The recent passage and signing into law of H.R. 2764 zeros out the financial contribution of the United States to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Members of the magnetically confined fusion research community are rightfully concerned that the funding support will not be returned and our (i.e., the U.S.'s) participation in ITER is effectively ended. Looking into this series of events it seems that such is the harsh reality.

What Happened?

The American Institute of Physics provides a detailed review of the budget's language.

Finding and understanding the actual congressional material regarding this cut is difficult. It is easy to find media coverage of the results but they will not say much about the ITER issue. A collection of the House Amendments to the bill provides the best overview. With respect to ITER, the Joint Explanatory Statement says (emphasis added),

The removal of funds for our ITER contribution might normally be considered a temporary technicality if not for the final line stating that money may not be transferred from other funds to pay the contribution. This suggests that the bill's intent is to completely reacquire the $160 million originally reserved for ITER. I have not determined what is included as “Enabling R&D” though I suspect that this money will allow those already being paid through U.S. ITER support to continue receiving their wage.

Briefly: Fusion Research and ITER

Fusion is an active research area with the goal of using the nuclear fusion process to generate electricity. Quite a few websites cover the basics of fusion. Public fusion research has been going on for over 50 years. The lack of viable fusion reactors after this extended effort is part of the reason for some wrangling over whether fusion will ever work (a subscription is required to read one of the most famous examples of anti-fusion proposals). By their nature the fusion reactors with the potential for energy production, known as tokamaks, are very large (see the photo here). A fusion device can be small, even tabletop, but these are not capable of producing net energy. Large laboratories are necessary for fusion reactor research conducted in these tokamak devices which also makes them expensive enterprises. Couple high cost with the lack of immediately foreseeable commercial options and the result is a field with sometimes wildly fluctuating funding, though the largest fluctuations are always in the negative direction.

In simplified terms, the main plasma physics problem with magnetically confined fusion is that the devices are unable to contain the hot plasma well enough for fusion with net energy production to occur. In even more simplified terms, ITER's role in fusion research is to build a tokamak so large that it just takes longer for the plasma to escape. By escape it is meant that the plasma hits the machine walls, it does not actually leave the machine. This project seeks to build the largest version of a naturally large device. The incredible cost, in terms of all resources, essentially requires international cooperation. For a popular culture reference, this is equivalent to the cooperation needed to build the device featured in the movie Contact.

If ITER is successful then humanity will have progressed significantly closer to removing its concern for energy production. Many details are left out of this treatment, but this is intended to be a brief overview.

Cutting Funding Then and Now

The U.S. does not have a good track record in terms of support for ITER. In the late 1990's the U.S. joined ITER only to have withdrawn before 2000. While there were public statements about support for ITER, the Congress prevented any financial contributions when it came time to pay. When we left the project back then it endangered the entire program. The NewScientist published an article noting the poor economic state of the other member nations and predicted that the lack of U.S. funds would doom the project. The project did not die, however, probably because most other nations have more expensive electricity than the U.S. and are therefore more inclined to invest in fusion technology. In 2005, Japan's household electricity is reported to be approximately twice as expensive as that in the United States.

The U.S. rejoined the ITER project in 2003. Initially, it seemed that we would be more careful in making a commitment. Congressperson Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) pushed an amendment through the House that called for the U.S. to delay the signing of any specific agreement until a plan for successfully completing the financial contribution was determined. During his speech to the House to argue his case, Representative Boehlert said,

Unfortunately, this amendment only required a delay in the signing of an agreement. The extra time appears not to have made any difference because we rejoined the project and once again find ourselves withholding our contribution.

Congress is behind our failure to meet our commitment. Strangely enough, Boehlert predicted exactly what would happen with his quote above. He mentions the awful choice of either "reneging" on our agreement or spending the money on something that is unnecessary. When President Bush signed the bill that removed all money for ITER part of his statement included the following,

Instead of honoring our international promises we have decided, through congressional action, to leave our partners millions of dollars short. If we truly leave ITER completely, then we will keep over one billion dollars from the project. It should be noted that Boehlert was not talking about earmarks and pork-barrel projects in his speech, he actually suggested that ITER might be the unnecessary project. Still, even though not all earmarks have to be wasteful just a small percentage of the $10 billion set aside for these projects could have fulfilled our role in something to which we have already agreed. In fact, in an era where the U.S. does not always engender a favorable image in the international community we could have taken a slightly larger portion of this pot and over-contributed to the project as a sign of our desire to participate in cooperative endeavors. This is an election year, however, so no one should expect a politician to willingly divert funds away from their local districts.

The combined effects of a downward moving economy, incredible financial burden of multiple military exercises, and the coming election leaves it incredibly unlikely that ITER will be funded. Congress is ending our involvement in the project as they did previously.

Who Wants the U.S. to Support ITER?

In 2003 the Secretary of Energy was encouraged to bring the U.S. back to ITER. Representative Zach Wamp also encouraged participation, along with most of Tennessee which stands to benefit through the involvement of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and its Fusion Energy Development program. Other endorsements remain enthusiastic but cautious. President Bush includes fusion research, and ITER specifically, as part of the response to climate change and the quest for energy independence. His administration expected this year's commitment to ITER to proceed as planned. The cooperation even extended to India as their participation in ITER has been considered part of a welcome partnership between the U.S. and India with regard to energy affairs.

An argument can be made that the Bush Administration is not entirely supportive of a true fusion research program. Their Advanced Energy Initiative calls for the fusion research budget to be nearly equivalent to the amount spent on coal research (pdf). The differences between a world powered entirely by coal and one powered entirely by fusion are dramatic. Coal, however abundant, is still analogous to collecting a big pile of firewood for our national energy needs. Burning coal is never a zero emissions process. Using coal for energy always produces carbon products, the claimed lack of emission comes from capturing and storing these compounds. The method involves burying carbon products underground. Zero emissions coal factories are simply underground garbage dumps. People of the late 21st century will surely come to view this type of plan with the same disdain we presently exhibit towards the ignorant environmental practices of the early 20th century.

Fusion involves one of the most efficient energy production processes known to exist (notice how long the Sun has burned through fusion) and initial fuel sources include deuterium from seawater, which is more abundant than coal.

There are many general supporters of the concept of international science projects. Dr. Peter B. Lyons, Commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a keynote address to the IAEA that,

which highlights the changing face of physics research. Just as science research transitioned from individuals to universities and collaborations during the twentieth century†, so is it likely to require many more international efforts to bring about results in the 21st century.

Response and Conclusion

The APS Division of Plasma Physics quickly released a statement detailing their displeasure with the nixing of ITER's funding. Similar sentiments have been released by other institutions though it does not seem the physics researcher bloc exercises much influence at present. The cut may kill our role in ITER, but it also seriously wounds Fermilab. High energy physicists share our sadness over this budget news.

The collection of circumstances now present do not bode well for ITER and they encourage renewed concern over U.S. fusion and plasma research in general. It seems that history is repeating itself with regard to our role in ITER. An unwilling Congress, the lack of powerful supporters, and economic pressures are aligned against a U.S. presence in ITER. The Government Accountability Office has highlighted both the need for more fusion Ph.D.'s in the workforce and the fact that as many of half of all plasma science and engineering Ph.D.'s leave the field (plain text, pdf). As a member of the group of graduate students in this field I can positively state that our discussions focus on events like this ITER cut and the uncertainty in funding for this type of research is a major motivation for moving to other sectors and very different careers. Supporting ITER encourages a new generation of plasma scientists as much as cutting it leads these same people to other fields.

A broader issue remains: what happens if ITER is a rousing success and we were not involved? For a comparison, imagine that the methods of AC and DC electricity generation and transmission had not been developed in the United States. The negative impact on our industrialization and technological prowess is unimaginable. A successful ITER project with no U.S. assistance will be very similar. The rest of the industrialized world will have a wealth of knowledge and ability in the field of fusion driven electricity production@, along with the desire to feed their own national corporate interests with the first commercial applications.

Here's to hoping that word gets out and we are able to correct our course.

 † While there is always room for a lone person to discover something new in their own barn or garage, as technology advances it becomes ever more rare that breakthroughs are developed in this way. Still, I know that many people would love to disagree with this sentiment.

 @ ITER is not intended to generate electricity or to serve as a demonstration of a fusion power plant. The knowledge gained from operating ITER successfully will still have a great impact in both of those areas.

Tags: iter, fusion, science budget