Tagged: ITER Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • richardmitnick 10:40 am on November 20, 2015 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ITER   

    From AAAS: “ITER fusion project to take at least 6 years longer than planned” 



    19 November 2015
    Daniel Clery

    ITER construction earlier this year. ITER Collaborative

    The multibillion-dollar ITER fusion project will take another 6 years to build beyond the—now widely discredited—official schedule, a meeting of the governing council was told this week. ITER management has also asked the seven international partners backing the project for additional funding to finish the job.

    It remains unclear whether the project will get what it wants: Delegations from the partners—China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States—concluded the council meeting today by announcing the council would conduct its own review of the schedule and funding to look for ways to tighten them up. In the meantime, the council approved the proposed schedule for 2016 and 2017, set out milestones for the project to reach in that time, and agreed to make available extra resources to help achieve it. After consulting their governments, the delegations committed themselves to agreeing on a final schedule at the next council meeting, in June 2016.

    “It was a very important meeting for us and it went well,” says ITER Director-General Bernard Bigot. “Every member expressed their concerns and in the end they reached an agreement.” Jianlin Cao, vice minister at the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, stressed the challenges the meeting faced. The council delegates “have been so careful about this work. But ITER is a new thing, and success does not come easily,” Cao told Science.

    The ITER project aims to show that nuclear fusion—the power source of the sun and stars—is technically feasible as a source of energy. Despite more than 60 years of work, researchers have failed to achieve a fusion reaction that produces more energy than it consumes. ITER, with a doughnut-shaped tokamak reaction chamber able to contain 840 cubic meters of superheated hydrogen gas, or plasma, is the biggest attempt so far and is predicted to produce at least 500 megawatts of power from a 50 megawatt input.

    ITER Tokamak
    ITER tokamak

    The project was officially begun in 2006 with an estimated cost of €5 billion and date for the beginning of operations—or first plasma—in 2016. Those figures quickly changed to €15 billion and 2019, but confidence in those numbers has eroded over the years.

    When Bigot took over as Director-General earlier this year, he ordered a bottom-up review of the whole project, which currently has numerous buildings springing up at the Cadarache site in southern France and components arriving from contractors in the partner states around the globe. That review produced a new description of the entire project, known as the “baseline,” including a revamped schedule and cost estimate. The baseline was presented to the council for approval this week. Although the official communique does not mention the proposed date for first plasma, it is widely acknowledged to be 2025.

    “The council acknowledged this resource-loaded schedule but they need more time to fully endorse this or another schedule and to reconcile it with the resources they have,” Bigot says. Delegates confirmed such plans. “We must take the schedule home and discuss it with the finance ministry,” says Anatoly Krasilnikov, head of Russia’s ITER domestic agency, the body responsible for awarding industrial contracts.

    “In the meantime, they have agreed to give us extra resources to meet the milestones in 2016–17. It keeps the momentum,” Bigot says. To make that possible, the council will move around some money already allocated for 2016 and possibly provide new money for 2017. The project will hire 150 new staff to top up the 640 currently employed by the ITER organization. In return, the council wants ITER to meet 17 major milestones from the new schedule in 2016 and another eight in 2017. “If we meet the milestones, it will consolidate the trust,” Bigot says.

    The true cost of ITER is almost impossible to define. When the project agreement was drawn up in 2006, all the necessary components were divided up among the partners according to their contributions: 45% for the European Union (as host), and 9% for each of the others. How much each partner pays to have those components manufactured is the partner’s individual concern and is not revealed. In addition to the components, which are shipped to Cadarache as in-kind contributions, each partner must make a cash contribution to the central ITER organization to cover its costs.

    The ITER organization’s role is to draw up the design, ensure everyone sticks to it, and then to supervise assembly of the reactor while also satisfying the local French regulators, especially the nuclear safety authority ASN. That has not been an easy job, as the organization does not deal directly with the industrial companies doing the manufacturing; that is handled by each partner’s domestic agency. Last year, a highly critical management assessment faulted the organization for failing to establish a workable “project culture.” Bigot has gone to great lengths to get contractors, domestic agencies, and ITER staff working better together. “I want that the ITER organization and the domestic agencies are never the limiting step for contractors to deliver,” he says. Previously, work on the tokamak building had been held up because ITER staff hadn’t agreed on a final version of its design.

    The problem that the next council meeting will have to resolve is that some member states are further ahead than others in their assigned tasks for the assembly of ITER. Those that are ahead, and are closer to meeting the old schedule, don’t see why they have to fund a slower—and hence more expensive—schedule imposed on them by other partners.

    See the full article here .

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science for the benefit of all people.

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.
    STEM Icon
    Stem Education Coalition

  • richardmitnick 3:35 pm on October 27, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , ITER,   

    From AAAS: “After Election 2014: FUSION RESEARCH” 




    24 October 2014
    Adrian Cho

    Should we stay or should we go? Once the voters have spoken, that’s the question Congress will have to answer regarding the United States’ participation in ITER, the hugely overbudget fusion experiment under construction in Cadarache, France. Some lawmakers say it may be time for the United States to bow out, especially as the growing ITER commitment threatens to starve U.S.-based fusion research programs. The next Congress may have to decide the issue—if the current one doesn’t pull the plug first when it returns to Washington, D.C., for a 6-week lame-duck session.

    ITER Tokamak
    ITER Tokamak

    For those tired of the partisan squabbling on Capitol Hill, the ITER debate may provide curious relief. ITER appears to enjoy bipartisan support in the House of Representatives—and bipartisan opposition among key senators.

    ITER aims to prove that nuclear fusion is a viable source of energy, and the United States has agreed to build 9% of the reactor’s hardware, regardless of the cost. Recent estimates suggest the U.S. price tag could be $3.9 billion or more—nearly quadrupling original estimates and raising alarm among some lawmakers. In response, this past June a Senate appropriations subcommittee proposed a budget bill that would end U.S. participation in the project next year. In contrast, the next month the House passed a bill that would increase U.S. spending on ITER.

    Some observers think the current Congress will kick the issue to the next one by passing a stop-gap budget for fiscal year 2015, which began 1 October, that will keep U.S. ITER going. “I don’t think in the end they can come out and kill ITER based on what the Senate subcommittee did,” says Stephen Dean, president of Fusion Power Associates, a research and educational foundation in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Others say a showdown could come by year’s end.

    Trouble over ITER has been brewing for years. ITER was originally proposed in 1985 as a joint U.S.-Soviet Union venture. The United States backed out of the project in 1998 because of cost and schedule concerns—only to rejoin in 2003. At the time, ITER construction costs were estimated at $5 billion. That number had jumped to $12 billion by 2006, when the European Union, China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States signed a formal agreement to build the device. At the time, ITER was supposed to start running in 2016. By 2011, U.S. costs for ITER had risen to more than $2 billion, and the date for first runs had slid to 2020. But even that date was uncertain; U.S. ITER researchers did not have a detailed cost projection and schedule—or performance baseline—to go by.

    Then in 2013, the Department of Energy (DOE) argued in its budget request for the following year that U.S. ITER was not a “capital asset” and therefore did not have to go through the usual DOE review process for large construction projects—which requires a performance baseline. Even though DOE promised to limit spending on ITER to $225 million a year so as not to starve domestic fusion research efforts, that statement irked Senators Dianne Feinstein (D–CA) and Lamar Alexander (R–TN), the chair and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, respectively. They and other senators asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the U.S. ITER project.

    This year, things appeared to come to a head. This past April, researchers working on U.S. ITER released their new $3.9 billion cost estimate and moved back the date for first runs to 2024 or later. Two months later, GAO reported that even that new estimate was not reliable and that the cost to the United States could reach $6.5 billion. Based on that report, the Senate energy and water subcommittee moved to kill U.S. ITER in its markup of the proposed 2015 budget, giving it only $75 million for the year, half of what the White House had requested and just enough to wind things down. Alexander supported the move, even though the U.S. ITER office is based in his home state of Tennessee, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

    ITER still has friends in the House, however. In their version of the DOE budget for 2015, House appropriators gave ITER $225 million, $75 million more than the White House request. Moreover, the project seems to have bipartisan support in the House, as shown by a hearing of the energy subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Usually deeply divided along party lines, the subcommittee came together to lavish praise on ITER, with representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), chair of the full committee, and Representative Eric Swalwell (D–CA), the ranking member on the subcommittee, agreeing that ITER was, in Swalwell’s words, “absolutely essential to proving that magnetically confined fusion can be a viable clean energy source.” Swalwell called for spending more than $225 million per year on ITER.

    When and how this struggle over ITER plays out depends on the answers to several questions. First, how will Congress deal with the already late budget for next year? The Senate, controlled by the Democrats, has yet to pass any of its 13 budget bills, including the one that would fund energy research. And if the House and Senate decide to simply continue the 2014 budget past the end of the year, then the decision on ITER will pass to the next Congress. If, on the other hand, Congress passes a last-minute omnibus budget for fiscal year 2015, then the fight over ITER could play out by year’s end.

    Second, how sincere is the Senate move to kill ITER? The Senate subcommittee’s move may have been meant mainly to send a signal to the international ITER organization that it needs to shape up, says one Democratic staffer in the House. The international ITER organization received scathing criticism in an independent review in October 2013. That review called for 11 different measures to overhaul the project’s management, and the Senate’s markup may have been meant primarily to drive home the message that those measures had to be taken to ensure continued U.S. involvement, the staffer says.

    Third, how broad is the House’s support for ITER? Over the past decade or so, the House has been more supportive of fusion in general, the Democratic staffer says. But some observers credit that support mainly to one person, Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), a longtime member of the House Appropriations Committee. “Over the years he’s become a champion of fusion,” Dean says. “He protects it in the House.” Dean and others say that’s likely because the DOE’s sole dedicated fusion laboratory, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), is in his home state of New Jersey (but not Frelinghuysen’s district).

    Indeed, observers say that Frelinghuysen has been instrumental in preventing cuts to the domestic fusion program proposed by DOE itself. For example, for fiscal 2014, DOE requested $458 million for its fusion energy sciences program, including $225 million for ITER. That meant cutting the domestic fusion program by about 20% to $233 million and closing one of three tokamak reactors in the United States. The Senate went along with those numbers, but House appropriators bumped the budget up to $506 million, the number that held sway in the final 2014 spending plan. But some observers speculate that Frelinghuysen might be willing to let ITER go if he could secure a brighter future for PPPL.

    PPPL Tokamak
    PPPL Tokamak

    PPPL National Spherical Torus Experiment

    Finally, the biggest question surrounding U.S. participation in ITER is: How will the international ITER organization respond to the calls for changes in its management structure? That should become clear within months. So far, officials with U.S. ITER have not been able to produce a baseline cost estimate and schedule in large measure, because the ITER project as a whole does not have a reliable schedule. The international ITER organization has said it will produce one by next July, the House staffer says. And if the international organization doesn’t produce a credible schedule, the staffer says, “the project will be very difficult to defend, even by its most ardent supporters.”

    See the full article here.

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science for the benefit of all people.

    ScienceSprings relies on technology from

    MAINGEAR computers



  • richardmitnick 6:33 pm on March 20, 2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ITER, , ,   

    From Oak Ridge via PPPL: “The Bleeding ‘Edge’ of Fusion Research” 

    March 20, 2014

    Few problems have vexed physicists like fusion, the process by which stars fuel themselves and by which researchers on Earth hope to create the energy source of the future.

    By heating the hydrogen isotopes tritium and deuterium to more than five times the temperature of the Sun’s surface, scientists create a reaction that could eventually produce electricity. Turns out, however, that confining the engine of a star to a manmade vessel and using it to produce energy is tricky business.

    Big problems, such as this one, require big solutions. Luckily, few solutions are bigger than Titan, the Department of Energy’s flagship Cray XK7 supercomputer managed by the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility.


    Inside Titan

    Titan allows advanced scientific applications to reach unprecedented speeds, enabling scientific breakthroughs faster than ever with only a marginal increase in power consumption. This unique marriage of number-crunching hardware enables Titan, located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), to reach a peak performance of 27 petaflops to claim the title of the world’s fastest computer dedicated solely to scientific research.

    PPPL fusion code

    And fusion is at the head of the research pack. In fact, a team led by Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory’s (PPPL’s) C.S. Chang increased the performance of its fusion XGC1 code fourfold on Titan using its GPUs and CPUs, compared to its previous CPU-only incarnation after a 6-month performance engineering period during which the team tweaked its code to best take advantage of Titan’s revolutionary hybrid architecture.

    “In nature, there are two types of physics,” said Chang. The first is equilibrium, in which changes happen in a “closed” world toward a static state, making the calculations comparatively simple. “This science has been established for a couple hundred years,” he said. Unfortunately, plasma physics falls in the second category, in which a system has inputs and outputs that constantly drive the system to a nonequilibrium state, which Chang refers to as an “open” world.

    Most magnetic fusion research is centered on a tokamak, a donut-shaped vessel that shows the most promise for magnetically confining the extremely hot and fragile plasma. Because the plasma is constantly coming into contact with the vessel wall and losing mass and energy, which in turn introduces neutral particles back into the plasma, equilibrium physics generally don’t apply at the edge and simulating the environment is difficult using conventional computational fluid dynamics.

    TFTR at PPPL Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Image Credit: Princeton.

    Another major reason the simulations are so complex is their multiscale nature. The distance scales involved range from millimeters (what’s going on among the gyrating particles and turbulence eddies inside the plasma itself) to meters (looking at the entire vessel that contains the plasma). The time scales introduce even more complexity, as researchers want to see how the edge plasma evolves from microseconds in particle motions and turbulence fluctuations to milliseconds and seconds in its full evolution. Furthermore, these two scales are coupled. “The simulation scale has to be very large, but still has to include the small-scale details,” said Chang.

    And few machines are as capable of delivering in that regard as is Titan. “The bigger the computer, the higher the fidelity,” he said, simply because researchers can incorporate more physics, and few problems require more physics than simulating a fusion plasma.

    On the hunt for blobs

    Studying the plasma edge is critical to understanding the plasma as a whole. “What happens at the edge is what determines the steady fusion performance at the core,” said Chang. But when it comes to studying the edge, “the effort hasn’t been very successful because of its complexity,” he added.

    Chang’s team is shedding light on a long-known and little-understood phenomenon known as “blobby” turbulence in which formations of strong plasma density fluctuations or clumps flow together and move around large amounts of edge plasma, greatly affecting edge and core performance in the DIII-D tokamak at General Atomics in San Diego, CA. DIII-D-based simulations are considered a critical stepping-stone for the full-scale, first principles simulation of the ITER plasma edge. ITER is a tokamak reactor to be built in France to test the science feasibility of fusion energy.


    The phenomenon was discovered more than 10 years ago, and is one of the “most important things in understanding edge physics,” said Chang, adding that people have tried to model it using fluids (i.e., equilibrium physics quantities). However, because the plasma inhabits an open world, it requires first-principles, ab-initio simulations. Now, for the first time, researchers have verified the existence and modeled the behavior of these blobs using a gyrokinetic code (or one that uses the most fundamental plasma kinetic equations, with analytic treatment of the fast gyrating particle motions) and the DIII-D geometry.

    This same first-principles approach also revealed the divertor heat load footprint. The divertor will extract heat and helium ash from the plasma, acting as a vacuum system and ensuring that the plasma remains stable and the reaction ongoing.

    These discoveries were made possible because the team’s XGC1 code exhibited highly efficient weak and strong scalability on Titan’s hybrid architecture up to the full size of the machine. Collaborating with Ed D’Azevedo, supported by the OLCF and by the DOE Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) project Center for Edge Physics Simulation (EPSi), along with Pat Worley (ORNL), Jianying Liand (PPPL) and Seung-Hoe Ku (PPPL) also supported by EPSi, this team optimized its XGC1 code for Titan’s GPUs using the maximum number of nodes, boosting performance fourfold over the previous CPU-only code. This performance increase has enormous implications for predicting fusion energy efficiency in ITER.

    Full-scale simulations

    “We can now use both the CPUs and GPUs efficiently in full-scale production simulations of the tokamak plasma,” said Chang.

    Furthermore, added Chang, Titan is beginning to allow the researchers to model physics that were just a year ago out of reach altogether, such as electron-scale turbulence, that were out of reach altogether as little as a year ago. Jaguar—Titan’s CPU-only predecessor— was fine for ion-scale edge turbulence because ions are both slower and heavier than electrons (for which the computing requirement is 60 times greater), but fell seriously short when it came to calculating electron-scale turbulence. While Titan is still not quite powerful enough to model electrons as accurately as Chang would like, the team has developed a technique that allows them to simulate electron physics approximately 10 times faster than on Jaguar.

    And they are just getting started. The researchers plan on eventually simulating the full volume plasma with electron-scale turbulence to understand how these newly modeled blobs affect the fusion core, because whatever happens at the edge determines conditions in the core. “We think this blob phenomenon will be a key to understanding the core,” said Chang, adding, “All of these are critical physics elements that must be understood to raise the confidence level of successful ITER operation. These phenomena have been observed experimentally for a long time, but have not been understood theoretically at a predictable confidence level.”

    Given the team can currently use all of Titan’s more that 18,000 nodes, a better understanding of fusion is certainly in the works. A better understanding of blobby turbulence and its effects on plasma performance is a significant step toward that goal, proving yet again that few tools are more critical than simulation if mankind is to use the engines of stars to solve its most pressing dilemma: clean, abundant energy.

    See the full article here.

    Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory managed by Princeton University.

    ScienceSprings is powered by Maingear computers

  • richardmitnick 8:16 am on July 25, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ITER,   

    From PPPL: “PPPL’s Rich Hawryluk recognized for service to ITER international fusion project” 

    July 23, 2013
    Kitta MacPherson
    Email: kittamac@pppl.gov
    Phone: 609-243-2755


    Rich Hawryluk served as Deputy Director-General for the ITER Organization and Director of the ITER Administration Department. ITER is an international fusion experiment that is under construction in France. Hawryluk, a former deputy director of PPPL, completed a two-year assignment at ITER in April, 2013. The Secretary of Energy’s Appreciation Award, signed by former Energy Secretary Steven Chu and presented by Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz cited Hawryluk for “applying his wealth of big-science project management experience to enable the ITER project to make the transition from design phase to construction, thus helping ensure that this important international project will successfully move toward demonstrating the feasibility of fusion as a future energy source.”


    See the full article here.

    Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory managed by Princeton University.

    ScienceSprings is powered by Maingear computers

  • richardmitnick 1:04 pm on March 29, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , ITER, ,   

    From PPPL Lab: “US ITER is a strong contributor in plan to enhance international sharing of prime ITER real estate” 

    March 28, 2013
    Lynne Degitz

    “When the ITER experimental fusion reactor begins operation in the 2020s, over 40 diagnostic tools will provide essential data to researchers seeking to understand plasma behavior and optimize fusion performance. But before the ITER tokamak is built, researchers need to determine an efficient way of fitting all of these tools into a limited number of shielded ports that will protect the delicate diagnostic hardware and other parts of the machine from neutron flux and intense heat. A port plug integration proposal developed with the US ITER diagnostics team has helped the international ITER collaboration arrive at a clever solution for safely housing all of the tokamak diagnostic devices.

    Iter Icon


    ‘Before horizontal or vertical modules were proposed, diagnostic teams were not constrained to any particular design space. When we started working on this, we suggested that there be some type of modular approach,’ said Russ Feder, a US ITER diagnostics contributor and Senior Mechanical Engineer at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. ‘Originally, we proposed four horizontal drawers for each port plug. But then analysis of electromagnetic forces on these horizontal modules showed that forces were too high and the project switched to the three vertical modules.’”

    The proposal has been formalized by two ITER procurement agreements in late 2012 between US ITER, based at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the ITER Organization; other ITER partners are expected to make similar agreements this year.”

    PPPL’s Russell Feder, left, and David Johnson developed key features for a modular approach to housing the extensive diagnostic systems that will be installed on the ITER tokamak. (Photo credit: Elle Starkman/PPPL Office of Communications)

    See the full article here.

    Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory managed by Princeton University.

    ScienceSprings is powered by MAINGEAR computers

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 496 other followers

%d bloggers like this: