Uncertain Future for Department of Energy Fusion Program

There were strong signals at a February 15 hearing of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment that DOE’s fusion energy program is facing an uncertain future. Subcommittee chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) signaled his uneasiness about fusion in his opening remarks, saying, “We must decide if the modest success shown for the billions spent is worth billions more required to continue the program for at least another 30 years.” Rohrabacher is intent on reducing spending for DOE programs under his subcommittee’s jurisdiction -- both in FY 1996, and in “billions of dollars in future spending.”

First to testify was Dr. Martha Krebs, Director of the DOE Office of Energy Research. Krebs highlighted research progress at the Los Alamos, Fermi, and Princeton labs. She discussed the $100 million Science Facilities Initiative, DOE’s budgetary response to the Drell panel’s high energy physics program recommendations, and the shelving of the Advanced Neutron Source (ANS.)

While complimenting Krebs on her moderate budget request and the ANS decision, Rohrabacher was quick to ask Krebs for her highest and lowest program priorities. He said the subcommittee must make budget decisions now, cautioning “we’re going to establish them for you,” if DOE does not prioritize. Rohrabacher turned to the fusion energy program, asking Krebs, “Is this still a viable option?” Krebs replied affirmatively, adding that substantial political will and money will be necessary. While committee members’ questions covered other programs, fusion was a common topic. During one exchange, Krebs said that if the tokamak program was canceled, “there are alternatives to explore.”

Next to testify were the directors of five DOE laboratories, all of whom support the Science Facilities Initiative. There was much less consensus about where program cuts should be made, one director saying that arriving at judgements across various fields was difficult. Rohrabacher complained that no one wants to say where reductions should be made. He commented that while he was “very favorably” looking at the director’s requests, they would be more likely to get what they want if they offered reduction recommendations. “Don’t forget the position we are in,” he said.

Last to testify were Dr. Robin Roy of the Office of Technology Assessment and Dr. David Baldwin of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Roy directed a fusion energy workshop, and presented an 87-page OTA report on the program (to be summarized in a future FYI.) Roy questioned the program’s projected costs and focus on tokamaks, saying about alternatives, “there is merit is examining them.” Baldwin called the TPX “very important to the country,” warning that fusion progress would be delayed by a decade without it. DOE’s focus on tokamaks was based on their record of success, he explained.

Rohrabacher opened the hearing declaring, “I have not prejudged individual programs, but, as you can see, some tough choices have to be made and this subcommittee will make them.” The hearing closed on a discussion about tokamaks, the chairman saying, “I do think we should be looking at alternatives.”