1 / 39

K.Lackner*) Max-Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik, D-85748 Garching

Technology and Plasma Physics Developments Needed for DEMO. K.Lackner*) Max-Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik, D-85748 Garching *) based largely on work of EFDA and the EU DEMO-Working Group.

cherie
Download Presentation

K.Lackner*) Max-Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik, D-85748 Garching

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Technology and Plasma Physics Developments Needed for DEMO K.Lackner*) Max-Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik, D-85748 Garching *) based largely on work of EFDA and the EU DEMO-Working Group EFDA (D. Campbell, D. Maisonnier, P. Sardain) + M.Q. Tran; G. Janeschitz, K. Lackner, G. Marbach, M. Ravnik, B. Saotic, D. Stork, D. Ward; A.Kallenbach, A. Sips DEMO: implicitely defined by FAST TRACK discussion: single intermediate step between ITER and a (potentially) first of a kind fusion power plant

  2. ROOTS: FAST TRACK discussion Power Plant Conceptual Studies

  3. a Fast Track version 2002

  4. DEMO Working Group following completion of PPCS • identical or scalable with high confidence to a first generation power plant (physics technology AB↔C) • physics and technology demands – except availability – similar to PP • for DEMO (vs. PP): construction costs rather than COE decisive → Pel ≤ 1.0 GW

  5. can a DEMO be based on a (largely) demonstrated physics scenario?

  6. ITER- baseline ITER-steady 1st generation reactor designs “advanced” reactor designs bn 1.8 3.1 3.5 - 4 > 4 <b> [%] 2.5 2.9 2.2 - 3 3 - 5 5 strong 4 Reversed shear q 3 weak 2 ~ zero shear Standard H-mode 1 0 0 0.5 1 r/a DEMO base-line assumptions 2 basic physics operation modes considered ITER standard operating scenario „internal transport barrier“: ITB -modes „improved H-mode“ a.k.a. „hybrid mode“

  7. why “hybride” mode considered • much broader physics base • originally considered for pulsed scenarios

  8. considered in the expectation: • could be designed largely on demonstrated physics base • inductive current drive energetically favourable a pulsed DEMO/PP option? • known objections • pulsed loads • need for continuous power output (energy storage requirements) • power supplies for rapid restart • preliminary conclusions (D.Ward et al., based on PROCESS-Code): • same physics basis as pulsed device, allows also (more favourable) DC device

  9. why “hybrid mode” considered achieved parameter sets start overlapping with DEMO, PPCS assumptions a 1 GWel DEMO (Process-Code ) • even an established physics scenario needs • extrapolations (to be verified) • development into an integrated scenario

  10. PROs and CONs of more “advanced” scenarios

  11. what are the “PROs” of ITB scenarios? cause: suppression of turbulence in a layer in core (analogy to H-mode) precondition: weak or reversed shear efficient use of bootstrap current (high fraction & distribution) good confinement (H-factor)

  12. AUG DIII-D JT-60U JET 4 unstable 3 bN ? 2 Conventional H-mode 1 2 4 6 Pressure peaking: p0/<p> intrinsic problem of ITB scenarios • pressure and current profiles (li..internal inductance) unfavourable for stability • → only weak barriers, at large radius stable

  13. extrapolations: to be verified (or based) on ITER

  14. ITER JET AUG at constant n*, for ITER98(y,2) confinement device operating regimes in dimensionless “engineering” variables confirm assumptions for H and “hybrid” H-modes establish a scaling for ITB - modes close to Greenwald dimensionless physics parameters only known after experiment ρ* β ν* • extrapolation to ITER/DEMO • small in β • large in ρ*, and particularly! in ν*

  15. figure of merit of efficiency current drive: efficiency and controllability • “hybrid”: • efficiency very important (small fbootstrap) . γ≈ = 0.5-0.6 needed • modest control requirements, central current drive o.k. • “ITB scenarios”: • high control requirements • off-axis c.d. probably needed • controllability : differing • cross-diffusion of fast particles • excitation of AE modes ITER-estimates discrepancy between predicted and observed distribution of NBI driven current on ASDEX Upgrade *) extrapolated to ITER-temperatures – to be demonstrated!

  16. (largely) new territory entered with ITER

  17. α-particle behaviour (fusion heating) fast particles (due to NBI or ICRH) cause range of resonant interactions, potentially leading to their loss fusion-αs different through isotropy figures of merit: further increase in reactor

  18. α-particle behaviour (fusion heating) again more serious issue for ITB-scenarioes thermal ion orbits in an extreme ITB (“current hole”) discharge on JT60U

  19. needs of significant quantitative progress (new concepts)

  20. ARIES -AT PPCD - D PPCD - A ITER-FEAT, reference achievable β-values: limits depend on discharge duration type of intervention: magnetic feedback + resistiv wall needed for DEMO feedback by localized current drive (ECCD) needed for ITER external current drive wall stabilization most demanding (least demonstrated): control of resistive wall modes NTMs nonstationarity of current (i.e. q) - distribution

  21. achievable β-values: resistive wall mode control important for ITB-scenarioes for high li (hybrid H-mode) modest need and gain for low li (“ITB-scenarios”) strong need and significant gain

  22. DIII-D achievable β-values: resistive wall mode control method: similar to vertical position control, but on a helical perturbation:

  23. integrated physics/engineering issues

  24. physics/technology interface: plasma wall interaction tritium retention and material erosion → full high-Z (tungsten) pfc solution: not in ITER starting configuration → to be added – at latest – in phase 2 of operation • divertor load issue more severe on DEMO/PP than ITER • higher power & power density • divertor cooling (He; high duty cycle) not more efficient

  25. reduction of divertor load by radiation: • higher fraction of radiative losses than ITER • limits to edge radiation? → higher-Z radiators • less dilution & Zeff • more core losses • effect on H-mode pedestal • benefit from profile stiffness • ITER´s power handling limit, and scaling of problem with size • → no direct test of solution possible • DEMO solution will have to be an extrapolation based on quantitative understanding of carefully chosen experiments on ITER & elsewhere

  26. pulsed loads and anomalous events • cyclic pulsed loads (ELMs) • .. DEMO constraints even more severe than ITER (because of duty cycle and availability requirements) • anomalous events: specification 0.1 – 1*) disruption /year • multifaceted nature of disruptions • dedicated campaign phase on ITER to demonstrate achievability (during stage 2 with tungsten)..discharge number rather than time counts • *) depending on mitigation success disruption rate • successive elimination of causes of disruptions: • analogy to radioactive decay characteristics of realistic materials • → when disruption control is improved, previously hidden causes (isotopes) dominate improved control measures

  27. Development of Integrated & Controlled Scenario

  28. plasma control: a multifacted issue requiring a highly integrated approach example: control of divertor load and tungsten concentration dangers: mitigation (actuators): high heat load to divertors impurity and gas puffing increases radiation losses high radiation losses supress ELMs, absence of ELMs reduces W-impurity screening artificial triggering of ELMs (pacemaking) by pellets screens impurities show on ITER: how does α-particle heating work? peaked density profiles on ITER/DEMO? scaling of needed central heating power? flat heating profile or peaked density causes W-accumulation at center central electron heating by ECRH,ICRH causes impurity pump-out

  29. proof of the working of individual actuators effect of a missing pellet on edge impuríty density effect of switching on ECRH on central tungsten concentration

  30. example: control of divertor load and tungsten concentration

  31. top-level requirements on technology

  32. DEMO technology: credible 1st generation PP • from day1 of DT operation: self-sufficiency of tritium • satisfy same high levels of safety and environmental compatibility as demanded in EU PPCS (requiring, among others, use of low activiation materials) • aim at a high availability: • to produce the neutron fluences needed for testing • (during later stage) to extrapolate to an attractive reactor • technology requirements similar to 1st generation PP (also not beyond) • exception: operational experience • in this regard: DEMO an experiment

  33. technology develoment needs

  34. DEMO technology: progress beyond ITER • use of low activation structural and functional materials (operating temperature window critical) – IFMIF tested including joining (to 80 dpa for first wall/blanket components • RAFM (EUROFER, possibly modified by ODS) • divertor materials t.b.d. (tungsten based) • ITER-like magnet technology – or HTSC? • tritium breeding and handling • as base-line for first stage a blanket validated in modules on ITER phase 1 in thermo-mechanics, thermohydraulics • helium cooled (DC, if SiC-SiC timely available) • full fuel self-sufficiency • tritium accountability O(100) more demanding than in ITER *)classification as established predates Ciacynski-presentation

  35. DEMO technology: progress beyond ITER • divertor and first wall • material tested on ITER • divertor cooling concept compatible with blanket (development of He-cooling) • heating and current drive systems • reduce to 2 out of the 4 systems included or options for ITER • raise plug efficiency • possibly push to higher performance (NBI →2MeV ?) • demonstrate the long-pulse, long-term reliability (testing) plug efficiencies expected*) *) conclusions of EFPW 2005

  36. Availability: where DEMO is in a different category from ITER • remote maintenance and repair • segmentation driver of effort • compromise between modularity (use testing on ITER) & limited number of elements • design target for availability: • testing of internal components to 50dpa before start of design of FPP -> availability ≥ 33 % • second stage: make credible that if operated in a routine fashion an availability >75% could be achieved T. Ihli et al., this conference

  37. Conclusions: how do requirements map to “broader approach”

  38. temperature density DEMO requirements consistent with „broader-approach“? ITER + TBM Tokamaks IFMIF Modelling

  39. 50 Years of Fusion Power Plant Studies ITER (scaled)

More Related