BLUEPRINT: A novel approach to fusion reactor design

Abstract The European DEMO fusion power reactor (EU-DEMO) is still in the pre-conceptual design phase. The design strategy for the EU-DEMO hinges on investigating multiple reactor designs and technologies in parallel, progressively down-selecting these in the mid-2020s, in preparation for the conceptual design phase. The present implementation of the strategy centres around a baseline single-null design, which is configuration controlled and iterated approximately every two years. The majority of resources are dedicated to studying the baseline design; changing it is expensive, and takes months to do. Competing technologies for different sub-systems (e.g. blankets, magnets) are forced to co-exist within the same physical confines (CAD models), and conform to the same set of performance criteria. Meanwhile, the alternative reactor designs are only loosely defined, with no agreed set of parameters, no CAD models, and no formal framework for study. We argue that the EU-DEMO design strategy is best served by a more efficient implementation methodology which would enable more comprehensive exploration of the DEMO design space. We make the case for a change in approach to the design of DEMO-class reactors in Europe, and propose a solution which bears some resemblance to the present methodology, yet automates and accelerates the sequence of design and analysis activities when generating a design configuration. We present our preliminary attempts to demonstrate the feasibility of our idea, in the form of a new fusion reactor design code: BLUEPRINT. We demonstrate that the typical activities required to generate a DEMO design point can be sped up by four orders of magnitude—from months to minutes—paving the way for a rigorous and broad exploration of the design space.

[1]  T. Giegerich,et al.  The direct internal recycling concept to simplify the fuel cycle of a fusion power plant , 2013 .

[2]  H. Zohm,et al.  Plasma physics for fusion reactor system codes: Framework and model code , 2018 .

[3]  J. Morris,et al.  "PROCESS": a systems code for fusion power plants - Part 2:Engineering , 2016, 1601.06147.

[4]  R. Gallix,et al.  The Toroidal Field Coils for the ITER Project , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity.

[5]  F. Tenney,et al.  Analytic solutions for constant‐tension coil shapes , 1976 .

[6]  Qingwei Yang,et al.  Overview of the present progress and activities on the CFETR , 2017 .

[7]  Christian Bachmann,et al.  Neutronic analyses of design issues affecting the tritium breeding performance in different DEMO blanket concepts , 2016 .

[8]  Rosaria Villari,et al.  Tokamak D-T neutron source models for different plasma physics confinement modes , 2012 .

[9]  Makoto Nakamura,et al.  Design Strategy and Recent Design Activity on Japan’s DEMO , 2017 .

[10]  Jun Ho Yeom,et al.  Design concept of K-DEMO for near-term implementation , 2015 .

[11]  David Ward,et al.  Modelling of pulsed and steady-state DEMO scenarios , 2015 .

[12]  P. Vincenzi,et al.  The physics and technology basis entering European system code studies for DEMO , 2016 .

[13]  David Ward,et al.  “PROCESS”: A systems code for fusion power plants—Part 1: Physics , 2014 .

[14]  R. Ambrosino,et al.  Exploring a broad spectrum of design options for DEMO , 2018, Fusion Engineering and Design.

[15]  Angel Ibarra,et al.  DEMO design activity in Europe: Progress and updates , 2018, Fusion Engineering and Design.

[16]  G. V. Sheffield,et al.  Large Superconducting Magnet Designs for Fusion Reactors , 1971 .

[17]  Lester Waganer,et al.  ARIES-AT maintenance system definition and analysis , 2006 .

[18]  R. Felton,et al.  Diagnostics and control for the steady state and pulsed tokamak DEMO , 2016 .

[19]  Antony Loving,et al.  The impact on remote maintenance of varying the aspect ratio and number of TF coils for DEMO , 2017 .

[20]  Tuomas Viitanen,et al.  The Serpent Monte Carlo code: Status, development and applications in 2013 , 2014, ICS 2014.

[21]  P. Bonoli,et al.  ARC: A compact, high-field, fusion nuclear science facility and demonstration power plant with demountable magnets , 2014, 1409.3540.

[22]  M. Gadomska,et al.  Overview of EU DEMO design and R&D activities , 2014 .

[23]  T. Franke,et al.  Overview of the design approach and prioritization of R&D activities towards an EU DEMO , 2016 .

[24]  L. Zani,et al.  DEMO reactor design using the new modular system code SYCOMORE , 2015 .

[25]  Mohamed A. Abdou,et al.  A New Approach for Assessing the Required Tritium Breeding Ratio and Startup Inventory in Future Fusion Reactors , 1999 .

[26]  Mikko Siuko,et al.  Overview of progress on the European DEMO remote maintenance strategy , 2016 .

[27]  Mohamed A. Abdou,et al.  Deuterium-Tritium Fuel Self-Sufficiency in Fusion Reactors , 1986 .

[28]  A. Ferrari,et al.  FluDAG: A CAD based tool for high energy physics , 2019, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment.