- Email: [email protected]
Preliminary risks analysis of the IGNITOR Project realization phase
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
FUSION-9169; No. of Pages 5
Fusion Engineering and Design xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Fusion Engineering and Design journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fusengdes
Preliminary risks analysis of the IGNITOR Project realization phase Mikhail Subbotin a,∗ , Aldo Bianchi b , Francesca Bombarda c , Vladimir Kravchuk a , Eugenio Nappi d , Giancarlo Spigo e a
National Research Centre “Kurchatov Institute”, Moscow, Russian Federation INFN Consultant, Genoa, Italy INFN Associate, Rome, Italy d INFN, Bari, Italy e CERN, Geneva, Switzerland b c
h i g h l i g h t s • During executing of the preliminary risks analysis the risk categories, description of the problems, circumstances, risk mitigation methods and comments were formulated and described. The main problems of the IGNITOR project realization phase in terms of risks analysis categories were formulated and the ways of their mitigations were determined.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 29 September 2016 Received in revised form 20 February 2017 Accepted 26 February 2017 Available online xxx Keywords: Fusion Tokamak Risk Analysis Ignitor
a b s t r a c t In the framework of the joint Russian – Italian collaboration on the development of the IGNITOR project some preliminary estimates of the risk factors that may be occurring during the realization of the project were recently carried out. A distinctive feature of the IGNITOR project is the fact that it contains some innovative solutions in the areas of research, engineering and technology, often having no analogues not only in industry but also outside the specific laboratories and research centers responsible for the development of necessary components. In addition, it is necessary to point out several peculiarities of the IGNITOR project, which distinguish it from other large-scale scientific projects in the sphere of controlled thermonuclear fusion with magnetic confinement, implemented on the basis of the tokamak technology, and which are risk-related in terms of the project realization: 1. The super strong magnetic fields (up to 13 T); 2. The high plasma current discharge (up to 11 MA); 3. Ohmic heating as the main mechanism of ignition of the thermonuclear fusion reaction. During of the risk analysis investigation the following categories of risks were identified: • political; • economical; • achievement of the main goal of the project; • technical and technological risks; • risks of implementation of the scientific research program; • environmental, safety and socio-economical risks. The different impact factors on the realization phase of the IGNITOR project are shown and analyzed. The conclusions of the risks analysis that were obtained are summarized in the joint Table, where the risk category, the description of the problem, circumstances, risk mitigation method and comments are displayed. © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: Subbotin [email protected] (M. Subbotin).
The realization of large-scale innovative scientific and technological projects, which certainly applies to the IGNITOR project, is
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.02.099 0920-3796/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: M. Subbotin, et al., Preliminary risks analysis of the IGNITOR Project realization phase, Fusion Eng. Des. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.02.099
G Model FUSION-9169; No. of Pages 5
ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Subbotin et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
2
very closely related to issues of the problem solving analysis and risk management. To a large extent the success in completion of the IGNITOR project depends on the effectiveness of the approach for identifying, blocking and reducing various types of risks by implementation of the risk mitigation and risk management programs. A distinctive feature of the IGNITOR project is the fact that it contains some innovative solutions in the areas of research, engineering and technology, often having no analogues not only in industry but also outside the specific laboratories and research centers responsible for the development of necessary components In addition, it is necessary to point out several peculiarities of the IGNITOR project, which distinguish it from other large-scale scientific projects in the sphere of controlled thermonuclear fusion with magnetic confinement, implemented on the basis of the tokamak technology, and which are risk-related in terms of the project realization [1–4]: 1. The super strong magnetic fields (up to 13 T); 2. The high plasma current (up to 11 MA) corresponding to an average current density of more than 9 MA/m2 ; 3. Ohmic heating as the main mechanism of ignition of the thermonuclear fusion reaction. 2. Main principles of the risk analysis procedures Like any other innovative projects, the IGNITOR project itself is subject to relatively high risks but a suitably flexible organization can mitigate the negative influence of these risks on costs and timing. In this chapter the basic rules and problem solving approach, expressed in terms of the basic methods of risk analysis are described: sensitivity analysis; stability checking and determination of the limiting parameters of the project; adjusting the parameters of the project; formalized description of uncertainties; developing a probabilistic decision tree. 2.1. Sensitivity analysis The sensitivity analysis is used to provide a more accurate estimate of the resulting parameters of the project for a certain change in one of its initial parameters. The analysis is performed to determine the major factors which influence the results of the project and has the following sequence of steps: • determination of the most important impact factors; • determination of the most probable influence values; • estimation of the probabilities which impact the project. 2.2. Stability checking and determination of the limiting parameters of the project The stability checking is intended to develop main and alternative scenarios of the project realization taking into account the impact of the factors of influences. The result check will determine the extent or likelihood of full implementation of the goals and objectives of the project. 2.3. Project parameters correction The project parameters correction is possible as a result of the analysis when high probability of deviations from the basic parameters of the project becomes certain. In this case it is possible to set basic goals and objectives of the project in accordance with the expected results or changes in schedules, objectives and timing of the project.
2.4. Formalized description of uncertainties The formalized description of uncertainties implies a description of all the possible ways to implement the project through the development of scenarios and models that take into account the uncertainties of the project, expressed in terms of probability values and the conditions of implementation of various parameters of the project. The process of the formalized description of uncertainties should be completed with a chosen scenario where all the information are included. 2.5. Probabilistic decisions tree Based on the data obtained, a probabilistic decisions tree for the project can be developed to analyze project risks. The development of the probabilistic decision tree is the main stage for the full risk analysis of the project. The following steps are necessary to develop a probabilistic decision tree: • determine the composition and duration of the phases of the project lifecycle; • define a list of key events that may affect the further development of the project; • determine the time of occurrence of key events; • formulate a list of all the possible solutions that can be taken as a result of the onset of the key events; • determine the probability of each solution; • determine the cost of each stage of the project in current prices. 3. Preliminary risk analysis for the IGNITOR project It is necessary to keep in mind that IGNITOR is a unique scientific and technological project, and as such it is associated to relatively high risks. This means that the degree of uncertainty in the estimation of the probability factors of different types of risks are high and mitigation of these types of risks could not initialy be provided by well known typical solutions. It is vital to understand that the risk analysis of the project starts with the basic steps of the identification and estimation of potential risks which may arise during the implementation stage of the project and the preparation of dates for the development of a probabilistic decision tree. For this purpose, it is necessary to perform the following steps: • fulfill all the conditions of the sequence of operations to prepare the probabilistic decision tree from the steps 1–4, mentioned above; • carry out the analysis of technical risks throughout the realization process of the IGNITOR project associated with design, manufacture, test, logistic and assemble of the facility and installation on site; • conduct the detailed analysis of technical problems associated with the implementation of each stage of the project; • perform the detailed analysis of financial risks throughout the lifecycle of design and construction of the IGNITOR tokamak. The results of these studies will allow formulating the basic provisions of the risks mitigation policy to prepare and implement measures to reduce the influence of the most complex risks, to identify the most vulnerable moments of the project realization and to prepare appropriate mitigation measures. During the pre-processing of the available data on the IGNITOR project, the following categories of risks that may occur during the project realization phase were identified:
Please cite this article in press as: M. Subbotin, et al., Preliminary risks analysis of the IGNITOR Project realization phase, Fusion Eng. Des. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.02.099
G Model FUSION-9169; No. of Pages 5
ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Subbotin et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
• • • • •
3
political; economical; achievement of the main goal of the project; technical and technological risks; risks of implementation of the scientific research program.
In this case it is necessary to keep in mind that all of these risk categories may occur at any stage of the IGNITOR project lifecycle. The process of the project implementation will certainly present specific risks related to the tasks typical for a particular stage of the project.
Fig. 1. Reactor ITER.
3.1. Political risks It is obvious that the political risks of the project will be mostly specific to the stage of preparation and signing of the RussianItalian Intergovernmental agreement on the IGNITOR project. The most significant risks are associated with the current economical and political situation and can lead to three possible scenarios of project realization: i) risks will not affect the project realization; ii) risks will have little impact on the overall situation; iii) risks will become prevailing and cause the project closure. Mitigation of the risk impact from this category is associated primarily with the political will of leaders of both countries to implement the IGNITOR project by preparing, signing and coming into force of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the realization of the IGNITOR project.
Fig. 2. JET facility.
3.2. Economical risks It is obvious that the economical risks will be present at all stages of the project lifecycle. The main objective of the risk management and mitigation policy with respect to the economical risks – a precise estimate of the financial costs for each phase of the project, tracking and compensation of expected inflation, control of the situation on the development and realization within approved time plan, the absence of delays in manufacturing and delivery of equipment and correct usage of financial resources. The main evaluation of the economical risks and their consequences are shown in Table 1. Mitigation of economical risks is generally associated with the development of anti-crisis funding program for the IGNITOR project, which would include a negative impact of economical factors on the realization of the project to be supported by the leaders of both countries. 3.3. Achievement of the project main goal A reasonable probability of achieving the main goal of the IGNITOR project is fundamental for the project realization. The assessment of risks is a key factor for the successful evaluation of the feasibility of the project. Among the main risks that may impede the achievement of the main goal of the IGNITOR project, the highrisk and unique scientific basis of the project should be noted. One of the main tools of risk analysis in this category is a parametric and scaling analysis of comparable projects. From this perspective it is expedient to perform a parametric and scaling analysis of four devices in the field of thermonuclear controlled fusion, based on the tokamak concept: the ITER project (Fig. 1), which is currently under construction in France, the JET tokamak in operation in the UK since 1983 (Fig. 2), the IGNITOR project (Fig. 3), and the Alcator C-Mod machine in the US (Fig. 4). Comparison of key parameters and the parametric factors that reflect the main differences in size and characteristics between two projects (ITER and IGNITOR) and two existing tokamak machines
Fig. 3. Ignitor project.
Fig. 4. Alcator C-Mod.
(JET and Alcator C-Mod) and of IGNITOR relative to the Alcator CMod and JET tokamaks shows that the risks of missing the main scientific goal of the IGNITOR project are not associated with the size and shape of the plasma column, nor with the high particle and plasma current density (as indicated by the parameter BT /R). On the other hand, the considerably higher value of the total plasma current, and especially that of the average magnetic poloidal field BP ( IP /5ak1/2 ), are unique features of IGNITOR to ensure better confinement and a more effective barrier against plasma instabilities. In practice, the actual risks in terms of plasma physics for IGNITOR can be effectively represented by two parameters: Zeff > 1.6 and/or energy confinement lower than L-mode scaling. The preliminary results of risks analysis are shown in Table 2. 3.4. Technical and technological risks Among all considered risk categories, technical and technological risks are the largest and most significant in terms of the IGNITOR project. Risks of this category have a direct impact on deadlines and cost of the project, on the reliability of equipment and ultimately on carrying out the scientific research program of
Please cite this article in press as: M. Subbotin, et al., Preliminary risks analysis of the IGNITOR Project realization phase, Fusion Eng. Des. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.02.099
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
FUSION-9169; No. of Pages 5
M. Subbotin et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
4
. Economical risks. Risks event
Circumstances
Risk mitigation methods
Excessively high cost
Withdrawal from the project by one of the Parties due to the cost increase compared to the initial estimates Withdrawal from the project by one of the Parties due to an unexpectedly high cost increase Decrease of the resources provided to the project by its Parties
Joint technical and technological solutions development to lower the cost of the project Joint resolutions development to lower the influence of inflationary factor to the cost of the project Joint resolutions development to lower the influence of the global crisis to the project realization
High expected inflation Global economic crisis
Fig. 4. Risk to achieve of the Project main goal. Risks event
Circumstances
The difficulty to reach ignition of the fusion reaction due to the unique nature of the scientific project
Absence of positive results due to the implicit physics or technical restrictions identified during of experimental research stage
The difficulty to reach the ignition conditions of the fusion reaction due to insufficient physics and technical understanding of the IGNITOR tokamak project
Risk mitigation methods
Development of up-to-date physics and technical solutions for achieving ignition conditions of fusion reaction using ohmic heating and strong magnetic fields. The difficulty to achieve ignition conditions of fusion Development of up-to-date demonstrators and to a lack of prototypes with similar physics or technical prototypes as well as computer models and solutions parameters, imposing limitations on the use of for achieving ignition conditions of fusion reaction computer codes identified during of experimental using ohmic heating and strong magnetic fields. stages research.
the IGNITOR tokamak [5,6]. These risks are associated with many engineering, physics and power infrastructure of the project. The main consequence of those risks is the postponing the schedules of manufacturing, installation, commissioning and also the increase in the cost of the project. Thus, it is clear that in order to mitigate this category of risks during the development of the Technical Design Project of IGNITOR, a detailed risk management program has to be developed in order to mitigate significantly the impact of negative factors on the cost and timing of the project. It is necessary to keep in mind that the correction of the errors and/or manufacturing defects will lead to a backlog of manufacturing, installation and commissioning. Approved expert estimates show that the backlog of the project for one year leads to the increase in general cost by 10 − 15%. At present, it is possible to describe the most general problems that could be associated with the process of the project realization and which could have a negative impact on it. The RAMI analysis of the IGNITOR machine are planning to provide during development of the Technical Design stage of the IGNITOR project. 1. The present state of the power infrastructure on the State Research Center of Russian Federation − Troitsk Institute for Innovation and Fusion Research “SRC RF TRINITI” site. 2. Uncoordinated and unapproved by both Parties the technical and technological requirements for the infrastructure capabilities on the site. 3. Uncoordinated by both Parties design and engineering solutions on the separate elements and systems of the IGNITOR tokamak, and in its placement on the “SRC RF TRINITI” site. 3.5. Risks of implementation of the scientific research program The main risk factors associated with the implementation of the scientific program can be occurrences and activities that are currently difficult to predict, but may be identified during the development of a scientific research program. Currently the following risks for the implementation of the research program seem the most probable ones: • the scientific uniqueness of the IGNITOR project is associated with the achievement of the ignition of the controlled thermonuclear fusion reaction by means of ohmic heating and strong magnetic fields;
• at present the feasibility of the IGNITOR tokamak is based on full scale prototypes of its main components, but there is no experimental evidence that the adopted structural and technical solutions can verify the successful operation of IGNITOR and its auxiliary systems at the highest parameters; • unexpected developments that may arise during the operation of the installation in ignition mode with sustained fusion reaction (the influence of the neutron flux, diagnostic systems, etc.). 4. Environment, safety and socio-economical risks The analysis of risk factors related to the impact of the IGNITOR project on the environment, population and personnel safety, as well as socio-economical environment of the adjacent territory, including the radiation hazard, is the high-priority research field. To a greater extent the final decision on the construction of the IGNITOR tokamak and the implementation of its scientific program will depend on the results of this research. Nevertheless, it is necessary to indicate the several risk factors which may cause some problems for the project realization: • legal framework of the Russian Federation in the sphere of exploitation of radiation-hazardous facilities, which regulates the operation of radiation-hazardous objects; • placement of radiation-hazardous experimental complex of the IGNITOR tokamak on the territory of Moscow city; • production of radioactive waste during operation, decommissioning and disposal of radioactive components of the IGNITOR tokamak. Risks associated with the radiological hazard due to the regular operation and in emergencies for the population and the environment have been analyzed [7], as well as the issues of decommissioning and disposal of radioactive tokamak components. 5. Conclusion During executing of the preliminary risks analysis the risk categories, description of the problems, circumstances, risk mitigation methods and comments were formulated and described. The main problems of the IGNITOR project realization phase in terms of risks analysis categories were formulated and the ways of their mitigations were determined.
Please cite this article in press as: M. Subbotin, et al., Preliminary risks analysis of the IGNITOR Project realization phase, Fusion Eng. Des. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.02.099
G Model FUSION-9169; No. of Pages 5
ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Subbotin et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
References [1] B. Coppi, et al., Physics basis for ignition experiment, Phys. Scr. 45 (2) (1992) 112. [2] B. Coppi, et al., Physical regimes accessible to the ignitor experiment and relevant theoretical developments, in: 19th IAEA International Conference on Fusion Energy, Paper FT/P 2–10, Lion, France, 2002. [3] F. Bombarda, B. Coppi, et al., Ignitor: physics and progress towards ignition, Braz. J. Phys. 34 (4B) (2004) 1786.
5
[4] B. Coppi, et al., The high density path to fusion, Sofia, Bulgaria, June 29–July 03, in: 36 EPS Conference on Plasma Phys., Vol. 33E, 2009 (P-4.194). [5] B. Coppi, et al., New developments, plasma physics regimes and issues for the Ignitor experiment, Nucl. Fusion 53 (2013) 104013. [6] M.L. Subbotin, E.A. Azizov, K.G. Ramazanov, System analysis of the requirements to the IGNITOR tokamak site location, in: Symposium of Fusion Technology, San Sebastian, Spain, September 29–October 03, 2014 (P 3-018). [7] M. Zucchetti, et al., Ignitor siting at the TRINITI site in Russian Federation, Conference (2017) (paper P4.016).
Please cite this article in press as: M. Subbotin, et al., Preliminary risks analysis of the IGNITOR Project realization phase, Fusion Eng. Des. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.02.099
ARTICLE IN PRESS
FUSION-9169; No. of Pages 5
Fusion Engineering and Design xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Fusion Engineering and Design journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fusengdes
Preliminary risks analysis of the IGNITOR Project realization phase Mikhail Subbotin a,∗ , Aldo Bianchi b , Francesca Bombarda c , Vladimir Kravchuk a , Eugenio Nappi d , Giancarlo Spigo e a
National Research Centre “Kurchatov Institute”, Moscow, Russian Federation INFN Consultant, Genoa, Italy INFN Associate, Rome, Italy d INFN, Bari, Italy e CERN, Geneva, Switzerland b c
h i g h l i g h t s • During executing of the preliminary risks analysis the risk categories, description of the problems, circumstances, risk mitigation methods and comments were formulated and described. The main problems of the IGNITOR project realization phase in terms of risks analysis categories were formulated and the ways of their mitigations were determined.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 29 September 2016 Received in revised form 20 February 2017 Accepted 26 February 2017 Available online xxx Keywords: Fusion Tokamak Risk Analysis Ignitor
a b s t r a c t In the framework of the joint Russian – Italian collaboration on the development of the IGNITOR project some preliminary estimates of the risk factors that may be occurring during the realization of the project were recently carried out. A distinctive feature of the IGNITOR project is the fact that it contains some innovative solutions in the areas of research, engineering and technology, often having no analogues not only in industry but also outside the specific laboratories and research centers responsible for the development of necessary components. In addition, it is necessary to point out several peculiarities of the IGNITOR project, which distinguish it from other large-scale scientific projects in the sphere of controlled thermonuclear fusion with magnetic confinement, implemented on the basis of the tokamak technology, and which are risk-related in terms of the project realization: 1. The super strong magnetic fields (up to 13 T); 2. The high plasma current discharge (up to 11 MA); 3. Ohmic heating as the main mechanism of ignition of the thermonuclear fusion reaction. During of the risk analysis investigation the following categories of risks were identified: • political; • economical; • achievement of the main goal of the project; • technical and technological risks; • risks of implementation of the scientific research program; • environmental, safety and socio-economical risks. The different impact factors on the realization phase of the IGNITOR project are shown and analyzed. The conclusions of the risks analysis that were obtained are summarized in the joint Table, where the risk category, the description of the problem, circumstances, risk mitigation method and comments are displayed. © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: Subbotin [email protected] (M. Subbotin).
The realization of large-scale innovative scientific and technological projects, which certainly applies to the IGNITOR project, is
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.02.099 0920-3796/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: M. Subbotin, et al., Preliminary risks analysis of the IGNITOR Project realization phase, Fusion Eng. Des. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.02.099
G Model FUSION-9169; No. of Pages 5
ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Subbotin et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
2
very closely related to issues of the problem solving analysis and risk management. To a large extent the success in completion of the IGNITOR project depends on the effectiveness of the approach for identifying, blocking and reducing various types of risks by implementation of the risk mitigation and risk management programs. A distinctive feature of the IGNITOR project is the fact that it contains some innovative solutions in the areas of research, engineering and technology, often having no analogues not only in industry but also outside the specific laboratories and research centers responsible for the development of necessary components In addition, it is necessary to point out several peculiarities of the IGNITOR project, which distinguish it from other large-scale scientific projects in the sphere of controlled thermonuclear fusion with magnetic confinement, implemented on the basis of the tokamak technology, and which are risk-related in terms of the project realization [1–4]: 1. The super strong magnetic fields (up to 13 T); 2. The high plasma current (up to 11 MA) corresponding to an average current density of more than 9 MA/m2 ; 3. Ohmic heating as the main mechanism of ignition of the thermonuclear fusion reaction. 2. Main principles of the risk analysis procedures Like any other innovative projects, the IGNITOR project itself is subject to relatively high risks but a suitably flexible organization can mitigate the negative influence of these risks on costs and timing. In this chapter the basic rules and problem solving approach, expressed in terms of the basic methods of risk analysis are described: sensitivity analysis; stability checking and determination of the limiting parameters of the project; adjusting the parameters of the project; formalized description of uncertainties; developing a probabilistic decision tree. 2.1. Sensitivity analysis The sensitivity analysis is used to provide a more accurate estimate of the resulting parameters of the project for a certain change in one of its initial parameters. The analysis is performed to determine the major factors which influence the results of the project and has the following sequence of steps: • determination of the most important impact factors; • determination of the most probable influence values; • estimation of the probabilities which impact the project. 2.2. Stability checking and determination of the limiting parameters of the project The stability checking is intended to develop main and alternative scenarios of the project realization taking into account the impact of the factors of influences. The result check will determine the extent or likelihood of full implementation of the goals and objectives of the project. 2.3. Project parameters correction The project parameters correction is possible as a result of the analysis when high probability of deviations from the basic parameters of the project becomes certain. In this case it is possible to set basic goals and objectives of the project in accordance with the expected results or changes in schedules, objectives and timing of the project.
2.4. Formalized description of uncertainties The formalized description of uncertainties implies a description of all the possible ways to implement the project through the development of scenarios and models that take into account the uncertainties of the project, expressed in terms of probability values and the conditions of implementation of various parameters of the project. The process of the formalized description of uncertainties should be completed with a chosen scenario where all the information are included. 2.5. Probabilistic decisions tree Based on the data obtained, a probabilistic decisions tree for the project can be developed to analyze project risks. The development of the probabilistic decision tree is the main stage for the full risk analysis of the project. The following steps are necessary to develop a probabilistic decision tree: • determine the composition and duration of the phases of the project lifecycle; • define a list of key events that may affect the further development of the project; • determine the time of occurrence of key events; • formulate a list of all the possible solutions that can be taken as a result of the onset of the key events; • determine the probability of each solution; • determine the cost of each stage of the project in current prices. 3. Preliminary risk analysis for the IGNITOR project It is necessary to keep in mind that IGNITOR is a unique scientific and technological project, and as such it is associated to relatively high risks. This means that the degree of uncertainty in the estimation of the probability factors of different types of risks are high and mitigation of these types of risks could not initialy be provided by well known typical solutions. It is vital to understand that the risk analysis of the project starts with the basic steps of the identification and estimation of potential risks which may arise during the implementation stage of the project and the preparation of dates for the development of a probabilistic decision tree. For this purpose, it is necessary to perform the following steps: • fulfill all the conditions of the sequence of operations to prepare the probabilistic decision tree from the steps 1–4, mentioned above; • carry out the analysis of technical risks throughout the realization process of the IGNITOR project associated with design, manufacture, test, logistic and assemble of the facility and installation on site; • conduct the detailed analysis of technical problems associated with the implementation of each stage of the project; • perform the detailed analysis of financial risks throughout the lifecycle of design and construction of the IGNITOR tokamak. The results of these studies will allow formulating the basic provisions of the risks mitigation policy to prepare and implement measures to reduce the influence of the most complex risks, to identify the most vulnerable moments of the project realization and to prepare appropriate mitigation measures. During the pre-processing of the available data on the IGNITOR project, the following categories of risks that may occur during the project realization phase were identified:
Please cite this article in press as: M. Subbotin, et al., Preliminary risks analysis of the IGNITOR Project realization phase, Fusion Eng. Des. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.02.099
G Model FUSION-9169; No. of Pages 5
ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Subbotin et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
• • • • •
3
political; economical; achievement of the main goal of the project; technical and technological risks; risks of implementation of the scientific research program.
In this case it is necessary to keep in mind that all of these risk categories may occur at any stage of the IGNITOR project lifecycle. The process of the project implementation will certainly present specific risks related to the tasks typical for a particular stage of the project.
Fig. 1. Reactor ITER.
3.1. Political risks It is obvious that the political risks of the project will be mostly specific to the stage of preparation and signing of the RussianItalian Intergovernmental agreement on the IGNITOR project. The most significant risks are associated with the current economical and political situation and can lead to three possible scenarios of project realization: i) risks will not affect the project realization; ii) risks will have little impact on the overall situation; iii) risks will become prevailing and cause the project closure. Mitigation of the risk impact from this category is associated primarily with the political will of leaders of both countries to implement the IGNITOR project by preparing, signing and coming into force of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the realization of the IGNITOR project.
Fig. 2. JET facility.
3.2. Economical risks It is obvious that the economical risks will be present at all stages of the project lifecycle. The main objective of the risk management and mitigation policy with respect to the economical risks – a precise estimate of the financial costs for each phase of the project, tracking and compensation of expected inflation, control of the situation on the development and realization within approved time plan, the absence of delays in manufacturing and delivery of equipment and correct usage of financial resources. The main evaluation of the economical risks and their consequences are shown in Table 1. Mitigation of economical risks is generally associated with the development of anti-crisis funding program for the IGNITOR project, which would include a negative impact of economical factors on the realization of the project to be supported by the leaders of both countries. 3.3. Achievement of the project main goal A reasonable probability of achieving the main goal of the IGNITOR project is fundamental for the project realization. The assessment of risks is a key factor for the successful evaluation of the feasibility of the project. Among the main risks that may impede the achievement of the main goal of the IGNITOR project, the highrisk and unique scientific basis of the project should be noted. One of the main tools of risk analysis in this category is a parametric and scaling analysis of comparable projects. From this perspective it is expedient to perform a parametric and scaling analysis of four devices in the field of thermonuclear controlled fusion, based on the tokamak concept: the ITER project (Fig. 1), which is currently under construction in France, the JET tokamak in operation in the UK since 1983 (Fig. 2), the IGNITOR project (Fig. 3), and the Alcator C-Mod machine in the US (Fig. 4). Comparison of key parameters and the parametric factors that reflect the main differences in size and characteristics between two projects (ITER and IGNITOR) and two existing tokamak machines
Fig. 3. Ignitor project.
Fig. 4. Alcator C-Mod.
(JET and Alcator C-Mod) and of IGNITOR relative to the Alcator CMod and JET tokamaks shows that the risks of missing the main scientific goal of the IGNITOR project are not associated with the size and shape of the plasma column, nor with the high particle and plasma current density (as indicated by the parameter BT /R). On the other hand, the considerably higher value of the total plasma current, and especially that of the average magnetic poloidal field BP ( IP /5ak1/2 ), are unique features of IGNITOR to ensure better confinement and a more effective barrier against plasma instabilities. In practice, the actual risks in terms of plasma physics for IGNITOR can be effectively represented by two parameters: Zeff > 1.6 and/or energy confinement lower than L-mode scaling. The preliminary results of risks analysis are shown in Table 2. 3.4. Technical and technological risks Among all considered risk categories, technical and technological risks are the largest and most significant in terms of the IGNITOR project. Risks of this category have a direct impact on deadlines and cost of the project, on the reliability of equipment and ultimately on carrying out the scientific research program of
Please cite this article in press as: M. Subbotin, et al., Preliminary risks analysis of the IGNITOR Project realization phase, Fusion Eng. Des. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.02.099
G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
FUSION-9169; No. of Pages 5
M. Subbotin et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
4
. Economical risks. Risks event
Circumstances
Risk mitigation methods
Excessively high cost
Withdrawal from the project by one of the Parties due to the cost increase compared to the initial estimates Withdrawal from the project by one of the Parties due to an unexpectedly high cost increase Decrease of the resources provided to the project by its Parties
Joint technical and technological solutions development to lower the cost of the project Joint resolutions development to lower the influence of inflationary factor to the cost of the project Joint resolutions development to lower the influence of the global crisis to the project realization
High expected inflation Global economic crisis
Fig. 4. Risk to achieve of the Project main goal. Risks event
Circumstances
The difficulty to reach ignition of the fusion reaction due to the unique nature of the scientific project
Absence of positive results due to the implicit physics or technical restrictions identified during of experimental research stage
The difficulty to reach the ignition conditions of the fusion reaction due to insufficient physics and technical understanding of the IGNITOR tokamak project
Risk mitigation methods
Development of up-to-date physics and technical solutions for achieving ignition conditions of fusion reaction using ohmic heating and strong magnetic fields. The difficulty to achieve ignition conditions of fusion Development of up-to-date demonstrators and to a lack of prototypes with similar physics or technical prototypes as well as computer models and solutions parameters, imposing limitations on the use of for achieving ignition conditions of fusion reaction computer codes identified during of experimental using ohmic heating and strong magnetic fields. stages research.
the IGNITOR tokamak [5,6]. These risks are associated with many engineering, physics and power infrastructure of the project. The main consequence of those risks is the postponing the schedules of manufacturing, installation, commissioning and also the increase in the cost of the project. Thus, it is clear that in order to mitigate this category of risks during the development of the Technical Design Project of IGNITOR, a detailed risk management program has to be developed in order to mitigate significantly the impact of negative factors on the cost and timing of the project. It is necessary to keep in mind that the correction of the errors and/or manufacturing defects will lead to a backlog of manufacturing, installation and commissioning. Approved expert estimates show that the backlog of the project for one year leads to the increase in general cost by 10 − 15%. At present, it is possible to describe the most general problems that could be associated with the process of the project realization and which could have a negative impact on it. The RAMI analysis of the IGNITOR machine are planning to provide during development of the Technical Design stage of the IGNITOR project. 1. The present state of the power infrastructure on the State Research Center of Russian Federation − Troitsk Institute for Innovation and Fusion Research “SRC RF TRINITI” site. 2. Uncoordinated and unapproved by both Parties the technical and technological requirements for the infrastructure capabilities on the site. 3. Uncoordinated by both Parties design and engineering solutions on the separate elements and systems of the IGNITOR tokamak, and in its placement on the “SRC RF TRINITI” site. 3.5. Risks of implementation of the scientific research program The main risk factors associated with the implementation of the scientific program can be occurrences and activities that are currently difficult to predict, but may be identified during the development of a scientific research program. Currently the following risks for the implementation of the research program seem the most probable ones: • the scientific uniqueness of the IGNITOR project is associated with the achievement of the ignition of the controlled thermonuclear fusion reaction by means of ohmic heating and strong magnetic fields;
• at present the feasibility of the IGNITOR tokamak is based on full scale prototypes of its main components, but there is no experimental evidence that the adopted structural and technical solutions can verify the successful operation of IGNITOR and its auxiliary systems at the highest parameters; • unexpected developments that may arise during the operation of the installation in ignition mode with sustained fusion reaction (the influence of the neutron flux, diagnostic systems, etc.). 4. Environment, safety and socio-economical risks The analysis of risk factors related to the impact of the IGNITOR project on the environment, population and personnel safety, as well as socio-economical environment of the adjacent territory, including the radiation hazard, is the high-priority research field. To a greater extent the final decision on the construction of the IGNITOR tokamak and the implementation of its scientific program will depend on the results of this research. Nevertheless, it is necessary to indicate the several risk factors which may cause some problems for the project realization: • legal framework of the Russian Federation in the sphere of exploitation of radiation-hazardous facilities, which regulates the operation of radiation-hazardous objects; • placement of radiation-hazardous experimental complex of the IGNITOR tokamak on the territory of Moscow city; • production of radioactive waste during operation, decommissioning and disposal of radioactive components of the IGNITOR tokamak. Risks associated with the radiological hazard due to the regular operation and in emergencies for the population and the environment have been analyzed [7], as well as the issues of decommissioning and disposal of radioactive tokamak components. 5. Conclusion During executing of the preliminary risks analysis the risk categories, description of the problems, circumstances, risk mitigation methods and comments were formulated and described. The main problems of the IGNITOR project realization phase in terms of risks analysis categories were formulated and the ways of their mitigations were determined.
Please cite this article in press as: M. Subbotin, et al., Preliminary risks analysis of the IGNITOR Project realization phase, Fusion Eng. Des. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.02.099
G Model FUSION-9169; No. of Pages 5
ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Subbotin et al. / Fusion Engineering and Design xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
References [1] B. Coppi, et al., Physics basis for ignition experiment, Phys. Scr. 45 (2) (1992) 112. [2] B. Coppi, et al., Physical regimes accessible to the ignitor experiment and relevant theoretical developments, in: 19th IAEA International Conference on Fusion Energy, Paper FT/P 2–10, Lion, France, 2002. [3] F. Bombarda, B. Coppi, et al., Ignitor: physics and progress towards ignition, Braz. J. Phys. 34 (4B) (2004) 1786.
5
[4] B. Coppi, et al., The high density path to fusion, Sofia, Bulgaria, June 29–July 03, in: 36 EPS Conference on Plasma Phys., Vol. 33E, 2009 (P-4.194). [5] B. Coppi, et al., New developments, plasma physics regimes and issues for the Ignitor experiment, Nucl. Fusion 53 (2013) 104013. [6] M.L. Subbotin, E.A. Azizov, K.G. Ramazanov, System analysis of the requirements to the IGNITOR tokamak site location, in: Symposium of Fusion Technology, San Sebastian, Spain, September 29–October 03, 2014 (P 3-018). [7] M. Zucchetti, et al., Ignitor siting at the TRINITI site in Russian Federation, Conference (2017) (paper P4.016).
Please cite this article in press as: M. Subbotin, et al., Preliminary risks analysis of the IGNITOR Project realization phase, Fusion Eng. Des. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.02.099