Fusion Energy: Definitive Cost Estimates for U.S. Contributions to an International Experimental Reactor and Better Coordinated DOE Research Are Needed
Published: 2007-10-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The United States is pursuing two paths to fusion energy--magnetic and inertial. On November 21, 2006, the United States signed an agreement with five countries and the European Union to build and operate the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in Cadarache, France, to demonstrate the feasibility of magnetic fusion energy. The United States also built and operates facilities to pursue inertial fusion energy research. This report discusses (1) U.S. contributions to ITER and the challenges, if any, in managing this international fusion program and (2) the Department of Energy's (DOE) management of alternative fusion research activities, including National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) initiatives. In performing this work, GAO analyzed budget documents, briefings, and reports that focused on research and funding priorities for the fusion program. GAO also met with officials from DOE, NNSA, and the ITER Organization in France.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Over 9 years, DOE estimates it will spend $1.12 billion to help build ITER, but this is only a preliminary estimate and may not fully reflect the costs of U.S. participation. This preliminary estimate has not been independently validated, as DOE guidance directs, because the reactor design is not complete. Moreover, the $1.12 billion for ITER construction does not include an additional $1.2 billion the United States is expected to contribute to operate and decommission the facility. In addition, the ITER Organization, which manages the construction and operation of ITER, faces a number of management challenges to build ITER on time and on budget that also may affect U.S. costs. For example, the ITER Organization must develop quality assurance standards, test the reliability and integrity of components built in different countries, and assemble them with a high level of precision. Many of these challenges stem from the difficulty of coordinating international efforts and the need for consensus before making critical management decisions. GAO has identified several challenges DOE faces in managing alternative fusion research activities. First, NNSA and the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (OFES), which manage the inertial fusion program within DOE, have not effectively coordinated their research activities to develop inertial fusion as an energy source. For example, they do not have a coordinated research plan that identifies key scientific and technological issues that must be addressed to advance inertial fusion energy and how their research activities would meet those goals. Second, DOE may find it difficult to manage competing funding priorities to advance both ITER-related research and alternative magnetic fusion approaches. DOE officials told GAO they are focusing limited resources on ITER-related research activities. As a result, as funding for ITER-related research has increased, the share of funding for the most innovative alternative magnetic fusion research activities decreased from 19 percent of the fusion research budget in fiscal year 2002 to 13 percent in fiscal year 2007. According to DOE officials, this level of funding is sufficient to meet research objectives. However, university scientists involved in fusion research told us that this decrease in funding has led to a decline in research opportunities for innovative concepts, which could lead to a simpler, less costly, or faster path to fusion energy, and reduced opportunities to attract students to the fusion sciences and train them to fulfill future workforce needs. Finally, while the demand for scientists and engineers to run experiments at ITER and inertial fusion facilities is growing, OFES does not have a human capital strategy to address expected future workforce shortages. These shortages are likely to grow as a large part of the fusion workforce retires over the next 10 years.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: On November 21, 2006, the United States signed an agreement with five  countries and the European Union to help build and operate the  International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in Cadarache,  France, to demonstrate the feasibility of fusion energy. The construction,  operation, and decommissioning of ITER is expected to cost about   $14 billion. Fusion occurs when the nuclei of two light atoms—typically  hydrogen isotopes—collide and fuse together when heated at high  temperatures and placed under tremendous pressure. This reaction  releases a large amount of energy that some day, it is hoped, may be  captured to produce electricity. Over the last 50 years, scientists around  the world have made progress in understanding how to create the  conditions for fusion, but there are many outstanding scientific and  technical issues that must still be resolved before fusion can be used as an  energy source. As a result, the United States, along with the six parties to  the agreement, identified ITER as the critical experiment that could finally  produce more power from fusion reactions than is needed to operate the  device—the first step toward producing electricity from fusion energy.  ITER’s objectives are to resolve fundamental physics issues in using fusion  as an energy source and to develop and test the technology needed for a  future fusion power plant. Construction of ITER is scheduled to begin in  2008 and be completed in 2016, followed by 20 years of experiments and  eventual decommissioning. The ITER Organization was established to  manage the construction, operation, and decommissioning of this facility.  If ITER meets its objectives, as the last critical step toward fusion energy,  the United States and other countries will need to design and test different  fusion power plants to capture the energy and produce electricity.
The Department of Energy (DOE) identified ITER as the number one  priority for new research facilities because fusion power holds the  promise of reducing concerns over imported oil, rising gasoline prices, and  global warming. With decreasing fossil fuel resources and increasing  awareness that the use of fossil fuels is harming the environment, fusion is  a potentially new source of energy for meeting future energy needs.  Fusion offers many potential benefits, including no emissions of  greenhouse gases, an abundant source of fuel, no risk of the type of severe  accidents that could occur with existing nuclear power plants, no severe  consequences of a terrorist attack, and no long-lived radioactive waste. In  addition, U.S. participation in ITER allows the United States to share the  cost of building this complex and expensive fusion device while leveraging  the scientific and technological expertise of the other ITER parties.
The United States is pursuing two paths to fusion energy—magnetic and  inertial. Magnetic fusion relies on magnetic forces to confine electrically  charged atoms, known as plasma, and sustain a fusion reaction. ITER will  be a magnetic fusion device known as a “tokamak.” While a tokamak has  been the most successful magnetic fusion device, there is still uncertainty  that it will produce fusion energy or lead to a commercially viable fusion  energy device. To reduce the risk of investing in only one device, DOE’s  Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (OFES), which is responsible for  managing the U.S. fusion energy program, also funds scientific research on  alternative types of magnetic devices, primarily at U.S. universities.  Universities, such as Princeton University and the University of  Washington, are currently testing 10 other magnetic devices with different  shapes and magnetic currents that may lead to a simpler, less costly, or  faster path to fusion energy.
In contrast, inertial fusion relies on powerful lasers to repeatedly strike  small pellets of fuel, yielding bursts of energy. The National Nuclear  Security Administration (NNSA), a separately organized agency within  DOE, is leading efforts in inertial fusion because it can be used for defense  needs, such as validating the integrity and reliability of the U.S. nuclear  weapons stockpile. NNSA is building a facility—the National Ignition  Facility (NIF)—at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory that is  hoped could be used to demonstrate the feasibility of inertial fusion. Since  the science applications of inertial fusion for defense and energy needs are  similar, the results of NIF experiments could validate inertial fusion as an  alternative path to fusion energy. Other facilities, such as the Naval  Research Laboratory, are testing technologies needed to produce energy  from inertial fusion.
In the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 energy and  water development appropriation, the conferees directed GAO to review  OFES’s fusion energy program, the activities of major U.S. fusion energy  research facilities that are contributing to ITER, and NNSA fusion energy  initiatives. As agreed with the committees of jurisdiction, we (1) identified  U.S. contributions to ITER and the challenges, if any, in managing this  international fusion program and (2) assessed DOE’s management of  alternative fusion research activities, including NNSA initiatives.
To address these objectives, we collected and analyzed documentation  from DOE, NNSA, the ITER Organization, the National Academy of  Sciences, DOE’s national laboratories, and universities involved in fusion  science. To identify U.S. contributions to ITER and the challenges of  managing this international project, we analyzed budget documents,  including OFES’s 5-year budget plan, and interviewed officials from OFES,  the Department of State, and the U.S. ITER Project Office at the Oak Ridge  National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. We also analyzed  documents and met with officials from the three major U.S. magnetic  fusion research facilities—located at General Atomics in San Diego,  California; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge,  Massachusetts; and the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab in Princeton, New  Jersey—and received a tour of these facilities to understand how fusion  devices are built and operated. Furthermore, we met with officials from  the ITER Organization in Cadarache, France, and toured the ITER  construction site. To assess DOE’s management of alternative fusion  research activities, we interviewed scientists from universities conducting  research in alternative paths to fusion funded by OFES and officials from  the National Academy of Sciences, and we analyzed reports from DOE’s  fusion energy advisory committee that focused on funding and research  priorities for the fusion program. Lastly, to determine the status of inertial  fusion and NNSA fusion initiatives, we analyzed budget documents,  briefings, and reports on inertial fusion and met with officials from NNSA’s  Office of Defense Programs; NIF at the Lawrence Livermore National  Laboratory in Livermore, California; the Laboratory for Laser Energetics at  the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York; Sandia National  Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and the Naval Research  Laboratory in Washington, D.C. We conducted our work from December  2006 to September 2007 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Fusion is the energy source that powers the sun and stars and is a major  source of energy for the hydrogen bomb. For more than 50 years, the  United States has been trying to control this energy source to produce  electricity. Fusion occurs when the nuclei of two light atoms collide and  fuse together with sufficient energy to overcome their natural repulsive  forces. Scientists are currently using deuterium and tritium—hydrogen  isotopes—for this reaction. When the nuclei of the two atoms collide, the  collision produces helium and a large quantity of energy (see fig. 1).
For the fusion reaction to take place, the atoms must be heated to very  high temperatures—about 100 million degrees centigrade, or 10 times the  temperature of the surface of the sun—and placed under tremendous  pressure. In a hydrogen bomb, high temperatures are obtained by  exploding a uranium or plutonium fission bomb to force the deuterium  and tritium together in a violent manner. To achieve controlled fusion, the  United States is pursuing two paths—magnetic and inertial. Magnetic  fusion involves heating deuterium and tritium to about 100 million degrees  centigrade by using an external source of electromagnetic energy. The  deuterium and tritium nuclei fuse together to make helium in a very hot  and highly charged gas-like condition called a plasma. Strong magnetic  fields are then used to confine the plasma. Current magnetic devices have  not been able to sustain this fusion reaction for more than a few seconds.  For magnetic fusion to produce electricity, a device would need to sustain  the reaction for long periods of time. In contrast, inertial fusion relies on  intense lasers or particle beams to heat and compress a small, frozen  pellet of deuterium and tritium—a few millimeters in size—that would  yield a burst of energy. The lasers or particle beams would continuously  heat and compress the pellets, which would simulate, on a very small  scale, the actions of a hydrogen bomb. The goal for both approaches is to  generate more energy than is needed to begin and sustain the reaction.
ITER is an experiment to study fusion reactions in conditions similar to  those expected in a future electricity-generating power plant. The goal is  to be the first fusion device in the world to produce net power—that is,  produce more power than it consumes. The objective is to produce 10  times more power than is needed to operate the device. In contrast,  current nuclear power plants produce between 30 and 40 times more  power than is needed to operate the plants. ITER also will test a number of  key technologies, including the heating, control, and remote maintenance  systems that will be needed for a fusion power station. If ITER is  successful, it will lead to power plant design and testing.
According to DOE, ITER was first proposed at the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Geneva  summit in November 1985, when President Reagan and Soviet Premier  Gorbachev recognized that joint activities were needed to diffuse the  tension of the arms race during the Cold War and begin the Soviet Union’s  economic integration into the world economy. The goal was to share  scientific and technical information in a program in which both sides had  reached a comparable level of knowledge and that offered future  commercial gains from developing fusion technology. Following this  summit, the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan, and several European  countries drafted a proposal to implement ITER.
The United States temporarily withdrew from ITER in 1999 when Congress  raised concerns that the technical basis for ITER was not sound, the cost  was too high, and the facility was too large. In response to the U.S.  withdrawal, the countries participating in ITER reduced the size of the  facility and the cost of building ITER to about $5 billion, or one-half the  cost of the original design. A number of scientific advances also increased  U.S. confidence that the new ITER design would meet its scientific and  technological goals. In January 2003, President Bush announced that the  United States would rejoin ITER. This decision was based on a number of  studies—from DOE’s advisory committee on fusion energy, the National  Academy of Sciences, and other groups of experts—that concluded the  U.S. fusion program was technically and scientifically ready to participate  in ITER and recommended that the United States rejoin it. In 2003, the  People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Korea also joined; and in  December 2005, India became the seventh and most recent party to join. In  November 2006, all six countries and the European Union signed the ITER  agreement. Figure 2 shows the countries participating in ITER.
NNSA maintains the United States’ inertial fusion facilities. NIF, which is  scheduled for completion in 2009, will be the world’s largest laser facility  and will be used to test inertial fusion. It is designed to achieve the first  controlled thermonuclear burn, which will release fusion energy. To  achieve the temperature and pressure needed for heating and compressing  the fuel to release this fusion energy, NIF has 192 laser beams that will  converge and strike frozen deuterium and tritium pellets. No other facility  has been able to achieve a controlled thermonuclear burn because it did  not have enough energy to heat and compress these targets. For example,  NIF is expected to produce 50 times more energy than the OMEGA laser— the world’s most powerful laser facility currently operating. The OMEGA  laser, at the University of Rochester, is NNSA’s main inertial fusion facility  until NIF is completed. Lastly, the Z-machine, located at Sandia National  Laboratory, is an alternative approach to reaching conditions of extreme  temperature and pressure to validate sophisticated computational models  of nuclear weapon performance. Rather than using powerful lasers, the   Z-machine uses an electrical current to create a powerful magnetic field  that compresses and implodes the target. The Z-machine releases the  equivalent of 80 times the world’s electrical power output for a few  billionths of a second, but only a moderate amount of energy is actually  used because it relies on generators and amplifiers to store and magnify  the energy from the electrical grid. NNSA spent about $60 million to  refurbish this machine from July 2006 to May 2007 to increase the power  output.
section_title: The United States Will Contribute $1.12 Billion Over 9 Years to Help Build ITER, but Management Challenges May Affect Timing and Cost of Construction
paragraphs: DOE plans to spend $1.12 billion over 9 years to help build ITER, but this  estimate neither reflects an independently validated cost based on a  completed reactor design, nor the costs to operate and decommission the  facility. The ITER Organization also faces five key management challenges  to build ITER on time and on budget that may affect U.S. costs.
subsections: section_title: DOE Does Not Yet Have a Definitive and Independently Validated Cost Estimate for the U.S. Contribution to ITER, as DOE Guidance Directs
paragraphs: Based on DOE’s fiscal year 2008 congressional budget request, DOE plans  to spend $1.12 billion over 9 years—from fiscal years 2006 to 2014—to  help build ITER, as figure 3 shows. Of the seven parties contributing to  ITER, the United States and five other countries—the People’s Republic of  China, Japan, India, the Republic of South Korea, and the Russian  Federation—are each providing 9.1 percent of the total construction cost.  The European Union is the largest contributor—45.4 percent—because it  is building the reactor on a member country’s soil and it agreed to pay for  the infrastructure costs. DOE’s preliminary estimate of the U.S.  contribution includes the following:    $487.14 million to purchase U.S.-manufactured components and parts for  ITER, such as superconducting cable for the magnets that sustain the  fusion reaction and tiles for the inner wall of the reactor that can  withstand the heat and pressure of the fusion reaction;   $203.24 million in cash to the ITER Organization to pay for scientists,  engineers, and support personnel working for the ITER Organization; the  assembly and installation of the components in France to build the  reactor; quality assurance testing of U.S. supplied components; and  contingencies;    $194.68 million in contingency funds to address potential schedule delays  or increases in costs for manufacturing components;   $112.28 million for the U.S. ITER Project Office at Oak Ridge National  Laboratory to manage the procurement, testing, assembly, and quality  assurance of U.S.-manufactured components;   $102.57 million to fund research and development activities and complete  the design work of U.S. components and parts at national laboratories,  universities, and private industry; and   $22.09 million to pay the salaries of U.S. scientists and engineers working  at the ITER Organization.
The $1.12 billion is still a preliminary cost estimate and may not reflect the  full costs of U.S. contributions to ITER. DOE has not yet developed a  definitive cost and schedule estimate, as DOE project management  guidance directs. This guidance establishes protocols for planning and  executing large construction projects and directs DOE to reach a number  of critical decisions before construction begins. Two of these critical  decisions are (1) formally approving the project’s definitive cost and  schedule estimates as accurate and complete and (2) reaching agreement  that the project’s final design is sufficiently complete so that resources can  be committed toward procurement and construction. The cost and  schedule estimates also are subject to independent reviews, usually by  DOE’s Office of Engineering and Construction Management, to ensure  they are accurate and complete. Even though DOE does not have a  definitive cost estimate, in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, DOE spent   $79.3 million to establish the ITER Project Office and fund research and  development activities to design U.S. components. Without a definitive  cost estimate, the U.S. Congress has expressed concern that DOE may use  funding from the domestic fusion research program to cover any shortfalls  in funding for the ITER project.
DOE has not yet reached these critical decisions because of delays by the  countries participating in ITER in selecting a construction site for the  reactor and in completing the reactor design. In December 2004, DOE  reported to Congress that DOE would have a definitive cost and schedule  estimate by March 2006. DOE’s new goal is to have this estimate by the  end of fiscal year 2008 or early fiscal year 2009. DOE officials told us that  DOE cannot complete this estimate until the ITER Organization updates  the design for the reactor, scheduled for November 2007. DOE must then  wait for the ITER Organization to develop the design specifications,  quality assurance procedures and tests, and schedule of delivery for the  components and parts of the reactor before it can begin manufacturing.  The ITER Organization will issue the design specifications from the end of  2007 through 2012, starting with basic infrastructure and components that  require a longer time to build. In fiscal year 2008, DOE plans to begin  procuring materials needed for the superconducting magnets, the tiles for  the inside of the reactor, and pipes for the water cooling system. Even  though DOE will not yet have an independently validated cost and  schedule estimate before it begins to purchase these materials, DOE  project management guidance provides an exception when materials take  a long time to manufacture and may delay the construction schedule.
section_title: The United States Will Incur Additional Costs Because ITER Is Only the First Step Toward Developing a Fusion Energy Power Plant
paragraphs: The $1.12 billion preliminary estimate does not cover the full costs of the  ITER project. DOE estimates that it will cost the U.S. another $1.2 billion  to help operate and run experiments on ITER for 20 years after  construction is completed and then decommission the facility by removing  radioactive materials and debris. Furthermore, ITER is only the first step  in developing a fusion power plant, and DOE expects to build or help build  additional facilities on the path to fusion energy.
Following ITER’s construction, DOE may participate in designing and  contributing funds to build another fusion facility, known as the  International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF). This facility  would be designed to develop and test radiation-resistant materials that  could survive the extreme conditions inside a fusion reactor. Fusion  reactions continuously produce neutrons, which cause materials to  become radioactive and damage them over time. The IFMIF would  produce neutrons, and one goal of this facility would be to place materials  inside the test chamber to determine which would best be suited for a  future fusion reactor. If DOE participates in IFMIF, DOE’s fusion energy  advisory committee estimated that the U.S. contribution to IFMIF would  be about $150 million over 7 years.
Another facility also may be needed to test technologies that would  convert fusion power into practical energy, such as electricity. Neutrons  from a fusion reaction will release energy if they collide with atoms of  another material, causing the substance to heat. A prime candidate for this  material for future fusion power plants is the liquid metal lithium. Lithium  that is heated by colliding neutrons could transfer the heat to water,  producing steam. The steam, in turn, would drive a steam turbine and  generator, producing electricity. The purpose of a new facility would be to  test different materials and systems for collecting neutrons, converting  fusion energy into heat, and producing tritium—one of the fuels for fusion  reactions. DOE’s fusion energy advisory committee estimates that the  construction of this facility would cost around $1.5 billion. After testing  materials and technologies and assessing the scientific results of ITER and  other magnetic fusion devices, DOE would then be ready to design a  demonstration power plant that would produce electricity.
section_title: The ITER Organization Faces Management Challenges that May Limit Its Ability to Build ITER on Time and on Budget
paragraphs: The ITER Organization faces several management challenges that may  limit its ability to build ITER on time and on budget and may affect U.S.  costs. Many of these challenges stem from the difficulty of coordinating  the efforts of six countries and the European Union that are designing and  building components for ITER and, as members of the ITER Organization,  must reach consensus before making critical management decisions. The  key management challenges include (1) developing quality assurance  standards to test the reliability and integrity of the components made in  different countries; (2) assembling, with a high level of precision,  components and parts built in different countries; (3) finding a new vendor  if a country fails to build a component on time or does not meet quality  assurance standards; (4) developing a contingency fund that adequately  addresses cost overruns and schedule delays; and (5) developing  procedures that describe which countries will be responsible for paying  for cost overruns.
First, the ITER Organization has not yet developed quality assurance  standards for manufactured parts and components. Quality assurance  standards establish the tests each manufacturing company must pass  before the ITER Organization can certify that a part or an entire  component meets performance requirements, such as being able to  withstand tremendous pressure and heat inside the reactor. According to  DOE officials, quality assurance testing is critical because a failure of a  poorly manufactured component or part during scientific experiments  could shut down the reactor for a significant time, increase costs because  of required repairs, or skew scientific results. The countries participating  in ITER cannot begin manufacturing components until these quality  assurance standards are in place. Figure 4 demonstrates the scale and  complexity of the ITER reactor.
Second, the ITER Organization faces the challenge of assembling more  than 10,000 parts and components manufactured by different countries.  For example, the ITER Organization is responsible for installing the tiles  that line the inside of the reactor, but the tiles are being manufactured by  all seven parties. These tiles must be manufactured and installed with  great precision. According to ITER Organization officials, a millimeter  difference between the tiles could significantly affect scientific results.  However, countries participating in ITER construction follow two  different building codes. ITER Organization officials told us they have not  yet selected which building code countries must follow. There is a risk  that countries unfamiliar with the required building code could take longer  to manufacture a part under those standards or manufacture a part that  will not fit properly with other manufactured parts for the same  component.
Third, the ITER Organization assumes the responsibility of finding a  suitable vendor in another country if a country fails to build a component  on time or does not meet quality assurance standards. According to ITER  Organization officials, the ITER Organization would have to negotiate the  terms of manufacturing an item under an expedited schedule, and the  country that failed to build the part on time would have to provide the  ITER Organization with the funds needed to manufacture the item.  Another vendor may not be able to produce the part in an expedited  manner and the construction schedule may slip. In addition, there is no  clear guidance on how to properly compensate a vendor in another  country for all manufacturing costs, such as start-up costs, materials, and  labor. Any disagreement between the new vendor, the country paying for  the manufactured part, and the ITER Organization on proper  compensation also could delay construction and increase the total project  cost.
Fourth, the ITER Organization’s contingency fund does not adequately  address potential cost overruns and schedule delays. The ITER  Organization’s contingency fund is about 10 percent of the total cost, or  about $712 million based on current estimates. If there are cost overruns,  the ITER Organization has a contingency fund to pay for additional costs  associated with procuring manufactured components that it is responsible  for purchasing, installation of parts, research and development activities  related to designing components, and hiring more staff. According to DOE  officials, the ITER Organization did not determine this amount through a  risk-based assessment. Rather, the contingency fund was created after  India joined in 2005 as the most recent party to ITER. Since the project  cost was already fixed, the countries participating in ITER decided to use  the additional funds from India’s assessment to create a contingency fund.  According to DOE officials, some of the countries participating in ITER  did not want to create a contingency fund because it was not standard  practice in their project management. Moreover, according to DOE  officials, a 10 percent contingency may not be adequate for a project of  this cost and complexity. In contrast, these officials cited the Spallation  Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which produces short  but intense pulses of neutrons that can be used to develop new materials,  such as plastics. DOE completed the construction of this facility in 2006.  The facility had a total project cost of $1.4 billion and required the  coordination of six DOE national laboratories. Based on total cost and  complexity, DOE had a contingency fund of about 20 percent of total  costs. According to DOE officials, ITER is more technologically complex  and involves greater risk because of the large number of manufacturers  from different countries.
Finally, the ITER Organization does not have procedures that identify who  is responsible for paying for potential cost overruns that exceed available  contingency funds and how costs should be shared. Construction could be  further delayed if there is no consensus before construction begins on how  to share the costs for cost overruns.
section_title: Lack of Coordination, Competing Funding Priorities, and Human Capital Challenges May Hamper Progress in Alternative Fusion Research
paragraphs: Within DOE, NNSA and OFES do not have a coordinated research  program for inertial fusion energy. They do not have a research plan that  identifies key scientific and technological issues that must be addressed to  advance inertial fusion energy and how their research activities would  meet those goals. Without a coordination research plan and clear  responsibility for developing inertial fusion energy, DOE may not see  progress in developing inertial fusion energy as a promising alternative to  magnetic fusion. In addition, alternative magnetic fusion research  competes for funding with ITER- and tokamak-related research. Since the  U.S. commitment to ITER, funding for alternative innovative magnetic  devices has declined over the last 6 fiscal years while funding for tokamak- related research has increased. According to university scientists involved  in fusion research, this decrease in funding has led to a decline in research  opportunities for innovative devices. Finally, while the demand for  scientists and engineers to run experiments at ITER and NIF is growing,  OFES does not have a human capital strategy to address expected future  workforce shortages; these shortages are likely to grow as a large part of  the fusion workforce retires over the next 10 years.
subsections: section_title: DOE and NNSA Do Not Have a Coordinated Research Program for Inertial Fusion Energy
paragraphs: DOE has three separately funded inertial fusion research programs:  NNSA’s inertial fusion research activities related to the nuclear weapons  program, a High Average Power Laser Program (HAPL) to develop  technology needed for energy for which funding is directed by a  congressional conference committee, and OFES’s inertial fusion research  activities aimed at exploring the basic science for energy applications.  Experiments in each of these programs help advance inertial fusion  energy, but these experiments are not coordinated and each program has a  separate mission and different scientific and technological objectives.  NNSA provides OFES with limited access to one of its inertial fusion  facilities to conduct inertial fusion experiments, and NNSA- and OFES-  funded scientists share information from the results of inertial fusion  experiments. However, there is no research plan that identifies key  scientific and technological questions that need to be addressed to achieve  inertial fusion energy or the cost, time frames, and detailed research and  development tasks needed by each agency to solve those scientific and  technological issues to further advance inertial fusion energy. In addition,  DOE has not assigned to either NNSA or OFES clear roles in developing  inertial fusion energy. NNSA is focused on stockpile stewardship, but it  maintains the major inertial fusion facilities. OFES is responsible for  developing paths to fusion energy, but it is focused on ITER and magnetic  fusion. A lack of a coordinated research plan and clear responsibility  among these programs for developing inertial fusion energy may delay the  progress of inertial fusion energy as a promising alternative to magnetic  fusion.
NNSA operates the three major inertial fusion facilities in the United  States—the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore  National Laboratory, the OMEGA Laser at the University of Rochester, and  the Z-machine at Sandia National Laboratory. Figure 5 shows the   Z-machine in operation. In fiscal year 2006, NNSA spent about $544 million  for NIF construction, upgrades, and operations for the other two facilities,  and to conduct inertial fusion research. NNSA uses these facilities  primarily to investigate technical issues related to stockpile stewardship  by testing the reliability and integrity of nuclear weapons and simulating  the conditions of a thermonuclear explosion without detonating them.
OFES’s inertial fusion research activities are focused on energy  applications. In fiscal year 2006, OFES spent $15.5 million, or 5.5 percent  of its $280.7 million budget, on these research activities. While OFES  officials told us that inertial fusion is an attractive path to fusion energy  and the only alternative to magnetic fusion, the office has limited funding  for inertial fusion research because its priority is to support ITER and  magnetic fusion research activities. Consequently, OFES relies heavily on  NNSA’s inertial fusion research activities and facilities. NNSA experiments  at NIF, which will begin in 2010, will demonstrate the feasibility of inertial  fusion energy because a controlled thermonuclear burn is the first step in  using inertial fusion as a potential energy source. In addition, OFES funds  inertial fusion energy experiments using the OMEGA laser, located at the  University of Rochester. NNSA grants access to the OMEGA laser to  scientists conducting nondefense work and expects to complete a   $98.5 million upgrade to the OMEGA laser early in 2008. This upgrade will  add short-pulse, high-power lasers, which can, among other things, test  ways to lower the total laser energy required to still compress and heat the  target for fusion energy. This approach could reduce the cost of producing  fusion energy. However, the university limits access to this facility to  about 4 weeks a year, or about 10 percent of the total operating time,  because the priority for this facility remains stockpile stewardship. In  addition, those 4 weeks are not reserved for inertial fusion energy  experiments. Scientists from different areas of science, including  astrophysics, materials science, biology, and chemistry, can request the  use of the facility and compete for time on the laser. University of  Rochester officials told us that they may be able to increase access to   this facility for inertial fusion experiments, but OFES would have to  provide funding. NNSA pays for the facility’s operation, but OFES would  have to fund the experiment, including the targets, which cost $10,000 to  $15,000 each; personnel costs; and specialized equipment to measure the  results of the experiment. NNSA also is planning to provide access to NIF  for nondefense experiments, but it has not yet determined how much  operating time to free up. According to officials at NIF, NNSA plans to free  up 15 percent of its operating time to external users, including OFES, but  its primary mission is for stockpile stewardship and access to the facility  for nondefense research, such as inertial fusion energy experiments, will  depend on NNSA first meeting its scientific goals.
While NIF and other NNSA facilities can demonstrate the fundamental  science of inertial fusion, they are not designed to produce fusion energy  efficiently and to test whether inertial fusion energy can be commercially  viable. In addition to understanding the conditions necessary to heat and  compress a frozen pellet of fuel to release fusion energy, DOE would have  to overcome a number of technical issues before inertial fusion energy can  be commercially viable. These issues include (1) designing the pellet of  fuel, which consists of frozen layers of deuterium and tritium, to release  the most amount of energy when it is struck by a laser; (2) developing a  system that can keep the pellets of fuel cryogenically frozen and inject five  of them every second with great accuracy into the target chamber;   (3) designing a laser that can compress and heat five frozen pellets of fuel  every second to release fusion energy; (4) testing materials inside the  chamber wall that could withstand these repetitive explosions while also  harvesting the neutrons needed to produce electricity; and (5) clearing the  inside of the reactor of debris after each shot. According to officials from  the Naval Research Laboratory, the lasers need to strike five frozen pellets  of fuel a second to release a sufficient amount of fusion energy for  electricity production.
Since neither NNSA nor OFES were funding research to investigate these  technical issues, beginning in 1999, congressional conference committees  directed NNSA to allocate funding for HAPL to develop the technologies  needed for inertial fusion energy. According to NNSA officials, NNSA does  not request funding for this program in its congressional budget requests  because the program exceeds NNSA’s mission goals of developing a laser  system to test new weapons designs and the reliability of nuclear  weapons. NNSA officials told us that their current facilities, such as NIF,  OMEGA, and the Z-machine, are sufficient to meet their needs. NIF will be  able to strike a target once every 4 hours and OMEGA once every   2 hours—far short of the 5 targets a second needed for fusion energy, but  adequate for the stockpile stewardship mission.
Congressional conference committees have directed funds for inertial  fusion research:    Conference committees have directed about $25 million a year to two  competing lasers systems that could be used for fusion power plants at the  Naval Research Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory  and for experiments to design the targets for inertial fusion energy at  General Atomics.
Conference committees have directed $4 million in fiscal years 2004 and  2005 to explore the Z-machine’s ability to produce fusion energy for a  potential power plant, as an alternative to the laser systems. In fiscal year  2006, Sandia National Laboratory used $2.6 million of its internal research  funding to continue this research. However, this research did not continue  in fiscal year 2007, and there are no plans to resume the research in fiscal  year 2008 because NNSA has not provided funding for this project.
As another alternative to both the laser systems and the Z-machine, OFES  is funding experiments using heavy ion beams to produce fusion energy at  the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Heavy ion beams are made by  a particle accelerator—a device that uses electrical fields to propel  electrically charged particles at high speeds. The heavy ions, which are  heavier than carbon atoms, collide with the targets and cause the  compression and heat needed to release fusion energy.
If NIF’s controlled fusion experiments succeed, there is still uncertainty  about the future of inertial fusion energy. NNSA officials told us that they  are not responsible for funding the construction of additional inertial  fusion facilities needed to demonstrate inertial fusion energy. OFES  officials told us that they do not have the funding to build a $2 billion to   $3 billion inertial fusion facility. In fiscal year 2008, OFES and NNSA plan  to establish a joint program to explore high-energy density physics, which  is aimed at understanding the behavior of matter under extreme pressure.  OFES and NNSA plan to combine their funding in this area to fund basic  research and share experimental results. While high-energy density  physics explores a number of fundamental scientific issues related to  inertial fusion energy, it does not address all of the scientific issues that  would advance inertial fusion energy.
section_title: Decreases in Funding for Innovative Magnetic Fusion Devices May Delay Progress Toward a Fusion Energy Device
paragraphs: Although a tokamak has been the most successful magnetic fusion device,  it is still uncertain whether the device will lead to a commercially viable  fusion energy device. To reduce the risk of investing in only one device,  OFES funds scientific research on alternative types of magnetic devices, in  addition to inertial fusion research activities. However, a decrease in  research funding for these alternatives may limit DOE’s ability to find a  simpler, less costly, or faster path to fusion energy.
Research on alternative types of magnetic devices is critical to the fusion  energy program, according to officials from the National Academy of  Sciences. In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reported that many  outstanding scientific and technical issues had to be resolved before an  economically attractive fusion power plant could be designed. These  innovative research experiments could address many issues that ITER will  not be able to address in a cost-effective manner and lead to a simpler, less  costly, or faster path to fusion energy. Moreover, because these innovative  and cutting-edge research activities are primarily located at U.S.  universities, this program attracts students to fusion sciences and serves  as an important recruitment and training tool for scientists and engineers.
Sustained funding is critical to these research activities, according to  DOE’s fusion energy advisory committee. Specifically, the ability to  investigate critical scientific and engineering issues requires sufficient  overall funding to build and operate advanced-stage experiments without  eliminating the opportunity for new ideas and innovations resulting from  smaller, more focused experiments. However, alternative magnetic fusion  research competes for funding with ITER- and tokamak-related research.  Since the U.S. commitment to ITER, DOE has focused more of its  resources on ITER- and tokamak-related research. DOE officials told us  that given limited resources, their priority is to fund ITER- and tokamak- related research. According to DOE officials, OFES determines the  appropriate level of funding between tokamak-related research and  innovative concepts based on scientific and technological priorities  identified by DOE’s fusion energy advisory committee. The level of  funding is, among other things, tied to the complexity of the experiment  and the operating costs of the device. Based on these assessments, DOE  officials told us they believe the current level of funding for innovative  magnetic devices is sufficient to sustain the best-performing devices.
However, in fiscal year 2006, OFES spent about $21 million to fund   25 small-scale experiments at 11 universities, 4 national laboratories, and   2 private companies to test 7 types of magnetic fusion devices with  different shapes and magnetic currents. This level of funding represents a  decline over the past 6 fiscal years—from $26 million in fiscal year 2002 to  $20 million in fiscal year 2007. University scientists involved in innovative  fusion research told us that this decrease in funding was not consistent  with a 1999 DOE fusion energy science advisory committee study that  recommended OFES increase funding for innovative magnetic research  activities. OFES relies on this advisory committee to establish priorities  for the fusion program and to provide a basis for the allocation of funding.
However, since that report, the share of funding for innovative research  activities has decreased even as funding for fusion research has increased.  The share of funding has dropped from 19 percent of the fusion research  budget in fiscal year 2002 to 13 percent in fiscal year 2007. In addition,  while OFES’s 5-year budget plan shows an increase in funding for fusion  research activities in fiscal years 2008 through 2011, most of this funding  will be used for ITER- and tokamak-related research activities at the major  facilities. DOE officials also told us there are planned increases in funding  for innovative devices, but only to maintain the same level of research.  According to university scientists, a number of innovative approaches are  ready to advance to the next stage of development that would test the  feasibility of producing fusion energy or conduct more sophisticated  experiments, but DOE has no plans to advance any of these approaches  because it may require an increase in funding to conduct more  sophisticated experiments. DOE’s fusion energy advisory committee has  not assessed the appropriate level of funding between ITER- and tokamak- related activities and innovative concepts since 1999, before the U.S.  joined ITER and it became a priority.
Scientists from a number of universities told us that this decline in funding  has led to a decline in research opportunities for innovative concepts. For  example, university scientists told us that in the last 3 years, they reduced  the number of experiments they performed on their devices and they  could not upgrade the devices to validate theories and computer  simulations. In addition, the decrease in funding reduced opportunities to  attract students to the fusion sciences and train them to fulfill future  workforce needs.
section_title: DOE Does Not Have a Plan to Address Future Workforce Shortages
paragraphs: According to studies by DOE’s fusion energy advisory committee and the  National Academy of Sciences, the single greatest challenge the fusion  program faces may be a rapidly aging workforce. About one-third of the  U.S. fusion energy workforce is retiring in the next 10 years. In 2004,  DOE’s fusion energy advisory committee found that between 2008 and  2014, DOE would have to fill about 250 permanent positions as scientists  and technicians retire—an average hiring rate of 42 PhDs per year.  However, this figure exceeds the current total PhD production rate in  fusion-related fields. In fiscal year 2006, 33 PhDs were awarded to students  in plasma physics and fusion science. OFES estimates that 33 and 36 PhDs  will be awarded in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 respectively. Furthermore, it  may be difficult to retain these new PhDs in fusion-related fields. DOE’s  fusion energy advisory committee found that about 50 percent of PhDs in  plasma science and engineering took positions outside their fields.  Moreover, DOE would need to hire more PhDs to increase the number of  scientists and engineers needed for ITER and to maintain a strong  domestic program. The average hiring rate of 42 PhDs per year would  replace retiring personnel, but would not increase the fusion workforce.
OFES has taken some steps to address these challenges by recruiting and  training fusion scientists and engineers. OFES established a program that  identifies talented faculty members at universities early in their careers in  plasma physics and funds their research activities. In 2004, OFES also  established Fusion Science Centers at universities to conduct magnetic  and inertial fusion research activities and stimulate the involvement and  participation of students. Moreover, OFES has a partnership with the  National Science Foundation, an independent federal agency that supports  basic scientific research in many fields, including physics and engineering,  to share their resources and fund research into fundamental issues in  plasma science and engineering. OFES officials told us that they are also  hiring PhDs in related scientific fields, such as materials science, to  leverage their expertise in solving different types of scientific and  technological problems encountered during fusion energy research and to  reduce any shortfalls in hiring plasma science and engineering PhDs.
Despite these initiatives, OFES still has not developed a plan to address  the future shortage of fusion scientists and engineers and increase the  number of PhDs working in fusion science. It has not implemented the  recommendation from DOE’s advisory committee report to develop a 5- to  10-year hiring plan with strategies to increase hiring and training of the  most qualified staff. OFES also has not assessed whether its recruitment  and outreach efforts are sufficient to meet future workforce needs. In  2004, OFES reported that its outreach and recruitment programs were  attracting more graduate and postdoctoral students to fusion energy, but  the report did not assess whether it was a sufficient number to sustain  fusion research as a large number of scientists begin to retire and whether  or how long those students remain in fusion-related research.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Given the size of the U.S. contribution to ITER, it is important to assess  the full costs of participation in this scientific endeavor. DOE made a  commitment to provide manufactured components and parts to ITER  without a definitive cost and schedule estimate and a complete project  design. As a result, DOE’s preliminary $1.12 billion estimate may be  subject to significant change as ITER’s design is completed. Moreover,  there is a risk that several management challenges facing the ITER  Organization, such as developing quality assurance standards for  manufactured components and assessing contingencies for cost or  schedule overruns, could result in delays in ITER’s construction, which  would further increase costs for the United States.
DOE could better manage alternative fusion research activities. DOE is not  effectively coordinating OFES’s and NNSA’s inertial fusion activities to  advance inertial fusion energy. Since OFES relies on NNSA and the HAPL  Program to advance inertial fusion as a potential energy source, it is  important that OFES coordinate the research activities of these three  programs to explore inertial fusion energy applications. The lack of a  research plan and clear mission responsibility between OFES and NNSA  on which office has the lead in advancing inertial fusion energy research  may delay progress in developing inertial fusion as an energy source in the  shortest time possible. NNSA also has not determined how much time will  be available at NIF for scientists conducting inertial fusion energy  experiments. NNSA may significantly limit access to NIF if there are  delays in meeting its stockpile stewardship objectives. Since NIF will be  critical in resolving fundamental scientific issues, access issues could  further delay progress for inertial fusion energy research.
In addition, the future of alternative magnetic fusion research activities,  which may lead to a simpler, less costly, or faster path to fusion energy, is  uncertain. Funding for these research activities has steadily declined even  though the fusion research budget has increased. A decreasing share of  funding for innovative concepts may delay progress in resolving  fundamental scientific issues or designing a reactor more quickly. For this  reason, DOE needs to ensure there is a proper balance of funding between  tokamak-related research and alternative innovative concepts to support  U.S. obligations to ITER while continuing to explore different paths to  fusion energy. Finally, OFES has not developed a strategy to hire, train,  and retain the most talented staff. This effort is critical to meeting the  growing demand for scientists and engineers with knowledge about  fusion, especially as the United States participates in ITER, the NIF is  completed, and interest increases in fusion energy as a long-term energy  source.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To advance U.S. efforts to develop alternative fusion energy sources, we  recommend that the Secretary of Energy direct    OFES and NNSA to develop a coordinated research plan to coordinate  U.S. inertial fusion research activities and identify roles and  responsibilities for each program as well as detailed research and  development tasks, budget needs, and time frames for advancing inertial  fusion research;   NNSA to guarantee access to NIF, once it becomes operational, to  scientists conducting inertial fusion energy experiments, and work with  DOE to determine how to share the costs, operational time, and results of  NIF to explore inertial fusion as a viable energy source; and   OFES to charge DOE’s fusion energy advisory committee with  independently assessing whether current funding levels between ITER-  and tokamak-related research and innovative magnetic fusion research  strike the right balance to meet research objectives and advance both  areas of research, and, if the current share of funding is not adequate, to  recommend appropriate changes.
To address OFES’s human capital challenges, we recommend that the  Secretary of Energy direct OFES to develop a strategy to hire, train, and  retain personnel with specialized skills to meet future workforce needs.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided DOE with a draft copy of this report for its review and  comment. DOE provided written comments, which are reprinted in  appendix I. In its written comments, DOE neither agreed nor disagreed  with our recommendations, but questioned several of our findings. First,  DOE believes that enough PhDs are being produced to meet future  workforce needs and it points to anecdotal data from universities that U.S.  participation in ITER is attracting students to fusion sciences. However,  data from DOE’s fusion energy advisory committee show that not enough  doctoral candidates in plasma physics and fusion science are entering the  fusion research field to meet future workforce needs. DOE would have to  hire an average of 42 PhDs a year to fill about 250 permanent positions as  scientists and technicians retire, but awarded 33 PhDs in fiscal year 2006  and plans to award 33 and 36 PhDs respectively in fiscal years 2007 and  2008. Moreover, as we noted in our report, OFES has not assessed whether  its recruitment and outreach efforts are sufficient to meet future  workforce needs. Anecdotal evidence about student interest in fusion  sciences is not a substitute for objective data on recruitment and retention  rates.
Second, DOE questioned our finding that that the share of funding for  alternative, potentially more innovative, magnetic fusion research  activities has declined in the last 6 fiscal years. DOE argued that the share  of funding for non-tokamak research has not declined, but rather remained  flat, and alternative fusion research activities include more than innovative  magnetic research. We agree that alternative fusion research activities  include more than innovative magnetic research. However, with respect to  funding levels, our analysis of DOE’s budget using DOE’s definition of  innovative magnetic fusion research shows a clear result. Funding for  innovative magnetic fusion research activities has declined and this  decline may delay progress in finding a simpler, less costly, or faster path  to fusion energy. In its budget documents, DOE describes these research  activities as cutting edge and the main objective of these activities is to  explore innovative and better ways to achieve fusion energy. In addition,  DOE has stated in its budget documents that these activities have been  effective in attracting students to the fusion workforce.
Third, DOE questions our finding that it does not have a coordinated  research plan to advance inertial fusion energy. DOE noted that, in 2003,  its advisory committee developed a plan that identified critical milestones,  research and development tasks, and budget needs to build an inertial  fusion demonstration power plant within 35 years. However, DOE decided  not to implement this plan because fundamental scientific issues had not  yet been resolved and there was no agreement between OFES and NNSA  on which agency had the responsibility of developing inertial fusion as an  energy source. When DOE rejected its advisory committee’s plan, it did  not develop an alternative. A plan that identifies key scientific and  technological questions as well as the cost, time frames, and detailed  research and development tasks would help OFES and NNSA better  coordinate three separately funded inertial fusion research programs that  have different scientific and technological objectives. Our  recommendation does not involve increasing funding for inertial fusion  research activities, but rather better managing the existing research  activities. In addition, a plan would help OFES and NNSA determine which  agency has the lead in advancing inertial fusion energy research. DOE also  noted that OFES and NNSA plan to establish a joint program in fiscal year  2008 that will address fundamental scientific issues related to inertial  fusion energy. As we recognized in our report, OFES’s and NNSA’s joint  program in high-energy density physics may explore a number of  fundamental scientific issues related to inertial fusion energy, but it will  not address all of the scientific issues that would advance inertial fusion  energy. A coordinated research plan would help identify gaps in scientific  knowledge.
Finally, DOE questioned our statement that the joint program would not  address “most” of the scientific issues that would advance inertial fusion  energy. We agree with DOE that, as currently designed, the joint program  may address many of the scientific issues related to inertial fusion energy  and we made the appropriate change to the report. However, the joint  program has not yet been established and as a result, it is too early to tell if  all or most of the scientific issues will be addressed.
DOE requested that we reprint their enclosure with technical comments.  The technical comments repeated the major points discussed in the  general comments. As a result, we addressed the technical comments in  our response or made changes to the report, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Energy and  interested congressional committees. We will also make copies available  to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-3841 or aloisee@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Energy
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Christopher Banks, Leland  Cogliani, Omari Norman, Keith Rhodes, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, and  Ned Woodward made significant contributions to this report.