Download ppt - STAC AHG Report on Objective 4: Fusion Power Plants

KIT – University of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg and National Laboratory of the Helmholtz Association

STAC AHG „Objective 4“

www.kit.edu

STAC AHG Report onObjective 4: Fusion Power Plants

Nadine Baluc, Carlos Hidalgo, Anton Möslang, Jürgen Rapp

CCF-FU Workshop EU Fusion RoadmapApril 13-15, 2011, Garching

CCF-FU Workshop on EU Fusion Roadmap, Garching, April 13-15 20112

Objective 4:Lay the foundation for Fusion Power Plants

by driving forward the significant physics and technology developments that are required for the timely design and construction of the demonstration fusion power plants that will follow ITER. Position Europe to gain a significant share of the important intellectual property of fusion power.

Deliverables: In the next decade the programme must deliver:

4a A conceptual DEMO design taking into account Tokamak and Stellarator options, including viable solutions for physics questions

4b Proven concepts for power plant technologies, along with the appropriate test facilities for the qualification of these technologies and the materials needed for DEMO.

4c Understanding of stellarator stability, energy and fast particle confinement in view of reactor‐relevant plasmas


Deliveries of the STAC AHG on “Objectives 4”

Summary of the associations input in term of staff and cost

Classification of the associations input in categories according to

the three time windows 2012-2013, 2014-2018, 2019-2020, and

the deliverables 4a, 4b and 4c, based on- The seven R&D needs given in the “Report of the Fusion Facilities Review Panel”, Oct. 2008, and - The “Report of the Ad Hoc Group on DEMO Activities”, March 2010

Where appropriate, allocation of the associations input to “Required Facilities”, according to the “Report of the FR Review Panel”

Comparison of the associations input with the main programmatic lines


The associations have often used general expressions in describing their future activities; several data depends on external conditions

Many missing data; other with question marks

Associations often have allocated their staff and costpreviews to a cluster of similar activities. This made an allocation to dedicated activities sometimes difficult. The associations categorized often differently from each other. Therefore it was not always possible

to distinguish clearly between “4a” and “4b” to derive reliable numbers for the specific “slots” given by the Facility Report Panel, or the DEMO working groupThat is, the numbers in the excel sheets have some uncertainties

Consequently, also the numbers given in the following might have uncertainties of hidden mistakes, and they are also not always yet cross-checked.

Comments to the Associations Input for “Objective 4”


663 824 1436 1131

Objective 4: Overview on Staff – 6049 ppy in total


Comparison of staff for O1 – O4

Most of the associations have a broad distribution between the objectives But a specific sharing


Annual average of staff for O1 – O4

Objective 1 (construct ITER) clearly decreasing Objective 4 (foundations for FPPs) clearly increasing


DEMO definition *

Whatever the success of ITER is, an intermediate stage called DEMO is needed This need becomes clear, if some parameters of ITER are compared with a FPP:

DEMO’s mission has been quoted as*,**: - completion of nuclear lifetime testing of in-vessel components - demonstration of tritium self-sufficiency with full breeding blankets and full T fuel-cycle plant - demonstration of low turn around remote maintenance - demonstration of fusion’s environmental and safety credits - demonstration of high level reliability and availability - deliver to the grid significant net electricity power (“hundreds of MWs”, MQ Tran) )

ITER FPP

Fusion power ~500 MW 3 GW

Pulse length 300-500 s ~10 h or steady state

Neutron damage FW ~ 1dpa/lifetime ~25 dpa/year

Fuel cycle only functional full tritium sufficiency

* DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010 ** e.g. D. Stork, SOFT 2010, DEMO invited talk


Technical challenges having large gaps between ITER and DEMO*

* DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010; Facilities Review Panel, October 2008

Objective 4a: Physics questions

ContributingAssociations

Steady state and pulsed Tokamak operation 5

High density operation 3

Exhaust - Credible scenarios for DEMO- Novel divertors, e.g. SUPER-

X divertor

105

Disruptions no one

Integrated control 3


Technical challenges having large gaps between ITER and DEMO*

* DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010; Facilities Review Panel, October 2008

Objective 4a: Conceptual design for DEMO

Contributing Associations

Heating and Current drive 8

In-vessel components (blankes, divertor, maifolfds,…) 7

Tritium handling & fuel cycle 4

Plasma diagnostics and control 12

Remote handling 2

Superconducting magnets 1

Integrated design for DEMO - Tokamak- Stellarator

9no one


Objective 4a: Conceptual DEMO design and Physics questions

DEMOPower: 1.30 MWe

Plant Efficiency: 37-45%

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020

22 080 k€ 43 840 k€ 54 193 k€

Indicated operational costs & investments

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total

230 ppy 740 ppy 404 ppy 1 375 ppy

Indicated staff

Note: Not all associations have filled in numbers, some have indicated their interest only by marking with “X”

Total resources as submitted by the associations


4a: Conceptual DEMO design and Physics questions

* DEMO Ad Hoc Group, March 2010

Physics: Steady state and pulsed Tokamak operation

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total

ppy k€ ppy k€ ppy k€ ppy

8 - 35.5 5 240 37 14 100 80.5

Submitted by the Associations

What needs to be done include: Priority*- Develop (by modeling) a range of credible pulsed DEM scenarios 1- Assess in experimental Tokamak program Steady state operational scenarios 1- Assess compatibility between pulsed and steady state designs 1

First comments:- 80.5 ppy corresponds to 5.8% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a




Physics: High density operation

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


3 2 730 11 3 560 9 2 897 23


What needs to be done include: Priority*- Understand Greenwald density limit nG 1- Demonstrate Tokamak operation at high density, possible above nG 1

First comments:- 80.5 ppy corresponds only to 1.6% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a- somewhat alarming; either issue is not taken seriously or simply forgotten Without high density operation beyond nG, we do not achieve high Q for DEMO




Physics: Exhaust – Credible scenarios for DEMO

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


53 6 857 84 14 010 15.5 1 932 152.5


What needs to be done include: Priority* - Develop a range of credible exhaust scenarios for DEMO 1

First comments:- 152.5 ppy corresponds to 11.1% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a, which is the 2nd highest interest




Physics: Exhaust – Novel divertor concepts, e.g. SUPER-X

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


10 6 709 39 11 320 35.5 4 940 84.5


What needs to be done include: Priority* - Assess physics of novel Divertor concepts such as Super-X divertors 2- Assess compatibility of novel divertor concepts with DEMO conditions 2





Physics: Integrated control Priority* 1

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


15 2 270 33 5 875 11 1 870 59


What needs to be done include: Priority* - Assess principal restrictions (e.g. accessibility) on DEMO H&CD 1- Assess principal restrictions to diagnostics in DEMO 1- Assess “controllability” of plasma scenarios 1

First comments:- 59 ppy corresponds to 4.3% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a




DEMO design: Heating & Current drive

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


21.1 1 169 47.5 785 48 19 417 116.6


What needs to be done include: Priority* - Reassess the capabilities of the different H&CD systems for DEMO 1- R&D program to improve “wall-plug efficiency” for candidate H&CD systems 1- Development of high reliability high availability H&CD systems 1-2- ….





DEMO design: In-vessel components (blanket, divertor, manifolds system...)

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


32 2 150 58.5 1 140 (?) 32 1 140 122.5


What needs to be done include: Priority* - System integration study, gap analysis compared to ITER TBM program 1- Alternative divertor techniques, engineering performance for Divertor design 1- Assessment of in-vessel components, integration study & design code analysis 1- In-core component integration, manifold systems and shields 2

First comments:-122.5 ppy corresponds to 8.9% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a- The cost statement is likely not credible for 2014-2018




DEMO design: Tritium handling & fuel cycle

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


16 - 34.5 35 2.5 35 52.5


What needs to be done include: Priority* - Develop an integral approach of the fuel cycle 1- Self-sufficient T breeding: System development for very large flow rates 2- Detriation systems for very large throughput and in-vessel components 2- Develop T- accountancy system and T compatible vacuum pumps 2

First Comments:- 52.5 ppy corresponds to 3.8% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a- Interaction with 4b: another 106 ppy are allocated there to “DEMO technology fuel cycle”. But even then, an annual average of ~17 ppy for “Fuel cycle” seems critical




DEMO design: Plasma diagnostics & control Priority* 1-2

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


17 95 42 1 840 23.5 827 82.5


What needs to be done include: Priority* - Screening & assessment of long lead diagnostics 1- Novel approaches to feedback control with sparse data systems 1- Develop robust versions of key minimum diagnostic set 2- Develop novel diagnostic systems and their integration 2

First Comments:- 82.5 ppy corresponds to 6.0% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a




DEMO design: Remote handling

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


10 - 24.5 - 2 - 36.5


What needs to be done include: Priority* - Pre-conceptual design studies and consequences on overall system 1- Conceptual definition of DEMO maintenance system 1- Development of radiation hard sensing systems 2- Development of RH systems having high availability 2

First Comments:- 36.5 ppy corresponds to 2.6% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a- Interaction with 4b: another 69 ppy are allocated there to “DEMO technology fuel cycle”. But even then, an annual average of ~12 ppy seems too low, as electricity cost is also determined by availability




DEMO design: Superconducting magnets

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


4 - 10 - 0 - 14


What needs to be done include: Priority* - Clarify DEMO objectives and potential role of HTS magnets 2- Evaluate magnetic field strength effects of HTS magnets 1- Development suitable cabling concepts 2- Demonstrate sub-size model coils as proof of principle 2

First Comments:- 14 ppy corresponds to only 1.0 % of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a- Even if the other 229 ppy from DEMO technology for HTS would be added, this manpower is hardly not enough in view of the potential of HTS magnets




DEMO design: Integrated design for DEMO V.9 (FR 7)

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


41 100 320.5 35 188.5 7 035 550


What needs to be done include: Mission 7

- CTF feasibility study Milestone- Completion of DEMO conceptual design study Milestone- Completion of DEMO engineering design activity and supporting R&D Milestone- Assessment of engineering feasibility of Stellarator Power Plant Milestone

First Comments:- 550 ppy corresponds to 40.0% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4a- This is within Objective 4a by far the biggest support and adequate in view of the important task


Objective 4a: Conceptual DEMO Design and Physics Questions

Summary sheet: Total staff submitted for the different categories

Staff, ppy


Objective 4b: Technology for DEMO

ContributingAssociations

Heating & Current Drive 6

In-Vessel components: - Blankets - Divertor - Others

777

Fuel Cycle: Integral Approach, including Tritium and Vacuum 5

Plasma Diagnost. & Control: Screening, Assessments, Innovation 3

Remote Handling Technology 2

High Temperature Superconducting Magnets 7

Materials for DEMO: - structural, plasma-facing, functional- Modeling and experimental

validation

1510

IFMIF - Broader Approach (Objective 1)

- Siting and Construction

64

Power Plant - Safety and Licensing- Availability and Efficiency

24

Component Test Facility, JT60SA and FAST 2


Objective 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO

DEMOPower: 1.30 MWe

Plant Efficiency: 37-45%

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020

64 737 k€ 165 973 k€ 64 486 k€

Indicated operational costs & investments

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total

612 ppy 1 852 ppy 1 032 ppy 3 496 ppy

Indicated staff

Note: Not all associations have filled in numbers, some have indicated their interest only by marking with “X”

Total resources as submitted by the associations


4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO


Technology: Heating and Current Drive V.2*

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


18 5 496 68 11 333 61 7250 147


What needs to be done include: Priority*- Reassess the capabilities of the different H&CD against DEMO mission 1- R&D Program to improve wall plug efficiency of candidate systems 1- Development of high reliabilitiy and availability,… 2

First comments:- 147 ppy corresponds to 4.2% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b




Technology: In-vessel components: Blankets V.3*

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


27 7720 79 100 53 050 159


What needs to be done include: Priority*- System integration of DEMO blanket; Identification of key gaps analysis 1- Feasibility demonstration of manufacture and joining technologies 1- Assessment according to system integration, design codes and standards 1

First comments:- 159 ppy corresponds to 4.5% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b- This is considered not to be enough as blankets must guarantee Tritium self- sufficiency, highly reliable operation and have to fulfill high safety standards




Technology: In-vessel components: Divertor V.3*

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


28 680 108 7400 71 1020 207


What needs to be done include: Priority*- Assessment of alternative techniques for divertor 1- Engineering development of divertor with high lifetime and thermohydraulics performance 1

First comments:- 207 ppy corresponds to 5,9% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b- In view of the fact that we have presently not yet a Divertor design able to operate reliably at enormous heat loads of ~10-12 MW/m2, the offered resources are certainly not enough. Alternative concepts are urgently needed




Technology: In-vessel components: Others V.3*

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


48 19915 93.5 14145 73 12980 214.5


What needs to be done include: Priority*-Feasibility demonstration of manufacture and joint technologies 1- In-core component integration: Optimisation of supporting structure, manifold systems and shields 2- Develop high temperature cooling technologies 3

First comments:- 214.5 ppy corresponds to 6.1% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b




Technology: Fuel Cycle – Integral Approach, Incl. Tritium & Vacuum V.4*

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


14.5 3 200 39.5 18 800 52 6 800 106


What needs to be done include: Priority* - Develop an integral approach of the fuel cycle 1- Self-sufficient T breeding: System development for very large flow rates 2- Detriation systems for very large throughput and in-vessel components 2- Develop T- accountancy system and T compatible vacuum pumps 2

First Comments (see also design of fuel cycle):- 106 ppy corresponds to 3.0% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b- Interaction with 4a: another 52.5 ppy are allocated there to “DEMO technology fuel cycle”. But even then, an annual average of ~17 ppy for “Fuel cycle” seems critical




Technology: Plasma Diagnostics and Control V.5*

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


7 0 13 0 10 0 30


First Comments (see also design of fuel cycle):- 30 ppy corresponds to 0.9 % of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b- Even together with the 82.5 ppy from “DEMO design, 4a”, the resources seems to be not sufficient

What needs to be done include: Priority* - Screening & assessment of long lead diagnostics 1- Novel approaches to feedback control with sparse data systems 1- Develop robust versions of key minimum diagnostic set 2- Develop novel diagnostic systems and their integration 2




Technology: Remote Handling Technology V.6*

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


4 0 31 17500 34 2000 69


What needs to be done include: Priority* - Pre-conceptual design studies and consequences on overall system 1- Conceptual definition of DEMO maintenance system 1- Development of radiation hard sensing systems 2- Development of RH systems having high availability 2

First Comments (see also 4a: Design of remote handling):- 69 ppy corresponds to 2.0% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b- Interaction with 4a: another 36.5 ppy are allocated there to “DEMO technology fuel cycle”. But even then, an annual average of ~12 ppy seems too low, as electricity cost is also determined by availability




Technology: High Temperature Superconducting Magnets V.7*

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


47,5 4 100 94,75 21 950 86,5 4 500 228.75


What needs to be done include: Priority* - Clarify DEMO objectives and potential role of HTS magnets 2- Evaluate magnetic field strength effects of HTS magnets 1- Development suitable cabling concepts 2- Demonstrate sub-size model coils as proof of principle 2

First Comments (see also 4a, design of HTS magnets):- 229 ppy corresponds to only 6.5 % of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b- Even if the other 14 ppy from DEMO technology for HTS would be added, this is hardly enough in view of the potential of HTS magnets




Technology: Materials: structural, plasma facing, functional V.6* FR6

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


222 18 981 524 54 470 235 13 816 981


What needs to be done include: Priority* - Assessment of blanket & divertor operational parameters 1- EUROFER: “Completion” of database, incl. fission and ion irradiation 1- Qualification of EUROFER-ODS, & development of specification for RAF-ODS 1- Development and characterization of W/W alloys and components 1- Armor material optimization and high heat flux testing 1

First Comments:- 981 ppy corresponds to 28% of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b- In view of the huge divertor challenge, the enormous cost for irradiation campaigns the related PIE characterization, and considering missing large scale production methods (e.g. functional materials) & joining techniques, the resources are critical




Technology: Materials: Modeling & experimental validation V.7* FR6

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


45 3 280 89 4 675 38 5 380 172


What needs to be done include: Priority* - Materials science and modeling to provide scientific understanding and predictability, and to link irradiation damage coming from fusion, fission, spallation and multi-ion-beam sources 1

First Comments:- 172 ppy corresponds to 4.9 % of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b- This corresponds to ~19 ppy/year in average which is not too much- Note also: The scientific excellence of the underlying EU program is unbeaten

internationally




Technology: IFMIF Broader Approach V.8, VI*

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


112.5 960 152 3 300 34 300 298.5


What needs to be done include: - Completion with (i) construction and operation of full scale prototypes: Accererator prototype, Li test loop, High flux module, Creep-fatigue module- Advanced Design of various sub-systems 1

First Comments;- 298.5 ppy corresponds to 8.5 % of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b- IFMIF BA should be part of Objective 1.- The real cost for IFMIF BA is significantly above the numbers given here




Technology: IFMIF Siting and construction: V.8, VI*

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


0 0 470 3 800 202 500 672


What needs to be done include: -As IFMIF is very close to be on the critical path to DEMO, the decision to built IFMIF, as well as the decision on the site, must be taken by mid of this decade.- Full documentation for site preparation and construction; keep the present team- Start of construction 1

First Comments;- 672 ppy corresponds to 19 % of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b- The ppys assume that an international consortium is established for construction




Technology: Power Plant – safety & licensing, availability & efficiency: V.9*,FR7

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


33.5 405 28 1 000 25.5 440 87


First Comments;- 87 ppy corresponds to only 2.5 % of the total staff submitted for Objective 4b- Depending on how ambitious the EU road map to fusion power will become in this decade, the resources indicated here are likely much too small

What needs to be done include: Priority* - Integrate safety and license requirements, Tritium release safety 2,3- Clarify DEMO objective: pulsed or steady state 1- Increase efficiency of systems with high impact (e.g. H&CD; 20-40%60%) 1- Scopestudies in terms of reliability and availability 2


Objective 4b: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO

Summary sheet: Total staff and cost submitted for the different categories

k€ppy

Not all associations have indicated specific cost numbers Some large scale activities expects that cost come from a dedicated consortium

IFMIF consortium assumed


4c: Stellarator Physics


Stellarator stability, energy and fast particle confinement IV.3* FR 2

2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2020 Total


316.4 108 476 789.5 130 995 314.4 96 920 1420.3


First Comments;- Naturally dominated by W7X engagements, which are at present the second largest activities besides ITER- Broad distribution; 10 associations are involved - In the Stellarator world, the level of the EU program is practically unique

What needs to be done include:- Evaluate the potential advantages of Stellarators regarding a DEMO design- Pursue concept maturity and design convergence, in order to propose DEMO- Solve physics and operational issues for e.g. (i) impurity accumulation, (ii) power and density exhaust, (iii) coil complexity and (iv) blanket


Major Facilities allocated to “Objective 4” (Structure follows FR Report, 2008)

Note: Various facilities are strongly involved in other objectives The individual numbers are not always yet crosschecked

Staff, ppy

Fus

ion

devi

ces

Tec

hnol

.F

acili

t.IFMIF consortium assumed


Total human resources provided for “Objective 4”: 6049 ppy,including a possible “IFMIF consortium in 4b”

For Objective 4, the annual staff is continuously increasingfrom (2012-2013) to (2019-2020)

Share between activities:4a (Physics & Demo design): ~23%4b (Technologies, Test Facilities, Materials) ~53%4c (Stellarator Physics) ~24%

Reliability of data regarding “staff” seems to be moderateReliability of data regarding “cost” is even less reliable

A feedback from Associations would be welcome to fix mistakesand to clarify misunderstanding. See also proposal made byFrancesco Gnesotto on objective 1.

Summary and Initial Conclusions (Objective 4)


Backup slides


“Progress report of the CCE-FU Working Group on JET and Accompanying Programme (“Hasinger-Report”)


DEMO, PPCS: Physics Parameters

Parameter A B C D

Fusion Power (GW) 5.00 3.60 3.41 2.53

Plasma Current (MA) 30.5 28.0 20.1 14.1

Plasma Density NGW 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5

Plasma pressure N 3.5 3.4 4.0 4.5

Bootstrap Fraction 0.45 0.43 0.63 0.76

Confinement H98(y,2) 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2

P+add (MW) 1246 990 794 577

Pheat/R2 (ITER=1) 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.9

Pheat/R3 (ITER=1) 2.8 3.2 3.8 5.0

Zeff 2.5 2.7 2.2 1.6

limited extrapolation advanced


• Existing devices can almost reach heating power densities of DEMO

• Impurity radiation densities of DEMO have been almost achieved, but with less confinement

Significant difference between AUG and JET in confinement

Power densities, comparison

PPCS A PPCS C JET ASDEX-U

Pheat (MW) 1246 794 33 (40) 14 (27)

P/PLH 4.5 3.8 3.4

Prad – Pbrems – Psynch (MW) 800 617 25 8.3

f*rad (without brems, synch. radiation) 0.64 0.78 0.76 0.6

Pheat/R2 (ITER=1) 4.3 4.5 1.2 (1.4) 1.6 (3.2)

P*heat/R2 (ITER=1) (wo br, synch. rad.) 4.3 5.2 1.6 (1.9) 2.2 (4.2)

P*rad/R3 (ITER=1) (wo br, synch. rad.) 3.6 5.7 3.6 6.2

H98(y,2) 1.2 1.3 0.71 1.1


PPCS: Plant Parameters

Parameter A B AB C D

Unit Size (GWe) 1.55 1.33 1.46 1.45 1.53

Fusion Power (GW) 5.00 3.60 4.29 3.41 2.53

Major Radius (m) 9.55 8.6 9.56 7.5 6.1

Net efficiency 0.31/0.33 0.36 0.34 0.42 0.60

Plasma Current (MA) 30.5 28.0 30.0 20.1 14.1

Plasma Density N 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5

Plasma pressure N 3.5 3.4 3.5 4.0 4.5

Bootstrap Fraction 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.63 0.76

Padd (MW) 246 270 257 112 71

limited extrapolation advanced


PPCS: Nuclear Core

Model A Model B Model AB

Model C Model D

Structural material Eurofer Eurofer Eurofer Eurofer SiC/SiC

Coolant Water Helium Helium LiPb/He LiPb

Coolant T in/out (°C) 285 / 325 300 / 500 300 / 500 480 / 700 300 / 480

700 / 1100

Breeder LiPb Li4SiO4 LiPb LiPb LiPb

TBR 1.06 1.12 1.13 1.15 1.12

Structural material CuCrZr W alloy W alloy W alloy SiC/SiC

Armour material W W W W W

Coolant Water Helium Helium Helium LiPb

Coolant T in/out (°C) 140 / 170 540 / 720 540 / 720 540 / 720 600 / 990

blan

ket

dive

rtor

Optimisation of power conversion cycle allow to gain 4 percentage points in net efficiency.


Overview on Staff




2012-2013




2014-2018





Objective 4a: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO

Summary sheet: Total cost submitted for the different categories

Indicated cost, k€


Objective 4a: Technologies, Test Facilities and Materials for DEMO

Summary sheet: Total staff submitted for the different categories

Staff, ppy