1 / 16

Design Study of Fusion DEMO Plant at JAERI

S6-14-O-02. ISFNT7, Tokyo, May 23-27, 2005. Design Study of Fusion DEMO Plant at JAERI. K. Tobita , S. Nishio, M. Enoeda, M. Sato, T. Isono, S. Sakurai, H. Nakamura,S. Sato, S. Suzuki, M. Ando, K. Ezato, T. Hayashi,

essiej
Download Presentation

Design Study of Fusion DEMO Plant at JAERI

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. S6-14-O-02 ISFNT7, Tokyo, May 23-27, 2005 Design Study of Fusion DEMO Plant at JAERI K. Tobita, S. Nishio, M. Enoeda, M. Sato, T. Isono, S. Sakurai, H. Nakamura,S. Sato, S. Suzuki, M. Ando, K. Ezato, T. Hayashi, T. Hayashi, T. Hirose, T. Inoue, Y. Kawamura, N. Koizumi, Y. Kudo, R. Kurihara, T. Kuroda*, K. Mouri, Y. Nakamura, M. Nishi, Y. Nomoto, J. Ohmori, N. Oyama, K. Sakamoto, T. Suzuki,M. Takechi, H. Tanigawa, K. Tsuchiya, D. Tsuru ( * Kawasaki Heavy Industries) Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute

  2. OUTLINE • Background • Concept of DEMO • Features of DEMO plant • Next steps in design study 2

  3. 1. Background Situation of JA strategy for FE commercialization • JA strategy still argued in AEC, not settled • Point of argument: ONE or TWO steps to commercialization? 1 step? Commercial. Technology Economy ITER Middle of this century 2 steps? Economy Technology Satellite tokamaks IFMIF Tech.R&D DEMO stage 3

  4. • Commercial reactor with advanced tech. • Compact & economic. • Tech. feasible as DEMO • Not competitive in market (15 yen/kWh) VECTOR (2001) DEMO Seek a DEMO concept competitive in market with foreseeable tech. SSTR (1990) Place of DEMO Technology advanced conservative expensive competitive Economy 4

  5. Philosophy for DEMO design Design compromise of VECTOR, based on foreseeable technologies Technology advanced VECTOR (2001) Modify “VECTOR concept” to reduce tech. requirements without losing compactness Comparable in tech. level Low-A DEMO (Exp. in low-A scarce. Needs support by satellite tokamak) conservative ex. NCT SSTR (1991) expensive competitive Economy 5

  6. VECTOR concept: superconducting low-A w/o CS coils Remove CS Aspect ratio RTFC giving Bmax A ~ 2-2.5 (elongation ) ( magnetic energy ) Slender TFC system High  Compact, low-A & high with slender TFC 6

  7. 2. Concept of DEMO VECTOR CS-less Advantage very compact (light) Difficulties plasma shape control • triangularity (HH, ELM contr) • positions (null point, div. hit point) plasma current ramp-up 7

  8. 2. Concept of DEMO DEMO(J05) VECTOR Slim CS CS-less compromise Rcs = 0.7m, cs = 38 Vsec Advantage very compact (light) reduced but still compact Difficulties plasma shape control resolved • triangularity (HH, ELM contr) • positions Ics 10 MA/m (null point, div. hit point) improved but still limited plasma current ramp-up induce 3.8 MA 7

  9. Impact of CS on reactor weight Systems code analysis weight ==> constr. cost to find the minimum reactor weight of the following cases Considering tech. feasibility and weight, “Slim CS” is a good compromise. DEMO ~40Wb 170Wb DEMO(J05) Conditions: • TFC stress 800 MPa • same , N margins, • fusion output 3 GW, etc. 8

  10. 3. Features of DEMO plant • Nb3Al S.C. • 12 TF coils, Bmax = 16.4 T Rp = 5.5m, a = 2.1m, A = 2.6 BT = 6T, Ip = 16.7MA, N = 4.3, Pfus = 3 GW • Blanket • • Li2TiO3 / Be12Ti (pebble) • • F82H / pressurized water Extrapolation of TBM(JA) • Divertor • W monoblock / F82H cooling tube • Current drive • • NBI : 1.5 MeV • • ECRF : 170-190 GHz • Maintenance • Sector maintenance Firm support of BLK / high availability 9

  11. (1) Light reactor weight, leading to a reduction of construction cost Reactor weight : 10

  12. (2) Seemingly N (=4.3) is high, but likely to have a large N margin ex., Lin-Liu / Stambaugh formulation Theoretically, higher N expected in lower A N limit for 100% BS-driven plasma Tough constraint Margin to LL-S N 11

  13. difficult difficult difficult difficult difficult difficult (3) DEMO requires technologies comparable to SSTR Magnet Maximum field TFC magnetic energy Plasma Vertical stability Density ballooning stability Confinement 12

  14. 4. Next steps in design study • Refine divertor concept – consistent solution of shape control (), radial build and heat/particle control • study startup and shutdown scenarios – overdrive in startup / shutdown by impurity gas puff • Provide feasible maintenance scheme – sector transport / hot cell maintenance • Assess supercritical CO2 as alternative coolant – Advantages : Compact turbines, compatible with Be, easy separation of T, etc. – Disadvantage : organic compounds by CO+T2 reaction Major change from the ITER scheme 13

  15. Presentations on DEMO 14

  16. Summary • A compact low-A (A ~ 2.6)reactor is under consideration at JAERI as a DEMO concept. • DEMO has aslim CS for plasma shape control as a compromise of the CS-less VECTOR concept. Yet, the reactor weight is still light compared with other tokamak designs. • Required technologies seem comparable in difficulty level to those for SSTR. 15

More Related