1 / 10

Introduction to US ITER activities related to Diagnostics

Explore the US involvement in the ITER project, focusing on diagnostics contributions and strategies for successful participation in this international fusion collaboration. Learn about key motivations, management structures, procurement methods, and the role of US industry in enhancing fusion research capabilities.

igilbert
Download Presentation

Introduction to US ITER activities related to Diagnostics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Introduction to US ITER activities related to Diagnostics Ned Sauthoff ITER Planning Officer Presented by Rejean Boivin High Temperature Plasma Diagnostics San Diego, CA April 22, 2004

  2. DOE/SC Facilities Plan: ITER #1 “ ITER is an international collaboration to build the first fusion science experiment capable of producing a self-sustaining fusion reaction, called a ‘burning plasma.’ It is the next essential and critical step on the path toward demonstrating the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy. ”

  3. US motivations on ITER diagnostics • The primary US motivation for ITER participation is research on burning plasmas • Snowmass 2002 • FESAC Burning Plasma Strategy • National Academies Burning Plasma Strategy Report“Burning Plasma: Bringing a Start to Earth” • Diagnostics are a key enabler of research in burning plasmas • Therefore, US participation in ITER diagnostics is important

  4. In mid-2003, NSSG groups focused on ITER arrangements • Management Structure • Construction and Operations Phases • Research Participation in ITER during the Operation Phase (JA input) • Risk • Procurement Systems/Methods • Procurement Allocations • Staffing • Resource Management Regulations • Intellectual Property • Decommissioning The International Team Leaders and Participant Team Leaders developed tentative allocations of ITER procurement packages, and presented them to the Negotiators in Fall 2003

  5. For community input, the Burning Plasma Program Advisory Committee was asked for guidelines • Membership of the BPPAC • Stewart Prager (U. Wis.), chair • Mohamed Abdou (UCLA) • Réjean Boivin (GA) • Harold Forsen • Jeffrey Freidberg (MIT) • Richard Hawryluk (PPPL) • E. Bickford Hooper (LLNL) • Stan Milora (ORNL) • Gerald Navratil (Columbia) • Tony Taylor (GA) • George Tynan (UCSD) • Michael Ulrickson (Sandia) • James Van Dam (UTex)

  6. BPPAC criteria, metrics and priorities for US in-kind contributions 1. US research positioning (High) • Metric: Extent to which activity positions the US for key science/technology roles in ITER 2. ITER-value per dollar (High) • Metric: ITER value/(US cost of full scope of ITER-specific R&D + design + fab + contingency) 3. Relative value or strength of US contribution to ITER (High/Medium) • Metric: High relative strength to meet a critical need of the ITER project 4. Contributions to US fusion research program (Medium) • Metric: Enhancement of US capability for activity both in ITER and outside ITER 5. Enhancement of fusion-relevant capability of US industry (Medium/Low) • Metric: Extent activity increases industrial capability in fusion areas 6. Development of US fusion workforce (Low) • Metric: Extent to which activity builds a suitable US fusion science and technology work force.

  7. Process for tentative ITER Procurement Allocations overall • The ITER International Team Leader requested priorities and preferences from the Participant Teams • Examination of the initial input raised concerns about excessive sharing of the ~85 individual packages • The International Team Leader proposed a revised packaging of the in-kind elements, focusing on project success; this re-packaging was accepted • The International Team worked closely with individual Participant Team Leaders to iterate draft allocations of the packages • The IT Leaders and the Participant Team Leaders met to refine the allocations, leading to a draft tentative allocation which was presented to the Negotiators and accepted as a good basis for proceeding • Development of a draft detailed diagnostic allocation within the overall allocation was assigned to a new Diagnostic Working Group

  8. Tentative US in-kind contributions by Value US Diagnostics (15% of the ITER Diagnostics) are 7% of the US total in-kind contribution

  9. Overview of tentative US in-kind contributions

  10. Blanket Module421 modules Toroidal Field CoilNb3Sn, 18 coils Vacuum Vessel9 sectors Port Plug 6 heating 3 test blankets 2 limiters rem. diagnostics Poloidal Field CoilNb-Ti, 6 coils Central SolenoidNb3Sn, 6 modules Cryostat24 m high x 28 m dia. Divertor54 cassettes Major Components of ITER

More Related