Readiness of the Fusion Technology and I4.0

Fusion is our Future: Readiness of the Fusion Technology and the 4th Industrial Revolution

1. Fusion is our Future: Readiness of the Fusion Technology and the 4th Industrial Revolution Professor Nawal K Prinja BSc , MSc, PhD, CEng, FIMechE Technology Director, Nuclear, Wood plc School of Engineering, Aberdeen University College of Engineering, Brunel University London School of Engineering, Bolton University 27 th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, Ahemdabad , 22-27 Oct 2018

2. Contents Introduction Technology Challenges Impact of Industry 4.0 Way forward Conclusions 2

3. 3 Brief History of Wood (Nuclear) OLDBURY Sizewell B PWR Bruce CANDU Torness AGR Heysham 1 AGR Dungenss A Magnox Reactors Berkeley Magnox Reactors Koeberg PWR 2005 1990 1980 1955 1960 1970 2000 2010 HEYSHAM 1 HEYSHAM 2/TORNESS DUNGENESS A PPP HINKLEY POINT B HUNTERSTON B Heysham 2 AGR SIZEWELL B NCL Canada AMEC sro (InvestProjekt) Czech Republic NSS Monserco NCI South Africa AMEC NNC Romania AMEC Nuclear Projects UK AMEC NNC TNPG LATINA NDC BERKELEY AEI/JT HINKLEY A SIZEWELL A WYLFA EE/BW/TW HARTLEPOOL BRADWELL NPPC TRAWSFYNYDD APC GEC/SC HUNTERSTON A TOKAI MURA DUNGENESS B APC BNDC AllDeco Slovakia TS Serco AMEC Foster Wheeler 2020 Now part of Wood plc Personally worked through 60% of 63 years of nuclear history

4. My Introduction Email: [email protected] 4

5. 5 Need to Increase Safety and Decrease Cost Generation I Generation II Generation III Near-Term Deployment Generation IV Early Prototype Reactors Commercial Power Reactors Advanced LWR’s Evolutionary Improved safety Better economics SMR/ AMR Highly Economical Enhanced Safety Minimal Waste Proliferation Resistant Fusion Gen I Gen II Gen III Gen III+ Gen-IV Shippingport Dresden, Fermi I Magnox LWR-PWR, BWR CANDU WER/RBMK AGR ABWR / EPR System 80+ AP600/ AP1000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Cost UK Nuclear Sector Deal calls for 30% reduction in the cost of new build projects by 2030 Safety Extreme events beyond design basis have to be considered

6. Lack of completed design before construction started Major regulatory interventions during construction FOAK design Litigation/disputes between project participants Significant delays and rework required due to supply chain Long construction schedule Relatively low productivity Insufficient oversight by owner Differences in codes and standards Uncertainty quantification Typical Issues for a Major New Nuclear Build Project 6 Collaborative partnerships forming between vendors and digital solution providers

7. Industry 4.0 The 4 th industrial revolution (Industry 4.0) is on its way. Trend to use automation and data exchange technologies (cyber-physical systems, the Internet of things, cloud computing and cognitive computing) to perform industry activities Nuclear sector has not yet caught up with Industry 4.0 Need for Technology Development Strategy for Fusion 7 Major challenges The time and cost of further increasing the overall readiness level of fusion energy T esting materials under extreme environment, data collection, analysis and assessment N ew design of components

8. New Technology : Expectation vs Time 8 Virtual/Augmented Reality (AR/VR) Blockchain Standardisation Telecom

9. What are TRLs T R L

10. Technology in Nuclear N Prinja 10 4 Phases of Nuclear Specific Rating Scale Phase TRL Stage Description Operations TRL9 Operations The technology is being operationally used in an active facility Deployment TRL8 Active Commissioning The technology is undergoing active commissioning TRL7 Inactive Commissioning The technology is undergoing inactive commissioning. Works testing and factory trials on the final designed equipment using inactive simulants comparable to that expected during operations. Testing at or near full throughput will be expected Development TRL6 Large Scale Undergoing testing at or near full-scale size. The design will not have been finalised and the equipment will be in the process of modification. It may use a limited range of simulants and not achieve full throughput TRL5 Pilot Scale Undergoing testing at small to medium scale size in order to demonstrate specific aspects of the design TRL4 Bench Scale Starting to be developed in a laboratory or research facility. Research TRL3 Proof of Concept Demonstration in principle that the invention has the potential to work. TRL2 Invention and Research A practical application is invented or the investigation of phenomena, acquisition of new knowledge or correction and integration of previous knowledge. TRL1 Basic principles The basic properties have been established

11. Typical Template for Practical Use of TRL 11 TRL System Materials Methods Manufacturing Instrumentation 9 Successful mission operation Production ready material Full production system demonstrated Demonstrated over an extended period Service proven 8 Test and demonstration Full operational test Release into Production Library Significant run lengths Demonstrated productionised system 7 Prototype demo in an operational environment Evaluated in development rig tests Validated for production usage. Economic run lengths on production parts Successful demonstration in test . 6 Prototype demo in a relevant environment Validated via component and/or sub-element testing. Agree integrated product is verified. Process optimised for capability and rate using production equipment Applied to realistic location/environment with low level of specialist support. 5 Partial system validation in a relevant environment Methods for material processing and component manufacture Partial validation of basic functionalities & specific models Basic capability demonstrated using production equipment Requiring specialist support 4 Validation in a laboratory environment Design curves produced. Models validation in stand-alone environment. Process validated in lab Lab demonstration of highest risk components 3 Proof of concept Materials ’ capability based on lab scale samples. Proof of concept. Experimental proof of concept completed Lab test to prove the concept works. 2 Technology concept Agreed property targets, cost & timescales Requirement Definition produced Validity of concept described Concept designed 1 Basic principles Evidence from literature Evidence from literature Process concept proposed Understand the physics Target for Stage Gate / Design Review Current TRL

12. TRL Comparisons 12 Technology with low TRL today need not be a risky choice. Development plan will help reduce risk. Innovation Industry 4.0

13. Using TRL for Fusion Rating Scale: It is important that for fusion the TRL scale definitions are made clear and explained through the use of examples. TRL scales may not indicate future costs or schedule. A “high” TRL may not be better than a “low” TRL. Development plans should be used to indicate how risks are to be reduced. TRLs can be used for Stage Gate reviews and thresholds but should be independently assessed. IAEA TECDOC to propose a template for fusion TRL scale.

14. Future: Additive Manufacturing 14 Additive manufacturing of components 3D Printing Selective Laser Melting (SLM) for metallic components Quality depends on build parameters (can be over 100 parameters) Dimensionality reduction done to optimise and reduce time and cost of manufacture

15. From a Waterfall to a Spiral 15 Requirements Design Regulatory Approvals Safety Requirements Design Safety Regulatory Approvals Future: Integrating Safety & Design

16. Mode of Failure Failure Effect Criticality Corrective Action Cause Frequency Effects Detection Method Probability of Detection Severity Priority of Risk Design Modification Design Verification Plastic Collapse Buckling Fracture Fatigue Creep Leakage Corrosion/erosion Overturning (overall stability) Loss of ductility and strain hardening due to irradiation Mode Safety Classification of a Component Selection of Design Code Damage Allowable Limits Stress Analysis Design Material and Geometry Design Loads Design Substantiation IAEA TECDOC on Safety Classification of Fusion Components

17. Future: Codes and Standards Damage Mechanisms ASME-BPVC RCC-MRx SDC-IC Immediate local fracture (exhaustion of ductility) Not included Covered – not DEMO ready Covered – not DEMO ready Immediate plastic flow localisation Not included Covered – not DEMO ready Covered – not DEMO ready Ratchetting Covered – not DEMO ready Covered – not DEMO ready Covered – not DEMO ready Creep-fatigue Covered – not DEMO ready Covered – not DEMO ready Covered – not DEMO ready Fast Fracture Not Included Covered – not DEMO ready Covered – not DEMO ready Adapted from M.Porton (ISFNT 2015) and G. Alleo (EFPW 2015) 17 ITER DEMO

18. Use of Probabilistically calibrated Partial Safety F actors Central factor of safety ( CFoS ) = ratio of mean values = μ S / μ L Characteristic value of load X kL = L 0.95 (95% probability) and strength X kS = L 0.05 (95% probability) Characteristic factor of safety = S 0.05 / L 0.95 Partial safety factor for load γ L and for strength γ S to achieve target probability of failure CFoS Mean safety margin γ L γ S 18 Experience based FoS approach is being replaced by probabilistically calibrated PSFs.  X

19. Digitalisation (not to be confused with digitisation) Digital twins for Uncertainty Quantification (more than BIM) New wireless sensor technology combined with IoT Autonomous Control Systems (more than digital C&I) Nuscale 12 module 600MW plant by 2020 New wireless sensors and data analytics Meets Severe Accident Management Guidelines (SAMGs) New Ideas for Industry 4.0 19

20. Digital Design Platform 20

21. Conclusions Harmonisation of design codes and standards for fusion . New design codes based on probabilistically calibrated partial safety factors (PSFs ). Integrated digital reactor design platform. New 3Ms (Molecules, Materials and Manufacturing) leading to new components. Use of digital twins for uncertainty quantification . Removal of unnecessary pessimism . Nuclearisation of autonomous machines . 21 The 4th Industrial Revolution will increase the Readiness of the Fusion Technology. Old New

22. Thank You Fusion is our Future