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

2 US ITER-TBM Activities Primary Activities 1. Continue to contribute to TBWG activities  Active participation  Encourage international collaboration 2. Continue Modeling and Experiments (R&D) for key issues of US ITER-TBM (This is the larger part of our activities) 3. Initiating “TBM Costing Activity” Additional Activities A. Explore partnerships and task sharing with each of the ITER Parties B. Encourage TBWG to go through an exercise of how to coordinate all Parties’ TBM activities and have strong collaborations C. Work with DOE, ITER Project Office, and US Community to recognize, formalize, and organize the US ITER-TBM Program

3 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 (and ancillary equipment) to be delivered to ITER (Clement Wong)

4 Framework for the US ITER-TBM Costing Activities  Develop the Costs for two scenarios: A. Good ITER utilization (Moderate Cost Scenario) B. 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 (we have “private data” from 2 years ago)

5 Various Strategies for DCLL in the US Technology Program Poor ITER utilization (Lowest Cost Scenario) - Support EU HCLL effort, no independent DCLL TBM e.g. Contribute R&D in areas of unique US expertise (e.g. MHD, Tritium, etc.) in return for access to data – little or no other parallel R&D Good ITER utilization (Moderate Cost Scenario) – Highly shared and staged TBM effort with small, independent DCLL TBMs e.g. Small number of TBMs sharing space and ancillary systems with EU-HCLL e.g. Strong partnership with China and possibly Korea sharing R&D and TBM costs Optimum ITER Utilization (Full Resource Scenario): Full US TBM program (comparable to EU and Japan) coupled in parallel with R&D on longer term issues e.g. day-1, half-port DCLL testing with independent loops and multiple specialized TBMs while working on tritium strippers, advanced SiC, high temperature HX and TX tubes. We need to better define more completely the “Good” and “Optimum” scenarios for the cost evaluation Cost Spectrum Return on ITER Investment

6 Some General Remarks  The US ITER-TBM team has consistently made the point that the ITER- TBM activities are 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: a) phasing / scheduling of the test articles insertions into ITER during its years of operation; b) collaboration with other partners; c) 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)

7 INFORMAL “Guess” and observations on the likely Costs  The Cost of ITER-TBM Program consists of three parts: 1. Cost of R&D 2. Cost of Mockup Facilities 3. Cost of the Test Articles (and ancillary equipment) 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.