Transcript Presentation

Introductory Remarks on
ITER TBM Activities
and Proposed US Plans
Mohamed Abdou
Presented at the ITER TBM Meeting, February 23-25, 2004, at UCLA
Background Information
•
With the US joining ITER, the US has decided to redirect most of the
resources of the blanket/chamber area toward participation in the ITER
Test Blanket (TBM) Program.
•
Extensive deliberations have occurred in the US since July 2003 among
the community, DOE, and VLT.
A community meeting was held at UCLA November 3–5, 2003, to
discuss strategy and approach to the ITER TBM.
•
A strategy has been agreed to. But it is still EVOLVING!
•
Some important work has been carried out to implement the strategy:
– Special Issues Groups were formed.
– Some R&D was initiated.
– The US participated in TBWG-11 and is now active in TBWG and its
subgroups.
– The US interacted with the EU and Japan to identify areas of collaboration.
Highlights of US Strategy for ITER TBM
(Evolved over the past several months by the community, DOE and VLT)
1.
The US will seek to maximize international collaboration. There is a need
for all parties to collaborate, and to possibly consider a more integrated
plan among the ITER parties for carrying out the R&D and construction of
the test modules.
2.
The US must reconsider its previously preferred two blanket concepts in
view of new technical results obtained over the past few years.
3.
ITER TBM should be viewed as a collaborative activity among the VLT
program elements. While the Blanket/Chamber Program provides the
lead role for ITER TBM, major contributions from other programs, e.g.,
Materials, Safety, PFC, are essential.
4.
The US will not insist on a “lead role” for any particular blanket concepts.
Rather, the US will seek a lead role in particular technical areas where
the US has great interest and expertise.
What Should the TWO US Blanket Options be
for ITER TBM? And How to make the Decision?
(This has been a central question for the US community, discussed in the
November meeting, and it is the focus of this meeting.)
Agreed:
1.
He-cooled Solid Breeder (pebble bed) Blanket with FS
−
−
−
2.
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.
US Strategy: 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.
Liquid Breeder Option
Yet to be resolved: Which liquid breeder option?
–
–
–
All liquid breeder options have serious feasibility (“Go/No-Go”) issues.
The US has initiated a technical study to evaluate these issues.
This meeting reports on initial results of that evaluation.
Liquid Breeder Blanket Options
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.
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 compatibility 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)
3.A. Self-Cooled FLiBe with advanced FS structure
3.B.* Self-Cooled FLiNaBe with FS structure
3.C.* Dual Coolant: He-cooled FS structure and self-cooled
FLiBe (with no need for insulation)
• Enhancing heat transfer and MHD effects on heat
transfer
• Redox, tritium recovery and control
*Note: 3.B. and 3.C. are innovative ideas that were proposed over the past several
months. They are being evaluated. Progress will be reported in this meeting.
Special Issues Groups
•
In order to develop the US strategy for liquid breeder TBM, the US
community believes strongly that the key feasibility, “Go/No-Go”
issues must first be evaluated in light of recent R&D results.
•
Special Issues Groups were formed to collect and evaluate R&D
results as the Key Input to community deliberations:
1.
Tritium Permeation (Leader: D. Sze)
2.
Corrosion (Leaders: S. Zinkle et al.)
3.
MHD Effects (Leader: N. Morley)
4.
Molten Salt Design* (Leader: C. Wong)
*Note: Designs exist for Li/V and LiPb/He. But no good design is available yet for molten
salts. Also, the US has developed creative ideas for novel molten salt designs over
the past few months (some were inspired by APEX results). Therefore, an effort to
develop a contemporary molten salt design was deemed necessary in order to
properly evaluate MS issues.
ITER TBM Highlights
• TBWG (test blanket working group) was reconstituted in July 2003. The newly
reconstituted TBWG met in Garching (TBWG-11) October 22-24, 2003.
- Chair: Luciano Giancarli (EU, CEA)
- Co-Chair: Valeriy Chuyanov (ITER Garching, RF)
- The US members of TBWG are M. Abdou, D. Sze, and M.Ulrickson.
• The US major contributions to the ITER Test Program since early CDA (and,
even earlier, INTOR) were clearly recognized. The US is widely acknowledged
as a primary “intellectual power” in fusion testing (many US studies in the 80’s
and 90’s: FINESSE, VNS, etc.)
• The number of ports in ITER have been reduced to three, but the number of
parties has increased to six.
• The US made many suggestions on strategy for the meaningful testing on ITER,
stronger collaboration among the Parties on R&D and construction of TBM’s,
etc.. These suggestions were well received.
• TBWG Plans, Port Allocation to Concepts, and Formation of Working Groups for
various blanket concepts were accomplished.
• The next meeting (TBWG-12) will take place March 9 – 13, 2004 in Japan.
Port Allocations for ITER TBM (TBWG: October 2003)
Port A
Port B
Port C
He-Cer (1)
H2O-Cer
Li/V
He-Cer (2)
He-LiPb
Molten Salt
Port Master A:
Boccaccini
Port Master B:
Enoeda
Port Master C:
Shatalov
Working Group*
2 Working Groups*
2 Working Groups*
Cer/He
H2O-Cer He-LiPb
Li/V
Molten
Salt
*Members nominated by each interested party (not necessarily members of TBWG).
FIVE TBWG WORKING GROUPS
Broad US representation in Working Groups
Cer / He
All parties - Boccaccini (Leader), Ying
He / LiPb
EU, US, China, Korea, RF - Poitevin (Leader), Wong
H20 / Cer
Japan, China - Enoeda (Leader)
Li / V
RF, US, Japan, China, Korea - Kirillov (Leader), Sze
Molten Salt
US, Japan, RF, China? - Sze (Leader), Petti
Purposes of This Meeting
1.
Review early progress from the Special Issues Groups for ITER TBM.
2.
Get briefings on ongoing efforts in the US relevant to ITER TBM from the
Blanket, Materials, Safety and PFC programs.
3.
Get briefings from EU and Japan about
a)
Their efforts on ITER TBM, and
b)
Results of R&D on special issues.
We thank our colleagues from Europe and Japan for their strong
participation in this meeting and for their efforts in preparing
presentations on very important topics.
4.
Provide a forum for community discussions of
a)
Key technical issues relevant to ITER TBM, and
b)
US approach and strategy for where to focus most of the US effort on ITER
TBM.
Other Meetings and Social Agenda
•
There is a US–Japanese Universities meeting on ITER TBM on Wednesday
after the end of this meeting (in this room)
•
There is a JUPITER-II Steering Committee Meeting on Thursday and Friday
(this room)
Lunches/Dinners and Working Meetings
– Monday and Tuesday—lunches at the Faculty Center. Lunch on Wednesday will
be brought in to the meeting (at the usual time).
– Monday evening: Free (except for the EU participants).
– Tuesday evening: Group dinner at Yamashiro, hosted by UCLA.
– Thursday evening (for JUPITER-II): Group Dinner
Need Time for One More Meeting?
We need the senior US people to get together for a two-hour meeting on Tuesday,
Wednesday or Thursday. When? (Agenda is full)