1st IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop · 4th IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop (DPW-4), the next in the...
Transcript of 1st IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop · 4th IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop (DPW-4), the next in the...
– 1 –
Limited Distribution
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
WORKING MATERIAL
Report of the 3
rd IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop
University of Science and Technology of China (USTC)
Hefei, China
11-14 May 2015
Reproduced by the IAEA
Vienna, Austria, September 2015
NOTE
The Material in this document has been supplied by the authors and has not been edited by the
IAEA. The views expressed remain the responsibility of the named authors and do not
necessarily reflect those of the government(s) of the designating Member State(s). In particular,
neither the IAEA nor any other organization or body sponsoring this meeting can be held
responsible for any material reproduced in this document.
– 2 –
Executive Summary
The third IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop was held 11-14 May 2015 on the campus of the
University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Hefei, China. The Technical
Programme Committee was chaired by Prof. Takeo Muroga of the National Institute for Fusion
Science in Japan, and the local arrangements were made by the Institute of Plasma Physics of the
Chinese Academy of Sciences (ASIPP), under the leadership of Prof. Xiang Gao. This
workshop, like the previous workshops in this series, was organized around three topics. The
overall aim is to understand the required programmes and facilities needed to resolve scientific
and technical issues leading to fusion energy demonstration, and to identify opportunities to
make greater progress through international collaboration.
Under Topic 1, Contribution of Integrated Fusion Devices to Closing the Gaps, participants
discussed ITER and a set of planned integrated devices intended to take significant steps beyond
ITER in fusion nuclear science and technology. The expected accomplishments of ITER are well
understood internationally and its contributions to DEMO physics, technology, and programme
planning were clearly presented. Next-step machines currently being studied by several ITER
partners would clearly make important advances going well beyond ITER, but the degree to
which they would close gaps toward DEMO readiness will need to be quantified as these plans
mature. These machines themselves have readiness gaps, especially for their later phases, for
which R&D is necessary in the near term. Plans for closing these gaps need to be clarified.
Under Topic 2, In-Vessel Systems and Engineering, the discussion focused on the heart of the
fusion reactor, the in-vessel systems. More so than in present facilities, high availability is a
prominent consideration in the design of fusion machines, requiring careful strategic decision-
making in the early phases of plant configuration development. Reliability requires having a
materials properties data base for relevant conditions, and designing with ample margin to be
robust against damage and synergistic effects in the harsh fusion in-vessel environment. Remote
maintenance is a key design driver of tokamak architecture requiring care to, for example, ensure
adequate space for in-vessel piping, decouple primary functional requirements, and be able to
access auxiliary systems without dismantling. Participants found that the step beyond ITER will
require innovation in the plasma scenario and in-vessel systems, including the divertor hardware
configuration, and the materials and technology of plasma facing components.
Under Topic 3, ITER-TBM and Blanket Programmes toward DEMO, participants considered the
relationship between the ITER Test Blanket Module (TBM) projects and long-term blanket
development needs for DEMO. The ITER TBM programme provides a unique opportunity for
blanket development to take advantage of the, as of today, single facility with environmental
conditions and constraints closest to those of DEMO to be available in the near future. Yet, it is
equally clear that very large extrapolations are required for many significant design parameters,
for example tritium breeding rate, neutron dose, coolant and liquid mass flow, and extracted heat.
Blanket designs must necessarily evolve so the main contribution of the ITER TBM experiments
will be to generate a data base that can be used as a benchmark for the validation of modelling
tools needed for DEMO design. The ITER TBMs will produce data on important aspects such as
MHD effects, neutronics, tritium generation and transport, and electromagnetic forces. In order
to derive benefit from these results, however, it is essential to develop modelling tools that can
be used with similar confidence both at ITER TBM and DEMO conditions. While a significant
– 3 –
effort will be required in order to develop these, the activities for development and
benchmarking is an area in which international collaboration can be very useful.
In addition six Special Topics presentations were carried out on updates of roadmap planning,
next-step facility designs and R&D in some nations, and special investigations on DEMO-related
issues. They are (1) status of Chinese next generation facility CFETR, (2) DEMO conceptual
design approach in EU, (3) New Japanese DEMO strategy report, (4) IFMIF-EVEDA and the
vision of neutron source, (5) Fusion safety with consideration of fission regulations, and (6) Non-
proliferation compliance.
The workshop’s focus on DEMO science and technology highlighted some strategy issues in
view of the emerging world DEMO programme. The multiple plans for next step tokamak
reactors appear to be very similar in what they would contribute to the basis for future steps. All
might have the potential to demonstrate net electricity at some stage, but would not necessarily
go far enough in physics and technology to close readiness gaps for commercial power plants.
Supporting facilities focussing on narrower sets of issues, which might reduce technical risks for
next integration steps, are less prominent in the planning. It is not clear whether the emerging
programme is the optimum one in terms of number and diversity of planned facilities. These
circumstances prompted discussion of a possible international strategy to improve coverage of
DEMO needs that are currently under-addressed, to reduce duplication, and to be more robust
against setbacks. Given the costs of fusion next steps, there could be significant advantages in an
international strategy for planning and coordination of work.
Discussions at this and previous workshops have raised awareness of non-proliferation as an
issue that must be taken into account in fusion planning. Further dialog with experts is necessary
to understand what technical measures, e.g. monitoring of neutron radiation, gamma radiation, or
fission products, would be most effective. Prof. W. Biel (Kfz-Juelich, Germany) was appointed
as a point of contact (POC) in order to maintain the communication with non-proliferation
specialists and arrange for a progress report at the next workshop.
The Technical Programme Committee (TPC) met during the workshop to discuss plans for the
4th IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop (DPW-4), the next in the series. That workshop will be
held during 15-18 November 2016 in Karlsruhe, Germany, maintaining a spacing of about 1.5
years between meetings. Dr. Elizabeth Surrey of the UK’s Culham Centre for Fusion Energy
(CCFE) will chair the Technical Programme Committee. It was decided to maintain a strong
technical focus in the topic choice, and accordingly the following topics were suggested for
consideration by the TPC for DWP-4:
1. Tritium issues: plant-wide, including ex-vessel systems
2. Towards a DEMO Physics Basis
3. DEMO Heating and Current Drive Physics and Technology
The TPC will be responsible for developing more specific discussion questions for each topic
and to work closely with contributors in ensuring that their contributions are responsive to the
questions. The tradition of scheduling several stand-alone special topic presentations will be
continued. In planning the next workshop, the committee intends to increase the emphasis on
technical discussion leading to conclusions, with the presentations providing targeted input.
– 4 –
1. Introduction
The evolving worldwide magnetic fusion programmes are increasingly focused on developing
plans to demonstrate the production of electricity. The ITER project, which is being carried out
as a partnership among nations with large fusion research programmes- Europe, Japan, India,
China, Russia, South Korea, and the United States, is the first large step in this phase of the
fusion programme. ITER, now well into construction, will advance the physics and technology
of a power plant-scale burning plasma. Even as the partners tackle the formidable challenges of
ITER, the need to understand the scientific and technical issues for going beyond ITER, and the
need to start addressing them now, is widely appreciated. Collectively the activities to develop
solutions for harnessing fusion energy comprise a world “DEMO Programme,” even though
there is currently no single or coordinated view of the roadmap to DEMO. Against this backdrop,
the IAEA decided in 2012 to establish a series of annual DEMO Programme Workshops (DPW)
to facilitate international cooperation on defining and coordinating DEMO programme activities.
The first workshop in the series was held at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA),
U.S.A., in October 2012; the second was held at IAEA Headquarters in Vienna, Austria, in
December 2013. Here we report on the third workshop (DPW-3), which was held 11-14
May 2015 on the campus of the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) in
Hefei, China.
The objective of this workshop was to discuss a subset of key DEMO scientific, technical, and
programmatic issues with the aim of defining the facilities and programme activities that can
lead to their resolution. A related aim was to identify opportunities to make greater progress
through international collaboration. In order to promote continuity in the workshop series, topics
for the next workshop (DPW-4) were determined (see Section 3 of this report).
The workshop, like the previous workshops in this series, was organized around three topics for
focussed discussion and future action, as well as a number of “special topic” presentations. The
three topics for this workshop were:
1. Contribution of Integrated Fusion Devices to Closing the Gaps
2. In-Vessel Systems and Engineering
3. ITER-TBM and Blanket Programmes toward DEMO
The main agenda was structured with presentations and discussion on these topics, with a day-
long session of oral presentations devoted to each topic. Each session was organized in advance
by a topic chair, who then led the discussion and summarized the session in a meeting of the
Technical Programme Committee. Poster presentations addressed these as well as other topics
relevant to DEMO preparation and planning. The special topic presentations focussed on new
developments including updates of DEMO roadmap activities and planning in various parties.
Some 76 participants from 14 countries and 2 international organizations attended the workshop.
Excellent facilities and meeting support were provided by USTC.
2. Summary of Discussions
The presentations and discussions were helpful in clarifying the scientific and technical issues
within the main workshop topics and illuminated possible paths to their resolution. Here we
briefly summarize the outcomes from the discussions at this workshop.
– 5 –
2.1. Contribution of Integrated Fusion Devices to Closing the Gaps
H. Neilson, E. Surrey
A number of integrated fusion devices are now being studied throughout the world, an indication
of serious planning for fusion development steps beyond ITER. Here, we are referring to a class
of fusion facilities generally characterized by steady-state or long-pulse deuterium-tritium
burning plasmas, reactor-relevant neutron wall loads, tritium breeding, and possibly electricity
generation. The aim of this session was to consider what these machines, as well as ITER, will
contribute to closing gaps in the scientific and technical basis for fusion power plants.
Contributions of ITER to Closing DEMO Gaps
The technical basis and expected accomplishments of ITER have been developed and scrutinized
by a broad-based international community for over two decades and are broadly understood.
ITER’s main contribution to the fusion programme will be to advance the physics understanding
of a burning plasma, where alpha heating equals or exceeds external heating. In addition, ITER
will make significant progress on challenging plasma stability and control issues, including
prediction and avoidance or mitigation of disruptions and control of edge-localized modes
(ELMs). It will take a major step toward understanding the conditions for effective plasma heat
exhaust and its compatibility with high core performance.
In terms of fusion technology, as the first machine in which the consequences of using the fusion
reaction impact upon the engineering, ITER’s design and construction activities are already
making major contributions to the design of next-step integrated machines. Regarding
superconducting magnets, ITER’s structural design codes and the project’s response to issues
that have arisen, e.g., in quench protection and in the treatment of transient heat excursions,
provide a valuable legacy for the future. In power exhaust technology, ITER will help establish
the effects of long term exposure of plasma facing components to plasma, such as ion damage to
first-wall and divertor materials. To the extent that DEMO uses heating and current drive
systems similar to ITER’s, ITER will provide direct demonstrations of technical feasibility for
several key components. Finally ITER will contribute to blanket technology through the Test
Blanket Module (TBM) programme, as discussed in Section 2.3.
Programmatically, ITER provides valuable and broadly applicable experience in the approach to
engaging with the regulatory body. The experience shows that the technical design and
integration analysis should be as detailed as possible and all validation and qualifications should
be established before issuing the Preliminary Safety Analysis to the regulator. ITER will provide
a comprehensive physics and technology data base for DEMO designers to use that will support
the analysis required to satisfy the need for detail in the Preliminary Safety Analysis.
Contribution of Next-Step Integrated Fusion Devices to Closing DEMO Gaps
Several parties now have under way design and R&D efforts toward integrated devices intended
to take significant steps beyond ITER in fusion science and technology. In contrast to ITER,
these studies are national and are currently only at a pre-conceptual stage of design. Their
contributions to closing DEMO gaps can be discussed broadly but not at the level of specificity
that is possible for ITER. Information on four such devices was presented at this meeting, EU
DEMO (Europe), JAEA DEMO (Japan), K-DEMO (S. Korea), and CFETR (China).
There are both similarities and differences in mission and design among the devices. All are
tokamaks targeting long-pulse or steady state operation of a deuterium-tritium plasma and tritium
– 6 –
self-sufficiency. All are designed with low-temperature superconducting magnets and breeding
blankets using reduced activation ferritic-martensitic (RAFM) structural materials, at least in
their first phases. All incorporate provisions for efficient maintenance of in-vessel systems by
remote handling. The designs vary in major radius from about 1 to 1.5 times that of ITER and
from 200 to 2,000 MW of fusion power. Some plans envision a two-phase mission in which the
second phase would take advantage, following a complete upgrade of in-vessel systems, of
anticipated advances in plasma performance and fusion technology to increase plant
performance.
In terms of expected contributions it is reasonable to expect that all, if carried out as planned,
would make large advances beyond ITER in the technology of tritium breeding, including
blankets and tritium extraction and recirculation. All would make advances toward DEMO
availability requirements through performance of large-scale remote handling operations such as
blanket changeouts, performance of unscheduled repairs, and accumulation of reliability data on
critical components. All would make advances in plasma control, power exhaust, and plasma
heating and current drive as well. These plans thus hold the potential for impressive strides
toward a fusion DEMO by mid-century, but quantitative measures of expected progress against a
complete set of DEMO readiness metrics are needed to assess the gaps that might remain even if
all these projects were successfully carried out.
Readiness for Next-Step Integrated Fusion Machines
The next-step machines currently under consideration themselves require significant advances
beyond current knowledge and expected ITER outcomes. There are general readiness gaps for
these machines, especially their later phases, for which R&D is necessary in the near term. Open
questions exist in some key readiness issues, for example:
Readiness of burning plasma physics and control: What is needed to establish a basis for
steady-state operation?
Readiness of materials and component technologies: What are the prerequisite testing
requirements for safety case and licensing? What additional facilities, for tasks such as
material irradiation and component development, are necessary?
Availability: While all studies are addressing maintenance turnaround times through
design, what are the requirements, for example margins and ex-tokamak testing, for high
component reliability in a fusion machine?
Magnetic configuration options: tokamak, stellarator: Is the near-term readiness being
weighed against the long-term potential? With many issues in common, especially
technology, how can we advance both most effectively?
2.2. In-Vessel Systems and Engineering.
C. Waldon, T. Muroga
Providing energy from fusion is widely regarded as the prominent engineering grand challenge
of the 21st century. The difficulty in achieving this objective is illustrated in the hampered
progress as the reactor performance moves closer to that of a power plant and more of the
complexities are revealed. The problem is a truly integrated one with the competing demands
from the reactor’s constituent parts, their relational impact on one another, and the effect of
uncertainties as they propagate through the incipient Integrated Fusion Machine designs. To this
– 7 –
end the topic 2 session focused on the heart of the reactor, the in-vessel components, highlighting
some key requirements and those systems’ influence on the overall plant configuration.
DEMO is understood to lie somewhere between ITER and a "first of a kind" commercial station
but there is no clear international consensus on the exact performance. Europe has created a
stakeholders working group from the wider representative community as a pseudo client to help
formulate and prioritize the top level requirements. These have been rationalized into a set of
cardinal missions namely: Safety, Performance, and Economic Viability. Using a system
engineering methodology these top level requirements have been assessed outlining their
contextual impact on one another and as an initial indication for areas of further study in plant
configuration optimization.
The focus of the existing international operational tokamak fleet has been largely centered on the
plasma performance. The study and validation of DEMO relevant plasma scenarios remains the
priority of the immediate next generation machines, however, other influences become
prominent as the facilities approach those expected of a power generating plant. Less importance
will be placed on the gathering of plasma data and consequently power plants will not need to be
equipped with scientific diagnostics other than those fundamental to controlling the plant within
a safe working envelope. Experience has shown that some of the power plant relevant essential
requirements cannot be easily designed-in retrospectively. Design for high availability and high
reliability require deep consideration and strategic decisions in the early phases of developing
plant configuration concepts. Indeed the impact of designing for compatibility with the harsh in-
vessel environment and its associated damage and synergistic effects was illustrated in the
forecast margins for engineering design data for materials. This adds a dramatic constraint on the
design envelope and a decisive factor in the selection of in vessel concepts. With an increasing
reliance on in-situ testing supported with modest empirical data the greater the risk of failure and
therefore the tokamak designer must care for minimizing the impact of remote maintenance
intervention. Remote maintenance is a key design driver of tokamak architecture but this is not a
performance derived requirement. A K-DEMO concept was presented showing the strategic
design options selected to enhance in-vessel remote maintenance and its impact on the tokamak
and building architecture. This included increased space for in-vessel piping systems, decoupling
primary functional requirements and removal of auxiliary systems without dismantling.
Illustrating the trades and impacts from conflicting requirements and what was needed to steward
compromise.
During the wrap-up discussion for this session, it was generally accepted that managing the
exhaust of DEMO is one of the most challenging aspects of the design and that the successful
solution will have implications for the overall engineering (tokamak architecture) and plasma
scenario design. It is also shown to be a deeply integrated problem, certainly in determining
exhaust management systems that are likely to succeed. The step beyond ITER appears to
require innovation in both (a) the divertor plasma and configuration and (b) the plasma facing
components materials and technology. Speakers from ASIPP shared some of their recent EAST
experience with the upper divertor tungsten upgrade highlighting fabricated features that can
give rise to flaws and be life-limiting through reduced material performance raising the
importance of functional testing as part of the component qualification. Work continues within
China to develop better refractory material and therefore functional performance. Even assuming
unrealistic steady state conditions for DEMO, the gap between technology performance and
those compatible with the plasma scenario is still significant. The absolute upper limit for real,
– 8 –
manufacturable solutions is well short of the predicted values expected for a conventional
divertor design. Not only must this gap be closed but a significant overlap must be generated to
ensure that a resilient reactor design can be delivered. Given the wide ranging impact the power
exhaust has on DEMO much of the focus of the international community remains on bridging
this gap between the technology and the plasma operating window.
2.3. ITER-TBM and Blanket Programmes toward DEMO
A. Ibarra, R. Kurtz
The topic of the interlink between the ITER-TBM projects and the Blanket Programmes towards
DEMO is identified in this workshop as a very important one, deserving careful analysis in order
to better understand the type of information that can be obtained from the experiments to be
made in ITER and to be used for the DEMO design. In introducing the session, topic chair A.
Ibarra (Spain) emphasized the relevance of the breeding blanket mission in a DEMO reactor and
briefly reviewed the different breeding blanket concepts being developed, as well as the different
Test Blanket Modules (TBMs) presently under development and should be tested in ITER.
The TBM experiments to be carried out in ITER are unique in the sense that ITER is the only
facility with environmental conditions (magnetic fields, thermal and magnetic gradients,
radiation field, geometrical constrains,…) closest to those of DEMO. With that in mind, the
objectives and strategies of all the six TBM designs were analyzed in detail during the workshop.
It became clear that all of them are in a very much advanced stage of design and are close to
manufacturing. On the other side, it was also clear that the different DEMO designs presently
under development will evolve with time and there is a significant probability that they will be
different from the ITER TBM designs. Moreover, from comparison of the ITER and DEMO
working conditions, it also became clear that large extrapolations (typically two or three orders
of magnitude) are required for many significant design parameters, for example tritium breeding
rate, neutron dose, He and LiPb mass flow, extracted heat, etc.
All these conclusions together clearly show the ITER TBM experiments cannot be conceived as
1:1 prototypes of a DEMO breeding blanket. On the contrary, their main role is to generate
experimental data under different working conditions that can be used as a benchmark for the
validation of modelling tools that will be used for DEMO designs.
This is a very important point that came out from the analysis of the strategy followed by all the
involved parties. The different TBM experimental phases foreseen to be tested in ITER are
linked to different properties to be validated. The ones presently identify are mainly linked to:
1) MHD effects, 2) Neutronics, 3) Tritium generation and transport, and 4) Electromagnetic
forces. Again, this conclusion is very important because it has two significant consequences:
1. In order to fully benefit from the obtained results, it is required to develop modelling
tools able to be used with similar confidence both at the TBM conditions as well as in the
DEMO ones. These modelling tools are not fully available today and a significant effort
will be required in the next few years in order to develop them. They also usually require
the use of many numerical values for physical parameters as inputs that, in some cases,
are not currently known with enough certainty.
2. If an experiment is going to be run for validation purposes, it must produce a significant
amount of experimental data with adequate time and spatial resolution for that purpose.
This means that a very significant number of diagnostics with enough precision located at
– 9 –
very different positions of the TBM are required. This is a significant challenge due to
space limitations and due to the reliability issues.
It was identified that the activities for development of the modelling tools, and benchmarking
with different experimental facilities, is an area in which international collaboration can be very
useful.
Another important aspect that came out during the workshop discussions is related to the very
significant technology expertise that has been developed for the manufacturing of the TBM
systems and will be required for DEMO. This expertise has been developed for many different
areas, for example the methodology for integration of new materials and fabrication techniques
in the Codes and Standards, implementation of regulatory rules (e.g. waste disposal, national
regulatory documents such as France’s ESPN,…) and its consequences in the design, availability
analysis, etc. This development clearly shows that the selection/ranking among different
breeding blankets alternatives cannot be made only using conceptual studies and basic R&D
results but it should also take into account other technology-related issues.
2.4. Special topics
There were six Special Topics presentations covering updates of roadmap planning, next-step
facility designs and R&D in some parties, and special investigations on DEMO-related issues.
Highlights of these presentations are as follows.
1) Present status of CFETR (Y.X. Wan)
The key milestones of the Chinese roadmap are: 1) start to construct the China Fusion
Engineering Test Reactor (CFETR) in 2020, complete the construction by 2030 (Pfus ~ 200 MW
and test of steady-state operation and tritium self-sufficiency) and upgrade it (Pfus ~1 GW,
Qeng > 1) at around 2040. It is hoped that a Prototype Fusion Power Plant (PFPP) (~1 GWe,
Power Plant Validation) can be completed around 2050-2060. The key step in the roadmap is to
design and construct CFETR. Some progress in the CFETR effort has been achieved: 1) the
conceptual design of CFETR has been completed; 2) R&D activities of CFETR via ITER CN PA
and China domestic programme are underway and are already making progress. Further working
plan of CFETR is : 1) start the engineering design of CFETR as soon as possible; 2) the proposal
for more key R&D items and the construction of CFETR should be approved by the Chinese
government before 2020. It is hoped that CFETR construction can be completed around 2030.
2) Integrated DEMO conceptual design approach in the EU (G. Federici)
The focus of the DEMO design activity in EU is on a systems engineering and design integration
approach, which is recognized to be essential from an early stage to identify and address the
engineering and operational challenges, and the requirements for technology and physics R&D.
There are some preliminary design choices/sensitivity studies to explore and narrow down the
design space and identify/select attractive design points. In the presentation, the results of a
process engaging key technology stakeholders and experts (e.g., industry, utilities, grids, safety,
licensing, etc.), initiated to establish realistic high level requirements for the DEMO plant to
embark on a self-consistent conceptual design approach, was also discussed. Finally, some initial
results of work being executed in the EUROfusion Consortium by a ‘geographically’ distributed
Project Team involving many EU laboratories, universities and industries in Europe were
described.
– 10 –
3) Japanese Joint Core Team report for the establishment of technology bases required for the
development of a demonstration fusion reactor (R. Kasada)
The joint-core team has progressed with examinations of planning for the development of
DEMO since the team’s formation in July 2013. The present report introduces a chart which
iluustrates development of all of the related programmes in a timeline and provides an overview
picture of all related processes. It is expected that the fusion-related community of industry,
education and research, and government will closely examine this chart, and share recognition of
perspectives on issues and future direction in common, which will lead to joint activity and
accomplishment throughout Japan. In particular, definition of the roadmap of the development of
DEMO, planning of research and development programmes after the Broader Approach (BA)
activities which will end in 2017, and reinforcement of joint usage and collaborating research
systems and role-sharing with NIFS and universities are anticipated as a consequence. In order to
define the roadmap of development of DEMO in future, there remain two important tasks which
the joint-team has not completed. These are socio-economic examination of fusion energy and
review of alternative approaches of helical magnetic fusion system and laser fusion system.
4) Vision of neutron source for the post BA activities (S. O’hira)
In the IFMIF / EVEDA project, realization of a stable lithium flow in the EVEDA lithium test
loop has been achieved and commissioning of the Injector of the Linear IFMIF Prototype
Accelerator (LIPAc) has been started. EU and Japan started, in early 2014, to consider the
collaboration on the post BA activity as areas of possible current cooperation, development or
enhancement of existing BA activities have been studied. In this discussion, evaluation and
discussion of the necessity to provide a new high-flux fusion neutron source, named DONES or
A-FNS, with an effective use of resources in IFMIF/EVEDA, were carried out. In Japan,
additional purposes of utilizing neutrons, e.g., irradiation of blanket test modules, medical (boron
neutron capture therapy- BNCT, production of short lifetime radioisotopes), etc. are studied.
However, it is necessary to carry out additional engineering tests for Li target/Test facility (Li
purification, remote handling tools, etc.). In the presentation, the current status and results of the
IFMIF/EVEDA project for the accelerator, target facilities individually and study of the new
neutron source in Japan and Europe were presented.
5) Aspects of fusion safety considering fission regulations (R. Stieglitz)
Fusion safety concepts rely on state-of-the-art safety concepts for nuclear installations containing
radioactive environment and are based on DiD (Defense in Depth) concept. There are similarities
and differences between safety concepts of fusion and fission. The main reasons for differences
are radioactive inventories in plants and relevant potential release paths. Plant-internal events do
not result in conditions requiring off-site evacuation. Systematic assignment of measures &
installations to the different levels of defence (as required by international fission regulations)
has to be performed once an adequately detailed design level of a FPP is attained. Safety
function “cooling” demands detailed design of in-vessel components (blanket and others) and
necessitates demonstration of safe decay (passive) heat removal. Thus development of validated
tools is mandatory. External hazards must be included in the future safety analysis. Numerous
issues, including waste management, remain open and requires adequate attention.
6) Implications of MFE compliance with non-proliferation (M. Englert)
There are several challenges that fusion technology will face with regard to its proliferation
resistance while it matures from experiment to a full-fledged energy option. Pure fusion facilities
do not require nuclear materials such as uranium under normal operating procedures, yet due to
– 11 –
their very hard and very intense neutron spectrum they hold out the potential for producing
significant amounts of weapons-grade plutonium in a shorter period of time and with less source
material than with fission reactors. Also tritium is handled in amounts much larger than in a
modern nuclear warhead. Research should be conducted on the verification of absence of nuclear
material in fresh fusion blankets, during operation and after exposure; on the practicality of
source material being mixed with coolant or purge flow; on the possibility to replace pure-fusion
test blanket modules in a fusion power plant with blanket modules designed to breed special
fissionable material and on the possibility to misuse other internal components exposed to high
neutron fluence. It is important to address questions about the proliferation resistance of fusion
facilities as early as possible as adequate answers to open question will be needed in the future. It
is very important to meet the concerns of all stakeholders in a constructive and respectful
dialogue.
2.5. DEMO Programme Strategy Issues
The plans for ITER and proposed next-step integrated fusion machines represent a portfolio that
could form the basis for a world programme to achieve the goal of a fusion power plant. Viewed
from that perspective, there are important strategic questions that confront the community. It is
generally recognized that no single machine is likely to resolve all DEMO issues simultaneously
but at the same time it is not clear how many machines are needed, nor how diverse a portfolio is
optimum. There are multiple plans for tokamak reactors that, despite spanning a range in size
and fusion output, are very similar in their physics and technology bases and in what they would
contribute to the basis for future steps. All might have the potential to demonstrate net electricity
at some stage, but would not necessarily go far enough in physics and technology to close
commercial power plant readiness gaps. Supporting facilities focussing on narrower sets of
issues, such as component test facilities, fusion materials irradiation facilities, and dedicated
divertor test tokamak facilities, which might reduce technical risks for next integration steps,
have been dropped or downgraded in some of the plans. Instead, it is generally envisioned that
the integrated facilities will assume these missions. The risk management choices being
considered, e.g. acceptance of technical risk in order to minimize the time to net electricity
demonstration, are important ones for the fusion community.
These circumstances, along with the delays in the ITER schedule, prompted discussion of a
possible international strategy to improve coverage of DEMO needs that are currently under-
addressed, to reduce duplication, and to be more robust against technical setbacks and delays.
For example, a response to ITER delays might be to unload ITER of some responsibilities that
do not require its unique conditions, and seek alternative ways of addressing them. The
workarounds to mitigate the impact of delays on the overall timeline and make the best use of
available time and resources could benefit from coordinated planning approach by the whole
community. Given the costs and time spans for fusion next steps, there could be significant
advantages in an international strategy for planning and coordination of work.
2.6. Non-proliferation and fusion
The presentation by Prof. Englert on non-proliferation considerations was informative, raising
awareness of an issue that must be taken into account in fusion planning. The Technical
Programme Committee concluded that further dialog with experts in this area is necessary to
understand what technical measures, e.g. monitoring of neutron radiation, gamma radiation, or
– 12 –
fission products such as xenon or krypton, would be most effective. After discussion, it was
agreed to appoint Prof. W. Biel as a point of contact (POC) because of Kfz-Juelich’s contract on
non-proliferation issues and Prof. Biel’s strong connection to EU’s DEMO diagnostics activity.
The POC will maintain communication with Prof. Englert and arrange for a progress report at the
next workshop.
3. Plans for the 4th IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop
Following the workshop, the Technical Programme Committee (TPC) met to discuss plans for
the 4th
IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop (DPW-4), the next in the series. It was decided to
maintain a spacing of about 1.5 years between workshops, so the set dates for DPW-4 are 15-18
November 2016 in Karlsruhe, Germany.
The workshop will continue the tradition of focussing on three topics, with a one-day session
devoted to each topic, plus several stand-alone “special topic” presentations. It is planned that
each session will be organized and led by a Topic Chair and Co-chair, at least one of whom shall,
for the sake of continuity, be appointed from the “standing” members of the TPC. All DPW-4
Topic Chairs and Co-chairs shall be included in the TPC for at least DPW-4. In addition, a
representative of the European Commission will be appointed to the TPC for DPW-4. Dr.
Elizabeth Surrey of the UK’s Culham Centre for Fusion Energy (CCFE) was elected to chair the
Technical Programme Committee for DPW-4.
In considering possible topics for the next workshop, the committee discussed numerous
suggestions from members and DPW-3 participants. It was generally agreed to organize around
technically focussed topics, emphasizing working level discussions in preference to high-level
status reports, and to adhere more closely to objectives than has been achieved to date. It was
also agreed that the practice of issuing topic-specific guidance and/or questions to the presenters
in each session should be continued. However, more interaction between topic chairs and
presenters in advance of the workshop would be valuable to reinforce and encourage close
adherence to the guidance, so as to obtain input that is detailed and specific enough to enable in-
depth discussion and reaching conclusions. It is recognized that such an iterative process would
place additional burden on the topic chairs and contributors but could pay dividends in enhancing
the quality of the discussions. The Programme Committee may wish to consider this suggestion
for future meetings.
Preliminary descriptions of the selected topics for DPW-4 are provided here, but going forward it
will be up to the TPC to develop more specific discussion questions for each topic and to work
closely with presenters in ensuring that their contributions are responsive to the questions. The
DPW-4 topics are:
1. Tritium issues: plant-wide, including ex-vessel systems
Fusion systems based on the deuterium-tritium (DT) reaction face a wide set of issues associated
with the tritium fuel cycle. Tritium self-sufficiency requires that the large quantities consumed
(~60 kg per full-power year per gigawatt of fusion power), plus radioactive decay and other
losses, must be equaled by production in the breeding blankets. Tritium is extracted from the
breeder material outside the fusion core, and recirculated back to the plasma via various fueling
systems. Since the plasma is estimated to consume only a few per cent of the tritium introduced
into the plasma chamber, the rate of tritium circulation in the fuel cycle can be more than 10
times the rate at which it is being consumed. Safety considerations place rigorous limits on the
– 13 –
overall plant inventory as well as losses. Because tritium can easily migrate into and through
solid materials, highly precise behavior prediction and accounting is required for safe operation
and to determine the global breeding ratio needed to ensure self sufficiency. Present estimates of
TBR appear marginal against a tritium loss greater than 1-2%. Understanding the behavior of
tritium, and controlling its movement with specific material choices, barriers, operating
conditions, and extraction is critical. The aim of this session is to identify priorities in tritium-
related science and technology, considering both issues and research activities to resolve them.
2. Towards a DEMO Physics Basis
Plasma physics considerations are fundamental to the design of any DEMO device, affecting
such basic choices as machine dimensions, magnetic field strength, plasma heating and
sustainment methods, and materials selection. Mechanical and thermal loads to structures and
plasma-facing components are derived from design-basis plasma scenarios for both normal
operation and transients. The physics basis for DEMO can make use of much of what has been
developed for ITER, but the more demanding requirements for fusion energy demonstration will
require physics advances beyond ITER. A DEMO will require high-performance plasma
scenarios compatible with feasible material solutions and capable of near-continuous operation
for many years with minimum interruption. The harsh environment and competition for space
with breeding blankets will greatly limit the possibilities for plasma control compared to ITER
and present-day machines. The aim of this session will be to identify the main physics advances
needed to establish a basis for DEMO, and the research programmes, including ITER itself,
needed to realize those advances.
3. DEMO Heating and Current Drive Physics and Technology
DEMO plasma control requirements place stringent demands on plasma heating and current
drive systems, which must operate continuously and at a higher level of energy efficiency than is
currently achieved. The neutron environment and plasma access limitations imposed by
breeding and shielding requirements make the task especially challenging. Solutions that have
worked well in present-day experiments may not be optimum for DEMO conditions, so there is
substantial scope for innovation, of which high-field-side-launch lower hybrid, top-launch
electron cyclotron, and helicon waves are examples. Substantial advances in both the technology
and physics of heating and current drive are needed and close coupling to physics basis
development is essential. The aim of this session will be to identify the main advances needed to
establish heating and current drive solutions for DEMO, the research programmes, including
ITER and other facilities needed to realize those advances.
4. Special topics
The special topics category has been very useful for keeping participants up to date with
important developments in DEMO programme planning, and in identifying topics in need of
more in-depth treatment in subsequent workshops. Special topics presentations for DPW-4 will
be selected in the future by the TPC, however several possibilities discussed at DPW-3 may be
considered:
Materials design codes and standards (e.g. ASME) and interaction with design activities.
This is hampered by a lack of materials irradiation data. Where possible the ITER codes
could be considered where the safety classification of DEMO components is comparable to
that in ITER. A review of the cyclic softening and brittle materials rules is required. This
– 14 –
activity needs to be extended. Further progress is expected to be made and can be reported at
DPW-4.
Functional materials and degradation.
Impact of degradation on reactor performance, and readiness assessment of critical functional
materials.
Multiphysics effects in blankets, including MHD.
Important theme but difficult to coordinate topical presentations, because the target subjects
are wide. Presentations on these issues should probably be considered for inclusion in
technology topics rather than special topics.
Safety approach to DEMO; technical risk management and uncertainty propagation.
We have had some general presentations on these subjects and any future discussions should
become more focused and specific. The subject can include failure modes, standards, etc.
Safety from many aspects should be considered. Safety-engineering relationship is of
interest. Collaboration between fusion designers and safety specialists is essential. For DPW-
4, a special topics presentation on safety in conjunction with remote maintenance should be
considered.
Technology and plasma facilities.
Goals of support facilities and their contribution to solving the issues for present or near-term
machines and DEMO should be considered. (This would be analogous to the DPW-3
discussion of ITER TBM contributions to DEMO blanket development.) The assessment of
such facilities will be highly dependent on DEMO definition. Careful consideration should
be given to how one should select or group ongoing facilities and programmes, and how best
to evaluate them.
Tokamak simulator projects being carried out by, e.g., Broader Approach (EU-JA), China,
Korea.
Perhaps include under the DEMO Physics Topic. Possible collaboration may be discussed.
Detached divertor study, integrated approach to the power exhaust.
While this topic has been covered by the previous workshops, it may be useful to plan a
special topics presentation at DPW-4 to provide an update of progress.
DEMO Scenario development
Logically falls under DEMO Physics Basis topic.
Cost and competiveness.
An important issue for fusion and a possible subject for future special topics presentation.
– 15 –
Appendix A. Workshop Organization
Programme Chair: T. Muroga (Japan)
Local Chair: X. Gao (China)
Topics and Topic Co-chairs
1. Contribution of Integrated Fusion Devices to Closing the Gaps–
H. Neilson (U.S.A.), E. Surrey (U.K.)
2. In-Vessel Systems and Engineering
C. Waldon (U.K.), T. Muroga (Japan)
3. ITER-TBM and Blanket Programmes toward DEMO
A. Ibarra (Spain), R. Kurtz (U.S.A.)
Technical Programme Committee
Mohamed Abdou, U.S.A.
Wolfgang Biel, Germany
Shishir Deshpande, India
Gianfranco Federici, EU-EUROfusion
Andrea Garofalo, U.S.A.
Richard Kamendje, IAEA
Predhiman Kaw, India
Keeman Kim, Korea
Richard Kurtz, U.S.A.
Boris Kuteev, Russian Federation
Gyung-Su Lee, Korea
Jiangang Li, China
Takeo Muroga (Chair), Japan
Hutch Neilson, U.S.A.
Elizabeth Surrey, United Kingdom
Kenji Tobita, Japan
Hartmut Zohm, Germany
Local Organizing Committee
Xiang Gao (Chair), Shaohua Dong, Nan Shi, Yao Yang, Shoubiao Zhang,
Guoqiang Li, Damao Yao, Yuntao Song
Institute of Plasma Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ASIPP)
Hefei, China
– 16 –
Appendix B. Agenda
3rd
IAEA DEMO Programme Workshop
11-14, May 2015
Shuishang Lecture Hall
University of Science and Technology of China
(No.96, Jinzhai Road Baohe District, Hefei)
Programme
Monday, 11 May, 2015
08:00 Departure at the hotel by the conference shuttle bus
Opening
08:45-09:00 Welcome and opening address
R. Kamendje, J. Li, T. Muroga
Special Session 1 Chair : M. Abdou
09:00-09:30 Y.X. Wan
Present Status of CFETR
09:30-10:00 G. Federici
Integrated DEMO conceptual design approach in the EU
10:00-10:15 Coffee break
Topics 2 : In-vessel Systems Design and Engineering (1) Chair : B. Kuteev
10:15-10:30 C. Waldon and T. Muroga
Introduction
10:30-11:00 I. Mazul
PFC components development from ITER to DEMO
11:00-11:30 A.E. Costley
Diagnostic & control requirements: Their possible impact on device design
11:30-12:00 T. Brown
– 17 –
Design strategies for high availability: Accommodating in-vessel piping
services and auxiliary systems
12:00-13:00 Lunch
13:00-14:00 Poster
Topics 2 : In-vessel Systems Design and Engineering (2) Chair : K. Kim
14:00-14:30 G.N. Luo
W divertor technical development towards DEMO
14:30-15:00 M. Shannon and G. Federici
In-vessel system integration towards a coherent European DEMO concept
15:00-15:30 M. Mittwollen and A. Loving
Remote handling - Impact on DEMO design and availability
15:30-16:00 Coffee
16:00-16:30 Hiroyasu Tanigawa
Fusion structural material development in view of DEMO design requirement
16:30-17:30 Session 2 Wrap-up : C. Waldon and T. Muroga
17:30 Adjourn
18:30-20:30 Reception
Tuesday, 12 May, 2015
08:00 Departure at the hotel by the conference shuttle bus
Special Session 2 Chair : G. Federici
08:30-09:00 R. Kasada, H. Yamada, A. Ozaki, Y. Sakamoto, R. Sakamoto, H.
Takenaga, T. Tanaka, H. Tanigawa, K. Okano, K. Tobita, K. Ushigusa,
O. Kaneko
Japanese Joint Core Team report for the establishment of technology bases
required for the development of a demonstration fusion reactor
09:00-09:30 S. O’hira, K. Ochiai, M. Sugimoto, Y. Okumura, T. Nishitani, K.
Ushigusa, J. Knaster, A. Ibarra and R. Heidinger
Vision of the neutron source for the post BA activities
09:30-09:45 Coffee break
– 18 –
Topics 1 : Contribution of integrated devices to closing the gaps (1) : Chair H. Zohm
09:45-10:00 H. Neilson and E. Surrey
Introduction
10:00-10:30 M. Gasparotto and G. Federici
ITER contribution to closing DEMO Engineering and technology gaps
(preliminary analysis)
10:30-11:00 S. Pinches
ITER contributions to closing DEMO physics gaps
11:00-11:30 Keeman Kim, Kihak Im, Hyung Chan Kim, Gyung-Su Lee
K-DEMO mission and R&D needs
11:30-12:00 A. Sagara, R. Wolf and H. Neilson
Technological readiness comparison for Helical and Tokamak DEMO
12:00-13:00 Lunch
13:00-14:00 Poster
Topics 1 : Contribution of integrated devices to closing the gaps (2) : Chair A. Garofalo
14:00-14:30 J. Li
Closing gaps to CFETR Readiness
14:30-15:00 Y. Sakamoto
Integrated design study for DEMO concept definition
15:00-15:30 Coffee
15:30-16:00 M. de Baar
Plasma control of DT Tokamaks - status and requirements
16:00-16:30 E. Surrey
TRL and gap for difference devices
16:30-17:30 Session 1 Wrap-up : H. Neilson and E. Surrey
17:30 Adjourn
Wednesday, 13 May, 2015
08:00 Departure at the hotel by the conference shuttle bus
Special Session 3 Chair : H. Neilson
– 19 –
08:30-09:00 R. Stieglitz, R. Wolf and N. Taylor
Aspects of fusion safety considering fission regulations
09:00-09:30 M. Englert
Implications of MFE compliance with non-proliferation requirements
09:30-09:45 Coffee break
Topics 3 : ITER-TBM and Blanket Programmes toward DEMO (1) : Chair W. Biel
09:45-10:00 A. Ibarra and R. Kurtz
Introduction
10:00-10:30 L. Boccaccini
DEMO blankets needs from ITER TBM programme
10:30-11:00 Y. Poitevin and A. Ibarra
What can be measured in and what can be learned from EU ITER-TBM
11:00-11:30 S. Cho
Objectives of HCCR-TBS Testing Programme in ITER
11:30-12:00 Hisashi Tanigawa, T. Hirose, Y. Kawamura and M. Enoeda
Strategy of WCCB-TBM testing in ITER
12:00-13:00 Lunch
13:00-13:30 Poster
Topics 3 : ITER-TBM and Blanket Programmes toward DEMO (2) : Chair E. Surrey
13:30-14:00 S. Konishi (Task 2 presentation)
Compatibility with available electricity-generation technologies
14:00-14:30 Yury Strebkov and B. Kuteev
What can be measured in and what can be learned from RU ITER-TBM
14:30-15:00 P. Humrickhouse, A. Ying and D. Rapisarda
Tritium in DEMO
15:00-15:30 Coffee
15:30-16:00 S. Smolentsev and L. Buehler
Recent advances and prospects for further progress in modeling the coupled
MHD thermofluids phenomena of heat, mass, and momentum transfer
16:00-17:00 Session 3 Wrap-up : A. Ibarra and R. Kurtz
17:00-17:15 Closing
– 20 –
17:15 Adjourn
18:30-20:30 Banquet
Thursday, 14 May, 2015
08:00 Departure at the hotel by the conference shuttle bus
8:30-12:00 Concluding discussion by PC members and Topics Chairs/Co-Chairs
8:30-12:00 Educational Programme (in parallel)
12:00-13:00 Lunch
13:00-17:00 Technical tour in ASIPP
List of Posters
* Invited
1. *Vincent Chan and Nan Shi (ASIPP) :
Development of a physics-engineering integrated platform for CFETR design
2. *Alan Costley, A. Sykes, P. F. Buxton, M. Gryaznevich, J. Hugill, J. G. Morgan and C. G.
Windsor (Tokamak Energy, Culham Electromagnetics) :
Compact Devices for The Development of Key Fusion Physics And Technologies
3. *R. Brown and C. Harrington (CCFE):
Impact of RAMI on European DEMO technology programme
4. *J. Aktaa (KIT) et al.:
Development needs of design rules for fusion structural materials
– 21 –
5. *Chr. Day, J. Igitkhanov, P. Lang, B. Pegourie, B. Plöckl, St. Varoutis (KIT, IPP, CEA) :
DEMO fuel cycle: Integrated design strategies
6. *Ch. Linsmeier (FZJ):
Development strategy for fusion reactor first wall materials
7. *Wolfgang Biel (FZJ):
Diagnostic concept development within the European DEMO programme
8. *Paritosh Chaudhuri (IPR):
Design of LLCB TBM towards the Indian DEMO reactor
9. R. Albanese, F. Crisanti, B. P. Duval, G. Giruzzi, H. Reimerdes, D. van Houtte, R. Zagorski
(CREATE, ENEA, EPFL/CRPP, CEA, IPPLM):
DTT - An experiment to study the Power Exhaust in view of DEMO
10. H. Reimerdes, L. Aho-Mantila, R. Albanese, R. Ambrosino, S. Brezinsek, G. Calabro, G.
Ciraolo, H. Fernandes, K. Lackner, O. Lielausis, G. Mazzitelli, F. Militello, N. Pelekasis, G.
Pelka, V. Pericoli, V. Philipps, F. Tabares, R. Wenninger, H. Zohm (EPFL, VTT, U. Napoli,
FZJ, ENEA, IST, MPI-PP, U. Latvia, CCFE, U. Thessaly, IPPLM, Ciemat):
Towards an Assessment of Alternative Divertor Solutions for DEMO
11. *Y. T. Song (ASIPP): CFETR design
12. Ge Li (ASIPP):
Closing the ignition gaps by magnetic compression at EAST
13. Changle Liu, Jie Zhang, Lei Li, Hao Yang, Yang Qiu, Damao Yao, Xiang Gao (ASIPP):
The strategies and an approach of the shielding blanket to CFETR reactor
14. Yao Yang, Xiang Gao, Shaocheng Liu, Yumin Wang, Tingfeng Ming, Gongshun Li, Yukai
Liu, and Erhui Wang (ASIPP):
Basic requirements of plasma diagnostics on CFETR
15. *K.Feng et al. (SWIP):
Progress on Design and R&D of CN HCCB TBM toward DEMO
– 22 –
16. X. Liu, Y. Y. Lian, L. Chen, F. Feng, L.Z. Cai, P.F. Zheng, X.R. Duan, Y. Liu (SWIP):
Surface damages of tungsten materials under ELM-like loads and the PWI programme
towards DEMO
17. Qian Li, HL-2 Team (SWIP):
The contributions of HL-2M to fusion reactor
18. Zaixin Li (SWIP):
Activation of component and shutdown maintenance issues of DEMO
19. Yican Wu, FDS Team (INEST):
Overview of Nuclear Fusion Safety and License of DEMO and its Implications on the
Design and Operation
20. Zhiqiang Zhu, Hai Wang, Yang Li, Lujun Sun, Canjun Liang, Zi Meng, Xialong Li, Hua
Shang, Jian He, Muyi Ni, Baoren Zhang, Qunying Huang, FDS Team (INEST):
The Design and Experiment of PbLi Loops for Fusion Blanket Technology
21. Jie Yu, Muyi Ni, Zhibin Chen, Shaojun Liu, Zhiqiang Zhu, Jieqiong Jiang, Qunying Huang,
Yican Wu, FDS Team (INEST):
Design and R&D Progress of Breeder Blanket towards DEMO in China
22. Qunying Huang, FDS Team (INEST):
Overall Development of CLAM Steel for Fusion Application in China
23. Gang Song, Yongfeng Wang, Taosheng Li, Chao Liu, Jieqiong Jiang, Yican Wu, FDS Team
(INEST):
Development of High Intensity D-T fusion NEutron Generator (HINEG)
24. Jieqiong Jiang, Hongfei Du, Dehong Chen, Muyi Ni, Chao Lian, Minghung Wang, Yican
Wu, FDS Team (INEST):
Design Progress of Gas Dynamic Trap Based Fusion Neutron Source in China
25. Jing Song, Lijuan Hao, Huaqing Zheng, Mengyun Chen, Shengpeng Yu, Tao He, Jun Zou,
Pengcheng Long, Liqin Hu, Taosheng Li, Yongfeng Wang, Gang Song, Chao Liu, Jieqiong
Jiang, Yican Wu, FDS Team (INEST):
– 23 –
Development and Experimental Validation of Super Monte Carlo Simulation
Programme for Fusion Applications
26. Jie Wu, Jin Wang, Liqin Hu, Pengcheng Long, Fang Wang, Jiaqun Wang, Run Yuan, Dagui
Wang, Yican Wu, FDS Team (INEST):
Preliminary Reliability and Probabilistic Safety Assessment Approach for Fusion
Reactor
27. Tao He, Liqin Hu, Pengchang Long, Jing Song, Leiming Shang, Mengyun Cheng,
Shengpeng Yu, Lijuan Hao, Yican Wu, FDS Team (INEST):
Development of Virtual Reality-based Simulation System for Nuclear and Radiation
Safety and Its Application
28. G.H. Neilson
Application of TRLs to compare the readiness of stellarators and tokamaks for
DEMO
List of Lectures in the Educational Programme on May 14, 2015
8:30 Opening
8:40-9:20
Christian Linsmeier (FZJ)
First wall materials and components
9:20-10:00
Lorenzo Boccaccini (KIT)
DEMO blanket
10:00-10:40
Satoshi Konishi (Kyoto U.)
Tritium and safety for fusion plants
– 24 –
10:40-10:50 Break
10:50-11:30
J. Li (ASIPP)
Tokamak power plant design
11:30-12:10
Akio Sagara (NIFS)
Helical power plant design
Fu
sio
n r
eacto
r g
ra
ph
ic b
y H
AN
S-U
LR
ICH
OS
TE
RW
AL
DE
R /
Scie
nce
Ph
oto
Lib
rary /
pic
ture
desk
.co
m