1 / 55

STAC AHG Report on Objective 4: Fusion Power Plants

CCF-FU Workshop EU Fusion Roadmap April 13-15, 2011, Garching. STAC AHG Report on Objective 4: Fusion Power Plants Nadine Baluc, Carlos Hidalgo, Anton Möslang, Jürgen Rapp. Objective 4: Lay the foundation for Fusion Power Plants.

dragon
Download Presentation

STAC AHG Report on Objective 4: Fusion Power Plants

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. CCF-FU Workshop EU Fusion RoadmapApril 13-15, 2011, Garching STAC AHG Report onObjective 4: Fusion Power Plants Nadine Baluc, Carlos Hidalgo, Anton Möslang, Jürgen Rapp

  2. Objective 4: Lay the foundation for Fusion Power Plants • by driving forward the significant physics and technology developments • that are required for the timely design and construction of the demonstration • fusion power plants that will follow ITER. Position Europe to gain a significant • share of the important intellectual property of fusion power. • Deliverables:In the next decade the programme must deliver: • 4a A conceptual DEMO design taking into account Tokamak and Stellarator options, including viable solutions for physics questions • 4bProven concepts for power plant technologies, along with the appropriate test facilities for the qualification of these technologies and the materials needed for DEMO. • 4c Understanding of stellarator stability, energy and fast particle confinement in view of reactor‐relevant plasmas

  3. Deliveries of the STAC AHG on “Objectives 4” • Summary of the associations input in term of staff and cost • Classification of the associations input in categories according to •  the three time windows 2012-2013, 2014-2018, 2019-2020, and • thedeliverables 4a, 4b and 4c, based on - The seven R&D needs given in the “Report of the Fusion Facilities Review Panel”, Oct. 2008, and - The “Report of the Ad Hoc Group on DEMO Activities”, March 2010 • Where appropriate, allocation of the associations input to “Required Facilities”, according to the “Report of the FR Review Panel” • Comparison of the associations input with the main programmatic lines

  4. Comments to the Associations Input for “Objective 4” • The associations have often used general expressions in describing their future activities; several data depends on external conditions • Many missing data; other with question marks • Associations often have allocated their staff and costpreviews to a cluster of similar activities. This made an allocation to dedicated activities sometimes difficult. The associations categorized often differently from each other. Therefore it was not always possible •  to distinguish clearly between “4a” and “4b”to derive reliable numbers for the specific “slots” given by the Facility Report Panel, or the DEMO working group • That is, the numbers in the excel sheets have some uncertainties • Consequently, also the numbers given in the following might have uncertainties of hidden mistakes, and they are also not always yet cross-checked.

  5. Objective 4: Overview on Staff – 6049 ppy in total 663 824 1436 1131

  6. Comparison of staff for O1 – O4 • Most of the associations have a broad distribution between the objectives • But a specific sharing

  7. Annual average of staff for O1 – O4 • Objective 1 (construct ITER) clearly decreasing • Objective 4 (foundations for FPPs) clearly increasing

  8. DEMO definition * • Whatever the success of ITER is, an intermediate stage called DEMO is needed • This need becomes clear, if some parameters of ITER are compared with a FPP: • DEMO’s mission has been quoted as*,**: • - completion of nuclear lifetime testing of in-vessel components • - demonstration of tritium self-sufficiency with full breeding blankets and full T fuel-cycle plant • - demonstration of low turn around remote maintenance • - demonstration of fusion’s environmental and safety credits • - demonstration of high level reliability and availability - deliver to the grid significant net electricity power (“hundreds of MWs”, MQ Tran) ) * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010 ** e.g. D. Stork, SOFT 2010, DEMO invited talk

  9. Technical challenges having large gaps between ITER and DEMO* * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010; Facilities Review Panel, October 2008

  10. Technical challenges having large gaps between ITER and DEMO* * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010; Facilities Review Panel, October 2008

  11. Objective 4a: Conceptual DEMO design and Physics questions Total resources as submitted by the associations Indicated operational costs & investments DEMO Power: 1.30 MWe Plant Efficiency: 37-45% Indicated staff Note: Not all associations have filled in numbers, some have indicated their interest only by marking with “X”

  12. 4a: Conceptual DEMO design and Physics questions Physics: Steady state and pulsed Tokamak operation • What needs to be done include: Priority* • - Develop (by modeling) a range of credible pulsed DEM scenarios 1 • Assess in experimental Tokamak program Steady state operational scenarios 1 • Assess compatibility between pulsed and steady state designs 1 Submitted by the Associations First comments: - 80.5 ppy corresponds to 5.8% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  13. 4a: Conceptual DEMO design and Physics questions Physics: High density operation • What needs to be done include: Priority*- Understand Greenwald density limit nG1 • Demonstrate Tokamak operation at high density, possible above nG1 Submitted by the Associations First comments: - 80.5 ppy corresponds only to 1.6% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a- somewhat alarming; either issue is not taken seriously or simply forgotten Without high density operation beyond nG, we do not achieve high Q for DEMO * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  14. 4a: Conceptual DEMO design and Physics questions Physics: Exhaust – Credible scenarios for DEMO What needs to be done include: Priority* - Develop a range of credible exhaust scenarios for DEMO 1 Submitted by the Associations First comments: - 152.5 ppy corresponds to 11.1% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a, which is the 2nd highest interest * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  15. 4a: Conceptual DEMO design and Physics questions Physics: Exhaust – Novel divertor concepts, e.g. SUPER-X • What needs to be done include: Priority* - Assess physics of novel Divertor concepts such as Super-X divertors 2 • Assess compatibility of novel divertor concepts with DEMO conditions 2 Submitted by the Associations First comments: - 84.5 ppy corresponds to 6.1% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  16. 4a: Conceptual DEMO design and Physics questions Physics: Integrated control Priority* 1 • What needs to be done include: Priority* - Assess principal restrictions (e.g. accessibility) on DEMO H&CD 1 • Assess principal restrictions to diagnostics in DEMO 1 • Assess “controllability” of plasma scenarios 1 Submitted by the Associations First comments: - 59 ppy corresponds to 4.3% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  17. 4a: Conceptual DEMO design and Physics questions DEMO design: Heating & Current drive • What needs to be done include: Priority* - Reassess the capabilities of the different H&CD systems for DEMO 1 • R&D program to improve “wall-plug efficiency” for candidate H&CD systems 1 • Development of high reliability high availability H&CD systems 1-2 • …. Submitted by the Associations First comments: - 84.5 ppy corresponds to 8.5% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  18. 4a: Conceptual DEMO design and Physics questions DEMO design: In-vessel components (blanket, divertor, manifolds system...) • What needs to be done include: Priority* - System integration study, gap analysis compared to ITER TBM program 1 • Alternative divertor techniques, engineering performance for Divertor design 1 • Assessment of in-vessel components, integration study & design code analysis 1 • In-core component integration, manifold systems and shields 2 Submitted by the Associations • First comments: • 122.5 ppy corresponds to 8.9% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a • The cost statement is likely not credible for 2014-2018 * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  19. 4a: Conceptual DEMO design and Physics questions DEMO design: Tritium handling & fuel cycle • What needs to be done include: Priority* - Develop an integral approach of the fuel cycle 1 • Self-sufficient T breeding: System development for very large flow rates 2 • Detriation systems for very large throughput and in-vessel components 2 • Develop T- accountancy system and T compatible vacuum pumps 2 Submitted by the Associations • First Comments: • 52.5 ppy corresponds to 3.8% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a • Interaction with 4b: another 106 ppy are allocated there to “DEMO technology fuel cycle”. But even then, an annual average of ~17 ppy for “Fuel cycle” seems critical * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  20. 4a: Conceptual DEMO design and Physics questions DEMO design: Plasma diagnostics & control Priority* 1-2 • What needs to be done include: Priority* - Screening & assessment of long lead diagnostics 1 • Novel approaches to feedback control with sparse data systems 1 • Develop robust versions of key minimum diagnostic set 2 • Develop novel diagnostic systems and their integration 2 Submitted by the Associations • First Comments: • 82.5 ppy corresponds to 6.0% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  21. 4a: Conceptual DEMO design and Physics questions DEMO design: Remote handling • What needs to be done include: Priority* - Pre-conceptual design studies and consequences on overall system 1 • Conceptual definition of DEMO maintenance system 1 • Development of radiation hard sensing systems 2 • Development of RH systems having high availability 2 Submitted by the Associations • First Comments: • 36.5 ppy corresponds to 2.6% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a • Interaction with 4b: another 69 ppy are allocated there to “DEMO technology fuel cycle”. But even then, an annual average of ~12 ppy seems too low, as electricity cost is also determined by availability * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  22. 4a: Conceptual DEMO design and Physics questions DEMO design: Superconducting magnets • What needs to be done include: Priority* - Clarify DEMO objectives and potential role of HTS magnets 2 • Evaluate magnetic field strength effects of HTS magnets 1 • Development suitable cabling concepts 2 • Demonstrate sub-size model coils as proof of principle 2 Submitted by the Associations • First Comments: • 14 ppy corresponds to only 1.0 % of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a • Even if the other 229 ppy from DEMO technology for HTS would be added, this manpower is hardly not enough in view of the potential of HTS magnets * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  23. 4a: Conceptual DEMO design and Physics questions DEMO design: Integrated design for DEMO V.9 (FR 7) • What needs to be done include: Mission 7- CTF feasibility study Milestone • Completion of DEMO conceptual design study Milestone • Completion of DEMO engineering design activity and supporting R&D Milestone • Assessment of engineering feasibility of Stellarator Power Plant Milestone Submitted by the Associations • First Comments: • 550 ppy corresponds to 40.0% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a • This is within Objective 4a by far the biggest support and adequate in view of the important task * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  24. Objective 4a: Conceptual DEMO Design and Physics Questions Summary sheet: Total staff submitted for the different categories Staff, ppy

  25. Objective 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO Total resources as submitted by the associations Indicated operational costs & investments DEMO Power: 1.30 MWe Plant Efficiency: 37-45% Indicated staff Note: Not all associations have filled in numbers, some have indicated their interest only by marking with “X”

  26. 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO Technology: Heating and Current Drive V.2* • What needs to be done include: Priority* • - Reassess the capabilities of the different H&CD against DEMO mission 1 • R&D Program to improve wall plug efficiency of candidate systems 1 • Development of high reliabilitiy and availability,… 2 Submitted by the Associations First comments: - 147 ppy corresponds to 4.2% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  27. 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO Technology: In-vessel components: Blankets V.3* • What needs to be done include: Priority* • - System integration of DEMO blanket; Identification of key gaps analysis 1 • Feasibility demonstration of manufacture and joining technologies 1 • Assessment according to system integration, design codes and standards 1 Submitted by the Associations • First comments: • 159 ppy corresponds to 4.5% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b • This is considered not to be enough as blankets must guarantee Tritium self- sufficiency, highly reliable operation and have to fulfill high safety standards * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  28. 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO Technology: In-vessel components: Divertor V.3* • What needs to be done include: Priority* • - Assessment of alternative techniques for divertor 1 • Engineering development of divertor with high lifetime and thermohydraulics performance 1 Submitted by the Associations • First comments: • 207 ppy corresponds to 5,9% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b • In view of the fact that we have presently not yet a Divertor design able to operate reliably at enormous heat loads of ~10-12 MW/m2, the offered resources are certainly not enough. Alternative concepts are urgently needed * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  29. 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO Technology: In-vessel components: Others V.3* • What needs to be done include: Priority* • Feasibility demonstration of manufacture and joint technologies 1 • In-core component integration: Optimisation of supporting structure, manifold systems and shields 2 • Develop high temperature cooling technologies 3 Submitted by the Associations • First comments: • 214.5 ppy corresponds to 6.1% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  30. 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO Technology: Fuel Cycle – Integral Approach, Incl. Tritium & Vacuum V.4* • What needs to be done include: Priority* - Develop an integral approach of the fuel cycle 1 • Self-sufficient T breeding: System development for very large flow rates 2 • Detriation systems for very large throughput and in-vessel components 2 • Develop T- accountancy system and T compatible vacuum pumps 2 Submitted by the Associations • First Comments (see also design of fuel cycle): • 106 ppy corresponds to 3.0% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b • Interaction with 4a: another 52.5 ppy are allocated there to “DEMO technology fuel cycle”. But even then, an annual average of ~17 ppy for “Fuel cycle” seems critical * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  31. 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO Technology: Plasma Diagnostics and Control V.5* • What needs to be done include: Priority* - Screening & assessment of long lead diagnostics 1 • Novel approaches to feedback control with sparse data systems 1 • Develop robust versions of key minimum diagnostic set 2 • Develop novel diagnostic systems and their integration 2 Submitted by the Associations • First Comments (see also design of fuel cycle): • 30 ppy corresponds to 0.9 % of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b • Even together with the 82.5 ppy from “DEMO design, 4a”, the resources seems to be not sufficient * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  32. 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO Technology: Remote Handling Technology V.6* • What needs to be done include: Priority* - Pre-conceptual design studies and consequences on overall system 1 • Conceptual definition of DEMO maintenance system 1 • Development of radiation hard sensing systems 2 • Development of RH systems having high availability 2 Submitted by the Associations • First Comments (see also 4a: Design of remote handling): • 69 ppy corresponds to 2.0% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b • Interaction with 4a: another 36.5 ppy are allocated there to “DEMO technology fuel cycle”. But even then, an annual average of ~12 ppy seems too low, as electricity cost is also determined by availability * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  33. 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO Technology: High Temperature Superconducting Magnets V.7* • What needs to be done include: Priority* - Clarify DEMO objectives and potential role of HTS magnets 2 • Evaluate magnetic field strength effects of HTS magnets 1 • Development suitable cabling concepts 2 • Demonstrate sub-size model coils as proof of principle 2 Submitted by the Associations • First Comments (see also 4a, design of HTS magnets): • 229 ppy corresponds to only 6.5 % of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b • Even if the other 14 ppy from DEMO technology for HTS would be added, this is hardly enough in view of the potential of HTS magnets * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  34. 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO Technology: Materials: structural, plasma facing, functional V.6* FR6 • What needs to be done include: Priority* - Assessment of blanket & divertor operational parameters 1 • EUROFER: “Completion” of database, incl. fission and ion irradiation 1 • Qualification of EUROFER-ODS, & development of specification for RAF-ODS 1 • Development and characterization of W/W alloys and components 1 • Armor material optimization and high heat flux testing 1 Submitted by the Associations • First Comments: • 981 ppy corresponds to 28% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b • In view of the huge divertor challenge, the enormous cost for irradiation campaigns the related PIE characterization, and considering missing large scale production methods (e.g. functional materials) & joining techniques, the resources are critical * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  35. 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO Technology: Materials: Modeling & experimental validation V.7* FR6 What needs to be done include: Priority* - Materials science and modeling to provide scientific understanding and predictability, and to link irradiation damage coming from fusion, fission, spallation and multi-ion-beam sources 1 Submitted by the Associations • First Comments: • 172 ppy corresponds to 4.9 % of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b • This corresponds to ~19 ppy/year in average which is not too much- Note also: The scientific excellence of the underlying EU program is unbeaten internationally * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  36. 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO Technology: IFMIF Broader Approach V.8, VI* What needs to be done include: - Completion with (i) construction and operation of full scale prototypes:Accererator prototype, Li test loop, High flux module, Creep-fatigue module- Advanced Design of various sub-systems 1 Submitted by the Associations • First Comments; • 298.5 ppy corresponds to 8.5 % of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b • IFMIF BA should be part of Objective 1.- The real cost for IFMIF BA is significantly above the numbers given here * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  37. 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO Technology: IFMIF Siting and construction: V.8, VI* • What needs to be done include: • As IFMIF is very close to be on the critical path to DEMO, the decision to built IFMIF, as well as the decision on the site, must be taken by mid of this decade. • Full documentation for site preparation and construction; keep the present team • Start of construction 1 Submitted by the Associations • First Comments; • 672 ppy corresponds to 19 % of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b • The ppys assume that an international consortium is established for construction * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  38. 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO Technology: Power Plant – safety & licensing, availability & efficiency: V.9*,FR7 • What needs to be done include: Priority*- Integrate safety and license requirements, Tritium release safety 2,3 • Clarify DEMO objective: pulsed or steady state 1 • Increase efficiency of systems with high impact (e.g. H&CD; 20-40%60%) 1 • Scopestudies in terms of reliability and availability 2 Submitted by the Associations • First Comments; • 87 ppy corresponds to only 2.5 % of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b • Depending on how ambitious the EU road map to fusion power will become in this decade, the resources indicated here are likely much too small * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  39. Objective 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO Summary sheet: Total staff and cost submitted for the different categories IFMIF consortium assumed ppy k€ • Not all associations have indicated specific cost numbers • Some large scale activities expects that cost come from a dedicated consortium

  40. 4c: Stellarator Physics Stellarator stability, energy and fast particle confinement IV.3* FR 2 • What needs to be done include: - Evaluate the potential advantages of Stellarators regarding a DEMO design • Pursue concept maturity and design convergence, in order to propose DEMO • Solve physics and operational issues for e.g. (i) impurity accumulation, (ii) power and density exhaust, (iii) coil complexity and (iv) blanket Submitted by the Associations • First Comments; • Naturally dominated by W7X engagements, which are at present the second largest activities besides ITER • Broad distribution; 10 associations are involved • In the Stellarator world, the level of the EU program is practically unique * DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

  41. Major Facilities allocated to “Objective 4” (Structure follows FR Report, 2008) Technol.Facilit. IFMIF consortium assumed Fusion devices Staff, ppy • Note: • Various facilities are strongly involved in other objectives • The individual numbers are not always yet crosschecked

  42. Summary and Initial Conclusions (Objective 4) • Total human resources provided for “Objective 4”: 6049 ppy,including a possible “IFMIF consortium in 4b” • For Objective 4, the annual staff is continuously increasingfrom (2012-2013) to (2019-2020) • Share between activities:4a (Physics & Demo design): ~23%4b (Technologies, Test Facilities, Materials) ~53%4c (Stellarator Physics) ~24% • Reliability of data regarding “staff” seems to be moderateReliability of data regarding “cost” is even less reliable • A feedback from Associations would be welcome to fix mistakesand to clarify misunderstanding. See also proposal made byFrancesco Gnesotto on objective 1.

  43. Backup slides

  44. “Progress report of the CCE-FU Working Group on JET and Accompanying Programme (“Hasinger-Report”)

  45. DEMO, PPCS: Physics Parameters limited extrapolation advanced

  46. Power densities, comparison • Existing devices can almost reach heating power densities of DEMO • Impurity radiation densities of DEMO have been almost achieved, but with less confinement • Significant difference between AUG and JET in confinement

  47. limited extrapolation advanced PPCS: Plant Parameters

  48. PPCS: Nuclear Core blanket divertor Optimisation of power conversion cycle allow to gain 4 percentage points in net efficiency.

  49. Overview on Staff

More Related