page 9. In this regard, Madame Chairman, as you are aware there has been interest in international collaboration in funding the FMIT. I suggest that this be reexplored after money is appropriated and a commitment is made by the DOE to build the FMIT. Only then will invitations for collaboration be taken seriously. I also suggest that this is one point upon which collaboration with the USSR would be minently practical. This brings me to another major point. I question the wisdom of tying our fusion program to a collaborated effort with the USSR. I applaud every initiative for cooperation with the Russians and I hope that we can establish many programs in research and development that will bring us together, step by step, so that we can learn to work together and avoid any potential for conflict. However, a realistic appraisal of our position with respect to the fusion program quickly makes it clear that we are beyond the point where we have any interest in any large fusion machine, especially for research only. Such a machine would be a "spruce goose." Such small Our need is for a variety of small fusion machines that have a potential for practical commercialization. machines are so much less expensive than the big machines that can build them -- and a Fusion Research Center for testing we them 11 without the problems and delay of international cooperation. This country can easily build a complete fusion research center and several small machines for testing for five or ten percent page 10. of the cost of a large fusion research machine. folly to waste our money on a big machine - 11 It would be or a share of one. I strongly suggest that the House Committee on Science and Technology explore the possibility of a collaborative effort with the Russians on the super collider. It will clearly cost $3-5 billion and require 10-20 years of construction and research. Moreover, this is basic research a far more realistic starting point for collaborative effort than is nuclear fusion. I should point out that I have no objection to sharing all data with respect to our fusion research development demonstration programs. I think that we should have open protocols in this area. This is a contribution that this country can make to the entire world and I think that we should emphasize that we are interested in doing so. To conclude Madam Chairman, I applaud the apparent decision on the part of the Department of Energy and the Office of Fusion Energy to move the fusion program more towards engineering development. This is without fanfare, but it is a profound change in philosophy and direction. This Committee, understanding the implications of the apparent change in Administration philosophy, can take advantage of it and encourage the Administration to shed the baggage of the past, to insist that program definition, planning and policy be made by the Congress in the interest of the nation, and that we get on now with a job. Thank you very much. Of course, I will be happy to try TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. Mrs. LLOYD. Thank you very much, Mike. We always look forward to having you appear before this committee. We just look forward to being with you. We miss you. Mr. McCORMACK. Thank you. Mrs. LLOYD. Dr. Dean, it is certainly a pleasure to welcome you before this committee and we welcome your industrial perspective on the fusion program which you do provide. It is a very important and added dimension. Your written statement is a part of the record. Just proceed as you wish. STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN DEAN, PRESIDENT, FUSION POWER ASSOCIATES Mr. DEAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is a pleasure to be back. I would like to say-just a personal note-that it is a real pleasure to be here with Mike McCormack, and Al Mense in particular and my good friend George Miley, and especially with you and also Jack Dugan-because it reminds me of the great days of 1979-80 when we were trying to write and passing the Magnetic Fusion Engineering Act, which in my view still represents a logical and well-thought-through dynamic type of approach to fusion development. One of the things that I am encouraged about this year, in spite of the fact that the budget has been going down, is the fact that there are signs that the Department of Energy's plan now is oriented towards building facilities of the type that were invisaged in the Fusion Act. The engineering test reactor that they are talking about building in collaboration with other countries has most of the motivations and objectives of what we called the "fusion engineering device" in the Fusion Act. In respect to Mike's concern that it not be "big," I agree with that. We wrestled with that when we wrote the Fusion Act and we put a price tag on it that said this fusion engineering device shouldn't be more than a billion dollars. I think we have to insist that whatever type of engineering device starts to get going as part of any plan in the administration is reasonable in cost and ambitious in objectives. That means its going to have to have good ideas both in the science and in the technology to make it work and make it be cost effective. I think its a major opportunity that we have here, with President Reagan is talking to Mr. Gorbachev, and talking to the leaders of other countries, and saying words like "let's work together on fusion." This is a major event. As you know, for the past 6 years your committee has wrestledand we've all wrestled-with the problem of the fact that energy is no longer high priority. And fusion has been having a difficult time finding a rationale for itself. But I think that the fact that the political leaders of the world are starting to recognize fusion-we have got to take advantage of that to get our program moving in the proper directions. With respect to the mirror program decision, I am not too happy about the fact that this decision to basically phase out an entire line of effort that has been going on for 30 years was taken in the heat of a budget battle internally in the Department, when it couldn't be made public and there couldn't be any peer review. I feel that before we endorse or allow the entire mirror effort to disappear, we ought to have a serious peer review. With respect to the MFTF itself, clearly within the administration's budget request they don't have money to operate it. But I think there is a new opportunity that Mr. Stark eluded to and Ken Fowler was talking to me about this morning. It is possible to, I think, with a small additional amount of money, think of changing the MFTF project back into what it was originally—a single-cell machine. Instead of running it as a full-tandem mirror we could take all of the equipment that we have and put all that energy into a single cell at the end, and we could create the physics basis for a materials test reactor that would help stimulate engineering in the future. And I think that kind of idea may be affordable, may help stimulate the engineering in the program, provide a different role for the mirror program. In other words, it wouldn't be a competitive concept to the tokamak as a mirror fusion reactor, but it would be a materials test reactor technology role that I think would make sense. And I think that we ought to look into that very carefully, and if some funds could be obtained to stimulate that rather than just kill off the mirror activity altogether, I think that would be very worthwhile looking into. So I think, in summary, that there are some opportunities. One is the political opportunities that present itself from the Reagan-Gorbachev meeting to give fusion a higher priority in the Government than its going to get from within the attitudes of the Energy Department. And I think we ought to look at these new ideas in the mirror area to find a different role, rather than just give up altogether. Finally, I would like to congratulate the committee on the decisions which I believe have been made and are in the budgets, both 1986 and 1987, to set up the kind of industrially oriented central site for testing ideas and compact concepts at Los Alamos. I understand that the Department is going to go out on bids to try to bring industry into the project at Los Alamos, and that it will be aimed at developing small reactors. I think we ought to build on that, and congratulate the Department for starting to move in that direction. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Dr. Dean follows:] FUSION POWER ASSOCIATES 2 PROFESSIONAL DRIVE, SUITE 248 GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND 20879 (301) 258-0545 STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN O. DEAN FUSION POWER ASSOCIATES TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND PRODUCTION OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY In 1980, this Committee was responsible for the passage of the Magnetic Fusion Energy Engineering Act, which specified that the U.S. magnetic fusion program was ready for engineering development and for a focus toward practical applications. The Act further mandated that the Secretary of Energy should take all necessary steps to ensure the operation of an engineering test reactor by 1990. During the past six years, no actions have been proposed by the Executive Branch which would permit the U.S. to meet the goals and timetables of the Fusion Act. And, today, six years later, the U.S. is still ready and anxious to proceed with engineering development of fusion power systems. Furthermore, efforts in Europe and Japan are now nearing the point where their programs are scheduled to move toward engineering development and the construction of engineering test devices. In other words, where once we were ahead, now others have caught up. It is encouraging to note that the U.S. is now seriously discussing, with Europe and Japan and even with the Soviet Union, the possibility that the world programs should move together towards the construction of a magnetic fusion engineering test device. Although we have lost almost a decade in the timetable AND TO IMITATE THE SUN" "TO TAKE FROM THE SEA |