Fusion and the World Energy SceneFusion and the World Energy Scene

Chris Llewellyn SmithChris Llewellyn Smith

Director UKAEA CulhamDirector UKAEA CulhamChairman Consultative Committee for Euratom on Chairman Consultative Committee for Euratom on

Fusion (CCE-FU)Fusion (CCE-FU)

If chance of zero or very small should stop achieving viable fusion R&D

fusion power is reasonable should develop as fast as

possible

What is a “reasonable” chance depends on

– Security of future access to fossil fuels (in era of rapidly increasing energy use) – very country dependent

– Degree of concern about continuing use of fossil fuels

– View of potential of other alternatives to fossil fuels

– View of cost of fusion development

(will touch on all these issues)

According to Clive Cookson (Science Editor of the Financial Times)“Even if ITER runs well over budget, its spending is unlikely to exceed $1bn a year. That would be a small price to pay even for a 20% chance of giving the world another energy option” I hope to convince you that- This is right- Chance of success is > 20%

OUTLINEOUTLINEThe Energy Challenge - world energy scene; climate change Meeting the challenge - portfolio of necessary measures;

cost targets for new energy sources European Fusion Power Plant Conceptual Study Culham Fast Track Study What should we be doing in parallel to building ITER? The cost of fusion R&D Conclusions

World Energy Scene (I)World Energy Scene (I) 1) The world uses a lot of energy

Average power consumption = 13.6 TWs, or 2.2 kWs per person

[world energy [electricity] market ~ $3 trillion [$1 trillion] pa]

- very unevenly (OECD 6.2kWs/person; Bangladesh 0.20 kWs/person)

2) World energy use is expected to grow

- growth necessary to lift billions of people out of poverty

3) 80% is generated by burning fossil fuels

climate change & debilitating pollution

- which won’t last for ever

Need major new (clean) energy sources - requires new technology

World Energy Scene (II)World Energy Scene (II)

4) Use of primary energy

- In USA: 34% residential & commercial; 37% industrial; 26% transport (~30% domestic)

~1/3 of primary energy => electricity (@ ~ 35% efficiency => 12.4% of world’s energy use))

- Fraction → electricity ~ development (14.3% USA; 6.0% Bangladesh) and is likely to grow

- Fuel electricity very country dependent

e.g. coal = 35% in UK*, 54% in USA, 76% in China

* falling as EU emission directives => closure of coal power stations; without new nuclear build the UK likely to be 70% reliant on (mainly imported) gas by 2020

Future Energy UseFuture Energy Use

The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects the world’s energy use to increase 60% by 2030 (while population expected to grow from 6.2B to 8.1B) - driven largely by growth of energy use and population in India (current use = 0.7 kWs/person, vs. OECD average of 6.2 kWs/person) and China (current use = 1.3 kWs/person)

Strong link between energy use and the Human Development Index (HDI ~ life expectancy at birth + adult literacy and school enrolment + gross national product per capita at purchasing power parity) – need increased energy use to lift millions out of poverty

HDI HDI ( ~ life expectancy at birth + adult literacy & school enrolment + ( ~ life expectancy at birth + adult literacy & school enrolment + GNP per capita at PPP)GNP per capita at PPP) versus Primary Energy Demand per Capita versus Primary Energy Demand per Capita

(2002) (2002) in tonnes of oil equivalent (toe) pa [1 toe pa = 1.33 kWs]in tonnes of oil equivalent (toe) pa [1 toe pa = 1.33 kWs]

Note shoulder in HDI vs energy-use curve at ~ 3 toe pa [= 4.0 kWs] per capita

• To bring those using less than 3 toe up to the shoulder, world energy use would have to

– double at constant population– increase by a factor 2.6 with the predicted 2030

population of 8.1B

• If those using more reduced consumption to 3 toe pa pc, the factors would be - 1.8 at constant population - 2.4 with 8.1B

Carbon dioxide levels over the last 60,000 years - we are provoking the atmosphere!

Source University of Berne and National Oceanic, and Atmospheric Administration

There is widespread evidence of climate changeThere is widespread evidence of climate changee.g. Thames Barrier Now Closed Frequently to Counteract e.g. Thames Barrier Now Closed Frequently to Counteract

Increasing Flood Risk Increasing Flood Risk ((=> potential damage ~ £30bn)=> potential damage ~ £30bn)

Meeting the Energy Challenge Will NeedMeeting the Energy Challenge Will Need■ Fiscal measures to change the behaviour of consumers, and

provide incentives to expand use of low carbon technologies

■ Actions to improve efficiency (domestic, transport,…, grid)■ Use of renewables where appropriate (although individually

not hugely significant globally)

BUT only four sources capable in principle of meeting a large fraction of the world’s energy needs:

• Burning fossil fuels (currently 80%) - develop & deploy CO2 capture and storage

• Solar - seek breakthroughs in production and storage

• Nuclear fission - hard to avoid if we are serious about reducing fossil fuel burning (at least until fusion available)

• Fusion - with so few options, we must develop fusion as fast as possible, even if success is not 100% certain

What is the cost target for a new energy source?What is the cost target for a new energy source?

1979

1983

1987

1991

1995

1999

Sweden

USAFinlandFranceGreeceDenmark

SpainBelgium

IrelandGermany

Austria

Netherlands

UKItaly

PortugalJapan

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

coe (p/kWh)

Year

Country

World industrial electricity prices (taxes excluded) in p/kWh

[1p = 1 penny UK]

Cost targets for a new energy source areCost targets for a new energy source are Moving (UK electricity price has increased from 2p/kWhr to ~ 5p/kWhr in the last year; who knows what it will be 35 years from now)

Very country dependent at any moment

Sensitive to introduction of carbon tax or equivalents:

EU Emissions Trading certificates (introduced earlier this year) were recently trading at €30/(tonne of CO2) => 3€cents/kWhr for coal generation (1.5€cents for gas)

Philosophy dependent – European studies target cost of more expensive power sources for which there is a market (ARIES targeted cheapest)

Objectives of European Power Plant Conceptual Study

1. Compared to earlier European studies:• Ensure the designs satisfy economic objectives• Update the plasma physics basis

(For both reasons, the parameters of the designs differ substantially from those of the earlier studies)

2. Confirm the excellent safety and environmental features of fusion power

Selection of PPCS model parameters

Four “Models”, A - D, were studied as examples of a spectrum of possibilities

Ranging from near term plasma physics and materials to advanced

Systems code varied the parameters of the possible designs, subject to assigned plasma physics and technology rules and limits, to produce economic optimum

Plasma physics basis

Based on assessments made by expert panel appointed by European fusion programme

Near term Models (A & B): roughly 30% better than the original design basis of ITER

Models C & D: progressive improvements in performance - especially shaping, stability and divertor protection

Materials basis

b

[Eurofer = low activation steel]

Model Divertor Blanket Blanket Blanket

structure other Temperature

AW/Cu/water Eurofer LiPb/water 300C

B W/Eurofer/He Eurofer Li4SiO4/Be/He 300-500C

C W/Eurofer/He ODS steel & LiPB/SiC/He 450-700CEurofer

D W/SiC/LiPb SiC LiPb 700-1100C

Fusion power and dimensionsAll (by design) close to

1500 MWe net output Thermodynamic

efficiency increases with temperature (AD)

So fusion power falls from A (5.0 GW) to D (2.5 GW) [also because current drive power falls]

and size (and cost) falls from A to D

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

0 5 10 15

R(m)

Z(m)

A

BC

D

ITER

Direct cost of fusion electricity

Model Cost of electricity (Eurocents/kWh)

PPCS A 5 - 9

PPCS B 4 - 8

PPCS C 4 - 7

PPCS D 3 - 5

[second figure for early model; first for mature technology]

Direct costs: scalingThe variation of direct cost of electricity with the main parameters

is well fitted by:

In descending order of relative importance to economics:

A - plant availability

th - thermodynamic efficiency

Pe - net electrical output of the plant (which can be chosen)

N - normalised plasma pressure

N - normalised plasma density

It seems there are no “show-stopping” minimum values associated with any of these parameters, although all are potential degraders of economic performance

€

coe∝1

A

⎛

⎝ ⎜

⎞

⎠ ⎟0.6

1

η th0.5

1

Pe0.4βN

0.4N0.3

Disposition of activated materialsFor ALL the Models: Activation falls rapidly: by a

factor 10,000 after a hundred years

No waste for permanent repository disposal: no long-term waste burden on future generations

(Figure shows data for Power Station with 1.5 GW net electrical output [‘Model B’]: others are similar)

Material categorisation after 100 years

10801

30417

7743

00

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Mass (tonnes)

Non-active material

Simple recycling material

Complex recycling material

Permanent disposal waste

Overall PPCS summary

Even near-term Models have acceptable economics (in some parts of the world)

All Models have very good safety and environmental impact, now established with greater confidence

The main thrusts of the European and world fusion programmes are on the right lines

Strategic implicationsThe PPCS revealed a number of needs: In depth study of DEMO – now underway Further R&D (development and testing of He-cooled divertor concepts capable of tolerating > 10MW/m2, remote handling facility to develop maintenance concepts high availability, further study of He- cooled blankets)

It also showed that economically acceptable fusion power plants, with major safety and environmental advantages, are now accessible on a “fast-track, through ITER and without major materials advances (although characterisation and testing at IFMIF will be essential).

CULHAM FAST TRACK STUDYCULHAM FAST TRACK STUDY(Builds on important earlier work in Europe and the USA)(Builds on important earlier work in Europe and the USA)

Idea develop fast track model to conventional tokamak based Demonstrator Power station (DEMO)

+ critical path analysis for development of fusion

prioritise R&D

motivate support for, and drive forward, rapid development of fusion

Work about to be taken forward by in the framework of EFDA (European Fusion Development Agreement)

Essence of the Fast Track (I)Essence of the Fast Track (I)

First stage

ITER - recent site choice, with USA on-board (=> key intellectual contributions) is great news

IFMIF on the same time scale (accelerated by using money)

[Assume: Acceleration of ITER exploitation, by focussing programme of existing Tokamaks (JET,DIII-D,JT60,…) on supporting rapid achievement of ITER’s goals;

ITER & IFMIF programmes prioritised ~ DEMO relevance]

Second stage

DEMO (assumed to be a conventional tokamak): for final integration and reliability development. Realistically, there may be several DEMOs, roughly in parallel

Then commercial fusion power

Essence of Fast Track (2)Essence of Fast Track (2)

Assume a major change of mind-set, to a disciplined project-oriented “industrial” approach to fusion development + adequate funding

Compare fusion with the way that flight and fission were developed! There were the equivalents of many DEMOs and many materials test facilities (~ 24 fission materials test reactors).

NoteNoteIn parallel to fast track to (conventional tokamak-

based) DEMO need Concept Development:

Stellarators, spherical tokamaks,…

- additional physics (feed fast track)

- basis for alternative DEMOs/power stations – for which ITER will provide burning plasma physics and blanket testing

- insurance policy

ApproachApproach

Targets (from power plant studies)

Issues and their resolution by devices

Prioritisation, focus and co-ordination to speed the programme

“Pillars” - ITER + IFMIF + existing tokamaks (JET, DIII-D, JT60,ASDEX-U,…)

“Buttresses” to reduce risks, and especially in case of Component Test Facility (CTF) - speed up the programme

DEMO phase 1 is effectively (a very expensive) CTF in the minimalist “pillars only” model, which leads to electricity generation sooner, but reliable commercial fusion power laterPillars only model described only because it is simpler

IssueToday's expts.

ITER IFMIFDEMO* Phase 1

DEMO* Phase 2

Power Plant

disruption avoidance 2 3 C R R

steady-state operation 1 3 3 r r

divertor performance 2 3 R R R

burning plasma Q>10 3 R R R

power plant plasma performance 1 3 C R R

T self-sufficiency 1 3 R R

materials characterisation 3 R R R

plasma-facing surface lifetime 1 2 2 3 R

FW/blanket/divertor materials lifetime 1 2 2 3 R

FW/blanket components lifetime 1 1 1 3 R

NB/RF heating systems performance 1 3 R R R

electricity generation at high availability 1 3 R

superconducting machine 2 3 R R R

tritium issues 1 3 R R R

remote handling 2 3 R R R

Key: 1 Will help to resolve the issue

2 May resolve the issue

3 Should resolve the issue

C Confirmation of resolution needed

r Solution is desirable

R Solution is a requirement

* Risks would be reduced and options expanded by operating several alternative DEMO plants in parallel

Pillars vs. IssuesPillars vs. Issues

Fast Track - Pillars OnlyFast Track - Pillars Onlyyear 0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

4525 30 35 405 10 15 20

conceptual design

operation: priority materials

conceptual design

construction

construction

upgrade,

constructoperateTodays

expts.

licensing

H & D

operation

low-duty D-T

operationhigh-duty D-T operation

TBM: checkout and

characterisation

TBM performance tests & post-

exposure tests

second D-T operation phaseITER

EVEDA

(design) other materials testingIFMIF

engineering design

construction phase 1

blanket construction

phase 2

blanket

construction

&installation

operation phase 1

operation phase 2blanket

design

phase 2 blanket

design

licensing

DEMO(s)

engineering designconstruction operate

licensing

Commercial Power plants

blanket

optimisationplasma performance

confirmation

design

confirmation

technology issues (e.g. plasma-

surface interactions)

plasma

issues

single

beam

licensing licensing

plasma

confirmation

materials

optimisation

plasma

optimisation

mobilis-

ation

materials

characterisation

R & D on alternative concepts and advanced materials

impacts of advances impacts of advances impacts of advances impacts of advances impacts of advances

BUTTRESSES BUTTRESSES Reduce Risk/Acceleration Reduce Risk/Acceleration Multi-beam material test facility - study damage from irradiation with heavy ions to material samples with implanted Helium ( + hydrogen?)

Satellite tokamak - to be operated in parallel with ITER, as part of ITER programme, to test new modes of operation, plasma technologies,...

Component Test Facility (CTF) - to test engineering structures (joints, …) in neutron fluences typical of fusion power stationsWe assume that a ‘fast track CTF’ (possibly a small spherical tokamak that would not need to breed tritium?) could be operating with D-T in 2026Assuming successful development, it would speed up the advent of fusion power significantly and reduce risks (note that in ‘Pillars only’ model DEMO phase 1 is effectively a very expensive and large CTF)

Fast Track with Buttressesyear 0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

25 30 35 405 10 15 20

materials tests

upgrade,construct

operateTodays expts.,

satellite tokamaks

design & constructmulti-beamfacility, etc.

ITER

IFMIF

design & licensing construction D-D operation D-T operationCTF

component

optimisation

materials

optimisation

operation: priority materialsconstructionEVEDA

(design)other materials testing

single

beam

constructionH & D operation

low-duty D-T

operation

high-duty D-T

operation

TBM: checkout and

characterisation

TBM performance tests &

post-exposure tests

second D-T operation phase

technology issues (e.g. plasma-

surface interactions)

plasma performance

confirmation

selection of best

candidate materials

model validation: improved

understanding of materials

behaviour

conceptual design engineering designconstruction

blanket construction

operation

blanket design & prototyping

DEMO(s)

engineering designconstruction operateconceptual design

licensing

Commercial

Power plants

design

confirmation

blanket

optimisation

licensing licensing plasma

confirmation

materials

optimisation

plasma

optimisation

licensing

mobilis-

ation

plasma

issues

blanket

confirmation

materials characterisation

PPCS +FAST TRACK CONCLUSIONS (I)PPCS +FAST TRACK CONCLUSIONS (I)

1) Power stations with acceptable performance are accessible without major advances (barring major adverse surprises)

2) Culham fast track study shows that

If ITER and IFMIF start in parallel, then with adequate funding, a change of mind set and no major surprises: DEMO phase 1 operation 2031 DEMO phase 2 (high reliability) operation 2038 Commercial power stations in operation 2048

This could be speeded up (+ risk reduced, reliabilty of first power stations increased) if a Component Test Facility could be operating with D-T in 2026: DEMO (high reliability) operation 2034 Commercial power stations in operation 2044

FAST TRACK CONCLUSIONS (II)FAST TRACK CONCLUSIONS (II)

The results of this study are not a prediction: it won’t happen without

Funding* to begin ITER in parallel with IFMIF (and also to maintain a vigorous non-ITER technology and physics program)

A change of mind set

or if there are major adverse surprises.

* c/f world electricity (energy) market ~ $1 trillion pa ($3 trillion pa)

Most frequent comment/question from outsiders:

The result is disappointingly slow: could you go much faster with more money?

Fusion Agenda in Parallel to Building ITERFusion Agenda in Parallel to Building ITER The ITER construction budget will go mainly to industry

It should ideally be accompanied by increased funding for accompanying fusion activities:-prepare for rapid exploitation of ITER-train fusion scientists and engineers for the ITER era-push forward fusion while ITER is being built: in particular

=> increased work on technology and materials, and start building IFMIF

Sir David King (Chief Scientific Advisor to UK Government)

“It would be a total dereliction of the case for ITER if the material project was not up and running in parallel”

capitalise on ITER investment

European Commission’s Proposed Specific Fusion European Commission’s Proposed Specific Fusion Programme during Seventh Framework ProgrammeProgramme during Seventh Framework Programme

“To develop the knowledge basis for, and to realise, ITER as the major step towards the creation of prototype reactors for power stations” The proposal includes-The realisation of ITER-R&D in preparation for ITER, including ITER focussed programme at JET-Technology activities in preparation for DEMO, including establishment of a dedicated project team and implementation of the EVEDA to prepare for construction of IFMIF + materials and technology work- R&D for the longer term (including concept development, theory, socio-economic studies)

Proposed that the budget will double (=> half to ITER construction)

World Energy SpendingWorld Energy Spending World energy (electricity) market ~ $3 tr ($1 tr) pa Publicly funded energy R&D down 50% globally since 1980 in real terms: currently ~ 0.3% of market. Private funding down also, e.g. - 67% in USA 1985-97

Increased energy R&D needed across the boardFusion spend is small on the scale of the energy market and the challenge

What about relative spending on fusion and (e.g.) Renewables?Most government support for renewables consist of subsidies to bring relatively mature technologies to the market, e.g in Europe:• Energy market: €700 billion • Energy subsidies: €28 billion (€5.4 billion to renewables)

• Energy R&D: € 2 billion (€500 million to fusion)

Coal44.5%

Oil and gas30%

Fusion

1.5%

Fission6%

Renewables18%

EU energy subsidy and R&DEU energy subsidy and R&D~ 30 Billion Euro (per year)~ 30 Billion Euro (per year)

Source : EEA, Energy subsidies in the European Union: A brief overview, 2004. Fusion and fission are displayed separately using the IEA government-R&D data base and EURATOM 6th framework programme data

Final ConclusionsFinal Conclusions In view of the impending energy crunch (supply, climate change), the relatively small cost, the promising outlook

Fusion power should be developed as one of very few options for base-load power, even if the chance of success is not 100%

ITER site choice is great news, but in addition to ITER we need - to start IFMIF as soon as possible, increase work on materials and technology, continue to work on alternative concepts

ITER investment almost all => industry; must meanwhile maintain or increase level of other fusion activities (=> rapid exploitation of ITER, train scientists and engineers for the ITER-era, work towards IFMIF, develop fusion technologies…) in order to maximise return from ITER

A suitably organised and funded programme can make fusion A suitably organised and funded programme can make fusion a reality in our lifetimesa reality in our lifetimes