1. Briefings to the Materials Community on ITER Test Blanket Module (TBM) Mohamed Abdou August 11, 2003 Outline 1.What is going on with ITER and TBWG 2.Other Parties’ Plans for ITER TBM 3.How to select US Options for ITER TBM “Go-No Go” Issues for Possible Blanket Options Community Study linked to very near-term R&D 4.What is needed from the Material Community for the US ITER TBM

2. WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH ITER The US rejoined the ITER negotiations –China and S. Korea also joined ITER –ITER Parties Now: EU, Japan, Russia, USA, Canada, PRC, S. Korea Serious Negotiations are now going on –Site selection, Management structure, etc. –What contributions by each party Centers on “85 Construction Packages” ITER is rapidly becoming the central focus of the US community and administration Notes related to Blanket/Material Area –ITER basic device has no breeding blanket, only shielding blanket. BP PAC indicated “low” level of interest in this construction package –US interest is in the ITER Test Blanket Module (TBM). We want to be a strong participant. – For the US to be accepted in ITER TBM, the US must show that it is doing the R&D necessary to “pre-qualify” its TBMs

3. What is the ITER Test Blanket Module Program? The ITER Test Program is managed by the ITER Test Blanket Working Group (TBWG) with participants from the ITER Central Team and representatives of the Parties Breeding Blankets will be tested in ITER, starting on Day One, by inserting Test Blanket Modules (TBM) in specially designed ports Each TBM will have its own dedicated systems for tritium recovery and processing, heat extraction, etc. Each TBM will also need new diagnostics for the nuclear-electromagnetic environment Each ITER Party is allocated limited space for testing two TBM’s. (No. of Ports reduced to 3. Number of Parties increased to 7) ITER’s construction plan includes specifications for TBM’s because of impacts on space, vacuum vessel, remote maintenance, ancillary equipment, safety, availability, etc.

4. ITER Operational Plan Calls for Testing Breeding Blankets from Day 1 of Operation (Initial tests without neutrons: effects of ferritic steel, LM MHD and hydraulic tests, etc.) H-Plasma Phase D Phase First DT plasma phase Accumulated fluence = 0.09 MWa/m 2 Blanket Test

5. TBM Roll Back from ITER 1st Plasma Shows R&D must be accelerated now for TBM Selection in 2005 EU schedule for Helium-Cooled Pebble Bed TBM (1 of 4 TBMs Planned) ITER First Plasma (Reference: S. Malang, L.V. Boccaccini, ANNEX 2, "EFDA Technology Workprogramme 2002 Field: Tritium Breeding and Materials 2002 activities- Task Area: Breeding Blanket (HCPB), Sep. 2000) a final decision on blanket test modules selection by 2005 in order to initiate design, fabrication and out-of-pile testing _

6. a)Breeding Blanket is a “near-term” technology b) its development is more challenging than previously assumed c) it needs more attention Why 1.Tritium Supply Issue is becoming alarming 2.There has never been a Serious Engineering Design of a breeding blanket (in particular real structural engineering design is lacking): −The only serious engineering design in ITER (for non-breeding blanket) shows the first wall to be much thicker than we assumed. Potential for tritium self sufficiency is uncertain. (Is DT fusion feasible?) −The only other reasonably detailed study was in the EU in ’94/95. It had much more structure than earlier assumed and the breeding potential was shown to be a serious issue 3.All Breeder Blanket Concepts (especially all liquid breeder options) have feasibility issues that the world programs have not yet been able to resolve There is a Growing Consensus Worldwide that:

7. Tritium Consumption and Production Fusion Consumption Huge, Unprecedented Production & Cost CANDU Reactors: 27 kg over 40 years, $30M/kg (current) Fission Reactors: few kg per year, $200M/kg!! (projected cost after Canadian tritium is gone) It takes tens of fission reactors to supply one fusion reactor. Conclusions ITER’s extended phase requires tritium breeding. Large power DT facilities must breed their own tritium.

8. World Tritium Supply Would be Exhausted by 2025 if ITER Were to Run at 1000MW and 10% Availability (OR at 500 MW and 20% availability) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 19952000 2005 20102015202020252030203520402045 Year Projected Ontario (OPG) Tritium Inventory (kg) CANDU Supply w/o Fusion ITER-FEAT (2004 start) 1000 MW Fusion, 10% Avail, TBR 0.0

9. ITER First Wall Panel Cross Section (Real Engineering Design shows a need for a thick first wall??!) 10 mm 22 mm 49 mm −Thick first walls (>1cm) seriously threaten the ability to attain tritium self sufficiency, hence the feasibility of DT fusion −Real Engineering Design of breeding blankets is needed as part of evaluating blanket options

10. Concepts Planned for Tests in ITER by International Parties Japan He-cooled solid breeder (pebble bed) blanket with Ferritic Steel (FS) Water-cooled solid breeder blanket with FS European Unit He-cooled solid breeder (pebble bed) blanket with FS He-cooled lead-lithium blanket with FS Russian Federation He-cooled solid breeder (pebble bed) blanket with FS Self-cooled lithium blanket with V alloy US, China, Korea ?? (The US needs to select its two options, process started)

11. What Should be the TWO US Blanket Options for ITER TBM? And How to make the Decision? Emerging View in the US Blanket Community: (Need Feedback from Materials and other communities) 1.He-cooled Solid Breeder (pebble bed) Blanket with FS −Selected by all parties (EU, J, RF) and has the largest world R&D −US has highly focused R&D in niche areas and rich expertise in underlying technical disciplines −Suggested US Strategy: −Select He/SB/FS as an option but do not have an independent TBM. Rather, plan on unit cell and submodule test articles that focus on particular technical issues of interest to all parties (Strategy will work if collaboration is agreed to by EU, J) 2.Liquid Breeder Option: ?? −ALL Liquid Breeder Options have serious feasibility, “Go-No Go” issues. To make a prudent decision, the US needs to initiate a 2-yr study supported by highly focused R&D (time schedule is also a problem)

12. Liquid Breeder Blanket Options of Interest to US and Key Feasibility Issues 1. Self-Cooled Li / V 1.A. Li / V was the US choice for a long time. But negative results and lack of progress on serious feasibility issues are ALARMING 2. Lead-Lithium MHD Effects Corrosion at High Temperature (coupled to coating development) Coating Development, Crack Tolerance Engineering Design Solutions (that may not require coating) Tritium Recovery and Control V Development 2.A. He-Cooled Pb-Li with FS Tritium Permeation (Barrier Development), and Control Corrosion 2.B. Dual Coolant with He-Cooled First Wall and Self-Cooled –Pb-Li breeding zone with SiC INSERT for electrical/thermal insulation (all structure FS) SiC insert compatability with Pb-Li (Corrosion temperature limit) SiC insert performance integrity (cracks in coating of the insert, etc.) Tritium Permeation and Control

13. Liquid Breeder Blanket Options (cont’d) 3. Molten Salt (Flibe/Flinabe) 3A. Self-Cooled FLiBe with advanced FS structure 3B. Self-Cooled FLiNaBe with FS structure enhancing heat transfer and MHD effects on heat transfer redox, tritium recovery and control

14. Emerging US Plan for ITER TBM Activities (Still in the discussion stage) 1.Join ITER Test Blanket Working Group (TBWG) (Done) 2.Initiate Evaluation Study to select Two Blanket options for US ITER TBM (primarily selection of which liquid breeder option since there is an agreement on the specifics of the solid breeder option) −Study is to be led by the Chamber/Blanket Community in partnership with Materials, PFC, Safety, and Advanced Design Communities). Study will involve interactions with EU, Japan, RF, S. Korea, and China. −Study must be based on quantitative modeling and R&D data. Strive to eliminate “historical” bias. −Need to make the selection in ONE year or less (to meet ITER schedule) 3.Initiate R&D and refocus existing activities to address the top-level critical issues that have the highest impact on Selection of Liquid Breeder Option −(e.g., see list given earlier. Examples are MHD insulators, MHD engineering design solutions and experiments, SiC insert corrosion with PbLi, tritium permeation barrier, etc.)

15. Emerging US Plan for ITER TBM Activities (cont’d) 4.Initiate discussions with other ITER Parties about the strategy for ITER TBM, e.g., −Focus on 2 blanket options for the World instead of 2 options per party? −Bi-lateral and multi-lateral collaboration on the R&D (as well as construction of the ITER test articles?) 5.Enhance and focus current international collaborative programs (e.g., JUPITER II, IEA, etc.) to provide data for ITER Test Module Selection and Development 6.Concurrently Develop Engineering Scaling and engineering design of test articles in the ITER environment for the Blanket concepts selected for testing in ITER

16. What Do We Need from the US Material Program? 1.Strong commitment for partnership in the US ITER TBM 2.Commitment and resources for partnership in the very near-term (FY 2004) efforts on ITER TBM: A.Study to select two blanket options for US ITER TBMs B.Accelerating and/or initiating R&D to address the top-level feasibility issues with most impact on selection of ITER TBMs? (These items were summarized under issues for liquid breeder options in earlier slides) 3.What additional material information for ferritic steel is needed to build ITER TBM? (key information is not for high fluence. It is for low fluence, but must include fabrication, joining, material interactions, cyclic operation in the synergistic magnetic fusion environment, etc.) 4.Are Advanced Ferritic Steels, V alloys and SiC/SiC credible options for structural materials in ITER TBMs (and hence DEMO)?