10.6 Summary
197
engineering to establishment of production of electricity keeping efficient cooling of
PFM is the main task following ITER considering effects of neutron irradiation. It
should be mentioned that reactor operational temperature is even higher than that of
ITER. PMI at higher temperature could be significantly different from that observed
in present large tokamaks.
Although carbon materials are excluded to use as PFM in ITER, we should not
exclude the possibility of C as PFM in a fusion reactor. C is one of the best hightemperature materials with a low activation property. Since the operating temperature of a fusion reactor is likely to be above 500–800 K, we have to re-estimate
erosion/deposition and tritium retention at such high temperature. In the reactor, T
retention in C is not likely the problem, and erosion could be repaired by deposition
of carbon layers between shots and the deposited layers must be graphitized by a
succeeding shot. We should continue R&D of PFM including C.
References
1. A. Malizia, L.A. Poggi, J.F. Ciparisse et al., A review of dangerous dust in fusion reactors:
from its creation to Its Resuspension in Case of LOCA and LOVA. Energies 9, 578 (2016)
2. K. Tobita, S. Nishio, M. Enoeda et al., Compact DEMO, SlimCS: design progress and issues.
Nuclear Fusion 49, 075029(10 pp) (2009)
3. V. Barabash, M. Akiba, I. Mazul et al., Selection, development and characterisation of plasma
facing materials for ITER. J. Nucl. Mater. 233–237, 718–723 (1996)
4. The JET Team, The TFTR Team, M. Ulrickson A review of carbon blooms on JET and TFTR,
J. Nucl. Mater., 176–177, 44–50 (1990)
5. H. Kubo, S. Sakurai, N. Asakura et al., Atomic and molecular processes for heat and particle
control in tokamaks. Nucl. Fusion 41, 227–233 (2002)
6. J.P. Allain, C.N. Taylor, Lithium-based surfaces controlling fusion plasma behavior at the
plasma-material interface. Phys. Plasmas 19, 056126 (2012)
7. R.E. Nygren, F.L. Tabarés, Liquid surfaces for fusion plasma facing components—a critical
review. Part I: Phys. PSI Nucl. Mater. Energy 9, 6–21 (2016)
8. J. Rapp, The challenges of plasma material interactions in nuclear fusion devices and potential
solutions. Fusion Sci. Technol. 72, 211–221 (2017)
9. T. Tanabe, N. Bekris, P. Coad et al., Tritium retention of plasma facing component in tokamak.
J. Nucl. Mater. 313–316, 478–490 (2003)
10. G.F. Matthews, J.E.T.E. Contributors, Plasma operation with an all metal first-wall: comparison
of an ITER-like wall with a carbon wall in JET. J. Nucl. Mater. 438, S2–S10 (2013)
11. T. Tanabe, Tritium fuel cycle in ITER and DEMO: issues in handling large amount of fuel. J.
Nucl. Mater. 438, S19–S26 (2013)
12. T. Tanabe, On the possibility of ITER starting with full carbon. Fusion Eng. Design 81, 139–147
(2006)
197
engineering to establishment of production of electricity keeping efficient cooling of
PFM is the main task following ITER considering effects of neutron irradiation. It
should be mentioned that reactor operational temperature is even higher than that of
ITER. PMI at higher temperature could be significantly different from that observed
in present large tokamaks.
Although carbon materials are excluded to use as PFM in ITER, we should not
exclude the possibility of C as PFM in a fusion reactor. C is one of the best hightemperature materials with a low activation property. Since the operating temperature of a fusion reactor is likely to be above 500–800 K, we have to re-estimate
erosion/deposition and tritium retention at such high temperature. In the reactor, T
retention in C is not likely the problem, and erosion could be repaired by deposition
of carbon layers between shots and the deposited layers must be graphitized by a
succeeding shot. We should continue R&D of PFM including C.
References
1. A. Malizia, L.A. Poggi, J.F. Ciparisse et al., A review of dangerous dust in fusion reactors:
from its creation to Its Resuspension in Case of LOCA and LOVA. Energies 9, 578 (2016)
2. K. Tobita, S. Nishio, M. Enoeda et al., Compact DEMO, SlimCS: design progress and issues.
Nuclear Fusion 49, 075029(10 pp) (2009)
3. V. Barabash, M. Akiba, I. Mazul et al., Selection, development and characterisation of plasma
facing materials for ITER. J. Nucl. Mater. 233–237, 718–723 (1996)
4. The JET Team, The TFTR Team, M. Ulrickson A review of carbon blooms on JET and TFTR,
J. Nucl. Mater., 176–177, 44–50 (1990)
5. H. Kubo, S. Sakurai, N. Asakura et al., Atomic and molecular processes for heat and particle
control in tokamaks. Nucl. Fusion 41, 227–233 (2002)
6. J.P. Allain, C.N. Taylor, Lithium-based surfaces controlling fusion plasma behavior at the
plasma-material interface. Phys. Plasmas 19, 056126 (2012)
7. R.E. Nygren, F.L. Tabarés, Liquid surfaces for fusion plasma facing components—a critical
review. Part I: Phys. PSI Nucl. Mater. Energy 9, 6–21 (2016)
8. J. Rapp, The challenges of plasma material interactions in nuclear fusion devices and potential
solutions. Fusion Sci. Technol. 72, 211–221 (2017)
9. T. Tanabe, N. Bekris, P. Coad et al., Tritium retention of plasma facing component in tokamak.
J. Nucl. Mater. 313–316, 478–490 (2003)
10. G.F. Matthews, J.E.T.E. Contributors, Plasma operation with an all metal first-wall: comparison
of an ITER-like wall with a carbon wall in JET. J. Nucl. Mater. 438, S2–S10 (2013)
11. T. Tanabe, Tritium fuel cycle in ITER and DEMO: issues in handling large amount of fuel. J.
Nucl. Mater. 438, S19–S26 (2013)
12. T. Tanabe, On the possibility of ITER starting with full carbon. Fusion Eng. Design 81, 139–147
(2006)