Realization of Fusion Energy: How? When? Farrokh Najmabadi Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering Director, Center for Energy Research UC San Diego.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Due Diligence of Technology Mission Critical: The Rocky Research scientist, engineers & mfg specialist are dedicated to assist potential investors in.
Advertisements

Technology Module: Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) Space Systems Engineering, version 1.0 SOURCE INFORMATION: The material contained in this lecture.
Technology readiness levels in a nutshell
Ninth Lecture Hour 8:30 – 9:20 pm, Thursday, September 13
Aug 9-10, 2011 Nuclear Energy University Programs Materials: NEAMS Perspective James Peltz, Program Manager, NEAMS Crosscutting Methods and Tools.
ASIPP Zhongwei Wang for CFETR Design Team Japan-US Workshop on Fusion Power Plants and Related Advanced Technologies February 26-28, 2013 at Kyoto University.
FNSF Blanket Testing Mission and Strategy Summary of previous workshops 1 Conclusions Derived Primarily from Previous FNST Workshop, August 12-14, 2008.
Prospect for Fusion Energy in the 21 st Century: Why? When? How? Farrokh Najmabadi Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering Director, Center for.
Overview of the ARIES “Pathways” Program Farrokh Najmabadi UC San Diego 8 th International Symposium on Fusion Nuclear Technology Heidelberg, Germany 01–
Fusion Development Path: A Roll-Back Approach Based on Conceptual Power Plant Studies Farrokh Najmabadi UC San Diego Fusion Power Associates Annual Meeting.
Page 1 of 14 Reflections on the energy mission and goals of a fusion test reactor ARIES Design Brainstorming Workshop April 2005 M. S. Tillack.
March 3-4, 2008/ARR 1 Power Management Technical Working Group: TRL for Heat and Particle Flux Handling A. René Raffray University of California, San Diego.
September 6-7, 2007/ARR 1 Power Management Technical Working Group: Status and Documentation A. René Raffray Mark Tillack University of California, San.
Overview of Advanced Design White Paper Farrokh Najmabadi Virtual Laboratory for Technology Meeting June 23, 1998 OFES Headquarters, Germantown.
Summary Report of the Energy Issues Working Group Organizer: Farrokh Najmabadi Covenors:Jeffrey Freidberg, Wayne Meier, Gerald Navaratil, Bill Nevins,
US Fusion Power Plant Studies: Current Projects & Planned Activities Farrokh Najmabadi IEA ESE Executive Committee Meeting November 14, 2001 Tsukuba, Japan.
Fusion Development Path: A Roll-Back Approach Based on Conceptual Power Plant Studies Farrokh Najmabadi UC San Diego 9 th International Symposium on Fusion.
Thoughts on Fusion Nuclear Technology Development and the Role of ITER TBM Farrokh Najmabadi Prof. of Electrical Engineering Director of Center for Energy.
Role of ITER in Fusion Development Farrokh Najmabadi University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA FPA Annual Meeting September 27-28, 2006 Washington,
The current overall EU policy framework: Europe 2020 strategy, Innovation Union and Energy 2020 Strategy On March 2010, the Commission presented a Communication.
What are MRLs ? Alfred W. Clark Dawnbreaker, Inc.
Power Extraction Research Using a Full Fusion Nuclear Environment G. L. Yoder, Jr. Y. K. M. Peng Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN Presentation.
UML - Development Process 1 Software Development Process Using UML (2)
From ITER to Demo -- Technology Towards Fusion Power Farrokh Najmabadi Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering Director, Center for Energy Research.
Technology Input Formats and Background Appendix B.
Overview of the ARIES “Pathways” Program Farrokh Najmabadi UC San Diego US-Japan Workshop on Power Plants Study and Related Advanced Technologies with.
Page 1 of 11 An approach for the analysis of R&D needs and facilities for fusion energy ARIES “Next Step” Planning Meeting 3 April 2007 M. S. Tillack ?
From ITER to Demo -- Technology Towards Fusion Power Farrokh Najmabadi Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering Director, Center for Energy Research.
An evaluation of fusion energy R&D gaps using Technology Readiness Levels M. S. Tillack and the ARIES Team International High Heat Flux Components Workshop.
* Backup materials can be found at
Andrew Faulkner1 Technology Readiness Levels 4 th SKADS Workshop, Lisbon Technology Readiness Levels TRLs Andrew Faulkner.
ARIES “Pathways” Program Farrokh Najmabadi University of California San Diego ARIES brainstorming meeting UC San Diego April 3-4, 2007 Electronic copy:
The Center for Space Research Programs CSRP Technology Readiness Level.
Some Thoughts on Phase II for Target fabrication, injection, and tracking presented by Dan Goodin Georgia Institute of Technology February 5th & 6th, 2004.
Better Preparing the NWS to meet America's Growing Needs Information Brief 1.
1 Subprojects of IFERC K.Lackner (as Chair of IFERC Project Committee) Garching – 14 Apr 2011.
Thoughts on Fusion Competitiveness Initiative Farrokh Najmabadi, George Tynan UC San Diego University Fusion Initiatives Meeting, MIT 14-15, February 2008.
Optimizing NASA IV&V Benefits Using Simulation Grant Number: NAG David M. Raffo, Ph.D College of Engineering and Computer Science School of Business.
Realization of Fusion Energy: An alternative fusion roadmap Farrokh Najmabadi Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering Director, Center for Energy.
CLIC Implementation Studies Ph. Lebrun & J. Osborne CERN CLIC Collaboration Meeting addressing the Work Packages CERN, 3-4 November 2011.
1 1 by Dr. John Parmentola Senior Vice President Energy and Advanced Concepts Presented at the American Security Project Fusion Event June 5, 2012 The.
Page 1 of 11 Progress developing an evaluation methodology for fusion R&D ARIES Project Meeting March 4, 2008 M. S. Tillack.
Page 1 of 16 ARIES Issues and R&D Needs – Technology Readiness for Fusion Energy – M. S. Tillack ARIES Project Meeting 28 May 2008.
Programmatic issues to be studied in advance for the DEMO planning Date: February 2013 Place:Uji-campus, Kyoto Univ. Shinzaburo MATSUDA Kyoto Univ.
Summary and Closing Remarks Farrokh Najmabadi UC San Diego Presentation to ARIES Program Peer Review August 29, 2013, Washington, DC.
Cross fertilisation Technology readiness level From Space and Aeronautic to ITS ? 11/06/2014Topos proposal done by JPhM1.
Page 1 of 9 Power Management Technical Working Group Structure and Goals ARIES Project Meeting June 2007 M. S. Tillack and A. R. Raffray.
Future Direction of the U.S. Fusion Materials Program Dr. Pete Pappano US Department of Energy Fusion Energy Sciences Fusion Power Associates Annual Meeting.
045-05/rs PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE FOR PIPELINE PROTECTION AND THREAT INTERDICTION Technical Readiness Level For Control of Plasma Power Flux Distribution.
Assessment of Fusion Development Path: Initial Results of the ARIES “Pathways” Program Farrokh Najmabadi UC San Diego ANS 18 th Topical Meeting on the.
1 Power to the Edge Agility Focus and Convergence Adapting C2 to the 21 st Century presented to the Focus, Agility and Convergence Team Inaugural Meeting.
Comments on Fusion Development Strategy for the US S. Prager Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory FPA Symposium.
Developing Technology for Inertial Fusion Energy David H. Crandall Advisor to the Under Secretary for Science On National Security and Inertial Fusion.
Horizon 2020 – 2016 Transport Call
Whither the ARIES Industrial Advisory Committee? ARIES Meeting 21 Januay, 2009 ARIES Meeting 21 Januay, 2009.
Cross-Domain Semantic Interoperability ~ Via Common Upper Ontologies ~ Presentation to: Expedition Workshop #53 15 Aug 2006 James Schoening
Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA)
The Application of Technology Readiness Levels in Planning the Fusion Energy Sciences Program M. S. Tillack ARIES Project Meeting 4–5 September2008.
Overview of the ARIES “Pathways” Program
Historical Perspectives and Pathways to an Attractive Power Plant
Advanced Design Activities in US
Systems Engineering for Mission-Driven Modeling
Status of the ARIES Program
VLT Meeting, Washington DC, August 25, 2005
Review of Project Goals
US/Japan Workshop on Fusion Power Plant Studies
TRL tables: power conversion and lifetime
What Is A Technical Readiness Level and How Is It Used?
TWG goals, approach and outputs
How To Save Big Bucks with Modeling and Simulation
Presentation transcript:

Realization of Fusion Energy: How? When? Farrokh Najmabadi Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering Director, Center for Energy Research UC San Diego TOFE Panel on Fusion Nuclear Sciences November 11, 2010

We are transitioning from the Era of Fusion Science to the Era of Fusion Power  Large-scale fusion facilities beyond ITER and NIF can only be justified in the context of their contribution to world energy supply. We will have Different Customers (e.g., Power Producers) Different criteria for success (e.g., Commercial viability) Timing (e.g., Is there a market need?) Fusion is NOT the only game in town!  Is the currently envisioned fusion development path allows us the flexibility to respond to this changing circumstances? Developing alternative plans and small changes in R&D today can have profound difference a decade from now.  Large-scale fusion facilities beyond ITER and NIF can only be justified in the context of their contribution to world energy supply. We will have Different Customers (e.g., Power Producers) Different criteria for success (e.g., Commercial viability) Timing (e.g., Is there a market need?) Fusion is NOT the only game in town!  Is the currently envisioned fusion development path allows us the flexibility to respond to this changing circumstances? Developing alternative plans and small changes in R&D today can have profound difference a decade from now.

Fusion Energy Development Focuses on Facilities Rather than the Needed Science  Current fusion development plans relies on large scale, expensive facilities:* Long lead times, $$$ Expensive operation time Limited number of concepts that can be tested Integrated tests either succeed or fail, this is an expensive and time-consuming approach to optimize concepts. * Observations by ARIES Industrial Advisory Committee,  Current fusion development plans relies on large scale, expensive facilities:* Long lead times, $$$ Expensive operation time Limited number of concepts that can be tested Integrated tests either succeed or fail, this is an expensive and time-consuming approach to optimize concepts. * Observations by ARIES Industrial Advisory Committee, This is in contrast with the normal development path of any product in which the status of R&D necessitates a facility for experimentation.

Currently envisioned development paths rely on large facilities Reference “Fast Track” Scenario: 10 years+ 10 years+ 10 years  years build ITER exploit ITERbuild + IFMIF+ IFMIFDEMO (Technology Validation) Reference “Fast Track” Scenario: 10 years+ 10 years+ 10 years  years build ITER exploit ITERbuild + IFMIF+ IFMIFDEMO (Technology Validation) ITER construction delay, First DT plasma 2026? IFMIF? TBM Experimental Program is not defined! years ~ ) Large & expensive facility, Funding, EDA, construction ~ 20 years. 2) Requires > 10 years of operation ~ : Decision to field 1 st commercial plant barring NO SETBACK Bottle neck: Sequential Approach relying on expensive machines! Huge risk in each step!

Level Generic Description 1 Basic principles observed and formulated. 2 Technology concepts and/or applications formulated. 3 Analytical and experimental demonstration of critical function and/or proof of concept. 4 Component and/or bench-scale validation in a laboratory environment. 5 Component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment. 6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in relevant environment. 7 System prototype demonstration in an operational environment. 8 Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration. 9 Actual system proven through successful mission operations. Technical Readiness Levels provides a basis for assessing the development strategy Developed by NASA and are adopted by US DOD and DOE. TRLs are very helpful in defining R&D steps and facilities. Developed by NASA and are adopted by US DOD and DOE. TRLs are very helpful in defining R&D steps and facilities. Increased integration Increased Fidelity of environment Basic & Applied Science Phase Validation Phase

Example: TRLs for Plasma Facing Components Issue-Specific DescriptionFacilities 1 System studies to define tradeoffs and requirements on heat flux level, particle flux level, effects on PFC's (temperature, mass transfer). Design studies, basic research 2 PFC concepts including armor and cooling configuration explored. Critical parameters characterized. Code development, applied research 3 Data from coupon-scale heat and particle flux experiments; modeling of governing heat and mass transfer processes as demonstration of function of PFC concept. Small-scale facilities: e.g., e-beam and plasma simulators 4 Bench-scale validation of PFC concept through submodule testing in lab environment simulating heat fluxes or particle fluxes at prototypical levels over long times. Larger-scale facilities for submodule testing, High-temperature + all expected range of conditions 5 Integrated module testing of the PFC concept in an environment simulating the integration of heat fluxes and particle fluxes at prototypical levels over long times. Integrated large facility: Prototypical plasma particle flux+heat flux (e.g. an upgraded DIII-D/JET?) 6 Integrated testing of the PFC concept subsystem in an environment simulating the integration of heat fluxes and particle fluxes at prototypical levels over long times. Integrated large facility: Prototypical plasma particle flux+heat flux 7 Prototypic PFC system demonstration in a fusion machine. Fusion machine ITER (w/ prototypic divertor), CTF 8 Actual PFC system demonstration qualification in a fusion machine over long operating times. CTF 9 Actual PFC system operation to end-of-life in fusion reactor with prototypical conditions and all interfacing subsystems. DEMO Power-plant relevant high-temperature gas-cooled PFC Low-temperature water-cooled PFC

Develop a Technical Road Map” A detailed technical Road Map:  Includes what needs to be done (both critical and “non-critical”)  Highlights the order they need to be done  Includes clear mile-stones or check points showing progress  Provides the justification for and the mission of needed facilities  A times-less exercise that needs only occasional updating Such a Technical Roadmap provides the technical basis to develop policies and program portfolio.  Allows flexibility in implementation scenarios (aggressive or slow)  Allows multi-year program planning  Provides a firm basis on cost/benefit analysis  Provides a mechanism for “coordination” internationally and with plasma physics research. A detailed technical Road Map:  Includes what needs to be done (both critical and “non-critical”)  Highlights the order they need to be done  Includes clear mile-stones or check points showing progress  Provides the justification for and the mission of needed facilities  A times-less exercise that needs only occasional updating Such a Technical Roadmap provides the technical basis to develop policies and program portfolio.  Allows flexibility in implementation scenarios (aggressive or slow)  Allows multi-year program planning  Provides a firm basis on cost/benefit analysis  Provides a mechanism for “coordination” internationally and with plasma physics research. International Fusion Nuclear Science Planning Activity (a la ITPA)?

Utilize Modern Product Development  Use modern approaches for to “product development” (e.g., science-based engineering development vs “cook and look”) Extensive “out-of-pile” testing to understand fundamental processes Extensive use of simulation techniques to explore many of synergetic effects and define new experiments. Experiment planning such that it highlights multi-physics interaction (instead of traditional approach of testing integrated systems to failure repeatedly). Aiming for validation in a fully integrated system  Can we divide what needs to be done into separate “pieces” R&D can be done in parallel (shorter development time) Reduced requirements on the test stand (cheaper/faster!) Issues: 1) Integration Risk, 2) Feasibility/cost?  Use modern approaches for to “product development” (e.g., science-based engineering development vs “cook and look”) Extensive “out-of-pile” testing to understand fundamental processes Extensive use of simulation techniques to explore many of synergetic effects and define new experiments. Experiment planning such that it highlights multi-physics interaction (instead of traditional approach of testing integrated systems to failure repeatedly). Aiming for validation in a fully integrated system  Can we divide what needs to be done into separate “pieces” R&D can be done in parallel (shorter development time) Reduced requirements on the test stand (cheaper/faster!) Issues: 1) Integration Risk, 2) Feasibility/cost?

A faster fusion development program requires decoupling of fusion technology development from ITER ITER construction delay, First DT plasma 2021? IFMIF? ITER burning plasma experiments Sat. tokamaks : Decision to field 1 st commercial plant Aggressive science- based R&D utilizing out-of-pile experiments 10 years (2020) Funding Limited Driven CTF (low Q) 6 years construction 10 years operation ( ) IFMIF (…-2030) 1 st of a kind Commercial power plant Key is aggressive science-based engineering up-front

In summary: Why? How (not to)?  World needs a lot of new supply of energy. Fusion is NOT the only game in town. But, it can fit all criteria for energy growth if we solve the fusion engineering grand challenge!  All published Fusion Development Paths are based on large and expensive facilities. This cook and look approach is doomed to failure: Requires expensive nuclear facilities with long lead times. Leads to large Risks between steps. Needs extensive run-time in each step. No attention to science & technology requirements before fielding a step.  World needs a lot of new supply of energy. Fusion is NOT the only game in town. But, it can fit all criteria for energy growth if we solve the fusion engineering grand challenge!  All published Fusion Development Paths are based on large and expensive facilities. This cook and look approach is doomed to failure: Requires expensive nuclear facilities with long lead times. Leads to large Risks between steps. Needs extensive run-time in each step. No attention to science & technology requirements before fielding a step.

In summary: How?, When?  We need to develop a fusion energy roadmap (“Fusion Nuclear Sciences” road-map). Large-scale facility should be only validation facilities. Required science and engineering basis for any large facility should be clearly defined and included in such a Road-map. We need to start implementing such a road-map to show that we are serious (only the “pace” is set by funding). We need to start work-force development.  Increased funding and emphasis for fusion have always been driven by external factors. We need to be prepared to take advantage of these opportunities. It is possible to field fusion power plant before 2050, but we lay the ground work now!  We need to develop a fusion energy roadmap (“Fusion Nuclear Sciences” road-map). Large-scale facility should be only validation facilities. Required science and engineering basis for any large facility should be clearly defined and included in such a Road-map. We need to start implementing such a road-map to show that we are serious (only the “pace” is set by funding). We need to start work-force development.  Increased funding and emphasis for fusion have always been driven by external factors. We need to be prepared to take advantage of these opportunities. It is possible to field fusion power plant before 2050, but we lay the ground work now!

Thank you!