Introductory Remarks to
APEX/TBM* Meeting
November 3-5, 2003
Mohamed Abdou
*ITER Test Blanket Module
Remarkable Events over the Past 10 Months!!
• Amazing Year!!
• FY04 Budget for Chamber was submitted to congress as
ZERO in February. This erroneous, irrational decision
shocked each and every person “who knew anything” about
Fusion.
• The situation has been rectified (partially) in the FY04 initial
financial plan.
– Thanks to the efforts of OFES, many of the fusion community
leaders, and the proactive efforts of some senior members of the
Chamber/ Blanket Communities!
• (How and Why such an irrational decision was made last
December/January needs to be clearly understood by the
Chamber/Blanket community in order to avoid such disasters
in the future! Topic for social hour. But for now we need to
move on.)
• The US rejoined ITER negotiations. ITER blanket testing
came to focus and presented a great opportunity to move
forward.
New Framework for US Chamber/Blanket Activities:
Emerging View
With the US joining ITER, the Blanket/Chamber community concluded
that it is very important for the US to participate in the ITER Blanket
Testing Program. There have been extensive deliberations over the
past few months among senior members of the Chamber/Blanket
community and DOE, VLT, ITER management, and other VLT
Programs. These deliberations led to a consensus on a general
framework for the direction of activities in the US Chamber/Blanket
Program. Key elements of the emerging framework are:
1.
The US will have strong participation in the ITER Test Blanket
Module (TBM) program and will redirect a good part of the
resources toward R&D for TBM.
2.
The US must rethink its previously preferred two blanket
concepts in view of new technical results obtained over the past
few years
New Framework for US Chamber/Blanket Activities:
Emerging View (cont’d)
3.
The near-term TBM activities will involve two parts:
A.
B.
a study to select the US favored two blanket concepts for TBM
R&D activities to support TBM
4.
Reduce the work on innovative concepts under APEX. Some
parts will be concluded in FY04. Other parts of APEX, particularly
R&D, will continue. An example of activities to continue are
experiments and modeling to support ALIST (free surface LM on
NSTX) such as LM MHD.
5.
The actual division of resources between APEX innovative
concept work and TBM is an open question. Another open
question is whether APEX can continue as a stand alone project
or if its remaining parts should be organized differently
New Framework for US Chamber/Blanket Activities:
Emerging View (cont’d)
6.
The US community encourages international collaboration and
believes that there is a need for all ITER Parties to collaborate
more, and to possibly consider a more integrated plan among the
ITER Parties for carrying out the R&D and construction of the test
modules.
7.
Among the reasons:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
The Spirit of “international collaboration” inherent for the ITER
process
Many new technical issues identified for all blanket concepts
Lack of success in resolving some challenging key technical issues,
such as tritium permeation barriers and MHD insulators.
The R&D effort and TBM construction and testing will cost much more
than previously thought
Funding for fusion in general, and blankets in particular, remains
constrained for ALL the Parties involved
Objectives of the November ’03 Meeting
I.
APEX (Monday PM)
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
Summary and Status of Work (Reports by Task
Leaders)
Status of Papers for Special FED Issue
What should be done over the next 3 months
Team Discussion on Lessons Learned
Team Discussion on Future Plans for APEX
Objectives of the November ’03 Meeting (cont’d)
II.
ITER Test Blanket Module (TBM) Program (Tuesday
and Wednesday)
i.
Plan for a study to select two US favored blanket concepts
a.
ii.
Plan for TBM R&D
a.
b.
iii.
iv.
Summary of current R&D activities relevant to ITER TBM
List and priority of other R&D items that need to be initiated
Organization of the US Blanket Community Effort
Strengthening interactions with other VLT elements
(Materials, Safety and Tritium, PFC, Advanced Design
Studies)
a.
v.
Technical issues to be addressed, starting date, organization,
etc.
A telephone connection will be made Wednesday at 1:00 pm for
off-site participants
Plans for TBWG and international collaboration
This is a Special Meeting!
1.
Initiating ITER Test Blanket Module (TBM) Program
Exciting Times! Very Important Activities. Involves
technical issues on which many of the blanket people
spent their careers. But resources are still limited, we
have to be efficient, selective and effective
Discussing future plans for APEX
2.
-
-
APEX efforts to explore innovative concepts for liquid and solid
walls over the past 5 years have been very successful. APEX
ideas and concepts have had a large impact on fusion. The
impact of what the APEX team has done will be appreciated
even more in the future.
Yet, we have to discuss how to reduce (or even conclude?)
APEX efforts in an orderly manner because resources are
limited!!
Meeting Format
- Given the nature of the meeting, considerable
time has been allocated to discussions
- All participants are strongly encouraged to
openly share their thoughts, ideas, views, and
suggestions
- Session chairs are urged to write notes of key
points, recommendations and conclusions from
their sessions. Please send summaries to M.
Youssef to collect and post on the web. Send
copies to M. Abdou and M. Sawan
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 6)
• ITER’s construction plan includes specifications for TBM’s
because of impacts on space, vacuum vessel, remote
maintenance, ancillary equipment, safety, availability, etc.
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
Phase
D
First DT plasma phase
Accumulated
fluence =
0.09
MWa/m2
Blanket
Test
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)
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
ITER First Plasma
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
_
HCPB Programme
PB Material Fabrication and
Char. (mech., chem, etc)
Out-of-pile pebble bed
experiments
Pebble bed Irradiation
Programme
Modelling on Pebble beds
including irradiation effects
Key issues of Blanket
Structure Fabr. Tech.
HCPB Programme for ITER
Develop. and testing of
instrumentation for TBM
Develop. and testing of
components of Ext. Loops
TBM and Ext. Loop Mock-up
Design
TBM and Ext. Loops Mock-up
Fabrication
Operation of TBM and Ext.
Loop Mock-ups
a final decision on blanket test
modules selection by 2005 in order
to initiate design, fabrication and
out-of-pile testing
Final Design of TBM
Fabrication and qualification of
TBM and Ext. Loops
Operation in the Basic
Performance Phase of ITER
(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)
There is a Growing Consensus Worldwide that:
a)Breeding Blanket is a “near-term” technology
b) its development is more challenging than previously assumed
c) it needs more attention
Why
1.
2.
Tritium Supply Issue is becoming alarming
There has never been a Serious Engineering Design of a
breeding blanket (in particular real structural engineering design is
lacking):
−
−
3.
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
All Breeder Blanket Concepts (especially all liquid breeder
options) have feasibility issues that the world programs have not
yet been able to resolve
Tritium Consumption and Production
• Fusion Consumption
• Huge, Unprecedented
55.8 kg per year
per 1000 MW of
fusion power
• 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.
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)
Projected Ontario (OPG) Tritium
Inventory (kg)
30
25
CANDU Supply
20
w/o Fusion
15
1000 MW Fusion,
10% Avail, TBR 0.0
10
ITER-FEAT
(2004 start)
5
0
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Year
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
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