Nuclear Fusion

Technology Roadmap Sections and Deliverables

• 1NCF - Nuclear Fusion

Roadmap Overview

Fusion power refers to the generation from the energy released by merging, or fusing, two atomic nuclei to generate energy. The energy generated from this reaction comes from the difference in mass between the two individual nuclei and the resulting lighter nucleus; this difference in mass is converted to energy according to Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc^2. There are different atoms that can be combined to generate fusion energy, but the most common reaction explored for commercial purposes involves two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium, in a reaction referred to as DT fusion. These two isotopes are brought in close proximity in a fusion reactor at over 100 million Celsius and combine to produce helium, releasing high-energy neutrons that can be captured to generate heat and run a conventional turbine to generate electricity.

D+T -> He+n

where

• D: Deuterium
• T: Tritium
• He: Helium
• n: neutron

Fusion reactions occur when two or more nuclei come close enough to each other for a long enough time that the nuclear forces attracting the nuclei exceed the electrostatic forces pulling them apart, fusing them into a heavier nucleus. To realize nuclear fusion for energy generation, there are technical challenges, such as plasma control and energy supply, to create and maintain high temperatures and high pressure.

There are multiple reactor concepts being explored to enable a fusion reaction, which involve the use of a strong magnetic field (magnetic confinement), powerful lasers (inertial confinement), or a hybrid of inertial and magnetic confinement methods (e.g., magneto-inertial confinement). The main applicable markets for fusion power are the electricity market, industrial heat, and space propulsion.

[1]

Design Structure Matrix (DSM) Allocation

The picture above is 1NCF nuclear fusion tree. The 'Tokamak' represents one of the approaches within Magnetic Confinement Fusion. It is a device specifically designed for nuclear fusion that confines high-temperature plasma using an axisymmetric toroidal (doughnut-shaped) magnetic field. As a container for plasma, it is associated with the level 3 subsystems, as depicted in the DSM.

The DSM and tree both show that 1NCF(2MCF) requires the following technologies at the subsystem level 3:

• 3PLC Plasma Containers
• 3PLF Plasma Creating Fields System
• 3RHS Remote Handling System
• 3HTS Heating System
• 3BIS Beam Injector System
• 3PLS Plasma Monitoring and Improving System(Diagnostics)

Each level 3 subsystem also require enabling technologies shown as level 4 systems:

• 4PLC Tokamak Chamber
• 4TFO Toroidal Field(TF) conductors
• 4TFS TF structures
• 4TFW TF winding and integration
• 4HDO Remote handling system & tooling optimization
• 4ECH Electro cyclotron heating system
• 4HVP High-voltage direct current power supply system
• 4NUB Neutral particle accelerator
• 4ETS Edge Tompson scattering system
• 4DIM Divertor impurity monitor
• 4DVT Divertor thermography

Roadmap Model using OPM

The OPM and OPL of one possible fusion technology system are depicted below. This technology assists in harnessing nuclear energy to generate power with lower risk than nuclear generation in a controlled environment and produces less radioactive waste.

Object Process Language1

Object Process Language1

Object Process Language1

Figures of Merit

The table below shows a list of FOMs of nuclear fusion.

Cost per Kilowatt, Power density, Carbon Emissions, Net capacity factor, Ramp rate are figures of merit relevant to the electricity market. These metrics of fusion energy are vital indicators of its competitiveness compared to other energy sources such as solar, wind, and fossil fuels.

Gain factor(Q-Value)

The Q-value is a crucial metric for evaluating the performance and viability of a fusion device. A device with a high Q-value suggests a significant net energy gain, increasing its potential as a practical energy source.

Gain factor (Q-Value) = (Energy produced by fusion reactions) / (External energy input to the plasma)

The other is figures of merit relevant to the electricity market: Cost per Kilowatt, Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), Power density, Carbon Emissions, Net capacity factor, and Ramp rate. These metrics of fusion energy are vital indicators of its competitiveness compared to other energy sources such as solar, wind, and fossil fuels.

Triple product

Triple product can be used to compare performance across various approaches to fusion, such as magnetic confinement schemes, inertial confinement schemes, and magneto-inertial schemes, being independent of the scheme used to create the fusion plasma. It is defined as the product of three factors: plasma density, temperature, and confinement time. Triple produc is expressed as:

Triple product ((m^-3) * eV * s) =density(1/m^3) × temperature(eV) × confinement time (s)

Where

• Density is the number of nuclei per unit volume
• Temperature is the kinetic energy of the particles in the plasma (the unit for temperature in fusion contexts is usually expressed in electron volts (eV))
• Confinement Time is the average time that a particle remains in the plasma before escaping.

The triple product is the main figure of merit used to measure progress in fusion energy research. Even though cost-per-KW is more appropriate when comparing power generation technologies, fusion technology is at too early stages to come up with reliable estimates of cost and progress over time. Figure 1 below shows the record values for a given fusion confinement concept along with the theoretical limit [1]. This theoretical limit occurs due to operational limits in plasma density, and a parameter called beta, β, the ratio of plasma pressure to magnetic pressure [2].

Figure 1. Triple product achieved for various fusion confinement concepts [1]

The rate of improvement was estimated for Magnetic Confinement fusion (red line in Figure 1); this is shown in Figure 2. The rate of improvement was found to be uneven, with large values at the beginning ~200% and then slowing down to about 35%. This decreased rate of improvement is well documented in the literature and is attributed to the international research community focusing on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). This particular confinement method appears to be in the portion of the S curve with slower progress. In contrast, the Inertial confinement fusion (black line in Figure 2) appears to be in the rapid progress phase (the rate of improvement was not calculated)

Figure 2. Rate of improvement for the triple product of magnetic confinement fusion. Raw data obtained from ref. [1].

Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE)

The most important FOM for power generation is the levelized cost of energy (LCOE). However, with the increased awareness of the negative impacts of carbon emissions and the policy trends on carbon caps and taxes, a FOM that is increasing in importance is the amount of emissions (particularly carbon dioxide) generated per unit of power. This is evident from the increased adoption of renewable energy sources. However, renewables fall short on at least two FOMs: power density (power per unit of area) and capacity factor (due to their intermittent nature). This represents an opportunity for fusion technologies to disrupt the electricity market, as it not only produces zero carbon emissions, but is also dispatchable (not intermittent in nature), and has significantly high energy density compared to other renewable sources. Even though the current projections for the LCOE of fusion power are highly uncertain and the conservative cost projections are not necessarily competitive with other power generation sources [3], they bring a unique combination of superior performance in other increasingly important FOMs such that when the LCOE projections become sufficiently low (assuming some of the technical challenges affecting economic viability are resoled), there will be a high likelihood of becoming a disruptive technology. Given the low maturity of the technology, it is not possible to plot FOM improvement over time for fusion in terms of FOMs that are relevant in electricity markets. Nevertheless, current projections for the main FOM (LCOE) compared to other technologies is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Levelized cost of energy by technology [4]. LCOE projections for fusion power were taken from two recent estimates [3] [5]

Alignment with Company Strategic Drivers

Our “company” is a government contractor that is looking to improve near term efficiencies and gains in Laser Confined Nuclear Fusion as well as develop the next generation world-class laser facility. This will not only aid in further development of harnessing fusion as an alternative renewable energy source but also allow for a suite of improved quality experiments for stockpile stewardship. The table below shows the three main strategic drivers and the necessary alignment of the 2LCNF technology roadmap with them.

Positioning of Company vs. Competition

As mentioned earlier, Laser Confined Nuclear Fusion (LCNF) and Magnetic Confined Fusion are primary branches of nuclear fusion research. In LCNF devices, high-powered, high-energy laser systems are used to drive the fusion reactions are typically so costly to design, build, and maintain that LCNF devices are typically government funded ventures. The three most prominent devices/facilities are NIF, LMJ, and SG-III. SG-III, consisting of only a fraction of the beam lines and energy delivery capabilities of its 2 industry competitors, was designed to study fusion parameters, not to achieve net fusion gain. Therefore, in this technology-intensive market, NIF and LMJ can be considered a competitive duopoly as the only 2 devices capable of performing experiments with the possibility of achieving ignition.

As a duopoly, both NIF and LMJ exhibit monopoly elements as the only firms with the ability to conduct both High-Energy Density (HED, typical for national nuclear security development) and fusion experiments. Each offer a unique product in terms of the parameters of the experiments such as laser power, temporal pulse shape, diagnostics, and target design resources. They are unique in that they are run by two governments, each with a contingent of loyal facility users in the queue hoping to verify their physics models. NIF and LMJ appear to be exhibiting behavior consistent with both the Cournot’s Model and the Bertrand’s Model <ref>de Weck, Olivier. (2020). EM.427 Technology Roadmapping course material</ref>, as firms that definitely respond to each other’s moves (Bertrand model) but not likely to reach a Nash Equilibrium due to the lack of predictable best response functions. This industry is in its infancy in terms of demonstrating fusion viability and focuses mainly on exploring alternative methods of creating a fusion environment rather than solely focusing on responding to competing partner “moves”.

Table 3.1: NIF and LMJ Facilities at a glance

Although NIF and LMJ do not seemingly engage in sequential game play, they do appear to actively respond to each other’s achievements or advancements with initiatives of their own. When LMJ was first announced, the system was designed to reach 1MJ (starting point B-LMJ shown in Figure 3.1). After NIF attained their energy goal of 1.8MJ (A-NIF in Figure 3.1) but did not reach their neutron yield expectations, LMJ increased their energy goal to 1.5MJ (B1 point shown in Figure 3.1). NIF then pushed the boundaries of their laser driver up to the optics damage threshold to produce 2.2 MJ. LMJ likely realized that for them to be seen by their supporters as a leader in this industry, they announced that their design goals are now 1.8MJ (B2 point in Figure 3.1). <ref name="LMJ">[J-L Miquel “The Laser Mega-Joule : LMJ & PETAL status and Program Overview”, Journal of Physics: Conference Series , vol. 688, pp. 8-13, 2013]</ref><ref name="LMJ2">[2]</ref><ref name="ICF">[J.L Kline et al., “Progress of indirect drive inertial confinement fusion in the United States”, International Atomic Energy Agency, vol. 59, pp. 8-13, 2019]</ref>

LMJ then announced the addition of a Petawatt laser to supplement the laser driver that positions them to attain the B2 point which would dominate the A-NIF point (current NIF position). In response to LMJ’s secondary laser, NIF is exploring 2 strategy options:

A1- Longer term venture of improving target design inefficiencies (introducing magnetically assisted devices) to raise neutron yield while understanding that the laser driver can only produce so much energy before optic damage is cost prohibitive

A2- Shorter term venture of either improving the optics damage threshold or living with the costs associated with operating the laser at higher fluences to reach greater energy levels.

Figure 3.1: Potential tradespace for a 2-player game along a two-dimensional Pareto Front using Neutron Yield and Laser Energy between NIF and LMJ <ref name="LMJ" /><ref name="LMJ2" /><ref name="ICF" />

Bibliography

[1] S. E. Wurzel, "Progress toward fusion energy breakeven and gain as measured against the Lawson criterion," Physics of Plasmas, 2022

[2] A. Costley, "On the fusion triple product and fusion power gain," Nuclear Fusion, Volume 56, Number 6

[3] L. e. al., "Can fusion energy be cost-competitive and commercially viable? An analysis of magnetically confined reactors," Energy Policy, vol. 177, 2023.

[4] "Levelized cost of energy by technoloty, World," Our World in Data, [Online]. Available: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/levelized-cost-of-energy.

[5] E. e. al., "Approximation of the economy of fusion energy," Energy, vol. 152, 2018.