Roadmap Objective 2

1
Roadmap Objective 2 Secure ITER
Operation Initial report
Göran Ericsson William Morris (rapporteur) Jef
Ongena Hartmut Zohm
Roadmap workshop, Garching, 13-14 April 2011
2
Contents

• Guidelines Hasinger report
• Aim of our work, approach adopted,
• Assumptions, time frame and context
• Scope what's in, whats out
• Scenarios which ones
• Modelling and theory aims
• Examples of risk/impact-based analysis to guide
  key EU activities
• Facilities existing and proposed (lists)
• Conclusions

3
Guidelines Hasinger report

• Objective 2 - Secure ITER Operation by expanding
  the knowledge base to maximise the scientific
  output of ITER. Develop operational scenarios
  that will secure and even exceed the baseline
  performance. Ensure the rapid and efficient start
  up of ITER operation, and protect the investment
  in ITER by minimising the chances of unexpected
  technical problems that would delay exploitation
  or incur extra cost.
• Deliverables In the next decade the programme
  must deliver
• a) Several robust, low risk, high performance
  operating scenarios for ITER that meet and in
  some cases exceed baseline requirements. At least
  some scenarios should be capable of long pulse
  operation, allowing an extrapolation to DEMO.
• b) The capability and tools for accurate
  predictive modelling of ITER performance. These
  tools must integrate models of confinement,
  stability, energetic particle physics and wall
  interaction. Their validation should be prime
  programmatic objectives of the accompanying
  facilities.
• c) Any satellite facilities that are necessary to
  support ITER operations.

4
Short version

• Break down scenarios into the known problem areas
  (Associations, ITPA, Facilities Review, ITER
  research plan etc)
• Think what we can do which can genuinely be
  applied on ITER plasmas to reduce risks and/or
  make them better (think like ITER)
• identifiable output (i.e. we know when weve done
  it)
• Identify which Associations interested,
  facilities available
• This can be basis of a roadmap rooted in a
  practical programme
• Some summary info from the input
• Now for some details

5
Aim of our work - I

• It is absolutely essential that ITER succeeds,
  and that high performance is achieved as quickly
  as possible.
• Much operation time can be saved on ITER with
  good preparation of the physics understanding,
  modelling tools and, especially, the scientists.
  Conversely it could go very slowly.
• ITER may perform above its baseline goals this
  will need knowledge, inventiveness and possibly
  some enhancements
• The complexity of tokamaks and the physics
  requires a very able and motivated community
• We need to work out the best way to prepare for
  this FP8 is key
• We need to provide the basis for a vigorous,
  lively, innovative programme where it is clear
  why it has to be a certain size.

6
Aim of our work - II

• Tokamak performance depends on the plasma
  scenario
• Scenarios consist of many elements and their
  integration.
• Almost all aspects will be different on ITER, to
  some extent
• Address elements and integration ? capabilities
  and programme
• Try to establish high level targets that
• will visibly help ITER
• we know when weve hit
• are readily linked to the working-level programme
• Not defining programme, but collecting ideas on
  topics and approaches

7
Input (for today and later)

• Ideas and capabilities from the Associations (the
  spreadsheets) - gt1000 entries for objective 2
  (only a subset in this talk)
• ITER Research Plan (v2.2, 2FB8AC)
• Facilities Review report and milestones (not the
  input documents)
• ITPA research needs
• STAC knowledge
• This workshop

8
Assumptions

• EU should develop the capability to implement the
  scenario effectively on ITER, in all its aspects,
  without relying on input from other ITER parties
• EU should develop independent modelling
  capability
• Funding is available for reasonable
  enhancements to existing facilities (experimental
  and computational)
• JT-60SA and the IFERC HPC are assumed to be EU
  facilities

9
Scope whats in

• All scientific activities to develop end-to-end
  scenarios
• All activities to develop models (basic theory,
  codes, computers)
• Enhancements to existing facilities, experimental
  or computational
• Assessment of the need for and capability of
  enhancements to ITER, JT-60SA, IFERC computer

Scope whats out

• Operation of the plant at a technical level
  (diagnostics, tokamak systems, HCD systems)
• Maintenance, remote handling
• Implementation of enhancements to ITER or BA
  facilities
• Engineering modelling of ITER components

10
Scenarios

• Deliverables In the next decade the programme
  must deliver
• a) Several robust, low risk, high performance
  operating scenarios for ITER that meet and in
  some cases exceed baseline requirements. At least
  some scenarios should be capable of long pulse
  operation, allowing an extrapolation to DEMO.
• What is a scenario?
• How do we know they are robust and low risk?

11
What is a scenario?

• Final state (flat top, integration in space)
• current, field, plasma shape, density,
  temperature, b etc
• fraction of non-inductive current drive
• nature of transport, transport barriers,
  stability and stability margins
• consistent heating, current drive and fuelling
• divertor solution
• End-to end integration in time
• vessel preparation
• breakdown, start-up, ramp-up and transition to
  flat top
• Control optimisation, transients (external and
  plasma-induced)
• termination, ramp down
• ITER needs different scenarios for high Q, long
  pulse steady state.

12
Scenarios which ones?

• Low activation phase not addressed directly
  today, but must be part of programme
• Hydrogen plasmas and attempts at H-mode
• Helium H-modes
• Q10 (DD as well as DT)
• ELMy H-mode
• Improved H-mode / Hybrid / Advanced Inductive
  mode
• Steady state/long pulse
• Hybrid/Advanced Inductive mode
• Advanced tokamak non-inductive

13
Scenarios what does delivery mean?

• Experience shows
• scenarios cannot be simply transported (took
  several years to translate hybrid successfully
  from ASDEX Upgrade to JET)
• a written recipe is completely inadequate
• a combination of experienced people, good data,
  and good theory-based models is needed
• ITER must have the measurements and actuators to
  optimise
• Delivery is only secure when the scenario has
  been run on ITER
• Considerations
• What can we actually do that will make a
  significant difference?
• How do we demonstrate/quantify this? (imagine we
  are running ITER)

14
Scenarios what does delivery mean?

• Possible (theoretical) example
• The edge pedestal height is critical to ITERs
  performance in ELMy H-mode
• We can estimate height, but our goal should be
  evidence that we can control and improve it. E.g
• Experiments where something is changed and the
  pedestal gets wider and higher
• Theory-based, experimentally tested models to
  explain why it happened
• modelled techniques that would have the same
  effect on ITER.

ITER Physics Basis, 2007. Nucl. Fusion 47 S18
15
Predictive capability?

• Deliverables In the next decade the programme
  must deliver
• b) The capability and tools for accurate
  predictive modelling of ITER performance. These
  tools must integrate models of confinement,
  stability, energetic particle physics and wall
  interaction. Their validation should be prime
  programmatic objectives of the accompanying
  facilities.
• Models allow us
• to bridge gap from present devices, design ITER
  plasmas in advance
• to fix/optimise ITER plasmas there will be great
  pressure on run-time
• Theory allows us
• To base our models on best physics understanding
• Use the models outside their range of
  experimental validation
• We should aim for first principles physics, not
  purely empirical models
• This talk specifics under the scenario topics,
  infrastructure under ITM

16
Satellite facilities

• Deliverables In the next decade the programme
  must deliver
• c) Any satellite facilities that are necessary to
  support ITER operations.
• These are facilities that operate alongside ITER
  addressing issues that arise during the operation
  (which cannot be answered adequately by ITER and
  its team). Also prepare enhancements
• JT-60SA is assumed to be operational towards the
  end of the period FP8, FP82, and is aimed
  towards DEMO as well as ITER
• Other major satellite facilities would be
  justified by their input in parallel to ITER

17
Satellite facilities

• At present (April 2011) we do not have ideas from
  Associations on
• the programme in parallel with ITER,
• the exploitation of the satellite facilities
  proposed by Associations.
• So, not easy to give views on necessary satellite
  facilities here.
• But issues raised here likely to apply during
  ITER operation, so we have an important step
• Several Associations indicated they wish to
  contribute to a discussion on the definition of a
  possible EU satellite this should start soon
  (using report of the earlier expert group on ITER
  DEMO satellites?)
• Substantial effort is indicated in the tables for
  FAST, upgrades of other facilities (AUG, TS, MAST
  and some other systems/facilities)

18
Approach adopted

• Identify ingredients of a scenario (e.g. core
  transport, pedestal height)
• Include common activities such as HCD, fuelling,
  diagnostics, control
• Identify risks/uncertainties
• Suggest mitigation actions (using Association and
  other ideas)
• Identify what success means, what difference we
  will make. how exactly will it make ITER better
  (rather than only improved understanding)
• Identify EU capability (use Association
  enhancement ideas if key to the mitigation)
• Identify interested Associations from the input
  (will not be complete list)
• Risks and activities are not ranked at this stage

19
Specific topics

• Only a subset here, to identify main
  capabilities.
• Some ideas for clear impact on ITER. Will be
  other/better ideas. Principle is if you were on
  ITER, what would you want and use?
• Q10 ELMy H-mode pedestal (incl ELM mitigation),
  L-H, integration
• Q10 Hybrid core transport, self-regulation/contr
  ol, integration,
• Q5 advanced ITB formation and control,
  integration
• Fuel retention
• Erosion/deposition
• Fast particle transport/losses
• Rotation generation and transport
• SOL and divertor
• ICRH coupling and compatibility
• Disruptions

20
Q10 ELMy H-mode H-mode access

• Comment/status
• Power in ITER marginal esp. in H, He phase.
• Mitigation, and evidence of success
• More power on ITER, esp in H/He phase Other
  triggers (flow changes, divertor leg, ion loss,
  pellet, current ramps) T early on ITER
• More power agreed. Demonstrated lower threshold
  based on first-principles theory
• EU capability Associations
• JET (esp if T) AUG MAST TCV TJ-II (for
  understanding), COMPASS.
• Strong theory well diagnosed machines
• CCFE, CIEMAT, CRPP, HELLAS, IPP, IPP.CR, ÖAW,
  TEKES

21
Q10 Hybrid General

• Comment/status
• q(0)gt1 relies on benign instabilities transfer
  slow (AUG ? JET)
• Risk/uncertainty
• No self-regulation. Core confinement poor, or
  ITBs. Low pedestal if radiative divertor metal
  accumulation isotope effect
• Mitigation, and evidence of success
• Combined exps theory ? self-regulating
  transport and rotation, options for q(r)
• End-to-end transient-resilient scenario model
• EU capability Associations
• JET, AUG, JT-60SA, MAST, TCV, TS
• CCFE, CEA, ENEA, IPP, CRPP? others?

Hybrid mode aims to have improved core
confinement but without an internal transport
barrier and its control needs
22
All scenarios Erosion and redeposition

• Comment/status
• Wall lifetime, retention, resilience to ELMs
  disruptions, dust production, impurity influx all
  key.
• Risk/uncertainty
• Unacceptable metal impurity influx. PFC material
  degrades. Dust production
• Mitigation , and evidence of success
• Seeding/fuelling, higher density edge, ELM
  control, disruption avoidance
• Demonstration of prolonged JET ILW operation at
  high power. Understand why materials change, how
  dust can be reduced
• EU capability Associations
• AUG, JET, TS, FTU, MAGNUM-PSI, TEXTOR
  post-mortem analysis
• CCFE, CEA, ENEA, ENEA-CNR, FOM, FZJ, IPP, IPPLM,
  IPPLM, MHEST, TEKES, ULB, VR

23
All scenarios Fuel retention

• Comment/status
• Critical for ITER operation carbon data
  unacceptable, Be/W situation unknown.
• Risk/uncertainty
• Even with metal wall retention may be too high,
  and effective removal techniques will be needed.
  Nature of retention (depth) may depend on
  scenario
• Mitigation, and evidence of success
• Experiments with metal wall accountancy, wall
  conditioning to recover (ICWC?). Tritium allows
  greater accuracy.
• Demonstrated data on accuracy of accounting,
  quantified recovery techniques
• EU capability Associations
• JET, AUG, TEXTOR, Magnum-PSI, Post mortem
  analysis facilities. Metal surface essential?
• FOM, FZJ, MHEST, TEKES, VR (assume others such as
  IPP, CEA, CCFE)

24
HCD ICRH coupling

• Comment/status
• Physics of coupling quite well understood, but
  realisation unreliable. Impurity influx
• Risk/uncertainty
• Coupling depends on unknown edge plasma,
  sensitive to scenario. Impurities
• Mitigation, and evidence of success
• Develop way to set density in front of antenna,
  for good coupling for all plasmas tune phasing
  to reduce sheath effects
• Proven physics model to show density and sheath
  in front of antenna is controllable.
• EU capability Associations
• JET, TEXTOR, AUG, FTU, Tore Supra. System
  changes may be needed
• CCFE, CEA, ENEA, IPP, ERM-KMS, VR.

25
All scenarios Fast particle transport/loss

• Comment/status
• Critical for a-heating effectiveness and profile,
  NBCD, sawtooth control
• Risk/uncertainty
• Fast particle-driven modes cause unacceptable
  losses (damage, loss of a-heating or NB current
  drive). Sawtooth control fails (and more NTMs
  result)
• Mitigation , and evidence of success
• Model improvements based on mixed data. Better
  diagnostics (confined lost ions, mode
  structure, and TAE probes), varied fast ion
  populations, distribution.
• ITERs drive and damping terms tested
  experimentally ITER-applicable turbulence
  effects on fast ions tested. Estimates for ITER
  and ideas to reduce
• EU capability Associations
• AUG, JET, MAST, TCV (NBI, TAE antenna upgrades),
  RFX (?, NBI upgrade)
• CCFE, CRPP, DCU, ENEA, ENEA-CNR, FOM, HAS, IPP,
  ÖAW, RFX, RISØ, TEKES, VR

26
All scenarios Disruptions

• Comment/status
• Limit operation, generate dust, damage PFCs.
• Risk/uncertainty
• Occurrence rate and impact Predictions (e.g.
  neural nets) dont transfer, too late in pulse
• Mitigation , and evidence of success
• Integrated avoidance strategy theory model of
  runaways, toroidal asymm, mitigation
• Transferred models of mitigation/prediction
  integrated avoidance to fit ITER infrastructure
• EU capability Associations
• JET AUG MAST, TS, FTU, TEXTOR, RFX(?)
• CCFE, CEA, CIEMAT, CRPP, ENEA-CNR, ENEA, FZJ,
  HAS, IPP, IPPLM, MHEST, RFX, VR

Analysis of root causes showing wide range, and
thus potential benefit of integrated operational
approach (JET)
27
Infrastructure

• Comment/status
• The programme needs a wide range of supporting
  capabilities diagnostics, theory, modelling,
  control, computer facilities, data acquisition,
  data handling, operations
• EU capability
• Wide capability on all systems. There will be
  some weaker areas.
• Associations
• All Associations contribute. Some have made
  specific mention of key areas such as
  diagnostics, data acquisition and control,
  exascale computing. Some relate to specific
  experiments such as JET DT.

28
ITER enhancements

• Comment/status
• A range of enhancements during ITERs life are
  likely. Diagnostics and LHCD are already in mind.
  Includes diagnostics of ancillary systems such as
  NBI source
• Not yet clear which parties would provide may
  affect level of RD outside F4E in EU
• EU capability
• Wide experience on all tokamak systems. Future
  satellite facilities.
• Associations
• Probably large majority CEA (Obj 1), DCU,
  ENEA-CNR, ENEA, IPPLM, RISØ mention specifically.

29
Scenarios summary of what is needed

• Deliverables In the next decade the programme
  must deliver
• a) Several robust, low risk, high performance
  operating scenarios for ITER that meet and in
  some cases exceed baseline requirements. At least
  some scenarios should be capable of long pulse
  operation, allowing an extrapolation to DEMO.
• Experimentally validated models for several key
  elements in order to design ITER scenarios and
  have demonstrated options to improve/correct
• e.g. edge pedestal, transport in hybrid, L-H
  transition
• Identification of issues for integration (in
  space and time) and proven approaches
• Techniques for common issues such as fuel
  retention, ICRH coupling
• A capable motivated team to transfer to ITER

30
Models summary of what is needed

• Deliverables In the next decade the programme
  must deliver
• b) The capability and tools for accurate
  predictive modelling of ITER performance. These
  tools must integrate models of confinement,
  stability, energetic particle physics and wall
  interaction. Their validation should be prime
  programmatic objectives of the accompanying
  facilities.
• Comprehensive suite of theory-based models for
  the major issues of the core plasma, with clarity
  on the state of experimental validation
• Models for SOL, divertor and first wall,
  including some 3-D effects (e.g. ELM coils). Some
  semi-empirical due to mixed plasma and non-plasma
  physics.
• Structure to integrate the codes (ITM)
• Note no Association proposals for the massive
  computing resources that will be needed as well
  as IFERC if we aspire to a full model?

31
Staffing proposed by Associations

• While no breakdown has been made at this stage,
  the totals may be useful (there are certainly
  errors here!)
• Period Total ppy Av. ppy/yr 2a 2b 2c
• 2012-2013 1458 729 372 218 138
• 2014-2018 3375 675 357 208 110
• 2019-2020 1448 724 317 212 195
• Total 6279 - 3162 1900 1216
• 2c includes increased staffing for AUG to make
  more available, MAST Upgrade, some facilities and
  diagnostic development, as well as TS (WEST), AUG
  extension, and FAST

32
Facilities 2012-13 (Host input)

• FP7 Tokamaks, RFPs, Stellarators
• ASDEX Upgrade
• COMPASS
• FTU
• ISTTOK (?)
• JET
• MAST
• TCV ( TORPEX)
• TEXTOR
• TORE SUPRA
• EXTRAP-T2R
• RFX
• TJ-II
• Observation all machines appear (to a different
  degree) in the proposals, some are heavily used
  by several Associations

33
Facilities 2012-13 (Host input)

• Plasma source, PWI, high heat flux etc
• Magnum-PSI (FOM)
• JUDITH 1, JUDITH 2, MARION, PSI-2 Jülich (FZJ)
• PUMA(?), PF1000-U (IPPLM)
• ELISE (IPP), FNG (ENEA), Remote handling (?)
  HELOKA (KIT) OMEGA (PWI?, ENEA) Tandem
  accelerator (VR)
• Computational (fusion specific)
• Gateway, HPC-FF, IFERC

34
Facilities 2014-18 (Host input)

• FP7 Tokamaks, RFPs, Stellarators
• ASDEX Upgrade
• COMPASS
• FTU
• ISTTOK (?)
• JET
• JT-60SA (late in FP8)
• MAST (and upgrade)
• TCV ( TORPEX)
• TEXTOR
• TORE SUPRA
• EXTRAP-T2R
• RFX
• TJ-II
• W7-X
• Some are absent in 2019-20, but closure date not
  given if earlier

35
Facilities 2014-18 (Host input)

• Plasma source, PWI, high heat flux etc
• Magnum-PSI (FOM)
• JUDITH 1, JUDITH 2, MARION, PSI-2 Jülich,
  JULE-PSI (FZJ)
• PUMA(?), PF1000-U (IPPLM)
• ELISE (IPP), FNG (ENEA), Remote handling (?)
  HELOKA (KIT) OMEGA (PWI?, ENEA) Tandem
  accelerator (VR)
• Computational (fusion specific)
• Gateway, HPC-FF, IFERC

36
Facilities 2019-20 (Host input)

• FP7 Tokamaks, RFPs, Stellarators
• ASDEX Upgrade
• COMPASS
• FTU
• ISTTOK (?)
• JET (?)
• JT-60SA
• MAST (upgraded)
• TCV ( TORPEX)
• TEXTOR
• TORE SUPRA (if WEST)
• EXTRAP-T2R
• RFX
• TJ-II
• W7-X

37
Facilities 2019-20 (Host input)

• Plasma source, PWI, high heat flux etc
• Magnum-PSI (FOM)
• JUDITH 1, JUDITH 2, MARION, PSI-2 Jülich,
  JULE-PSI(FZJ)
• PF1000-U (IPPLM)
• ELISE (IPP), PRIMA (RFX), FNG (ENEA), Remote
  handling (?) HELOKA (KIT) OMEGA (PWI?, ENEA)
  Tandem accelerator (VR)
• Computational (fusion specific)
• Gateway, HPC-FF, IFERC

38
JET

• JET has a special place in this period, in some
  ways a proxy for ITER.
• Here, it is assumed JET is available for some
  years (e.g. to 2015)
• A tritium campaign would change tenor of EU
  programme significantly.
• Association input covers all of the main areas
  and includes
• Scenario development to high power with radiative
  divertor
• Integrated ELM control
• Fuel retention, and removal
• Material erosion and migration (W, Be)
• Fast particle physics and diagnostics
• Disruption studies including runaways, avoidance,
  prediction, mitigation
• ICRH performance

39
Satellite facilities proposed/agreed

• BA JT-60SA (some Associations propose
  diagnostics)
• CCFE MAST Upgrade Objective 4 as well
• CEA WEST (Tore-Supra actively cooled W
  divertor) Objective 4 as well
• ENEA FAST and its subsystems
• FZJ Upgrade high heat flux test facility
  (MARION), Hot cells with plasma devices, Linear
  plasma device (JULE-PSI?)
• HAS TBM Remote Handling test facility Objective
  1 or 4?
• IPP ASDEX Upgrade extension
• IPPLM Pulse Plasma Gun (PUMA) for disruption,
  ELM studies
• IST Remote Handling Transfer Cask System test
  facility Objective 1 or 4?
• In addition several Associations mention
  diagnostics and other support projects

40
Forward look to the ITER years

• The situation will be different when ITER is
  operating
• Focus on designing plasma scenarios and
  experiments to develop and optimise them. Likely
  to be largely modelling (discrete and
  integrated), using experimental data to test.
• Powerful and fast tools for analysing and
  interpreting data will be key.
• Non-ITER studies could be focused on specific
  problems (e.g. transport, transport barriers,
  stability, anomalies in current drive, fast ion
  physics etc preparing enhancements).
• Not clear when ITER takes on scenario integration
  maybe for deuterium, not hydrogen? Transition
  may not be at end of FP82
• ITER will not address steady state/very long
  pulse till later need to develop in parallel
  (modelling and experiment). JT-60SA will be key.

41
Short version

• Break down scenarios into the known problem areas
  (Associations, ITPA, Facilities Review, ITER
  research plan etc)
• Think what we can do which can genuinely be
  applied on ITER plasmas to reduce risks and/or
  make them better (think like ITER)
• identifiable output (i.e. we know when weve done
  it)
• Identify which Associations interested,
  facilities available
• This can be basis of a roadmap rooted in a
  practical programme
• Some summary info from the input

42
Summary and conclusions - I

• To get the best from ITER, quickly, we need
  motivated, able, experienced people, and a suite
  of tools to design and optimise plasmas
• Genuine scenario demonstration can only be done
  on ITER, documentation alone is completely
  inadequate. A mechanism to include expert people
  in the ITER team is key, especially as
  facilities close.
• But many things can be done to prepare the people
  and the tools
• Approach
• break down scenarios into elements (e.g.
  pedestal, L-H transition, core transport, ICRH
  coupling), and integration issues,
• pick those where there is concern and genuine
  potential to develop tools to improve ITER
  plasmas, define specific goals (imagine we are
  ITER)
• demonstrate improvements on smaller tokamak(s)
  and models, and thus take a proven theory-based
  technique to ITER (imagine we are ITER)

43
Summary and conclusions - II

• This gives ingredients for a strategic roadmap in
  scenario development (experiment theory),
  rooted in a stimulating research programme.
• They could help define the necessary programme
  size for Europe to maintain and develop an
  independent capability for ITER and DEMO
• Scenario integration will pass to ITER, but
  possibly only after the hydrogen and helium
  phases, i.e. significantly into FP9.
• While the emphasis is naturally on larger better
  equipped tokamaks, there are important roles for
  other facilities, including stellarators RFPs.
  Also need space for new ideas, exploration
• It appears a viable accompanying programme
  reducing substantially the risks for ITER
  operation can be built from Associations input.
• To do assessment of satellite facilities needed
  in parallel to ITER operation

44
More detailed slides on scenario issuesList of
Facility review milestonesAvailable on request