CESTAR Briefing Mohamed Abdou CESTAR Meeting, Rice Room, Boelter Hall April 28, 2006

CESTAR Mission: to provide a common focal point for collaboration and synergism among researchers at UCLA involved in energy related research Model for Center Operation: “ACTIVE” Exchange information and facilitate collaboration among faculty, students and researchers Capitalize on and strengthen the already existing energy-related research activities, emphasize niche areas Undertake initiatives for research proposals in energy-related engineering fields The Center should proceed gradually, aim for national and international recognition, and ultimately influence national and international energy policy (Note: Some niche areas of the Center already have very high levels of recognition and influence, nationally and internationally)

CESTAR-related Recent Activities (and News) 1. The faculty of HSSEAS, either individually or in groups, have been engaged in important initiatives and activities related to energy. Some of these will be summarized in various presentations. 2. Participated in initiative to form national Council of Academic Energy Directors –Initiative: the Federal Government establishes 10 energy research centers in universities. 3. New Fusion Initiative: –US ITER Test Blanket Module (TBM) Program –10-year program with a total budget of $120M –National program led by UCLA –Proposal with Technical Plan and Cost Estimation near completion. To be released in June; external review in August. 4. Proposals were submitted for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) in the nuclear area by several faculty members. Prof. Ghoniem won a contract. 5. MAE faculty (Catton and Morley) participated in the UC planning meeting and subsequent discussions for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) 6. Proposals and activities on Hydrogen, led by Prof. Vasilios Manousiouthakis

CESTAR-related Activities (cont’d) 7. The MAE Dept. Strategic Plan has adopted (reaffirmed) “Energy” as a key thrust area. Efforts to recruit faculty in energy-related fields are underway. Other departments are also exploring energy recruitment. 8. Concluded several international collaborative agreements 9. Other fusion-related activities: –Proposal to renew funding from the Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT) for post-JUPITER-II activities in magnetic and inertial fusion –Received subcontract (April 2006) from Sandia National Laboratory to do experiments, computation and analysis for the Z-Machine (Inertial Fusion Energy) 10. Effort is underway to get UCLA accepted as a member of LERDWG (Laboratory Energy R&D Working Group). –LERDWG meets every 6-8 weeks. It is a DOE committee that covers all aspects of energy. Meetings are attended by key energy leaders, science advisors, experts, etc. (Dr. William Fulkerson runs LERDWG)

CESTAR-related Activities (cont’d) 11. Presentation from CESTAR to HSSEAS Industrial Advisory Council (IAC) (October 26, 2005) –IAC made a strong statement in support of the energy activities: “Center for Energy Science and Technology Research (CESTAR) - Can become a crown jewel for the School, particularly in fusion and hydrogen technologies. Would like to see collaborations with other Schools, e.g. Physics and Chemistry. The world needs this technology, and UCLA should help lead the way.” 12. Establishing links to: –the World Energy Council; –the Montreux Energy Conference; –the World Bank; and –the International Energy Agency 13. Several CESTAR seminars on energy 14. Upgraded CESTAR website; obtained domain “cestar.seas.ucla.edu” (and in process of obtaining “cestar.ucla.edu”)

Council of Academic Energy Directors Mission: To advance university energy research and education Goals: To increase the contributions of the academia to the energy challenges facing society To increase communication and collaboration among leaders of the academic energy community To increase support for energy research and education To more effectively communicate with government, industry, other fields of academic science and engineering and the concerned public. Composition: The Council will consist of leaders of university-based centers and programs. Universities may have multiple representation, based on the number and structure of energy research and education institutions. Benefits, Services and activities: Opportunities for networking with, learning from, and collaborating with your colleagues Energy Center web site – information on programs, opportunities, educational resources, etc. List serve – jobs, funding opportunities, conferences, professional exchanges Annual meeting – to meet colleagues, share experiences, develop strategies Federal – reporting on budget issues, communications with federal leaders, including University Federal Dialogue on Energy and Environmental Research and Education – annual workshop with leading federal funders Structure: The National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) will serve as convener and initial secretariat for the group. The group will select its own leadership and determine its own policies and activities. NCSE’s role will be facilitator but not a decisionmaker for the group. Initiative to form:

Council of Academic Energy Directors (cont’d) An example of a major initiative to be undertaken by the Council of Academic Energy Directors (CAED): –The US Government establishes 10 energy research centers in universities. Selection would be on a competitive basis. –CAED takes the lead in proposing the initiative to the Government and Congress. UCLA (HSSEAS) needs to prepare to WIN one of those Energy Centers (probably in 2-3 years)

CESTAR International Agreements Several collaboration agreements between CESTAR and international universities and research centers have been established: Czech Technical University (CTU) in Prague, Czech Republic National Institute of Fusion Sciences (NIFS), Japan National Fusion Research Center (NFRC), Korea Nile University, Egypt Three research institutes at Dong-Eui University, Korea: –The Electronic Ceramics Center (ECC) –The Brain Korea 21 Group (BK21) –The Research Institute of Industrial Technology Development (RIITD)

Some Near-Term Actions for CESTAR Expand “CESTAR Council” –Increase number of faculty members to 8 –Acts as a “steering committee” that guides, motivates and helps to implement actions and undertake initiatives –Proposed: Eight faculty members from HSSEAS who have the strongest interest and experience in the energy field. Follow up on initiatives on fusion, nuclear, hydrogen, biochemical, fuel cells, materials and others that have good potential Encourage and support recruitment efforts in the School in energy- related areas.

Report on ITER, TBM, and UCLA New Fusion Initiative Mohamed Abdou CESTAR Meeting, Rice Room, Boelter Hall April 28, 2006

ITER is the largest scientific/engineering international project ever undertaken ITER is proceeding into construction as an international collaborative project among 7 parties (EU, Japan, US, Russia, China, Korea, India) ITER will demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy for peaceful purposes ITER will produce 500 MW of fusion power Construction cost is 10 billion dollars

Major Progress Toward Construction of ITER The decision was made (June 28, 2005) to select Cadarache, France, as the site for ITER (widely reported in world news media) Dr. Kaname Ikeda from Japan was selected as the ITER Director General (December 2005) Dr. Norbert Holtkamp was selected as the ITER Principal Deputy Director General (Dr. Holtkamp was the Director of the Accelerator Systems Division at ORNL. He is German.) The rest of the management team (7 Deputy Directors) will be selected next week in the PC Meeting in India The seven Parties will “initial” the ITER Agreement on the Ministerial level in Brussels on May 24, 2006

ITER Construction is Very Exciting News for the World (and for UCLA) UCLA has the US Lead Role in the ITER Test Blanket Program ITER will have reactor-grade plasma as well as full fusion nuclear technology environment (magneto-nuclear-chemical-electrical-mechanical) A key element in ITER is the testing of “blankets” (technology for simultaneous power extraction and tritium breeding/control –UCLA leads the US effort, which involves about 12 organizations –Prof. Abdou is the US leader in the international ITER Test Blanket Program –Proposal for US ITER Test Blanket is being finalized for US Government and community review (~$120 M over 10 years)

The three crucial functions of a Breeding Blanket  Convert the neutron energy (80% of the fusion energy) in heat and collect it by mean of an high grade coolant to reach high conversion efficiency (>30%)  in-pile heat exchanger  Produce and recover all Tritium required as fuel for D-T reactors  Tritium breeding self-sufficiency  Contribute to neutron and gamma shield for the superconductive coils  resistance to neutron damages The Breeding Blanket is an essential component in DEMO, the reactor immediately after ITER (DEMOnstration reactor) Functions of the Tritium Breeding Blanket

TBMs Arrangement in ITER and Interfaces ► 3 ITER equatorial ports (opening of 1.75 x 2.2 m 2 ) devoted to TBM testing ► TBMs installed within a water-cooled steel frame (thk. 20 cm), typically half-port size verticalhorizontal The TBMs first wall is recessed of 50 mm and protected with a Be layer Shield plug Frame Sample TBM TBMs tests need a whole TBM system 3TBM PORTS3TBM PORTS

Pathway Toward Higher Temperature Through Innovative Designs with Current Structural Material (Ferritic Steel): Dual Coolant Lead-Lithium (DCLL) FW/Blanket Concept  First wall and ferritic steel structure cooled with helium  Breeding zone is self-cooled  Structure and Breeding zone are separated by SiCf/SiC composite flow channel inserts (FCIs) that  Provide thermal insulation to decouple PbLi bulk flow temperature from ferritic steel wall  Provide electrical insulation to reduce MHD pressure drop in the flowing breeding zone Self-cooled Pb-17Li Breeding Zone He-cooled steel structure SiC FCI DCLL Typical Unit Cell Pb-17Li exit temperature can be significantly higher than the operating temperature of the steel structure  High Efficiency

UCLA’s work on sophisticated modeling of pebble bed behavior feeds into the design of large scale fusion blanket components Surface Heat Flux:1 MW/m 2 Neutron Wall Load: 5 MW/m 2 (1.5×10 15 n/cm 2 s) Tritium Breeder Li 2 TiO 3, Li 2 O (<2mm) First Wall (RAFS, F82H) Helium coolant (8MPa, 300/500 o C) Neutron Multiplier Be, Be 12 Ti (<2mm) Be coating for FW protection Force distribution at breeder particle contacts before (top) and after (bottom) onset of creep deformation 3-D computer model of a pebble bed Li 2 O ceramic breeder Be pebble

Mission The principal mission of the US ITER Test Blanket Module (TBM) Program is to develop, deploy, and operate ITER TBMs that provide unique experimental data on, and operational experience with, the integrated function of US blanket/first wall components and materials in a true fusion environment. US TBM Concepts The Dual-Coolant Lead-Lithium (DCLL) and the Helium Cooled Ceramic Breeder (HCCB) concepts have been selected for ITER testing by the US community. The DCLL is chosen as an innovative concept that provides a “pathway” to higher outlet temperature and higher efficiency while using current generation low-activation ferritic steel (FS) as a structural material and SiC composite only as a non-structural insulator The HCCB is chosen as the most likely candidate for near term tritium breeding blankets,e.g., in an extended performance phase of ITER, while providing high grade heat for electricity production. Both concepts use reduced activation ferritic steel (RAFS) as a structural material. Its maximum operating temperature (550 o C) dictates the maximum helium coolant outlet temperature. DCLL Main Features Use of high pressure helium (~8 MPa) as a coolant to remove first wall surface heat flux and cool internal structures, keeping structural members below 500 o C Use of PbLi at moderate pressure (1-2 MPa) as a self-cooled, tritium breeding zone with outlet temperature ~650  C for a high performance DEMO blanket. Use of SiC composite as a thermal and electrical insulator (or a “flow channel insert” FCI) to allow the self-cooled breeder to be maintained at higher temperature than the structure and to minimize magnetohydodynamic (MHD) pressure drop. Electrical conductivity of FCI should be less than 20 S/m; thermal conductivity should be less than or equal to 3 W/m-K when used for DEMO. US ITER Test Blanket Module Program

HCCB Main Features Use of high pressure helium (~8 MPa) operating between 300 o C and 500 o C. The helium flows in small channels embedded in the structure, and removes the surface heat coming from the plasma to the FW and the volumetric heating from the breeding/multiplier/structural materials. Use of a single-size ( mm) pebble bed of Li ceramic breeder material such as 40% 6 Li enriched Li 4 SiO 4 or 70% 6 Li enriched Li 2 TiO 3. Use of a single-size (1 mm) Be pebble bed as a neutron multiplier. Use of a low pressure ( MPa) helium purge gas with 1000 ppm H 2 to extract tritium from the breeder and neutron multiplier zones. Baseline Test Strategy The US baseline strategy for the DCLL concept proposes an independent TBM that will occupy half of an ITER test port (height 1660 mm x width 484 mm), with supporting ancillary equipment including helium and PbLi coolant loops, tritium processing systems, and diagnostic support systems. DCLL tests in ITER during the first 10 years will operate with PbLi outlet temperature at or below the compatibility limit with RAFS (~500 o C), so that high temperature loop systems are not initially required, but the key features of the DCLL blanket itself can still be tested and studied. The US baseline strategy for the HCCB concept is to test a series of sub-modules (4) that have a size of 1/3 of one-half port, each with its own first wall structure (height 710 mm x width 400 mm x depth 600 mm), and sharing test space and ancillary equipment with international partners. Preliminary Technical Plan The US TBM technical plan is based on delivering: (1) a qualified H-H phase DCLL TBM and HCCB sub-module and ancillary equipment systems to be shipped to ITER in April 2015 (18 months prior to the initiation of the ITER H-H phase) and (2) sufficient predictive capability to interpret experiments and to design subsequent D-D and D-T phase TBMs and sub-modules. The technical plan calls for activities in research and development (R&D); engineering designs; prototype and TBM fabrication and testing; TBM systems integration among subsystems and with ITER interfaces; and acceptance tests and preparation for shipping to ITER. US ITER Test Blanket Module Program (cont’d)

Preliminary Findings and Key Milestones Important medium term DCLL milestones include the preparation of the fabrication bid package by mid-2010 and the commencement of the first TBM fabrication by mid Important near term HCCB milestones include the establishment of a partnership agreement with an international partner by the end of 2007, the completion of the HCCB bid package in Sep and the shipment of the submodule to the host by mid Preliminary Cost Estimate Based on the degree of international collaboration and cost sharing, a program strategy was developed that defines high, baseline, and low cost scenarios. The high cost range scenario is for an independent US DCLL TBM and an independent HCCB TBM. This is similar to EU, Japan, and most other parties of independently testing two full modules. The baseline scenario consists of (1) an independent US DCLL TBM, and (2) a supporting role to another party (Japan or EU) on the HCCB TBM providing only a submodule (size is 1/3 of a module) The low cost range scenario is defined as a leading international partnership (with one or more ITER Parties) on DCLL TBM and a supporting role on the HCCB TBM. The baseline total program cost (TPC) results from a base estimate of $89.7M in 2006 dollars plus $11.1M escalation over the next 10 year period and a contingency of $12.1M. US ITER Test Blanket Module Program (cont’d)