NATURE | COMMENT

Nuclear physics: Pull together for fusion
Bernard Bigot
09 June 2015
ITER director-general Bernard Bigot explains how he will strengthen leadership and management to refocus
the project's aim of harnessing nuclear fusion.
Subject terms:

Applied physics

Engineering

EnergyPhysics

Print

Illustration by David Parkins

Ten years ago this month, China, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States agreed on
the location for the world's largest nuclear-fusion experiment: ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor, which they had decided to build jointly. India joined six months later. The project's aim is to fuse two isotopesof hydrogen — tritium and deuterium — to deliver a powerful, clean source of electricity. This requires the containmentof plasma at temperatures ten times higher than the Sun's core.
Roughly €4-billion (US$4.4-billion) worth of construction contracts and €3 billion in
manufacturing contracts worldwide are under way. The first large components arebeing delivered to the site at St-Paul-lez-Durance in southern France for assembly.
The project has been plagued by delays and difficulties. The seven ITER members

Related stories
ITER's new chief will
shake up troubled fusion
reactorare designing and manufacturing key components. When deadlines or standards are

Economics: Manufacture

not met, the knock-on effects across the whole project can be dire. Late contracts forrenewables to build

tools have kept one of the largest buildings — in which ring-shaped magnets up toenergy security

24 metres in diameter will be manufactured — inactive since its completion in

Policy: Bring sustainableDecember 2011. When problems arise, bickering ensues as to who should foot theenergy to the developingbill.

worldI have been a privileged observer from the start, as the high representative for ITER

More related stories

in the host country, France. Because France itself is not a formal member of ITER —it contributes to the European Union budget for the project and to some basic site infrastructures — I, like manyothers, could only witness with frustration the slipping of the schedule despite the best efforts of the more than 2,000
dedicated people working on ITER.
Since becoming director-general of the ITER Organization, which manages the project, in March, I have realized that
ITER's main problem has been the lack of a clearly defined authority to oversee the entire project. Having someone
firmly in the driving seat, with the power to take decisions, is the key to success in any project. I have learned this overthe course of my career — through building an innovative higher-education institute from scratch (École Normale
Supérieure de Lyon) and as head of the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission for 12 years.
Here, I set out my vision for ITER. The project must overcome its organizational problems so that it can deliver on its
promise of taking a firm step towards harnessing an unlimited, continuous, safe and clean source of energy. Theselessons apply to any major international collaboration.
A rocky transition
Since construction began on ITER five years ago, it has become increasingly apparent that the project's management
structure is poorly adapted to the challenge of building a large, complex research facility.
Take the 8,000-tonne ITER vacuum vessel, the doughnut-shaped central component of the 'tokamak' reactor thathouses the fusion reactions. Seven of its nine sectors are to be manufactured in Europe and two in South Korea, witheach region or country taking responsibility for how they are sourced. Having two contractors is a risk, because eachhas its own manufacturing techniques; duplicating the processes that validate the quality and function of components,
such as fabricating mock-ups, adds to the cost; and the tolerance margins that each contractor has adopted differ. Yet
the ITER Organization is responsible for assembling the final vessel.
Any modification has a cascading impact on other components. This has generated an almost endless to-and-fro
between the ITER Organization, procuring member countries and suppliers. This situation has already cost ITER tensof millions of euros.
People know there is a problem. A 2013 management-assessment report described the decision-making process at
the ITER Organization as “ill-defined and poorly implemented”. The management structure has proved incapable ofsolving issues and responding to the project's needs, so accumulating technical difficulties have led to stalemates,
misunderstandings and tension between staff around the world. These problems stem from how the organization wasset up through an international treaty in 2007 (see ‘The Promethean dream’).

The Promethean dream
ITER has been political from the start. At a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, in November 1985, then US President
Ronald Reagan and leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev proposed an international effort to develop

fusion energy “as an inexhaustible source of energy for the benefit of mankind”. Easing geopolitical tensions at theheight of the cold war was one of their motives. ITER engaged political leaders in a common venture for the goodof all. It gave scientists and engineers around the world an opportunity to acquire knowledge and expertise to leadfusion from research to the commercial phase.
Fusion energy — produced by the melding of the nuclei of light atoms into heavier ones — powers the Sun andstars. Since discovering this in the 1920s, scientists have hoped to recreate fusion reactions and reap the energy
produced to generate electricity. ITER's completion will answer the question that has obsessed three generationsof physicists and engineers: is it technologically possible to realize the Promethean dream of bringing the fire of theSun down to Earth?
Because of the turbulence that arises in a confined, magnetized plasma, a fusion machine aiming for a significant
energy gain must be large. The ring-shaped ITER reactor will be about 29 metres high and 29 metres in diameter,
housed in a building that will be comparable in size to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. It requires huge human andfinancial investment. No nation has the resources to go it alone.
Twenty years on, ITER has seven partners — China, the European Union, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia andthe United States — and is managed by the ITER Organization, which was established on 24 October 2007 by anintergovernmental treaty. The design is settled: ITER will be a 'tokamak' (from the Russian acronym for 'toroidal
chamber with magnetic coils'). Construction is under way in France.

First, deputy director-generals from each member country or region were given responsibility for one large technical oradministrative department of the ITER Organization. These managers also acted as official representatives for theirnation or nations.
Second, the procurement of components, systems and buildings is split among the member states so that each could
gain experience. The work is assigned according to the industrial capacities of members and a cost-sharing schemethat allocates 45.5% to the European Union (as the host) and just over 9% to each of the others. Each member has aprocurement centre, called a domestic agency, that is legally and administratively independent from the central ITER
Organization.
The organization is responsible for validating the design of the facility; compliance with safety regulations;coordination of manufacturing and quality control of the numerous components; their on-site assembly; and later, theoperation of the facility.
Paperwork abounds. For each work package, the organization signs a procurement arrangement with the relevant
domestic agency that details all technical specifications and management requirements. The domestic agency thenlaunches a call for tender to select a company or consortium to do the work.
Such a system has benefits: procurements are shared widely, industries in member states develop, spin-offs aregenerated, jobs are created and specialists trained. Intellectual property generated by the project is shared. But it has
become ever more obvious — as successive reports have pointed out — that the costs outweigh the benefits.

ITER Organization

Construction at St-Paul-lez-Durance, France, site of the ITER nuclear-fusion experiment.

Team building
I accepted the job of director-general on the condition that the position was newly invested with full authority over thewhole project. Authority and a radical redefinition of how the organization interacts with the domestic agencies are at
the core of the action plan that I submitted to the ITER Council in January, before my formal appointment.
The domestic agencies will retain their distinct legal identity. But they will be integrated functionally and put on an
equal footing with the departments in what we now call the ITER Organization Central Team, based in St-Paullez-Durance.
A new executive project board brings together the managers of the central team and the domestic agencies at least
once a month, in person or by video conference. Disputes can be settled and decisions taken swiftly.
Technical issues — from construction to radioprotection and cryogenics — are handled by project teams of 20 to 50people, depending on the scope. They comprise staff from the central team and domestic agencies on the basis oftechnical need, professional skills and experience. When necessary, representatives of contracting industries
participate.
It is too late and costly to reverse decisions that have already been made — such as how the tokamak vacuum vessel
is fabricated. Problems must be solved downstream; in April, the executive project board formed a joint ITER
Organization and domestic agency project team to anticipate and overcome integration and assembly issues. Had thisdecision been taken earlier it would have saved time, money and frustration.
The ITER Organization and domestic agencies together employ 2,000 people. Changing how ITER is managed will

alter its culture. I aim to foster an atmosphere in which each party or individual feels personally responsible for thewhole project, not just their area of competence. One of my first actions after becoming director was to address thestaff of each domestic agency. The most striking moment was in a video session with all four Asian agencies. For thefirst time, colleagues in Japan, India, South Korea and China saw the faces of their counterparts, changing thedynamic towards a shared global ambition.
I am also implementing a new type of mobility throughout the project. This will enable appropriate domestic-agency
staff to be temporarily seconded to the ITER site, or central-team staff to be assigned to domestic agencies.
The ITER Council has agreed to this new organization. I am grateful for their strong support and the progress alreadymade in solving technical issues and improving communication.
Discretionary fund
There is still much more to do. Authority requires the financial means to exercise it. I have asked for the creation of areserve fund, to be put at my disposal. Each domestic agency will contribute, allowing me to take quick and efficientdecisions to address issues as they arise. Terms of reference will be presented to the council in June for approval.
The money will be drawn from the contributions of the ITER members in proportion to the amount they pay in.
In my experience of industrial projects, a reserve fund must comprise about 20% of fabrication costs over the durationof construction. In my view, it was naive not to establish such a fund much earlier in ITER's history.
Before the end of this year, I am expected to submit, along with all stakeholders, an updated, robust and reliable
schedule to the ITER Council, and a cost and risk analysis. With renewed management and a streamlinedorganization, we are now ready to prepare for the assembly and commissioning phase, the step before fusion
switches on.
Further delays and costs are inevitable. ITER will meet these challenges if it has the unanimous political support of theseven members, on the basis of the long-term value of fusion technology.
All of us at ITER have a huge, historic responsibility. The project may be the last chance we have this century todemonstrate that fusion is manageable.
Nature 522, 149–151 (11 June 2015)

doi:10.1038/522149a

Related stories and links
From nature.com
ITER's new chief will shake up troubled fusion reactor
21 November 2014
Economics: Manufacture renewables to build energy security
10 September 2014
Policy: Bring sustainable energy to the developing world
16 April 2014
Renewable energy: Back the renewables boom
19 March 2014

Energy: Islands of light
11 March 2014
Laser fusion experiment extracts net energy from fuel
12 February 2014
From elsewhere
ITER
Fusion for Energy
World Nuclear Association: Nuclear Fusion Power
Scientific American: Lockheed Claims Breakthrough on Fusion Energy

Author information
Affiliations
Bernard Bigot is director-general of the ITER Organization, St-Paul-lez-Durance, France.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to: Bernard Bigot

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You
will be re-directed back to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability torecommend comments to other users.

1 comment

Subscribe to comments

Alan Reyes • 2015-06-09 04:05 PM

ITER is an example of how big projects are about construction contracts , not science. By the time this is built,
it will be totally antiquated. Fusion will be not be created in a practical way from this money pit.

See other News & Comment articles from Nature
NatureISSN 0028-0836

EISSN 1476-4687© 2015 Nature Publishing Group, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.
partner of AGORA, HINARI, OARE, INASP, CrossRef and COUNTER