U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–871PDF 2017

AN OVERVIEW OF FUSION ENERGY SCIENCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

April 20, 2016 

Serial No. 114–74 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEPHAN KNIGHT, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

April 20, 2016 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Randy K. Weber, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Statement by Representative Alan Grayson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Bernard Bigot, Director General, ITER Organization 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Dr. Stewart Prager, Director, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30 

Dr. Scott Hsu, Scientist, Physics Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 38 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 40 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 38 

Appendix I: Additional Material for the Record 

Letter submitted by Representative Katherine M. Clark, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 78 

Documents submitted by Dr. Bernard Bigot, Director General, ITER Organization ..................................................................................................................... 80 

Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 83 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF FUSION ENERGY SCIENCE 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in Room 

2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy Weber [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Chairman WEBER. The Subcommittee on Energy will come to 

order. 

And without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses 

of the Subcommittee at any time. 

And we want to welcome you to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘An 

Overview of Fusion Energy Science.’’ I recognize myself for five 

minutes. 

Today, we will hear from a panel of experts on the status of fusion energy science and learn about what can be done to advance 

this research and technology looking forward. We have two DOE 

national labs represented here today, as well as the ITER Organization. These experts represent the world’s efforts to advance fusion energy science. 

The Science Committee has bipartisan interest in fusion energy 

research and development, and we look forward to hearing from 

our witnesses today about the future of this very, very exciting research. 

Fusion energy science is groundbreaking because researchers are 

working towards a goal that seems actually beyond reach: to create 

a star on Earth, to contain it, and control it to the point that we 

can convert the immense heat into electricity. Fusion clearly is 

high-risk yet high-reward research and development. 

One of the Energy Subcommittee’s key responsibilities is to 

maintain oversight of the research activities within the Office of 

Science. As the authorizing committee, we must also consider the 

prospects of future research investments. 

The DOE’s current budget request for fiscal year 2017 is approximately $398 million, a proposed cut from fiscal year 2016-enacted 

levels at $438 million. 

Funding for fusion energy science has been on a downward trend 

over the past few years. This sends a signal of uncertainty to the 

fusion research community of America’s commitment to lead in this 

science. Congress must decide how to effectively invest taxpayer 

dollars in basic research that provides the scientific foundation for 

technologies that today might seem impossible. 

Today, we will hear testimony from Dr. Stewart Prager, Director 

of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, which is the nation’s 

preeminent lab in fusion science. Under his leadership, Princeton’s 

recent upgrade to its spherical tokamak—I keep wanting to say 

tomahawk, and I know that’s not right—tokamak fusion reactor 

was completed on time and on budget. Dr. Prager, can you teach 

Congress how to do that with other programs? 

I look forward to discussing with Dr. Prager what opportunities 

exist for the United States to play a larger role in fusion energy 

research and development. 

I also look forward to hearing from Dr. Scott Hsu—am I pronouncing that right, Dr. Hsu—of Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

Dr. Hsu’s work is a great example of how our experts responsible 

for maintaining the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile can apply 

their knowledge for an alternate use. 

Of course, we’re all interested to get a status update on—is it 

ITER or ITER? ITER, okay. With the complexity of a multinational 

collaboration like ITER, this project has faced more challenges than 
6 

most. The Department of Energy will release its own assessment 

of this project in early May. 

Fortunately, today, we have the opportunity to hear from the Director General of the ITER project directly, Dr. Bernard—is it 

Bigot? 

Dr. BIGOT. Certainly. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Dr. Bigot’s track record as the ITER Director General thus far has been stellar and inspiring. Dr. Bigot, 

we look forward to your testimony today. 

It is important that this committee continues to scrutinize the 

progress of ITER to ensure that it remains a good investment of 

taxpayer dollars. We must also consider the importance of access 

to the ITER reactor for American researchers and America’s standing and credibility as a global scientific collaborator. If the United 

States is going to lead the world in cutting-edge science, we cannot 

take our commitments to our international partners lightly, and we 

must not undermine progress on these complex projects. 

I want to thank our accomplished panel of witnesses for testifying on fusion energy research and development today, and I look 

forward to a productive discussion about this exciting area of basic 

science. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:] 
7 
8 
9 

Chairman WEBER. I’ll now yield to the Ranking Member. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I welcome this distinguished panel of witnesses here today to discuss a topic that is of critical importance to the future of our nation 

and in fact the entire world. 

Fusion energy has the potential to provide a practically unlimited supply of safe, reliable, clean energy to us all. While we’ve yet 

to achieve a viable fusion reactor, I believe there’s many paths that 

we have to do so. I also don’t believe that we’re doing nearly 

enough to ensure that we’re pursuing the most promising approaches to achieve this goal quickly and effectively as possible. 

Fusion energy can be an enormous global boon to every living 

human being, and it’s going to happen. Whether it happens five 

years from now or 50 years from now depends on the decisions that 

we make and the work that you do. 

That’s why, while I appreciate the participation of both the ITER 

Director General and the Director of the DOE’s only national laboratory dedicated to advancing fusion energy, I’m also particularly 

pleased that we have Dr. Hsu here on the panel this morning. He’s 

the recipient of the largest award in the recently established 

ARPA–E program that’s examining the potential for alternative innovative fusion energy concepts, this one called magnetized target 

fusion, which may achieve net energy production far sooner and 

with much lower capital costs than conventional existing approaches. I also look forward to hearing Dr. Hsu’s thoughts on how 

the Department of Energy can better support and assess the viability more generally of a breakthrough approaches like this. 

And I look forward to learning more about the progress that 

ITER has made under Dr. Bigot’s leadership to address previously 

identified management deficiencies and to establish a more reliable 

path forward for the project. 

And finally, I look forward to Dr. Prager’s views on how we can 

and should regain or maintain U.S. leadership in fusion energy development moving forward. 

I think that this panel today goes right to the heart of why we 

do the work we do in research in America through the U.S. Government and otherwise. It’s going to happen. Sooner or later mankind 

will definitely, without any doubt, establish a means to generate 

fusion energy and meet our energy needs this way. The question 

is it’s going to happen during our lifetimes and our generation or 

the next generation or the one after that. I prefer to see it happen 

in my generation, and I’ll know that when that does happen, I will 

feel very proud that we sat here today, learned how to make that 

happen, and then did what we needed to do to go ahead and to deliver this breakthrough energy source to all mankind. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grayson follows:] 
10 
11 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Grayson. 

I now recognize Chairman Smith, the Chairman of the full committee. Mr. Smith? 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate both your opening statement and the Ranking 

Member’s longstanding interest in fusion energy. And I tend to 

think he’s correct; I hope it happens sooner rather than later. 

Today, we will hear about the status of fusion energy research 

and development and the prospects of future scientific discovery in 

fusion energy. The basic idea of fusion energy is to create the 

equivalent of the power source of a star here on Earth. The same 

nuclear reactions that occur in a star would be recreated and controlled within a fusion reactor. The heat from these reactions would 

ultimately be converted into renewable and reliable electricity. 

It has captured the imagination of scientists and engineers for 

over half-a-century. At the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, 

the National Spherical Torus Experiment enables scientists from 

across the country to carry out experiments in cutting-edge fusion 

research. Someday, the results of this research may provide the scientific foundation for producing power through fusion. 

Other DOE labs also support fusion research. At Los Alamos National Laboratory, our nuclear weapons researchers apply their expertise to the development of innovation—innovative fusion concepts. 

The ultimate goal in fusion energy science is to provide a sustainable, renewable, zero-emissions energy source. We cannot say 

when fusion will be a viable part of our energy portfolio, but we 

should support this critical science that could benefit future generations. 

One major step toward achieving this goal is ITER. The ITER 

project is a multinational collaborative effort to build the world’s 

largest tokamak-type fusion reactor. The federal government 

should invest in long-term challenging science projects such as this, 

which will ensure America remains a world leader in innovation. 

Today, we will hear from the Director General of ITER, who will 

provide an update on the project’s advances and challenges. 

Basic research, such as fusion energy science, provides the 

underpinnings for groundbreaking technology. This type of energy 

R&D is still in its early stages and requires commitment and leadership. Unfortunately, the President has not provided the leadership that is necessary and has repeatedly cut funding for fusion 

science. Despite the President’s promises to support clean energy 

R&D, his lack of support for fusion energy is more than disappointing. 

Fusion energy is the type of technology that could someday 

change the way we think about energy. To maintain our competitive advantage, we must continue to support the basic research 

that will lead to next-generation energy technologies. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
12 
13 
14 

Chairman SMITH. Before I yield back, I want to explain to my 

colleagues and our expert panelists today that I have a Judiciary 

Committee markup, so I’m going to have to excuse myself but hope 

to be back. Thank you. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Chairman Smith. 

Our witnesses today—our first witness is Dr. Bernard Bigot, Director General of the ITER Organization. Dr. Bigot received his 

bachelor’s degree in mathematics from Claremont McKenna College and his MBA from Harvard Business School. 

Our next witness today is Dr. Stewart Prager, Director of the 

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. Dr. Prager received his 

Ph.D. in plasma physics from Columbia University. 

And our final witness today is Dr. Scott Hsu, scientist in the 

Physics Division of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Dr. Hsu 

received his Ph.D. in astrophysical sciences from Princeton. 

I’m now going to recognize Dr. Bigot, Mr. Grayson, for five minutes to present his testimony, and he’s going to tell us when they’re 

going to get the fusion problem fixed. 

Dr. Bigot, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. BERNARD BIGOT, 

DIRECTOR GENERAL, ITER ORGANIZATION 

Dr. BIGOT. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman Weber, 

Ranking Member Grayson, and distinguished—sorry. I would like 

also to recognize the full committee Chairman Smith, which was 

there a few minutes ago. 

I’m grateful and deeply honored for this opportunity to present 

to you the status of progress on the ITER project. May I have the 

first slide? 

[Slide.] 

So you see on this slide the worksite, okay, we have something 

old, which is the steel frame just in front of you, and just behind 

is a tokamak pit. It was recorded in last September, and I hope you 

will be able to view the video we have prepared for you. It will 

show the real progress and the very short time. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide.] 

As you know, the project started in 2007, and after nearly ten 

years—it will be ten years, okay, on next January—it was obvious 

for many that we have some organizational shortcoming. And is 

why in a management assessment report, which has been provided 

by Bill Madia, Dr. Bill Madia in 2013, they point out some specific 

issue which have to be fixed. 

This is why in early August 2014 I was questioned if I could consider to take some responsibility in order to help this project, and 

after nearly 12 years as a head of Atomic Energy Commission and 

Alternative Energies Commission in France, I consider such possibility. But I said I want to do it only after we have an agreement 

of an action plan to be sure that all the ITER members support the 

recovery plan we needed. And is why we tried to fix, okay, the organization. 

We decide on—about effective decision process. We set up Executive Project Board. We gathered together project team in such a 

way we have an integrated, okay, way to proceed with domestic 
15 

agencies, seven domestic agencies, which have to provide nearly 90 

percent of the value of the project. And I am very pleased to say 

that we have made very important progress in this field. 

The second important point was to freeze the design. When you 

are to build the machine now, you need to have really a full, okay, 

finalization of the design. And as you see on the vacuum vessel sector, nine of them are like this. There is many, many piece to assemble. So if you have no finalization of the design, it will delay 

the delivery. Now on the most important for me is ITER Organization as a design responsible and as the owner of the project must 

not be a limiting step on any progress for the project. 

Also, we develop a large, okay, project culture, nuclear recognition of—it is a statement we have to do, and I am pleased to see 

that the whole staff now is moving on in this direction. But may 

be the most important for me is to have a schedule. And when I 

come in, I discover that, okay, many people don’t feel that the 

schedule wasn’t right. And it’s why we tried to fix it. I am pleased 

to say that we have made it okay as of last November. The ITER 

council agrees on the first years and we set up some milestones. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide.] 

And so you see some of the milestones, and I don’t want to depict 

it in detail, but really it’s impressive how large the progress has 

been made once we free the energy of the suppliers and have a 

clear plan. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide.] 

Some other milestones, as you see. 

Next. 

[Slide.] 

Okay. The most important was for the ITER members to have an 

assessment of our proposal as a schedule, and is why, we have an 

independent review panel. And I’m very pleased to say that on time 

the panel has delivered its report. On last Friday, April 15, we’ve, 

as you see, quite a positive assessment on the way we are proceeding. 

Next slide. 

[Slide.] 

Okay. And now we expect that on the basis of this report that 

we will be able to have a final decision, okay, on 27th of April I 

expect that the ITER council extraordinary meeting will be able to 

examine the finding of those independent report and give full guidance on the next steps. And on the next two ITER Council, we will 

have approval of the baseline in such a way we can move on to 

First Plasma first and after to DT, deuterium-tritium commissioning. 

Next slide. 

[Slide.] 

Now, okay, why is the U.S. and the many ITER members has to 

stay in in this larger project is because I do believe it’s worth for 

them to share their capacity. We’ve limited investment, nine percent, while it would be a 100 percent return due to the full sharing 

of intellectual property and operational know-how. 

Next slide. 
16 

[Slide.] 

As you know, the United States is largely contributing. with 

many national labs been involved in. And you imagine that if the 

U.S. alone or any other ITER members has to contribute all together, it will take much more time. 

Next steps, okay. 

[Slide.] 

Not only we are developing technology for fusion but for many 

other cutting-edge technologies and superconducting materials 

under final distribution and all these things. 

Next. 

[Slide.] 

you see here a map which show that many States in the U.S. is 

involved in the industrialization of this project. Nearly $800 million 

has been already awarded to the industry. Eighty percent are spent 

fully in the United States of taxpayer money from the United 

States and even more, all the partners are requesting the U.S. industry to deliver. 

Next. 

[Slide.] 

Here is a full list of all the potential suppliers in the, okay, last 

time. 

Next. Next. Okay. 

[Slide.] 

And we do believe it’s important that it is agreed to global sense 

of urgency about the importance of fusion as you depict because 

whatever we do, we need to provide more energy due to the increase in population and also the increase in the level of livestyle 

now. 

Next. 

[Slide.] 

Addressing also some environmental concerns, and you see we 

depict some possibility. And there is not a silver bullet. We have 

to make some innovation in order to be able to, okay, fulfill the expectation of energy supply. And there’s big players are not only the 

United States but also some others, and we have not able to move 

on. It will be difficult. And I’m very pleased to tell you that last 

weeks I was in China, and China is now pushing very hard in 

order to be able to deliver. 

Last slide, I do believe. 

[Slide.] 

Fusion is really making the case, as you mentioned, clean, safe, 

abundant, and economic energy potential. 

And last slide. 

[Slide.] 

Just to show you that we are now moving on, okay, with this picture. And if you agree, we could have this video just showing you, 

okay, how it is now in the last few days on the working site. 

Thank you for your attention, and I’m ready to listen to any of 

your question. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bigot follows:] 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Bigot. 

And at this time I recognize Dr. Prager for five minutes to 

present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. STEWART PRAGER, DIRECTOR, 

PRINCETON PLASMA PHYSICS LABORATORY 

Dr. PRAGER. Well, thank you very much for your opening comments—I appreciate them greatly—and also for the opportunity to 

speak to you today. 

I direct the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, PPPL, which 

is a national laboratory, a DOE national laboratory managed by 

Princeton University. I’ve been asked to describe PPPL, its activities and opportunities; and ITER, its importance in relation to the 

U.S. research program. 

PPPL employs a staff of 500. It has the dual mission to develop 

fusion energy and to advance fundamental plasma science with its 

many applications. The core of a fusion reactor is a very hot plasma, a gas of electrically charged particles such as a flame or a star. 

Research at PPPL concentrates on ideas that are innovative, 

unique, and at the world forefront, key criteria for all U.S. fusion 

research. 

Fusion energy research in Asia and Europe is escalating. For the 

U.S. to contribute competitively in the face of larger investments 

elsewhere, we must focus on activities with breakthrough potential. 

Research at PPPL aims for innovation in four major areas: the development of a fusion concept that might lead to a fusion pilot 

plant as a next step for U.S. fusion, the challenge of how one surrounds a 100-million-degree plasma by a resilient material, the use 

of large-scale computing for new insights into fusion systems, and 

physics research that is key to the success of ITER. 

We’re currently at a propitious moment at PPPL. We have recently upgraded our major facility and just begun operation of this 

new experiment, the National Spherical Torus Experiment-Upgrade, NSTX–U. It is a DOE-user facility with 350 researchers 

from 60 institutions. The experiment cuts across all of the four topics just mentioned. It is a design that could lead to a reduced-size 

fusion pilot plant, a facility that would demonstrate net electricity 

production from fusion. NSTX will tell us whether this exciting 

step is possible. To do so it will push the frontier of our understanding of fusion plasmas. 

We are also developing a novel solution to the challenge of the 

material that faces the hot plasma. Most of the world is investigating solid metals. A complementary approach is to surround the 

plasma by a liquid metal. Liquids are not damaged by the hot plasma. This offers a breakthrough solution to a major challenge. Will 

it work? We aim to find out through research that combines plasma 

physics with material science. 

Fusion today is being transformed by supercomputing. We can 

now solve the equations that describe fusion plasmas as never before. PPPL has developed complex computer codes that are generating innovations in fusion systems. All these activities yield key 

understanding to help guide the future of ITER. 

Looking to the future, opportunities abound for new world-leading major initiatives in the United States and the PPPL. PPPL is 
29 

an underutilized resource for the Nation. The physical infrastructure includes capabilities that are unexploited, but more importantly, the staff of PPPL and U.S. fusion labs in general has broad 

world-class expertise and ideas that are not being tapped fully. We 

can do much more. 

I will mention three exciting paths for PPPL and the United 

States. First, if experimental results prove favorable over the next 

decade, the United States could possibly move to preparations for 

a fusion pilot plant, a transformational step. 

Second, with the revolutionary advance in computing power, we 

are now optimizing the fusion system in ways that were nearly inconceivable 20 years ago. With significant reactor advantages, 

PPPL aspires to experimentally test such modern designs. 

Third, if current research and liquid materials proves favorable, 

we could move to a definitive integrated test of that concept. 

And PPPL aims, as the national lab for fusion, to coordinate the 

U.S. research team on ITER following a model we are developing 

for a U.S. team that’s collaborating on a major facility in Germany. 

This brings me to the importance of ITER. ITER will be the first 

experiment to demonstrate and study a burning plasma, a fusion 

plasma that is self-sustaining, kept hot by the energy from fusion. 

A burning plasma is an essential gateway to commercial fusion. 

ITER is the path to this crucial goal. 

ITER will also test key technologies and generate 500 million 

watts of thermal fusion power. ITER will be a landmark experiment in science and energy of the 21st century. It will be the focus 

of the world fusion program, complemented by strong domestic research in each participating nature—nation. 

It is imperative that the United States maintain active participation in ITER and a strong domestic research program. These two 

components are strongly intertwined. Without a strong domestic 

program, we will not be able to extract information from ITER, and 

a domestic program is needed to solve the remaining challenges 

that ITER is not designed to solve. 

The U.S. fusion program consists of broad research at universities and national laboratories and three major tokamak facilities. 

The three major facilities are General Atomics, MIT, and Princeton, form a triad of complementary capabilities that have made 

seminal contributions. The Oak Ridge, Livermore, Los Alamos, and 

other national labs also make key contributions. 

The university research community in the United States provides 

foundational and innovative contributions. Research at universities 

spans the full range of fusion challenges carried out through experiments on campus and through participation at user facilities. 

There’s a very strong need to reinvigorate U.S. university research 

and in fusion energy, which has suffered losses in recent years. 

The opportunities for the United States to accelerate the pace to 

fusion energy are enormous. This would strongly benefit the United 

States as well as the world. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide an opening 

statement. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Prager follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Prager. 

I now recognize Dr. Hsu for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. SCOTT HSU, SCIENTIST, 

PHYSICS DIVISION, 

LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Dr. HSU. Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Grayson, Members 

of the Committee, thank you for your opening remarks, and also 

thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. I thank the 

Committee for its longstanding support of fusion energy and plasma physics research in this country. 

I have been asked to describe the status of DOE support for innovative fusion energy concept development and to provide recommendations. I am pleased that the committee is considering 

these topics. 

I also ask that my written testimony be entered into the record. 

Chairman WEBER. Without objection. 

Dr. HSU. My name is Scott Hsu. I was trained in plasma physics 

at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, and I am now a fusion 

research scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. As you 

know, Los Alamos had its storied beginnings in the Manhattan 

Project during World War II. Today, Los Alamos is focused on national security science, which includes our nation’s energy security. 

In controlled fusion research, Los Alamos historically focused on 

many non-tokamak approaches, and thus, it is perhaps fitting that 

I appear before you today to discuss innovative fusion energy concept development. 

The first point is that there are many credible approaches to fusion energy other than our two leading approaches, which are the 

tokamak such as ITER and inertial confinement fusion such as the 

National Ignition Facility. You may refer to figure 1 on my written 

testimony. 

Many in the fusion community refer to the other approaches collectively as alternative or innovative concepts. These are specifically what I am discussing here today. 

The main reason many of us are motivated to pursue innovative 

approaches is that they hold the potential for a smaller fusion reactor with less engineering complexity. Some of them could potentially cost much less to develop in a shorter time, perhaps in time 

to penetrate midcentury electricity generation markets. But these 

concepts are less mature, and more research is needed to tell us 

whether their performance can be improved to the point of enabling 

a power reactor. 

The second point is that lowering the cost of fusion energy development is itself a worthwhile goal. The reason is that the stages 

of development of our mainline fusion programs are very costly, too 

costly for private investors and companies to play a significant role. 

One potential way to lower the cost of fusion energy development 

is to strategically pursue a number of the most promising innovative fusion concepts that are inherently much lower cost than the 

tokamak. If federal support reduces early-stage risk for promising 

lower-cost innovative fusion energy concepts, then more companies 

such as Tri Alpha Energy or General Fusion may step into pursue 

fusion energy development. 
39 

The third point is that present DOE support of innovative fusion 

concept development is unhealthy with no new federal funding opportunities. As recently as 2010, DOE provided approximately $42 

million per year to support innovative concept development. Today, 

the only such support is in the recently initiated ARPA–E ALPHA 

program, which is $30 million over three years, and is focused on 

a particular class of fusion approaches called magneto-inertial fusion due to its inherently low cost. This was also referred to as 

magnetized target fusion. You may refer to figure 2 of my written 

testimony. 

So let me close with three primary recommendations. First, Congress and DOE should reassess innovative fusion energy concept 

development, which should be pursued in addition to our present 

fusion energy program elements, which Dr. Prager described very 

eloquently. DOE should consider implementing a new energy-oriented innovative concepts program with appropriate metrics to encourage lower cost and timely development of economically competitive fusion power. Progress is possible for a modest fraction of 

the overall fusion budget. 

Secondly, any new program should enable and promote advances 

with regard to both the plasma physics challenges and the criteria 

for a practical fusion power reactor. 

Finally, a federal funding bridge should exist for the entire innovative concepts development path from early-stage research to a 

logical handoff to private development. And this is depicted in figure 3 of my written testimony. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I’m happy to take 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hsu follows:] 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Hsu. And, Dr. Bigot, when you 

earlier had your comments about the video, I thought you were offering that—to send that to our office, but we’ve got time to watch 

that video now if that’s what you’d like to do. 

Let’s play that video. 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman WEBER. You bet you. 

[Video shown.] 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Bigot. I now recognize myself 

for five minutes. 

Dr. Prager, I think you said that the fusion power may become 

actually a—you may have a pilot plant in ten years in your testimony? Elaborate on that. 

Dr. PRAGER. So one grand goal of fusion on a step along the way 

is to build an energy-producing plant. 

Chairman WEBER. Right. 

Dr. PRAGER. ITER will produce energy but it won’t make—it’s 

not intended to make net electricity. So there is a goal to do that, 

to demonstrate that you can make net electricity, produce more 

electricity than you can consume. 

So in experiments at Princeton the design that we’re studying at 

NSTX–U, if successful, can offer the possibility of doing that at a 

somewhat smaller size, not radically smaller but somewhat smaller 

scale than the conventional tokamak approach. 

Chairman WEBER. Would that be on site where you are now? 

Dr. PRAGER. No. A—such a facility would involve tritium handling, which would not best be done in Princeton, New Jersey. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Well—— 

Dr. PRAGER. In ten years we could begin the design and construction of such a facility, and there are—this is—there are other ideas, 

for example, to use advances in magnets, current magnet technology also to seek reduced size pilot plants. So this is one aspiration for the future. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, that—I mean, you’re putting it—to the 

gentleman from Florida’s question about we don’t do this in our 

lifetime, you’re putting a ten-year time frame on it, which, whether 

or not it’s realistic—but that is a goal for us to shoot at and I’m 

encouraged to hear that. 

Dr. PRAGER. Yes. But just let me clarify, that’s not ten years to 

a commercial reactor. 

Chairman WEBER. No, I get it. 

Dr. PRAGER. So let me clear—— 

Chairman WEBER. No, I get that. 

Dr. PRAGER. Okay. If it’s ten years where we would begin the—— 

Chairman WEBER. Right. 

Dr. PRAGER. —design and construction of a pilot plant—— 

Chairman WEBER. I’m just hoping my friend from Florida will 

still be with us—— 

Dr. PRAGER. Yes. 

Chairman WEBER. —in ten years. 

Dr. PRAGER. I hope so, too. 

Chairman WEBER. Yes. You bet. So that—I was glad to hear 

that. 
52 

And, Dr. Prager, would you support Department of Energy’s development of high-performance computational tools that would be 

accessible to the researchers in the private sector, academia, and 

at the national labs to be useful to the fusion community? Do you 

think that would help shorten that time frame to where we could 

develop that commercial energy power plant? 

Dr. PRAGER. Absolutely, yes. You know, there’s been revolutionary advances in supercomputers that’s revolutionizing all of 

modern science, fusion no less than any other. So with the supercomputing capabilities we can design concepts and test them on the 

computer and advance them in ways that we couldn’t possibly do 

before. And there are new ideas on the table because of that. 

It’s also, I might say, critical for us in terms of interpreting ITER 

results. We need these advanced computation to understand as 

best as we can how ITER will behaved. So this is revolutionary for 

fusion. 

Chairman WEBER. Dr. Hsu, does that help you? 

Dr. HSU. Absolutely, yes. I should also add that for smaller 

projects such as Innovative Concepts, the resources generally are 

tough to come by to make use of our computational capabilities. So 

any assistance on that front would be tremendously useful for innovative concept development. Also in the inertial fusion side, access 

to some of the codes can be difficult for people not at the national 

labs, so—— 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. 

Dr. HSU. —making codes more generally available would help fusion energy development. 

Chairman WEBER. You’re working on magnetized target fusion? 

Dr. HSU. Yes, that’s correct. 

Chairman WEBER. That’s part of this and that would help you in 

that endeavor? 

Dr. HSU. Yes. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Very good. 

And, Dr. Bigot, I’m going to come back to you. Thank you, by the 

way, for your success—early success as Director General in setting 

a time frame and a guideline. We really appreciate your efforts in 

that manner. 

The fact that you’ve had success should instill confidence, but 

how can we help you—what needs to be done to increase the confidence in ITER that ITER will be on—will continue on that steady 

pace to realize its goals? What are your plans to make sure that 

you continue that pace? 

Dr. BIGOT. It’s clear that it’s a long-term commitment for all the 

seven ITER members, and I do believe that the best would be for 

the ITER members to have referral and open discussion in such a 

way that any proposal we could make could be fully examined and 

supported. And it’s why it is so important that the seven members 

feel fully committed to support what we call the ′′best technically 

achievable schedule′′ in such a way that we have all the milestones—we have now clearly a position on this road. We have the 

full support. 

I really appreciate that you would give us the opportunity to 

make more largely—warn us, share among all the ITER members 

about the importance of continuous support. 
53 

Chairman WEBER. Well, thank you for saying that. And we want 

you to view this committee as a resource because we want to be 

a source of encouragement and resource for you so that anything 

we can do to keep this project moving forward, we want to be able 

to be helped in. 

I’m over my time. So thank you again for being here and your 

testimony. 

And the Chair is going to recognize Alan Grayson. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. 

Dr. Bigot, it’s been ten years already since the major governments of the world signed off on the ITER project. We now have 

11 years to go before we start to do the major experiments involved, and there isn’t even a plan to actually generate net electricity from ITER. That’s not its design or its purpose. 

Dr. Prager, you’re talking about an alternative smaller-scale approach where we would begin construction ten years from now. 

Let’s say hypothetically that mankind wakes up tomorrow morning 

and decides that we don’t want to wait 10 or 11 years until we do 

the experiments or the construction, but we want a much quicker 

result that can lead to electricity generation net from fusion 

projects in a shorter time frame. What should we do? Dr. Hsu? 

Dr. HSU. I think we need to pursue many avenues at this point 

because we don’t know the answer right now. ITER is the most mature—ITER is the most mature method, and I believe that is why 

we’re pursuing and need to pursue it, but we should consider all 

our known options at this point. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, consider, what do you mean by that? Pursue, 

you used that word also. What do you mean by that? What should 

we do? 

Dr. HSU. We should look at our other options alongside our 

maybe—you know, our most mature option. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Do you want to enumerate some? 

Dr. PRAGER. Well, so some of the examples I discuss in my written testimony and on the figure 1 of my written testimony, DOE 

has supported the development of those concepts in the past. There 

is room to continue advancing some of those concepts, and some of 

those concepts, as I mentioned earlier, are attractive because they 

have less engineering complexity. But they—but I caution, they are 

at a less-mature state right now, so it’s harder to provide a reliable 

path forward. We need to do the research to decide whether the 

performance is acceptable. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Dr. Prager, if we don’t want to wait 10 or 11 years 

simply to conduct more experiments or new construction but we actually want to see some positive result that benefits mankind in a 

shorter time frame, what should we do? 

Dr. PRAGER. Well, we’re resource-limited right now. I think if the 

United States wanted to commit more aggressively to fusion, 

there’s lots that we can do. We can lay plans now for in the United 

States to build an energy-producing facility. Whether it’s a pilot 

plant or something of reduced ambition, the scientific immunity 

would have to debate, but we can move forward on that. We could 

move forward on ideas that offer perhaps more attractive route or 

solve some of the problems that are confronting us. 
54 

I mentioned the computer is able to design machines we couldn’t 

design before. There are designed on the table that the United 

States should be building that would have very attractive features. 

I think there is no one idea that’s a magic bullet that will deliver 

commercial fusion power in 10 years. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Okay. 

Dr. PRAGER. I don’t think that’s going to happen. But we can 

greatly accelerate the pace, and no question, fusion can be developed in a timescale to have a huge impact on how we produce energy in the mid-part of this century. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. 

Dr. PRAGER. I do agree with Dr. Hsu’s testimony. I think that we 

should be supporting ideas in fusion that span from the mainstream and there’s a continuous spectrum all out to ideas that are 

very, very primitive at this time. But I agree with Dr. Hsu that we 

should have metrics and a systematic way to judge their progress 

and what should move forward and what shouldn’t be. 

Mr. GRAYSON. You say there are designs on the table that the 

United States should be building. What are they? 

Dr. PRAGER. So here you’ll get different answers. Let me just 

preface it. You’ll get different answers from different fusion scientists because there’s a plethora of ideas and everybody has their 

favorite. So with that preface I’ll tell you one of my favorites, okay? 

There are designs now that use magnets that look highly, highly 

asymmetric. If you look at how—the magnet structure, it’s not nice, 

circular magnets. It’s because we can design—we can optimize the 

shape of the magnetic bottle so that—to make the best physics performance we can possibly get. 

So there are designs that go into the brand name of stellarators. 

They’re studied in Germany and Japan, but there are unique U.S. 

designs that automatically run continuously for months on end and 

are extremely stable and well controlled. And that’s one example, 

I think, of a modern design that we should be building. And there 

are others. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Dr. Bigot? 

Dr. BIGOT. You know, I want to be very clear. We have not to 

oversell, okay, the schedule. For example, I just want to let you 

know that for many factorings a big vacuum vessel sectors. There 

are nine that I mentioned there. We know we could not do it before 

three years and eight months, okay? It takes time if we want to 

be able to really deliver. 

The ITER project now want to demonstrate clearly that we will 

have, okay, massive production, a sustainable production, and it is 

leading-edge, okay, technologies and it takes time, okay. It’s a nuclear facility. We need to absolutely work on quality and safety, 

and for me, I’m very supportive of the alternative, okay, development, which could be brought in because I do believe it will be 

worth once we have as ITER demonstration to integrate some of 

these things. But as long as we have not seen the real breakthrough with, okay, the yield of factor of ten and when compared 

with the energy it is consuming in order to heat the plasma it will 

be difficult to accommodate. 

Again, we have to think about, for example, for developing the 

superconducting coils now, it takes nearly, okay, 30 years, okay, on 
55 

all the best expert worldwide in national labs in order to secure an 

industry production, okay. So from my point of view we are not to 

raise too much expectation. 

The most important for me is to keep now on schedule. We have 

a clear schedule, okay. It will take, as you say, okay, ten, eleven 

years to have the first plasma done, and I do believe it will be the 

best demonstration of the availability of this technology to be able 

to afford according to the best schedule we have. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman and now recognize Mr. 

Knight from California for five minutes. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

So I’m just going to go down the kind of time frame here and 

who’s involved. We have seven members involved, and we have 

about a 30-year process of where we started on this and now we’re 

talking about another—maybe a ten-year process before we get to 

a—kind of a working model for lack of a better term here. 

In every situation when we talk about a long-term project, we’re 

always talking about cost, we’re always talking about who’s involved and maybe if we need to get more money, then we have to 

look at those members, or has anyone talked about bringing in 

other countries, other members into this agreement? Yes, sir. 

Dr. BIGOT. Yes. Clearly, I’m pleased to see that in the world 

many countries are looking to fusion, as you do yourself, and I’m 

very pleased to see some new companies starting in order to demonstrate if there is some innovation. And I’m clear to you that some 

country now are questioning us as to whether we could accept if 

they could join us as a new ITER member. So very soon I will discuss with some of these countries in order to see if they could fulfill 

the regulation and the rules to join the ITER. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Okay. 

Dr. BIGOT. And I will let you know as soon as, okay, we will be 

there. It could help us because, as you know, there is over-cost and 

so if these people bring in and are decided to be really a member, 

it will reduce the difficulty to find, okay, the financial request we 

are now facing. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Okay. Very good. And I’m to understand that the 

ITER project is the closest project in this form of technology anywhere in the world, is that correct? 

Dr. BIGOT. According to me, yes. We have been working for so 

long and all—— 

Mr. KNIGHT. You’re my expert. 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. And we are—yes. And we are now benefiting 

of all the experience. You know, when the project start, it was quite 

difficult challenge to fix everything, but now after the ten years, I 

do believe if we have a proper management, we will be able to deliver on time. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Okay. And my last question is a question I always 

put to my son is that do you think we’re smart enough to do some 

of the things today? And the answer is always we may or may not 

be smart enough to do some of these things. The fact of the matter 

is for the supercomputing that is happening today, we are way 

smarter today than we might have been ten years ago with the ad-
56 

vancements in computers, with the advancements that we have 

done over the last ten years to get us to where we are. 

So in ten years from now, hopefully, we have this model, hopefully, we are on schedule and we are hitting all the points that 

we’re supposed to for this project. But over those ten years, computers are going to be infinitely better at what they do, compared 

to today. We are going to know an awful lot more in ten years than 

we know today. 

So with all of that being said, I hear from all three of the panelists that it is very hopeful and possible that we will be there in ten 

years to have this project up and running. And I am getting that 

from all three of my panelists, is that correct? 

Dr. BIGOT. Yes. According to me, you are correct. It was really 

very well point out and underlined that computing facility is very, 

very important asset for the developing of these technologies. 

As you know now, within the ITER we have what we call a 

broader approach. With Japan, for example, we have a computer 

specially dedicated to the modeling of the plasma and all of the, 

okay, operation and factors. 

But I would say that now the ITER project is a really challenging 

engineering, okay, goal and is why it’s bringing us so much to have 

this computing capability. And if you come onsite, you will see we 

have what we call a virtual room where all the engineers day after 

day are able to see how this piece will be fully assembled, how we 

can maintain them, how we could take advantage of the optimization of the process. So computing for me is really something which 

could help a lot in the future. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I think we 

were just invited to southern France. 

Chairman WEBER. All right. Well, when this hearing is concluded, we’ll all get—go to the airport. 

I appreciate the gentleman yielding back, and the gentlelady 

from Massachusetts is recognized. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the panelists for being here. And I understand that burning plasma science 

is just one of the areas that we have to address if we really want 

to deliver on fusion’s promise of clean—as a clean energy source in 

a meaningful timescale as we look at climate change and the effects that it is having. 

What—this is really a follow-up on Representative Grayson’s 

question, but what does the United States have to do to establish 

leadership and accelerate the progress in plasma phasing materials 

research or in simulation and modeling of plasmas? For anyone. 

Dr. BIGOT. I could start. For me from my point of view as ITER, 

as everybody knows in the world, the United States has the most 

advanced, okay, in science and technology industry. So the best we 

could expect is to train excellent engineers, excellent scientists, and 

invite them to join the effort because the staff will be the best asset 

to move forward more rapidly. 

And so for me it’s very important that we have a clear long-term 

vision, okay, a real roadmap to deliver in such a way we built trust 

for the new generation to be involved in these works. As we discussed here, it’s a few years ahead of us when we will be able to 
57 

operate a facility, and the best is to have new generation to be involved in this field according to my views. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you. 

Dr. PRAGER. So in terms of your two questions on computation, 

I think we have the knowhow, we know what to do, we’re building 

the codes, and we just need to be part of actually the presidential 

initiative in exascale computation. If fusion can partake in that, we 

can very directly move ahead in computation. That’s—we’re just— 

we’re ready to go. And it’s an area where a relatively modest investment can keep the United States on the leading edge in fusion 

computation. 

You asked specifically about plasma-facing materials. Well, within the last year the U.S. fusion community got together and did 

some planning in that and came up with four possible next steps. 

They include building an experiment that’s specifically designed to 

shoot a plasma into a material to develop material science. It includes a robust program in developing liquid metals as a plasmafacing component. It includes ideas to build a new but mediumsized tokamak that’s designed specifically to learn how to exhaust 

the heat in a way that the material survives. And it also includes 

full utilization of the current facilities that are studying this. So 

the community did come together and lay out some near-term affordable opportunities in that area. 

Ms. CLARK. Great. Thank you. 

Do you have anything to offer, Dr. Hsu? 

Dr. HSU. Yes, I like to say that I think to follow on Dr. Bigot’s 

point about bringing young—bright young people into the field especially, there are things we can do. One of the things that I wrote 

about, about the excitement out some of the innovative concept 

work is that because it offers a tantalizing possibility of a faster 

development path, that that could help with exciting, you know, 

the new generation of fusion scientists. 

The other thing is the advanced computational abilities you 

spoke about could really help the innovative concept aspect of the 

program because not as much has been applied to innovative concept research with our latest and best computational capabilities. 

Ms. CLARK. So if I understood you correctly in your testimony, 

you were talking about—I think you said that for the private sector 

a lot of these innovative technologies are too expensive to really 

have a meaningful investment. If we are not finding that funding 

in the United States, are there international competitors who are 

looking to fund this type of innovation? 

Mr. HSU. I believe there is. I know that General Fusion, the Canadian company, has obtained funding from the Malaysian Government’s sovereign fund. I’ve read that Tri Alpha Energy has received funding from a private equity vehicle created by the Russian 

Government. We know that China is building many if not most of 

the devices I showed in my figure 1, and I believe China is also 

pursuing magneto-inertial fusion, which is the focus of the Alpha 

ARPA–E program. So I—for some of these things international 

sources may become the main option. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you. I see I’m out of time. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 
58 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentlelady, and Mr. Hultgren 

from Illinois is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you all so much 

for being here. This is an important discussion for us to be having. 

Fusion energy certainly is a very important research area that has 

the potential to completely transform our energy sector. It also is 

a massive undertaking that is emblematic of the internationalization of major research facilities. Our scientific communities have to 

work together because we can no longer just go it alone and expect 

to get anything done. 

Dr. Bigot, I wonder if I could address my first question to you. 

First, I want to say that I really appreciate the work that you’re 

doing, and from all that I’ve heard, the ITER project seems to be 

in a much better place than it has been in the past, and I think 

much of that is because of your leadership. 

One question I’d like to ask you, and I hope you can be candid 

so that we can help to make America a better partner, I wanted 

to ask what the biggest hurdles that you face or that others face 

working with the United States. What are the first questions you 

ask yourself when we say that we’re going to deliver on a project 

that is five or ten or fifteen years down the road? 

Dr. BIGOT. As you know, this project is so large that just one single country cannot afford it. You have to think about that we are 

building huge magnetic cages. The size of it is 20 meters, I would 

say, with a precision which is millimetric. So if we just considering 

one country, whatever powerful it could be, it will be too long to 

clearly demonstrate. 

So for me it’s very important again, as I stress the point, that 

the United States be committed on the long-term and could contribute—they contribute with their staff, as I mentioned. They 

could contribute also with many other technologies, okay. 

The project—the ITER project, as any others, okay, fusion 

project, request a lot of different technology, cryogenics, electro 

techniques, materials, and all these things. And so all these part 

could be gathered, okay, and I expect, as it was told by your Dr. 

Prager and Dr. Hsu, that there is strong support for all these basic 

research which could contribute to accelerate the proper delivery of 

the fusion technology in the world in the very next two decades 

really. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. I hope that—I do see how important 

this partnership is, and I hope we can remain a reliable partner. 

That’s something that we’ve got to struggle with and make sure 

that especially the funding side of things, that we are reliable 

there. 

Dr. Prager, I wanted to talk briefly with you. First of all, it’s 

good to see you again and I look forward to seeing you later with 

the Lab Day that’s going on over on the Senate side this afternoon. 

But the privilege I have of representing Fermilab, I see a lot of 

similarities between our two labs being single-purpose, and I’ll 

make sure that any measure of success our labs use, it takes into 

account the differences between these labs, and also our broader 

multipurpose labs like Argonne and some others. 

When we do science, the science itself should always be the driver of the work we pursue, but it’s always good for us to know the 
59 

other side-benefits and application from our research. I wonder 

what other applications does your research have that can benefit 

the nation? 

Dr. PRAGER. Thank you. And I do want to thank you for your 

broad support of the whole national laboratory complex, which is 

invaluable to us. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thanks. 

Dr. PRAGER. The applications of fusion energy science go far and 

broad. And there are two classes of applications. One is to other 

areas of science, and the other one is applications to society and industry in general. In science we only have to know that essentially 

all of the visible universe is made up of plasma. So if you want to 

understand how stars are formed, how black holes work, why solar 

flares occur, if you want to understand the space weather and the 

Earth’s environment, that’s largely a problem in plasma physics. 

And the synergy between fusion science and what we call plasma 

astrophysics is enormous. So the effect on astronomy is enormous. 

In regard to your—one of your interest areas of Fermilab, there 

are plasma ideas to build new accelerators where you can accelerate particles much more quickly to high energy over much shorter distances than the present accelerator technology, and this is a 

very exciting application of plasma physics to particle physics, 

which is the focus of Fermilab. 

In industry, plasmas have a nice property. They’re kind of people-sized and they’re pretty hot and you can use them to interact 

with materials in revolutionary ways. So plasmas are used to make 

semiconductor chips and have in part fueled Moore’s Law. Plasmas 

are used to make new types of nanostructures that are revolutionizing various types of industry. Plasmas are used to burn up waste. 

There’s a new area of plasma medicine where plasmas interact 

with biological systems. You can use plasmas to heal wounds and 

plasmas can affect the chemical reactions in biological systems. 

There are plasma rocket thrusters that are in use today. You can— 

instead of having a chemical rocket, you can shoot a plasma out of 

a nozzle and the rocket moves forward. So you can have rockets 

that are much more fuel efficient. So there’s a remarkably broad 

array of both fundamental science and industrial applications of 

plasmas. 

Mr. HULTGREN. That’s great. It sounds exciting and I’m looking 

forward to everything that comes out of this. 

Thank you all again. My time is expired. I yield back, Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. And, Mr. Lipinski, I 

think you’re up. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing. It’s very important. 

As I’m sure everyone has talked about the—how critical it could 

be to—you know, producing energy in so many areas if we can figure this out. 

I visited the NIF—I visited NIF at Lawrence Livermore a few 

years ago, but I’m going to leave that to Ms. Lofgren to talk a little 

bit more about that. I’m sure she has some questions and comments about that. But I want to look at what we’ve been doing over 

the past few years looking at promising alternative approaches to 
60 

achieving a viable fusion reactor. They have emerged from some 

small and midsize startups, as well as academia and our national 

labs. 

And Dr. Hsu, you know well ARPA–E recently established a 

three-year program to further explore the potential for some of 

these concepts, particularly on an approach called magnetized target fusion. But like all ARPA–E initiatives, this program is temporary. It does not cover the full range of emerging alternatives 

that currently receive no federal support. 

So I want to ask Dr. Hsu and Dr. Prager, does the Office of 

Science’s current fusion research program have the flexibility to 

shift resources to promising new approaches if they don’t align 

with the conventional tokamak research pathway? And if not, what 

can we do to provide the office with the flexibility? 

Dr. HSU. Thank you for the question. I do not believe the flexibility current exists—currently exists for alternative concepts. At 

present, innovative concept development has no budget, nor new 

proposal solicitations from DOE, and I believe this omission should 

be addressed. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Dr. Prager, do you have—— 

Dr. PRAGER. I agree with Dr. Hsu. The budget—the fusion budget is very constrained financially, so there’s been a decision made 

not to have a defined program to develop and consider fusion concepts that are different than what we call the tokamak and 

stellarator. And I do agree there should be a program and an opportunity within DOE, and these concepts, as Dr. Hsu said, should 

be subject to metrics, strict metrics moving forward. But I think as 

a—I would say as a matter of policy, the fusion program should be 

able to consider and, where meritorious, fund a variety of approaches to fusion. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. All right. Thank you. I have to run off to a markup, 

so I yield back. Thanks. 

Chairman WEBER. The gentleman yields back. 

And Mr. Rohrabacher from California, you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d just like to get some numbers straight here. So over the last ten years we have spent $900 million on this project, is that right? 

Dr. BIGOT. Globally, globally, yes, with the seven members, yes. 

It is—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, 700—how much has the United States 

spent on it? 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. Right now, I do believe it’s below two billion, 

but it is more to the U.S. ITER project office to speak about because myself, as the IO, have not the precise number because a different domestic agency has to provide in-kind, and I’ve not precise 

knowledge—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, how much money—we have spent how 

much money over the last ten years, the United States? 

Dr. PRAGER. So I think it is—I don’t have the exact number, but 

it is a good fraction of one billion dollars. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So about—— 

Dr. PRAGER. It’s been typically funded in the range of $100 million a year—— 
61 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Dr. PRAGER. —you know, building up to where it is now—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So—— 

Dr. PRAGER. —so it’s a fraction of one billion dollars. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So around about $900 million is—— 

Dr. PRAGER. In that range, yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. And how much have our partners 

spent on this project? 

Dr. PRAGER. Maybe Dr. Bigot can give the best estimate. 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. It’s quite difficult to give you a precise answer 

again as I explained to you because seven member has to bring, 

okay, their in-kind contribution, okay, each member, China, Russia, India, and so—and so the labor cost, for example, is not exactly 

comparable, okay. So again, I have no consolidation of the global 

cost which has already been spent. I can say clearly what has been 

spent, for example, in the ITER organization, where we are on the 

order of 250, 300 million, no more, okay, one billion per year on the 

last year, so this is below three billion, which has been spent already. 

My expectation now, if we have some equivalency with what we 

call the European currency-because the European currency so far 

is used for measurement of the cost-altogether it will be spending 

including, commitments, on the order of twelve million—of twelve 

billion. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, no, how much have they already spent is 

the question. 

Dr. BIGOT. Spent is no more than $7 billion according to my 

view. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. They have already spent seven billion? 

Dr. BIGOT. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So we’ve spent $900 million, and 

they’ve spent seven billion on the project already, is that correct? 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. I don’t believe in the U.S. you have spent 9 billion, okay—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Nine hundred million. 

Dr. BIGOT. Oh, 900, okay, yes, okay. Sorry, I miss the point. Yes, 

I agree with you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. So we’ve spent a grand total of perhaps—six billion on this project already has been spent, is that correct? 

Dr. BIGOT. Yes, it is of this order. As I explained to you, 

we’ve—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Six, seven billion dollars. All right. And we’ve 

spent nine billion. And we would expect to spend four-six billion 

more of our money in the next ten years, is that correct? 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. As you know, we have made, okay, this best 

achievable schedule. We’ve come with some cost estimates, and the 

cost estimates, for the first plasma from the point of view of the 

ITER, okay, the central organization is on the order of four billion 

more. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We would be spending four billion? 

Dr. BIGOT. Yes. And so—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And how much—— 

Dr. BIGOT. Because—— 
62 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And how much would our—how much are 

our allies in this project expected to spend—— 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —more? 

Dr. BIGOT. Altogether it is an increase of four billion. And again, 

I don’t speak about the in-kind which is, okay, the responsibility 

of the different ITER members. So—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Dr. BIGOT. —altogether my expectation that the cost for this 

project ready for operation will be of the order of 18 billion of euro. 

I speak in euro. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. The—— 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How much—so of the 18 billion, we will be 

spending four to six billion, and they will be spending the rest, is 

that right? 

Dr. BIGOT. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. That’s what I’m looking for there. 

And this—we would—it’s going to be ten years before we actually 

will be determining whether or not the project has been successful? 

Dr. BIGOT. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. And so the total price of what we’re 

ending up talking about is what? I’m trying to add up the figures 

here. What, twenty billion? 

Dr. BIGOT. Yes, of this order, okay, I do believe you are—this is 

the right order. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Twenty billion dollars. And let me just note that—and what would you—you’d say the chances—after $20 billion, the chances of success and of reaching what theoretically is 

possible, what would you say the chances are of actual success in 

achieving that? 

Dr. BIGOT. According to me, the science is quite robust, taking 

advantage of all the work which has been done worldwide. The 

main challenge now is engineering and industrial—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well—— 

Dr. BIGOT. —and I do believe that, okay, more and more we are 

moving on. More and more we are confident that we will deliver. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The engineering—so it’s possible, however, 

the engineering couldn’t—I mean, for example, I understand that 

already there’s been great progress made in the producing the advanced materials that—the actual material science has grown a 

long way, and you’ve achieved the goals—a lot—many of the goals 

that are necessary in the materials area. But that was possible 

that that may not have happened. I mean, we actually achieved a 

goal we didn’t know we could achieve—— 

Dr. BIGOT. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —and we achieved it. So you’re going to have 

to lay odds on—— 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —all the engineering and all these things 

coming together. What are your odds? 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. So the point is the following. As you know, the 

ITER project is a research project, and you’re asked to demonstrate 

the, okay, capacity of materials, of good process, and all these 
63 

things, and is why it will be a living project. In my expectation we 

have all the capacity of the scientists and engineers, okay, there is 

great chance that we will fulfill. 

In any case, I do believe this project could be so beneficial to the 

world that it is really worth to try and to demonstrate. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Let me—— 

Dr. BIGOT. And again, we spoke—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me mention this. There are a lot of wonderful things that we can do in this world. 

Dr. BIGOT. I know. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Wonderful things, and—— 

Dr. BIGOT. Including ITER. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. And ITER maybe one of them, but 

what we do is we judge each one based on the cost and the chances 

of success. And I’m sorry, I’ve been through a lot of these hearings, 

and I still think that the money that we put into trying to develop 

fusion—had we put $20 billion in this same effort into perfecting 

fission, we’d be a lot—it’s a lot greater chance for improving mankind. 

But as we move forward, I wish you success because we want 

those dollars not to be wasted. 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. When—again, I want to point out that the 

United States now has the sharing of nine percent, okay, and with 

all the effort made by all the other partners, you have good chance 

to have 100 percent, okay, rewarding with all the knowledge and 

the, okay, knowledge we bring in. 

So, again, as you know, I have been working on energy for years 

and years. I do believe that in the world we’ll be facing real challenge when we will see that fossil fuel we rely on more than 80 percent now will be depleting. We know. It is obvious. I don’t know 

if it is in ten years or is a century, but it will be, and if we have 

no alternative technology in order to produce massively energy, 

okay, complementary with the renewable energy, we will—the 

world will face real difficulty. 

So again, I do believe it is worth to go as far as we can in order 

to make full demonstration. Fusion has worked for years in the sun 

and stars, as Dr. Prager says, so why very talented scientists and 

engineers will not be able to deliver? My trust is that they will do 

so, provided that they have good support. 

Chairman WEBER. We’re going to go ahead and move on. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Chairman WEBER. I think the gentleman is yielding back. So I 

thank the gentleman, and we’re going to move to Mr. Foster of Illinois. 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

allowing me to sit on this committee hearing. 

I guess my first question is, assuming that ITER succeeds and 

that sometime around 2025, 2030, would succeed at everything including DT—the DT program, what are the—going to be the remaining unsolved problems A) to be able to design a production 

which—you know, something that is an energy plant, you know, 

what’s on the list of things that will be unsolved problems? 

And secondly, what will be needed to understand what the 

levelized cost of electricity from a tokamak of those dimensions 
64 

might be? You know, those are the two things that have to succeed 

to make fusion succeed as—succeed scientifically and engineeringwise, and it has to succeed economically. And so what will be the 

unsolved problems in 2025 or 2030, assuming everything goes 

nominally? I’m happy to have—you two can split it. 

Dr. BIGOT. May I start? Yes. Okay. I do believe that the main 

problem which will have—okay, there is two main problem from 

my point of view. Once—okay, the ITER will have in delivery, 

okay, full demonstration that we could have, okay, 500 megawatt 

coming out of the 50 megawatt we will put in. 

It is materials, okay. When we will have continuous production 

of plasma energies, with some energy flux with neutrons which are 

as large as 20 megawatt per square meter, when we know, for example, when many—— 

Mr. FOSTER. That’s the power density on the diverter or not—— 

Dr. BIGOT. Yes, on the diverter. 

Mr. FOSTER. Right. Okay. Right. 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. So all we could manage is some material which 

could be able to sustain such a flux continuously. 

And the second, we know if we want to take full advantage of 

the investment of industry or tokamak, we’ve—okay, the superconducting coils which could last for very long because there is no 

real use with, okay, superconducting coils because there is no energy dissipation, as you know. And so it will be the remote handling. How could we change some of the piece, for example, okay, 

tiles which will be facing the plasma or we could make all this remote handling properly done in such a way that, okay, we could 

take the best investment and have a long lifetime, okay, expectation for the delivery. 

So in order to come to the point you mentioned about the economy: it is a big investment, but if the operational costs in the long 

lifetime of the equipment are very low, it will be quite economical 

process. 

Mr. FOSTER. And is that—are there actually designed studies 

where you say just, okay, imagine that you’re not making one of 

ITER but you’re making worldwide 100 of them? You know, how 

cheap could you imagine making all the superconducting coils? 

How cheap could you imagine making all the different components? 

You know, you can be optimistic there, but if you find that the 

levelized cost of electricity doesn’t look—you know, doesn’t look attractive, then you have to actually step back and maybe reallocate 

between more adventurous but potentially cheaper ones and 

straight ahead with the current plan. 

And so what’s the current state of knowledge of what the economics might be, just assuming everything works technically here? 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. Right now, there are several studies. As we 

know, ITER is the first of a kind, okay, and we have a lot of equipment around, the technology and so on. So the people mentioned 

to me very recently that when we will be moving to a real industrial facility, maybe the cost will be down compared to the cost of 

the ITER facility—— 

Mr. FOSTER. Oh, unquestionably. And if you tell me you are optimistic it will be a factor of the—the unit cost will drop by a factor 

of five, it’s not unthinkable, but then you still have to do the cost 
65 

of electricity calculation and see if you’re happy with the result. 

And that’s—I wonder if—those sort of studies must have been done 

for different versions of fusion machines at different levels of accuracy. What’s the current understanding for whether the ITER design point has a shot? I mean, that’s the question I’m trying to get 

at. 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. From my point of view all the studies I have 

seen so far we expect that the cost of the electricity which will 

come is—from such a facility will be around, okay, what we call 

100 euro—I speak in euro, okay, which will be 100, okay, dollars, 

okay, per megawatt, as you have now, for example, with some of 

the, okay, windmills or solar energy. 

Mr. FOSTER. That’s—— 

Dr. BIGOT. So it would be comparable. 

Mr. FOSTER. —13 cents a kilowatt hour, right? 

Dr. BIGOT. Yes. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes. Stu, do you have anything? 

Dr. PRAGER. I agree with everything Dr. Bigot said. I think for 

challenges, let me list three. I think one in the plasma science we 

have to learn how to hold the plasma in steady-state persistently. 

ITER will teach us about that but ITER will burn for about 8 minutes or so, and we need to learn how to have a burning plasma that 

lasts for months on end. That is in part a plasma science challenge, 

and there’s research underway to accomplish that, number one. 

Number two, as Bigot said, there’s a whole—the whole issue of 

materials research, both the plasma-facing component and the 

structural material that has to manage the neutron bombardment, 

and that’s a set of challenges, and there are ideas how to meet 

those challenges. 

And third, while ITER is operating, we are working on how to 

make the reactor concept even more attractive economically. So 

ITER will teach us all about burning plasma science and then 

maybe by the time we get that, we’ll have evolved beyond simply 

duplicating ITER for a reactor. So we can take that burning plasma science, ideas that have been developed in parallel maybe have 

a more highly optimized reactor. 

On cost of electricity, over the years there have been—the best 

engineering studies that could be done taking the cost of materials, 

the cost of assembly and calculating, you know, capital cost and 

cost of electricity, they always come out to be competitive with 

baseload power generation of today. However, projecting economics 

30 years into the future is highly theoretical. 

We have an interesting data point with ITER, and we do ask 

ourselves the question, does the cost to construct ITER, is it consistent with the engineering calculations of what a reactor will 

cost? ITER is not a reactor, first of a kind, and so on. 

And at PPPL we had the beginnings of a study to try to quantify 

that, try to quantify how much extra cost is in ITER because it’s 

an experiment, it’s the first of a kind, internationally managed. 

And so we’re in the process of trying to get financial, if you like, 

data from the ITER partners so we can quantitatively answer your 

question. 
66 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, thank you. And, you know, that’s very important to our—the strategic decisions that we’re going to have to 

make. 

I guess at this point I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank—you know, Bill, Yogi Berra said the 

problem with predictions is you’re dealing with the future. 

So the gentleman recognizes the gentleman from Georgia. Barry, 

you’re up. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Bigot, you mentioned in your testimony that not only is ITER 

building a first-of-its-kind reactor but the organizational structure 

is first of kind—first of its kind. If you could go back and restructure the organization, would you do anything different, and if so, 

what would it be? 

Dr. BIGOT. Yes, you’re right. It’s quite a challenge to have these 

35 different nation with different culture, different, okay, ways to 

proceed working altogether. But I do believe it’s a precondition for 

the ITER to move forward because, as I said, it’s a large investment, okay, large industrial capacity. If we have not all these partners around the table, it will be difficult. 

If I would start from scratch with return of experience we have, 

I do believe that it would have been much better if what we propose in the action plan was accepted from the very beginning, 

which mean the DG—the Director General has full, okay, power to 

take any technical decision which is needed for the project even 

though the partners are making in-kind contribution, which is good 

because it allows the industry to develop, okay, to, okay, foster innovation in many fields. 

I do believe the key point is the decision-making process. In the 

beginning it was not clear enough that it is an industrial project, 

and we have to empower the Director General with all, okay, the 

support and agreement of the ITER council members that he has 

capacity to decide. And I’m very pleased that I was able to convince 

the seven ITER members, when I elaborated and developed this action plan that they understood that, and they really support me 

during the past 12 month on this matter. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. Dr. Prager, did you want to—I didn’t 

know if you were—you had something to add. 

Dr. PRAGER. Well, I don’t know. I mean, Bigot—Dr. Bigot is the 

expert on that. I think the international arrangement has been 

well recognized to have provided—be problematic, and I think Dr. 

Bigot is having a remarkable effect on fixing that. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

Dr. PRAGER. So I think the whole fusion community is very delighted with the progress over the last year. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. Well, Dr. Bigot, are you considering requesting any changes to the organizational structure going forward? 

Dr. BIGOT. Oh, no. I do believe that we have now, okay, tried it 

to change the culture not from just the top managers— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Right. 

Dr. BIGOT. —but down to all the staff in order that we work in 

what I call an integrated way. Everybody has to feel that they are 

the owner of this global project, and fully accountable for its 
67 

progress. This is why it is so important to have a schedul and to 

stick to the schedule-with many clear milestone in such a way that 

everybody feels fully committed to deliver. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. Well, thank you. 

Dr. Prager, fusion energy has often been described as being 50 

years away. What do we know now that we didn’t know ten to fifteen years ago that will give us the confidence that we are making 

some progress? 

Dr. PRAGER. Yes, I think the joke is 30 years away. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

Dr. PRAGER. There’s been a lot of progress over the last 15 years 

in various ways. One, scientifically, a big challenge is how do you 

control 100 million degree plasma, keep the heat in effectively, 

keep it from what we say going unstable and kind of blowing out 

like a tire blowing out. And in the last 15 years we’ve controlled 

it in ways that I couldn’t imagine when I started to work in this 

field. 

There’s aspects of the plasma that, when I started to work, we 

just had to accept that it existed like bad weather, particularly turbulence in the plasma. Now, we, through—partly through experiment and through competition and theory we have ways that we 

can actually control the turbulence in the plasma. And therefore, 

this gives us greater confidence that ITER will succeed and that we 

can design a successful fusion reactor. 

You’ve heard a lot about the problem of surrounding 100 million 

degree plasma by a hot material. Well, in experiments over the last 

15 years there’s been ways to magnetically channel the heat out 

and spread it out over surfaces to alleviate that problem. Computation has been spoken about a lot, that we have much better predictive capabilities. 

Looking a little bit into the future, there are new breakthroughs 

in technology outside of fusion that could have a big impact such 

as magnets they can make very strong magnetic fields. So there’s 

been very good steady progress that’s not solved anything by any 

means but bolstered our confidence that will move well in the future. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Well, thank you. I’m out of time so, Mr. Chair, 

I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

And the gentlelady from California is recognized. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, thank you very much. This is really important hearing, I think, and I’m hoping it’s not the last hearing that 

we have on this subject. 

You know, I remember when I first started working on fusion 

issues that people who were looking at magnetic versus IFE, it was 

like a religion. And I think we’ve actually moved past that now 

where people are seeing it’s a—you know, we need to have a broad 

examination of the entire field, and I’m certainly in that spot. So 

I hope that my questions about the NIF will not be misconstrued 

as being only on the IFE pursuit. 

But, as you know, Dr. Hsu, we’ve talked before about the National Ignition Facility, which obviously is a critical facility for this 

national Stockpile Stewardship Program, but it’s also an important 

element of our science community. The National Academy report in 
68 

2013 outlined some efforts that might accelerate progress, including additional investments, better coordination—you’ve read the report. I won’t recite everything. 

I’m not—I keep mentioning this, and when the Department of 

Energy folks come, they cite things that the report didn’t say, and 

I’m working with Dr. Moniz to have clarity on that. 

But given the recommendations that they made, the National 

Academy made in terms of pursuing expanding NIF to include the 

direct drive and alternative modes of ignition, crafting and coordinating the joint plan for IFE research, Scientific Advisory Committee, and the like, can you comment whether that would actually 

improve the situation at—with IFE at the NIF in particular? 

Would it enhance the billions of dollars investment we’ve already 

made? 

Dr. HSU. Yes. I agree with those findings and the original rationale for standing up the HEDLP program. NIF is indeed meant— 

its primary mission is indeed stockpile stewardship, but as you say, 

it’s an impressive and world-class facility that we’ve invested in. I 

believe there are opportunities on it. The three lab directors—Los 

Alamos, Livermore, Sandia—have stated that fusion is a critical 

need for stockpile stewardship and that the United States must be 

the first to achieve laboratory fusion. 

I believe that over its lifetime NIF should explore, if the physics 

warrant, all the laser-based approaches. That includes direct laser 

drive, indirect x-ray drive, as well as magnetized approaches. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. Well, I’m just—you know, I have some level 

of frustration that obviously the stockpile stewardship mission was 

the primary mission. But the—and we have increased the number 

of shots dramatically, as I’m sure you’re aware. But the facility 

itself is an underutilized resource, and that’s not to take away from 

what we’re doing with ITER in other areas. I mean, I—and when 

you think about what we spent on imported oil alone in 2013, an 

estimated $388 billion for that year on only imported oil, you know, 

investments in fusion science research to me is a bargain. 

Now, we can’t—you know, I think we made a huge mistake by 

setting a deadline on which we’d get ignition. How do you ever do 

science? That is ridiculous. I don’t know who thought that up but 

it wasn’t me. But, you know, I’m not so worried about the development. If we—once we get ignition—when we opened the National 

Ignition Facility, I had the chance to speak at the opening, along 

with many others, and I remember saying, once we get ignition, all 

the rest is just engineering. And, you know, people laughed but I 

actually have a high degree of confidence that things will take off 

once we clear that science. 

And so really I think our effort ought to be on supporting the scientists to achieve that either, you know, we ought to ramp up at 

the NIF but also support the other efforts so we can achieve that 

incredibly important scientific milestone and then see where we go 

from there. And it’s not just an energy source, but when you take 

a look at where we are and where we’re going to be shortly in a 

shortage of water, how do you do desal without, you know, a limitless source of energy? I mean, we are going to need this as a source 

of energy in the near future. 
69 

So I’m about out of time but I just—playing cleanup, I just want 

to thank the three of you for your incredibly important work, and 

I hope—you know, Dr. Foster is the only physicist in the House. 

I am so glad that he is here. I hope that you will look at our committee as a source of support and that you will be in touch with 

us frequently, whether in formal hearings or informally because I 

think there is bipartisan interest in what you are doing. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentlelady. 

And I think the gentleman from Florida has some more questions. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Looking back historically, we had a working netenergy-producing fission reactor before we actually had the first fission weapon detonated a couple of years earlier actually. So now 

here we are. It’s been 64 years since the first fusion weapon was 

detonated, and we still don’t have a fusion reactor that produces 

net energy, nor are we apparently even close to it. What’s the problem, gentlemen? Let’s start with Dr. Bigot? 

Dr. BIGOT. The problem is to be able to have sustainable production, you know, as you speak about the weapon-okay, we are able 

to deliver a huge amount of fusion energy, but to make it in a sustainable, fully controlled way is much more challenging as you 

could expect. 

So again, this technology is very challenging. Requiring many 

different advanced technologies in cryogenics, in electromagnetics, 

and so on. Quite recently, I visit China where they have been able 

to assess and clearly demonstrate that we have what we call the 

feeders, which are the cables which will provide electricity to the 

coils—to the superconducting coils. They succeed to demonstrate 

that we could have as much—as many as, okay, nearly 70,000 amperes flowing through that, okay. It’s really challenging. We push 

the technology very, very advanced, and making all this work as 

a system is really challenging. 

I don’t, okay, believe that it was a minor achievement, with the 

weapon as you mentioned, 64 years ago. But again, is something 

really different to master these technologies over the long-term, to 

have a consistent continuous production of energy. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Dr. Prager? 

Dr. PRAGER. Why has it taken so long? The fundamental answer 

is that this is one of the most challenging scientific and engineering 

enterprises ever undertaken by humankind, period. It’s really hard. 

But the difficulty is matched by how transformative it will be when 

we succeed. 

It required the development of a new field of science, the field 

that—what we call plasma physics. So when the pioneers in this 

field started out in the late 1950s, early ’60s, this field didn’t hardly exist. In the last 50 years a new field of science has been produced and developed, which is an enormous accomplishment. This 

has shown up in progress in fusion. If you look at fusion quantitative figures of merit, it beats Moore’s Law. By our key figure 

of merit, we’ve gone up a factor of 30,000 in the last 30 years or 

so. We have another factor of six to go for commercial fusion. 

It’s taken long because you can’t prove fusion on a tabletop. You 

just can’t do it. The science doesn’t allow it. We need machines like 
70 

ITER, the major facilities in the United States. It just takes time 

to build a major facility. So all this stretches it out, and it’s all— 

the overarching message also is that it’s all been underfunded over 

the years so we could have gone faster. 

So for an array of very understandable reasons, it’s taken a long 

time. But if you look at how far we’ve come, I think it gives good 

basis for why the fusion community and scientists that look at this 

problem are very confident that we will get there. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Dr. Hsu? 

Dr. HSU. Yes, I think drawing on your weapons analogy, I mean, 

we—like Dr. Prager said, we have come a very long way. We’re almost to the point of detonating that first weapon. And I myself am 

interested in further work of miniaturizing it. That’s the analogy. 

But we’ve—I think the main point is that it’s a hard problem. 

We’ve come a long way. We’re almost there to demonstrating it and 

to put the extra plug in that there are other ways we should be 

looking at that have the potential of not needing such a huge facility, but we need to do that work to know the answer. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Let’s say if the President of the United States announced that by the year 2025 he wanted to have fusion facilities 

all around the country as reactors providing net energy, in other 

words, a sort of Manhattan Project for fusion. What would that 

project actually look like, Dr. Prager? 

Dr. PRAGER. You would parallelize. You would take more risk 

and you would look—you would develop—you would solve problems 

in parallel. Right now, we’re doing it all serially, which stretches 

everything out. We would begin a study to build—my opinion—for 

example—it’s going to be hypothetical. We would design a facility 

which would be a pilot plant and demonstrate net electricity production. 

There would be some risk associated with it. It would be a risk 

that it might not work or will work partially, but if you really want 

a Manhattan Project, that could be the centerpiece of the program. 

At the same time, you would have satellite facilities that would 

solve the materials problems. We know what facilities we need to 

build, and you would have a program to develop more attractive fusion concepts. You would parallelize and do many things in parallel 

if you wanted to have a Manhattan Project. 

Chairman WEBER. Let me—Dr. Prager, let me break in here. You 

said satellites—— 

Dr. PRAGER. Yes. 

Chairman WEBER. —to solve the material problems. 

Dr. PRAGER. Yes. 

Chairman WEBER. Could that be done in existing labs? 

Dr. PRAGER. No. So, for example, just to give one example, in 

order to really study, as we would like to, how materials behave 

when bombarded by neutrons that the fusion reactions produce, 

you need a facility that can generate the neutrons. We know what 

that facility is. We can design it and we can build it. In round numbers it will cost $1 billion. So we can do that in parallel with this 

pilot plant, as one example. 

Chairman WEBER. I yield back. 
71 

Mr. GRAYSON. Let’s just continue. Who would like to go next? 

What would that project—that Manhattan Project or a pilot project, 

what would it look like? 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. I do believe it is what was said, very highly coordinated project with all the piece in order to move forward. And 

again, if the President of the United States and the other ITER 

members decide to have, okay, first fusion producing by 2025, 2028, 

according to the best of all knowledge now we have after five—after 

ten years of the ITER project, I do believe it’s feasible if we have 

a highly coordinated way. 

And I agree: now we know what we have to do and we could accelerate. But again, I don’t want to oversell. Okay. It takes time 

if we want to do it, okay, right, safely, okay. When you have so 

many piece to assemble, okay, and it is very requiring—again, I 

stress the point that you have to move large piece, which are the 

same size as the one you are moving in the shipyard and to put 

them with millimetric precision-you can not rush so rapidly. 

So again, do it straight in order to have this demonstration facility but in parallel to have some more which could consolidate the 

reliability of the installation in the facilities. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Dr. Hsu? 

Dr. HSU. I agree with all that. I want to add a couple things, 

though. One is I think for a true fusion crash program you’d want 

to consider what the integrated reactor is going to look like at the 

end. I mean, to build the capabilities and the scientific understandings, you can study those things on separate facilities, as was 

mentioned, but ultimately, a fusion power plant has to tie everything together, and you would want to consider that earlier in the 

process. So the integration is important. 

And secondly, you want to consider the criteria for a practical 

power plant. Just because you can build it doesn’t mean that everyone is going to use it. It has to be practical and usable and competitive. So thank you very much. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Mr. Foster, I think you had some more? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes. I’d like to talk a little bit about the physics risk 

of different machines. I mean, we’ve just—in the case of NIF, you 

know, we saw a tremendous technical success, I mean, in terms of 

delivering the laser power to the objected succeeded—you know, 

I’m blown away by the—by, you know, the success of that from a 

technical point of view but unexpected—and despite having the access to the best supercomputers, the best codes, there was new 

physics uncovered because it was a big extrapolation from tested 

measured regimes of material. 

And in the case of NIF they were very fortunate that there’s a 

very good secondary mission to the National Ignition Facility, to 

the stockpile stewardship, all of the high energy density physics 

that is to be done there. And so it’s a tremendous and ongoing successful facility. 

In the case of ITER, you’re building it to make fusion power. If 

there are unexpected physics of plasmas that are discovered that 

make the machine not work, that is a very different class of problem. 
72 

So my question was is our current state of understanding of the 

physics simulation of plasmas and the measurements made such 

that ITER is really going to be operated in an understood regime 

right now? Or are we extrapolating in ways that may have some 

physics danger in not achieving the goals? 

Stew, do you want to give that a shot? 

Dr. PRAGER. ITER is an experiment, and if we knew with 99 percent confidence that it would work as we hope, we wouldn’t bother 

to build it; we would just move to the next step. So ITER is to 

teach us how to control burning plasmas. 

What’s the level of confidence that we will in fact succeed in getting a burning plasma 10 times more energy out than in and be 

able to control it? I think the confidence is high but it’s not 99 percent or we wouldn’t be doing the experiment. 

So if you look at—you can step through the different physics 

issues. You know, will we be able to confine the energy? Well, that, 

we think so. There you can extrapolate pretty well from current experiments. Will the alpha particles that are generated in the fusion 

reaction cause instabilities that wreck the plasma? Well, we have 

good computation and we have simulated experiments in current 

facilities that lead us to think that it’ll probably be okay. And on 

and on. But the challenge of a burning plasma is all these phenomenon interact at one time. It’s a highly complex, coupled system, and when you start to burn, it changes. 

So I think the summary statement is the fusion community has 

pretty good confidence that this will succeed for fusion power, but 

it is an experiment. That’s why—if we—it’s—every experiment is 

some reasonable extrapolation from the precursor. 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. Yes. But when there were difficulties encountered in the ignition campaign at NIF, there is no shortage of theorists to come out of the woodwork and say—— 

Dr. PRAGER. Yes. 

Mr. FOSTER. —well, we told you in the initial design studies you 

needed 10 megajoules on target to make this—— 

Dr. PRAGER. Yes. 

Mr. FOSTER. —certain to work, and we told you so. Are there a 

similar group of people standing in the background saying, look, 

there’s a good chance that ITER is going to run into physics problems or really is there a much better consensus? Is that—— 

Dr. PRAGER. Both. I think there is a consensus that we well likely have the physics knowhow to succeed in ITER. At the same 

time, physicists are by nature—we’re supposed to be skeptics so we 

are—every day we’re pointing out problems that, you know, can kill 

ITER but won’t really kill ITER. So they both go on all the time. 

I think the extrapolation from inertial fusion facilities before NIF 

to NIF is greater than the extrapolation from existing fusion facilities to ITER. And so I think we have a pretty good shot that if we 

permit Dr. Bigot to complete the experiment that it will ultimately 

be successful. 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. And can the same be said when you’re looking at stellarator designs, other magnetic geometries and so on, or 

are there a different class of uncertainties there? 

Dr. PRAGER. Similar kinds of uncertainties, and when we speak 

about next-step stellarators, we’re not at the present time thinking 
73 

of a burning plasma but we’re testing somewhat different magnetic 

configuration that’s been tested before. So it’s always an extrapolation, and whenever we build the new experiments, it’s always a 

judgment call of how far you go, as you are saying, how far you 

extrapolate so that you’ll do something exciting without going over 

the cliff. 

And so I would say in the last 25 years or so in the United States 

in magnetic fusion we’ve erred on the side of being too conservative. 

Mr. FOSTER. And will a lot of the uncertainties be resolved with 

the data from the German machine in terms of stellarator or are 

there—or is that really not a ‘‘modern design’’ so you won’t have 

that data? 

Dr. PRAGER. It’s a very—yes, so Germany has just this last few 

months started a new experiment. It’s a fantastic, modernized, optimized stellarator design. It will be enormously informative. But 

in addition, the stellarator design has enormous design space. So, 

for example, the German one, as fantastic—— 

Chairman WEBER. Dr. Prager, let me break in real quick. 

Dr. PRAGER. Yes. 

Chairman WEBER. Didn’t you say Germany and China was a—— 

Dr. PRAGER. Germany and Japan. 

Chairman WEBER. Japan, thank you. 

Dr. PRAGER. So Japan has—there are two sort of billion-dollarclass facilities. The one in Japan has been operating for quite a 

while with extremely valuable information. The German one is an 

extremely highly optimized, modern facility, and it’s fantastic. 

Well, one small but—though it extrapolates to a very large size reactor, probably bigger than ITER. 

So, for example, there are ideas that we have in the United 

States to take all the advantages of the stellarator at have it be 

more compact, and that’s what we’d like—one example of what we 

might want to do in the United States. 

Mr. FOSTER. All right. Let’s see. If I could have just a couple 

more minutes here? 

Chairman WEBER. Yes, sir, you bet. 

Mr. FOSTER. And I’d like to sort of return to the painful, you 

know, project parts of the question here. You know, the United 

States, you know, a few years back signed up for nine percent of 

what was then—please correct me if I’m wrong—you know, roughly 

a $12 billion U.S. project. Is that roughly the understanding what 

the initial time that we signed up for ITER? And now it is—we are 

now carrying nine percent of something that is several times larger. 

You know, that has caused a lot of pain in the Department of Energy Office of Science budget, and so that’s one of the reasons why, 

you know, we’re—you know, we’re seeing, you know, what the Senate has done in the last few—has proposed in the last few cycles. 

And so I was wondering, you know, what—you know, what—let’s 

say that the Senate wins, you know, every—for the last few budget 

cycles the House has been restoring money that the Senate cut, you 

know, for ITER. And so I imagine in those circumstances you must 

have at least been starting to do contingency planning to find—to 

understand if that is a fatal blow for the ITER project if this time 
74 

through the Senate wins. Is that—what can you say about that? Is 

that unquestionably a fatal blow or do you think that if you lose 

nine percent of the funding to the project it will still—you know, 

that you’ll still find ways to work around it? 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. Again I will stress the point. For sure money 

is important, but industrial and scientific capacity for me are even 

more important. And if the United States, okay, which are now the 

most powerful, as I said, in science and, okay, industry, will pull 

out from the ITER, it will be a real drawback for the project. It’s 

not so easy to recover from expertise which has been developed in 

this country in the condition which was explained, okay, just in a 

few minutes. 

So for me, again, I will really stress out that it is very important 

that all the ITER members and even, as it was said, some new one 

come in in such a way we get the best of the knowledge because 

we need absolutely frontiers, okay, expertise in many, many fields, 

and it was not easy to afford. 

I just want to point a fact. When we start with the ITER, okay, 

the superconducting material, the superconducting material we 

need, it was 15 tons produced per year worldwide. In many different, okay, facility, we have no standard quality. We need this 

specific material 650 tons in order to be able to make, okay, ITER 

working. And so we have been coordinating the work, and if, okay, 

some partners was missing, we will fail. It takes six years to develop all this because now we have a 115-tons-per-year capacity. 

So, again, this project is so large due to the physics. 

According to my point of view, you could not expect to deliver, 

okay, massive fusion, okay, power if you have not the proper size 

to do that. I could explain to you in more detail, you know—— 

Mr. FOSTER. I’m—I guess I am—I don’t want to over-claim, but 

I think I’m probably the only Member of Congress that’s designed 

and built a 100,000-ampere superconducting power transmission 

line, so I understand—— 

Dr. BIGOT. So you know that. You know that. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I haven’t. 

Mr. FOSTER. I understand—oh, I’m sorry, Ranking Member Grayson. My apologies. The—but this is—you know, I have massive respect for what you’ve accomplished on this superconductor front, 

you know, to get industrially produced superconductor on the scale 

needed. 

On the other hand, when the United States signed up for the 

project, you know, the representation was made that this project 

was ready to go to an extent that in retrospect probably wasn’t the 

case. And so this is, you know, one of the things that we have to 

understand is, you know, given this history of cost growth is this 

really it? Do we have a schedule and a budget that we can really 

plan around and understand? And that’s—you know, that’s one of 

the tough questions that we have to struggle with here. 

Dr. BIGOT. Okay. I want to make you fully aware that when I 

come in with my own, okay, professional experience, when I dedicate myself to something, I want to deliver. It’s why I have been 

working very, very straight in order to have a best evaluation of 

the cost of the schedule we propose, and I’m very pleased to say 

that as an independent review panel with 14 best world expert has 
75 

been going through all our schedule and, okay, cost estimate and 

I show on my slide they say it is complete, it is available, and we 

believe to do that. 

And now I want all the, okay, IO staff, domestic agency, ITER 

organization staff, domestic agency staff, and suppliers to feel fully 

committed to deliver within budget and within, okay, schedule. 

Mr. FOSTER. You know, your predecessors also, I’m sure, were 

equally committed to understanding the project cost, I would hope. 

Anyway, I don’t want to get too much into history, but, you know, 

we have to be conscious of things. 

And another possible risk is that the United States will fulfill its 

bargains, and another country that you crucially depend on will decide it does not have the resources to commit. And how do we— 

how should we evaluate that risk as well? 

Chairman WEBER. Does the gentleman intend to wrap up here 

in about a minute or so? 

Mr. FOSTER. That’s fine. I’m happy if that’s my last question. If 

I can get that answer, though, in. 

Dr. BIGOT. So clearly, there is a large interest of fusion in the 

world. I expect that the United States will stay in. If not, for me 

the project is so important that we will have to go on and on, okay. 

But again, I am not really envisaging such hypothesis because I do 

believe if we are clear enough in what are the benefit for the 

United States to stay in, they will feel that it is worth to move on. 

Mr. FOSTER. All right. And I really thank you. And I want to be 

sure I don’t be seen as coming off not supportive of this project. I 

just want to understand the dimensions of the cliff that we’re playing near when we talk about the United States pulling out. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for their questions. The record will remain open for two weeks 

for additional comments and written questions from the Members. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(77) 

Appendix I 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
78 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE KATHERINE M. CLARK
79 
80 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY DR. BERNARD BIGOT
81 
82 
83 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
84 

Æ