2 nd EU-US DCLL Workshop Introductory Remarks 2 nd EU-US DCLL Workshop, UCLA, Nov. 14 – 15, 2014 Welcome Objectives Collaboration Items Science-Based Framework for FNST R&D 1 Mohamed Abdou

What led to this workshop EU and US have had long history (decades) of strong interactions and collaboration on fusion R&D But during the past 10 years as the focus on ITER and ITER TBM became intense, the collaboration on base program and R&D oriented toward DEMO was reduced. The initiation of the DEMO program in EU played a major role in bringing back the recognition of the importance of the key long- term R&D required to develop blankets for DEMO At the initiative of Dr. Gianfranco Federici, a high-level meeting was held at UCLA during the IAEA DEMO Workshop in October 2012 between Program Leaders in EU and the US. There was unanimous agreement on the need to strengthen the EU-US collaboration. Liquid Metal Blankets were identified as primary area for collaboration. A conference call on March 1, 2013 among key EU and US experts indicated that EU is considering DCLL among four blanket candidates for DEMO and that collaboration on DCLL should be the highest priority since US invested much effort on this concept. 2

What led to this workshop (cont’d) The First EU-US DCLL workshop was held in KIT April 23-24, There was broad participation of many scientists from all EU organizations. M. Abdou and S. Smolentsev participated in this meeting. Dr. Angel Ibarra visited UCLA for detailed discussions during the period May 27-29, A summary was presented to Ed Stevens via “Ready Talk” It was agreed to hold the 2 nd EU-US DCLL Workshop Nov , 2014 immediately after TOFE 3

Objectives of the Workshop and Expected Outcome Better Definition of What type of DCLL concept and which FCI will receive more focus in the near term: Normal (Low) temperature DCLL (PbLi ~450C) -Which FCI: SiC or “steel-alumina-steel” sandwich High-temperature DCLL (PbLi > 600C) Review Recent Progress on Key Areas of R&D: MHD Thermofluids FCI sandwich-type and SiC Tritium Transport and Permeation Tritium Extraction Discuss and reach conclusions on some important and timely questions and on key collaboration items 4

Organization of the Agenda and Discussion Topics 1½ days on Presentations from EU and US on progress in the key areas of collaboration. The times for each presentation and Q&A are clearly specified. Please do not exceed the time allotted. ½ day (Saturday afternoon) devoted to Three Discussion sessions, each is devoted to one or more key questions. Each session has a chair. Participants can express their views orally or use a slide or two. Discussion Session A. Chair: Angel Ibarra. Collaboration Areas of common interest for EU-US collaboration on DCLL and suggested actions. Discussion Session B. Chair: Neil Morley. Multiple effects. a.How to simulate multiple-effects/multiple interactions experiments in laboratory facilities. b.What methods are possible for simulating volumetric heating and temperature, both magnitude and gradient? Discussion Session C. Chair: Lorenzo Boccaccini. R&D approach and strategy for FCI. a.Do we focus on SiC or sandwich-type? b.Should all effort the next several years be focused only on low-temperature DCLL? c.When do we start development for high-temperature DCLL? d.What are the sequence of logical experiments to show that FCI is viable and practical in the fusion nuclear environment? e.Are present computational methods sufficient to fully analyze FCI and gap flow? 5

Science-Based Framework for FNST R&D It is important to develop a science-based framework that can effectively be utilized to: Identify ultimate goal of R&D Sequence of experiments (note that facilities in which needed experiments can be performed should be defined after (not before) the experiments are defined) Provide detailed performance parameters to: a)Quantify requirements of experiments and modeling, and b)Measure progress UCLA-led studies identified a very meaningful Science- Based Framework in the 1980’s. The framework was reviewed and adopted in many recent US community planning studies such as RENEW It will be very useful for the EU and US FNST communities to evolve a common science-based framework. 6

Science-Based Framework for FNST R&D Goal Develop Verified and Validated Predictive Capability with which we can design and predict behavior and performance of fusion nuclear components in DEMO 7

Science-Based Framework for Blanket/FW R&D involves modeling & experiments in non-fusion and fusion facilities. Scientific Feasibility Performance Verification Property Measurement Phenomena Exploration (non-neutron test stands, fission reactors and accelerator-based neutron sources) Non-Fusion Facilities Concept Screening Engineering Development & Reliability Growth Testing in Fusion Facilities Theory/Modeling Basic Separate Effects Multiple Effect/ Interactions Partially Integrated Design Codes/Data Component For each step, detailed performance parameters can be defined to quantify requirements of experiments and modeling and measure progress 8 It should be utilized to identify and prioritize R&D Tasks

We are now in mostly “Separate Effects” stage. We Need to move to “multiple effects/multiple interactions” to discover new phenomena and enable future integrated tests in ITER TBM and FNSF Next 3-7 Years Now TBM in ITER & FNSF in FNSF 2 or more facilities will be needed, plus TBM in ITER/FNSF DD Phase Scientific Feasibility Performance Verification Property Measurement Phenomena Exploration (non-neutron test stands, fission reactors and accelerator-based neutron sources) Non-Fusion Facilities Concept Screening Engineering Development & Reliability Growth Testing in Fusion Facilities 9 Theory/Modeling Basic Separate Effects Multiple Effect/ Interactions Partially Integrated Design Codes/Data Component

Key Observations for planning Near-Term R&D Recent results (at UCLA) show that predicting behavior of blankets can not be deduced from the “sum of separate effects”. Multiple effects / multiple interactions result in new phenomena arising from synergistic effects caused by: a)Multiple environmental loadings with steep gradients (n, B, volumetric nuclear heating, surface heating, particle fluxes, mechanical and electric forces, vacuum, etc.) b)Interactions among materials interfaces/sub-elements/subcomponents (coolant/structure, breeder/multiplier/He purge, etc.) Uncovering such new phenomena and predicting synergistic effects and quantifying behavior require: a)Upgrade of current facilities b)Construction of new facilities with multiple capabilities (for example, think of three classes of facilities with cost in the range of $5M, $20M, $50M) c)Much larger and more intensive effort on development of models and computational capabilities. Scientific results show that optimum parameters of facilities involve balance among forces and key conditions (e.g. Re, Ha, Gr, etc.) and operating with real materials, simulated heating, temperature, and gradients. It will be a serious mistake to only increase one loading conditions (e.g. only highly magnetic field) as Results will be irrelevant 10

Suggested New Area for EU-US Collaboration A Joint Study to: Agree on a Science-Based Framework to identify sequence of experiments and models and to define parameters to measure progress Define the optimum range of parameters and capabilities required in new blanket facilities over the next 5-7 years to study multiple effects / multiple interactions and partially integrated One can consider 3 types of facilities in the range of ~$5M, $20M, $50M 11

Peaked Power Loading and Transient Heat and EM Loads on First Wall/Blanket There is an alarming disconnect between Reactor/DEMO Design Studies and Realities faced in ITER. Reactor Studies assume peak-to-average power loading is slightly above 1.0, ignore transients, and assume disruptions will never occur. The scenarios suggested in ITER are “threatening” – they simply have no identified solutions in DEMO/Power Reactors How long can we continue to ignore this? Mike Ulrickson has dealt with these challenging areas for ITER over the past several years. We invited Mike to give us a presentation to help stimulate some useful discussion 12

13 AGENDA – Friday, November 14 8:30-9:00Continental breakfast Session I: OPENING Chair: Angel Ibarra 9:00-9:105+5 Edward Stevens (remote participation) DOE Welcome 9:10-9:3520+5Mohamed AbdouIntroduction to workshop 9:35-10: Gianfranco FedericiEU DEMO project 10:15-10:4525+5Lorenzo BoccacciniEU blanket design and R&D for DEMO 10:45-11:0015Coffee break Session II: DCLLChair: Rick Kurtz 11:00-11:2520+5Siegfried MalangWhat is DCLL (including HT and LT)? 11:25-11:4515+5David RapisardaEU DCLL conceptual design for the EU DEMO 11:45-12:0515+5Sergey SmolentsevA design for the DCLL inboard blanket 12:05-12:3020+5Dario CarloniSafety considerations for the EU DCLL 12:30-14:0090Lunch at Faculty Center 14:00-14:2015+5Siegfried Malang Maintenance schemes and related DCLL designs

14 Session III: FCIChair: Brad Merrill 14:20-14:4015+5Prachai Norajitra Manufacturing of Sandwich FCI for the EU DEMO DCLL 14:40-15:0015+5Maria GonzalezSandwich FCI characterization 15:00-15:2015+5Yutai KatohProgress on R&D of SiC FCI for DCLL 15:20-15:4015+5Maria GonzalezSiC as an alternative FCI for EU DEMO Session IV: TRITIUM Chair: Lorenzo Boccaccini 15:40-16:0520+5Carlos MorenoModeling tools for tritium transport 16:05:16:2515+5Alice YingTritium Transport in multi-region PbLi blanket 16:25-16:4515+5Carlos MorenoModelling of the tritium fuel cycle 16:45-17:0015Coffee break 17:00-17:2015+5Marco UtiliTritium extraction technologies for EU DCLL 17:20-17:4015+5Paul Humrickhouse Analysis of Vacuum Permeator for tritium extraction for DCLL 17:40-18:0015+5Ivan FernandezExperimental data for tritium transport modeling 18:00Adjourn 19:00Dinner hosted by UCLA AGENDA – Friday, November 14

15 AGENDA – Saturday, November 15 8:30-9:00Continental breakfast Session V: MHDChair: Yutai Katoh 09:00-09: Elisabet Mas de les Valls (remote participation) Progress on PbLi MHD thermofluids in EU 09:25-09:5020+5Sergey SmolentsevRecent results on MHD thermofluids for DCLL in US 09:50-10:1520+5Ramakanth MunipalliHigh performance computing for MHD 10:15-10:3520Coffee break Session VI: FACILITIESChair: Maria Gonzalez 10:35-10:5515+5Ivan Fernandez Summary of FUSKITE results on materials, modeling and data analysis 10:55-11:1515+5Neil MorleyMultiple effects for HT DCLL 11:15-11:3010+5Rich CallisConceptual Design of a Multi-effect DCLL Test Stand 11:30-11:5015+5Ivan FernandezThe CIEMAT LiPb loop: conceptual design 11:50-12:1015+5Brad MerrillINL experimental and analytical capabilities for DCLL 12:10-12: Michael Ulrickson Heat flux on FW. Impact on FW/blanket design and R&D 12:30-13:3060Lunch (boxes will be brought in)

16 AGENDA – Saturday, November 15 Discussion and Action Sessions 13:30-14:3060 Discussion Session A. Chair: Angel Ibarra. Areas of common interest for EU-US collaboration on DCLL and suggested actions. 14:30-15:3060 Discussion Session B. Chair: Neil Morley. Multiple effects. a.How to simulate multiple-effects/multiple interactions experiments in laboratory facilities. b.What methods are possible for simulating volumetric heating and temperature, both magnitude and gradient? 15:30-16:3060 Discussion Session C. Chair: Lorenzo Boccaccini. R&D approach and strategy for FCI. a.Do we focus on SiC or sandwich-type? b.Should all effort the next several years be focused only on low-temperature DCLL? c.When do we start development for high-temperature DCLL? d.What are the sequence of logical experiments to show that FCI is viable and practical in the fusion nuclear environment? e.Are present computational methods sufficient to fully analyze FCI and gap flow? 16:30-16:4515Angel IbarraWorkshop summary, EU 16:45-17:0015Mohamed AbdouWorkshop summary, US 17:00Adjourn