Transcript www.fusion.ucla.edu

Highlights of US ITER TBM
Technical Plan and
Cost Estimates
(and Impact of International Collaboration)
Mohamed Abdou and the U.S. Team
TBWG-17
Presented at ITER Test Blanket Working Group (TBWG-17) at
Cadarache, France, April 4-6, 2006
Detailed TBM Planning and Costing Activity
for the US TBM Program is Underway
• The activity was requested by DOE and initiated in
August 2005.
• The plan and costing are being developed by technical
experts from the community (from Plasma Chamber,
Materials, PFC, Safety and Tritium programs).
– With important support and guidance from costing and project
management professionals.
• A very preliminary initial draft of the report was
distributed “internally within the team” in early March
2006, for internal discussion and review.
• Revisions are underway.
• Expected:
–
–
–
–
Issue Report: May 2006
“External” Review: July 2006
“Government” Decision: Summer 2006
This is the beginning of several steps required by the U.S.
Government for “capital projects.”
Process followed for the US TBM Technical Plan and Cost Estimate
(Some steps were iterative)
•
•
Develop details of test plan in ITER and define “U.S. deliverables”
Identify the required activities
–
–
–
–
•
R&D
Design
Procurement and Fabrication
Qualification and Acceptance Testing
Establish WBS
– Assign WBS account numbers to the activities in accordance with the
management responsibility for the work and the logical sequence for performing
the activities.
– Complete a brief narrative description for each WBS scope and compile a WBS
Dictionary including all WBS levels.
– Add WBS numbers and WBS descriptions
•
•
•
•
•
Determine R&D priorities
Estimate cost for three different cases based on three different scenarios for
international collaboration. These are called “high”, “baseline”, and “low”.
For the “baseline” case, develop details of the cost estimate, integrated
schedule, and yearly expenditures.
Estimate escalation and contingencies.
Perform risk assessment and establish contingency
US Selected TBM Concepts (Reference Scenario)
1. The Dual-Coolant Pb-17Li Liquid Breeder
Blanket concept with self-cooled Pb-Li
breeding zone and flow channel inserts
(FCIs) as MHD and thermal insulator.



Innovative concept that provides “pathway” to
higher outlet temperature/higher thermal efficiency
while using ferritic steel.
US lead role in collaboration with other parties (most
parties are interested in Pb-Li as a liquid breeder,
especially EU and China).
Plan an independent TBM that will occupy half an
ITER test port with corresponding ancillary
equipment.
Cutaway of US DCLL TBM Module
2. The Helium-Cooled Solid Breeder Blanket concept
with ferritic steel structure and beryllium neutron
multiplier, but without an independent TBM.


Support EU and Japan efforts using their TBM
structure & ancillary equipment.
Contribute submodule test articles that focus on
particular technical issues.
HCCB Submodule Conceptual
Design as of Jan. 2006
Assumptions and Constraints Affecting Strategy,
Technical Planning, and Cost Estimations
The scope of this current planning effort and cost estimation is based on the
following assumptions and constraints:
• The DCLL reference scenario assumes the testing of a series of TBMs each
of which will occupy an ITER vertical half-port, have dedicated ancillary
equipment, and have a PbLi exit temperature limit of 470ºC.
• The HCCB reference scenario assumes a series of sub-modules each of
which will occupy 1/3 an ITER horizontal half-port and utilize shared
ancillary equipment in-cooperation with the EU or Japan.
• US TBM structures will be fabricated from reduced activation ferritic steel
with an assumed temperature limit of 550ºC.
• Detailed planning and cost is for a 10-year period between now and the
shipment of the TBM deliverables in 2015 for DAY ONE ITER H-H
operation.
• The cost is the total cost for the TBM project including R&D, design,
engineering, fabrication, qualification, etc., as well as the cost to interface
with ITER and other parties during this period.
• The R&D cost includes all costs related to the Reference Scenarios that
occur within the next 10-year period whether they are related to the first
(Day ONE) Test Articles or subsequent test articles.
• Cost of the deliverables includes the cost of the First Test Article and
associated equipment (see project deliverables).
Principal Mission of the US TBM Program
The principal mission of the US ITER Test Blanket Module (TBM)
Program is to develop, deploy and operate ITER TBM experiments
that provide unique experimental data on, and operational experience
with, the integrated function of US blanket and first wall components
and materials in a true fusion plasma-magneto-nuclear environment.
This data is essential for the:
1. validation of the scientific understanding and predictive capabilities
needed to interpret and extrapolate results to subsequent burning plasma
experiments, component test facilities, and ultimately energy producing
systems;
2. demonstration of the principles of tritium self-sufficiency in practical
systems needed to establish the feasibility of the DT fuel cycle;
3. development of the technology necessary to install breeding capabilities to
supply ITER with the tritium necessary for operation in its extended phase
of operation and help resolve the critical “tritium supply” issue for fusion
development (US involvement in the development of this technology with
ITER partners will be essential to understand and influence these partner
programs).
4. first integrated experimental results on the reliability, safety, environmental
impact, and efficiency of fusion energy extraction systems.
US Test Blanket Project Organized
by Subsystem and Deliverables
US TBM Project
DCLL TBM
HCCB TBM
Predictive Capability
Project Support
Test Module
Test Sub-module
Models and Codes
Administration
He Loops
Ancillary Equipment
Databases
TBWG/ITER/Parties
Interface
PbLi Loop
Design Integration
Data/Code Integration
Codes and Standards
/ QA
Tritium Processing
Design Integration
Safety and Licensing
Example: DCLL WBS – organized by major systems
1.8.1.1
1.8.1.1.1
1.8.1.1.2
Test Module
Administration
R&D
1.8.1.2
1.8.1.2.1
Helium Flow Loops
Primary helium loop
1.8.1.5
1.8.1.5.1
1.8.1.5.2
DCLL/ITER System Integration
Administration
R&D
1.8.1.2.1.1
Preliminary design of primary helium loop
1.8.1.1.2.1
Thermofluid MHD
1.8.1.2.1.2
Detailed design of primary helium loop
1.8.1.5.2.1
He and PbLi Conc. Pipe joints
1.8.1.1.2.2
SiC/SiC FCI Fab and Properties
1.8.1.2.1.3
Fabrication/Procurement
1.8.1.5.2.2
VV Plug bellows design
1.8.1.1.2.3
SiC/FS/PbLi Compatibility & Chemistry
1.8.1.2.1.4
Assembly, testing & installation
1.8.1.1.2.4
1.8.1.1.2.5
FM steel fabrication development and materials
properties
Helium System subcomponents analyses & tests
1.8.1.2.2.1
1.8.1.1.2.6
PbLi/H2O hydrogen production
1.8.1.2.2.2
1.8.1.1.2.7
Be joining to FS
1.8.1.1.2.8
Virtual DCLL TBM
1.8.1.1.2.9
Advanced Diagnostics
1.8.1.1.2.10
1.8.1.1.3
Partially Integrated mockups testing
Engineering
1.8.1.1.3.1
Preliminary Design and Analysis, Title I
1.8.1.1.3.2
Detailed Design, Title II
1.8.1.1.3.3
Title III
1.8.1.1.4
Prototype Call for tender / Contract award
1.8.1.1.4.2
Prototype Manufacturing
Design (tooling and processing)
Prototype TBM Material procurement
1.8.1.1.4.3
1.8.1.1.4.4
1.8.1.1.5
1.8.1.1.6
PrototypeTBM Fabrication,
procurement and shipping
Prototype TBM Assembly and testing
TBM design and fabricaton
1.8.1.1.6.1
Call for tender / Contract award
1.8.1.1.6.2
Manufacturing design (tooling and processing)
1.8.1.1.6.3
Material procurement
1.8.1.1.6.4
1.8.1.1.7
Fabrication, procurement and shipping
Assembly, testing & Installation
TBM System Design Integration
In-Vessel System Integration
Preliminary design of intermediate helium loop
1.8.1.5.3.2
Ex-Vessel System Integration and Interface.
Detailed design of intermediate helium loop
1.8.1.5.3.3
RH System integration
1.8.1.2.2.3
Fabrication/Procurement
1.8.1.5.3.4
Engineering Design and analysis:
1.8.1.2.2.4
Assembly, testing & Installation
Intermediate helium loop
1.8.1.3
1.8.1.3.1
1.8.1.3.2
1.8.1.3.3
1.8.1.3.4
PbLi Flow Loop
Preliminary design of the PbLi loop
Detailed design of the PbLi loop
Fabrication/Procurement
Assembly, testing & Installation
1.8.1.4
1.8.1.4.1
Tritium Processing
Administration
1.8.1.4.2
R&D
Prototype TBM design and fabrication
1.8.1.1.4.1
1.8.1.5.3
1.8.1.5.3.1
1.8.1.2.2
1.8.1.4.2.1
Modeling tool development and benchmarking
1.8.1.4.2.2
Tritium extraction from PbLi
1.8.1.4.2.3
Tritium extraction from He
1.8.1.4.2.4
Fate of tritium in PbLi
1.8.1.4.3
Engineering
1.8.1.4.3.1
Detailed Design
1.8.1.4.3.2
1.8.1.4.4
1.8.1.4.5
Title III
Fabrication/Procurement
Assembly/Installation
1.8.1.5.4
1.8.1.5.5
Fabrication, Procurement and Shipping.
Assembly and on site testing
Deliverables
The main deliverables in March 2015 for the DCLL include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
a half-port test module,
a primary helium flow loop,
a PbLi flow loop,
a secondary helium flow loop (and a heat exchanger for PbLi flow
loop),
5. tritium processing and measuring systems all capable to meet the
quantitative goals and obtain the data sets described above, and
6. predictive capability.
The main deliverables for HCCB are:
1. a test sub-module that has a size of 1/3 of one-half port to be
integrated with a host party’s test module,
2. associated ancillary equipment including primary helium flow
conditioners, and measuring systems for helium coolant, tritium,
and test sub-module performance all capable to meet the
quantitative goals and obtain the data sets described above, and
3. predictive capability.
Identified and Prioritized R&D Tasks
•
Developed R&D requirements based on TBM technical issues
– Developed system of priorities (cost/risk/benefit)
– Identified potential international collaborations
•
Summarize the main purpose of this subtask. What critical need does this R&D address?
Is it more oriented towards (1) Establishing basic TBM feasibility for fusion (2)
Understanding/predicting TBM performance required for design, or (3) Adding to safety
and qualification database.
•
Summarize the risks to the machine or mission if this R&D is not performed.
•
Categorize this subtask based on the following system:
–
–
–
•
E = Essential for the qualification and successful execution of the TBM experiment, and no other party is doing it.
I = Important for the qualification and successful execution of the TBM experiment, or Essential but is definitely
being done by another party.
D = Desirable but the risk is acceptable if not performed.
Categorize this subtask schedule over the next 10 year period based on the following system.
–
–
–
B = Beginning 3-4 years. Needed immediately for preliminary design choices.
M = Middle 3-4 years. Needed in the middle of the next 10 years after initial R&D is performed (for instance for
qualification or integrated effects tests).
E = Ending 3-4 years. Needed before performance of first experiments or is specific for subsequent modules.
US Plan has clearly defined yearly milestones for each R&D
indicates attachement to deadline
2006
1
7
2007
1
1, initial review
1.8.1.1.2.1 Thermofluid MHD
1.8.1.1.2.1.1 Modeling Tools
1 High Hartmann number flows
2 Non-orthogonal meshes
3 Complex MHD flow and heat transfer
1.8.1.1.2.1.2 Flow Channel Insert Experiments and Modeling
1 Sic/Sic FCI test-section fabrication
2 Experiment 1 - flow development and gap flow
3 SiC/SiC FCI test-section with pressure slots and overlaps
4 Experiment 2 - pressure drop & eq, velocity profile
Loop upgrade - vertical magnet orientation and outer wall
5 cooling
6 Experiment 3 - combined heat transfer effects
1.8.1.1.2.1.3 TBM Manifold Experiments and Modeling
1 LM loop modification and Non-conducting test-section
2 Non-conducting wall experiment
3 Conducting test-section fabrication
4 Conducting test-section experiment
5 Optimization test-section experiments
7
2008
1
2, mid review
7
3, PDR
2009
1
7
2010
1
4, bid pack / MUs
7
5, mod bid pack
Cost Range Scenarios
High Cost Range Scenario
•
The high cost range scenario is for an Independent US DCLL TBM and an
Independent HCCB TBM; with accounting for known international
collaborations. The high cost scenario is similar in scope to the current EU
and Japan TBM programs and gives an indication of total project cost to
pursue two blanket options with minimum risk in the sense that the US is
responsible for all hardware for half-port sized TBMs for both of its
selected blanket options. (Also, space not available on ITER. Practical?)
Baseline Cost Range Scenario
•
The baseline scenario is defined as an Independent US DCLL TBM
accounting for known international collaboration, and a supporting
international partnership on the HCCB TBM. This baseline cost scenario
most closely matches the DOE guidance presented in Chapter 3.3.
Lower Cost Range Scenario
•
The lower cost range scenario is defined as a Leading international
partnership on DCLL TBM and a supporting international partnership on
the HCCB TBM. The low cost range scenario represents the minimum
level of investment where the US will still acquire the knowledge, and
develop the capabilities and skills, in the many areas necessary for fusion
blanket development and fabrication in the US of components for a future
CTF and fusion DEMO. There is however more risk associated with this
scenario due to the level of international collaboration.
US ITER TBM Total Project Cost Breakdown until March 2015
Estimates as of Mar 29, 2006
WBS
WBS Description
1.8.1
Dual Coolant Lead Lithium (DCLL)
1.8.1.1
1.8.1.1.1
1.8.1.1.2
1.8.1.1.3
1.8.1.1.4
1.8.1.1.5
1.8.1.1.6
1.8.1.1.7
1.8.1.2
1.8.1.3
1.8.1.4
1.8.1.5
Test Module
WBS Administration
Research and Development
Engineering
Prototype Fabrication/Procurement
Prototype Assembly and Testing
TBM Fabrication/Procurement
TBM Assembly and Testing
Helium Flow Loops
Lead Lithium (PbLi) Flow Loop
Tritium Processing System
DCLL/ITER System Integration
1.8.2
Helium Cooled Ceramic Breeder (HCCB)
1.8.2.1
1.8.2.1.1
1.8.2.1.2
1.8.2.1.3
1.8.2.1.4
1.8.2.1.5
1.8.2.2
1.8.2.3
Low Range (k$)
Baseline ($k)
High Range (k$)
$35,747
$64,127
$64,127
$28,284
$2,500
$17,859
$6,338
$771
$102
$670
$45
$2,412
$2,094
$943
$2,014
$53,031
$2,500
$36,780
$10,578
$1,540
$203
$1,340
$89
$4,021
$3,490
$1,571
$2,014
$53,031
$2,500
$36,780
$10,578
$1,540
$203
$1,340
$89
$4,021
$3,490
$1,571
$2,014
$16,764
$16,764
$44,512
Test Submodule
WBS Administration
Research and Development
Engineering
Prototype/Submodule Fab & Testing
Integration and Packaging
Ancillary Equipment
HCCB/ITER System Integration
$14,656
$1,684
$7,377
$3,900
$1,385
$311
$813
$1,295
$14,656
$1,684
$7,377
$3,900
$1,385
$311
$813
$1,295
$39,412
$2,500
$25,037
$8,365
$3,460
$50
$3,159
$1,941
1.8.3
Project Support
$7,881
$8,785
$11,028
1.8.3.1
1.8.3.2
1.8.3.3
1.8.3.3.1
1.8.3.3.2
1.8.3.3.3
Project Administration / Project Controls
TBWG/Parties Interface & Collaborations
Safety and Regulatory Support
Regulatory Support
Safety Analysis and Reporting
Safety Design Integration
$2,000
$2,300
$3,581
$840
$1,356
$1,385
$2,000
$2,300
$4,485
$840
$2,260
$1,385
$2,000
$2,300
$6,728
$1,260
$3,390
$2,078
1.8
US ITER-TBM Estimated Cost
$60,392
$89,676
$119,666
Est. Escalation and Contingency
$16,241
$23,271
$32,522
US ITER-TBM Total Project Cost
$76,633
$112,947
$152,188
US ITER TBM Total Project Cost Summary until March 2015
Estimates as of Mar 29, 2006
WBS
WBS Description
Low Range
(k$)
Baseline
($k)
High Range
(k$)
1.8.1
Dual Coolant Lead Lithium
(DCLL)
$35,747
$64,127
$64,127
1.8.2
Helium Cooled Ceramic Breeder
(HCCB)
$16,764
$16,764
$44,512
1.8.3
Project Support
$7,881
$8,785
$11,028
1.8
US ITER-TBM Estimated Cost
$60,392
$89,676
$119,666
Est. Escalation and Contingency
$16,241
$23,271
$32,522
US ITER-TBM Total Project Cost
$76,633
$112,947
$152,188
Estimated DCLL Baseline R&D Costs until March 2015 in 2006 k$
Total is $49,129k
Thermofluid MHD
SiC/SiC FCI Fab
$10,574, 21%
$6,621, 13%
$2,768, 6%
$1,455, 3%
$844, 2%
$321, 1%
SiC/FS/PbLi Compatibility
RAFS Fab. Devel.
Helium Subcomponent Tests
PbLi/H2O Reaction
Be Joining to RAFS
$7,203, 14%
$2,718, 6%
$2,911, 6%
Estimation as of
Mar 29, 2006
$10,688, 21%
$840, 2%
$799, 2%
$1,387, 3%
Virtual TBM
TBM Diagnostics
Mockups Fac.& Testing
Design Integration
Tritium Control
Known Int. Collaborations
Note: Includes TBM, Ancillary Loop, Tritium Systems and Design
Integration R&D
Estimated DCLL Cost Savings for Known Int. Collaborations in 2006 k$
Total is $10,574
Virtual TBM , $1,065
RAFS Fab. Devel.
PbLi/H2O Reaction
Be Joining to RAFS
Virtual TBM
Be Joining to RAFS ,
$2,816
PbLi/H2O Reaction ,
$1,598
Estimation as of
Mar 29, 2006
RAFS Fab. Devel. ,
$5,095
Additional R&D savings may
be possible in diagnostics
development and test
facilities
Additional Hardware savings
may be possible by joint
design and fabrication of He
and PbLi ancillary systems
Estimated HCCB Baseline R&D Costs until March 2015 in 2006 k$
Total is $7,377k
$886, 12%
$2,708, 37%
$845, 11%
He Flow & Manifold Tests
SB Thermomechanics & T Recovery
T Control and Predictive Capability
Breeder pebble knowledge base
Estimation as of
Mar 29, 2006
$792, 11%
$178, 2%
$1,180, 16%
$788, 11%
"Dual-Use" costs with DCLL including RAFS fabrication development and
Integrated Test Facilities included under DCLL only
Diagnostics and Instrumentation
Partially Integrated Tests
In-Pile Pebble Bed Assembly Tests
Estimated yearly spending profile for US TBM Project
through shipment of deliverables, March 2015
$22,500
$20,000
Costs in as spent k$
$17,500
Estimation as of
Mar 29, 2006
Contingency (k$)
Escalated Cost (k$)
$15,000
$12,500
$10,000
$7,500
$5,000
$2,500
$0
Contingency (k$)
Escalated Cost (k$)
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
$295
$1,072
$1,634
$2,157
$2,253
$1,900
$1,375
$877
$432
$123
$2,454
$8,923
$13,592
$17,943
$18,749
$15,807
$11,443
$7,299
$3,597
$1,021
Lessons Learned from U.S. Technical
Plan and Cost Estimate for ITER-TBM
• The largest uncertainties in developing the technical plan
and cost estimate is the lack of a well-defined agreement
among the Parties on the specifics of the ITER-TBM.
• Particular examples of uncertainties:
– How much space is available to the U.S. (or to any party) in
ITER test ports?
– Is it practical for the U.S. to assume space is available to test two
independent TBM concepts? (Is it practical for any Party to make
such assumptions?)
– What specific framework for international collaboration is
practical to assume?
• “Joint Partnership” on test modules and ancillary equipment?
Assigning of Tasks?
• “Sharing” of R&D tasks?
• Schedule is very tight. Phasing of tasks for
the next 10 years is a challenge.
Urgent Actions Needed
1.
There needs to be an agreement among the ITER parties on
“Major Principles” of the ITER Test Program.
e.g. assignment of port space, how many concepts per party, which
concepts are actually tested jointly by several parties.
TBWG is the logical entity to deal with the challenge of reaching
agreement on a well defined, practical test program to which all
parties agree.
2.
Developing and signing of a LEGAL agreement among ITER
parties on the TBM Program (either as part of ITER agreement or
as an amendment).
3.
Need to formalize agreement(s) among the parties into Legal
Agreement(s) (multi-lateral, tri-lateral, and/or bi-lateral) on
specifics of collaborations on TBM R&D, construction of test
module, construction and sharing of ancillary equipment, etc.