Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Advanced Powerplant Engg
Advanced Powerplant Engg
Search
Collections
Journals
About
Contact us
My IOPscience
This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.
2007 Nucl. Fusion 47 1524
(http://iopscience.iop.org/0029-5515/47/11/014)
View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more
Download details:
IP Address: 129.93.16.3
The article was downloaded on 05/06/2013 at 16:07
NUCLEAR FUSION
doi:10.1088/0029-5515/47/11/014
E-mail: david.maisonnier@tech.efda.org
1. Background
1.1. The European fusion strategy
The aim of the European fusion programme is the exploitation
of fusion as a commercial energy source. The programme
is reactor oriented and it is aimed at the successive
demonstration of the scientific, the technological and the
economic feasibility of fusion power.
A series of large tokamak devices, namely, JET (Joint
European Torus), ITER and DEMO, constitutes the backbone
of the European programme. The JET device, the largest tokamak in the world, is essentially devoted to the scientific phase.
JET has been in operation since 1983 and the aim of its experimental programme, today, is to substantiate the ITER physics
basis and to validate specific ITER engineering design options.
ITER, the next step machine, will demonstrate the
scientific feasibility of fusion and should strongly contribute
to demonstrate its technological feasibility. These objectives
will be achieved by extended burns of DT plasma of several
hundred seconds. In parallel to ITER, an International Fusion
0029-5515/07/111524+09$30.00
Printed in the UK
1524
D. Maisonnier et al
8
Z(m)
6
A & AB
D
4
2
ITER
R(m)
0
0
10
15
-2
-4
-6
-8
Model A
Model AB
Model B
Model C
Model D
1.55
1.18
5.00
3.0
1.7
0.25
9.55
7.0
13.1
30.5
2.8, 3.5
22
1.5
1.1
0.3
1.2
0.45
246
1.2
20
2.2
15
2.5
1.50
1.18
4.29
3.0
1.7
0.27
9.56
6.7
13.4
30.0
2.7, 3.5
21.5
1.5
1.05
0.3
1.2
0.43
257
1.2
16.5
1.8
10
2.6
1.33
1.39
3.60
3.0
1.7
0.25
8.6
6.9
13.2
28.0
2.7, 3.4
20
1.5
1.2
0.3
1.2
0.43
270
1.2
13.5
2.0
10
2.7
1.45
1.17
3.41
3.0
1.9
0.47
7.5
6.0
13.6
20.1
3.4, 4.0
16
1.5
1.2
0.5
1.3
0.63
112
1.5
30
2.2
10
2.2
1.53
1.17
2.53
3.0
1.9
0.47
6.1
5.6
13.4
14.1
3.7, 4.5
12
1.5
1.4
0.5
1.2
0.76
71
1.5
35
2.4
5
1.6
Model A
Model AB
Model B
Model C
Model D
5000
4845
894
110
246
0.6
2066
1546
0.31/0.33b
4290
4470
981
400
257
0.6
2385
1500
0.35
3600
4319
685
375
270
0.6
2157
1332
0.37
3410
3408
583
87
112
0.7
1696
1449
0.42
2530
2164
607
12
71
0.7
1640
1527
0.60
The plant net efficiency is defined as the ratio between the net electric power output and the fusion power.
Depending on the divertor concept used, either an ITER-like conception with water outlet temperature of 150 C or a more
advanced conception with water outlet temperature of 325 C.
b
to model D. Given the fusion power, the plasma size and the
power density are determined by the assigned constraints on
plasma physics relating to restricting heat loads to the divertor.
As a result of these factors, in no model does the first wall
neutron load attain the limits that would have been set by the
design. Taken together, these considerations lead to a reduction
in the size of the plasma, from model A to model D.
Due to a relatively high pumping power in the case of
helium cooling, the net efficiency calculated during the PPCS
for models AB and B was disappointing. With respect to model
A, which has a divertor cooled with water, the gain from helium
cooling is a few percentage points (0.33 for model A, compared
with 0.35 and 0.37 for, respectively, models AB and B).
Moreover, such a modest gain is dependent on the successful
development of a helium-cooled divertor able to support a
maximum heat load of 10 MW m2 instead of 15 MW m2
for a water-cooled divertor, and on the development and
qualification of the technology for a balance of plant using
helium rather than water at PWR conditions, which is fully
validated.
A more detailed assessment of the possible power
conversion cycles for models AB and B was therefore carried
D. Maisonnier et al
D. Maisonnier et al
PPCS model
35000
Mass (tons)
30000
25000
20000
AB
59
0.09
59
0.08
48
0.07
47
0.06
35
0.06
15000
10000
5000
0
Operations
Decommissioning
NAW
SRM
CRM
7979
3727
PDW
0
36004
22438
4016
6. DEMO
6.1. General
One important outcome of the conceptual study of a fusion
power plant (FPP) is to identify the key issues and the schedule for the resolution of these issues prior to the construction
of the first-of-a-kind plant. Europe has elected to follow a
fast track in the development of fusion power [18], with two
main devices prior to the first commercial power plant: ITER
and DEMO. These devices will be accompanied by extensive
R&D and by specialized machines and facilities to investigate
specific aspects of plasma physics, plasma engineering, materials and fusion technology, e.g. the International Fusion Material Irradiation Facility (IFMIF). If the ITER objectives and
machine design are now well established, this is not the case for
DEMO. It is therefore worthwhile to reflect on the difficulties
encountered during the development of the PPCS near-term
models, namely, models A, B and AB, prior to the selection of
the main parameters and technical choices for DEMO.
This section presents some preliminary considerations
following a European review of its fast track fusion
development strategy. The implications suggested for ITER
are therefore not yet necessarily agreed among the international
ITER partners.
Physics issues have been reviewed in detail [19] but are not
discussed in this paper. For a given plant size and for a given
blanket segmentation, the plasma current determines the loads
on the internal components, which are the main drivers for the
design of these components and of the main vacuum vessel.
The plasma current, together with the bootstrap fraction, also
determines the power required for H&CD. Even with H&CD
system efficiencies above 50%, the recirculating power for
H&CD severely affects the economic performances models
A, B and AB. Practically, from an engineering perspective, the
selection of the DEMO/FPP physics scenarios should aim at
minimizing both the plasma current and the power required for
H&CD.
6.2. Fusion milestones
To start construction of a FPP the following milestones have
to be achieved in a timely fashion:
qualification of materials: 120/150 dpasteel in FWfor
blanket materials, 40/60 dpa for divertor materials10 ;
qualification of in-vessel components, including welding,
brazing and hipping, in DEMO (at least 100 dpasteel in
FWfor blanket and 40 dpa for divertor)11 ;
qualification of tritium systems;
qualification of H&CD systems;
qualification of ex-vessel components and systems if and
when required (e.g. high temperature superconductors
if adopted, balance of plant (BoP) components if the FPP
is cooled with helium);
10 It is assumed that the structural material selected for the first FPP will be the
ferritic steel Eurofer and that this material will maintain acceptable properties
up to a fluence corresponding to 120/150 dpa.
11 This corresponds to an aggressive scenario whereas FPP starts operation
with in-vessel components tested up to 2/3 of the maximum fluence foreseen.
D. Maisonnier et al
7. Conclusions
The PPCS results for the near-term models suggest that
a first commercial fusion power plantone that would be
accessible by a fast track route of fusion development, will be
economically acceptable, with major safety and environmental
advantages. These results also point out some of the key issues
that should be resolved in DEMO and, more generally, help to
identify the physics, engineering and technological challenges
of fusion.
Acknowledgments
PPCS was a collaborative effort between seven European
Fusion Associations and the European industrial consortium
EFET. It was jointly funded by the European Communities
1532
References
[1] Raeder J. et al 1995 Safety and environmental assessment of
fusion power (SEAFP) European Commission DGXII,
Fusion Programme Report EUR-FUBRU XII-217/95
[2] Cook I. et al 2000 Results, conclusions and implications of the
SEAFP-2 programme Fusion Eng. Des. 5152 40917
[3] April 2001 Socio-economic aspects of fusion power EUR (01)
CCE-FU 10/6.2.2 European Fusion Development
Agreement Report
[4] Maisonnier D. et al 2005 The European Power Plant
Conceptual Study Fusion Eng. Des. 7579 11739
[5] Toschi R. et al 2001 How far is a fusion power reactor from an
experimental reactor Fusion Eng. Des. 5657 16372
[6] Cook I., Miller R.L. and Ward D.J. 2002 Prospects for
economic fusion electricity Fusion Eng. Des. 6364 2534
[7] ITER Physics Basis 1999 Nucl. Fusion 39 2175
[8] Gasparotto M. et al 2002 DEMO blanket technology R&D
results in the EU Fusion Eng. Des. 6162 26371
[9] Boccaccini L. et al 2004 Materials and design of European
DEMO blankets J. Fusion Mater. 329333 14855
[10] Li Puma A. et al 2006 Breeding blanket design and systems
integration for a helium-cooled lithium-lead fusion power
plant Fusion Eng. Des. 81 46976
[11] Medrano M. et al 2006 Study of power conversion cycles for
He-cooled reactor concepts for DEMO Proc. 24th SOFT
(Warsaw Poland)
[12] Malang S. et al 1998 ARIES-RS maintenance approach for
high availability Fusion Eng. Des. 41 37783
[13] Bogusch E. et al 2003 Blanket handling concepts for future
fusion power plant Fusion Eng. Des. 69 1359
[14] Honda T. et al 1991 ITER Assembly and Maintenance ITER
Documentation Series vol 34 (Vienna: IAEA)
[15] Norajitra P. et al 2005 European development of He-cooled
divertors for fusion power plants Nucl. Fusion 45 12716
[16] Norajitra P. et al 2006 He-cooled divertor developmentthe
reference design and high heat flux tests of 1-finger
Mock-ups TW5-TRP-001 FZK Report FUSION 263
[17] Ward D.J. et al 2005 The economic viability of fusion power
Fusion Eng. Des. 7579 12217
[18] King P. et al 2001 European Council of Ministers Conclusions
of the fusion fast track experts meeting held on 27
November 2001 on the initiative of Mr. De Donnea
(President of the Research Council) EUR (02)
CCE-FU/FTC 10/4.1.1, Brussels 5 December 2001
(commonly called the King Report)
[19] Campbell D. et al 2006 Critical physics issues for tokamak
power plants Proc. 21st Fusion Energy Conf. (Chengdu,
China) IAEA-CN-149-FT/1-1
[20] Lackner K. et al 2002 Long-term fusion strategy in Europe
J. Nucl. Mater. 30711
[21] Cook I. et al 2005 Accelerated Development of Fusion Power
UKAEA FUS 521
[22] Kaufmann M. 2006 Tungsten as first wall material in fusion
devices Proc. 24th SOFT (Warsaw Poland) submitted