Hearing to Examine the Federal Government’s Role in Supporting the Commercialization of Fusion Energy (U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources)

Hearing	Hearing to Examine the Federal Government’s Role in Supporting the Commercialization of Fusion Energy
Committee	U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Date	September 15, 2022

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Nuclear Fusion: Nuclear fusion involves the combination of atoms to produce energy (as opposed to nuclear fission, which involves the splitting of atoms to produce energy). Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses were very supportive of nuclear fusion energy development efforts given nuclear fusion’s promise of being an on demand, safe, clean, and abundant source of carbon-free primary energy and electricity. They noted however that nuclear fusion is very difficult to achieve given its high temperature requirements.
  • Prospects for Deployment: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed optimism regarding the prospects for nuclear fusion development. They cited recent successful scientific experiments and the emergence of nuclear fusion energy companies as indicators that the technology could eventually be deployed successfully. They stated that the U.S. must now have the private sector work to drive down the costs of nuclear fusion so that it becomes an attractive energy source for the market.
  • Safety Considerations: Dr. Hsu and Prof. Cowley both asserted that nuclear fusion is very safe and does not produce high levels of radioactive waste. They noted that while nuclear fusion does produce large volumes of low-level waste that would need to be handled and disposed of, they stated that this amount of waste is still much less than the waste produced in current nuclear fission plants. Dr. Hsu further remarked that large industrial facilities that produce nuclear fusion energy will have hazards associated with them.
  • Potential Positive Externalities of Nuclear Fusion Research and Development (R&D): Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV) and the hearing’s witnesses expressed optimism that nuclear fusion R&D efforts could spur other technology improvements. They specifically stated that these R&D efforts could lead to improvements in magnet technology, high-performance computing, plasma processing, microelectronics, astrophysics research, and laser capabilities.
  • Energy Justice Considerations: Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Dr. Hsu expressed interest in addressing previous harms stemming from energy technologies and working to engage communities on nuclear fusion deployment efforts. They stated that these efforts would both accelerate nuclear fusion deployment when the technology is ready and ensure that nuclear fusion technology does not perpetuate the harms caused by previous energy technologies. 
  • Potential Competition with Battery Technology: Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) suggested that nuclear fusion might eventually compete with battery technology to supply the U.S.’s future energy needs. He explained that the development of new battery technologies could enable the U.S. to store energy from intermittent sources (such as wind and solar), which would reduce the need for nuclear fusion plant construction. Dr. Hsu remarked however that the U.S. needs more than 600 hundred exajoules of carbon-free energy by mid-century. He asserted that multiple energy technologies would therefore be necessary to meet this energy goal.
• Nuclear Fusion Policies: The hearing largely focused on the U.S. government’s efforts to support the development and commercialization of nuclear fusion energy.
  • The Biden Administration’s Efforts to Support Nuclear Fusion Development: Dr. Hsu remarked that the Biden administration is working toward the goal of having the U.S. develop a nuclear fusion pilot plant and commercial nuclear fusion facilities in the 2030s. He remarked that the key piece of the U.S.’s efforts to develop commercial nuclear fusion technology is the Milestone-Based Fusion Development Program (which was first authorized in the Energy Act of 2020). He stated that this Program is expected to be announced imminently and will support for-profit entities to pursue applied nuclear fusion R&D in partnership with U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories and universities. He also mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy has formed its Fusion Crosscut Team to coordinate nuclear fusion-relevant activities across the Department’s Office of Science, the U.S. Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E), the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity, and the Office of Environmental Management (EM). 
  • Legislative Support for Nuclear Fusion: Committee Members and Dr. Hsu mentioned how recent laws, including the Energy Act of 2020, the Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 are supporting the U.S.’s nuclear fusion development and deployment efforts. Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV) stated that these laws provide direction to the U.S. Department of Energy to fully support the U.S.’s contribution to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Organization, pursue innovative nuclear fusion concepts, and establish a Milestone-Based Fusion Development Program for pilot nuclear fusion plants.
  • Regulatory Clarity: Dr. Mumgaard remarked that the U.S. must ensure regulatory clarity for nuclear fusion energy development. He indicated that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is almost finished developing a regulatory process for nuclear fusion energy and called on Congress to provide continued oversight of the NRC.
• Nuclear Fusion Commercial Landscape: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses argued that the commercial deployment of nuclear fusion technologies would be essential for enabling the U.S. to realize nuclear fusion’s benefits. Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY) mentioned how there are currently 33 private sector companies that are developing nuclear fusion energy systems and how these companies have received over $4.7 billion in private investment.
  • Public-Private Partnerships on Nuclear Fusion Development and Deployment: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses stated that public-private partnerships would play a key role in enabling the U.S. to successfully develop and deploy nuclear fusion energy. They stated that government-funded nuclear fusion (at both the national and international level) would support basic research that is too risky and expensive for private companies to undertake. They asserted that the private sector was better suited to developing and deploying the technologies in a fashion that is attractive to the market. Dr. Mumgaard commented that the commercial deployment of basic nuclear fusion technologies would enable government researchers to pursue more advanced nuclear fusion topics.
  • Government Support for Private Nuclear Fusion Development Efforts: Dr. Mumgaard noted how the federal government could directly support nuclear fusion companies through federal grants (such as ARPA-E grants). He also noted how the federal government could provide nuclear fusion companies with access to expensive federal resources (such as supercomputers) and collaboration opportunities with federal research agencies. He further stated that tax incentives and subsidies could provide additional support to nuclear fusion companies.
  • Private Investments in Nuclear Fusion Companies: Dr. Mumgaard attributed the high levels of investment into nuclear fusion energy companies to the promise and quality of the current science. He noted how energy security, energy abundance, and energy sustainability are major problems and stated that private investors view nuclear fusion as a potential solution to these problems. He further noted how the existence of multiple nuclear fusion companies demonstrates that there are multiple approaches for pursuing nuclear fusion technology. He commented that this existence of multiple approaches is leading some private investors to take a portfolio approach to nuclear fusion technology investments.
• International Nuclear Fusion R&D Landscape: The hearing also considered the international nuclear fusion R&D landscape and how the U.S. is both cooperating with and competing against other countries on efforts to develop and deploy nuclear fusion technologies.
  • International Cooperation: A key area of interest during the hearing was international efforts to deploy nuclear fusion. Dr. Luce remarked that these efforts (including those occurring through the ITER Organization) enable countries to pool their resources together to pursue more ambitious nuclear fusion research projects and to limit their costs. Dr. Luce and Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV) also stated these efforts could foster international cooperation among geopolitical rivals and support international regulatory cooperation. He commented that the success of these efforts could eliminate a major source of global conflict (i.e., scarce energy resources). Dr. Hsu discussed how governments and private companies from around the world have expressed interest in collaborating with the U.S. on its efforts to launch a nuclear fusion pilot plant within a decade. He indicated that collaborative opportunities could include securing startup tritium, sharing test facilities, and developing robust supply chains. Sen. Angus King (I-ME) suggested that the U.S. consider establishing a matching arrangement with other countries in which countries would commit to certain expenditure levels for nuclear fusion R&D efforts. Prof. Cowley expressed support for this proposal.
  • International Competition: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses noted however that countries are also competing to successfully develop and deploy nuclear fusion technologies. Dr. Hsu noted how nuclear fusion might enable new defense and space capabilities and commented that the global race to achieve nuclear fusion energy therefore had implications for global leadership. Dr. Mumgaard testified that foreign governments are attempting to recruit his company to build power plants and use test facilities in their countries. He warned that the U.S. is at risk of becoming dependent on foreign sources for nuclear fusion energy. Prof. Cowley remarked that China is currently making the world’s largest investments in nuclear fusion technology and noted how China is seeking to establish a nuclear fusion pilot plant before the U.S. He also noted how Europe and the United Kingdom (UK) are aggressively pursuing nuclear fusion.
  • Research Security Concerns: Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY) expressed interest in ensuring that the U.S.’s nuclear fusion research is protected from Russia and China. Dr. Hsu mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fusion Crosscut Team includes members from NNSA to address national security considerations. He also testified that the U.S. Department of Energy is working with the White House on providing cybersecurity training and resources to the private nuclear fusion industry.
• Additional Technologies and Materials to Support Nuclear Fusion: The hearing further considered the technologies and materials needed to support the U.S.’s development and deployment of nuclear fusion energy.
  • High-Performance Computing: Prof. Cowley and Dr. Luce stated that high-performance computing capabilities would be key to support the development and deployment of nuclear fusion technologies. Prof. Cowley explained that high-performance computing would enable the U.S. to predict the turbulence and instabilities within nuclear fusion reactions and to optimize nuclear fusion systems.
  • Nuclear Fusion Fuel Supplies: Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) raised concerns that the U.S. might experience challenges obtaining the necessary tritium for nuclear fusion reactions. He noted how tritium has a decay lifetime of 12.5 years and does not exist naturally on earth. He suggested that the U.S. consider proposals to extract material from the moon to support nuclear fusion. Dr. Luce stated however that that the moon’s helium-3 is not currently the optimal fuel for supporting nuclear fusion deployment. He noted that there exists a known way to develop fuel for nuclear fusion technology and asserted that the industrialization of these processes must be demonstrated.
  • Critical Minerals and Materials: Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in efforts to source the critical minerals and materials needed for nuclear fusion reactors. These inputs include lithium, steel, rare earth minerals (including yttrium and niobium), and neutron sources. Dr. Mumgaard discussed how his company has successfully used adjacent industries to obtain nuclear fusion materials. He noted how his company needs magnets and commented that car assemblers could be taught to assemble magnets.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Dr. Scott Hsu, Lead Fusion Coordinator, Office of the Undersecretary for Science and Innovation, U.S. Department of Energy
2. Prof. Steven Cowley, Director, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
3. Dr. Tim Luce, Chief Scientist, ITER Organization
4. Dr. Bob Mumgaard, CEO and Co-Founder, Commonwealth Fusion Systems

Member Opening Statements: 

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• He mentioned how his recent visit to the ITER facility in southern France had been very positive and expressed hope that the development of nuclear fusion could eliminate energy-related conflicts.
  • He commented that the facility’s dedication to scientific and engineering collaboration among geopolitical rivals (including Russia and China) and allies restores faith in the prospects for international cooperation.
  • He noted how the U.S. and the Soviet Union had initiated the ITER project during the Cold War to develop fusion energy for peaceful purposes.
• He remarked that the promise of nuclear fusion technology and the collaborative approach amongst nations provides a model for technology innovation and competition without conflict through focusing on data transparency and mutual benefits.
  • He commented that his recent visit to the ITER facility had made him optimistic that the world could adequately address climate change and overcome political resistance regarding these efforts.
• He asserted that domestic nuclear fusion research is at a “critical inflection point” and remarked that private nuclear fusion companies are preparing to demonstrate their technologies.
  • He stated that U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories had achieved “significant” milestones in nuclear fusion and that private capital had been “generously” invested in the promise of nuclear fusion technology.
  • He also mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine had released reports in 2021 that provide a “clear” set of recommendations for the commercialization of nuclear fusion.
• He discussed how the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science and the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories are continuing to advance research into nuclear fusion through advanced computing for predictive and modeling capabilities.
  • He also noted how these bodies are enhancing existing facilities to support these research efforts.
  • He further mentioned how the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) had similarly led a “high level” commitment to nuclear fusion energy.
• He highlighted how Members of Congress had supported new legislation and investments into nuclear fusion technology over the previous four years, including through the Energy Act of 2020, the Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
  • He stated that these laws provide direction to the U.S. Department of Energy to fully support the U.S.’s contribution to ITER, pursue innovative nuclear fusion concepts, and establish a Milestone-Based Fusion Development Program for pilot nuclear fusion plants.
• He asserted that these laws would provide the U.S. with necessary experimental capabilities to advance nuclear fusion research, including the Material Plasma Exposure eXperiment (MPEX) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
  • He commented that this facility will help the U.S. to understand the material capabilities required in high heat environments and provide upgrades to meet research needs for understanding physical and chemical changes to plasmas.
  • He added that this facility will support research regarding dense material physics, astrophysics, planetary physics, and short-pulse laser-plasma interactions.
• He highlighted how the U.S. had made $280 million available for nuclear fusion science construction.
  • He noted that additional funds had been made available for science laboratory infrastructure that will help to accelerate nuclear fusion projects (such as the Princeton Plasma Innovation Center).
• He remarked that the Committee’s efforts to support nuclear fusion R&D are in concert with the private sector’s work in this area.
  • He emphasized however that there is increasing global competition within the nuclear fusion space.

Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY):

• He remarked that the goal of developing nuclear fusion technology was becoming increasingly obtainable and discussed how innovators are currently working to demonstrate usable fusion energy.
  • He noted how Prof. Cowley had previously predicted that the U.S. could achieve fusion electricity by the end of 2030s.
• He stated that the hearing would focus on efforts to commercialize nuclear fusion technology.
  • He explained that current nuclear energy technology involves nuclear fission, which entails the generation of energy through splitting uranium atoms.
  • He indicated that nuclear fusion by contrast seeks to generate energy through combining elements (such as hydrogen).
• He noted that while nuclear fusion had first been theorized over 100 years ago, he indicated that there is no way to currently generate electricity from nuclear fusion.
• He discussed how the U.S. Department of Energy is leading the federal government’s efforts to develop nuclear fusion energy and noted that the Department’s Office of Science manages the Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) Program.
  • He commented that the FES program remains largely focused on basic scientific research.
• He also noted how the U.S. Department of Energy’s NNSA supports the National Ignition Facility (NIF).
  • He explained that the NIF’s primary mission is to support the U.S.’s nuclear weapons program and indicated that the NIF is advancing nuclear fusion research.
• He stated that the NIF had taken a “historic step forward” in 2021 by producing heat from nuclear fusion reactions.
• He then discussed how there are currently 33 private sector companies that are developing nuclear fusion energy systems.
  • He noted how these companies had received over $4.7 billion in private investment and commented that these companies are making progress in their development of nuclear fusion energy.
• He remarked that these nuclear fusion companies are “eager” to partner with the U.S. Department of Energy to move beyond fundamental scientific research.
• He stated that these nuclear fusion companies are also outpacing the U.S. Department of Energy through developing technologies that are smaller and cheaper.
  • He commented that these private sector companies might demonstrate the ability to generate net energy production before the federal government achieves this milestone.
• He mentioned how Congress had authorized the U.S. Department of Energy to establish a Milestone-Based Fusion Development Program as part of the Energy Act of 2020.
  • He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy had been slow to implement this effort and noted that Dr. Hsu had been recently brought into the Department to lead this effort.
• He expressed interest in learning how the U.S. Department of Energy is preparing to work with the private sector to transition from nuclear fusion science to commercial nuclear fusion energy.

Witness Opening Statements:

Dr. Scott Hsu (Office of the Undersecretary for Science and Innovation, U.S. Department of Energy):

• He first thanked the Committee for its longstanding support for nuclear fusion energy research.
  • He specifically highlighted the Energy Act of 2020, the Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 as examples of the Committee’s support for nuclear fusion energy.
• He remarked that nuclear fusion holds the promise of being an on demand, safe, and abundant source of carbon-free primary energy and electricity.
  • He commented that nuclear fusion had the potential to transform the way that humans generate and use energy.
• He stated however that that much work remains to realize the promise of nuclear fusion energy.
• He also discussed how nuclear fusion might enable new defense and space capabilities and commented that the global race to achieve nuclear fusion energy therefore has implications for global leadership.
• He mentioned how the U.S. nuclear fusion R&D community had recently declared that they are ready to take on an energy development mission and asserted that this effort would require a “fundamental shift” in the U.S.’s nuclear fusion energy strategy.
  • He stated that this effort would require a greater emphasis on developing the necessary enabling materials and technologies for a nuclear fusion pilot plant.
  • He also stated that this effort would require a greater focus on public-private partnerships to ensure commercial relevance and to better harness the private capital being invested into predominantly U.S.-based nuclear fusion companies.
• He mentioned how the White House OSTP and the U.S. Department of Energy had co-hosted the White House Summit on Developing a Bold Decadal Vision for Commercial Fusion Energy in March 2022.
  • He commented that this Summit had sought to foster a strong relationship between the U.S. Department of Energy and the private sector to resolve the remaining scientific and technological challenges for nuclear fusion this decade.
• He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy’s goal is to have a nuclear fusion pilot plant and nuclear fusion commercial deployments in the 2030s.
• He also mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy had hosted a June 2022 workshop titled “Fusion Energy Development via Public-Private Partnerships.”
  • He testified that the workshop had involved a broad set of stakeholders having “inclusive” conversations about the U.S.’s decadal vision for commercial nuclear fusion technology.
• He remarked that the key piece of the U.S.’s efforts to develop commercial nuclear fusion technology is the Milestone-Based Fusion Development Program (which was first authorized in the Energy Act of 2020).
  • He stated that this Program is expected to be announced imminently and will help for-profit entities pursue applied nuclear fusion R&D in partnership with U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories and universities.
• He also mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy had formed its Fusion Crosscut Team to coordinate nuclear fusion-relevant activities across the Department’s Office of Science, ARPA-E, NNSA, Office of Nuclear Energy, Office of Economic Impact and Diversity, and EM.
• He remarked that increased funding would be needed for the U.S. to realize its goal of an operating nuclear fusion pilot plant on a decadal timescale.
• He also stated that the U.S. would need to consider investment strategies that could amplify federal funding for nuclear fusion R&D.
  • He highlighted how ARPA-E’s nuclear fusion portfolio has received follow-on private funding six-times the original federal funding to date.
• He then remarked that there exist immediate opportunities to maximize ITER’s benefits for the U.S. Department of Energy’s decadal vision.
  • He specifically recommended that the U.S. place more Americans at ITER and enable U.S. nuclear fusion stakeholders to more easily access ITER’s data.
• He also discussed how governments and private companies from around the world have expressed interest in collaborating with the U.S. on its efforts to launch a nuclear fusion pilot plant within a decade.
  • He indicated that collaborative opportunities could include securing startup tritium, sharing test facilities, and developing robust supply chains.
  • He noted how FESAC is charged with assessing mutually beneficial scientific collaborations.

Prof. Steven Cowley (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory):

• He first explained that Princeton University manages the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) for the U.S. Department of Energy and noted how PPPL is the lead U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory for nuclear fusion research.
  • He thanked the Committee for its longstanding commitment to the development of nuclear fusion energy.
• He discussed how nuclear fusion involved the combination of smaller atoms to make bigger atoms and noted how nuclear fusion powered the sun and all of the stars in the universe.
• He stated that nuclear fusion was the perfect energy source in that it was both safe and clean.
  • He noted how nuclear fusion has no greenhouse gas emissions and no long-term radioactive waste.
  • He also explained that the fuel needed for nuclear fusion would be extracted from seawater, which is abundant and sustainable for millions of years.
• He remarked however that nuclear fusion requires “unbelievable conditions,” such as temperatures over 100 million degrees.
• He asserted that it was possible to perform nuclear fusion on earth and noted how PPPL had produced more than 10 million watts of fusion power.
  • He explained that this effort had involved a device that used powerful magnets to contain and control a 250 million degree fuel.
• He also highlighted how there had occurred two major results in nuclear fusion research in 2021.
  • He indicated that the first major result involved the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s achievement of the first self-sustained fusion burn from a pellet ignited by the world’s most powerful laser.
  • He indicated that the second major result involved the Joint European Torus’s (JET) sustaining of fusion conditions to release 59 megajoules of fusion energy.
• He remarked that nuclear fusion was an achievable goal and stated that the challenge is making nuclear fusion energy affordable for consumers.
• He expressed optimism that affordable nuclear fusion energy could be developed and commented that this effort would involve collaboration between the public and private sectors.
  • He stated that the U.S. should harness the private sector to drive down the costs of fusion energy and the public sector (including the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories and universities) to advance the science and innovation of nuclear fusion.
  • He asserted that neither sector can achieve the goal of affordable nuclear fusion energy on its own.
• He mentioned how the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine had released a 2021 report that had called on the U.S. Department of Energy and the private sector to produce net electricity in a nuclear fusion plant within U.S. sometime between 2035 and 2040.
• He noted how this report had recommended that the U.S. Department of Energy foster the creation of national teams (including public-private partnerships) that will develop conceptual pilot plant designs and technology roadmaps.
  • He commented that these teams will lead to an engineering design of a pilot plant that will bring nuclear fusion to commercial viability.
• He asserted that the U.S. must “urgently” form such national teams and conceptual designs.
  • He highlighted how the Chips and Science Act authorizes the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science to establish national teams that will develop such conceptual pilot plants designs and technology roadmaps.
• He further stated that recent changes in the scientific understanding of nuclear fusion drove his optimism for nuclear fusion’s commercial prospects.
  • He specifically commented that advances in theory, algorithms, and high-performance computing have made it possible to predict the turbulence and instabilities that dominate all fusion experiments and have frustrated progress.
  • He asserted that current experiments, including the DIII-D tokamak at General Atomics and the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) at PPPL, must continue for the U.S. to improve its predictive capabilities.
• He remarked that the solution to the “fiendishly difficult” turbulence problem is a “triumph” of U.S. Department of Energy-funded programs and noted how nuclear fusion systems can now be designed and optimized on computers.
  • He highlighted how PPPL is combining virtual engineering and the latest nuclear fusion science to innovate computationally.
• He also applauded the Chips and Science Act’s provision that authorizes the U.S. Secretary of Energy to establish and operate a national High-Performance Computing for Fusion Innovation Center.
• He lastly stated that the U.S. must address the “crucial” nuclear fusion technologies that had been set aside while the U.S. had mastered the containment of the hot fuel.
  • He indicated that these technologies included materials and processes for converting neutrons into electricity.
• He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories and universities possess “extensive” experience in these related technologies.
  • He highlighted how Savannah River National Laboratory had tritium capabilities, how Idaho National Laboratory had nuclear technology design expertise, and how Oak Ridge National Laboratory had materials expertise.

Dr. Tim Luce (ITER Organization):

• He discussed how the ITER Organization is responsible for the coordination of the design, assembly, commissioning, and operation of the ITER tokamak.
  • He indicated that ITER’s goal is to demonstrate fusion power production at the power plant scale.
• He stated that while nuclear fusion energy is not yet at the stage to satisfy the need for abundant clean energy, he asserted that nuclear fusion energy has the potential to supply this energy for millennia.
  • He noted how nuclear fusion energy could be realized around the world, which should reduce one source of conflict among nations.
• He remarked however that the potential of nuclear fusion energy remains to be demonstrated at the scales required for global energy production.
  • He asserted that ITER would play an “essential” role in this demonstration.
• He noted that while proper conditions for nuclear fusion power have been demonstrated in laboratories around the world for seconds at a time, he stated that the challenge remains to produce megawatts of power with substantially greater output than input.
• He remarked that a fundamental element of ITER’s mission is to validate the physics understanding that a burning or self-heated plasma can be produced at the power plant scale.
  • He indicated that ITER’s goal is 500 megawatts output at ten times the input power.
• He also mentioned that another element of ITER’s mission is to test some of the essential technologies to bring nuclear fusion into the energy economy.
  • He testified that ITER is now more than 75 percent complete for the infrastructure and components needed for first plasma operations.
• He remarked that the U.S. plays an essential role in ITER and noted how about 85 percent of the capital investments in ITER are supplied by in-kind contributions.
  • He noted how the ITER Project Office at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the U.S. body responsible for these contributions.
  • He stated that this Office is delivering a range of systems that are necessary for ITER’s mission success.
• He remarked that the FES program had been a global leader in developing the physics understanding that had led to the ITER design.
• He also mentioned how the ITER Organization consists of staff from all ITER members and stated that the U.S. staff play a “vital” role in all facets of ITER’s work.
• He noted that while the ITER Organization could not advocate for any specific proposals to member governments, he expressed the ITER Organization’s support for roadmaps to nuclear fusion energy by member governments.
  • He commented that preparing to build upon the success of ITER would bring the maximum return on the ITER investment.
• He stated that ITER would demonstrate scientific understandings of nuclear fusion plasmas and inform designers of future nuclear fusion power plants about tradeoffs regarding key design features.
  • He indicated that one such tradeoff is pulsed versus steady-state operation.
• He also mentioned how ITER is providing practical experience in licensing a nuclear fusion facility under nuclear safety regulations.
• He further stated that the in-kind supply model for ITER components has been beneficial for industry.
  • He commented that this model should result in the development of a new global nuclear fusion supply chain and workforce.
• He remarked that ITER is a “prudent” investment that is part of a nuclear fusion energy strategy.
  • He indicated that all ITER members receive 100 percent of ITER’s science, technology, and associated intellectual property (IP) in exchange for covering a fraction of ITER’s costs.
• He contended that continued U.S. support for ITER is essential for supporting the development of nuclear fusion energy and provides important experience for a nuclear fusion pilot plant.
  • He expressed ITER’s gratitude for Congress’s support for nuclear fusion energy.
  • He also acknowledged how the U.S. Department of Energy and many U.S. companies had provided support to ITER.
• He lastly stated that ITER was indebted to U.S. researchers and engineers that have worked to advance nuclear fusion technology.

Dr. Bob Mumgaard (Commonwealth Fusion Systems):

• He discussed how his company, Commonwealth Fusion Systems, is a nuclear fusion energy company that employs 300 people.
  • He indicated that he is also testifying on behalf of the Fusion Industry Association.
• He highlighted how the private markets have invested $4.7 billion into nuclear fusion energy companies.
  • He indicated that this amount is greater than the amount being invested into advanced nuclear reactors.
• He discussed how other countries are actively pursuing nuclear fusion energy development and testified that foreign governments are attempting to recruit his company to build power plants and use test facilities in their countries.
  • He warned that the U.S. is at risk of becoming dependent on foreign sources for nuclear fusion energy.
• He asserted that the consequences of the U.S. not becoming the global leader in nuclear fusion energy are “substantial.” 
  • He commented that the U.S. is currently underperforming expectations in the global race to develop nuclear fusion energy.
• He remarked however that the U.S. is now becoming more invested in achieving nuclear fusion energy over the next decade and commented that public programs are now beginning to support this effort.
• He stated that Congress has already authorized many key policies to support the U.S.’s development of nuclear fusion technology and that there were four main policy activities that the U.S. should take to support this development.
• He first remarked that the U.S. should align its existing nuclear fusion programs with an energy mission.
  • He asserted that the U.S. Department of Energy should focus on a domestic nuclear fusion energy industry.
  • He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories should support this effort by focusing on basic science innovation while the private sector should focus on ways to develop and deploy technologies that would be attractive to the market.
• He then remarked that the U.S. needs to build more nuclear fusion test stands and highlighted how other countries are further ahead in experimenting on metals than the U.S.
• He further remarked that the U.S. needs to enable pilot plants and explained that these plants would play a key role in putting power on the energy grid.
  • He stated that pilot plants are especially important for companies because it allows them to test their business models.
  • He mentioned how the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) had launched the Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) program to support the development of commercial satellite launch companies.
  • He commented that this experience with the NASA COTS Program can provide lessons for supporting the development of the U.S. commercial nuclear fusion sector.
• He lastly remarked that the U.S. must ensure regulatory clarity for nuclear fusion energy development.
  • He indicated that the NRC is almost finished developing a regulatory process for nuclear fusion energy and called on Congress to provide continued oversight of the NRC.
• He expressed confidence that having the U.S. undertake the aforementioned actions would position the U.S. as the global leader on nuclear fusion energy.

Congressional Question Period:

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• Chairman Manchin described ITER as a “remarkable effort” to support international collaboration for developing nuclear fusion energy. He commented that ITER demonstrates the potential for scientific collaboration between adversarial nations. He asked Dr. Luce to discuss how ITER will assist efforts to commercialize nuclear fusion energy technology. He also noted how other countries were pursuing their own nuclear fusion research. He asked Dr. Luce to indicate whether other countries are duplicating U.S. nuclear fusion research or spending more money on nuclear fusion research than the U.S.
  • Dr. Luce remarked that ITER’s primary mission is to remove scientific uncertainty regarding nuclear fusion. He noted that while ITER has made great progress in developing predictive capabilities, he asserted that these predictive capabilities would ultimately need to be validated with an actual demonstration. He remarked that ITER would perform this demonstration in a variety of operating scenarios. He stated that others could take the information obtained through the demonstration and apply it to the design of nuclear fusion power plants (including pilot projects). He also stated that ITER member governments could choose how rapidly they want to deploy this technology.
• Chairman Manchin interjected to note that nuclear fusion development efforts are not new. He asked Dr. Luce to address how ITER is approaching nuclear fusion development differently from previous nuclear fusion development efforts. He also asked Dr. Luce to indicate whether there exist smaller scale nuclear fusion projects that provide ITER with more of a direction.
  • Dr. Luce noted how the European Union’s (EU) JET tokamak has recently operated at tens of megawatts of nuclear fusion power. He indicated however that the JET tokamak has not operated at net energy gain. He stated that researchers must have the nuclear fusion reactions produce a dominant heating source. He called this a “vital first step” for achieving nuclear fusion.
• Chairman Manchin asked Dr. Luce to confirm that the ITER demonstration has the capability of producing a dominant heating source.
  • Dr. Luce answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Manchin asked Dr. Luce to indicate whether there exist other nuclear fusion projects that could produce a dominant heating source.
  • Dr. Luce stated that there exist other nuclear fusion plans to demonstrate a capability to produce a dominant heating source.
• Chairman Manchin asked Dr. Luce to explain why there are other nuclear fusion projects aiming to produce a dominant heating source when ITER is already performing this research and work at a massive scale.
  • Dr. Luce stated that the work of these other nuclear fusion projects and ITER are complementary in nature. He expressed agreement with Dr. Mumgaard’s statement that the technologies needed for a nuclear fusion economy would not be properly demonstrated in ITER. He stated that facilities that can complement ITER’s efforts (through both special laboratories and unit demonstrations) are therefore “essential.”
• Chairman Manchin then mentioned how the Energy Act of 2020 and the Chips and Science Act had provided the U.S. Department of Energy with direction to “aggressively” pursue nuclear fusion research and technology development. He also mentioned how the White House had hosted its Summit on Developing a Bold Decadal Vision for Commercial Fusion Energy last spring. He noted how this summit had resulted in three new initiatives: the U.S. Department of Energy’s agency-wide nuclear fusion initiative, the naming of Dr. Hsu as the U.S. Department of Energy’s lead nuclear fusion coordinator, and $50 million in new funding availability for advancing a nuclear fusion pilot plant. He asked Dr. Hsu to provide the Committee with an update on the U.S. Department of Energy’s nuclear fusion activities. He also asked Dr. Hsu to discuss the U.S.’s progress in working toward its decadal nuclear fusion energy goals and to address how the U.S. Department of Energy is spending the $50 million allocated for advancing a nuclear fusion pilot plant.
  • Dr. Hsu testified that the U.S. Department of Energy is currently developing its plans to achieve the commercial deployment of nuclear fusion and stated that a central element of these plans is aligning public sector and private sector activities. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy is focused on resolving the remaining scientific and technological challenges so that it can operate a pilot nuclear fusion plant.
• Chairman Manchin asked Dr. Hsu to indicate whether the U.S. Department of Energy is duplicating ITER’s work on nuclear fusion energy.
  • Dr. Hsu remarked that ITER would serve as a scientific tool that would enable research that is not possible in private sector facilities. He stated however that ITER would not conduct all of the necessary research that would enable commercially viable nuclear fusion energy. He asserted that the U.S. would need to address fuel cycle matters (such as tritium breeding) so that it could meet its decadal goals for nuclear fusion energy deployment.

Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY):

• Ranking Member Barrasso noted how private nuclear fusion companies have now raised $4.7 billion. He asked Dr. Mumgaard to discuss why private investors are so confident in the development prospects for commercial nuclear fusion energy. He also asked Dr. Mumgaard to discuss the specific metrics that private investors are using to assess a private nuclear fusion company’s performance.
  • Dr. Mumgaard remarked that private investors are first considering the current state of the science underlying nuclear fusion technologies. He commented that ITER’s optimism toward the prospects for nuclear fusion technology fostered investor confidence in the technology. He also stated that private investors are considering the quality of the science and the predictive capabilities of nuclear fusion experiments. He further discussed how energy security, energy abundance, and energy sustainability are major problems and stated that private investors view nuclear fusion as a potential solution to the aforementioned problems. He then noted how the existence of multiple nuclear fusion companies demonstrates that there are multiple approaches for pursuing nuclear fusion technology. He commented that this existence of multiple approaches is leading some private investors to take a portfolio approach to nuclear fusion technology investments.
• Ranking Member Barrasso expressed interest in identifying the specific metrics and benchmarks that private investors are using. He noted how Dr. Mumgaard had stated that Commonwealth Fusion Systems plans to demonstrate net-energy production by 2025, which is more ambitious than the U.S. Department of Energy’s plans. He asked Dr. Mumgaard to indicate whether the U.S. should reprioritize its investments in nuclear fusion energy research.
  • Dr. Mumgaard stated that there are two main metrics for assessing nuclear fusion energy projects. He indicated that the first main metric is whether energy output from plasma could exceed energy input from plasma. He indicated that the second main metric is whether a nuclear fusion project can put electricity on the grid. He stated that private investors are also looking at intermediate milestones to ensure that nuclear fusion projects are on schedule. He noted how these private investors will often track laboratory developments to assess a company’s progress in achieving viable nuclear fusion energy. He asserted that nuclear fusion companies must be aggressive in achieving progress given the time sensitivity of the market.
• Ranking Member Barrasso then asked Dr. Hsu to address how the U.S. Department of Energy is protecting the U.S.’s nuclear fusion research from Russia and China.
  • Dr. Hsu mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fusion Crosscut Team includes members from NNSA to address national security considerations. He also testified that the U.S. Department of Energy is working with the White House on providing cybersecurity training and resources for the private nuclear fusion industry. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy must consciously work to protect the U.S.’s nuclear fusion research.
• Ranking Member Barrasso asked Dr. Luce to indicate whether Russia and China should be permitted to continue in international nuclear fusion projects.
  • Dr. Luce remarked that nuclear fusion research has historically served as a “bridge” to support conversations between adversarial countries. He stated that there does not exist any weaponization potential for magnetic confinement fusion. He also noted how the ITER agreement is a treaty-level agreement. He stated that this agreement is a realization of a good investment (in that it provide members with access to a lot of research for a small amount of money) and addresses a common need (i.e., the need for energy). He commented that the development of an abundant energy source could reduce a source of friction between countries.
• Ranking Member Barrasso then mentioned how Newsweek had recently reported that South Korean researchers had sustained a stable nuclear fusion reaction for 30 seconds. He asked Prof. Cowley to identify the U.S.’s main competitors in nuclear fusion research.
  • Prof. Cowley remarked that China is currently making the largest investments in nuclear fusion technology and noted how China is seeking to establish a nuclear fusion pilot plant before the U.S. He further mentioned how China had recently announced that it would pursue more compact nuclear fusion machines. He also noted how Europe and the UK are aggressively pursuing nuclear fusion. He indicated that the UK is pursuing a spherical tokamak concept and is hoping to achieve its goal by the end of the 2030s. He then stated that China is currently attempting to copy the U.S.’s nuclear fusion technology.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI):

• Sen. Hirono mentioned how Hawaii’s state constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the state legislature in order to construct a nuclear fission plant in the state. She noted how this provision had been added in response to public concerns about the safety of nuclear power and its associated waste. She asked Dr. Hsu to describe the safety issues that Congress would need to consider with nuclear fusion energy. She also asked Dr. Hsu to compare these nuclear fusion safety concerns to nuclear fission safety concerns.
  • Dr. Hsu remarked that the safety profile of nuclear fusion is one of its potential benefits and noted how nuclear fusion has no meltdown risks. He also discussed how nuclear fusion does not require special nuclear materials (such as plutonium or enriched uranium) and does not produce high-level radioactive waste. He commented that the aforementioned features of nuclear fusion provided it with safety and licensing advantages over nuclear fission. He remarked however that nuclear fusion does have certain unique safety issues, including the need to safely contain radioactive tritium (which is one of the fuels for nuclear fusion). He also stated that nuclear fusion produced large volumes of low-level waste that would need to be safely handled and disposed of. He further remarked that large industrial facilities that produce nuclear fusion energy will have hazards associated with them.
• Sen. Hirono asked Dr. Hsu to address the concerns associated with the containment and disposal of waste produced by the nuclear fusion process.
  • Dr. Hsu expressed optimism that the U.S. could handle the waste produced by the nuclear fusion process. He highlighted how the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fusion Crosscut Team included EM. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy would leverage its knowledge and capabilities to develop the correct solutions for addressing this waste produced by the nuclear fusion process.
  • Prof. Cowley stated that the total amount of radioactive waste from a typical nuclear fusion power station would be about 1,000 times lower than the total amount of radioactive waste from a nuclear fission power station. He also noted how the half-life of most of the radioactive waste from a nuclear fusion power station is less than ten years. He indicated that all of the nuclear fusion waste could be remanufactured into new nuclear fusion plants by 200 years after the end of a nuclear fusion reactor’s lifetime.
• Sen. Hirono asked Prof. Cowley to indicate whether Hawaii’s state constitution’s provisions on nuclear fission would not prohibit the development of a nuclear fusion plant within Hawaii.
  • Prof. Cowley stated that Hawaii’s state constitution should not prohibit the development of a nuclear fusion plant within Hawaii. He commented however that he could not provide a definitive answer to the question as he is not a lawyer.
• Sen. Hirono then noted how Dr. Hsu had stated that the pathway to nuclear fusion energy would need to address public engagement and energy justice. She asked Dr. Hsu to define the phrase “energy justice” and to discuss how the U.S. Department of Energy plans to engage the public on nuclear fusion and energy justice issues.
  • Dr. Hsu stated that the U.S. Department of Energy plans to learn from the deployment experiences of other technologies to inform its engagement strategy with the public and energy justice communities. He contended that working towards these goals would accelerate nuclear fusion deployment when the technology is ready. He then remarked that the U.S. Department of Energy wants to address how energy technologies have previously harmed particular communities. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy wants to both remedy these harms and ensure that these harms are not perpetuated.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA):

• Sen. Cassidy stated that the private sector is making progress towards nuclear fusion development. He mentioned however that ITER is reportedly making slow progress towards nuclear fusion development and is experiencing rising costs. He asked Dr. Luce to defend the U.S.’s continued investment in ITER considering the private sector’s progress in nuclear fusion development.
  • Dr. Luce first noted that the U.S. only needs to cover about 10 percent of ITER’s costs to access all of its research and findings. He commented that this dynamic provides the U.S. with limited risk exposure. He also discussed how ITER’s work is already in progress and stated that ITER’s findings could inform public and private sector nuclear fusion work. He further remarked that ITER is focused on the basic science underlying nuclear fusion technology and stated that the private sector can use these findings to support their pursuit of practical nuclear fusion technologies. He then remarked that the U.S.’s investment in nuclear fusion could support the U.S.’s national security and asserted that energy security constitutes a form of national security.
• Sen. Cassidy interjected to note that there is currently $4.7 billion in private investments in nuclear fusion R&D. He commented that this high level of private investment suggests that there is sufficient funding for nuclear fusion R&D. He then noted how Dr. Mumgaard had suggested that U.S. policymakers consider NASA’s experience supporting the development of a private satellite launch industry as a model for the development of a private nuclear fusion industry. He asked Dr. Mumgaard to defend the U.S.’s continued investment in ITER considering the private sector’s progress in nuclear fusion development.
  • Dr. Mumgaard remarked that the existence of a commercially viable private nuclear fusion sector does not mean that the U.S. should cease funding nuclear fusion R&D. He asserted that the U.S.’s support for basic science research is key for advancing nuclear fusion technology. He remarked that ITER would support the private nuclear fusion industry through undertaking experiments that are too risky for private companies. He also stated that the development of a vibrant private nuclear fusion industry would enable ITER to pursue more ambitious nuclear fusion goals.
• Sen. Cassidy interjected to reclaim his time. He then expressed uncertainty regarding ITER’s capabilities. He noted that while ITER seeks to demonstrate the ability to perform nuclear fusion, he stated that it would be difficult for ITER to pivot to pursuing new activities given its reliance on expensive hard structures. He asked Prof. Cowley and Dr. Hsu to address these flexibility concerns regarding ITER.
  • Prof. Cowley noted how ITER would study what is occurring within nuclear fusion reactions while private companies are more focused on using nuclear fusion to produce electricity. He indicated that ITER’s research into the science of plasma contaminants has played a key role in advancing recent developments in nuclear fusion technology.
• Sen. Cassidy interjected to ask Prof. Cowley to indicate whether ITER’s work would be complete once it has successfully established a way to contain plasma in nuclear fusion reactions.
  • Prof. Cowley answered no. He explained how plasma in nuclear fusion reactions is contained using magnetic fields and indicated that this containment process involves turbulence that brings heat from the middle to the outside. He remarked that reducing this turbulence can enable smaller and higher performance nuclear fusion systems. He stated that the performance of nuclear fusion systems would ultimately dictate whether the systems could provide cheap enough electricity for consumers.
  • Dr. Hsu remarked that the international engagement aspect of ITER has many “spillover” benefits. He highlighted how ITER fosters international regulatory coordination and commented that this coordination would help position the U.S. to become an exporter of nuclear fusion products. He also stated that ITER could provide test reactors and other facilities to help optimize the nuclear fusion industry. He lastly remarked that ITER currently constitutes the “surest path” to a burning plasma.

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO):

• Sen. Hickenlooper first remarked that nuclear fusion has the potential to change life on earth. He then discussed how many smaller nuclear fusion technology startup companies often struggle to obtain federal funds because of high cost share requirements and milestone-based funding requirements. He asked Dr. Mumgaard to provide recommendations for lowering barriers to obtaining funds for innovative and nascent nuclear fusion technology companies.
  • Dr. Mumgaard remarked that there are a variety of ways that the federal government could support innovative and nascent nuclear fusion technology companies. He noted how the federal government could directly support nuclear fusion companies through federal grants (such as ARPA-E grants). He also noted how the federal government could provide nuclear fusion companies with access to expensive federal resources (such as supercomputers) and collaboration opportunities with federal research agencies. He commented that this federally supported research could enable nuclear fusion technology companies to achieve certain results, which in turn will attract private investment. He further stated that tax incentives and subsidies could provide additional support to nuclear fusion companies. He concluded that the U.S. must ensure that nuclear fusion technologies will receive differing and appropriate levels of federal support depending on their stage.
• Sen. Hickenlooper expressed agreement with Dr. Mumgaard’s response. He called it important for policymakers to ensure that smaller nuclear fusion startup companies could obtain necessary support. He then discussed how there is a global race to develop nuclear fusion energy. He noted how some major players within the nuclear fusion space (including the UK and Canada) do not participate in ITER. He asked Dr. Luce to address how the U.S. should balance the need to collaborate with allies on nuclear fusion R&D efforts with the need for the U.S. to become a global leader in nuclear fusion technology.
  • Dr. Luce remarked that international engagement is essential for enabling the U.S. to maximize the returns on its nuclear fusion R&D investments. He elaborated that this international engagement enables the U.S. to better identify nuclear fusion areas for further pursuit, which enables the U.S. to make more efficient investments.
• Sen. Hickenlooper then asked the witnesses to identify any lessons that the U.S. could learn from other countries regarding how to approach nuclear fusion R&D.
  • Dr. Luce attributed ITER’s French location to France’s unique nuclear regulatory regime that is demonstration-based. He commented that this demonstration-based regulatory regime is conducive to innovation.
  • Dr. Mumgaard discussed how the UK is transitioning from a focus on plasma science to the enabling of technology development and the construction of test stands. He commended the UK’s pivot regarding this technology.
  • Prof. Cowley discussed how China is investing significant amounts of money into nuclear fusion materials, fuel cycling capabilities, and turning neutrons into electricity. He stated that the U.S. needs to focus on these same areas.
  • Dr. Hsu remarked that the U.S. requires a “fundamentally different strategy” for nuclear fusion energy development.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND):

• Sen. Hoeven asked the witnesses to address why the U.S. should pursue nuclear fusion energy and to assess the prospects for achieving nuclear fusion energy.
  • Dr. Hsu remarked that nuclear fusion has many implications for the U.S.’s energy security, national security, and global leadership. He also stated that the U.S. would require significant amounts of carbon-free primary energy moving forward and called nuclear fusion the “ideal” way to achieve this need. He noted how nuclear fusion is dense in energy, has a fuel supply that is theoretically limitless, and can be deployed anywhere (regardless of weather or climate).
  • Prof. Cowley remarked that the U.S. is missing a firm energy source as part of its efforts to decarbonize its energy system. He explained that firm energy sources are energy sources that are always running and not dependent on weather patterns (including wind patterns and sunshine levels). He stated that the U.S.’s current firm energy strategy involves deploying nuclear fission energy and using carbon capture and storage. He noted how both of these methods have finite lifetimes before their potential is exhausted. He acknowledged however that the development of advanced nuclear energy could extend the lifetime of nuclear fission energy. He remarked that nuclear fusion energy could serve as another firm energy source.
  • Dr. Luce noted how the inputs for nuclear fusion (deuterium and tritium) are abundant. He also highlighted how the byproduct of nuclear fusion reactions is helium, which is an inert gas. He further noted how nuclear fusion reactors only contain one gram of fuel in them at a time, which means that they could not meltdown. He discussed how the predictive capabilities for nuclear fusion have already been developed and that this science now needs to be deployed into real world technologies.
  • Dr. Mumgaard remarked that nuclear fusion is the energy source in comic books and science fiction because it provides energy without fuel and consumption. He stated that nuclear fusion would provide abundant energy in perpetuity. He asserted that nuclear fusion energy is fundamentally different from current energy sources.
• Sen. Hoeven asked Prof. Cowely to indicate whether nuclear fusion energy would actually be achieved. He also asked Prof. Cowley to discuss the work of General Atomics within the nuclear fusion energy space.
  • Prof. Cowley mentioned how General Atomics had performed some successful experiments that have reduced the loss of heat from nuclear fusion reactions. He stated that these experiments would support the development of smaller nuclear fusion reactors. He then expressed optimism regarding the feasibility of nuclear fusion energy and noted how there have occurred several successful nuclear fusion experiments. He highlighted the recent experiment at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory that had resulted in a nuclear fusion burn. He stated that the U.S. must now have the private sector work to drive down the costs of nuclear fusion so that it becomes an attractive energy source for consumers.
• Sen. Hoeven asked Prof. Cowley to confirm that nuclear fusion energy is technologically possible and not yet commercially viable.
  • Prof. Cowley stated that nuclear fusion energy is technologically possible and not yet commercially viable.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ):

• Sen. Kelly asked Dr. Luce to clarify his previous statement that the U.S. receives 100 percent of the outcome of ITER for covering 9 percent of the project’s costs. He asked Dr. Luce to indicate whether the U.S. receives all of the results, technology, and IP stemming from ITER.
  • Dr. Luce confirmed that the U.S. receives all of the results, technology, and IP stemming from ITER. He also stated that the U.S.’s engagement in ITER provides its researchers with practical experience in nuclear fusion experiments.
• Sen. Kelly then asked Dr. Luce to discuss the process for turning water into tritium.
  • Dr. Luce first indicated that water has deuterium that can undergo a distillation process. He then stated that the U.S. needs to close the fuel cycle for nuclear fusion. He noted how tritium has a decay lifetime of 12.5 years and does not exist naturally.
• Sen. Kelly interjected to comment that tritium did not exist naturally on earth.
  • Dr. Luce confirmed Sen. Kelly’s comment that tritium did not exist naturally on earth. He stated that tritium needs to be made within the nuclear fusion power plant, which necessitates the development of blanket technology to make the tritium fuel and to return the fuel.
• Sen. Kelly mentioned how there is tritium on the moon. He noted how there are proposals to extract this tritium from the moon for use in nuclear fusion power plants on earth. He asked Prof. Luce to comment on the feasibility of these proposals.
  • Dr. Luce suggested that Sen. Kelly is likely referring to helium-3 and noted how there is a reaction between deuterium and helium-3. He commented however that the deuterium-helium-3 reaction is more difficult to perform than the deuterium-tritium reaction. He stated that while helium-3 might eventually be used to support nuclear fusion energy, he asserted that helium-3 is not the optimal fuel for supporting nuclear fusion energy at the current time.
• Sen. Kelly asked Dr. Luce to indicate whether fuel for nuclear fusion technology will be an issue once the technology has been developed.
  • Dr. Luce noted that there exists a known way to develop fuel for nuclear fusion technology. He stated that the industrialization of these processes must be demonstrated.
• Sen. Kelly then asked Dr. Hsu to indicate whether the increasing density and efficiency of batteries could lead to a “race” between nuclear fusion technology and battery technology for supporting firm energy needs.
  • Dr. Hsu first noted how lithium was necessary for breeding tritium and indicated that lithium and deuterium are the input fuels for a deuterium-tritium (DT) fusion system. He noted that the amounts of lithium required to breed tritium are not very large. He stated however that the U.S. must address this need for lithium as part of its nuclear fusion energy strategy. He then remarked that the U.S. should not view nuclear fusion and battery technologies as being engaged in a race. He asserted that the U.S. needs to develop and deploy as many energy technologies as possible so that it could meet its decarbonization goals. He stated that the on-demand nature of nuclear fusion energy would help the overall energy system to be lower cost and more reliable in nature.
• Sen. Kelly posited a scenario where battery technology becomes more efficient and denser. He suggested that this improved battery technology could enable cheap and ample storage of energy generated from renewable sources (such as solar and wind power sources), which could in turn ensure energy availability when these renewable energy sources are not generating energy.
  • Dr. Hsu remarked that the U.S. needs more than 600 hundred exajoules of carbon-free energy by mid-century. He asserted that multiple energy technologies would be necessary to meet this energy goal.
• Sen. Kelly expressed agreement with Dr. Hsu’s response and expressed support for the federal funding of nuclear fusion technology. He remarked that the U.S. must be a global leader in nuclear fusion technology and stated that the technology would help to address climate change.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV):

• Sen. Cortez Masto noted how all of the witnesses had addressed the importance of developing a domestic nuclear fusion supply chain to ensure the successful deployment of nuclear fusion energy. She asked the witnesses to address whether the U.S. could domestically produce the minerals necessary for nuclear fusion energy deployment. She also asked the witnesses to address how nuclear fusion should influence the Committee’s strategy for critical minerals.
  • Dr. Mumgaard stated that the U.S. must consider the materials needed to build nuclear fusion machines. He noted how these machines require high quality steel and commented that the U.S. must ensure that it possesses a strong steel supply chain. He also noted how nuclear fusion requires lithium and commented that domestically sourced lithium would therefore be important. He further discussed how nuclear fusion requires some rare earth elements, including yttrium and niobium. He stated however that these rare earth minerals are required for nuclear fusion machines rather than for the fuel itself, which means that demand for these rare earth minerals would be more limited. He lastly remarked that the U.S. requires manufacturing capabilities to support nuclear fusion operations.
• Sen. Cortez Masto then asked the witnesses to indicate whether the U.S. ought to consider increasing its public investments in nuclear fusion R&D.
  • Prof. Cowley noted how Congress has authorized over $1 billion in federal funding for nuclear fusion programs. He called this amount appropriate for supporting private sector efforts in their deployment of nuclear fusion technologies. He stated that the public sector could play a necessary role in developing new nuclear fusion materials and innovating on nuclear fusion containment. He commented that better nuclear fusion containment would enable smaller and more efficient nuclear fusion systems, which would in turn be more cost effective.

Sen. Angus King (I-ME):

• Sen. King stated that nuclear fusion remains very elusive, despite repeated promises that its deployment would be imminent. He asked Dr. Hsu to indicate whether nuclear fusion would ever be achieved.
  • Dr. Hsu remarked that nuclear fusion works and that nuclear fusion now needs to become economically attractive and competitive. He also stated that societal needs will influence when nuclear fusion becomes ready and commented that society might now need nuclear fusion.
• Sen. King asked Dr. Mumgaard to indicate when nuclear fusion will be ready for deployment.
  • Dr. Mumgaard remarked that it is always difficult to predict when technologies will be ready for deployment. He stated that policymakers could consider certain indicators to determine whether a technology is ready for deployment.
• Sen. King interjected to comment that one such indicator is private investment in a given technology.
  • Dr. Mumgaard discussed how there is currently a diversity of approaches regarding nuclear fusion technology and a diversity of stakeholders (including investors and existing businesses) becoming involved with nuclear fusion. He stated that these trends suggest that nuclear fusion is close to being deployed. He further noted how there have occurred successful nuclear fusion experiments and how these experiments have been improving over time.
• Sen. King then remarked that nuclear fusion could be a “world saving” technology. He asked Dr. Luce to indicate whether the U.S. should approach nuclear fusion technology as requiring an international effort. He commented that the successful deployment of nuclear fusion technology would have global environmental benefits.
  • Dr. Luce remarked that the ITER project is supporting international collaboration on nuclear fusion development efforts and emphasized that nuclear fusion is a common need across countries. He stated however that there would also need to occur national investments in nuclear fusion technology to ensure energy security.
• Sen. King interjected to express agreement with Dr. Luce’s statement that there must occur national investments in nuclear fusion technology. He asked Dr. Luce to indicate whether an international collaboration should be used to lead the development of nuclear fusion technology.
  • Dr. Luce stated that while international collaboration would be effective in advancing nuclear fusion development, he asserted that international collaboration would not be sufficient on its own for achieving nuclear fusion. He mentioned how he had focused the bulk of his professional career on international nuclear fusion projects and stated that these international projects have benefited the U.S. He remarked that public investments in nuclear fusion R&D would help to facilitate private investments in nuclear fusion technology, which would in turn lead to the technology’s advancement.
• Sen. King asked the witnesses to address whether the U.S. and the international community should be investing more into nuclear fusion R&D efforts given nuclear fusion technology’s potential benefits. He also suggested that the U.S. consider establishing a matching arrangement with other countries in which countries would commit to certain expenditure levels for nuclear fusion R&D efforts.
  • Prof. Cowley expressed support for Sen. King’s proposed international matching agreement for nuclear fusion R&D expenditures. He also stated that the sheer size of the energy market would make nuclear fusion attractive for companies and investors to pursue. He remarked that the combination of international collaboration on basic nuclear fusion research and competitive private companies pursuing nuclear fusion technologies might constitute the best approach for advancing nuclear fusion.
  • Dr. Mumgaard noted that while competition is beneficial for demonstrating technologies, developing supply chains, and commercializing technologies, he commented that competition can hinder the furthering of scientific understanding. He stated that international cooperation on nuclear fusion research could complement the efforts of the private sector to advance nuclear fusion deployment. He commented that this public-private approach to scientific research and the deployment of innovations has already been proven effective within the medical space.

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• Chairman Manchin discussed how nuclear fusion reactors require strong magnets and very cold temperatures and indicated that these inputs are achieved using liquid helium and vast computational power. He stated that many new technologies require entirely new fields of materials, science, and processes. He asked the witnesses to provide examples of the major advances that nuclear fusion research has brought in related materials and supply chains.
  • Dr. Mumgaard noted how nuclear fusion requires a diverse set of inputs. He noted how magnets developed for nuclear fusion machines have subsequently been deployed to MRI machines and wind turbines.
  • Dr. Luce noted how nuclear fusion research in the U.S. has been one of the drivers for the development of supercomputers for non-defense uses.
  • Prof. Cowley discussed how the microchip industry is based on plasma processing and noted how nuclear fusion research has helped researchers to develop plasma processing capabilities. He expressed hope that the Microelectronics Research for Energy Innovation (Micro) Act would support the next generation of microelectronics innovation. He also noted how the codes being used in nuclear fusion reactors are now being applied to understand black hole collisions.
  • Dr. Hsu discussed how nuclear fusion research has supported the development of laser capabilities. He indicated that these laser capabilities allow for the etching of microchips at 5 nanometers.

Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY):

• Ranking Member Barrasso asked Dr. Hsu to discuss how the U.S. Department of Energy plans to execute nuclear fusion commercialization initiatives.
  • Dr. Hsu remarked that the U.S. Department of Energy’s Milestone-Based Fusion Development Program plays a key role in aligning public sector and private sector nuclear fusion development efforts.
  • Note: The hearing’s video feed experienced technical issues at this point. These technical issues rendered part of Dr. Hsu’s response and all of Dr. Mumgaard’s response indecipherable.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA):

• Sen. Cantwell first highlighted how a significant amount of nuclear fusion innovation is occurring within her state of Washington. She then asked the witnesses to identify additional actions that Congress could take to support nuclear fusion manufacturing and the development of nuclear fusion testbeds.
  • Dr. Hsu first indicated that he would be attending Seattle Fusion Week. He then discussed how the U.S. Department of Energy had formed its Fusion Crosscut Team to obtain insights from various experts on manufacturing and supply chain issues. He commented that nuclear fusion science has traditionally not focused on these issues. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy is currently formulating its specific plans and priorities for nuclear fusion development.
  • Prof. Cowley discussed how high-performance computing is now being used to optimize nuclear fusion systems. He stated that the U.S. needs to increase its computer simulation work as part of its nuclear fusion development efforts. He commented that this work would accelerate the pace of nuclear fusion innovation.
  • Dr. Luce noted that the U.S. is not participating in ITER’s Test Blanket Module (TBM) Program. He commented that this Program would be key to closing the fuel cycle and generating fuel for nuclear fusion. He asserted that the U.S. would need to address these issues on their own in order to become a global leader in nuclear fusion. He then stated that the U.S. would need to make investments in nuclear fusion materials that could handle radiation environments and plasma. He suggested that the U.S. could begin to develop these materials at universities and U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories. He stated that high-performance computing could then enable the rapid industrialization of these materials. He concluded that global investment in materials is needed for progress in nuclear fusion to occur.
• Sen. Cantwell asked Dr. Luce to indicate whether any countries are currently leading efforts to develop nuclear fusion materials.
  • Dr. Luce mentioned how the UK and Europe are working to develop nuclear fusion materials. He stated that the U.S. has provided limited funding to support the development of nuclear fusion materials.
  • Prof. Cowley mentioned how the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is holding an upcoming meeting on efforts to produce a neutron source that would mimic a nuclear reactor. He explained that this neutron source would enable materials testing. He expressed support for this effort.
  • Dr. Mumgaard highlighted how new factories are being formed within the U.S. to produce nuclear fusion components. He remarked that the U.S. also needs to develop components for future nuclear fusion systems and stated that test stands would support the development of these components. He further called on the U.S. to involve the private sector in the materials testing process.
• Sen. Cantwell asked Dr. Mumgaard to address how the U.S. should create an industrial pipeline for fabricating nuclear fusion materials.
  • Dr. Mumgaard discussed how his company has successfully used adjacent industries to obtain nuclear fusion materials. He noted how his company needs magnets and commented that car assemblers could be taught to assemble magnets. He asserted that pilot projects could play a key role in testing the feasibility of new material manufacturing processes. He stated that centers of excellence, U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories, and technology hubs could then be used to further advance the development of these material manufacturing processes.
  • Prof. Cowley noted how nuclear fusion systems require low-activation steel and stated that the production of this steel would need to occur at a large scale. He commented that U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories could provide such production scale.