[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 71 (Thursday, June 9, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                FUSION ENERGY RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION ACT

                                 ______


                       HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, June 9, 1994

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure of 
introducing the Fusion Energy Research Authorization Act of 1994. The 
act would provide for authorization of appropriations and for program 
direction for the Department of Energy's fusion energy research 
program.
  Mr. Speaker, in our current concern over the deficit and Government 
spending, it has become too easy for us to react to short-term 
pressures and to cut spending in the types of scientific research that 
promise only intangible long-term payoffs. Certainly, in some cases, 
those of us who support these investments have done a poor job of 
explaining what may often appear to be the obscure and arcane benefits 
of scientific research.
  But the goal of fusion energy research should be abundantly clear to 
all of us. Simply put, the problem is this: How are our future energy 
needs going to be supplied? As the world's population grows to 10 
billion and more over the next 50 years, most experts expect worldwide 
energy demand to at least triple. The demands of ten billion people for 
decent housing, reliable transportation, dependable and safe food 
supplies, communications, and health care, will drive the demand for 
the energy that makes meeting all of those needs possible.
  Where will all of this energy come from? The world's stock of oil 
will likely be depleted. Burning coal at that scale would cause massive 
environmental degradation. Concerns about weapons proliferation and 
waste storage will continue to plague nuclear fission reactors. 
Conservation and solar and renewable energy resources will certainly 
play a greater role, but few experts believe that we can supply the 
world's energy needs through those means alone.
  The prospect of a world of ten billion people fighting for scarce 
energy resources should not be a prospect to appeal to any of us.
  Fusion energy research holds the prospect of harnessing the power of 
the sun to provide us with a future source of abundant, affordable, 
environmentally sound, and dependable energy. The primary fuel for 
fusion comes from water. It doesn't produce carbon dioxide or other air 
pollutants. The nuclear reaction is inherently safe: if something goes 
wrong, the reaction simply stops. While some parts of the reactor will 
become radioactive over time, requiring special handling and disposal, 
the volume of waste and level of radioactivity will be much lower than 
fission reactors and should not pose difficulties.
  Enormous progress has been made over the last 10 years by fusion 
scientists. Just last week, scientists at DOE's Princeton Plasma 
Physics Lab shattered the world record by briefly producing 9 million 
watts of fusion energy. In the last 10 years, scientists have improved 
the power output of fusion reactors 10 million-fold, a record of 
improvement that would inspire envy even in the computer industry. To 
date, the experiments give the scientists every confidence that fusion 
can be a viable source of future energy.
  But significant technical and scientific challenges remain before 
fusion can be demonstrated as a commercially viable energy source. The 
next step is to build the next generation of fusion reactors which can 
demonstrate a self-sustaining, extended fusion reaction that produces 
net energy. These investments will be expensive, and there is no 
guarantee of success. The economic and technical risks are simply too 
high, and the potential payoffs too far away, to attract industry 
investment. If we want to pursue the potential of fusion, we need to 
understand that it will be largely at Government expense, and it is 
likely to require a sustained investment for decades to come.
  With the fusion energy research budget now down to half of what it 
was only 10 years ago, and given continuing budget pressures, it is 
more important now than ever that DOE's fusion research program be 
focused and carefully invested in ways that are most likely to 
contribute to the longer term goal of developing fusion as a 
commercially viable energy source. It must be part of a broader and 
balanced program in the DOE's research budget that is similarly focused 
on the development of nonfossil fuel technologies to help meet long-
term energy needs of this Nation and the world.
  The bill I have introduced today is intended to guide the DOE's 
fusion energy research program over the next 5 to 10 years, when the 
Agency faces critical decisions about the next steps in the fusion 
program. Clearly, the single most important focus of the program should 
be participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental 
Reactor, or ITER. ITER is a joint scientific project of the United 
States, the European Community, Japan, and Russia. Each of the four 
international partners is participating in the design and funding of 
ITER, which is intended to be the first fusion reactor to demonstrate a 
self-sustaining fusion reaction. Design is expected to be completed by 
1998 with operation scheduled to begin in 2005.
  In our recent debates on science projects, we have frequently urged 
greater international participation and cost-sharing of large 
scientific facilities. ITER is perhaps the preeminent example of where 
we are doing just that. Each participating partner has carried out 
significant fusion research on its own and came to the independent 
determination that something like ITER was the next step. By 
participating in ITER, all of the partners, including the United 
States, can sharply reduce their costs of fusion research. Indeed, 
without ITER, it is doubtful whether we would be willing to build a 
fusion reactor on our own that could duplicate fusion's intended 
functions.
  But ITER faces difficulties. Our international partners are committed 
to ITER. Yet our international partners are skeptical of the ability of 
the United States to stick to its long-term financial commitments. In 
the wake of the SSC, and the continuing political problems of the space 
station, they have every right to be concerned. But if we cannot 
collaborate on ITER, where can we collaborate?
  In the next few years, the partners will need to decide where to site 
ITER, and since each partner is likely to have a qualified site, there 
is concern that political squabbling over this decision will jeopardize 
the project. On this issue, as on the issue of long-term financial 
commitment, the Fusion Energy Research Authorization Act calls for an 
early and accelerated administration commitment to ITER. In this 
regard, my bill shares the goals of S. 646, sponsored by Senator 
Bennett Johnston, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Energy 
Committee, which passed the Senate last year.
  Much attention has been placed on the economic benefits of locating 
ITER in the United States. While any large construction project like 
ITER will bring jobs in the area where it is built, it is important for 
us to understand the economic and technological benefits that will 
accrue to the United States even if ITER is not built in this country. 
For example, many of the major components and subsystems of ITER, 
including the superconducting magnets, could be manufactured in the 
United States and shipped to the ITER construction site in another 
country. Other research facilities needed to support ITER could be 
located in this country even if ITER were built abroad.

  For this reason, the Fusion Energy Research Act calls for a report 
from DOE examining the economic costs and benefits, as well as the 
scientific and technological advantages and disadvantages, of siting 
ITER in the United States. In addition, the act calls for the selection 
of a country site for ITER by the international partners before DOE 
begins an expensive, politically contentious, and perhaps unnecessary 
site competition in the United States. Most importantly, the act 
directs the Secretary to ensure that any agreement on the siting of 
ITER include provisions which will distribute the economic and 
technological benefits of ITER equitably to all of the international 
partners, and to ensure the participation of U.S. industry in all 
aspects of ITER. Finally, the act conditions appropriations for the 
construction of ITER on a certification by the Secretary that all such 
conditions have been met and on a report by the Secretary on the 
expected cost of ITER construction based on site-specific engineering 
designs.
  To meet the justified international concern about the ability of the 
United States to meet its long-term financial commitments to 
international scientific projects, the act establishes a special trust 
fund to pay for the United States' contribution to the design and 
construction of ITER and associated facilities, as well as the Tokamak 
Physics Experiment. The fund would be financed by a .1 mills per 
kilowatt hour fee on electricity generation, which is estimated to 
generate about $300 million per year; the fee would expire when the 
fund had a sufficient balance to pay for the U.S. share of construction 
costs of ITER and the other authorized fusion facilities.
  I recognize, of course, that taxes and fees are not popular, and that 
the utilities may feel that it is unfair to ask them--and, ultimately, 
their rateholders--to pay for research on an energy technology that 
will be of no direct benefit to them. But I have included this 
provision in order to begin what is a needed public debate: How do we 
get out of our perpetual year-to-year financing bind and get on with 
the job of providing secure multiyear funding for essential facilities 
that serve a critical public purpose? How can we demonstrate our 
credibility to a skeptical world scientific community and show that the 
United States can be a reliable international partner in scientific 
cooperation? How do we finance the high-risk research needed to develop 
new sources of energy for the next century? A fund like the one 
proposed here may be a solution.
  The DOE's fusion energy research program has been criticized for its 
overdependence on Tokamak fusion reactors. Given the limited resources 
available to the fusion energy research program, the focus of DOE's 
program on Tokamaks is understandable. To date, Tokamaks have been the 
most successful technology for confining the hot plasma gases involved 
in magnetic fusion. As one witness at a recent Science Committee 
hearing testified, ``The only thing worse than putting all your eggs in 
one basket is to not put enough eggs in any basket.''
  Nevertheless, I share the concern that promising alternative fusion 
technologies are not getting adequate support. While these alternative 
technologies are not nearly as well developed as Tokamak technologies, 
and face technical obstacles at least as significant as those faced by 
Tokamaks, they may ultimately provide a more commercially viable source 
of fusion energy than Tokamaks. For those reasons, the bill calls on 
the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive 
and independent review of existing fusion concepts, including Tokamak 
technology, to determine the relative advantages and disadvantages of 
those technologies in achieving the goal of commercial viability. In 
addition, the bill establishes a separate program office for 
alternative fusion technologies and provides a separate line item 
authorization for alternative fusion research.

  One alternative fusion research concept with particular promise is 
inertial confinement. The bill authorizes research and development 
needed to build and test an induction linac systems experiment for the 
purpose of developing heavy ion inertial fusion energy. It also directs 
the Secretary of Energy, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, 
to explore the possibility of closer cooperation and resource sharing 
with the DOD fusion research program to enhance the civilian energy 
applications of the defense program.
  The bill also authorized the construction of the Tokamak Physics 
Experiment, or TPX, as a follow-on to the successful Tokamak Fusion 
Test Reactor at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. The TPX is an 
important adjunct to the ITER reactor. ITER is an experimental reactor 
intended to prove the physics of fusion power and its design is 
necessarily conservative; TPX is intended to test a unique compact and 
efficient reactor design that responds to the commercial need for a 
smaller reactor. It will also advance the understanding of fusion 
physics and contribute to the ITER program. Building TPX will also give 
U.S. industry important experience in building superconducting magnets 
and other components that will be useful in competing for the 
construction of ITER and its components. The bill also calls for the 
Secretary to report to Congress on the feasibility of conducting a 
parallel design effort on the TPX to augment the capabilities of the 
TPX in the event that ITER does not move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, we are at a critical crossroads in the fusion program. 
The fusion scientists have shown tremendous progress, but further 
progress to develop fusion as a viable energy source will require 
further investments and an understanding that the benefits will not be 
to us, but to the future generations whose energy supply we may secure.
  I urge my fellow colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

                          ____________________