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
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
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.
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
• 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
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)
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:
−
2.
−
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)
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)
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
• MHD Effects
Coating Development, Crack Tolerance
Engineering Design Solutions (that may not require coating)
• Corrosion at High Temperature (coupled to coating development)
• Tritium Recovery and Control
• V Development
2. Lead-Lithium
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
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
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.
−
−
3.
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)
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.)
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
What Do We Need from the US Material Program?
1.
2.
Strong commitment for partnership in the US ITER TBM
Commitment and resources for partnership in the very near-term
(FY 2004) efforts on ITER TBM:
A.
B.
3.
4.
Study to select two blanket options for US ITER TBMs
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)
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.)
Are Advanced Ferritic Steels, V alloys and SiC/SiC credible
options for structural materials in ITER TBMs (and hence
DEMO)?