with 23 of the
37 private fusion companies located here in the U.S., according
to the Fusion Industry Association.
In 2015 ARPA--E launched the ALPHA program to help find
low-cost pathways to fusion with alternative approaches, and
has funded over $120 million in fusion projects, including
partnering with one of our witnesses today, Dr. David Kirtley.
Just last month, the Department of Energy selected eight
companies to participate in its new $46 million fusion
milestone-based development program. This program is modeled on
the highly successful NASA program, Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services, which spurred the development of our
space sector. This program is exactly what Congress can do and
must do to ensure that the nascent fusion industry continues to
flourish.
It is critical for Congress to continue to provide robust
funding for fundamental fusion research and development, AND to
fund essential public-private partnerships programs. As the
Energy Subcommittee Chairman, I wanted to share with you my own
journey from skepticism to optimism. And I will work tirelessly
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to bring U.S.
fusion forward from fundamental research to ``fusion on the
grid.''
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony, and I
look forward to our conversation.
Chairman Williams. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentleman from New York, for his opening statement, sir.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this
hearing here today, and thank you to our panel for--of
distinguished witnesses for appearing before the Committee to
talk about a subject that is not only fascinating, but also
hopefully very significant for our clean energy future.
Fusion energy is a topic that I personally have loved
delving into since joining the Science Committee, and I know
that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my
enthusiasm. It is no surprise why this clean energy source is
attractive. The material used as fuel is practically infinitely
abundant, it is safe, and it is clean. It does not produce
greenhouse gas emissions or other forms of pollution, so fusion
energy would be a real gamechanger for humanity.
While we still have a lot of catching up to do in other
aspects of climate action, the Federal Government has
recognized the great potential fusion energy holds. Congress,
through the acts of this Committee, has authorized sweeping
Federal policy for fusion energy research and development in
the handful of historic climate and energy bills passed into
law over the past few years. And a few of those bills, along
with annual appropriations, have provided significant funding
for these activities. I am pleased to see that President
Biden's budget request for Fiscal Year 2024 asked for funding
very close to the authorization of appropriations providing in
one of these bills, the Science Committee's landmark CHIPS and
Science Act. All of these actions display broad support for
fusion energy from the Federal Government.
And we are seeing the fruits of our labor. There have been
huge developments in the field over the past few years, which
are bringing us closer to realizing the full potential of
fusion energy. There have been advances in engineering and
system performance, as well as the achievement of a burning
plasma and fusion ignition. There has also been a flurry of
private investment in fusion energy technology, and I know some
of our witnesses here today can attest to that.
But as we all know all too well, the impacts of climate
change are devastating, and we must continue ramping up our
ambition levels. Those of us from districts in the Northeast
such as mine, and even those of us here in D.C. all experienced
the smoke from the Canadian wildfires just last week. Everyone
felt the effects from workers who had no choice but to continue
working outside to commuters to children who could not play
outside for recess. And this incident is not unique or
isolated. The climate crisis is far-reaching, and it is an
existential matter for all of us. So I will continue to
advocate for robust funding for fusion energy and for the many
other clean energy solutions that can be deployed today in
order to protect our health, safety, and future. I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
I look forward to this discussion, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bowman follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Williams, for convening this hearing
today, and thank you to our panel of distinguished witnesses
for appearing before the Committee to talk about a subject that
is not only fascinating but also, hopefully, very significant
for our clean energy future. Fusion energy is a topic that I
personally have loved delving into since joining the Science
Committee, and I know that many of my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle share my enthusiasm. It is no surprise why this
clean energy source is attractive; the material used as fuel is
practically infinitely abundant, it is safe, and it is clean--
it does not produce greenhouse gas emissions or other forms of
pollution. So fusion energy would be a real game changer for
humanity.
While we still have a lot of catching up to do in other
aspects of climate action, the federal government has
recognized the great potential fusion energy holds. Congress,
through the acts of this Committee, has authorized sweeping
federal policy for fusion energy research and development in
the handful of historic climate and energy bills passed into
law over the past few years. And a few of those bills, along
with annual appropriations, have provided significant funding
for these activities. I am pleased to see that President
Biden's budget request for Fiscal Year 2024 asks for funding
very close to the authorization of appropriations provided in
one of these bills--the Science Committee's landmark CHIPS and
Science Act. All of these actions display broad support for
fusion energy from the federal government.
And we are seeing the fruits of our labor. There have been
huge developments in the field over the past few years which
are bringing us closer to realizing the full potential of
fusion energy. There have been advances in engineering and
system performance as well as the achievement of a burning
plasma and fusion ignition. There has also been a flurry of
private investment in fusion energy technology, and I know some
of our witnesses here today can attest to that.
But as we all know all too well, the impacts of climate
change are devastating, and we must continue ramping up our
ambition levels. Those of us from districts in the Northeast,
such as mine, and even those of us here in DC all experienced
the smoke from the Canadian wildfires last week. Everyone felt
the effects, from workers who had no choice but to continue
working outside, to commuters, to children who could not play
outside for recess. And this incident is not unique or
isolated; the climate crisis is far reaching, and it is an
existential matter for all of us. So I will continue to
advocate for robust funding for fusion energy, and for the many
other clean energy solutions that can be deployed today, in
order to protect our health, safety, and future. I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
I look forward to this discussion, and I yield back.
Chairman Williams. Thank you, Mr. Bowman.
We're pleased to be joined by the Chairman of the Full
Committee, Mr. Lucas. Sir, I now recognize you for your opening
statement.
Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Chairman Williams.
Today, we have an opportunity to explore the current status
of U.S. research and development in fusion energy sciences, a
cutting-edge technology that holds great promise for our energy
independence, global competitiveness, and environmental
stewardship. As many of today's panelists know, fusion R&D has
long enjoyed bipartisan support on this Committee, and for good
reason. It is exactly the type of high-risk, high-reward
research that expands our fundamental knowledge of science and
technology and pushes the limits of what's possible. The
potential benefits of this fundamental research are tremendous,
which is why it's so critical for DOE to prioritize it.
That's why Chairman Williams and I, along with majority
Members of this Subcommittee, sent a letter to the Secretary
recently to ensure the Office of Science funds programs like
fusion energy sciences are appropriately supported. Fusion is
the ultimate clean and abundant energy source. If we are
serious about our energy future, there is no technology that
meets our needs better than fusion. Today, I look forward to
hearing more about how the Science Committee can continue our
support for these high-priority research activities both
internationally and here at home.
Since our last meeting on this subject in 2021, the U.S.
fusion community has been hard at work. You've been busy. As a
result of that work, we've seen several landmark
accomplishments, like the achievement of fusion ignition at the
Lawrence Livermore National Lab. There has been a surge of
innovation in the U.S. fusion industry, including a first-of-
its-kind fusion power purchase agreement, and a favorable
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ruling on the regulation of
U.S. fusion reactors, just to name a few.
Last summer, Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act of
2022, which, thanks to years of bipartisan Science Committee
work, provides robust funding, essential policy direction, and
strategic guidance for the U.S. fusion energy R&D. This
legislation gives the DOE Office of Science, our national labs,
and their industry research partners the resources they need to
continue to excel. This is important because, despite many
recent advances in the field, fusion energy science remains one
of the greatest challenges in experimental physics today.
We know there's much more work to be done to realize the
promise of this emerging technology, and we cannot afford to
lose the momentum that has been generated so far. To do this,
we need to continue to take an all-of-the-above approach to
advancing our shared fusion energy goals. We must support full
funding for U.S. participation in ITER, the leading
international research project for fusion energy. We must make
major investments in U.S. fusion research programs and
infrastructure. And we must continue to support productive
partnerships with a rapidly growing U.S. fusion industry.
In the immediate future, we'll be continuing our oversight
of DOE's implementation of Science Committee direction in CHIPS
and Science and the Energy Act of 2020. While I was pleased to
see the President's budget request includes funding levels for
some fusion energy science activities consistent with CHIPS and
Science authorizations, I look forward to hearing DOE's plans
to fully implement this legislation.
And I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today
and for outlining their plans to make fusion energy a reality
for the next generation. I look forward to a productive
discussion.
I thank you, Chairman Williams, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lucas follows:]
Today, we have an opportunity to explore the current status
of U.S. research and development in fusion energy sciences, a
cutting-edge technology area that holds great promise for our
energy independence, global competitiveness, and environmental
stewardship.
As many of today's panelists know, Fusion R&D has long
enjoyed bipartisan support on this committee--and for good
reason. It is exactly the type of high-risk, high-reward
research that expands our fundamental knowledge of science and
technology and pushes the limits of what's possible.
The potential benefits from this fundamental research are
tremendous, which is why it's so critical for DOE prioritize
it. That's why Chairman Williams and I, alongside majority
members of this subcommittee, sent a letter to the Secretary
recently to ensure Office of Science programs like Fusion
Energy Sciences (FES) are appropriately supported.
Fusion is the ultimate clean and abundant energy source--if
we are serious about our energy future, there is no technology
that meets our needs better than fusion.
Today, I look forward to hearing more about how the Science
Committee can continue our support for these high-priority
research activities both internationally and here at home.
Since our last hearing on this subject in 2021, the U.S.
fusion community has been hard at work--you've been busy! As a
result of that work, we've seen several landmark
accomplishments, like the achievement of fusion ignition at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
There has been a surge of innovation in the U.S. fusion
industry, including a first-of-its kind fusion power purchase
agreement, and a favorable Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruling
on the regulation of U.S. fusion reactors--just to name a few.
Last summer, Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act of
2022, which--thanks to years of bipartisan Science Committee
work--provides robust funding, essential policy direction, and
strategic guidance for U.S. fusion energy R&D.
This legislation gives the DOE Office of Science, our
National Labs, and their industry research partners the
resources they need to continue to excel. This is important
because, despite many recent advances in the field, fusion
energy science remains one of the greatest challenges in
experimental physics today.
We know there is much more work to be done to realize the
promise of this emerging technology, and we cannot afford to
lose the momentum that has been generated so far.
To do this, we need to continue to take an all-of-the-above
approach to advancing our shared fusion energy goals.
We must support full funding for U.S. participation in
ITER--the leading international research project for fusion
energy. We must make major investments in U.S. fusion research
programs and infrastructure. And we must continue to support
productive partnerships with the rapidly growing U.S. fusion
energy industry.
In the immediate future, we will be continuing our
oversight of DOE's implementation of Science Committee
direction in CHIPS and Science and the Energy Act of 2020.
While I was pleased to see the President's budget request
includes funding levels for some Fusion Energy Sciences
activities consistent with CHIPS and Science authorizations, I
look forward to hearing DOE's plans to fully implement this
legislation.
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today,
and for outlining their plans to make fusion energy a reality
for the next generation. I look forward to a productive
discussion. Thank you, Chairman Williams, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I now recognize Ms. Lofgren, the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee, for an opening statement.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the
Ranking Member for this very important hearing and to each of
the witnesses. This is an impressive panel, and I thank you for
being here with us today.
You know, this Committee, as has been mentioned, has played
a leading role in building support and shaping national policy
for fusion energy development, especially over the last several
years. Now, the need to significantly improve support for U.S.
fusion research is actually one of the reasons why I ran for
Congress in 1994, and it's one of the major reasons why I
decided to seek the Ranking Member position on this Committee
after the retirement of Chairwoman Johnson last year.
The support for fusion is strongly bipartisan, and it's
also bicameral. Now, the substantial direction for modern
fusion energy programs was provided in the bipartisan
Department of Energy Research and Innovation Act of 2018 and
expanded upon in the bipartisan Energy Act of 2020, and, as has
been mentioned, in the CHIPS and Science Act that we were able
to pass in the last Congress. I'm excited about the
breakthroughs that we have seen in the last two years,
including the achievement of ignition at the National Ignition
Facility right in my backyard in December. And it's worth
noting that Congress always stood up for the National Ignition
Facility and saved it from the brink of extinction several
times, so we were especially pleased to see that achievement.
I'm glad that President Biden has recognized the progress
we've made in his budget request for 2024, which includes over
$1 billion for the Department of Energy's Fusion Energy
Research Program. That's a 32 percent increase. Now, the
request isn't perfect. I advocated for more. For example, it
still does not include any specific funds to establish an
alternative fusion energy concepts program that was authorized
in 2018, and no President has asked for the funds yet. But
taken as a whole, this budget request is a huge improvement
over previous budget requests made by any President, whatever
their party.
We're now seeing in the race to commercial fusion
mindboggling advances. So, as stated so clearly in the recent
long-range plan developed by DOE's Fusion Energy Science
Advisory Committee, now is the time to move aggressively toward
the deployment of fusion energy, or to put it another way, if
not now, when?
So I want to give my apologies in advance because our
hearing was disrupted by votes. It wasn't our fault. First,
thank you for your patience in waiting for us to return, not
only the witnesses but the audience. But I also have a speaking
engagement a little after 3, so I'm going to have to leave, but
I read the testimony of each one of you last night, and it's
excellent. So I look forward to hearing the questions. The
staff will fill me in. And thank you, thank you for all you've
done, but even more, what you're going to do with your
investors, with your scientists, and with the support of this
Committee.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Good afternoon and thank you to the Chairman and Ranking
Member for holding this very important hearing today. And thank
you to this quite impressive panel of witnesses for being here.
The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has played a
leading role in building support and shaping our national
policy for fusion energy development, especially over the last
several years.
The need to significantly improve support for our U.S.
fusion research enterprise is actually one of the major reasons
that I first ran for Congress in 1994, and one of the top
reasons that I decided to seek the Ranking Member position of
this Committee after Chairwoman Johnson retired last year. As
you've all heard in the statements from Chairman Lucas, Ranking
Member Bowman, and Chairman Williams, this support is now
strongly bipartisan, and it is also bicameral.
Substantial direction for the modern fusion energy program
was provided in the bipartisan Department of Energy Research
and Innovation Act of 2018, and significantly expanded upon in
the bipartisan Energy Act of 2020. More recently, additional
guidance and extensions of current authorizations were provided
in the landmark CHIPS and Science Act, which the President
signed into law in August.
I am excited about the real breakthroughs we've seen in
fusion over the last 2 years alone, including the monumental
achievement of ignition at the National Ignition Facility in
December. I'm also encouraged by the rapid growth we are now
seeing in the private sector for fusion, and the major
technical achievements that they are now bringing to our
overall national effort. And I am especially encouraged that
President Biden recognized this progress in his Budget Request
for 2024, which includes over $1 billion for the Department of
Energy's fusion energy research program, a 32% increase. Now,
this request is not perfect. For example, it still does not
include any specific funds to establish an alternative fusion
energy concepts program as authorized in statute since 2018,
and I plan to continue to press to address this critical gap.
But taken as a whole, this proposal for fusion is a vast
improvement over any previous budget request that I can recall
in my time in Congress.
All that said, let us be clear. There is still a lot more
work to do. This Committee has built a solid legislative
framework that would ensure that the U.S. is the world leader
in this potentially transformational emerging industry through
the bipartisan laws that I mentioned. And this Administration
is now clearly ready to follow through on this direction. But
if we don't translate this sizeable leap in support into actual
appropriated funds this year, then our nation will have missed
a major opportunity to meet this pivotal moment. And given the
growing global competition that we're now seeing in the race to
commercial fusion, I believe that we would all deeply regret
that.
As stated so clearly in the most recent Long Range Plan
developed by DOE's Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee,
``Now is the time to move aggressively toward the deployment of
fusion energy.'' Or to put this another way: If not now, then
when?
So we should not take anything for granted. I am doing
everything I can to make sure that going forward, our annual
federal funding reflects this immense progress and the promise
of fusion energy, and I invite you all to join me in this
effort.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Williams. Thank you. So let me introduce our
witnesses. Our first witness today is Dr. Kathryn McCarthy, the
Director of the U.S. ITER Project Office. Our next witness is
Dr. David Kirtley, the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of Helion
Energy. Third is Dr. Wayne Solomon, Vice President of the
Magnetic Fusion Energy at General Atomics (GA). Our next
witness is Mr. Andrew Holland, CEO of the Fusion Industry
Association. And our last witness is Dr. Scott Hsu, Senior
Advisor and Lead Fusion Coordinator at the U.S. Department of
Energy.
I now recognize Dr. McCarthy for five minutes to present
her testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. KATHRYN McCARTHY,
DIRECTOR, U.S. ITER PROJECT OFFICE
Dr. McCarthy. Thank you very much. Chairman Williams,
Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Bowman, and Ranking Member
Lofgren, and Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for
this opportunity to discuss fusion and the ITER project. I'm
Dr. Kathy McCarthy, Director of the U.S. ITER project at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. I'm a nuclear engineer and National
Academy of Engineering member with over 30 years in the fields
of fusion and fission, nuclear science, and engineering.
The path to fusion energy has benefited from several recent
record-breaking achievements, both here in the United States at
the National Ignition Facility, as well as at the JET (Joint
European Torus) tokamak in the United Kingdom. However, there
remain major challenges that must be resolved to develop
practical fusion energy. ITER is positioned to play a central
role in addressing these challenges.
For a practical fusion energy system, we must be able to
produce and sustain a fusion power source in a safe and
economical manner. At full power operation, ITER will produce a
self-sustaining what we call burning plasma and demonstrate
commercial-scale power over a long pulse lasting several
minutes. The data, experience, and lessons learned from ITER
will be valuable to a broad range of fusion approaches.
As a research facility, ITER will offer tools and expertise
at the scale of a specialized Department of Energy laboratory
and will be a valuable test facility. For a path to fusion
energy, not just fusion science, it will be essential to master
both the science and technology required. ITER offers that
opportunity, plus access to ITER intellectual property, and to
a one-of-a-kind scientific facility for research on high-power
plasmas.
ITER's already providing us with practical experience
designing, fabricating, and assembling a licensed fusion
facility. ITER's developing fusion supply chains and working
with industry to deliver to fusion's exacting requirements.
ITER is building a diverse fusion workforce and is one of the
largest training grounds for fusion in the world. ITER is
providing information and experience to member nations.
Information of particular interest to U.S. fusion industry
includes plasma heating systems, plasma fueling, vacuum
systems, superconducting magnet technology, and manufacturing
qualification approaches. DOE is leading a process to
facilitate U.S. fusion access to project information and
intellectual property.
ITER is a major contributor to U.S. competitiveness in
fusion now and in the future. The United States has the
advantage of participation in ITER, plus a strong public
program in fusion science and engineering and an expanding
fusion industry.
The start of ITER tokamak assembly in 2020 and continued
project progress shows us that it's possible to achieve
engineering precision at the millimeter scale on large fusion
components. Today, the international site is more than 85
percent complete for civil construction, and hardware
components are being delivered for assembly from all of the
ITER partners.
There have been changes and challenges at the international
ITER project. After the passing of Bernard Bigot, Pietro
Barabaschi assumed the Director General role in October 2022.
Barabaschi is now leading organizational adjustments to the
project to support success with tokamak assembly and to ensure
appropriate integration with ITER partners.
There have also been technical challenges. The project
identified nonconformances in some vacuum vessel sectors that
will require repair before assembly. The project also
determined that manufacturing methods resulted in defects on
thermal shield components. Both of these issues are being
addressed.
The ITER organization is working closely with the French
nuclear regulator to determine an appropriate path for
regulation. The project is a strong advocate of a stepwise
approach since while ITER poses fewer hazards than a typical
fission reactor, it is a new technology.
Finally, the ITER organization is also engaged in
preparation of an updated baseline and schedule to address
delays from COVID and first-of-a-kind manufacturing and
assembly. U.S. ITER is also engaged in updating its baseline
and schedule. Recent U.S. ITER achievements include the
delivery of two central solenoid modules with a third on the
way for what's called the heart of ITER, a 60-foot-tall
superconducting magnet at the center of the tokamak.
Since its original baseline in 2017, U.S. ITER has
completed over 100 deliveries to the ITER site. Overall, 60
percent of all U.S. assigned in-kind hardware contributions
have been credited by ITER. We're at an exciting moment in the
path to practical fusion energy. The ITER project is
complementary to other government fusion investments into
efforts in private industry. We appreciate the support of the
House and this Committee and all that they've provided to ITER
and fusion.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts with
the Subcommittee, and I request that my written testimony be
made part of the public record. And I welcome any questions
that you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. McCarthy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Williams. Thank you, Dr. McCarthy.
I now recognize Dr. Kirtley for 5 minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID KIRTLEY, CEO, HELION ENERGY
Dr. Kirtley. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member,
honorable Members of the Committee, my name is Dr. David
Kirtley. I'm a co-founder and the CEO of Helion Energy. I'm
honored to be here today to speak on behalf of Helion to
provide evidence for the accelerating progress of the
commercial fusion energy sector. Moreover, I'm humbled to be
here along my esteemed peers for whom I respect and for their
contributions they have and have continued to bring to the
fusion community.
Candidly, 20 years ago, I would not have imagined to be
here to speak on the viability of commercializing fusion
technology. I was, like many, a fusion skeptic. In fact, after
many years of studying fusion I actually left the field for a
while. I went to work in the aerospace sector building plasma
thrusters because I did not see a clear path forward for
commercializing fusion energy technology in my lifetime. The
last time I was in this building was actually on behalf of
plasma thruster technologies.
But I am now here 10 years since Helion's funding with a
commitment to deploy megawatts of fusion power on the grid by
the end of this decade. We partnered with industry giants,
Microsoft in consultation and a now growing team of over 165
employees who are deeply inspired by our mission to enable a
future of humanity with clean, widespread electricity.
It's fair to say that I see the outlook for commercial
fusion and the entire planet much more optimistically than I
once did. Now, I believe fusion will be on the grid within a
decade, and we have the potential to build a fusion power plant
per day if we plan our policies right. Today, I hope to leave
you with that same belief.
In the last two decades, several things have happened to
change not only my outlook, but the outlook of many in the
fusion community. Scientists have been studying fusion since
the 1950's, but it's not until the last two decades that many
of our theories have been made possible by progress in outside
industries such as power electronics, fiber optics, and
computer simulation. This, paired with a growing swell of
physicists and engineers and companies approaching the fusion
challenge from varying perspectives, has helped the tens of
private fusion companies in the United States and even more
globally achieve remarkable results. In the last five years
alone, my industry peers have increased the fusion output of
their machines, demonstrated new magnetic technologies, and
advanced--developed advanced computational models that bring us
all closer to realizing the commercial fusion vision.
I'm extremely proud that Helion has also been a part of
that progress. Today, we've built six working fusion
prototypes, each building on the successes and the failures of
its predecessor. Our earliest prototypes were supported by
research grants and SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research)
grants from the Department of Energy Office of Science, setting
private--setting records for temperature of private fusion
systems. Also notably, the ARPA--E program, ARPA--E ALPHA
program specifically, supported our fifth fusion prototype,
which clearly demonstrated thermonuclear fusion.
In 2022, our sixth generation fusion prototype--we call
that one Trenta--was the first private fusion system to reach
100 million degree fusion plasma temperatures, demonstrating
there's a path to bring Helion's approach to fusion to the
grid. Now, we're building our seventh generation system. We
switched naming topologies and call that one Polaris, which we
expect to demonstrate the production--the demonstration of
electricity from fusion for the first time. Following Polaris,
Helion will then work to build our first fusion power plant. If
everything is successful, we'll be slated to deliver
electricity to Microsoft as soon as 2028.
So while I'm incredibly proud of the progress my team has
made over the last 10 years, I know we still have a tremendous
amount of work to do, as I'm sure it's true across the fusion
industry. I believe in the power of human ingenuity, and I
believe that we are now at a point where we can meet the
physics and engineering challenges our field has worked so long
and so hard to overcome. And I am convinced that this will
happen this decade.
But the fusion community cannot do it alone. We need the
bold leadership and continued support from the U.S. Government
while evolving our thinking around fusion deployment and
policy. I call on this Committee to help realize a vision
beyond the construction of a single power plant but an entire
American fusion manufacturing industry that can get to
constructing a power plant per day in the 2030's.
To do that, we need to begin considering the next step for
fusion and not just ask how can we further the fusion science
but also ask how can America accelerate fusion's development
and lead the world in its mass deployment? A great example of
this thinking came from the NRC, which recently--with its
recent determination to find a clear path for fusion regulation
in the United States. Next, I see an opportunity for Congress
to implement a three-part policy to support manufacturing,
licensing, and then deployment of fusion at scale, which I look
forward to discuss more with you over the course of this
hearing today.
In front of us is an enormous opportunity to change the
world for the better. We are finally at an inflection point
where the science and engineering can deliver on fusion's long-
held promise before the end of the decade. I hope the
government will continue to offer its support for the industry
as we scale up mass manufacturing and deployment.
I want to thank all of you today for allowing me to be here
and provide input on how I believe we can do that. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kirtley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Williams. Thank you, Dr. Kirtley.
I now recognize Dr. Solomon for five minutes, sir, for your
opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF DR. WAYNE SOLOMON, VICE PRESIDENT,
MAGNETIC FUSION ENERGY, GENERAL ATOMICS
Dr. Solomon. Thank you, Chairman Williams, Ranking Member
Bowman, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Lofgren, and Members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here today to speak
before you. My name is Wayne Solomon, and I'm the Vice
President of the Magnetic Fusion Energy Division at General
Atomics, and I'm excited to join you today to share with you my
optimism and excitement about fusion energy.
GA, as you may know, has a rich fusion legacy dating back
to 1955 when we began our pioneering innovations in atomic
energy research. Now with over 12,500 employees and extensive
global facilities, we're committed to driving fusion forward.
Our expertise is evident in several key programs. We proudly
operate the DIII-D National Fusion Facility, the largest
tokamak in the United States, on behalf of the Department of
Energy's Office of Science. This facility is a vital resource
for the entire fusion community, serving over 650 researchers
from nearly 100 institutes from the United States and around
the world. It has been continuously upgraded to stay at the
forefront of fusion research and provides hands-on experience
for over 200 students and postdoctoral scholars.
GA also has a dedicated team exploring fusion theory and
computational science. They use powerful supercomputers like
the Frontier system at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to gain
insights into complex fusion dynamics. GA also plays a major
role in the U.S. ITER project, responsible for building the
ITER central solenoid, the world's most powerful pulsed
superconducting magnet. This magnet can generate enough force
to lift an aircraft carrier out of the water. As you heard from
Dr. McCarthy a few moments ago, we have already shipped the
first three of those completed modules from our facility, with
the remaining four of them well underway and undergoing final
fabrication and testing at our San Diego facility.
GA is also an important contributor of other ITER systems,
including control systems and measurement systems, that will be
critical to support ITER's operation.
In addition, GA supports research in inertial confinement
fusion (ICF), which, as you heard earlier, achieved the first
controlled ignition at the National Ignition Facility last year
funded through the Weapons Stockpile Stewardship Program of the
NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration). GA's
innovative technologies were key in this achievement, including
the production of the tiny target capsules and the fuel tubes
used to fill the capsules with fuel.
Through a 25-year collaboration with the ICF program, GA
actually supplies more than 12,000 components annually.
Internally, GA has invested over $100 million in magnetic
fusion research and development, focusing on advancements in
magnets, materials, detectors, and control systems and other
supporting technologies for fusion. We have introduced our
vision for a pilot plant based on the advanced tokamak concept,
enabling continuous steady state operation, which we continue
to pursue.
Our collaborations with national labs like Oak Ridge,
Princeton, and Lawrence Livermore have been crucial to our
progress. From the nanoscale to the macroscale, GA recognizes
the importance of public-private partnerships and fully
supports the DOE Milestone program and funding for startup
companies to pursue commercial fusion.
We also recognize the crucial role of the public program in
getting fusion to where it is now and believe it will be even
more essential to robustly fund public programs and facilities
into the future.
I want to express my gratitude to the Committee for its
leadership in advancing fusion. The President's Fiscal Year
2024 budget request of over $1 billion reflects your hard work
and insight. However, achieving the goals of the bold decadal
vision will require even greater and sustained investments.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize three key points.
First, GA brings a unique combination of public and private
sector experience in both magnetic fusion energy and inertial
fusion energy. Second, private sector efforts can significantly
accelerate progress toward the success of commercial fusion and
the decadal vision. And third, the public programs supporting
national labs, academia, and existing established facilities
like DIII-D are vital for the future success of fusion.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify. Mr. Chairman, I
also have six letters from prominent fusion researchers that I
would appreciate you inserting into the record of this hearing.
I commend this Committee for its leadership in advancing
fusion and look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Solomon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Williams. Thank you. Your letters will be entered
into the record.
I now recognize Mr. Holland for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. ANDREW HOLLAND,
CEO, FUSION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Holland. Thank you, Chairman Williams, Ranking Member
Bowman, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Lofgren, Members of the
Committee. Thank you all for the invitation to testify on
fusion energy's limitless potential. I'm Andrew Holland, the
CEO of the Fusion Industry Association. Our 37 member companies
are dedicated to building the energy system of tomorrow on a
timescale that's relevant to today's energy challenges. I'll
refer you to my full statement in the record for all the
details, but I'd like to give you an overview on why I'm so
excited that business is getting serious about fusion.
Unlike my colleagues on this panel, I'm not a scientist.
Instead, my background is in public policy. I actually started
my career answering phones for a Member of Congress about 100
yards away down that way. I turned my career toward supporting
fusion energy because it's a clean energy solution that can
scale. When fusion power plants are widely available, we'll be
able to bring clean, safe, sustainable energy to areas of the
country and the world that have been left behind. And the link
between energy and national security has never been clearer,
especially after Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. Fusion
energy will mean that geography no longer matters for energy
security.
So it's clear why there's bipartisan interest in fusion
energy. The Biden Administration's bold decadal vision builds
on the groundwork laid by the Trump Administration's Department
of Energy and the bipartisan leadership of this Committee. So
let me say thank you for working together over many years to
support fusion research and development.
The FIA's members include a wide variety of approaches to
fusion power, magnets, lasers, pistons, or more that could
drive fusion. That diversity manages risk. Thirty-seven shots
on goal give us more chances of scoring than concentrated--
concentrating resources on just one approach.
Our members include Helion Energy, whose CEO is testifying
here with me, and 22 other American companies of the 37
companies in total. They range in size from hundreds of
employees and billions of dollars in capital to startups with a
few people, seed funding, and a good idea. And I want to give
you some idea about our affiliate members, our 72 affiliate
members who include many of the companies who will be involved
in the broader fusion energy economy. These range from small,
specialized manufacturers like Keller Technology company in
upstate New York or MetOx in Houston, to utilities like the
Tennessee Valley Authority or Southern Company, who will be
delivering energy from fusion power plants; Google, who needs a
firm, secure, zero-carbon source of power for their vast energy
demand; or firms like Westinghouse, Fluor, and Bechtel, who
want to use their experience from other energy sources to
support building a fusion-powered future. I could easily list
other affiliate members ranging from NGOs (non-governmental
organizations) to law firms to multinational oil companies.
Because where fusion once was only a matter for publicly
funded universities or national labs, it is rapidly becoming a
part of key decisions and businesses around the world. Even in
the 18 months since this Committee last held a fusion hearing,
investment has more than doubled to nearly $6 billion.
So everyone in fusion knows the one question we always get
next. When? Technological breakthroughs are a function of both
time and resources. Today, the addition of private funding,
commercial innovation, and new public-private partnerships put
fusion on an accelerated pathway. FIA members agree that the
timeline of a decadal vision can be achieved. And I know this
is extremely ambitious, but we need ambition. While American
firms have an early advantage in the private fusion landscape,
other countries are moving forward their plans for commercial
fusion with Japan, South Korea, Germany, and especially the
U.K. putting forward ambitious plans.
As American allies and partners race toward fusion, China
is also making key investments and hitting important
milestones. China could win the race to fusion energy if the
United States does not invest. So maybe the question is not
when, but where.
So what is to be done? A new Milestone-based public-private
partnership will accelerate fusion by using public dollars to
drive private investment in a pay-for-performance program,
leading to fusion pilot plants. The announcement two weeks ago
of eight new Milestone-based awards to fusion energy companies
is the latest step in a process this Committee has long led
toward. And this year, for the first time, the President's
budget requested over $1 billion for fusion energy research,
including new R&D centers and funding for the Milestone
program. This funding is an important start. We urge you to
support the budget request.
Let me close by saying that this is exactly how the United
States works best, public leadership on science and
infrastructure paired with private capital and business
innovation. In the decades to come when they write the book on
how fusion was commercialized, what role will Congress have
played? The opportunity is there for us to seize it.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. Great to
be with you all today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holland follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Williams. Thank you, Mr. Holland.
I now recognize Dr. Hsu for five minutes to present his
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. SCOTT HSU,
SENIOR ADVISOR AND LEAD FUSION COORDINATOR,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Hsu. Thank you, Chairman Williams, Ranking Member
Bowman, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Lofgren, and
distinguished Members of the Committee. It is an honor to
appear before you today.
The Department of Energy is grateful for your unwavering
bipartisan support of fusion energy sciences R&D. As the DOE's
Lead Fusion Coordinator, I will speak to DOE's recent efforts
to advance a bold decadal vision for commercial fusion energy,
which was first unveiled at a White House summit in March 2022.
This bold vision leverages both the decades of public
investments that brought fusion science to breathtaking
heights, such as the achievement of fusion ignition last
December, and the significant private capital being invested
into U.S. fusion companies.
Our key objective is to partner with the private sector to
resolve the largest remaining scientific and technological
challenges this decade with the ambition to realize an
operating fusion pilot plant early in the next decade. If we
are successful, fusion could contribute to achieving net zero
carbon emissions by 2050 while enabling energy security, energy
abundance, and strengthened U.S. technological leadership.
Simultaneously, we will prepare the path to fusion
commercialization by addressing a range of needs, including
supporting the development of regulatory frameworks, building
out supply chains, engaging the public to ensure energy and
environmental justice, development of a skilled and diverse
workforce, and much more.
The many recent fusion scientific and technological
advances suggest that practical fusion energy may now be less a
matter of time than that of collective societal will. In the
remainder of my statement, I highlight key DOE efforts over the
past year to advance the bold decadal vision. First, just two
weeks ago, DOE announced eight selectees under the Milestone-
Based Fusion Development Program, which was first authorized in
the Energy Act of 2020 and reauthorized in the CHIPS and
Science Act of 2022. This program is the primary mechanism by
which DOE will partner with the private sector to accelerate
fusion energy R&D.
Modeled after the NASA program that enabled the commercial
space launch industry and guided by recommendations from the
National Academies report, ``Bringing Fusion to the U.S.
Grid,'' the Milestone program is an innovative public-private
partnership that allows for industry-friendly terms and
conditions, while simultaneously reducing risk to the taxpayer
because companies will provide more than half the total project
costs via non-Federal sources and will receive Federal payments
only upon verified milestone completion. The eight recipients
represent a diversified portfolio of fusion concepts and
commercialization approaches, building on the full range of
longstanding investments that the DOE has made, including from
the Office of Science, the NNSA, and more recently ARPA--E. The
selectees will work with multiple DOE national labs,
universities, and other stakeholders on the R&D toward
realizing a preliminary engineering design for a fusion pilot
plant.
Second, the DOE formed a new fusion crosscut team to
coordinate fusion-relevant equities across DOE program offices.
Highlights of these activities include: the Office of Science
Isotope R&D Production Program led an assessment of fusion fuel
isotope needs for fusion demonstration and deployment. The
NNSA's Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Office sponsored a
workshop at Princeton University to start a discussion on how
best to support fusion commercialization in a manner that
addresses nuclear proliferation concerns. And the DOE Office of
Economic Impact and Diversity helped implement the requirement
of community benefit plans into the Milestone program.
Third, I'd like to mention elements that directly advanced
the bold decadal vision in the President's Fiscal Year 2024
budget request: $130 million to grow the Milestone program,
$120 million for new fusion R&D centers to support and align
national lab and university efforts in the development of a
fusion pilot plant, $15 million for inertial fusion energy, and
$14.7 million for studies on priority test facilities such as a
neutron source to advance fusion materials science and testing.
These efforts are in addition to ongoing R&D activity supported
by the Office of Science, NNSA, and ARPA--E that provide the
foundation and innovations for the bold decadal vision.
Finally, the DOE is engaging with interagency and
international partners to identify new targeted strategic
collaborations to compress the timeline to fusion
commercialization.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. DOE looks
forward to continued collaborations with all of you to deliver
timely commercial fusion energy. I'll be happy to take
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hsu follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Williams. Thank you, Dr. Hsu.
I want to thank all of you for your comments and insight. I
think there's a lot of diversity and experience and points of
view, so I think we'll have a good discussion. And I'd like to
begin. I'm going to reserve my time for questions until later,
but I'd like to recognize Chairman Lucas for five minutes for
questions, sir.
Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, I'm a strong
advocate for an all-of-the-above approach not just in energy in
general but specifically in fusion energy. It's not the
government's role to pick winners and losers.
So, Dr. McCarthy, with all the momentum the commercial
fusion sector is experiencing right now, what would you say to
some of ITER's critics that argue it is no longer relevant?
Let's just cut to the chase.
Dr. McCarthy. Thank you for that question, Chairman Lucas.
So let me start out by saying part of the reason why there is
the large private investment is because of the path that ITER
has paved in terms of designing, fabricating, delivering, and
now assembling components. That's an important piece of things.
At the ITER site, there are--several systems have already
been commissioned. And, for example, the cryogenic system is
currently being commissioned. All of those things provide
important information.
But let's talk about moving forward because many of the
private companies have as public goals achieving a burning
plasma earlier than will be achieved in the ITER experiment. So
let's make the assumption that they will be successful on the
schedule that they've laid out. What does that mean for ITER?
And by the way, I would say that all of us who have been
involved in fusion for me at--since graduate school are
cheering on the private companies. this is a great, great thing
that's happening, and we want them to be successful.
So let's assume that they're going to be successful. What
does that mean for ITER? Well, what ITER will give you it is a
highly diagnosed machine that was designed to provide
information to a broad variety of fusion concepts, a broad
variety primarily of magnetic fusion concepts. And so the
information from ITER and especially when it comes to long
pulse because part of what you need to be able to handle is the
particle and heat exhaust. That's an important piece,
understanding various modes of plasma behavior. That's what
will get us from the next steps that you're seeing in the
private industry to a commercial industry.
And then finally, I would say think of ITER in a similar
vein as an advanced test reactor, as a high flux isotope
reactor in the United States. The fission industry still gets
support from research reactors as they evolve and improve and
provide more economical energy. So those are some of the
examples.
Chairman Lucas. Absolutely. Mr. Holland, what challenges or
hurdles does the industry still have to overcome for the dream
of fusion power plant to become a reality?
Mr. Holland. Well, you know, the thing is is that fusion is
hard. I don't want anybody to think that just because we say we
can get there in a decade that fusion is easy. Fusion is hard.
Fusion is hard. And when I mentioned in my testimony that
there's 37 different approaches, 37 different ways within our
member companies, the challenge is is that each of them have a
different pathway forward. So as the industry association, what
I'd say that--like Dr. Hsu said, it is about collective will.
It's about resources. It's about applying resources. That means
money, yes, but it also means human resources, it means
capital, it means public interest. So things like this are just
almost as important as getting over those scientific hurdles
because we need to--we need everybody to be pulling in the same
direction on this.
Chairman Lucas. Dr. Solomon, Dr. Hsu, following up on that,
how are DOE user facilities like DIII-D supporting the
expanding fusion industry and helping them overcome the
hardships they're facing so successfully?
Dr. Solomon. Well, thank you. Good question, and I'm glad
you brought it up. DIII-D is an open user facility, so, first
of all, all of the results which are generated on the DIII-D
facility are openly published and are available to all. More
recently, a variety of steps have been taken to actually open
up DIII-D to be more accessible to private industry
participants, including the ability to conduct proprietary-
based research as well. And not to mention, as I alluded to in
my opening remarks, DIII-D is a very flexible facility. It's a
very well-measured--instrumented, measured, diagnosed facility,
which makes it very valuable for any private entity who
encounters a particular challenge in their regime, even if it's
a different fusion concept, to be able to come and test
something in a fusion-relevant environment and maybe find a
pathway forward.
Chairman Lucas. Dr. Hsu?
Dr. Hsu. Yes, I'll add two things. One is the science that
DIII-D produces is absolutely exquisite. It's the best in the
world, and it develops our workforce, which is the second point
to be the leading innovators in fusion science.
Chairman Lucas. It looks like my time has expired, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you very much.
Chairman Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Bowman, for five
minutes.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Hsu, I was very pleased to see a budget request for
fusion from the President that was largely consistent with
bipartisan authorizations from this Committee. This is the
level of ambition we really needed from the Administration, and
you delivered. That said, I understand that the request still
does not include any specific funds to establish an alternative
fusion energy concepts program as authorized in statute since
2018. This is surprising because, as you know well, in recent
years, several alternative concepts have begun to show promise
from commercial--for commercial fusion. Yet there's currently
no ongoing DOE program to support research and assessment of
these innovative concepts outside of the public-private
partnerships funded by the Milestone program.
So, for example, researchers at the university of--or
laboratory level do not currently have a program that would
even consider their application for Federal funding. It's
exciting to see all the progress and enthusiasm from the
private sector, but this is still a big concern. I do not
believe that DOE should be relying almost exclusively on
venture capital to help identify the next game-changing
approach in this truly transformative field.
So, Dr. Hsu, what if any steps is the Department taking to
address this critical gap?
Dr. Hsu. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member Bowman.
So first, let me just say we hear you. And I will be taking
this very topic back to--for discussion at the DOE. As some of
you may know, this area of research was my own area of research
before I came to Washington. And in fact, I testified before
this Committee on innovative approaches to fusion energy back
in 2016. And so we recognize that past public investments in
this area contributed to the vibrant fusion private sector that
we see today.
I will point out a few things though. As you noted, the
public-private partnerships do support alternative concepts. I
would also mention that INFUSE (Innovation Network for Fusion
Energy) and the Milestone program specifically have alternative
concepts as eligible to participate in those programs, and
attention on alternative concepts may grow--will grow because
of this.
I'll also say that the proposed R&D centers in the Fiscal
Year 2024 President's budget request are intended to be aligned
with the Milestone program, and thus, alternative concepts will
be eligible there as well.
So all this being said, we continue to implement the
program direction in the CHIPS and Science authorization
language, you know, balancing priorities and available funds,
but we look forward to continued discussions with the Committee
on this important topic. Thank you.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Dr. Hsu.
Dr. Kirtley and Mr. Holland, is there anything you'd like
to add on the potential value of such a program to advancing
our entire U.S. fusion enterprise?
Dr. Kirtley. Yes, I'll start. I can definitely--I can start
with how valuable the alternative energy programs in the past
were for Helion. I would say that our company and our
technology would not be here without them. Our earliest
prototypes were supported by DOE Office of Science direct
grants, as well as SBIRs. Both of those programs enabled us to
take very high risk technologies that were theorized and on
paper and not yet ready for deployment, had not yet
demonstrated fusion, build those machines, prove fusion, get to
keV 10 million degree temperatures, measure fusion reactions,
and be able to--that was the stepping stone that enables us to
go to private venture capital, and then work with them and
their internal review processes to be able to move forward with
commercial funding. We would not be where we are without it,
and so I'm definitely a supporter of this for new technologies.
Mr. Holland. And I would just add, in my written testimony,
I include a chart that's kind of a family tree of fusion. And
like I said, there's 37 member companies of the FIA. I don't
think we're stopped--we've stopped growing. All of them have
different technology subsets. So the idea of having just a
government program that only looks to one or two of those
approaches, I think it's important to have a full-fledged
alternatives program as well, given, you know, the nature of--
it shouldn't be a zero sum game. It needs to be as much funding
as possible for everything.
Dr. Kirtley. And if I can add one more, after we went out
to the private venture capital community and showed that we can
do fusion in our systems and got some early stage funding,
ARPA--E, the ALPHA program, was also there to meet us as we
were growing and take this early technology and scale up in
both fusion output and physical scale and energy scale. And so
at that point, we had a partnership with matching venture
capital and public funds to go build machines that did fusion.
And all of those paved the way to the large scale fusion
machines that we operate today.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Williams. Thank you, Mr. Bowman.
I now recognize Mr. Fleischmann for five minutes.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to this
distinguished panel. I've worked with you before. You've been
at many of our meetings. And of course, Dr. McCarthy, for those
in the audience, has been kind enough to actually tutor me in
fusion, so I appreciate that so much. And I know you're
extremely well-versed in fission as well. So thank you for
being here.
I represent the Oak Ridge Reservation. In my other life
here I am an appropriator. I chair the Energy and Water
Subcommittee of Appropriations, so we look forward to funding a
lot of the initiatives and working in a bipartisan manner on
fusion, so I thank you all.
The recent technological advancements in the Fusion Energy
Sciences, particularly the National Ignition Facility
breakthrough this past December at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory that we've mentioned earlier, has
captivated many people around the country as we eagerly
anticipate the potential for commercial fusion energy. As has
been discussed, the Office of Science has helped lay the
foundation for these advancements and has started to take the
next step toward commercialization through its public-private
partnerships program and through its work to advance fusion
pilot concepts.
My question is one of--more of inquiry. For the entire
panel, and I'll begin, hopefully, with Dr. McCarthy, why is the
Office of Science leading this effort and not the Office of
Nuclear Energy? Public-private partnerships and fusion pilot
concepts seek to take fusion energy sciences beyond the bench
scale and into the realm of commercialization. Is that an
appropriate role for the Office of Science?
Dr. McCarthy. Thank you very much, Congressman Fleischmann.
And I'll point out you are a very good student. He did a lot of
homework before we actually met.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Dr. McCarthy. So I am going to talk about just for a minute
and then pass it on to my colleagues. I think typically, a
reorganization isn't necessarily how you solve some things. I
think what we need to do, especially in these phases, is look
at what is making it challenging to do things quickly, and what
do we need to do to remove those barriers? And I think that's
an important first step. And so with that, I will pass it to my
colleague.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Mr. Holland. Thanks for the question, Congressman. It is--
you know, sometimes the question of which box goes where in the
organizational chart is academic, but I think in this one, it
is really interesting and important to think about because if
fusion gets to be as big as we all say it is, you know,
building a fusion power plant today, bringing, you know, clean,
safe, sustainable energy to the whole world, then it's obvious
there needs to be an applied program. There needs to be a
fusion energy applied program that stands on its own. The
things that have to be done and research in fusion are separate
and independent on its own, whether it's from nuclear energy,
electrical energy, all of the other applied offices in DOE.
Fusion should stand on its own. Fusion should be able to have a
leader within Department of Energy who can advocate on their
own for fusion.
So we think that, ultimately, the question of going there
is important. Whether it gets there next year, five years, 10
years, open question, and we look forward to working with you
and the Members of this Committee on determining what that
looks like. But ultimately, yes, there should be a fusion
energy applied program.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Dr. Hsu. Well, I was going to stay silent, but I don't
think I'd get away with it. So first, let me emphasize that the
DOE must ensure the success of both the fundamental fusion and
plasma sciences alongside our new focus on applied R&D efforts
and public-private partnerships. So without--we need both of
those for this--the bold decadal vision to ultimately be
successful.
And I want to amplify what Dr. McCarthy said. I think our
immediate need is really to ensure that the priorities of the
bold decadal vision such as the Milestone program and other
areas outlined in my written testimony are off to a strong
start and that we can move quickly, you know, and have the
agility to move quickly.
So I'll just say DOE is considering the barriers, the
factors, and the criteria that impact that success, and we look
forward to continued discussions with the Committee on this.
Mr. Fleischmann. I want to again thank each and every one
of you for coming up today and being with us and testifying.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I'll yield back.
Chairman Williams. Thank you.
I now recognize Ms. Ross for five minutes.
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Chairman Williams, Ranking
Member Bowman, for holding this hearing today, and thank you so
much to the witnesses for joining us.
For decades, scientists and engineers have tested the
boundaries of experimental physics to duplicate a fusion
reaction and harness it as an energy source. The potential
benefits to society from fusion reactors are beyond
calculation. I represent the Research Triangle area and NC
State University, so many people interested in this area.
The fuel is abundant, widely accessible, and the carbon
footprint is negligible, and its associated nuclear waste and
nonproliferation concerns are minimal, as you all know. Despite
these incentives, and despite recent landmark achievements in
the field, fusion energy science remains one of the most
challenging areas of experimental physics today. However, it's
crucially important to putting the world on a path of reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, and with the advantages of fusion, it
makes it worth pursuing and pursuing robustly.
My first question is for Dr. Hsu. You highlight in your
testimony just a few weeks ago that DOE announced a set of
eight selectees for its new Milestone-based public-private
partnership program for fusion. It's exciting and encouraging
to see such a range of companies and approaches to fusion
supported by DOE now. Can you provide us with any insight on
the number of high quality applications to this program that
DOE is currently unable to support due to limited funds and the
level of funding to support the current selectees and whether
that's sufficient to do what we need to do?
Dr. Hsu. Yes, so I'm afraid I'm a bit limited in what I can
reveal, but what I will say is, in my written testimony, I
noted that we made the conscious decision to select a higher
number of worthy selections at lower levels of funding to each,
so that would tell you that we were oversubscribed. I believe
the Fusion Industry Association has some data on that, which
may not be complete but gives you an idea. And so certainly
there are more worthy applicants that we had that we could
possibly support.
Ms. Ross. OK. This next question is to all the witnesses
with the two minutes I've got left. The clean energy transition
to net zero--a net zero global economy by 2050 represents one
of the greatest challenges and opportunities for the United
States and the world. From a climate change perspective, we
know we have to achieve net zero emissions in order to avoid
the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. The
science demands it, and we've passed laws recently to help the
United States stay on track.
Yet this transition also serves as an important opportunity
for the United States to win the race among our global
competitors in a clean energy economy. And some discussion was
had about that, not when, but whom. By some estimates, the
transition will require almost $5 trillion per year to achieve
net zero. We're seeing increased competition with China across
a range of clean energy technologies, and my fear is that we
could repeat mistakes of the past where the United States
invests in technology only to watch China and other nations
come to dominate the market.
I know, Mr. Holland, you raised this. Could you speak to
that first and then anybody else who wants to pipe in with the
time we have left?
Mr. Holland. Yes, absolutely. And thank you for the
question. I want to be clear on this, that the Chinese are
making very significant and serious investments both in their
public sector government-run fusion program and increasingly in
private companies. Now, what makes for a private company in
China is an open question, but they they've announced very
significant capital raises of, you know, something like $700
million for a recent one that are moving quickly and getting
ready to build things. So we expect to see that--the Chinese
trying to take a larger leadership role.
That said, the United States and our allies have some
really important inherent advantages. The combination of the
private sector scientists willing to take risks and a
government fusion program that has been a world leader for a
long time, if we make the investments, if we do the things to
move at speed, there's no reason the United States can't win
this and then also can't have a manufacturing industry that's
more like--it's not like a commodity manufacturing industry
like a solar industry or something. It's more like a really
complicated manufacturing industry, like an aerospace industry.
And the United States is really good at that. So this is
something--fusion is something the United States can lead on
and should be able to lead on.
Ms. Ross. I see my time has expired, but if anybody wants--
well, it's up to the Chairman.
Chairman Williams. Please go ahead, Dr. Kirtley.
Dr. Kirtley. I can make a brief statement, and we can
follow up as we wish. I would say two quick things. One, we
know that in China on the R&D efforts there is--for instance,
Helion released results from our latest machine and then very
quickly saw a copycat machine identical to some published
results we had published a decade earlier show up in China, so
we know that that is happening on the R&D side.
And then I'll say, as a private business, we see this on
the manufacturing side, too, throughout the world. We have
interests coming to us all over the world in bringing
manufacturing for our systems outside of the United States, and
so this is something that's very high up on our list to make
sure that America invests in the manufacturing of the future so
that we can build fusion generators here in the United States.
Ms. Ross. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Williams. Yes, thank you for your insightful
question.
I now recognize Mr. Miller for five minutes.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
Member, for today's hearing. And to the witnesses for joining
us today, thank you.
Over the past few years, we have seen incredible interest
in fusion technology, and, according to the Fusion Industry
Association, over $2 billion of private funding was injected
into fusion technologies just last year. This private capital
is pouring into fusion companies that are looking to build
prototypes and commercialize their technologies in the coming
decade.
Dr. Kirtley, congratulations on your company's own success
raising capital. Now, you could--now, excuse me, could you
explain a little bit more about how you plan to spend these
resources and how they will help your company meet its goal of
bringing its fusion energy plan online in 2028?
Dr. Kirtley. Congressman, thank you very much for the
question. So Helion has announced that we have previously
raised a total of around $577 million in private capital to
date. We have used these systems to complete the operations of
our sixth generation machine, beginning now the construction--
this should fund the completion of our seventh generation
machine--we call this one Polaris--that will be completed, our
goal is, by January of next year and then come online through
2024, demonstrating electricity extraction or production for
the first time from fusion and then begin to pave the way with
these funds for this power plant, so this means the design
efforts, the early siting.
And then in parallel, to answer some of the questions
previously, is to begin manufacturing. So we announced earlier
this year that we are manufacturing capacitors, energy storage
systems here in the United States, the first capacitor
manufacturing line I'm aware of in probably decades, and
immediately got interest from both overseas as well as our
existing other private industries in fusion and national
laboratories to buy capacitors from us. And so we're also doing
parallel efforts in a number of other manufacturing areas and
would call on this Committee to talk about how we can begin
broad scaling this mass manufacturing beyond just Helion's
needs but the fusion industry in total.
Mr. Miller. Thank you for that detailed answer, much
appreciated.
To all the witnesses, and anyone can jump in if they'd
like, could you please shed some light on why there is suddenly
all this private capital pouring into fusion companies?
Mr. Holland. Maybe I can because I've talked to a lot--to
all of them. The--it's a combination of supply and demand. And
by supply, I mean, the science is ready. The--all of the work
that's been done in national science programs around the world
for 50 years has come together with the fact also that you have
all of these other enabling technologies. David mentioned, you
know, capacitors and power management. There's also high
temperature superconducting wires allow the most powerful
magnets to ever be built, laser optics and, you know, all of
the other enabling technologies there, as well as computer
technologies. Artificial intelligence and high speed computing
have really allowed us to model what we can do there, so that's
the supply side.
And then the demand side is that it's a huge business
opportunity, and there's a huge, huge need to meet the climate
and energy challenges. And so that's why--you know, that's why
the investment is coming in because they see that, look,
there's only so many pathways to getting to a full net zero
economy, and fusion provides a new tool in that toolkit. And,
you know, some of the estimates for the size of the business
are huge. I think it was Bloomberg said the value of the fusion
industry could be $44 trillion by the time we're fully there,
so it's an exciting time.
Mr. Miller. And what do you think is the--is really the
best course of action to familiarize the American people with
so that they're comfortable with this type of technology?
Because we hear this a lot, that sometimes the American people
aren't ready or they may have somewhat of a distorted view on
nuclear fusion when, I agree with you, that is probably the
most clean--cleanest form of energy that we have known to man
and certainly the most powerful that I believe powers already
1/3 of our electricity grid. It's just, you know, getting it
put out there even more so to inform people.
So in terms of the messaging aspect of this, what do you
think is the most palatable way to help the--you know, the
American electorate and the constituents that we have across
the country be comfortable with this technology?
Mr. Holland. So fusion--just very quickly, fusion is--it's
unknown at this point. It--as opposed to nuclear fission, which
has its own challenges. Fusion is a new energy source, so we'll
have to make sure that people are aware of the opportunities
here and show them why it matters to them. And it's just going
out there, being open about it. We're trying to get it started
and getting people to know about it. David knows more.
Dr. Kirtley. Yes----
Dr. McCarthy. If I can just add a little bit. First of all,
I think people misunderstand where the public is with respect
to fission. It was true in the old days that there was a lot of
negativity toward fission, but the polls have showed that
people are actually far more accepting. They understand the
important part that it plays in a clean--in getting to a net
zero economy. The same is true for fusion. And I think one of
the things that we need to do is to not just talk amongst
ourselves. And so one of the things I try and do is to get out
and talk to groups that aren't traditional groups for fusion or
for fission just to help people understand. And I found a very
welcome reception. I think, generally speaking, people
understand the need for clean technology, and they will be--and
I've seen that they're supportive. I think that'll continue.
Mr. Miller. OK. Awesome. Sorry, Chairman, it's up to you at
this point.
Chairman Williams. Please, Dr. Kirtley.
Dr. Kirtley. I can try to be brief again. I think for our
perspective community engagement and making sure that people
know what's happening in fusion is critically important for
adoption of this technology. And so for us, it's show hardware.
That's our policy. And so it's as much as we can show the
things we're building, talk about how they work, show people
talking about how they work, and then try to honestly address
some of the challenges that maybe future as--in the future as
fusion scales to large scale and make sure you're having that
honest discussion.
Mr. Miller. Thank you all very much. This has been
incredibly insightful, and I appreciate your time. Thank you,
Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Williams. Thank you. I now recognize myself for
five minutes. I believe this is the last set of questions.
I want to compliment the Committee staff because not only
did they put together a great panel, but they seated you
public, private, public, private, public, which is entirely
appropriate for--you know, for this conversation.
The--one of the reasons that I'm excited about fusion is
that I've gone and had conversations with many of the private
companies and delved as deeply into their technology as they
were willing and perhaps limited by my ability to understand.
But what it relates to in my mind is that we see miracles
happening all around us today, and we take them for granted.
You know, we have near ubiquitous and low cost, instantaneous
global communications. Do you ever think about that? That's--
that is absolutely astonishing. Started as a DARPA (Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency) program, as I understand,
and as a tool of the government and yet grew through public-
private partnership, and then through--entirely through the
public. It's extraordinary.
I'm also reminded that there was a certain individual who
wanted to reduce the launch of putting things into orbit
because he had an idea that he wanted to go to Mars, I guess.
And we now live in a world where launch costs have been reduced
by 2/3 because we can land a 20 story building coming in at
Mach 7 in a space smaller than this room every time. That's
extraordinary. There are things that we're seeing that, quite
honestly, I can't believe. Another would be robotic surgery,
although I'm not ready to try that myself.
But I put that context into this because I really was a
fusion skeptic four or five months ago, and I've followed the
literature relatively closely for the last 15 years or so and--
as well as for advanced nuclear. It's just an area of interest
and in perhaps a little bit of expertise. And when I started
diving in, it occurred to me that there is a path forward, and
much of what we've heard today is talking around that.
But just in these last few minutes, can each of you tell me
one thing, just one thing that you're optimistic about or a
reason for why you're optimistic about fusion? And I know
there's many, but if you don't mind just going down the line,
Dr. McCarthy.
Dr. McCarthy. Thank you. I'd say the main reason I'm
optimistic is we now have this strong industry presence. It's
an important leg in the stool. And so in the United States,
we've got this ecosystem that can get together and move this
forward, national laboratories, industry, universities.
Chairman Williams. Thank you. Ecosystem. Dr. Kirtley?
Dr. Kirtley. I have a similar answer where it's around the
diversity of different ideas that are coming forward for
fusion. I obviously have a perspective from Helion, but I--as a
human, I'm very excited about what I'm seeing of all of these
different approaches from fusion, all of which are building
machines to prove out their ideas and get commercial energy on
the grid as soon as possible.
Chairman Williams. It sounds like a good time to fund some
of these different approaches.
Dr. Solomon, please?
Dr. Solomon. I would add to that that the fact that we've
been exploring fusion for decades and it's still the case that
there are basic fundamental advances being made that lead to
record production of fusion in magnetic fusion energy, inertial
fusion energy, and creative new ideas deployed given by our
scientists all the time that really change the way that you can
operate a device is just amazing.
Chairman Williams. It sounds like this has inspired people
to really start thinking differently like landing first stage
rockets.
Dr. Solomon. Absolutely.
Chairman Williams. Mr. Holland?
Mr. Holland. Maybe I'll change from the why to be excited
about what we're doing but more toward what it means when we
get there because fundamentally changing our relationship to
energy from something you pull out of the ground or something
you rely on the weather for, to something that is manufactured,
fusion as a manufactured good means that energy is a
manufactured good. So that means that no dictator can control
access to energy. That means that energy is available for
anyone, anywhere in the world. And that just fundamentally
changes humankind's relationship to energy and allows us to do
a lot of really cool things.
Chairman Williams. Interesting, sort of a democratization
of energy, end of scarcity.
Mr. Holland. Yes.
Chairman Williams. Dr. Hsu?
Dr. Hsu. I want to give two quick answers. One is more
pragmatic and the other one may be philosophical. So the
pragmatic one is that not all of the science is under our belt,
but a lot of it is, and so what we need now is more engineering
development. And I think that's where the excitement that we
can speed things up if we have the level of investment needed.
The philosophical one is about getting to the next stage of
civilization. If--many of you may or may not have heard of
something called the Kardashev scale, not the Kardashian scale,
but the Kardashev scale, where it's about the amount of energy
a civilization can harness, and fusion will take us to that
next stage.
Chairman Williams. I think I saw a TikTok video about that.
Thank you.
I am going to indulge myself just for another minute. Mr.
Bowman, I hope that's OK. I'll ask your permission, sir.
These Milestone programs--and, Dr. Hsu, start with you, and
anyone can please--how do they work? Why do they work? We've
talked about it in the context of funding, perhaps a fusion
energy applied program or funding these alternative strategies.
Milestone programs, how do they work and why do they work? If
you don't mind being brief.
Dr. Hsu. Yes. So we took a lot of inspiration exactly from
NASA COTS. I think the guiding principles are that we really
want to invite strong industry participation. That was a big
component. So they have to want to work with the government.
And we all know that contracting things can be a bit of a
burden and reporting burden, so that was the main thing. The
use of other transactions authorities and agreements can get
around a lot of that, but in exchange, the private sector is
taking on a lot more risk. And we're protecting the taxpayer
because the government does not spend the money until they've
delivered on a valuable milestone.
Chairman Williams. That's very insightful. Thank you.
Anyone else? Milestone programs, why do you they work, how do
they work?
Mr. Holland. I would just really, you know, underline what
Scott said there at the end, that the nature of a Milestone
program--and it was used for SpaceX and the other private space
industries to work with NASA and to get those started up and
going. The nature of it is that it takes what is inherently a
high risk, high reward thing, fusion energy research, and puts
all of the risk on the private sector. There's no risk to the
taxpayer here because if the milestone is not hit, the money
doesn't go out.
Chairman Williams. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am.
Dr. McCarthy. If I can just add one thing, Chairman
Williams, and that is, the important part here in my opinion is
that partnership between private industry and the national
laboratories and universities because the national laboratories
have expertise and facilities that don't exist and can't be
replicated outside of there. So bringing that practical aspect,
that industry focus of getting to a certain point in a certain
schedule, meeting that together with the science and
engineering capabilities is a key part.
Chairman Williams. Very interesting. Dr. Kirtley?
Dr. Kirtley. And I just want to add one on the theory of
this, which is I think everybody here is in agreement that our
goal is to get fusion energy out as electricity on the grid as
soon as possible, so everything we can do to develop programs
and policies that have that in mind of how do we get
electricity on the grid as soon as possible is really valuable.
So in this case, the first of the Milestone program was
designing engineering power plants and that was the focus of
that, and so that's a really excellent tool to take these early
stage companies develop a power plant and have that to go
toward the next stage of how are you going to actually get that
on the grid?
Chairman Williams. Great. I've taken more than my time, but
I was just stalling so that Mr. Sorensen could join us, sir.
Please, I yield for five minutes.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Chairman Williams and Ranking
Member Bowman, for convening this hearing and for our witnesses
to be with us.
I'm a strong believer that talent comes from all corners of
our Nation. I'm proud to represent northwestern and central
Illinois in Congress. And today, I'd like to focus my questions
on the workforce space.
But first, as the first meteorologist in Congress in nearly
50 years, I've been connecting my folks back home with the
science of climate for nearly 20 years. And as a scientist, I
have long said that we don't have a silver bullet to solve
climate change. Instead, we have silver buckshot. And it's up
to us to analyze this dartboard, if you will, to find the
pieces that work today, analyze them, and then work toward
those solutions.
But from left to right, I'd like to know your percentage
chance--let's just go with the meteorologists, OK? What is the
percentage chance that what we're talking about today is the
silver bullet? And I'll begin with you, Dr. McCarthy.
Dr. McCarthy. I believe with the correct investment it can
be. I think our biggest challenge will--I believe will overcome
the science. Can we produce competitive fusion energy? That is
a key question. So investment in materials and fuel cycle is
essential to realizing that.
Dr. Kirtley. I've never heard silver buckshot before. I
think I love it. And that part of that can be fusion.
Obviously, I believe everywhere the Sun shines, we should be
harnessing solar energy, and the wind blows, you should be
harnessing that energy. But for everywhere else, we need
reliable baseload power, and so I think that fusion can be that
answer. In terms of percentage, we now have, to Mr. Holland's
point, 37 shots on goal, 23 here in the United States, and I
think that gives us a very high confidence that we'll get
there.
Dr. Solomon. As others have said, I'm also extremely
optimistic. Part of the reason for this and maybe also brought
up as well is that we need fusion. We need everything to make
sure that we can make this energy transition. Fusion is a
critical part of that. And what I see is that--the recognition
of that fact has driven so much innovation and creative ideas,
and despite the fact that there are science challenges,
technology challenges, just look around and you'll see a great
amount of optimism in our young, early career scientists and
the like, engineers who see they want to work on fusion, they
can make a difference.
Mr. Holland. So yes, we're going to get there, 100 percent,
not 100 percent for all 37. Unfortunately, I can't speak for
all of them, but 100 percent we're going to get there. The
challenge is, especially in the United States--the United
States is an extraordinarily competitive energy market. And
ultimately, we're providing electrons. And providing electrons
means you have to get the cost way down. And so our companies
are laser focused on that, and I think that's really important
to have that commercial focus working with the scientists.
Dr. Hsu. Yes, I would just say, you know, the energy
problem both in the short term and the long term are so
important that we can't count on any silver bullet, even if
fusion in the very long term may be that silver bullet.
Mr. Sorensen. Our next generation is incredibly worried
about the climate that we are going to give them, that they are
going to inherit from us. Dr. Hsu, what investment should we be
making? You know, the DOE announced $46 million for commercial
fusion just a couple of weeks ago. What would be the rate of
return instead of if that was $46 million or if it was $460
million?
Dr. Hsu. Well, that's above my paygrade. And I would say we
would do great things with the President's request, and we know
what we would like to do next.
Mr. Sorensen. Let me switch back over to the workforce.
Considering that private fusion companies are rapidly
recruiting early and mid-career researchers, I think that
there's a worry out there that the supply chain of good quality
teachers, instructors won't be met. What steps can be taken by
Congress and the fusion industry leaders to ensure that the
quality of education in plasma and fusion will be maintained at
our educational institutions? Yes?
Dr. McCarthy. Congressman Sorensen, I think that's a really
important question. And if you look, for example, at what the
Office of Nuclear Energy did, they made a concerted effort.
There was an investment in scholarships and fellowships in
funding for infrastructure to help the universities build those
programs. And so I think between the excitement of what's going
on and those sorts of investments, we can get there. And in
talking with professors, what they tell me is they're already
seeing that rush of young people wanting to study fusion.
Dr. Kirtley. I think this is a critical question for us. I
mean, as Helion as a company, we spent a lot of work hiring, a
lot of work developing new talent and early stage--career
technicians, engineers, and scientists that aren't even ready
for--to be part of fusion yet but soon will be. And if we have
this vision that we are going to be building an American fusion
manufacturing industry, this means massive amounts of jobs, of
technicians and assemblers and electricians and electrical
engineers and scientists and nuclear engineers. And so building
this and making sure that we're at the forefront of this so
that America doesn't get left behind is going to be really
critical. And so just think about the scale of what this means
to be able to build, in Helion's vision, a power plant today.
And that's massive gigafactories and high paid workers for it.
Mr. Sorensen. There are STEM (science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics) students in my district and in
all of our districts that are ready to make the discoveries for
the next generation. Thank you for sharing your insights and
your talent with us today. And I yield back.
Chairman Williams. I recognize Ms. Lee for five minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
witnesses for your time and presentation of your expertise
before the Committee today.
Pennsylvania has long been a State known, some say maybe
notoriously, for fossil energy production and supply. But as an
elected environmental justice advocate from western
Pennsylvania, I signal what opportunities lay ahead for the
future of energy in my district, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, and our country. In recent years, the global
community has become increasingly aware of the urgent need to
address climate change and to transition to cleaner, more
sustainable forms of energy. Fusion energy has presented an
opportunity to change our entire energy landscape. So as
Members of Congress and particularly this Committee, it falls
on us to create and implement solutions to abate the climate
crisis that are threatening the future of humanity.
As a Member of this Committee, I'm proud to be a part of
these changes by supporting innovation through research and
development that have the potential to revolutionize our energy
supply and the future of our planet. I represent a district
that for far too long has been plagued by poor air quality,
leaving my constituents with myriad respiratory problems like
asthma, emphysema, or bronchitis for instance. For a few days
last week here in D.C. we experienced air quality that reaches
hazardous levels. This scary experience for some is an insight
into the daily lives of my constituents in places like the Mon
Valley where I'm from, as well as other communities across the
country. My constituency has for years ranked among the worst
in cities and regions with the most polluted air.
So as we're here today, fusion energy is not an end-all,
be-all in addressing our climate-related health concerns, but
scientific avenues like this create a window through which we
can view an American future where toxic emissions poisoning our
neighbors and loved ones are not normalized or accepted.
Dr. McCarthy, what resources and infrastructure do our
institutions of higher learning need to support R&D endeavor to
make fusion energy a reality?
Dr. McCarthy. So there are some specific experimental
capabilities that could be built, test stands for testing
blanket concepts. I mentioned that while we've done quite a bit
on the science piece, we need to do a bit more on materials and
fuel cycle. And so there is--there are some opportunities that
are there, also opportunities for students to do internships at
national laboratories with these private companies. That's all
part of getting to where we need to get in terms of the
workforce and creating opportunities.
Ms. Lee. How much international collaboration will be
required if necessary to bolster our domestic fusion energy
program? And, Dr. McCarthy or Dr. Hsu?
Dr. McCarthy. I'll just say very quickly that international
collaboration has always been part of the fusion program. And
when I was in graduate school, it's one of the reasons why I
was attracted into it because working with the best and the
brightest from all over the world was just a very exciting
thing, and that continues today. So the fusion program works
with experiments all over the world. I had talked earlier--and
in my testimony I talk about the ITER project specifically,
which is being built as an international team. That's going to
continue. But where the United States really has the
advantage--and this was touched a bit earlier--is our ability--
we've got this private program, we have the national
laboratories, which really are the crown jewels I think in the
world, and universities and innovation. Americans are good at
innovation. That's what's going to give us that competitive
edge. But international is an important part.
Dr. Hsu. Yes, if I may, I'll just add international
collaborations are very central to our strategy, especially in
the acceleration of fusion commercialization. There are many
examples in our international and interagency conversations.
These are focused on, say, a few things, access or shared
development of very high cost test facilities, ensuring and
securing long-term supply chains with our allies. These could
include fuel supplies such as the startup tritium and lithium-
6. These are the input fuels for deuterium-tritium fusion, and
also harmonization of regulatory frameworks because we want to
deploy fusion globally if we're going to realize its benefits.
And also, as you mentioned, developing a diverse workforce to
support a future global industry. So these are areas--you know,
we--certainly, the DOE and even the country may not be able to
do these things on its own--on our own, and we're going to want
partnerships with our allies.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. While I would like to shoot off another
one, I'll be respectful of our--my time, and I'll yield back.
Chairman Williams. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
I want to thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony
and for sacrificing and gifting us the value of your time,
which I also know comes at a dear cost. And I also want to
thank my fellow Members for their questions and engaging in
this dialog.
It's clear to me it's time to greatly redirect resources
toward fusion, public and private, and doing it together. I
hope that we can work together to make this happen.
The record for this hearing will remain open for 10 days
for additional comments and written questions from Members. But
for now, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Kathryn McCarthy
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Wayne Solomon
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Andrew Holland
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Scott Hsu
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Letters submitted by Dr. Wayne Solomon
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Studies submitted by Mr. Andrew Holland
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]