1. Power Plant Conceptual Studies in Europe
FT/1-2
Power Plant Conceptual Studies in Europe
D. Maisonnier1 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
IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, , David Maisonnier

2. Outline European Fusion Strategy Power Plant Conceptual Study (PPCS)
Follow-up to the PPCS
Strategic questions, DEMO
Conclusions
IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, , David Maisonnier

3. European Fusion Strategy
Fusion Plant
(1st of a kind)
Next Step
DEMO
Scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy
ITER + IFMIF
Qualification of components and processes
DEMO Studies
High availability
Safe and environmental-friendly
Economically acceptable
Reactor oriented strategy, last devices considered are DEMO & accompanying machines / facilities
FPP financed by utilities
Power Plant Conceptual Studies (PPCS)
IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, , David Maisonnier

4. PPCS – FPP Requirements*
Safety / Environment
no need for emergency evacuation, no active systems for safe shut-down, no structure melting following LOCA
minimum wastes to repository
Operation
steady state, ~ 1 GWe, base load
availability 75  80 %, with only few unplanned shut-downs/year
Economics
public acceptance could be even more important than economics
economic comparison among equally acceptable energy sources
* Recommendations from EU utilities/industry
IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, , David Maisonnier

5. PPCS - General
The European Power Plant Conceptual Study has been a 4-year study completed in April 2005
Overall objectives of PPCS
to assess the fusion energy status
to establish coherence and priorities in the EU fusion programme
5 plant models (A, AB, B, C and D), ranging from “limited” to “very advanced” extrapolations in physics and in technology
Detailed objectives (July 2001), demonstrate:
1- the credibility of fusion power plant design
2- the claims for the safety and environmental advantages and for the economic viability of fusion power
3- the robustness of the analyses and conclusions
IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, , David Maisonnier

6. PPCS – Physics and Tech. Basis
Near term Models (A, AB and B): modest improvement w.r.t. the IPB98y2 scaling law (HH<1.2, n/nGR<1.2, βN<3.5 and first stability)
More advanced Models (C & D): progressive improvements in performance - high β, high confinement, strong shaping, high bootstrap current fraction and minimisation of divertor loads without penalisation of core plasma conditions
Peak heat loads on the divertor
Water cooling: 15 MW/m2, helium cooling: 10 MW/m2
Heat loads on the FW
Average 0.5 MW/m2, peak <1 MW/m2
Nuclear loads (Eurofer)
Average load on FW 2 MWa/m2, peak load on FW 3 MWa/m2
Assume lifetime of 150 dpa (15 MWa/m2), corresponding to approximately 5FPY for the blanket
Check with DC physics explanation on power handling limit on divertor (ie power radiation hypothesis / model?)
IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, , David Maisonnier

7. PPCS – Plant Parameters-8 -6 -4 -2 2 4 6 8 5 10 15
Z(m) B C D
ITER
A & AB
R(m)
Model B renomalised
to 1.5 GWe
limited extrapolation
advanced
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 efficiency
0.31/0.33
0.36
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
0.63
0.76
Padd (MW)
246
270
257
112 71
IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, , David Maisonnier

8. PPCS – Nuclear Core
Model A
Model B
Model AB
Model C
Model D
Structural material
Eurofer
SiC/SiC
Coolant
Water
Helium
LiPb/He
LiPb
Coolant T in/out (°C)
285 / 325
300 / 500
480 / / 480
700 / 1100
Breeder
Li4SiO4
TBR
1.06
1.12
1.13
1.15
CuCrZr
W alloy
Armour material W
140 / 170
540 / 720
600 / 990
blanket
divertor
Mention ODS Eurofer
Optimisation of power conversion cycle allow to gain 4 percentage points in net efficiency.
IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, , David Maisonnier

9. PPCS - 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
Fusion PPCS
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
Projected costs without subsidies
Shell Renewables, 2003
IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, , David Maisonnier

10. Radial cooling - basic principle
He-cooled Divertor
Finger unit
9-Finger-Unit
Stripe-Unit
Panel
Divertor
18 mm W
ODS
Steel
W alloy
Radial cooling - basic principle
1-finger mock-up
IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, , David Maisonnier

11. Balance of Plant
fusion specific
Most of the plant is conventional, not fusion specific!
IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, , David Maisonnier

12. European “Fast-Track”
Electricity to the grid
‘Accelerated’ One-Step Roadmap
K. LACKNER et al., Long-Term Fusion
Strategy in Europe, JNM (2002)
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)
Mention IFMIF and accompanying programme
IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, , David Maisonnier

13. European “Fast-Track”
3 key questions
Are the fast-track scenarios proposed consistent with the PPCS findings?
What are the DEMO objectives?
Are the ITER objectives consistent with the fast-track scenarios?
IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, , David Maisonnier

14. DEMO Objectives 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 overall reactor architecture (in particular in-vessel components segmentation) and demonstration of remote handling procedures
IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, , David Maisonnier

15. ITER Objectives * 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.
IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, , David Maisonnier

16. Conclusions
Plasma performance marginally better than in ITER is sufficient for economic viability of a first generation of fusion power plants
These plants will have attractive safety and environmental features
The European fusion programme is on the right lines (ITER, IFMIF, TBMs)
More work required on divertor systems and on maintenance procedures for DEMO
DEMO objectives require clarification
A fast track fusion development scenario requires an adjustment of the ITER objectives
IAEA 21st FEC, Chengdu, , David Maisonnier