[Senate Hearing 118-430]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-430
FUSION ENERGY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
AND COMMERCIALIZATION EFFORTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 19, 2024
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
57-016 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
ALEX PADILLA, California JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
Renae Black, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Alyse Huffman, Professional Staff Member
Justin J. Memmott, Republican Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Chief Counsel
Leah Schaefer, Republican Senior Legislative Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West
Virginia....................................................... 1
Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
Wyoming........................................................ 4
WITNESSES
Allain, Dr. Jean Paul, Associate Director, Office of Fusion
Energy Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy..................... 13
Siebens, Jackie, Director of Public Affairs, Helion Energy; Non-
Resident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council Global Energy Center.. 21
White, Dr. Patrick, Research Director, Nuclear Innovation
Alliance....................................................... 35
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Allain, Dr. Jean Paul:
Opening Statement............................................ 13
Written Testimony............................................ 15
Barrasso, Hon. John:
Opening Statement............................................ 4
Wall Street Journal article entitled ``Beijing Leads U.S. in
Fusion Race'' by Jennifer Hiller and Sha Hua, published on
July 8, 2024............................................... 6
Electric Power Research Institute:
Report entitled ``A Review of Fusion Confinement Types''
published in December 2023................................. 95
Report entitled ``Fuel Options for Fusion Energy'' published
in December 2023........................................... 100
2024 Technical Update -- Fusion Fuel Cycles Research
Objectives: Results from the 2023 Fusion Fuel Cycles
Workshop................................................... 106
2024 Technical Update -- Fusion Blankets Research Objectives:
Results from the 2023 Fusion Blankets Workshop............. 129
Program on Technology Innovation: 2022 Fusion Prototypic
Neutron Source (FPNS) Performance Requirements Workshop
Summary (Washington, DC, September 20-21, 2022)............ 155
Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
CNN article entitled ``The U.S. Led on Nuclear Fusion for
Decades. Now China Is in Position To Win the Race'' by
Angela Dewan and Ella Nilsen, published on September 19,
2024....................................................... 59
Manchin, Hon. Joe:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Chart entitled ``Equity Investments in Fusion Companies by
Country, 2010-2023......................................... 3
Photo of CTC Global ACCC conductor........................... 73
Siebens, Jackie:
Opening Statement............................................ 21
Written Testimony............................................ 23
Photo of deuterium sample.................................... 91
White, Dr. Patrick:
Opening Statement............................................ 35
Written Testimony............................................ 37
FUSION ENERGY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIALIZATION EFFORTS
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER, 19, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin
III, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. This morning we are going to discuss the
commercialization of fusion energy, one of the critical and
emerging technologies that we are in a global race to develop.
Fusion energy would be a total game-changer. It is dispatchable
power that is zero-emitting, and unlike conventional nuclear
fission, we have abundant and accessible fuel for fusion with
minimal waste. We know energy has played a major role in
spurring the wars of the past century, from Japan's dependence
on imported oil in World War II to Europe's dependence on
Russian natural gas and conflicts in the Middle East, but
widely available fusion power would help end conflicts over
energy. It would change the world.
In 2022, I visited the ITER experimental site in Provence,
France, where the U.S. and 32 other countries are working
together to get the first fusion reactor online, commercial--
including not just our allies, but also countries of concern,
such as China and Russia. While we are in conflict on other
geopolitical issues, we are cooperating on ITER because all of
these countries see the merit and promise of fusion energy.
ITER gave me hope, and I saw a real opportunity for this
technology to bring us together here in the United States. I
saw, in a sense, world peace. What I saw there changed my
outlook on energy forever. And I really encourage all of you to
make the trip there. If you have not been able to do so, please
do so.
Senator Barrasso. And if you can't go to France, come to
Wyoming.
The Chairman. And West Virginia.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I thought I was going to have a protest for
my good friend here and my partner.
What I saw there changed my outlook on energy forever, and
I will encourage all of you to make that trip. What we are
doing with fusion is essentially trying to harness the power of
the stars here on Earth. Lightweight elements fuse together
and, in the process, release massive amounts of energy. But it
is much more challenging to artificially produce fusion here on
Earth because of the difference in gravity, which means that we
need to create temperatures ten times hotter than the sun here
in our labs. And believe it or not, we are actually able to do
that today. But despite our scientific progress today,
challenges remain that are preventing us from having
operational fusion power plants today.
Currently, there are over 40 fusion companies globally that
have raised a collective $7.1 billion of investment over the
past five years, and over 85 percent of that is private
capital. And there have been significant advances in fusion
energy technology in recent years, such as the National
Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab
achieving fusion ignition, for the first time producing more
energy from fusion than was used to drive the reaction. This is
the only facility in the world to reach that milestone. And we
are also seeing many of these new designs making fusion
reactors smaller, similar to how the nuclear fission industry
is innovating from the large conventional reactors to the
SMRs--small modular reactors--and micro-reactors. But despite
decades of research and a rapid increase in global investment
in fusion energy technologies, no one has been able to produce
fusion energy at the grid level, commercial scale.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the
roadblocks that they are seeing. I understand that there are
still outstanding scientific questions that need to be
answered, which the Energy Act of 2020 and the CHIPS and
Science Act aim to help address. And I know DOE's fusion energy
program is busy implementing these laws and working with the
private sector to coordinate efforts. But I have recently
learned that ITER continues to face delays and its new startup
date is now 2039, four years later than we had hoped. So we
need to get a better understanding of why that is and how we
can get things back on track.
Meanwhile, the private sector seems to be charging ahead.
Helion Energy, one of our witnesses today, recently visited a
Nucor steel facility in my home State of West Virginia, where
the two companies are considering co-locating steel production
with a fusion plant. It's really exciting, and everyone is kind
of all hyped up about this. Helion is looking for an online
date for their first grid-scale commercial fusion power plant
in 2028. That would be more than a decade before ITER, and that
almost seems too good to be true. Now, I understand that ITER
and Helion's plants are designed for different purposes, but it
is clear from these examples that there is a lot of uncertainty
surrounding the potential deployment date for the first fusion
power plant.
I would be remiss not to mention that the race against
China, which we have discussed time and time again in this
Committee, applies here as well. China has recently mimicked
our own U.S. Strategic Plan for developing fusion energy, and
is rapidly building out their research program and labs,
modeled after our own DOE national labs. As you can see in the
chart behind me, fusion investments have ramped up in the past
few years.
[The chart referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. The U.S. is still in the lead, but you can
see China entering the field in a big way. China's investments
in 2023 are more than all of the other countries combined,
including ours. And China is not only trying to beat us in
science, they are also working to corner the fusion energy
supply chain by securing the market for critical materials
needed to build fusion power plants, like they have for solar
power and electric vehicle batteries. We cannot afford to lose
our competitive edge in fusion energy technology.
I am looking forward to hearing from you all about the
timeline we are facing for fusion power and about specific
steps that we can take to ensure America is able to maintain
our competitive edge.
With that, I am going to turn to my friend, Senator
Barrasso, for his opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Well----
The Chairman. And I won't interject----
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Please feel free
to interject. We have a great working relationship. So proud of
what we were able to do with permitting. I continue to hear
about the success of a bill that came out of this Committee
that all of us sitting here today voted for, 15 to 4, and I
would like to get that on the floor of the Senate as quickly as
possible.
The Chairman. Amen.
Senator Barrasso. And thank you for holding this hearing
today, and I would like, also, as quickly as possible, to see
this come to fruition, what we are talking about today. This is
a critically important topic--nuclear fusion. It is a process
of combining two elements such as hydrogen, to create a heavier
element and generate energy. That's what it's about, generating
energy. It is the atomic reaction that powers our sun, and if
harnessed here on Earth, offers unlimited emission-free energy,
often considered the holy grail of energy production.
This Committee last considered nuclear fusion--it doesn't
seem that long ago, but it was actually two years ago that we
had the hearing on this. And since then, there has been some
noteworthy progress that has been made. In December 2022, the
Department of Energy announced that scientists at the Lawrence
Livermore National Lab achieved scientific break-even. This
occurs when a fusion experiment produces more energy than it
uses. And since then, the scientists at the Lawrence Livermore
National Lab have been able to repeat this process on four
additional occasions. Over the last two years, we have also
witnessed growth of the fusion industry. In 2022, there were 33
companies working on this in the private sector, and now there
are 45. According to the Fusion Industry Association, these
companies have attracted over $7 billion of private investment,
with over $900 million in new funding just in the last year. So
it's clear that investors do see great potential in fusion.
While these developments are encouraging, we need to remain
clear-eyed about the challenges ahead. There is no question
that scientific break-even was significant. Yet scientists have
not yet been able to reliably and consistently reproduce the
reaction. Mastering scientific break-even is necessary before
nuclear fusion can be commercially available. Another challenge
that scientists face is converting fusion energy into
electricity. To date, no fusion reactor has made it to this
stage, yet several fusion companies expect to put electrons on
the grid in the next decade. Helion, one of our witnesses
today, has signed a power purchase agreement to provide
Microsoft with electricity by 2028. Helion has signed an
agreement to provide electricity to Nucor, a steel producer, by
around 2030. I am interested to hear how the plans for Helion
are to meet these ambitious commitments.
Advances in fusion energy come at a time when America's
demand for electricity is expected to grow rapidly. I brought
an article here previously from the New York Times saying by
five years from now that the need for energy nationwide would
be like adding a new California to the grid as a result of all
the areas where new energy is needed. And much of this demand
is going to be driven by data centers powering artificial
intelligence, by Bitcoin mining, by cloud computing, and
storage centers, and if we can't provide these facilities with
affordable and reliable power, America is going to cede its
leadership position on these critical technologies. China
understands this. They understand that the race for artificial
intelligence is also a race to secure the energy to power the
computers. This is one reason why China is aggressively
competing with us on fusion.
Mr. Chairman, I think you and I talked about this Wall
Street Journal article headline. This was Tuesday, July 9th:
``Beijing Leads U.S. in Fusion Race.'' You can see that.
[The article referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Is that this year?
Senator Barrasso. Yes, that is this year.
The Chairman. That is this year, but it's not quite
accurate compared to what we have been able to do in the past.
Senator Barrasso. Apparently, it's fake news, but I am not
convinced.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. And I am concerned. It's a concern.
The Chairman. We are not out of the race yet, don't give up
on the U.S.
Senator Barrasso. It quotes Dr. Allain, who leads the
Department of Energy's Fusion Office and is one of our
witnesses here today. So we are going to get to that because
according to your quote in this article, China appears to be
following our roadmap of how to commercialize fusion energy.
So, they tend to have this ability to copycat what we do and
then try to advance it in ways to get ahead of us, to leapfrog
us. His quote is, ``They are building our long-range plan,''
and you say, ``That's very frustrating, as you can imagine,''
because that is the way China does it on so many things.
So, I am interested to learn what we need to do to protect
American interests and regain our competitive advantage. I
would also like to learn how the Department can become a better
steward of taxpayer dollars when it comes to fusion research. I
want to thank you, thank the witnesses for being here. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the testimony. I know
everyone here does.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
I am going to introduce our panelists for today.
We have Dr. Jean Paul Allain, who goes by JP, Associate
Director for Fusion Energy Sciences at the Department of
Energy.
We have Ms. Jackie Siebens, Director of Public Affairs at
Helion Energy.
And we have Dr. Patrick White, Research Director at the
Nuclear Innovation Alliance.
Thank you all for coming. Now we are going to start with
you all, and Dr. JP, we will start with you.
STATEMENT OF DR. JEAN PAUL ALLAIN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF THE
OFFICE OF FUSION ENERGY SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
Dr. Allain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for your
longstanding support of fusion energy sciences research and
development. As Associate Director of Fusion Energy Sciences,
or FES, in the Department of Energy's Office of Science, it is
an honor to testify about our work to realize the promise of
fusion energy in alignment with Administration's Bold Decadal
Vision for Commercial Fusion Energy. Simultaneously, we are
also working to align with the recommendations of the Fusion
Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Long-Range Plan. I want to
thank this Committee for the strong support for the entire
Office of Science--and fusion, specifically--reflected in the
historic CHIPS and Science Act of 2022.
This past year, we have made tremendous strides. We began
to realign the FES program to meet the rapidly changing fusion
landscape, introduced new innovative funding mechanisms, and
deepened international partnerships with like-minded nations.
All the while, we have maintained our focus on the important
foundational and enabling science that we steward for the
nation, which has the potential to harness fusion energy and
also deliver new plasma technologies that can improve human
health, revolutionize microelectronics manufacturing, and more.
The promise of fusion energy cannot be understated. Harnessing
energy from fusion reactions has the potential to unlock a
resilient baseload and a carbon-free source of energy essential
to combating climate change. Further, with such broad and
transformative potential, it is essential that we treat fusion
energy as a national security imperative. The United States
cannot afford to have other nations surpass its technological
leadership and competitive edge.
To realize fusion energy in a decadal time frame, we must
take bold action to address the critical scientific and
technological gaps that remain, and enable fusion energy to
scale. At FES, our approach to realizing this Bold Decadal
Vision is built on three key actions. First, we must drive
innovation by closing critical science and technology gaps.
Investing in fusion energy sciences to align with the Bold
Decadal Vision, as well as recommendations of the FESAC Long-
Range Plan, will help us accelerate at the necessary speed and
scale. Second, we must establish and leverage public-private
partnerships. The proposed public-private consortium frameworks
enable participants from across the economy to support the
development of fusion science and technology to realize
commercial fusion energy. Participants might include academia,
government labs, private equity, loan programs, state and
regional governments, philanthropic investors, and large-scale
industries and corporations. Third, we must build a robust
fusion technology manufacturing network, alongside partners.
This investment will produce innovations and scale essential
fusion technologies, including internal components, advanced
materials, and tritium management systems needed to make fusion
economically competitive at scale. This coming fiscal year, we
will release the first-ever U.S. Fusion Science and Technology
Roadmap, laying out the steps needed to advance each of these
actions and clear metrics with input from industry to measure
progress every year.
To close, we are in one of the most consequential moments
of development for fusion energy. Translating decades of
scientific and technological progress to a globally competitive
energy resource will require significant investment and effort.
History has taught us that the magnitude of effort needed to
deploy and scale-up novel technologies, like for the first
moonshot, the nation will need the foresight and will need to
bring together our collective expertise and willingness to
innovate across technology and policy if we are to win the race
to commercial fusion energy. As we face challenges to our
national, economic, and energy security, fusion energy is a
mandate that we must realize to ensure global leadership this
century and beyond.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Allain follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Now we will turn to Ms. Siebens.
STATEMENT OF JACKIE SIEBENS, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AT
HELION ENERGY; NON-RESIDENT SENIOR FELLOW AT THE ATLANTIC
COUNCIL GLOBAL ENERGY CENTER
Ms. Siebens. Thank you.
Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on the steps necessary to position
the United States as the leader in a global fusion marketplace.
It is an honor to speak before you, especially at such an
inflection point for fusion technology with China trying to
capitalize on our success.
Helion is based in Everett, Washington, and is a company of
over 350 people with a mission to provide the world with clean,
reliable, and abundant energy through commercial fusion
technology. Over the past decade, we have developed six fusion
prototypes, each reaching our goals of proving critical aspects
of our approach and bringing us closer to commercial
deployment. Today, we are building Polaris, our seventh
prototype, which we expect to be the first machine to
demonstrate electricity production. Following Polaris, we will
construct the world's first commercial fusion power plant,
backed by a power purchase agreement with Microsoft. We also
have a customer agreement with Nucor to develop a 500-megawatt
plant to power one of their steel mills. This shows that fusion
energy is no longer a distant vision, it is becoming a reality
today. But as exciting as this moment may be, deployment at
scale is where the real race is. To meet projected energy
demand growth and to secure U.S. leadership, we must prepare to
deploy not just one, but many fusion power plants across
America and the globe.
And this requires a strategic two-pronged approach. First,
building resilient supply chains, and second, establishing bold
new regulatory pathways. There are several things we must do to
bolster our supply chains, including adapting existing
government programs to fusion, such as the Department of
Energy's Loan Programs Office, the 45X manufacturing production
tax credit, and the CHIPS and Science Act. But eventually, we
also need to develop a new bold program for fusion, akin to the
CHIPS Act. It should include strategic manufacturing support to
provide significant funding to build out the manufacturing
capacity necessary for large-scale fusion deployment and move
the U.S. toward applied materials R&D. And when it comes to
regulation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Congress have
already made incredible strides. However, significant
opportunities remain as we move toward commercialization.
Fusion generators are capable of being mass-produced, but
they are currently licensed for each individual site. We have a
proposal called Design-Specific Licensing, where fusion
generators are treated like airplanes, where you license the
design with the ability to site and operate the generator at
any location nationwide. For environmental reviews, we must
develop a tailored environmental regulatory approach--much like
licensing--for the generator design, and not bucket fusion into
the years-long processes that apply to fission. It is also
important to look at grid interconnection and siting
regulation, as the current system is not designed for scale.
Federal and state regulators must work together to streamline
interconnection processes to integrate fusion generators into
the grid as soon as they are ready. Also, we must look at co-
located generation, where power can be directly supplied to
large energy consumers, like data centers, without the need for
extensive grid infrastructure.
We recognize these ambitious asks in support of ambitious
goals, but when a fusion company hits electricity production,
these efforts need to be ready to go on day one to make sure
fusion can scale in a competition where China will put
everything on the table to win. China has made fusion a
cornerstone of its national innovation strategy, aggressively
investing in research, development, and manufacturing
capabilities, both for civilian and military applications. It
is estimated that China spends $1.5 billion a year on fusion
and has ten times as many Ph.D.s as America in this space. And
China has a history of replicating U.S. companies' designs to
develop their own systems. This is happening right now in
fusion with multiple Chinese companies. One company launched a
direct copycat program, pursuing Helion's design, and another
publicly stated its intent to replicate key aspects of Helion's
approach. We have seen it before, in solar and batteries, where
the U.S. pioneered breakthrough technologies, only to lose out
to China in the race to mass deployment. Without a
comprehensive U.S. response, we risk being outpaced by China
again. This is why it is imperative for the U.S. to act now. By
establishing resilient supply chains and the right regulatory
frameworks, we can ensure that fusion transforms our energy
system and secures America's leadership in the clean energy
transition.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Siebens follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you.
And now we will turn to Dr. White.
STATEMENT OF DR. PATRICK WHITE,
RESEARCH DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR INNOVATION ALLIANCE
Dr. White. Great, thank you.
Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today
before this Committee and for holding this hearing. My name is
Dr. Patrick White, and I am currently the Research Director for
the Nuclear Innovation Alliance (NIA). Through an NIA
partnership with the Clean Air Task Force (CATF), within their
Global Programme for Fusion Energy, I lead the CATF
International Working Group on Commercial Fusion Safety, Waste,
and Non-Proliferation. Both NIA and CATF are 501(c)(3)
organizations that provide independent technical research,
analysis, and advocacy to help advance policies and
technologies that enable deployment of clean energy solutions
to meet our economic, societal, and climate needs. I hold a
Ph.D. in nuclear science and engineering from MIT, where my
doctoral thesis work focused on the safety, analysis,
regulation, and licensing of commercial fusion technology. I am
here today to provide insights on the development and
deployment of fusion energy technology as an important future
clean energy solution.
An affordable, reliable, secure, and clean energy future
requires us to deploy a mix of variable clean energy
generation, energy storage, and firm clean energy generation.
Commercial fusion energy can play a significant role as a
source of firm clean energy generation and would complement
other existing firm clean energy sources, including
hydroelectric, nuclear fission, geothermal, and natural gas
with carbon capture. Successful development, commercialization,
and deployment, and export of commercial fusion energy by the
United States will have climate, societal, economic, and
geopolitical benefits, including affordable clean energy,
technology innovation spurred on by fusion energy research, on-
shored supply chains and massive manufacturing, and increased
energy security for us and our allies.
The past five years have seen incredible achievements by
fusion experiments in the United States and around the world
and record investment in private companies pursuing commercial
fusion energy. And while we have passed several important
milestones in the development and commercialization of fusion
energy, I believe it is important to contextualize and discuss
the pathway and future milestones that still lie ahead. A clear
understanding of these milestones, their timing, and the
pathways enables us to discuss how we can most effectively
catalyze and accelerate the development, commercialization, and
ultimate wide-scaled deployment of fusion energy.
The commercialization and deployment of fusion energy can
be divided into four general phases. The first is the
development and operation of scientific demonstration fusion
machines that show we can control fusion energy and achieve net
energy gain from fusion reactions. Second, the design and
testing of engineering demonstration fusion machines that show
we can harness fusion energy and consistently produce large
amounts of power from fusion reactions. Third, the construction
and operation of commercial demonstration machines that show
that we can produce commercially relevant energy products from
fusion and integrate key commercial systems necessary for wide-
scale deployment. And fourth and finally is the wide-scale
commercial deployment of fusion energy, marking the
availability of the technology as a viable clean energy source.
Fusion commercialization will require private companies to
complete all four phases, but company-specific pathways may
differ. Some concepts may be completed under a single
demonstration phase, with one machine serving as a scientific
and engineering and a commercial machine, while other companies
may take a more iterative approach and use many smaller
machines to show how their technology can develop and evolve
toward a commercial product. But understanding these phases
enables us to more clearly discuss and compare the progress
that is currently being made by private fusion companies and
assess how the Federal Government can most effectively support
and accelerate the commercialization of fusion technology.
Moving forward, the United States needs to consider what role
we want to play in the global race for fusion energy.
Fusion technology innovation by U.S. companies is
unmatched, but we need to ensure that they have the support and
policy clarity to compete internationally against state-owned
or state-supported fusion energy programs. The United Kingdom,
European Union, China, Canada, Japan, and other nations have
begun making investments in commercial fusion energy, and
United States partnerships with the United Kingdom and Japan on
fusion energy research highlight the opportunities for
international collaboration with our allies. Supporting
domestic development of a U.S. fusion industry is critical. As
an example, China has a plan for domestic fusion energy in a
domestic fusion industry, and they are executing on it. They
have started construction on scientific and engineering
demonstration fusion machines, and they have a detailed plan on
a commercial demonstration fusion machine. They are also
completing a facility that will lead cross-cutting fusion
research and development for key materials, fuel-cycle
technologies, and commercial systems. The Chinese plan shows
both an understanding and a commitment to the scientific,
engineering, and commercial steps necessary to get fusion
energy onto the grid.
Accelerating fusion commercial development and deployment
in the United States will require private-sector investment and
continued Federal Government coordination and support. I
believe two major factors should be prioritized as we work
toward the commercialization of fusion energy. First, we need
to ensure that clean energy policies are technology-inclusive
to create a clear market pull for fusion energy as a firm clean
energy source. Second, private companies, academic researchers,
national labs, and the Federal Government must closely
coordinate and collaborate to implement and support--with
appropriate federal funding and policies--an integrated fusion
energy program that effectively and efficiently prioritizes
efforts to accelerate fusion energy commercialization through
all four stages of development, demonstration, and deployment.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. White follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Let me thank all of you, and we are going to
start our questioning now.
So this is really for all three, but what I want to know
is, I am encouraged to hear what we are doing and things of
that sort. I am concerned when I hear China now is doubling
down and coming stronger and stronger at us, wanting to take
the lead on that. So I am going to ask the hard question: when
can we realistically expect the first fusion power plant to be
online? And I know there is all difference, but with ITER being
knocked back as far as it is, it has really alarmed us. How do
you expect something to come on quicker than that, and why
would you be able to do it on a smaller scale when they can't
do it on a commercialized scale?
Dr. JP, we will start with you.
Dr. Allain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this question.
There is no question that we are in a race, and I am glad that
you point this out. The realization of fusion energy is one of
the most significant challenges to mankind. So we need to
recognize that. As we are putting together a lot of our
expertise and leveraging a lot of our resources, we need to
keep in mind that it is really important to have our eye on the
ball and very much focus on closing the science and technology
gaps that we have been talking about.
The good news is, after decades of investments in the
public program and the public sector, these have actually
enabled the private sector step up the investments toward
fusion technology development, and this is good news. We have a
signal, if you will, from the private sector.
The Chairman. You are thinking the private sector is going
to come on before the public sector, right? I am just trying
to--I only have so much time.
Dr. Allain. Right.
The Chairman. I wanted to make sure, but I think I know
where you are coming from on that. What you all have been able
to--what we have been able to do with public investments and
research through our labs is basically propelling the private
sector to take it and run with it quicker.
Dr. Allain. Well, that's true, but it's also about building
bridges between the public and private sectors. This is key,
right? It's not just the private sector, yes.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Siebens, do you have any comment real quick on that?
Ms. Siebens. Yes, thank you for that question, Senator. I
will start by sort of taking a 50,000-foot view of the whole
fusion ecosystem and where we are at today versus where we have
been.
The Chairman. Well, you all believe you can come on before
2030?
Ms. Siebens. That is correct. Indeed.
The Chairman. Well, how? I want to hear that one.
Ms. Siebens. Right. So, first of all, right now, we have
21st century technology advancement that is enabling 20th
century concepts. So for us at Helion, we are pursuing
something called a pulsed approach to fusion, and when you look
at things like ITER, which you have discussed, and many of the
other companies, they are pursuing something called a tokamak
design, which has been the predominant design that has been
pursued over the past many decades. And in both of those
instances, we have technologies available today that we have
not had before that are accelerating this race toward
commercialization and building that first working machine.
Combined with the fact that the regulatory framework for
fusion allows companies like Helion to actually build and
iterate and build again quickly, that is absolutely key for us
moving quickly. For instance, for us at Helion, we have built
six working fusion machines since we were founded approximately
11 years ago. You can't do that in almost any other field. In
fission, it takes a very long time to get regulatory approval
to build.
So the fact that we have technology advancements,
particularly in power electronics for us at Helion, combined
with a regulatory framework that allows us to build and
iterate, has really led us to a place where we are moving
quickly with our pulsed machine, particularly.
The Chairman. Dr. White, real quick.
We are going to go to seven minutes because with what we
have here, I think it entails that.
Go ahead.
Dr. White. Great. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
I think the real answer to why we think we can get fusion
energy on the grid more quickly is technology innovation. If
you take a look at almost all of the private fusion companies
that are currently developing technologies, they are all
leveraging innovation in things like high-temperature
superconducting magnets, new power electronics, new laser
technologies, and this is really what is enabling them to move
faster and get better performance out of machines that have
been developed at national labs for the last several decades.
The challenge is, with innovation, the timeline of that can
be uncertain. And so, we have a lot of very promising concepts.
It really is up to private industry to work through the
innovation process and figure out if these enabling
technologies can rapidly accelerate the deployment of fusion
energy.
The Chairman. Let me throw this at you all--since we know
that, and we know also the constraints we have on the grid
system, do you believe you see an impediment there that might
cause you a problem coming on, even if you have this
technology? And I will give you the perfect example. In my
state, we have retired coal plants, some of the older ones.
They already have the switch gears. Everything is ready to go.
And we have had SMRs--small modular, you know, looking at that.
Do you all look at that type of a facility that's like a plug
and play? If you can get this going, would that be attractive
to you all? And are you concerned about the constraints you
have hooking to the grid, the way we have it now, unless we are
able to pass permitting which enables us to have--and how
important is that to you all--the permitting?
Ms. Siebens. Thank you for that question. And yes, we are
looking at co-location--that is, when we look at our customers
and where the demand is, there is a lot of demand around co-
location. For our first deployment, we are in good shape. But
where we see the real race developing is beyond that first
demonstration, that first deployment of a commercial facility--
--
The Chairman. Got you.
Ms. Siebens [continuing]. And building out and deploying at
scale. That is where the real race with China is. And to your
point, that is where we do see challenges in being able to
deploy our machines at the rate that we can build them and to
meet the demand that we see. I think the permitting bill goes a
long way in helping ensure that we are able to connect to the
grid and solve some of the transmission issues that we are
facing. But when it comes to co-location--which you mentioned--
in regulated markets, there is not currently a pathway that
exists for a 500-megawatt facility like ours to serve
electricity directly to a customer like Nucor. So I think there
is a lot of work still to be done in the space of co-location.
The Chairman. Got you.
Anybody else want to comment on that?
Dr. Allain. Yes, let me just expand on this, and we must
remember that ITER--you referenced ITER--is not intended to be
a commercial machine. However, it is an industrial-scale
platform.
The Chairman. They were trying to prove on a commercial
scale, that it can be----
Dr. Allain. That's right. And we should remember that, in
fact, the impact of ITER already at that industrial-scale level
has impacted a lot of the supply chain aspects. For example, in
manufacturing--let's say, magnets, and in terms of, you know,
tritium-based systems, this is another aspect where we are, in
fact, benefiting from that particular project, you know. And
that is something that we don't have to wait until 2029 for.
The Chairman. The thing that impressed me more than
anything was that 33 different countries have scientists at
ITER.
Dr. Allain. That's right.
The Chairman. I would encourage everyone in the Energy
Committee, if they get a chance, to go there. It's worth it.
Dr. Allain. That's right.
The Chairman. But you have to work in collaboration, and
sharing this, and countries that we have concerns with----
Dr. Allain. Yes.
The Chairman. China and Russia, still paying their share to
be part of this.
Dr. Allain. Yes, there is about $1.4 billion that has been
invested in the U.S.--120 companies that have benefited from
this. And we are trying to leverage that.
The Chairman. Dr. White, do you have something very quick,
in closing?
Dr. White. Yes, I will just really quickly reiterate, I
believe the importance of having technology-neutral policies to
really think about how we can get firm clean energy sources
onto the grid.
The Chairman. Right.
Dr. White. We hope to see many of these sources come online
in the next decade, and so, having a clear pathway for them to
either work behind the meter or integrate it onto the grid will
be critical so that technologies like fusion can enter the grid
when they are commercially ready.
The Chairman. Great.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Well, I just want to follow the direction
of your questioning, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Siebens, you know, your company is very confident that
it's going to be able to generate electricity from fusion. More
and more companies are getting into this area. In May 2023,
your company entered into this power purchase agreement to
provide electricity to Microsoft around 2028. To date, no one
has been able to generate electricity from fusion, yet last
year, you announced that it is expected to demonstrate the
ability to produce electricity in 2024, which is this year. Are
you still on track to show it can produce electricity by the
end of this year? We are talking, you know, less than two and a
half months to go.
Ms. Siebens. Thank you for that question, Senator.
Right now, we are constructing our seventh prototype,
called Polaris. And this is the machine that we expect will
demonstrate electricity production. We are on track to complete
construction of this plant this year and begin testing likely
this year and then continue that through next year. And yes,
this is the machine that we believe will demonstrate
electricity production, which is key to meeting the
requirements of that PPA.
Senator Barrasso. So since we sometimes ask one witness to
comment on something or other, Dr. White, you know, companies
like Helion generated significant excitement about their
prospects for fusion energy. Are we really just a few years
away from bringing fusion energy onto the grid?
Dr. White. Great, thank you for the question, Senator.
I think this is where the topic of technology innovation
really becomes the most important issue to discuss. Companies
like Helion are using innovative approaches to generating
fusion energy, but a lot of that is based on innovative
technology approaches. And these are things that we are going
to discover through the development, demonstration, and testing
process. And so, I think it's really exciting to watch the
progress that Helion is making in this space, and ultimately,
we will be looking to them as they test their machines to see
if they can perform and produce the electricity that they
believe could be really impactful. And I think this is
something across the space--how can we look to innovative
technologies to really accelerate fusion, not just for Helion,
but for many different private fusion companies in the space?
But ultimately, the proof will be in electrons on the grid.
Senator Barrasso. Great.
So Ms. Siebens, the power purchase agreement that you have
with Microsoft, I think lots of people are interested to learn
the specifics of these agreements. I am curious to know whether
the agreement includes a firm deadline date by which Helion
must provide electricity to Microsoft, and I am interested to
know whether it includes meaningful penalties if you don't meet
the deadline. What, if any, details can you share about the
agreement?
Ms. Siebens. Sure. I can't share every detail of the
agreement, but I can say that, yes, this indeed is a real PPA
that comes with firm penalties. We do have penalties that
evolve and change as we grow closer to the milestone of
actually producing commercial power for Microsoft. And yes, we
do have deadlines. So for 2028, we need to have the plant
constructed and begin operations and then reach full commercial
operations, providing electricity to Microsoft in 2029.
Senator Barrasso. Dr. White, earlier this year,
Representative Beyer from Virginia, you know, he is co-chair of
the House Fusion Energy Caucus. He said that much of the U.S.
fusion spending goes to legacy programs. His quote was, ``Not
the cutting-edge stuff.'' Is it time for Congress to reorder
our priorities when it comes to fusion research?
Dr. White. Thank you.
I think it's really important when we talk about a lot of
these legacy programs, as was described by Representative
Beyer, and thinking about the larger fusion energy portfolio,
how can we try to refocus what their activities are toward
fusion energy commercialization? A lot of the machines that we
operate today and a lot of the international programs that we
are in can provide really important scientific and engineering
information to help accelerate the private industry. Insights
and work done at ITER on the design, manufacture, and
construction of the ITER device and a lot of the design work
that was done to support that could be incredibly valuable for
U.S. private fusion companies. The question is, how can we make
sure that U.S. private companies in the U.S. fusion energy
sector can get access to a lot of these lessons learned? And I
think when we talk about U.S. fusion energy experiments, how
can we make sure that they are really tailored and focused on
either training scientists, producing research, or testing the
system structures and components that are going to be needed
for fusion energy?
And so, I think a lot of it is really having this focused
plan on how to best use both the legacy experiments and the
international collaborations that we have.
Senator Barrasso. Dr. Allain, it's no surprise how China is
approaching fusion. Just like they have done with other
innovative technologies, they let us do all the hard work and
then they try to copycat or steal it and do anything they can.
They steal our ideas. They lock up the supply chains for raw
materials, magnets, capacitors, semiconductors--you know all of
this. The list goes on. What is the Department of Energy going
to do to protect America's growing fusion energy industry?
Dr. Allain. Yes, thank you, Senator, for that question.
I think it connects with a lot of the comments here as
well. What we have to do is, we have to be very focused on
making sure that we are not only closing the science and
technology gaps, but that we have a roadmap--a direction--that
provides us not just the timeline, but the way that we
prioritize. The so-called legacy assets that we have, these are
not just facilities. These are ecosystems. And what is really
important to recognize, these ecosystems are working, not just
on fusion science, they are working also on development of the
very tools that are enabling many of the private-sector
companies. Those ecosystems, as well, are what ties us to our
international partners, and in fact, why the globe and why the
world comes to the United States for many of their projects for
us to be able to develop. The key piece here, basically, as was
just shared here by my colleagues, is making sure that we are
understanding the bridge to the private sector, identifying
where those gaps have to be addressed, and making sure we take
advantage of the resources and the assets that already exist.
Senator Barrasso. Right. Well, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for going to seven minutes because I
have two more questions.
The Chairman. Go for it.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Siebens, I understand fusion
companies have raised over $7 billion across the board from the
private sector. What types of metrics do investors use when
they are trying to assess different companies' performance?
Ms. Siebens. Thank you for that great question. And it
gives me a chance to talk about the diligence that we went
through with both of our customers. We actually started talking
to Nucor, as an example, back in 2021, and went through a very,
very in-depth process with them, sharing what we could with
them to have them in a place where they felt comfortable and
excited about signing an energy development agreement with us
for that 500-megawatt plant. Similarly, with Microsoft, the
same thing. Both of these companies are very conservative and
are very serious about announcing and pursuing an agreement of
this type with us moving forward.
Senator Barrasso. And Dr. White, my final question. You
know, some people say nuclear fusion is inherently safe. Could
you discuss a little bit the safety benefits as well as
potential hazards associated with fusion technology?
Dr. White. Thank you so much for that question, Senator
Barrasso. I spent three years on my doctoral thesis working on
it, so to help, I will give you the quick highlights version of
it.
The Chairman. Here we go.
[Laughter.]
Dr. White. I will go very quickly.
Really it's when you start looking at fusion reactions,
they are producing, at least with some reactions, neutrons. And
those neutrons that are produced can have the property of
activating materials, causing them to become radioactive and
then producing additional forms of radiation. The challenge
there is we need to make sure that we have a way to control and
confine that type of radiation that is produced and have
pathways for its disposal in the long term. We need to make
sure that we are protecting workers, the public, and the
environment from any materials that might be produced as by-
products during the fusion reactions and in fusion machines.
The other thing that we will need to consider is that the
tritium that is used in some fusion fuel cycles is a
radioactive form of hydrogen. While we have experience in the
United States with handling tritium safely, we need to make
sure that we continue those processes as we scale it up to
industrial fusion energy. And so, I think we do have pathways
on how to maintain safety, but it is something that's going to
need to be a continued focus as we think about
commercialization in fusion energy. But luckily, we have
organizations like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that are
focused on this and are developing the regulations and guidance
necessary, as well as the Agreement States that are going to
take a leading role in the licensing of fusion energy
technology in the near term.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. And I want to thank
the Chairman for recently joining the Fusion Caucus, as well as
Senator King, and we would very much welcome other members on
this. Senator Todd Young has joined. We would love to have
Senator Barrasso and Senator Padilla. I think this is an
incredibly important opportunity for us and, as has been
articulated, we have led on this for 70 years. And those
efforts, however, have largely been physics-based, right? We
spent a lot of time figuring out the process to make fusion
successful. We are now in a place where we are shifting our
focus to engineering and materials science and all the things
that it takes, not just to prove that you can do this stuff in
a lab, but to actually produce electrons on the grid.
And I do want to enter in another article. I would ask
unanimous consent, Mr. Chair, it's ``The U.S. led on nuclear
fusion for decades. Now China is in a position to win the
race.'' And this is what we need to make sure that we have the
right focus to avoid.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The article referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Heinrich. So talk to me, from any of you, about the
proper role of the DOE and government right now to shift our
focus from our historic focus to one of supporting technology-
agnostic support structures to develop those materials that can
survive in this environment--all the engineering pieces that
are going to be necessary for commercial development. How do we
support the--not pick winners and losers--but support the
industry across the board and just see who gets there the
fastest?
JP, do you want to go first?
Dr. Allain. If I may, yes, thank you, Senator.
One of the important aspects to realize is that in those 70
years that you speak about, a lot of the physics also were able
to establish important technological questions. For example, in
the early `70s, we recognized that stainless steel walls were
not going to enable us to sustain these reactions, that we
needed to move to carbon. Later on, of course, we realized,
well, graphite-based systems are not going to make it and now
we need to go to high temperature materials like tungsten. We
are in a unique position today because there have been
significant technological advancements outside of fusion. For
example, AI/ML has been a tool that we have taken much
advantage of, and the convergence with fusion, I would argue,
is going to be one of the key elements for us to have that
competitive edge.
How does government participate? How does government--what
is our role in what is a burgeoning private-sector activity
right now in fusion? Our role is there to target and focus
steady on the common gaps of many of these approaches. For
example, for those that are approaching tritium using that as a
fuel--tritium fuel cycle, blanket technology. Advanced
materials then need to survive those extreme conditions. Those
are areas that the public program has not, in fact, prioritized
in the past. And as was mentioned earlier, we really have to be
decisive, focused, and swiftly then pivot and align to exactly
address those gaps.
Senator Heinrich. Do the two of you from the private sector
agree with that kind of approach, a gaps-based approach?
Ms. Siebens. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
I will say, from Helion's perspective, we are very
interested in seeing an increase in applied materials R&D. And
at the end of the day, this is about making sure that we are
focusing on commercially relevant work, and really weaving that
more into what is happening within the DOE ecosystem as it
relates to fusion. I will just give you a quick example so we
can kind of dive into what we mean by applied here. For us, we
would love to see a large multi-technology project where we
tackle how to build commercialized new reliable materials for
things like first walls so that we can get to scaled
deployment. And a lot of times we have materials that work for
that first machine to demonstrate, but we really still have
some R&D gaps to----
Senator Heinrich. That's different than surviving in that
environment.
Ms. Siebens. Precisely.
Senator Heinrich. Long-term.
Ms. Siebens. Correct.
Senator Heinrich. Yes.
Dr. White. And I think, just building on that, fusion
materials is a perfect place for the Federal Government to take
a lead on this. One of the challenges that I think that we have
in kind of thinking about the long-term development, deployment
of commercial fusion energy really is how do we design a fusion
machine if we have never operated a fusion machine?
Senator Heinrich. Right.
Dr. White. It's a bit of a chicken and the egg problem. And
to actually develop a lot of the scientific and engineering
data that we need, creation of large national test facilities
to do materials research, to do neutron irradiation of
materials, and help develop and really optimize new alloys is
critical to ultimately creating materials that can help
facilitate the safe and economic production of fusion power.
And that is something where it might be too large of a lift for
any one private fusion company to take on, but a Federal
Government-led program could allow for, essentially, the
collective development of that really critical experience and
really critical materials data.
Dr. Allain. If I could add, Senator, also, it's not only
the investments we are making in priorities, but in our
community--I always share this when I do my visits to various
performers--is a change in how we think about fusion, how we do
fusion, is asking the right questions and making sure that we
are building those bridges. So for example, we have talked a
lot about the public-private consortium frameworks, which we
did an RFI on. Really, the impetus of this was to identify ways
that we could partner with the private sector. I have been at
Helion. I have seen the tremendous effort and work that is done
there. I think it is, in fact, the piece that we need to
connect the public program to support those activities, also in
terms of making sure we are supporting the workforce that will
be needed in order to support this incredible fusion technology
development time.
Senator Heinrich. Dr. White.
Dr. White. And just one last quick note for you, Senator. I
think this is something where time is a really important factor
to consider. While it might not be necessary to have some of
these fusion materials, for example, to develop the very first
or second generation of fusion machines, they could be
incredibly valuable as we think about wide-scale deployment and
commercialization.
Senator Heinrich. Sure.
Dr. White. But both the creation of these testing
facilities and material testing will take time. So the sooner
we start, the sooner we will have these materials available and
we will be able to have really serious conversations about
wide-scale deployment and commercialization.
Senator Heinrich. Great. Well, I burned by seven minutes on
one question, but I think that was very----
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I think it was worth it.
Senator Heinrich. Actually, it told us a lot about where we
need to go.
The Chairman. It was worth it.
Senator Heinrich. Yeah.
The Chairman. Senator King.
Senator King. Can you tell he is the only engineer in the
Senate?
[Laughter.]
Senator Heinrich. Another one at the end down there.
Senator King. Oh.
Senator Padilla. Yes.
Senator King. How about you? There you go. Only two
engineers in the Senate.
[Laughter.]
Senator King. I want to approach this from an entirely
different perspective. We have talked a lot about competition
with China. When this technology becomes available, large-
scale, commercial, it is literally world-changing. This is one
of the most important topics we will ever discuss around here.
The single--probably the best thing we could do for the
environment right now is to get China off of coal. What I am
leading up to is, why does this have to be a competition with
China? This isn't a military technology. This is a civilian
technology that is going to affect all the rest of us. Why
can't this be a breakthrough in the relationship between our
two countries where we work together? They are going to get
there and we are going to get there. Together, we might get
there five years sooner. And clearly, we are already talking to
our allies, but I don't see this as a military competition.
Clearly, there are advantages to getting to this technology,
but the advantages to the whole world, it seems to me, might
make it worth entering into some kind of discussion about
whether this is an area where we don't have to compete, we can
collaborate, and therefore, drastically improve the prospects
for saving the planet.
Thoughts, Mr. White.
Dr. White. Great, thanks, Senator King.
So I think this is a case where availability of clean
energy around the world is absolutely critical. If we look to
the pathway of trying to have clean energy for all parts of the
world, we are going to need more energy sources than we could
possibly imagine.
Senator King. Right.
Dr. White. And having fusion energy alongside other firm
clean energy sources, other variable clean energy sources, is
going to be key. So my first answer is, the more competition
the better, because that means we have more shots on goal to
actually get this technology working. And so, I think there is
a way to think about how competition breeds innovation and
ultimately gets more smart people working on this topic because
it is something, as you said, that could be world-changing.
Senator King. But if you have a lot of smart people around
the world working on it, it seems to me, it would be good if
they were talking to one another.
Dr. White. And I think you see that often in the scientific
community. Where can you have collaboration on some of these
key issues that really are cross-cutting questions? Going to
the IAEA, going to international fusion conferences, you see
conversations between scientists from around the world on the
underlying science that they are doing. And I think that is
where we can really try to identify international
collaborations, international partnerships, that really raise
our level of understanding of a lot of these enabling science
and technology questions that get us to fusion energy.
Senator King. Do either of you have thoughts about this? I
noticed you were nodding when I was talking, but that doesn't--
--
Ms. Siebens. Aggressively nodding over here, yes.
Senator King. That doesn't go into the record.
Ms. Siebens. Okay, thank you, Senator. Thank you for that
great question. I would love to see a world where we are all
working aggressively together toward deploying an energy
technology that, as Senator Manchin said earlier, could
potentially bring about world peace.
Senator King. Right.
Ms. Siebens. The reality for us as a company right now is,
we see the real race here beginning after we actually
demonstrate and deploy that first machine where we are already
watching China work aggressively to lock down that supply
chain. And so, for us, when we think about all the demand we
are forecasting and already seeing from customers to deploy not
only at scale here in the U.S., but around the world, we think
it's a national security issue to ensure that here in the U.S.
and along with our allies, we can secure a supply chain that
enables us to dominate this marketplace, because if we don't,
China will, and all of the geopolitical influence that
accompanies that----
Senator King. Which is exactly what they have done with EV
batteries.
Ms. Siebens. Precisely. That's right. We have seen this
movie before. And I think we have a once-in-a-generation
opportunity right now to avoid that same story.
Senator King. Let me ask some specific questions about the
technology. One is, I think one of you used the word
affordable. One of the problems with current nuclear fission
plants is cost--far more expensive than any other form of
generation. Are there any--is it too early to have estimates?
Will fusion be cheaper than fission?
Dr. White. I guess I will take that very important question
on first. I think the thing that we can really first think
about is, how do we talk about the cost of different energy
generating technologies? Sometimes we might say how much does
one power plant cost versus another power plant, but we think
as we move toward a clean energy future, we need to think about
overall system costs, and what roles different energy
generating assets are really playing. So it's not going----
Senator King. The relevant question is cost per kilowatt-
hour to the consumer.
Dr. White. You are exactly right, and I think that is
ultimately----
Senator King. Nuclear is now pretty much at the top.
Dr. White. Nuclear is at the top, but one of the things
that we see is that as it's integrated into a clean energy
system, it helps bring down system costs because it reduces the
amount of buildout that you might need in some areas for
renewables and storage. And so, I think as we talk about the
commercialization of fusion energy, economics is going to be an
absolutely key point. How can they make sure that it can play
an economically competitive role in the marketplace? And that
is something that we will see as these companies move through
this technology development and demonstration.
Senator King. I am assuming your contract with Microsoft
is--you are not going to tell us the price--but it's at a price
that Microsoft feels is competitive with what they are paying
now.
Ms. Siebens. That is correct. So I can say that for the
Microsoft agreement and the Nucor agreement, we are going to be
at market rate or below. But what is really exciting about
this, and I think we have heard the phrase ``holy grail''
mentioned a few different times here, is the ability to drive
the cost down here. So I can say that for us at Helion, our
machine is suited for mass manufacturing and it's built with
factory components, which is very unlike traditional fission--
--
Senator King. So is your short answer that this should be
less expensive than the current fleet of----
Ms. Siebens. Significantly, to the tune of potentially----
Senator King. Building a new fission plant?
Ms. Siebens. Yes, so if we are able to mass produce this on
the scale we envision, which could ultimately be building one
generator a day, we could reduce cost down to one cent per
kilowatt-hour, which is truly world-changing.
Senator King. I am delighted to hear that, but I still
remember when the prediction in the '50s for nuclear power was
that it would be too cheap to meter.
Ms. Siebens. Too cheap to meter? Yes.
Senator King. So go for it.
[Laughter.]
Senator King. And a follow-up question--is there an
advantage of this technology over SMRs?
Ms. Siebens. There are a few. As I mentioned earlier, just
the regulatory framework being fundamentally different.
Senator King. I like your idea, by the way, about
permitting a design.
Ms. Siebens. Yes.
Senator King. You have to have localized impact assessment.
Ms. Siebens. That is correct.
Senator King. But not go brand new on every plan.
Ms. Siebens. Right. I think that is correct. I think, when
we really look at the details here, the fact that we can truly
mass manufacture these machines and that they are built of
primarily small factory components leads to a significant cost
reduction when you compare it with traditional fission plants.
I just want to say for the record, too, I agree with
Patrick. We need every low-carbon or no-carbon emissions
technology we can get to solve this problem, but yes, there are
significant differences in cost when we look at deploying these
at scale.
Senator King. Final question. I think it was Senator
Barrasso who was asking about safety--is fusion inherently a
safer technology than fission? My colleague said yes, but he's
not----
Ms. Siebens. So I will just say, I have worked in the
fission space for many, many years, and still am very excited
about everything that is happening with small modular reactors
and think we need this technology, but when we look at the
material that we are using, the fuel that we are using for
fusion versus what we see with fission, in fission it's
something called special nuclear material. We are using
uranium, which does have long-lived radioactive waste that
accompanies it, and when you look at a fission reactor, you do
have a higher risk, although it is very low, of having
something like a runaway reaction, right, where we have seen
incidents before.
With fusion, we are not using special nuclear material. We
are using, in our machine, deuterium, or heavy water and
helium-3, and these things, if you look at the periodic table,
are at the opposite end of the periodic table from uranium. And
it's the material that we used, that is where the real
fundamental difference is when you look at what the safety case
is.
Senator King. Please.
Dr. White. So I think this is really a case where it will
depend on the different machines that are developed, the
different fuel cycles that are used, and ultimately, the
specific designs, that ultimately determine the safety case of
different fusion technologies. While I agree with many of the
things that my fellow witness said, I think there are certain
hazards that we are going to have to address with fusion
energy--the tritium fuels that are going to be present in some
of these fusion machines will have to be managed. They can be
managed safely, but we will need to manage them. And you can
design facilities that are going to have different levels of
risk depending on how they decide to design and optimize their
systems.
Senator King. Thank you.
Dr. White. The same things with some of the radioactive
materials that might be produced as by-products during
operation from neutron irradiation. These are things that can
be handled safely, but we need to make sure that we have both
an emphasis in industry on design and optimization and then a
regulatory framework that ensures safety of these technologies.
Senator King. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Senator Padilla.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, to the chagrin of my staff, I am going to digress
for a second from some prepared questions to touch on a
conversation that took place a minute ago between Senator King
and Dr. White because I think it's important to consider the
context of this conversation, and I am referring to the
question of a specific energy technology's per-unit cost versus
the system cost. So my attempt at sort of a layman's
explanation of that dynamic is that we are happily and
aggressively pursuing expansions of solar technology and wind
technology, et cetera, but I think the members of the Committee
and members of the Senate have become familiar with
intermittency issues. So we can talk about wind versus solar
versus other sorts of fossil fuels versus et cetera, but we are
sensitive to what happens when the sun is not shining and what
happens when the wind isn't blowing and the role of--whether
it's storage technologies or peaker plants or other things to
make the system, as a whole, resilient, reliable, et cetera,
while trying to minimize costs. So it's those interconnecting
dynamics and factors that, I think, is the tension between an
individual technology's per-unit cost versus system cost
because we have holistic goals of reliability, cost
containment, you know, rates, impacts, et cetera. So that is my
attempt at normalizing that exchange of a few minutes ago.
But on the subject at hand, as you all know, I am proud to
represent California, who we believe is the undisputed leader
when it comes to fusion energy science. Besides having a large
private startup ecosystem, California is also home to both the
National Ignition Facility, the NIF, at Lawrence Livermore
National Lab and the DIII-D at General Atomics in San Diego.
NIF has been a tremendous success, and I think both the Chair
and the Ranking Member acknowledged that earlier in their
comments where they achieved fusion ignition five times in the
last two years--less than two years. NIF experiments uniquely
informed the foundational science of burning and ignited fusion
plasmas needed for fusion energy. And additionally, DIII-D is
about to celebrate its 200,000th experiment, and has also been
instrumental in fusion R&D. So with sustained funding for
operations, as well as refurbishment and plant upgrades, these
fusion facilities will continue to provide the U.S. a singular
advantage in advancing fusion energy.
My question is for Dr. Allain. How can we capitalize on
this progress to develop a timeline for achieving commercial
fusion and maintain this momentum? I think the question of
timeline has come up before, but let's be clear in our
objective here, not just clear in additional successful
demonstrations, scaling up, but bringing it to
commercialization.
Dr. Allain. Yes, thank you, Senator Padilla, for that
question. And as a proud alum of Cal Poly Pomona, I am glad
that you mentioned California. Yes, the point about the
relevance of leveraging existing assets is that it's not just,
as you pointed out, ecosystems where we have, in fact,
benefited tremendously from being able, for example, to
benchmark a lot of the advanced modeling codes that in fact we
are utilizing to be able to design the future fusion energy
systems that would come in the private sector, but I think one
important point about the objective of these investments is,
it's clear that we have to now move from the science-alone
questions to now the technology-focused questions. And to do
that, the bridges of the public and private sectors, the public
program also has to make sure it is aligned and part of--in my
comments, what I shared was this public-private consortium
frameworks approach, where we are looking at not just the labs
that are engaging and taking advantage of these tools and
assets and universities, but also have partnerships with local
and state governments and in fact other investment participants
to be able to then identify where is the near-term
infrastructure that we have to invest.
This is part of our conversation right now. In fact, I have
daily conversations with the private sector about the
possibilities of partnerships. And this is an aspect, in fact,
in the Building Bridges vision that I laid out earlier this
year to ensure that we are converging both the public and
private--both the interests and also priorities that have to be
aligned. The Fusion Science and Technology Roadmap that we
unveiled this year, or at least that we unveiled the plan
toward that roadmap, is precisely to your point, Senator, is
looking at targeting, with metrics, input from the industry how
much progress are we making every year. And that is a question
that we will be asking every investment we make in our program.
Senator Padilla. Yes. A follow-up question for Ms. Siebens,
actually, because I appreciated your remarks earlier about it's
not just the breakthrough technologies and successful
demonstrations once or twice, but when we get to the point of
scaling up and commercialization, looking at the supply chain,
strategic positioning, and investments that we should be
thinking about today. Do you have any thoughts or comments on
not just coordination/collaboration between the public and
private sector but what the right balance is and what we should
be doing?
Ms. Siebens. Yes, thank you for that question, Senator, and
I will just start by saying that at Helion we are delighted to
have Dr. Allain in the position that he is in at Department of
Energy. It has been really exciting to see, really, for the
first time ever, the conversations about how to support
commercialization taking place, and really more focus on
partnerships with industry.
I am going to focus on the supply chain piece of the
question here for just a minute because I do feel like there
are sectors of our government that have never been activated to
support fusion before, and that now is the moment to quickly
and thoughtfully put together a plan to do so. I think, in
large part, when we think about how to support a supply chain
for a fusion industry, it's about activating existing programs
and existing funding. I think ultimately we will need to look
at new programs, but in the near term, we can look at,
particularly, Department of Commerce, thinking about how can we
activate CHIPS to support building out a domestic supply chain
of chips specific to fusion. That would be huge for us as a
company because we use thousands of them for one machine.
Also, at our company right now, our headquarters, we have
built in-house a capacitor manufacturing capacity because we
need to actually have around 15 percent of the capacitors we
need for our seventh prototype built in-house to meet the need,
otherwise, we would be even more reliant on China than we want
to be. So I think that there is a lot we can do with the
Department of Commerce and other agencies to think about that
supply chain problem, and do it now so that when we hit that
benchmark of electricity production, we have a plan to pick up
and move quickly with.
Senator Padilla. All right. Well, my time is up, maybe as a
follow-up to today's hearing, I would love to pick each of your
brains, also, not just on the workforce question, thinking
ahead, but where our college and university systems are to
prepare, educate, and train that workforce that we will need
when the time comes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Let me say one thing before I go on to the
next speaker, and I think Senator King has really led the
charge on this, and we have it in our permitting bill. It is
reconductoring--reconductoring, basically, the capacity on the
lines.
[Photo of advanced conductor displayed by the Chairman
follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. This will double the amount of electrons that
can be carried.
Senator King. Without building new poles.
The Chairman. Without building anything, but I know that
maybe the utilities aren't crazy about it because they can't
have the capital expenditure to charge more higher rates. This
would be the way for us to get into the game quicker, to put
more electrons on, to have more capacity for you all. So this
is in our permitting bill and it would really, really,
accelerate what we need to do in our country.
Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. And you even had a prop. That was
good. I like it.
Let me continue on the supply chain buildout because I
think this is crucial as part of us maintaining an economic
advantage here. My understanding is the high-performance
magnets are crucial for fusion energy, and China controls,
what, 90 percent of our global rare-earth mineral processing
and rare-earth magnet manufacturing. Last year, China announced
an export ban of rare-earth extraction and separation
technologies. Between this action and its recent export ban on
other minerals, like graphite, gallium, and germanium, it's
clear they are threatening to weaponize this area, right?
And so, what steps can we do to secure that supply chain?
We have talked a little bit about it, but I want to get very
specific and just throw this out here. You know, Senator Mullin
and I, we introduced the Rare Earth Magnet Manufacturing
Production Tax Credit Act to incentivize more of this
manufacturing and bring those supply chains back here, similar
to what we did with solar, geothermal, all of the above, to
give opportunities for bringing the manufacturing back here.
Does that make sense? Should we be doing things like that in
Congress or other things to incentivize building out that chain
that we need here to protect?
Ms. Siebens. Thank you for that question. We talk about
this a lot--every day at Helion as we look to build out that
supply chain. For us, we are mainly thinking about right now
our biggest pain points being the production of those high-
voltage capacitors and the semiconductors for our machines.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
Ms. Siebens. One thing that would be transformational for
us would be to actually amend the 45X Manufacturing Tax Credit
to make sure that fusion supply chain pieces are eligible for
that. I would love to talk with you more about other things we
can be doing, but when we think about existing programs,
existing incentives that simply need to be activated for
fusion, this is a really good example.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
Dr. White.
Dr. White. Thank you. Yes, I think building on that last
comment, really, this idea of having technology-inclusive
policies that incorporate the fusion energy supply chain into
the broader clean energy supply chain are critical. There is a
wide variety of different engineering concepts currently
underway for fusion energy. Some may require high-performance
capacitors and other electronics. Some may require high-
temperature superconducting magnets. Some may require laser
technology. And so, trying to focus on any one technology may
make the process of trying to build an entire industry
challenging, but if we can make sure that the policies that are
out there to enable either tax credits, production incentives,
or other types of benefits for any fusion energy technology, I
think that is a really easy way to help the entire space
flourish and really allow companies to explore, maybe, other
novel, innovative technologies that otherwise wouldn't be
covered under any specific umbrella of one tax credit.
Senator Cortez Masto. That is helpful.
Dr. Allain.
Dr. Allain. Yes, thank you, Senator.
I think another aspect of this in the supply chain also is
innovation, and that is why, in my remarks, I talked about
building a robust fusion technology manufacturing network. And
the reason why I brought up that point is, we have to make sure
that the bridges that we build with public and private are not
only in developing those energy systems. That is an important
part, but it is also supporting the growth of that supply chain
that you indicated, Senator. And to that, the international
partnerships with like- minded nations is really, really
important because this is the place where we are seeing, for
example, right now, companies that are coming from abroad to
come here to the United States, and even U.S.-based companies
that are finding an opportunity in the manufacturing sector and
regional hubs all across this country, all across the United
States. The program needs to make sure that we are supporting
the growth of those interests by ensuring that as we think
about fusion, science, and technology, the technology aspect of
it is prioritizing on a lot of what has been mentioned
already--advanced materials.
If you look, for example, forward looking at what are some
of these technologies that need, you know, some closure of
gaps, we find that bridge also to the private sector and those
industrials, let's say, that are providing supply chain, that
is an aspect that we have to pay attention to now, not wait
while the fusion developers are ready to put energy on the
grid, but right now be able to do this in this timeline.
Senator Cortez Masto. Yes, and I agree. I think we just
need to be very strategic about what we are trying to achieve
now, but also five, ten years down the road, what we need
because we have to start working on it now, for that reason.
The other thing I want to touch on, and Senator King and I
have this conversation all the time--nuclear waste, right?
Yucca Mountain. I am from Nevada. I will just put it out there.
Senator King. She is against Yucca Mountain.
Senator Cortez Masto. I am against Yucca Mountain, but I am
not against fusion, and here is why I think it's important for
us to start educating the general public. This idea, the
difference between fission and fusion and the waste material,
because besides having an economic impact that we are having
for society, there is a societal impact, right, between the
two, and there is a difference about the environment and the
impact to the environment. So I don't know who would want to
touch on it, Dr. Allain, but can you talk about the difference
between the two and the waste material--the difference, and how
we, as a Congress should also be looking at the societal
impacts?
Dr. Allain. Yes, thank you, Senator, for that question, and
let me speak from the context of what I believe is one of the
key issues on waste streams for any technology that's not only
energy-dense, but in this particular case, you know, you
referred to fission and fusion. And these are, indeed, you
know, quite different in terms of how we have to manage waste
streams, and what I would like to focus on is that in terms of
waste streams for fusion, I believe that there is a lot in that
aspect where it's going to take innovation around fusion
materials--how you design these materials, how you think about
the way the materials are responding to, of course, earlier it
was mentioned, you know, we are generating neutrons. They are
going to be activating, and even though it's low-level waste,
we still have to be very cognizant of how to manage it.
I think it's a terrific opportunity for a lot, in fact, of
our performers--in fact, a lot of the expertise around fusion
materials. We have over four decades of leadership in this
space that we can leverage, and in fact, be able to, when
speaking about supply chains, take advantage of this as an
opportunity for the United States in being able to manage this
waste stream properly.
Senator Cortez Masto. Well, and let me just say, and I hope
that is the case--I hope there is this collaboration with
Congress and our brilliant minds, our scientists, around this
and the future and how we manage the waste because Congress was
not successful back in 1982, and still to this day, dealing
with some of the nuclear waste that is out there.
Dr. Allain. Right.
Senator Cortez Masto. So there has to be this
collaboration, and I am just hoping my colleagues, we come to
the table and we work with all of you to do that.
Dr. Allain. Absolutely.
Ms. Siebens. I just want to give, sort of, a very specific
example for our company at Helion because this really stood out
to me and sort of amazed me, coming from the fission space
looking at our fuel cycle and our waste streams. So as I
mentioned earlier, we use deuterium, which is heavy water, and
helium-3 as our fuel. Tritium's half-life is only 12.3 years,
and that is compared to around 24,000 years for fission waste.
So when you think about something like--we never want to say
this word--but Yucca, right? When we think about something like
that, the reason that is necessary is because of those 24,000
years you have to think about managing this. So that is a huge
shift when you talk about 12.3 years. And the best thing for
us, as a company, is that the tritium that is a byproduct of
our process is actually a commodity for us because in about
12.5 years, it actually decays into helium-3, which is one of
our fuels. So when we think about our fuel cycle as a company,
it's the most sustainable I have ever seen.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Yes, Dr. White.
Dr. White. I think, really, when we talk about the
difference between fission waste and fusion waste, the number
one characteristic with fusion is that we will not have the
spent nuclear fuel. And that is the kind of waste that was
ultimately destined for Yucca Mountain. But I think as we think
about different fusion technologies, there will be other waste
produced during operation. And so, I think one thing that is
going to be very important for the private fusion industry and
collaborators around the world to really think about is, what
are the disposal pathways for that waste, trying to understand
what type of waste will be produced, how can we minimize those
through operation, how can we think about things like material
recycling to maybe reduce or reuse some of the materials that
are coming from fusion machines for future machines, and then,
how are ways that we can potentially process and package waste
for disposal.
We already have a lot of facilities around the United
States that can handle, essentially, nuclear waste that is not
spent nuclear fuel. And these are facilities that are already
capable of handling what we call in the industry Class A, Class
B, and Class C waste, different ways of classifying material
that is contaminated with radioactive material. The question
will be, as we think about scaling up a commercial fusion
industry, how can they make choices on advanced materials, on
the way they are operating the machines, on the way they are
maintaining their machines, and on their entire maintenance and
decommissioning strategy to make sure that fusion waste is not
a burden and is not a barrier for fusion energy moving forward.
And I think that is going to be a really exciting, innovative
place over the next few years as we think about commercializing
the industry.
The Chairman. Senator, the only thing I would say about
Yucca Mountain, they could have picked a better name.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. But the Yucca plan, I understand that they
could have figured something out.
Anyway, with that being said, we are going to go to Senator
Cassidy.
Senator Cassidy. Thank you all.
Dr. Allain, I have a lot of--I am from Louisiana, and I
have a lot of petrochemical refineries. They have a real
interest in decarbonization. And I gather that some of the
industry in my state are actually--like Dow, and I think Air
Liquide--are looking at fusion as a way to decarbonize. Any
comment upon that? If somebody was watching from back home?
Speak to that please.
Dr. Allain. Thank you, Senator, for the question. So you
know, we have a number of different private-sector entities
that are pursuing fusion in different ways and different
approaches to fusion energy. I think what is exciting right now
is what you are seeing as this--the beginning of convergence
between the public and private sector, which is enabling us to
be able to leverage the public sector know-how and expertise to
be able to truly accelerate our pace toward fusion energy.
Now, of course, as you talk about timelines, you know, I
mentioned this in my remarks earlier, you know, for us to reach
fusion energy at the decadal timeframe, we do have to close out
the remainder of science and technology gaps that do exist.
There are aspects of the technology, for instance, that the
private sector is aggressively going after. And in fact, there
are designs and prototypes that are being built at a rate of
one and a half to two years, which is an incredible pace to see
that in the private sector. And so, I see that the question in
terms of the timeline is one where as long as we can build that
bridge between the public and private, we are going to be able
to get the expertise needed on some of these outstanding gaps
that are needed for us to get there in a decadal timeline.
Senator Cassidy. So let me ask--by the way, your name would
fit right at home in Louisiana.
Dr. Allain. I know. Allain. It's a French name, yes,
Senator.
Senator Cassidy. Allain and Jean Paul, you know what I'm
saying?
Dr. Allain. That's right. Thank you very much for
pronouncing it like that.
Senator Cassidy. So we are talking about USG investment,
but I am hearing from you that there is significant private
investment. And so, and everybody is nodding their head. So, to
what degree is that private investment supplanting--no,
augmenting--again, if we are looking at how do we invest, we
want to do it wisely.
Dr. Allain. Yes, right.
Senator Cassidy. And so, to what degree is that private
investment, that public-private--I mean, Dow really wants to do
this. Air Liquide really wants to do this, et cetera. Can we
take that into account to say well, wait a second, in competing
priorities, we know the private sector is really stepping up--
that sort of thing?
Dr. Allain. Let me maybe answer this question this way,
Senator, and I think this is a great question that, you know,
like my colleagues here, also to address, it's a question of
being very thoughtful, methodical, and strategic as to how
those investments are made. The question we are asking right
now in our public program is precisely this, in a dialogue with
the private sector--where are the common gaps that many of, for
example, our private sector, companies are, in fact, stepping
up and saying here is a common gap that, right now, our
investments are very much focused on the development of our
technology, specifically, but there are common gaps where we
need help.
And this is where the government is coming in, very
aggressively, to say, look, let's look at our program. Let's
make sure we are realigned toward those gaps and make sure we
aggressively invest----
Senator Cassidy. So there is some concern that China might
be spending more on this, but that would be CCP--they are China
Inc., okay, my understanding is that there is no public-
private, it is China Inc, whereas, in our case, we are speaking
about USG but we are also having public investment, and then, I
think I know that we are a part of that French initiative in
which there are other countries that are there.
Dr. Allain. Yes.
Senator Cassidy. So put that all together, and how much
should we be concerned that China Inc. is spending more than
we, as opposed to know if you put it all together, we are, you
know, hitting it right?
Dr. Allain. Yes, this is a great question. There is a
significant investment needed to translate fusion technology.
There is no question about that.
Senator Cassidy. That's not my question because the private
sector is helping to translate, right?
Dr. Allain. That's right, but the question is more of how
you prioritize those investments, right? And the key piece here
is, again, making sure we take advantage of that public and
private exchange and connection that says----
Senator Cassidy. But my question--I get that.
Dr. Allain. Okay.
Senator Cassidy. My question is, if X amount of money is
spent, and let's assume that we are actually wise and we use
our federal dollars to fill in the gap between what the private
sector is doing.
Dr. Allain. Sure.
Senator Cassidy. And we know that we are part of this
multinational initiative in France, which we all share the
technology. I think we want to know how to prioritize our
spending.
Dr. Allain. Sure.
Senator Cassidy. We don't want to fall behind, but wait a
second, between the private sector and our international
partners, plus what we are doing, we are doing okay, but no one
ever says we are doing okay.
Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Siebens. I think this is a fantastic topic to bring up
because I will say that what matters the most for us right now,
when you talk specifically about a race with China, is the
amount of money that China is spending on commercially relevant
programs, right? And so, for us, I can speak for Helion,
specifically. We are looking at the race that begins after we
demonstrate, and that is building out the supply chain here in
the United States and with our allies to make sure we can
deploy it to scale to actually win this race with China, but
also, looking at how we can utilize the funding that already
exists within the Department of Energy to focus more on applied
materials research and development, again, commercially
relevant R&D that is going to help these machines that we are
trying to deploy now.
And the Fusion Industry Association has done some fantastic
work on actually breaking down what the spending looks like----
Senator Cassidy. So I think what I am hearing from you is
that it's not only that, you know, of course everybody always
wants more money authorized.
Ms. Siebens. Right.
Senator Cassidy. And everybody always wants more
appropriated.
Ms. Siebens. Yes.
Senator Cassidy. But our oversight could also be directed
toward making sure that the money is spent wisely.
Ms. Siebens. Precisely. I think that we--certainly, as you
say, more money is always nice. But yes, I think that there are
ways that we could better strategically utilize what we already
have, yes.
Senator Cassidy. Sir.
Dr. White. Yes, thanks, Senator.
I think another really important thing to think about when
it comes to federal funding and the private fusion industry is
really the multiplicative effect of federal investment into
private fusion companies. Early-stage grants can help take
innovative fusion concepts that otherwise might struggle in
private markets and help them get to the level of demonstration
where they can go out and actually get VC funding for their
ideas or help them demonstrate early-stage technologies that
then can enter into the national lab program for other grants.
And also, getting a grant from a DOE program like the DOE's
Milestone Program for Fusion can have a huge impact on
companies to really give private investors some confidence that
the experts at DOE have looked at this technology. They think
there is something there worth investing in. So it can have a
huge impact in helping to bring even more private capital, I
think, into the private fusion space.
Senator Cassidy. So you are adding nuance to what Dr.
Allain said, which is that--I had to put a little French
inflection on it--Dr. Allain said, in terms of doing the common
gap and what Ms. Siebens said, okay, we have got to
commercialize, and you are putting a little bit more of a drill
down--here is a specific place to plant that seed corn more
effectively.
Dr. White. Exactly, Senator.
And I think the other thing is really identifying those
cross-cutting issues, like materials research, like fusion fuel
cycle, like tritium handling, these things that are going to be
needed for almost every company in the fusion sector that might
be too large of a lift for any one company to do alone, but if
we can really use----
Senator Cassidy. But--I'm sorry, one more question.
Dr. White. Yes.
Senator Cassidy. But we have this international consortium
that is doing it in France. I assume that they are all doing
this sort of thing. Do we need to reinvent that?
Dr. White. So the international consortium is really going
to be focused on scientific demonstration of kind of a net
fusion energy machine. It very much is a scientific
demonstration device. It might not necessarily go as far into
some of the advanced materials research and commercially
relevant technology development that are needed.
Dr. Allain. If I may add to this point, Senator. To realize
fusion energy, it's going to take multiple, multiple actions in
parallel, not just, for example, that particular consortium you
are talking about, but multiple ways for us to leverage
international partnerships. This is why in an international
partnership plan and strategy for the U.S., we are engaging
like-minded nations to, in fact, address the very topics that
we just talked about, but to do it in a way where we can invest
together and basically make sure that we are multiplying the
resources that we already have.
Senator Cassidy. Got it. Thank you very much for your
forbearance, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank all
of you for your work and for being here today.
The Chairman. Turn your speaker on.
Senator Hickenlooper. I turned it on.
The Chairman. Now it's on. Well, speak into it then.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hickenlooper. He is obviously in a finicky mood.
The Chairman. No, he is my dear friend. I can speak to him
that way.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Allain, recently DOE funded three
laser fusion research hubs--$42 million over four years--to
bring together researchers from academia, national
laboratories, and from industry to begin to address all the
technical challenges that are being discussed already to this
path for commercializing fusion. Colorado State University is
breaking ground soon on a $150 million facility that will house
three very high-power lasers. And this will be, obviously, a
unique facility, but really trying to build on those public-
private partnerships. How will DOE work with Colorado State
University to help commercialize this process?
Dr. Allain. Yes, thank you very much, Senator, for that
question.
A little over a year ago, in fact, I was in the State of
Colorado celebrating our IFE hubs with the community of over
500 scientists and engineers, very excited about the prospects
of these new programs that we have established in FES. So as I
mentioned earlier, I think the bridge between the public and
private sectors is key for us to be able to advance and support
commercialization. Inertial fusion energy is one example of
this, of what we are doing today. You know, historically, of
course, as you know, with the facilities at NIF at Livermore,
you know, the NNSA has a very specific mission, right? And we
have seen that we have been able to leverage all the great
strides that have been made in that science to now really focus
on the engineering of realizing fusion, in this case, from
inertial fusion energy sources.
Part of the activity now with these hubs is, in fact, to
identify, as we mentioned earlier, these common gaps that are
coming up--you know, we keep talking about things like
materials and fuel cycle, et cetera. The activity that is
happening at Colorado State is also reflecting on this other
message that I talked about, which is the engagement of state-
level government--local and state governments, academia,
national labs, and the Federal Government. This partnership
with the private sector, in this case, Marvel Fusion and some
of the other actors there in Colorado, is just another example
of what is happening here in the United States, which is that
we are seeing this catalyst of investments that are really
driving the move from just science-centric questions more to
technology development. So it's very exciting.
Senator Hickenlooper. Right, and I think we can argue that
that process of that high-level integration and collaboration
is very different than what happens in China, you know, our
rival.
Dr. Allain. And I will add also, Senator, that that
activity in Colorado is uniquely tied right now with another
like-minded nation-partner of ours, in Germany.
Senator Hickenlooper. Right.
Dr. Allain. We were just there last month. We took a U.S.
delegation of ten scientists and engineers there that
represented basically the whole landscape from our program
because we are really focused on making sure we identify the
ecosystems that will support not just the science, but the
technology development. In fact, the supply chains related to
laser systems--a lot of the components, you know, that go into
development of these high-powered lasers, that was the central
piece of our discussions in our partnership with Germany.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, you are right, that is just an
added dimension that goes beyond the rivalry of what China has.
Ms. Siebens, let me ask you a question--in this critical
race with China--sometimes I wonder what we would do without
China. Where would we get the sense of urgency that is usually
necessary to these kinds of achievements? But we are in a
critical race in this great transition of global energy to a
cleaner future. And fusion really does have the potential to
revolutionize this in so many different ways, and especially as
we get toward affordability, enhanced not just environmental
safety, but security increases. And yet, by some measures we
are still falling behind China, as you guys have pointed out.
So can you elaborate a little more in detail on some of the
investments China is making in fusion and how Congress and the
Administration can take steps to regain the advantage?
Ms. Siebens. Thank you for the question, Senator. So I will
start with two very specific examples that Helion has been
watching closely. The first is that ENN Energy Research
Institute's Helong experiment announced a program pretty much
right after we announced that our last machine, Trenta, had
reached 100 million degree temperatures, and they actually
published a schematic that was identical to Helion's concept.
So they are not shy about this, right? Another example is that
China's HHMAX recently acknowledged Helion's approach is the
fastest to commercial power and then publicly stated its intent
to replicate our design. So again, not shy about it, right out
front.
But the other piece that I want to keep coming back to, to
really hone in on, is once again on that supply chain. They
have a track record of success in really locking down supply
chains for things that we innovate here and really demonstrate
first in the United States. And so, I think that that is a very
important area that we need to be thinking about now and
working together to put together a policy framework that we can
really kick off quickly after we demonstrate so that we can
make sure that we aren't relying so heavily on China as we move
to scale.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, Dr. White.
Dr. White. Yes, Senator Hickenlooper, if I can just provide
a little bit of additional context--I think it's important, if
we think about those different phases of technology
development, what does it mean for a scientific demonstration,
an engineering demonstration, commercial demonstration? China
has a plan for each one of those phases. The BEST tokamak,
which is the Burning Plasma Experimental Superconducting
Tokamak that they call ``BEST,'' is currently under
construction in China, and that will serve as both a scientific
and engineering demonstration for their technology. And they
have already announced plans for their China Fusion Engineering
Test Reactor, or CFETR, that is essentially going to be a
demonstration fusion machine. In addition to that, they have
their CRAFT facility, which is kind of a cross-cutting
technology R&D facility that is going to address many of the
materials science, enabling technologies, and fusion fuel cycle
issues that are really cross-cutting for all technology
concepts. So it is really seeing that they have a plan for
scientific demonstration, engineering demonstration, and
commercial demonstration at a federal level as part of a plan.
Senator Hickenlooper. Right.
Dr. White. And so, that's, I think, what we are really
trying to compete against to make sure that we have a matching
plan to get to commercialization.
Senator Hickenlooper. I agree, and that is where our
collaboration gets a little bit--makes that more of a
challenge. Anyway, I appreciate that.
The supply chains, we see the same thing in critical
minerals, that they are building supply chains that are more
cohesive and become the determinative, they make it harder for
us to build our supply chain.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good discussion
this morning. Thank you all for being here today.
You know, we are talking collaboration, we are talking
partnerships, and these are key, these are great. They are all
important, really, an essential part of driving our nation's
success and leadership in so many of these emerging
technologies. But now, let's talk about China and how it fits
into the picture to make sure that we have appropriate
safeguards that are in place while we engage in these
partnerships. And the ITER project has been referenced. The
fusion facility in the south of France gets support from a
number of nations, including China. So as we are participating
in this, contributing funds, the research, the hardware
components, how are the U.S. technologies and resources being
safeguarded against program partners that may be adversarial to
certain of our interests? How do you manage that aspect of it?
And I think this is to you, Dr. Allain.
Dr. Allain. Yes, thank you so much, Senator, for the
question. And indeed, as mentioned earlier, it is important,
not only to be, you know, not only to safeguard, in fact, the
innovation and know-how and expertise of our performers, but
make sure that we have instruments and elements for us to be
able to safeguard that.
The reference to ITER is that it is an international
project that indeed is engaging seven nations, seven countries.
The way that we have worked toward this is, you know, the focus
is all on the in-kind hardware and contributions that we
provide that project. That is one aspect of it, right? And the
nature of the--let's say, the contracts that go in, in terms of
that hardware and in terms of the know-how behind that, of
course, as IP, that is protected. There are aspects, of course,
of ITER, since it is still and remains a scientific project,
that that is open. For example, there are aspects, for
instance, in terms of, you know, know-how or technical
expertise that could be shared. And that is all under very
specific, you know, agreement between, of course, those that
are engaging the project--in this case, the ITER organization
and those contracts and the language around those contracts.
But I can tell you and assure you that, you know, the
aspect that has to do, for example, with the impact on U.S.-
side supply chains, that is very much protected by, you know,
again, agreements that protect IP of those that are engaging
and delivering the in-kind hardware to this project, and also
those that may be interested in accessing that information.
It's not information that is readily available unless they are
going through a very specific step and process to access that
data and that information.
Senator Murkowski. So you feel relatively comfortable in
the safeguards.
Let me ask you, Ms. Siebens, because your testimony
highlights China's efforts to replicate some of Helion's own
prototypes. And as you are aware of this, can you share if they
have been successful in engineering their own versions of these
technologies based off this information?
Ms. Siebens. Thank you for the question, Senator.
As of this time, I do not believe that is true.
Senator Murkowski. Okay.
Ms. Siebens. But they are working very hard to try and
replicate. One thing I can say is that, when we think about how
do we protect our IP as a private company, one of the ways that
we do that is by focusing on building and demonstrating a
machine versus sort of writing about what we are doing and
sharing it on a constant basis, right? And I think this has
been sort of a paradigm shift that we have seen happen in the
fusion ecosystem after really just the past ten years, where
predominantly this has been a science taking place in academia
and in an environment where it is absolutely the culture to
share across country boundaries and really have this be
collective efforts, whereas, now that we are shifting to--this
is very near-term and we are bringing something to the grid
soon. That is where you sort of shift into a place where we are
going to be nose-to-the-grindstone focused on actually
demonstrating this and not necessarily sharing everything that
we are working on, yes.
Senator Murkowski. So let me ask about that because that is
where I see things with excitement. It has been talked about
how fusion can make a difference when we are looking at
increased energy demands. We have talked about clean power to
areas like manufacturing, mineral processing, data centers. We
all see that. Can any of you share with me what you think the
potential is to address energy and reliability challenges when
we are in remote and very rural areas? Obviously, I come from a
state where we are very challenged with how we are able to
provide for energy resources in remote places, say for
instance, say a mine that is out in, literally, the middle of
most nowhere. Can you speak to that?
Dr. White.
Dr. White. Great, thank you, Senator Murkowski.
So I think this is where we start talking about how to set
up that clean energy grid of the future, especially in remote
locations. How do we think about balancing the intermittent or
the variable and renewable sources that are there, storage, and
then firm clean energy? And I think fusion energy has the
potential to be a very effective firm clean energy source that
can help power those communities. The question will really end
up becoming how do private companies develop machines of
different sizes, of different capabilities that match up with
the needs for those different customers? What does it mean to
provide heat and electricity to a small community versus trying
to provide and meet the energy needs for a large industrial
user, like a mine?
And so, I think this is an opportunity for the private
industry to really work with different stakeholders and
different potential customers, like those in Alaska, to really
identify what are the energy products they should be
prioritizing and they should be working on. In some cases, we
may want a fusion machine that produces 500 megawatts of
electricity and power half a million homes. Sometimes, you
might want one that can power five megawatts and really meet
the needs of a small community. And I think that is something
that we are seeing the private fusion industry really try to
identify and develop.
Senator Murkowski. So Helion, let's use you as an example
here. Would Helion look at opportunities to demonstrate certain
technology in specific areas in Alaska, and what would you be
looking for in terms of being able to site something?
Ms. Siebens. Absolutely. Thank you for that question,
Senator.
So our machines, our systems, are very well-suited for
siting in remote communities. And there are a couple reasons
for that. The first is that we have a very small external power
demand. We have a pulsed system. That is what we use in our
machine. And all we need external power for is to draw in and
create that first pulse before we sort of keep that machine
running. And that is not a lot of power. We could actually use
solar panels on the roof of one of our buildings to kick-start
that, or a small generator, if it's attached to the building.
The other thing to mention is the actual small footprint of
our facility. So for a 50-megawatt plant, you are looking at
around, under 30,000 square feet for the entire facility, and
that is about the size of a football field. So small community
small.
Senator Murkowski. Did you say 15 or 50?
Ms. Siebens. Fifty-megawatt.
Senator Murkowski. Fifty-megawatt.
Ms. Siebens. And then the other thing is, 24/7 power, so
you have that consistent, reliable electricity. And the actual
fuel that we use is, again, very small amounts that we actually
need onsite. So we would not need, you know, a lot of land for
extra fuel storage either. So I think we are very well-suited
and very interested in looking at applications in Alaska.
Senator Murkowski. Good, very interesting.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Where is your sidekick today?
The Chairman. He knew you were coming.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hoeven. Scared him off? Well, when Senator
Murkowski leaves that means I am the ranking Republican.
The Chairman. You can take over. You could be Chairman, if
you want.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hoeven. Maybe we can do some serious business.
The Chairman. We are just so happy to have you.
Senator Hoeven. You are a good man.
Thanks to all of you for being here. I guess my question
is, you know, we talk about fusion being the energy source of
the future. What's to say it's not always going to be the
energy source of the future, right? You have heard that before,
meaning, gee whiz, it seems to be a long time in coming. I
mean, I can remember as a little kid, my dad talking about
fusion being better than fission and you know, reading stories
about the supercollider and the effort in Texas and you know,
this has been going on for a long time. So I guess my question
is, you know, is it really going to happen? When is it going to
show up, commercially? And is it going to show up in these
smaller applications or the larger applications? And you can--
you all get a shot at this one in any order you want.
Dr. Allain. All right, thank you, Senator, for the
question, and of course, you know, I am sure there will be very
good answers for this one.
We have to remember that many of the major novel
technologies that we live in today took a long time to get
there and translate. I mean, this is a reality. I will say that
what is wonderful that is happening today, as opposed to even
just ten years ago, you can go to, you know, Devens,
Massachusetts and go over to Everett, you know, Everett,
Washington and watch what is happening in the private sector.
It's a daily grind, it's a daily race, if you will, in building
prototypes toward fusion energy demonstration. That is
exciting.
Our program, in fact, now that I have been in this position
now for a little bit over a year, as a material scientist and
engineer myself--a nuclear engineer--it's also exciting to see
the fact that in our program, we are also trying to really
rethink how we are thinking about fusion. And you are right, it
has always been this 20- to 30-year outlook on when is fusion
going to be ready. What gives me confidence and comfort,
actually, is seeing all of the technology developments outside
fusion that are impacting fusion energy development today. I
mentioned earlier AI/ML. There are advances, for example, in
high-temperature materials also that we are taking advantage
of.
So what you are seeing, Senator, is a convergence of a lot
of these technologies that is helping accelerate many of the
approaches, that we are seeing the over $7 billion investment
in the private sector realized.
Senator Hoeven. So that means we are going to be actually
using it in a commercially viable way when? Next year? Two
years? Five years?
Dr. Allain. So the timeline, I think, that we are really
focused on right now, it's making sure that the science and
tech gaps that we do have on some of these approaches are
addressed right now, right? In a decadal time frame, that has
been the focus. We are looking at, you know, in the 2030s, for
us to be able to see those fusion pilot plants, which are
demonstrating that all of the integration of these technologies
that are on the path toward realizing, let's say, electricity
on the grid, but there are some approaches, in fact, that can
get there even faster, and I will----
Senator Hoeven. But when you say the 30s, that still sounds
like we are ten years away.
Dr. Allain. Well, you know, again, so the question is
technology development and translation. It does take time,
right? And so, the question is, and your question is alluding
to what timescale that is.
Senator Hoeven. I am not alluding to it. I want you to tell
me specifically when we are going to be using fusion because
that is the same answer you could have given five years ago----
Dr. Allain. Right.
Senator Hoeven. Ten years ago, 15 years ago.
Dr. Allain. What I can tell you is that in the last decade
we have made significant strides to be able to close a lot of
these science----
Senator Hoeven. But you are still not telling me that
within five years we are going to have a commercially viable
pilot project and it's going to look like this. That is what I
am asking.
Dr. Allain. Sure.
Senator Hoeven. And if you can't tell me that, I
understand, but that is the specific question I am asking.
Dr. Allain. Sure.
Senator Hoeven. Because your answer could have been given--
we could have been sitting here ten years ago and you could
have given that answer.
Dr. Allain. Yes. No, I appreciate the question, Senator. I
think the answer, at least the way I would like to respond to
this is--the fact that we are making strides in being able to
close those gaps and we see that in the next half-decade to
decade.
Senator Hoeven. Yes.
Ms. Siebens. I would love to give you a very precise answer
to this question. We are on track to have the first-ever
commercially operating fusion plant in 2028, providing power to
Microsoft. We have a firm power purchase agreement with
Microsoft.
Senator Hoeven. What is that going to look like?
Ms. Siebens. What is it going to look like? So for us, the
actual fusion machine itself is something called a pulsed
system, and I am happy to go after the hearing and dive into
all the tech weeds on that, but essentially, it's a machine----
The Chairman. Just explain, if you will.
Ms. Siebens. Yes.
The Chairman. The magnet that we have seen in ITER versus
the pulsed system, just, it might help Senator Hoeven and help
me too.
Ms. Siebens. How we are different?
The Chairman. Different--how is the pulsed different from
what the ITER----
Ms. Siebens. Right, sure. I love talking about this, yes.
So back in the '40s and '50s, when fusion was really
emerging as a concept, there were pulsed concepts were actually
already under consideration back then, along with the tokamak
design, which is what you are seeing out in ITER. And so, the
main difference here is that you have a steady-state design,
which is what ITER is, where you are trying to actually contain
long-lived plasma that needs to be contained for a long period.
Whereas, a pulsed system is actually saying no, let's actually
just do small amounts of fusion in very quick increments,
repeatedly. And so, that is really the difference. And it helps
reduce the size of the machine significantly.
The Chairman. Does the pulsed--I'm so sorry.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hoeven. No, I am good with it as long as you are.
The Chairman. I just want to know, does the pulsed enable
you to ramp up and ramp down, basically?
Ms. Siebens. Yes.
The Chairman. More so, because when ITER, when she is--it
has got to produce.
Ms. Siebens. Yes, so precisely. So for our machine, we
could pulse one time every minute. We could pulse ten times per
second----
The Chairman. So basically, you could operate on the
demand.
Ms. Siebens. Yes, and we can do that in real time, so it
doesn't take long for us to ramp up.
The Chairman. You have already perfected that technology?
Ms. Siebens. Yes, so with our last prototype that we called
Trenta, we had over 10,000 fusion pulses with that machine. And
that is really what is giving us the confidence that we are
going to be able to demonstrate electricity production with our
seventh machine, which is on track to be completed this year.
Senator Hoeven. So when you say 2028, are you talking about
a pulsed system?
Ms. Siebens. That is correct.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. So, but keep going now.
Ms. Siebens. Yes. Okay.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hoeven. I know the Chairman is going to give me a
little more time now because it's a collaborative----
Ms. Siebens. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hoeven. This has turned into a collaborative
process.
The Chairman. I was going to commend you on a great
question.
Senator Hoeven. Yeah, which I think is really good because
I really--you said, okay, you said 2028. Good for you. Now, it
may happen. It might not happen, but at least it starts to give
us a feeling of okay, we can look toward something.
Ms. Siebens. Right.
Senator Hoeven. Now we want to know what you think it's
going to--so, you are thinking 2028?
Ms. Siebens. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. And we want to know what it looks like.
Ms. Siebens. Right, yes.
Senator Hoeven. So just elaborate a little bit more on what
this looks like.
Ms. Siebens. Right. So----
Senator Hoeven. And I mean, you know, what it looks like in
terms of how it works and what it's going to do.
Ms. Siebens. Sure.
Senator Hoeven. Like, it's going to run some guy's
lawnmower or whatever.
Ms. Siebens. Right. So in this instance, we are thinking
about the power needs of Microsoft, our customer, largely for
data centers. And this first plant is going to be 50 megawatts,
and the footprint of the facility will be approximately the
size of a football field, just under 30,000 square feet, and
that is the full perimeter of the site. And when we turn the
machine on, we will be able to, as Senator Manchin alluded to,
we will be able to actually ramp up or down depending on what
the needs are for our customer.
Senator Hoeven. Wow.
Ms. Siebens. And then, ultimately, we also have an
agreement with Nucor, the largest steel producer in North
America, to deploy a 500-megawatt facility.
Senator Hoeven. Okay, but before you get beyond it, okay,
you are talking, so a facility the size of a football field.
It's a 50 megawatt?
Ms. Siebens. Correct.
Senator Hoeven. And you can ramp up and down how much of
that megawattage you provide, so it's variable?
Ms. Siebens. Correct.
Senator Hoeven. And once you have built it, does it just
run? Is it like nuclear fission, where it essentially, you
don't have that ongoing fuel cost? I mean, it costs beaucoup to
build the thing, right? We get that. But at that point then,
does that sucker just, I mean, run until Manchin is like 250
years old, or, I mean?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Siebens. So we will need to----
Senator Hoeven. You know, I mean like--and that is the
promise of this stuff----
Ms. Siebens. Right.
Senator Hoeven [continuing]. Is that if you put it in a
spaceship and you go to, you know, Neptune and back, you never
need to refuel it, right?
Ms. Siebens. Right. So we do have, I mean, so because it's
a pulsed system, and with any system, you are still going to
eventually add more fuel to the system. For us, we are puffing
our fuel--the deuterium, the heavy water, and the helium-3 into
either side of our machine.
Senator Hoeven. Well, but that is part of my question is--
--
Ms. Siebens. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. Do you have to keep refueling because the
promise of this----
Ms. Siebens. Right.
Senator Hoeven. Is that it powers forever, basically, once
you build it.
Ms. Siebens. Right.
Senator Hoeven. So that is my question.
Ms. Siebens. So for us, yes. We do need more fuel to----
Senator Hoeven. And that would be what?
Ms. Siebens. But, so, for us it's the deuterium heavy
water--very cheap--and helium-3, which is kind of funny--it's
not widely available naturally on Earth, so we get some pretty
crazy questions about folks that want to go mine the moon for
us. But actually, we can create helium-3 right here on Earth.
Senator Hoeven. But see, this is the part of the question
that really matters because otherwise you might as well be
putting in gasoline or something else, if you have to keep
refueling, right? That diminishes the applications that we are
trying to develop this for.
Ms. Siebens. Right.
Senator Hoeven. For example, a rocket ship that will fly
all over, you know, to galaxies beyond, you know?
Ms. Siebens. Right.
So I don't actually see it as a challenge when it comes to
our fuel, and there are a couple reasons why. It's widely
abundant and very cheap. So deuterium, for example, I am
holding some right here.
[Photo of deuterium sample follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.049
Ms. Siebens. So it's heavy water. You could even drink it
if you wanted to. I don't really want to, but you could. And
so, the reason I mention this is because water is readily
available and abundant on planet Earth, and we don't see any
time frame in the future where we will run out.
Senator Hoeven. So when you say heavy water, it's kind of
like it's available almost like water.
Ms. Siebens. Precisely. That's right.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. Good.
Ms. Siebens. And then for the helium-3, actually, helium-3
is a by-product, first of all, of our fusion--our system. And
so, we are actually creating more of the fuel we need just by
running our machine. We can also create a separate machine that
is just deuterium and deuterium fusing, and the by-product of
that is helium-3. So all of this is very cheap and provides a
very sustainable fuel source.
Senator Hoeven. So fission has the problem of the by-
product, you know, that you create nuclear radioactive
material.
Ms. Siebens. Correct.
Senator Hoeven. And what the hell do we do with it, right?
If you can't completely reprocess it, nobody wants to store it,
right? We think of Yucca Mountain as a great example. But the
nice thing about it is, if you have it in your nuclear carrier,
you drive all over the world for a long, long time and you
don't have to refuel anywhere, nor do you have to carry any
fuel, right? That would be an advantage of fission over fusion.
So again, as you develop this new energy source, for folks
that are more into common sense because they were not good
enough in math to be an engineer or a scientist, like me, I am
trying to understand, okay, why is it we are spending a lot of
money on this thing? When are we going to see a benefit? And
how is that going to be more beneficial than other energy
sources? And that's why what you are telling us now, I think,
is really important compared to all this kind of theoretical
stuff. This is the stuff where the rubber hits the road.
Ms. Siebens. Yes, and I would just say that the fuel itself
is actually significantly cheaper for, at least for our system,
than when you think about uranium that is used or high-assay
low-enriched uranium for some of these advanced reactors, but
the fact of the matter is, is that regardless of whether you
are using a fission system or fusion system, you do have to
refuel. So even in our existing nuclear power plants, you are
usually looking at about a year-and-a-half refueling cycle
there. Same thing with our submarines that used high-enriched
uranium. You still ultimately have to refuel those.
Senator Hoeven. After how many years?
Ms. Siebens. So right. So I think that is still a
challenge. I would say that our fuel amount that we use for
just a month in one of our systems can essentially be held in a
canister the size of a bowling ball. So very small amounts.
The Chairman. Let me just say one thing. You mentioned that
a 50-megawatt is the size of a football field--50 megawatts.
What is the size of 500 megawatts?
Ms. Siebens. So we are currently working on the design for
the Nucor facility, but not significantly larger. The actual
fusion machine itself won't increase in size that much. What
will is the footprint of the power electronics that support the
direct electricity capture that we have that then puts that
electricity to our customer.
The Chairman. Nucor is the new plant they are building in
West Virginia.
Senator Hoeven. Oh.
The Chairman. Yeah, that's where it is, and they have a
contract with them now, partnering up to see if they can
basically run their steel mill off of fusion.
Senator Hoeven. Chairman, that is why it's important we pin
these guys down on when we are going to get this. You and I
aren't going to be around that much longer.
The Chairman. Right.
Senator Hoeven. We're on the clock here.
The Chairman. I'm just saying, I think you'd like to have
some of the heavy water to get to Neptune. Where did Neptune
come in?
[Laughter.]
Senator Hoeven. Well, I was trying to think of Pluto, but
Neptune came to mind quicker.
The Chairman. Okay.
Senator Hoeven. I was actually looking for a Star Trek
reference, but----
The Chairman. Neptune was good.
Senator Hoeven. Yeah.
The Chairman. Let me just say to all three of you, this has
been extremely helpful for all of us. We know it's something
that is coming. It's something that is needed. We are looking
everywhere we can to energize our country for the demand we are
going to have with the new data centers and everything, and we
have had hearings on the constraints we are going to have if we
don't, basically, have this new technology. We have invested, I
think, in so many ways. The IRA and the Bipartisan
Infrastructure bill have given us more opportunities to bring
things to fruition that we share with the rest of the world. So
I want to thank you for that.
All members are going to have until the close of business
tomorrow to submit additional questions that we haven't asked
today.
I want to thank you again for coming, and with that, we are
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]