Maintenance duration estimate for a DEMO fusion power plant, based on the EFDA WP12 pre-conceptual studies

Crofts, Oliver; Harman, Jon

doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2014.01.038

Cited by 22 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The time to replace the blanket and divertor are estimated by Crofts et al (11), who studied the influence of the number of remote handling systems on the length of scheduled maintenance. A fit to their results gives the time to repair both the blanket and divertor as:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“PROCESS”: A systems code for fusion power plants – Part 2: Engineering

Kovari

Fox

Harrington

et al. 2016

Fusion Engineering and Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PROCESS is a reactor systems codeit assesses the engineering and economic viability of a hypothetical fusion power station using simple models of all parts of a reactor system. PROCESS allows the user to choose which constraints to impose and which to ignore, so when evaluating the results it is vital to study the list of constraints used. New algorithms submitted by collaborators can be incorporatedfor example safety, first wall erosion, and fatigue life will be crucial and are not yet taken into account. This paper describes algorithms relating to the engineering aspects of the plant. The toroidal field (TF) coils and the central solenoid are assumed by default to be wound from niobium-tin superconductor with the same properties as the ITER conductors. The winding temperature and induced voltage during a quench provide a limit on the current density in the TF coils. Upper limits are placed on the stresses in the structural materials of the TF coil, using a simple two-layer model of the inboard leg of the coil. The thermal efficiency of the plant can be estimated using the maximum coolant temperature, and the capacity factor is derived from estimates of the planned and unplanned downtime, and the duty cycle if the reactor is pulsed. An example of a pulsed power plant is given. The need for a large central solenoid to induce most of the plasma current, and physics assumptions that are conservative compared to some other studies, result in a large machine, with a cryostat 36 m in diameter. Multiple constraints, working together, restrict the parameter space of the optimised model. For example, even when the ratio of operating current to critical current in the TF coils is increased by a factor of five, the total coil cross-section decreases only a little, because of the need for copper stabiliser, insulation, and structural support. The result is that the plasma major radius hardly changes. It is these surprising results that justify the development of systems codes.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“PROCESS”: A systems code for fusion power plants – Part 2: Engineering

Kovari

Fox

Harrington

et al. 2016

Fusion Engineering and Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study neglects the maintenance periods of fusion plants, which may require several consecutive months [39]. The electricity systems studied here exhibit low prices during sustained periods in the spring and fall (see Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The value of fusion energy to a decarbonized United States electric grid

Schwartz¹,

Ricks²,

Kolemen³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fusion could be a part of future decarbonized electricity systems, but it will need to compete with other technologies. In particular, pulsed tokamaks have a unique operational mode, and evaluating which characteristics make them economically competitive can help select between design pathways. Using a capacity expansion and operations model, we determined cost thresholds for pulsed tokamaks to reach a range of penetration levels in a future decarbonized US Eastern Interconnection. The required capital cost to reach a fusion capacity of 100 GW varied from $3000 to $7200 kW −1 , and the equilibrium penetration increases rapidly with decreasing cost. The value per unit power capacity depends on the variable operational cost and on the cost of its competition, particularly fission, much more than on the pulse cycle parameters. These findings can therefore provide initial cost targets for fusion more generally in the United States.

show abstract

“…Thus, the estimated capital cost of an ITER-tokamak power plant is roughly: • 20-40X the capital cost of offshore wind --excluding the cost of backup power • 70-140X the capital cost of a natural gas IGCC plant • 30-60X the capital cost of natural gas IGCC with CCUS • 20-40X the capital cost of supercritical coal • 20-40X the capital cost of supercritical coal with CCUS Note that these cost comparisons are even more unfavorable to an ITER-tokamak power plant if very long periods are required to change out internals due to radiation damage and other material degradations, which could reduce plant availability by 25% or more [34]. This would also require 100% dispatchable backup power.…”

Section: E Comparison Of Iter-tokamak Plant Capital Cost With Other Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Acceptance of ITER-Tokamak Fusion Power

Hirsch

Bezdek

2021

EJENERGY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the U.S. Electric Power Research Institute’s criteria for practical fusion power is public acceptance. In this analysis we consider the potential public acceptance of ITER-tokamak fusion power. Because ITER-like reactors are not likely to be commercially ready before mid-century, a forecast of public acceptance is very difficult. We break “the public” down into four entities: 1) Rank and file consumers, 2) Governments [local, state, & federal including regulators], 3) NGOs including environmental groups, and 4) Electric utilities. We assert that ITER-tokamaks will be evaluated in the context of fission power because both are nuclear processes. We observe that ITER-tokamak fusion will present radioactive hazards and be extremely expensive. Three possible futures for fission nuclear mid-century are: 1) full acceptance, 2) middling acceptance, and 3) rejection. If fission power is accepted mid-century, then ITER-tokamak fusion stands the best chance of being publicly acceptable, its largest drawback being very high cost. If fission power is of middling acceptance, then ITER-tokamak fusion might be marginally more acceptable because of its much shorter life radioactive waste. If fission power is unacceptable, then ITER-tokamak fusion acceptance will be very difficult.

show abstract

Maintenance duration estimate for a DEMO fusion power plant, based on the EFDA WP12 pre-conceptual studies

Cited by 22 publications

References 4 publications

“PROCESS”: A systems code for fusion power plants – Part 2: Engineering

“PROCESS”: A systems code for fusion power plants – Part 2: Engineering

The value of fusion energy to a decarbonized United States electric grid

Public Acceptance of ITER-Tokamak Fusion Power

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About