122 Conclusion In summary. the Soviet fusion program is a large, vigorous, coordinated effort with capable personnel and experimental devices which can significantly add to or complement the information available from our own program. The U.S./Soviet fusion personnel exchange is the primary mechanism with which we can obtain this valuable information. An objective measure of the value of the U.S./Soviet fusion exchange is given by the examples listed earlier in this paper of past and current information made available to our program by the Soviets. An equally important, subjective measure of the value is the change in the attitudes of the U.S. scientists toward the exchange. On a technical basis, interest in the Soviet exchange was high in the mid to late 1970's, but had dropped significantly by 1980 when the hiatus in the exchange occurred. As a result, when the exchange was restarted in 1982, U.S. scientists were Somewhat skeptical of the value of their participation. Their attitudes after conducting the exchanges have, with rare exception, been that the exchanges were valuable and should be continued. It is the position of the Office of Fusion Energy that the US/Soviet bilateral fusion exchange is a cost effective way to augment the U.S. fusion program and that it should be continued. Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Morrison, do you have any further questions? Mr. MORRISON. I just thought I would ask the $64 question, Madam Chairman. That is, if we continue funding at the level that you have sort of indicated may be there for the outyears, and that is flat funding, when do we achieve that reaction? Or, maybe even better yet, when are we going to be ready for commercialization? Dr. TRIVELPIECE. Well, I think the hope is to do the ignition device and the ETR device and be at a stage in which those questions can be answered somewhere in the year 2000 to the year 2010. Now that's a long ways away from something that generates commercial power or other energy utility, but it is possible to do it in that frame, and the kinds of things that have been looked at with the ETR and the ignition experiment, that would be the rough schedule. Mr. MORRISON. So potentially, what, another 20 years after that you blend into commercialization potentially? Dr. TRIVELPIECE. Yes, sir. Mr. MORRISON. With the right commitments to go with it. Have we gone so far as to speculate about size of machine being most applicable to commercial needs? Dr. TRIVELPIECE. Well, there is, if you look at it from a utility manager's point of view, I suppose they keep wanting to say, “Well, we would like one that is 100 megawatts," or 200 megawatts or 50 megawatts or something like that, but to some extent this is driven by the laws of physics and not by the desires of utility executives. There are certain scaling laws that have been acquired by sequences of experiments that have been done by all the laboratories here in the United States and around the world. This scaling law says essentially that things get better by the square of the radius, and so the increase in size has not been the whim of curiosity-driven physicists just to see whether or not they could make it bigger. It was in fact to obtain points along a curve which measured the improvement in the insulation or confinement of the plasma inside the magnetic configuration, so it may well be that the initial size of these things turns out to be some number which is rather large-500 megawatts, 1,000 megawatts. It is entirely possible, however, as it is in many technologies, with knowledge and learning to reduce the size from those initial experimental devices that take place to something that is more compact and does indeed yield energy that doesn't involve the large sizes now believed to be probably necessary. I hope that turns out to be the case. There are lots of technologies in which things have gotten substantially smaller after one once understands how to do it. Mr. MORRISON. Or have gotten too large to be built within a reasonable framework at the time. Dr. TRIVELPIECE. Or the other, yes. Dr. Clarke would like to add to that. Dr. CLARKE. I would like to just add a specific comment about the budget that you have before you. We have had to make changes in the program due to budget pressures. That is clearly-that is very obvious. However, there are other changes within the program that have taken place over the last couple of years, and one of them that bears on your question is the fact that we are putting more of our resources into exploring those avenues of development that would increase the power density of our devices. The whole purpose of this new research thrust is to try to reduce-to find out the scientific principles that would allow us to reduce the size of these devices, so we are taking steps in that direction. Mr. MORRISON. I think the last question, Madam Chairman, that I would have is, there is some work being done on fusion by the EPRI, perhaps others. I am just wondering if you are aware of that work and if there is an effort to coordinate with the expenditures we see represented in the 1987 budget. Dr. CLARKE. Well, I can't speak directly for EPRI but we have been having discussions with them recently about how best to maintain a utility involvement in the fusion program even though, as you noted in your previous remarks, the actual commercialization phase is decades away. We think that it is important that the utility point of view be represented in our counsel, so that our research is guided in appropriate directions. Those discussions are still in progress, and I think we have come up with an idea that would allow us to maintain that kind of contact, but as yet we haven't finalized anything. The specific proposal is to engage EPRI personnel in our systems design activities, in order to get the utility perspective in that area of the program that guides the direction of our research. Mr. MORRISON. Is it fair to say that within the utility community, that there will be agreement with the narrowed focus that is represented in this 1987 budget? Dr. CLARKE. Well, our experience with the utility community is that it is a very diverse community. There are perhaps five or six major utilities that have a continuing interest in fusion. We don't sample them all but we do have a representative of one of the major utilities on our Magnetic Fusion Advisory Committee. We met last week and discussed the program, and I believe the opinion of that individual was that this was an appropriate thing to do under the circumstances. Mr. MORRISON. So we are not discouraging private enterprise investment or involvement through this budget reduction? Dr. CLARKE. Well, I certainly hope not. We are trying. We are trying in this budget to maintain a very strong and inventive toroidal program, and within the toroidal program there are a number of possibilities for reduced size, increased power density, and these are the general criteria that traditionally the utility people have expressed interest in. We are maintaining those programs. We are not moving as fast as we might like but we are not dropping them from the program, so in that sense I think they do approve or they would approve of it. Mr. MORRISON. Good. Thank you very much. Thanks to both of you, too. Mrs. LLOYD. Thank you very much, Mr. Morrison. Mr. FAWELL. No questions. Mrs. LLOYD. I want to thank you for being here today. We want to thank all of our visitors today. We are very happy to have all of you here today. We will meet tomorrow in room 2325 at 2 o'clock, and we will hear from outside witnesses tomorrow, including Mike McCormack, the former chairman of this subcommittee. Dr. Trivelpiece and Dr. Clarke, I want to thank you for being with us today. We certainly hold you in high esteem. We appreciate the value of your wisdom, and thank you for being with us. The subcommittee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Wednesday, February 26, 1986, in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building.] 1987 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1986 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND PRODUCTION, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met at 2 p.m., in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marilyn Lloyd (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mrs. LLOYD. The Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production will come to order. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This afternoon the Energy Research and Production Subcommittee will review outside testimony on the fiscal 1987 budget request for the Magnetic Fusion Energy Program. I shall repeat what I regard to be the major issues confronting the MFE Program at this time. They are: the ability of the Department of Energy to maintain a strong fusion program in the face of continuing budget reductions; second, the adequacy of the pace at which the DOE is pursuing an ignition experiment; and finally, the appropriate role for international cooperative efforts in the development of fusion energy. It is always helpful for the committee to have the perspective of knowledgeable experts outside of the DOE family, and today's witnesses are well qualified to provide a thoughtful and constructive critique of the MFE Program. Before hearing from our first witness, I ask unanimous consent for a statement by Mr. Joe Gavin of the Grumman Corp. to be included in the record. Mr. Gavin served as chairman of the National Research Council's Committee on International Cooperation in Magnetic Fusion Energy, and he cannot be with us today. Without objection, so approved. [The prepared statement of Mr. Joseph Gavin, Grumman Corp. follows:] (49) |