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

95–224PDF 2015

NUCLEAR ENERGY INNOVATION 

AND THE NATIONAL LABS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 13, 2015 

Serial No. 114–19 

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 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

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 

STEVE 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 

May 13, 2015 

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 ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Alan Grayson, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 6 

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

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Mark Peters, Associate Laboratory Director, Energy and Global Security, 

Argonne National Laboratory 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Mr. Frank Batten, Jr., President, The Landmark Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

Mr. Nathan Gilliland, CEO, General Fusion 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 32 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 34 

Dr. John Parmentola, Senior Vice President, Energy and Advanced Concepts 

Group, General Atomics 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 43 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 45 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 73 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Mark Peters, Associate Laboratory Director, Energy and Global Security, 

Argonne National Laboratory ............................................................................. 92 

Dr. John Parmentola, Senior Vice President, Energy and Advanced Concepts 

Group, General Atomics ...................................................................................... 95 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 98 

Report submitted by Mr. Frank Batten, Jr., President, The Landmark Foundation .................................................................................................................... 99 

(1) 

NUCLEAR ENERGY INNOVATION 

AND THE NATIONAL LABS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy Weber 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Chairman WEBER. Subcommittee on Energy will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the 

Subcommittee at any time. Welcome to today’s hearing, entitled 

‘‘Nuclear Energy Innovation and the National Labs.’’ I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Good morning, and I’ve already welcomed you to the Committee 

Hearing this morning. We appreciate you all being here. Today’s 

hearing will focus on the Department of Energy’s National Laboratories’ research capabilities, and the working relationship with the 

private sector to advance nuclear energy technology, both fission 

and fusion. The Department of Energy owns 17 national laboratories, 16 of which are operated by contractors as federally funded 

research and development centers. The government owned contractor operated model allows the labs flexibility to think outside 

of the box when tackling fundamental scientific challenges. The Department of Energy labs grew out of the Manhattan Project, and 

today provide the critical R&D infrastructure that will enable researchers in academia and the private sector to develop the technologies of tomorrow. 

It’s pretty clear that the challenges in nuclear science can be 

quite complicated, and we’ll hear more about that from our expert 

witnesses on our panel today. That said, not being a nuclear physicist or anything of that sort, I’m going to do my best to simplify 

what we intend to discuss in today’s hearing. We hope to get a better understanding of what the DOE labs do, and how their unique 

research machines and talented group of researches can enable 

companies to develop new products. This is especially relevant for 

nuclear energy R&D, which requires large up-front costs, but may 

lead to revolutionary technology with long term rewards. 

Folks, I would add that the United States has a definite national 

interest in maintaining our position at the forefront of nuclear 

technology development. Nuclear energy, as you know, is in a class 

of its own, with the highest energy density of any fuel, and yet 

yields zero emissions, the big goose egg. It is also highly regulated, 

often a centerpiece of global, especially national, politics, and is associated with the world’s strongest economies. In the United States 

we invented this technology, and cannot forego, we must not forego 

the opportunity to export more efficient and safer reactor systems 

that will mitigate proliferation concerns, while increasing global 

stability by providing a reliable energy source. 

Today we’re going to hear from the president of a charitable organization that has co-invested with a DOE lab to advance a specific nuclear fuel treatment process to convert nuclear waste into 

a useable fuel. We will also hear from the Argonne National Lab, 

which invented this fuel treatment process, as well as private companies developing fusion, and advanced fission reactors. Needless 

to say, this is a unique panel of witnesses. I thank the witnesses 

for participating in today’s hearing, and I look forward to their testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:] 
6 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

CHAIRMAN RANDY K. WEBER

Good morning and welcome to today’s Energy Subcommittee hearing on nuclear 

energy innovation. This hearing will focus on the Department of Energy’s national 

laboratories’ research capabilities and working relationship with the private sector 

to advance nuclear energy technology—both fission and fusion. 

The Department of Energy owns seventeen national laboratories, sixteen of which 

are operated by contractors as federally funded research and development centers. 

The government-owned, contractoroperated model allows the labs flexibility to think 

outside of the box when tackling fundamental scientific challenges. The DOE labs 

grew out of the Manhattan project and today provide the critical R&D infrastructure 

that will enable researchers in academia and the private sector to develop the technologies of tomorrow. 

It’s pretty clear that challenges in nuclear science can be quite complicated and 

we’ll hear more about that from our expert witnesses. That said, I will do my best 

to simplify what we intend to discuss today. 

We will get a better understanding of what the DOE labs do and how their unique 

research machines and talented groups of researchers can enable companies to develop new products. This is especially relevant for nuclear energy R&D, which requires large up-front costs, but may lead to revolutionary technology with long-term 

rewards. The United States has a national interest in maintaining our position at 

the forefront of nuclear technology development. Nuclear energy is in a class of its 

own with the highest energy density of any fuel, and yields zero emissions. It is also 

highly regulated, often a centerpiece of global politics, and associated with the 

world’s strongest economies. 

In the United States, we invented this technology and cannot forgo the opportunity to export more efficient and safer reactor systems that will mitigate proliferation concerns and increase global stability by providing reliable energy. 

Today, we will hear from the president of a charitable organization that has coinvested with a DOE lab to advance a specific nuclear fuel treatment process to convert nuclear waste into usable fuel. We will also hear from Argonne National Lab, 

which invented this fuel treatment process, as well as private companies developing 

fusion and advanced fission reactors. 

Needless to say, this is a unique panel of witnesses. I thank the witnesses for participating in today’s hearing and I look forward to their testimony. 

Chairman WEBER. Mr. Grayson of Florida, you’re recognized for 

five minutes. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Chairman Weber, and—for holding 

this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for agreeing to participate this morning. 

For decades the federal government has provided critical support 

for energy research and development. From solar, to wind energy, 

to natural gas recovery, many of the technologies allowing us to 

transition toward a clean energy economy, and creating entire new 

industries, would not be possible without Federal support, and the 

same is true for nuclear energy. This morning we will listen to you 

all regarding the Federal role in developing the next generation of 

nuclear energy technologies. 

I’m particularly pleased that, as part of this discussion, we will 

learn more about innovative future fusion energy concepts, concepts that have the potential to accelerate the development and deployment of commercial fusion reactors dramatically. Fusion holds 

the promise of providing a practically limitless supply of clean energy to the world. In a sense, we’re already dependent upon it, because the energy that we get from that fusion reactor called the 

sun, in the sky, is essential to the existence of life on Earth. It’s 

proving difficult for people to replicate what the stars are able to 

do through sheer gravity, but based upon several developments in 

recent years that we’ll be hearing about in part today, I am con-
7 

fident that we’ll get there, and I hope far sooner than people may 

realize. 

I do have my reservations about fission, another subject that 

we’ll be discussing today. Not about the physical process itself, but 

the applicability of that to our energy needs. I have described fission, in a sense, a failed technology. There is a problem with spent 

fuel that doesn’t seem to have a solution after many decades of consideration. We’ve had three nuclear disasters worldwide. But the 

answer to that may not be the German solution of simply scrapping. The answer to that may be to do further research, and try 

to find solutions to these problems. 

In any event, I’m a strong supporter of fusion energy research, 

which is entirely different, in terms of its impact and potential 

problems, than fission. I believe that now is the time to build and 

operate experiments that are capable of demonstrating that manmade fusion systems can consistently produce far more energy than 

it takes to fuel them. I’m eager to learn about both the costs and 

the benefits of a wide range of new nuclear technologies, and I also 

look forward to hearing how nuclear energy can play an important 

role in developing a modern clean energy economy. Again, I want 

to thank you all, our witnesses, for providing your insights today, 

and I look forward to hearing from the Chairman and working with 

the Chairman on nuclear energy issues moving forward. Thank 

you. I yield back the remainder of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grayson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

MINORITY RANKING MEMBER ALAN GRAYSON

Thank you, Chairman Weber, for holding this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for agreeing to participate this morning. 

For decades, the federal government has provided critical support for energy 

R&D. From solar and wind energy to natural gas recovery, many of the technologies 

that are helping us transition to a clean energy economy and creating entire new 

industries wouldn’t be nearly as far along as they are today, or would not exist at 

all, without the benefit of federal support and public-private partnerships. The same 

certainly holds true for nuclear energy. 

This morning we are here to discuss the federal role in developing the next generation of nuclear energy technologies, and how this support may be better structured going forward. I am particularly pleased that, as part of this discussion, we 

will be learning much more about some innovative new fusion energy concepts that 

have the potential to dramatically accelerate the development and deployment of 

commercial fusion reactors. 

Fusion holds the promise of providing a practically limitless supply of clean energy to the world. We’re actually already dependent on it—the energy we get from 

that fusion reactor in the sky, better known as the sun, is essential to the existence 

of life on Earth, including us. Of course, it’s a bit trickier for people to replicate 

what the stars are able to do with sheer gravity. But based on several developments 

in recent years that I know we’ll be hearing more about today, I am confident we 

will get there—and perhaps far sooner than many realize. This is why I am such 

a strong supporter of fusion energy research, and I believe that now is the right 

time to build and operate experiments that can finally demonstrate that a manmade fusion system can consistently produce far more energy than it takes to fuel 

it. 

That said, I am eager to learn more about the costs and benefits of a wide range 

of new nuclear technologies over the course of the hearing. 

I certainly support an ‘‘all of the above’’ approach toward a clean energy economy 

and achieving safer, more cost-effective, and environmentally friendly ways to utilize nuclear energy can play an important role in this mix. We just need to make 

sure that we are making the smartest investments we can with our limited resources, and that they are in the best interests of the American people. 
8 

Again, I want to thank the witnesses for being willing to provide their insights 

today, and I look forward to working with the Chairman and with all of the stakeholders in this critical area moving forward. 

Thank you, and I yield back my remaining time. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman from Florida, and now 

recognize the gentleman from Texas, the Chairman of the full Committee, Chairman Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In today’s hearing 

we’ll examine opportunities for advances in nuclear fission and fusion energy technologies. We will hear from the Associate Laboratory Director at Argonne National Lab, the home of the world’s 

first reactor to demonstrate a sustainable fission chain reaction. 

Argonne National Lab is responsible for foundational research and 

development in nuclear energy that has led to many operating reactors and reactor concepts that will be discussed today. These include the integral fast reactor, and pyroprocessing. We will also 

hear from witnesses who represent private companies and a charitable organization, all of whom have invested in the development 

of advanced fission or fusion reactor designs. 

Nuclear energy provides reliable zero emission power. This technology represents one of the most promising areas for growth and 

innovation to increase economic prosperity and lower the cost of 

electricity over time. This will help keep the United States globally 

competitive. The Department of Energy’s national laboratories provide vital opportunities for the private sector to invest in innovative energy technologies. This includes its open access user facilities, which are one of a kind machines that allow researchers to investigate fundamental scientific questions. These facilities enable a 

wide array of researchers from academia, defense, and the private 

sector to develop new technologies without favoring one type of design. This represents a better approach than simply picking winners and losers through energy subsidies. 

DOE’s labs also provide the fundamental research capabilities 

that lead to scientific publications or proprietary research. In this 

public/private partnership, private companies take on the risk for 

commercializing technology, while the government enables researchers to conduct specialized research that would not be possible without Federal support. DOE’s national labs keep America’s 

best and brightest scientists working on groundbreaking research 

here in the United States, instead of moving to research projects 

overseas. 

I am hopeful that today’s hearing can demonstrate the importance of foundational research capabilities in the national labs that 

will lead to the next generation of nuclear energy technology. Inevitably, and I hope sooner rather than later, all Americans will benefit from this research. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, I just want to apologize 

to our witnesses, I have another Subcommittee meeting of another 

Committee that I need to go to briefly, and then hope to return, 

so—but do look forward to meeting and hearing what the witnesses 

have to say today. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
9 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

Today’s hearing will examine opportunities for advances in nuclear fission and fusion energy technologies. We will hear from the associate laboratory director at Argonne National Lab, the home of the world’s first reactor to demonstrate a sustainable fission chain reaction. 

Argonne National Lab is responsible for foundational research and development 

in nuclear energy that has led to many operating reactors and reactor concepts that 

will be discussed today. These include the integral fast reactor and pyroprocessing. 

We will also hear from witnesses who represent private companies and a charitable 

organization, all of whom have invested in the development of advanced fission or 

fusion reactor designs. 

Nuclear energy provides reliable, zero-emission power. This technology represents 

one of the mostpromising areas for growth and innovation to increase economic 

prosperity and lower the cost of electricity over time. This will help keep the United 

States globally competitive. 

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) national laboratories provide vital opportunities for the private sector to invest in innovative energy technologies. This includes 

its open-access user facilities, which are one-of-a-kind machines that allow researchers to investigate fundamental scientific questions. 

These facilities enable a wide array of researchers from academia, defense, and 

the private sector to develop new technologies without favoring one type of design. 

This represents a better approach than simply picking winners and losers through 

energy subsidies. 

DOE’s labs also provide the fundamental research capabilities that lead to scientific publications or proprietary research. In this public-private partnership, private companies take on the risk forcommercializing technology while the government enables researchers to conduct specialized researchthat would not be possible 

without federal support. 

DOE’s national labs keep America’s best and brightest scientists working on 

groundbreaking researchhere in the United States instead of moving to research 

projects overseas. I am hopeful that today’s hearing can demonstrate the importance 

of foundational research capabilities in the national labs that will lead to the next 

generation of nuclear energy technology. 

Inevitably, and I hope sooner rather than later, all Americans will benefit from 

this research. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me introduce 

our witnesses. Our—Dr. Mark Peters, our first witness today, is 

the Associate Laboratory Director for Argonne National Laboratory’s Energy and Global Security Directorate, which includes Argonne’s programs in energy research and national security. Dr. Peters has worked with the national labs for 20 years. In addition, 

he serves as a senior advisor to the DOE on nuclear energy technologies and nuclear waste management. Dr. Peters received his 

Bachelor’s Degree in geology from Auburn University, and his 

Ph.D. in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago. Welcome, Dr. Peters. 

Our next witness is Mr. Frank Batten, Junior, Chairman and 

CEO of Landmark Media Enterprises, and President of the Landmark Foundation. The Landmark Foundation focuses its efforts on 

helping local education and human service organizations. Mr. Batten received his Bachelor’s Degree in history from Dartmouth, and 

his MBA from the University of Virginia. Welcome, Mr. Batten. Am 

I pronouncing that right? 

Mr. BATTEN. Yeah. 

Chairman WEBER. Our next witness is Mr. Nathan Gilliland, 

okay, Chief Executive Officer of General Fusion. Before joining 

General Fusion, Mr. Gilliland served as an entrepreneur-in-residence with Kliner, Perkins, Caufield, and Byers, one of the world’s 

largest venture capital firms. In addition, he was the president and 
10 

co-founder of Harvest Power, a renewable energy company that 

turns organic waste into natural gas and electricity. Mr. Gilliland 

received his Bachelor’s Degree in political science from the University of California, Berkeley. Welcome, Mr. Gilliland. 

Our final witness today is Dr. John Parmentola, Senior Vice 

President of General Atomics’ Energy and Advanced Concepts 

Group. Dr. Parmentola oversees a team of nearly 475 from over 90 

institutions worldwide who lead the way in international nuclear 

fusion and fission research and development. Before joining General Atomics, Dr. Parmentola served as Director of Research and 

Laboratory Management for the United States Army. In addition, 

he served as Science and Technology Advisor to the Chief Financial 

Officer of the Department of Energy. Dr. Parmentola received his 

Bachelor’s Degree in physics from Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, and his Ph.D. in physics from MIT. Welcome, Dr. Parmentola. 

We’re going to turn to our witnesses now, and you all are recognized for five minutes. We ask that you keep your testimony to five 

minutes. Dr. Peters, we’ll start with you. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. MARK PETERS, 

ASSOCIATE LABORATORY DIRECTOR, 

ENERGY AND GLOBAL SECURITY, 

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Dr. PETERS. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would 

like to thank Chairman Smith, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member 

Grayson, Congressman Lipinski, Congressman Hultgren, and the 

other distinguished members of the Subcommittee for your invitation to testify here today on this important subject. My name is 

Mark Peters, and I am the Associate Laboratory Director for Energy and Global Security at Argonne National Laboratory. And, 

Mr. Chairman, I’ve prepared a detailed written testimony that I request be submitted for the record, and I’ll summarize it here. 

Chairman WEBER. Without objection. 

Dr. PETERS. The history of nuclear energy development in the 

U.S. is one of cooperation amongst the federal government, its DOE 

national labs, universities, and industry. The breakthroughs and 

designs achieved by the scientists and engineers of the national 

laboratory complex, and Argonne in particular, inform and drive 

every nuclear reactor design in the world today. 

The U.S. continues to be the lead source of innovation globally 

for the current generation of light water reactors, or LWRs, and 

small module reactors, or SMRs, as well as leading in regulatory 

process, independence, and rigor. But a 30 year hiatus in the construction of new U.S. reactor projects has impacted domestic production capacity, investment in technology and innovation, and the 

domestic supply chain. 

The country’s leadership in global nuclear energy could be further compromised as the world begins to move beyond the current 

generation of nuclear reactors to new designs, known as advanced, 

or generation four, reactors that can address the future challenges 

of nuclear energy. Other countries are forging ahead with new reactors that, when coupled with advanced fuel cycles, can address 

long running challenges with nuclear waste management, make 

significant gains in efficient use of fuel, and operate even more 
11 

safely than current generation reactors, further addressing lingering public acceptance and confidence challenges. 

Without a commitment to advanced reactor technology development and demonstration in the U.S., our country runs the risk of 

defaulting on the return of 7 decades investment in nuclear SMT 

and infrastructure. That lead position has allowed the U.S. to become the recognized world leader of efforts to control nuclear proliferation, ensure the security of nuclear materials, and promote 

safe and secure operation of nuclear power plants. If the U.S. is to 

ensure its rightful place at the forefront of advanced nuclear energy systems, it will require a new commitment to the type of public/private partnership that led to the creation of our current fleet 

of light water reactors. 

Our national labs and universities continue to work closely with 

industry to accomplish much of the research necessary to facilitate 

advanced reactors, but substantial work remains. A new generation 

of advanced reactors will require refinement and demonstration of 

new technologies, as well as a test reactor and demonstration test 

bed for demonstration of advanced reactors. More work remains to 

be done on advanced fuel cycles and providing options to close the 

fuel cycle, decreasing the amount of waste that must be stored, and 

simplifying geologic disposal requirements. 

Perhaps no effort better illustrates how cooperation between national laboratories and industry can enable important breakthroughs in nuclear energy than the long running collaboration between Argonne and General Electric, Hitachi Nuclear Energy. This 

collaboration stretches back to the ’50s, in the days when we were 

working on experimental boiling water reactors in collaboration 

with GE, and more recently in GE’s advanced reactor design known 

as Prism, which also has its root in this public/private partnership. 

And Prism was created using principles demonstrated at Argonne’s 

Experimental Breeder Reactor II, or EBR–II, and further refined in 

the Integral Fast Reactor, or IFR. 

With the creation of EBR–II, and the following design of IFR, the 

march towards continued U.S. leadership seemed inevitable, however, in the 1970s and ’80s, a variety of developments coalesced to 

move the U.S. away from nuclear energy and next generation reactors, and closing the fuel cycle. Today this is buried beneath the 

fight—rising levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and 

once again drive the U.S. to regain its place at the forefront of nuclear technology. 

So our vast nuclear energy infrastructure, developed over decades with the combined capabilities of industry and the federal 

government, is at a crossroads, where existing nuclear reactors are 

set to be retired over the coming decades. While light water cooled 

SMRs can serve as a bridge to the next generation of advanced reactors, many issues remain that can be addressed by advance reactor technology. If we wish to charter a way forward towards those 

solutions, we must once again engage our public and private resources in a new effort to build the next generation of reactors. 

Much of the technology is developed and demonstrated on a small 

scale, although substantial work remains. The next logical step is 

to unify these technical efforts and successfully deploy a test reactor and test bed to demonstrate the advanced reactor systems. 
12 

The time we have to demonstrate this technology is short, due 

to the age of our current light water reactor fleet. Action over the 

short term is required to demonstrate new technologies by 2030, 

when retirement of existing nuclear power plants will accelerate. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions you 

might have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Peters follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Peters. 

Mr. Batten, you’re recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. FRANK BATTEN, JR., 

PRESIDENT, THE LANDMARK FOUNDATION 

Mr. BATTEN. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Grayson, good 

morning. My name is Frank Batten, and I’m the President of the 

Landmark Foundation. We’re a private foundation that supports 

educational, environmental, and human service organizations. I 

greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify today regarding a positive example of a near completed cooperative research and development agreement, or CRADA. And we did this with the Department 

of Energy’s Argonne National Lab. The CRADA relates to what we 

believe should be an important component of our country’s national 

energy policy, the—which is the recycling of used nuclear fuel 

through a demonstrated U.S. technology called pyroprocessing. We 

have no commercial interest in this area, and no financial agenda, 

but we believe that the U.S. can significantly benefit from recycling 

used nuclear fuel through pyroprocessing. While private industry 

can, and should, play a role, federal government R&D funds are essential if the benefits of this technology are to be realized. 

Pyroprocessing has been the subject of Federal R&D for many 

years, and Argonne has led the way. The technology is now capable 

of recycling used fuel from the country’s nuclear power plants for 

re-use to generate electricity in advanced reactors. Pyroprocessing 

is good energy policy, it’s environmentally sound, it promotes effective use of resources, it can contribute to addressing climate 

change, and it holds the promise of significantly mitigating the 

country’s used nuclear fuel disposition issue. 

I would like to briefly summarize the success story of our partnership with Argonne, which relates to the design for a pilot reprocessing facility. I would also like to brief the Subcommittee on 

an analysis undertaken by Energy Resources International, or ERI. 

We commissioned and funded the ERI analysis outside of the 

CRADA. The ERI report analyzes the costs and benefits of using 

pyroprocessing and advanced reactors on a commercial scale. Now, 

I’ve attached a copy of the ERI report to my testimony, and ask 

that it be included in the hearing record. 

The Landmark Foundation entered into the CRADA with Argonne over two years ago. We invested $5 million, and the federal 

government invested $1 million in the CRADA. The purpose of the 

CRADA is to develop the conceptual design and a robust cost estimate for a 100 metric ton per year pilot scale pyroprocessing demonstration facility. The CRADA is a particularly good use of the 

public/private partnership concept. It leverages prior government 

funded work, it takes that work to the next level, and it builds a 

bridge for the U.S. Government to move forward with the detailed 

design for the pilot facility. All of this, we hope, will spur additional federal funding for a pilot facility. 

The ERI report provides a detailed assessment of the costs and 

technical factors associated with a realistic fuel cycle using 

pyroprocessing and advanced reactors. ERI concluded that the potential exists to reduce the volume of used commercial fuel, requiring permanent disposal by 50 percent or more, avoiding the need 
23 

for a second geologic repository. Avoiding a second repository would 

save the U.S. Government tens of billions of dollars. 

According to ERI, re-use of pyroprocessed fuel also would simply 

the design of a first geologic repository, and reduce the volume of 

repository space needed by more than 50 percent. This would significantly contribute to reducing the federal government’s financial 

liability associated with its obligation to receive used fuel from its 

utility standard contract holders. 

I’m pleased to be here today to talk both about the success of our 

partnership with Argonne, and the underlying benefits of further 

developing the pyroprocessing technology. Thank you for your time 

and attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Batten follows:] 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Batten. 

Mr. Gilliland, you’re recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. NATHAN GILLILAND, 

CEO, GENERAL FUSION 

Mr. GILLILAND. Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Grayson, 

Chairman Smith, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today about the emergence of new innovative fusion energy 

concepts, and the importance of governmental support in working 

with U.S. labs. My name’s Nathan Gilliland, Chief Executive Officer of General Fusion, one of the leading private fusion energy companies. I’ll make five point—key points today, and have done so in 

my written statement in more detail, which I would like to submit 

to the record. 

First, I would echo what Ranking Member Grayson said. The 

game changing nature of fusion energy bears repeating. It’s energy 

production that is safe, clean, and abundant. In a fusion reaction, 

one kilogram of hydrogen is equivalent to ten million kilograms of 

coal. It’s the energy density comment that you made earlier. Humanity would have abundant energy for millions of years. There’s 

also no long lived radioactive waste, no chance of meltdown in fusion reactions. The benefits to energy security can hardly be overstated. 

Second, U.S. support for magnetic fusion programs like ITER, 

and inertial confinement programs like NIF, have created an enormously beneficial source of research. ITER and NIF have justifiably 

been the highlights of the U.S. fusion energy framework, and developed key insights into plasma behavior, material science, simulation codes, and many others. These programs should continue to be 

supported. 

Third, because of this historical research, innovation in alternative pathways to fusion have accelerated. These alternative approaches, both in private companies and in labs and university, 

offer potentially faster and less expensive concepts, and demonstrable progress is being made, both in these labs, universities, and 

the private companies. Of particular note, work at Sandia, University of Washington, and Los Alamos are worth noting, as well as 

the three leading private companies, Tri-Alpha Energy, which is 

based in Southern California, Helion, which is based in Seattle, 

and ourselves, General Fusion. The progress of these alternative 

concepts was featured last summer in Science and Nature magazines. Novel fuels are being tested, new simulation tools developed, 

and we’re all setting records for the stability of our plasma, so real 

progress is being made. 

Increased commercial viability, lower cost power, and faster 

progress are common threads in these alternative fusion concepts. 

Alternative approaches are reducing costs by applying existing industrial technologies to the challenge of fusion, primarily avoiding 

costly large lasers, or costly superconducting magnets. Some have 

novel ways to protect the fusion reactor from neutrons, others have 

simpler ways to convert heat into electricity, but, of course, there 

are no silver bullets. These alternative approaches tend to be less 

researched and studied, and are simply newer. The physics have 

not been fully explored. But we would argue the viability and effi-
33 

cacy of these alternative approaches can be demonstrated for less 

money. Some will show rapid progress, and others will not, but, 

dollar for dollar, progress or failure can be demonstrated much 

more quickly. 

Fourth, though the majority of fusion research has been publicly 

funded, there is a place, and an important place, for private companies who can build on previous research, and potentially innovate 

faster. The Human Genome Project is a great analogue, and a 

great example. The NIH built a core of research that was very 

strong, and from this private industry was able to efficiently and 

rapidly innovate to sequence the genome. We see parallels in fusion 

energy. World leading historical research is being done at labs and 

universities, and has led to rapid innovation. And just like every 

energy industry, oil and gas, solar, wind, there will be multiple approaches that succeed in fusion. It’s not a winner-take-all industry. 

Fifth, and finally, going forward we’d like to see more open innovation and information sharing across private industry labs and 

universities. For example, we all use computer simulation. It’s a 

very important tool for us. We’d like to see co-development of simulation codes, more sharing of simulation codes. Another thing we’d 

like to see is greater emphasis on exchanges of physicists and 

Ph.D.’s across private industry and government labs. This leads to 

better sharing of historical research, current research, and the private sector would absolutely put resources into doing this. And labs 

and universities can help here at no cost to them. 

Ultimately, more cooperation between government supported efforts and private industry can only accelerate progress. There is no 

value in silence. Let’s push for more private/public partnerships, as 

Dr. Peters mentioned, and I’m sure Dr. Parmentola will as well. 

Let’s push for more private/public partnerships to share data, build 

faster, and accelerate progress. The world needs fusion, and the 

faster the better. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilliland follows:] 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Gilliland. 

Dr. Parmentola, you’re recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN PARMENTOLA, 

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

ENERGY AND ADVANCED CONCEPTS GROUP, 

GENERAL ATOMICS 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Weber, 

Ranking Member Grayson, and other members of the Subcommittee for holding this hearing on this important subject. I believe, as many others do, that it is important to the future of national security, energy security, and environmental quality of the 

United States that ample supplies of competitively priced nuclear 

energy are available. 

Unfortunately, it appears that nuclear energy is dying in the 

U.S. There are few new plants being built, several have closed recently, and most of the 99 existing plants will be closed down within the next 40 years. To place this in context, last year nuclear was 

20 percent of the electricity consumed by Americans, who paid 80 

billion for it. We believe this death spiral can be avoided, but it’ll 

require active involvement by the U.S. Government. 

The energy market is indicating that existing nuclear power 

technology is not commercially viable. For nuclear power to play 

any future role, the U.S. will need new safer nuclear power technologies that will produce significantly cheaper electricity. However, the private sector will not be able to develop this on its own. 

The investments required are very large, they are risky, and, in 

any event, will take more than a decade before they might yield 

any revenue from electricity production, and even longer to yield 

any profit. As these new options are developed, and private firms 

begin to see their way to risk reduction and making profits, private 

investment will increase, the government will be able to withdraw, 

and the market will decide which would be commercially viable. 

Let me now discuss GA’s interest in a new advanced test reactor. 

We have a new reactor concept that needs a testing facility. We call 

it EM–2, and we designed it to address the four most prominent 

concerns with nuclear power, its safety, its cost, its waste, and its 

proliferation risk. We believe it is a potential breakthrough technology for the United States, however, research is required to realize it. 

To develop EM–2, a compact gas cooled fast reactor, we looked 

at what physics indicates we must do. One, we must go to higher 

power densities through a compact reactor core using fast neutrons. 

Two, we must go to higher temperatures so a higher percentage of 

the heat produced is turned into electricity. By doing this, we can 

make the same amount of electricity in a smaller reactor, small 

enough that it could be made in a factory and shipped by truck to 

a site for deployment. We believe we could increase the efficiency 

of power production from percentages today, in the low 30s, to the 

lower 50s. 

The bottom line is we believe that we could reduce the cost of 

electricity up to 40 percent below that of existing nuclear reactors, 

and reduce their waste by up to 80 percent. But to do this, we have 

to develop new materials what will be able to endure the higher 
44 

temperatures, and endure the more energetic and neutron rich radiation environment inside the reactor. We need a new testing facility with high performance characteristics in which to do this research work. But there are also a number of other companies and 

national ads that are advocating the use of fast neutrons, and 

going to high temperatures, albeit with different advanced reactor 

designs. These also require a new testing facility that conduct tests 

in, say, three years that would show what happens to these materials in an actual advanced reactor during a period of 30 years. 

It would not make business sense for any company, or even all 

interested companies together, to pay for the capital costs to construct such a facility, given the large investment, the risks, and the 

very long lead times involved for a return on investment. Currently 

there is no U.S. facility with the requisite high performance characteristics to do this type of research. The best we have are the advanced test reactor at Idaho National Laboratory, and the high flux 

isotope reactor at Oak Ridge, but neither of these is appropriate for 

a number of reasons. The best in the world is in Russia, BOR–60, 

but this is being shut down soon for other reasons. 

In any event, it would seem odd to develop such a national security technology in Russia. Therefore, we suggest you consider building such a facility in the United States. It would be called the 

Versatile Advanced Test Reactor. It would be a highly neutron rich 

fast reactor capable also of producing thermal neutrons. We like 

versatile because it should be designed in such a way that it could 

be used to test all new reactor concepts, whether they involve molten salt, a liquid metal reactor, a liquid bismuth reactor, a gas reactor, or even light water reactor. 

The Versatile Advanced Test Reactor would be a user facility in 

the same way that the DOE Office of Science managers other highly successful facilities. It would contribute to the public good by 

providing the development of future nuclear energy options. This is 

an excellent example of what the government should do because industry cannot, or will not, do it. The U.S. has a great opportunity 

to lead the world, and give nuclear power its best chance to become 

economically viable. This Committee could start by enacting a law 

calling for a study to be done, with industry participation, to determine a design for such a reactor, what its capabilities would be, 

and what it might cost. We believe that if the U.S. were to build 

such a test facility, it would be key to the development of nuclear 

reactors that really could spark a true renaissance of nuclear power 

in the United States. 

Thank you for inviting me to share our views, and for your interest in finding ways to sustain an extremely important future energy source for our nation. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Parmentola follows:] 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Parmentola. I now recognize 

myself for five minutes to begin the questioning. 

Mr. Batten, you’ve come here today with a unique story of a 

charitable foundation that has invested in a specific process of nuclear fuel recycling, all for the purpose of jump starting an advanced reactor technology that would reduce waste, increase resource utilization, and mitigate proliferation concerns, obviously. 

So how do you hope this—I think you pronounced it CRADA? 

Mr. BATTEN. CRADA, yes. 

Chairman WEBER. CRADA? Um-hum. 

Mr. BATTEN. C–R–A–D–A. 

Chairman WEBER. Right, Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreement, will make a difference, and what would be the benefits 

to the United States from successful pyroprocessing and IFR, Integral Fast Reactor, deployment? And then I’ve got a follow-up question about something you said. How do you hope this will make a 

difference? 

Mr. BATTEN. Maybe I’ll start with a little bit of background. I 

live in Norfolk, Virginia, which is only a few feet above sea level, 

so it’s—tells how we got into this. 

Chairman WEBER. How many feet? 

Mr. BATTEN. A few feet. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. BATTEN. You know, like, 2, 3, 4 feet, depending on where you 

are. And—so we’re very concerned about the rising seas that could 

be caused by climate change. And so we looked around for—well, 

what could we do to help with that transition to a low carbon energy? And we concluded that lots of people were working on wind, 

and solar, and batteries, and, you know, savings of—energy savings, all of which are very important, and all of which deserve Federal research dollars. We found out that not nearly as much attention was being given to nuclear power. 

So within that it seemed like there were two issues. One was nuclear waste, was there anything that could be done to reduce the 

nuclear waste problem, since that’s such a hindrance to the expansion of nuclear power? And pyro processing seemed like a very 

promising technology to be able to reduce the nuclear waste problem. And, of course, advanced reactors, fast reactors, when coupled 

with recycling, also lets you use much more of the energy in uranium. The current, you know, light water reactors use about one 

percent of the energy in uranium. Fast reactors, with recycling, 

could use 99 percent of the energy in the uranium. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. And I applaud you for that, by the way. 

Just kind of a follow-up question, you said in your comments, if I 

was following—heard correctly that the pyroprocessing was developed in the United States? 

Mr. BATTEN. It was developed at Argo National Lab by their 

work in Chicago, and also by their work out with the Experimental 

Breeder Reactor II. They have a fuel cycle facility attached to that. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. BATTEN. So Argonne really developed that. 

Chairman WEBER. But do I understand that France uses more 

reprocessed fuel, as it were, than we do? Do you know? 
74 

Mr. BATTEN. Yes. France—the U.S. currently is not recycling 

fuel. France is reprocessing, use aqueous reprocess. 

Chairman WEBER. So they’re not—they are not using our technology? 

Mr. BATTEN. That’s correct, yes. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. BATTEN. The difference is the aqueous reprocessing produces 

pure plutonium, which people are obviously concerned about as a 

proliferation risk, whereas the pyroprocessing produces a mixture 

of plutonium, all sorts of different isotopes mixed together with 

other trans-uranics, or those other elements to the right of uranium. 

Chairman WEBER. Would you compare and contrast a cost analysis to the two? Are they roughly the same, or have you—do 

you—— 

Mr. BATTEN. I do not know the answer to that. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Dr. Parmentola, given the United 

States budget constraints—obviously Congress must be careful 

with every dollar we spend. That said, as many of you have already 

said, there are some activities that the private enterprise—private 

companies cannot undertake, but where the federal government 

can actually support the research and infrastructure to support 

that private investment. 

So, Doctor, can you explain how an open access fast reactor user 

facility could enable private industry to deploy stranded capital 

that is simply waiting to be spent on research and development for 

new reactor designs that are more efficient, and even safer than today’s technology? That’s my question, but before you get there, one 

of the terms I heard bantered around about this process is, if we 

would support the development of a library where, for example, we 

could have the resources, and companies could come in, and kind 

of draw from those resources. And I think you actually had—or 

maybe it was Dr. Peters who called it a test reactor and a test bed. 

Was that the term you used? 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. Yes, sir. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. And so, Dr. Parmentola, can you explain how that open access fast reactor user facility would help? 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. Yes. First of all, currently there are companies 

that are spending R&D in trying to advance their advanced reactor 

designs. In the private sector, the amounts of money that go towards this, at least currently, relatively low. We focus mainly on 

the high risk issues that need to be reduced in order to make decisions about going forward. However, a large fraction of the issues 

that need to be addressed require a new test facility. Now, if such 

a test facility was built, this would enable the private sector to be 

able to go to these facilities, utilize more of its capital to be able 

to do the testing, and reduce the risk associated with realizing 

these advanced concepts. 

As I said in my testimony, the type of reactor we’re looking for 

is a high performance reactor. This would speed up testing, the 

productivity associated with what companies would do would go up, 

and it would enable us to be able to make decisions, rather significant decisions, about going forth and actually building these advanced reactors. 
75 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Thank you. And back to Dr. Peters, you 

pointed out that the U.S.’s non-proliferation mission could be adversely affected by foregoing the timely development of advanced 

reactors for export because that void will be filled otherwise by supplier nations. Would you elaborate—I think we probably—most us 

understand, but would you elaborate on how exporting reactor 

technology is a component to the United States’ security and nonproliferation mission, please, sir? 

Dr. PETERS. Sure. So let me start by saying that the past shows 

us that, when you look at the worldwide reactors that are operating, U.S. export let to that, and the regulatory process that the 

U.S. established is also gold standard worldwide, so the past tells 

us that we can actually export our technologies and our ideas, and 

have a positive impact, and be a leader. Now, the matter of export’s 

outside of a national labs purview. It’s a policy and industry play, 

but it—past shows that it can work in the future. So I would say 

it definitely should be looked at very carefully, and I think it does 

establish international leadership. 

But I do want to make the point also that there’s a component 

of this that also is related to the R&D and the necessary infrastructure, because if you—the national labs and university system 

in the U.S. is world class in the nuclear space, but that—we have 

it now, but if we don’t continue investing, we’ll lose that capability, 

and that’s an important part of getting that seat at the table. Having that world leading S&T capability is very important. So, from 

the labs’ and universities’ perspective, that continued investment— 

but getting on the path of research, development, demonstration, 

and ultimately deployment domestically can’t do anything but help 

international leadership. 

Chairman WEBER. Along those lines, you said in your prepared 

testimony that you provided the NRC will need to establish a new 

licensing structure to accommodate the next generation of more 

safer, efficient safe rectors. So can you explain to us further why 

the NRC will need to establish a new licensing framework? 

Dr. PETERS. The NRC has a broader framework, but they have 

a set of general design criteria and detailed regulations that are focused on light water reactors, pressurized reactors, and boiling 

water reactors. So if we’re going to move forward with licensing advanced reactors, we have to go and develop general design criteria, 

to license those machines. 

Now, there is an effort already funded by DOE working with 

NRC, and the labs are supporting that, but it needs to be scaled 

up, let’s say, in terms of budget, and also accelerated if we’re going 

to actually license these machines. 

Chairman WEBER. Got you. Thank you. And I apologize to my 

colleagues, I’m a little over time. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Grayson, you’re recognized for questions. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gilliland, some of 

the problems associated with using fission for power generation are 

meltdowns, radioactive waste, and nuclear proliferation. There are 

other problems as well. Can you please elaborate on your testimony 

on why fusion may be able to avoid some of the problems associated with fission? 
76 

Mr. GILLILAND. Yes, absolutely. Ultimately it starts with the reaction itself, so—fission is a large atom that can react spontaneously. Fusion is done with hydrogen only, and it’s impossible for fusion to happen spontaneously, so—it’s a difficult reaction to get 

started, therefore very difficult, or impossible, for it to start on its 

own. 

So in a fusion reaction the byproducts are helium and heat, 

and—or high energy neutrons, so there’s not—there are not longlived radioactive waste materials produced at all. Using hydrogen 

it is certainly difficult to figure out how that could lead to proliferation challenges as well. So it, you know, it—we do have normal 

safety challenges that any power plant would have. It’s not that it’s 

without risk completely, but certainly long-lived radioactive waste 

is not one of them. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. Now, your company is developing and 

advancing a unique fusion energy design that falls into a category 

of fusion energy concepts called magnetized target fusion. What is 

that? 

Mr. GILLILAND. Magnetized target fusion, I think it’s worth stepping back for a second and describing kind of the mainstream longstanding fusion programs at a high level. ITER and magnetic fusion use a low density plasma, much less dense than air, and hold 

it together with large superconducting magnets, and hold it together for long periods of time, even continuously. Laser fusion is 

sort of the other extreme, where a little fuel pellet is slammed with 

lasers in nanoseconds or picoseconds. 

The idea behind magnetized target fusion and other what we call 

middle ground fusion approaches is that those extremes are extremes. They’re extremes, makes them expensive. So big superconducting magnets cooled to 2 degrees Kelvin are expensive, as 

are, you know, using the world’s largest lasers. It’s not that those 

pathways aren’t viable, they’re just—they appear to be expensive. 

So the middle ground uses density between the two, and speed of 

compression—speeds of shrinking that plasma that are much slower than laser fusion. So, in our case, we compress a plasma, called 

a spheromak plasma, in about 80 microseconds, which is obviously 

much slower than the picoseconds or nanoseconds of laser fusion. 

So the idea is just—simply put, it’s to avoid the extremes, and become much lower cost, and ultimately more practical. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Now, my understanding is that your design has no 

permanent home in U.S. energy research, but is funded by a temporary ARPA–E program that you noted yourself in your testimony. Is there a value, in your opinion, to having such research 

permanently funded as a regular part of energy research by the 

federal government? 

Mr. GILLILAND. Sure. So I would comment, you know, ARPA–E 

has done a great job on a fusion program. I think they are still in 

the middle of negotiating with the various recipients, so, you know, 

whether or not we are a recipient of that I don’t know at this time. 

However, to your question, I think it’s vital that the U.S. support 

this middle ground, and I think the primary reason is that a lot 

of significant progress can be made for small dollars, so some of 

these middle approaches are absolutely viable, some are not. We 
77 

don’t know that—you don’t know which is which yet, but it will not 

take billions of dollars to determine that. 

So, you know, I think funding is one, but I think in my testimony 

I mentioned let’s work together, labs and private companies, 

around simulation codes. Let’s work together around exchange of 

Ph.D.’s and physicists. I think there’s some simple things we can 

do to accelerate progress as well, but ultimately I do, obviously, 

support this middle ground of fusion. 

Mr. GRAYSON. What’s a rough timeframe that you could provide, 

allowing for, no undue optimism, for achieving that energy production? 

Mr. GILLILAND. It’s a difficult question, there’s no question about 

that. I think there’s an interesting graph that plots Moore’s Law 

against fusion progress. So, fusion progress being how much energy 

out of a reaction are we getting in, are you—how much are we getting out for what we’re putting in? And it’s actually quite interesting, they parallel each other. 

So I think the question is—it’s, you know, we’re nearly there. I 

think the large programs had determined that it can be done, and 

now it’s a question of just how do we it commercially? How do we 

do it economically? And I think that’s the question, right? So I 

think there’s two steps involved. One is building an alpha power 

plant, or a prototype plant that demonstrates reliability, and then 

second building commercial plants. 

So I’m spinning around your answer—or your question a little 

bit, but, you know, we’re certainly several years away. I would like 

to think that we, as a set of alternative concepts, can get there in, 

you know, the next five or ten years, given the basket of options 

that are out there. I’m optimistic that, within that basket and that 

timeframe, we’ll get there. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. 

Chairman WEBER. The gentleman from California is recognized. 

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

ago I used to believe that the environmentalist community was 

being, how do you say, alarmist when it came to nuclear energy. 

And I have seen a lot of alarmism come out of the environmental 

community that has not been accurate, but let me just say that in 

the case of nuclear energy, as time has gone on, and more information has been available, I think the environmental community over 

the years has been on target on this issue. The fact is that nuclear 

energy, as we are now using it, is very dangerous, and as now 

there are—there’s leftover waste to deal with with the way we 

produce nuclear energy today. 

So that’s a big concession for me. In the number of debates that 

I had with environmental activities, they were right about that. 

But we are capable of technologically meeting those challenges that 

were brought up. And—whether it’s leftover waste, or whether it’s 

a safer way of producing nuclear energy that wouldn’t have the 

same type of dangers associated with our current plants, we can do 

that. 

I especially want to acknowledge our friends at General Atomics, 

who have been in the forefront, and spent a lot of their own money 

over the years trying to develop a new and next generation of nu-
78 

clear energy that is safe, and won’t have the massive leftover waste 

problem for decades, if not centuries to come. 

I—but the government has to play a role in this as well. If we’re 

going to have the benefits of nuclear energy, and—because private 

companies can’t make this jump on their own, but once that jump 

is made, our private companies will be able to then, on their own, 

to build these next generation of nuclear power plants. 

So I would like to go on the record, absolutely, saying this idea 

of having an open access facility is perhaps the most important 

thing we can do to provide America’s long term energy interests, 

because it doesn’t mean that just General Atomics, or any other 

company that is investing in this, and looking down this road. It 

will be available to all of those approaches. And, after his facility 

is available, we will know which is the best one to go with, which 

is the best way to go. 

So this is a—what is not a good use of our money, however, is 

something that is aimed at fusion, rather than fission. And we can 

do these fission reactors—with all due respect to the last witness, 

boy, now we know it’s possible. We’ve spent I don’t know how many 

billions of dollars to find that it’s possible? No. After spending billions of dollars, we should actually be at a point where we can— 

not only is it possible, but we’ll have it ready within two or three 

years, whatever that is. But we’re nowhere near that with fusion. 

But we do know that if we focus on this next generation of fission 

reactors, especially modular fission reactors, we actually can do it, 

and do the job, rather than just know that it’s possible. 

Let me note that we have spent—I would like to ask my friend 

from General Atomics, the—in what—the actual configuration of 

the next generation of nuclear reactor that you’re working on, the 

people in Japan were sold a bill of goods that what they were given 

was totally safe. And now what happens, we, you know, we’ve seen 

this catastrophe in Japan. Would the model you’re working on, and 

perhaps the other models that people are working on, would that 

protect us from that type of situation they have in Japan? 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. Yes, thank you for the question. And, actually, 

I brought some results of our work with me. This is a revolutionary 

new cladding. It’s made from ceramic materials. These materials 

undergo a transition from solid to gas at about 2,600 degrees. They 

lose their strength at about 2,000 degrees Centigrade. I point out 

to people that the metal that exists in current light water reactors 

begins to lose strength at about 700, so this increases the safety 

margin by a factor of almost three. 

Also, these materials even benefit a light water reactor, and 

we’ve developed them for our advance reactor. So there’s another 

version of this that we’re working on to make light water reactors 

meltdown-proof. Because this material does not react with water at 

any temperature, so you can’t have the kind of runaway reactions 

that generate huge amounts of heat inside the reactor that melt 

the core. It’s not possible with these materials. 

So if we invest in materials like this, it has multiple benefits 

across a number of reactor designs. Of course, the one that we’re 

most interested in is EM–2, and EM–2 has a certain unique characteristic to it in that it utilizes these materials, but what it does 

is it provides a high power small reactor, so you get more bang for 
79 

your buck, in terms of the capital investment, and the output of the 

reactor. And at the same time, one that is inherently safe because 

of these materials that we’re developing. 

But these materials require significant amounts of testing to 

prove them out, so this way we can convince the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that these type of materials can actually make 

fission reactors safe. And that’s the principle reason why we’re pursuing this. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If you’d indulge me one more question, Mr. 

Chairman? Would that be possible to retrofit some of our current—— 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. Yeah. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So some of our current light water reactors—— 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. Yeah. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —which have a lot longer life on them could 

be refitted with that material? 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. Exactly. So I have two types of cladding. This 

cladding here, the thin one, goes into light water reactors. The 

rods, these rods, are 14 feet tall. They go into the reactor, and they 

have fuel inside. This one is for EM–2, which is a totally different 

design. We pack more fuel in the core of EM–2 to increase its 

power density. But this material ensures safety. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for holding this hearing. I think it’s vitally important 

that we not write off nuclear energy as a potential source for energy. It’s—as the witnesses have stated, it’s clean. It will not—it— 

I don’t believe in global warming, but I do believe in clean air, and 

this will go a long way to providing energy for the world, and for 

the people of the United States. Thank you very much. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman, who yields back. And 

now, Mr. Lipinski, you’re recognized. 

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

this hearing, and I would like to say, I do agree with Mr. Rohrabacher, except for I do believe in global climate change, but I 

think together we need to work to bring, you know, nuclear energy—it’s something that we have to, first of all, maintain America’s leadership on the innovation when it comes to nuclear energy 

and nuclear technologies, and we need to transition to advanced 

nuclear technologies, like fast reactors. And I hope to get language 

in the Competes bill supporting advanced nuclear reactor test facilities. So I think it’s very important that we do move ahead, and 

research is critical, and that’s what we’re here to talk about. 

For Dr. Peters, Illinois has been a leader in nuclear reactors 

since the first reactor was developed by Enrico Fermi at Met Lab, 

now renamed Argonne. Thank you for your leadership in keeping 

Argonne, and Illinois, a leader in nuclear energy innovation. Moving forward, I want to ask, what are Argonne’s research and development priorities, and how do these priorities compliment work at 

other national labs, and fit into the DOE’s strategic direction? 

Dr. PETERS. Morning, Congressman, thank you for the question. 

So we at Argonne continue to have strong capabilities, broadly 

speaking, in advanced reactor design and analysis, fast reactors in 

particular, but also a broader set of expertise that also supports 
80 

light water reactor sustainability, and also thinking extensively 

about potential fuel cycle options, either repositories, or closing the 

fuel cycle. 

So we have that broad set of capabilities, where we also are 

working very closely with our sister laboratories, in particular Oak 

Ridge National Lab and Idaho National Laboratory. So we’re 

spending a lot of time, as three labs, working with DOE, in cooperation with DOE, to ensure that the labs are working together 

strategically, not—and complementing each other, and so I think 

that’s a very healthy conversation, and it’s ongoing, and it’s been 

very positive. 

But our strategic interests, we really think it’s important—our 

primary role would be to really think about what’s the next set of 

systems that we—one would develop, demonstrate, and ultimately 

commercialize, both in the fuel cycle, as well as reactors for electricity. And then also, using our foundation in nuclear to also be 

a part of the technical basis for securing safe and secure operation 

worldwide as nuclear expands. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. And I also want to move on to other 

collaborations, specifically between the national labs and industry, 

because I think that’s important to improve U.S. research investments by leveraging private sector expertise, and helping to bring 

new technology to the market. I know Argonne has been particularly effective in engaging with the private sector, for example collaborating with General Electric on the development of experimental boiling water reactors. These reactors now make up about 

1/3 of the U.S. reactor fleet. So I wanted to ask you, Dr. Peters, 

what can we do here in Washington to support these types of collaborations? 

Dr. PETERS. The lab—thank you for the question. And the history 

of the lab has been that we’ve been deeply committed to these partnerships, and that’s an important part of it, but currently the Department of Energy is making it very clear that they value the labs 

working in cooperation with industry, so that’s really, really important. So I know the work of this Committee on thinking about how 

we continue to enhance tech transfer, I’ll call it, from the labs to 

industry. Those conversations are very healthy, and very important. 

Again, DOE is deeply committed, but I think we can always continue to talk about it, and continue to explore ways to become more 

efficient. But from the labs perspective, you know, we do basic 

science, we do applied science and technology, but ultimately, regardless of timeframe that it takes, the research has to ultimately 

have an impact, and that means getting out to industry, into the 

market, and improving peoples’ lives. So that’s at the highest levels 

of commitment that the labs have, and I think the DOE shares 

that. They do share that commitment, and I know you do as well. 

So continuing to just look at the detailed processes, and continuing to figure out how to become more efficient, and align the 

values of industry with the Federal R&D infrastructure are just 

vital. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. And I’ll yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Hultgren, you’re 

recognized for five minutes. 
81 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of 

our witnesses. Dr. Peters, it’s always so good to see you. Certainly 

love being able to tell the great story of all the good things that 

are happening in Illinois. Good news for the rest of the Committee 

is having you here means they don’t have to listen to me, and they 

can be much better informed hearing from you, so—— 

Chairman WEBER. Amen. 

Mr. HULTGREN. —I’m glad you’re here. Hey, watch it. Illinois is 

certainly the leading nuclear state in the nation, and I do appreciate the role the federal government has had in the development 

of nuclear technologies. Earlier this year the Committee passed legislation that I had introduced, among other things, that would require DOE to examine their capabilities to authorize, host, and 

oversee privately funded reactor prototypes and related demonstration facilities. It was certainly good to hear from our witnesses 

today about the ongoing debate that this department, the research 

community, and the industrial base has already been having on 

this topic. 

Wanted to address my first question to Dr. Parmentola, and also 

to Dr. Peters. Some argue that open access user facilities are a 

more effective mechanism to enable investment and accelerate 

technological growth, compared to a cost-share agreement between 

the government and the private sector to deploy new technologies. 

I wonder, which type of federally funded investment do you believe 

is most effective to accelerate this growth, and wonder if you could 

explain it? 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. Yes. Thank you very much for the question. So 

I can only tell you the way industry looks at cost sharing arrangements. Industry is very conservative. It has to do with the nature 

of what we do. We produce products, and we have to show a bottom 

line and a profit, so dollars we spend are very precious. What happens, in my experience, with cost share is that industry will look 

at it and take an opportunity to go with something low risk, and 

take advantage of the fact that the government is willing to provide 

a cost share for it. And what this does is it reduces innovation, in 

my opinion, because what we need in industry is more risk taking. 

Of course, the national labs undertake risk taking, but if we’re 

going to try to advance technology, and get it into the commercial 

world, industry has to also undertake risk taking. 

So, in my opinion, over 40 years of being involved in the research 

and development in this nation, what matters the most, in terms 

of high quality R&D, is competition, and being able to challenge 

the community. And by the community I just don’t mean universities, I mean national labs and industry, to undertake high risk, 

high payoff research. The way to do that is to adopt standards, 

very high standards, and also goals—technical goals that challenge 

the community and allow industry to compete. And I think, without 

a cost share, you’re likely to drive industry towards more risk taking than less risk taking. And it’s really up to the agencies to do 

this. They have to take charge of this and actually meet the standards that are required. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. Dr. Peters, before you answer, let me 

add one part to this that I would like to get your comments on 

just—and then I’ll leave the rest of my time to you. How would you 
82 

envision our national labs, such as Argonne, assisting in the process with NRC? Does the DOE need to take a more informative role 

with NRC? So I wonder if you could talk a little bit about, again, 

my first question there, but also following up a little bit on what 

the Chairman had started. 

Dr. PETERS. Good morning, Congressman. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Good morning, Dr. Peters. Continue. 

Dr. PETERS. So, on the first question, in my testimony I referred 

to a test bed, and actually I think it’s very similar to what you’re 

referring to in the legislation. And Dr. Parmentola used the user 

facility model as a way to have the conversation, and I agree with 

him. You can set up a facility—a set of facilities that provide the 

ability to test and demonstrate advanced technologies, and do it in 

such a way that you could either do it in a pretty competitive, more 

open sense, or you could actually have aspects of it where industries actually bring in resources in doing proprietary work as well. 

We can—we do that, as you know—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Um-hum. 

Dr. PETERS. —at the existing scientific facilities, like the advanced photon source. There’s a model for that. So, to me, I think 

there’s a lot—I agree with Dr. Parmentola, that translates. So 

there’s a lot to be done to define what this test bed would look like, 

and that would have to be something the labs, the government, 

universities, and industry work together to define the requirement 

set. But I think they would be able to push us ahead in a way that 

you’re not necessarily picking a winning concept, but there’s a test 

bed there for all to come test their concepts, demonstrate their concepts, and ultimately that will then lead to what makes sense in 

the market. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Great. 

Dr. PETERS. On your second question, so—specifically I had addressed the Chairman’s question earlier on the NRC. Specifically, 

there’s activity already going on between the DOE and NRC that 

the labs are supporting, our lab and a few other labs are supporting, to develop general—what we call general design criteria. 

So looking at advanced systems, like a high temperature gas reactor, or a sodium fast reactor, for example, and developing detailed 

general design criteria that one would use that would inform the 

regulatory basis going forward. 

So, we know what needs to be done. It’s more a question of 

what’s the priority, because right now the NRC is, understandably, 

completely focused on regulating the existing fleet, and also watching the new construction of some of the Gen Three plus reactors 

in the southeast. But the—we know what we need to do. It’s just 

a question of if we want to get to these advanced machines in a 

more timely manner, we just have to increase priority on the effort. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I agree, and I do believe Argonne, and other labs, 

have a pivotal role, a vital role, and I want to make sure that we 

can have you be part of that. So, thank you, Chairman, I appreciate the time. Yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you. And, in that context, very quickly, 

if I may, according to research, the Manhattan Project, which was 

’42 to ’46, cost $2 billion, okay? 90 percent of that was in the production of the factories and the fissile material, and less than 10 
83 

percent was actually used in the R&D for the weapons. In today’s 

dollars, that’s $26 billion, with a B, dollars. So who’s going to invest that kind of money? 

Thank you for the indulgence, and the Chairman—I mean the 

gentleman from California is recognized. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Chair. I represent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory in 

Livermore, California, in the 15th District, and appreciate our witnesses here, and also Dr. Peters, what—the work you do at Argonne, is that correct? 

My question is for Mr. Gilliland. And—in your testimony, you’re 

pretty forceful on the potential power of fusion energy, and—for example, you write that the game changing nature of fusion energy 

bears repeating, energy production that is safe, clean, and abundant that would change the landscape of energy forever, and greatly enhance energy security. 

At the two national laboratories I work—that I represent, they 

do a lot of work in fusion energy. For example, at Lawrence Livermore, they have the National Ignition Facility, the largest inertial 

fusion facility in the world, which is an amazing research tool, 

which has produced a wealth of information, but its primary goal 

right now is to assist in the maintenance of the nuclear weapon 

stockpile. However, we have long term hopes that it can be a sustainable energy source in the future. 

So, keeping that in mind—and Representative Lofgren, who’s on 

this Committee as well, she has worked with me on supporting fusion—but keeping that in mind, do you think, Mr. Gilliland, that 

the federal government is spending enough to support fusion energy research, and if not, do you have a dollar amount in mind as 

to how much more we should spend? And would it be helpful to 

have an actually dedicated funding source for research into all different types of fusion, including inertial, for energy applications? 

Mr. GILLILAND. I would echo your comments on the National Ignition Facility, and their leadership in the fusion energy space. You 

mentioned that their primary goal is around weapons, however, 

they’re making huge steps in fusion energy as well. I think the 

number is they have improved by about 100 times their fusion 

yield in the last three years. So I certainly believe that continued 

support, and even enhanced support, of National Ignition Facility 

is warranted. Similarly, Sandia has an alternative approach called 

Z Pinch, which I won’t get into the details of, but they’ve also demonstrated a huge amount of progress. So we’re certainly supportive 

of all of the concepts of fusion, including magnetic fusion, that General Atomics is quite involved in. 

I think were funding could, you know, and—make a big difference is in some of the alternative approaches. Most of the dollars 

go toward magnetic fusion or inertial confinement fusion, both of 

which have benefits, and both of which have created really a base 

of research that everyone is benefitting from. I think the difference 

is that some of these middle ground concepts, like ours, and a number of others, do have the potential to be faster and less expensive 

because of the—we don’t need lasers or superconducting magnets. 

So I think it’s a basket of alternatives, and it should be approached that way. Each have their pros and cons across the spec-
84 

trum. So I can’t give you a dollar amount, but certainly support, 

and enhanced support I think is absolutely warranted because—the 

final point I would make is whether it is fission, or fusion, or others, the world needs more energy, and energy is fundamental to the 

entire economy. So it’s not one or the other, it’s all. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you. And also, with respect to, you know, 

Dr. Parmentola and Mr. Peters suggested that the federal government should develop a new nuclear reactor facility to test innovative reactor ideas, now, knowing that we have, you know, few Federal dollars allocated for this type of research, and it doesn’t look 

like the trend is going up, it’s actually going down, do you have a— 

if you had to prioritize between fusion and nuclear reactors, any 

thoughts on that? 

Mr. GILLILAND. How to prioritize between fission and fusion? Is 

that your—— 

Mr. SWALWELL. Yeah. 

Mr. GILLILAND. —that your question? Again, I think they both 

have their pros and cons, right? I think fission certainly has the 

waste issue to deal with, proliferation and so forth, but there are 

certainly a number of viable pathways that fission has demonstrated, with small modular reactors and so forth. So I think 

that it’s a little bit of an apple and orange comparison. 

I think a demonstration facility could have both. I don’t know 

why it couldn’t have both. I think creating a regulatory framework 

is helpful for all of us, and, again, I don’t—I think it would be beneficial for us all to have it at one location. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from 

Illinois, Mr. Foster, is recognized. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity to attend this, despite not actually being formally on this 

Subcommittee. The—let’s see. First question—first I would like to 

say that I’m a big fan of turning up research in this field. You 

know, the payoff if one of these comes up with a home run, and 

a really viable zero carbon energy source for our world, is enormous. 

But ultimately, you know, the thing that I struggle with is the 

business of design studies that look at projected costs of electricity, 

which is ultimately the endpoint on this. And so the difficulty you 

get into there is you’re comparing technologies with different levels 

of maturity. And, you know, ultimately we’re resource constrained. 

You know, we’ve now decided to make what’s—looks like a—between a $3 and $4 billion bet on tokamak fusion, you know, 

leveraging that to roughly 10 times that amount offshore. And, you 

know, we may or may not decide to do the same sort of leveraging 

in making a U.S. investment into offshore fission technologies that 

are being developed. 

And so—but ultimately what we’re looking for is the cheapest 

way of making zero carbon electricity. And—so there is certainly a 

role in doing design studies, just say pretend the technology works, 

and what would the cost of electricity be, if it all works according 

to your dreams? You know, there are big dangers there, because 

you can lose that bet, and—or find that, to make it work, you have 

to add a lot of costs to things. 
85 

But how do we, you know, how should Congress think about and 

handle that? Is this best left to separate—to committees? You 

know, the problem is that committees—all—knowledgeable people 

on committees are always composed of advocates for their technology, and you can balance the committee in different ways and 

get whatever answer you want, depending on how you choose to 

balance those committees. 

And so if—so I guess my question is do you think that we’re putting enough effort into the sort of design studies that I’m talking 

about, where you say, just pretend the technology works, does it 

ever have a chance of being cheaper? You know, this is something 

that’s often talked about, for example, in terms of laser driven fusion, that if you just look at the wall power efficiency, you know, 

everything you’ll have to do to get the compression, I guess—I— 

sorry I missed your presentation, Mr. Gilliland, but, from what I 

understand, your technology, you anticipate a higher efficiency, 

wall plug efficiency, in terms of getting the fusion to happen. And 

that’s a, you know, that’s a real argument when you look at the 

final thing. 

But I—my question is, are we putting enough effort into that, 

and the right kind of effort, into these design—these studies of 

what the theoretical cost of electricity should be, or are—is—are 

things just so far away, and such a big spectrum in their R&D 

readiness to make those—to be able to make those sensible comparisons? So anyone wants to comment on—yeah, Dr. Parmentola. 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. I can only talk about how General Atomics has 

tried to address the issue that you’re raising. We’ve looked at basic 

physics to tell us what we need to do in order to be able to improve 

the price point of electricity. Of course, it’s tied to financial models, 

but when you look at the financial models, the financial models tell 

you a story. 

So, for example, the biggest driver for costs is the cost of capital, 

which has to do with the risk premium associated with what you’re 

doing. And so we thought about that. What we need to do there is 

change the paradigm as to how we fabricate, manufacture, assemble, and deploy nuclear reactors, okay? 

The next most important, which is physics-based, is efficiency. 

And we carefully looked at this, and we tried to look at how we 

could increase the efficiency of a nuclear reactor, and we’ve come 

up with a design that indicates that we could get over 50 percent 

efficiency, which is 20 percentage points above what we can do 

today. And I’ll remind people that for every percentage improvement in efficiency, that adds a half a billion dollars to the bottom 

line over 30 years. So you’re talking about $10 billion more in the 

pocket of a utility who’s selling electricity. 

Mr. FOSTER. You’re also talking about turning up the peak operating—— 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. Correct. 

Mr. FOSTER. —components, and—— 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. Right, and that’s the reason why you have to 

go to new materials—— 

Mr. FOSTER. Yeah. 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. —because the materials can’t deal with it, but 

this is fundamental research that we have to do. And, of course, 
86 

the government should be sponsoring that type of high risk research because the payoff can be tremendous. 

And so the next one is capital costs, right? And, of course, what 

you want to do is try to reduce the capital costs. The thought is, 

well, if you make reactors smaller, you can reduce the material 

costs, but you have to have enough power output to compensate, 

right, for the reduction in size. So that, again, drives to a higher 

temperature, more—higher power density, and so on. 

The physics tells you what to do, and that translates into the financial model. Then, of course, it’s a matter of achieving the technical goals through research that you need to achieve in order to 

be able to get there. And that’s really what—a facility that we’re 

advocating, this new type of test facility, user facility. We do. In 

that user facility, we create competition, natural competition 

amongst those who are trying to achieve these advanced reactors. 

And, to me, that’s the best way of sorting out which ones are going 

to survive, and which ones are not. 

Mr. FOSTER. Um-hum. All right. Well, thank you. 

Dr. PETERS. Could I make an—is that okay, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman WEBER. Yes, sir. 

Dr. PETERS. Morning, Congressman. So I would say you’re aware 

of the various analyses tools that are done by the various parties 

that are out there, as you said already in your remarks. And you 

have the DOEEIA does projections, and then, of course, all the various advocacy groups do their own projects, as you pointed out. And 

now you have a QER and a QTR that the DOE’s doing that I think 

are important steps. 

My observation would be that I think you’re on the right track, 

because I think we haven’t yet gotten to where we have an objective set of tools that can think about advanced technology, and 

technology insertion, into the discussion. At least I am not aware 

of very many robust objective tools put there. 

So, to me, if we’re going to sit here and talk about important 

things like fusion, and Generation IV fission reactors, they’re at 

various stages in their TRL level, right? And I think we could probably model that. We could understand that and model it, but we’re 

not really doing it in a comprehensive way, looking at the whole 

energy system. So I think there would be a place for that kind of 

analysis. I am not aware of a robust objective program that’s going 

after it, though. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yeah. Well, we’d have to spend, you know, the 

whole—— 

Dr. PETERS. Right. 

Mr. FOSTER. —fission—— 

Dr. PETERS. Right. 

Mr. FOSTER. —space, and that’s difficult to assemble. 

Dr. PETERS. Right. Yeah, and it would be—complex—labs, universities. It would be a—quite a big undertaking, but very informative, I think. 

Mr. FOSTER. Right. Thank you, and I guess I’m well over time, 

and I should yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. We’ll just take it out of your next five minutes. But the gentleman yields back, no problem. Mr. Batten, I, you 

know, I said earlier that I applaud you, your collaboration and your 
87 

efforts and stuff, and thank you again for being here, but I wanted 

to give you—and I went way over my time, Mr. Foster, by the way. 

What I—— 

Mr. FOSTER. I remember. 

Chairman WEBER. What I wanted to ask was would you elaborate on your experience with working with Argonne National Lab 

in—and what was the best thing about it, the worst thing about 

it, the most frustrating thing about it? How could you—I know I’m 

putting you on the spot. How could we help improve the process? 

Mr. BATTEN. Well, this is the first CRADA we had ever participated in, so it took us a while to just get ourselves up to speed on 

the process, and understand the agreement, and that sort of thing. 

But after we did that, we had a very good experience working with 

the lab, in terms of just kind of working out the cooperative agreement. 

I would say by far the best thing about our experience is the 

technical work of the lab. For—I mean, I’m a layperson scientifically, but my impression is the—Argonne’s technical work has just 

been superb. And, of course, it built on—that’s because they have 

great people, but also they have all this expertise that they’ve built 

upon, all their past work. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Dr. Peters’ check is in the mail to you. 

Dr. PETERS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BATTEN. It’s true—— 

Chairman WEBER. And—— 

Mr. BATTEN. —from my point of view. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, we love hearing that. Any suggestions to 

improve—I know you were kind of on virgin territory there. 

Mr. BATTEN. Right. 

Chairman WEBER. Any suggestions on how we—improving that 

process? 

Mr. BATTEN. I do not have any. 

Chairman WEBER. No, yeah. So have you produced an outline, a 

white paper, on how the next collaborative process will work? 

Mr. BATTEN. Well, I guess the question—I’ll maybe answer that 

a little bit more broadly, sort of what would the next steps be. 

The—what the CRADA produced—the main thing the CRADA produced was a conceptual design which produced a cost estimate, and 

the CRADA report should be out in a couple months, and we’ll 

know what that cost will be. Because—what we hope is that Congress will authorize the development of the pilot facility, but we 

thought you wouldn’t really want to do that until you had some 

idea of what it would cost. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, and that’s why, you know, I referred to 

it earlier as a kind of a library facility, where, you know, we could 

provide the facility, and the books and stuff could be there for people to come and check out, if you will, and that would hopefully be 

an incentive for us to be able to take that next step you’re talking 

about. 

And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Grayson. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. Uranium is fuel for nuclear reactors. 

If the industry were healthy, one would expect the price of uranium to be going up. In fact, the price of uranium is now 1/4 what 
88 

it was eight years ago. What does that tell us about the market’s 

assessment of the future of nuclear energy? Dr. Peters? 

Dr. PETERS. I’m not an economist, but I would say that the current state of nuclear energy vis-&-vis the role of natural gas and 

that, the role of deregulation, et cetera, is having significant impact 

on the economics of nuclear reactors as they currently operate, and 

also as currently envisioned to be built in the next, say, decade. 

But I would say uranium’s abundant. There’s plenty of it. I mean, 

we don’t need to mine it, because we can still use uranium that’s 

been mined decades ago. As part of various proliferation programs, 

we can get uranium. So part of it is that there’s hundreds of years 

of uranium. So one of the interesting questions would be, why recycle? It’s hard to make an argument to recycle just based on uranium reserves, because there’s plenty of it. 

So I—you’re asking a very complex question, but I would say the 

economics in 2050 that would drive what the energy system looks 

like are going to be very different than they are today. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Dr. Parmentola, is the market basically trying to 

tell us that nuclear fission, as a market, is doomed, given the fact 

that uranium now costs 75 percent less than it did even seven 

years ago? 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. Just so you understand, the—General Atomics 

is in the uranium mining business. We have uranium mines—— 

Mr. GRAYSON. Um-hum. 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. —in the United States, as well as overseas, 

you know. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Not doing too well lately, are you? 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. So—and my boss is a very astute businessman, 

so he’s in that business for a reason. And while, of course, with 

Fukushima, we saw a decline in the use of uranium in Japan, Germany has got out of the nuclear reactor business, Switzerland has 

sort of followed suit, the demand for uranium obviously has gone 

down, but I can tell you that there have been new deposits found, 

abundant ones, in Australia. With China surfacing as a major, 

major nuclear energy producer, they have the largest number of reactors on—in development now, 30, that’ll be a lucrative business. 

India as well. 

And I have to say, it’s—with fast reactors, it’s not just uranium 

that is a fuel. Thorium is also. And if you do an analysis of using 

both uranium and thorium as a source with fast reactors, that have 

a closed cycle, you have enough, based upon known reserves, including the waste, to last you 2,000 years. That’s just known reserves. If I went and—into the ocean, there’s more uranium in the 

ocean that there is on land. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Water also. There’s more water in the ocean than 

there is on land. 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. Yeah, right, but there’s a huge amount of uranium in the oceans. So the supply of uranium is—and even thorium is extremely large. I think it’s great that a fuel is cheap, and 

that you can derive so much benefit out of it. It’s great. Right now 

I can say to you tritium costs $100 million a kilogram. Right now, 

tritium, the known amount of tritium in the world, is $100 million 

a kilogram. So one of the challenges in fusion is to figure out a cost 
89 

effective, economic way of producing it, so this way it can self-sustain itself. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. I would like to ask Dr. Peters—Dr. Peters, you used some interesting language in your testimony. You 

said that the country’s leadership in global nuclear energy could be 

further compromised, that our country runs the risk of defaulting 

on the return of 7 decades of investment in nuclear science. By the 

way, you can’t actually default on a return investment. That’s not 

possible. 

Chairman WEBER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Sure. 

Chairman WEBER. Now, this is spoken by a guy that has informed us that there’s more water in the ocean on land, so you all 

might just take that with a grain of salt. I yield back. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Chairman needs to listen more closely to my 

quips. That’s not correct. And the—we should be careful not to forfeit the legacy of many brilliant minds, another questionable mixed 

metaphor. But here’s the thing, what—all you’re describing here is 

the idea that we would take a step back from our nuclear fission 

program, and Germany has taken two or three or four steps back 

from its nuclear fission program. It’s planning to shut it down entirely. What does Germany know that you don’t know? 

Dr. PETERS. Germany buys nuclear electricity from France. That 

would be one point that I would make. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Um-hum. 

Dr. PETERS. So while Germany’s made certain—I am not going 

to go any further than. So, from my perspective, setting aside that 

maybe I mixed metaphors—thanks for the feedback, I would say 

that we’ve invested, as a country, in unbelievable nuclear capabilities, and if we do not move forward with the next generation of 

technologies, that’s going to erode. It’s eroding slowly, and if we 

don’t invest in the labs and universities, and the next generation, 

we’re going to be sitting here a couple decades from now with no 

capability, and absolutely no seat at the table. 

Mr. GRAYSON. But—another interesting mixed metaphor. But, 

Dr. Parmentola, Germany has paid the price for its decision to 

eliminate its nuclear program. The price is that they are now the 

leader in solar technology around the world. They have the healthiest solar energy market of any major country in the entire world. 

Is that a price that we should be willing to pay as well? 

Dr. PARMENTOLA. In my opinion, what—we—no one has a crystal 

ball, in terms of what to expect in the future in regard to the abundance, or lack thereof, of resources that—we didn’t expect natural 

gas to be so cheap. And, by the way, the U.S. Government invested 

30 years ago, 40 years ago, in the fundamental technology that enabled fracking to produce this. So, from an energy security point 

of view, your best bet is to have as many energy options as possible, because we can’t predict the future. And nuclear is a technology that can meet the requirements that people are asking for, 

in terms of the economics, the waste reduction, the proliferation 

risk, and the safety. There’s nothing in the laws of physics that 

would prevent that. 

What has happened, unfortunately to nuclear, it’s been on the 

same technology for 60 years. If you look at any major technology 
90 

that the U.S. has developed, and continues to develop, it’s all been 

driven by research, and achieving performance, higher performance 

levels. Nuclear has not changed in 60 years. Its efficiency is back 

where it was, and we’re using submarine technology that was designed, obviously, for submarines. 

Any other major technology that I can think of has been driven 

by research and development and performance. Pick transportation, either ground or air. Pick communications. Look at the mobile devices we carry around with us. Look at computer technology. 

Computer technology has undergone five paradigm shifts in the 

last 100 years, all based upon an advancement in the fundamental 

technology to advance computing. 

So nuclear stood still, and I think what Dr. Peters is talking 

about is the need for a research, and a research driven community. 

The nuclear community is not research driven, in my opinion, and 

I’ve been around research for 40 years. It’s not. They want to build 

things. That isn’t the way to develop new technology. You have to 

do research that drives. It’s discovery first. Discovery drives invention, and invention drives innovation. That’s the process. Right 

now, nuclear has remained stagnant because research is lacking. 

We haven’t gone to higher performance technologies and materials 

to drive its performance. That’s what’s going to matter in the end. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right, thanks. I yield back, and thank you all 

for your testimony today. 

Chairman WEBER. I want to thank the witnesses for coming in 

today, and for your testimony. It’s been very, very informative, and 

we appreciate you all being here. With that, our hearing’s adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(91) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
92 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Mark Peters 
93 
94 
95 

Responses by Dr. John Parmentola 

(97) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
98 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHSNON
99 

REPORT SUBMITTED BY MR. FRANK BATTEN, JR. 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 

Æ