Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy,
DTTs role and summary of assessment
reports
DC. McDonald , T. Donné, X. Litaudon, M. Reinhart, M. Turnyanskiy, D. Borba
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 2/19
1. European fusion roadmap prioritised plasma exhaust and alternative solutions for risk mitigation
− EFDA Fusion Electricity: A roadmap to the realisation of fusion energy
2. EUROfusion focused considerable effort on assessing alternative concepts at the proof of principle level
− Assessment of the DEMO compatibility of alternative plasma exhaust solutions
3. Two PEX Ad-Hoc Group reports defined EUROfusion strategy:
− Report of the Ad-Hoc Group on “Strategy for the Plasma Exhaust” (“PEX AHG”) – Phase 1
− Report of the Ad-Hoc Group on “Strategy for the Plasma Exhaust” (“PEX AHG”) – Phase 2
4. Call launched for PEX upgrades/new devices to enable implementation of the strategy. Response from beneficiaries:
− ENEA DTT Divertor Tokamak Test facility project proposal
− 9 other proposals for upgrades and new devices
5. PEX Assessment Panel assessed proposals
− Plasma Exhaust Assessment Panel Report (PEX Assessment Panel Report)
6. PEX upgrade strategy
− Report on PEX Upgrade Strategy
Steps in Plasma Exhaust strategy
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 3/19
• The plasma exhaust (Mission 2) executive summary
of the European fusion roadmap (2012) states:
− “A reliable solution to the problem of heat exhaust is probably the
main challenge towards the realisation of MCF.
− “The risk exists that the baseline strategy pursued in ITER
cannot be extrapolated to a FPP.
− “Hence, in parallel to the programme in support of the baseline
strategy, an aggressive programme of alternative solutions for
the divertor is necessary.
− “Some concepts are already being tested at the PoP level and
their technical feasibility in a FPP is being assessed.
− “Since the extrapolation from PoP devices to ITER/DEMO based
on modelling alone is considered too large, a dedicated test on
specifically upgraded existing facilities or on a dedicated Divertor
Tokamak Test (DTT) facility will be necessary”
1. European fusion roadmap (v1) on DTT
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 4/19
EU-DEMO
Consistent Concept
Commence Construction Electricity
Production Mission 4 – Tritium breeding Mission 5 – Safety Mission 6 - Integrated DEMO design
Scie
nce
& T
ech
no
logy
Bas
is fo
r fi
rst
FPP
s
Mission 8 – Stellarator
2050
Mission 7 – Lower cost, innovations
ITER Q = 10 Q = 5 long pulse
From draft revised Roadmap
Mission 3 – Materials MTR DONES
IFMIF
Towards stellarator FPP?
Mission 1 – Plasma scenarios Mission 2 – Heat exhaust
Mission 1 – Plasma scenarios Mission 2 – Heat exhaust
Mission 4-7 – Maximise ITER input to DEMO
2020 2030 2040 2017
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 5/19
• EUROfusion has significantly increased the European physics and R&D effort on plasma exhaust
− See talk of H Reimerdes
• Significant activity and resources were directed to alternative divertor concepts, through the dedicated Work Packages DTT1 and DTT2 and the supporting upgrades, experiments and analysis in WPPFC, WPMST1 and WPMST2
• A major milestone was the report
− Assessment of the DEMO compatibility of alternative plasma exhaust solutions
• This assessed the compatibility of the proposed alternatives with DEMO
• No show-stoppers for any of the concepts were found and the main costs and benefits for each were identified
• The report supported an ongoing R&D programme and recommended the necessary next steps
2. EUROfusion work on plasma exhaust (2014-)
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 6/19
See talk of H Zohm
• PEX AHG reports identified physics and technology gaps and developed a broad strategy for plasma exhaust within the four identified areas
− Area A: Conventional materials and PFUs
− Area B: Conventional divertor
− Area C: Alternative materials and PFUs
− Area D: Alternative divertors
• Within each area, the broad tasks and milestones required to address the physics and technology gaps were outlined developing the solutions at the levels of
− Proof of Principle
− Demonstration
− Qualification, including implementation on DEMO
• Broad dates for the tasks and milestones are indicated, in line with the DEMO design, construction and operation points and the schedules of ITER, JT-60SA etc
3. Outline of PEX AHG reports
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 7/19
3. PEX AHG strategy: alternative divertor configurations
Control detachment in MST&JET at high
Psep
Demonstrate exhaust in Q=10
scenario in MST/JET(DT)
Verify SOLDIV codes (incl. first principles transport elements)
Proof of principle phase
Demonstration phase
Systematic study of seed impurities
(MST&JET)
Interpretation with SOLDIV codes
(quantitative match)
Development of ITER and DEMO
compatible sensors for detachment
•Q
=10
exh
aust
sch
eme
read
y fo
r u
se in
ITER
•
Ass
ess
hig
h f
rad f
or
ITER
Q=5
(P A
UX u
pgr
ade)
an
d D
EMO
ED
A
Qualify detached divertor under
ITER Q=10 conditions
Verify full predictive SOLDIV
code
•H
igh
Pse
p d
iver
tor
dem
on
stra
ted
at
low
fra
d,c
ore
•A
sses
s h
igh
fra
d,c
ore
sce
nar
io f
or
DEM
O c
on
stru
ctio
n
Demonstrate high frad steady
state scenario in JT-60SA(W)
Verify first principles model for confinement
at high frad,core
Demonstrate high frad steady
state scenario in ITER Q=5
Verify coupled core-SOLDIV
model
Hig
h f
rad
co
re s
cen
ario
dem
on
stra
ted
at
inte
rmed
iate
Pse
p
Qualification phase
Develop high frad steady state scenario in
MST(W)&JT-60SA(C)
Characterise first wall loads in high frad,core
scenario (MSF, JET, JT-60SA)
Develop first principles model for confinement
at high frad,core
Experimental characterisation
of confinement at at high frad,core
Develop physics models for
confinement at high frad,core
Qu
alif
y co
mb
inat
ion
of
hig
h P
sep
and
hig
h f
r ad
,co
re in
DEM
O
Implement in DEMO
Now 2020 2027 2035 2039 ≥ 2050
End of H2020 programme start ITER operation ITER Q=10 ITER steady state start DEMO ops start JT-60SA operation JT-60SA steady state (C) JT-60SA steady state (W) start DEMO construction (≈2040) start MSF/long pulse operation JET DT complete start DEMO EDA (≈2030)
•R
ead
y to
imp
lem
ent
det
ach
men
t co
ntr
ol i
n M
SF a
nd
JET
•
Ass
essm
ent
of
stat
us
of
con
ven
tio
nal
exh
aust
sch
eme
(aro
un
d
20
22
, to
geth
er w
ith
alt
ern
ativ
e co
nce
pts
)
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 8/19
• Call launched for PEX upgrades/new devices to enable implementation of the strategy. Response from beneficiaries:
− ENEA DTT Divertor Tokamak Test facility project proposal
− 9 other proposals for upgrades and new devices
• Panel of international and European experts assessed all 10 proposals including meetings and questions to all proponents
• Panel found that all proposals contributed to the PEX strategy
• Panel reported on the technical and scientific strengths and weaknesses of each proposal and outlined the degree to which they contributed to the PEX strategy
4-5. Call and Plasma Exhaust Assessment Panel Report
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 9/19
• The PEX upgrade strategy was developed by the
EUROfusion PMU using the DTT1, PEX AHG and
assessment panel reports as the technical basis
• The main step was to optimise the gaps that could
be addressed by the upgrades in a cost effective
way
− Here gaps means gaps in our facilities
• The scope was to prioritise the conventional (ITER)
divertor and the phase up to ≈2027. However, the
strategy beyond 2027 was also considered.
• The home labs of all proponents, including ENEA-
DTT, were visited as part of the exercise
6. Plasma exhaust (PEX) upgrade strategy
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 10/19
6. Gaps with and without upgrades
Area D: Alternative divertor
Task Description Gaps
without
upgrade
Gaps
with
upgrade
Comments
Proof of Principle Phase (≈2014-2020)
D1.1 Identify theoretically and
experimentally the mechanisms
that can give advantages
None None+ Based on initial data particular from AUG,
MAST-U and TCV.
After 2020, AUG tungsten environment with
its high Ptot/R will provide key information on
Snowflake, X-divertor, and conventional
double null configurations. MAST-U has a
unique ability to investigate the Super-X in
the existing configuration. These Phase I
experiments should determine the necessity
of heating upgrades
D1.2 Demonstrate (some of) the
expected advantages qualitatively
Gap None+ As for D1.1. Relevant diagnostic upgrades
might be required
D1.3 Identify causes of impact (positive
and negative) on core scenarios
(e.g. pedestal, impurities)
Gap None+ As for D1.1
D1.4 Assess in-principle feasibility of
contender concepts at DEMO scale,
incl RAMI & TBR and impact on
DEMO design
Gap None+ This is a study, but requires the resolution of
D1.1, D1.2 and D1.3 first
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 11/19
PEX upgrade selection and broad schedule
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
WEST
TCV
MAST-U(Phase II)
MAST-U(Phase I)
JSI
FZJ
AUGUpgrade in progress
Operation to exploit upgrade
Phase II assessment through KPI
Now ≈ End of Proof of Principle phase
Upgrade in progress interlaced with operation
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 12/19
1. Following the DTT1 report, an internal expert group should study engineering aspects of alternative divertor and material solutions for DEMO.
2. Development of a roadmap for liquid metals, that takes the existing programme to a possible DEMO solution on a realistic time scale.
− To be proposed in Jul 2017. Foreseen to include an integrated LM divertor conceptual design and a gate review (2019)
3. Critical design studies for liquid metals required for tasks identified by the PEX AHG
4. Critical design studies for alternative divertor configurations required for tasks identified by the PEX AHG
5. An extensive and cross-EUROfusion programme of theory and modelling is clearly required to support the activities and extrapolate the results to ITER and DEMO
Critical support work
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 13/19
• All gaps in first phase (2017-2020) are adequately filled by the proposed upgrades and many (all for Area D) are adequately filled in the second phase (2021-2027):
− Area A: Conventional materials and PFUs − Area B: Conventional divertor − Area C: Alternative materials and PFUs − Area D: Alternative divertors
• Priority of PMU is on A: conventional materials and PFUs; and Area B: the conventional divertor
− All gaps could be filled if JET where to be extended until 2024 with a modest divertor refurbishment (in development)
• Beyond 2027, the assumption is:
− JT-60SA, ITER, DONES and DEMO (+ accompanying smaller devices) are sufficient to address the conventional materials and divertor areas (A and B)
− If, a candidate alternative solution is demonstrated, a dedicated DTT or upgrade of the next generation devices (JT-60SA or ITER) would be required
− Any such strategy must have minimal impact on the DEMO construction start date
Conclusion of PEX facility gap analysis
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 14/19
Budget for PEX upgrade selection
The budget for the projects immediate approved (Phase I) or for approved after they have proven additional KPIs after a new assessment (Phase II) is:
Budget / k€ Period
Total 2017-2018 2019-2020 2021-2024
TOTAL Phase I+II 8,250 17,783 7,452 33,485
Construction of a dedicated ENEA-DTT, or similar device, is not foreseen to begin before ≈2022
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 15/19
• The PMU noted and supported the PEX Assessment Panel Report findings:
− “At present there is insufficient knowledge to predict which alternative configuration will prove the most promising and justify the construction of a large new facility”.
• Which are in line with the AHG on ‚Strategy for the Plasma Exhaust‘ (‚PEX AHG‘) - Phase 2:
− “We find it too early to tell if the alternatives are promising enough to take this step now and hence propose a rigorous assessment in ≈2022, when more input from experiments (possibly including PEX upgrades), modelling and DEMO integration studies will be available. This assessment must also include the conventional approach to put the expected benefits of the alternatives in perspective.“
• The project should be put on hold until the results from the selected upgrades are analysed, confirming the benefits of the alternative configurations and making a down selection to a possible alternative divertor concept.
Proposed strategy on ENEA-DTT
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 16/19
• The PMU noted and supported the PEX Assessment Panel Report findings:
− “The DTT proposal appears well suited to investigate the Snowflake and x-divertor configurations; however, other alternative configurations (e.g. Super-X/ long legged divertor) are not clearly accommodated and were not reviewed.”
− “At present there is insufficient knowledge to predict which alternative configuration will prove the most promising and justify the construction of a large new facility.”
− “If the proposed DTT were immediately funded and focused on alternative divertors from the start and if funding were available for the heating upgrades early on, then it is possible, but difficult for it to contribute to the 2035 decision point for alternative divertors.” o Such an upgrade would significantly increase construction costs
− “the panel recommends that a decision on proceeding with the proposed DTT be delayed until sufficient input has been obtained from ASDEX Upgrade, MAST Upgrade and TCV. This would allow determination of whether a dedicated “DTT” facility” is needed or not. It would also reduce the complexity of a dedicated “DTT” facility by being able to focus the design on a preferred alternative divertor solution.” o Critically, it must be considered that the ongoing assessments find that there is no feasible
alternative divertor solution
− “In addition, the current scientific and technical experience with large alternative materials for plasma exhaust is insufficient for the design of a large new facility.”
− “To properly address compatibility of the core with the divertor for DEMO-like conditions,….. even the highest powers proposed are marginal at Ptot≈45 MW.”
Proposed strategy on ENEA-DTT
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 17/19
• Immediate Support of ENEA-DTT instead of placing
on hold until 2022
− Motivation: that ENEA could likely miss the national resources
(≈115 M€) or the related loan from EIB (≈ 250 M€)
• Additional risks of committing resources prior to the
down selection of alternative divertor concepts
− ENEA-DTT may not be needed / not well suited to test the
selected DEMO design of a conventional / alternative divertor
concept
• A significant number of technical and budgetary
concerns would have to be addressed by a Phase II
Panel for DTT
Alternative option for ENEA-DTT
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 18/19
Alternative option for DTT
Proposal Period
Total budget / k€ 2017-2018 2019-2020 2021-2024
All Phase I+II 8,250 17,783 7,452 33,485
Optional DTT 3,467 39,818 16,714 60,000
TOTAL 11,717 57,601 24,166 93,485
The following table gives the provisional budget for immediate funding of DTT compared to the budget of all other Phase I+II projects.
This optional allocation for 2017-2018 is within the existing unallocated resources for Mission 2.
The allocation for 2019-2020 would be an ≈20 M€ increase from 2018. This would either come from an increase in the total EUROfusion budget or cuts elsewhere in the programme.
The proposed allocation beyond 2020 is also much increased.
EUROfusion General Assembly agreed that this EUROfusion DTT workshop will be held to discuss whether it makes sense to advance the ENEA DTT proposal.
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 19/19
- Since 2012, the leading experts have undertook an extensive programme of plasma exhaust studies/reviews of alternative concepts (5 bodies, 6 reports)
- Conclusions are consistent and result in strategy to approve 6 PEX upgrade projects (AUG, FZJ, JSI, MAST-U, TCV, WEST) and delay a decision on a full DTT until down selection of alternative divertor concepts (≈2022)
- LM divertor roadmap, after a EUROfusion Workshop,to be developed
- This has progressed and roadmap expected to be complete by the end of 2017
- EUROfusion DTT workshop to be held to discuss whether it makes sense to advance the ENEA DTT proposal, specifically to:
1. discuss the programmatic goals of the ENEA proposed DTT project in the frame of the EUROfusion PEX strategy and Roadmap
2. to get input from the European fusion research community into the ENEA proposed DTT project
- The workshop results will be fed into the PEX strategy group
- No decision is taken on the DTT PEX proposal, so the options remain:
1. A Phase II assessment for DTT
2. DTT2 is closed and the DTT decision postponed to ≈2022
Present status: approved at EUROfusion
General Assembly in Apr 2017
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 20/19
Additional slides
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 21/19
Gaps with and without upgrades
Area A: Conventional materials and PFUs
Task Description Gaps
without
upgrade
Gaps
with
upgrade
Comments
Proof of Principle Phase (≈2014-2020)
A.1.1 Assess plasma effects on ITER
component design
None None+ Significant contribution by WEST proposal,
providing it demonstrates its merits as an
integrated test facility
A.1.2 Determine operation conditions and
materials requirements
None None+ Major contribution to MTRL / material
assessment with regard to beryllium /
tritium loaded / irradiated samples by FZJ
proposal
A.1.3 Evaluate applicability of existing
design codes
None None+ Significant contribution by FZJ proposal
A.1.4 Identify and assess interfaces None+ None+
A.1.5 Develop machining and joining
technologies and reliable low cost
manufacture
None+ None+
A.1.6 Demonstrate materials properties in
linear devices
None None+ Major contribution by FZJ proposal
A.1.7 Demonstrate materials compatibility
with plasma in MSF/JET
None+ None+
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 22/19
Gaps with and without upgrades
Area A: Conventional materials and PFUs
Task Description Gaps
without
upgrade
Gaps with
upgrade
Comments
Demonstration Phase I (≈2021-2027)
A.2.1 Integrated performance of ITER PFUs
under plasma conditions (MSF)
Gap None+ Major contribution by WEST proposal
A.2.2 Safety analysis Gap Gap Remaining issues could be addressed by
JET
A.2.3 Qualify materials and prototypes in
fission test reactors
Gap None+ Major contribution by FZJ proposal
A.2.4 Establish machining and joining
technologies
Gap None+ Major contribution by FZJ proposal
A.2.5 Integrated performance of DEMO
component under plasma conditions
(MSF)
Gap None Assuming eventual agreement on DEMO
components and purchase of test
samples
A.2.6 Assess impact of safe PFC operation
on high performance plasma
scenario (MSF)
Gap Gap Remaining issues could be addressed by
JET
A.2.7 Develop predictive modelling of
combined loads
Gap None Significant contribution by FZJ proposal.
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 23/19
Gaps with and without upgrades
Area B: Conventional divertors
Task Description Gaps
without
upgrade
Gaps with
upgrade
Comments
Proof of Principle Phase (≈2014-2020)
B1.1 Systematic study of seed impurities
(MST & JET)
None+ None+
B1.2 Interpretation with SOLDIV codes
(quantitative match)
None+ None+
B1.3 Development of ITER and DEMO
compatible sensors for detachment
None None+ AUG to address this issue, with support
from MAST-U, TCV and WEST.
B1.4 Experimental characterization of
confinement at high frad,core
None+ None+
B1.5 Develop physics models for
confinement at high frad,core
None+ None+
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 24/19
Gaps with and without upgrades
Area B: Conventional divertors
Task Description Gaps
without
upgrade
Gaps
with
upgrade
Comments
Demonstration Phase I (≈2021-2027)
B2.1 Control detachment in MST and JET
at high Psep
None None JET could make a significant contribution. AUG is
important, but AUG project itself does not have
large impact.
B2.2 Demonstrate exhaust in Q = 10
scenario in MSF/JET(DT)
None None As for B2.1
B2.3 Verify SOLDIV code (including first
principles transport elements)
None None As for B2.1
B2.4 Develop high frad,core and frad,div steady-
state scenario in MST (W) and JT-
60SA (C)
Gap Gap JET could make a major contribution with support
from WEST
B2.5 Characterize first wall loads in high
frad,core scenarios (MSF, JET, JT-60SA)
Gap Gap JET could make a major contribution with support
from WEST
B2.6 Develop first principles models for
confinement at high frad,core
Gap Gap JET could make a major contribution with support
from WEST
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 25/19
Gaps with and without upgrades
Area C: Alternative materials and PFUs
Task Description Gaps
without
upgrade
Gaps
with
upgrade
Comments
Proof of Principle Phase (≈2014-2020)
C1.1 Integrated concept, including liquid
metal loops, plasma compatibility,
etc (on paper)
Gap Gap OLMAT-TJII could make a significant
contribution, but subjects such as recovery
and closed loops, restricting core
contamination etc. are not addressed in the
proposal. Therefore, still a large gap remains
C1.2 Reactor relevant target design
survives ≥ 10 MW/m2 in steady
state (linear device)
Gap Gap Some concerns on test of steady state
C1.3 Qualification of suitable material
(Li, Sn, LiSn): T-retention and
operational temperature window
Gap Gap As for C1.2., e.g. redeposition behaviour will
be different due to interaction of vapour ions
with high energy neutrals rather than with
low energy plasma, giving limitations to the
interpretation. Relevant diagnostic upgrades
C1.4 Assess in-principle feasibility of
contender concepts at DEMO scale
Gap Gap This is a study, but requires the resolution of
C1.1, C1.2 and C1.3 first
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 26/19
Gaps with and without upgrades
Area C: Alternative materials and PFUs
Task Description Gaps
without
upgrade
Gaps
with
upgrade
Comments
Demonstration Phase I (≈2021-2027)
C2.1 Compatibility with main and
divertor plasma (e.g. different
recycling conditions), ≥2025
Gap Gap Could be addressed to some degree by the
COMPASS project
C2.2 Develop theoretical description
on a first principle model (both
PFU and plasma impact)
Gap Gap
C2.3 Demonstrate closed loop function
and target performance in a
realistic tokamak environment,
≥2025
Gap Gap
C2.4 Advance the technical
implementation on a DEMO to
CDA level
Gap Gap This is a study, but requires the resolution
of C2.1, C2.2 and C2.3 first
Many gaps remain in Area C. Must launch an activity to produce, by Dec 2017, a credible roadmap for liquid metals to DEMO.
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 27/19
Gaps with and without upgrades
Area D: Alternative divertor
Task Description Gaps
without
upgrade
Gaps
with
upgrade
Comments
Demonstration Phase I (≈2021-2027) D2.1 Demonstrate benefits of
advanced divertor quantitatively
supported by first-principle
models in existing devices
Gap None As for D1.1
D2.2 Advance the technical
implementation on a DEMO to
CDA level
Gap None This is a study, but requires the resolution
of D2.1 and D2.3 first
D2.3 Demonstrate path to integrate
with relevant (improved?) core
scenario using experiments and
first-principles models
Gap None As for D2.1
DC McDonald | Overview of EUROfusion PEX strategy | DTT Workshop, Frascati | 19 Jun 2017 | Page 28/19
Budget for Phase I+II
Proposal Period
Total budget / k€ 2017-2018 2019-2020 2021-2024
AUG 1,145 2,475 0 3,620
FZJ 1,398 3,261 0 4,660
JSI 60 0 0 60
MAST-U (Phase I) 1,992 1,453 960 4,405
MAST-U (Phase II) 569 3,033 2,892 6,494
TCV 1,042 655 0 1,697
WEST 844 5,106 0 5,949
Support activity 1,200 1,800 3,600 6,600
TOTAL Phase I+II 8,250 17,783 7,452 33,485
The following table gives the total budget of the Phase I+II projects in the 3 periods 2017-2018, 2019-2020 and after 2020. Except for MAST U, it has not yet been possible to obtain an estimate of the depreciation costs for the equipment for each project. The “Support Activity” budget includes additional resources for critical support work and the exploitation of the upgrades through EUROfusion supported experiments and analysis. It is not including resources for theory and modelling.