1). To achieve controlled fusion, the  United States is pursuing two paths—magnetic and inertial. In  November 2006, all six countries and the European Union signed the ITER  agreement. NNSA maintains the United States’ inertial fusion facilities. 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. The $1.12 billion is still a preliminary cost estimate and may not reflect the  full costs of U.S. contributions to ITER. 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. First, the ITER Organization has not yet developed quality assurance  standards for manufactured parts and components. DOE completed the construction of this facility in 2006. 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. 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. 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. 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, the decrease in funding reduced opportunities to  attract students to the fusion sciences and train them to fulfill future  workforce needs. DOE could better manage alternative fusion research activities. 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. 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.
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.