Introductory Remarks to APEX/TBM* Meeting November 3-5, 2003 Mohamed Abdou *ITER Test Blanket Module.

Introductory Remarks to APEX/TBM* MeetingNovember 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 thepast few months among senior members of the Chamber/Blanketcommunity and DOE, VLT, ITER management, and other VLTPrograms. These deliberations led to a consensus on a generalframework for the direction of activities in the US Chamber/BlanketProgram.  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. a study to select the US favored two blanket concepts for TBMB. 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. The Spirit of “international collaboration” inherent for the ITER

processB. Many new technical issues identified for all blanket conceptsC. Lack of success in resolving some challenging key technical issues,

such as tritium permeation barriers and MHD insulators.D. The R&D effort and TBM construction and testing will cost much more

than previously thoughtE. 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. Summary and Status of Work (Reports by Task

Leaders)

ii. Status of Papers for Special FED Issue

iii. What should be done over the next 3 months

iv. Team Discussion on Lessons Learned

v. 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 conceptsa. Technical issues to be addressed, starting date, organization,

etc.

ii. Plan for TBM R&Da. Summary of current R&D activities relevant to ITER TBMb. List and priority of other R&D items that need to be initiated

iii. Organization of the US Blanket Community Effortiv. Strengthening interactions with other VLT elements

(Materials, Safety and Tritium, PFC, Advanced Design Studies)

a. A telephone connection will be made Wednesday at 1:00 pm for off-site participants

v. 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

2. Discussing future plans for APEX- 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 D Phase

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)

ITER First Plasma 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

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.

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

Final Design of TBM

Fabrication and qualification of TBM and Ext. Loops

Operation in the Basic Performance Phase of ITER

HCPB Programme

HCPB Programme for 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)

a final decision on blanket test modules selection by 2005 in order to initiate design, fabrication and

out-of-pile testing

_

a)Breeding Blanket is a “near-term” technologyb) its development is more challenging than previously assumedc) it needs more attention

Why1. Tritium Supply Issue is becoming alarming2. 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:

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.

55.8 kg per year per 1000 MW of fusion power

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

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Year

Pro

ject

ed O

ntar

io (

OP

G) T

riti

um

In

ve

nto

ry (

kg

)

CANDU Supply

w/o Fusion

ITER-FEAT(2004 start)

1000 MW Fusion,

10% Avail, TBR 0.0

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