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.
2.
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.
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:
–
–
–
–
4.
5.
6.
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.
Proposals were submitted for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
(NERI) in the nuclear area by several faculty members. Prof.
Ghoniem won a contract.
MAE faculty (Catton and Morley) participated in the UC planning
meeting and subsequent discussions for the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP)
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”)
Initiative to form:
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.
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 energyrelated 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)
Functions of the Tritium Breeding Blanket
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)
TBMs Arrangement in ITER and Interfaces
► 3 ITER equatorial ports (opening of 1.75 x 2.2 m2) devoted to TBM testing
► TBMs installed within a water-cooled steel frame (thk. 20 cm), typically half-port size
3
T
B
M
TBMs
tests
need a
whole
TBM
system
TBM
Shield
plug
Frame
The TBMs first wall
is recessed of 50
mm and protected
with a Be layer
Sample
TBM
vertical
horizontal
P
O
R
T
S
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
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
Be coating for
FW protection
Neutron Multiplier
Be, Be12Ti (<2mm)
Tritium Breeder
Li2TiO3, Li2O (<2mm)
Be pebble
Li2O ceramic
breeder
Helium coolant
(8MPa, 300/500oC)
Force distribution at breeder particle
contacts before (top) and after
(bottom) onset of creep deformation
First Wall
(RAFS, F82H)
Surface Heat Flux:1 MW/m2
Neutron Wall Load: 5 MW/m2(1.5×1015n/cm2s)
3-D computer model of a pebble bed
US ITER Test Blanket Module Program
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 (550oC) 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 oC
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 (cont’d)
HCCB Main Features
Use of high pressure helium (~8 MPa) operating between 300oC and 500 oC. 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 (0.6-0.8 mm) pebble bed of Li ceramic breeder material such as 40% 6Li
enriched Li4SiO4 or 70% 6Li enriched Li2TiO3.
Use of a single-size (1 mm) Be pebble bed as a neutron multiplier.
Use of a low pressure (0.1-0.2 MPa) helium purge gas with 1000 ppm H2 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 oC), 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-2013.
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.
2009 and the shipment of the submodule to the host by mid-2014.
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.