Fusion Energy
Definitive Cost Estimates for U.S. Contributions to an International Experimental Reactor and Better Coordinated DOE Research Are Needed Gao ID: GAO-08-30 October 26, 2007The United States is pursuing two paths to fusion energy--magnetic and inertial. On November 21, 2006, the United States signed an agreement with five countries and the European Union to build and operate the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in Cadarache, France, to demonstrate the feasibility of magnetic fusion energy. The United States also built and operates facilities to pursue inertial fusion energy research. This report discusses (1) U.S. contributions to ITER and the challenges, if any, in managing this international fusion program and (2) the Department of Energy's (DOE) management of alternative fusion research activities, including National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) initiatives. In performing this work, GAO analyzed budget documents, briefings, and reports that focused on research and funding priorities for the fusion program. GAO also met with officials from DOE, NNSA, and the ITER Organization in France.
Over 9 years, DOE estimates it will spend $1.12 billion to help build ITER, but this is only a preliminary estimate and may not fully reflect the costs of U.S. participation. This preliminary estimate has not been independently validated, as DOE guidance directs, because the reactor design is not complete. Moreover, the $1.12 billion for ITER construction does not include an additional $1.2 billion the United States is expected to contribute to operate and decommission the facility. In addition, the ITER Organization, which manages the construction and operation of ITER, faces a number of management challenges to build ITER on time and on budget that also may affect U.S. costs. For example, the ITER Organization must develop quality assurance standards, test the reliability and integrity of components built in different countries, and assemble them with a high level of precision. Many of these challenges stem from the difficulty of coordinating international efforts and the need for consensus before making critical management decisions. GAO has identified several challenges DOE faces in managing alternative fusion research activities. First, NNSA and the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (OFES), which manage the inertial fusion program within DOE, have not effectively coordinated their research activities to develop inertial fusion as an energy source. For example, they do not have a coordinated research plan that identifies key scientific and technological issues that must be addressed to advance inertial fusion energy and how their research activities would meet those goals. Second, DOE may find it difficult to manage competing funding priorities to advance both ITER-related research and alternative magnetic fusion approaches. DOE officials told GAO they are focusing limited resources on ITER-related research activities. As a result, as funding for ITER-related research has increased, the share of funding for the most innovative alternative magnetic fusion research activities decreased from 19 percent of the fusion research budget in fiscal year 2002 to 13 percent in fiscal year 2007. According to DOE officials, this level of funding is sufficient to meet research objectives. However, university scientists involved in fusion research told us that this decrease in funding has led to a decline in research opportunities for innovative concepts, which could lead to a simpler, less costly, or faster path to fusion energy, and reduced opportunities to attract students to the fusion sciences and train them to fulfill future workforce needs. Finally, while the demand for scientists and engineers to run experiments at ITER and inertial fusion facilities is growing, OFES does not have a human capital strategy to address expected future workforce shortages. These shortages are likely to grow as a large part of the fusion workforce retires over the next 10 years.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-30, Fusion Energy: Definitive Cost Estimates for U.S. Contributions to an International Experimental Reactor and Better Coordinated DOE Research Are Needed
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-30
entitled 'Fusion Energy: Definitive Cost Estimated for U.S.
Contributions to an International Experimental Reactor and Better
Coordinated DOE Research Are Needed' which was released on October 26,
2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
October 2007:
Fusion Energy:
Definitive Cost Estimates for U.S. Contributions to an International
Experimental Reactor and Better Coordinated DOE Research Are Needed:
GAO-08-30:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-30, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The United States is pursuing two paths to fusion energy”magnetic and
inertial. On November 21, 2006, the United States signed an agreement
with five countries and the European Union to build and operate the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in Cadarache,
France, to demonstrate the feasibility of magnetic fusion energy. The
United States also built and operates facilities to pursue inertial
fusion energy research. This report discusses (1) U.S. contributions to
ITER and the challenges, if any, in managing this international fusion
program and (2) the Department of Energy‘s (DOE) management of
alternative fusion research activities, including National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) initiatives. In performing this work,
GAO analyzed budget documents, briefings, and reports that focused on
research and funding priorities for the fusion program. GAO also met
with officials from DOE, NNSA, and the ITER Organization in France.
What GAO Found:
Over 9 years, DOE estimates it will spend $1.12 billion to help build
ITER, but this is only a preliminary estimate and may not fully reflect
the costs of U.S. participation. This preliminary estimate has not been
independently validated, as DOE guidance directs, because the reactor
design is not complete. Moreover, the $1.12 billion for ITER
construction does not include an additional $1.2 billion the United
States is expected to contribute to operate and decommission the
facility. In addition, the ITER Organization, which manages the
construction and operation of ITER, faces a number of management
challenges to build ITER on time and on budget that also may affect
U.S. costs. For example, the ITER Organization must develop quality
assurance standards, test the reliability and integrity of components
built in different countries, and assemble them with a high level of
precision. Many of these challenges stem from the difficulty of
coordinating international efforts and the need for consensus before
making critical management decisions.
GAO has identified several challenges DOE faces in managing alternative
fusion research activities. First, NNSA and the Office of Fusion Energy
Sciences (OFES), which manage the inertial fusion program within DOE,
have not effectively coordinated their research activities to develop
inertial fusion as an energy source. For example, they do not have a
coordinated research plan that identifies key scientific and
technological issues that must be addressed to advance inertial fusion
energy and how their research activities would meet those goals.
Second, DOE may find it difficult to manage competing funding
priorities to advance both ITER-related research and alternative
magnetic fusion approaches. DOE officials told GAO they are focusing
limited resources on ITER-related research activities. As a result, as
funding for ITER-related research has increased, the share of funding
for the most innovative alternative magnetic fusion research activities
decreased from 19 percent of the fusion research budget in fiscal year
2002 to 13 percent in fiscal year 2007. According to DOE officials,
this level of funding is sufficient to meet research objectives.
However, university scientists involved in fusion research told us that
this decrease in funding has led to a decline in research opportunities
for innovative concepts, which could lead to a simpler, less costly, or
faster path to fusion energy, and reduced opportunities to attract
students to the fusion sciences and train them to fulfill future
workforce needs. Finally, while the demand for scientists and engineers
to run experiments at ITER and inertial fusion facilities is growing,
OFES does not have a human capital strategy to address expected future
workforce shortages. These shortages are likely to grow as a large part
of the fusion workforce retires over the next 10 years.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends, among other things, that (1) DOE and NNSA develop a
research plan to coordinate fusion research activities to advance
inertial fusion and (2) DOE develop a strategy to hire, train, and
retain staff with the specialized skills needed to accomplish its
mission. DOE neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but
questioned several of our findings.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://wwww.GAO-08-30]. For more information, contact Gene
Aloise at (202) 512-3841 or aloisee@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The United States Will Contribute $1.12 Billion Over 9 Years to Help
Build ITER, but Management Challenges May Affect Timing and Cost of
Construction:
Lack of Coordination, Competing Funding Priorities, and Human Capital
Challenges May Hamper Progress in Alternative Fusion Research:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: The Fusion Reaction:
Figure 2: Countries Participating in ITER:
Figure 3: U.S. Contributions to ITER for Construction:
Figure 4: Section View of the Proposed Design for the ITER Reactor:
Figure 5: The Z-machine Creating an X-ray Pulse to Test Materials in
Conditions of Extreme Temperature and Pressure:
Abbreviations:
DOE: Department of Energy:
HAPL: High Average Power Laser:
IFMIF: International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility:
ITER: International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor:
NIF: National Ignition Facility:
NNSA: National Nuclear Security Administration:
OFES: Office of Fusion Energy Sciences:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 26, 2007:
The Honorable Byron Dorgan:
Chairman:
The Honorable Pete Domenici:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Peter Visclosky:
Chairman:
The Honorable David Hobson:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
On November 21, 2006, the United States signed an agreement with five
countries[Footnote 1] and the European Union to help build and operate
the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in
Cadarache, France, to demonstrate the feasibility of fusion energy. The
construction, operation, and decommissioning of ITER is expected to
cost about $14 billion. Fusion occurs when the nuclei of two light
atoms--typically hydrogen isotopes--collide and fuse together when
heated at high temperatures and placed under tremendous pressure. This
reaction releases a large amount of energy that some day, it is hoped,
may be captured to produce electricity. Over the last 50 years,
scientists around the world have made progress in understanding how to
create the conditions for fusion, but there are many outstanding
scientific and technical issues that must still be resolved before
fusion can be used as an energy source. As a result, the United States,
along with the six parties to the agreement, identified ITER as the
critical experiment that could finally produce more power from fusion
reactions than is needed to operate the device--the first step toward
producing electricity from fusion energy. ITER's objectives are to
resolve fundamental physics issues in using fusion as an energy source
and to develop and test the technology needed for a future fusion power
plant. Construction of ITER is scheduled to begin in 2008 and be
completed in 2016, followed by 20 years of experiments and eventual
decommissioning. The ITER Organization was established to manage the
construction, operation, and decommissioning of this facility. If ITER
meets its objectives, as the last critical step toward fusion energy,
the United States and other countries will need to design and test
different fusion power plants to capture the energy and produce
electricity.
The Department of Energy (DOE) identified ITER as the number one
priority for new research facilities because fusion power holds the
promise of reducing concerns over imported oil, rising gasoline prices,
and global warming. With decreasing fossil fuel resources and
increasing awareness that the use of fossil fuels is harming the
environment, fusion is a potentially new source of energy for meeting
future energy needs. Fusion offers many potential benefits, including
no emissions of greenhouse gases, an abundant source of fuel, no risk
of the type of severe accidents that could occur with existing nuclear
power plants, no severe consequences of a terrorist attack, and no long-
lived radioactive waste. In addition, U.S. participation in ITER allows
the United States to share the cost of building this complex and
expensive fusion device while leveraging the scientific and
technological expertise of the other ITER parties.
The United States is pursuing two paths to fusion energy--magnetic and
inertial. Magnetic fusion relies on magnetic forces to confine
electrically charged atoms, known as plasma, and sustain a fusion
reaction. ITER will be a magnetic fusion device known as a
"tokamak."[Footnote 2] While a tokamak has been the most successful
magnetic fusion device, there is still uncertainty that it will produce
fusion energy or lead to a commercially viable fusion energy device. To
reduce the risk of investing in only one device, DOE's Office of Fusion
Energy Sciences (OFES), which is responsible for managing the U.S.
fusion energy program, also funds scientific research on alternative
types of magnetic devices, primarily at U.S. universities.
Universities, such as Princeton University and the University of
Washington, are currently testing 10 other magnetic devices with
different shapes and magnetic currents that may lead to a simpler, less
costly, or faster path to fusion energy.
In contrast, inertial fusion relies on powerful lasers to repeatedly
strike small pellets of fuel, yielding bursts of energy. The National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a separately organized agency
within DOE, is leading efforts in inertial fusion because it can be
used for defense needs, such as validating the integrity and
reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. NNSA is building a
facility--the National Ignition Facility (NIF)--at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory that is hoped could be used to
demonstrate the feasibility of inertial fusion. Since the science
applications of inertial fusion for defense and energy needs are
similar, the results of NIF experiments could validate inertial fusion
as an alternative path to fusion energy. Other facilities, such as the
Naval Research Laboratory, are testing technologies needed to produce
energy from inertial fusion.
In the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 energy and
water development appropriation,[Footnote 3] the conferees directed GAO
to review OFES's fusion energy program, the activities of major U.S.
fusion energy research facilities that are contributing to ITER, and
NNSA fusion energy initiatives. As agreed with the committees of
jurisdiction, we (1) identified U.S. contributions to ITER and the
challenges, if any, in managing this international fusion program and
(2) assessed DOE's management of alternative fusion research
activities, including NNSA initiatives.
To address these objectives, we collected and analyzed documentation
from DOE, NNSA, the ITER Organization, the National Academy of
Sciences, DOE's national laboratories, and universities involved in
fusion science. To identify U.S. contributions to ITER and the
challenges of managing this international project, we analyzed budget
documents, including OFES's 5-year budget plan, and interviewed
officials from OFES, the Department of State, and the U.S. ITER Project
Office at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. We
also analyzed documents and met with officials from the three major
U.S. magnetic fusion research facilities--located at General Atomics in
San Diego, California; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in
Cambridge, Massachusetts; and the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab in
Princeton, New Jersey--and received a tour of these facilities to
understand how fusion devices are built and operated. Furthermore, we
met with officials from the ITER Organization in Cadarache, France, and
toured the ITER construction site. To assess DOE's management of
alternative fusion research activities, we interviewed scientists from
universities conducting research in alternative paths to fusion funded
by OFES and officials from the National Academy of Sciences, and we
analyzed reports from DOE's fusion energy advisory committee that
focused on funding and research priorities for the fusion program.
Lastly, to determine the status of inertial fusion and NNSA fusion
initiatives, we analyzed budget documents, briefings, and reports on
inertial fusion and met with officials from NNSA's Office of Defense
Programs; NIF at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in
Livermore, California; the Laboratory for Laser Energetics at the
University of Rochester in Rochester, New York; Sandia National
Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and the Naval Research
Laboratory in Washington, D.C. We conducted our work from December 2006
to September 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
DOE plans to spend $1.12 billion over 9 years to help build ITER, but
this is only a preliminary estimate and may not reflect the full costs
of U.S. participation. The management challenges that the ITER
Organization faces to build ITER on time and on budget may also affect
U.S. costs. With respect to the U.S. contribution to build ITER, the
largest portion, or about 44 percent, will be used to purchase U.S.-
manufactured components and parts for ITER; the remaining portion will
be used to provide cash to the ITER Organization for equipment
installation and associated contingencies, to pay for U.S. scientists
and engineers sent to the ITER Organization, and to support ITER-
related research and development at national laboratories. However, DOE
has not been able to assess the full costs to the United States of
building ITER because the ITER Organization has not completed the
project design for the reactor. According to DOE's project management
guidance, DOE cannot develop and validate a definitive cost and
schedule estimate for a project until the design is complete. Moreover,
the $1.12 billion for ITER construction does not include an additional
$1.2 billion the United States is expected to contribute to operate and
decommission the facility. With respect to management challenges, the
ITER Organization faces five key management challenges that may affect
U.S. costs. Many of these challenges stem from the difficulty of
coordinating international efforts: six countries and the European
Union are designing and building components for ITER and, as members of
the ITER Organization, must reach consensus before making critical
management decisions. The key challenges include (1) developing quality
assurance standards to test the reliability and integrity of the
components made in different countries; (2) assembling, with a high
level of precision, components and parts built in different countries;
(3) finding a new vendor if a country fails to build a component on
time or does not meet quality assurance standards; (4) developing a
contingency fund that adequately addresses cost overruns and schedule
delays; and (5) developing procedures that describe which countries
will be responsible for paying for cost overruns.
GAO has identified several challenges DOE faces in managing alternative
fusion research activities, including coordinating inertial fusion
research activities within DOE, setting funding priorities to advance
both ITER-and tokamak-related research and different magnetic fusion
energy approaches, and planning for hiring and retaining fusion
scientists:
* Coordination. Within DOE, NNSA and OFES do not effectively coordinate
research activities to leverage scientific and technological advances
for developing inertial fusion energy. NNSA provides OFES with limited
access to one of its inertial fusion facilities to conduct inertial
fusion experiments, and NNSA-and OFES-funded scientists share
scientific information. However, NNSA and OFES do not have a
coordinated research plan that identifies key scientific and
technological questions or the cost, time frames, and detailed research
and development tasks needed by each agency to solve those scientific
and technological issues to further advance inertial fusion energy. In
addition, DOE has not given NNSA and OFES clear roles in the
development of inertial fusion energy. NNSA's program is focused on
defense needs while OFES is exploring broad scientific issues
indirectly related to inertial fusion energy. Without a coordinated
research plan, progress in advancing inertial fusion may be delayed.
* Funding priorities. Alternative magnetic fusion research competes for
funding with ITER-and tokamak-related research. Since the U.S.
commitment to ITER, DOE has focused more of its resources on ITER-and
tokamak-related research. As a result, funding for alternative,
potentially more innovative, magnetic fusion research activities has
declined--from $26 million in fiscal year 2002 to $20 million in fiscal
year 2007. Moreover, as funding for tokamak-related research has
increased, the share of funding for these innovative research
activities decreased from 19 percent of the fusion research budget in
fiscal year 2002 to 13 percent in fiscal year 2007. University
scientists involved in fusion research told us that this decline in
funding has led to a decline in research opportunities for innovative
concepts, and these concepts could lead to a simpler, less costly, or
faster path to fusion energy. In addition, the decline in funding also
has reduced opportunities to attract students to the fusion sciences
and train them to fulfill future workforce needs. DOE officials
responded that they determine the appropriate level of funding based on
research priorities identified by DOE's fusion energy advisory
committee[Footnote 4] and the current level of funding is sufficient to
sustain the best-performing innovative magnetic devices. However, the
last independent assessment of the balance of funding between tokamak-
related research and alternative innovative concepts was in 1999 before
the United States joined ITER and it became a priority.
* Human capital. DOE has not developed a human capital strategy to
address future workforce challenges. About one-third of the U.S. fusion
energy workforce is retiring in the next 10 years and only a small
percentage of doctoral candidates in physics are entering the fusion
research field to meet future workforce needs. Without a strategy in
place, DOE may face a shortage of scientists with critical skills and
expertise at a time when demand for their skills will grow.
To advance U.S. efforts to develop alternative fusion energy sources
and to address OFES's human capital challenges, we recommend, among
other things, that the Secretary of Energy direct OFES to (1) charge
DOE's fusion energy advisory committee with independently assessing
whether current funding levels between ITER-and tokamak-related
research and innovative magnetic fusion research strike the right
balance to meet research objectives and advance both areas of research,
and (2) develop a strategy to hire, train, and retain personnel with
specialized skills to meet future workforce needs. We also are
recommending that the Secretary of Energy direct DOE and NNSA to
develop a research plan to coordinate U.S. inertial fusion research
activities and identify roles and responsibilities for each program,
detailed research and development tasks, budget needs, and time frames
for advancing inertial fusion energy.
We provided DOE with a draft copy of this report for its review and
comment. In its written comments, DOE neither agreed nor disagreed with
our recommendations, but questioned several of our findings, including
whether the number of PhDs will be sufficient to meet future workforce
needs, the declining share of funding available for innovative magnetic
fusion research activities, and the lack of a coordinated research
plan. We believe that our analyses and facts as reported are correct.
Specifically, data from DOE's fusion energy advisory committee show
that not enough doctoral candidates in plasma physics and fusion
science are entering the fusion research field to meet future workforce
needs and funding for innovative magnetic fusion research activities
has declined in the last 6 fiscal years. In addition, DOE still does
not have a coordinated research plan to help advance inertial fusion
energy research. DOE also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated, as appropriate.
Background:
Fusion is the energy source that powers the sun and stars and is a
major source of energy for the hydrogen bomb. For more than 50 years,
the United States has been trying to control this energy source to
produce electricity. Fusion occurs when the nuclei of two light atoms
collide and fuse together with sufficient energy to overcome their
natural repulsive forces. Scientists are currently using deuterium and
tritium--hydrogen isotopes--for this reaction. When the nuclei of the
two atoms collide, the collision produces helium and a large quantity
of energy (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: The Fusion Reaction:
This figure is an illustration of fusion reaction.
[See PDF for image]
Source: ITER Organization.
[End of figure]
For the fusion reaction to take place, the atoms must be heated to very
high temperatures--about 100 million degrees centigrade, or 10 times
the temperature of the surface of the sun--and placed under tremendous
pressure. In a hydrogen bomb, high temperatures are obtained by
exploding a uranium or plutonium fission bomb to force the deuterium
and tritium together in a violent manner. To achieve controlled fusion,
the United States is pursuing two paths--magnetic and inertial.
Magnetic fusion involves heating deuterium and tritium to about 100
million degrees centigrade by using an external source of
electromagnetic energy. The deuterium and tritium nuclei fuse together
to make helium in a very hot and highly charged gas-like condition
called a plasma. Strong magnetic fields are then used to confine the
plasma. Current magnetic devices have not been able to sustain this
fusion reaction for more than a few seconds. For magnetic fusion to
produce electricity, a device would need to sustain the reaction for
long periods of time. In contrast, inertial fusion relies on intense
lasers or particle beams to heat and compress a small, frozen pellet of
deuterium and tritium--a few millimeters in size--that would yield a
burst of energy. The lasers or particle beams would continuously heat
and compress the pellets, which would simulate, on a very small scale,
the actions of a hydrogen bomb. The goal for both approaches is to
generate more energy than is needed to begin and sustain the reaction.
ITER is an experiment to study fusion reactions in conditions similar
to those expected in a future electricity-generating power plant. The
goal is to be the first fusion device in the world to produce net
power--that is, produce more power than it consumes. The objective is
to produce 10 times more power than is needed to operate the device. In
contrast, current nuclear power plants produce between 30 and 40 times
more power than is needed to operate the plants. ITER also will test a
number of key technologies, including the heating, control, and remote
maintenance systems that will be needed for a fusion power station. If
ITER is successful, it will lead to power plant design and testing.
According to DOE, ITER was first proposed at the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Geneva
summit in November 1985, when President Reagan and Soviet Premier
Gorbachev recognized that joint activities were needed to diffuse the
tension of the arms race during the Cold War and begin the Soviet
Union's economic integration into the world economy. The goal was to
share scientific and technical information in a program in which both
sides had reached a comparable level of knowledge and that offered
future commercial gains from developing fusion technology. Following
this summit, the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan, and several
European countries drafted a proposal to implement ITER.
The United States temporarily withdrew from ITER in 1999 when Congress
raised concerns that the technical basis for ITER was not sound, the
cost was too high, and the facility was too large. In response to the
U.S. withdrawal, the countries participating in ITER reduced the size
of the facility and the cost of building ITER to about $5 billion, or
one-half the cost of the original design. A number of scientific
advances also increased U.S. confidence that the new ITER design would
meet its scientific and technological goals. In January 2003, President
Bush announced that the United States would rejoin ITER. This decision
was based on a number of studies--from DOE's advisory committee on
fusion energy, the National Academy of Sciences, and other groups of
experts--that concluded the U.S. fusion program was technically and
scientifically ready to participate in ITER and recommended that the
United States rejoin it. In 2003, the People's Republic of China and
the Republic of Korea also joined; and in December 2005, India became
the seventh and most recent party to join. In November 2006, all six
countries and the European Union signed the ITER agreement. Figure 2
shows the countries participating in ITER.
Figure 2: Countries Participating in ITER:
This figure is a map of countries participating in ITER.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO based on information from the ITER Organization.
[End of figure]
NNSA maintains the United States' inertial fusion facilities. NIF,
which is scheduled for completion in 2009, will be the world's largest
laser facility and will be used to test inertial fusion. It is designed
to achieve the first controlled thermonuclear burn, which will release
fusion energy.[Footnote 5] To achieve the temperature and pressure
needed for heating and compressing the fuel to release this fusion
energy, NIF has 192 laser beams that will converge and strike frozen
deuterium and tritium pellets. No other facility has been able to
achieve a controlled thermonuclear burn because it did not have enough
energy to heat and compress these targets. For example, NIF is expected
to produce 50 times more energy than the OMEGA laser--the world's most
powerful laser facility currently operating. The OMEGA laser, at the
University of Rochester, is NNSA's main inertial fusion facility until
NIF is completed. Lastly, the Z-machine, located at Sandia National
Laboratory, is an alternative approach to reaching conditions of
extreme temperature and pressure to validate sophisticated
computational models of nuclear weapon performance. Rather than using
powerful lasers, the Z-machine uses an electrical current to create a
powerful magnetic field that compresses and implodes the target. The Z-
machine releases the equivalent of 80 times the world's electrical
power output for a few billionths of a second, but only a moderate
amount of energy is actually used because it relies on generators and
amplifiers to store and magnify the energy from the electrical grid.
NNSA spent about $60 million to refurbish this machine from July 2006
to May 2007 to increase the power output.
The United States Will Contribute $1.12 Billion Over 9 Years to Help
Build ITER, but Management Challenges May Affect Timing and Cost of
Construction:
DOE plans to spend $1.12 billion over 9 years to help build ITER, but
this estimate neither reflects an independently validated cost based on
a completed reactor design, nor the costs to operate and decommission
the facility. The ITER Organization also faces five key management
challenges to build ITER on time and on budget that may affect U.S.
costs.
DOE Does Not Yet Have a Definitive and Independently Validated Cost
Estimate for the U.S. Contribution to ITER, as DOE Guidance Directs:
Based on DOE's fiscal year 2008 congressional budget request, DOE plans
to spend $1.12 billion over 9 years--from fiscal years 2006 to 2014--to
help build ITER, as figure 3 shows. Of the seven parties contributing
to ITER, the United States and five other countries--the People's
Republic of China, Japan, India, the Republic of South Korea, and the
Russian Federation--are each providing 9.1 percent of the total
construction cost. The European Union is the largest contributor--45.4
percent--because it is building the reactor on a member country's soil
and it agreed to pay for the infrastructure costs. DOE's preliminary
estimate of the U.S. contribution includes the following:
* $487.14 million to purchase U.S.-manufactured components and parts
for ITER, such as superconducting cable for the magnets that sustain
the fusion reaction and tiles for the inner wall of the reactor that
can withstand the heat and pressure of the fusion reaction;
* $203.24 million in cash to the ITER Organization to pay for
scientists, engineers, and support personnel working for the ITER
Organization; the assembly and installation of the components in France
to build the reactor; quality assurance testing of U.S. supplied
components; and contingencies;
* $194.68 million in contingency funds to address potential schedule
delays or increases in costs for manufacturing components;
* $112.28 million for the U.S. ITER Project Office at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory to manage the procurement, testing, assembly, and
quality assurance of U.S.-manufactured components;
* $102.57 million to fund research and development activities and
complete the design work of U.S. components and parts at national
laboratories, universities, and private industry; and:
* $22.09 million to pay the salaries of U.S. scientists and engineers
working at the ITER Organization.
Figure 3: U.S. Contributions to ITER for Construction:
This figure is a pie chart showing U.S. contributions to ITER for
construction. 44% was procurement of U.S. components. 18% was cash to
the ITER organization. 17% were U.S. contingency funds. 10% was for
U.S. ITER project office administration. 9% was for U.S. research and
development, and 2% was for salaries of U.S. personnel.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of DOE budget data.
[End of figure]
The $1.12 billion is still a preliminary cost estimate and may not
reflect the full costs of U.S. contributions to ITER. DOE has not yet
developed a definitive cost and schedule estimate, as DOE project
management guidance directs. This guidance establishes protocols for
planning and executing large construction projects and directs DOE to
reach a number of critical decisions before construction
begins.[Footnote 6] Two of these critical decisions are (1) formally
approving the project's definitive cost and schedule estimates as
accurate and complete and (2) reaching agreement that the project's
final design is sufficiently complete so that resources can be
committed toward procurement and construction. The cost and schedule
estimates also are subject to independent reviews, usually by DOE's
Office of Engineering and Construction Management, to ensure they are
accurate and complete. Even though DOE does not have a definitive cost
estimate, in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, DOE spent $79.3 million to
establish the ITER Project Office and fund research and development
activities to design U.S. components. Without a definitive cost
estimate, the U.S. Congress has expressed concern that DOE may use
funding from the domestic fusion research program to cover any
shortfalls in funding for the ITER project.
DOE has not yet reached these critical decisions because of delays by
the countries participating in ITER in selecting a construction site
for the reactor and in completing the reactor design. In December 2004,
DOE reported to Congress that DOE would have a definitive cost and
schedule estimate by March 2006. DOE's new goal is to have this
estimate by the end of fiscal year 2008 or early fiscal year 2009. DOE
officials told us that DOE cannot complete this estimate until the ITER
Organization updates the design for the reactor, scheduled for November
2007. DOE must then wait for the ITER Organization to develop the
design specifications, quality assurance procedures and tests, and
schedule of delivery for the components and parts of the reactor before
it can begin manufacturing. The ITER Organization will issue the design
specifications from the end of 2007 through 2012, starting with basic
infrastructure and components that require a longer time to build. In
fiscal year 2008, DOE plans to begin procuring materials needed for the
superconducting magnets, the tiles for the inside of the reactor, and
pipes for the water cooling system. Even though DOE will not yet have
an independently validated cost and schedule estimate before it begins
to purchase these materials, DOE project management guidance provides
an exception when materials take a long time to manufacture and may
delay the construction schedule.
The United States Will Incur Additional Costs Because ITER Is Only the
First Step Toward Developing a Fusion Energy Power Plant:
The $1.12 billion preliminary estimate does not cover the full costs of
the ITER project. DOE estimates that it will cost the U.S. another $1.2
billion to help operate and run experiments on ITER for 20 years after
construction is completed and then decommission the facility by
removing radioactive materials and debris. Furthermore, ITER is only
the first step in developing a fusion power plant, and DOE expects to
build or help build additional facilities on the path to fusion energy.
Following ITER's construction, DOE may participate in designing and
contributing funds to build another fusion facility, known as the
International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF). This
facility would be designed to develop and test radiation-resistant
materials that could survive the extreme conditions inside a fusion
reactor. Fusion reactions continuously produce neutrons, which cause
materials to become radioactive and damage them over time. The IFMIF
would produce neutrons, and one goal of this facility would be to place
materials inside the test chamber to determine which would best be
suited for a future fusion reactor. If DOE participates in IFMIF, DOE's
fusion energy advisory committee estimated that the U.S. contribution
to IFMIF would be about $150 million over 7 years.
Another facility also may be needed to test technologies that would
convert fusion power into practical energy, such as electricity.
Neutrons from a fusion reaction will release energy if they collide
with atoms of another material, causing the substance to heat. A prime
candidate for this material for future fusion power plants is the
liquid metal lithium. Lithium that is heated by colliding neutrons
could transfer the heat to water, producing steam. The steam, in turn,
would drive a steam turbine and generator, producing electricity. The
purpose of a new facility would be to test different materials and
systems for collecting neutrons, converting fusion energy into heat,
and producing tritium--one of the fuels for fusion reactions. DOE's
fusion energy advisory committee estimates that the construction of
this facility would cost around $1.5 billion. After testing materials
and technologies and assessing the scientific results of ITER and other
magnetic fusion devices, DOE would then be ready to design a
demonstration power plant that would produce electricity.
The ITER Organization Faces Management Challenges that May Limit Its
Ability to Build ITER on Time and on Budget:
The ITER Organization faces several management challenges that may
limit its ability to build ITER on time and on budget and may affect
U.S. costs. Many of these challenges stem from the difficulty of
coordinating the efforts of six countries and the European Union that
are designing and building components for ITER and, as members of the
ITER Organization, must reach consensus before making critical
management decisions. The key management challenges include (1)
developing quality assurance standards to test the reliability and
integrity of the components made in different countries; (2)
assembling, with a high level of precision, components and parts built
in different countries; (3) finding a new vendor if a country fails to
build a component on time or does not meet quality assurance standards;
(4) developing a contingency fund that adequately addresses cost
overruns and schedule delays; and (5) developing procedures that
describe which countries will be responsible for paying for cost
overruns.
First, the ITER Organization has not yet developed quality assurance
standards for manufactured parts and components. Quality assurance
standards establish the tests each manufacturing company must pass
before the ITER Organization can certify that a part or an entire
component meets performance requirements, such as being able to
withstand tremendous pressure and heat inside the reactor. According to
DOE officials, quality assurance testing is critical because a failure
of a poorly manufactured component or part during scientific
experiments could shut down the reactor for a significant time,
increase costs because of required repairs, or skew scientific results.
The countries participating in ITER cannot begin manufacturing
components until these quality assurance standards are in place. Figure
4 demonstrates the scale and complexity of the ITER reactor.
Figure 4: Section View of the Proposed Design for the ITER Reactor:
This figure is a picture of the proposed design for the ITER reactor.
[See PDF for image]
Source: ITER Organization and Art Explosion (clip art).
[End of figure]
Second, the ITER Organization faces the challenge of assembling more
than 10,000 parts and components manufactured by different countries.
For example, the ITER Organization is responsible for installing the
tiles that line the inside of the reactor, but the tiles are being
manufactured by all seven parties. These tiles must be manufactured and
installed with great precision. According to ITER Organization
officials, a millimeter difference between the tiles could
significantly affect scientific results. However, countries
participating in ITER construction follow two different building
codes.[Footnote 7] ITER Organization officials told us they have not
yet selected which building code countries must follow. There is a risk
that countries unfamiliar with the required building code could take
longer to manufacture a part under those standards or manufacture a
part that will not fit properly with other manufactured parts for the
same component.
Third, the ITER Organization assumes the responsibility of finding a
suitable vendor in another country if a country fails to build a
component on time or does not meet quality assurance standards.
According to ITER Organization officials, the ITER Organization would
have to negotiate the terms of manufacturing an item under an expedited
schedule, and the country that failed to build the part on time would
have to provide the ITER Organization with the funds needed to
manufacture the item. Another vendor may not be able to produce the
part in an expedited manner and the construction schedule may slip. In
addition, there is no clear guidance on how to properly compensate a
vendor in another country for all manufacturing costs, such as start-up
costs, materials, and labor. Any disagreement between the new vendor,
the country paying for the manufactured part, and the ITER Organization
on proper compensation also could delay construction and increase the
total project cost.
Fourth, the ITER Organization's contingency fund does not adequately
address potential cost overruns and schedule delays. The ITER
Organization's contingency fund is about 10 percent of the total cost,
or about $712 million based on current estimates. If there are cost
overruns, the ITER Organization has a contingency fund to pay for
additional costs associated with procuring manufactured components that
it is responsible for purchasing, installation of parts, research and
development activities related to designing components, and hiring more
staff. According to DOE officials, the ITER Organization did not
determine this amount through a risk-based assessment. Rather, the
contingency fund was created after India joined in 2005 as the most
recent party to ITER. Since the project cost was already fixed, the
countries participating in ITER decided to use the additional funds
from India's assessment to create a contingency fund. According to DOE
officials, some of the countries participating in ITER did not want to
create a contingency fund because it was not standard practice in their
project management. Moreover, according to DOE officials, a 10 percent
contingency may not be adequate for a project of this cost and
complexity. In contrast, these officials cited the Spallation Neutron
Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which produces short but
intense pulses of neutrons that can be used to develop new materials,
such as plastics. DOE completed the construction of this facility in
2006. The facility had a total project cost of $1.4 billion and
required the coordination of six DOE national laboratories. Based on
total cost and complexity, DOE had a contingency fund of about 20
percent of total costs. According to DOE officials, ITER is more
technologically complex and involves greater risk because of the large
number of manufacturers from different countries.
Finally, the ITER Organization does not have procedures that identify
who is responsible for paying for potential cost overruns that exceed
available contingency funds and how costs should be shared.
Construction could be further delayed if there is no consensus before
construction begins on how to share the costs for cost overruns.
Lack of Coordination, Competing Funding Priorities, and Human Capital
Challenges May Hamper Progress in Alternative Fusion Research:
Within DOE, NNSA and OFES do not have a coordinated research program
for inertial fusion energy. They do not have a research plan that
identifies key scientific and technological issues that must be
addressed to advance inertial fusion energy and how their research
activities would meet those goals. Without a coordination research plan
and clear responsibility for developing inertial fusion energy, DOE may
not see progress in developing inertial fusion energy as a promising
alternative to magnetic fusion. In addition, alternative magnetic
fusion research competes for funding with ITER-and tokamak-related
research. Since the U.S. commitment to ITER, funding for alternative
innovative magnetic devices has declined over the last 6 fiscal years
while funding for tokamak-related research has increased. According to
university scientists involved in fusion research, this decrease in
funding has led to a decline in research opportunities for innovative
devices. Finally, while the demand for scientists and engineers to run
experiments at ITER and NIF is growing, OFES does not have a human
capital strategy to address expected future workforce shortages; these
shortages are likely to grow as a large part of the fusion workforce
retires over the next 10 years.
DOE and NNSA Do Not Have a Coordinated Research Program for Inertial
Fusion Energy:
DOE has three separately funded inertial fusion research programs:
NNSA's inertial fusion research activities related to the nuclear
weapons program, a High Average Power Laser Program (HAPL) to develop
technology needed for energy for which funding is directed by a
congressional conference committee, and OFES's inertial fusion research
activities aimed at exploring the basic science for energy
applications. Experiments in each of these programs help advance
inertial fusion energy, but these experiments are not coordinated and
each program has a separate mission and different scientific and
technological objectives. NNSA provides OFES with limited access to one
of its inertial fusion facilities to conduct inertial fusion
experiments, and NNSA-and OFES-funded scientists share information from
the results of inertial fusion experiments. However, there is no
research plan that identifies key scientific and technological
questions that need to be addressed to achieve inertial fusion energy
or the cost, time frames, and detailed research and development tasks
needed by each agency to solve those scientific and technological
issues to further advance inertial fusion energy. In addition, DOE has
not assigned to either NNSA or OFES clear roles in developing inertial
fusion energy. NNSA is focused on stockpile stewardship, but it
maintains the major inertial fusion facilities. OFES is responsible for
developing paths to fusion energy, but it is focused on ITER and
magnetic fusion. A lack of a coordinated research plan and clear
responsibility among these programs for developing inertial fusion
energy may delay the progress of inertial fusion energy as a promising
alternative to magnetic fusion.
NNSA operates the three major inertial fusion facilities in the United
States--the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, the OMEGA Laser at the University of Rochester,
and the Z-machine at Sandia National Laboratory. Figure 5 shows the Z-
machine in operation. In fiscal year 2006, NNSA spent about $544
million for NIF construction, upgrades, and operations for the other
two facilities, and to conduct inertial fusion research. NNSA uses
these facilities primarily to investigate technical issues related to
stockpile stewardship by testing the reliability and integrity of
nuclear weapons and simulating the conditions of a thermonuclear
explosion without detonating them.[Footnote 8]
Figure 5: The Z-machine Creating an X-ray Pulse to Test Materials in
Conditions of Extreme Temperature and Pressure:
This figure is a picture of the z-machine creating an X-ray pulse to
test materials in conditions of extreme temperature and pressure.
[See PDF for image]
Source: Sandia National Laboratory.
[End of figure]
OFES's inertial fusion research activities are focused on energy
applications. In fiscal year 2006, OFES spent $15.5 million, or 5.5
percent of its $280.7 million budget, on these research activities.
While OFES officials told us that inertial fusion is an attractive path
to fusion energy and the only alternative to magnetic fusion, the
office has limited funding for inertial fusion research because its
priority is to support ITER and magnetic fusion research activities.
Consequently, OFES relies heavily on NNSA's inertial fusion research
activities and facilities. NNSA experiments at NIF, which will begin in
2010, will demonstrate the feasibility of inertial fusion energy
because a controlled thermonuclear burn is the first step in using
inertial fusion as a potential energy source. In addition, OFES funds
inertial fusion energy experiments using the OMEGA laser, located at
the University of Rochester. NNSA grants access to the OMEGA laser to
scientists conducting nondefense work and expects to complete a $98.5
million upgrade to the OMEGA laser early in 2008. This upgrade will add
short-pulse, high-power lasers, which can, among other things, test
ways to lower the total laser energy required to still compress and
heat the target for fusion energy. This approach could reduce the cost
of producing fusion energy. However, the university limits access to
this facility to about 4 weeks a year, or about 10 percent of the total
operating time, because the priority for this facility remains
stockpile stewardship. In addition, those 4 weeks are not reserved for
inertial fusion energy experiments. Scientists from different areas of
science, including astrophysics, materials science, biology, and
chemistry, can request the use of the facility and compete for time on
the laser. University of Rochester officials told us that they may be
able to increase access to this facility for inertial fusion
experiments, but OFES would have to provide funding. NNSA pays for the
facility's operation, but OFES would have to fund the experiment,
including the targets, which cost $10,000 to $15,000 each; personnel
costs; and specialized equipment to measure the results of the
experiment. NNSA also is planning to provide access to NIF for
nondefense experiments, but it has not yet determined how much
operating time to free up. According to officials at NIF, NNSA plans to
free up 15 percent of its operating time to external users, including
OFES, but its primary mission is for stockpile stewardship and access
to the facility for nondefense research, such as inertial fusion energy
experiments, will depend on NNSA first meeting its scientific goals.
While NIF and other NNSA facilities can demonstrate the fundamental
science of inertial fusion, they are not designed to produce fusion
energy efficiently and to test whether inertial fusion energy can be
commercially viable. In addition to understanding the conditions
necessary to heat and compress a frozen pellet of fuel to release
fusion energy, DOE would have to overcome a number of technical issues
before inertial fusion energy can be commercially viable. These issues
include (1) designing the pellet of fuel, which consists of frozen
layers of deuterium and tritium, to release the most amount of energy
when it is struck by a laser; (2) developing a system that can keep the
pellets of fuel cryogenically frozen and inject five of them every
second with great accuracy into the target chamber; (3) designing a
laser that can compress and heat five frozen pellets of fuel every
second to release fusion energy; (4) testing materials inside the
chamber wall that could withstand these repetitive explosions while
also harvesting the neutrons needed to produce electricity; and (5)
clearing the inside of the reactor of debris after each shot. According
to officials from the Naval Research Laboratory, the lasers need to
strike five frozen pellets of fuel a second to release a sufficient
amount of fusion energy for electricity production.
Since neither NNSA nor OFES were funding research to investigate these
technical issues, beginning in 1999, congressional conference
committees directed NNSA to allocate funding for HAPL to develop the
technologies needed for inertial fusion energy. According to NNSA
officials, NNSA does not request funding for this program in its
congressional budget requests because the program exceeds NNSA's
mission goals of developing a laser system to test new weapons designs
and the reliability of nuclear weapons. NNSA officials told us that
their current facilities, such as NIF, OMEGA, and the Z-machine, are
sufficient to meet their needs. NIF will be able to strike a target
once every 4 hours and OMEGA once every 2 hours--far short of the 5
targets a second needed for fusion energy, but adequate for the
stockpile stewardship mission.
Congressional conference committees have directed funds for inertial
fusion research:
* Conference committees have directed about $25 million a year to two
competing lasers systems that could be used for fusion power plants at
the Naval Research Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory and for experiments to design the targets for inertial
fusion energy at General Atomics.
* Conference committees have directed $4 million in fiscal years 2004
and 2005 to explore the Z-machine's ability to produce fusion energy
for a potential power plant, as an alternative to the laser systems. In
fiscal year 2006, Sandia National Laboratory used $2.6 million of its
internal research funding to continue this research. However, this
research did not continue in fiscal year 2007, and there are no plans
to resume the research in fiscal year 2008 because NNSA has not
provided funding for this project.
As another alternative to both the laser systems and the Z-machine,
OFES is funding experiments using heavy ion beams to produce fusion
energy at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Heavy ion beams
are made by a particle accelerator--a device that uses electrical
fields to propel electrically charged particles at high speeds. The
heavy ions, which are heavier than carbon atoms, collide with the
targets and cause the compression and heat needed to release fusion
energy.
If NIF's controlled fusion experiments succeed, there is still
uncertainty about the future of inertial fusion energy. NNSA officials
told us that they are not responsible for funding the construction of
additional inertial fusion facilities needed to demonstrate inertial
fusion energy. OFES officials told us that they do not have the funding
to build a $2 billion to $3 billion inertial fusion facility. In fiscal
year 2008, OFES and NNSA plan to establish a joint program to explore
high-energy density physics, which is aimed at understanding the
behavior of matter under extreme pressure. OFES and NNSA plan to
combine their funding in this area to fund basic research and share
experimental results. While high-energy density physics explores a
number of fundamental scientific issues related to inertial fusion
energy, it does not address all of the scientific issues that would
advance inertial fusion energy.
Decreases in Funding for Innovative Magnetic Fusion Devices May Delay
Progress Toward a Fusion Energy Device:
Although a tokamak has been the most successful magnetic fusion device,
it is still uncertain whether the device will lead to a commercially
viable fusion energy device. To reduce the risk of investing in only
one device, OFES funds scientific research on alternative types of
magnetic devices, in addition to inertial fusion research activities.
However, a decrease in research funding for these alternatives may
limit DOE's ability to find a simpler, less costly, or faster path to
fusion energy.
Research on alternative types of magnetic devices is critical to the
fusion energy program, according to officials from the National Academy
of Sciences. In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reported that
many outstanding scientific and technical issues had to be resolved
before an economically attractive fusion power plant could be designed.
These innovative research experiments could address many issues that
ITER will not be able to address in a cost-effective manner and lead to
a simpler, less costly, or faster path to fusion energy. Moreover,
because these innovative and cutting-edge research activities are
primarily located at U.S. universities, this program attracts students
to fusion sciences and serves as an important recruitment and training
tool for scientists and engineers.
Sustained funding is critical to these research activities, according
to DOE's fusion energy advisory committee. Specifically, the ability to
investigate critical scientific and engineering issues requires
sufficient overall funding to build and operate advanced-stage
experiments without eliminating the opportunity for new ideas and
innovations resulting from smaller, more focused experiments. However,
alternative magnetic fusion research competes for funding with ITER-and
tokamak-related research. Since the U.S. commitment to ITER, DOE has
focused more of its resources on ITER-and tokamak-related research. DOE
officials told us that given limited resources, their priority is to
fund ITER-and tokamak-related research. According to DOE officials,
OFES determines the appropriate level of funding between tokamak-
related research and innovative concepts based on scientific and
technological priorities identified by DOE's fusion energy advisory
committee. The level of funding is, among other things, tied to the
complexity of the experiment and the operating costs of the device.
Based on these assessments, DOE officials told us they believe the
current level of funding for innovative magnetic devices is sufficient
to sustain the best-performing devices.
However, in fiscal year 2006, OFES spent about $21 million to fund 25
small-scale experiments at 11 universities, 4 national laboratories,
and 2 private companies to test 7 types of magnetic fusion devices with
different shapes and magnetic currents. This level of funding
represents a decline over the past 6 fiscal years--from $26 million in
fiscal year 2002 to $20 million in fiscal year 2007. University
scientists involved in innovative fusion research told us that this
decrease in funding was not consistent with a 1999 DOE fusion energy
science advisory committee study that recommended OFES increase funding
for innovative magnetic research activities. OFES relies on this
advisory committee to establish priorities for the fusion program and
to provide a basis for the allocation of funding.
However, since that report, the share of funding for innovative
research activities has decreased even as funding for fusion research
has increased. The share of funding has dropped from 19 percent of the
fusion research budget in fiscal year 2002 to 13 percent in fiscal year
2007. In addition, while OFES's 5-year budget plan shows an increase in
funding for fusion research activities in fiscal years 2008 through
2011, most of this funding will be used for ITER-and tokamak-related
research activities at the major facilities. DOE officials also told us
there are planned increases in funding for innovative devices, but only
to maintain the same level of research. According to university
scientists, a number of innovative approaches are ready to advance to
the next stage of development that would test the feasibility of
producing fusion energy or conduct more sophisticated experiments, but
DOE has no plans to advance any of these approaches because it may
require an increase in funding to conduct more sophisticated
experiments. DOE's fusion energy advisory committee has not assessed
the appropriate level of funding between ITER-and tokamak-related
activities and innovative concepts since 1999, before the U.S. joined
ITER and it became a priority.
Scientists from a number of universities told us that this decline in
funding has led to a decline in research opportunities for innovative
concepts. For example, university scientists told us that in the last 3
years, they reduced the number of experiments they performed on their
devices and they could not upgrade the devices to validate theories and
computer simulations. In addition, the decrease in funding reduced
opportunities to attract students to the fusion sciences and train them
to fulfill future workforce needs.
DOE Does Not Have a Plan to Address Future Workforce Shortages:
According to studies by DOE's fusion energy advisory committee and the
National Academy of Sciences, the single greatest challenge the fusion
program faces may be a rapidly aging workforce. About one-third of the
U.S. fusion energy workforce is retiring in the next 10 years. In 2004,
DOE's fusion energy advisory committee found that between 2008 and
2014, DOE would have to fill about 250 permanent positions as
scientists and technicians retire--an average hiring rate of 42 PhDs
per year. However, this figure exceeds the current total PhD production
rate in fusion-related fields. In fiscal year 2006, 33 PhDs were
awarded to students in plasma physics and fusion science. OFES
estimates that 33 and 36 PhDs will be awarded in fiscal years 2007 and
2008 respectively. Furthermore, it may be difficult to retain these new
PhDs in fusion-related fields. DOE's fusion energy advisory committee
found that about 50 percent of PhDs in plasma science and engineering
took positions outside their fields. Moreover, DOE would need to hire
more PhDs to increase the number of scientists and engineers needed for
ITER and to maintain a strong domestic program. The average hiring rate
of 42 PhDs per year would replace retiring personnel, but would not
increase the fusion workforce.
OFES has taken some steps to address these challenges by recruiting and
training fusion scientists and engineers. OFES established a program
that identifies talented faculty members at universities early in their
careers in plasma physics and funds their research activities. In 2004,
OFES also established Fusion Science Centers at universities to conduct
magnetic and inertial fusion research activities and stimulate the
involvement and participation of students. Moreover, OFES has a
partnership with the National Science Foundation, an independent
federal agency that supports basic scientific research in many fields,
including physics and engineering, to share their resources and fund
research into fundamental issues in plasma science and engineering.
OFES officials told us that they are also hiring PhDs in related
scientific fields, such as materials science, to leverage their
expertise in solving different types of scientific and technological
problems encountered during fusion energy research and to reduce any
shortfalls in hiring plasma science and engineering PhDs.
Despite these initiatives, OFES still has not developed a plan to
address the future shortage of fusion scientists and engineers and
increase the number of PhDs working in fusion science. It has not
implemented the recommendation from DOE's advisory committee report to
develop a 5-to 10-year hiring plan with strategies to increase hiring
and training of the most qualified staff. OFES also has not assessed
whether its recruitment and outreach efforts are sufficient to meet
future workforce needs. In 2004, OFES reported that its outreach and
recruitment programs were attracting more graduate and postdoctoral
students to fusion energy, but the report did not assess whether it was
a sufficient number to sustain fusion research as a large number of
scientists begin to retire and whether or how long those students
remain in fusion-related research.
Conclusions:
Given the size of the U.S. contribution to ITER, it is important to
assess the full costs of participation in this scientific endeavor. DOE
made a commitment to provide manufactured components and parts to ITER
without a definitive cost and schedule estimate and a complete project
design. As a result, DOE's preliminary $1.12 billion estimate may be
subject to significant change as ITER's design is completed. Moreover,
there is a risk that several management challenges facing the ITER
Organization, such as developing quality assurance standards for
manufactured components and assessing contingencies for cost or
schedule overruns, could result in delays in ITER's construction, which
would further increase costs for the United States.
DOE could better manage alternative fusion research activities. DOE is
not effectively coordinating OFES's and NNSA's inertial fusion
activities to advance inertial fusion energy. Since OFES relies on NNSA
and the HAPL Program to advance inertial fusion as a potential energy
source, it is important that OFES coordinate the research activities of
these three programs to explore inertial fusion energy applications.
The lack of a research plan and clear mission responsibility between
OFES and NNSA on which office has the lead in advancing inertial fusion
energy research may delay progress in developing inertial fusion as an
energy source in the shortest time possible. NNSA also has not
determined how much time will be available at NIF for scientists
conducting inertial fusion energy experiments. NNSA may significantly
limit access to NIF if there are delays in meeting its stockpile
stewardship objectives. Since NIF will be critical in resolving
fundamental scientific issues, access issues could further delay
progress for inertial fusion energy research.
In addition, the future of alternative magnetic fusion research
activities, which may lead to a simpler, less costly, or faster path to
fusion energy, is uncertain. Funding for these research activities has
steadily declined even though the fusion research budget has increased.
A decreasing share of funding for innovative concepts may delay
progress in resolving fundamental scientific issues or designing a
reactor more quickly. For this reason, DOE needs to ensure there is a
proper balance of funding between tokamak-related research and
alternative innovative concepts to support U.S. obligations to ITER
while continuing to explore different paths to fusion energy. Finally,
OFES has not developed a strategy to hire, train, and retain the most
talented staff. This effort is critical to meeting the growing demand
for scientists and engineers with knowledge about fusion, especially as
the United States participates in ITER, the NIF is completed, and
interest increases in fusion energy as a long-term energy source.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To advance U.S. efforts to develop alternative fusion energy sources,
we recommend that the Secretary of Energy direct:
* OFES and NNSA to develop a coordinated research plan to coordinate
U.S. inertial fusion research activities and identify roles and
responsibilities for each program as well as detailed research and
development tasks, budget needs, and time frames for advancing inertial
fusion research;
* NNSA to guarantee access to NIF, once it becomes operational, to
scientists conducting inertial fusion energy experiments, and work with
DOE to determine how to share the costs, operational time, and results
of NIF to explore inertial fusion as a viable energy source; and:
* OFES to charge DOE's fusion energy advisory committee with
independently assessing whether current funding levels between ITER-and
tokamak-related research and innovative magnetic fusion research strike
the right balance to meet research objectives and advance both areas of
research, and, if the current share of funding is not adequate, to
recommend appropriate changes.
To address OFES's human capital challenges, we recommend that the
Secretary of Energy direct OFES to develop a strategy to hire, train,
and retain personnel with specialized skills to meet future workforce
needs.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided DOE with a draft copy of this report for its review and
comment. DOE provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix
I. In its written comments, DOE neither agreed nor disagreed with our
recommendations, but questioned several of our findings. First, DOE
believes that enough PhDs are being produced to meet future workforce
needs and it points to anecdotal data from universities that U.S.
participation in ITER is attracting students to fusion sciences.
However, data from DOE's fusion energy advisory committee show that not
enough doctoral candidates in plasma physics and fusion science are
entering the fusion research field to meet future workforce needs. DOE
would have to hire an average of 42 PhDs a year to fill about 250
permanent positions as scientists and technicians retire, but awarded
33 PhDs in fiscal year 2006 and plans to award 33 and 36 PhDs
respectively in fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Moreover, as we noted in
our report, OFES has not assessed whether its recruitment and outreach
efforts are sufficient to meet future workforce needs. Anecdotal
evidence about student interest in fusion sciences is not a substitute
for objective data on recruitment and retention rates.
Second, DOE questioned our finding that that the share of funding for
alternative, potentially more innovative, magnetic fusion research
activities has declined in the last 6 fiscal years. DOE argued that the
share of funding for non-tokamak research has not declined, but rather
remained flat, and alternative fusion research activities include more
than innovative magnetic research. We agree that alternative fusion
research activities include more than innovative magnetic research.
However, with respect to funding levels, our analysis of DOE's budget
using DOE's definition of innovative magnetic fusion research shows a
clear result. Funding for innovative magnetic fusion research
activities has declined and this decline may delay progress in finding
a simpler, less costly, or faster path to fusion energy. In its budget
documents, DOE describes these research activities as cutting edge and
the main objective of these activities is to explore innovative and
better ways to achieve fusion energy. In addition, DOE has stated in
its budget documents that these activities have been effective in
attracting students to the fusion workforce.
Third, DOE questions our finding that it does not have a coordinated
research plan to advance inertial fusion energy. DOE noted that, in
2003, its advisory committee developed a plan that identified critical
milestones, research and development tasks, and budget needs to build
an inertial fusion demonstration power plant within 35 years. However,
DOE decided not to implement this plan because fundamental scientific
issues had not yet been resolved and there was no agreement between
OFES and NNSA on which agency had the responsibility of developing
inertial fusion as an energy source. When DOE rejected its advisory
committee's plan, it did not develop an alternative. A plan that
identifies key scientific and technological questions as well as the
cost, time frames, and detailed research and development tasks would
help OFES and NNSA better coordinate three separately funded inertial
fusion research programs that have different scientific and
technological objectives. Our recommendation does not involve
increasing funding for inertial fusion research activities, but rather
better managing the existing research activities. In addition, a plan
would help OFES and NNSA determine which agency has the lead in
advancing inertial fusion energy research. DOE also noted that OFES and
NNSA plan to establish a joint program in fiscal year 2008 that will
address fundamental scientific issues related to inertial fusion
energy. As we recognized in our report, OFES's and NNSA's joint program
in high-energy density physics may explore a number of fundamental
scientific issues related to inertial fusion energy, but it will not
address all of the scientific issues that would advance inertial fusion
energy. A coordinated research plan would help identify gaps in
scientific knowledge.
Finally, DOE questioned our statement that the joint program would not
address "most" of the scientific issues that would advance inertial
fusion energy. We agree with DOE that, as currently designed, the joint
program may address many of the scientific issues related to inertial
fusion energy and we made the appropriate change to the report.
However, the joint program has not yet been established and as a
result, it is too early to tell if all or most of the scientific issues
will be addressed.
DOE requested that we reprint their enclosure with technical comments.
The technical comments repeated the major points discussed in the
general comments. As a result, we addressed the technical comments in
our response or made changes to the report, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Energy and
interested congressional committees. We will also make copies available
to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or aloisee@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to
this report are listed in appendix II.
Signed by:
Gene Aloise:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Department of Energy:
Washington, DC 20585:
October 10, 2007:
Mr. Gene Aloise:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Aloise:
We have reviewed the draft Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report entitled "Fusion Energy, Definitive Cost Estimates for U.S.
Contributions to an International Experimental Reactor and Better
Coordinated DOE Research Are Needed" (GAO-08-30). We have coordinated
these comments with NNSA, and the general comments below, as well as
the page- specific comments on the report that are enclosed, represent
a coordinated DOE response.
* We recognize the concern raised about the preliminary nature of the
$1.2 billion cost estimate for the U.S. contribution to ITER project.
Based on the ITER International Organization's projected progress, we
believe we will have a baseline cost and schedule for the U.S. ITER
project by late FY 08 to early FY 09. That said, however, we believe
that the risks of this big international cooperative project are
balanced by the financial and scientific benefits of sharing the
project among the seven international partners.
* In the DOE report released in November, 2003, Facilities for the
Future of Science: A Twenty-Year Outlook, the Office of Science
identified ITER as the highest priority facility. The other elements of
the Fusion Energy Sciences program support the ITER project to the
maximum extent possible to insure its success. This is consistent with
recommendations that the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee made
in 2005 on the priorities for the program.
* The report makes statements about human capital challenges in the
area of fusion sciences. As stated more fully in the attached comments,
we believe that the annual Ph.D. production in this area is sufficient,
and is supplemented by students in other science and engineering
disciplines who have expressed an interest in working specifically on
ITER-related research.
* The report gives the erroneous impression that alternative magnetic
fusion approaches have been disproportionately decreased in support
over the past five years, as ITER- related research has increased. This
error comes from considering only a subset of the research activities,
self-defined by their advocates as the most innovative alternate
research activities. Using the objective designations of the alternate
magnetic approaches as discussed in the 2004 National Academies study
of the program, the share of funding in non-tokamak experimental
research has remained essentially flat at approximately 37% of the OFES
funding.
* The report makes a fundamental assumption that an explicit program to
develop inertial fusion as an energy source exists but is not
coordinated. This is not agreed to by the Department, and no such
program presently exists. The joint program on HEDLP will address
underlying scientific issues that will be relevant to future
considerations of inertial fusion energy. The first step in motivating
a program to develop inertial fusion as an energy source is the
demonstration of ignition on NIF under the NNSA defense programs.
* We disagree with the conclusion that this joint program "will not
address most of the scientific issues that would advance inertial
fusion energy". The joint program in HEDLP and the large NNSA program
in inertial confinement fusion will encompass most of the science
issues related to IFE target physics, which are the most compelling
scientific issues underpinning the potential application of inertial
fusion to energy at this stage of the research.
* OFES and NNSA acknowledge the report's recommendation, "to develop a
research plan to coordinate fusion research activities to advance
inertial fusion energy", but reject the claim that no such plan exists.
A detailed plan was in fact developed by FESAC in 2003, and presented
to DOE. It was determined that it was not appropriate to allocate the
much larger level of funding called for in this plan while underlying
scientific issues have yet to be resolved.
Additional page-specific comments and corrections on the draft report
are enclosed for your consideration. The Department requests that its
full comments including the enclosure be included in the GAO's final
report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Raymond J. Fonck:
Associate Director of the Office of Science for Fusion Energy
Sciences:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Gene Aloise at (202) 512-3841 or aloisee@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Christopher Banks, Leland
Cogliani, Omari Norman, Keith Rhodes, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, and Ned
Woodward made significant contributions to this report.
Footnotes:
[1] These countries include the People's Republic of China, Japan,
India, the Republic of South Korea, and the Russian Federation.
[2] The term "tokamak" comes from a Russian acronym for a fusion device
that was developed in the former Soviet Union during the 1950s and
1960s.
[3] H.R. Rep. No. 109-275, p. 155 (Nov. 7, 2005).
[4] The Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee is chartered pursuant
to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770
(1972). The committee provides independent advice on issues related to
planning, implementing, and managing the fusion energy program. DOE
relies on this advice to establish scientific and technological as well
as funding priorities. Committee members are drawn from universities,
national laboratories, and private firms involved in fusion research.
[5] NIF is 705,000 square feet, the size of three football fields side
by side, and houses a complex optical system that produces the laser
beams. NIF construction began in May 1997 and it has a total project
cost of $2.3 billion. An additional $1.3 billion are needed to
assemble, install, and test the laser system.
[6] DOE Order 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the
Acquisition of Capital Assets, July 28, 2006.
[7] The two building codes are Règles de Conception et Construction -
Mécanique Rapide and the codes from the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.
[8] NNSA also uses the facilities to investigate a number of other
technical issues such as determining fundamental properties of nuclear
materials at temperatures and pressures needed for nuclear weapons,
estimating the impact of a new engineering feature, or verifying the
performance of weapon design changes.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, DC 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, DC 20548:
Public Affairs:
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, DC 20548:
