Remarks on US Costing Activities for the US ITER-TBM

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Extension of IEA Implementing Agreement on Large Tokamak Facilities Presented to Committee on Energy Research Technologies October 18-19, 2005 Paris, France.
Advertisements

US TBM Activities Update 1- Quick background 2- Recent Activities Mohamed Abdou FNST Meeting held at UCLA, August 2-4,
FNST / PFC / Materials / FNSF Meeting (s) August 2-6, 2010 at UCLA Welcome All Participants to UCLA If there is anything we can do to make the meeting.
US TBM Activities and Collaboration Discussion Mohamed Abdou FNST Meeting held at UCLA, August 18-20, 2009.
Suggested US Plans and Strategy for ITER Test Blanket Mohamed Abdou Presented at APEX/TBM Meeting, UCLA, November 3-5, 2003.
1 Brief Status of ITER TBM A High-Level Ad Hoc Group (AHG) met April 10-11, per request of the ITER Council. In that meeting, Parties intentions were stated,
Proposed Research for the ARIES Team for Farrokh Najmabadi, Mark Tillack for the ARIES Team Virtual Laboratory for Technology Meeting June 23,
The current overall EU policy framework: Europe 2020 strategy, Innovation Union and Energy 2020 Strategy On March 2010, the Commission presented a Communication.
Chapter 2 A Strategy for the Appraisal of Public Sector Investments.
August 2 and 3, 2010 Project Cost, Schedule, Risk and Contingency Jay Elias.
Kaname Ikeda, October Status of the ITER Project Status of the ITER Project Kaname Ikeda ITER Nominee Director-General October 2006.
ATTRACT is a proposal for an EU-funded R&D programme as part of H2020 for sensor, imaging and related computing (ICT) development Its purpose is to demonstrate.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE 1 3. Cost Estimate Gines, Fisher 2.Are the estimated cost and proposed schedule ranges realistic, consistent with the technical and budgetary.
Implementation Overview SHRP 2 Oversight Committee June 18, 2012.
John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson1 DES Management  Survey Organization  Survey Deliverables  Proposed funding.
Conference Call, June 23, 2005 Remarks on US Costing Activities for the US ITER-TBM Mohamed Abdou.
1 -TBWG next meeting 8 - Presentation of Parties, in particular on action 17 and action 19 (TBWG-15), including: Progress of work Impact on TBMs of frame.
Application procedure From theory to practice Dieter H. Henzler, Steinbeis-Transfercenter Cultural Resources Management, Berlin.
Overview Remarks for US ITER-TBM Conference Call June 23, 2005 Mohamed Abdou.
Various Strategies for DCLL in the US Technology Program Poor ITER utilization (Lowest Cost Scenario) - Support EU HCLL effort, no independent DCLL TBM.
NSDI Strategic Plan Update National Geospatial Advisory Committee Meeting December 11, 2013.
1 Future Circular Collider Study Preparatory Collaboration Board Meeting September 2014 R-D Heuer Global Future Circular Collider (FCC) Study Goals and.
UCLA - March 8, 2006 US TBM Cost Estimate Status March 8, 2006 Tom Mann.
1 Discussion with Drs. Kwon and Cho UCLA-NFRC Collaboration Mohamed Abdou March 27, 2006.
BSBPMG501A Manage Project Integrative Processes Manage Project Integrative Processes Project Integration Processes – Part 2 Diploma of Project Management.
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.
Karelia ENPI CBC September the 6th 2011 St. Petersburg Document EG Chairs and ITAs 12/4.4/Info 1.
PARTNERSHIP COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY
US Participation in the
Community Foundation of the Ozarks Philanthropy Initiative Phase II
SCT Project Management Issues
Quality assurance in population and housing census SUDAN’s EXPERIANCE in QUALITY assurance of Censuses By salah El din. A . Magid OUR EXPERIANCE IN 5.
Making Difficult Decisions in a Transparent Way –
Fundamentals of Information Systems, Sixth Edition
Some General Guidelines for the US TBM Costing
Introductory Remarks and Meeting Goals
2016 Year-End Performance Management
Evaluating ESD in RCEs: The Start-up Tools
Overview – Guide to Developing Safety Improvement Plan
EPICS Conceptual Review Template Notes:
Overview – Guide to Developing Safety Improvement Plan
Access  Discovery  Compliance  Identification  Preservation
Methodologies For Systems Analysis.
Joint session with IHP+ introduction
TBM Mockup testing at SNL
Overview and Meeting Objectives
The Bay’s Health & Future: How it’s doing and What’s Next
DCLL TBM Safety Status Brad Merrill, Fusion Safety Program
12th IEEE PES PowerTech Conference
Service Development at Aalto University Key Enabler for Aalto's Academic Mission Mari Svahn.
JRA4 <Meeting>, <Place> <Date>
Advanced Design Activities in US
“Report on TBWG Meeting”
For University Use Only
VLT Meeting, Washington DC, August 25, 2005
Effectively Training Parents in Behavior Analytic Interventions
TOP6 – WP4 Coordination and Management JPICH Coordination Office
Software Engineering Practice: A Generic View
Introductory Remarks to APEX/TBM* Meeting November 3-5, 2003
Mohamed A. Abdou Summary, Approach and Strategy (M. Abdou)
Presented at the ITER TBM Meeting, February 23-25, 2004, at UCLA
General Discussion Conclusions:
Preliminary Project Execution Plan
WP 1 Management and Coordination
TOP6 – WP4 Coordination and Management JPICH Coordination Office
Accounting Discipline Overview
Compiled by Neil Morley for the TBM Conference Call Nov. 17, 2005
UCLA, Los Angeles - April 26, 2001
Louisiana School Emergency Management Program
DCLL Nuclear Analysis WBS Costing Mohamed Sawan University of Wisconsin-Madison Mahmoud Youssef University of California-Los Angeles ITER TBM Meeting.
Presentation transcript:

Remarks on US Costing Activities for the US ITER-TBM Mohamed Abdou Conference Call, June 23, 2005

US ITER-TBM Activities Primary Activities Continue to contribute to TBWG activities Active participants Encourage international collaboration Continue Modeling and Experiments (R&D) for key issues of US ITER-TBM (This is the larger part of our activities) Initiating “TBM Costing Activity” Additional Activities Explore partnerships and task sharing with each of the ITER Parties Encourage TBWG to go through an exercise of how to coordinate all Parties’ TBM activities and have strong collaborations Work with DOE, ITER Project Office, and US Community to recognize, formalize, and organize the US ITER-TBM Program

Costing Activities for US ITER-TBM We are initiating the cost activities following Nardella’s guidelines Beyond this Call, there will be a meeting in August to discuss plans for the activities, issues, organizations, etc. Time Schedule: Mid-August: Finalize plan and responsibilities for the Costing Activity December 15, 2005: Distribute a near-final report of the Costing Activity for comments by the team, DOE, ITER Project Office, VLT, and others February 1, 2006: Submit Costing Activity Report to DOE ORGANIZATION of the Cost Activity: Coordinator (TBD) Cost of R&D (Neil Morley) Cost of Mockup Facilities (TBD) Cost of the Test Articles to be delivered to ITER (Clement Wong)

Framework for the US ITER-TBM Costing Activities Develop the Costs for two scenarios: Good ITER utilization (Moderate Cost Scenario) Optimum ITER Utilization (Full Resource Scenario) (Details of the cost scenarios were discussed in the March 2005 meeting, were summarized by Morley in this Call, and are summarized on a separate vugraph here) The Cost is to be developed for the next 10-year period, with more details and clarity for the first 5-year period Some key points of the general approach: Start by agreeing on the FULL list of R&D required to deliver the ITER-TBMs Identify which R&D tasks are being done by other parties. The ones not being done by other Parties are then listed as “POTENTIAL US Responsibility”. Explore which of these tasks (“Potential US Responsibility”) can/should be negotiated with other ITER Partners for possible task/cost sharing Consider various strategies for ITER testing (temporal and spatial) and try to identify two strategies, one for the Moderate Cost Scenario and the other for the Full Resource Scenario We need to develop COST PROFILES, not just total cost (When do we start paying for mockup facilities? When do we start paying for fabricating the test articles? And at what rate? We need to obtain cost estimates from EU and Japan and use them to calibrate our cost estimates

Some General Remarks The US ITER-TBM team has consistently made the point that the ITER-TBM activities is a joint effort among the Plasma Chamber , Materials, PFC, Safety, and Tritium Programs. We have always operated this way and this has tremendously benefited the US effort. This joint partnership needs to continue and to be strengthened International collaboration is a “necessity” and is very consistent with the “spirit of the ITER project”. The US must continue to lead in the push toward more international collaboration on ITER TBM We should remember that we have evolved a strategy for the US ITER-TBM with considerable "flexibility" in adjusting to different budget scenarios. Examples of variables that help provide such flexibility are: phasing / scheduling of the test articles insertions into ITER during its 10-20 years of operation;  collaboration with other partners; technically effective back-up plan if technical results are negative (e.g., if the insert in the DCLL does not work, we have developed a set of meaningful other tests with the same test articles)

INFORMAL “Guess” and observations on the likely Costs The Cost of ITER-TBM Program consists of three parts: Cost of R&D Cost of Mockup Facilities Cost of the Test Articles to be delivered to ITER (including engineering design) Educated Guess (based on EU and Japanese “informal” estimates, prior exercises,etc) Cost of R&D: $50M- $75M total over 10 years ( $5M - $7.5M per year) Cost of Mockup Facilities: $20M-$30M total over 3-5 years beginning a few years from now Cost of Test Articles: $15M - $30M total over 3-4 years beginning 5-7 years from now The R&D cost will be the larger part of the total cost.  But this R&D is actually the core of the base program anyway. ITER-TBM is the most important focus of Fusion Nuclear Technology over the next 30 years or so. Therefore, it should logically be the highest priority for the base program. Therefore, I expect most of the R&D can and should be covered by the base technology (but we have to examine of course whether current budgets for the base program are adequate). We need to prioritize the R&D, estimate the cost of the R&D over the next 10 years and compare it to current/projected base technology program funding. The "Real new & additional" cost is the cost of mock up facilities, plus the cost of the "test articles" themselves.  Spending on these does not start until a few years from now.