Fusion Energy: Definitive Cost Estimates for U.S. Contributions
to an International Experimental Reactor and Better Coordinated
DOE Research Are Needed (26-OCT-07, GAO-08-30).
The United States is pursuing two paths to fusion
energy--magnetic and inertial. On November 21, 2006, the United
States signed an agreement with five countries and the European
Union to build and operate the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER) in Cadarache, France, to demonstrate
the feasibility of magnetic fusion energy. The United States also
built and operates facilities to pursue inertial fusion energy
research. This report discusses (1) U.S. contributions to ITER
and the challenges, if any, in managing this international fusion
program and (2) the Department of Energy's (DOE) management of
alternative fusion research activities, including National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) initiatives. In performing
this work, GAO analyzed budget documents, briefings, and reports
that focused on research and funding priorities for the fusion
program. GAO also met with officials from DOE, NNSA, and the ITER
Organization in France.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-08-30
ACCNO: A77650
TITLE: Fusion Energy: Definitive Cost Estimates for U.S.
Contributions to an International Experimental Reactor and Better
Coordinated DOE Research Are Needed
DATE: 10/26/2007
SUBJECT: Budget outlays
Cost analysis
Energy research
Financial analysis
Foreign governments
Fusion
Future budget projections
Human capital planning
Interagency relations
Nuclear energy
Nuclear facilities
Nuclear reactors
Program management
Quality assurance
Research and development
Research and development facilities
Research program management
Schedule slippages
Strategic planning
Cost estimates
Program coordination
Program costs
Program goals or objectives
International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor Project
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-30
* [1]Results in Brief
* [2]Background
* [3]The United States Will Contribute $1.12 Billion Over 9 Years
* [4]DOE Does Not Yet Have a Definitive and Independently Validat
* [5]The United States Will Incur Additional Costs Because ITER I
* [6]The ITER Organization Faces Management Challenges that May L
* [7]Lack of Coordination, Competing Funding Priorities, and Huma
* [8]DOE and NNSA Do Not Have a Coordinated Research Program for
* [9]Decreases in Funding for Innovative Magnetic Fusion Devices
* [10]DOE Does Not Have a Plan to Address Future Workforce Shortag
* [11]Conclusions
* [12]Recommendations for Executive Action
* [13]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* [14]GAO Contact
* [15]Staff Acknowledgments
* [16]Order by Mail or Phone
Report to Congressional Committees
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
October 2007
FUSION ENERGY
Definitive Cost Estimates for U.S. Contributions to an International
Experimental Reactor and Better Coordinated DOE Research Are Needed
GAO-08-30
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 4
Background 7
The United States Will Contribute $1.12 Billion Over 9 Years to Help Build
ITER, but Management Challenges May Affect Timing and Cost of Construction
11
Lack of Coordination, Competing Funding Priorities, and Human Capital
Challenges May Hamper Progress in Alternative Fusion Research 18
Conclusions 26
Recommendations for Executive Action 27
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 28
Appendix I Comments from the Department of Energy 31
Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 33
Figures
Figure 1: The Fusion Reaction 7
Figure 2: Countries Participating in ITER 10
Figure 3: U.S. Contributions to ITER for Construction 13
Figure 4: Section View of the Proposed Design for the ITER Reactor 16
Figure 5: The Z-machine Creating an X-ray Pulse to Test Materials in
Conditions of Extreme Temperature and Pressure 20
Abbreviations
DOE: Department of Energy:
HAPL: High Average Power Laser:
IFMIF: International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility:
ITER: International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor:
NIF: National Ignition Facility:
NNSA: National Nuclear Security Administration:
OFES: Office of Fusion Energy Sciences:
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced
and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO.
However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other
material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you
wish to reproduce this material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
October 26, 2007
The Honorable Byron Dorgan:
Chairman:
The Honorable Pete Domenici:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Peter Visclosky:
Chairman:
The Honorable David Hobson:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
On November 21, 2006, the United States signed an agreement with five
countries1 and the European Union to help build and operate the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in Cadarache,
France, to demonstrate the feasibility of fusion energy. The construction,
operation, and decommissioning of ITER is expected to cost about $14
billion. Fusion occurs when the nuclei of two light atoms--typically
hydrogen isotopes--collide and fuse together when heated at high
temperatures and placed under tremendous pressure. This reaction releases
a large amount of energy that some day, it is hoped, may be captured to
produce electricity. Over the last 50 years, scientists around the world
have made progress in understanding how to create the conditions for
fusion, but there are many outstanding scientific and technical issues
that must still be resolved before fusion can be used as an energy source.
As a result, the United States, along with the six parties to the
agreement, identified ITER as the critical experiment that could finally
produce more power from fusion reactions than is needed to operate the
device--the first step toward producing electricity from fusion energy.
ITER's objectives are to resolve fundamental physics issues in using
fusion as an energy source and to develop and test the technology needed
for a future fusion power plant. Construction of ITER is scheduled to
begin in 2008 and be completed in 2016, followed by 20 years of
experiments and eventual decommissioning. The ITER Organization was
established to manage the construction, operation, and decommissioning of
this facility. If ITER meets its objectives, as the last critical step
toward fusion energy, the United States and other countries will need to
design and test different fusion power plants to capture the energy and
produce electricity.
1These countries include the People's Republic of China, Japan, India, the
Republic of South Korea, and the Russian Federation.
The Department of Energy (DOE) identified ITER as the number one priority
for new research facilities because fusion power holds the promise of
reducing concerns over imported oil, rising gasoline prices, and global
warming. With decreasing fossil fuel resources and increasing awareness
that the use of fossil fuels is harming the environment, fusion is a
potentially new source of energy for meeting future energy needs. Fusion
offers many potential benefits, including no emissions of greenhouse
gases, an abundant source of fuel, no risk of the type of severe accidents
that could occur with existing nuclear power plants, no severe
consequences of a terrorist attack, and no long-lived radioactive waste.
In addition, U.S. participation in ITER allows the United States to share
the cost of building this complex and expensive fusion device while
leveraging the scientific and technological expertise of the other ITER
parties.
The United States is pursuing two paths to fusion energy--magnetic and
inertial. Magnetic fusion relies on magnetic forces to confine
electrically charged atoms, known as plasma, and sustain a fusion
reaction. ITER will be a magnetic fusion device known as a "tokamak."2
While a tokamak has been the most successful magnetic fusion device, there
is still uncertainty that it will produce fusion energy or lead to a
commercially viable fusion energy device. To reduce the risk of investing
in only one device, DOE's Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (OFES), which
is responsible for managing the U.S. fusion energy program, also funds
scientific research on alternative types of magnetic devices, primarily at
U.S. universities. Universities, such as Princeton University and the
University of Washington, are currently testing 10 other magnetic devices
with different
shapes and magnetic currents that may lead to a simpler, less costly, or
faster path to fusion energy.
2The term "tokamak" comes from a Russian acronym for a fusion device that
was developed in the former Soviet Union during the 1950s and 1960s.
In contrast, inertial fusion relies on powerful lasers to repeatedly
strike small pellets of fuel, yielding bursts of energy. The National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a separately organized agency
within DOE, is leading efforts in inertial fusion because it can be used
for defense needs, such as validating the integrity and reliability of the
U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. NNSA is building a facility--the National
Ignition Facility (NIF)--at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
that is hoped could be used to demonstrate the feasibility of inertial
fusion. Since the science applications of inertial fusion for defense and
energy needs are similar, the results of NIF experiments could validate
inertial fusion as an alternative path to fusion energy. Other facilities,
such as the Naval Research Laboratory, are testing technologies needed to
produce energy from inertial fusion.
In the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 energy and
water development appropriation,3 the conferees directed GAO to review
OFES's fusion energy program, the activities of major U.S. fusion energy
research facilities that are contributing to ITER, and NNSA fusion energy
initiatives. As agreed with the committees of jurisdiction, we (1)
identified U.S. contributions to ITER and the challenges, if any, in
managing this international fusion program and (2) assessed DOE's
management of alternative fusion research activities, including NNSA
initiatives.
To address these objectives, we collected and analyzed documentation from
DOE, NNSA, the ITER Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, DOE's
national laboratories, and universities involved in fusion science. To
identify U.S. contributions to ITER and the challenges of managing this
international project, we analyzed budget documents, including OFES's
5-year budget plan, and interviewed officials from OFES, the Department of
State, and the U.S. ITER Project Office at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. We also analyzed documents and met
with officials from the three major U.S. magnetic fusion research
facilities--located at General Atomics in San Diego, California; the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts; and the
Princeton Plasma Physics Lab in Princeton, New Jersey--and received a tour
of these facilities to understand how fusion devices are built and
operated. Furthermore, we met with officials from the ITER Organization in
Cadarache, France, and toured the ITER construction site. To assess DOE's
management of alternative fusion research activities, we interviewed
scientists from universities conducting research in alternative paths to
fusion funded by OFES and officials from the National Academy of Sciences,
and we analyzed reports from DOE's fusion energy advisory committee that
focused on funding and research priorities for the fusion program. Lastly,
to determine the status of inertial fusion and NNSA fusion initiatives, we
analyzed budget documents, briefings, and reports on inertial fusion and
met with officials from NNSA's Office of Defense Programs; NIF at the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California; the
Laboratory for Laser Energetics at the University of Rochester in
Rochester, New York; Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, New
Mexico; and the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. We conducted
our work from December 2006 to September 2007 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
3H.R. Rep. No. 109-275, p. 155 (Nov. 7, 2005).
Results in Brief
DOE plans to spend $1.12 billion over 9 years to help build ITER, but this
is only a preliminary estimate and may not reflect the full costs of U.S.
participation. The management challenges that the ITER Organization faces
to build ITER on time and on budget may also affect U.S. costs. With
respect to the U.S. contribution to build ITER, the largest portion, or
about 44 percent, will be used to purchase U.S.-manufactured components
and parts for ITER; the remaining portion will be used to provide cash to
the ITER Organization for equipment installation and associated
contingencies, to pay for U.S. scientists and engineers sent to the ITER
Organization, and to support ITER-related research and development at
national laboratories. However, DOE has not been able to assess the full
costs to the United States of building ITER because the ITER Organization
has not completed the project design for the reactor. According to DOE's
project management guidance, DOE cannot develop and validate a definitive
cost and schedule estimate for a project until the design is complete.
Moreover, the $1.12 billion for ITER construction does not include an
additional $1.2 billion the United States is expected to contribute to
operate and decommission the facility. With respect to management
challenges, the ITER Organization faces five key management challenges
that may affect U.S. costs. Many of these challenges stem from the
difficulty of coordinating international efforts: six countries and the
European Union are designing and building components for ITER and, as
members of the ITER Organization, must reach consensus before making
critical management decisions. The key challenges include (1) developing
quality assurance standards to test the reliability and integrity of the
components made in different countries; (2) assembling, with a high level
of precision, components and parts built in different countries; (3)
finding a new vendor if a country fails to build a component on time or
does not meet quality assurance standards; (4) developing a contingency
fund that adequately addresses cost overruns and schedule delays; and (5)
developing procedures that describe which countries will be responsible
for paying for cost overruns.
GAO has identified several challenges DOE faces in managing alternative
fusion research activities, including coordinating inertial fusion
research activities within DOE, setting funding priorities to advance both
ITER- and tokamak-related research and different magnetic fusion energy
approaches, and planning for hiring and retaining fusion scientists:
o Coordination. Within DOE, NNSA and OFES do not effectively
coordinate research activities to leverage scientific and
technological advances for developing inertial fusion energy. NNSA
provides OFES with limited access to one of its inertial fusion
facilities to conduct inertial fusion experiments, and NNSA- and
OFES-funded scientists share scientific information. However, NNSA
and OFES do not have a coordinated research plan that identifies
key scientific and technological questions or the cost, time
frames, and detailed research and development tasks needed by each
agency to solve those scientific and technological issues to
further advance inertial fusion energy. In addition, DOE has not
given NNSA and OFES clear roles in the development of inertial
fusion energy. NNSA's program is focused on defense needs while
OFES is exploring broad scientific issues indirectly related to
inertial fusion energy. Without a coordinated research plan,
progress in advancing inertial fusion may be delayed.
o Funding priorities. Alternative magnetic fusion research
competes for funding with ITER- and tokamak-related research.
Since the U.S. commitment to ITER, DOE has focused more of its
resources on ITER- and tokamak-related research. As a result,
funding for alternative, potentially more innovative, magnetic
fusion research activities has declined--from $26 million in
fiscal year 2002 to $20 million in fiscal year 2007. Moreover, as
funding for tokamak-related research has increased, the share of
funding for these innovative research activities decreased from 19
percent of the fusion research budget in fiscal year 2002 to 13
percent in fiscal year 2007. University scientists involved in
fusion research told us that this decline in funding has led to a
decline in research opportunities for innovative concepts, and
these concepts could lead to a simpler, less costly, or faster
path to fusion energy. In addition, the decline in funding also
has reduced opportunities to attract students to the fusion
sciences and train them to fulfill future workforce needs. DOE
officials responded that they determine the appropriate level of
funding based on research priorities identified by DOE's fusion
energy advisory committee4 and the current level of funding is
sufficient to sustain the best-performing innovative magnetic
devices. However, the last independent assessment of the balance
of funding between tokamak-related research and alternative
innovative concepts was in 1999 before the United States joined
ITER and it became a priority.
o Human capital. DOE has not developed a human capital strategy to
address future workforce challenges. About one-third of the U.S.
fusion energy workforce is retiring in the next 10 years and only
a small percentage of doctoral candidates in physics are entering
the fusion research field to meet future workforce needs. Without
a strategy in place, DOE may face a shortage of scientists with
critical skills and expertise at a time when demand for their
skills will grow.
To advance U.S. efforts to develop alternative fusion energy
sources and to address OFES's human capital challenges, we
recommend, among other things, that the Secretary of Energy direct
OFES to (1) charge DOE's fusion energy advisory committee with
independently assessing whether current funding levels between
ITER- and tokamak-related research and innovative magnetic fusion
research strike the right balance to meet research objectives and
advance both areas of research, and (2) develop a strategy to
hire, train, and retain personnel with specialized skills to meet
future workforce needs. We also are recommending that the
Secretary of Energy direct DOE and NNSA to develop a research plan
to coordinate U.S. inertial fusion research activities and
identify roles and responsibilities for each program, detailed
research and development tasks, budget needs, and time frames for
advancing inertial fusion energy.
We provided DOE with a draft copy of this report for its review
and comment. In its written comments, DOE neither agreed nor
disagreed with our recommendations, but questioned several of our
findings, including whether the number of PhDs will be sufficient
to meet future workforce needs, the declining share of funding
available for innovative magnetic fusion research activities, and
the lack of a coordinated research plan. We believe that our
analyses and facts as reported are correct. Specifically, data
from DOE's fusion energy advisory committee show that not enough
doctoral candidates in plasma physics and fusion science are
entering the fusion research field to meet future workforce needs
and funding for innovative magnetic fusion research activities has
declined in the last 6 fiscal years. In addition, DOE still does
not have a coordinated research plan to help advance inertial
fusion energy research. DOE also provided technical comments,
which we incorporated, as appropriate.
Background
Fusion is the energy source that powers the sun and stars and is a
major source of energy for the hydrogen bomb. For more than 50
years, the United States has been trying to control this energy
source to produce electricity. Fusion occurs when the nuclei of
two light atoms collide and fuse together with sufficient energy
to overcome their natural repulsive forces. Scientists are
currently using deuterium and tritium--hydrogen isotopes--for this
reaction. When the nuclei of the two atoms collide, the collision
produces helium and a large quantity of energy (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: The Fusion Reaction
For the fusion reaction to take place, the atoms must be heated to
very high temperatures--about 100 million degrees centigrade, or
10 times the temperature of the surface of the sun--and placed
under tremendous pressure. In a hydrogen bomb, high temperatures
are obtained by exploding a uranium or plutonium fission bomb to
force the deuterium and tritium together in a violent manner. To
achieve controlled fusion, the United States is pursuing two
paths--magnetic and inertial. Magnetic fusion involves heating
deuterium and tritium to about 100 million degrees centigrade by
using an external source of electromagnetic energy. The deuterium
and tritium nuclei fuse together to make helium in a very hot and
highly charged gas-like condition called a plasma. Strong magnetic
fields are then used to confine the plasma. Current magnetic
devices have not been able to sustain this fusion reaction for
more than a few seconds. For magnetic fusion to produce
electricity, a device would need to sustain the reaction for long
periods of time. In contrast, inertial fusion relies on intense
lasers or particle beams to heat and compress a small, frozen
pellet of deuterium and tritium--a few millimeters in size--that
would yield a burst of energy. The lasers or particle beams would
continuously heat and compress the pellets, which would simulate,
on a very small scale, the actions of a hydrogen bomb. The goal
for both approaches is to generate more energy than is needed to
begin and sustain the reaction.
ITER is an experiment to study fusion reactions in conditions
similar to those expected in a future electricity-generating power
plant. The goal is to be the first fusion device in the world to
produce net power--that is, produce more power than it consumes.
The objective is to produce 10 times more power than is needed to
operate the device. In contrast, current nuclear power plants
produce between 30 and 40 times more power than is needed to
operate the plants. ITER also will test a number of key
technologies, including the heating, control, and remote
maintenance systems that will be needed for a fusion power
station. If ITER is successful, it will lead to power plant design
and testing.
According to DOE, ITER was first proposed at the U.S.-U.S.S.R.
Geneva summit in November 1985, when President Reagan and Soviet
Premier Gorbachev recognized that joint activities were needed to
diffuse the tension of the arms race during the Cold War and begin
the Soviet Union's economic integration into the world economy.
The goal was to share scientific and technical information in a
program in which both sides had reached a comparable level of
knowledge and that offered future commercial gains from developing
fusion technology. Following this summit, the United States, the
Soviet Union, Japan, and several European countries drafted a
proposal to implement ITER.
The United States temporarily withdrew from ITER in 1999 when
Congress raised concerns that the technical basis for ITER was not
sound, the cost was too high, and the facility was too large. In
response to the U.S. withdrawal, the countries participating in
ITER reduced the size of the facility and the cost of building
ITER to about $5 billion, or one-half the cost of the original
design. A number of scientific advances also increased U.S.
confidence that the new ITER design would meet its scientific and
technological goals. In January 2003, President Bush announced
that the United States would rejoin ITER. This decision was based
on a number of studies--from DOE's advisory committee on fusion
energy, the National Academy of Sciences, and other groups of
experts--that concluded the U.S. fusion program was technically
and scientifically ready to participate in ITER and recommended
that the United States rejoin it. In 2003, the People's Republic
of China and the Republic of Korea also joined; and in December
2005, India became the seventh and most recent party to join. In
November 2006, all six countries and the European Union signed the
ITER agreement. Figure 2 shows the countries participating in
ITER.
4The Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee is chartered pursuant to
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770
(1972). The committee provides independent advice on issues related to
planning, implementing, and managing the fusion energy program. DOE relies
on this advice to establish scientific and technological as well as
funding priorities. Committee members are drawn from universities,
national laboratories, and private firms involved in fusion research.
Figure 2: Countries Participating in ITER
NNSA maintains the United States' inertial fusion facilities. NIF, which
is scheduled for completion in 2009, will be the world's largest laser
facility and will be used to test inertial fusion. It is designed to
achieve the first controlled thermonuclear burn, which will release fusion
energy.5 To achieve the temperature and pressure needed for heating and
compressing the fuel to release this fusion energy, NIF has 192 laser
beams that will converge and strike frozen deuterium and tritium pellets.
No other facility has been able to achieve a controlled thermonuclear burn
because it did not have enough energy to heat and compress these targets.
For example, NIF is expected to produce 50 times more energy than the
OMEGA laser--the world's most powerful laser facility currently operating.
The OMEGA laser, at the University of Rochester, is NNSA's main inertial
fusion facility until NIF is completed. Lastly, the Z-machine, located at
Sandia National Laboratory, is an alternative approach to reaching
conditions of extreme temperature and pressure to validate sophisticated
computational models of nuclear weapon performance. Rather than using
powerful lasers, the Z-machine uses an electrical current to create a
powerful magnetic field that compresses and implodes the target. The
Z-machine releases the equivalent of 80 times the world's electrical power
output for a few billionths of a second, but only a moderate amount of
energy is actually used because it relies on generators and amplifiers to
store and magnify the energy from the electrical grid. NNSA spent about
$60 million to refurbish this machine from July 2006 to May 2007 to
increase the power output.
5NIF is 705,000 square feet, the size of three football fields side by
side, and houses a complex optical system that produces the laser beams.
NIF construction began in May 1997 and it has a total project cost of $2.3
billion. An additional $1.3 billion are needed to assemble, install, and
test the laser system.
The United States Will Contribute $1.12 Billion Over 9 Years to Help Build ITER,
but Management Challenges May Affect Timing and Cost of Construction
DOE plans to spend $1.12 billion over 9 years to help build ITER, but this
estimate neither reflects an independently validated cost based on a
completed reactor design, nor the costs to operate and decommission the
facility. The ITER Organization also faces five key management challenges
to build ITER on time and on budget that may affect U.S. costs.
DOE Does Not Yet Have a Definitive and Independently Validated Cost Estimate for
the U.S. Contribution to ITER, as DOE Guidance Directs
Based on DOE's fiscal year 2008 congressional budget request, DOE plans to
spend $1.12 billion over 9 years--from fiscal years 2006 to 2014--to help
build ITER, as figure 3 shows. Of the seven parties contributing to ITER,
the United States and five other countries--the People's Republic of
China, Japan, India, the Republic of South Korea, and the Russian
Federation--are each providing 9.1 percent of the total construction cost.
The European Union is the largest contributor--45.4 percent--because it is
building the reactor on a member country's soil and it agreed to pay for
the infrastructure costs. DOE's preliminary estimate of the U.S.
contribution includes the following:
o $487.14 million to purchase U.S.-manufactured components and
parts for ITER, such as superconducting cable for the magnets that
sustain the fusion reaction and tiles for the inner wall of the
reactor that can withstand the heat and pressure of the fusion
reaction;
o $203.24 million in cash to the ITER Organization to pay for
scientists, engineers, and support personnel working for the ITER
Organization; the assembly and installation of the components in
France to build the reactor; quality assurance testing of U.S.
supplied components; and contingencies;
o $194.68 million in contingency funds to address potential
schedule delays or increases in costs for manufacturing
components;
o $112.28 million for the U.S. ITER Project Office at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory to manage the procurement, testing, assembly,
and quality assurance of U.S.-manufactured components;
o $102.57 million to fund research and development activities and
complete the design work of U.S. components and parts at national
laboratories, universities, and private industry; and
o $22.09 million to pay the salaries of U.S. scientists and
engineers working at the ITER Organization.
Figure 3: U.S. Contributions to ITER for Construction
The $1.12 billion is still a preliminary cost estimate and may not
reflect the full costs of U.S. contributions to ITER. DOE has not
yet developed a definitive cost and schedule estimate, as DOE
project management guidance directs. This guidance establishes
protocols for planning and executing large construction projects
and directs DOE to reach a number of critical decisions before
construction begins.6 Two of these critical decisions are (1)
formally approving the project's definitive cost and schedule
estimates as accurate and complete and (2) reaching agreement that
the project's final design is sufficiently complete so that
resources can be committed toward procurement and construction.
The cost and schedule estimates also are subject to independent
reviews, usually by DOE's Office of Engineering and Construction
Management, to ensure they are accurate and complete. Even though
DOE does not have a definitive cost estimate, in fiscal years 2006
and 2007, DOE spent $79.3 million to establish the ITER Project
Office and fund research and development activities to design U.S.
components. Without a definitive cost estimate, the U.S. Congress
has expressed concern that DOE may use funding from the domestic
fusion research program to cover any shortfalls in funding for the
ITER project.
6DOE Order 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of
Capital Assets, July 28, 2006.
DOE has not yet reached these critical decisions because of delays
by the countries participating in ITER in selecting a construction
site for the reactor and in completing the reactor design. In
December 2004, DOE reported to Congress that DOE would have a
definitive cost and schedule estimate by March 2006. DOE's new
goal is to have this estimate by the end of fiscal year 2008 or
early fiscal year 2009. DOE officials told us that DOE cannot
complete this estimate until the ITER Organization updates the
design for the reactor, scheduled for November 2007. DOE must then
wait for the ITER Organization to develop the design
specifications, quality assurance procedures and tests, and
schedule of delivery for the components and parts of the reactor
before it can begin manufacturing. The ITER Organization will
issue the design specifications from the end of 2007 through 2012,
starting with basic infrastructure and components that require a
longer time to build. In fiscal year 2008, DOE plans to begin
procuring materials needed for the superconducting magnets, the
tiles for the inside of the reactor, and pipes for the water
cooling system. Even though DOE will not yet have an independently
validated cost and schedule estimate before it begins to purchase
these materials, DOE project management guidance provides an
exception when materials take a long time to manufacture and may
delay the construction schedule.
The United States Will Incur Additional Costs Because ITER Is
Only the First Step Toward Developing a Fusion Energy Power Plant
The $1.12 billion preliminary estimate does not cover the full
costs of the ITER project. DOE estimates that it will cost the
U.S. another $1.2 billion to help operate and run experiments on
ITER for 20 years after construction is completed and then
decommission the facility by removing radioactive materials and
debris. Furthermore, ITER is only the first step in developing a
fusion power plant, and DOE expects to build or help build
additional facilities on the path to fusion energy.
Following ITER's construction, DOE may participate in designing
and contributing funds to build another fusion facility, known as
the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF).
This facility would be designed to develop and test
radiation-resistant materials that could survive the extreme
conditions inside a fusion reactor. Fusion reactions continuously
produce neutrons, which cause materials to become radioactive and
damage them over time. The IFMIF would produce neutrons, and one
goal of this facility would be to place materials inside the test
chamber to determine which would best be suited for a future
fusion reactor. If DOE participates in IFMIF, DOE's fusion energy
advisory committee estimated that the U.S. contribution to IFMIF
would be about $150 million over 7 years.
Another facility also may be needed to test technologies that
would convert fusion power into practical energy, such as
electricity. Neutrons from a fusion reaction will release energy
if they collide with atoms of another material, causing the
substance to heat. A prime candidate for this material for future
fusion power plants is the liquid metal lithium. Lithium that is
heated by colliding neutrons could transfer the heat to water,
producing steam. The steam, in turn, would drive a steam turbine
and generator, producing electricity. The purpose of a new
facility would be to test different materials and systems for
collecting neutrons, converting fusion energy into heat, and
producing tritium--one of the fuels for fusion reactions. DOE's
fusion energy advisory committee estimates that the construction
of this facility would cost around $1.5 billion. After testing
materials and technologies and assessing the scientific results of
ITER and other magnetic fusion devices, DOE would then be ready to
design a demonstration power plant that would produce electricity.
The ITER Organization Faces Management Challenges that May Limit Its
Ability to Build ITER on Time and on Budget
The ITER Organization faces several management challenges that may
limit its ability to build ITER on time and on budget and may
affect U.S. costs. Many of these challenges stem from the
difficulty of coordinating the efforts of six countries and the
European Union that are designing and building components for ITER
and, as members of the ITER Organization, must reach consensus
before making critical management decisions. The key management
challenges include (1) developing quality assurance standards to
test the reliability and integrity of the components made in
different countries; (2) assembling, with a high level of
precision, components and parts built in different countries; (3)
finding a new vendor if a country fails to build a component on
time or does not meet quality assurance standards; (4) developing
a contingency fund that adequately addresses cost overruns and
schedule delays; and (5) developing procedures that describe which
countries will be responsible for paying for cost overruns.
First, the ITER Organization has not yet developed quality
assurance standards for manufactured parts and components. Quality
assurance standards establish the tests each manufacturing company
must pass before the ITER Organization can certify that a part or
an entire component meets performance requirements, such as being
able to withstand tremendous pressure and heat inside the reactor.
According to DOE officials, quality assurance testing is critical
because a failure of a poorly manufactured component or part
during scientific experiments could shut down the reactor for a
significant time, increase costs because of required repairs, or
skew scientific results. The countries participating in ITER
cannot begin manufacturing components until these quality
assurance standards are in place. Figure 4 demonstrates the scale
and complexity of the ITER reactor.
Figure 4: Section View of the Proposed Design for the ITER Reactor
Second, the ITER Organization faces the challenge of assembling
more than 10,000 parts and components manufactured by different
countries. For example, the ITER Organization is responsible for
installing the tiles that line the inside of the reactor, but the
tiles are being manufactured by all seven parties. These tiles
must be manufactured and installed with great precision. According
to ITER Organization officials, a millimeter difference between
the tiles could significantly affect scientific results. However,
countries participating in ITER construction follow two different
building codes.7 ITER Organization officials told us they have not
yet selected which building code countries must follow. There is a
risk that countries unfamiliar with the required building code
could take longer to manufacture a part under those standards or
manufacture a part that will not fit properly with other
manufactured parts for the same component.
Third, the ITER Organization assumes the responsibility of finding
a suitable vendor in another country if a country fails to build a
component on time or does not meet quality assurance standards.
According to ITER Organization officials, the ITER Organization
would have to negotiate the terms of manufacturing an item under
an expedited schedule, and the country that failed to build the
part on time would have to provide the ITER Organization with the
funds needed to manufacture the item. Another vendor may not be
able to produce the part in an expedited manner and the
construction schedule may slip. In addition, there is no clear
guidance on how to properly compensate a vendor in another country
for all manufacturing costs, such as start-up costs, materials,
and labor. Any disagreement between the new vendor, the country
paying for the manufactured part, and the ITER Organization on
proper compensation also could delay construction and increase the
total project cost.
Fourth, the ITER Organization's contingency fund does not
adequately address potential cost overruns and schedule delays.
The ITER Organization's contingency fund is about 10 percent of
the total cost, or about $712 million based on current estimates.
If there are cost overruns, the ITER Organization has a
contingency fund to pay for additional costs associated with
procuring manufactured components that it is responsible for
purchasing, installation of parts, research and development
activities related to designing components, and hiring more staff.
According to DOE officials, the ITER Organization did not
determine this amount through a risk-based assessment. Rather, the
contingency fund was created after India joined in 2005 as the
most recent party to ITER. Since the project cost was already
fixed, the countries participating in ITER decided to use the
additional funds from India's assessment to create a contingency
fund. According to DOE officials, some of the countries
participating in ITER did not want to create a contingency fund
because it was not standard practice in their project management.
Moreover, according to DOE officials, a 10 percent contingency may
not be adequate for a project of this cost and complexity. In
contrast, these officials cited the Spallation Neutron Source at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which produces short but intense
pulses of neutrons that can be used to develop new materials, such
as plastics. DOE completed the construction of this facility in
2006. The facility had a total project cost of $1.4 billion and
required the coordination of six DOE national laboratories. Based
on total cost and complexity, DOE had a contingency fund of about
20 percent of total costs. According to DOE officials, ITER is
more technologically complex and involves greater risk because of
the large number of manufacturers from different countries.
7The two building codes are Regles de Conception et Construction -
Mecanique Rapide and the codes from the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.
Finally, the ITER Organization does not have procedures that
identify who is responsible for paying for potential cost overruns
that exceed available contingency funds and how costs should be
shared. Construction could be further delayed if there is no
consensus before construction begins on how to share the costs for
cost overruns.
Lack of Coordination, Competing Funding Priorities, and Human Capital
Challenges May Hamper Progress in Alternative Fusion Research
Within DOE, NNSA and OFES do not have a coordinated research
program for inertial fusion energy. They do not have a research
plan that identifies key scientific and technological issues that
must be addressed to advance inertial fusion energy and how their
research activities would meet those goals. Without a coordination
research plan and clear responsibility for developing inertial
fusion energy, DOE may not see progress in developing inertial
fusion energy as a promising alternative to magnetic fusion. In
addition, alternative magnetic fusion research competes for
funding with ITER- and tokamak-related research. Since the U.S.
commitment to ITER, funding for alternative innovative magnetic
devices has declined over the last 6 fiscal years while funding
for tokamak-related research has increased. According to
university scientists involved in fusion research, this decrease
in funding has led to a decline in research opportunities for
innovative devices. Finally, while the demand for scientists and
engineers to run experiments at ITER and NIF is growing, OFES does
not have a human capital strategy to address expected future
workforce shortages; these shortages are likely to grow as a large
part of the fusion workforce retires over the next 10 years.
DOE and NNSA Do Not Have a Coordinated Research Program for Inertial
Fusion Energy
DOE has three separately funded inertial fusion research programs:
NNSA's inertial fusion research activities related to the nuclear
weapons program, a High Average Power Laser Program (HAPL) to
develop technology needed for energy for which funding is directed
by a congressional conference committee, and OFES's inertial
fusion research activities aimed at exploring the basic science
for energy applications. Experiments in each of these programs
help advance inertial fusion energy, but these experiments are not
coordinated and each program has a separate mission and different
scientific and technological objectives. NNSA provides OFES with
limited access to one of its inertial fusion facilities to conduct
inertial fusion experiments, and NNSA- and OFES- funded scientists
share information from the results of inertial fusion experiments.
However, there is no research plan that identifies key scientific
and technological questions that need to be addressed to achieve
inertial fusion energy or the cost, time frames, and detailed
research and development tasks needed by each agency to solve
those scientific and technological issues to further advance
inertial fusion energy. In addition, DOE has not assigned to
either NNSA or OFES clear roles in developing inertial fusion
energy. NNSA is focused on stockpile stewardship, but it maintains
the major inertial fusion facilities. OFES is responsible for
developing paths to fusion energy, but it is focused on ITER and
magnetic fusion. A lack of a coordinated research plan and clear
responsibility among these programs for developing inertial fusion
energy may delay the progress of inertial fusion energy as a
promising alternative to magnetic fusion.
NNSA operates the three major inertial fusion facilities in the
United States--the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, the OMEGA Laser at the University
of Rochester, and the Z-machine at Sandia National Laboratory.
Figure 5 shows the Z-machine in operation. In fiscal year 2006,
NNSA spent about $544 million for NIF construction, upgrades, and
operations for the other two facilities, and to conduct inertial
fusion research. NNSA uses these facilities primarily to
investigate technical issues related to stockpile stewardship by
testing the reliability and integrity of nuclear weapons and
simulating the conditions of a thermonuclear explosion without
detonating them.8
Figure 5: The Z-machine Creating an X-ray Pulse to Test Materials
in Conditions of Extreme Temperature and Pressure
OFES's inertial fusion research activities are focused on energy
applications. In fiscal year 2006, OFES spent $15.5 million, or
5.5 percent of its $280.7 million budget, on these research
activities. While OFES officials told us that inertial fusion is
an attractive path to fusion energy and the only alternative to
magnetic fusion, the office has limited funding for inertial
fusion research because its priority is to support ITER and
magnetic fusion research activities. Consequently, OFES relies
heavily on NNSA's inertial fusion research activities and
facilities. NNSA experiments at NIF, which will begin in 2010,
will demonstrate the feasibility of inertial fusion energy because
a controlled thermonuclear burn is the first step in using
inertial fusion as a potential energy source. In addition, OFES
funds inertial fusion energy experiments using the OMEGA laser,
located at the University of Rochester. NNSA grants access to the
OMEGA laser to scientists conducting nondefense work and expects
to complete a $98.5 million upgrade to the OMEGA laser early in
2008. This upgrade will add short-pulse, high-power lasers, which
can, among other things, test ways to lower the total laser energy
required to still compress and heat the target for fusion energy.
This approach could reduce the cost of producing fusion energy.
However, the university limits access to this facility to about 4
weeks a year, or about 10 percent of the total operating time,
because the priority for this facility remains stockpile
stewardship. In addition, those 4 weeks are not reserved for
inertial fusion energy experiments. Scientists from different
areas of science, including astrophysics, materials science,
biology, and chemistry, can request the use of the facility and
compete for time on the laser. University of Rochester officials
told us that they may be able to increase access to this facility
for inertial fusion experiments, but OFES would have to provide
funding. NNSA pays for the facility's operation, but OFES would
have to fund the experiment, including the targets, which cost
$10,000 to $15,000 each; personnel costs; and specialized
equipment to measure the results of the experiment. NNSA also is
planning to provide access to NIF for nondefense experiments, but
it has not yet determined how much operating time to free up.
According to officials at NIF, NNSA plans to free up 15 percent of
its operating time to external users, including OFES, but its
primary mission is for stockpile stewardship and access to the
facility for nondefense research, such as inertial fusion energy
experiments, will depend on NNSA first meeting its scientific
goals.
8NNSA also uses the facilities to investigate a number of other technical
issues such as determining fundamental properties of nuclear materials at
temperatures and pressures needed for nuclear weapons, estimating the
impact of a new engineering feature, or verifying the performance of
weapon design changes.
While NIF and other NNSA facilities can demonstrate the
fundamental science of inertial fusion, they are not designed to
produce fusion energy efficiently and to test whether inertial
fusion energy can be commercially viable. In addition to
understanding the conditions necessary to heat and compress a
frozen pellet of fuel to release fusion energy, DOE would have to
overcome a number of technical issues before inertial fusion
energy can be commercially viable. These issues include (1)
designing the pellet of fuel, which consists of frozen layers of
deuterium and tritium, to release the most amount of energy when
it is struck by a laser; (2) developing a system that can keep the
pellets of fuel cryogenically frozen and inject five of them every
second with great accuracy into the target chamber; (3) designing
a laser that can compress and heat five frozen pellets of fuel
every second to release fusion energy; (4) testing materials
inside the chamber wall that could withstand these repetitive
explosions while also harvesting the neutrons needed to produce
electricity; and (5) clearing the inside of the reactor of debris
after each shot. According to officials from the Naval Research
Laboratory, the lasers need to strike five frozen pellets of fuel
a second to release a sufficient amount of fusion energy for
electricity production.
Since neither NNSA nor OFES were funding research to investigate
these technical issues, beginning in 1999, congressional
conference committees directed NNSA to allocate funding for HAPL
to develop the technologies needed for inertial fusion energy.
According to NNSA officials, NNSA does not request funding for
this program in its congressional budget requests because the
program exceeds NNSA's mission goals of developing a laser system
to test new weapons designs and the reliability of nuclear
weapons. NNSA officials told us that their current facilities,
such as NIF, OMEGA, and the Z-machine, are sufficient to meet
their needs. NIF will be able to strike a target once every 4
hours and OMEGA once every 2 hours--far short of the 5 targets a
second needed for fusion energy, but adequate for the stockpile
stewardship mission.
Congressional conference committees have directed funds for
inertial fusion research:
o Conference committees have directed about $25 million a year to
two competing lasers systems that could be used for fusion power
plants at the Naval Research Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory and for experiments to design the targets for
inertial fusion energy at General Atomics.
o Conference committees have directed $4 million in fiscal years
2004 and 2005 to explore the Z-machine's ability to produce fusion
energy for a potential power plant, as an alternative to the laser
systems. In fiscal year 2006, Sandia National Laboratory used $2.6
million of its internal research funding to continue this
research. However, this research did not continue in fiscal year
2007, and there are no plans to resume the research in fiscal year
2008 because NNSA has not provided funding for this project.
As another alternative to both the laser systems and the
Z-machine, OFES is funding experiments using heavy ion beams to
produce fusion energy at the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. Heavy ion beams are made by a particle accelerator--a
device that uses electrical fields to propel electrically charged
particles at high speeds. The heavy ions, which are heavier than
carbon atoms, collide with the targets and cause the compression
and heat needed to release fusion energy.
If NIF's controlled fusion experiments succeed, there is still
uncertainty about the future of inertial fusion energy. NNSA
officials told us that they are not responsible for funding the
construction of additional inertial fusion facilities needed to
demonstrate inertial fusion energy. OFES officials told us that
they do not have the funding to build a $2 billion to $3 billion
inertial fusion facility. In fiscal year 2008, OFES and NNSA plan
to establish a joint program to explore high-energy density
physics, which is aimed at understanding the behavior of matter
under extreme pressure. OFES and NNSA plan to combine their
funding in this area to fund basic research and share experimental
results. While high-energy density physics explores a number of
fundamental scientific issues related to inertial fusion energy,
it does not address all of the scientific issues that would
advance inertial fusion energy.
Decreases in Funding for Innovative Magnetic Fusion Devices May
Delay Progress Toward a Fusion Energy Device
Although a tokamak has been the most successful magnetic fusion
device, it is still uncertain whether the device will lead to a
commercially viable fusion energy device. To reduce the risk of
investing in only one device, OFES funds scientific research on
alternative types of magnetic devices, in addition to inertial
fusion research activities. However, a decrease in research
funding for these alternatives may limit DOE's ability to find a
simpler, less costly, or faster path to fusion energy.
Research on alternative types of magnetic devices is critical to
the fusion energy program, according to officials from the
National Academy of Sciences. In 2004, the National Academy of
Sciences reported that many outstanding scientific and technical
issues had to be resolved before an economically attractive fusion
power plant could be designed. These innovative research
experiments could address many issues that ITER will not be able
to address in a cost-effective manner and lead to a simpler, less
costly, or faster path to fusion energy. Moreover, because these
innovative and cutting-edge research activities are primarily
located at U.S. universities, this program attracts students to
fusion sciences and serves as an important recruitment and
training tool for scientists and engineers.
Sustained funding is critical to these research activities,
according to DOE's fusion energy advisory committee. Specifically,
the ability to investigate critical scientific and engineering
issues requires sufficient overall funding to build and operate
advanced-stage experiments without eliminating the opportunity for
new ideas and innovations resulting from smaller, more focused
experiments. However, alternative magnetic fusion research
competes for funding with ITER- and tokamak-related research.
Since the U.S. commitment to ITER, DOE has focused more of its
resources on ITER- and tokamak-related research. DOE officials
told us that given limited resources, their priority is to fund
ITER- and tokamak-related research. According to DOE officials,
OFES determines the appropriate level of funding between
tokamak-related research and innovative concepts based on
scientific and technological priorities identified by DOE's fusion
energy advisory committee. The level of funding is, among other
things, tied to the complexity of the experiment and the operating
costs of the device. Based on these assessments, DOE officials
told us they believe the current level of funding for innovative
magnetic devices is sufficient to sustain the best-performing
devices.
However, in fiscal year 2006, OFES spent about $21 million to fund
25 small-scale experiments at 11 universities, 4 national
laboratories, and 2 private companies to test 7 types of magnetic
fusion devices with different shapes and magnetic currents. This
level of funding represents a decline over the past 6 fiscal
years--from $26 million in fiscal year 2002 to $20 million in
fiscal year 2007. University scientists involved in innovative
fusion research told us that this decrease in funding was not
consistent with a 1999 DOE fusion energy science advisory
committee study that recommended OFES increase funding for
innovative magnetic research activities. OFES relies on this
advisory committee to establish priorities for the fusion program
and to provide a basis for the allocation of funding.
However, since that report, the share of funding for innovative
research activities has decreased even as funding for fusion
research has increased. The share of funding has dropped from 19
percent of the fusion research budget in fiscal year 2002 to 13
percent in fiscal year 2007. In addition, while OFES's 5-year
budget plan shows an increase in funding for fusion research
activities in fiscal years 2008 through 2011, most of this funding
will be used for ITER- and tokamak-related research activities at
the major facilities. DOE officials also told us there are planned
increases in funding for innovative devices, but only to maintain
the same level of research. According to university scientists, a
number of innovative approaches are ready to advance to the next
stage of development that would test the feasibility of producing
fusion energy or conduct more sophisticated experiments, but DOE
has no plans to advance any of these approaches because it may
require an increase in funding to conduct more sophisticated
experiments. DOE's fusion energy advisory committee has not
assessed the appropriate level of funding between ITER- and
tokamak-related activities and innovative concepts since 1999,
before the U.S. joined ITER and it became a priority.
Scientists from a number of universities told us that this decline
in funding has led to a decline in research opportunities for
innovative concepts. For example, university scientists told us
that in the last 3 years, they reduced the number of experiments
they performed on their devices and they could not upgrade the
devices to validate theories and computer simulations. In
addition, the decrease in funding reduced opportunities to attract
students to the fusion sciences and train them to fulfill future
workforce needs.
DOE Does Not Have a Plan to Address Future Workforce Shortages
According to studies by DOE's fusion energy advisory committee and
the National Academy of Sciences, the single greatest challenge
the fusion program faces may be a rapidly aging workforce. About
one-third of the U.S. fusion energy workforce is retiring in the
next 10 years. In 2004, DOE's fusion energy advisory committee
found that between 2008 and 2014, DOE would have to fill about 250
permanent positions as scientists and technicians retire--an
average hiring rate of 42 PhDs per year. However, this figure
exceeds the current total PhD production rate in fusion-related
fields. In fiscal year 2006, 33 PhDs were awarded to students in
plasma physics and fusion science. OFES estimates that 33 and 36
PhDs will be awarded in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 respectively.
Furthermore, it may be difficult to retain these new PhDs in
fusion-related fields. DOE's fusion energy advisory committee
found that about 50 percent of PhDs in plasma science and
engineering took positions outside their fields. Moreover, DOE
would need to hire more PhDs to increase the number of scientists
and engineers needed for ITER and to maintain a strong domestic
program. The average hiring rate of 42 PhDs per year would replace
retiring personnel, but would not increase the fusion workforce.
OFES has taken some steps to address these challenges by
recruiting and training fusion scientists and engineers. OFES
established a program that identifies talented faculty members at
universities early in their careers in plasma physics and funds
their research activities. In 2004, OFES also established Fusion
Science Centers at universities to conduct magnetic and inertial
fusion research activities and stimulate the involvement and
participation of students. Moreover, OFES has a partnership with
the National Science Foundation, an independent federal agency
that supports basic scientific research in many fields, including
physics and engineering, to share their resources and fund
research into fundamental issues in plasma science and
engineering. OFES officials told us that they are also hiring PhDs
in related scientific fields, such as materials science, to
leverage their expertise in solving different types of scientific
and technological problems encountered during fusion energy
research and to reduce any shortfalls in hiring plasma science and
engineering PhDs.
Despite these initiatives, OFES still has not developed a plan to
address the future shortage of fusion scientists and engineers and
increase the number of PhDs working in fusion science. It has not
implemented the recommendation from DOE's advisory committee
report to develop a 5- to 10-year hiring plan with strategies to
increase hiring and training of the most qualified staff. OFES
also has not assessed whether its recruitment and outreach efforts
are sufficient to meet future workforce needs. In 2004, OFES
reported that its outreach and recruitment programs were
attracting more graduate and postdoctoral students to fusion
energy, but the report did not assess whether it was a sufficient
number to sustain fusion research as a large number of scientists
begin to retire and whether or how long those students remain in
fusion-related research.
Conclusions
Given the size of the U.S. contribution to ITER, it is important
to assess the full costs of participation in this scientific
endeavor. DOE made a commitment to provide manufactured components
and parts to ITER without a definitive cost and schedule estimate
and a complete project design. As a result, DOE's preliminary
$1.12 billion estimate may be subject to significant change as
ITER's design is completed. Moreover, there is a risk that several
management challenges facing the ITER Organization, such as
developing quality assurance standards for manufactured components
and assessing contingencies for cost or schedule overruns, could
result in delays in ITER's construction, which would further
increase costs for the United States.
DOE could better manage alternative fusion research activities.
DOE is not effectively coordinating OFES's and NNSA's inertial
fusion activities to advance inertial fusion energy. Since OFES
relies on NNSA and the HAPL Program to advance inertial fusion as
a potential energy source, it is important that OFES coordinate
the research activities of these three programs to explore
inertial fusion energy applications. The lack of a research plan
and clear mission responsibility between OFES and NNSA on which
office has the lead in advancing inertial fusion energy research
may delay progress in developing inertial fusion as an energy
source in the shortest time possible. NNSA also has not determined
how much time will be available at NIF for scientists conducting
inertial fusion energy experiments. NNSA may significantly limit
access to NIF if there are delays in meeting its stockpile
stewardship objectives. Since NIF will be critical in resolving
fundamental scientific issues, access issues could further delay
progress for inertial fusion energy research.
In addition, the future of alternative magnetic fusion research
activities, which may lead to a simpler, less costly, or faster
path to fusion energy, is uncertain. Funding for these research
activities has steadily declined even though the fusion research
budget has increased. A decreasing share of funding for innovative
concepts may delay progress in resolving fundamental scientific
issues or designing a reactor more quickly. For this reason, DOE
needs to ensure there is a proper balance of funding between
tokamak-related research and alternative innovative concepts to
support U.S. obligations to ITER while continuing to explore
different paths to fusion energy. Finally, OFES has not developed
a strategy to hire, train, and retain the most talented staff.
This effort is critical to meeting the growing demand for
scientists and engineers with knowledge about fusion, especially
as the United States participates in ITER, the NIF is completed,
and interest increases in fusion energy as a long-term energy
source.
Recommendations for Executive Action
To advance U.S. efforts to develop alternative fusion energy
sources, we recommend that the Secretary of Energy direct
o OFES and NNSA to develop a coordinated research plan to
coordinate U.S. inertial fusion research activities and identify
roles and responsibilities for each program as well as detailed
research and development tasks, budget needs, and time frames for
advancing inertial fusion research;
o NNSA to guarantee access to NIF, once it becomes operational, to
scientists conducting inertial fusion energy experiments, and work
with DOE to determine how to share the costs, operational time,
and results of NIF to explore inertial fusion as a viable energy
source; and
o OFES to charge DOE's fusion energy advisory committee with
independently assessing whether current funding levels between
ITER- and tokamak-related research and innovative magnetic fusion
research strike the right balance to meet research objectives and
advance both areas of research, and, if the current share of
funding is not adequate, to recommend appropriate changes.
To address OFES's human capital challenges, we recommend that the
Secretary of Energy direct OFES to develop a strategy to hire,
train, and retain personnel with specialized skills to meet future
workforce needs.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided DOE with a draft copy of this report for its review
and comment. DOE provided written comments, which are reprinted in
appendix I. In its written comments, DOE neither agreed nor
disagreed with our recommendations, but questioned several of our
findings. First, DOE believes that enough PhDs are being produced
to meet future workforce needs and it points to anecdotal data
from universities that U.S. participation in ITER is attracting
students to fusion sciences. However, data from DOE's fusion
energy advisory committee show that not enough doctoral candidates
in plasma physics and fusion science are entering the fusion
research field to meet future workforce needs. DOE would have to
hire an average of 42 PhDs a year to fill about 250 permanent
positions as scientists and technicians retire, but awarded 33
PhDs in fiscal year 2006 and plans to award 33 and 36 PhDs
respectively in fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Moreover, as we noted
in our report, OFES has not assessed whether its recruitment and
outreach efforts are sufficient to meet future workforce needs.
Anecdotal evidence about student interest in fusion sciences is
not a substitute for objective data on recruitment and retention
rates.
Second, DOE questioned our finding that that the share of funding
for alternative, potentially more innovative, magnetic fusion
research activities has declined in the last 6 fiscal years. DOE
argued that the share of funding for non-tokamak research has not
declined, but rather remained flat, and alternative fusion
research activities include more than innovative magnetic
research. We agree that alternative fusion research activities
include more than innovative magnetic research. However, with
respect to funding levels, our analysis of DOE's budget using
DOE's definition of innovative magnetic fusion research shows a
clear result. Funding for innovative magnetic fusion research
activities has declined and this decline may delay progress in
finding a simpler, less costly, or faster path to fusion energy.
In its budget documents, DOE describes these research activities
as cutting edge and the main objective of these activities is to
explore innovative and better ways to achieve fusion energy. In
addition, DOE has stated in its budget documents that these
activities have been effective in attracting students to the
fusion workforce.
Third, DOE questions our finding that it does not have a
coordinated research plan to advance inertial fusion energy. DOE
noted that, in 2003, its advisory committee developed a plan that
identified critical milestones, research and development tasks,
and budget needs to build an inertial fusion demonstration power
plant within 35 years. However, DOE decided not to implement this
plan because fundamental scientific issues had not yet been
resolved and there was no agreement between OFES and NNSA on which
agency had the responsibility of developing inertial fusion as an
energy source. When DOE rejected its advisory committee's plan, it
did not develop an alternative. A plan that identifies key
scientific and technological questions as well as the cost, time
frames, and detailed research and development tasks would help
OFES and NNSA better coordinate three separately funded inertial
fusion research programs that have different scientific and
technological objectives. Our recommendation does not involve
increasing funding for inertial fusion research activities, but
rather better managing the existing research activities. In
addition, a plan would help OFES and NNSA determine which agency
has the lead in advancing inertial fusion energy research. DOE
also noted that OFES and NNSA plan to establish a joint program in
fiscal year 2008 that will address fundamental scientific issues
related to inertial fusion energy. As we recognized in our report,
OFES's and NNSA's joint program in high-energy density physics may
explore a number of fundamental scientific issues related to
inertial fusion energy, but it will not address all of the
scientific issues that would advance inertial fusion energy. A
coordinated research plan would help identify gaps in scientific
knowledge.
Finally, DOE questioned our statement that the joint program would
not address "most" of the scientific issues that would advance
inertial fusion energy. We agree with DOE that, as currently
designed, the joint program may address many of the scientific
issues related to inertial fusion energy and we made the
appropriate change to the report. However, the joint program has
not yet been established and as a result, it is too early to tell
if all or most of the scientific issues will be addressed.
DOE requested that we reprint their enclosure with technical
comments. The technical comments repeated the major points
discussed in the general comments. As a result, we addressed the
technical comments in our response or made changes to the report,
as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Energy
and interested congressional committees. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may
be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.
Gene Aloise
Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Energy
Department of Energy:
Washington, DC 20585:
October 10, 2007:
Mr. Gene Aloise:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Aloise:
We have reviewed the draft Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report entitled "Fusion Energy, Definitive Cost Estimates for U.S.
Contributions to an International Experimental Reactor and Better
Coordinated DOE Research Are Needed" (GAO-08-30). We have coordinated
these comments with NNSA, and the general comments below, as well as
the page- specific comments on the report that are enclosed, represent
a coordinated DOE response.
* We recognize the concern raised about the preliminary nature of the
$1.2 billion cost estimate for the U.S. contribution to ITER project.
Based on the ITER International Organization's projected progress, we
believe we will have a baseline cost and schedule for the U.S. ITER
project by late FY 08 to early FY 09. That said, however, we believe
that the risks of this big international cooperative project are
balanced by the financial and scientific benefits of sharing the
project among the seven international partners.
* In the DOE report released in November, 2003, Facilities for the
Future of Science: A Twenty-Year Outlook, the Office of Science
identified ITER as the highest priority facility. The other elements of
the Fusion Energy Sciences program support the ITER project to the
maximum extent possible to insure its success. This is consistent with
recommendations that the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee made
in 2005 on the priorities for the program.
* The report makes statements about human capital challenges in the
area of fusion sciences. As stated more fully in the attached comments,
we believe that the annual Ph.D. production in this area is sufficient,
and is supplemented by students in other science and engineering
disciplines who have expressed an interest in working specifically on
ITER-related research.
* The report gives the erroneous impression that alternative magnetic
fusion approaches have been disproportionately decreased in support
over the past five years, as ITER- related research has increased. This
error comes from considering only a subset of the research activities,
self-defined by their advocates as the most innovative alternate
research activities. Using the objective designations of the alternate
magnetic approaches as discussed in the 2004 National Academies study
of the program, the share of funding in non-tokamak experimental
research has remained essentially flat at approximately 37% of the OFES
funding.
* The report makes a fundamental assumption that an explicit program to
develop inertial fusion as an energy source exists but is not
coordinated. This is not agreed to by the Department, and no such
program presently exists. The joint program on HEDLP will address
underlying scientific issues that will be relevant to future
considerations of inertial fusion energy. The first step in motivating
a program to develop inertial fusion as an energy source is the
demonstration of ignition on NIF under the NNSA defense programs.
* We disagree with the conclusion that this joint program "will not
address most of the scientific issues that would advance inertial
fusion energy". The joint program in HEDLP and the large NNSA program
in inertial confinement fusion will encompass most of the science
issues related to IFE target physics, which are the most compelling
scientific issues underpinning the potential application of inertial
fusion to energy at this stage of the research.
* OFES and NNSA acknowledge the report's recommendation, "to develop a
research plan to coordinate fusion research activities to advance
inertial fusion energy", but reject the claim that no such plan exists.
A detailed plan was in fact developed by FESAC in 2003, and presented
to DOE. It was determined that it was not appropriate to allocate the
much larger level of funding called for in this plan while underlying
scientific issues have yet to be resolved.
Additional page-specific comments and corrections on the draft report
are enclosed for your consideration. The Department requests that its
full comments including the enclosure be included in the GAO's final
report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Raymond J. Fonck:
Associate Director of the Office of Science for Fusion Energy
Sciences:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Gene Aloise at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the contact named above, Christopher Banks, Leland
Cogliani, Omari Norman, Keith Rhodes, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman,
and Ned Woodward made significant contributions to this report.
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in
meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
the performance and accountability of the federal government for
the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
no cost is through GAO's Web site ( [17]www.gao.gov ). Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of
newly posted products every afternoon, go to [18]www.gao.gov and
select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies
are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, DC 20548
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: [19]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [20][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [21][email protected] , (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
Room 7125 Washington, DC 20548
Public Affairs
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [22][email protected] , (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548
(360774)
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on [23]GAO-08-30 .
For more information, contact Gene Aloise at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected].
Highlights of [24]GAO-08-30 , a report to congressional committees
October 2007
FUSION ENERGY
Definitive Cost Estimates for U.S. Contributions to an International
Experimental Reactor and Better Coordinated DOE Research Are Needed
The United States is pursuing two paths to fusion energy--magnetic and
inertial. On November 21, 2006, the United States signed an agreement with
five countries and the European Union to build and operate the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in Cadarache,
France, to demonstrate the feasibility of magnetic fusion energy. The
United States also built and operates facilities to pursue inertial fusion
energy research. This report discusses (1) U.S. contributions to ITER and
the challenges, if any, in managing this international fusion program and
(2) the Department of Energy's (DOE) management of alternative fusion
research activities, including National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) initiatives. In performing this work, GAO analyzed budget
documents, briefings, and reports that focused on research and funding
priorities for the fusion program. GAO also met with officials from DOE,
NNSA, and the ITER Organization in France.
[25]What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends, among other things, that (1) DOE and NNSA develop a
research plan to coordinate fusion research activities to advance inertial
fusion and (2) DOE develop a strategy to hire, train, and retain staff
with the specialized skills needed to accomplish its mission. DOE neither
agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but questioned several of
our findings.
Over 9 years, DOE estimates it will spend $1.12 billion to help build
ITER, but this is only a preliminary estimate and may not fully reflect
the costs of U.S. participation. This preliminary estimate has not been
independently validated, as DOE guidance directs, because the reactor
design is not complete. Moreover, the $1.12 billion for ITER construction
does not include an additional $1.2 billion the United States is expected
to contribute to operate and decommission the facility. In addition, the
ITER Organization, which manages the construction and operation of ITER,
faces a number of management challenges to build ITER on time and on
budget that also may affect U.S. costs. For example, the ITER Organization
must develop quality assurance standards, test the reliability and
integrity of components built in different countries, and assemble them
with a high level of precision. Many of these challenges stem from the
difficulty of coordinating international efforts and the need for
consensus before making critical management decisions.
GAO has identified several challenges DOE faces in managing alternative
fusion research activities. First, NNSA and the Office of Fusion Energy
Sciences (OFES), which manage the inertial fusion program within DOE, have
not effectively coordinated their research activities to develop inertial
fusion as an energy source. For example, they do not have a coordinated
research plan that identifies key scientific and technological issues that
must be addressed to advance inertial fusion energy and how their research
activities would meet those goals. Second, DOE may find it difficult to
manage competing funding priorities to advance both ITER-related research
and alternative magnetic fusion approaches. DOE officials told GAO they
are focusing limited resources on ITER-related research activities. As a
result, as funding for ITER-related research has increased, the share of
funding for the most innovative alternative magnetic fusion research
activities decreased from 19 percent of the fusion research budget in
fiscal year 2002 to 13 percent in fiscal year 2007. According to DOE
officials, this level of funding is sufficient to meet research
objectives. However, university scientists involved in fusion research
told us that this decrease in funding has led to a decline in research
opportunities for innovative concepts, which could lead to a simpler, less
costly, or faster path to fusion energy, and reduced opportunities to
attract students to the fusion sciences and train them to fulfill future
workforce needs. Finally, while the demand for scientists and engineers to
run experiments at ITER and inertial fusion facilities is growing, OFES
does not have a human capital strategy to address expected future
workforce shortages. These shortages are likely to grow as a large part of
the fusion workforce retires over the next 10 years.
References
Visible links
17. http://www.gao.gov/
18. http://www.gao.gov/
19. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
20. mailto:[email protected]
21. mailto:[email protected]
22. mailto:[email protected]
23. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-30
24. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-30
*** End of document. ***