Nuclear Fusion Reactors

PHILIPPE MAGAUD and G. MARBACH

Euratom–Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique
Cadarache, France
IAN COOK
Euratom–U.K. Atomic Energy Authority
Abingdon, United Kingdom

principles, this article focuses on the final objective of

1. Introduction
2. The Fusion Reactor
3. Conclusion
Glossary
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
(ITER) Project whose main goal is to demonstrate the
scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy
for peaceful purposes; ITER will study burning plasmas
(i.e., plasmas where heating is provided mainly by the
alpha particles created from fusion reactions) and will
also be the first machine incorporating most of the
technologies crucial for the preparation of a future
fusion reactor (e.g., plasma facing components, tritium
management, robotics, tests of breeding blankets).
Joint European Torus (JET) Flagship of the European
Community Fusion Program; JET is the largest and
most powerful fusion experiment in the world.
keV Abbreviation for kiloelectronvolt; in nuclear physics,
energy is often expressed in electronvolts and multiples
thereof; as a result of popular misuse of language,
temperature is sometimes also indicated in kiloelectron-
volts.
At the core of the sun and stars, light nuclei
combine—or fuse—to create heavier nuclei. This
process releases a significant quantity of energy and
is the source of the heat and light that we receive.
Our sun has been shining for more than 4 billion
years, and according to astrophysics, it will shine for
this long again before entering the phase that will
lead to its extinction. Harnessing this type of reaction
on Earth for the purpose of generating energy would
open the way to nearly unlimited resources. This is
the aim of fusion research undertaken by the leading
industrial nations. After a reminder of the main
controlled fusion research: the energy-generating
fusion reactor. Many concepts are already available,
whereas some would require so much progress in
terms of physics and technology that they could only
be implemented well into the future. An exhaustive
description is not possible. Therefore, this article
focuses only on the most developed: the magnetic
fusion-based concepts. Worldwide studies have been
done, or are ongoing, with the main goals to prove
their credibility, reliability, and economic viability
and that the advantages of this type of reactor in
terms of safety and the environment are respected.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Fusion Reactions
To obtain a fusion reaction, two nuclei that have a
natural tendency to repel each other, both being
positively charged, must be brought close enough
together. Therefore, a certain amount of energy is
necessary to overcome this natural barrier and reach
the zone close to the nucleus where nuclear forces are
capable of overcoming the barrier. The probability of
crossing this barrier may be quantified by the ‘‘cross
section’’ of the reaction. The variation of the effective
cross section of several fusion reactions as a function
of interaction energy is provided for light elements in
Fig. 1. This gives rise to several points:

The cross sections of fusion reactions are on the
order of 1 barn (1 barn ¼ 1028 m2), compared with
600 barns for the fission reaction of 235U obtained by
thermal or slow neutron bombardment. Therefore,
fusion reactions feature extremely small cross sec-
tions, even compared with other competitive processes

Encyclopedia of Energy, Volume 4. r 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 365
366 Nuclear Fusion Reactors

1.E−27 also through convection and conduction. In general, a

D−T time is defined synthesizing all said losses, referred to
1.E−28 as the energy confinement time (tE); this is the time the
D− He
3
D−Dn
plasma requires to lose its energy content if the energy
Cross section (m²)

sources feeding it are cut suddenly. In some ways, tE

1.E−29
characterizes the quality of plasma insulation.
For the fusion reaction to be energetically viable,
D−Dn
1.E−30 the energy generated by fusion reactions must at least
compensate for these losses. This condition imposes
1.E−31 a limit less than the product of energy confinement
D−Dn time and particle density (n) given by the Lawson
D−Dp
criterion:
1.E−32
10 100 1000 10000 n  tE 4 gðTÞ  f ðQÞ;
Energy (keV)
where g(T) accounts for the variation of the reaction
rate with temperature T and Q corresponds to the
D+T 4
relationship between the fusion power generated and
He (3.56 MeV) + n (14.03 MeV) [17.59 MeV]
3
the external power supplied to the plasma. The Q
50% He (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) [3.27 MeV]
D+D factor is frequently referred to as the energy
50% T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) [4.03 MeV]
D+ 3He amplification factor. There are two characteristic
4
He (3.71 MeV) + p (14.64 MeV) [18.35 MeV] values of Q:
Tritium production:
n + 6Li T + 4He [4,78 MeV]
n + 7Li T + 4He + n [−2,47 MeV] 1. Q ¼ 1 indicates that power produced by the
plasma is equal to the power coupled to it from the
FIGURE 1 Cross section of main fusion reactions.
exterior. This is referred to as the ‘‘break-even’’ point
and is approached in the most efficient of the current
such as ionization and coulomb scattering (collision of experimental devices.
charged particles). This constitutes one of the inherent 2. Q ¼ N indicates that external power contrib-
difficulties of fusion. uted to the plasma is zero. The plasma is self-

Fusion demands high temperatures, typically sustaining and is said to be in ignition.
more than 100 million degrees (10 keV). At such
temperatures, electrons are separated from nuclei; For a deuterium and tritium plasma, the function
hence, a plasma, the fourth state of matter, is formed. f(Q) is equivalent to approximately 1 for Q ¼ 1 and
Plasma exists within the universe in extremely tends rapidly toward 5 for higher values of Q. Under
diverse forms and with extremely variable tempera- these conditions, and for a temperature of 10 keV,
ture and density characteristics. Plasma is the most the Lawson criterion may be written
common state of matter in the universe and has n  tE E1020 ðm3  sÞ:
already found numerous applications in everyday life
(e.g., neon tube, plasma torch).

The most accessible fusion reaction is that 1.3 Fusion in the Stars, Fusion on Earth
involving deuterium and tritium, the two isotopes of
hydrogen. Research into controlled fusion focuses on In the sun and the stars, the conditions necessary for
this reaction. Although deuterium is abundant, tritium fusion regarding temperature, density, and confine-
exists in only trace amounts. It needs to be produced ment time are maintained by gravity. This solution is
by means of nuclear reactions with lithium (Fig. 1). impossible to implement on Earth. The fact that the
Lawson criterion sets a limit, not for density and
confinement time separately but rather for the
1.2 Conditions Necessary for product of these characteristics, allows two comple-
Fusion Reactions tely different approaches:
As explained, fusion requires high temperatures. 1. Bring a small volume of matter to a high
Other conditions must also be met if fusion is to be temperature under high pressure for an extremely
used as an energy source. short time period. This is referred to as inertial
As a hot gas, plasma is never totally isolated; thus, confinement. The aim is to obtain the greatest
it is subject to various losses through radiation but possible number of fusion reactions before the
 Nuclear Fusion Reactors 367

plasma disperses. Confinement time characteristics

are on the order of a few picoseconds.
2. Trap and hold plasma at a very high tempera-
ture. This plasma is confined in an intangible box
created by magnetic fields. This is referred to as b
magnetic confinement. In this case, the aim is to c
‘‘allow time’’ for particles to fuse. Confinement time
characteristics are on the order of a few seconds.
R a
Even if inertial confinement energy-oriented con-
cepts exist, research on inertial fusion is supported
mainly for simulation of nuclear weapons. Magnetic
fusion is being developed in an extremely open
international framework due to the fact that its
applications are focused solely on the production of Magnetic
energy. What follows is focused on this second axis
approach.

1.4 Magnetic Boxes to Contain Plasma
Plasma is an electrically conducting fluid electrically
neutral from the outside in which ions and electrons
move practically independently of each other. Sub-
merged in a magnetic field, ions and electrons will
follow helical trajectories winding around field lines
and will be forced to move along the field. This is the
magnetic confinement principle. Initially, straight (or
cylindrical) topologies were examined. However,
these featured a drawback in that they let the plasma
escape at extremities. To avoid this, the cylinder was
closed on itself, resulting in a toric configuration,
frequently characterized by the ratio between its
major radius and its minor radius, referred to as the
aspect ratio (Fig. 2). However, in this type of
configuration, the curve (and therefore centrifugal
force) and lack of homogeneity of the field (the
magnetic field is stronger on the inner surface of the
torus than on the outer surface) give rise to a drift of
charged particles. Ions and electrons tend to sepa-
rate; some move to the top and the others move to
the bottom and end up leaving the magnetic trap. To
compensate for this effect, the field lines were
modified and made helicoidal. Thus, particles succes-
sively cross at the top and then at the bottom of the
magnetic configuration. Therefore, the drift effect,
which is always in the same direction, is on average
compensated. This is achieved by adding another
magnetic field (‘‘poloidal’’ field) perpendicular to the
toric field (‘‘toroidal’’ field). The method implemen-
ted to generate these helicoidal field lines gives rise to
two types of machines:
1. In a ‘‘tokamak,’’ an axial current circulating in
the plasma itself creates the poloidal magnetic field.
R: major radius
a: minor radius
A = R/a = aspect ratio
b/a = elongation
c/a = triangularity
FIGURE 2 Cross section of a toric fusion plasma (main
geometrical characteristics).
This field becomes the secondary circuit of an
enormous transformer. Thus, the tokamak is an
impulse device (Fig. 3).
2. In a ‘‘stellarator,’’ the magnetic configuration is
based entirely on currents circulating in external
helicoil coils. This configuration, because of its
greater complexity regarding principles and geome-
try, is lagging behind development of the tokamak
configuration. However, it does feature some inher-
ent qualities that have motivated continuation of
work in this area.
Plasma behaves like a gas and exerts a (kinetic)
pressure toward the exterior, the value of which
increases with temperature and density. To confine
the plasma, this pressure must be balanced by
pressure toward the inside. This is the function of
the (magnetic) pressure exerted by the magnetic field.
In practice, to avoid the appearance of instabilities,
kinetic pressure must be much less than magnetic
pressure (a factor of 10). Therefore, for a given
magnetic field and temperature, this places a limit on
density. With standard temperature (10–20 keV) and
magnetic field (5–10 T) values, this limit density is on
the order of 1020 m–3. As a consequence, this also sets
the confinement time value required for magnetic
fusion: on the order of a few seconds (refer to the
Lawson criterion).
368 Nuclear Fusion Reactors

A Trajectory
2. Heating by injection of high-energy neutral
particles (neutral beam heating) involves creating
and accelerating an ion beam outside the confine-
ment containment. The beam is then neutralized by
B
charge exchange before penetrating into the plasma,
where the neutral particles become ionized again and
are confined by the magnetic field. Energy is then
redistributed through collisions and the plasma
Magnetic
C field temperature rises.
3. Plasma can absorb energy from electromagnetic
waves at the characteristic frequencies of the
medium. The energy of the electromagnetic waves
is transferred to the plasma by antenna covering part
of the confinement area. By choosing the frequency,
it is possible to define the particle species (ions or
D
electrons) that will be heated and, to some extent, the
area where the wave and heating will be absorbed.
In a magnetic confinement-type thermonuclear
Primary winding
of the fusion reactor, plasma temperature may be raised to
transformer a suitable level through a combination of the
methods described previously. Once the number of
fusion reactions becomes significant, energy contrib-
uted by helium nuclei produced that remains
Magnetic field
confined within the plasma constitutes the main
Resultant
created by helicol magnetic field heating method (Q45).
plasma current Toroidal magnetic
Plasma
current field
Tokamak with an iron core Tokamak wihout an iron core
1.6 Toward Continuous Operation in
Tokamak Machine
FIGURE 3 Main confinement and tokamak principle.
In addition to heating the plasma, the heating
methods described previously allow current to be
The stability limit is frequently characterized by generated and, thus, allow continuous operation of
the parameter bn that is a function of plasma the tokamak to be envisioned (despite its inherent
topology (e.g., aspect ratio, shape of the poloidal impulse nature).
section) as well as current and pressure profiles. This Under some conditions, the plasma may also give
parameter is on the order of 2.5 to 3.0% in current rise to a plasma-generated toroidal current referred
configurations but can achieve 5.0% in ‘‘advanced’’ to as the bootstrap current resulting from collisions
configurations. between circulating electrons and locally trapped
electrons. The fraction of this current with respect to
total plasma current is highly dependent on tem-
1.5 How Is Plasma Heated? perature and density profiles. Development of reli-
Irrespective of the manner in which the plasma is able plasma scenarios favoring this type of current
created within a confinement structure, it does not (e.g., how to maintain good profiles, where and how
start at a temperature necessary for fusion reactions. heat should be applied and current should be
There are three methods available to heat a plasma: generated) is of utmost importance from the stand-
point of steady-state operation, which will be the
1. The current circulating in the tokamak plasma common state of a commercial fusion reactor.
heats the plasma by the Joule effect. The latter is
efficient up to a temperature on the order of 1 keV.
Beyond this temperature, plasma resistivity becomes 2. THE FUSION REACTOR
too weak and this method becomes less efficient. In a
stellarator, there is no central current and, therefore, A schematic diagram of a fusion tokamak-based
no ‘‘ohmic’’ heating. reactor is provided in Fig. 4. A general description is

Remote
handling
system
B Breeding blanket
A
Heating and
current drive D+T
system
Li
FIGURE 4 Schematic view of a fusion reactor based on a magnetic confinement: (A) vacuum chamber; (B) plasma; (C)
plasma radiation; (D) blanket; (E) electricity production.
dealt with briefly here before examining the main
reactor elements in detail. The deuterium/tritium fuel
mixture is injected in gaseous or frozen ice pellets
form into a vacuum chamber (Fig. 4A) where, by
means of a confinement and heating system, it passes
to the plasma state and burns continuously (Fig. 4B).
The plasma produces ash (helium atoms for a D–T
plasma) and energy in the form of particles and
radiation (Fig. 4C). Ashes are extracted in gaseous
form and are processed outside the reactor. Charged
particles and radiation are absorbed, losing their
energy in the first physical element surrounding the
plasma (the so-called ‘‘first wall’’). Neutron kinetic
energy (B80% of the total energy for a D–T plasma)
is converted (or even amplified through suitable
nuclear reactions) into heat in the so-called ‘‘blanket’’
(Fig. 4D) component located after the first wall but
still within the vacuum chamber. The vacuum
chamber encloses the space where the fusion reaction
takes place. The first wall, blanket, and vacuum
chamber are cooled down by a heat extraction
system. The heat is used to generate steam that
supplies a conventional turbine and alternator
electricity generating system (Fig. 4E).
2.1 Reactor Fuels
As already mentioned, the fusion reaction involving
deuterium and tritium is the most accessible and,
obviously, is the reaction on which the most credible
concepts are based. Tritium is a radioactive element
with a relatively short half-life (12.3 years) that will
be produced on-site by neutron capture in lithium.
Nuclear Fusion Reactors 369
Cryostat
Poloidal field coil
D Toroidal field coil
C Steam generator
E
Electricity production
D + T + ash exhaust
pumping
T
Isotopic
T separation
Primary He
Reaction
fuel
D product
Therefore, the primary fusion fuels are deuterium
and lithium (Fig. 1), two nonradioactive elements.
Deuterium is a stable isotope of hydrogen. It is
very abundant and may be extracted from seawater
(33 g of deuterium per m3 seawater) by conventional
industrial processes (e.g., distillation, electrolysis,
isotopic exchange). The estimated resource in oceans
is on the order of 4.5  1013 metric tons, correspond-
ing to an energy potential of 5  1011 TW per year.
Bearing in mind that current global energy consump-
tion is on the order of approximately 12 TW per year
(year 1990), deuterium energy resources would
exceed the lifetime of the sun (B5 billion years).
The lithium content in Earth’s crust is approxi-
mately 50 ppm (0.05 g/kg). It is more abundant than
tin or lead and is even 10 times more abundant than
uranium (3–4 ppm). Lithium occurs naturally in a
mixture of two isotopes: lithium-6 (7.5% of naturally
occurring lithium) and lithium-7 (92.5% of naturally
occurring lithium). Although it would be possible to
use naturally occurring lithium in a fusion reactor,
mixture enriched with lithium-6 (40–90% according
to the design) would be preferable because, in this
case, reactions are exothermic and feature higher
cross sections. The enrichment processes are well
known and have been validated (lithium-6 is used
to produce tritium for nuclear weapons). Lithium
may also be extracted from seawater that contains
0.17 g/m3, constituting a potential reserve of 230,000
million metric tons. Proposed extraction methods are
based on conventional ionic exchange, solvent ex-
traction, or coprecipitation-type chemical processes.
In a fusion reactor generating 1 GWe per year,
370 Nuclear Fusion Reactors
between 0.5 and 3.5 metric tons of naturally occurring
lithium would be consumed depending on the
enrichment implemented. Therefore, the use of telluric
lithium would ensure reserves for several thousand
years, and use of lithium extracted from seawater
would push this limit to several million years.
Use of ‘‘advanced’’ fuels (D–D or even D–3He
reactions) features the dual advantage of avoiding
use of tritium and production of high-energy
neutrons. However, conditions regarding tempera-
ture, density, and confinement time necessary to
compensate the small cross sections render their
implementation extremely hypothetical and, in any
case, impossible in the near future. It should also be
emphasized that in a reactor based on these
reactions, nearly all fusion energy produced is
transferred to the first wall elements, accentuating
the constraints on these components that were
already very high (in the case of D–T reactions,
80% of fusion energy is carried by neutrons that give
up their energy in the tritium breeding blanket).
2.2 Reactor Physics
Since the beginning of the tokamak era at the end of
the 1960s, considerable advances have been made,
both regarding understanding of physical phenom-
ena and regarding technologies implemented in the
construction of experimental tools. These results
were obtained for numerous facilities of various sizes
designed during the 1970s and operated since the
beginning of the 1980s. Two highlights should be
retained:
1. One is the 16 MW of fusion power obtained in
the European device, JET, over approximately 1 s in
1997, with a power amplification factor, Q, of
approximately 0.65, close to break-even conditions
(Q ¼ 1).
2. Another is long-duration plasmas produced in
the Tore Supra device (Cadarache, France), fitted with
superconducting magnets and plasma facing compo-
nents actively cooled by water circulation. These
technologies enabled several discharges of a few
minutes such as the record discharge on September
18, 2002, of 412 min, sustained by a heating power of
3 MW and requiring to exhaust more than 750 MJ of
thermal energy during the experiment (Fig. 5).
Reliable responses to most questions raised by the
studies concerning controlled fusion have already
been provided, albeit independently. The next step
should involve integration of all these results within a
single facility. This is one of the goals of the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
(ITER) project.
The objectives of current devices target mainly
qualification of confinement scenarios selected for
next generation machines. Thus, it was discovered
that confinement improves with increasing machine
size deteriorates with increasing additional heating
power coupled to the plasma and that, under some
conditions, there is a power threshold where confine-
ment is suddenly improved. This improved confine-
ment system is referred to as H mode (for ‘‘high
confinement’’), as opposed to the confinement mode
obtained below the power limit, referred to as L mode
(for ‘‘low confinement’’). This allows the confinement
time to be improved by a factor of nearly 2 with
respect to L mode. Discovery of this improved
confinement mode was critical, and H mode currently
constitutes the reference scenario for next generation
devices, notably for ITER. Stabilizing mechanisms
that allow reach into H mode are not yet entirely
understood but are based on stabilization of turbu-
lence, which is the source of confinement deteriora-
tion. A transport barrier is created at the edge of the
plasma, holding heat and particles in the plasma core.
The most characteristic point of this scenario is the
appearance of strong gradients in the edge zone.
These extremely steep gradients at the edge give rise to
instabilities specific to H mode, referred to as ELM
(for edge localized modes). The plasma pressure
profile relaxes periodically toward shallower slopes,
releasing bursts of particles and heat that escape from
the plasma at each ELM, thereby imposing significant
constraints on vacuum chamber components.
Results acquired on a global scale from tokamak
experiences were gathered in a database from which
an empirical scale law was established expressing the
confinement time based on the main parameters of
machines and plasma. Although this method is
empirical, it is extremely important to be able to
extrapolate current performance levels to those of
next generation machines.
Physics options adopted for reactor operation are
obviously based on strong or weak extrapolations of
current scenarios. They target continuous operation
or at least operation with extremely high discharge
durations (412 h) and, therefore, are based on
implementation of scenarios favoring a significant
fraction of noninductive current. These scenarios
guarantee good confinement and control of turbu-
lence phenomena that could damage first wall
elements. Reactor size is highly dependent on these
extrapolations. Diagrammatically, two major extra-
polation classes limit the domain (Table I):
 Nuclear Fusion Reactors 371

TS #30414 : 0.75 GJ
3
2.5 LH power (MW) Limit: 18 MW/m2
2 (flat part)
Average density (1019 m−3)
1.5
CFC Limit: 11 MW/m²
1
Plasma current (MA) Copper (leading edge)
0.5 OFHC
Loop voltage (V)
0 CuCrZr

0 1 2 3 4
Inox, Ref = H2O
Time (min)

FIGURE 5 Record discharge reached in Tore Supra on September 18, 2002: a plasma discharge lasting 4 minutes 25
seconds requiring the exhaust of more than 750 MJ of thermal energy. This remarkable result was obtained due to the actively
cooled plasma facing components, ensuring that every square centimeter of the wall in front of the plasma is actively cooled.

1. Reactors involving moderate extrapolations cussions on confinement and performance levels of

from those adopted for ITER. However, they imply
suppression of H mode ELM and control of power
transmitted to first wall components by controlling
edge plasma radiation (e.g., injection of impurity).
The bootstrap current fraction is generally below
50%, leading to a heating power that is quite high
and, therefore, a recirculating power (power taken
from the system to supply heating sources) on the
order of 20%. The reactor efficiencies are similar to
those acquired with conventional nuclear power
plants (30–40%). Regarding size, the major radius
is typically approximately 9 m (1500 MWe class).
2. Reactors with large extrapolations from current
knowledge but still credible. These are generally
accompanied by the same extrapolations at a
technological level. Plasma parameters and topology
are selected to maximize high-bootstrap current
fraction, close to 75%, minimizing recirculating
power. Instabilities are assumed to be completely
controlled, as is plasma radiation at the edge where a
radiative ‘‘mantle’’ is established without any reper-
the central plasma. This leads to heat fluxes on
the first wall components lower than those of
previous designs (factor 2) and a reactor size close
to that adopted for ITER, that is, typically 6 m
(1500 MWe class).
2.3 Plasma Facing Components
The plasma facing components constitute the first
physical surface encountered by the plasma. Excluding
accidental situations, the plasma does not come into
contact with this surface. In normal operation,
plasma facing components are exposed to neutronic,
thermal, radiative, and thermomechanic stress load-
ing. Thus, the management of the interface between
the plasma and this wall is critical. Furthermore, the
main results obtained concerning confinement, like H
mode, were based on efficient management of this
interface. Several types of phenomena may enter into
play at the wall, for example, absorption of large
quantities of gas issued by the plasma, erosion due to
372 Nuclear Fusion Reactors

TABLE I
Main Parameters of Two Generic Fusion Reactors

Parameter ITER Reactor type 1 (small extrapolation) Reactor type 2 (advanced)

Fusion power (MW) 500 3500 2500

Electrical power (MW) — 1500 1500
Net reactor efficiency (percentage) — 35–45 60–65
Q 10 20 35
Plasma duration 400 s Continuous Continuous
Major radius (m) 6.2 9–10 6
Minor radius 2.0 3.0–3.3 2
Aspect ratio 3.1 3.0 3
Plasma current (MA) 15 30 15
Toroidal field on axis (T) 5.3 7 5.6
Toroidal field on coil conductor (T) 12 13 13.5
Elongation (95%/separatrix) 1.7/1.85 1.7/1.9 1.9/2.1
Triangularity (95%/separatrix) 0.33/0.48 0.27/0.4 0.47/0.7
Normalised b 2.0 3.3 4.5
Average temperature (keV) 10 20 12
Average density (1020/m3) 1 1.1 1.4
Bootstrap fraction (percentage) Experiment 35 75
Pext: heating power (MW) 70–110 250 70
Average neutron load (MW/m2) 0.6 B2 B2.5
Average divertor heat load (MW/m2) 10 10–15 5
Armor material Be, CFC, W W W

Breeder None Pb-17Li Li2TiO3 (pebble bed) Li Pb-17Li

Multiplier None None Be (pebble bed) None None
Coolant Water Water He Self Self
Typical outlet temperature (1C) 150 325 500 600 1100
Structure 316 Ferritic Steel V alloy SiC/SiC
Reactor efficiency (percentage) — 33 37 45 60

Note. Type 1 is a ‘‘small extrapolation’’ front current physics and technology. Type 2 is more advanced and is based on large (but credible)
extrapolations.

the action of fast particles, heating (the heat flux can
reach several megawatts/square meter). Furthermore,
plasma radiation losses vary significantly with the
quantity and type of impurities that plasma contains
(radiation increases with the atomic number of the
relevant impurity). Therefore, the plasma facing wall
must be designed, on the one hand, to minimize this
type of pollution and, on the other, to withstand
particles and radiation from the plasma. To illustrate
the problems and issues associated with these
components, we propose focusing on the so-called
divertor.
All charged particles present in the plasma are
subject to a confinement effect caused by the
magnetic field. Consequently, if no action is taken,
Helium ion concentration within the plasma in-
creases with the combustion rate. This effect must be
limited because not only is the fuel diluted, but losses
through radiation also increase. A specific device
referred to as the divertor (Fig. 6) manages contin-
uous extraction of reaction ash and, thus, maintains
its concentration in the plasma at an acceptable level.
It involves creating, by means of the poloidal magnet
system, a final closed magnetic surface that stretches
in two sections to the divertor. Beyond this separa-
trix, all magnetic surfaces are open and reach the
wall. A particle first confined close to the magnetic
axis moves slowly away by diffusion to reach the
closed magnetic surface and will then encounter
the divertor wall. Here, it is neutralized and, thus,
may be extracted by pumps that continuously empty
this zone. The divertor fulfills three functions that

Plasma
Pumping
FIGURE 6 Principle of the divertor.
have extremely significant repercussions for the
plasma:
*
Extraction of particles during deconfinement (e.g.,
helium, deuterium, tritium, impurities) in a
precise and controllable location
*
Extraction of heat (particles striking the divertor
lose their energy here)
*
Control of plasma density through the divertor
pumping capacity
From a technological point of view, heat extraction
at the level of several megawatts per squared meter is
rather challenging. Creation of a divertor presents
technological difficulties associated with extraction of
heat. Particle flows along the two lines of the
separatrix create thermal fluxes of several megawatts
per squared meter. These fluxes can be attenuated by
locally injecting impurities (e.g., neon, argon) to
increase radiation in this zone and by sweeping the
separatrix over the entire surface of the divertor.
Components constituting the divertor are made of
armor tiles mounted on a cooled structure. Numer-
ous designs were developed through judicious selec-
tion of materials, including the armor tiles, structural
materials, joining methods, and coolant.
Designs validated on current machines include a
stainless steel supporting structure to which carbon
fiber composite (CFC) and hardened copper
(CuCrZr) armor tiles are attached and are capable
of withstanding continuous thermal fluxes on the
order of several megawatts per squared meter (Fig. 5).
The ITER plasma facing components design was
derived from these concepts. The armor tiles will be
made either of a low Z material, such as CFC or
beryllium, or a refractory material, such as tungsten,
for the most exposed sections of the divertor. These
technologies were tested successfully in laboratories
in specific installations under thermal fluxes reaching
20 MW/m2 over thousands of cycles, but they have
not yet been qualified at the industrial level.
Nuclear Fusion Reactors 373
From a reactor standpoint, objectives regarding
lifetime, reliability, and safety must be satisfied, as
must economic criteria, along with the constraints
already imposed by plasma physics. Notably, the
energy transferred to the first wall and the divertor
(20% of energy released by a D–T plasma) must be
recovered to be used to generate electricity. Therefore,
the coolant outlet temperature must be as high as
possible. Safety criteria, notably those involving
authorized tritium inventories, lead to the exclusion
of carbon fiber composites because these materials
trap and easily retain tritium. The mechanical strength
of beryllium and its erosion rate render implementa-
tion of this material in a reactor environment difficult.
Tungsten is the most promising material, although its
mechanical strength under irradiation is still being
studied. Its implementation is the basis of plasma
facing components used in several reactor designs
(Fig. 7). Schematically, there are four divertor types:
1. Designs based on extrapolations that are
limited with respect to technologies implemented in
ITER. They use water under pressurized water
reactor (PWR) conditions as coolant. This type of
design allows the withstanding of heat fluxes of
15 MW/m2. The structural material constituting the
cooling tube is a hardened copper alloy (CuCrZr)
featuring thermal conductivity properties 30 times
greater than that of the stainless steel used in ITER.
The armor material is tungsten jointed to a copper
tube through of a compliance layer. The operation
constraints of these materials, as well as deteriora-
tion of CuCrZr thermomechanical performance
levels under thermal cycling, are taken into con-
sideration. Uncertainties are also clearly identified, as
is the behavior of CuCrZr under irradiation. Use of
CuCrZr imposes a coolant temperature that is quite
low (1501C). Optimized versions using steel and
thermal barriers allow a higher coolant temperature
(3251C) and improved efficiency.
2. Designs involving helium coolant, tungsten as
the armor material, and steel as the structural
material. This type of design allows resistance to
heat fluxes on the order of 10 MW/m2 while using a
high-temperature coolant (5001C or even 8001C in
some optimized versions).
3. Designs involving liquid metal as the coolant
and tungsten as the armor material. These designs
generally use Li–17Pb as the coolant and SiC–SiC-
type ceramics as the structural materials. This would
require highly significant technological advances,
notably concerning improvement of thermal–mechan-
ical properties and the resistance of these materials
374 Nuclear Fusion Reactors

Water coolant The main difficulty concerns integrating complicated

phenomena that control the plasma edge and
Water
technological constraints due to materials. ITER will
Eurofer tube, provide some crucial answers in this area regarding
Twater_out ~ 300°C
Flux < 7 MW/m²
feasibility and operating procedures for a reactor.
Swirl
Or
2.4 The Tritium Breeding Blanket
W CuCrZr tube, The element located after the plasma facing compo-
Twater_out ~ 170°C nents is called the blanket (Fig. 4). This component
Flux < 15 MW/m²
performs several functions:

First, the blanket provides shielding by signifi-
Helium coolant cantly reducing neutron/gamma radiation energy to
W protect the outer following components (e.g., va-
cuum chamber, magnetic system).Its second function
He is to recover the energy left by the neutrons by
In
Tin ~ 630°C
W Out
heating materials. A coolant circulates in the
Tout ~ 800°C
structure and evacuates the heat generated to
conventional equipment for electricity production.
Flux 5 to 10 MW/m²
In the case of a reactor based on the D–T
reaction, the blanket must also produce tritium
Liquid metal coolant necessary for fusion reactions by neutron bombard-
SiC−SiC ment on lithium:
tube LiPb n þ 6Li-T þ 4He þ 4; 78 MeV
Tout ~ 1000°C
n þ 7Li-T þ 4He þ n  2; 47 MeV
One should note that the first of these two reactions is
W
exothermic and, thus, is preferable. This requires 6Li-
enriched lithium to be used. This enrichment opera-
Flux < 5 MW/m² tion is simple and already mastered in industry (for
FIGURE 7 Different types of high heat flux components for military purposes). It may also be noted that the
divertor concepts. blanket is the site of reactions generating energy that
altogether account for 20% of the reactor balance.
Lithium may be in a solid form (ceramic) or a liquid
when subject to irradiation. They would allow form (metallic alloy) depending on the blanket design
coolant temperatures of approximately 10001C. implemented. The presence of a tritium breeding
These designs are generally intended for reactor material does not suffice to ensure suitable produc-
versions that also use significant extrapolation regard- tion of tritium. Ended, the reaction of a tritium and
ing physics and adequate control of the plasma edge. deuterium atom produces only one neutron, and the
4. Alternative designs. There are other ‘‘noncon- reaction of this neutron on lithium produces only one
ventional’’ designs in which the protective material is tritium atom. Because neutron losses are inevitable,
replaced by liquid metal (e.g., lithium, gallium) in the an adequate amount of tritium cannot be produced
form of a continuously flowing film, drops, or in pool. under these conditions. To remedy this drawback, a
The idea is to overcome problems of erosion, lifetime, neutron multiplier is introduced into the blanket,
and thermal load associated with solid materials (this allowing the appropriate balance. Lead or beryllium
type of design supports fluxes of several tens of may be used as a multiplier. Blanket tritium-generat-
megawatts/squared meter). However, some issues are ing capacity is characterized by the self-sufficiency
also under investigation regarding, for example, the ratio (or tritium breeding ratio). If the tritium
effects of these liquid surfaces on the plasma edge or breeding ratio is greater than 1, the blanket produces
the pumping capacity of helium and impurities. more tritium than is consumed by the reactor.
Regarding the reactor, plasma facing components Numerous tritium breeding blanket designs
and the divertor specifically remain an open issue. are available that fulfill the three functions just

described. They differ in terms of tritium breeding
material type, coolant type, and structural material
types implemented. The combinations adopted are
the result of trade-offs regarding compatibility of
materials with each other and the allowable opera-
tion windows (e.g., operation temperature, swelling
resistance). The choice of coolant will also depend on
solutions adopted for plasma facing components,
with a single coolant being preferable for obvious
reasons of simplicity. The choice of structural
material is also vital because, in general, it is the
structural material that dictates performance levels in
terms of efficiency (via its maximum allowable
operation temperature) and regarding lifetime of
blanket elements. The main criterion is resistance
under 14-MeV neutron irradiation, where a max-
imum of 150 dpa is usually adopted, corresponding
to approximately 5 years operation at full power.
Therefore, periodic replacement of blanket compo-
nents is provided for in the design. The long-term
induced activation of components can be tailored by
proper selection of materials to avoid generation of
waste that would require deep geological disposal.
These materials (so-called ‘‘low-activation’’ materi-
als) could be steel in which elements that are
penalizing regarding activation are replaced with
other elements that are more interesting but compa-
tible from a metallurgical standpoint (e.g., nickel,
molybdenum) or other material families. These are
presented in order of development risk:

Low-activation ferritic–martensitic steels have
been developed to the point where their use in a
nuclear component may be possible in the relatively
short term. They are notably developed in Japan and
in Europe, with the latter having focused its studies
on said materials. A particular grade was selected
(EUROFER steels) and has already given rise to
significant melts (a few metric tons), allowing the
manufacture of samples that were subject to numer-
ous tests (behavior under irradiation, corrosion,
welding, etc.). The operation temperature is approxi-
mately 5501C, or even 600 to 6501C, through
specific optimizations (e.g., ODS steel, composition
optimization). Operation temperature windows lead
to efficiency of approximately 35 to 40%. The main
question that still remains open concerns the effect of
14-MeV neutrons and, specifically, the effect that the
formation of hydrogen and helium produced by
transmutation has on embrittlement.

Vanadium alloys are interesting in that they can
be used in up to 7001C. This would allow yields of
up to 45%.
Nuclear Fusion Reactors 375

Silicone carbide composites (SiC–SiC) could
operate at very high temperatures (10001C) and,
therefore, allow access to efficiency close to 60%.
However, their status of development would not
allow them to be used in the short term.
Schematically, there are two main types of
blankets.
2.4.1 Solid Tritium Breeding Material Designs
In this type of blanket, the tritium breeding material
is a lithiated ceramic (Li2O, Li4SiO4, Li2TiO3, or
Li2ZrO3) and beryllium is used as the neutron
multiplier material. These materials are generally in
the form of pebble beds (diameter on the order of
millimeters). Tritium is extracted by gas circulating
(He) that is in contact with the tritium breeding
material and transports tritium outside the blanket.
The structure is made of low-activation ferritic–
martensitic steel, possibly hardened (ODS-type steel)
to allow a higher coolant temperature. Coolant may
be either pressurized water (typically 3201C and
15 MPa) or helium (typically 5001C and 8 MPa),
allowing efficiency of between 35 and 40%. The
main difficulties taken into consideration in this type
of blanket design are as follows:
*
Chemical compatibility of beryllium and water
that may induce production of hydrogen and a
risk of explosion
*
Tritium permeation in water
*
Evolution of pebble beds (ceramic and beryllium)
when subject to irradiation
*
Lower shielding capability if helium is used as a
coolant
*
Fuel manufacturing costs, the renewal obligation
due to consumption of lithium, and fuel
reprocessing to recover lithium that has not been
consumed
2.4.2 Liquid Tritium Breeding Material Designs
In this type of blanket, the tritium breeding material
is a liquid metal, either metal lithium, an eutectic of
lithium and lead(Pb–17Li), or a molten salt com-
posed of lithium, beryllium, and fluorine called Flibe
(Li2BeF4). Usually, the multiplier material is incor-
porated into the tritium breeding material. Liquid
metal circulates in the reactor and, outside the
reactor, undergoes processing designed to extract
tritium present in dissolved form. This also allows
online control of the lithium-6 titer, thereby avoiding
depletion of the fuel in lithium and the requirement
to replace lithium periodically. The Pb–17Li eutectic
376 Nuclear Fusion Reactors
is frequently used due to its significant tritium
production capacities, high thermal conductivity,
ability to withstand irradiation damage, and inert-
ness with air. Pb–17Li compatibility with ferritic–
martensitic-type steels has been proven in up to
5001C. Use of helium as a coolant leads to difficulties
in achieving self-sufficiency in tritium, and water (or
even the liquid metal itself) is preferred. This gives
rise to two types of liquid tritium breeding blankets:
1. Water-cooled liquid blankets (typically 3251C
and 15 MPa). These are generally associated with
steels as the structural material and give rise to
efficiency of approximately 35%.
2. Self-cooled blankets where the tritium breeding
material itself acts as the coolant. This is implemen-
ted at high temperatures and is associated with a
compatible structural material (vanadium alloy or
SiC–SiC composite). Efficiency can be as high as 60%.
The economic performance and technological
maturity of the various designs is provided in Fig. 8.
2.5 The Magnetic System
Coils, in which an electrical current circulates, are
used to create the magnetic fields necessary for
reactor operation; current is constant in the toroidal
coils and variable in the poloidal coils. Toroidal coils
are typically more than 10 m in height, and the
largest of the poloidal coils measure more than 20 m.
Currents passing through said coils are high intensity
Economic
Attractiveness
Self cooled
Lithium
Helium cooled
Vanadium
Ceramic
Water cooled
Liquid metal or
ceramic FerriticSteels
FIGURE 8 Economic attractiveness and development risk of various kinds of breeding blankets.
(a few tens of kiloamps) and, therefore, give rise to
an electrical energy consumption problem. For a
reactor under steady-state operations, implementa-
tion of conventional coils (water-cooled copper coils)
severely depletes the total energy balance; therefore,
superconducting coils should be used. For these coils,
electrical consumption is limited to the cryogenic
system that maintains coils at very low temperatures
(B4 K). This technology has been implemented since
1989 to generate the toroidal magnetic field of the
Tore Supra tokamak and will be applied to the ITER
magnetic system.
Regarding the toroidal fields, the highest values
possible must be achieved due to the relationship
between kinetic pressure and magnetic pressure.
Limits are imposed by the superconducting materials
selected that, to preserve superconductor status, must
fulfill some criteria: temperature must be less than
the critical temperature, Tc; the magnetic field
applied must be less than a certain value, Hc; and
the current density applied must be less than the
critical current density, Jc. Furthermore, the super-
conducting material is fragile and loses its super-
conducting properties when subject to high-stress
loading. Reactor designs provide for fields on the
conductor in the neighborhood of 16 T at a standard
operating temperature of 4 K, values that are not far
from those adopted for ITER (13 T and 4 K). Within
these field ranges, the operation limits of Nb3Sn,
selected for ITER, are achieved and Nb3Al could be
used. For higher fields, implementation of immature
PbLi
SiC−SiC
Self cooled
Liquid metal
Helium cooled
Ceramic
SiC−SiC
Plasma
Development risk

technologies may be considered, for example, use of
Nb3AlGe(24 T on the conductor) or even implemen-
tation of superconducting materials referred to as
critical high-temperature materials.
There are several superconducting cable designs
available. However, recall that the strand consists of
filaments of superconducting material (NbTi or
Nb3Sn, diameter of a few microns) embedded in a
copper matrix and that the total strand diameter is
slightly less than 1 mm. Using this strand, a cable is
made composed of more than 1000 strands posi-
tioned according to a precise architecture. The cable
obtained in this manner is placed within a jacket
(e.g., steel, incoloy) intended to withstand mechan-
ical stress loading (Fig. 9). Liquid helium circulates
and bathes the cable, and the entire magnetic system
is placed within a huge cryostat. Manufacture of the
conductor is quite sophisticated and implies other
steps that are not described here, intended to ensure
that superconducting properties (heat treatment) and
good stability (introduction of copper strands) are
achieved.
2.6 Robotized Maintenance
The operation of fusion reactors will require main-
tenance phases. These outage periods (scheduled or
not) must be minimized to avoid penalizing facility
availability (80% availability is targeted). Implemen-
tation of remote interventions is absolutely manda-
tory, notably to perform interventions (e.g., inspec-
Strand
Superconducting joint
Cable
Cable
FIGURE 9 Example of superconducting cable (ITER toroidal field coil cable).
Nuclear Fusion Reactors 377
tion, replacement of components) in the vacuum
chamber where the radioactive environment does not
allow for other solutions. Therefore, all of the objects
already mentioned (e.g., plasma facing components,
tritium breeding blankets) are designed for remote
interventions. Even the reactor environment will be
different; complex maintenance operations have
already been performed successfully, for example,
the fully remote exchange of the JET divertor.
Therefore, maintenance will be taken into con-
sideration as of design, in particular for the divertor
and tritium breeding blanket modules that must be
replaced periodically. For example, a trade-off
between segment size (limited by carrier capacity)
and segment number (limited by intervention rapid-
ity) controls the segmentation of tritium breeding
blanket segmentation. Several maintenance schemes
have been proposed. Their repercussions on the
general design of the reactor are extremely significant.
The three main schemes are as follows (Fig. 10):
1. The blanket and divertor are segmented into
modules (Fig. 10A), where each module (blanket plus
first wall and divertor) is removed through specific
ports, the number and size of which are optimized so
as to minimize intervention time.
2. The torus is divided into sectors (typically 16
sectors), with each sector including a toroidal coil,
the entirety of the first wall, and the blanket
(Fig. 10B). Connection interfaces are minimized,
and the number of objects to be handled is reduced
but leads to a sophisticated manipulation.
378 Nuclear Fusion Reactors
B Fusion reaction conditions require the use of a
A
C interference with this environment causes the rapid
D
FIGURE 10 Possible maintenance schemes for divertor and
blanket modularized blanket (A), large sector with toroidal coil (B)
or without toroidal coil (C), and divertor maintenance (D).
3. The torus is divided into sectors that may be
handled whole with the exception of toroidal coils
(Fig. 10C). This assumes that toroidal coils are large.
Poloidal coils are trapped and are manufactured in
place. This configuration is interesting because it
frees the radial space, thereby facilitating mainte-
nance operations because a sector may be replaced in
a few tens of hours.
2.7 Safety
The viability of fusion as a future energy source will
be partially determined by factors associated with
safety and the environment. Notably, two funda-
mental objectives need to be verified:
1. It must be demonstrated that no accident would
require evacuation of the population.
2. Waste should not constitute a burden on future
generations.
To fulfill both of these conditions, the fusion reactor
falls back on its inherent advantages (e.g., the
absence of any risk of a runaway reaction) and on
the integration of solutions offered by implementa-
tion of structural materials referred to as low-
activation materials in solution design.
2.7.1 Advantages Regarding Safety
The primary fuels of the reactor are deuterium and
lithium, two nonradioactive and nontoxic bodies.
Small quantities of these elements will be used
(o1 kg of deuterium and o10 kg of naturally
occurring lithium are enough to supply a day’s
generation of 1000 MWe). Therefore, management
of procurement, transport, and storage of fuel would
appear to be relatively simple.
plasma that is not dense (a few grams of fuel in a
volume of several tens of cubed meters), is extremely
pure, and is at a high temperature. Therefore, the
quantity of fuel in the combustion chamber during the
reaction is always very low. The slightest uncontrolled
cooling and automatic shutdown of the fusion
reaction. There is no possibility of uncontrolled power
runaway because inherent processes limit reactivity
excursions of the plasma. After the plasma shutdown,
the residual energy is low and the structures cannot
suffer any major damage due to accidents. Thus, the
main safety function to ensure is confinement (for a
fission reactor, control of the reaction and removal of
residual power must also be ensured). Particular
attention is paid to the confinement strategy due to
the presence of tritium characterized by high diffusion
in most materials. Thus, design engineers have
focused on minimizing the tritium inventory, both in
the torus and in the fuel cycle. To minimize emissions
in the event of an accident, the ‘‘multibarrier’’
approach is generally adopted. This provides for three
confinement barriers: the vacuum vessel, the cryostat,
and the reactor building itself. Analyses that were as
detailed as possible concerning energy inventories,
accidents likely to occur, and expected repercussions
were undertaken. These works revealed that there is
no accidental sequence that could impugn reactor
integrity. Even in the event of a severe accident, it
would not be necessary to evacuate the population
around the site.
2.7.2 The Absence of Long-Term
Radioactive Waste
With the exception of first start-up that requires an
initial tritium load, a fusion reactor does not require
transport of radioactive material.
At the end of the fusion reactor life, material
surrounding the plasma comprising the reactor
structure will be activated. Implementation of low-
activation materials (or, more precisely, rapid decay
time materials) will allow the induced radioactivity
to be minimized.
The quantity of materials to be considered varies
according to the reactor design, generally between
60,000 and 100,000 metric tons. After a period of
100 years following final decommissioning of the
reactor, the majority (or even entirety) of materials
may be considered as very low-activity waste (meet-
ing nuclear waste declassification standards defined
 Nuclear Fusion Reactors 379

by the International Atomic Energy Agency) or may
be recycled in the nuclear industry. This quality may
be illustrated by a strong image (Fig. 11); after 100
years of decay, the average radioactivity of fusion
reactor materials is lower than that of ash from an
amount of coal that would have generated the same
quantity of energy (coal contains trace amounts of
uranium and thorium). Elimination of fusion waste
by the generation that resulted in its creation
constitutes a realistic objective. Specifically, there is
no requirement to provide for deep storage.
2.8 Economy
It seems premature to speak of kilowatt-hour
production costs for an energy source that is still
several tens of years away from commercialization.
The first objective is to illustrate the repercussions of
various physical variables or technological production
assumptions on costs. These results, which set the
relative orders of magnitude and variation directions,
indeed have a direct impact on development strategy.
The second point of interest constitutes verification
calculated directly by the involved industry in Europe,
Japan, Russia, and the United States. Thus, a solid
evaluation basis is available and, to return to kilowatt-
hours, outstanding uncertainties are significant but
concern reactor availability more than the direct cost
of its components.
2.8.1 Direct Costs (or Internal Costs)
In terms of energy production, direct costs (or
internal costs) correspond to costs invoiced to
consumers. Put simply, they include plant construc-
tion costs, general operation costs, costs associated
with fuel purchases, and costs of waste storage and
plant dismantlement (regarding the nuclear industry).
The standard direct cost structure for various
energy sources is provided in Fig. 12. It may be noted
that for a fusion reactor, fuel cost accounts for less
A
100
80
Percentage

that the proposed device complies with market

60
demand. Economic models used correspond to a direct
extension of models used for the design, optimization, 40
and cost calculations of current machines or projects
such as ITER. From many standpoints, ITER is similar 20
to the reactor, but above all, construction costs were 0
Gas Coal Fission Fusion Renewable
1 Investment Components
Fission Fuels
operation replacement
Light water maintenance
reactor
B

20
Radiotoxicity (relative unit)

18
10−2
16
14
Eur-cent/kWh

12
10

10−4 8
6
Coal
4
2
Fusion
0
s

on
n

10−6
c
ov as

s
l

il

d
oa

ic

uli

as

io
O

in

si
G

ta

ra

ss
C

om

Fu
ol

yd

Fi
Bi
H
ot

0 100 300 500

Ph

Time after reactor shutdown (years)

FIGURE 12 Typical breakdown of direct costs for various
FIGURE 11 Radiotoxicity of fusion waste after reactor shut- sources of energy (A) and comparison of externalities of several
down. energy sectors (B).
380 Nuclear Fusion Reactors

Fusion power
Reactor
domain 2050
1000
MWth
100 JET Next Step
R~3 m Reactor type 2
10 Reactor type 1 Advanced
JET ITER Small extrapolation
TFTR R=6m
R = 6.2 m R = 8−9 m
1000
JET
100 JET
KWth TFTR
JT60-U
10 DIII-D

1000 DIII
PDX
100 PLT
Wth
10 Alcator C
TFR
1 Years
1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090
Experimental Integration Reactor domain
devices
FIGURE 13 Path to the reactor.

than 1% of the total kilowatt-hour cost. Thus, the
cost of energy generated by a fusion reactor is
calculated by the volume of initial investment to
which the cost of regular replacement of aged
components is added.
The standard volume of the fusion reactor combus-
tion chamber is on the order of 1000 m3. For
comparison purposes, the reactor vessel volume of a
fission reactor (1400 MWe) is less than 300 m3.
Consequently, fission investment requirements are high
simply due to facility size. The absence of fuel cost
partially compensates for this drawback with respect
to conventional energy sources (e.g., coal, gas, fission),
but only slightly. Currently, economic calculations
place the cost of a fusion kilowatt-hour at between
U.S. $45 million and $90 million, with a probable
value of approximately $65 million, that is, twice the
cost of conventional energy production (e.g., coal, gas,
fission) and between the cost of offshore wind
production and photovoltaic production (assuming
that in the case of these two latter sources, evaluations
do not take energy storage cost into consideration).
Therefore, two results should be retained. First, and
contrary to what is occasionally stated, fusion reactor
production costs would not automatically jeopardize
the future of fusion energy. Second, the fusion energy
source is characterized by a high capital cost.
2.8.2 Indirect Costs (or External Costs)
The concept of externality or external costs corre-
sponds to a method enabling the environmental
impact of an activity to be measured. The European
Union has developed a method to assess externalities
of an energy production system (ExternE studies). It
takes into consideration identification of the emis-
sions attributable to this system, the transfer of
pollutants in the environment, and finally determina-
tion and quantification in terms of the cost of
repercussions for the environment and health. This
analysis is performed at all stages of the reactor type
in question (e.g., fuel extraction, plant construction,
operation, accident, dismantlement). For example, it
allows consideration of harmful effects that mining
operations have on health or of pollution associated
with using fossil-based energy sources (e.g., respira-
tory problems). Applied to fusion, this method
illustrates that the external costs of generating
electrical energy by means of the fusion reactor are
approximately the same as for renewables and
are well below those obtained for fossil-fueled
power (Fig. 12).
3. CONCLUSION
Fusion energy features numerous qualities. It is a
nearly unlimited energy source that does not generate
any greenhouse gas effect or environmental pollu-
tion, and it features undeniable advantages in terms
of safety. With adequate design, radioactive wastes
from the operation of a fusion plant should not
constitute a burden for future generations.

Harnessing this energy is on a par with the
advantages it features. Despite still very challenging
open issues (e.g., physics of a plasma in combustion,
heat extraction, manufacturing of sophisticated com-
ponents such as the blanket, effect of 14-MeV
neutrons on materials), scientific bases today are solid
enough to realize a device demonstrating the scientific
and technological feasibility of fusion energy. This is
the main goal of the international ITER project.
Insertion into the energy offer could take place in
the second part of the 21st century (Fig. 13), at a
time when the exhaustion of conventional resources
and climatic consequences of our consumption will
start to have serious repercussions. It is absolutely
clear that it is the duty of this generation to prepare
the knowledge base and know-how that will allow
tomorrow’s decision makers to serenely consider all
of the possible energy solutions. This is the objective
of current research into fusion.
SEE ALSO THE
FOLLOWING ARTICLES
Nuclear Engineering
Nuclear Fission Reactors:
Boiling Water and Pressurized Water Reactors

Nuclear Fusion Reactors 381
Nuclear Fuel: Design and Fabrication
Nuclear Fuel
Reprocessing
Nuclear Power Economics
Nuclear
Power Plants, Decommissioning of
Nuclear Power:
Risk Analysis
Nuclear Proliferation and Diversion

Nuclear Waste
Occupational Health Risks in
Nuclear Power
Public Reaction to Nuclear Power
Siting and Disposal
Further Reading
Borrelli, G., et al. (2001). ‘‘Socio-Economic Research on Fusion
(SERF): Summary of EU Research 1997–2000,’’ European
Fusion Development Agreement report. European Union,
Paris.
Cook, I., et al. (2001). ‘‘Safety and Environmental Impact of
Fusion (SEIF),’’ European Fusion Development Agreement
report. European Union, Paris.
Giancarli, L., et al. (2002). Candidate blanket concepts for a
European fusion power plant study. Fusion Eng. Design 49/50,
445–456.
International Atomic Energy Agency. (2001). ‘‘Summary of the
ITER Final Design Report.’’ ITER EDA Documentation Series
No. 22. AIEA, Vienna, Austria.
International Atomic Energy Agency. (2002). ‘‘ITER Technical
Basis Details.’’ ITER EDA Documentation Series No. 24. AIEA,
Vienna, Austria.
Marbach, G., et al. (2002). The EU power plant conceptual study.
Fusion Eng. Design 63/64, 1–9.