PCAST, CRS Reports on DOE’s Fusion Program

In the fall of 1997, both the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released reports of relevance to the Energy Department’s fusion energy program (see FYI #6 .) The 15-page CRS report, without making suggestions of its own, reviews the status of DOE’s fusion program and raises three issues for attention. A PCAST panel on energy R&D examined the fusion program as part of a 235-page review of U.S. efforts in all forms of energy research and development. Its major fusion recommendation is to increase program funding within DOE from the current level of $232 million to $320 million per year over a three-year period, beginning in FY 1999.

CRS Report:

The CRS report highlights the following three “program issues” for the fusion program. First, it warns that “the future of ITER...is uncertain for a number of reasons,” including project cost, reluctance of the partners to host the facility, delay in a decision to construct, the strength of congressional support, and recent doubt by some as to whether the current ITER design will achieve its goal of a self-sustained fusion reaction. (However, DOE’s Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee considers the ITER design “sound.”)

“Another issue,” the CRS report says, “concerns the program’s focus on the tokamak concept.” Although tokamak devices have proven the most successful so far in research on fusion energy, CRS points out that “there are those in the fusion community...who believe that the tokamak path is not the one to follow,” and argue for expanded research efforts in alternative concepts.

The third issue raised by CRS is the program’s balance between basic science and energy technology. Since the FY 1996 restructuring, the program’s goals have been shifted from demonstration of a power reactor to understanding basic fusion and plasma science. According to CRS, “there are those...who believe that DOE needs to go farther in this direction” of emphasizing basic science over technology development.

This report by the Science Policy Research Division of CRS, entitled “Magnetic Fusion: The DOE Fusion Energy Sciences Program,” updated October 2, 1997, is available on the Internet at: http://www.cnie.org/nle/crs_main.html under the heading “Energy.”

PCAST Report:

The PCAST panel urges increased funding for four major elements of DOE’s applied energy-technology R&D portfolio: fusion, fission, energy efficiency, and renewable energy technologies. “Fusion R&D is proposed for the third largest increase,” says the report. “The Panel judges this amount warranted for two reasons: (1) About $200 million per year of it would continue a very productive element of the country’s basic science portfolio...and (2) the rest is easily justified as the sort of investment the government should be making in a high-risk but potentially very-high-yield energy option for society, in which the size and time horizon of the program essentially rule out private funding.”

In its review, the panel noted that during the 1970s-80s, “U.S. investments in fusion R&D peaked at a buying power above $700 million per year” (in 1997 dollars.) Funding dropped to half that amount by 1990, then was cut by another one-third - to $244 million - in 1996. The FY 1998 appropriation for fusion energy sciences is $232 million, approximately equal to the FY 1997 level. Both Japan and the European Union have “substantially larger programs;" U.S. investments represent about 15 percent of the world total.

A 1995 PCAST report (PCAST-95; see FYI #105, 1995 ), recommended an annual fusion funding budget of $320 million, but since then, fusion funding was reduced by one-third and the program restructured. The current panel finds that the restructuring has been consistent with the PCAST-95 principles “to the degree that this was feasible given the lower budget,” and determines that the 1995 panel’s conclusions are still justified. The new report recommends minimum funding of $250 million for FY 1999, and reiterates the call for an increase to stable annual funding of $320 million, by the year 2002.

The new PCAST report makes specific comments on two items: participation in ITER, and pursuit of alternative fusion energy concepts. The panel supports U.S. participation in ITER, stating that “especially in light of the reduced [domestic] funding level...such participation leverages U.S. access to activities, experiences, and data generated as part of the overall ITER program at a moderate portion of the overall cost.” During the three-year transition period between completion of the Engineering Design Activity this year and any decision on construction, the panel suggests that DOE “reincorporate into the core fusion R&D program the basic fusion technology research activities now funded within the ITER allocation,” and urges the U.S. to “establish significant collaborations” with ongoing activities in Europe and Japan. If the international partners find the total cost of ITER construction prohibitive, the Panel says, “it is nonetheless vital to continue without delay the international pursuit of fusion energy via a more modestly scaled and priced device.... A modified experiment is better than no next international step toward practical fusion. In any case, the United States should continue to participate as a partner and leader in the evolving international program.”

Concurring with the CRS report’s comment on alternative concepts, the PCAST panel “endorses DOE’s new emphasis on diverse scientific and technological approaches to the fusion energy goal,” finding it “consistent with the recommendations of PCAST-95.” It urges “closer communication and collaboration” between DOE’s Office of Energy Research and its Defense Programs, which support most of the department’s research into inertial confinement fusion.

Within a few weeks, President Clinton will announce his FY 1999 budget request. In recent years, DOE has requested less than recommended by PCAST or DOE’s Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC.) Yet Clinton, in a recent radio address (see FYI #3 ), declared the request would demonstrate strong support for science and technology. When he submits his budget on February 2, it will be seen whether this support includes increased funding for fusion.

The November 1997 PCAST report, “Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century,” can be found via the Internet on the OSTP Home Page at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/Energy/ or contact the PCAST Executive Secretariat at phone: (202) 456-6100 and fax: (202) 456-6026.