[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IGNITING AMERICA'S ENERGY FUTURE:
THE PROMISE AND PROGRESS OF FUSION POWER
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 18, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-18
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-654 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chairman
RANDY WEBER, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking
JIM BAIRD, Indiana Member
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JAY OBERNOLTE, California HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
MAX MILLER, Ohio MAXWELL FROST, Florida
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia GABE AMO, Rhode Island
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM, Virginia
VINCE FONG, California LUZ RIVAS, California
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
KEITH SELF, Texas LAURA GILLEN, New York
PAT HARRIGAN, North Carolina GEORGE WHITESIDES, California,
SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina Vice-Ranking Member
JEFF HURD, Colorado LAURA FRIEDMAN, California
MIKE HARIDOPOLOS, Florida APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
MIKE KENNEDY, Utah JOSH RILEY, New York
NICK BEGICH, Alaska BILL FOSTER, Illinois
VACANT
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. RANDY WEBER, Texas, Chairman
JIM BAIRD, Indiana DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina,
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee Ranking Member
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
PAT HARRIGAN, North Carolina LAURA FRIEDMAN, California
SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina JOSH RILEY, New York
JEFF HURD, Colorado VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
NICK BEGICH, Alaska
C O N T E N T S
September 18, 2025
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Deborah Ross, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 14
Written Statement............................................ 15
Written statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 16
Witnesses:
Dr. Stephanie Diem, Assistant Professor, University of
Wisconsin--Madison
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 20
Dr. Will Regan, Founder & President, Pacific Fusion
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 29
Dr. Troy Carter, Director of Fusion Energy Division, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 42
Written Statement............................................ 45
Dr. Bob Mumgaard, Co-Founder and CEO, Commonwealth Fusion Systems
Oral Statement............................................... 51
Written Statement............................................ 54
Discussion....................................................... 68
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Stephanie Diem, Assistant Professor, University of
Wisconsin--Madison............................................. 92
Dr. Will Regan, Founder & President, Pacific Fusion.............. 101
Dr. Troy Carter, Director of Fusion Energy Division, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory............................................ 113
Dr. Bob Mumgaard, Co-Founder and CEO, Commonwealth Fusion Systems 119
IGNITING AMERICA'S ENERGY FUTURE:
THE PROMISE AND PROGRESS
OF FUSION POWER
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy Weber
(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. The Subcommittee on Energy will come to
order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing, entitled ``Igniting America's
Energy Future: The Promise and Progress of Fusion Power.''
I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Well, good morning y'all. We've already had a chance to say
good morning. We're glad y'all are here. Welcome to today's
Energy Subcommittee hearing, entitled ``Igniting America's
Energy Future, the Promise and Progress of Fusion Power.''
After a decade of stagnation, most of y'all--I think the
young lady here was probably still in high school back then--
after a decade of stagnation, U.S. energy demand is once again
on the rise. This surge is driven by several factors, including
the onshoring of supply chains crucial to our national
security, and the rapid growth of commercial artificial
intelligence (AI) technologies across the country.
At our last Subcommittee hearing, witnesses discussed
nuclear energy's potential role in powering AI data centers.
That conversation led us to focus on nuclear fission, which is
commercially viable today. This hearing will spotlight nuclear
fusion, a field that after decades of promise, has made
remarkable progress across various technology readiness levels
in recent years.
These advancements have highlighted a growing need for
workforce development. The challenge is not simply producing
more Ph.D.s, but building a robust, skilled, trained workforce.
According to the Fusion Industry Association, only 23 percent
of employees in the sector are scientists, and 44 percent are
engineers, leaving a significant portion of the workforce
without advanced degrees. The industry is expanding rapidly,
growing by a staggering 50 percent in the last 2 years, while
the supply chain has tripled in size in that same 2 years.
Many fusion companies project operational pilot plants by
2035, with workforce needs expected to increase sixfold at this
stage, not including additional supply chain demand. To address
these needs, our National Labs are considering apprenticeship
programs to help prevent potential worker shortages. Such
programs would complement the cutting-edge research conducted
at DOE (Department of Energy) facilities, which house much of
the specialized equipment necessary for fusion science.
Due to these unique capabilities, DOE's collaboration with
the private sector is very vital for advancing
commercialization. To foster these partnerships, DOE has
launched several initiatives to connect, support, and indeed
accelerate industry growth. These include a public-private
partnership (PPP) program, a milestone-based fusion development
program, and ongoing funding for fusion projects through the
ARPA-E office. Public-private partnerships leverage DOE's
expertise while encouraging private sector investment.
Milestone programs tie Federal funding to demonstrated
progress. And APRA-E's early fusion projects have already
generated over $700 million in private investment. These
efforts are prime examples of responsible use of taxpayer
dollars.
For decades, fusion energy was seen as a dream always 20 or
30 years away. But recent successes at the National Ignition
Facility, or NIF, have begun to change that perception. NIF
became the first facility in the world to achieve a positive
net energy output from a fusion reaction, as well as the first
to achieve burning plasma.
It's important to note that critical basic science
questions still exist before we can see operational fusion
power plants connected to the grid. Fortunately, academia,
along with DOE user facilities, is working closely with the
private sector to both identify and solve these remaining
challenges. Continued Federal investment is essential to
ensuring these foundational science gaps are addressed in a
very coordinated manner.
The progress we've seen is undeniable, and the fusion
industry is steadily advancing toward delivering fusion power
to the grid.
It can't get here quick enough, can it?
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony, and I
look forward to today's discussion on how the Federal
Government can support academia, the National Labs, and private
companies to ensure America leads in this critical race.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
Good morning. Welcome to today's Energy Subcommittee
hearing titled, ``Igniting America's Energy Future: The Promise
and Progress of Fusion Power.'' After a decade of stagnation,
U.S. energy demand is once again on the rise. This surge is
driven by several factors, including the onshoring of supply
chains crucial to our national security and the rapid growth of
commercial artificial intelligence technologies across the
country.
At our last subcommittee hearing, witnesses discussed
nuclear energy's potential role in powering AI data centers.
That conversation focused on nuclear fission, which is
commercially viable today. This hearing will spotlight nuclear
fusion, a field that, after decades of promise, has made
remarkable progress across various technology readiness levels
in recent years.
These advancements have highlighted a growing need for
workforce development. The challenge is not simply producing
more PhDs, but building a robust, skilled trades workforce.
According to the Fusion Industry Association, only 23 percent
of employees in the sector are scientists, and 44 percent are
engineers, leaving a significant portion of the workforce
without advanced degrees. The industry is expanding rapidly-
growing by a staggering 50 percent in just the last two years--
while the supply chain has tripled in size. Many fusion
companies project operational pilot plants by 2035, with
workforce needs expected to increase sixfold at this stage, not
including additional supply chain demand.
To address these needs, our National Labs are considering
apprenticeship programs to help prevent potential worker
shortages.
Such programs would complement the cutting-edge research
conducted at Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, which house
much of the specialized equipment necessary for fusion science.
Due to these unique capabilities, DOE's collaboration with the
private sector is vital for advancing commercialization. To
foster these partnerships, DOE has launched several initiatives
to connect, support, and accelerate industry growth. These
include a public-private partnership program, a milestone-based
fusion development program, and ongoing funding for fusion
projects through the ARPA-E office. Public-private partnerships
leverage DOE's expertise while encouraging private sector
investment. Milestone programs tie federal funding to
demonstrated progress. And ARPA-E's early fusion projects have
already generated over $700 million in private investment.
These efforts are prime examples of responsible use of taxpayer
dollars.
For decades, fusion energy was seen as a dream always 20 or
30 years away. But recent successes at the National Ignition
Facility (NIF) have begun to change that perception. NIF became
the first facility in the world to achieve a positive net
energy output from a fusion reaction, as well as the first to
achieve burning plasma.
It's important to note that critical basic science
questions still exist before we can see operational fusion
power plants connected to the grid. Fortunately, academia,
along with DOE user facilities, is working closely with the
private sector to both identify and solve these remaining
challenges. Continued federal investment is essential to
ensuring these foundational science gaps are addressed in a
coordinated manner.
The progress we've seen is undeniable, and the fusion
industry is steadily advancing toward delivering fusion power
to the grid. I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony,
and I look forward to today's discussion on how the federal
government can support academia, the National Labs, and private
companies to ensure America leads in this critical race. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Weber. I yield back the balance of my time and
recognize the Ranking Member.
Ms. Ross. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Weber, for
convening today's important hearing on the current landscape of
fusion energy--where we stand, what remains to be done, and how
the Federal Government can play a pivotal role in ensuring
United States leadership in a technology that could well
revolutionize our entire energy sector.
I also want to thank our very impressive panel of witnesses
for being here this morning. The United States is at a critical
moment in the effort to develop fusion as a carbon-neutral,
sustainable source of energy. Breakthroughs in plasma physics,
technology, public-private partnerships, and private sector
innovation are giving us reasons to believe that fusion can
become a game-changer for clean power, climate resilience,
energy security, and economic opportunity.
In my home district, North Carolina (NC) State University
has just launched a new remote control room under its Future
Fusion Research Initiative. In July, the Fusion Plasma
Auxiliaries Characterization Lab at NC State successfully
conducted their experiment remotely at the DIII-D fusion
facility in San Diego. This marks a significant step toward
enabling greater student and institutional access to national
and international fusion research facilities. It demonstrates
how Federal investment in infrastructure prepares students for
the high-skilled jobs of tomorrow, fosters innovation and
partnership, and positions the United States to lead globally.
Universities like NC State, our National Laboratories, and
private innovators depend on steady investments. Many of the
witnesses here today will discuss how our Nation's
competitiveness in fusion is threatened by the absence of
Federal investment in major new facilities, investments that
would help address key gaps in materials science and technology
development. Without that support, the United States will
likely fall behind, both scientifically and economically in yet
another critical new industry.
The Federal role remains essential. Challenges like
ensuring the stability of burning plasma, materials resilience,
and reactor system design require substantial Federal support,
a trained workforce, and demonstration projects that can scale
from experiments to net energy gain. These are the building
blocks of a new clean energy future for all of us.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the
current hurdles on the path to a U.S.-based commercial fusion
industry, and where Federal action could make the greatest
difference.
I also ask for unanimous consent to permit Representative
Don Beyer, co-chair of the congressional Fusion Caucus, to
attend this hearing and ask questions of the witnesses.
Chairman Weber. Without objection.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ross follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Weber, for convening today's hearing on
the current landscape of fusion energy--where we stand, what
remains to be done, and how the federal government can play a
pivotal role in ensuring U.S. leadership in a technology that
could well revolutionize our entire energy sector.
I also want to thank this impressive panel of witnesses for
being here this morning. The U.S. is at a critical moment in
the effort to develop fusion as a carbon-neutral, sustainable
source of energy. Breakthroughs in plasma physics, technology,
public-private partnerships, and private sector innovation are
giving us reasons to believe that fusion can become a game-
changer for clean power, climate resilience, energy security,
and economic opportunity.
In my home district, North Carolina State University has
just launched a new remote control room under its Future Fusion
Research initiative. In July, the Fusion Plasma Auxiliaries
Characterization lab at NC State successfully participated in
their experiment at the DIII-D fusion experiment in San Diego
from this remote facility, marking a significant step toward
enabling greater student and institutional access to national
and international fusion research facilities. It demonstrates
how federal investment in infrastructure prepares students for
the high-skill jobs of tomorrow, fosters innovation and
partnerships, and positions the U.S. to lead globally.
Universities like NC State, our national laboratories, and
private innovators depend on steady investment. That said, as I
know many of the witnesses here today will discuss further, our
nation's competitiveness in fusion is also threatened by the
absence of federal investment in major new facilities to
address key gaps in materials science and technology
development. Without that support, the U.S. will likely fall
behind both scientifically and economically in yet another
critical new industry.
The federal role remains essential. Challenges like
ensuring the stability of a ``burning plasma'', materials
resilience, and reactor system design require a substantial
growth in federal support, a trained workforce, and
demonstration projects that can scale from experiments to net
energy gain. These are the building blocks of a new clean
energy future for us all.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the
current hurdles on the path to a U.S.-based commercial fusion
industry, and where federal action could make the greatest
difference.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Ranking Member Ross. And I
recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee, Dr. Babin.
Chairman Babin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This morning's hearing will examine the future of fusion
energy and how the United States can maintain global leadership
in fusion energy technologies.
And I also want to thank our illustrious witnesses here. We
are looking forward to hearing what you all have to say.
But back to fusion has the potential to revolutionize
electricity generation and reshape entire industries in our
country. Beyond powering the grid, it holds significant promise
for a variety of commercial applications, from providing
medical radioisotopes for cancer treatment, to enabling
advanced materials processing techniques, to propelling
spacecraft in deep space missions.
The private sector has emerged as a dynamic force in the
commercial fusion energy landscape, with global investments now
exceeding $10 billion, driven largely by American companies.
This reflects a transition from government-led research and
development (R&D) to a market-driven, commercially viable
fusion innovations that could transform energy production
worldwide.
Even major tech companies such as Nvidia and Google are
investing more in fusion power startups, viewing the technology
as a promising way to meet their growing energy demands.
Despite substantial private sector investments, the
Department of Energy plays a vital role in making fusion become
a reality. DOE's latest Fusion Energy Strategy aims to
accelerate the path to commercial fusion in collaboration with
industry, while coordinating fusion-related efforts across
government, academia, and the public and private sectors.
For example, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)--thank
you for being here--is leveraging its deep expertise in fusion
materials, plasma diagnostics, advanced modeling and simulation
through three new research collaborations through the
Innovation Network of Fusion Energy, or the INFUSE program.
These partnerships focus on addressing practical engineering
challenges essential to delivering fusion power to the grid by
the 2040s.
Additionally, DOE serves as the central hub for bridging
the science and technology gaps that are necessary to achieve
commercial fusion power. Its role is critical, as the Federal
Government is the only entity capable of undertaking the high-
risk, high-reward, long-term research and development required
to address these challenges. And although significant progress
has been made, much more work remains to fully harness the
potential of fusion technologies.
The rapid progress of the Chinese Communist Party or CCP in
this sector poses a direct challenge to United States
technological leadership.
Historically, the United States has led the way in fusion
research. However, the CCP has effectively utilized its
industrial base and civil-military integration to accelerate
technological development and to rapidly scale critical
infrastructure. It is also committed to connecting the first
fusion-fission hybrid power plant to the electrical grid by
2030.
The nation that successfully commercializes fusion first
will likely set the global standards, the supply chains, and
technological frameworks that will shape this industry for
decades to come. Moreover, the implications go well beyond
merely achieving technological leadership. They also raise
important questions about global governance and our values.
Fusion energy technologies must be developed and deployed by
nations that uphold democratic values, transparency, and
international cooperation, not by authoritarian regimes that
might exploit energy dominance as a weapon.
The United States must prioritize fusion energy development
to outpace the CCP's aggressive timelines.
Achieving leadership in fusion technology is not only
essential for energy independence but for ensuring that
democratic values shape one of the most consequential
breakthroughs of the entire century.
I want to thank our witnesses again for their testimony
today, and I look forward to a very productive discussion.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Babin follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Weber.
This morning's hearing will examine the future of fusion
energy and how the United States can maintain global leadership
in fusion energy technologies.
Fusion has the potential to revolutionize electricity
generation and reshape entire industries.
Beyond powering the grid, it holds significant promise for
a variety of commercial applications--from providing medical
radioisotopes for cancer treatment, to enabling advanced
materials processing techniques, to propelling spacecraft on
deep space missions.
The private sector has emerged as a dynamic force in the
commercial fusion energy landscape, with global investments
exceeding ten billion dollars--driven largely by American
companies.
This reflects a transition from government-led research and
development to market-driven, commercially viable fusion
innovations that could transform energy production worldwide.
Even major tech companies, such as Nvidia and Google, are
investing more in fusion power startups, viewing the technology
as a promising way to meet their growing energy demands.
Despite substantial private sector investments, the
Department of Energy (DOE) plays a vital role in making fusion
a reality.
DOE's latest Fusion Energy Strategy aims to accelerate the
path to commercial fusion in collaboration with industry, while
coordinating fusion-related efforts across government,
academia, and the public and private sectors.
For example, Oak Ridge National Laboratory is leveraging
its deep expertise in fusion materials, plasma diagnostics, and
advanced modeling and simulation through three new research
collaborations through the Innovation Network for Fusion Energy
(INFUSE) program. These partnerships focus on addressing
practical engineering challenges essential to delivering fusion
power to the grid by the 2040s.
Additionally, DOE serves as the central hub for bridging
the science and technology gaps necessary to achieve commercial
fusion power.
Its role is critical, as the federal government is the only
entity capable of undertaking the high-risk, high-reward long-
term research and development required to address these
challenges.
Although significant progress has been made, much more work
remains to fully harness the potential of fusion technologies.
The rapid progress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in
this sector poses a direct challenge to U.S. technological
leadership.
Historically, the United States has led the way in fusion
research. However, the CCP has effectively utilized its
industrial base and civil-military integration to accelerate
technological development and rapidly scale critical
infrastructure.
It is also committed to connecting the first fusion-fission
hybrid power plant to the electrical grid by 2030.
The nation that successfully commercializes fusion first
will likely set the global standards, supply chains, and
technological frameworks that will shape the industry for
decades to come. Moreover, the implications go beyond merely
achieving technological leadership; they also raise important
questions about global governance and values.
Fusion energy technologies must be developed and deployed
by nations that uphold democratic values, transparency, and
international cooperation--not by authoritarian regimes that
might exploit energy dominance as a weapon.
The U.S. must prioritize fusion energy development to
outpace the CCP's aggressive timelines.
Achieving leadership in fusion technology is not only
essential for energy independence but also for ensuring that
democratic values shape one of the most consequential
breakthroughs of the century.
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today,
and I look forward to a productive discussion.
Thank you, Chairman Weber. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Weber and Ranking
Member Ross, for holding this very important hearing today. And
thank you to this excellent panel of witnesses for being here
this morning as well.
It is not exactly news around here that I am an
enthusiastic supporter of fusion energy R&D. That said, there
have been some significant developments since this Committee
last held a hearing on fusion about two years ago.
The National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory--still the only machine in the world to
achieve fusion ignition--has now achieved it 9 times, with a
big new record output of 8.6 megajoules reached in April.
Last year, the Department of Energy finalized agreements
with the first 8 awardees of its milestone-based public-private
partnership program. And DOE has made real strides over the
last several months in pivoting its activities to better follow
the recommendations of the fusion community in its most recent
Long Range Plan, which was led by Dr. Carter.
Meanwhile, the global fusion industry has raised about $3.5
billion in private investment in the last 15 months alone, with
the bulk of this money provided to companies that are currently
headquartered in the U.S.
On the other hand, in an analysis released just this week,
the Special Competitive Studies Project found that China has
spent at least $6.5 billion on fusion commercialization efforts
since 2023. I look forward to hearing from Dr. Regan and Dr.
Mumgaard about this latest surge in investments at home and
abroad--and what we in the public sector should really be doing
to ensure U.S. leadership in this potentially transformational
industry.
Now, I remain strongly opposed to the President's Budget
Request overall, and the absolutely devastating impacts it
would have on our nation's research enterprise if it were ever
enacted.
But I can walk and chew gum at the same time, and when it
comes to the specific request for fusion--while far more
resources are certainly warranted--I believe that the
Administration got it about right within the total funding for
fusion that is being proposed.
This is why I introduced a bipartisan amendment to the
Energy & Water Appropriations bill with Chairman Obernolte and
my colleagues Mr. Beyer and Ms. Trahan. The amendment simply
aimed to ensure that these important shifts proposed by the
President to better support key commercialization-focused
activities are fully funded, including a larger focus on fusion
materials, fuel cycle R&D, and public-private partnerships.
Unfortunately, for some reason the Majority on the Rules
Committee did not choose to make this amendment to support
President Trump's Budget Request for fusion in order, so it
never got a vote. But I will continue to work with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the House and the
Senate to make progress on this wherever I can.
Lastly, I'd like to again thank my colleague, Chairman
Obernolte for joining me last month in introducing H.R. 4999,
the bipartisan STEM Education and Skilled Technical Workforce
for Fusion Act, to ensure that we are addressing the broad
range of workforce needs for a growing, U.S.-based fusion
industry. I'll look forward to discussing this topic in more
detail with Dr.
Diem and our other witnesses as well, as this is truly a
crosscutting issue for you all. With that, Mr. Chairman, I am
excited to hear from our panel and I yield back.
Chairman Weber. I now want to introduce our witnesses. Our
first witness today is Dr. Stephanie Diem, Assistant Professor
at University of Wisconsin (UW)--Madison. Welcome.
Our second witness is Dr. Will Regan, Co-Founder and
President at Pacific Fusion. Welcome.
Our third witness is Dr. Troy Carter--you know, we have a
Troy Carter in Congress, right? No relation, I guess. I gotcha.
Director of the Fusion Energy Division at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. Welcome.
And our final witness is Dr. Bob Mumgaard, Co-Founder and
CEO (Chief Executive Officer) at Commonwealth Fusion Systems
(CFS). So we are glad you're here. Thank you.
I now recognize Dr. Diem for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. STEPHANIE DIEM,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN--MADISON
Dr. Diem. Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Ross, and Members
of the Committee, thank you for holding this important hearing
and for inviting me to testify. My name is Stephanie Diem, and
I am the principal investigator (PI) of a Department of Energy
funded fusion experiment, and a professor at the University of
Wisconsin--Madison. I also serve as the Vice President of the
University Fusion Association and was appointed as the United
States Science Envoy with the Department of State. My remarks
today reflect my own views.
In a world facing urgent energy challenges and geopolitical
tensions over access to energy and energy resources, fusion
gives us hope. Fusion is a dense, virtually limitless source of
power derived from hydrogen that could radically transform
humanity. Fusion, the process that powers the Sun, occurs when
light elements are forced together and combine under extreme
conditions, releasing a vast amount of energy. On Earth, we use
magnetic bottles or powerful lasers to create these fusion
conditions. The resulting energy could provide large-scale
baseload power and support applications such as hydrogen
production, water desalination, process heat, and district
heating.
American innovation has long driven global progress in
fusion. The United States is at a pivotal moment, marked by the
achievement of controlled fusion energy at the National
Ignition Facility in 2022, the continued emergence of
transformative technological and manufacturing advances, and
the establishment of public-private partnerships to develop
fusion systems capable of generating electricity. But our
leadership is at risk.
Europe, Japan, and China are leveraging American innovation
to advance their industries. History has shown us that when the
United States invests boldly in research, it not only secures
global leadership but also delivers transformative benefits to
society. We cannot afford to fall behind. Universities are the
foundation of the fusion energy industry, powering the
breakthroughs that will radically transform how humanity
sources and depends on energy.
I want to highlight three priorities for retaining United
States leadership, continuing innovation to drive fusion
science and technology forward, developing an agile workforce,
and creating a robust fusion ecosystem.
First, university innovation drives economic growth. The
field of fusion energy emerged from publicly funded research,
and universities remain the engines of innovation that seed new
industries. Today, over 45 fusion startups are driving
commercialization, 60 percent spun out of universities, and 95
percent of private investment has gone into those university
spinouts.
At UW-Madison alone, federally funded research led to three
fusion companies, SHINE Technologies, Type One Energy, and
Realta Fusion. SHINE has already commercialized fusion by
domestically providing critical lifesaving medical isotopes,
while Realta and Type One comprise a quarter of the DOE
Milestone Program awardees who are designing first-of-a-kind
fusion power plants. Together, they demonstrate how 20 percent
of Federal support can attract 80 percent of private
investment, create high-skilled jobs, and fuel economic growth.
Second, we need to build an agile workforce. Fusion energy
is engineering at the extremes, required precision and advanced
manufacturing. Federal funding has solved extraordinary
challenges, but now we must scale those solutions into
economically viable industry. The American fusion workforce
faces personnel shortages, retention issues, education and
training gaps, and limits in public engagement. To meet the
demand, we must expand programs to include community colleges
and launch apprenticeship programs. The recently introduced
Fusion Workforce Act by Ranking Member Lofgren and Subcommittee
Chair Obernolte lays out a coordinated response.
Fusion can also renew America's industrial base, driving
local and regional growth by revitalizing industries, creating
jobs, and strengthening wages.
Third, we need to grow a robust fusion ecosystem. Public-
private partnerships like INFUSE and DOE Milestone and FIRE
(Fusion Innovative Research Engine) collaboratives have laid
strong foundations, showing how universities, National Labs,
and companies can close these critical gaps together. To move
swiftly from proving fusion science to developing commercial
fusion energy, we need larger regional hubs supported by
Federal and State funds that coordinate efforts and maximize
efficiencies. Universities will be indispensable partners in
the coordination of these hubs by fostering innovation,
interdisciplinary research that anticipates and meets the
future technological and workforce needs of the fusion
industry.
Ongoing uncertainty in Federal fusion investments poses
serious risk. Funding delays strain universities that lack
capital to bridge these gaps. These jeopardize workforce
stability, research continuity, and pace of innovation, while
driving talent to other sectors or abroad, threatening the
growth of private companies. Meanwhile, international
collaborators and competitors are advancing with coordinated
strategies, new infrastructure, and natural workforce
initiatives, and major government support.
Without a stable Federal investment framework and
coordinated effort, the United States risks ceding leadership
in fusion energy. Continued public-private partnerships are
essential to commercialization and sustained Federal funding
will remain the catalyst that seeds innovation and drives the
future of fusion energy. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Diem follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. You ended right on time. She's good, Dr.
Regan. She speaks at about 400 words a minute with gusts up to
about 650, so you've got a row to hoe. You're up next. Your
testimony, please, sir.
TESTIMONY OF DR. WILL REGAN,
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, PACIFIC FUSION
Dr. Regan. Thank you, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Ross,
also Chairman Babin and Ranking Member Lofgren of the Full
Committee, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify here today on the promise of fusion
energy, and for your longstanding support of the field that has
finally brought commercial fusion power within reach.
I am Will Regan, President and Co-Founder of Pacific
Fusion. As Dr. Diem mentioned, fusion is what powers our Sun.
It is where you squeeze hydrogen and helium and release vast
amounts of energy.
The way we do it at Pacific Fusion is called pulser-driven
inertial fusion. We run a fast pulse of electricity across a
tiny can of fuel, which squishes the can, squeezes the fuel,
and makes it hot and makes it fuse. We can make power by doing
this over and over, kind of like a piston engine.
We are about 2 years old, have over 120 staff, and have
raised over $900 million. We are on track to achieve net
facility gain by 2030, so this is more fusion energy out than
all of the energy we start with. This is something that no one
has yet done. It is a critical milestone to get to power
plants. And then we aim to generate net power by the mid-2030s.
We are all here today because fusion could be the ultimate
power source, creating a new, multi-trillion dollar energy
sector and providing abundant power for industry and AI. What
makes fusion so great? Three things. First, fusion fuel is just
extremely energy dense. You get millions of times more energy
out per unit of fuel than in chemical reactions. The little
speck of fuel in our tiny fuel cans can power your home for a
week.
Fusion is compact. You can make lots of power on a little
bit of land with a fairly small amount of materials, things
like steel and cement.
And fusion is safe. It stops when you stop driving it and
makes no high-level waste.
And the fusion industry, now on the cusp of
commercialization, owes its existence to the visionary support
provided by Congress. We founded our company in 2023 as a
direct result of National Lab breakthroughs in 2022. First
Lawrence Livermore's National Ignition Facility used lasers to
drive controlled fusion ignition, for the first time in history
releasing more fusion energy out than the laser energy they
used to drive that. Around the same time, Sandia's Z Machine
showed that electrical pulses offered a far more efficient path
to achieve ignition, and that efficiency boost lets you take
the next step beyond ignition and get net facility gain, net
energy gain.
Also, a team at Lawrence Livermore in that same year
demonstrated a compact, modular technology to make those
electrical pulses, which opens up an exciting path to make
commercial inertial fusion power.
So those three things gave us a great foundation to build
on. And because our system is highly modular, made from widely
available materials, things like steel, cement--steel,
aluminum, plastic, oil, and water, we see a path forward to
rapidly scale up affordable fusion power in America.
And what's even more exciting is we're not alone. Not just
us, but multiple American fusion companies, like Dr.
Mumgaard's, are poised to soon demonstrate fusion energy.
The problem is that China has noticed, and they are
investing heavily to own this industry. Just since 2023, China
has put upwards of $10 billion to $13 billion into fusion,
including over $2 billion into a state-owned champion supported
by one of their large power plant builders. And they have been
rapidly constructing four major research facilities. They are
aiming for fusion power by 2031, if not sooner.
This is an existential threat to American fusion leadership
and energy dominance. Our industry and Congress need to work
together to make sure that America wins.
How do we win? We need to grow our workforce, not just
fusion scientists but mechanical and electrical engineers,
technicians, welders, and many others. The Lofgren-Obernolte
Fusion Workforce Bill is a great start.
We also need to start scaling our supply chain now. And I
am thrilled to see the Fusion Advanced Manufacturing Parity Act
that was introduced yesterday. So thank you very much,
Representative Tenney and Representative Beyer for this bill.
We also need continued regulatory progress and certainty,
building on the momentum of the recent NRC (Nuclear Regulatory
Commission) decision and also Congress's ADVANCE Act.
But most critically, and why I'm here is America needs to
build fusion power plants before China, with shovels in the
ground as early as 2028. And fortunately, America has a great
playbook for this. We have used public-private partnerships to
reassert United States leadership in commercial space, just for
one example. We can run that playbook again through an
accountable, milestone-based fusion demonstration program to
jumpstart construction of multiple United States fusion power
plants. I don't ask for this just to benefit us, but because
this is what is needed to move the whole United States fusion
industry forward fast enough to win this race.
Thank you again for your time, Chairman Weber, Ranking
Member Ross, also Chairman Babin and Ranking Member Lofgren,
the Full Committee, and Members of the Subcommittee. Look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Regan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Regan.
Dr. Carter, you're up.
TESTIMONY OF DR. TROY CARTER,
DIRECTOR OF FUSION ENERGY DIVISION,
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Carter. All right, good morning. Chairman Weber,
Ranking Member Ross, Members of the Committee, I'll add my
thanks for having this hearing. Glad to be here.
I'm Troy Carter, Director of Fusion Energy Division at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. Before I was at Oak Ridge, I was a
professor at UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) for
many years, where I led the Basic Plasma Science Facility and
directed the Plasma Science and Technology Institute. Also a
product of NC State. There you go. Big fan of the Wolf Pack.
Degrees in physics and nuclear engineering from there.
The last time I appeared before this Committee was in 2021.
That was after chairing the process that led to the FESAC
(Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee) long-range plan,
``Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas.''
So OK, let me start. First, I'll say it clearly, the
investment that has been made by the Federal Government in
fusion research has paid off tremendously. Over the decades,
support from Congress, this Committee, thank you, has enabled
the United States to make extraordinary progress. We've
learned, as one example, learned how to heat and control
plasmas, the superheated gases where fusion takes place, at
conditions approaching those required for fusion power plants.
Investments in facilities have been critical. Examples include
the DIII-D tokamak at General Atomics in San Diego, several
devices at Princeton, TFTR, NSTX, NSTX-U, Alcator C-Mod at MIT
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology). This was central to
this progress, absolutely important.
In addition, there have been investments by NNSA (National
Nuclear Security Administration) that have been spoken about
already, so the National Ignition Facility, the Z-Machine at
Sandia. While these were built for stockpile stewardship, the
breakthroughs that have been made there have direct impact,
direct implications for fusion energy.
International collaboration is vital and remains vital. So
there are a number of examples there. United States scientists
contributed to record results at the Joint European Torus in
the U.K., at the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator in Germany, United
States partnership and involvement in ITER (International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), we're learning to build
industrial-scale fusion while strengthening the supply chain
for fusion.
Investments in fusion R&D have had broader impact. So
Chairman Babin already spoke to this. There's a lot of spinoff
technologies. These include semiconductor manufacturing
techniques using plasmas, extreme ultraviolet lithography.
There have been advances in high-temperature superconducting
magnets that are now reshaping energy technology. And in
developing tools for controlling, analyzing plasmas for fusion,
our community has driven innovations in artificial
intelligence. These methods are now being used in
manufacturing, robotics, and even drug discovery.
All right, so a lot has happened. The opportunity before us
now is to amplify that return on investment significantly by
fostering the United States fusion industry. Thanks to this
progress, we have a number of U.S. Space-based fusion startups
that have raised significant capital and are targeting pilot
plants on ambitious timelines. I will call out that these
companies that spun out of the public program from universities
and National Labs. The National Labs in the case of Dr. Regan,
and MIT in the case of Dr. Mumgaard. So that investment has
helped lead to this.
The ambition for doing this on a short timeline reflects
the urgency of energy needs, as well as the confidence in the
scientific foundation that has been laid by the program.
However, we have significant challenges ahead. And they are
shared by all of these companies, and we need to address them.
Without strong public-private partnerships, these companies
will face unsustainable risk as they move forward. And the
United States risks ceding leadership in this industry that it
helped create. OK? Partnership is essential.
We need to pair the speed and the innovation of industry
with the depth and specialized tools of the National Labs and
the universities. We need to make these partnerships easier. It
is challenging sometimes to set up SPPs (Strategic Partnership
Projects) and CRADAs (cooperative research and development
agreements) with the companies for National Labs to really do
the work we need to do. We need to improve these processes,
come up with more flexible ways to partner. And this will not
only benefit fusion, it will benefit other fields, U.S.
competitiveness in fields like AI, if we can get the National
Labs lined up with industry and moving faster.
All right, so we know what we need to do to get there.
We're excellent at planning in the United States. We've
launched a lot of planning studies. The FESAC long-range plan
is one of them. The plan is there, alongside national academy
studies that have called for the goal of fusion power plant,
industry led. We are starting to make progress on this.
I was before this Committee 4 years ago and said, ``Now's
the time for fusion.'' We have a plan, and we need to act. I
still need to deliver that same message today as we still
haven't fully acted yet. But we're starting. There are some
programs that we've founded. So you look at the Milestone
Program that's been mentioned, the INFUSE Partnership Program
that's been mentioned, and new FIRE collaboratives that are
just launched. These unite labs, universities, and companies on
shared challenges. This is very important.
We need new facilities. These are called out in the
planning documents. To close the gaps to the pilot plan, we
need new facilities. ITER will give us access to burning
plasmas and experience in building at industrial scale. Fusion
Prototypic Neutron Source, we need that to develop and
understand and qualify materials that can withstand the harsh
neutron environment in a fusion device.
The Materials Plasma Exposure eXperiment (MPEX)--I choked
up because it's my facility--now being built at Oak Ridge will
study plasma-material interactions and develop solutions for
fusion exhaust.
We need a blanket and fuel cycle facility to close the gaps
to commercialization.
And I will end, because I see my time is up, by saying that
we know these facilities are being built in China. Right? These
facilities and more are happening right now. So we need to act
quickly.
One more message, and if I have more time--I don't, I think
I'm out. I'll just say we need to invest in the public sector
because we need to continue to push innovation forward. We need
workforce. I'll add my thanks on the Fusion Workforce bill, and
just close to say the decisive moment is now. With deliberate
action, supporting facilities, partnership, and innovation, we
can ensure the United States leads in turning fusion from
scientific promise into commercial reality. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Carter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Boy, you're a fast speaker, too, Dr.
Carter. I thought--I could sit here and listen to you all day.
And there for a minute, I thought I was going to have to.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Weber. So, Dr. Mumgaard, you're recognized for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. BOB MUMGAARD, CO-FOUNDER AND CEO,
COMMONWEALTH FUSION SYSTEMS
Dr. Mumgaard. Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Ross, Members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you
here today. I'm the CEO and co-founder of Commonwealth Fusion
Systems. It's the largest fusion company in the United States
and one of the largest fusion organizations in the world,
second or third to the Chinese national program and the U.K.
national program.
Since my last appearance here 4 years ago, the fusion
landscape has continued to evolve. We see a surge of private
investment. We see significant scientific milestones. And we in
the United States face an increasing sharp competition from
foreign rivals, particularly China. We are at a critical
moment, transitioning from science to demonstration and the
threshold of commercialization.
I want you to take away three things here, three things to
know. First, a working fusion power plant is not a matter of
if, it's a matter of when and where. NIF has shown it's
possible. The window is now open.
At CFS, we are assembling our proof of concept machine,
SPARC (as Soon as Possible Affordable, Robust, Compact). It's
the largest next generation energy device in the United States.
And in a couple of years, it will show commercially relevant
net--not net electricity--net energy from fusion reactions.
You know, the entrepreneurs, they see this shift. In 2021,
there were 23 fusion companies with about $2 billion. Now,
there's 53 with $10 billion. Eighty-five percent of that is in
the United States. And it's not just venture capital or
billionaires. It's sovereign wealth funds, it's banks, it's
energy companies, hyper-scalers. These are blue chip companies.
The markets have seen that this window is open. Other countries
see the window is open. We have significant policy shifts from
Germany, the U.K., Japan, and most importantly from China.
The second thing to know is this is a very high stakes
race. This is trillions of dollars. Fusion is a foundational
tool to build an advanced society. It transfers energy from
being about natural resources, consumption, who has it, how do
you get it, to being about technology, what do you know, how do
you innovate, how fast can you build.
AI makes this even more important, because AI needs the
type of power that fusion can make, and fusion needs AI. It's a
flywheel. And that's why you see AI companies investing in
fusion.
And the race to fusion, that's the race to abundance. It's
a hopeful message. We can't wait.
At CFS, we are simultaneously finishing SPARC while we're
also designing ARC (Affordable, Robust, Compact), a commercial
fusion power plant that we will build in Richmond, Virginia.
Now, the third thing to take away is the United States is
not positioned to win. China is. The United States' leadership
is under threat because we haven't made the investments, and
we're not sufficiently organized. In China, we're witnessing a
coordinated state-organized intention to win, with state-
sponsored companies, with the buildouts of test stands at
massive scale, with multiple shots on goal. Analysis released
this week from the Special Competitive Studies Project, which
I'm a part of, estimates that China has invested $6.5 billion
in new fusion facilities since the NIF shot. That's three times
more than what we have spent over the same period.
The United States has nothing like this. We are at serious
risk of falling behind, unless it takes urgent action and soon.
Our fusion program looks much like it did even 10 years ago.
Its test stands are aging; its infrastructure is old. It's
focused on science; it's not focused on moving to
commercialization. The GAO (Government Accountability Office)
report recently said that there's only about 2 percent ideally
funding that's relevant to building a fusion industry.
OK. What do we do?
So the Fusion Industry Association and the SCSP (Special
Competitive Studies Project) Fusion Commission and others are
calling the U.S. Government to do a one-time $10 billion
investment in fusion research and demonstration. That's the
level that it would take to do this.
So like what would that do?
First, you would fund the commercialization programs that
are already stood up. We've talked here about the Milestone
Program. That program, it shares risks. The companies that have
won it have real shots on goal. And they say they need about $2
billion to be able to see what those power plants would look
like before they start to construct them. That's way more than
what is currently going into that program, but it's also the
level that is near the level that's authorized.
And then we would need another program on that Milestone
framework that would actually go and build a few of these power
plants. And that would be, you know, not unreasonable. It's
very consistent with what we've done in other advanced
technologies, if you think about commercial space or fission.
And if we spend that money now, we won't have to spend 10x of
that money later to catch up. And so that would amplify a key
American strength, which is the competitive entrepreneurial
ecosystem.
Second, we need to advance in commercially relevant R&D at
National Labs and universities. No company can do this alone.
There is still science and technology to be done, and that's
where the crown jewel to really, really excel. But they need
the material test stands, they need the programs that build the
workforce, they need the mandate to go work on that. And this
means shifting funding and adding funding. It means shifting
priorities.
And all the roadmaps exist. The planning has been done.
China is doing it. We just need to do it here. That's going to
take like $4 billion.
Third, we've got to prime the pump for the future. Once we
have the first power plant selling electricity, we're not done.
We need workforce, we need supply chain, and we need a
government program that can actually support that. That means
an applied program. We should start planning that today.
So in closing, the moment is now. And thank you for having
me testify. I'm happy to hear what the questions are.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mumgaard follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Mumgaard.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member for at least 5
minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my
apologies for being late. I did want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and Ranking Member Ross, for this hearing. As we all
know, fusion has been a major focus of this Committee and
myself for some time. And the National Ignition Facility at
Lawrence, it's still the only machine in the world that's
actually achieved fusion ignition, has now achieved it nine
times, with a big new record output of 8.6 megajoules just in
April.
So I agree that the milestone-based public-private
partnership is excellent. It's made a big difference. DOE
finalized agreements with the first eight awardees just last
year. We've seen, as you've mentioned, an infusion of private
sector investment in fusion, $3.5 billion in the last 15 months
alone, most of that going to companies located in the United
States. But as you point out, China is ahead of us. And I am
very concerned that we are not making the investments necessary
to be the winners in this.
I am very much opposed to President Trump's budget overall.
But I would like to say that, when it comes to his specific
request for fusion, it's moving in the right direction. And I
am glad for that.
We introduced, Chairman Obernolte, Mr. Beyer who is here
today, Ms. Trahan and myself, an amendment to the Rules
Committee to basically support the President's budget.
Unfortunately, for reasons I do not understand, that amendment
that supported the President was not made an order. But I am
hoping that we will continue to work on a bipartisan basis to
get to where we need to go.
And I would like to mention that Chairman Obernolte joined
me last month in introducing a bipartisan STEM Education and
Skilled Technical Workforce for Fusion Act, because we need to
get, like Wayne Gretzky said, you need to skate to where the
hockey puck is going to be.
So I will just close with this, if I may just turn to
questions, Mr. Chairman?
Dr. Mumgaard, you talked about the need for a $10 billion
investment in fusion research and the demonstration effort. And
I think that case has been made for some time. We've just never
fulfilled it. Actually, we had the roadmap, and China took the
roadmap and actually funded it. So that would be helpful, and
you've outlined how it would be used.
But we're not going to catch up through the annual budget
process alone. If we're able to do this $10 billion one-time
investment, what is next to get us to where we need to be? I
mean, maybe Dr. Carter and others have views on that as well.
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, so I think the idea of a kick, like a
single program that can set the change in the trajectory, and
that isn't just about the change in trajectory of like annual
budgets, it's actually about the changing trajectory of the
mandate. And if we have a goal to have a fusion power plant be
built in the United States and we have a program that is
sufficiently scaled to help propel that, not the whole cost,
the cost share of it, what that will naturally do is mean that
the programs that are already running, that are sort of going
off and they're doing good work, but it's not directed, are
naturally going to align to it. And we see that in other
programs and other areas of science and technology at the
transition to commercialization.
So I don't think it's a $10 billion one-time program and
then suddenly we need to be at $5 billion a year of
appropriations. We actually have a good pot of money. But we do
need to see that shift and the level of commitment that's
consistent with the ambition and commitment done in the private
sector, frankly, and in other countries.
Ms. Lofgren. Yes. Dr. Carter, you look eager to----
Dr. Carter. Absolutely. No, I agree, a $10 billion
injection would go a long way to setting us on the course, as
Bob says--Dr. Mumgaard, sorry--in terms of getting facilities
together, public-private partnerships. We'll need alongside of
that the R&D programs to exploit these. Those should be PPP. We
should be working together on trying to derisk and develop the
technology.
We'll need foundational programs. We need to continue----
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Dr. Carter [continuing]. We'll need workforce, we'll need
to set up supply chains. There's all kinds of things that need
to be done as part of that investment.
Ms. Lofgren. I'd just like to say that the reduction in
grant funding in research generally has not been helpful in
advancing our quest to be No. 1 and to achieve fusion as an
energy source, and we need to address that as well.
With that, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you for
letting me pop ahead of others, and I yield back.
Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes of
questions.
Dr. Diem, in your testimony, you mentioned that academic
programs are struggling to meet workforce demand, which is
resulting in shortages of technical staff and manufacturing
expertise. I think we'd all agree on that.
So suggestions from you. What immediate steps do you think
Congress can take to strengthen those apprenticeship programs
and technical training so that we can ensure the workforce is
ready before large-scale deployment? What do we need to do?
Dr. Diem. Thank you so much for that question.
So in my research group, about 40 percent of the staff is
technical staff, and when we had to fill an open position, we
couldn't do it. So we have to depend on us finding someone with
similar skills and upscale them in our lab. So an infusion of
funds would allow us to build partnerships with community
colleges and National Labs and other fusion facilities to
provide hands-on training for this.
So a lot of the work that we do is very custom made. We're
working in vacuum environments with strict materials
requirements. And then we also have tolerances that you have to
meet. We're working in a high magnetic field. So these are very
unique things, along with working with exotic materials.
And so one example that you could look at is at Princeton
Plasma Physics Laboratory. They actually started an
apprenticeship program, where the only requirements is you're
over the age of 18, high school or GED (General Educational
Development) requirement. You take classes at a community
college, and then you're full-time employed at the lab. So an
apprenticeship for 4 years, and then you gain all these skills
that you need, and then it's a benefit for the whole fusion
facility, or whole fusion field. So expanding those programs,
building that into regional efforts like Wisconsin that already
has a large manufacturing base.
Chairman Weber. Thank you. You said in your opening
remarks, your testimony, that we should include those community
colleges. What are you experiencing? Is that happening?
Dr. Diem. So right now, I have--what I have is private
donations to reach out to, to start these seed foundation
programs. But we need more people dedicated to actually carry
out the work. So part of it is the infrastructure we have on
hand, but also the money to get people to help with the
upscaling.
Chairman Weber. OK. Dr. Mumgaard, I'm coming to you. In
your testimony, you mentioned how several fusion energy
stakeholders are calling on the U.S. Government to make a one-
time, $10 billion investment in fusion research and commercial
development. Have I got that right? Good.
What areas do you think should be prioritized to ensure
that such an investment would deliver a long-lasting,
competitive advantage for the United States? I know that's
going to be a little tough because you don't know exactly what
China is going to do. But what do you think?
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes. We need to set--set out a course to get
the first generation of fusion power plants built. So that is a
demonstration program that actually puts steel in the ground on
designs that we've reviewed and looked at and said they're
likely to work. The Milestone Program is set up to do that. But
when you look at the total bill that's going to be, the
companies have raised $10 billion. So like the cost share there
is billions of dollars.
But that's not alone. Because like those--those power
plants, they're--with technology we have today, like if you
forced it today, they'd be kind of not great. We have
technology that's in the pipeline that's at the labs and
universities. These are things like new materials, blankets,
fuel cycles that--a lot of good ideas, but no way to really
advance them or test them, because we don't have the test
stands and we don't have the mandate.
And so directing money to build the test stands and set up
those programs at places like Oak Ridge, places like Princeton,
places like Pacific Northwest, that would be really, really
important as part of the long-range plan. And that would
naturally--you know, people vote with their feet on where
things are going, scientists do, and that would create that
outlet that people are looking for.
Chairman Weber. Thank you. Then a follow up for you, Dr.
Carter. In your testimony, you highlighted the need for new
facilities like the Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source--say that
ten times--and the Materials Plasma Exposure eXperiment, MPEX,
to derisk the path to pilot plants. How would you see this $10
billion actually being distributed to those facilities?
Dr. Carter. Part of the $10 billion is targeting the four
facilities that I discussed before. We'd really like to have a
blanket test stand that you can test in a nuclear space. You
can actually generate tritium and do all the things you need to
do to understand closing the fusion fuel cycle, which is a big
hurdle to commercialization.
To do that, it might be in the billion dollar class. But I
think we can find ways to do it in partnership with the private
sector, as well as looking at, you know, out-of-the-box
thinking on how to get this done that could bring it lower. But
that's what you're talking about.
So you're looking at--$10 billion would go a long way to
getting you to those facilities.
Chairman Weber. I'm close to out of time, but there are
often conflicting timelines regarding fusion energy which
becomes commercially viable, with some projections going into
the 2030s, while others extend into the future. And just think
about this and I'll come back to you. Given these different
timelines, how soon--I know this is a guess, a little bit of
guesswork here, you all can think about this--can we
realistically achieve fusion energy? No pressure, just give me
month and day.
So I'm going to yield back and recognize the Ranking Member
for at least 5 minutes.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we all can agree that fusion is, in addition to an
energy issue, is a national security issue. And energy security
is national security.
Recent analysis shows, as we've discussed, that China is
moving fast. In fact, faster than we are. At the same time, we
have allies, the U.K., Germany, Japan, South Korea, and others,
that bring world-class facilities and industrial strengths.
This is a question for all of you, so if each of you wants
to address it, I don't mind using all my time on it.
Do you support a tech agnostic, United States-led, trusted
fusion partners initiative focused on commercialization, supply
chain onshoring, so that we and our allies together can build
first and keep Chinese tech and suppliers out of this critical
ecosystem? And whoever wants to go first, raise your hand.
OK, Dr. Mumgaard.
Dr. Mumgaard. In general, yes. So the fusion world and the
future fusion industry will necessarily be global. The type of
equipment you need to make is of high variety, and the designs
will benefit from having a global market. And so it makes sense
to the United States and allies working together.
We should also recognize though that an overly constricted
program would be detrimental. We want to encourage ideas and
competition as well. So like we don't want to end up in a
situation that is, we're all going to the exact same place the
exact same way. But that does mean that we can leverage each
other's strengths. And I think when you look at the, you know,
Japanese, the U.K., they have distinct strengths, and the
United States has distinct strengths. And working together on
the areas where strength reinforces strength is definitely what
we should be doing.
How to carve in the China angle becomes a little bit
difficult, because there are some in the middle. If you think
about some of the places in Europe and some places, say India,
who--which side are they on?
Ms. Ross. Does anybody have anything to add to that?
Yes, Dr. Regan.
Dr. Regan. Yes, thank you, Ranking Member Ross.
I totally agree, energy security is national security. And
we want to incentivize as much benefit to the United States as
we can. And that includes not just making fusion power in the
United States but making fusion hardware in the United States.
So I'm, you know, very excited by anything that helps do that.
And again, thank you to Representative Tenney and Beyer for
pushing for the Fusion Advanced Manufacturing Parity Act.
Ms. Ross. Looks like Dr. Diem has something to add.
Dr. Diem. Yes, I can just add pretty quickly, so as United
States Science Envoy last year, I went with a United States
delegation through Germany. And so we had a great opportunity
to visit our allies and what they had and see onsite what
they're doing to advance fusion energy, and how we can work
together to not duplicate efforts but amplify what we're doing
to accelerate the path forward.
So one example is like trading of codes or modeling tools
and capabilities. They have fabulous public-private
partnerships, which is large spaces with many labs next to each
other, to foster innovation across that, so looking at those
kind of models. And in the U.K., I'm working with my colleagues
on how do we have companion efforts that support each other,
looking at how do we advance heating of these plasmas. So those
are kind of a couple of examples that helps both of us without
duplicating efforts.
Ms. Ross. OK. And then would there, if--if this is a good
idea, what concrete steps in the next 12 to 24 months should
the Federal Government take to emphasize this across DOE, the
State Department, and the Department of Commerce? Any
suggestions?
Dr. Mumgaard. The U.K. is the closest. So they have
facilities that are for tritium and blanket breeding that are
very significant, multi-hundred-million-dollar facilities. We
could get access to them, but it would require the U.S.
Government having the agreement but also putting in some money
to fund people to go do the work there, the same way that they
are funding people to do work there, basically to compete for
time. That's a concrete example of those facilities.
Ms. Ross. Maybe we can tell the President before he comes
home.
Does anybody else have any suggestions? Yes, Dr. Carter.
Dr. Carter. I'll just amplify what Dr. Mumgaard said. I
mean, we have strong relationships with U.K., Japan, and
Germany and the like, we've been working for a long time. But
we do need that mandate, that investment from the United States
side, and agreements to clarify how we're working together, how
that's going to work. Now we're getting into a space where IP
(intellectual property) is being generated. How do we share
that? So that's going to require some high-level discussions
and agreements to get into place, plus the funding.
Ms. Ross. OK. Thank you, and I yield back. I only have 4
seconds.
Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Tennessee is now recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate your
holding this, this Committee hearing.
To each of the four panelists, I know most of you all very
well. Thank you so much. To our dear friends at ORNL, thank you
for doing everything very well.
As most of you know, I am the Republican lead on the Fusion
Caucus. My other day job is I am the Chairman of the Energy and
Water Subcommittee of Appropriations, which funds all of the
great work that our Department of Energy does, including
fusion.
I have some questions, and I open it up, because I so
appreciate the fact that we've got a great blend of academia
and business. And I meet with so many great researchers,
whether from ORNL or from Princeton. But the fact that there's
been such a great infusion of capital into--from the private
sector, so there's great balance out there between R&D and
seeing all this great capital coming in, and the promise of us
getting there.
So my question for you all is, with limited budgets, and we
are going to continue to fund fusion, but with limited budgets
and choices to make, where should our Federal dollars in fusion
investment be going? And I'm solicitous of all four of your
comments.
Dr. Carter. Well, I'll lead off. I think, I mean, as I've
said earlier and as you know, we have laid out this plan. We
have a strategy on where we need to invest. I think that's been
made clear in consensus documents. You know, as we push toward
the goal of energy of a fusion power plant, there's clear
things that we have not invested enough in that we need to put
money into, the facilities I mentioned, the R&D programs to go
with them. I'll end with that.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Dr. Mumgaard. The program right now is not in line with the
recommendations of the National Academies, the Fusion Industry
Association, the long-range planning of the FESAC, because we
haven't funded the programs that are needed to do the applied
use of harnessing fusion power, so the materials, the test
stands, Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source, the tritium, the
blanket. That stuff has not seen significant funding.
We still have a program that's very much on operating
plasma physics facilities that are very large, they're
expensive, and some of them are a bit old. We can collaborate
and get results from other nations on some of this. We need to
shift toward that. That was laid out in the community-driven
plan, that that shift needed to happen. It's laid out in the
long-range plan for FESAC. We just need to do the shift.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Dr. Diem. And to support that shift, universities are
really critical in being--they're able to be agile and pivot
pretty quickly to address needs not only currently that are
being experienced by private companies but anticipate the needs
down the line.
So one example was I had--we were building my experiment,
we were running it for a while, and we had a failure. And I
could just go to the building across the street and find
experts in magnet technology and interfacing and just tell them
about my problem. And they were like whoa, my expertise can
help fusion? I didn't realize that.
And so that can be a catalyst, not only now but down the
line.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Dr. Regan. Thank you, Representative Fleischmann. And, you
know, I think we all agree we need to win this race for
America. And part of that is sustaining the great science we
have. That is why the United States is the world leader in
fusion, is because of the great universities and National Labs
that have brought us to this point.
I just wanted to reiterate something I said in my
testimony, which is I think one of the biggest returns--return
on investment the government could see is from a fusion
demonstration program, for a couple of reasons. One, to match
the intensity of the reinvigorated Chinese effort, but also to
send a strong signal to the market and bring more private money
off the sidelines to invest in this industry.
Thank you.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. I really appreciate all four of
your comments.
And if I may, just a suggestion. As my colleagues on the
dais know, I chair eight energy-related caucuses, including the
Fusion Caucus, but the National Labs Caucus, which is
tremendous. And now, most recently, the American Dominance in
Energy Caucus. The best thing about the caucus format is it's
bipartisan. We have Republicans and Democrats. Every once in a
while, senators come on in and visit, academia. So I welcome
you. All of our caucuses that I run are free. I welcome you to
come on in and speak with us. I know Mr. Weber, Chairman Weber
and Chairman Beyer frequent our caucuses. They are convivial,
but they're productive. So whenever we have these events,
please check with us, and you're always welcome.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon,
Representative Salinas, for her at least 5 minutes.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our
Ranking Member for the hearing. And thank you to our witnesses
for being here.
Dr. Diem, you mentioned the Great Lakes Fusion Energy
Alliance and suggested there would be value, all of you have,
in public-private regional hubs to expand the fusion ecosystem.
This sounds a lot like the hydrogen hub and direct air capture
hub programs created by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
However, we also have the Department of Commerce Tech Hubs
Program created by the CHIPS and Science Act, where several
tech hubs already focus on areas relevant to the fusion
industry from materials science to advanced manufacturing or,
in Oregon's case, semiconductors.
Are you suggesting we need a dedicated regional fusion hub
program of sorts? Or is there potential to expand coordination
with existing efforts like the regional tech hubs?
Dr. Diem. Thank you for your question.
So as I mentioned, fusion has really unique challenges that
are different than the semiconductor industry. So these ultra-
high vacuum environments, these exotic alloys and things like
that. So I think a targeted effort that really focuses on that.
And the reason why we've worked a lot in the Midwest,
specifically in Wisconsin, is because we've built so many
experiments. We worked with a lot of small machine shops. And
so we built through this relationship. They understand--
understand our challenges. But to scale up to a large industry
will take a coordinated, targeted effort to really understand
the uniqueness of those.
So I could see some cross-collaboration, but really a hyper
focus on the fusion aspects, too.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you, that's helpful.
Would anyone else care to weigh in?
Dr. Carter. Sure, I'll support what Dr. Diem said. I think
these kind of regional hubs could serve many purposes for
growing the ecosystem. We talked about these test stands that
we need to grow. You know, it might be a model in a regional
hub where you have investment from the industry, from the
government, from philanthropy, from all over the place to try
to buildup these--these hubs. You follow the model of other
consortia, where you have companies buying in to get access to
facilities, getting shared IP out of it.
In addition, there's a workforce angle. These hubs provide
a focus point for drawing in. You want to coordinate the
community colleges, the trade schools, and have them all be on
the same page on what we're trying to do. And so that provides
an opportunity to do that too. So I'm fully supportive of that
idea.
Dr. Mumgaard. On the idea of like how to blend fusion with
other things, I think it's always important to start with the
end in mind.
A working fusion industry is a very large industry. And so
that means in the future, we are likely to have things like
academic departments that just do fusion, the same way that we
have academic departments that do aerospace or that do fission.
And so in that framework, like when is the first time we see a
fusion hub? Because eventually we would have to have them.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you.
Dr. Regan, did you want to jump in?
Dr. Regan. Yes, I'd like to just double down on Dr.
Mumgaard's point. I think something that we need to see more of
is cross-disciplinary programs that bring together folks from
many different disciplines, mechanical engineering, electrical,
thermal, nuclear systems engineering, all these things have to
come together to not just do the fusion science but now build
fusion power plants.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. So a few of you have mentioned this
on the intellectual property side and cross-collaboration. As
we get into this world, and I think I visited Helion a couple
summers ago, this was a big concern, especially when it comes
to protecting IP and China.
Do any of you have suggestions for how we move ahead and
how the United States can be a player for the industry in
protecting that intellectual property and making sure that it
doesn't fall into the hands of adversaries?
To any of you. Sorry if this is a question you weren't
anticipating. I'm sure my staff is like, where did that come
from? It's not in my list of questions.
Dr. Mumgaard. It's a very good question.
You know, the first thing is, IP is really only useful if
you're able to make a large industrial return on it. And so we
can oftentimes get too hung up on the IP versus like what is
the pull that is going to pull the industry into existence. And
the easiest areas of IP are areas that everyone needs, because
that means the companies themselves have a reason to share.
Whether or not that falls into, you know, adversary hands,
well, if we don't build something in the United States, it's
not going to matter if the adversary has it or not. We have to
actually do both.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. Does anyone else care to weigh in?
Dr. Regan.
Dr. Regan. Yes, I think this brings up another important
topic, too, which is the balance between what you publish and
what you protect inside the company. So I think that's
something that's come up a few times. I think it is important
to publish and put out scientific, you know, work to stress
test what your company is claiming against the thousands of
brilliant researchers in the United States. And it's also
critically important to have a robust portfolio of, you know,
patents and trade secrets.
Just to add one more thing to what Dr. Mumgaard said,
another big advantage in addition to IP is knowhow. You know,
the expertise, the talent base, and capabilities. So the kind
of machines that our companies are building and, you know, that
can be built at National Labs do provide an edge that, you
know, you need those to make progress.
Thank you.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. I'm just about out of time. I yield
back.
Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado for
5 minutes.
No?
Let's go with the gentlelady from South Carolina for 5--at
least 5 minutes.
Ms. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding this hearing today on fusion energy. And I would also
like to thank our witnesses for being here.
The United States is at a critical point for our energy
infrastructure. Our energy output has stagnated over the last
20 years, while the demand for energy is increasing rapidly
across the board. Fusion energy, as part of an all-of-the-above
solution, offers the United States the chance to maintain both
energy and technological dominance, to keep rates low, and to
build out our industry once more.
From industry suppliers to university research partners,
the 3d District of South Carolina is proud to have a role to
play in the future fusion energy landscape. Many of our
constituents also work at the Savannah River National Lab,
which has decades of expertise in working with tritium, an
essential fuel for the nuclear fusion process.
As fusion becomes a viable energy source, expertise in
handling, processing, and using tritium will be vital in
establishing a safe and secure process to expand our energy
infrastructure.
So I would like to open my question to the entire panel.
What steps are the fusion energy sciences program and the
fusion industry taking to build a robust safety culture around
operations with tritium in the construction and operation of
fusion plant--pilot plants?
Dr. Mumgaard. This actually dovetails nicely with the IP
question. So the industry has a pretty consensus view that in
issues related to safety and public acceptance, we should be
very open and collaborative with each other. So that means when
we develop fuel cycles, when we have issues about safety
cultures, we share.
And so there is actually a tritium working group that the
Department of Energy convenes, it's international, that pulls
in people from all the different users for tritium, and they
share best practices. They tour each other's facilities. We
actually just hosted them out in Devens at the SPARC facility.
So that's an example. We have a strong culture already in this.
The other thing is that when we site these facilities.
These are new and novel facilities. And that means you have to
go into communities with an education mindset and a listening
mindset, that we can't go and put fusion facilities, you know,
black box facilities, you know, in places that people don't
know they're there, or that they don't have consultation.
The good news is that when we do go and say, hey, would you
like this, would you like to learn about it, we see broad
engagement, and we see favorable attitudes.
So we've sited two facilities, one in Massachusetts and one
in Virginia, and in both cases we were surprised at the level
of questions, very, very educated, and also the excitement
about a new thing in their community. And they asked questions
around safety and tritium, and we were able to turn them to
people like at Savannah River.
Dr. Diem. So thank you so much for your question.
So Savannah River National Lab has great experience. And
they're also leading a FIRE collaborative that's focused on the
fuel cycle. And I think it's very important because you're
leveraging their historical expertise in that. They're also
engaging universities in that work as well. And I'm part of
that, that FIRE collaborative.
And part of what we do is around tritium byproduct material
and also engaging the public in that. So that provides an
important space in the safety aspect, and also the siting, and
going out into communities as well.
Ms. Biggs. Thank you.
Dr. Carter. Just quickly add, I think the National Labs
provide--especially Savannah River on tritium provide a wealth
of expertise. And I think that's essential to share that as we
develop a stance on how we regulate and license fusion devices.
So certainly Organization of Agreement States is leading the
way on that with Tennessee taking a lead. And I think making
good use of the knowledge and expertise at Savanna River and
Oak Ridge and other places is going to be essential to doing
that.
Ms. Biggs. Thank you. My time is almost up, so I will yield
back.
Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North Carolina
for at least 5 minutes.
Ms. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the
witnesses for being here with us today.
I'm proud to represent North Carolina's 4th District, home
to three research universities, including North Carolina
Central University, one of the ten HBCUs (historically Black
colleges and universities) in the State.
Dr. Carter, what are the most impactful actions Congress
and the Federal Government can take to strengthen and expand
partnerships between our National Laboratories and HBCUs to
build the skilled workforce needed for the future maturation of
fusion energy technology? One that comes to mind is Hampton
University and their STAR--Lite Fusion Project, which
demonstrates how direct investment in HBCU-led research can
ignite broader participation and innovation in fusion science.
Dr. Carter. Thank you for that question. I think it's an
excellent question. I'll say a few things.
So first and foremost, Hampton, I'm going to visit there
October 1 to tour the facilities and meet with Calvin Lowe, who
I worked with on Fusion Workforce activity actually. So very
glad to have connection and grow that connection with them.
Partnerships between universities and National Labs to me
are absolutely essential. Universities, first and foremost,
bring innovation. Of course, what comes along with that is
students and workforce development, and that's a huge benefit
to us.
So how do we make this a stronger connection? So Department
of Energy has funded some activities under RENEW (Reaching a
New Energy Sciences Workforce) program and Oak Ridge has led a
couple of these that have been focused on getting regional
universities, including HBCUs, involved in our programs. And so
this has led to internships, a fusion energy boot camp that one
of our programs is starting, modeled after the nuclear boot
camp that has worked well in that industry, to try to get
students at those institutions, and importantly the faculty.
The way you maintain this relationship is not just picking up
the students and bringing them in, you want to engage the
faculty and have them be part of your programs, feel like they
have a leadership role. So we need to have that happen with
Calvin at Hampton and other institutions like that. Yes.
Ms. Foushee. Following up to that, can you share your
experience with international students at the National Labs and
universities, and the role they play in pushing fusion research
forward in our country?
Dr. Carter. Yes, we've always got the best and brightest to
come to this country, because of what this country represents
and the opportunities. They want to be a part of this program,
because they see what we're doing in fusion energy.
So in my role at UCLA, and in my role now at Oak Ridge, you
know, international students have been key. They've come into
our programs and they've made tremendous contributions. All the
science that's been pushed forward, you can point to people
coming from all over the world, coming to the United States.
I will point out the students that have come through my
program at UCLA, all of them have remained within the United
States as they go on their career. And they've made, you know,
tremendous contributions in doing that.
At the National Labs, look at my division now, we have an
amazing staff that come from all over the world that are there
contributing their scientific talent, engineering talent, to
pushing forward fusion. It's essential. We need to embrace
getting the best and the brightest here to make this work.
That's been how the United States has gotten where it is now,
and we need to keep doing that.
Ms. Foushee. Thank you for that.
Dr. Mumgaard or Dr. Regan, from a private sector
perspective, how important is it that the United States has a
sustainable international talent pipeline to pull into
specified fields such as fusion research?
Dr. Mumgaard. It's essential. Fusion is a global exercise.
The fusion process is a universal thing. And so the investments
made around the globe to create talent, that's what we thrive
on. We pull people in from Japan, Korea, Germany. And we need
to keep that pipeline going. You know, we use the O-1 visa for
fusion expertise.
And that, if you look at just the tech industry overall,
that's been a backbone of the tech industry. And so fusion is
no different in the sense that a smart, single individual can
make a society-level contribution at the birth of an industry.
And they're essential.
Ms. Foushee. Dr. Regan?
Dr. Regan. Yes, thank you, I'll add to that a little bit. I
fully agree with what Dr. Mumgaard and Dr. Carter said. I mean,
we need the best and the brightest to come here. And
specifically, we've talked about some of the capabilities that
our allies have. Like the U.K. and Canada are--Canada is where
most of our tritium comes from. So it is essential to bring in
that talented workforce, especially when there's international
capabilities that we want to benefit from here in the U.S.
Ms. Foushee. Thank you. That's my time, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Harrigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to our
witnesses for your testimony today.
I'll be honest, though, I found it a little bit
distressing. And I just want to have a quick conversation with
you, and I want to gain some clarity on this.
We have talked--several of you talked about we're really
falling behind China. And that's happening at a very rapid
pace. And I really want to kind of understand why.
I know Dr. Mumgaard--excuse me--Dr. Mumgaard, you talked
about how since 2022, China has spent $6 1/2 billion on
investing in fusion research. And during that same period of
time, the United States has barely done just over 30 percent of
that investment.
But I really kind of want to wrap my mind around what's
happened here? Because if we're falling behind, and we've made
massive strategic investments, you all are here with your hands
out for another $10 billion, right? Yet the testimony that I've
heard today really can only be characterized as we're failing.
And I'm genuinely not saying that as an attack on you. I'm
saying that from the perspective of an American. This is a very
bipartisan Committee. The work that we do is critically
important for the future of our market economy and our national
security.
But we've done something wrong here, because we've invested
$40 billion over the last several decades in fusion research.
And we're behind. How did that happen?
And is China stealing our research and development? Are
they smarter than we are? Are their strategic investments
better because they're doing a significant amount of investment
in a very short period of time, when we are basically running a
slow burn of investments across a long period of time?
And I say this only from the perspective of I hate losing.
And I'm not willing to let this country lose to China in this
space. How do we fix it?
Dr. Mumgaard. Thank you for the question. I also hate
losing.
The--what they--what they've done is they've done the same
playbook they did in other areas. So they're not a leader in
innovation. We are a long-term investment leader in innovation.
But when the time comes to put something at risk at scale, they
have the ability to mobilize to do that in a way that the
United States doesn't. They have a centralized control system
that allows them to pool large amounts of money, capital, and
organizations to go and build things that need to be built.
And fusion needs things built. And so the fusion advances
don't happen just in labs of single PIs of bright people that
come here. They happen in coordinated fashion by building
multi-billion-dollar facilities. And the Chinese have seen that
those facilities will pay off. They saw it in NIF. And they
immediately said, let's build one that's a little bit bigger.
It's not as advanced. It's probably a generation behind in
technology, but will make up for it in speed, scale, and
coordination.
The reports are that there's people working 24 hours a day
on building that. There are students on cots. Because that's
the playbook, hard and fast, the minute the window opens.
We sort of are still debating whether the window is open.
And that's to our detriment.
Dr. Carter. Yes, just to follow up on what Dr. Mumgaard
said, I mean, the investment that's been made, there's been
tremendous payoff. I mean, the United States has innovated and
got us to the point where we are. The world--you know, China is
building things that were designed and developed and ideated in
the United States.
So the moment that we have before us is to actually carry
it forward. So we've set the stage, we've set the ball, right?
We just need to spike it. And that's where we are. It's not
that we failed. If we don't take action now, we will. So now is
the time to move forward. And we have to change our approach
and our mindset.
We're trying to get to a commercialized energy source.
We've got a lot of R&D to do, but we have to change the way
we're approaching it.
Dr. Regan. Just a few comments, too. You know, I agree, we
can't afford to lose this. And we wouldn't have started our
company if we didn't think we could win this, our company could
win this, and America could win this.
I want to reassure you I think we still do have the lead.
But now is the time to act on that lead.
And I point to programs, the NASA (National Aeronautics and
Space Administration) COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation
Services) program has come up as a great example. Like that is
a great example where we were the ones that developed the
technology, we got to space, we lost that industry to Russia,
but then the NASA COTS program came in and, with the catalytic
investment of, you know, that was around $800 million, that
reasserted United States leadership. We now own that commercial
space industry again, and that investment is worth, you know,
500, 1000x what the government put in that for an American
industry.
Dr. Diem. People really drive innovation here. And we see
it time and time again. And universities spin that, right? And
we also provide workforce.
But if we start contracting those governments--sorry,
Federal investments in those sectors, we lose people. Right
now, we're at risk of people leaving for other sectors, I
mentioned, but also other countries.
The day my grant ended this year, in a, you know, Federal
uncertainty level of funding, I actually coincidentally
received a foreign talent recruitment email.
And so when you're under in stress of like how I'm going to
fund these early career researchers to keep this innovation
drive that will then, you know, impact private industry, that's
really scary, right? And so you're looking at how you can keep
supporting that innovation. So I think making that certainty
continue with Federal funds is critically important.
Mr. Harrigan. Thank you for your responses, and I
appreciate the commentary. The only thing I'd tell you is
outcomes matter. They're everything. We've got to win.
Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Foster for 5 minutes.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our witnesses.
Let's see, I guess I'll start with Dr. Mumgaard. You know
the question was coming. What's the status of your testing of
production coils, and how many of them have survived a full
energy quench and so on?
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, so our--we use a machine called a
tokamak. It's basically a magnetic bottle----
Mr. Foster. I understand the machine very well. OK? I'm old
friends, I'm high school friends with Mike Zanrstorff, who is
known to many of you.
Dr. Mumgaard. We've produced about 95 percent of all the
required magnet pancakes----
Mr. Foster. How many of them have survived a full energy
quench?
Dr. Mumgaard. We've quenched one, and it has survived. And
we did it intentionally. Full energy, full----
Mr. Foster. Full energy? The full magnetic energy?
Dr. Mumgaard. Full magnetic energy.
Mr. Foster. Of the full system? So this was running above
nominal current?
Dr. Mumgaard. You have to adjust for it's a single coil.
But, yes, it was--it's not quite full energy. It's maybe--you
have to do a geometry adjustment. But very, very significant.
And with the quench protection system working, the same one
that we developed after the previous coil which we
intentionally quenched and intentionally destroyed to learn how
it worked.
Mr. Foster. OK. And so then can you briefly say what is the
quench detection and prevention? And, you know, quench-
spreading mechanism?
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, it's a series of heaters.
Mr. Foster. OK.
Dr. Mumgaard. It's very similar to what CERN uses to take
down their----
Mr. Foster. Well, it's what we invented at Fermilab to make
our magnets survive many years ago.
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, very similar.
Mr. Foster. OK, so this is good. I've been telling you for
like a decade you're going to need a very serious quench
spreading system, and I'm glad that----
Dr. Mumgaard. It works.
Mr. Foster. It's worked once. Your lifetime--you've got to
cycle this, I don't know, 30 times or something? I don't know
what your--the lifetime number of quenches. All right, anyway,
it's good to see that you're doing testing. But it's really,
really important. You've raised a lot of money and if you have
a problem with magnets--we've seen in high-energy physics,
large accelerator projects canceled because they built
everything, but the magnet didn't work. So keep your eyes
focused on the magnets and I will continue asking that
question.
The other thing is the energy density on the diverter. Do
you have a design that actually, at least on paper, might work?
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, that's a good one. So actually we do.
It's called an advanced diverter. And interestingly, the TCV
(Tokamak a Configuration Variable) tokamak in a collaboration
recently showed experimental results that looked really, really
promising, that that actually spreads the heat out, and that
validates modeling done at Oak Ridge and a couple other places
that show that by basically magnetically extending the region
of the plasma interaction, you can get a pretty good light
bulb.
Mr. Foster. OK, all right. I look forward to seeing that
being published in the whole simulation known.
Let's see, Mr. Regan, do you have a parameter set for
something that would actually make energy, make energy
economically? I mean, what is the cost per target, the cost per
pulse, the efficiency? Just a high-level parameter? How much
energy, fusion energy, do you expect per target?
Dr. Regan. Yes, thank you for the question. So the scale of
our--so right now, we're building what's called the
demonstration system, that's intended to get net facility gain.
That stores about 80 megajoules to produce 100-plus megajoules
of output. In a commercial version of that where we're cycling
it not once a day but once every few seconds, we're aiming for,
you know, facility level gains of, say, like 5 or so, 5 or 6,
so you're storing, say, in this case maybe it's 100, you're
getting 500 to 600 megajoules of output.
Mr. Foster. Do you have a--do you have a published
parameter set?
Dr. Regan. Oh, yes.
Mr. Foster. OK, you have----
Dr. Regan. Yes, I would refer you to--we published a paper
called ``AMPS,'' it's ``Affordable, Manageable, Practical,
Scalable.'' It was a set of criteria and a technical roadmap.
We put it on the arXiv in April and it's published in Physics
of Plasmas earlier this month.
Mr. Foster. OK. And so then the big difference between
what's been proposed with normal Z-pinch devices is that you
have a more efficient drive mechanism, which is basically--I
think of it as an induction LINAK with a beam shorted with a
piece of copper for a tapered impedance line. Is that pretty
much what it is?
Dr. Regan. It's--we use a technology called an impedance-
match Marx generator (IMG), so it's an evolution of the old
school Marx generator that gets pulse compressed on facilities
like Z.
Mr. Foster. But it's got induction? It's got a bunch of
ferrite or something equivalent in it?
Dr. Regan. Oh, no, no, sorry. So the IMG is an improvement
on the linear transformer driver, which is a Russian
technology. So we improved and simplified a Russian technology
to make the--or the National Labs did, and now we're building
on that.
Mr. Foster. All right, and do you have worries about the
lifetime of the switch, whatever you're using?
Dr. Regan. Yes. Yes, so--so the switch and the capacitor
are the two components we have to have long lifetimes for. And
we're working on that, yes, yes. So with our demonstration
system, we only need, you know, a few thousand, tens of
thousands of shots. The switches we make today are plenty
capable of that. And there are known pathways to extend those
lifetimes to a rep-rated power plant.
Mr. Foster. It's good to see you're working on the
important problems. OK.
Dr. Regan. Oh, yes. Oh, no, no. This was very important to
us at the very start of the company, to make sure that we have
a path, practical path forward to make a power plant that lasts
for decades.
Mr. Foster. OK, let's see, Chairman, can I have another 15
seconds, 20 seconds?
Chairman Weber. If you'll do it in English.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Foster. OK, all right. All right, sorry.
All right, Ms. Diem, you should add to your list of
spinouts from University of Wisconsin plasma physics a company
called Electronic Theater Controls. Fifty years ago, I was
working in the plasma physics lab there as a young student. And
on the evenings after we completed our work, I kind of took
advantage of a lot of that equipment to build our prototype. I
took advantage of two computers at Oak Ridge, the PDP-10 that
we could get access through that lab, and that was--we didn't
have a CRADA (cooperative research and development agreement),
but we had a very strong set of--we made a lot of use of the
technical resources of the plasma physics lab on an informal
basis, and that was necessary to get our company going. And
that company now is $450 million a year, 1,500 employees, fully
owned by the employees who owned it out in Middleton,
Wisconsin. So claim credit for that one, too.
Dr. Diem. Thank you, I will.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Dr.
Baird, for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member. And
I always appreciate all of you witnesses taking the time to
share with this Committee and us your insights into whatever
the program is that we're discussing.
But you know, the thing that's of interest to me, I think
there's a lot of sentiment to see that all sources of energy
are available or on the table. We've got fossil fuels, we've
got nuclear, we've got solar and wind, and there's been some
concerns about that. And now we're talking about fusion.
And Dr. Regan, you mentioned the return on investment. So I
guess here's my question. You know, Secretary Wright recently
said that fusion energy was a source of limitless, reliable,
American-made energy. And I think we want to take back that
lead in the energy production.
So can you explain why this fusion energy is important as a
potential future energy source? And what role and vision--you
envision fusion energy can play in the future mix, and how
fusion can contribute to the concept of energy abundance and
energy security?
I guess what I'm really trying to get at, if we're going to
invest in that, and I know it takes investment, sometimes, to
get things moving, and I really appreciate what the National
Labs do, I really appreciate what the private industry does,
and I really appreciate what the land grant universities do. So
I guess I'm trying to--so I guess my question is, tell me why I
should invest in fusion energy and that kind of research? Am I
going to get a return on--and that's to everyone.
Dr. Regan. Thank you, Representative Baird. Yes, we fully
agree. We need all of the above. Energy is prosperity. We want
more of it. More is better. And just, you know, as has been
discussed earlier, energy is a critical factor in the AI race.
You know, we need 24/7 power-dense, sitable, low-cost energy.
So I see what fusion offers is a new and, you know,
revolutionary source of energy that, you know, can be low cost,
the fuel will last us forever. And I think, yes, that's an
important capability.
And like Dr. Mumgaard said, it's not a question of if it's
going to happen, but it's going to be when and where. And we
want that to be in America, as soon as possible.
Dr. Mumgaard. Energy--energy is prosperity. Like we built
this country on energy. You cannot have a rich country without
energy. But, of course, energy comes, historically, with
externalities. Right? There's a lot of people involved that are
around an energy facility. And if the energy facility is very
spread out, there's a lot of people involved in that. And, of
course, if an energy facility consumes or emits things, there's
a lot of people that are affected by that.
What fusion does is it gives you energy with very small
externalities. So that means it's like not just energy
sovereignty for the Nation, it's energy sovereignty for the
community. It puts things into a plant that you build this
plant, you put the parts there, and you have energy. You don't
have pipelines coming in that can be shut off, and you don't
have smokestacks of stuff coming out that can go places.
And so that, that's a different paradigm. It takes a bunch
of tradeoffs out of the energy equation of like who's giving up
something for someone to have energy. And it, you know,
conceptually, it's a facility that you build like you build a
power plant today, that hooks to the grid, like you build the
grid today, that has operators that are like the people that
are there today, that has fabricators that are like the people
there today. And so it is a continuation. It's not a disruption
of the energy system in terms of delivery. Those make it very,
very, very attractive.
Dr. Diem. And I think it's an important part of a broader
portfolio, because a lot of different communities can rely on
other different forms of energy. But what it brings you is this
energy density that's just unfathomable. So get a million times
more energy out when you burn--than when you burn oil. So as an
example, your whole entire lifetime, if you want to power it by
coal, you have to burn 280 tons of coal. The equivalent fuel
would just be you take heavy hydrogen out of two bathtubs full
of water and six laptop batteries. I mean, that could transform
everything as far as how we power and how we enter the next
phase of humanity.
Mr. Baird. Anyone else?
You know, the other thing that's interesting to me is our
electric--the people in my district, we're talking about a
significant increase in the need for energy because of these
data centers. And so I guess I was kind of interested in how
that might fit, how fusion might fit in that ballgame.
But anyway, my time's about up, and I really appreciate you
being here. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas for 5
minutes.
Mr. Begich. Alaska.
Chairman Weber. Alaska, Arkansas. For Texas, they're all
the same.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Begich. It is not the same. I am two and a half times
the size of Texas----
Chairman Weber. The gentleman's time has expired----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Begich. OK, start the clock. All right.
So we talked a lot about the sort of egalitarian motives of
fusion power. And I am a big supporter of fusion power. You
know, we talk about what a gift this would be to humanity,
really. But where at the same time we're talking about how we
need to beat China, right?
And so we talked earlier in the hearing about intellectual
property, balancing that with collaboration, right? How do you
maintain those aspects of intellectual property that really
allow us to beat China and be sustainable in defeating our
adversaries when it comes to this new power source.
And my question is to Dr. Regan. How do you think we should
reconcile these two concepts? And what do we do about the
capital investment that will be displaced, potentially pretty
rapidly, by a fusion breakthrough.
Dr. Regan. Thank you, Representative Begich.
you know, I think you could do both. You know, we can--we
can win and beat China while at the same time deploying, first
in America, a fantastic new power source that provides, you
know, with reduced externalities to traditional sources,
abundant, safe, reliable power. And then we can--we can power
the world.
You know, like I grew up in New Jersey. I always--my mom
and I would drive by this big, steel bridge in Trenton that
says, ``Trenton Makes, the World Takes.'' That's what I want
for fusion. I want it to be made here, power our, you know, our
grid and our manufacturing here, and then also be able to
deploy it around the world, but it's an American technology
we're deploying.
Mr. Begich. Dr. Mumgaard, fission technology is riddled
with guarded state secrets. And I'm hearing a lot today about
open and collaborative research. How much of what we're working
on in the fusion space should be considered a state secret?
Dr. Mumgaard. So fusion was declassified very early.
Because it's really hard to do, and it's also because it's not
directly related to weapons.
So in fusion, you don't have the chain reaction. You don't
have the uranium, plutonium. It also means that you don't have
the--what is the intent of having those things. Which is, when
we look at a place like Iran, like you're separating out
intent, energy versus weapons. Fusion doesn't have that,
fundamentally, the reaction doesn't.
And so that was key to why it was declassified. And that, I
think, is an important principle today. The reaction itself is
universal, and the materials are universal. But the knowhow is
the key part. And the knowhow coupled to the ability to build
things is the economic engine of it.
And so if we really want that economic engine to work,
there's not a lot of reason to have state secrets.
Mr. Begich. China is building a new coal plant every 2 to 3
days. They're also investing in fusion, but they're not placing
all their bets on fusion. Why do you think they lack the
confidence to place their bets on fusion, given their
investment in traditional energy?
Dr. Mumgaard. A very good question. I think it also--the
answer, I think, dovetails with your previous thing about
displacement of energy. The world just needs so much energy
that you can't really close doors. Right? If you close doors to
fossil fuels in China today and you bet it all on fusion, like
there's a possibility that you don't have enough energy to run
that country. They're not going to do that.
And what this is about is about building options, options
that could expand. And every time we've built a new energy--new
energy technology, it has not displaced huge amounts of energy
instantaneously. It's allowed us to go faster and further by
adding to it. And I think that's what the fusion story is and
that's probably how they see it.
Mr. Begich. Thanks. One more question. This one to Dr.
Carter.
In your experience, is there anything in recent history
that indicates that China's fusion investments are motivated by
a global egalitarian impulse?
Dr. Carter. I think they are very fixated on their own
needs and trying to spin up energy technologies and dominate
them, right? I think that's the focus.
We have had interactions with China over the--over the
years. They do have interactions with Europe. But I think the
motivation is as I said.
Mr. Begich. Thank you. And I yield back to the gentleman
from Arkansas.
Chairman Weber. All right, my previous friend has yielded
back.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Weber. And the gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Haridopolos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I first want
to--one of the things that a lot of us in the freshman class
have been really looking at as this big AI issue comes to force
is just the absolute need for energy. And I'm so glad we're
having these discussions. The future is clearly at the table.
And how we make these investments will be maybe if we win or
lose. And it's a real challenge. And I'm glad to see that we've
been listening to these type of things, making the decisions
based on the experts' opinion, not a top down situation from
Congress. And I think your testimony today is absolutely vital.
I will take it from a little different tack. I chair the
Subcommittee on Space, and it's something that a lot of people
are talking about, is the idea that will Helium-3 potentially
move this ball forward? And a lot of people are, you know, as
always, skeptical about this. But there is a lot of potential,
given the reality of this being this really move from Moon to
here in the States and around the world to try to reduce that
radioactivity that comes traditionally with nuclear energy.
So the question, I'll ask Dr. Diem first, if you don't
mind, do you think this could be that innovative tool beyond
what we're talking about with the issue today, that could be a
game changer, and do you think this technology can transfer
itself in a short enough period of time to make a real impact
in the energy needs we have in the future?
Dr. Diem. Thank you so much for your question.
So a lot of our efforts have been traditionally focused on
fusing deuterium and tritium. Right? Which as you point out
creates another challenge, which is handling with materials.
But it happens at lower temperatures. So it's more readily
achievable.
So that's why a lot of work that we're doing has been
focused on that fuel cycle. And that's, I think, where we'll
get to first. And then as you're advancing that technology and
bringing fusion to market, you can also be advancing the, you
know, the scientific readiness of something that's based on
helium-3 fuel cycle. So I think it's like a second generation
to come.
But it is really exciting to see with the, you know,
private investments that we're actually able to dig into that
deeper, to make that closer to reality.
Mr. Haridopolos. Literally, you are correct.
So that idea, I think I'll just close with this, Mr.
Chairman, because I know others want to speak, is I'm really
glad, and I think it was Mr. Mumgaard that spoke about the idea
that it's a very difficult challenge to move from traditional
to these new fuels. Even when we make huge investments, we're
still relying on traditional fossil fuels. And I think it's
imperative that we also recognize that, no matter what we do
here in the States, what they're doing in India and China are
polluting the rest of the world at magnitudes versus the United
States. As you know, the actual carbon production in the United
States has gone down over the last few years.
And I've got to admit, it's incredibly frustrating as a
policymaker when we see our own costs challenged because we're
trying to diversify our fuel, and you see our competitors doing
it at a much lower cost and impacting the world. It's not--the
pollution is not just limited to China and India.
So I hope all of us policymakers will look at this as a
reality that, yes, we want to make these innovative changes,
but not at the expense of where we cannot be competitive around
the world. And sometimes I think, sometimes in these buildings
or even in academia, where I used to serve, we lose sight of
the book version versus the harsh realities of a free market
system, or at least a world competitive market.
And so I think each--I've been listening to your testimony
today and I am really grateful that hopefully we can make this
breakthrough. Because the last thing people want to spend money
on is energy. And the thing we all are facing in these
challenging times, the AI revolution, the only thing really
holding us back, as Sam Altman talked with Congressman Begich
and I and other freshmen. The only way we're really going to
maximize AI is we have the energy production to fuel this, as
we take on the challenges of China, who are using every fuel
without regard for environmental concerns, despite some of
their weak promises in places like the U.N.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for making
the time for us. This is an important discussion, which I hope
we can continue throughout this Congress. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia for 5
minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for allowing me
to waive on.
And this is my third or fourth or fifth Science Committee
fusion hearing, and by far the most exciting. We've come a long
way in the last 4 years from talking about two hydrogen atoms
hitting each other. And I just want to thank you for the
progress that we made.
Dr. Mumgaard, I am very much looking forward to an
invitation next year when you turn on SPARC, even without
tritium. Congratulations on how far you've come.
Also, thank you for the announcement that you will build
perhaps the first fusion energy plant in human history in
Virginia, where it belongs, rather than Arkansas or Texas. And
we are excited that Helion Energy broke ground on their new
thing.
Dr. Regan, I'd never even heard of Pacific Fusion 2 years
ago. So already you're here doing really great things. It's
come a long, long way.
Thank you also for a number of times mentioning our 4-
person bipartisan 45X bill that we have in Ways and Means. I'm
very excited and I think can make really good progress.
We've had a chance to meet with Secretary Wright and make
sure that he is as enthusiastic as we are, and that this is a
bipartisan effort.
One of the things I'd love for us to do is, in every speech
I give, I talk about fusion. But I find that most people are
still like, what's that? And not only is it, what's that, just
in terms of the science, but in terms of what the world will
look like when you are successful in the near years to come.
What it will mean for--and what does energy abundance
actually mean? What will it mean for those of us who believe in
climate change? For example, one of the things we got done in
recent bills was 45Q, which allowed us to do direct air
capture. But right now, if you use fossil fuels, it's a wash.
But driven by fusion energy, we could make an enormous
difference on the amount of carbon dioxide that's in our
atmosphere.
We think about it in terms of foreign policy. Most of the
wars fought over the last couple thousand years have been about
energy. What happens if energy is abundant? What will this do
for peace in the world? What will it do for population? What
will it do for just poverty. You figure you've got 2 billion
people going to bed hungry every night. The scarce resource is
not humanity, it's not land, it's energy.
So you are ushering in a dramatic new part of human
history. I am so, so grateful. So it's very exciting.
On the $10 billion, I know the gentleman from North
Carolina talked about $40 billion over the years. I don't know
where that number came from. But let's just say it's right. Ten
billion, when you figure we're at $930 million in the budget
that's floating around right now, and only a small fraction of
that is going for things like Milestones and FIRE, we would
love to work really closely with you on exactly how that $10
billion is laid out, and go to the appropriators now, Democrat
and Republican, get the Rosa DeLauros and Tom Coles and the
like.
I did the quick math. Our overall budget is about $7
trillion. That means one $1 of every $700. Assuming that $10
billion is all spent in 1 year, which is probably not what
you're trying to do anyway. So you're talking about one in
every $2,000 dedicated to something that can make the hugest
difference for mankind.
There's so much that I want to talk to you about, but one I
just want to make sure that we want to work with you to define
that $10 billion as best we can, knowing that it could change
year to year based on our successes.
On the collaboration, I know it's great with the U.K. and
China--and Japan. China's spending $6 billion. Is there any
opportunity for collaboration with them? Especially when my
good friend's fears about empowering China, already some of the
most responsible fusion companies are doing peer reviewed
articles. You're in the journals. They can read them. What's
the--is there any possibility for productive collaboration
that's not just about China stealing our IP?
Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, it's a really, really good question. So
there is today a collaboration with China in the U.S. program
through ITER. And that's an example of ITER is for everyone.
And so the Chinese are getting what they need out of it, we're
getting what we need out of it. And our researchers interact
through that project.
And that was really the model that we had in the last two
decades, where we actually had a policy that we would
collaborate with China. And we did learn things. They learned,
I think, more.
I do think that going forward, the fundamentals of how
plasmas work are so universal that like that is the stuff that
should be in the peer reviewed literature, the same way the
fundamentals of how the human body works and how genetics
works, that's--that's, you know, something that everyone,
everyone has access to and should.
The details of how do you design an actual facility, how do
you manufacture it, how do you put it together, that's where
the commercial interest is. That's the area that we don't
collaborate on. And so I think the publication record of the
company's labs, et cetera, is following those lines, which is
very similar to what's happened when we wanted to buildup the
drug industry or when we built the aerospace industry. So I
think that's healthy.
Mr. Beyer. Great, great. Thank you.
I had so much more to ask, but my time is out. So, Mr.
Chairman, thank you very much.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman that criticized Texas has
yielded back and has waived on for the last time.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Weber. So we appreciate that.
I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony,
and the Members for their questions.
The record will remain open for 10 days for additional
comments and written questions from the Members.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]