This Note expands on FPN00-10, providing a more extensive summary of Richard Rowberg's excellent Congressional Research Service report "Congress and the Fusion Energy Sciences Program: A Historical Perspective." The complete report can be viewed either at //fire.pppl.gov/ or at //aries.ucsd.edu/PUBLIC/INFO/

The substance of this note was prepared for publication as a book review for the ANS Journal "Fusion Technology" at their request and will be published in a future issue.

Dr. Richard E. Rowberg, Senior Specialist in Science and Technology at the Congressional Research Service (CRS), has been writing periodic reports there on fusion since 1986. Prior to that time, he was with the congressional Office of Technology Assessment for about 10 years and was, at one time, a fusion researcher at the University of Texas. The current report is aimed at "Members and staff who will be part of that (fusion program FY 2001 budget) review." The report states that it "supplements a CRS Issue Brief, IB91039, on the DOE Fusion Energy Sciences Program." Rowberg has been preparing the Issue Brief (updated monthly) since 1991.

This report provides valuable insight into congressional attitudes towards fusion research. Though the report contains a brief summary of events going back to 1951, with emphasis on the public record available since declassification in 1958, its main emphasis is on events since the congressional fusion budget cuts of FY1996. Rowberg notes the well-known fact that, following those cuts (a reduction of about 40% from FY1995), the fusion program "was directed to increase emphasis on fusion and plasma science research," while "at the same time, the program's primary goal remains development of a long-term energy source." He says, "While Congress appears satisfied with the changes made by the fusion program since 1995, it remains to be seen how that support will fare if and when the program again requests funds to pursue development of a fusion power reactor." He says the report "provides the basis for an assessment about how the program might fare in the future as it proceeds in the direction of developing a long-term energy source from fusion."

A useful feature of this report is that a complete budget history of congressional appropriations for fusion is provided in an appendix. Another important feature is the extensive set of references to congressional authorization and appropriations reports and other government review reports on fusion.

The report states, "Currently, there appears to be clear congressional support for the fusion program as it now exists. As long as the fusion program remains primarily focused on fusion science and does not request significant increases in its budget, Congress probably will support the program. The program, however, very likely cannot continue at its current level indefinitely if progress towards a fusion power reactor is to be made. At some point, larger machines are likely to be needed if promising concepts are to be tested and additional funds are likely too be requested. How Congress will react to such a request depends on factors that are uncertain at this time."

Rowberg states that several themes emerged from his analysis and he discusses each of these in the report:

1. Continuing (Congressional) support for the goals of fusion research.

Rowberg states that "From the program's inception, Congress has acknowledged the significant potential of fusion energy as a long-term source of energy for the planet." He notes, "During the 42-year span that witnessed substantial changes in budget levels, congressional support for a federally funded fusion energy R&D effort and for its goal appears to have remained high. Over that period, Congress has noted also other benefits of the program such as advances in plasma science and engineering and the production of many highly trained scientists and engineers."

2. (Congressional) recognition of the long time needed to reach the goal of fusion energy.

Rowberg states, "Another theme of congressional consideration of fusion R&D budgets over the years has been the awareness that success in achieving the goal of energy production from controlled fusion would take a long time." He says that although a 20-year period was adopted in the Magnetic Fusion Engineering Act of 1980, under the assumption of increased funding levels, this "has been the most optimistic time frame considered by Congress with periods of 40-50 years cited in the early 1980s." He says, "Congress appears to have accepted the notion that short-term goals are not meaningful for this program and has judged it more on how it has advanced fundamental scientific and technical knowledge of plasma physics and fusion science and engineering."

3. Uncertainty about the time needed to reach program goals.

Rowberg states, "A 1976 report prepared by ERDA presented funding requirements for achieving a demonstration plant in the late 1990s, but the Administration chose to proceed at a slower pace with smaller budget requirements." He notes that during the 1980s, the DOE began to state that "practical fusion power was 40-50 years off." He opines, "It is likely that the large budgetary requirement of continuing the program for 40-50 years at the level of effort existing in the late 1980s has been a major factor in the reorientation of the program that Congress directed over the last 15 years."

4. (The need for) larger and more complex facilities.

Rowberg states, "Almost from the outset, progress in fusion research has required larger and larger facilities. Congress has acknowledged that need, and a major portion of its appropriation and authorization efforts about the fusion program has been directed at reviewing requests for those facilities." He says, "The history of congressional decisions about fusion program requests for larger facilities has been somewhat mixed. Recognition by Congress that such facilities would be needed to advance fusion research toward the goal of practical power production has been tempered by concerns about the pace of the program and budget constraints. It seems clear that the latter has dominated since about 1985." Nevertheless, he says, "Congress remained, to a degree, supportive of large device fusion research."

5. International fusion research competition and cooperation.

Rowberg states, "From the outset, fusion research has been an international effort. Throughout the last 42 years, Congress has been supportive of U.S. participation in that effort, although at times, that support has been tempered by concerns about international competition." He says, "While Congress has expressed interest in the international aspects of the fusion program from its beginnings, emphasis on international cooperation has risen significantly during the past 15 years, reaching a peak with the ITER EDA. Even with the demise of that program, however, Congress appears to believe that eventual success in obtaining fusion energy production will require an international effort."

6. Federal budget constraints.

Rowberg states, "While concerns about federal spending have existed throughout most of this period (last 42 years), Congress has not often invoked those concerns in dealing with the program's budget request. It seems clear that while fiscal constraints are an important consideration in Congress, other issues, such as the nation's energy problems, may override those constraints to some degree."

7. Relation to the nation's energy situation.

Rowberg states, "Congressional treatment of the fusion program and Congress's view of the nation's energy situation have been intertwined since the program's beginning." He says, "While a desire to control federal spending was at the heart of the 1995 funding reduction, those actions were probably made easier by the absence in Congress of any overriding urgency about the need for new long-term energy sources. In addition, that belief also appears to have been part of the congressional direction that the program focus more on science and less on energy technology development."

8. Debate over program focus -- science vs. energy.

Rowberg states, "If funding had been available, scientific feasibility might have been proven and, possibly, a demonstration plant could have been operating within the time frames projected in the 1976 ERDA study and the followup 1979 analysis for the House Science and Technology Committee. DOE and Congress, of course, decided not to take that course, and Congress redirected the program more towards science. Today, from a congressional perspective, energy appears to be a primary goal of the program. The emphasis on science likely reflects Congress's desire that the basis for an eventual fusion power reactor be as solidly grounded in fundamental science and engineering as possible."

9. The role of alternative concept research.

Rowberg states, "Congressional attention on alternative concepts has risen as estimates of the time to reach commercial fusion have grown. Part of that heightened attention was likely a result of increased concern by Congress that the mainline approach -- the tokamak -- might not be the best path to a practical fusion reactor, and that DOE should not bet everything on one approach. Congress, in recent years, has directed DOE, as part of the fusion program's restructuring, to ensure that alternative concept exploration be a key element of the fusion research effort." He also notes, "The alternative fusion concept that Congress has given the most attention to is inertial confinement fusion (ICF)."

Rowberg states, "The profound changes that have taken place since 1995, and which were set in motion 17 years ago, have left the program much different than it was for most of its existence. In one sense it is similar to its earliest years -- prior to the mid-1960s -- in that U. S. fusion research is again focused primarily on developing the scientific basis for fusion energy production. Of course, there have been vast advances in fusion science and technology over the past 42 years, and the present scientific effort is building on a much greater knowledge base." In this context, he poses and discusses six questions:

1. Is U.S. fusion research a science or an energy program? He says, "This question has emerged as one of the most controversial now facing the fusion program." He says that "increased emphasis on the science of that (fusion energy) quest raises a question about the program's future were it to be judged primarily as a science program."

2. If fusion research is a science program, will it be sustained?

He states, "A program that was concerned only with basic plasma physics research would likely be able to continue for several years without needing to scale up facilities to the multi-million dollar level. It also is possible that such a program would be funded at levels considerably below current amounts." However, he says, "At this time there appears to be no indication that Congress wishes to abandon the energy goal of fusion research or reduce its priority relative to other possible goals."

3. As an energy program, how long can fusion research be sustained?

He states, "The long history of congressional support of fusion research suggests to many that Congress will continue support for an extended period if progress is apparent and specific and realistic goals and target dates are provided and adhered to." He says, "It is important to note, in this context, that DOE does not have a target date for achieving commercial fusion power. Currently, its policy is to advance plasma and fusion science and engineering on a broad front and allow those developments to set the pace of the program." He opines, "It is not clear that the progress towards demonstration of fusion energy can be sustained for the period necessary, given this policy. In particular, at the point larger facilities are required, a critical decision will need to be made. While Congress supported the construction of large facilities in the late 1970s -- primarily the TFTR -- it is uncertain whether a similar level of support would be forthcoming in the future, given competing priorities."

4. What will happen when larger facilities are requested?

He states, "Given the technical uncertainties and budget constraints, it appears that international collaboration would be necessary to build the larger facilities needed for the performance extension and fusion energy development stage. While recent statements by Congress suggest support for such collaboration, U. S. participation in such an effort would still likely be governed by fiscal limitations. Furthermore, even with an international project with many funding sources long periods would be necessary for completion of the larger projects." He says, "Barring unforeseen circumstances such as a major global warming environmental or energy crisis, international collaboration appears necessary if the U. S. is to participate significantly in the further development of fusion energy. Yet questions remain about whether such collaboration would ultimately be successful."

5. What would be the role of international collaboration?

He states that it is "apparent to most of the worldwide fusion research community that extensive international collaboration will be necessary if fusion R&D is to result in a practical fusion power plant. The primary reason is that the cost of reaching that goal is likely to be greater than any one country is willing to pay. Yet there remain uncertainties about whether such collaboration can be carried off successfully, particularly if it were to involve construction of a new large, billion dollar plus research facility."

6. Under what conditions might U.S. fusion research be expanded?

In discussing this last question, Rowberg suggests that key factors might be "an upsurge of concern about the nation's long-term energy future ... a sharp upturn in concern about global climate change ... (or) the possibility of a substantial advance in achieving fusion power by Europe or Japan." In any of these circumstances, Rowberg opines, "Congress might act to accelerate the U. S. program to try and catch up." He notes that the current fusion program, "with its dual goals of science and energy" reflects "congressional decisions." "Yet, in many ways," he states, "the program is in an unstable state. It cannot remain as is and hope to achieve its goals."

This report should be read by all persons, scientific or lay, interested in fusion energy. Rowberg's perspective should be taken quite seriously. He has been a long-time observer of fusion, especially in relation to other federal science and technology efforts supported by Congress, and he has proven himself over the years to be a mature and unbiased analyst.

Copies of the report may be requested by writing to your Congressperson and requesting that he/she obtain a copy for you. This is the preferred method of obtaining CRS reports, so that members of Congress are aware of constituency interest in CRS report topics. Copies of the latest Issues Brief may be similarly requested, but they are not posted on the web. Interested parties may also contact the author directly (drowberg@crs.loc.gov).