# Presentation: 462038

## The Need for Fusion Chris Llewellyn SmithDirectorUKAEA CulhamEURATOM/UKAEA Fusion AssociationChairman Consultative Committee for Euratom on Fusion (CCE-FU)

**The Need for Fusion ****Chris Llewellyn Smith****Director****UKAEA Culham****EURATOM/UKAEA Fusion Association****Chairman Consultative Committee for Euratom on Fusion (CCE-FU)**

## OUTLINE

** ****The Looming Energy Crisis**
- - world energy use predicted  double by 2045; 80% currently from fossil fuels  climate change + running out (oil first)
** ****What must be done?**
- - increased energy R&D (currently negligible [and decreasing] on $3 trillion scale of world energy market): improve efficiency, develop renewables, ...
**but** apart from fossil fuels, solar and nuclear fission, only fusion can  large fraction of need
** ****Prospects for fusion **
**- **recent European Power Plant Study  power stations with acceptable performance possible without major advances (barring surprises)
** ****Fast Track to Fusion (****model being developed at Culham)**
- - argue programme with i) focus on project-orientated fast track **** DEMO (assumed ITER-like)  operation in  30 years, plus ii) [ ~ 10-20%?]  **** concept development: stellerators, spherical tokamaks,...: additional physics (feed   fast track) + insurance policy + second generation/DEMO power stations?

## Carbon dioxide levels over the last 60,000 years

- Source University of Berne and National Oceanic, and Atmospheric  Administration

**Notes:**
In less than 200 years human activity has increased the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases by some 50 % relative to preindustrial levels. at about 372 ppm, today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide level is higher than at any time in at least the past 420,000 years; data for the past 60,000 years are shown above.
There is no previous human experience of the Earth’s atmosphere at current levels of greenhouse gases to assist us to predict the outcomes. It is likely, though, that the natural oscillating pattern of ice ages and warm periods is now being disturbed. Are we currently entering the first enduring ‘hot period’ for over 50 million years?

## Modelling global warming 

**Temperature rise  degrees**** ****C**

**Modelling global warming**** **

- Source: Hadley Centre

**Notes:**
How do we go about estimating climate change in the future? This is done in a number of stages, shown in this figure. The first thing we need to know is what the emissions will be of greenhouse gases and other gases which affect climate change. These projections are deduced from separate models which take into account population growth, energy use, economics, technological developments, and so forth. We do not carry out this stage at the Hadley Centre, but we take future scenarios of these emissions from others, particularly IPCC.
Having obtained projections of how emissions will change, we then calculate how much remains in the atmosphere, i.e. what future concentrations will be. For CO2, this is done using a model of the carbon cycle, which simulates the transfer of carbon between sources (emissions) and sinks in the atmosphere, ocean and land (vegetation). For gases such as methane, we use models which simulate chemical reactions in the atmosphere. 
Next we have to calculate the heating effect of the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases; this is often called climate forcing. This is done within the climate model, described shortly, which generates spatial patterns of changes in temperature, rainfall and sea level etc., across the surface of the earth and through the depth of the atmosphere and oceans. 

## Thames Barrier Now Closed Frequently to Counteract Increasing Flood Risk

**Notes:**
Potential damage £30 bn 

## The Effects Of Climate Change

- Hotter and drier summers

- Milder winter

- Reduced snowfall

- Reduced soil moisture

- Extreme events - heat waves, droughts, tornadoes

- Sea Level Rise

- Disrupted transport

- Changed stream flows

- Tourism Industry

- Agriculture

- Disrupted energy demand patterns

- Reduced water supply

- Coastal erosion

- Increased flooding and storm damage

**Ambitious goal for 2050** (when total world power market predicted to be 30TW)
- - limit CO2 to twice pre-industrial level
- Will need 20 TW of CO2-free power (compared to today’s world total power market of 13 TW)
**US DoE “The technology to generate this amount of emission-free power does not exist”**

**Notes:**
Climate change is producing many effects.  Focussing on one, it is predicted that - if the rise of CO2 is not abated - rising sea levels will have inundated areas currently occupied by 100s of millions of people by the end of the century

A frequently quoted goal, which would ameliorate but not eliminate these effects, is to limit...
This will be very difficult.  The total world... in 2050 is predicted

## Saudi saying “My father rode a camel.  I drive a car.  My son flies a plane.  His son will ride a camel”.  Is this true?

  Estimates of world’s total endowment of accessible conventional oil  ~ stable and consistent for 50 years, except for recently upgraded estimate (assumes 40% improvement in extraction) by
US Geological Survey  which is the largest available
This (optimistic?) estimate  remaining oil will last 60 years* with current use   40 years if use doubles* in forty years
	*ignores price  consumption as end approaches

  Production will peak much sooner
many believe production  peak in 5-10 years, then fall ~ 3% pa
 ( “prices up, inflation, recession, international tension”)
Even USGS estimate  peak cannot be much more than 20 years away
  20 years is not long to develop and deploy alternatives for transport
[hydrogen - whence?;...] or introduce large scale coal and/or unconventional oil  oil [+CO2] conversion
  Gas will last longer; coal much longer

**  ****Estimates of world’s total endowment of accessible conventional oil  ~ stable and consistent for 50 years, *****except***** for recently upgraded estimate (assumes 40% improvement in extraction) by**
**US Geological Survey****  which is the largest available**
**This (optimistic?) ****estimate**** ******** remaining oil will last**** 60 years***** *****with current use***** ********  ****40 years**** ****if use doubles********* in forty years**
**	*******ignores price  consumption as end approaches
**  ****Production will peak much sooner**
**many believe production ******** peak in 5-10 years, then fall ~ 3% pa**
** **( “prices up, inflation, recession, international tension”)
**Even USGS estimate ******** peak cannot be much more than 20 years away**
**  ****20 years is not long to develop and deploy alternatives for transport**
- [hydrogen - whence?;...] **or**** introduce large scale coal and/or unconventional oil** ****** oil **[+CO2]** conversion**
**  ****Gas will last longer; coal *****much***** longer**

**Notes:**
Turn to question - how much fossil fuel is left, starting with conventional oil

Many people have tried to estimate the total amount of oil in the world, including oil yet to be discovered

The USGS, whose estimate incidentally is on the high side compared to most others, gives a number which is often quoted as implying that there is 60 years supply of oil left

Of course it won’t happen like this.  It won’t be that one day you go to fill up your car and are told “Sorry,...”

There are good reasons to think that oil production will peak in a few years when about half the world’s original oil endowment will have been used up: new fields will become harder to find and exploit, while production from old fields is dropping as pressures drop

Actually not true: the estimates of remaining oil have not changed much over the years, although the use to which they have been put has changed: I will give an example in a moment

Short time to develop and adopt new technologies and distribution systems

## WHAT MUST BE DONE?

**  ****Recognise the problem, and that**
- only new/improved technology can  solution (although fiscal measures ****** **change behaviour of consumers + stimulate work by industry also essential)
- increased investment in energy research essential*****.  Note: energy market ~ $3 trillion p.a., so 10% cost increase  $300 bn p.a.
- global co-ordination and collaboration ( necessary funding and expertise; prevent duplication) and co-operation essential:  results should be openly available (as far as practical)
*** ***public funding down 50% globally since 1980 in real terms; private funding also down, by (e.g.) 67% in USA in 1985-98*

**Notes:**
We must endeavour to make the results available to all, although this may be difficult

We cannot afford to have some countries excluded, or priced out of, using the best energy technologies, both for political reasons - to ensure global stability - and because the abatement of CO2 production must be global

The International Energy Agency produces data, but I don’t recognise parts with which I am familiar

If I had to design an energy research policy, I would like to have much better data on what is being done elsewhere in order to avoid investing in re-invention of the wheel: very difficult to find out because much of the work is done in industry, and even if we consider only publicly fumded R&D we must remember that large public subsidies (e.g to wind energy) support substantial amounts of private R&D.

## FOCUS FOR RESEARCH

**Must explore all avenues (solution = cocktail).  **Note - highly interdisciplinary:  socio-economic, biological and physical sciences
**  ****Energy efficiency - ****yes**** **(will ameliorate but not solve problem)
**  ****CO****2**** capture and sequestration - ****yes**** **(but big challenges, risks, and will add costs)
**  ****Renewables - ****yes **(but, apart from solar, do not have potential to meet large fraction of global demand).**  Solar - ****yes **(enough in principle, but currently very expensive and mostly not where needed)
-  **Energy storage********* - ****yes**** **(essential for large scale use of intermittent sources)
-  **Nuclear fission - ****yes **(at least until fusion available)
**  ***** energy storage/retrieval inevitably ******** significant losses**

**Notes:**
A major underlying theme of almost all the required research is the need for better understanding of the properties of materials: every talk on technology nowadays includes a mention of nano-technology, and this is it - indeed nano-technolgy will play a role

## The Economist 29/5/04

*The Economist 29/5/04*

**Notes:**
Under efficiency I include not only more efficient use of energy, but avoidance of use of energy - for example by better use of natural light in buildings and improved insulation

Talking of efficiency, I was impressed to see that Helsinki has a very large combined heat and power plant

##   Fusion - yes

Apart from fossil fuels (as long as they last), solar (not [yet?] viable/economical except for niche uses) and nuclear ( fast breeders in the future), fusion is the only known technology capable in principle of producing a large fraction of world’s electricity

With so few options, I believe we must develop fusion as fast as possible - although success is not certain
The Joint European Torus (JET) at Culham in the UK has produced 16 MW and shown that fusion can work

The big question is whether/when we can develop the technology  robust, reliable ( economic) fusion power stations

**Apart from fossil fuels **(as long as they last),** solar **(not [yet?] viable/economical except for niche uses)** and nuclear **( fast breeders in the future),** *****fusion is the only known technology capable in principle of producing a large fraction of world’s electricity***
**With so few options, I believe we must develop fusion as fast as possible - although success is not certain**
**The Joint European Torus (JET) at Culham in the UK has produced 16 MW and shown that fusion can work**
**The big question is whether/when we can develop the technology ******** robust, reliable (******** economic) fusion power stations**

**Notes:**
Note – JET = outstanding example of international collaboration

## European Fusion Power Plant Studies(see talks by D Maisonnier and D Ward)

- Four “Models”, A - D, were studied as examples of a spectrum of possibilities (parameters differ substantially from earlier studies)
- Ranging from near term plasma physics and materials to advanced
- Systems code varied the parameters of the possible designs, subject to assigned plasma physics and technology rules and limits, to produce economic optimum

## Plasma physics basis

- Based on assessments made by expert panel appointed by European fusion programme
- Near term Models (A & B): roughly 30% better than the (conservative) design basis of ITER
- Models C & D: progressive improvements in performance - especially shaping, stability and divertor protection

## Materials basis

## OUTCOME

** ****All models ~ 1.5 GW electrical output **(limited by assumptions about grid)
** ****Fusion power falls A (5.0 GW) ******** D (2.5 GW)**
** ****Cost of electricity falls A (5-9 euro-cents/kW-hr) ******** D (3 - 5 cents)**
**	**[remarks on costs vs. parameters later]
** ****Safety and environmental features excellent **(external costs [to health, environment] ~ wind power)
** ****Economically acceptable fusion power stations**, with major safety and environmental advantages, **seem to be accessible  on a fast- track** through ITER + material testing by IFMIF (but without major material advances)

## CULHAM FAST TRACK STUDY*(Builds on important work of Lackner, Andreani, Campbell, Gasparotto, Maisonnier, Pick)

** ****Idea ******** develop fast track model + critical path analysis for development of fusion**
****** ****prioritise R&D**
****** ****motivate support for, and drive forward, rapid development of fusion**
**Work needs to be taken forward by wider community (e.g in framework of EFDA)**
***** Preliminary: hope  public soon

## Essence of the Fast Track (I)

- _First stage_
- ITER
- IFMIF on the _same_ time scale
- _Second stage_
- DEMO - assumed ITER-like (final integration and reliability development). Realistically, there may be several DEMOs, roughly in parallel.
- _Third stage_
- Commercial power

## Essence of Fast Track (2)

- Assume a major change of mind-set, to a disciplined project-oriented “industrial” approach to fusion development.
- Compare fusion with the way that fission and flight were developed! There were the equivalents of many DEMOs and many materials test facilities (~ 24 materials test reactors).

## Approach

-  Motives and opportunities (from power plant studies)
-  Issues, and their resolution by devices
-  Prioritisation and focus to speed the programme
-  “Pillars” - ITER + IFMIF + existing tokamaks (JET,...)
-  “Buttresses” to reduce risks (and perhaps speed up the programme)

## Technical targets from safety & environmental and economic requirements

**The variation of direct cost of electricity with the main parameters is well fitted by:**
**	****	****	****	****	****	**
- In descending order of relative importance to economics:
- A - plant availability
- th - thermodynamic efficiency
- Pe - net electrical output of the plant (which can be chosen)
- N - normalised plasma pressure
- N - ratio of the plasma density to the Greenwald density.
- It seems there are no “show-stopping” target minimum values associated with any of these parameters, although all are potential degraders of economic performance.

## Issues and their resolution: pillars only

## Issues and their resolution: pillars plus buttresses

## Key assumptions: pillars

- _First stage_
-  ITER immediately!
-  Acceleration of ITER exploitation, by focussing programme of existing Tokamaks (JET,...) on supporting rapid achievement of ITER’s goals
-  Acceleration of IFMIF design and construction (by using money)
-  Prioritisation of ITER & IFMIF programmes, in favour of DEMO relevance
- _Second stage_
- Ex-vessel reliability developed in extended ITER and parallel programme

## Slide 24

## DEMO

**DEMO**

**Today’s experiments**

**ITER**

**IFMIF**

## Risks and Benefits

- The main risks are of:
- delays, or, if the delay is unacceptable
- having to back off to some extent from the economic performance of the first generation of power plants
- The main benefit of the “buttresses” is risk reduction (could also accelerate the programme)
- Even when discounted for both time delay and probability, the cost of the fusion development programme is much less than the expected benefit

## Conclusions

** ****The world needs *****major***** sources of ****(environmentally responsible)**** energy**
** ****Fusion is one of very few options**
** ****Power Plant Studies ******** time to move to a project oriented approach ******** fast track ******** DEMO **(presumably ITER-like)
** ****In parallel, ‘Concept Development’ line (stellerators, spherical tokamaks,...) **- additional physics (feed into fast track line) + insurance + second generation DEMO/power plants?
** ****This will require a change in mind set, organisation and funding.  First steps are **
** ****fusion community ******** agree an (aspirational) guiding fast-track model**
** ****persuade governments ******** funding to turn aspirations to reality**

## Final Words

**~ Lev Artsimovitch’s celebrated reply to the question “When will fusion be ready?”**
**"Термоядерная энергия будет получена тогда, когда она станет необходима человечеству"** *Детская энциклопедия.* *М., Педагогика, 1973, т.3, с.381. *
**~ “Fusion will be ready when society needs it”**
**The need is clear **
**- must aspire and work to deliver fusion as fast as we can**