Experience of TSTA Milestone Runs with 100 Grams-Level of Tritium

Anderson, James L.; Bartlit, J.R.; Carlson, R.V.; Coffin, D.O.; Damiano, F.A.; Sherman, R.H.; Willms, R.S.; Yoshida, Hiroshi; Yamanishi, Toshihiko; Naito, T.; Hirata, Satoshi; Naruse, Yuji

doi:10.13182/fst88-a25171

Cited by 19 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The tritium processing time, t p , in the plasma exhaust system is a function of the technology of the tritium processing system. In 1986, the Tritium Test Assembly (TSTA) [61] demonstrated a processing time of 24 h. However, ITER is advancing the technology of tritium processing [62] and is aiming to reduce the processing time to as short as one hour.…”

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 99%

Blanket/first wall challenges and required R&D on the pathway to DEMO

Abdou

Morley

Smolentsev

et al. 2015

Fusion Engineering and Design

283

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe breeding blanket with integrated first wall (FW) is the key nuclear component for power extraction, tritium fuel sustainability, and radiation shielding in fusion reactors. The ITER device will address plasma burn physics and plasma support technology, but it does not have a breeding blanket. Current activities to develop "roadmaps" for realizing fusion power recognize the blanket/FW as one of the principal remaining challenges. Therefore, a central element of the current planning activities is focused on the question: what are the research and major facilities required to develop the blanket/FW to a level which enables the design, construction and successful operation of a fusion DEMO? The principal challenges in the development of the blanket/FW are: (1) the Fusion Nuclear Environment -a multiple-field environment (neutrons, heat/particle fluxes, magnetic field, etc.) with high magnitudes and steep gradients and transients; (2) Nuclear Heating in a large volume with sharp gradients -the nuclear heating drives most blanket phenomena, but accurate simulation of this nuclear heating can be done only in a DT-plasma based facility; and (3) Complex Configuration with blanket/first wall/divertor inside the vacuum vessel -the consequence is low fault tolerance and long repair/replacement time.These blanket/FW development challenges result in critical consequences: (a) non-fusion facilities (laboratory experiments) need to be substantial to simulate multiple fields/multiple effects and must be accompanied by extensive modeling; (b) results from non-fusion facilities will be limited and will not fully resolve key technical issues. A DT-plasma based fusion nuclear science facility (FNSF) is required to perform "multiple effects" and "integrated" experiments in the fusion nuclear environment; and (c) the Reliability/Availability/Maintainability/Inspectability (RAMI) of fusion nuclear components is a major challenge and is one of the primary reasons why the blanket/FW will pace fusion development toward a DEMO.This paper summarizes the top technical issues and elucidates the primary challenges in developing the blanket/first wall and identifies the key R&D needs in non-fusion and fusion facilities on the path to DEMO.Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

show abstract

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 99%

Blanket/first wall challenges and required R&D on the pathway to DEMO

Abdou

Morley

Smolentsev

et al. 2015

Fusion Engineering and Design

283

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An availability factor lower than 50% is not considered, as commercial electricity generating plant designs with AF < 50% will not be commercially viable 12 . The tritium processing time t p ranges from 1 h to 12 h. Abdou et al [80] assumed a tritium processing time in the range 1-24 h based on the experience from the tritium systems test assembly (TSTA) experiment [81], which reported t p = 24 h. The same author restricted the range to 1-12 h in the more recent work on tritium FC analysis [1]. A recent analysis for DEMO FC assumed t p = 4800 s [25].…”

Section: Arc-class Tokamak Model Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling and analysis of the tritium fuel cycle for ARC- and STEP-class D-T fusion power plants

Meschini,

Ferry,

Delaporte-Mathurin

et al. 2023

Nucl. Fusion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The limited tritium resources available for the first fusion power plants (FPPs) make fuel self-sufficiency and tritium inventory minimization leading issues in FPP design. This work builds on the model proposed by M. Abdou et al. \cite{abdou2020physics}, which analyzed the fuel cycle of a DEMO-class FPP with a time-dependent system-level model. Here, we use a modified version of their model to analyze the fuel cycle of an ARC-class tokamak and two versions of a STEP-class tokamak. The ARC-class tokamak breeds tritium in a FLiBe liquid immersion blanket (LIB), while the STEP-class tokamak breeds tritium utilizing either a liquid-lithium blanket design or an Encapsulated Breeding Blanket (EBB). A time-dependent system-level model is developed in Matlab Simulink~\textregistered\hspace{.2em} to simulate the evolution of tritium flows and tritium inventories in the fuel cycle. The main goals of this work are to assess tritium self-sufficiency of the ARC- and STEP-class designs and to determine quantitative design requirements that can be used to analyze the adequacy of a proposed fuel cycle system. These design requirements are aimed at achieving a low tritium inventory doubling time ($t_d$) and a low start-up inventory ($I_{\mathrm{startup}}$) while keeping the required tritium breeding ratio (TBR$_r$) as low as possible. We also consider how improvements in fuel cycle technology and plasma operations affect TBR$_r$ and $I_{\mathrm{startup}}$. The model results show that TBR$_r$ for ARC- and STEP-class FPPs should be achievable if the tritium burn efficiency (TBE) reaches 0.5-1\% (TBR$_r <$ 1.2). This assumes significant, but attainable, improvements over current abilities. However, the model results indicate that a FPP must achieve ambitious performance targets, including FPP availability $>$70\%, tritium processing time $<$4~h, and the implementation of direct internal recycling. If future research yields major improvements to achievable TBE, it may be possible to achieve tritium self-sufficiency while operating at lower availability and without implementing DIR.

show abstract

“…For tritium cycle time, early tritium cycle modeling studies always assumed 24 hours which referred to Tritium Systems Test Assembly (TSTA) results at Los Alamos National Lab (LANL) in 1986. [32][33][34] In recent studies, an ambitious goal for tritium recycle has been set as 1 hour for ITER tritium plant design. 35,36 Due to the comparable but different tritium fuel cycle of CFETR, the state-of-art prediction for CFETR was 2-6 hours.…”

Section: Tritium Start-up Demandmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insights into fuel start‐up and self‐sufficiency for fusion energy: The case of CFETR

Nie¹,

Ran

Zeng

et al. 2019

Energy Science & Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commercial tritium resources available are too scarce to fully supply the future fusion reactors after International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Tritium self‐sufficiency, ITER fails to fully validate, was regarded as one of the most important issues needed to be solved in the pathway of achieving fusion energy. After ITER, several concepts of fusion engineering test reactors and fusion demonstration reactors have been proposed worldwide, for example, Chinese Fusion Engineering Test Reactor (CFETR), Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF), DEMOnstration fusion reactor (DEMO) in European Union and Korea. CFETR is in the engineering design phase and would be hopefully completed around 2020. Tritium resources for the reactor start‐up and tritium self‐sufficiency are two primary issues besides the steady‐state operation for CFETR. The objectives of this work are as follows: (a) to introduce the preliminary fuel cycle concept and available tritium resources for CFETR, (b) to evaluate and discuss the tritium demand for CFETR start‐up (phase I: 200 MW) and the feasibility of DD start‐up, (c) to identify the possible pathways to tritium self‐sufficiency through sensitivity analysis based on the design baseline of CFETR, (d) to evaluate the consequences in case of failing tritium self‐sufficiency, and (e) to identify future R&D needed for tritium self‐sufficiency. It is expected to give insights into the question on how to start the reactor in a more economical way, into the feasibility of tritium self‐sufficiency, and into the question on what will happen in case of failing tritium self‐sufficiency.

show abstract

Experience of TSTA Milestone Runs with 100 Grams-Level of Tritium

Cited by 19 publications

References 2 publications

Blanket/first wall challenges and required R&D on the pathway to DEMO

Blanket/first wall challenges and required R&D on the pathway to DEMO

Modeling and analysis of the tritium fuel cycle for ARC- and STEP-class D-T fusion power plants

Insights into fuel start‐up and self‐sufficiency for fusion energy: The case of CFETR

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About