Power Plant Conceptual Studies in Europe FT/1-2 Power Plant Conceptual Studies in Europe D. Maisonnier1 (david.maisonnier@tech.efda.org), D. Campbell1, I. Cook2, L. Di Pace3, L. Giancarli4,J. Hayward1, A. Li Puma5, M. Medrano6, P. Norajitra7, M. Roccella8, P. Sardain1, M. Q. Tran9, D. Ward2 1) EFDA-Garching, 2) UKAEA, 3) ENEA, 4) CEA, 5) EFDA-JET, 6) CIEMAT, 7) FZK, 8) LT Calcoli, 9) EPFL IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier

Outline European Fusion Strategy Power Plant Conceptual Study (PPCS) Follow-up to the PPCS Strategic questions, DEMO Conclusions IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier

European Fusion Strategy Fusion Plant (1st of a kind) Next Step DEMO Scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy ITER + IFMIF Qualification of components and processes DEMO Studies High availability Safe and environmental-friendly Economically acceptable Reactor oriented strategy, last devices considered are DEMO & accompanying machines / facilities FPP financed by utilities Power Plant Conceptual Studies (PPCS) IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier

PPCS – FPP Requirements* Safety / Environment no need for emergency evacuation, no active systems for safe shut-down, no structure melting following LOCA minimum wastes to repository Operation steady state, ~ 1 GWe, base load availability 75  80 %, with only few unplanned shut-downs/year Economics public acceptance could be even more important than economics economic comparison among equally acceptable energy sources * Recommendations from EU utilities/industry IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier

PPCS - General The European Power Plant Conceptual Study has been a 4-year study completed in April 2005 Overall objectives of PPCS to assess the fusion energy status to establish coherence and priorities in the EU fusion programme 5 plant models (A, AB, B, C and D), ranging from “limited” to “very advanced” extrapolations in physics and in technology Detailed objectives (July 2001), demonstrate: 1- the credibility of fusion power plant design 2- the claims for the safety and environmental advantages and for the economic viability of fusion power 3- the robustness of the analyses and conclusions IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier

PPCS – Physics and Tech. Basis Near term Models (A, AB and B): modest improvement w.r.t. the IPB98y2 scaling law (HH<1.2, n/nGR<1.2, βN<3.5 and first stability) More advanced Models (C & D): progressive improvements in performance - high β, high confinement, strong shaping, high bootstrap current fraction and minimisation of divertor loads without penalisation of core plasma conditions Peak heat loads on the divertor Water cooling: 15 MW/m2, helium cooling: 10 MW/m2 Heat loads on the FW Average 0.5 MW/m2, peak <1 MW/m2 Nuclear loads (Eurofer) Average load on FW 2 MWa/m2, peak load on FW 3 MWa/m2 Assume lifetime of 150 dpa (15 MWa/m2), corresponding to approximately 5FPY for the blanket Check with DC physics explanation on power handling limit on divertor (ie power radiation hypothesis / model?) IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier

PPCS – Plant Parameters -8 -6 -4 -2 2 4 6 8 5 10 15 Z(m) B C D ITER A & AB R(m) Model B renomalised to 1.5 GWe limited extrapolation advanced Parameter A B AB C D Unit Size (GWe) 1.55 1.33 1.46 1.45 1.53 Fusion Power (GW) 5.00 3.60 4.29 3.41 2.53 Major Radius (m) 9.55 8.6 9.56 7.5 6.1 Net efficiency 0.31/0.33 0.36 0.34 0.42 0.60 Plasma Current (MA) 30.5 28.0 30.0 20.1 14.1 Bootstrap Fraction 0.45 0.43 0.63 0.76 Padd (MW) 246 270 257 112 71 IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier

PPCS – Nuclear Core   Model A Model B Model AB Model C Model D Structural material Eurofer SiC/SiC Coolant Water Helium LiPb/He LiPb Coolant T in/out (°C) 285 / 325 300 / 500 480 / 700 300 / 480 700 / 1100 Breeder Li4SiO4 TBR 1.06 1.12 1.13 1.15 CuCrZr W alloy Armour material W 140 / 170 540 / 720 600 / 990 blanket divertor Mention ODS Eurofer Optimisation of power conversion cycle allow to gain 4 percentage points in net efficiency. IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier

PPCS - Assessments Total loss of coolant: no melting, without relying on any active safety system Doses to the public after most severe accident driven by in-plant energies: no evacuation No long term disposal of rad-waste if adequate recycling implemented Fusion PPCS Internal cost of electricity ranges from 5-9 (model A) to 3-5 (model D) €cents/kWh External cost ranges from 0.06 to 0.09 € cents/kWh Even the near-term Models are acceptably competitive Projected costs without subsidies Shell Renewables, 2003 IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier

Radial cooling - basic principle He-cooled Divertor Finger unit 9-Finger-Unit Stripe-Unit Panel Divertor 18 mm W ODS Steel W alloy Radial cooling - basic principle 1-finger mock-up IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier

Balance of Plant fusion specific Most of the plant is conventional, not fusion specific! IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier

European “Fast-Track” Electricity to the grid ‘Accelerated’ One-Step Roadmap K. LACKNER et al., Long-Term Fusion Strategy in Europe, JNM (2002) 307-311 Analysis essentially focused on physics, materials and blanket (2 other studies carried out in Europe, in 2001 and 2005, with same emphasis and similar roadmap & recommendations) Mention IFMIF and accompanying programme IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier

European “Fast-Track” 3 key questions Are the fast-track scenarios proposed consistent with the PPCS findings? What are the DEMO objectives? Are the ITER objectives consistent with the fast-track scenarios? IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier

DEMO Objectives Qualification of: materials and joining techniques (>120dpa) in-vessel components (performance of processes under reactor relevant conditions) tritium systems (high throughput) H&CD systems (reliability, plug efficiency) ex-vessel components and systems (if and when required, depending on choice of coolant) Validation of the overall reactor architecture (in particular in-vessel components segmentation) and demonstration of remote handling procedures IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier

ITER Objectives * Validation of: “DEMO Physics” during phase 1 of ITER operations (currently foreseen in phase 2) plasma scenario(s) during phase 2 of ITER operations with a full tungsten first wall (replacement of complete FW is currently not foreseen in ITER) breeding blanket concept able to ensure the tritium self-sufficiency of DEMO divertor concept able to operate in DEMO-like conditions the H&CD technology for steady-state operation * Preliminary considerations following a European review of a “fast track” development strategy. The implications suggested for ITER are not yet necessarily agreed among the ITER partners. IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier

Conclusions Plasma performance marginally better than in ITER is sufficient for economic viability of a first generation of fusion power plants These plants will have attractive safety and environmental features The European fusion programme is on the right lines (ITER, IFMIF, TBMs) More work required on divertor systems and on maintenance procedures for DEMO DEMO objectives require clarification A fast track fusion development scenario requires an adjustment of the ITER objectives IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier