different way, or encouraged in a different way, might get us to a better, cheaper and easier energy to use by smaller countries. I am not aware that that kind of real high level debate has gone on. Has it? Dr. TRIVELPIECE. I think there are worlds of future organizations, and so on, energy future organizations to talk about these things. I am not sure in the sense you are talking about, a set of good priorities has been established. Our own energy research advisory board, debates these matters from time to time and makes recommendations to the Department and has some influence in the outcome of budgetary requests in the future. Again, there is the overall budgetary-political overlay that comes into play on this as well. Senator EVANS. I understand that. Ultimately it is a politicial decision by the very nature we are talking about public moneys and congressional and executive process, but it sometimes seems to me that would and could be affected significantly by good information and a serious recommendation to change or modify priorities. I am not suggesting either you or the Department of Energy does this, but it would be easier to try to anticipate what would be more politically acceptable and kind of arrange the priorities so that they have some really good chance of being accepted and going through. Can you suggest any way to really elevate this in terms of the understanding of the knowledge of those who do have to make political decisions or within the administration? An organization on the outside doing private kinds of research, world future organizations, is one thing. I think it is important to have that kind of determination or at least that kind of debate within the Department or administration, between the administration and the Congress, as we start dealing with billions of dollars in our own future. Dr. TRIVELPIECE. I don't think I have a good answer. I would like to observe that we have been through some very painful pendulum swings of facing up to gaslines one morning, followed by creation of ERDA and DOE, followed by programs which were funded very heavily which got over into the demonstration arena rather intensely and then the energy crisis seems to be abating, at least on a short-term basis, and budget deficit circumstances seem to predominate and there is pressure to cut things back. It may have been during the period when the demonstration projects were at their peak we were not spending money effectively on some of the things we should have. It is also true when we go through the nadir with this sort of thing, we are not doing some of the things that we should. How to stabilize that so that proper attention is paid over the long haul to those things which need to be addressed is something I don't have a good answer for. If you have some suggestions, I would be delighted to take a run at trying to make them work. Senator EVANS. I am not sure I have suggestions. At least I have questions. I would like to continue this, not at this hearing, but I think it is important for us to try to find some better way. This is absolutely the right time when there is no current energy crisis. It may be a difficult time, you can't get the people's attention, but I can't think of a better time to try to look at a longer range and have some chance of getting ahead of the game rather than behind it. You mentioned the fact that we are now diminishing to a degree the work on nuclear fusion because it appears as though we don't need that kind of energy source as rapidly as we once did. I am sure that you would agree that the gaslines which gave real pressure to some of the energy research we did in the seventies could be back by the end of this century. It is possible because the political decision is made elsewhere or a whole lot of things could happen in the world that we could be right back in the gaslines and in an energy crunch. So, you can't slow down long-term research on the basis we don't need it, given current circumstances if we know that current circumstances could slip back in the phases of a few years ago very quickly. We wouldn't have time to react. As always, you present not only excellent testimony, but give me an additional lesson in physics which I think I understood. All I have to say is that it was much simpler when I went to high school and electrons were the smallest element of nature. Dr. TRIVELPIECE. Right on. Senator EVANS. Thank you. Dr. TRIVELPIECE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator EVANS. Let us to go the next panel, Dr. Stephen Dean, president, Fusion Power Associates in Gaithersburg, MD. I understand Dr. Dworkin will be accompanied by Dr. William Ashburn, University of California Medical Center, Department of Nuclear Medicine, and Dr. Alfred Wolf, Department of Chemistry at Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York. We will start first with Dr. Dean. STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHEN O. DEAN, PRESIDENT, FUSION POWER ASSOCIATES Dr. DEAN. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate having the opportunity to present testimony again this year. Also, I would like to thank you and the members of the Energy Committee for continuing to be interested in energy during these last several years when the energy crisis has been seen to be abated and that people don't want to support energy the way they once did. Senator EVANS. It is not easy, I tell you. Dr. DEAN. Not for you or us. There are two primary reasons for working on fusion which is the energy process that goes on in the Sun. One is that the fuel supply is universally available, the primary fuel being heavy hydrogen that comes from water. It has been our belief using such a fuel would make a safer world because the fuel would be available to all countries, no country would have a corner on the market. Therefore, it would not be necessary to go to war ir order to achieve this fuel when times got tough. The other primary reason for supporting fusion has always been the safety environmental characteristics of fusion relative to fission where the radioactivity that is produced from a fusion reactor is much less in quantity and much less dangerous in character than the isotopes produced in fission. As a matter of fact, I just received a June 5 copy of "Nature" which is a science magazine in England which says the following: One lesson to be learned from last month's nuclear accident at Chernobyl is that there should be renewed effort in thermonuclear fusion. This was the opinion offered last week by academician Selikov, Vice President of the Soviet Academy and member of the investigating commission, speaking at a press conference in Moscow. Fusion has been recognized by all the major countries of the world as a very important undertaking for mankind. It is not that we expect to produce all the world's elecricity in our lifetime, but we hope to ensure a supply of energy in the future for our children and our grandchildren. It is for this reason the advanced countries of the world have always worked hard on and long together on this difficult problem. The recognition of this is the fact that fusion is one of the primary activities that is on its way as part of the western economic summit progress talks. There are working groups and parties among the United States, Europe, and Japan that have been for a couple of years now working together to try to plan the best way to use scare resources to develop the scientific and technology of fusion as a western initiative. Last November, as you know, as a result of the Reagan-Gorbachev summit, the President reported, and it was in their final statement from that meeting, that the two leaders, Gorbachev and Reagan, agreed that the world should work together to develop fusion power and as a result of that, there are now active negotiations at the State Department levels to plan the next generation facility in fusion. So, fusion has been recognized worldwide as an important undertaking. Fusion in this country has always been a delicate balance of large facilities which are required to prove out the ability to produce these plasma and small-scale facilities which are required to test new ideas and to develop better approaches for the long run. As the budgets have come down in the past few years, it has been increasingly difficult for the Department of Energy to balance the program in such a way as to maintain our commitment to prove out fusion even in the larger facilities and to maintain the thrust of developing new ideas in the smaller facilities. I think they have done a pretty good job trying to maintain this balance. However, a crisis emerged last fall. It was in part brought about by the Gramm-Rudman cut and in part brought about, starting from O&M levels, the OMB cut their program even further in their 1987 submission you have under review. At this point the delicate balance existing in the program became unglued. We had a large $250 million mirror facility that had just finished its construction that we are not able to operate. As a result of trying to maintain a balance, the Department of Energy made a difficult choice to phase out the entire mirror program. The House Committee on Appropriations just last week recognized that things had gone too far and too fast in cutting back on the fusion program and that this delicate balance in the program had become unglued. As a result, last week the full House Appropriations Committee recommended an additional $25 million be added this year in order to restore the ability of the Department to maintain a balanced program. I urge this committee to endorse that add-on. Even with that add-on, the budget for fusion in 1987 will be less than it is this year. If you can do this, I think you will find that the program will be maintained in a healthy state, will not be moving as fast as it could, but at least the important programs that have been built up in the past can be maintained. I have a written statement which is a little more detailed which I submit for the record. Thank you. Senator EVANS. Thank you. Your full statement will be included in the record. [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 AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES On June 19 the House Committee on Appropriations approved a recommendation of its Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development to provide increased funding for the DOE magnetic fusion energy program of $25 million above the Administration's FY 1987 request. In support of its action the House Committee called for the maintenance of "a well-integrated effort with relatively stable funding levels and continuity of departmental support." I urge this committee to endorse this action of the House Committee and to work with your colleagues in Senate Appropriations to secure this needed level of funding. Even with these additional funds, funding for magnetic fusion would still be below the FY 1986 level. It is important that the systematic budget decline of the past few years be halted. New facilities have either recently been completed, are nearing completion or are under construction. It makes no sense to build these facilities unless there is a serious intent to provide the funds for their operation. Furthermore, fusion has become a focal point for discussion of international collaboration both within the Versailles Summit process and at the recent Reagan-Gorbachev Summit. In his report to a joint session of Congress following the Gorbachev Summit, President Reagan stated, "As a potential way of dealing with the energy needs of the world of the future, we have also advocated international cooperation to explore the feasibility of developing fusion energy." It is inconsistent for the Administration to put fusion forth in this way while at the same time recommending a declining budget. In 1980, the Congress passed 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 |