Burning Simulation and Life-Cycle Assessment

of Fusion Reactors

Kozo YAMAZAKINagoya University, Nagoya 464-8603, Japan

(with the help of T. Oishi, K. Mori, Y. Hori and K. Ban)

1

OUTLINE

1. Introduction

2. Burning Simulation using “TOTAL” (Toroidal Transport Analysis Linkage) ITB, D/T ratio, Impurity 3. Life-Cycle Assessment using “PEC” (Plasma, Engineering and Cost) Cost, CO2, Energy Payback etc.

4. Summary2

SmallExperime

nt

BurningSimulation

ReactorAssessme

nt

Toroidal Transport Analysis Linkage Physics, Engineering, Cost

Searching for Attractive Fusion ReactorIn our small Laboratory

TOKASTAR

1. Introduction

3

Start (~1980)Tokamak (2nd stability)   Nuclear Fusion Vol.25 (1985) 1543.Helical Analysis Nuclear Fusion Vol.32 (1992) 633.Burning Simulation (Tokamak & Helical) Nuclear Fusion Vol.49 (2009) 055017.

Based on JT-60U ITB operation and LHD e-ITB data.

2. Burning Plasma Simulation:

“TOTAL” Code History

4

Core PlasmaEquilibrium 　 Tokamak: :2D 　 APOLLO 　 　 　 　 　 　　　　　　 Helical: 3D 　 VMEC, DESCUR, NEWBOZ　Transport 　 Tokamak 　： TRANS 　、 GLF23 、 NCLASS　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 Helical 　： HTRANS, 　 GIOTAStability 　 　 　 　 　 NTM, 　 Sawtooth, Ballooning mode

Impurity IMPDYN (rate equation) Tunsgtein ADPAC 　（ various cross-section ）

Fueling 　 NGS (neutral gas shielding) model 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 mass relocation model　　　　　　 NBI HFREYA, FIFPC Puffing AURORA

Divertor 　 density control, two-point divertor

Edge transport H-mode edge transport

World Integrated Modeling

TOTAL-T,-H(J)TOPICS(J)

TASK(J)CRONOS(EU)TRANSP(US)ASTRA(RU)

5

Toroidal Transport Analysis Linkage

Main Feature of “TOTAL” is to performboth Tokamak and Helical Analyses

Advance Reactor Operation Scenario with ITB assisted by Pellet InjectionD/T fuel ratio adjustment for burn controlHigh-Z impurity(Tungsten) Effect and Diverter AnalysisNTM Effects on Burning PropertiesBS Current Fraction in ST reactor Stable against Ballooning Mode

Present Research Issues Using “TOTAL” Code

6

Time evolution of reversed-shear-mode operation

with continuous HFS pellet injection1GWe Tokamak Reactor TR-1

7

Ignition Tokamak Design (~1980,PPPL)Helical Design Assessment IAEA-Montreal (1996)Helical & Tokamak Assessment IAEA-Lyon (2002)Cost/CO2/EPR Analysis in MFE reactors IAEA-Geneva (2008)Cost/CO2/EPR Analysis in MFE & IFE reactors IAEA-Daejeon (2010)

3. System Code Assessment:

“PEC” Code History

8

Plasma beta value βIgnition margin

Target Electric Output (MWe)

Plasma Parameters

Assumption of ①Thickness of Blanket (m)

②Plasma major radius Rp(m)

input

Power Balance

Check Ptarget, tblanket, igm

Final Radial Build

Cost & CO2 emission amountsoutput

Driver Energy (MJ) Driver Efficiency (%)

Target Electric Output (MWe)

Fuel Mass (g)Fusion Energy (MJ)

Assumption of Repetition Ratio frep(Hz)

input

Power Balance

Check Ptarget

Final Radial Build

Cost & CO2 emission amountsoutput

MFE IFE Physics, Engineering, Cost

Main Feature is Comparative Assessment of Various Reactors

9

Thanks to US data (ARIES Group)

Data from OECD/IAE Energy Prices and Taxes (2009)

KoreaJapan Italy France Germany UK USA

HomeIndustry

HomeIndustry

International Comparisons of Present Commercial COE

(Supplementary Information)

US$/kWh

10

SC Coil

First WallBlanket

Shield

Gap

Plasma

RmR0

BmaxB0

SC or NC Coil

First WallBlanket

Shield

Gap

Plasma

RmR0

Bmax

B0

Reflector

SC Coil

First WallBlanket

Shield

Gap

Plasma

RmR0

BmaxB0

TR HRST

First Wall

Shield

Blanket

Laser

IR

Multiple Approaches Have Similar COE

Tokamak Reactor9.8¢/kWh

Spherical Torus10.4¢/kWh

Inertial Reactor10.7¢/kWh

Helical Reactor11.1¢/kWh

1¢~1\

11

1GWe Plant

MFE

0

5

10

15

20

0

2

4

6

8

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

ptarget

(MW)

COE(￠/kWh) Capital

Cost(B$)

Rp(m)

CO2

(g/kWh)

Rp

COE

CO2

Capital Cost

Capital　Cost　~　P0.5

C.O.E.　~　P-0.5

CO2　Rate　~　P-0.3

Power Dependence on COE, CO2 rate

12

IFE

0

5

10

15

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

CO2

(g/kWh)

frep

(Hz)

Capital Cost(B$)

frep

COE

CO2

Capital Cost

ptarget

(MW)

COE(￠/kWh)

Power Dependence of IFE is similar to that of MFE

13

84.026.060.0max

31.093.050.096.3 1

10]mil/kWh[operthavaile

HR

tfBfPCOE

β

78.032.012.0max

40.090.048.009.2 1

10]mil/kWh[operthNavaile

TR

tfBfPCOE

β

04325.005.0max

02143.026.060.1

22

110]/kWhCOg[

operthNavaile

TR

tfBfPCO

54.035.063.0max

33.053.026.057.2

22

110]/kWhCOg[

operthavaile

HR

tfBfPCO

23.075.090.033.051.0

23.3

)1(

10[mil/kWh]

Foperavailthe

IR

tffPCOE

18.039.037.025.031.0

34.2

22

)1(

10/kWh]CO[g

Foperavailthe

IR

tffPCO

New Scaling Laws are derived

14

•Hondo et al., Socio-economic •Research Center (2000)

0 20 40 60 80 100

TR

ST

HR

TR(F-F)

TR (D-3He)

IR

fission

oil

coal

water

solar

wind

g-CO2/kWh/kWh￠

9.2

9

9.9

10.4

12.4

12.9

21.6

11.3

53.4

29.5

9.8

10.4

11.1

8.7

9.4

10.7

5

10.1

5.4

11.2

62.3

13.2

/kWh￠ , g-CO2/kWh

**

****

975

742

1¢~1\

Comparisons with Other Power Plants

15

CO2 Tax combines Cost and CO2

0

5

10

15

20

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000Carbon Tax (yen/t-CO2)

WindOilWater

Fusion

Coal

Fission

CCS-Coal

16

1US¢~1\1US$~100\

４ . Summary

● 　 Comparative　system　studies　have　been　done　for　several　magnetic　fusion　energy　(MFE)　reactors　and　inertial　fusion　energy　(IFE)　reactor.　● 　 We　clarified　new　scaling　formulas　for　cost　of　electricity　(COE)　and　GHG　emission　rate　with　respect　to　key　design　parameters.　● 　 The　comparisons　with　other　conventional　electric　power　generation　systems　are　carried　out　taking　care　of　the　GHG　taxes　and　the　CCS　(carbon　dioxide　capture　and　storage)　system　to　fossil　power　generators. 17