U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–937PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

THE FUTURE OF 

U.S. FUSION ENERGY RESEARCH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 6, 2018 

Serial No. 115–50 

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 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

HON. RANDY K. WEBER, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California, Vice Chair 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas, Ranking Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

March 6, 2018 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

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

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 8 

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

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Bernard Bigot, Director-General, ITER Organization 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 19 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 21 

Dr. James W. Van Dam, Acting Associate Director, Fusion Energy Sciences, 

Office of Science, Department of Energy 

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

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

Dr. Mickey Wade, Director of Advanced Fusion Systems, Magnetic Fusion 

Energy Division, General Atomics 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 48 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 50 

Dr. Mark Herrmann, Director, National Ignition Facility, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 58 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 61 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 70 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Mark Herrmann, Director, National Ignition Facility, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ................................................................................... 90 

(1) 

THE FUTURE OF U.S. FUSION ENERGY 

RESEARCH 

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

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

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

lAMAR S. SMITH, Texns 

CHAIRMAN 

(tongrcss of the tlnitcd i'tatts 

!louse of 'Rcprcscntatiucs COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE 8UlLOING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515--6301 

(202) 225-6371 

www.science.he>L!Sll.gov 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Tlte Future of U.S. Fusion Energy Research 

Tuesday, March 6, 2018 

10:00 a.m. 

2318 Ray bum House Oftice Building 

Witnesses 

Dr. Bemard Bigot, Director-General, ITER Organization 

F.OOIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

RANKING MEMBER 

Dr. James W. Van Dam, Acting Associate Director, Fusion Energy Sciences, 

Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy 

Dr. Mickey Wade, Director of Advanced Fusion Systems, Magnetic Fusion 

Energy Division, General Atomics 

Dr. Mark Herrmann, Director, National Ignition Facility, Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratmy 
3 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HEARING CHARTER 

Tuesday, March 6, 2018 

TO: Members, Subcommittee on Energy 

FROM: Majority Staff, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

SUBJECT: Subcommittee hearing: "The Future of U.S. Fusion Energy Research" 

The Subcommittee on Energy will hold a hearing titled The Future of US. Fusion Energy 

Research on Tuesday, March 6, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office 

Building. 

Hearing Purpose: 

The purpose of the hearing is to explore the status of basic research on nuclear fusion energy 

including U.S. international partnerships, domestic research programs, and private sector innovation. 

This hearing will specifically examine U.S. participation in the International Thermonuclear 

Experimental Reactor (ITER) project in France, an international initiative to build the world's largest 

tokamak reactor, and address the cmTent status of ITER engineering, construction, and management. 

Witness List 

Dr. Bernard Bigot, Director-General, ITER Organization 

• Dr. James W. Van Dam, Acting Associate Director, Fusion Energy Sciences. Office of Science, 

DOE 

Dr. Mickey Wade, Director of Advanced Fusion Systems, Magnetic Fusion Energy Division, 

General Atomics 

• Dr. Mark Herrmann, Director, National Ignition Facility, Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory 

Staff Contact 

For questions related to the hearing, please contact Hillary O'Brien of the Majority Staff at 202-

226-8984. 
4 

Chairman WEBER. The Subcommittee on Energy will come to 

order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses 

of the Subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘The Future of U.S. Fusion 

Energy Research.’’ I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Today, we will hear from a panel of experts on the status of U.S. 

fusion energy research and discuss what we can do as a nation to 

advance this critical area of discovery science. The goal of fusion 

research is to create a star here on Earth and control it to the point 

that we can convert its immense heat into electricity. Easy, right? 

In the center of stars like our sun, extreme temperatures, pressures, and gravitational conditions create a unique natural environment for fusion to occur. On Earth, scientists push the boundaries of experimental physics in a number of ways to duplicate 

these reactions, with the hopes of eventually generating fusion energy as power we can use in everyday activities. 

The potential benefits to society from a fusion reactor are beyond 

calculation: the fuel is abundant and widely accessible, the carbon 

footprint is zero, and the radioactive waste concerns are minimal. 

Despite these incentives, Fusion Energy Science remains one the 

most challenging areas of experimental physics today. 

Generally speaking—and don’t worry, I’ll leave the detailed explanation to our panel of expert witnesses—Fusion Energy Science 

is the applied study of a plasma, or ionized gas, and is dependent 

on three main conditions: plasma temperature, density, and confinement time. During this hearing, you’ll hear terms like ‘‘inertial 

confinement’’ and ‘‘tokamak.’’ These are different techniques and 

devices used by scientists to control these three quantities in their 

experiments as they work to successfully generate fusion energy. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) supports fusion research primarily through its Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program within 

the Office of Science. Domestically, it funds robust research 

through its national labs and partnerships with industry. 

At Lawrence Livermore National Lab, the National Ignition Facility, or NIF, pursues ignition in the lab by using a high-energy 

laser to induce inertial fusion and provide critical science for DOE’s 

nuclear stockpile stewardship mission. 

The DIII–D National Fusion Facility, a DOE user facility managed by General Atomics, is the largest magnetic fusion facility in 

the United States. This program seeks to provide solutions to operational issues that are critical to the success of tokamak-style fusion reactors like the International Thermonuclear Experimental 

Reactor (ITER) project. Considered the leading research innovation—initiative in fusion science, the ITER project is a major international collaboration to design, to build, and to operate a first-ofa-kind research facility to achieve and maintain a successful fusion 

reaction in the lab. 

Though located in France, ITER is also a U.S. research project. 

Over 80 percent of total U.S. awards and obligations to ITER are 

carried out in the United States. As of December 2017, the U.S. 

ITER Organization has awarded more than $975 million in research and engineering funding to approximately 600 U.S. laboratories, companies, and universities. 
5 

The DOE’s fiscal year 2019 budget request for ITER is $75 million, well below the required commitment level to keep the project 

on track. If enacted, this may result in damaging delays to the 

ITER project and sends the wrong message to the international fusion community about America’s commitment to its international 

agreements and our leadership in science. 

When determining the next steps for the domestic U.S. fusion energy program, we must consider the importance of access to the 

ITER reactor for American researchers and America’s standing and 

credibility as a global scientific collaborator. If the United States is 

going to lead the world in cutting-edge science—and we hope it 

does—we cannot take our commitments to our international partners lightly. 

I want to thank our accomplished panel of witnesses for their 

testimonies today, and I look forward to a productive discussion 

about this exciting area of research. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:] 
6 

For Immediate Release 

March 6, 2018 

Media Contacts: Thea McDonald. Brandon VerVelde 

[202) 225-6371 

Statement by Chairman Randy Weber (R-Texas) 

The Future of U.S. Fusion Energy Research 

Chairman Weber: Good morning and welcome to today's Energy Subcommittee hearing. 

Today, we will hear from a panel of experts on the status of U.S. fusion energy research and 

discuss what we can do as a nation to advance this critical area of discovery science. 

The goal of fusion research is to create a star here on earth and control it to the point that 

we can convert its immense heat into electricity. Easy, right? In the center of stars like our 

sun, extreme temperatures. pressures and gravitational conditions create a unique natural 

environment for fusion to occur. 

On earth. scientists push the boundaries of experimental physics in a number of ways to 

duplicate these reactions, with the hopes of eventually generating fusion energy as power 

we can use in everyday activities. 

The potential benefits to society from a fusion reactor are beyond calculation; the fuel is 

abundant and widely accessible, the carbon footprint is zero and the radioactive waste 

concerns are minimal. Despite these incentives, fusion energy science remains one the most 

challenging areas of experimental physics today. 

Generally speaking- and don't worry I 'II leave the detailed explanation to our panel of 

expert witnesses- fusion energy science is the applied study of a plasma. or ionized gas. and 

is dependent on three main conditions- plasma temperature, density and confinement 

time. 

During this hearing, you'll hear terms like "Inertial Confinement" and "Tokamak." These are 

different techniques and devices used by scientists to control these three quantities in their 

experiments as they work to successfully generate fusion energy. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) supports fusion research primarily through its Fusion Energy 

Sciences (FES) program within the Office of Science. Domestically, it funds robust research 

through its national labs and partnerships with industry. 

At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) pursues 

ignition in the lab by using a high-energy laser to induce inertial fusion and provide critical 

science for DOE's nuclear stockpile stewardship mission. 

The DIII-D National Fusion Facility, a DOE user facility managed by General Atomics, is the 

largest magnetic fusion facility in the United States. This program seeks to provide solutions to 
7 

operational issues that are critical to the success of tokamak-style fusion reactors like the 

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project. 

Considered the leading research initiative in fusion science, the ITER project is a major 

international collaboration to design, build and operate a first-of-a-kind research facility to 

achieve and maintain a successful fusion reaction in the lab. 

Though located in France, ITER is also a U.S. research project. Over 80 percent of total U.S. 

awards and obligations to ITER are carried out in the United States. As of December 2017, the 

U.S. ITER organization has awarded more than $975 million in research and engineering 

funding to approximately 600 U.S. laboratories, companies and universities. 

The DOE's fiscal year 2019 budget request for ITER is $75 million, well below the required 

commitment level to keep the project on track. 

If enacted, this may result in damaging delays to the ITER project, and sends the wrong 

message to the international fusion community about America's commitment to its 

international agreements, and our leadership in science. 

When determining the next steps for the domestic U.S. fusion energy program, we must 

consider the importance of access to the ITER reactor for American researchers and 

America's standing and credibility as a global scientific collaborator. If the U.S. is going to 

lead the world in cutting edge science, we cannot take our commitments to our 

international partners lightly. 

I want to thank our accomplished panel of witnesses for their testimony today, and I look 

forward to a productive discussion about this exciting area of research. 

### 
8 

Chairman WEBER. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the 

gentlewoman from California, for her opening statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. Just a note that the actual 

Ranking Member is in Texas today. It’s the election day in Texas. 

So I’m happy to be able to fill in, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for holding this hearing and for the wonderful witnesses that we 

have before us. 

As the Chairman has said, fusion is the process that powers the 

sun and stars, so we know it works, but, as all the witnesses here 

will be able to discuss in far more detail than me, controlling and 

harnessing a fusion plasma here on Earth is one of the most difficult challenges that our nation and indeed the world’s top scientists and engineers are working to address. 

That said, if we’re successful, then fusion has the potential to 

provide abundant, reliable, emission-free, and practically limitless 

energy to meet a large portion of our electricity needs in the foreseeable future. Given the huge potential benefits of developing a 

viable approach to fusion energy, I believe that this is an area we 

should be strongly investing in. 

Unfortunately, that’s not what we’re seeing in the Department of 

Energy’s recent budget request for fiscal year 2019 which would cut 

the Office of Science’s fusion research program by about 11 percent 

and would also entirely eliminate ARPA–E, which is currently supporting a portfolio of innovative fusion projects that could point the 

way to producing fusion energy quickly and at a lower cost. 

Lastly, as I’m sure will learn more about from Dr. Herrmann, the 

budget for the DOE NNSA inertial confinement fusion program, including support for the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence 

Livermore National lab, would be slashed by 20 percent. Now, the 

focus of this program is actually of course not on energy but on ensuring the reliability of our nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. Yet, 

because there is currently no ongoing federally supported program 

to develop inertial fusion concepts specifically for energy applications, this weapons-relevant work is currently the only way that 

many of these concepts are able to advance. So these major cuts 

could be, you know, very bad for both our national security and our 

energy future. 

I’d like to note, as the Chairman has, that support for the U.S. 

contribution to ITER would receive an increase in this request but 

that the actual level of $75 million is below our obligation. The 

most recent official estimates we’ve received from the Department 

projected our contribution to be at least $230 million in fiscal year 

2018 and $240 million in fiscal year 2019. 

And it reminds me, you know, several years ago we were concerned, and expressed concern at this Committee, about whether 

our international partners would in the end live up to their obligation. They have, and it’s now the United States that is at risk of 

being the deadbeat, so I’m hopeful that we can address that. 

These lower investments, you know, do not reflect Dr. Bigot’s 

tenure and the progress that has been made at the site, and we 

look forward to hearing from him. 

I’ll just note that the good news is that Fusion Energy Science 

research has always had bipartisan support here in the Committee 

and in the Congress. It’s always hard to fund what you believe in, 
9 

but I’m hopeful that we will make progress in that regard again 

on a bipartisan basis. 

And I’ve had a personal interest in fusion energy since my time 

first began here in Congress, and I’m hopeful that that long-term 

interest will finally pay dividends in ignition at one of our leading 

science facilities. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the hearing and 

yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:] 
10 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Energy 

The Future of U.S. Fusion Energy Research 

March 6, 2018 

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing and thank you to the witnesses for being here 

today. Fusion is the process that powers the sun and the stars. So we know it works! But, as all 

of the witnesses here will be able to discuss in far more detail than me, it turns out that 

controlling and harnessing a fusion plasma here on earth is one of the most difficult challenges 

that our nation's and indeed the world's- top scientists and engineers are working to address. 

That said, if they are successful, then fusion has the potential to provide abundant, reliable, 

emissions-free, and practically limitless energy to meet a large portion of our electricity needs 

for the foreseeable future. 

Given the huge potential benefits of developing a viable approach to fusion energy, I believe that 

this is an area that we should be strongly investing in. Unfortunately, that's not what we're 

seeing in the Department of Energy's recent budget request for FY 2019, which would cut the 

Office of Science's fusion research program by about 11%. It would also entirely eliminate 

ARP A-E, which is currently supporting a portfolio of innovative fusion projects that could point 

the way to producing fusion energy far more quickly and at a much lower cost than more 

conventional approaches. 

Lastly, as I'm sure wc'llleam more about from Dr. Herrmann, the budget for the DOE National 

Nuclear Security Administration's Inertial Confinement Fusion program- including support for 

the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory- would be slashed by 

about 20%. Now the focus of this program is actually not on energy, but on ensuring the 

reliability of our nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. Yet because there is currently no ongoing, 

federally supported program to develop inertial fusion concepts specifically for energy 

applications, this weapons-relevant work is currently the only way that many of these concepts 

are able to advance. So these major cuts could be especially devastating for both our national 

security and our clean energy future. 

I would also like to note that while support for the U.S. contribution to the ITER international 

fusion project would receive an increase in this request, the actual level of$75 million is 

woefully inadequate to maintaining the project's cun·ent schedule and minimizing its cost to U.S. 

taxpayers. Rather, the most recent official estimates we've received from the Department 

projected our contribution to be at least $230 million in FY18 and $240 million in FY19. 

Investing substantially less in those years means our "standing army" costs go up because we're 

paying a lot of the same people to do less work over a longer period of time, all while we aim to 

maintain our ability to meet our commitments to the project. 

These lower investments may have been more justifiable prior to Dr. Bigot's tenure as Director 

General of ITER began about 3 years ago, when the U.S. was really leading the effort to 
11 

significantly reform ITER's management after a critical U.S.-Ied assessment of the project was 

presented to its governing council. But given the remarkably impressive progress made by Dr. 

Bigot and his team in getting this project back on track, this budget request now essentially 

undermines all of our prior efforts and could end up causing the problems that we worked so 

hard to resolve. 

To be fair, support for fusion energy development has really been a bipartisan problem, as there 

were notable issues with the previous Administration's stewardship of research in this area as 

well. But the good news is that in this room you will find strong, bipartisan support for your 

work, and I believe that, working together, we can go a long way toward enabling a brighter 

future for the fusion research community and for other potentially revolutionary clean energy 

technologies as well. 

Thank you again Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 
12 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentlelady. 

Let me introduce our witnesses. And, Doctor, I’m coming to you 

first. Is it—I’m sorry. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the 

full Committee, Chairman Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m glad to see you 

so eager to get on with the hearing, too, and a good hearing it is. 

Chairman WEBER. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Chairman SMITH. Stop while I’m ahead. Thank you again, Mr. 

Chairman. 

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

and the prospects of future scientific discoveries in fusion energy. 

The basic purpose of fusion energy is to create the equivalent of the 

power source of a star here on Earth. By creating and controlling 

the same nuclear reactions that occur in a star within a fusion reactor, heat from these reactions could be converted into renewable 

and reliable electricity. It is no surprise that fusion has captured 

the imagination of scientists and engineers for over half a century. 

The Department of Energy has supported basic research in fusion energy since 1951. The DOE Office of Science Fusion Energy 

Sciences program funds research and science infrastructure at 

DOE national labs. At the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, 

scientists conduct fusion research through the National Spherical 

Torus Experiment Upgrade user facility. NSTX–U is a magnetic 

confinement fusion device called a spherical tokamak that is currently the most powerful device of its kind in the world. 

At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the National Ignition Facility uses the world’s largest and highest-energy laser to 

generate fusion power in the lab with an alternative technique 

called inertial confinement fusion. 

DOE also funds world-class fusion research through its partnerships with industry. At General Atomics, a defense contractor 

based in California, the DIII–D National Fusion Facility is a 

tokamak fusion research facility that operates as a DOE user facility through the Office of Science. DIII–D enables scientists from 

laboratories, private sector organizations, and universities around 

the world to carry out experiments in cutting-edge fusion research. 

Someday, the results of this research may provide the scientific 

foundation for producing power through fusion. This would obviously reduce carbon emissions by a huge amount with major implications for climate change. 

The ultimate goal in Fusion Energy Science is to provide a sustainable, renewable, zero-emissions energy source. While we cannot 

predict when fusion will be a viable part of our energy portfolio, it 

is clear that this is critical basic science that could benefit future 

generations. 

One major step toward achieving this goal is the ITER project. 

ITER is a multinational, collaborative effort to build the world’s 

largest tokamak-type fusion reactor in southern France. Sponsored 

by the European Union, India, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea, 

and the United States, the ITER project can help answer fundamental challenges in plasma physics and is a key step in achieving 

commercial fusion energy. 

The Director-General of ITER, Dr. Bernard Bigot, will provide an 

update on the project’s advances and challenges for the Committee 
13 

today. I want to specifically thank him for his leadership of this 

complex and challenging international research project. 

By contributing nine percent of the cost to construct ITER, American scientists will be able to access 100 percent of the discoveries 

achieved through the project. That’s why it is imperative that the 

U.S. meet its obligations to ITER and fully fund fusion research at 

the Department. According to the research community, a minimum of $163 million for in-kind contributions and $50 million in cash contributions in 

fiscal year 2019 is necessary to maintain the scheduled U.S. contribution to the project. Unfortunately, DOE’s fiscal year 2019 

budget request for ITER is only $75 million. Reduced annual funding will only delay ITER instruments being built here in the 

United States and cause construction delays that increase overall 

project cost. 

With countries like India, Japan, China, and Russia partnering 

through ITER to produce and share cutting-edge fusion research, 

we cannot afford to lose our seat at the table. In addition, we cannot expect to receive international support for our domestically 

hosted global research projects like the high-priority Long-Baseline 

Neutrino Facility at Fermilab if we do not honor our international 

obligations. 

Basic research, like fusion science, provides the underpinnings 

for groundbreaking new energy technology. Achieving commercial 

fusion energy technology will require strong U.S. leadership and 

consistent investment in discovery science. To maintain our competitive advantage as a world leader in science, we must meet our 

international commitments and continue to support the research 

that will lead to next-generation energy technologies. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
14 

For Immediate Release 

March 6, 2018 

s Media Contacts: Thea McDonald, Brandon VerVelde 

(202) 225-6371 

Statement by Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) 

The Future of U.S, Fusion Energy Research 

Chairman Smith: Today we will hear about the status of fusion energy research and the 

prospects of future scientific discoveries in fusion energy, 

The basic purpose of fusion energy is to create the equivalent of the power source of a star 

here on earth. By creating and controlling the same nuclear reactions that occur in a star 

within a fusion reactor, heat from these reactions could be converted into renewable and 

reliable electricity. It is no surprise that fusion has captured the imagination of scientists and 

engineers for over half a century. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) has supported basic research in fusion energy since 1951, 

The DOE Office of Science Fusion Energy Sciences program funds research and science 

infrastructure at DOE national labs. At the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, scientists 

conduct fusion research through the National Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade (NSTX-U) 

user facility. NSTX-U is a magnetic confinement fusion device- called a spherical tokamak 

that is currently the most powerful device of its kind in the world. 

At Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the National Ignition Facility uses the world's 

largest and highest-energy laser to generate fusion power in the lab with an alternative 

technique called inertial confinement fusion. 

DOE also funds world-class fusion research through its partnerships with industry. At General 

Atomics, a defense contractor based in California. the DIII-D National Fusion Facility is a 

tokamak fusion research facility that operates as a DOE User Facility through the Office of 

Science. 

DIII-D enables scientists from laboratories, private sector organizations and universities around 

the world to carry out experiments in cutting-edge fusion research. Someday, the results of 

this research may provide the scientific foundation for producing power through fusion. This 

would obviously reduce carbon emissions by a significant amount with major implications for 

climate change. 

The ultimate goal in fusion energy science is to provide a sustainable, renewable, zero 

emissions energy source. While we cannot predict when fusion will be a viable part of our 

energy portfolio, it is clear that this is critical basic science that could benefit future 

generations. 
15 

One major step toward achieving this goal is the ITER project. ITER is a multinational. 

collaborative effort to build the world's largest tokamak-type fusion reactor in southern 

France. Sponsored by the European Union, India, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and the 

United States, the ITER project can help answer fundamental challenges in plasma physics 

and is a key step to achieving commercial fusion energy. 

The director general of ITER, Dr. Bernard Bigot, will provide an update on the project's 

advances and challenges for the committee today. I want to specifically thank Dr. Bigot, for 

his leadership of this complex and challenging international research project. 

By contributing nine percent of the cost to construct ITER, American scientists will be able to 

access 100 percent of the discoveries achieved through the project. That's why it is 

imperative that the U.S. meet its obligations to ITER and fully fund fusion research at the 

department. 

According to the research community. a minimum of $163 million for in-kind contributions 

and $50 million in cash contributions in fiscal year 2019 is necessary to maintain the 

scheduled U.S. contribution to this project. Unfortunately, DOE's fiscal year 2019 budget 

request for ITER is only $75 million. Reduced annual funding will only delay ITER instruments 

being built here in the U.S. and cause construction delays that increase overall project cost. 

With countries like India, Japan, China and Russia partnering through ITER to produce and 

share cutting edge fusion research. we cannot afford to lose our seat at the table. In 

addition. we cannot expect to receive international support for our domestically hosted 

global research projects, like the high priority Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility at Fermilab, if 

we do not honor our international obligations. 

Basic research. like fusion science, provides the underpinnings for ground breaking new 

energy technology. Achieving commercial fusion energy technology will require strong U.S. 

leadership and consistent investment in discovery science. 

To maintain our competitive advantage as a world leader in science, we must meet our 

international commitments and continue to support the research that will lead to next 

generation energy technologies. 

### 
16 

[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson:] 
17 

During the last Administration, some of the researchers pursuing alternative concepts to achieve fusion 

energy generation were able to find funding opportunities at DOE just not from the Office of Science. 

ARPA-E is currently carrying out a three-year program to explore the potential for one of these concepts 

to lead to a reactor with far lower costs than more conventional approaches. But again, this 

Administration fails to recognize this important work and unique opportunity, and instead has proposed to 

completely eliminate ARP A-E in the last two budget proposals. I am hopeful that infonned Congressional 

leaders will join me in supporting ARPA-E and keep this Administration from shutting it down. 

Finally, I would like to welcome Dr. Mark Hermann from the National Ignition Facility (NIF). NIF is a 

critical component of our nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship program as 'well as our research efforts 

to explore the potential of inertial confinement fusion. I am looking forward to your testimony along with 

that of the other distinguished experts on the panel. 

Thank you Mr. Chainnan. I yield back. 
18 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

Let me now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today is 

Dr. Bernard Bigot, Director-General of the ITER Organization. In 

his distinguished career, Dr. Bigot has held senior positions in research, higher education, and government. Prior to his appointment at ITER, he completed two terms as Chairman and CEO of 

the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission, 

or CEA. Dr. Bigot was trained at the ENS Saint Cloud and holds 

an agr ̆egation, the highest-level teaching diploma in France, in 

physical science and a Ph.D. in chemistry. Welcome, Dr. Bigot. 

Our next witness is Dr. James W. Van Dam. Am I saying that 

right? 

Dr. VAN DAM. You are. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Acting Associate Director of Fusion Energy Sciences in the Office of Science at the Department of Energy. 

Previously, Dr. Van Dam was a Research Scientist, Associate Director, and Director of the Institute for Fusion Studies at the University of Texas in Austin. He was also Director of the U.S. Burning Plasma Organization and Chief Scientist for the U.S. ITER 

Project Office. Dr. Van Dam completed his graduate study at University of California Berkeley and the Institute of Plasma Physics 

in Japan. He received his Ph.D. at UCLA and was a postdoc at the 

Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. Welcome, Dr. Van Dam. 

Our third witness is Dr. Mickey Wade, the Director of Advanced 

Fusion Systems of the Magnetic Fusion Energy Division of General 

Atomics. Prior to serving in this role, Dr. Wade was the Director 

of the DIII–D national fusion program, the largest fusion research 

program in the United States with roughly 500 researchers from 

over 90 institutions from around the world. Dr. Wade received his 

Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1991. He is the author of over 30 first-author papers, a 

fellow of the American Physical Society, and has served on the editorial boards of Nuclear Fusion and Physics of Plasma. Welcome, 

Dr. Wade. 

I will now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlelady from 

California, to introduce our last witness. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, thank you. I’d like to—although Lawrence 

Livermore Lab is not in my district, it’s in the neighborhood, and 

so I’m pleased to introduce Dr. Mark Herrmann, who is the Director of the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence. 

As the Director of NIF, Dr. Herrmann manages an experimental 

science facility that serves the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Stockpile Stewardship Program, and he pushes the frontier of inertial confinement fusion and discovery science. Before 

coming to NIF, Dr. Herrmann spent nine years at Sandia National 

Labs, and prior to that, he was a physicist at Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory. He’s a fellow of the American Physical Society. He’s won numerous awards for his scientific work and leadership in his field. He received his undergraduate degrees from 

Washington University at St. Louis and completed his Ph.D. from 

the Plasma Physics Program at Princeton University. Thank you 

for being here, Dr. Herrmann. We look forward to hearing from 

you. 

I yield back. 
19 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentlelady. 

I now recognize Dr. Bigot for five minutes to present his testimony. Dr. Bigot? 

TESTIMONY OF DR. BERNARD BIGOT, 

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, 

ITER ORGANIZATION 

Dr. BIGOT. Thank you very much, Chairman Weber and distinguished Members of the Committee, for giving me the opportunity 

to present you the updated information on the ITER project. 

[Slide.] 

Dr. BIGOT. This slide shows the current status of the ITER site 

with the tokamak building and the assembly hall at the center. 

Today, March 6 is precisely my three years anniversary as ITER 

Director-General. In March 2015, as you can see, after seven years, 

progress was quite slow. At that time, the ITER project was in urgent need of reform. 

[Slide.] 

Dr. BIGOT. I believe we can say with confidence three years later, 

looking at this new slide, that the questions raised by several ITER 

members in 2013, 2014 about the capacity to manage this complex 

international construction project have been properly answered. 

As of November 2017, the ITER project has crossed a significant 

milestone, the completion of 50 percent of the total construction 

work scope through First Plasma. These terms include design, component manufacturing, building construction, shipping, and delivery assembly and installation. This is no small achievement. Globally, these project performance indicators shows the ITER project 

is progressing with reliability. 

[Slide.] 

Dr. BIGOT. On the work site, as you see, the Tokamak Complex, 

including the tokamak building, the diagnostics building and the 

tritium building is advancing rapidly. The Assembly Hall is complete and turned over for assembly of the internal equipment. Similar progress is being made on the cryoplant, magnet power conversion building, the cooling water system, and other buildings across 

the worksite. 

Fabrication of the ITER components both onsite and globally 

worldwide is showing equal momentum. This includes the most 

complex and major components such as vacuum vessel sectors progressing in Korea and Europe, the cryostat manufactured by India, 

thermal shield in mass production in Korea, and all superconducting magnets here in the United States to toroidal field 

magnets in Italy and Japan and poloidal field magnets in Europe, 

Russia, and China. 

Many first-of-a-kind components are requiring an unprecedented 

combination of size and precision. The further we progress, the 

more this project illustrates the interdependency of overall performance. This performance also is the best evidence of organizational reforms since 2015: a clear decision-making process, profound integration of the work of the seven ITER members with the 

ITER Organization, a reliable schedule, and above all strong international project management and project culture. 
20 

I am pleased to report continuing validation from external reviews. When I last spoke to this Committee in April 2016, we had 

received the report of the independent ITER Council Review Group, 

which was followed one month later by the positive and cautiously 

optimistic report by the U.S. Secretary of Energy. 

[Slide.] 

Dr. BIGOT. Since that time, we have had reviews on many aspects of project management, as you see on the slide. Each of these 

reviews has found that the ITER project is well-managed, while 

helping us to refine further our methods. We are committed to continuous improvement. 

In April 2016, I reported to this Committee that we had set up 

technical and organizational milestone to demonstrate to the ITER 

Council that the project is staying on track for success. I am 

pleased to say that 31 milestones have now been achieved from 

January 2016 through First Plasma. We remain on track for First 

Plasma in 2025. Again, this consistent progress cannot be taken for 

granted. It demands the collective commitment of all ITER members. 

This brings me to my final and most important point, to thank 

the Committee for placing this ITER status update in context because ITER must be understood as an integral element of U.S. fusion research and the next major step toward a burning or selfheating plasma, as underlined by the recent preliminary report of 

the U.S. National Academies. 

ITER is the converging next step in the fusion research roadmap 

of the U.S. and every ITER member. The shortfall in the contribution of any single member, if it impacts the delivery of components 

or the capacity of ITER to meet the assembly and installation 

schedule, will have a cascading strong effect in delays, costs, and 

the description of fusion research for every other member. It is why 

I would like to urge the United States to timely comply with their 

contribution commitment. 

[Slide.] 

Dr. BIGOT. We are committed at ITER, as you see on this slide, 

day and night to make this project the model for international collaboration in complex science and technology. We are committed to 

making ITER a sound investment for the United States, as for all 

ITER partners. We look forward to a long and fruitful collaboration. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bigot follows:] 
21 

Statement of Bernard Bigot 

Director-General 

ITER International Fusion Energy Organization 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

U.S House of Representatives 

The ITER Project: a core element of US. fits ion research 

March 6, 2018 

Thank you Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Veasey, and distinguished members of the 

Committee. I am grateful for this oppottunity to present to you the status of progress on the 

ITER Project. I am particularly pleased to present my ITER report in the context of the overall 

U.S. fusion research program, because I believe it is appropriate that ITER is understood as an 

essential and integral element of U.S fusion research. 

INTRODUCTION 

This precise day marks exactly three years since I accepted the position of Director-General of 

the ITER Organization. In March 2015, as this Committee well knows, the ITER project was in 

urgent need of refmm. The inherent complexities built into the ITER Agreement were widely 

viewed as liabilities. Much of the focus was on whether it was possible to effectively manage 

such a complex international construction project. 

By April 2016, when I last addressed this Committee, we had begun to answer this question 

affirmatively. At that time our organizational reforms had been underway for one year, based 

on an Action Plan designed to accomplish several specific objectives: effective, efficient 

technological decision-making; profound integration of the work of the ITER Organization 

with that of the Domestic Agencies; a comprehensive technological understanding of all 

aspects of the ITER machine; finalization of design of ITER's critical path components; an 

updated, challenging, reliable schedule; and above all, a project culture capable of reliably 

delivering on our commitments while maintaining the highest levels of safety and quality. 

The Committee at that time offered its congratulations for our efforts to put the project back on 

track, and we were very grateful for your expressions of support. One month after that hearing, 

we were also pleased to receive the report of the U.S. Secretary of Energy, which was 

cautiously optimistic about the ITER refonns. However, it was also clear at that stage that 

some scepticism remained as to whether we would be able to fully cmTy out these refonns, and 

even more, whether we would be able to sustain our commitments to deliver the project in 

accordance with the demands of the new ITER schedule and resource estimates. 

Now, almost 2 years later, I am pleased to report that we have, in fact, remained on track for 

success according to the agreed schedule and cost. The ITER project is a maturing enterprise. 

The organizational refotms are fully in place. According to multiple external reviews that have 

considered the perforn1ance of the ITER Project since 2015, we have established a robust 

project culture, including implementing strong, effective standards for international project 
22 

management, systems engineering, and risk management. Most significantly, we have 

continued to deliver on our construction and manufacturing commitments, in accordance with 

the expected milestones, working within agreed cost constraints, and we have achieved this 

performance as a fully integrated ITER team. And fmther, we are committed to continuous 

improvement. 

Last November, the ITER project reached a significant milestone: the completion of 50 percent 

of the "total construction work scope through First Plasma." This is no small achievement. It 

represents the collective contribution and commitment of ITER's seven members. So it was 

with a sense of pride in that collective accomplishment, as well as a sense of deep gratitude to 

each member government, that we announced this accomplishment. And we were gratified 

with the attention we received in the international media: more than 750 news organizations, 

from printed and online articles to TV and radio channels, reported this milestone in more than 

40 countries and 16 languages. 

"Total construction work scope," as used in our project performance metrics, is a start-to-finish 

term. It includes design, component manufacturing, building construction, shipping and 

delivery, assembly, and installation. Globally, these indicators show that the ITER project is 

progressing steadily. This has not happened easily. A project of this complexity is full of risks; 

and our schedule to First Plasma 2025 is set with no 'float' or contingency. Effective risk 

management is a daily discipline at ITER. 

ITER's success so far has demanded extraordinary commitment of the ITER members, high 

perfonnance project management, and almost perfect integration of our work. Our design has 

taken advantage of the best expertise of every member's scientific and industrial base. No 

country, not even the most advanced, could have done this alone. We are allleaming from each 

other, for the world's mutual benefit. 

But to be clear: in no way are we spending time at ITER focused on self-congratulations. We 

have many challenges ahead of us. We are continuing to question ourselves, to welcome 

external scrutiny, and to learn and improve the way we work on multiple fronts; an expectation 

of constant improvement is a way of life for this exceedingly complex, first-of-a-kind machine. 

Today I would like to describe some aspects of our progress in detail, illustrating the interconnectivity of our work by providing examples of recent contributions made by the U.S. and 

each ITER Member. I will also explain the series of external reviews we have undergone in the 

past few years, which have provided validation for our progress and continued to stimulate 

improvements. With this narrative, I hope to also demonstrate the importance of ITER as an 

essential element of the U.S. fusion research program. 

THE ITER MISSION: collaboration on the world's first "burning plasma" experiment 

To set the stage, let me offer a few words about the ITER mission. 

Fusion is the mass-to-energy conversion that occurs in the core of the Sun and all the stars. It is 

the most common source of energy in the universe, and the most powerfuL Every second, our 

Sun fuses a massive amount of hydrogen into helium and releases a huge amount of energy. It 

is this fusion reaction that gives the Earth light and warmth. 

2 
23 

Scientists and engineers globally have been working on the most effective way to hamess 

fusion for more than six decades of research. The U.S. has been a core player in every stage. 

This includes the multinational fusion research program hosted in San Diego at the DIII-D 

tokamak, which Dr. Mickey Wade will describe today in more detail; as well as the National 

Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livem1ore National Laboratory, to be presented by Dr. Mark 

Hemnann. It also includes the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) and the National 

Spherical Torus Experiment at Princeton, C-Mod at MIT, the Joint European Torus (JET) in 

the United Kingdom, KSTAR in Korea, T-10 in Russia, JT-60 in Japan, EAST in China, Tore 

Supra or WEST in France, the ASDEX Upgrade in Germany, and many others. 

From its genesis with President Reagan's invitation in 1985 to consider a large scientific 

cooperative program, fusion research has been a multinational investment unlike any other 

science endeavour in history, in terms of its collaborative funding, innovation and brainpower. 

Globally, fusion scientists agree that the next major step for fusion science and fusion energy is 

the creation and controlled study of a "burning" or self-heating plasma: a state in which most 

of the heating of the plasma is coming from the fusion reaction itself. 

The Tokamak fusion reactor is the only configuration mature enough to serve as the basis for a 

burning plasma experiment in the next decades. In order to conduct this experiment with the 

volume of fusion heating exceeding the surface losses, it must be done at industrial scalemeaning at ITER scale. Thus the ITER Tokamak is the converging next step of all of the 

magnetic confinement fusion research conducted by all parties, globally, since the late 1950s. 

The technologies are mature, but there is still much to be gained in tenns of industrial expertise 

and innovation as we push the boundaries of engineering to achieve the necessary combination 

of scale and precision. And once complete, ITER will enable scientists to observe for the first 

time, for a duration of several minutes and as often as needed to optimize the process, this state 

of matter, a "buming plasma" with a fusion self-heating exceeding the extemal heating power 

absorbed by the plasma. 

The size and time line of the ITER investment-as well as the past history of fusion researchmakes it logical for the world's leading industrial countries to approach this project 

collaborativcly. Seven members, representing 35 countries and more than 80 percent of the 

annual global GDP and half the world's population, are involved in the construction of this first 

"star on earth." The ITER Organization serves as owner and coordinator of the ITER facility as 

well as the nuclear operator. The seven ITER Members are directly providing around 90 

percent of the value in the fonn of procuring and delivering the millions of components that 

must fit together into a single, functional machine. 

This collaboration allows us to continue to pool the best fusion science and engineering minds 

from around the globe. It lowers the financial and other risks for any one member. 1 And it 

enables the joint creation and acquisition of industrial capacity and expertise. The spin-off 

technologies that emerge from ITER's ground-breaking science and technological innovation 

are applicable to other industries and open significant opportunities for multinational trade. 

Two risks also arise from this collaborative approach. First, for an intemational construction 

project in which each Member is procuring components that must interface perfectly together, 

1 Unlike many other U.S. multinational engagements, with ITER the U.S. pays only 9.09% of the cost, with 

45.46% of the burden borne by Europe. This makes ITER stand out as a highly leveraged U.S. investment. 

3 
24 

we cannot allow differences of perspective or method to lead to divergent priorities or silos of 

operation. Integration is essential. Each of the ITER Members has a track record of success in 

high-tech enterprises. But each one approaches project management differently. Cultural and 

national differences can lend complexities to communication, political decision-making, 

budgetary processes, labour practices, and other aspects. Thus the organizational complexities 

built into the project structure, together with the complexities of the machine itself, must be 

intelligently and carefully managed. 

Second, it is absolutely vital that each Member approaches the ITER project with a sense of 

pride, ownership and responsibility. ITER is an international project, but it is also in every way 

a U.S. project, an experimental platform for U.S. scientists, an essential element of the U.S. 

fusion research program-just as it is a European project, a Korean project, a Russian project, a 

project to be owned and operated by, and for the benefit ot: every ITER Member. 

The 'risk' that arises in this collaboration is that if any ITER Member falls short in meeting its 

commitments, it jeopardizes not only that country's fusion program, but the fusion program 

and roadmap of each of its partners as well. 

Looking ahead, we know that we will need the continuing commitment and support of every 

member to maintain the successful pertonnance of the past 3 years. By choosing to build this 

machine in an integrated way, we have made our success interdependent. A shortfall in the 

commitment of any member, if it impacts the delivery of that member's components or the 

capacity of the ITER Organization to meet the machine assembly and installation schedule, 

will have a cascading effect in delays and costs to all other members. 

PROGRESS IN MANUFACTURING AND CONSTRUCTION 

For the past 36 months, ITER has maintained a rapid pace in manufacturing and construction, 

in parallel with enhancement of project management. As I mentioned at the outset, we recently 

passed the 50 percent mark in the completion of "total construction work scope through First 

Plasma." Using the same project performance metrics, total average component manufacturing 

tlu·ough First Plasma, including building constmction, is assessed to be 58 percent complete. 

Supported by advances in fusion technology R&D, the production of major ITER components 

is in full swing. To illustrate both the interdependency of the project and the value being 

contributed by all Members, I will provide a few selected examples of recent progress made by 

each Domestic Agency, with a focus where relevant on components that are particularly 

complex or first -of-kind. 

On-site construction: As pati of its 45.46 percent contribution to ITER, Europe is constructing 

all the buildings of the ITER scientific installation. Today, the European Domestic Agency has 

completed 42 percent of work on site and signed 74 percent of work contracts. 

The Tokamak Complex, incorporating the Tokamak Building, the Diagnostics Building and the 

Tritium Building, is advancing rapidly (see Figures 1 and 2). The basement levels (BI, B2) as 

well as the tlu·ee above-ground levels (LI, L2, L3) of the Tokamak Building and bio-shield are 

complete. The Diagnostics Building is also nearing completion; whereas the Tritium Building, 

4 
25 

which is not needed for First Plasma, is cmTently at the L2 level. Multiple drain tanks have 

been installed, the first sueh equipment in the multi-year installation of tokamak and plant 

systems. The Assembly Building is complete and was turned over for use last year, and 

installation of the massive Sub-Sector Assembly Tools, manufactured by Korea, is fully 

undetway. 

FIG. 1: A view of the Tokamak Complex with the 

Assembly Hall to the back. The Tokamak Pit is in the 

centre. the Trithtm Building on the left and the 

Diagnostics Building on the right. 

fiG. 2: The bioshield is now finalized. Openings in 

the wall are for cryostat bellows that will connect the 

machine to the port cells to give access to systems 

such as remote handling, heating and diagnosHcs. 

Figures 3 and 4 provide an overview of the change in the worksite from Febmary 2015 to 

January 2018. As these photos illustrate, overall constmction has been progressing rapidly, 

including the ancillary buildings and stmctures such as the Radiofrequency Heating Building, 

the Cryogenics Building, and the Magnetic Power Conversion Buildings, as well as the 

associated civil works and infrastmcture elements. 

FIG. 3: The ITER worksite in Februarv 2015. FIG. 4: The ITER -worksite in JanUaJ)' 2018. 

First toroidal field magnet core: Inside the metal torus or donut-shaped vacuum vessel of the 

ITER Tokamak will be a second, invisible cage created by magnetic fields. These powerful 

electromagnets will keep the heated plasma in circulation away from the walls. Eighteen of 

these magnets, called toroidal field magnets, will be integrated around the vacuum vessel. 

These magnets are being manufactured both in Europe and Japan, using superconductors from 

six of the ITER Members, including the United States. The first of Europe's toroidal field 

magnet cores, called a "winding pack" and weighing II 0 tons, was completed by the ASG 

consortium in April2017 in La Spezia, Italy (see Figure 6). 

The magnet core has now been delivered to Italy's SIMIC, the company that will complete 

cold tests and inseit the magnet core into its final case. The completed magnet will then be 

delivered to the ITER site. 

5 
26 

Negative ion beam source: Three systems will be used to heat the hydrogen plasma to 150 

million °C, the temperature needed for fusion. The "neutral beam" system will provide more 

than half the heating for the plasma by injecting two high-energy particle beams of 16.5 

megawatts (MW) each into the tokamak vacuum vessel. 

The circumference of each particle beam is about 2.5 meters, greatly exceeding the size of 

previous beams, which had circumference of a dinner plate and a fraction of the power. The 

size of ITER requires thicker particle beams and faster individual particles in order to penetrate 

the plasma deeply enough to contribute to its heating. In addition, new high-energy negative 

ion source technology must be used, instead of the positive ion source technology used in past 

machines. Years of research have gone into the optimization of these ion sources. 

In November 2017, Europe successfully delivered a negative ion source to the SPIDER test bed 

of the Neutral Beam Test Facility in Padua, Italy. Here the critical components of the system 

will be tested in advance, before transfer and installation at ITER. Europe, Japan and India are 

all contributing components. The SPIDER facility will be ready for commissioning later this 

month. 

First cryopump: Six of ITER's cryopumps will maintain an ultra-high vacuum in the 1,400 

cubic meter vacuum vessel where fusion takes place. The cryopumps will trap particles on 

charcoal-coated panels and extract helium ash from the fusion reaction. Each cryopump will 

weigh 8 tons and stand 3.4 meters tall. Two additional cryopumps will maintain a lighter 

vacuum in the cryostat, the 8,500 cubic meter chamber that will house the entire tokamak. 

After 10 years of intensive R&D in Europe involving 15 high-tech companies--plus four years 

of fabrication by Germany's Research Instruments and France's Alsyom-the first cryopump 

was delivered to ITER for testing on 22 August 2017 (see Figure 5). Following mechanical 

testing at ITER and cryogenic testing at Germany's Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 

fabrication of the additional cryopumps will follow. 

FIG. 5: The pre-production c~vopump was delivered in 

August 2017. Afore than 15 companie.'> in Europe were 

involved in its mam~fhcturing. 

FIG. 6: The first toroidal field coil winding pack- the 

l/0-ton inner core of ITER's TF Coils - was 

completed in April 2017. 

Magnet feeders: ITER's magnet feeders will relay electrical power, cryogenic fluids and 

instrumentation cables from outside the machine into the superconducting magnets, crossing 

the warm/cold barrier of the machine. These complex systems are equipped with independent 

cryostats and then11al shields and packed with a large number of advanced technology 

6 
27 

components such as the high-temperature superconductor cmrent leads, cryogenic valves, 

superconducting busbars, and high-voltage instrumentation hardware. They will be among the 

first components installed. 

China is supplying all 31 feeders. The first feeder anived in France in October 2017. 

Correction coils: The correction coils are ITER's smallest superconducting magnets. 

Weighing no more than 4.5 tons each, they are delicate by ITER standards, much thinner and 

lighter than the massive toroidal field and poloidal field magnets. Yet their role is vital: to finetune the magnetic fields to offset any imperfections in the position and geometry of the main 

magnets. 

China is producing these magnets. Eighteen superconducting conection coils will be 

distributed around the ITER Tokamak at three levels. Qualification activities have been 

completed and production is underway on the first coils and cases (see Figure 7). 

Electrical conversion components: In addition to the steady state network that will supply 

electricity to buildings and auxiliary systems, ITER will operate a pulsed power electrical 

network (PPEN) to deliver power to the magnet coils and the heating and cunent drive systems 

during plasma pulses. In mid-20 17, China delivered the last of the PPEN voltage transformers; 

and in October, China delivered four 128-ton convetter-transformers for the magnet power 

conversion system. 

FIG. 7: This full-scale side con·ection coil prototype 

1-vas used to qualifv ·winding and impregnation 

mam!facturing steps at ASIPP in llefei, China. 

FIG. 8: The ITER scale is apparent in the C1yostat 

Workshop, vvhere Larsen & Toubro is supervising the 

assembZv and ·welding of the lo·wer cylinder. 

Cryostat assembly underway: The 3,800-ton ITER cryostat will be the largest stainless steel 

vacuum chamber in the world. It will encase the entire vacuum vessel and all the 

supereonducting magnets, ensuring an ultra-cool, protective environment. India is 

manufacturing the cryostat, but it is far too massive to be shipped as a whole. Steel segments 

have been precision-fabricated by Larsen & Toubro in India and transported by sea to 

Marseille. About half of the cryostat pieces have been shipped so far. At the ITER worksite, the 

Indian Domestic Agency is supervising a team of Gem1an welders in the final fabrication of the 

first two sections-the base and lower cylinder (see Figure 8). Welding operations on the 

7 
28 

second tier of the lower cylinder should be complete by the end of this month, and the whole 

assembly (tiers one and two) is expected to be ready for factory acceptance testing in June. 

The cryostat base, at l ,250 tons, will be among the heaviest single loads of machine assembly. 

It will also be the first major component installed. 

Cryoline piping: More than five kilometers of "cryoline" piping will be used to deliver 

cryogenic cooling fluids-liquid helium and liquid nitrogen-to ITER components. These 

cryolines will travel along an elevated bridge from the cryoplant to the Tokamak Building. 

From there, the distributed cryoline network will cool the ITER magnets, thermal shield, and 

cryopumps. The first batch of cryolines was shipped from India to ITER in June 2017. 

Toroidal field coil magnets and cases: Japan has the responsibility for making 9 of ITER's 19 

toroidal field coil magnets, as well as all of the cases for these magnets. Japan's first toroidal 

field winding pack was realized in 2017 by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd/Mitsubishi 

Electric Co; a second is underway at Keihin Product Operations/Toshiba Corp. 

The steel cases are being made in segments at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Futumi, Japan, 

with some parts contracted to Hyundai Heavy Industries in Ulsan, Korea. They constitute the 

main stmctural element of the magnet system-not only encasing the winding packs that make 

up the core of the toroidal field magnets, but also anchoring the poloidal field coils, central 

solenoid and correction coils. 

In December, the first toroidal field coil case successfully passed all fitting tests. The two sides 

of this huge component-as tall as a four-storey building and machined from 20-centimeterthick steel-were matched within gap tolerances of0.25 nun to 0.75 mm, an accuracy of more 

than one order of magnitude in relation to conventional high-precision welded structures of 

comparable size. The case was then shipped to SIMIC in Italy, where the first European 

winding pack (as mentioned above) has been delivered for insertion. 

FIG. 9: T7lis toroidal field coil case was 

mam!factured by Mitsubishi Hemy Industries 

and Hyundai Heavy Industries. in 2 pieces. 

FIG. 10: As of/ate 2017. Japan has completed the delive1y of all 

niobium-tin superconducting cable to the U.S. for incorporation 

into the Central Solenoid. 

8 
29 

Superconductor for the central solenoid: The central solenoid, the gigantic pillar at the core 

of the ITER Tokamak, is being built in southern California. But the production of 43 

kilometers (745 tons) of special niobium-tin (Nb3Sn) superconductor that will make up this 

magnet is the sole responsibility of Japan. In late 2017, Japan completed a major milestone (see 

Figure 10), shipping the last of this material to the U.S., where it is being wound into the 

modular coils that make up the central solenoid magnet. 

Vacuum vessel fabrication: The ITER vacuum vessel, a donut-shaped stainless steel chamber 

heavier than the Eiffel Tower and more than I 0 times larger than the next largest tokamak, is 

being built in nine pieces, like sections of an orange. Each 40° sector is a double walled steel 

component weighing 500 tons and measuring 12 meters in height and 7 meters in width, with 

multiple port openings and in-wall shielding contained within its walls in the form of modular 

blocks. Europe is building five sections, and Korea four. Russia is fabricating the upper ports, 

and India is making the in-wall shielding. 

Korea has recently completed the first segment of vacuum vessel sector #6 on schedule, 

including non-destructive examination and dimensional measurements (see Figure II). Sector 

#I is nearly half complete, and sector #8 is well underway. 

f1G. 11: Korea is nearing completion <if the vacuum 

vessel sector #6. Each sector is made up of four 

segments. Pictured here is poloida! segment 2. 

FIG. 12: The 850-ton thermal shield, made up of 600 

components that range from a few hundred kilos to 

approximately 10 tons, is in mass production in Korea. 

Giant assembly tools to pre-assemble the vacuum vessel: The tools ITER will use to 

assemble the vacuum vessel sectors are tmly colossal: six stories high with "wings" that spread 

20 meters. Each tool weighs 800 tons. Each is strong enough to hold a 440-ton vacuum vessel 

sector and two 31 0-ton toroidal field magnets in its arms, bringing them together to make a 

unit. 

Two of these "sector sub-assembly tools" (SSATs) will work side-by-side in the 60-meter-high 

ITER Assembly Hall. They will pre-assemble the nine sectors of the vacuum vessel with other 

components before their transfer to the Tokamak Pit, where they will be welded together to 

form the ITER vacuum chamber. 

Korea delivered the first SSAT to ITER in batches in mid-2017. It is currently being erected in 

the Assembly Hall. A second, identical, tool is under fabrication in Korea. 

9 
30 

Thermal shield: Since ITER's superconducting magnets must be cooled to minus 269°C, they 

must be heavily protected from any heat source. The toroidal field magnets, which surround the 

vacuum chamber, require a special high-tech the1mal shield: stainless steel electroplated in 

silver. At SFA Engineering Corporation in Changwon, Korea, the fabrication of the ITER 

thermal shield is now in mass production (see Figme 12). 

Poloidal field coil #1: Six ring-shaped poloidal field coil magnets will encircle the ITER 

machine to shape the plasma and contribute to its stability by "pinching" it away from the 

vacuum vessel walls. Poloidal field coil #1 (PFl) is being built at the Srednenevsky 

Shipbuilding Plant in Saint Petersburg, Russia (sec Figure 13). Specialists from the Efremov 

Institute and other Russian experts are winding niobium-titanium superconductor material into 

flat "pancakes." The fifth of eight pancakes that will make up the PFl magnet is now being 

wound. The final PF1 magnet, which will weigh 300 tons, will be shipped to ITER and 

installed at the top of the machine. 

Poloidal field coil #6 is also well underway in Hefei, China. The remaining four coils, which 

will be too large to ship, are being manufactured on the ITER site by the European Domestic 

Agency. 

First completed port stub exteusion for vacuum vessel: As mentioned earlier, the ITER 

vacuum vessel, where the fusion reaction occurs, will be encased in a second, much larger 

vessel, the cryostat. Each of the vacuum vessel's 44 openings will have custom-made 

"extensions" to create the junction to the cryostat. The upper-level ports are being built in 

Russia. While the extension pieces are small in relation to the vacuum vessel, they are still 

quite sizable. Port stub extension (PSE) #12, for example, weighs more than 17 tons, covers an 

opening of 4 meters x 2.5 meters, and is 3.4 meters in length. In November 2017, Russia 

completed PSE #12 and shipped it to Korea, where it will be welded onto its vacuum vessel 

sector. 

FIG. 13: This double pancake for poloidal.field coil #I 

in Russia was the .first ITER pancake woundfoiiowing 

qualification; it has now completed vacuum pressure 

irnpregnation to create a rigid assembly. 

FIG. 14: General Atomics is fabricating the 1000-ton 

Central Solenoid. Pictured is the .first production 

module. Each module requires approximately 6.000 

meters of niobium-tin (Nh.Sn) conductor. 

Power supply and magnet protection system: Russia is responsible for a wide variety of 

electro-technical components that make up the switching networks, fast discharge units, DC 

10 
31 

busbars and instmmentation procurement package. Manufacturing is underway now on the 

busbars and switching network resistors; and the R&D program is concluding for the fast 

discharge unit components. 

United States 

Central solenoid: In Poway, Califomia, General Atomics is creating the ITER central 

solenoid, a pillar-like magnet standing 18 meters tall, sometimes called "the beating hemt of 

ITER." The central solenoid is made up of six individual coils, each made from approximately 

6,000 meters of niobium-tin (Nb3Sn) conductor fabricated in Japan (see Figure 14). The central 

solenoid will be among the most powerful electromagnets ever built, strong enough to lift an 

aircraft carrier. Its maximum magnetic field will be 13 Tesla, equivalent to 280,000 times the 

magnetic field of the Earth. 

The first of the seven central solenoid production coils is now 80 percent complete, with other 

coils also in fabrication. 

U.S. completes electrical deliveries: The U.S. has completed its contribution to ITER's steady 

state electrical network (SSEN), which will power the pumps and other non-pulsed auxiliary 

loads of the ITER facility. The 35111 and final shipment of equipment arrived at the ITER site in 

October 2016 (see Figure 15). The global procurement was managed by Princeton Plasma 

Physics Laboratory. The U.S. is supplying 75 percent of SSEN components; with Europe 

supplying the remaining 25 percent. 

FIG. 15: 71w U.S. has completed a $34 million. 

5-year project to provide 7 5% of components 

for the steady-state electrical network at ITER. 

FIG. 16: Fabrication of Tokamak Cooling Water System piping 

is underway at Schulz Xtruded Products in Robinsville and 

Hernando, Mississippi. A total of 36 kilometers of nuclear 

grade stainless steel piping is needed. 

U.S. completes Toroidal Field conductor deliveries: The U.S. has completed a $73 million 

project to complete its contribution to ITER's Toroidal Field system, providing more than40 

tons (4 miles) of superconductor to Europe for its incorporation in toroidal field coils. At the 

height of fabtication, U.S. vendors Luvata and Oxford Superconducting Technologies were 

each producing more than five metric tons of superconducting strand per month. Before ITER, 

worldwide production of this wire was 20 metric tons a year. 

Tokamak cooling water system: The Tokamak cooling water system will absorb the heat 

produced by the ITER fusion reaction. More than 36 kilometers of nuclear-grade stainless steel 

piping for the system is being fabricated in Robinsville and Hemando, Mississippi (see Figure 

16). 

II 
32 

In October, the final design review was completed for the entire system-which means that 

more orders for high-tech equipment need to be placed soon. 

Additional U.S. procurements: Several other key components also have to be procured by the 

U.S.: 4 diagnostic port plugs and 7 instrumentation systems (Core Imaging X-ray 

Spectrometer, Electron Cyclotron Emission Radiometer, Low Field Side Reflectometer, 

Motional Stark Effect Polarimeter, Residual Gas Analyzer, Toroidal Interferometer/ 

Polarimeter, and Upper IR!Visible Cameras); Electron Cyclotron Heating Transmission Lines 

(approximately 4 km of aluminum waveguide lines-24 lines-capable of transmitting up to 

1.5 megawatts per line); Ion Cyclotron Heating Transmission Lines (approximately 1.5 km of 

coaxial transmission lines-8 lines-capable of transmitting up to 6 megawatts per line); the 

Pellet Injection System, an injector system capable of delivering deuterium/tritium fuel pellets 

up to 16 times per second; Vacuum Roughing Pumps, a matrix of pump trains consisting of 

approximately 400 vacuum pumps; the Vacuum Auxiliary System (vacuum system 

components including valves, pipe manifolds, auxiliary pumps, etc., and approximately 6 km 

of vacuum piping); and the Tokamak Exhaust Processing System, an exhaust separation system 

for hydrogen isotopes and non-hydrogen gases. 

Summary of progress: an integrated project 

The foregoing is only a sampling of the activity currently underway worldwide, as all ITER 

Members work to the same integrated schedule, fabricating their components for this intricate 

and interdependent project. This interdependence will become still more apparent this year, as 

the final preparations for the Assembly Phase are made and assembly contracts are placed. It 

will escalate even more sharply in 2019, when full-paced machine assembly gets underway and 

each component must be available in a precisely orchestrated sequence. 

INTERNATIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT: staying on track for success 

To have confidence that the ITER Project is on track for success requires an understanding of 

the organizational reforms we put in place starting three years ago, the extemal validation of 

those refonns, and our perfom1ance in relation to agreed milestones. 

Initial reforms: In early March 2015, when I took over as ITER Director-General, the 

organizational deficiencies and management shortcomings of the project were well understood, 

based on a probing and critical2013 Management Assessment led by the American expert Bill 

Madia of Stanford University. The pace of improvement immediately following the 2013 

report, however, remained unsatisfactory. My agreement to take on the role of DirectorGeneral, after extensive consultation, was contingent on the acceptance by all ITER Members 

of the Action Plan I mentioned in my introduction today, which I proposed at the time as the 

way to get the project back on track. 

The positive impacts of the Action Plan were rapidly evident. The ITER reorganization that 

followed created a structure, decision-making protocol, and modes of interaction more suited to 

this complex, first-of-a-kind project. The Executive Project Board, made up of myself, my two 

deputies, and the heads of each of the seven Domestic Agencies, has proven effective in 

resolving the technical questions that arise naturally at the interface of the ITER systems and 

components contributed by each Member. The Reserve Fund we set up remains an efficient 

mechanism for financing timely adjustments to the design where necessary. The design 

12 
33 

finalization for critical path components has been a vital step to prevent further delays and cost 

ovcnuns. And cross-organizational Project Teams, including all relevant actors in a single 

entity, have been used to guide progress on the most critical project elements. 

By late 2015, after eight months of exhaustive technical analysis and consultation with 

Domestic Agencies and suppliers, we had successfully compiled a fully integrated schedule 

with associated resource projections. The cost increases and longer timeline of the new 

schedule were, in retrospect, inevitable: because previous schedules and cost estimates had 

been based more on externally imposed conditions rather than on a realistic technological basis 

and an integration of Members' constraints. The "Best Technically Achievable Schedule" we 

presented to the ITER Council in November 2015 reflected a comprehensive understanding of 

a machine with more than I million components and cotTespondingly complex manufacturing, 

construction and assembly sequences. The integrated analysis that led to this schedule was the 

essential foundation to give confidence that the ITER Project would be able to progress 

forward on a realistic and reliable basis, if all Members continued to meet their commitments. 

The ITER Council at that time acknowledged the much-improved understanding of project 

scope, sequencing, risks, and costs achieved by this systematic review. It expressed 

appreciation for the tangible progress in construction and manufacturing. And it called for an 

independent review of the overall proposed schedule and associated resource estimates, to 

validate our methodology and analysis, to suggest adjustments and improvements where 

warranted, and if possible to identify additional measures for consolidating and expediting the 

schedule and reducing costs. 

External review and validation: In April 2016, when I appeared before this Committee, we 

had just received the report of the independent ITER Council Review Group, the first time our 

efforts had received an intensive review by an external body. The Review Group, consisting of 

14 international experts, had as chartered conducted a thorough examination of our proposed 

schedule and resource estimates, and found both to be credible and realistic-although 

extremely challenging. Based on an intensive drill-down into the project details, they also 

reported that the project reform efforts had resulted in "substantial improvement in project 

performance, a high degree of motivation, and considerable progress." They found that 

collaboration between the ITER Organization and the Domestic Agencies had markedly 

improved, but still called for "further strengthening" of these internal relationships in a "culture 

of collaboration"-a recommendation that, as you have seen, we wholeheartedly embraced. 

One month later, we received a second significant element of external validation, when the 

Secretary of Energy reported to Congress with positive statements regarding progress of the 

project. The Secretary concluded that "ITER remains the best candidate today to demonstrate 

burning plasma, which is a necessary precursor to demonstrating fusion energy power." The 

Secretary recommended that the U.S. should remain a partner in the project through FY 2018, 

but should re-evaluate continued participation prior to the FY 2019 budget submittal. 

While as I noted earlier we believe strongly that continued U.S. participation is in the mutual 

interest of both ITER and the United States, we welcomed this continued scrutiny of project 

performance. Since that time, we have had regular semi-annual independent reviews by some 

of the leading world experts on topical issues. In June 2017, we received the report of an 

independent review of ITER's approach to Risk Analysis and Risk Management. In November 

2017, a second review was completed focused on our processes for defining and freezing the 

13 
34 

design interfaces of the systems, structures and components required for First Plasma. The 

latest Management Assessment, led by Japan, was also completed in 2017. 

Both the Risk Management and Interface Freezing reviews have compared the ITER Project to 

industry standards, recognized best practices, and best available techniques-while also 

accounting for ITER's first-of-a-kind nature, which in some cases requires even more 

sophisticated measures than in past industrial projects. Each of these reviews, as well as the 

2017 Management Assessment, has validated ITER's progress and approaches to critical 

aspects of project management, finding that the project is well-managed, to the best industry 

standards. Each external assessment and review has also helped us to identify additional 

refinements of our methods. A new semi-annual external review has begun recently, focused 

on Configuration Management, and we look forward to receiving the results of that review in 

the coming months. 

Project management and the achievement of a project culture: Changing the culture of a 

project does not occur overnight. At ITER it has taken us more than two years, and we have 

continued a rigorous emphasis on self-examination and ongoing improvement. To solidify the 

gains we made during project reforms, we have emphasized a disciplined approach to applying 

the best principles of international project management, risk management, systems engineering, 

and ultimately nuclear safety culture and project culture. Adhering to the revised schedule has 

not in any sense been automatic or easy; it has required a systematic anticipation and mitigation 

of risks as well as day-by-day integration and teamwork. Developing and implementing an 

Earned Value Management system has been a key asset in this regard. And the incorporation of 

recognized systems engineering best practices has improved the rigor of verifying and 

validating that safety, quality, and technical perf01mance criteria are incorporated across the 

full spectrum of construction and manufacturing activities. 

Performance to agreed milestones: In November 2015, when we first presented our proposed 

schedule through First Plasma in 2025, the ITER Council emphasized the importance of 

maintaining rapid momentum in construction and manufacturing even while external reviews 

and validation processes were ongoing. For this reason, the Council approved the proposed 

schedule for 2016-17, together with a set of 29 well-defined technical and organizational 

milestones covering this two-year period, referenced to this schedule and the hierarchy of 

associated project activities. These milestones could be used to monitor our ongoing reliability 

and progress; if achieved successfully and on time, it would demonstrate that the ITER Project 

was keeping pace. 

A full set of additional milestones have since been formulated covering the entire period 

through the realization of First Plasma in 2025. I am pleased to report that, to date, 31 

milestones have been successfully achieved. Two of the milestones for 2016-17, both related to 

civil works in the Tokamak Building, have been decided to be postponed several months ago; 

in both cases, scheduling sequences have been re-adjusted and mitigation measures put in place 

to ensure this slippage will not affect the overall schedule. All aspects of the critical path 

schedule remain on track. 

These positive results should in no way be taken for granted; they represent collective effort 

and teamwork across all project partners, including supplier companies and laboratories. While 

we have experienced challenges and potential delays with individual milestones, we have in 

each case mitigated those challenges, offset or reduced the risk of delays and gotten back on 

track. Overall, so far, there has been no slippage whatsoever in the reference schedule. This 

14 
35 

reflects substantial improvements in our collective capacity for anticipating and mitigating 

emergent risks. 

Establishing an updated baseline: Following our initial November 2015 presentation of the 

revised schedule through First Plasma, the ITER Council asked us to initiate a fmther series of 

discussions with all ITER Members. The intent was to incorporate the proposed schedule and 

resource projections into an agreed overall project baseline that would extend through 

Deuterium-Tritium (DT) full fusion power operation. These discussions were needed to 

consider the priotities and resource constraints of ITER Member governments, as well as the 

manufacturing schedules and the interfaces of each Member's in-kind conttibutions. 

The culmination of this schedule iteration was reached one year later, in November 2016, when 

the ITER Council approved the Overall Project Schedule through First Plasma in 2025 and 

onward to Deuterium-Ttitium (DT) full fusion power operation in 2035. The associated Overall 

Project Cost was approved ad referendum, meaning that it required final consideration by 

ITER Member governments. For the United States, the Depattment of Energy subsequently 

approved the Overall Project Cost in January 2017. 

Figure 17: Schematic of the 4-stage strategy from First Plasma to DToperation within the revised ITA"'R hase/ine. 

Putting all of these elements together into an Updated Project Baseline represents a pivotal 

project-wide achievement, once again requiring integration and teamwork to accommodate the 

resource constraints of all ITER Members. The result, as depicted in Figure 17, is a 'staged 

approach' between First Plasma and Deuterium-Tritium Operation. 

The staged approach envisages several assembly phases and plasma operation campaigns, in 

keeping with when ITER Members will be in a position to deliver the associated equipment. In 

advance of First Plasma, the core tokamak systems will be assembled with the necessary 

auxiliary systems (heating and current dtive (H&CD), diagnostics, fuelling) required to support 

plasma breakdown. This is consistent with First Plasma as a demonstration of the successful 

integration of the tokamak core and principal plant systems (power supplies, cooling, 

Ciyogenics, vacuum, etc.) and will conclude the first phase of integrated commissioning ofthe 

ITER facility. 

Subsequently, the magnet systems will be commissioned to full current, and the full set of invessel components (including shielding blanket, first wall and dive1tor) will be installed, 

together with an expanded subset of the heating and current dtive and diagnostic capability. 

The first physics experiment is planned in December 2028. Two periods of experimental 

operation with hydrogen and helium plasmas will follow, with a 3rrl assembly period to 

complete the H&CD systems and most of the remaining diagnostic capability. These two 

15 
36 

experimental periods will commission all tokamak and auxiliary systems with plasma, and will 

demonstrate full technical perfonnance of the ITER device before the transition to D and DT 

operation in the 4th stage of the experimental program. 

CONCLUSION 

At the ITER Organization, we are committed to ensuring the delivery of the ITER machine on 

time and the full achievement of the associated scientific and technological benefits, as the 

launching pad for the eventual commercial deployment of fusion-generated electricity. We are 

committed to delivering the project in a manner that lives up to the trust placed in us by all 

ITER Members. We are committed to continuous improvement, to make ITER the model for 

international collaboration on complex science and technology challenges. And we are 

conunitted to making ITER a sound investment for the U.S., as for all our partners. These 

commitments require that all of the seven ITER partners fulfil their own commitments towards 

the ITER project by providing the needed resources on time (staff, in-kind components and incash contribution). This year is critical on this point, since some Members seem not prepared to 

do so for the first time. We look forward to a long and fruitful collaboration. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

16 
37 

Route de Vmon sur Verdo11 

Bernard Bigot, Director-General ITER Organization 

On S l\hrch 2015, tht~ ITER Council appointed Bemard Bigot, from France, 

Director-General of the ITER Organization. 

associated \\-ith ITER since France's bid to host the 

site decision in 2005, the of the ITER 

ratification by all Members in Mr Bigot was 

to act as I Iigh Representative for the 

a position that he has occupied since 2008, 

the 

and the ITER Organization, has 

the project for som.e twenty years. 

ITER DlrectOT·Gene-ral Bernard Bigot career, Bernard Bigot has held senior positions in 

research, and gm:crnment. Prior to his appojntmcnt at ITER he 

completed two terms (2009-2012 and as Chairman and CEO of the French Alternative and 

Atomic Energy Commission, CE~\. This goven1ment-funJed ten 

research centres in France, a \Votkforce of 16,000 and an annual 4.3 

carbon energies, defense and security, information technologies and 

From 2003 to 2009 Bernard Bigot served as France's High commissioner for atomic energy, an independent 

scientific authoritY \vhose mission is to a(h-isc the French President and the french government on nuclear and 

renewable encrgy.policy and in all the other scientific and tcdwological domains where the CE.A. intervenes. 

opportunity we cantto! mhs." 

Director 

resporrsil>ilities, he worked at the ministerial levd as Head of the Scientific and 

!Jrrecl'or,lic:ner:al of Research and Technology (1996-1997), and Deputy 

In 2002, Bernard Bigot \Vas 

l\linistcr and Assistant Pri\·ate 

tenure in this office that France 

Bernard Bigot is a Com!lNmdetfr in the French Order of the of Honour, a COmmandmr in the 

S\vcdish Order of the Polar Star, and an Q!Jiter the French of the National Merit. In October 

recejved the Gold and Silver Star in rhc Japanese Order of thC' Rising Sun. 
38 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Dr. Bigot. 

Dr. Van Dam, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES W. VAN DAM, 

ACTING ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES, 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE, 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Dr. VAN DAM. Thank you, Chairman Weber and Ranking Member Lofgren in place of Ranking Member Veasey, and also full Committee Chair Smith, my former Congressman from Austin, Texas, 

and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you 

for this invitation to testify before you today about fusion energy 

research. 

I am currently the Acting Associate Director for the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences, and I appreciate this opportunity to review 

the status of fusion research and describe programmatic directions 

going forward. 

The mission of the Fusion Energy Sciences, or FES, program is 

to expand the fundamental understanding of matter at very high 

temperatures and densities and to build a scientific foundation 

needed to develop a fusion energy source. This is accomplished 

through the study of plasma called the fourth state of matter, 

which is wide-ranging since 99 percent of the visible universe is 

plasma. 

The FES program addresses several Administration research and 

development priorities. Fusion research has the potential to contribute to American energy dominance by making available a robust, clean baseload electricity technology. Plasma science can contribute to American prosperity through the potential for spinoff applications, establish partnerships within and outside DOE and increase our research effectiveness, and we also help train a STEMfocused workforce in key areas of technological and economic importance, as well as national security. 

The DIII–D National Fusion Facility at General Atomics and the 

National Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade, NSTX–U, at 

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, are world-leading Office of 

Science user facilities. The DIII–D scientific team has 439 researchers from 49 U.S. institutions, plus another 164 researchers 

from 46 institutions and seven other countries. The DIII–D scientific results are recognized worldwide. 

NSTX–U is the world’s highest-performance spherical tokamak, 

a magnetic configuration invented in the United States with attractive advantages of compactness and component testing. NSTX–U is 

currently not operating while its magnetic coils are being repaired. 

The United States is a world leader in fusion theoretical modeling and high-performance computer simulations. FES supports 

eight multi-institutional Scientific Discovery through Advanced 

Computing, SciDAC, centers jointly with the Advanced Scientific 

Computing Research Program Office. Fusion researchers also lead 

one of the Office of Science exascale computing projects. 

Several multi-institutional U.S. teams conduct research under 

international partnerships on superconducting tokamaks and 
39 

stellarators with long-duration capabilities not available in the 

United States. To test fusion materials under extreme conditions, 

the fiscal year 2019 budget request proposes a linear diverter simulator facility with world-leading capabilities. 

Under the U.S. contributions to ITER construction project, we 

are fabricating several hardware systems. One is the central solenoid, which will be the world’s largest superconducting pulsed electromagnet, the so-called heartbeat of ITER. The U.S. First Plasma 

subproject is halfway finished. The United States has spent $1 billion, 90 percent of which is within the United States through approximately 600 contracts in 44 States. 

The U.S. ITER project is very well-managed. The ITER Organization has significantly improved its project management under Director-General Bigot, and we thank him. The construction progress 

onsite is very substantial. 

FES also supports discovery plasma science through partnerships 

with the National Science Foundation and DOE’s National Nuclear 

Security Administration. U.S. scientists are world leaders in inventing new plasma measurement techniques. 

Strategic directions going forward for the FES program are informed by several planning efforts, including priorities described in 

the document, ‘‘The Office of Science’s Fusion Energy Science Program: A 10–Year Perspective;’’ research opportunities identified in 

recent community workshops, one of which was led by Dr. Wade; 

reports from the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee; and 

reports from the National Academy of Sciences. Currently, a National Academy study on the strategic plan for U.S. burning plasma 

research is underway. Dr. Herrmann is one of the panel members. 

And also the National Academy is now launching the 2020 Plasma 

Decadal Survey. 

Thank you for this opportunity today to describe DOE’s research 

efforts in Fusion Energy Sciences research, and I look forward to 

discussing this topic with you and answering your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Van Dam follows:] 
40 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES VAN DAM 

ACTING ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES 

OI•'FICE OF SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2018 

Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Veasey, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 

invitation to testify before you today on fusion energy research. I appreciate this opportunity to review the 

status of research in this scientific area and to describe programmatic directions going forward. 

Mission: 

The mission of the Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program is to expand the fundamental understanding of 

matter at very high temperatures and densities and to ·build the scientific foundation needed to develop a 

fusion energy source. This is accomplished through the study of plasma, often called the fourth state of 

matter, and how it interacts with its surroundings. 

Plasma science is wide-ranging, since 99% of the visible universe is composed of plasmas of various 

types. High-temperature fusion plasmas at hundreds of millions of degrees occur in national-security 

applications, albeit for very short times. The same fusion plasmas could be exploited in the laboratory in a 

controlled fashion to become the basis for a future clean nuclear power source, which will provide 

domestic energy independence and security. This is a large driver for the FES subprograms focused on 

the scientific study of"burning plasma." In the burning plasma state of matter, the nuclear fusion process 

itself provides the dominant heat source for sustaining the plasma temperature. Such a self-heated plasma 

can continue to undergo fusion reactions that produce energy, while requiring little input of heating power 

from the outside resulting in large net energy yield. 

Administration R&D priorities and FES 

The FES program addresses several of the Administration's research and development budget priorities. 

Research in fusion has the potential to contribute to American energy dominance by making available to 

the American people a robust, clean base-load electricity technology that relies on widely available and 

virtually inexhaustible fuel sources. Research in plasma science, within and beyond fusion, will contribute 

to American prosperity through the tremendous potential for spinoff applications as well as targeted 

investments in early-stage low temperature plasma research that has the potential to lead to the 

development of trans formative technologies. Investments in our major fusion facilities and smaller-scale 

experiments will help maintain and modernize our research infrastructure for continuing to conduct 

world-leading research. Established partnerships within and outside DOE maximize leverage and increase 

the cost-effectiveness of FES research activities. Finally, the unique scientific challenges and rigor of 
41 

fusion and plasma physics research lead to the development of a well-trained STEM-focused workforce, 

which will contribute to maintaining and advancing U.S. competitiveness and world leadership in key 

areas of future technological and economic importance, as well as national security. 

Status of FES research 

The FES program is organized into four subprograms:(!) Burning Plasma Science--Foundations, (2) 

Burning Plasma Science--Long Pulse, (3) Burning Plasma Science--High Power, and (4) Discovery 

Plasma Science 

In the Burning Plasma Science--Foundations subprogram, the behavior oflaboratory fusion plasmas 

confined with strong magnetic fields is investigated. The Dlli-D National Fusion Facility and the 

National Spherical Torus Experiment-Upgrade (NSTX-U) are world-leading Office of Science (SC) user 

facilities for experimental research available to and used by scientists from national laboratories, 

universities, and industry research groups. 

DIII-D (operated by General Atomics) is a world-class tokamak facility. This facility is highly 

flexible, with extensive diagnostics to measure plasma behavior. The DIII-D scientific team 

consists of 439 researchers from 49 institutions in the U.S. and 164 researchers from 46 

institutions across seven other countries. These numbers include 64 postdoctoral researchers, 75 

graduate students, 13 Master· s degree students, and 21 undergraduates. 

Dlll-D plans to operate 18 run weeks in FY 2018 and then go into a facility outage (called Long 

Torus Opening) for facility enhancements. The Long Torus Opening is planned to extend into the 

first part of FY 2019, after which the machine will resume operation for 12 weeks. The scientific 

results from DIII-D for magnetic confinement fusion research are highly recognized worldwide. 

Additionally, during FY 2017, FES supported a new initiative to carry out experiments on Dlli-D 

for hasic plasma science, not directly related to fusion energy issues; this successful initiative will 

be repeated in FY 2018. 

NSTX-Upgrade (operated by PPPL) is the world's highest performance spherical tokamak, a 

magnetic confinement configuration invented in the U.S, which has the attractive advantages of 

compactness and component testing. NSTX-U is currently not operating, due to a magnetic coil 

failure and other hardware issues. 

During FY 2017, PPPL conducted an extensive series of reviews to identify the design, 

construction, and operational deficiencies of the facility. The laboratory has developed an 

integrated corrective action plan for repair and recovery of reliable experimental operation. The 

lab is currently formulating a baseline. SC is conducting an internal assessment of the recovery 

scope, the mission need, and the laboratory's capabilities. By the end of the year, cost and 

schedule implications will he in hand. 

Complementing these experimental activities is a world leadership effort in fusion theoretical modeling 

and high-performance computer simulations to predict and interpret the complex behavior of plasmas as 

self-organized systems. As part of this effort, FES supports eight Scientific Discovery through Advanced 

Computing (SciDAC) centers, involving scientists from II universities, 8 DOE laboratories, and 5 

industry R&D groups. Seven of these SciDAC centers are supported in partnership with the Advanced 

Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program office. The FES SciDAC centers were re-competed in 

FY 2017. In addition, scientists from PPPL lead a national team working on whole-device modeling of 

magnetically confined fusion plasmas, which is one of the 22 ASCR-fundcd Exascale Computing 

Projects. 

In the Burning Plasma Science--Long Pulse subprogram, FES investigates the behavior of plasmas that 

are confined near steady state. U.S. scientists take advantage of international partnerships to conduct 

2 
42 

research on superconducting tokamaks and stellarators with long-duration capabilities that are not 

available in the U.S. This includes: 

Three multi-institutional teams of U.S. researchers carry out collaborative research on the longpulse tokamak facilities in China and Korea. 

• Another multi-institutional U.S. team cooperates in research on the new superconducting 

stcllarator facility in Gennany. 

Other teams work on several other overseas experimental facilities that are not superconducting 

but have unique capabilities. 

A useful recent development is the establishment of remote collaboration/connectivity centers 

(e.g., at GA, PPPL, and MIT) that allow U.S. scientists to participate and lead experiments on 

overseas facilities, thus reducing the need for travel and creating collaboration efficiencies. 

In addition, the development of novel materials, a research area of high interest to many scientific fields, 

is especially important for fusion energy sciences since fusion plasmas create an environment of highenergy neutrons and huge heat fluxes that impinge on and damage the material structures containing the 

plasmas. The FY 2019 budget request proposes to initiate design and some fabrication activities for a new 

linear divertor simulator facility that will have world-leading capabilities to test materials under extremeheat-flux fusion conditions. 

The Burni11g Plasma Scie11ce-High Power subprogram refers to the frontier scientific area of the actual 

creation of strongly self-heated fusion burning plasmas, which \Ifill allow the discovery and study of new 

scientific phenomena relevant to fusion as a future energy source. 

Currently the Burning Plasma Science--High Power subprogram is focused on the U.S. Contributions to 

ITER, a construction project. ITER is a large, international project, involving the U.S., European Union 

(EU), Russia, China, Japan, India, and South Korea, which aims to construct a full-scale experimental 

fusion reactor, located in southern France, about 50 miles north of Marseille. In 2007, the ITER project 

was scheduled to be complete (i.e., achieve deuterium-tritium bum) by 2016, with the U.S. share, at that 

time, approved to be $1.1 billion. To date, U.S. in-kind contributions to ITER have been $1.06 billion. 

Under the present schedule approved by the ITER Organization, ITER will achieve the first-plasma 

milestone in 2025-26 and be complete (achieve D-T bum) in 2035. The U.S. cost is presently estimated to 

be $4.7-6.5 billion. 

The U.S. is responsible for delivering a number of hardware systems, which are being fabricated by 

industries, national laboratories, and universities in the U.S. The largest of these U.S. hardware systems 

are the seven modules for the central solenoid magnet of ITER, which when completed will be the 

world's largest superconducting pulsed electromagnet- the so-called "heartbeat of ITER." The First 

Plasma subproject of the U.S. Contributions to ITER project is more than halfway complete. Fabrication 

of the ITER central solenoid magnet assembly, which is the U.S.'s highest-priority activity, is, as of 

January 2018,68% complete. 

So far, slight1ymore than $1B has been spent, with more than 90% of the U.S. ITER funding for 

hardware systems spent within the U.S., through more than 600 contracts in 44 states. Two hardware 

systems were completed and delivered in 2017: the Steady-State Electrical Network for the ITER site, and 

the superconducting conductor for the ITER toroidal field coils. (Detailed information about the U.S. 

ITER fabrication activities is contained in the four graphs attached to this testimony.) The U.S. 

Contributions to ITER project is efficiently and effectively managed by the U.S. ITER Project Office at 

ORNL in partnership with PPPL and SRNL (cf. supplemental attached pages). The subject of continued 

U.S. participation in the ITER project is included in the Administration's ongoing civil nuclear review. 

3 
43 

The ITER Organization in France has very significantly improved its project management since the 

appointment of the current Director General, Dr. Bernard Bigot, in 2015. Construction progress on the 

ITER site is quite substantial. In December 2017, the ITER Organization celebrated 50% completion to 

First Plasma, as reported in many media outlets. 

The FES Discovery Plasma Science subprogram involves research in areas such as plasma astrophysics, 

high energy density laboratory plasmas (HEDLP), and low temperature plasmas. Some of this research is 

carried out through a partnership on basic plasma science and engineering with the National Science 

Foundation (NSF) and a joint program on high energy density laboratory plasmas with the National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). A few examples of Discovery Plasma Science research 

programs are the following: 

The Large Area Plasma Device at the University of California, Los Angeles is a world-unique 

device for simulating the behavior of plasma-loaded magnetic field lines. One such ubiquitous 

behavior is called reconnection, when magnetic field lines rip apart and reconnect~which occurs 

in the Earth's magnetic field due to the solar wind, in solar flare eruptions, in the formation of 

astrophysical neutron stars and black holes, and in laboratory fusion plasmas. 

Recently FES solidified the U.S. leadership in reconnection physics by funding an intermediatescale, integrated, collaborative science user facility at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

FES has supported a multi-institutional plasma science center that performs early-stage research 

on the detailed dynamics of low-temperature plasmas, which have future spin-off applications. 

The Matter in Extreme Conditions instrument, one of six end stations at the Linac Coherent Light 

Sources user facility at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, is a world-leading facility for the 

study of high energy density plasmas, which underlies the understanding of laser-plasma 

interactions, astrophysical processes, and inertial confinement fusion. Some recent highlights are 

the production of"diamond rain" (predicted to occur in the interior of Icy Giant Planets) and the 

discovery of a new form of water that is simultaneously solid and liquid. 

Plasma techniques are being used to capture and cool anti-hydrogen atoms at CERN so that 

experiments can be performed that might explain why there is so little anti-matter in the universe. 

Also, U.S. scientists are world leaders in the invention and development of high-resolution plasma 

measurement techniques. One such example is the x-ray crystal spectrometer, a versatile diagnostic that 

has been utilized on several different magnetic confinement fusion facilities and, more recently, on 

inertial confinement facilities. 

Strategic directions going fonvard for the FES program are infonned by several sources, including the 

following: 

The priorities described in the document "The Office of Science's Fusion Energy Sciences 

Program: A Ten-Year Perspective" (submitted by DOE to Congress in December 2015): These 

priorities include keeping SC fusion user facilities world-leading, investing in high performance 

computing and preparing for Exascale, supporting high-impact research in fusion materials, 

strengthening partnerships for access to international facilities with unique capabilities, learning 

how to predict and control transient events in fusion plasmas, and continuing stewardship of 

discovery plasma science (e.g., via intennediate-scale basic facilities). 

• The research opportunities identified in a series of four community engagement workshops held 

in 2015, whose written reports were finalized in 2016 and are available online.' 

1 https:/ /science.energy,gov/fes/community-resources/workshop-reports/ 

4 
44 

Other community interactions: In recent years, the fusion community self-organized to hold 

several workshops: a stellarator research opportunities conference, two workshops to provide 

input to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) burning plasma study, three high energy 

density science workshops, and an exascale computing requirements workshop. 

Reports from the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC), a federal advisory 

committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act: Two recent examples are the (1) 

the 2016 FESAC report2 that describes how plasma science advances have led to spinoff 

applications and enabling technologies with considerable economic and societal impact for the 

American quality of life, and (2) the 2018 FE SAC report about the potential for transformative 

enabling capabilities in fusion science and technology that could accelerate progress toward 

fusion energy. 

• Reports from the NAS: Currently, the NAS is performing a study entitled "A strategic plan for 

U.S. burning plasma research," which was requested by SC. This study released an interim report 

on December 21, 2017; its final report is expected toward the end of 2018. Another NAS study, 

soon to be launched, is the Plasma Decadal Survey. This Survey has multiple federal sponsors, 

including DOE, NSF, and the Department of Defense, and its report is expected in 24 months. 

The two previous Plasma Decadal Survey reports from NAS have been influential. In addition, 

the NAS recently released a report on Intense Ultrafast Lasers3

, which is of high interest to the 

part of the FES program for research on high energy density laboratory plasmas. 

In conclusion, the FES program is actively engaged at the forefront of fundamental research in burning 

plasma science and discovery plasma science, with the use of domestic facilities and through international 

partnerships. Thank you for the opportunity to come before you today to describe DOE's efforts in fusion 

energy sciences. I look forward to discussing this topic with you and answering your questions. 

2 htt ps:// science. energy. gov ;~ /med ia/fes/fesac/ pdf /2015/210 1507/F! NAL_F ES _Non F usia nAp pReport_ 090 215. pdf 3 https:/ /www.nap.edu/catalog/24939/opportunities-in-intense-u!trafast-!asers-reaching-for-the-brightest-!lght 

5 
45 

Over 80% of Awards and Obligations Remain in the US 

• 600+ contracts awarded 10 US industry and universities, and obligated 10 DOE national 

laboratories in 44 states 

• 500+ direct jobs and 1100+ indirect jobs created or maintained per year 

6 
46 

Examples of US hardware for ITER 

First Plasma Subproject deliveries 30% complete 

Central Solenoid Module Fabrication Progressing 

7 
47 

Brief Biography 

JAMES W. VAN DAM 

Dr. Van Darn is serving as acting associate director of the US DOE Office of Science for the Fusion 

Energy Sciences program since August 2017. Prior to that, he was the research division director for the 

Fusion Energy Sciences program since September 2011. 

During 1980-2011, he was a research scientist, associate director, and for nine years director of the 

Institute for Fusion Studies at The University of Texas in Austin. 

During 2007-2011, he was also director ofthe U.S. Burning Plasma Organization and chief scientist for 

the U.S. ITER Project Office. 

He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society (Division of Plasma Physics). He has been the organizer 

for numerous workshops and several international symposia, a visiting scientist/professor at several 

laboratories and muversities, thesis advisor for graduate students, a member of various national 

committees, journal editor, and a consultant to industry. He has published over 100 scientific papers and 

two books. 

After graduate study at University of California-Berkeley and the Institute of Plasma Physics (Japan), he 

completed his Ph.D. at UCLA and then was a postdoc at the Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton) 

before moving to the University of Texas. 
48 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you. Dr. Wade, you’re recognized for 

five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. MICKEY WADE, 

DIRECTOR OF ADVANCED FUSION SYSTEMS, 

MAGNETIC FUSION ENERGY DIVISION, 

GENERAL ATOMICS 

Dr. WADE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the 

Committee for this opportunity to share my views on the U.S. fusion program. I’d like to stress that these are my views and not 

necessarily those of my employer. 

I have spent nearly 30 years working in fusion research, 15 of 

those at Oak Ridge National Lab, and the last dozen at General 

Atomics. I’m passionate about fusion energy and maybe as importantly about the role the United States can play in its development. 

This marks the 80th anniversary of the discovery of the process 

the powers our sun and stars, nuclear fusion. We’ve made remarkable progress over the intervening 80 years in figuring out how to 

harness the enormous potential of fusion energy. The United States 

has been at the forefront of this progress, forging a path that has 

taken fusion energy from a dream to a potential energy source for 

thousands of years. Critics can no longer say that fusion is 50 years 

away and always will be. 

As we’ve just heard from Dr. Bigot, the first phase of the—of construction of the most ambitious fusion project ever undertaken, 

ITER, is now 50 percent complete. In 2025, a little over seven years 

from now, ITER will produce its First Plasma. Just ten years later, 

ITER will begin an operations phase that will produce powerplant 

levels of fusion power for the first time. 

Anticipating this, other nations are increasing their emphasis on 

fusion energy, putting together strategic plans to capitalize on 

ITER’s success. Private enterprises are now evaluating high-risk, 

outside-the-box approaches to fusion energy. Yet as excited as I am 

about this future, I’m very concerned that our nation’s commitment 

to fusion is wavering and the decisions our country is making now 

will relegate us to the sidelines in the future. U.S. participation in 

ITER is in question. Investment in U.S. fusion capabilities is being 

far outpaced by other nations, particularly China. The United 

States does not have a comprehensive strategic plan for fusion development. 

The United States has long been a world leader in fusion energy 

research, and this continues today. U.S. scientists continued to discover new phenomena and develop pioneering solutions to fusion’s 

challenges. The United States is building the ITER central solenoid. When fully assembled, it will be nearly as wide as this table, 

nearly as tall as this building, and be the most powerful electromagnet in the world. It will be the heart of ITER, enabling ITER 

to generate plasma temperatures that exceed 150 million degrees, 

about 10 times the temperature of the sun. 

So what needs to be done? I offer two recommendations for your 

consideration. Number one, the United States should make a firm 

commitment to fully fund the ITER project. The early days of ITER 

were very challenging, but it appears the ship is now sailing in 

calm waters thanks to the efforts of Dr. Bigot and the ITER mem-
49 

bers. I believe ITER is our ticket to be a tier-one player in fusion 

development, giving us full access to the preeminent fusion facility 

in the world for only nine percent of the fusion project cost. Over 

80 percent of these contributions are for in-kind projects built in 

the United States, creating jobs and associated expertise here. On 

the flip side, withdrawing from ITER could isolate U.S. scientists 

from the international effort and would require a new U.S. approach to study burning plasma with an unknown time horizon and 

cost. 

Number two, the United States should move now to establish a 

comprehensive strategic plan that seeks to capitalize on ITER’s 

success. Fusion energy should be called out in a national energy 

policy. A strategic plan with clearly defined technical objectives 

should be developed that sets the United States on an aggressive 

distinctive pathway to fusion energy. This pathway should include 

new investment in world-class research capabilities that will attract and engage the best U.S. minds from universities, national 

labs, and the private sector. Following through on initiatives, evaluating new ideas, and developing transformational technologies 

will all be required in arriving at the most cost-attractive approach 

for fusion development. 

In 1962, at the beginning of the Apollo program, President John 

F. Kennedy issued a proclamation that I think speaks in to this 

hearing today. He said, and I quote, ‘‘We choose to do these things 

not because they are easy but because they are hard, because that 

goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies 

and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win.’’ 

Less than seven years later, an American walked on the moon. It’s 

in the American DNA to take on the grandest challenges and not 

just succeed but be the best. Fusion is one of those grand challenges. 

I hope you will join us in forging a path that ensures the United 

States is a world leader in making fusion energy a reality for future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you 

today. I look forward to your questions and working with you in 

the future. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wade follows:] 
50 

Written Testimony of Mickey Wade, Ph.D. 

Director, Advanced Fusion Systems, General Atomics 

Delivered before the 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

U.S House of Representatives 

The Future of U.S. Fusion Energy Research 

March 6, 2018 

I would like to thank the Committee for this opportunity to share my views on the status and 

future prospects of the U.S. fusion program. I want to stress that these are my own views and do 

not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. 

The U.S. and the world have made enormous progress toward achieving fusion energy, putting 

within our grasp major milestones that will demonstrate the feasibility of fusion energy. ITER 

construction for First Plasma is now over 50% complete and initial operation of the facility is 

planned for 2025, just seven years from now. In addition, ITER plans to begin an experimental 

campaign in 2035 that will demonstrate a 'burning plasma', a key moment in the realization of 

fusion energy wherein a self-heated plasma will for the first time be created, sustained, and 

studied. With these milestones clearly in view, the world's magnetic fusion program is now 

progressing rapidly toward a major inflection point for fusion energy development. However, 

despite this progress and opportunity, the U.S. fusion program is at significant risk of losing its 

position as a world leader as other nations are expanding funding on fusion development while 

U.S. funding is in decline. 

I have been engaged in magnetic fusion energy research for the past 30 years, both in the 

national and international arenas. This involvement has given me a keen appreciation of the 

promise offered, the challenges involved, and the opportunities presented by developing fusion 

as an energy source for the future. From these experiences and perspectives, I offer the 

following for consideration by this Committee: 

• Fusion energy has the potential to provide enormous amounts - more than I 0,000 years 

from known land resources - of base-load electricity that is virtually free of greenhouse 

gases and available to all nations of the world. The extent oj{l1sion 's potential is unmatched 

by any other known energy source and therefore worth sizeable investment toward its 

development. 

Successfully delivering fusion energy demands integration of several high-tech elements 

that span a wide range of scientific and engineering disciplines. It is unlikely that the 

required breadth of R&D can be undertaken by a single corporate entity; hence, government 

sponsorship in the near-to-intermediate term is required to promote R&D activities over the 

full range ofcapabilities required for fusion energy. 

The US. .fi1sion community is passionate about making fusion energy a reality and is 

leading the world research program in several key scientific areas. This exciting, worldclass research, carried out on world-class facilities, continues to place the U.S. in a 

1 
51 

leadership role in the development of fusion energy (though that leadership is threatened 

due to large investments by other nations). 

• Looking forward, burning plasma research is an essential element in the development of 

fusion energy as future fusion systems will rely on the production and sustainment of such 

plasmas. ITER will provide this platform for U.S. researchers. As the only existing project 

worldwide intended to create a burning plasma at the scale of a power plant, I believe it is 

critical that the U.S. remain a party to the ITER project and position itself to exploit ITER 

by maintaining and acquiring expertise in critical technical areas through research on 

existing facilities, theory, and simulation. 

• Beyond ITER, significant opportunities exist for U.S. leadership in fields that enable 

realization of fusion energy (e.g., fusion nuclear materials) and/or development of more 

cost-attractive approaches to fusion energy (e.g., innovative confinement concepts, highcritical-temperature superconducting magnets). To capitalize on these opportunities, the 

U.S. needs a vibrant domestic research program that can, alongside ITER participation, 

deploy leadership-class facilities and capabilities in these key research areas. 

• Strategically, the U.S. path to fusion energy is unclear at the moment, especially with 

funding trending downward. This stands in contrast to other ITER partners that have 

developed strategic plans structured to capitalize on ITER success to aggressively pursue 

fusion energy development. Our country's lack of commitment toward pursuing fusion 

aggressively puts us at risk of falling behind in the quest for fusion energy. In this regard, 

the U.S. government should develop a clear policy on the importance of fits ion energy as a 

national strategic interest and the role of.fitsion energy in national energy plan. 

During the rest of this testimony, I would like to offer my personal perspectives on these 

considerations, drawing from my experiences in the field, followed by some recommendations 

for this Committee to consider in developing legislation in the future. 

Fusion Energy for the World's Future 

The quest .fiir .fitsion energy is here to stay. Fusion energy, the same process that powers the stars, 

offers the potential of a very compelling energy solution for the future with a readily available 

fuel supply, no greenhouse gas production, and the ability to serve as a large base-load supplier 

of electricity. The fuel for future fusion systems is abundant with estimates projecting over 

I 0,000 years of availability from known land sources and significantly more if ocean resources 

are utilized. Future fusion systems will produce virtually no greenhouse gases, have no risk of 

uncontrolled meltdowns, and can be tailored to minimize the production of very-long-lifetime 

radioactive materials. Because of its promise, fusion energy will always motivate pursuit of 

solutions even though the development of fusion energy presents many significant technical 

challenges. 

The potential of fusion is evidenced by the recent surge in the number of private startups 

evaluating innovative approaches to fusion energy. While this surge is indicative of emerging 

interest, it should be noted that these startups are focused heavily on developing high-risk, highreward approaches to producing and confining fusion-grade plasmas, and therefore still require 

comprehensive programs for developing the full range of capabilities needed for fusion energy 

production. ITER, on the other hand, seeks to create and sustain a burning plasma using the most 

2 
52 

mature confinement configuration and demonstrated technologies, positioning it as a lower risk 

approach to the study of burning plasma science. 

The science and technology of fusion requires state-of-the-art capabilities in a wide range of 

disciplines (e.g., plasma physics, materials, magnets, fuel cycle). Because the required technical 

capabilities are beyond those needed for other applications, fusion R&D must confront these 

challenges itself. In contrast, owing to fusion's interdisciplinary nature, many different fields of 

study have benefitted from fusion research. Spinoff technologies from fusion investments have 

had a transformative effect on society, with the public benefitting greatly from areas such as 

modem electronics, lighting, communication, manufacturing, and transportation.* 

U.S. universities, labs, and industry have distinct leadership capabilities in the areas listed above 

with world-class researchers tackling the most challenging issues. However, the U.S. is not 

alone in this pursuit, with other nations (particularly the ITER Members) aggressively pursuing 

development of new capabilities that will further these disciplines while advancing fusion energy 

towards its development goal. 

A major consideration for the time scale of fusion energy development is the observation that 

many economic models indicate a significant expansion of the world's electricity requirements in 

the latter half of this century. This is especially true for under-developed and/or emerging 

economies in which energy supply will likely pace economic growth and the quality of life in 

those countries. Because of this increasing need for clean energy sources and the short time 

scale involved, the U.S. has a distinct strategic interest in remaining a leader in energy 

technologies such as fusion. To this end, the U.S. needs to prepare for this opportunity now, 

putting in place the necessary technical know-how to position the U.S. at the forefront of future 

fusion development worldwide. 

The U.S. Fusion Program 

The US. program continues to be a world leader in the development of the scientific basis for 

fusion energy. This leadership is evidenced by the fact that U.S. researchers have been 

recognized for the Nuclear Fusion Prize t in 8 of the 13 years of the award for most impactful 

article in Nuclear Fusion, the top journal for publications of fusion research. In recent years, 

experiments on Alcator C-Mod (at MIT) and DIII-D (at General Atomics), motivated by U.S. 

theoretical studies, achieved record levels of normalized fusion performance that offer the 

potential of significantly improved fusion systems in the future. Dlll-D has demonstrated 

scenarios that achieve the required level of ITER normalized performance in ITER-prototypical 

conditions, further increasing confidence that ITER will succeed in its mission. 

These experimental findings are bolstered by detailed simulations in which U.S. scientists have 

modeled how small-scale fluctuations transport energy from the hot core to the edge in ITER, 

providing a much stronger scientific basis for projecting ITER's fusion power production. 

Scientists have also utilized emerging supercomputing capabilities to model how turbulence is 

spontaneously suppressed in the edge of tokamak plasmas leading to a factor of two ·increase in 

confinement quality, potentially solving a long-standing mystery of the field. All of these results 

'https://science.energy.gov/-/media/fes/pdf/program-documents/FES_ Brochure hires. pdf 

! ilii~§'/IWWW=~HB :iileiHlf§IB88~§/iileiiB88~§fl\IHEieilf)'H§i8Afl\!Jlfl\IF 1\Wi!Hl -

3 
53 

were enabled through a vibrant partnership between national labs, universities, and industry. 

Separately and collaboratively, these groups have provided pioneering contributions in theory, 

high-end computing, sensors, magnet technology, and innovative concepts that have advanced 

our understanding of fusion plasmas and motivated exciting new approaches to achieving fusion 

energy sooner, rather than later. 

This research has enabled the U.S. fusion progran1 to be a world leader in informing the design 

and research plan of ITER. Looking forward, U.S. leadership in fusion is at risk due to a myriad 

of challenges including: l) decreasing U.S. funding at the same time of increased investment in 

other countries; 2) the increasing scale (and therefore associated investment) oftacilities required 

for fusion development; 3) maintaining university engagement as facilities increase in size and 

complexity; and 4) the lack of a coherent U.S. strategic plan that defines the technical objectives 

and associated deliverables for fusion energy development in the U.S. Some recommendations 

for addressing these issues are discussed later. 

General Atomics' role in this enterprise: General Atomics (GA), as a leading industrial partner 

in the development of fusion energy in the U.S., is committed to the success of the U.S. fusion 

program and sees compelling opportunities for government-sponsored research to accelerate the 

path to fusion energy. General Atomics has been involved in fusion energy research for over 60 

years. GA presently operates, for the Department of Energy. the largest magnetic fusion User 

Facility in the U.S. DIII-D.t DIII-D is a highly collaborative program powered by the 

contributions of research staff from 28 U.S. universities and 7 national labs as well as GA itself. 

This program supports over 600 scientific users from 20 countries and has provided numerous 

pioneering contributions to the technical basis for ITER. 

GA is also building the ITER Central Solenoid magnet for the \J.S. ITER Project Office as part 

of the U.S.'s in-kind contributions to ITER. This magnet will sit in the very core of ITER and 

produce the transformer action that generates 

15 million amperes of plasma current in ITER. 

Because this plasma current is essential for 

producing the magnetic fields that keep the hot 

plasma away from the containment walls, the 

Central Solenoid is sometimes ref;med to as 

'the heartbeat of ITER'.* The first of seven 

production coils- each 14ft in diameter and 7 

ft tall - is now 80% complete with present 

schedules calling for all seven to be completed 

by 2022. We hope Members of this Committee 

will be able to visit our facility in Poway, CA 

to see the stunning scale of this project and 

learn more about the ITER project. This broad 

experience in fusion development provides GA 

with a unique perspective on fusion activities The tirst of seven magnets for 

follmving heat treatment to 

supcrconducling matcrial. 

1 https:iiscience.energy.gov/fesifacilities/user-facilities/diii-d/ and 

https ://www. youtube.com/watch ?FtA 7 J2s231 B8&feature·~voutu. be 

j http://www.newswise.com/doescience/ article~id~639890 . 

4 

create the solenoid's 
54 

within the U.S., both those pertammg to government-sponsored research and investment 

opportunities for industrial involvement in the fusion enterprise. 

U.S. participation in ITER 

ITER's mission is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy." 

This mission is sufficiently ambitious and compelling that seven Members (China, European 

Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, and the U.S.) are partnering together to design, construct, 

and operate this facility. This consortium represents over 50% of the world's population and 

over 80% of the world's gross domestic product. The U.S. derives multiple benefits from this 

partnership including: a) a stronger scientific basis for design and operation of the facility; b) 

significantly increased breadth of expertise, facilities, and tools; c) industrial fabrication 

capabilities developed overseas; and d) sharing of costs with the US paying only 9% of the 

construction cost. 

ITER's primary technical goal is to produce plasmas that produce 10 times more fusion power 

than is being injected into the plasma from external means. "(he plasm_a§. in ITER _;y_ill_r_each 

150,000,QQQ_0hJ!p.Jlr_oaching 10 times the temperature of the core of the Sun. At these 

temperatures, the plasma will enter a state in which the heating from the fusion-produced alpha 

particles will exceed the heating applied from external sources such that the plasma becomes 

highly dependent on its own self-organization processes and less on external control (a state 

known as the 'burning plasma' regime). 

The recently released interim rcporttt from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research affirmed the 

importance of research in this regime and of ITER itself stating: 

"Any strategy to develop magnetic.fi1sion energy requires study of a burning plasma. The only 

existing project to create a burning plasma at the scale of a power plant is ITER, which is a 

major component of the U.S. fusion energy program. As an ITER partner, the United States 

benefits from the long-recognized value of international cooperation to combine the scientific 

and engineering expertise, industrial capacity, and financial resources necessary for such an 

inherently large project. A decision by the United States to withdraw from the ITER project as 

the primary experimental burning plasma component within a balanced long-term strategic 

plan for .fitsion energy could isolate U.S. fiision scientists _from the international effort and 

would require the United States to develop a new approach to study a burning plasma. " 

ITER is a highly leveraged investment for the U.S., requiring a 9% of cost investment in return 

for 100% of the technical information that will be leamed from ITER, including the technical 

know-how developed in the other ITER parties. Over 80% of the U.S. funding is being used to 

fabricate components and establish technical expertise in the U.S .. including the ITER Central 

Solenoid being built at General Atomics. 

Following a management restructuring in 2015, ITER construction has accelerated with delivery 

"https://www.usiter.org/fusion/U.S. ITER Factsheet.pdf 

"National Academics of Sciences, E-;,ginee~ing. and Medicine. 2017. Interim Report of the Committee on a 

Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

https://doi.org/10.17226/24971. 

5 
55 

of several key components to the ITER site and construction advancing at a rapid pace. The 

most important action in this restructuring was the naming of a new Director General (Bernard 

Bigot) who in March of 2015 presented an action plan and was given the authority required to 

manage this project effectively. This restructuring has resulted in a better-equipped, more nimble 

organization capable of responding to emerging needs in a timely, effective manner. This is 

evidenced by the fact that. since 2015, project milestones have consistently been met on or ahead 

of schedule§§ This progress has taken 

the ITER project past the 50% 

completion mark for systems that are 

required for first plasma in 2025. For 

its part, the U.S. successfully delivered 

on two major components in FY17: the 

jacketed superconductors needed for 

toroidal field coil fabrication and its 

75% share of the steady-state electrical 

network for powering the non-pulsed 

loads on the ITER site. However, at 

present funding levels, the U.S. is at 

risk of falling behind on its deliveries, 

and its hardware contributions could 

become the pacing items for ITER 

assembly. 

Recommendations for enabling a strong U.S. program in magnetic fusion 

The future of fusion research in the 1J .S. is captured well by three assessments made by the 

aforementioned NAS Committee in their interim report: 

• "Construction and operation of a burning plasma experiment is a critical.. hut no/ 

next step toward the reali::ation of commercial .fi1sion energy. In addition to a 

plasma experiment. flirt her research is needed to improve and fitlly enahle the fits ion 

power system. " 

"Recent closures ol domestic fcrcilities without new starts, as well as a 

reduction o{ji1sion technology threaten the health ofthe.field in the United States." 

our internal ional partners have national strategic plans leading to a ji1sion 

oPnun?<'rNmr>n device, the L'nited States does not." 

These three statements convey three important points: 1) U.S. participation in ITER is critical but 

significantly more R&D remains beyond ITER to realize fusion energy; 2) the U.S. program is 

suffering due to the lack of new investment: and 3) the U.S. needs a strategic plan that catalyzes 

research on key enabling areas required in the demonstration of the practicality of fusion energy. 

I would like to offer the following recommendations for this Committee in considering the 

appropriate steps to take to enhance fusion energy development in the U.S.: 

A set of photographs depicting the achievement ofkey milestones can be found at 

https:/ lwww. iter .org/album/Media/5%20-%20S ite1Yo20milestones 

6 
56 

The US. government should establish a clear, coordinated policy on the importance of 

ji1sion energy as a national strategic interest. At present, such clarity is missing and leads 

to the inability of the U.S. to plan for a program that moves coherently in any specific 

direction. As an example, the recent charge to the National Academy of Sciences 

committee read "The committee may assume that economical fusion energy within the 

next several decades is a U.S. strategic interest." Yet, funding levels in the U.S. are only 

sufficient to carry out a modest scientific program and well below levels required for 

even moderately-paced development of fusion energy."' In such a climate, discussions 

on what/how/when to make new investments arc extremely challenging as individuals 

must lean on their own assessments of the appropriate U.S. policy. Given the potential of 

fusion as a future energy source, it seems appropriate that the U.S. adopt a policy that 

includes fusion in its national energy plan. This plan should specify certain energy 

development milestones that serve to both motivate and direct funding in the 

development of the science and technology of fusion. 

Consistent with developing fusion as a national strategic interest in the next several 

decades, the US. should make a firm commitment to fully .fimd the ITER project. As 

noted previously, the scope of the ITER project is far beyond anything the U.S. could 

achieve on its own. For a highly leveraged investment, ITER will provide U.S. 

researchers with a research platform of unparalleled capabilities and access to burning 

plasmas. This is a unique and timely opportunity that we should not pass up. 

The Office of Science, in concert with the US. ji1sion community, should develop a 

strategic plan that dejlnes a distinctive pathwaY.fiJr U.S. fusion energy development while 

at the same time taking advantage of the considerable investment that is being made 

worldwide. The fusion endeavor is a grand challenge for the nation and the world. As we 

move closer to achieving fusion, with larger and more fusion-capable experiments, it will 

become even more essential to engage the best minds from universities, labs, industry in 

resolving the key challenges. Therefore, such a plan should include investment in new 

capabilities either through upgrades or new facilities with the goal of delivering worldclass research platforms. This will be essential in attracting, engaging, and maintaining 

top talent that can work together to provide innovative solutions to key challenges, 

leadership and support for the success of ITER, and the ability to envision, construct, and 

operate new larger and more complex facilities. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share my views on the future of fusion energy research in the 

U.S. I look forward to working with the Committee members to develop and implement 

impactful approaches to ensure that magnetic fusion becomes a major part of the U.S.'s energy 

future. 

'" https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi le:U.S._ historical_ fusion_ budget_ vs._1976 _ERDA _plan.png 

7 
57 

Mickey R. Wade 

Dr. Mickey R. Wade is the Director of Advanced Fusion 

Systems of the Magnetic Fusion Division at General 

Atomics in San Diego, CA. Prior to serving in this role, Dr. 

Wade was the Director of the DI!l-D National Fusion 

Program, the fusion research program in the US with 

~500 researchers from over 90 institutions from around the 

world. Dr. Wade received his Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering 

from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1991. He is the 

author of over 30 first-author papers. a Fellow of the 

American Physical Society, and has served on the Editorial 

Boards of Nuclear Fusion and Physics of Plasmas. 

Dr. Wade has played an active role in the ITER project and fusion development 

throughout his career. His research and leadership played a significant role in 

establishing confidence that ITER can successfully achieve and possibly exceed its 

technical objectives. He worked as part of an international team that developed the ITER 

Research Plan, which still serves as the primary document for ITER's approach to 

achieving its technical goals. Subsequently, he served on the ITER Management 

Advisory Committee, whose role is to advise the ITER Council on management issues of 

the ITER Project. 

In 2017, Dr. Wade was awarded a Chinese Academy of Sciences President's 

International Fellowship for Visiting Scientists. Over the past year. Dr. Wade has served 

as a co-chair of the U.S. Magnetic Fusion Research Strategic Directions community 

workshops, which have provided a forum for U.S. scientists to propose, debate, and 

identify compelling program elements for the U.S. fusion program. 
58 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Doctor. 

Doctor, is it Herrmann or Herrmann? 

Dr. HERRMANN. It’s Herrmann. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. You’re recognized for five minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. MARK HERRMANN, DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY, 

LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Dr. HERRMANN. Thank you. Chairman Weber, Congresswoman 

Lofgren, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this Committee and offer testimony on the 

future of fusion energy research. 

As was already mentioned, I’m the Director of the National Ignition Facility, or NIF, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 

which is sponsored by the National Nuclear Security Administration. NIF is a football stadium-sized facility containing the world’s 

most energetic laser. I’ve had the pleasure of giving NIF tours to 

several Members of the Committee and of course would be happy 

to show off the incredible work done by our scientists and engineers to those of you who haven’t had a chance to visit. 

NIF’s lasers are focused on targets smaller than a pencil eraser 

to create conditions of very high temperatures and pressures called 

high-energy density or HED. Since greater than 99 percent of the 

yield of our nuclear weapons comes in the HED state, HED experiments are a critical component of the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program, which has the goal of ensuring that our nuclear 

stockpile remains safe, secure, and effective in the absence of further explosive nuclear underground testing. 

In addition to NIF, the Z–Pulsed Power Facility, and the 

OMEGA Laser Facility play complementary roles in the Stockpile 

Stewardship Program. Experiments on NIF are providing data in 

important regimes to both enhance and test our simulations of our 

nuclear weapons. Simulations are incredibly powerful tools, especially now that we’re getting better and better computers, but it is 

essential that they be compared to data in order to avoid getting 

the wrong answers. NIF, Z, and OMEGA also play a major role in 

recruiting and training the scientists and engineers who are the 

next generation of stockpile stewards. 

One of stewardship’s grand scientific challenges established at 

the birth of the program is to achieve fusion ignition in the laboratory. Ignition is when the energy released from the fusion reactions 

further heats the fusion fuel referred to self-heating—referred to as 

self-heating—leading to more reactions and a large release of energy. Pursuit of ignition provides the United States with an experimental platform to study many incompletely understood aspects of 

nuclear weapons performance. In contrast to magnetic confinement 

fusion, inertia confinement fusion is obtained by squeezing the fusion fuel to higher pressures and temperatures than found at the 

center of the sun. 

Early experiments on NIF ending in 2012 fell far short of achieving ignition, despite optimistic projections. A number of experiments were then performed, and many gaps in our understanding 

were identified. In 2016, NNSA established a goal for 2020 to assess the efficacy of NIF for achieving ignition. Today, we are on 
59 

track at the halfway point of that goal. In fact, last year, improvements enabled the fusion yield on the best implosions on NIF to 

date to more than double the previous record yield to over 50 

kilojoules. That’s 25 times higher than the fusion yields in 2012. 

These implosions have demonstrated modest self-heating, a critical 

step on the path to ignition that’s akin to trying to light a campfire 

and having the wood start to smoke. 

Simulations suggest that a 30 percent enhancement in either the 

pressure or the confinement time of this plasma would bring us to 

ignition, although it is possible to—that the simulations could be 

wrong, which is why, of course, we do experiments. 

We are now pursuing several exciting directions for improving 

the fusion yield at NIF. If ignition is obtained on NIF, it would be 

the first time ever in the laboratory, and such a breakthrough 

could open the path—a possible path to inertial fusion energy, or 

IFE, that could have significantly different technological risks than 

magnetic fusion approaches we’ve been hearing about today. An 

IFE system would work by using a driver like a laser to ignite targets multiple times per second. To be clear, NNSA does not have 

an energy mission, and IFE research is not being performed at NIF 

today. 

The National Academy of Sciences studied IFE in 2013, and their 

report concluded that the appropriate time for the establishment of 

a national coordinated broad-based IFE program within DOE 

would be when ignition is achieved. However, the committee also 

concluded that the potential benefits of energy from ICF also provide a compelling rationale for including IFE R&D as part of the 

long-term R&D portfolio for the—for U.S. energy. This is an important conclusion of the NAS report. 

A number of promising technologies highlighted in the NAS report as key to eventual IFE systems are making steady progress, 

but without an IFE program, the United States is not in a position 

to assess the significance of these advances. 

A modest IFE investment is all the more justified, given that the 

United States leads the world in the high-energy density science. 

NIF, for example, operates with 10 times the energy of the next 

largest laser in the world, which is in China. 

There are few remaining fields of science where the United 

States currently maintains such a lead over the rest of the world. 

This world leadership, along with the compelling scientific opportunities such as the grand challenge of ignition, have been a magnet 

for the best and brightest scientists and engineers to pursue research on the NIF and to join the Stockpile Stewardship Program. 

Today, the rest of the world is aggressively catching up. NIFscale lasers are under construction in both France and Russia, the 

Chinese are exploring designs for lasers that are 1.5 to 3 times 

NIF’s scale, and in high-intensity lasers the leadership has shifted 

from the United States where they were invented to Europe and 

Asia, as noted in a recent NAS study. 

While the world is investing more in HED science the fiscal year 

2019 President’s budget requests reducing funding for the national 

ICF program by more than 20 percent relative to fiscal year 2017, 

a reduction of more than $100 million. The proposed budget reduces funding for NIF by more than $60 million, zeroes support for 
60 

target fabrication at General Atomics, and includes major cuts to 

the OMEGA Laser Facility, putting the facility on a path to closure 

over the next three years. 

The academic programs that are essential to the field’s future are 

also zeroed. Together, these cuts cripple our academic partners and 

could lead to the loss of a generation of early-career HED scientists 

and students. At Livermore, the proposed cuts will lead to a major 

disruption in our ability to provide the HED experiments needed 

to support both near-term and long-term stewardship deliverables, 

and the cuts will strongly impact the pursuit of fusion ignition, 

leading to a multiyear delay of the goals set out in 2020. 

We’re close—we are working closely with NNSA and our national 

partners to manage the impacts of these cuts should they be enacted and remain focused on the highest priority deliverables of the 

stewardship program, but they must—it must be understood that 

these cuts will have major negative implications for U.S. leadership 

in HED science and fusion research. 

Thank you again for your time, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Herrmann follows:] 
61 

Written Testimony of Mark Herrmann 

Director, National Ignition Facility 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Delivered to the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Energy 

United States House of Representatives 

Hearing on the Future of Fusion Energy Research 

March 6, 2018 

Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Veasey, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before this committee and to offer testimony on the future of fusion energy 

research. My name is Mark Herrmann, and I have been the Director of the National Ignition Facility 

(NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) since 2014. Prior to becoming NIF Director, I 

spent 9 years at the Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) holding a number of positions, including Director 

of the Pulsed Power Sciences Center that is home to the Z Pulsed Power Facility. I have been involved in 

inertial confinement fusion research for 20 years, beginning my career at LLNL after completing my 

thesis research at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. 

With my testimony, I hope to convey several points: 

The NIF, along with the Z Pulsed Power Facility, and the Omega Laser Facility at the University 

of Rochester, are world-leading scientific capabilities funded by the Inertial Confinement Fusion 

(ICF) Ignition and High Yield Program of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 

as part of the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP). Al13 facilities are providing experimental 

data and workforce training in the high energy density regimes needed to maintain a safe, secure, 

and effective U.S. nuclear deterrent without further underground nuclear testing. 

One of the major efforts of the national JCF program and the NIF is to achieve fusion ignition in 

the laboratory to address a grand challenge established at the beginning of the stewardship 

program. In 2016, NNSA established a 2020 goal for the JCF program to assess the efficacy of 

NIF for achieving ignition. LLNL and the ICF community developed a 4-year plan to meet that 

goal, and we are on track at the halfway point. Recently there has been exciting progress in the 

performance ofNIF implosions resulting in a doubling of the fusion yield. 

If ignition can be achieved, it could pave the way to a broad, national, coordinated plan to pursue 

Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE), which is an innovative, alternative path that is complementary to 

mainstream magnetic fhsion energy research. Currently !FE is not part of the long-term energy 

R&D portfolio of the U.S. and is not being researched at LLNL. 

The United States is the acknowledged world leader in the area of high energy density science, 

thanks to investment by the NNSA and DOE, and broad collaborations arc exploiting these 

capabilities to perform world leading science and develop advanced technology. However, the 

U.S. lead is rapidly shrinking and there arc some subfields ofHED research where the U.S. is 

now behind. 

The FYI9 President's Budget Request for the ICF program will lead to major reductions in 

experiments at NIF and the closure of the Omega Laser Facility, substantially impacting our 

ability to support the Stockpile Stewardship Program, significantly delaying the pursuit of fusion 

ignition, and disrupting the pipeline of future HED scientists and stockpile stewards. 

• The National Academy of Sciences Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma 

Research has recently released its interim report, which calls for a long term strategic plan for 

fusion energy. 
62 

The National Ignition Facility is delivering for the Stockpile Stewardship Program 

Most of the yield of our thermonuclear weapons is generated in the High Energy Density (HED) state. 

With the cessation of underground nuclear testing in 1992 and the creation of the Science Based Stockpile 

Stewardship Program (SSP) in the 1990s, it was recognized that an enduring Stewardship Program would 

require experimental access to HED regimes to ensure the U.S. nuclear stockpile remains safe, secure, 

and effective without further underground nuclear testing. 

The three major U.S. HED facilities funded by the NNSA are N!F, the Z Pulsed Power Facility at SNL, 

and the Omega Laser Facility at the University of Rochester. These facilities work together in 

complementary ways to perform the scientific experiments needed for the SSP. 

NIF is a football-stadium-sized facility that houses the world's most energetic laser, (approximately 60 

times more energetic than any other laser in the world when it was completed in 2009). NIF' s 192 lasers 

can focus into a target smaller than a dime, creating conditions hotter and denser than those found at the 

center of the Sun. NIF is being used by stockpile stewards at all three weapons laboratories to obtain 

critical data in support of the SSP. For example, experiments on NIF are: 

• Illuminating key weapons physics issues left unanswered when underground testing stopped, 

enabling sustainment of the cunent U.S. nuclear stockpile. 

Providing information that is used to develop and certifY the approaches to modernizing our U.S. 

nuclear weapon systems without additional underground explosive nuclear testing. 

Ensuring the nation is aware of and can assess advances in the nuclear weapons of other nations 

and avoid technological surprise. 

Providing experimental data that enables tests of our numerical simulation design codes and is 

used for the ph;:,ics models critical to the predictive capability that underpins the science-based 

SSP. 

Over the last four years we have doubled the rate of experiments on NIF, despite flat funding, helping to 

reduce oversubscription for this unique capability in the world. Recent accomplishments for the 

Stewardship Program include: 

LLNL scientists have performed experiments to measure the behavior of plutonium at high 

pressure for the first time --- previously, only theoretical predictions existed. Experimental data 

agrees with theory in some regimes and differs from theory in others. 

Los Alamos National Laboratory(LANL) scientists have applied NIF to study the hydrodynamic 

evolution of sheared flows in never before accessed, relevant regimes. These experiments have 

led to the development of new models to be consistent with the experimental data. 

SNL scientists have used NIF to study the effects oflarge x-ray and neutron bursts on test objects 

to help validate codes that are used to ensure our system's nuclear survivability. 

In addition to the experimental data that HED facilities like NIF provide, they also play a major role in 

recruiting and training the scientists and engineers who are the next generation of stockpile stewards. In the 

absence of underground nuclear testing, NIF experiments, particularly ignition experiments discussed 

below provide an important training ground for our cun·ent andjiilure workforce in the skills needed to be 

successful as stockpile stewards. This experience is so valuable that, in fact, many of the cunent leaders of 

the SSP have participated in various aspects of the national ICF program. 
63 

NIF is on track to meet the NNSA milestones laid ont for fusion ignition research in 2020 

At the beginning of the SSP, a grand challenge goal was set of achieving ignition in the laboratory, to 

address the most challenging outstanding questions in weapons physics. NIF is the only fully operational 

facility in the world that is capable of achieving thermonuclear fusion ignition in the laboratory via 

inertial confinement fusion (ICF). Like magnetic confinement fusion research, ICF research focuses on 

heating a deuterium-tritium plasma up to the extreme temperatures (>50,000,000K) needed for the fusion 

reactions to self-heat the plasma, potentially leading to the release of more energy than was invested in 

the creation of the plasma. Unlike magnetic confinement fusion, which uses a large magnetic field in a 

large volume to confine the plasma, inertial confinement fusion relies on the inertia of the deuterium and 

tritium fusion fuel squeezed to incredibly extreme conditions (higher density and pressure than the center 

of our Sun) to provide the confinement. 

Thermonuclear fusion ignition is a process that is critical for our nuclear weapons but is tremendously 

difficult to achieve with the energy levels available in the laboratory. Pursuit of thermonuclear fusion 

ignition in the laboratory provides the U.S. with insights into one of the least understood aspects of our 

modem nuclear weapons by providing experimental data to compare with our modem simulations, giving 

us critical insights into similar processes taking place in our weapons. In addition, the achievement of this 

grand scientific challenge, would open entirely new vistas of high energy density science and enable 

access to regimes even more relevant for stockpile stewardship in the future. 

In a NIF ICF experiment, the powerful laser beams are directed into the inside of a hollow cylinder of 

gold (about the size of a pencil eraser) forming a miniature x-ray oven. Inside the cylinder, the x-rays 

heat a BB sized plastic capsule that contains the thermonuclear deuterium and tritium fuel, causing it to 

implode on itself at close to one million miles an hour and shrinking in size from a peppercorn to 

something 1/10 the size of the period at the end of this sentence. This implosion generates the extreme 

conditions needed for thermonuclear fusion reactions to take place. Our best simulations using our most 

powerful computers suggest that given sufficient control over the implosion, fusion ignition will take 

place and lead to the release of significantly more energy than the laser energy N!F used to create the 

implosion. 

Early experiments ending in 2012 fell far short of achieving fusion ignition, despite optimistic projections 

from our best simulations at that time. A number of additional experiments were then performed to 

identify the gaps in our simulation capability. In 2015, NNSA chartered a review of the national ignition 

effort, and based on that review NNSA released a report in 2016, setting up a principal goal of the 

ignition effort "by 2020, to detennine the efficacy of NIF for achieving ignition and the credible physics 

scaling to multi-megajoulcs of fusion yields for each of the major ICF approaches".' 

The LLNL ignition program, in partnership with LANL, is now half-way through the plan that was 

developed in response to NNSA 's 2020 goal. As part of that plan -by utilizing clever experiments, 

advanced diagnostics, and new target designs- we've made a number of significant advances in 

understanding that have translated into improved implosion perfotmance and higher fusion yield. 

In fact, in 2017, changes to the targets used in the experiments enabled the fits ion yield in the best 

implosions on NIF to more than double the previous record, to over 50 kl, or 25x higher than fusion 

yields in 20 I 2. The best implosions have demonstrated that the fusion plasma is slatting to heat itself, a 

critical step on the path to ignition and akin to trying to light a campfire and having the wood start to 

smoke. Ctment supercomputer simulations suggest that a 30% enhancement in the pressure or the 

• NNSA report DOE/NA-0044, 2016/nertial Confinement Fusion Program Framework 
64 

confinement time of this extreme plasma would bring us to the ignition threshold, although it is important 

to keep in mind that while these simulations are the best we know how to do - they could be wrong. 

Furthermore, there are a number of exciting avenues to pursue as we execute the plan to the 2020 goal. 

New target designs with bigger and better capsules are opening up larger parameter spaces for 

experiments, new diagnostics are shedding light on the differences between simulations and experiments, 

and advances in the science and technology of the NIF laser have opened up pathways to a 40% increase 

in laser energy, which further broadens the space for ignition. 

Ultimately the goal of the ignition effort on NIF is two-fold: to achieve ignition (greater than a mcgajoule 

of fusion yield) if it is possible, or to determine with high scientific confidence what is preventing ignition 

on NIF. In the event that ignition is not attainable on NIF, it is critically important that we understand 

why, as it is essential for the SSP to be aware of this shortfall in our capabilities. It also prepares us for 

the possibility of using alternate means to achieve ignition, either by modi tying NIF or by developing 

another ignition capable facility. 

Progress on Inertial Confinement Fusion could provide an alternative path to fusion energy 

If inertial confinement fusion ignition is obtained on N!F, it would be the first time in the laboratory that a 

fusion reaction released more energy than was used to generate the reaction. Such a breakthrough could 

fonn the basis of a possible path to fusion energy that would have significantly different technological 

and engineering risks than the concepts being pursued for magnetic fusion energy. To be clear, however, 

NNSA does not have an energy mission and, therefore, no NNSA resources are being used for !FE 

research at LLNL. 

It is important to acknowledge upfront, like all approaches to fusion energy, that there are a large number 

of technological, engineering, and scientific challenges to !FE. An !FE system would work by using a 

driver (such as a laser) to implode an injected target to fusion ignition and yield conditions multiple times 

per second. There are very significant technical hurdles that would need to be overcome in developing 

drivers that can operate multiple times per second, in building and injecting ignition quality targets 

multiple times per second, and in protecting the entire system from the harsh fusion environment 

associated with large, repeated fusion yields. Furthennore, each of these systems will have to be 

developed at significantly reduced costs from current levels in order for any energy produced to be 

economical. 

The National Academy of Sciences studied this problem and released an excellent, detailed report in 2013 

entitled "An Assessment of the Prospects for Inertial Fusion Energy"_t A number of conclusions and 

recommendations were made, including a recommendation to continue progress in target physics research 

on the various approaches to inertial confinement being pursued on NIF, Z, and Omega facilities. The 

report was clear in concluding that "The appropriate time for the establishment of a national, coordinated, 

broad-based inertial fusion energy program within DOE would be when ignition is achieved".! In my 

opinion a national, coordinated, broad-based !FE program should await fusion ignition. 

Nevertheless the committee also concluded: "The potential benefits of energy from inertial confinement 

fusion (abundant fuel, minimal greenhouse gas emissions, and limited high-level radioactive waste 

requiring long-term disposal) also provide a compelling rationale for including inertial fusion energy 

R&D as part of the long-tetm R&D portfolio for U.S. energy. A portfolio strategy hedges against 

1 An Assessment of the Prospects for Inertial Fusion Energy, Committee on the Prospects for Inertial 

Confinement Fusion Energy Systems, NRC (National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2013). 

'Ibid. 
65 

uncertainties in the future availability of alternatives such as those that arise from unforeseen 

circutnstances."§ 

The idea that a portfolio strategy should include inertial fusion energy R&D is an important conclusion of 

the NAS report. This is particularly true because the DOE is in an excellent position to make rapid 

progress in this area by leveraging the large investment being made in many emerging technologies and 

by the NNSA in ICF research. 

As an example of the benefits that would accrue from a small !FE portfolio, a number of promising 

technologies highlighted in the NAS report as key to eventual !FE systems are making steady progress. In 

particular, there have been exciting advances in rep-rated laser technology and rep-rated pulsed power 

technology in the U.S. over the last few years, potentially lowering the cost of a future driver for an !FE 

system. Additive manufacturing and other automated manufacturing techniques arc becoming more cost 

effective and arc being used as part of the cmTent target fabrication effort on NIF. Research in the 

magnetic fusion community is advancing the potential of liquid metals as first wall materials for fusion 

reactors, which could also benefit !FE. Unfortunately, without even a minimal !FE program, the U.S. is 

not in a position to assess the significance of these advances for a potential future !FE system. 

The U.S. is the world leader in high energy density science, although that lead is rapidly shrinking 

As discussed above, the U.S. investments supported by NNSA and the DOE have made the U.S. the 

world leader in this area of science, giving the U.S. a competitive advantage and demonstrating to the 

world our commitment to maintaining a safe, secure, and effective deterrent. As an example, when 

completed in 2009, NIF operated with 60x more energy than the next biggest laser in the world, which 

was the Omega Laser Facility, also in the US. Now, nearly a decade later, NIF operates with I0-20x the 

energy of the next most energetic laser, which is in China. A very similar statement could be made about 

the Z facility 10 years ago, with the second most energetic pulsed power facility located in the U.S. in 

2009 and in China today. There are few fields of science today where the U.S. has had, and currently 

maintains, such a large lead over the rest of the world. This lead exists not only in facility capabilities hut 

also in diagnostics, targets, simulations, and scientific output and publications. This world leadership 

along with the compelling scientific opportunities- especially the grand challenge of inertial confinement 

.fits ion ignition and the potential of a path to inertial fits ion energy- has been a magnet for the best and 

brightest scientists and engineers to pursue research in HED science and to work as part of the SSP. 

To ensure healthy engagement with the out>ide cornrntmity NNSA, has established cooperative research 

programs on NIF, Omega, and Z that provide a small fraction of the facility experimental time to 

academic researchers at other institutions. The proposals arc judged on their scientific merit and technical 

feasibility by external scientific committees and the outside researchers are awarded time on NIF, Omega, 

and Z to leverage these incredible investments for fundamental scientific studies. For example, academic 

researchers on NNSA facilities have been studying how the fundamental properties of matter change as 

the materials are squeezed to higher and higher pressures. These questions are of fundamental scientific 

interest, are impotiant to understand the structure of planets, and could possibly lead to the discovety of 

new materials with unique properties and potentially commercial applications. 

Such science is also of high interest in the world wide academic community and publications from these 

cooperative research programs frequently appear in Nature, Science, and Physical Review Letters, and 

other prestigious journals. This research and these publications are an avenue for NNSA researchers to 

interact with the outside world, and a very effective advertisement for recruiting students to the 

Laboratories and into the SSP. Furthermore. the world-class research that our Lab scientists are 

'Ibid. 
66 

publishing is one of the most visible manifestatiom of our deterrent, since the credibility of' the deterrent 

ultimately rests on the quality of the people in the stewardship program. Last but not least, several of 

these academically-led experiments have developed new and innovative approaches to HED science that 

have then been adopted for usc in addressing core SSP questions. 

The world leading nature ofNNSA's ICF facilities requires cutting edge science and technology, that in 

tum leads to many spinoff benefits. For example, NIF requires unique capabilities in lasers, optics, 

precision target fabrication, diagnostics, and computer controls. Developments in these areas have led to a 

large number of R&D I 00 awards over the years and a proliferation of ideas that support our national 

security (e.g. direct energy weapons) and our economic competitiveness (e.g. Extreme Ultraviolet 

Lithography). 

While historically we have had an impressive lead in HED science, it is clear today that the rest of the 

world is aggressively focusing on catching up. Currently, megajoule (NIF) scale lasers are under 

construction in both France and Russia. The Chinese have completed and are operating the second most 

energetic laser in the world and are publishing papers with designs for lasers 50% to three times the size 

ofNIF (note that having more energy makes achieving inertial confinement fusion ignition easier). 

The area of high intensity lasers is a particularly noteworthy example. Researchers in the U.S. pioneered 

the field of high intensity lasers. These lasers reach more extreme conditions not by increasing the energy 

delivered, but by reducing the duration of the laser pulse, achieving higher and higher powers as the 

duration is reduced. In the 1990's, LLNL broke the petawatt (10"15 watts) barrier with the constmction 

of the Nova Petawatt. A number of novel and important new properties emerged at the high intensities 

that these new lasers enabled, and since then dozens of petawatt class lasers have been built and 

thousands of publications on the exciting science in this area were published over the next 20 years. In 

December, the National Academy of Sciences published a report on "Opportunities in Intense Ultrafast 

Lasers: Reaching for the Brightest Light". A key conclusion from this report is that the: 

"The U.S. has lost its previous dominance. The United States was the leading innovator and 

dominant user of high-intensity laser technology when it was developed in the 1990s, but Europe 

and Asia have now grown to dominate this sector through coordinated national and regional 

research and infrastmcture programs. In Europe, this has stimulated the emergence of the 

Extreme Light Infrastructure (ELI) program. At present, 80 to 90 percent of the high-intensity 

laser systems are overseas, and all of the highest power (multi-petawatt) research lasers currently 

in constmction or already built are overseas"." 

The FYl9 President's Budget Request (PBR) for the Inertial Confinement "Fusion Program will 

significantly delay pursuit of fusion ignition as a goal for the SSP, make significant cuts to the 

National Ignition .Facility, and lead to the closure of the Omega Laser Facility. 

NNSA 's FYI9 PBR reducesfimdingfor the nalionallCFprogram by more than 20% relative to FY17, a 

reduction of more than $100M nationally, and reduces funding for the ICF Program at LLNL by $59M-

$73 M (depending on .final FY/8 funding level and including effects of cost shift for large/fabrication). 

The budget request also includes drastic cuts to the Laborat01y for Laser Energetics at the University of 

Rochester, an essential partner for LLNL. NJF, and the national ICF program. In particular, the request 

for LLE is $45M, a reduction of $28M-35M (depending on final FYI8fimding level and including cost 

shififor targetfi:tbrication). The budget document states that the Omega Laser Facility will be closed over 

the next three years. The target fabrication budget for General Atomics and Schafer, which have been 

** Opportunities in Intense Ultrafast Lasers: Reaching for the Brightest Light, Committee on 

Opportunities in the Science, Applications, and Technology of Intense Ultrafast Lasers; NAS (National 

Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2017). 
67 

strong partners in enabling many of the advances of the nationaliCF program for decades, has been 

zeroed. Finally, the academic programs that are key to the field's future are reduced from $9.5M to 

zero. Coupled with the reductions at the Omega Laser Facility, where many academics and their 

students perform their research, these cuts cripple our academic partners and could lead to the loss ala 

generation of graduate students doing research in the field of HED science and discourage students and 

early career scientists jrom pursuing careers in this area ol HED science. 

L LNL is working closely with NNSA and our national partners in the ICF Program to minimize the 

impact of these cuts should they be enacted and to remain focused on the highest priority deliverables for 

the SSP. A detailed implementation plan has not yet been developed, but it is our assessment that 

reductions in funding of this magnitude to the ICF Program will lead to major disruption and reduction in 

our ability to provide the data needed in support of both near- and long-term SSP deliverablcs. We also 

assess that the cuts will significantly delay the pursuit of fi1sion ignition and yield on the NJF, and means 

we will not meet the NNSA goal set out for 2020. At LLNL, the proposed budget eliminates funding for 

nearly half of the scientists and engineers working on the ignition effort, representing a significant portion 

of the U.S. expertise in this area. Since almost every HED experiment supporting SSP has arisen from 

tools or capabilities initially developed to address the grand scientific challenge of ignition, these cuts will 

affect the long-term prospects for providing the data needed for the Stewardship program, and negatively 

a!Tect recruitment and retention of stockpile stewards. 

The proposed cuts at LLNL, coupled with the reduction at other sites, will impact every aspect of the 

operations of NIF. They will lead to a reduction in operating hours and experiments performed (> 30%) as 

resources arc shifted to maintain critical skills and fill needed capabilities lost by reductions to partner 

institutions. The reduction in experiments performed will impact all users ofNIF, reducing opportunities 

for stockpile stewards, greatly reducing ignition research, and reducing opportunities for the academic 

community and users pursuing other important national security applications on NIF. NIF will also need 

to significantly reduce its peak laser power and energy, affecting the fidelity of many experiments. 

Unique experimental capabilities that have been developed for addressing challenging weapons physics 

issues will need to be placed in cold standby. As such, these proposed reductions will lead a degradation 

of NIF's capabilities over time. The cuts to the University of Rochester Laboratory for Laser Energetics 

will eliminate the efficient development of new experimental platforms on Omega that are eventually 

fielded on NIF, significantly increasing the time it takes to develop platforms needed for weapons 

physics. 

Obviously, if these cuts were to be enacted it would be devastating to our field with impacts beginning 

today and persisting well into the future. When viewed through the lens of developments around the 

world, these reductions would slow the U.S. down significantly at a time when the rest of the world is 

accelerating. 

The National Academy of Sciences Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma 

Research has recently released its interim report. 

While the focus of my own research for the last 20 years has been on inertial confinement fusion, I have 

remained an interested observer in all aspects of fusion energy research. Currently, I am serving on the 

National Academy of Sciences Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research which is 

focused on magnetic fusion energy research. Our committee, Co-Chaired by Professor Michael Mauel, 

Columbia University, and Professor Mel Shochet, University of Chicago, has recently released its interim 

report and is working now on the final report. 
68 

A brief summary of the main assessments from our interim report follows1L 

Any ji1sion strategy requires a burning plasma experiment. 

If the U.S. wishes to maintain leadership in this field, it needs to develop its own 

long-term strategic plan for fusion energy. 

Major Assessment: 

The only existing project to create a burning plasma at the scale of a power plant is ITER, which 

is a major component of the U.S. fusion energy program. 

As an ITER partner, the United States benefits from international cooperation to combine the 

scientific and engineering expertise, industrial capacity, and financial resources. 

• A decision by the United States to withdraw from the ITER project could isolate U.S. fusion 

scientists from the international effort and would require the United States to develop a new 

approach to study a burning plasma. 

Why is Burning Plasma Research Important? 

Burning plasma research is essential to the development of magnetic fils ion energy and contributes to 

advancements in plasma science, materials science, and the nation's industrial capacity to deliver hightechnology components. All efforts to make fusion energy require a burning plasma-an ionized gas like 

the Sun and stars that is heated by fusion reactions. Although significant fusion power has been created in 

the laboratory, a burning plasma, which is heated predominately by fusion reactions, has never been 

created. 

In addition to a burning plasma experiment, further research is needed to improve and fully enable the 

fusion power system. 

Status of U.S. Burning Plasma Research: 

• The U.S. fusion energy science program has made leading advances in burning plasma science 

that have substantially improved our confidence that a burning plasma experiment such as ITER 

will succeed in achieving its scientific mission. 

Recent closures of domestic experimental facilities without new starts, as well as a reduction of 

fusion technology efforts, threaten the health of the field in the United States. 

• Although our intemational partners have national strategic plans leading to a fusion energy 

demonstration device, the United States does not. 

If the United States wishes to maintain scientific and technical leadership in this field, the 

committee concludes that the United States needs to develop its own long-tenn strategic plan for fusion 

energy. In the development of the final report, the committee views the following elements as important 

to its guidance on a long-term strategic plan: 

Continued progress towards the construction and operation of a burning plasma experiment 

leading to the study of burning plasma, 

Research beyond what is done in a burning plasma experiment to improve and fully enable 

commercial fusion power, 

Innovation in tilsion science and technology targeted to improve the fusion power system as a 

commercial energy source, and 

A mission for fusion ener&'Y research that engages the participation of universities, national 

laboratories, and industry in the realization of commercial fusion power for the nation. 

tt Interim Report of the Committee on a Strategic Plan for U.S. Burning Plasma Research. (National 

Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2017) 
69 

Mark Herrmann 

Dr. Mark Herrmann is the director of the National Ignition Facility (NIF), the world's largest laser and a 

key experimental facility for the National Nuclear Security Administration's science-based Stockpile 

Stewardship Program (SSP) located at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. In this role Mark has 

leadership and management responsibility for the NIF and the 650 person team that operates, maintains, 

and develops its new strategic capabilities. Dr. Hemnann works closely with the leaders of the 

Stewardship program and the national Inertial Confinement Fusion and Experimental Science programs, 

as well as the National Security Applications and Discovery Science communities, to ensure NIF is 

delivering for the Stockpile Stewardship Program. 

Mark returned to LLNL to become the N!F Director in October 2014 after 9 years at Sandia National 

Laboratories, where he led research on the use of large magnetic fields generated by the Z facility to 

create and control high energy density matter. While at Sandia, Dr. Herrmann held a series of staff and 

management positions, including Director of the Pulsed Power Sciences Center. Prior to joining Sandia in 

2005, Mark was a physicist at LLNL, where his research focused on lnettial Confinement Fusion and 

high energy density science. Dr. Herrmann was awarded a Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists 

and Engineers, the American Physical Society Award for Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation in Plasma 

Physics, three NNSA Defense Programs Awards of Excellence, and the Fusion Power Associates 

Excellence in Fusion Engineering Award. Mark is a fellow of the American Physical Society. He 

received his undergraduate degrees from Washington University in St. Louis, and his Ph.D. from the 

Program in Plasma Physics at Princeton University. 
70 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you, Doctor. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes. 

Dr. Bigot, in your testimony you stress that ITER is an integrated project whose success relies on the performance of each of 

its constituent members. Be as specific as you can. Could you explain what would happen to the ITER project if the United States 

fails to meet our commitments to the ITER project? 

Dr. BIGOT. Thank you very much. It’s very clear that the United 

States has two roles, even three I would say. The first one is to provide in-kind components, and you understand maybe that this 

tokamak facility is a highly integrated facility in such a way that 

if a component is not onsite and under specification, on time, it will 

stop the whole project. 

The most important equipment which is to come soon is the central solenoid that we spoke about. It is the backbone I would say 

of the whole facility. As well there is the tokamak cooling water 

system is a system that will extract the heat from the tokamak. 

There are also several diagnostics, which are absolutely needed. 

You will see that indeed in 2018, 2019, 2020, most of the components have to be completed and to be delivered. If some of the component is not properly designed on time, it will impact everything. 

The second point is the ITER Organization. Beyond the responsibility of the United States, ITER Domestic Agency, National Oak 

Ridge Laboratory, the ITER Organization has a responsibility to install and assemble all these components coming from all over as 

well. In 2018, early 2019, I have to place all the nine assembly contracts with some leading companies in such a way that between 

2018 and 2024, six years, we will be able to assemble these components. 

So if the United States doesn’t provide the in-cash contribution, 

we will be behind budget. Right now, the United States has not 

paid the in-cash contribution in 2016, 2017. It’s something around 

70 million of euro owed, and for 2018, we have low expectation if 

we stay with the 63, so it’s very important that we keep in. 

Chairman WEBER. Thank you. My time is getting away from us 

a little bit. I appreciate that insight. 

Dr. Van Dam, let me come to you. Will the Department of Energy commit to honoring our obligations under the ITER agreement? What say you? 

Dr. VAN DAM. Well, I’m speaking on behalf of the Administration. As you know, the Administration is doing a review of all civil 

nuclear-energy-related activities. ITER has been included in that, 

and we are waiting for that to provide a decision about whether the 

United States stays in ITER or not. In the meantime, funding is 

provided for the two highest hardware systems that we’re providing. One was just mentioned, the central solenoid at General 

Atomics. The other is the tokamak cooling water system also mentioned. 

Chairman WEBER. Of course I served in the Texas Legislature 

with Governor Perry for four years. Do you know, is the Secretary 

aware of this project or how aware is he maybe I should ask you? 

Dr. VAN DAM. That may be beyond my pay grade, but I certainly 

hope he is. I know he’s had letters from people like Dr. Bigot and 

others, and they’ve been given to us to write responses—— 
71 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. 

Dr. VAN DAM. —and there is a visit coming up from state heads. 

Chairman WEBER. If I give you his cell phone, will you call him? 

Just—— 

Dr. VAN DAM. I remember him fondly from Texas. 

Chairman WEBER. Dr. Van Dam—— 

Mr. FOSTER. Would the Chairman yield for a moment on that? 

I can speak from personal experience. 

Chairman WEBER. Yes, sir. You bet. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, no, the Secretary is actually very plugged into 

it and very, very enthusiastic about this. He really, you know, sees 

his role as an advocate for the entire program of which—of fusion. 

I spent a day with him as he visited the two labs near my district, 

and so the answer is unquestionably yes. 

Chairman WEBER. Well, absolutely good to know. I appreciate 

the gentleman. 

Dr. Van Dam, next question. What type of research in advanced 

scientific computing and materials science do you think should be 

prioritized in order to support the Fusion Energy Science program 

in the next few years? 

Dr. VAN DAM. Yes. As you know, advanced computing is a priority of the Administration I think across the government, and for 

Fusion Energy Science we are looking to advances in exascale computing, which would really help us a lot. We have very, very big 

codes that we run and have been running for decades. 

Another area is data science, which includes machine learning, 

and we think there’s a strong potential for quantum information 

science to help our field, especially in applications. Now, was that 

the entirety of the question or was there—— 

Chairman WEBER. Yes, and I need to move on. I’m running out 

of time here if I may, so thank you for that answer. This is a question for all of you, so we’ll start with Dr. Bigot. 

Dr. Bigot, have you thought about or what impact do you think 

the commercialization of fusion energy could have on climate 

change? 

Dr. BIGOT. Really, as you know, many have found, okay, plasma 

and the burning plasma will deliver an energy without any impact 

on the climate. We just release helium if we release anything, and 

it is benign, chemically benign, no impact on the climate, no impact 

on the environment. So it’s one of the most important advantages 

we could expect from this technology. 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Dr. Van Dam, same question. 

Dr. VAN DAM. Yes, I would echo that answer and just say that 

if you look at certain Asian countries, for example, that have great 

problems with pollution and so forth, they are pursuing fusion very 

vigorously. 

Chairman WEBER. Right. And offline at some point I’d be interested in a discussion about the amount of energy that goes into the 

solenoid, the electromagnetic coil, how you get there, what produces that energy, and what it costs, but we’ll do that at a later 

date. 

Dr. Wade? 

Dr. WADE. Yes, I would just echo the same answer. I will point 

out that fusion has the potential to be a large baseload source of 
72 

electricity, which renewables, without battery storage, have a challenge doing that. So creating a carbon-free footprint with a large 

baseload will sort of transform how fusion is—and how energy is 

produced in this world so—— 

Chairman WEBER. Okay. Dr. Herrmann? 

Dr. HERRMANN. Just echoing my other fellow members here— 

committee—the fusion is a game-changer for the future energy 

sources of this planet, so it is—it takes a lot of work. It’s very hard 

to achieve fusion, but I think it’s definitely worth the investment 

that’s been made. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank you. I now recognize the gentlelady 

from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I was thinking about all of the great work that each 

one of our witnesses is doing, and I was thinking about the—specifically, the National Ignition Facility, which I’ve been interested 

in since its inception. I think I was there at the groundbreaking in 

’97, and certainly when we—there were some glitches in the construction, but ultimately at the opening—I remember I spoke at 

the opening. There was tremendous optimism at the time that ignition would be achieved in a very short time frame, and I remember 

saying all that will be left will be the engineering and people 

laughing. 

But here we are. It’s a slog. It’s a slog, and yet the stakes are 

very high for humanity and our future not only in terms of zeroemission energy but potentially even for remediation of damage 

that has already been done. So this is an investment that I think 

is essential for our future. 

In your testimony, Dr. Herrmann, you referenced the 2013 National Academy report that basically says the potential benefits of 

energy from inertial confinement fusion provide a compelling rationale for including inertial fusion energy R&D as part of the longterm R&D portfolio for U.S. energy. However, that followed their 

other statement, which basically said the appropriate time to establish national coordinated broad-based inertial fusion energy program within DOE would be after ignition is achieved. So if you 

don’t make the investment, you’ll never get ignition. Can you help 

us understand these two apparently conflicting comments? 

Dr. HERRMANN. Well, I guess I see it as—that they can be complementary in this way when ignition is achieved—and I think it’s 

a when, not an if—it will be, you know, a potential different path 

with different risks compared to magnetic fusion, so it’s an attractive option that mitigates risk in this high—this very technically 

risky endeavor. At that time it would be appropriate to have a very 

broad-based approach, which would mean we’re looking at the drivers, the targets, the chambers, everything that needs to be put together to develop an energy source. 

Until that time, though, it seems to me that it would be—would 

be in a better position if we were doing a small level of investment, 

a modest program that is looking at technology development because technology is moving forward, and then the United States 

would be in a position to really assess what are the impacts of 

these advances and be in a better position when ignition eventually 

happens. 
73 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, and I’d just like to note, I mean, 25 years 

ago when I first started meeting with fusion scientists, I came into 

the understanding that there are divisions, you know, magnetic 

and it’s almost a religious belief. I don’t share those conflicts. 

Whatever works, I’m for all the science, and I think as time has 

gone on, the scientists have gotten to that position as well. 

I understand—you know, actually in 2016, working with Secretary Moniz, I asked him to put together an assessment of the 

current status of federal support for inertial fusion energy and potential action items. He did with the career professionals in the Department. Now, we’ve had some personnel changes at DOE, but the 

career professionals are still there, and it’s my understanding that 

really this is not a partisan issue. It never has been and hopefully 

never will be. 

So, Dr. Van Dam, do you agree with the recommendations of the 

National Academies report that has been referenced in terms of the 

development of inertial fusion for energy applications, that they’re 

still worth addressing? Do you think we should find a way for 

strong merit reviewed proposal for inertial fusion energy research? 

Dr. VAN DAM. Thank you. And let me begin by saying thank you 

so much for your passionate interest in fusion energy, be it magnetic or inertial or both. The Administration follows the recommendation from the National Academy report that the appropriate time for the establishment of a coordinated program in inertial fusion energy would be when ignition is achieved, and so at the 

present time it does not support large-scale investment by the Office of Science at the present time. I’m sure that Dr. Herrmann’s 

efforts will bring that to pass soon. 

And our investments in FES are then appropriately limited as 

well. We do invest specifically in IFE technology through the SBIR 

program for drivers and diagnostics. At the same time, we are supporting the science that underlies IFE—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Dr. VAN DAM. —and HEDLP. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask you, Dr. Herrmann, I was stunned by 

your testimony that a 30 percent enhancement the models show us 

we get to ignition. Now, you’ve made tremendous changes in performance of the NIF in your tenure as Director since 2014. Is that 

enough to—if—absent significant reductions in support, can you 

envision getting that 30 percent? Can you tell us where you’re 

going to be or your best estimate with even support? 

Dr. HERRMANN. I frequently say you have to be an optimist to 

work in fusion. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Or to be in Congress. 

Dr. HERRMANN. We have, you know, very sophisticated simulations that guide us in the work we’re doing. We find—and when we 

do experiments—and we’ve been developing better diagnostics— 

that there are gaps between what our simulations say and what we 

observe. If we can close those gaps, then the simulations suggest 

that we should be able to get over the threshold and get to ignition. 

And we see promising paths forward. So we’re making progress, 

and that’s the reason for my optimism. But we don’t know until we 

get there—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Of course not. 
74 

Dr. HERRMANN. —if we’ll be able to get there or not. I feel like 

we’ve gone a big part of the way to where we need to get to, and 

so that’s—and I think there’s a large parameter space and an incredibly dedicated team of brilliant scientists and engineers working on it, so I think if we have the wherewithal to continue, we will 

eventually get there, but I don’t know. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I think my time is expired. I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentlelady. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized 

for five minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Van Dam, how much money has been spent on trying to 

produce fusion energy so far? 

Dr. VAN DAM. My goodness. By the United States or by— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, everybody, but United States and then 

everybody. 

Dr. VAN DAM. I would have to take that on as a homework assignment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You don’t know? 

Dr. VAN DAM. Well, are you talking about integrated over the 

past— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, we’re talking about a major project 

here. You don’t know how much money has been expended so far 

by the people who are engaged in this coalition to create fusion energy? 

Dr. VAN DAM. Are you speaking of ITER? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I’m not. I’m talking about fusion energy now. 

Dr. VAN DAM. We have a current fiscal year 2019 budget request of $340 million. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We do, right. 

Dr. VAN DAM. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And—— 

Dr. VAN DAM. To the Congress, and then it’s up to you of course. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Dr. VAN DAM. The fiscal year 2017 enacted was $380 million. Be- fore that it was a bit higher. It was running about $400 million per 

year. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So you know the budget for the last 

two or three years but before that—have we spent billions of dollars on fusion energy over the years and with our allies—— 

Dr. VAN DAM. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —billions and billions? How much—have we 

had any actual realization at all of something other than the computer models that suggest that we’re going to get there, if we had 

an ignition of fusion—manmade fusion energy? 

Dr. VAN DAM. Well, there are two examples, one in the United 

States, one in Europe. The U.S. example was the TFTR tokamak 

at Princeton. This was the late ’90s, and they got very close to 

breakeven. The Joint European Torus likewise around the same 

time got even— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Very close isn’t the—— 

Dr. VAN DAM. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —is not yet, right? 
75 

Dr. VAN DAM. Well, those were still smaller machines. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. But very close didn’t—doesn’t work. 

Dr. VAN DAM. Well, there’s breakeven and then there’s— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, we have manmade fusion energy. Do 

you have something that went on for a minute worth of fusion energy? No. 

Dr. VAN DAM. Well, national security applications, but they don’t 

last that long. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I mean—okay. Well, let us note that we’ve 

had very little physical evidence that is actually happening. We’ve 

got a lot of computer models here, and let me just note that I have 

seen—I’ve been here for a while. I actually—a lot of computer models that didn’t work, and is it possible that we will get to the end 

of this project and it won’t work? 

Dr. VAN DAM. I sincerely hope not, and the best— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That’s not—no, no, no, is it possible that it 

won’t work? 

Dr. VAN DAM. The best projections from experiments that we 

have done over the past decades and our experience, the database, 

the computer modeling, and the new technology that we have, we 

think it will definitely work. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We think, we think, we think. Okay. Let me 

just note this, that I would love to believe in the dream of fusion 

energy. I’d love to believe that. And it’s very—and it’s possible from 

what I’ve heard people say. It’s possible we will get there. But we 

know that with the expenditure of the kind of money that we’ve 

spent on fusion energy, we could have developed fission energy alternatives that are for sure not just computer models but are for 

sure. And we have nobody—when you’re interviewed about those 

model saying well, I think—no, they are very sure General 

Atomics, for example, has come up with a number of alternatives 

that they know they can complete. 

And I would suggest that with the limited amount of money that 

we have that we should be going for those things that we know we 

can actually do when it comes to the nuclear production—nuclear 

energy production of electricity. And this project has been going a 

number of years. We’re spending billions of dollars, and we still do 

not know for sure whether or not there will be the type of ignition 

that we keep spending money on. 

Let me just note that we do have byproducts that I—let me tip 

my hat to General Atomics and others involved in this project. Mr. 

Chairman, there are byproducts that we have had from this research that have permitted the development of new materials and 

things such as that that may in the end turn out to be worth the 

investment without fusion. But in terms of actually producing energy, I think the American people deserve us to go for a for-sure 

outcome of electricity that we could spend the same amount of 

money on rather than something that could work because the computer models tell us so. 

And, Dr. Bigot, go right ahead. I know you’re anxious to refute 

that or say something good about it. Please use my time to do that. 

Dr. BIGOT. If I may just a second— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 
76 

Dr. BIGOT. —from my point of view we have achieved what the 

computing modeling has been able to achieve, which means the 

JET we knew, it could not deliver more than 70 percent of the fusion power it received. 

Chairman WEBER. Was that 70 or 17? 

Dr. BIGOT. Seventy, seventy, 7–0, you see? Because of the size, 

is it not possible to have a net fusion power, but we had fusion 

power but not in the outcome. It’s why with ITER we need a larger 

tokamak. We need a larger vacuum vessel. And the expectation is 

to have 10 times the fusion power that we will feed in with the 

heating system, 500 megawatt of fusion power. 

So everybody in this audience has to understand there is a minimum size. If you want to get, okay, fusion power, you need to have 

sufficient number of fusion event per unit time in order to deliver. 

So my understanding is, so far, the computer modeling has done 

very well and is why from my point of view I am confident that 

if we are able to assemble properly all the components making this 

ITER facility, we will deliver. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WEBER. Now, if that hadn’t confused you, Congressman, he can keep talking. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Chairman WEBER. I think what he’s saying is that we’re making 

progress, and so I’m glad that he’s here and explaining it to us. 

The gentleman yields back. I appreciate that. 

Mr. McNerney, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the Chairman. I thank the panel. 

I have to say I’ve been an enthusiast for fusion energy since college, since graduate school. I worked with Los Alamos labs at the 

time on inertial fusion. But we have a lot of progress, and I really 

truly believe that humanity is going to depend on fusion power for 

the long run. I mean, I don’t see any other energy source that’s 

going to really supply our human race with enough energy in the 

long-term future than fusion. So I’m going to continue to support 

the progress. 

Dr. Van Dam, you said that the United States is the leader in 

the computer modeling of fusion. What gives us the ability to be 

the leader? Is it the computer power that we have or is it the computer scientists? What is it that gives us that leadership? 

Dr. VAN DAM. Yes, a couple of things. We have very advanced 

leadership class computing facilities: Oak Ridge and Argonne. We 

have a national energy research computer center out in California, 

which, when it started, actually was a magnetic fusion energy computer center and then it broadened into the entire Office of Science. 

We have the SciDAC, the Scientific Discovery through Computing 

program, which brings together the subject matter experts in physics and science with applied mathematicians and computer scientists. And this is very powerful. I’ve seen results of computer 

simulations gone from half the time required to do them just because the mathematicians and C.S. people have been involved. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So is our leadership being challenged by the 

supercomputers that they’re building in China now or other—or is 
77 

it just the major infrastructure that we have that allows us to 

maintain that leadership? 

Dr. VAN DAM. Other countries do have very powerful computers. 

You mentioned China. We are trying to make up for it with intelligence and the way we use them, but yes, we do need to move on. 

Exascale is a very big priority in the Administration, and even 

after that, quantum information science. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay, thank you. Dr. Wade, you mentioned that 

there needs to be a comprehensive plan for fusion. Is there an outline for such a plan that we can consider or are we—I mean, as 

my colleague Bill Foster said, it’s like fractal. The closer you look 

at it, the more sort of different approaches there are. How can we 

get our hands around this thing? 

Dr. WADE. Well, first off, let me just say that when I speak of 

comprehensive strategic plan, I’m talking about getting to fusion 

development, fusion energy, not just the next steps in what fusion 

energy is—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Right. 

Dr. WADE. —and so we have to have a goal and we have to have 

an objective for the United States of what that is, on what time 

frame, so I think we need to establish that. 

I think there are—is the framework of a strategic plan that has 

been encouraged through processes that the Fusion Energy 

Sciences division has organized through their advisory committee, 

but that look more closely at the near term than the long term, and 

I think we need to try to understand where we want to go in the 

long term to do that. So, for example, right now we’re focused a lot 

on plasma physics, on—a lot on confinement. 

To ultimately deliver fusion, you have to get into materials, you 

have to get into technology for fuel, tritium fuel cycle handling, 

things like that. These are technologies that are not just off-theshelf things. They’re not going to be developed in another area. 

They have to be developed within the fusion context. And so these 

are things we should be looking at and trying to figure out where 

we need to go to be the leaders in that. 

So I think there’s a framework in place to start from the plasma 

physics side and the burning plasmas that will get an ITER but we 

also need to fold into that what technologies we need to develop in 

the future and start that work now rather than later because if we 

start later, we’re just going to make this a serial process that takes 

for a—a very long time to do. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. Well, we’re going to depend on you to 

point us in the direction of a plan so that we can at least get our 

hands around that. 

Dr. WADE. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Dr. Herrmann, welcome to my little section of 

the world here today. I appreciate—I’ve been to your facility many 

times. I appreciate what all is involved, and I understand that your 

real mission is the stockpile maintenance and so on, but you have 

such a world-class facility. How can we more expand that facility 

to use in terms of developing fusion power? I know that NNSA is 

very protective of your facility. How can we expand that a little bit? 

Dr. HERRMANN. Thanks for the question. So going back to the 

very original documents that—the key decisions that led to the cre-
78 

ation of the NIF, it was recognized that inertial fusion energy was 

one possible application. This was all when the Department was 

the Department of Energy before NNSA was created. And in those 

documents it says that some fraction of the time on the facility 

would be open to the scientific community, and so we do open up 

about eight percent of NIF’s time to the outside academic community. And that has allowed us to do world-leading science and attract future stockpile stewards and collaborate with scientists, 

great scientists at academic institutions around the United States. 

Because there currently isn’t really a funding path for researchers who want to do IFE, we don’t really get proposals in the area 

of IFE into that open call for time on NIF, and so I think it’s kind 

of a chicken-and-egg thing. It’s hard to get the researchers to put 

in proposals because they don’t have a path to get research funding, so if there was such a path, I think that would be a way that 

some of that time could be used for fusion energy research. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you again. I thank the panelists. I’m 

going to have some questions for the record since I’m out of time 

here. I’ll submit those later. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman from California. The 

gentleman from Oklahoma is now recognized. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the 

panel for being here today. We have kind of drifted from the specifics to the general and back and forth in this conversation, so first 

let me turn to Dr. Bigot. Those are most impressive pictures compared to the last time several Members of the Committee were onsite at ITER, the progress that’s been made. You said in your written testimony—you used the phrase in referencing ITER’s magnitude and complexity, quote, ‘‘No country, not even the most advanced, could have done this alone,’’ unquote. Could you expand for 

a moment on the magnitude of the overall cost projected for the 

whole project and the number of disciplines and the number of engineering and scientific people required to get to this point? 

Dr. BIGOT. Thank you very much for this question. Yes, clearly, 

with tokamak, which is the largest we have ever conceived to build 

in the world, is utilizing many technologies. First, clearly the 

magnets, we have to develop the superconducting materials, nearly 

2,800 tons of this material has to be developed and with high 

standards. Vacuum; we need to make a vacuum in a chamber 

which is nearly 1,000 cubic meters, and we will deal with hydrogen, as you know, which fuels a lot, so we need to develop some 

specific pumps for that. And the United States is performing quite 

well in this matter. It is another matter we will need to have the 

United States delivering on time. There are also heat exchanging 

requirements. We are producing 500 megawatts, and in a per 

square meter, we will be able to collect 20 megawatts per square 

meter. 

So all these technologies are so large and the size of the material 

is so important that we don’t believe a single country could develop 

an industry in order to deliver on a reasonable time. We will deliver nearly the full construction in 25 years, and we have the 

seven largest countries in the world together, and so you could 

imagine that even a single one could take maybe four or five times 

longer, so it would not be expected. 
79 

Just to give you an example, one sector of the large vacuums, 

which is manufactured right now in Korea, it takes four years for 

the most advanced companies in the world in order to be able to 

manufacture these sectors. Why? Because we need a very high precision. We need also full alignment because it’s a nuclear vessel, so 

no leaks at all. Every welding has to be precisely controlled. 

So my understanding is very clear. If we are not working all together, bringing the added value of our expertise and competence 

worldwide, it will be very challenging to do it. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. Van Dam, various comments have been made about the different theoretics and the different perspectives, the different ways 

of coming about trying to address fusion. Could you touch for a moment on what varieties of fusion research programs are being pursued in other countries? We’ve listened to discussions about the 

United States. We know what ITER—the consortium we’re a part 

of, but what’s the rest of the world up to? 

Dr. VAN DAM. Yes. The United States I think is a world leader. 

Mr. LUCAS. Absolutely. 

Dr. VAN DAM. No doubt about that. The Europeans have a very 

vigorous program in fusion energy and have had for some time, and 

we collaborate with them, for example, on the Joint European 

Torus, which is in the U.K. and it’s being impacted by Brexit. We 

work on the W7–X stellarator, which is the world’s largest in Germany. We work on the tokamak in Germany—another tokamak in 

Germany. We work with all of the countries in collaboration. 

Japan has a very vigorous program, and I myself have been 

going there for almost 40 years to do research. China has a very 

strong program right now. They’re spending a lot of money in fusion energy. They’re very serious about it, South Korea as well, 

India likewise. The Russian Federation used to historically have a 

very strong program, and we competed with them, and it is still 

strong. They have a lot of legacy work, but a lot of those scientists 

have migrated to the United States. 

Mr. LUCAS. One last question, Dr. Van Dam, whether you are the 

optimist and you believe when the technology breakthrough comes 

or you’re a pessimist and you believe if the technology breakthrough comes, describe to us where will the United States be if 

we don’t participate, if we’re not a part of these efforts, if we’re not 

doing the research? Where will we be if or when—I would hope 

when this happens—describe for us just a moment what the world 

would be like for those who are not a part of this energy source? 

Dr. VAN DAM. The ITER project? 

Mr. LUCAS. ITER or the concepts of fusion in general. If we get 

to the point where we have successful fusion power generation but 

we’ve not participated, we’re not a part of any of the endeavors, 

we’ve decided we don’t want to spend any money, describe for a 

moment what it will be like to be left out of the next generation 

of energy. 

Dr. VAN DAM. Well, fusion and also fission provide baseload energy, which is something that renewables don’t quite provide and 

they’re also load-following types of energy, which is very important 

for large industry and just our standard of living. If we are not in 

the ITER project, it may still go forward with the other six mem-
80 

bers. You know, we would have to decide what our program—we 

still have the same priorities in terms of burning plasma science 

but how they would be implemented. And for the rest of the answer, I would like a crystal ball. 

Mr. LUCAS. Bottom line is of course if success comes and we’re 

not a part of it, then we’ll become a second-class economic power 

because we will not be able to participate in the current technology 

at that moment of cost-effective energy for all purposes. Thank you, 

Doctor. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, is recognized for five 

minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us on a very interesting and very important 

topic. 

As the only member representing the State of New York on the 

Science Committee, I want to address a disturbing budget cut that 

was brought to my attention. The OMEGA Laser Facility at the 

University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser Energetics has been 

targeted for severe cuts and a three-year ramp-down in the fiscal 

year 2019 budget request. I along with many of my colleagues 

strongly believe that OMEGA deserves continued support and that 

eliminating the facility would be detrimental to national security 

and the continuity of our nuclear program. 

OMEGA provides scientific and technical support for the 400 

users from the 55 universities and over 35 centers and national 

laboratories that use OMEGA annually to conduct more than 2,100 

experiments in cutting-edge research. Currently, demand for these 

facilities exceeds available time by a factor of two. LLE’s benefits 

go well beyond the more than 2,100 experiments OMEGA conducts 

annually in support of the ICF program. LLE employs more than 

360 scientists, engineers, and technicians and support staff. LLE 

draws 400 scientists from around the world to western New York 

every year to carry out fundamental research, training, and education. LLE provides a strong stimulus to New York’s economy as 

a source of new startup companies and a driver of the region’s optics, imaging, and photonics sector. The LLE’s OMEGA Laser Facility is a vital contributor to national security and an invaluable 

source of scientific education and leadership. 

The LLE is the most cost-effective facility in the science-based 

Stockpile Stewardship Program, performing 80 percent of all the 

targets shot—used in the national inertial confinement fusion, or 

the ICF, and high-energy density physics programs with only 13 

percent of NNSA’s ICF budget. LLE is internationally recognized 

for its groundbreaking research in high-energy density physics and 

high-powered lasers. The OMEGA Laser Facility indeed is the 

major DOE facility that trains graduate students serving as a critical pipeline for future talent that is critically important to our national and economic security. 

So I would ask any or all of our witnesses, have you heard any 

explanation for the cuts to the OMEGA Laser Facility at the University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser Energetics? Anyone? 
81 

Dr. HERRMANN. The Department of Energy, the NNSA budget 

justification outlined that the resources were shifted to higher-priority activities, but we haven’t gotten any more details than that 

in our conversations with the Department. 

Mr. TONKO. So again, to each of our panelists if you choose, what 

impact with these cuts have on the field, on our national security, 

and certainly on the workforce? 

Dr. HERRMANN. Well, at Lawrence Livermore we work very closely with the University of Rochester and the Laboratory for Laser 

Energetics. OMEGA serves as an important staging ground for performing experiments before they come to NIF to get the data we 

need for the stewardship program. We work closely with scientists 

and engineers at the University of Rochester to develop diagnostics 

for the National Ignition Facility and to move the science forward, 

and they really play an important role in the entire national community, so I think would be a very big loss if the OMEGA Laser 

Facility were shut down. 

They’re also an important training ground for students who go 

into this field and can train many future stockpile stewards. Our 

laboratory has hired many of the scientists who studied or did experiments at the University of Rochester, so I think it would be a 

big loss to the national program. 

Mr. TONKO. And I would think that human infrastructure component is a very critical one. 

Anyone else from the panel that wants to address the cuts? 

So, Dr. Herrmann and Dr. Wade, there have been some notable 

efforts made to our progress from those working on innovative fusion energy concepts, and recently the Tri Alpha was featured in 

a cover story of TIME Magazine for achieving a major milestone 

while other smaller companies are making progress in addressing 

other critical technical challenges. If these innovative companies 

and approaches cannot find funding here in the United States, just 

where will they go do you imagine? 

Dr. WADE. Well, I—to answer your—to give you some background, these companies like Tri Alpha have made tremendous 

progress in looking at the areas that they’re looking at, but as Mr. 

Weber, the Chairman, said at the beginning of this, the goal is to 

get high density, high temperature for long periods of times, and 

these confinement concepts are well behind in terms of the 

tokamak, in terms of their maturity. They’re making tremendous 

progress, and they may someday be able to get to tokamak levels 

of performance. 

The—in terms of investment by other countries, I would anticipate that China would be involved. China has almost like an Apollo 

program in almost every energy sector, and so they’re launching 

initiatives in a wide range of areas. 

Worldwide, if you looked at the rest of the world, the fusion effort 

is primarily focused on the tokamak and bringing that into full maturity, bringing other lines that are at second level, second-tier 

along at a slower pace, so I don’t anticipate a large investment 

worldwide. Probably in China there’ll be some effort, and there 

may be sovereign countries—sovereign funds that invest in small 

startups to give them seed money to see if they can actually get 

to the point of making one of these concepts a reality. 
82 

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

Chairman WEBER. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Florida is recognized. 

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

This is an exciting and interesting topic. Let’s jump in. Dr. Wade, 

you stress U.S. leadership in fusion research is threatened by large 

investments by other nations. What level of investment is required 

for us to compete here? I’m looking for a number. 

Dr. WADE. Well, that’s a very good question. I think that the 

level of investment we’re making right now is not sufficient. I think 

that especially when you look at the domestic program and the 

level of funding that it’s at, it’s barely at a stage where we can sustain our leadership, much less exert leadership. If I were recommending a number, I would recommend a factor to two or three increase in fusion funding in the United States from the point of view 

that there are multiple initiatives that we are unable to fund that 

I think would have benefit not just in providing us an alternative 

to this mainline approach but to get more people involved in the 

fusion endeavor—— 

Mr. DUNN. Sure. 

Dr. WADE. —which I think is very important. 

Mr. DUNN. And you mentioned the in-kind donations, which I 

think are terrific because we keep some talent here and grow our 

knowledge base. 

So you’ve been involved in both the DIII–D project and the ITER 

project. What’s the major difference between those two? 

Dr. WADE. The major difference is—well, ITER is about four 

times the size of DIII–D, so it’s a much larger facility. DIII–D is 

a much more flexible facility in the type of research it can carry 

out. It’s small. It has many capabilities that allow it to—the researchers to manipulate the plasma in a way that—— 

Mr. DUNN. But the physics are kind of all the same? 

Dr. WADE. The physics is exactly the same; it’s just at larger 

scale. 

Mr. DUNN. Okay. Can you share some of the spinoff applications 

that have come out of this program? 

Dr. WADE. There have been a huge number of spinoffs in a variety of areas: microwaves, MRIs. One of the best ones I like to use 

is if you’re familiar with the recent deployment of the EMALS system, Electromagnetic Advanced Launch System, on the Gerald 

Ford aircraft carrier. This has replaced—— 

Mr. DUNN. Oh, yes. 

Dr. WADE. —all the catapults with electromagnetic systems so 

that they can reduce the footprint of the steam required to do the 

steam catapults, and this has allowed the—and also much more 

controlled takeoff, less stress on the plane, less stress on the pilots, 

and so these are spinoffs that not only have—we’re doing this in 

the—in basic technologies but in very applied defense technologies 

also. 

Mr. DUNN. Do you interact with the MagLab in Tallahassee, 

FSU? 

Dr. WADE. We have interacted with them not—we do not have 

a strong collaboration, but we have had discussions with them. 
83 

Mr. DUNN. So one thing you said earlier impressed me. You seem 

very, very confident that the ITER facility is going to be able to 

achieve the sustained fusion and actually even it sounded like you 

were saying—and it will be commercially viable. Can you share 

your optimism with us? 

Dr. WADE. Yes, I believe ITER is—I have very high confidence 

ITER will succeed. I have worked in this field a long time, and I 

have watched the progression of our understanding, and I believe 

our understanding is sufficient to have high confidence if technically ITER—with its systems can deliver the technical capability, 

the physics will be there to deliver the power that is projected. And 

I think that that launches us into a new era in fusion development. 

I think that countries, nations, people worldwide will recognize 

that this is a real energy source for the future and we can launch 

aggressively into that. And if the United States isn’t there at the 

table ready to do something, we’re going to be left behind by other 

nations in delivering that technology for the world. 

Mr. DUNN. Thank you very much. So, Dr. Bigot, so it certainly 

sounds like he has a lot of faith in you. Do you share his optimism? 

Dr. BIGOT. Yes, I share. As I say to you, we have the background 

of several decades of works on smaller devices and smaller facilities, which demonstrate that the physics is robust, okay, the modeling is robust, and my expectation is if we are able to assemble 

this larger-scale facility, we will deliver. 

Mr. DUNN. Well, Godspeed to all of you. Thank you very much 

for being here. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 

five minutes. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I guess I’d like to 

start out by seconding Representative Tonko’s, I guess, unhappiness with the zeroing out of LLE. You know, I think this will be 

tremendously damaging, including to NIF. I mean, you’re absolutely right. I mean, it sort of serves as something analogous to 

what a test meme used to serve for for high-energy physics where 

I worked for decades that you actually need when you have a 

bright idea for a new experiment, you need a low-cost way of testing it out. 

In addition, when you look at the way forward, one of the most 

promising ways to actually get, you know, to ignition is to switch 

over to direct drive and—which means you then have to then compress in all directions simultaneously, which is something that can 

be done today, albeit at a lower energy at Rochester. And so, you 

know, the wisdom of cutting this is really something I don’t appreciate. 

The other thing is, you know, we’re seeing it more and more, this 

statement that, well, there just isn’t enough money. And so I’d like 

to try to put that in context. Since the economic recovery started, 

house—the net worth of Americans has gone up by $45 trillion. 

Well, what we’re debating here largely, the investment—the U.S. 

investment in ITER will maybe be $4.5 billion, okay? And so we’re 

talking about spending, you know, 1/10,000 of the increase in, you 

know, the U.S. wealth that’s happened on something that can provide energy in principle for millennia. 
84 

And so, you know, there’s I think a pretty strong case to be made 

that, you know, especially now that the economy has recovered, we 

are actually—this is going to be money well spent. And I—but I— 

and I do appreciate the bipartisan enthusiasm we’ve seen from— 

almost bipartisan enthusiasm for fusion generally, though I would 

also like to point out that for those of my colleagues that don’t appreciate the difference between fission and fusion, then I’d be interested in knowing whether they’re volunteering their district to be 

the storage location for all of the fission end-products at the end 

of the energy production. 

All right. Now, a few specific questions. You know, one of the 

things that I’ve always found useful to look at in understanding 

whether a project is on track is you look at the contingency reserve, 

which you highlighted in your previous testimony, that you’ve established, you know, a project reserve, which I guess in the United 

States we talk—is contingency. And so I always used to track the 

amount of contingency remaining versus the fraction of project 

completed and to see if this extrapolates above or below zero to see 

if your project’s heading for trouble. And is that something that you 

have over the last, I guess, three years been tracking and what’s— 

what would that graph look like? 

Dr. BIGOT. Thank you for this important question. There is contingency, for example, in the U.S. program. For providing the inkind U.S. contribution, the United States, according to their regulation, has decided to put some contingencies, so contingencies are inkind for the production. Some of the countries behave differently, 

but this is on the responsibility of the ITER members. 

Within the ITER Organization, when I came in, I was requested 

to provide the best technically achievable schedule at the lowest 

cost without contingency. Since that time, we have developed risk 

management, and I request all my colleagues on the amount of 

money—that we call the ‘‘overall project costs’’ for the ITER Organization—to make an eight percent saving every year, in such a 

way that I am building up some contingencies in order to phase in 

the risk. 

Mr. FOSTER. Now, is this contingency fungible across national 

boundaries? 

Dr. BIGOT. Yes. 

Mr. FOSTER. Like if country X gets in trouble on their project, 

can the contingency from savings from country Y be used to bail 

them out or is there—— 

Dr. BIGOT. No. 

Mr. FOSTER. —a firewall? 

Dr. BIGOT. No, there is a firewall— 

Mr. FOSTER. Oh. 

Dr. BIGOT. —exactly. For the in-kind contribution, there is a firewall. Each ITER member is responsible to deliver the in-kind contribution. But for the ITER Organization, the cost of the assembly, 

for example, the commissioning and all these things it is according 

to the share the United States is nine percent, Europe 45 percent, 

all the non-European countries is also 9 percent. 

And I would want to point out something very clearly. For the 

United States participating in the ITER project costs nine percent 
85 

of the value of the project, but they will have access to 100 percent 

of this facility, so I guess it’s clearly a good investment. 

Mr. FOSTER. And sort of the benefit of scientific collaboration, 

since science began, that if you collaborate, you learn more. So let’s 

see. 

Dr. Van Dam, you mentioned that there was an ongoing administrative—the Administration was going to review the nuclear program generally and science specifically, and you were involved in, 

you know, the budget pass-back and all of the things which came 

to the conclusion, for example, that you had to shut down LLE and 

preserve DIII–D and all these sort of Sophie’s Choice decisions that 

you have to make during the budget decisions. And could you describe—you know, obviously, you can never discuss those in public. 

That’s—for reasons we understand, but could you describe the list 

of scientists above you in the org chart that are going to be involved in those sort of decisions? 

Dr. VAN DAM. Well, yes. Directly above me is the Deputy Director for Science Dr. Steve Binkley. You probably know him. 

Mr. FOSTER. Sure, I know him well. Yes. 

Dr. VAN DAM. And above him should be the Director of the Office 

of Science, which at the moment is still vacant. 

Mr. FOSTER. All right. And if you continue up—— 

Dr. VAN DAM. Yes. 

Mr. FOSTER. —the org chart, where do you encounter Ph.D. scientists above that in the org chart making these decisions? 

Dr. VAN DAM. Well, Dr. Binkley is certainly a Ph.D. scientist. 

Mr. FOSTER. Right. 

Dr. VAN DAM. Then, above him would be Mr. Paul Dabbar, who 

is the Under Secretary for Science, then the Deputy Secretary and 

the Secretary himself. 

Mr. FOSTER. All right. So you’ve just given us the complete list 

of, say, Ph.D. scientists who are going to be involved in making 

these crucial decisions about which facilities can survive in different budget scenarios, for example? 

Dr. VAN DAM. Well, Dr. Binkley has a Ph.D. 

Mr. FOSTER. I understand. He’s also a permanent employee 

of—— 

Dr. VAN DAM. Yes— 

Mr. FOSTER. —not a—— 

Dr. VAN DAM. —not a political— 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, because I’m personally very nervous that we’re 

making these really important decisions with, you know, frankly no 

one home, you know, with a—with science credentials in making 

these decisions, and there are real risks to the program if that proceeds. 

Anyway, I think I’ve gone past my time. 

Dr. VAN DAM. May I briefly defend Paul Dabbar, Under Secretary of Energy, who worked in technology for—— 

Chairman WEBER. Briefly. 

Dr. VAN DAM. I’ll finish. 

Chairman WEBER. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Florida is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
86 

Dr. Van Dam, when I was in college 40-some years ago in electrical engineering, they said that we’re about 30 years away from 

actually producing electricity through fusion. And now I hear that 

we’re still 30 years away. I’m wondering, has there been any—let’s 

say in the last, I don’t know, 10 or 15 years, has there been any 

progress or notable progress towards the goal? 

Dr. VAN DAM. Well, I was also a student 40 years ago and I 

heard the same thing. I think people did not realize how challenging this endeavor is. It is a very complex endeavor. It’s often 

called a grand challenge problem. I think we have made tremendous progress, and the National Academies study in fact will be 

documenting that when they do their final report at the end of the 

year. We’ve made great progress in control of plasmas just like 

with airplanes, in high-resolution diagnostics, high-performance 

computing, and just the—and also the technology that goes along 

with it, the heating technology, the magnet technology, and so 

forth. We have a recent FESAC report on transformative enabling 

technologies that will enable us even to accelerate faster. 

Mr. WEBSTER. So—okay, so it seems like back then, there were 

these goals that were necessary and things that needed to happen 

to sustain the reaction. And I’m wondering is there one thing or 

two things that we need to do over the next, let’s say, ten years 

from now in order to say, okay, we’ve made real progress? Could 

you name those? 

Dr. VAN DAM. That’s a great question, and I’m sure my neighbors 

would be happy to answer as well. I think we need to stay in the 

ITER project, and the computing is a very, very big priority for us 

and for the Administration because it lets us take bigger steps forward with confidence having codes with predictive capability. The 

experiments I think are extremely valuable. We have these very 

high-performance experiments, 100-million-degree plasmas, and 

we’re understanding them at a very precise level. 

Mr. WEBSTER. What was the temperature? 

Dr. VAN DAM. Like 100 million degrees. It’s quite impressive. 

And we have these diagnostics that can actually see exactly what’s 

going on, coupled with the codes that actually can compute both 

postdictive and predictive and interpret what’s going on. And material studies, we need that desperately. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Is that where we’re putting the money? 

Dr. VAN DAM. In the 2019 budget we’ve proposed this linear diverter facility at Oak Ridge. It’s called MPEX, Material Plasma Exposure facility—— 

Mr. WEBSTER. At our—— 

Dr. VAN DAM. —Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Yes. 

Dr. VAN DAM. That’s one thing we’re doing. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman WEBER. All right. And—— 

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman WEBER. Yes, sir? 

Mr. FOSTER. —would it be all right if I had an additional question? 

Chairman WEBER. Well, we have a meeting right following 

this—— 
87 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. 

Chairman WEBER. —so I would encourage you to get with maybe 

Dr. Van Dam over the Fusion Advisory Science Committee, which 

offers—has Ph.D.’s and offers that advice, but I do need to close it 

out. 

I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The record will remain open for two weeks 

for additional comments and written questions from the Members. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(89) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
90 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Mark Herrmann 
91 

Æ 

cuncnt leaders of the SSP have participated in various aspects of the national ICF 

program. 

3. What mechanisms and programs do you find most helpfUl in mainlaining a workforce 

pipeline of talent in laser physics and high energy density science? 

There are several programs we rely on to maintain our workforce pipeline. Since some of 

the work on NIF is unclassified, and of broad scientific interest to the academic 

community, we have extensive collaborations with leading professors in high energy 

density science. NNSA supports dedicating 8 percent ofNIF's time to collaborative 

experiments with universities. In doing so, we establish relationships with professors and 

their students, many of whom are later recruited to the NNSA's laboratories. Another 

critical program is 1\TNSA's Joint Program in High Energy Density Laboratory Plasmas. 

Approximately 50% of LLNL' s hires in high energy density science for the last few 

years have come from universities that have been supported by this program. Finally, the 

Omega Laser Facility at the University of Rochester has significant experimental time 

available for university researchers and their graduate students. This provides a tmique 

training ground for graduate students in high energy density science, both at the 

University of Rochester and many other universities.