TPX Threat Fails; House Passes Energy Appropriations Bill

On June 14 the House of Representatives passed the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995. Science funding within the Department of Energy survived unchanged from the amounts recommended by the House Appropriations Committee (see FYIs #74-77 for details on the committee’s report).

Attempts to eliminate two DOE projects both failed. Representatives voted to maintain funding for the Gas-Turbine Modular Helium Reactor and the Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX), a magnetic fusion facility to be built at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. The amendment to cancel the TPX, offered by Dick Swett (D-New Hampshire), lost by a voice vote of 188-241. Below are some quotes from the debate on the amendment:

Rep. Dick Swett: “First of all, this amendment is not about our Nation’s energy problems. I am sure we agree that we have a long-term energy problem which requires us to look for promising new energy technologies, including fusion energy.... I, like many Members, strongly support basic fusion research.... Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about whether or not U.S. taxpayers should pay billions of dollars for commercial development of one particular fusion technology, the tokamak, when the expected development costs are tens of billions of dollars, and when there are clear indications that a tokamak is not going to succeed commercially.”

Rep. Dean Gallo (R-New Jersey): “This amendment does not make any sense. It targets the tokamak concept and the Tokamak Physics Experiment in particular. Tokamaks are the central focus of every major fusion program in the world.... The collective wisdom of the scientists and engineers from Japan, the European Community, America and Russia cannot all be wrong. I accept the scientific expertise of these people and the Department of Energy which has put forward a fusion development plan.”

Rep. Karen Thurman (D-Florida): “I have no doubt that the Tokamak Physics Experiment would make an important contribution to our Nation’s wealth of scientific knowledge. I have listened to the respected supporters of the program and understand that the TPX would be unique among world fusion programs.... Today, however, we find ourselves at a crossroads. Our national spending must come under a higher standard of scrutiny. The question of whether or not to fund the tokamak goes beyond the question of its pure research value.... The real context of this debate is defined by the twin imperatives of reducing the Federal budget deficit and funding research in an area that will create a commercially viable energy source.”

Rep. H. James Saxton (R-New Jersey): “I find it inconceivable at a time when we are searching for new energy options that we are contemplating cutting the one program that can offer our Nation a steady supply of unlimited energy.”

Rep. George Brown (D-California): “There is universal recognition that probably the most promising long-range future resource for this country and the world is the fusion program. We have been involved in a cooperative program to design a fusion reactor plan for a decade or more. It involves the United States, the Russians, the Europeans, and the Japanese. We are in the last stages of engineering design for an experimental reactor. That will be the prelude then to a commercial reactor which will be probably on line sometime around 2010 or 2015. Between now and then we need to do a great deal more research on how to most effectively develop that commercial reactor.... Mr. Chairman, the Tokamak Physics Experiment is one part of our efforts to develop this.”

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota): “Mr. Chairman, for the past 30 years, we have spent billions of dollars on tokamak fusion technology which has yielded nothing as far as energy production is concerned.... Let us not repeat the mistake of the superconducting super collider. Terminating the Princeton Tokamak Physics Experiment before construction begins will save the taxpayers $67 million this year and $2.2 billion in the long run without adversely affecting, in my opinion, our existing DOE fusion program.”

Rep. Vic Fazio (D-California): “Opponents of this type of fusion claim that the design is too large and too costly. It is important to remember what the Princeton TPX program is and what it is not. This is a research and development program. This is not meant to be a commercial reactor.”

Rep. Marilyn Lloyd (D-Tennessee): “We are no closer to long-term solutions to our energy needs than we were two decades ago.... One of the reasons that we have not seen the progress that we would love to see in the fusion program is we have consistently had to cut back these programs, because we have not seen the immediate results.”

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut): “We need to shift our energy priorities towards energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy sources. We should not let the tokamak drain our resources and keep us from investing in other types of energy research.”

The bill now goes to the Senate, where the appropriations energy and water subcommittee has scheduled a mark-up for tomorrow.