IAEA 21 st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier 1 of 16 slides Power Plant Conceptual...

IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier

1of 16 slides

Power Plant Conceptual Power Plant Conceptual Studies in EuropeStudies in Europe

D. Maisonnier1 ([email protected]), 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

FT/1-2FT/1-2


2of 16 slides

OutlineOutline

European Fusion StrategyEuropean Fusion Strategy

Power Plant Conceptual Study (PPCS)Power Plant Conceptual Study (PPCS)

Follow-up to the PPCSFollow-up to the PPCS

Strategic questions, DEMOStrategic questions, DEMO

ConclusionsConclusions


3of 16 slides

European Fusion StrategyEuropean Fusion Strategy

Scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy

Next StepNext Step Fusion PlantFusion Plant(1(1stst of a kind) of a kind)

DEMODEMO

ITER + IFMIFITER + IFMIF

Power Plant Conceptual Studies (PPCS)Power Plant Conceptual Studies (PPCS)

• High availability• Safe and environmental-friendly• Economically acceptable

Qualification of components and processes

DEMO StudiesDEMO Studies


4of 16 slides

PPCS – FPP PPCS – FPP Requirements*Requirements*

• Safety / EnvironmentSafety / Environment– no need for emergency evacuation, no active systems for safe

shut-down, no structure melting following LOCA– minimum wastes to repository

• OperationOperation– steady state, ~ 1 GWe, base load– availability 75 80 %, with only few unplanned shut-downs/year

• EconomicsEconomics– public acceptance could be even more important than economics– economic comparison among equally acceptable energy sources

* Recommendations from EU utilities/industry


5of 16 slides

PPCS - GeneralPPCS - General

• The The European Power Plant Conceptual StudyEuropean Power Plant Conceptual Study has been has been a 4-year study completed in April 2005a 4-year study completed in April 2005

• Overall Overall objectivesobjectives of PPCS of PPCS– to assess the fusion energy statusto assess the fusion energy status– to establish coherence and priorities in the EU fusion to establish coherence and priorities in the EU fusion

programmeprogramme

• 5 plant models5 plant models (A, AB, B, C and D), ranging from (A, AB, B, C and D), ranging from “limited” to “very advanced” extrapolations in physics and “limited” to “very advanced” extrapolations in physics and in technologyin technology


6of 16 slides

PPCS – Physics and Tech. BasisPPCS – Physics and Tech. Basis

• Near term Models Near term Models (A, AB and B): modest improvement w.r.t. the (A, AB and B): modest improvement w.r.t. the IPB98y2 scaling law (HIPB98y2 scaling law (HHH<1.2, n/n<1.2, n/nGRGR<1.2, <1.2, ββNN<3.5 and first stability)<3.5 and first stability)

• More advanced Models More advanced Models (C & D): progressive improvements in (C & D): progressive improvements in performance - high performance - high β,β, high confinement, strong shaping, high high confinement, strong shaping, high bootstrap current fraction and minimisation of divertor loads without bootstrap current fraction and minimisation of divertor loads without penalisation of core plasma conditionspenalisation of core plasma conditions

• Peak heat loads on the divertorPeak heat loads on the divertorWater cooling: Water cooling: 15 MW/m15 MW/m22, helium cooling: 10 MW/m, helium cooling: 10 MW/m22

• Heat loads on the FWHeat loads on the FWAverage 0.5 MW/mAverage 0.5 MW/m22, peak <1 MW/m, peak <1 MW/m22

• Nuclear loads (Eurofer)Nuclear loads (Eurofer)Average load on FW Average load on FW 2 MWa/m2 MWa/m22, peak load on FW , peak load on FW 3 MWa/m3 MWa/m2 2

Assume lifetime of 150 dpa (15 MWa/mAssume lifetime of 150 dpa (15 MWa/m22), corresponding to ), corresponding to approximately 5FPY for the blanketapproximately 5FPY for the blanket


7of 16 slides

PPCS – Plant ParametersPPCS – Plant Parameters

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 efficiency0.31/0.3

30.36 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 0.43 0.63 0.76

Padd (MW) 246 270 257 112 71

limited extrapolation advanced-8-6

-4

-20

2

4

6

8

0 5 10 15

Z(m) BCD

ITER

A & AB

R(m)

Mo

del

B r

en

om

alis

edto

1.5

GW

e


8of 16 slides

PPCS – Nuclear CorePPCS – Nuclear Core Model A Model B Model

ABModel C Model D

Structural material Eurofer Eurofer Eurofer Eurofer SiC/SiC

Coolant Water Helium Helium LiPb/He LiPb

Coolant T in/out (°C) 285 / 325 300 / 500 300 / 500 480 / 700 300 / 480

700 / 1100

Breeder LiPb Li4SiO4 LiPb LiPb LiPb

TBR 1.06 1.12 1.13 1.15 1.12

Structural material CuCrZr W alloy W alloy W alloy SiC/SiC

Armour material W W W W W

Coolant Water Helium Helium Helium LiPb

Coolant T in/out (°C) 140 / 170 540 / 720 540 / 720 540 / 720 600 / 990

blan

ket

dive

rtor

Optimisation of power conversion cycle allow to gain 4 percentage points in net efficiency.


9of 16 slides

PPCS - AssessmentsPPCS - 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

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

Fusion PPCS

Projected costs without subsidiesShell Renewables, 2003


10of 16 slides

He-cooled DivertorHe-cooled Divertor

Finger unit

W alloy

W ODSSteel

9-Finger-Unit Stripe-Unit Panel Divertor

Radial cooling - basic principle1-finger mock-up

18 mm


11of 16 slides

Balance of PlantBalance of Plant

Most of the plant is conventional, not fusion specific!

fusion specific


12of 16 slides

European “Fast-Track”European “Fast-Track”

‘Accelerated’ One-Step RoadmapK. LACKNER et al., Long-Term FusionStrategy 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)

Electricity to the grid

2 8 phase 1 phase 2

DEMO design DEMO const.10 8

Reactor design Reactor const.

6 7

t = 0 yr t = 10 yr t = 28 yr t = 41 yr

ITER lic. & construction ITER operations

DEMO operations


13of 16 slides

European “Fast-Track”European “Fast-Track”

3 key questions3 key questions

• Are the fast-track scenarios proposed consistent with the Are the fast-track scenarios proposed consistent with the PPCSPPCS findings? findings?

• What are the What are the DEMODEMO objectives? objectives?

• Are the Are the ITERITER objectives consistent with the fast-track objectives consistent with the fast-track scenarios?scenarios?


14of 16 slides

DEMO ObjectivesDEMO Objectives

• Qualification of: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 Validation of the overall reactor architectureoverall reactor architecture (in particular (in particular in-vessel components in-vessel components segmentationsegmentation) and demonstration of ) and demonstration of remote handlingremote handling procedures procedures


15of 16 slides

ITER Objectives *ITER Objectives *

• Validation of: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.


16of 16 slides

ConclusionsConclusions

• Plasma performance marginally better than in ITER is Plasma performance marginally better than in ITER is sufficient for sufficient for economic viabilityeconomic viability of a first generation of of a first generation of fusion power plantsfusion power plants

• These plants will have These plants will have attractive safety and attractive safety and environmentalenvironmental features features

• The European fusion programme is on the The European fusion programme is on the right linesright lines (ITER, IFMIF, TBMs)(ITER, IFMIF, TBMs)

• More workMore work required on divertor systems and on required on divertor systems and on maintenance procedures for DEMOmaintenance procedures for DEMO

• DEMO objectives require DEMO objectives require clarificationclarification

• A fast track fusion development scenario requires an A fast track fusion development scenario requires an adjustment of the ITER objectivesadjustment of the ITER objectives

IAEA 21 st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier 1 of 16 slides Power Plant Conceptual...

Documents

Transcript of IAEA 21 st FEC, Chengdu, 16-21.10.2006, David Maisonnier 1 of 16 slides Power Plant Conceptual...