Role of Fusion Energy in the 21 st Century With Thanks to Dr. Steve Koonin, BP for energy data Dr. Tony Taylor, General Atomics for DIII-D data. Farrokh.

Role of Fusion Energy in the 21st Century

With Thanks to Dr. Steve Koonin, BP for energy dataDr. Tony Taylor, General Atomics for DIII-D data.

Farrokh NajmabadiProf. of Electrical EngineeringDirector of Center for Energy ResearchUC San Diego

NPSS Chicago ChapterApril 25, 2007

The Energy ChallengeFacts and Fiction

With industrialization of emerging nations, energy use is expected to grow ~ 4 fold in this century (average 1.6% annual growth rate)

With industrialization of emerging nations, energy use is expected to grow ~ 4 fold in this century (average 1.6% annual growth rate)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

GDP per capita (PPP, $2000)

Prim

ary

Ener

gy p

er c

api

ta (G

J)

US

Australia

Russia

BrazilChina

India

S. Korea

Mexico

Ireland

Greece

France

UKJapan

Malaysia

Energy use increases with Economic Development

Energy supply will be dominated by fossil fuels for the foreseeable future

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

1980 2004 2010 2015 2030

MtoeOtherRenewables

Biomass &waste

Hydro

Nuclear

Gas

Oil

Coal

’04 – ’30 Annual Growth

Rate (%)

Total

6.5

1.3

2.0

0.7

2.0

1.3

1.8

1.6

Source: IEA World Energy Outlook 2006 (Reference Case), Business as Usual (BAU) case

We are NOT running out of fossil fuels

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Oil Gas Coal

R/P Ratio 41 yrs.

R/P Ratio 67 yrs.

R/P Ratio 164 yrs.

Proven Proven

ProvenYet to Find

Yet to Find

Yet to Find

Unconventional

Unconventional

Reserv

es &

Resou

rces (

bn

boe)

The issue is the distribution of fossil fuels, i.e., Energy Security The issue is the distribution of fossil fuels, i.e., Energy Security

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is rising due to fossil fuel use

The global temperature is increasing

There is a plausible causal connection between CO2 concentration and global temperature (global warming) But this is a ~1% effect in a complex, noisy system Scientific case is complicated by natural variability, ill-understood

non-linear behavior, etc.

The global temperature is increasing

There is a plausible causal connection between CO2 concentration and global temperature (global warming) But this is a ~1% effect in a complex, noisy system Scientific case is complicated by natural variability, ill-understood

non-linear behavior, etc.

CO2 concentration will grow geometrically!

The earth absorbs anthropogenic CO2 at a limited rate The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~ 1000 years The atmosphere will accumulate emissions during the 21st Century

Impact of higher CO2 concentrations is uncertain ~ 2X pre-industrial is a widely discussed stabilization target (550 ppm) Reached by 2050 under BAU Scenario shown.

To stabilize CO2 concentration at 550 ppm, emissions would have to drop to about half of their current value by the end of this century This in the face of a five fold increase of energy demand in the next 100

years (1.6% per year emissions growth) Modest emissions reductions only delay the growth of concentration (20%

emissions reduction buys 15 years).

The earth absorbs anthropogenic CO2 at a limited rate The lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~ 1000 years The atmosphere will accumulate emissions during the 21st Century

Impact of higher CO2 concentrations is uncertain ~ 2X pre-industrial is a widely discussed stabilization target (550 ppm) Reached by 2050 under BAU Scenario shown.

To stabilize CO2 concentration at 550 ppm, emissions would have to drop to about half of their current value by the end of this century This in the face of a five fold increase of energy demand in the next 100

years (1.6% per year emissions growth) Modest emissions reductions only delay the growth of concentration (20%

emissions reduction buys 15 years).

Reducing emissions is an enormous, complex challenge; technology development must play the central role.

Reducing emissions is an enormous, complex challenge; technology development must play the central role.

Many sources contribute to the emission of greenhouse gases

There is a growing acceptance that nuclear power should play a major role

France

Large expansion of nuclear power, however, requires rethinking of fuel cycle and waste disposal, e.g., Reprocessing, deep burn of actinides, Gen IV reactors.

Large expansion of nuclear power, however, requires rethinking of fuel cycle and waste disposal, e.g., Reprocessing, deep burn of actinides, Gen IV reactors.

Need a few good engineers!

Energy debate is dominated by activists and lobbyists. Left: “Energy challenge can be readily met by conservation and

renewables alone.” Right: “Limiting greenhouse emissions are so costly that it will wreck the

economy.” or “Uncertainty in the CO2 impact justifies inaction.”

Scientists and engineers are NOT involved in the debate Most proposals by activist and hyped by popular media either violate

physical laws, or are beyond current technology, or would not make any sizeable impact.

No carbon-neutral commercial energy technology is available today. Solution CANNOT be legislated. Subsidies do not work! Energy market is huge (T$ annual sale, TW of power).

Energy debate is dominated by activists and lobbyists. Left: “Energy challenge can be readily met by conservation and

renewables alone.” Right: “Limiting greenhouse emissions are so costly that it will wreck the

economy.” or “Uncertainty in the CO2 impact justifies inaction.”

Scientists and engineers are NOT involved in the debate Most proposals by activist and hyped by popular media either violate

physical laws, or are beyond current technology, or would not make any sizeable impact.

No carbon-neutral commercial energy technology is available today. Solution CANNOT be legislated. Subsidies do not work! Energy market is huge (T$ annual sale, TW of power).

Get Involved and Educate!Get Involved and Educate!

Status of Fusion Research

Fusion is one of very few non-carbon based energy options

DT fusion has the largest cross section and lowest temperature (~100M oC). But, it is still a high-temperature plasma!

Plasma should be surrounded by a Li-containing blanket to generate T. Or, DT fusion turns its waste (neutrons) into fuel!

Through careful design, only a small fraction of neutrons are absorbed in structure and induce radioactivity.

For liquid coolant/breeders (e.g., Li, LiPb), most of fusion energy is directly deposited in the coolant simplifying energy recovery

Practically no resource limit (1011 TWy D; 104 (108) TWy 6Li)

DT fusion has the largest cross section and lowest temperature (~100M oC). But, it is still a high-temperature plasma!

Plasma should be surrounded by a Li-containing blanket to generate T. Or, DT fusion turns its waste (neutrons) into fuel!

Through careful design, only a small fraction of neutrons are absorbed in structure and induce radioactivity.

For liquid coolant/breeders (e.g., Li, LiPb), most of fusion energy is directly deposited in the coolant simplifying energy recovery

Practically no resource limit (1011 TWy D; 104 (108) TWy 6Li)

D + 6Li 2 4He + 3.5 MeV (Plasma) + 17 MeV (Blanket)

D + T 4He (3.5 MeV) + n (14 MeV)

n + 6Li 4He (2 MeV) + T (2.7 MeV)nT

Two Approaches to Fusion Power

Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) Fast implosion of high-density DT capsules by laser or particle beams

(~30 fold radial convergence, heating to fusion temperature). A DT burn front is generating, fusing ~1/3 of fuel. Several ~300 MJ explosions with large gain (fusion power/input

power).

Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) Fast implosion of high-density DT capsules by laser or particle beams

(~30 fold radial convergence, heating to fusion temperature). A DT burn front is generating, fusing ~1/3 of fuel. Several ~300 MJ explosions with large gain (fusion power/input

power).

Magnetic Fusion Energy (MFE) Strong magnetic pressure (100’s atm) to confine a low density but

high pressure (10’s atm) plasma. Particles confined within a “toroidal magnetic bottle” for 10’s km and

100’s of collisions per fusion event. At sufficient plasma pressure and “confinement time”, the 4He power

deposited in the plasma sustains fusion condition.

Magnetic Fusion Energy (MFE) Strong magnetic pressure (100’s atm) to confine a low density but

high pressure (10’s atm) plasma. Particles confined within a “toroidal magnetic bottle” for 10’s km and

100’s of collisions per fusion event. At sufficient plasma pressure and “confinement time”, the 4He power

deposited in the plasma sustains fusion condition.

Tokamak is the most successful concept for plasma confinement

R=1.7 m

JET 3m

DIII-D, General AtomicsLargest US tokamak

Fusion energy requires Heating the plasma to ~100M oC Confining the plasma with a

energy replacement time ~1 s for density of 1021 m-3

Fusion energy requires Heating the plasma to ~100M oC Confining the plasma with a

energy replacement time ~1 s for density of 1021 m-3

Progress in plasma confinement has been impressive

500 MW of fusion Power for 300s

Construction will be started shortly in France

500 MW of fusion Power for 300s

Construction will be started shortly in France

Fu

sio

n t

rip

le p

rod

uct

n (

102

1 m

-3) (

s) T

(keV

)

ITER Burning plasma experiment

We have made tremendous progress in understanding fusion plasmas

Substantial improvement in plasma performance though optimization of plasma shape, profiles, and feedback. Achieving plasma stability at high

plasma pressure. Achieving improved plasma confinement

through suppression of plasma turbulence, the “transport barrier.”

Progress toward steady-state operation through minimization of power needed to maintain plasma current through profile control.

Controlling the boundary layer between plasma and vessel wall to avoid localized particle and heat loads.

Substantial improvement in plasma performance though optimization of plasma shape, profiles, and feedback. Achieving plasma stability at high

plasma pressure. Achieving improved plasma confinement

through suppression of plasma turbulence, the “transport barrier.”

Progress toward steady-state operation through minimization of power needed to maintain plasma current through profile control.

Controlling the boundary layer between plasma and vessel wall to avoid localized particle and heat loads.

Fusion: Looking into the future

ITER will demonstrate the technical feasibility of fusion energy

Power-plant scale device. Baseline design: 500 MW of fusion power for 300s Does not include breeding

blanket or power recovery systems.

ITER agreement was signed in Nov. 2006 by 7 international partners (US, EU, Japan, Russa, China, Korea, and India)

Construction will begin in 2008.

Power-plant scale device. Baseline design: 500 MW of fusion power for 300s Does not include breeding

blanket or power recovery systems.

ITER agreement was signed in Nov. 2006 by 7 international partners (US, EU, Japan, Russa, China, Korea, and India)

Construction will begin in 2008.

ARIES-AT is an attractive vision for fusion with a reasonable extrapolation in physics & technology

Competitive cost of electricity (5c/kWh);

Steady-state operation;

Low level waste;Public & worker

safety;High availability.

Competitive cost of electricity (5c/kWh);

Steady-state operation;

Low level waste;Public & worker

safety;High availability.

ITER and satellite tokamaks will provide the necessary data for a fusion power plant

DIII-D DIII-D ITER

Simultaneous Max Baseline ARIES-AT

Major toroidal radius (m) 1.7 1.7 6.2 5.2

Plasma Current (MA) 2.25 3.0 15 13

Magnetic field (T) 2 2 5.3 6.0

Electron temperature (keV) 7.5* 16* 8.9** 18**

Ion Temperature (keV) 18* 27* 8.1** 18**

Density (1020 m-3) 1.0* 1.7* 1.0** 2.2**

Confinement time (s) 0.4 0.5 3.7 1.7

Normalized confinement, H89 4.5 4.5 2 2.7

(plasma/magnetic pressure) 6.7%13% 2.5% 9.2%

Normalized 3.9 6.0 1.8 5.4

Fusion Power (MW) 500 1,755

Pulse length 300 S.S.

DIII-D DIII-D ITER

Simultaneous Max Baseline ARIES-AT

Major toroidal radius (m) 1.7 1.7 6.2 5.2

Plasma Current (MA) 2.25 3.0 15 13

Magnetic field (T) 2 2 5.3 6.0

Electron temperature (keV) 7.5* 16* 8.9** 18**

Ion Temperature (keV) 18* 27* 8.1** 18**

Density (1020 m-3) 1.0* 1.7* 1.0** 2.2**

Confinement time (s) 0.4 0.5 3.7 1.7

Normalized confinement, H89 4.5 4.5 2 2.7

(plasma/magnetic pressure) 6.7%13% 2.5% 9.2%

Normalized 3.9 6.0 1.8 5.4

Fusion Power (MW) 500 1,755

Pulse length 300 S.S.

* Peak value, **Average Value

Outboard blanket & first wall

ARIES-AT features a high-performance blanket

Simple, low pressure design with SiC structure and LiPb coolant and breeder.

Innovative design leads to high LiPb outlet temperature (~1,100oC) while keeping SiC structure temperature below 1,000oC leading to a high thermal efficiency of ~ 60%.

Simple manufacturing technique.

Very low afterheat.

Class C waste by a wide margin.

Simple, low pressure design with SiC structure and LiPb coolant and breeder.

Innovative design leads to high LiPb outlet temperature (~1,100oC) while keeping SiC structure temperature below 1,000oC leading to a high thermal efficiency of ~ 60%.

Simple manufacturing technique.

Very low afterheat.

Class C waste by a wide margin.

Advances in fusion science & technology has dramatically improved our vision of fusion power plants

Estimated Cost of Electricity (c/kWh)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Mid 80'sPhysics

Early 90'sPhysics

Late 90's Physics

AdvancedTechnology

Major radius (m)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Mid 80's Pulsar

Early 90'sARIES-I

Late 90'sARIES-RS

2000 ARIES-AT

10-7

10-6

10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

104 105 106 107 108 109 1010 1011

ARIES-STARIES-RS

Act

ivit

y (

Ci/

W th)

Time Following Shutdown (s)

1 mo 1 y 100 y1 d

After 100 years, only 10,000 Curies

of radioactivity remain in the

585 tonne ARIES-RS fusion core.

After 100 years, only 10,000 Curies

of radioactivity remain in the

585 tonne ARIES-RS fusion core.

SiC composites lead to a very low activation and afterheat.

All components of ARIES-AT qualify for Class-C disposal under NRC and Fetter Limits. 90% of components qualify for Class-A waste.

SiC composites lead to a very low activation and afterheat.

All components of ARIES-AT qualify for Class-C disposal under NRC and Fetter Limits. 90% of components qualify for Class-A waste.

Ferritic SteelVanadium

Radioactivity levels in fusion power plantsare very low and decay rapidly after shutdown

Fusion Core Is Segmented to Minimize the Rad-Waste

Only “blanket-1” and divertors are replaced every 5 years

Only “blanket-1” and divertors are replaced every 5 years

Blanket 1 (replaceable)

Blanket 2 (lifetime)

Shield (lifetime)

Waste volume is not large

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Blanket Shield VacuumVessel

Magnets Structure Cryostat

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Co

mp

ac

ted

Wa

ste

Vo

lum

e (

m3

)

1270 m3 of Waste is generated after 40 full-power year (FPY) of operation. Coolant is reused in other power plants 29 m3 every 4 years (component replacement), 993 m3 at end of service

Equivalent to ~ 30 m3 of waste per FPY Effective annual waste can be reduced by increasing plant service life.

1270 m3 of Waste is generated after 40 full-power year (FPY) of operation. Coolant is reused in other power plants 29 m3 every 4 years (component replacement), 993 m3 at end of service

Equivalent to ~ 30 m3 of waste per FPY Effective annual waste can be reduced by increasing plant service life.

90% of waste qualifies for Class A disposal

90% of waste qualifies for Class A disposal

Fusion: Why is taking so long?

There has been no urgency in developing new sources of energy

Proposed fusion development plan in 1976 aimed at fielding a fusion Demo by 2000.

Recent DOE Fusion Development Plan (2003) aimed at fielding a fusion Demo by 2030.

In neither case, the required funding was approved. Proposals for fielding a burning plasma experiments since mid

1980s. Fusion program was restructured in mid 1990s, focusing on

developing fusion sciences (with 1/3 reduction in US funding). Fielding a fusion Demo is NOT the official goal of DOE at present

Large interest and R&D investment in Europe and Japan (and China, India, Korea)

Proposed fusion development plan in 1976 aimed at fielding a fusion Demo by 2000.

Recent DOE Fusion Development Plan (2003) aimed at fielding a fusion Demo by 2030.

In neither case, the required funding was approved. Proposals for fielding a burning plasma experiments since mid

1980s. Fusion program was restructured in mid 1990s, focusing on

developing fusion sciences (with 1/3 reduction in US funding). Fielding a fusion Demo is NOT the official goal of DOE at present

Large interest and R&D investment in Europe and Japan (and China, India, Korea)

Development of fusion has been constrained by funding!

Cumulative Funding

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

ITERITER

DemoDemo

Magnetic Fusion Engineering Act

of 1980

Actual

Fusion Energy DevelopmentPlan, 2003 (MFE)

$M

, FY

02

19

80

FEDITER

Demo Demo

Current cumulative funding

~ 1 week of world energy sale

In Summary, …

In a CO2 constrained world uncertainty abounds

No carbon-neutral commercial energy technology is available today. Carbon sequestration is the determining factor for fossil fuel electric

generation. A large investment in energy R&D is needed. A shift to a hydrogen economy or carbon-neutral syn-fuels is also

needed to allow continued use of liquid fuels for transportation. Problem cannot be solved by legislation or subsidy. We need technical

solutions. Technical Communities should be involved or considerable public resources

would be wasted

The size of energy market ($1T annual sale, TW of power) is huge. Solutions should fit this size market 100 Nuclear plants = 20% of electricity production $50B annual R&D represents 5% of sale)

No carbon-neutral commercial energy technology is available today. Carbon sequestration is the determining factor for fossil fuel electric

generation. A large investment in energy R&D is needed. A shift to a hydrogen economy or carbon-neutral syn-fuels is also

needed to allow continued use of liquid fuels for transportation. Problem cannot be solved by legislation or subsidy. We need technical

solutions. Technical Communities should be involved or considerable public resources

would be wasted

The size of energy market ($1T annual sale, TW of power) is huge. Solutions should fit this size market 100 Nuclear plants = 20% of electricity production $50B annual R&D represents 5% of sale)

Status of fusion power

Over 15 MW of fusion power is generated (JET, 1997) establishing “scientific feasibility” of fusion power Although fusion power < input power.

ITER will demonstrate “technical feasibility” of fusion power by generating copious amount of fusion power (500MW for 300s) with fusion power > 10 input power.

Tremendous progress in understanding plasmas has helped optimize plasma performance considerably. Vision of attractive fusion power plants exists.

Transformation of fusion into a power plant requires considerable R&D in material and fusion nuclear technologies (largely ignored or under-funded to date). This step, however, can be done in parallel with ITER

Large synergy between fusion nuclear technology R&D and Gen-IV.

Over 15 MW of fusion power is generated (JET, 1997) establishing “scientific feasibility” of fusion power Although fusion power < input power.

ITER will demonstrate “technical feasibility” of fusion power by generating copious amount of fusion power (500MW for 300s) with fusion power > 10 input power.

Tremendous progress in understanding plasmas has helped optimize plasma performance considerably. Vision of attractive fusion power plants exists.

Transformation of fusion into a power plant requires considerable R&D in material and fusion nuclear technologies (largely ignored or under-funded to date). This step, however, can be done in parallel with ITER

Large synergy between fusion nuclear technology R&D and Gen-IV.

Thank you!Any Questions?