The role of fusion energy in a

decarbonized electricity system

October 17, 2024

energy.mit.edu @mitenergy
The Role of Fusion in a Decarbonized Electricity System

Summary of Findings

A study from the MIT Energy Initiative in collaboration with

the MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center

September 2024
 Overview of Fusion - Opportunity and Challenge

• When two nuclei combine they release enormous amounts of energy:

– More than 1,000,000 times the energy of combustion on a mass basis
– More than nuclear fission on a mass basis
• Required conditions for fusion:
– Very high temperatures (>> 100 million degrees C)
– Confinement of fusion fuels to bring them together long enough to fuse
• Primary confinement methods:
– Magnetic confinement
– Inertial confinement
– Magneto-inertial confinement
• The Challenge:
– Building an economically viable system that can handle the temperatures and high-
energy particles released, plus the ability to convert that energy into electricity
 Timeline and Structure of this Study

• Project period: fall of 2022 through spring 2024

• Structured with core workstreams:
– Global deployment
– Subregions of United States
– Critical materials and supply chains
– Key cost drivers
• We do not predict:
– When fusion will first be deployed commercially
– Which fusion technology will deploy first
– What it will cost
• Instead, we focus on conditions required for fusion commercial viability
 Fusion has a potential societal value in the trillions of dollars
6.0

Annual GDP benefits (trillion 2021$)

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2075 2080 2085 2090 2095 2100

5.6K 8K

• Fusion technology can reduce the total cost of decarbonization by a cumulative discounted $3.6 trillion
if fusion power plants cost $8,000/kW in 2050 and fall to $4,300/kW in 2100
• Fusion technology can reduce the total cost of decarbonization by a cumulative discounted $8.7 trillion
if fusion power plants cost $5,600/kW in 2050 and fall to $3,000/kW in 2100

Note: Dollars in this presentation are reported in 2021 dollars, except were explicitly indicated
 The scale of fusion deployment will depend on costs
• For a 1.5°C stabilization decarbonization scenario, the total global share of electricity generation from
fusion in 2100 ranges from less than 10% to about half depending on the assumed cost for fusion.

• Fusion costs shown are for the overnight cost of constructing a fusion power plant in the U.S. in the
year 2050. At the end of the century, costs are about half the assumed 2050 costs.
The scale and timing of fusion deployment is highly variable across regions
• Initial deployment is strongest in the United
States and Europe
• Largest increase in fusion takes place in
India during the last three decades of the
century
• Africa is a late adopter of fusion but sees
strong growth late in the century
• These trends are driven by
o economic growth
o population density
o electrification needs
o regional costs
o decarbonization targets
o relative prices of electricity
o limits on fission-based nuclear
generation
o renewable resource availability
 Fusion deployment will highly depend on the availability and cost of other
low-carbon technologies
High Medium Penetration, Low Penetration, Low Penetration, High
Penetration, Medium Sensitivity* Low Sensitivity* Sensitivity*
Low
Sensitivity*
U.S. Atlantic and California, Northeast, Northwest Central, North Central,
Subregions Southeast Southwest Texas
Renewable Poor onshore Northeast has best Below average solar Abundant, high-quality,
attributes wind, hydro, offshore wind; and wind resources, and low-cost onshore
and California has best but excellent wind; limited
geothermal geothermal; diversity of renewables beyond
resources Southwest has best renewable resources onshore wind and solar
solar; all three have including good hydro
modest onshore wind and moderate
capacity or quality geothermal
Fusion Required at all No penetration at 50 Required at all Required only at 4
penetration emission caps gCO2/kWh, but emission caps 1–20 gCO2/kWh and below,
at from 1 to 50 capacity reaches gCO2/kWh but but capacity reaches
$6,000/kW gCO2/kWh 33%–55% of demand capacity is never 25%–45% of demand
at 1 gCO2/kWh more than 26% of at 1 gCO2/kWh
demand

* Sensitivity refers to the sensitivity of fusion penetration with respect to changes in the emissions cap
 The role of fusion power plants is also highly sensitive to costs
• Fusion power plants serve as
o Low-capacity-factor, dispatchable electric generation when fusion costs are high
o Baseload resource when FPP costs are moderate
o Dispatchable generation with a moderate capacity factor when FPP costs are low.
• This trend was observed in our analysis of the New England subregion of the U.S.

Fusion installed capacity as Fusion fleet generation capacity Fusion annual

% of peak load as % of annual demand capacity factor

FPP turbine capacity factor (%)

Net-electricity generation
(% of annual demand)
Installed capacity
(% of peak load)

FPP capital costs ($/kW) FPP capital costs ($/kW) FPP capital costs ($/kW)
 The availability of firm, low-carbon natural gas power plants can have a
large impact on the deployment of fusion power plants

• NGCC power plants with high carbon (A) With NGCC with (B) Without NGCC
capture and low upstream methane 95% capture with 95% capture

emissions can have a large impact on

fusion deployment

Installed capacity
(% of peak load)
• Threshold cost point at which fusion
becomes competitive is $4,000/kW
lower when NGCC with 95% carbon
capture is available than when NGCC
with 95% carbon capture is not
available. FPP capital costs ($/kW) FPP capital costs ($/kW)
Supply chains for the processed materials and manufactured parts needed
to build fusion power plants vary widely in maturity

• Different technologies are at varying stages of maturity with identifiable issues and bottlenecks

• R&D is needed to develop materials and manufacturing capabilities essential for fusion at the scale
outlined in this report

• Fusion components can be broken up into two categories:

o Niche (e.g. tungsten heavy) with limited non-fusion market opportunities
o Components (e.g. high-temperature superconductor, radio-frequency devices) with strong
potential for commercial non-fusion use

• For raw materials, there are no anticipated showstoppers, however beryllium resources and
markets remain an uncertainty
Key cost drivers for fusion power plants include reactor equipment cost,
regulatory considerations, and operations and maintenance costs

• Fusion reactor equipment is the leading cost contributor at 30% to 65% of the total capital cost
• Regulation can be a potentially large cost driver and motivates
o fusion companies to minimize their footprint with respect to fuels and activated materials
o governments to adopt appropriate and effective regulatory policies to maximize their ability to
use fusion energy in achieving decarbonization goals
• Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs can be significant for a fusion power plant
 Key Takeaways
• Fusion has potential societal value in the trillions of dollars in a decarbonized world.
• Deployment and operation of fusion power plants is highly dependent on:
o Fusion costs
o Cost and availability of alternative low-carbon technologies in each region
o Carbon emission constraints
o Economic and electricity demand growth
o Market design
• The ability of fusion to scale requires development of materials and manufacturing
capabilities for niche components
• For raw materials, there are no anticipated showstoppers
 Acknowledgements

Study Participants Subject Matter Experts

Robert Armstrong Dennis Whyte Zachary Hartwig Stuart Malloy
Randall Field Ruaridh Macdonald Alexander Molodyk Daniel Ng
John Parsons Sergey Paltsev Keith Smith Lance Sneed
Koroush Shirvan Layla Araiinejad Steve Wukitch Yifei Zhang
Nirmal Bhatt Amanda Farnsworth
Sara Ferry Angelo Gurgel Project/Report Team
Theodore Mouratidis Y.-H. Henry Chen Gail Monahan Kelley Travers
Jeffrey Freidberg Emre Gençer Tom Witkowski Kelly McGinity
Dharik Mallapragada Samuele Meschini Elizabeth Hamblin Marika Tatsutani
Jennifer Morris Matthew Munderville Funding
Elsa Olivetti Richard Roth MITEI and PSFC gratefully acknowledge Eni for
Tim Schittekatte Michael Short supporting this research and for engaging in
Robert Stoner discussions with MIT during this research project.
Overview of PSFC’s mission

Nuno Loureiro
Director, Plasma Science and Fusion Center
MIT
This is the PSFC.
Great things happen here.

Founded in 1976 | 160,000 sq ft of lab space |

150 employees | 90 graduate students | 5
research divisions | 86 ongoing research projects
The fusion world is unrecognizable compared to what
it looked like five years ago

• We launched the MIT-CFS partnership about

5 years ago
• SPARC’s success has spurred on the financing
and commercial world to take fusion
seriously as a disruptive new energy source
• Goal is to bring fusion energy to the world
NOW.
US government aggressively pursuing fusion
Private Fusion Industry has experienced staggering
growth

• >6 B$ raised
• Over 40 companies
• Industry association
• Wider geographic spread
• Wide array of technical
approaches
• Competition is good
• Private funding encourages
breakthroughs with higher
risk on faster timelines
 To create a device that can produce more energy than it consumes, we need:

Strong and efficient magnets to

confine fusing plasmas.
TFMC and CSMC

Peak plasma fusion performance.

Machine learning, quantum computing

A way to convert energy into

power.
LIBRA lithium blanket

Extra-durable materials that can

withstand plasma and neutron
exposure
Cyclotron materials testing
ARC fusion device
Rendering by CFS
NIF laser facility demonstrated scientific fusion energy
gain in Dec 2022
• 2 MJ laser, 3 MJ fusion energy
• The important science is that the
improved fusion energy was driven by
the alpha heating resulting from the
fusion reactions themselves
• This feature is common to all fusion
and so should be celebrated as
another important science milestone
• MIT (PSFC) is the leading university in
measurements of fusion products
• Now being adapted for SPARC!
We have made amazing progress but..
• Need to expand and innovate on fusion education. At
MIT and beyond!
o The US academy is not prepared
o We are strapped for fusion instructors.

Launched Proxima Fusion

Leaders @ NIF
We have made amazing progress but..
• Need to expand and innovate on fusion education. At
MIT and beyond!
o The US academy is not prepared
o We are strapped for fusion instructors.

• Capable, but fast, experimental facilities for addressing LIBRA-Pi: 125L LIBRA: 500L
the next set of technical innovations that make fusion BABY-1L

economical. BABY-0.1L

LIBRA experiment progression

We have made amazing progress but..
• Need to expand and innovate on fusion education. At
MIT and beyond!
o The US academy is not prepared
o We are strapped for fusion instructors.

• Capable, but fast, experimental facilities for addressing

the next set of technical innovations that make fusion
economical.

• Need to launch the next generation of companies that

will provide critical new technologies for industry.
 Materials testing
under fusion
MIT Visit to DOE FESrelevant conditions
Zach Hartwig
Mon Aug 5 2024 Nuclear Science and Engineering
Plasma Science and Fusion Center

10/24/2024 © MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center 25

“Fusion energy is becoming a materials problem”

Dozens of private fusion companies (>$7B

investment) are developing fusion for power
production in the 2030s.

Kairos “Hermes” National programs (US, UK, China, etc.) are

Fission Reactor
supporting these efforts and/or launching their
own programs with objectives in the 2030s.

Every approach to fusion energy requires solving materials challenges.

These challenges are ultimately linked to economic viability.
10/24/2024 © MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center 26
Some materials challenges in a fusion power plant

Common challenges:
• D-T fusion makes 14.1 MeV neutrons,
causing bulk H and He generation in
addition to cascade damage
• Neutron energy spectrum varies widely
depending on subsystem of interest, and
material response will vary accordingly

ARC Fusion
Power Plant [1,2]

[0] B. N. Sorbom et al, FED 100 (2015) 378-405

[1] A Q. Kuang et al, FED 137 (2018) 221-242
10/24/2024 © MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center 27
 Some materials challenges in a fusion power plant

Structural material examples:

• Radiation induced damage:
embrittlement, swelling, Common challenges:
enhanced creep, and more! • D-T fusion makes 14.1 MeV neutrons,
• Chemical compatibility causing bulk H and He generation in
with molten salt under addition to cascade damage
simultaneous irradiation • Neutron energy spectrum varies widely
depending on subsystem of interest, and
material response will vary accordingly

ARC Fusion
Power Plant [1,2]

[0] B. N. Sorbom et al, FED 100 (2015) 378-405

[1] A Q. Kuang et al, FED 137 (2018) 221-242
10/24/2024 © MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center 28
 Some materials challenges in a fusion power plant

Structural material examples:

• Radiation induced damage:
embrittlement, swelling, Common challenges:
enhanced creep, and more! • D-T fusion makes 14.1 MeV neutrons,
• Chemical compatibility causing bulk H and He generation in
with molten salt under addition to cascade damage
simultaneous irradiation • Neutron energy spectrum varies widely
depending on subsystem of interest, and
material response will vary accordingly
Plasma-facing material examples:
• Tritium retention and migration ARC Fusion
Power Plant [1,2]
in bulk damaged materials
• Radiation damage changes to material properties
required for high heat flux handling (10 MW/m2)

[0] B. N. Sorbom et al, FED 100 (2015) 378-405

[1] A Q. Kuang et al, FED 137 (2018) 221-242
10/24/2024 © MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center 29
 Some materials challenges in a fusion power plant

Structural material examples:

• Radiation induced damage:
embrittlement, swelling, Common challenges:
enhanced creep, and more! • D-T fusion makes 14.1 MeV neutrons,
• Chemical compatibility causing bulk H and He generation in
with molten salt under addition to cascade damage
simultaneous irradiation • Neutron energy spectrum varies widely
depending on subsystem of interest, and
material response will vary accordingly
Plasma-facing material examples:
• Tritium retention and migration ARC Fusion
Functional material materials:
Power Plant [1,2]
in bulk damaged materials • Degradation of the superconducting
• Radiation damage changes to material properties magnets while irradiated at
required for high heat flux handling (10 MW/m2) cryogenic temperatures (~20 K)

[0] B. N. Sorbom et al, FED 100 (2015) 378-405

• Browning of optical glass and mirrors
10/24/2024
[1] A Q. Kuang et al, FED 137 (2018) 221-242 required for plasma diagnostics 30
© MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center
Neutron irradiation of materials is insufficient
Today: Irradiation in reactors 2040s: Irradiation in IFMIF

Disadvantages: Disadvantages:
• Low damage rates • Low damage rates
• High cost and rare facilities • Limited exposure conditions
• Long + few learning cycles • Operational in the 2030s? 2040s?
• Low fidelity for fusion • Impossible to scale to meet demand

We have to think differently and boldly to tackle fusion materials on relevant timescales.
10/24/2024 © MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center 31
 Facility example #1:
Cryogenic proton irradiation in high fidelity conditions

Proton
beam

Superconductor
@ 20 K with current

Facility generously supported by Eni. S.p.A

A. Devitre et al. Rev. Sci. Instr. 95 (2024) 063907.
10/24/2024 © MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center 32
 Facility example #1:
Cryogenic proton irradiation in high fidelity conditions
Superconducting

Room temperature
Performance

irradiation @ 300 K

Cryogenic
irradiation

Radiation damage

D. X. Fischer, et al. Submitted to Supercond. Sci. ©and

10/24/2024 Tech., 2024
MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center 33
 Facility example #1:
Cryogenic proton irradiation in high fidelity conditions
Superconducting

Room temperature
Performance

irradiation @ 300 K

60% faster degradation

under magnet conditions!

Cryogenic
irradiation

Radiation damage
Innovative facilities can get answers
in the right conditions on fast timescales
D. X. Fischer, et al. Submitted to Supercond. Sci. and
10/24/2024 Tech., 2024
© MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center 34
Facility example #2:
A high throughput bulk materials irradiation facility

A technique that is faster, lower cost, lower activity, higher fidelity, and scalable
S. J. Jepeal, L. L. Snead, Z.S. Hartwig. Materials and Design, 200 (2021) 109445.
10/24/2024 © MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center 35
Facility example #2:
A first-of-kind irradiation facility for fusion materials
PSFC is readying to construct a new facility capable of
high fidelity, high throughput bulk materials irradiation
• Replicate fusion irradiation responses in materials
• Damage materials up to 100x faster than application
• Reuse existing experimental space at PSFC worth $50M
• Utilizes commercial off-the-shelf accelerator technology
• Ready to begin science operation 18 months from funding

4 beamlines with user-driven modular end

station to maximize science output
• Thin-film and bulk materials irradiation
(in-situ and post-irradiation examination)
• Complex environmental conditions like
• Linear plasma device for plasma-material
• Molten salt radiation-corrosion issues
Provide decision-quality materials data for fusion companies in years not decades.
10/24/2024 © MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center 36
 Artificial Intelligence for
preventing plasma disruptions

Cristina Rea
Principal Research Scientist, Group Leader

MITEI - 10/17/2024
Fusion plasmas → highly nonlinear interactions + loss
of control = disruptions!
current

current
temperature

temperature disruptive plasma

current

Final loss of control evolving on timescales of milliseconds: temperature

● Fast current drop leads to loss of confining poloidal field radiated power

● Fast current transient causes large induced currents & forces current centroid location

● Rapid thermal losses cause surface damage

induced currents

MITEI - 10/17/2024 38
Courtesy: R.S. Granetz
Different instabilities grow when plasma pushed to
controllability limits

Visible camera view of RE beam hitting Alcator

C-Mod first wall. Courtesy R.A. Tinguely

MITEI - 10/17/2024 39
Disruption prevention strategies needed for next
generation devices

melting!

Visible camera view of RE beam hitting Alcator JET runaway electrons damage.
C-Mod first wall. Courtesy R.A. Tinguely https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/2234

Accept the damage and live with it

Mitigate the damage by [...] to radiate away as much/fast as possible
Avoid altogether by detecting precursors & steer plasma away from disruptive boundary

MITEI - 10/17/2024 40
 While first principle models lack, data-driven / ML ones can provide:

Explainable proximity to unstable operational space

contributions
● Probability of impending disruption + contributions
● Available on DIII-D and EAST in real-time systems for
proximity control [1,2]
[1] Rea et al, Nucl. Fusion 59 (2019) 096016
[2] Rea et al, 2021 IAEA EX/P1–25

MITEI - 10/17/2024 41
 While first principle models lack, data-driven / ML ones can provide:

Explainable proximity to unstable operational space & interpretable tracking of instability onset

● Collisionality at plasma edge identified as indicator for

● Probability of impending disruption + contributions precursor to L-mode density limit [3]
[3] Maris, Rea et al, under review Nuclear Fusion, 2024
● Available on DIII-D and EAST in real-time systems for
proximity control [1,2] ● Yields 6x fewer false positives than literature results
● Algorithm available in DIII-D real-time control system
[1] Rea et al, Nucl. Fusion 59 (2019) 096016
[2] Rea et al, 2021 IAEA EX/P1–25

MITEI - 10/17/2024 42
Additional examples of ML/AI research aiding disruption prevention

● Disruption-py: interoperable, open-source Python library for data access across different fusion devices**

● Enables assembly of big databases for ML applications

** Trevisan et al, APS-DPP 2024 PP12.9

Wei et al, APS-DPP 2024 PP12.10
https://github.com/MIT-PSFC/disruption-py
https://zenodo.org/records/13935224

MITEI - 10/17/2024 43
The Disruptions team includes >20 scientists / postdocs / students /
collaborators

https://disruptions.mit.edu/

Notable collaborations include: ML/AI tools used ubiquitously

CFS, Google, Eni, international across different projects
universities and entities, …

MITEI - 10/17/2024 44
 IAEA Collaborating Centre in AI in Fusion and
Plasma Science: Enabling Research and Education
5yr cost-free agreement (2023-2027). Builds on IAEA Coordinated Research Project
“AI for Fusion” [1] and DOE-funded activities sharing focus on:

● Open Science and FAIR access to fusion data/metadata

● Accessible research products (data, software, …) enabling cross-pollination
● Education, training, capacity building in ML-applied fusion science
● Selected examples:
○ Computational Physics School for Fusion Research (CPS-FR) [2]
■ HPC, Parallel Programming, Computational Statistics, and ML
(grad students + postdocs)
○ $5M multi-institutional collaboration (W&M, U. Auburn, U. Wisc-Madison,
HDFG) to develop open research products [3]
■ AI for Fusion Energy Summer School (undergrads)
○ ITU data challenge [4] leveraging raw Alcator C-Mod dataset
[1] https://nucleus.iaea.org/sites/ai4atoms/ai4fusion/SitePages/AI4F.aspx
[2] https://sites.google.com/psfc.mit.edu/cps-fr-2024/home
[3] https://crea-psfc.github.io/open-fair-fusion/
[4] https://aiforgood.itu.int/about-ai-for-good/ai-for-fusion-energy-challenge/

MITEI - 10/17/2024 45
Tritium management

Sara Ferry

MITEI - 10/17/2024
Most proposed fusion power plant concepts use deuterium and tritium as fuel.

The D-T fusion reaction in the plasma

Rendering of an ARC-class fusion power plant courtesy of Commonwealth Fusion Systems
produces high-energy neutrons and
helium particles.
MIT PSFC - 9/17/2024
 Tritium is scarce, so D-T fusion power plants must breed their own.

Functions of the breeding blanket:

Plasma
D+T→n+⍺ 1. Shielding: Moderate + absorb
neutrons to shield the magnets
Breeder Blanket 2. Heat capture: Generate power
6Li + n → T + ⍺ + heat
7Li + n → T + ⍺ + n’ - heat 3. Tritium breeding: Make more fuel
in the breeder, which contains lithium

Rendering of an ARC-class fusion power plant courtesy of Commonwealth Fusion Systems

MIT PSFC - 9/17/2024

 Tritium is scarce, so D-T fusion power plants must breed their own.

• Breeding material contains lithium

• Lithium ceramic solids (e.g. Li4SiO4)
• Pure liquid lithium
• Molten lead-lithium (PbLi)
Plasma • Molten salts like FLiBe
D+T→n+⍺ • Beryllium and lead are neutron multipliers and boost
breeding
Breeder Blanket • Blanket also needs infrastructure for chemistry
6Li + n → T + ⍺ + heat control and heat removal
7Li + n → T + ⍺ + n’ - heat
• Blanket performance characterized by the tritium
breeding ratio (TBR)

TBR = # of tritons produced in the blanket

Rendering of an ARC-class fusion power plant courtesy of Commonwealth Fusion Systems # of tritons consumed in the plasma

MIT PSFC - 9/17/2024

MIT PSFC is investigating molten salt “liquid immersion blankets” for ARC-class
fusion power plants.
Key advantages of the LIB approach:
• Maximize solid angle coverage of the neutron
source (the plasma) to increase TBR
• Can pump out breeder for maintenance
• Online chemistry control
• Minimize complexity
• Efficient heat removal
Plasma Aiello G, de Dinechin G, Forest L, et al. HCLL TBM design status and
development. Fusion Engineering and Design 2011; 86:2129–34.

Liquid Drawbacks of conventional

Immersion blankets:
Blanket • Complex solid structures
are challenging for
fabrication, maintenance,
and assembly
• Activation concerns Example: the design for a helium-
cooled lead-lithium test blanket
Rendering of an ARC-class fusion power plant courtesy of Commonwealth Fusion Systems • More structural material = module for ITER (representative of
less breeder = lower TBR a possible blanket for DEMO)
devotes lots of volume to non-
breeding structures.
MIT PSFC - 9/17/2024
The high breeding efficiency of the LIB will let us put fusion plants on the grid much faster.

Assume we were able to

begin building fusion
power plants in 2030, and
tritium supply was our only
rate-limiting step.

Using conventional
blankets, it would take
~70 years to reach 0.1 TW
of installed fusion power
capacity (<10% of U.S.
installed capacity as of
2023). This isn’t fast
enough!

MIT PSFC - 9/17/2024

 The LIBRA experiment at MIT is advancing molten salt breeder blanket technology.

LIBRA (Liquid Immersion Blanket: Robust Accountancy) LIBRA-Pi: 125L LIBRA: 500L
enables us to study tritium breeding and behavior in FLiBe in a BABY-1L
prototypical neutronic and chemical environment.
BABY-0.1L

LIBRA requires a staged experimental approach of

increasing complexity and volume.

Experimental setup for

BABY-0.1L in the MIT
PSFC Vault Laboratory
on Albany Street
MIT PSFC - 9/17/2024
 The LIBRA experiment at MIT is advancing molten salt breeder blanket technology.

Humrickhouse, Paul W., and Thomas F. Fuerst. Tritium Transport

LIBRA-Pi: 125L LIBRA: 500L
Phenomena in Molten-Salt Reactors. No. INL/EXT-20-59927-Rev000. Idaho
National Lab.(INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States), 2020. BABY-1L

There are enormous BABY-0.1L

uncertainties
regarding how tritium
behaves in FLiBe.
Literature data shows
a 3-4 order-of- The LIBRA initiative will provide reliable,
magnitude spread for repeatable data on tritium behavior in
solubility of tritium in prototypical breeder blanket environments
FLiBe at the same that can be used to reliably design full-scale
temperature! blanket systems for power plants.

See also: the U.S. fusion blanket and fuel cycle technology community
roadmaps published by EPRI (available for download on the EPRI website)
MIT PSFC - 9/17/2024
The breeder blanket (marked with a ⭐️ ) is just one piece of a complex fuel cycle system.

• We need to understand tritium’s

dynamics through the entire fuel
⭐️ cycle: achieving high breeding rates
in the blanket is just part of the
engineering challenge!
• Tritium is highly mobile, and losses
due to trapping and permeation (as
well as radioactive decay) must be
accounted for
• Most of the necessary technologies
have not been demonstrated at
scale, but are critical to the success
of the fusion industry
S. Meschini, S. E. Ferry, R. Delaporte-Mathurin, D. Whyte
“Modeling and analysis of the tritium fuel cycle for ARC- and STEP-class DT
fusion power plants,” Nuclear Fusion 63 (2023)
MIT PSFC - 9/17/2024
MIT PSFC is working to fuel the future fusion industry.
LIBRA-Pi: 125L LIBRA: 500L
D-T fusion plants must breed Advanced tritium breeding BABY-1L
their own tritium. technology is the key to
unlocking fusion power’s BABY-0.1L
Blanket
(high % Li) market potential.

MIT PSFC is undertaking an ambitious,

staged approach to derisk the FLiBe
liquid immersion blanket.

LIBRA team:
Kevin Woller PI
John Ball, Remi Delaporte-
Mathurin, Collin Dunn, Kaelyn
Dunnell, Emily Edwards, Sara
Ferry, Nikola Goleš, Ed Lamere,
Andrew Lanzrath, Rick Leccacorvi,
o The D-T fusion reaction produces neutrons
Samuele Meschini, Ethan
Deuterium + Tritium → neutron + He Peterson, Stefano Segantin, Rui
o The neutrons are captured in the blanket Vieira, Colin Weaver, Dennis
o The blanket contains lithium MIT PSFC - 9/17/2024 BABY-0.1L just prior to irradiation Whyte, Weiyue Zhou
o Neutron + Lithium → Tritium + He
Impacts of neutron transport
on fusion power plant design

Prof. Ethan Peterson

Neutrons greatly impact fusion power plant design

Neutrons carry 80% of D-T fusion energy

Monte Carlo simulations compute the

distribution of neutrons throughout the power
plant and their effects

Born at 14 MeV where they travel 5 cm on

average between collisions in steel
Fusion neutrons travel far, at high energy and
500 collisions to lose energy cause damage, heating, dose, and
transmutation
Neutrons greatly impact fusion power plant design

1. Capture neutron energy and

generate tritium
2. Protect magnets from nuclear
heating and radiation damage
3. Engineer plasma facing materials
that can withstand high fluence
3 1
4. Protect workers and the public
from direct and shutdown dose
2
Neutron responses determine
system requirements, yet take
the longest to execute.
We need fast, accurate
4 methods to compute them
as well as their uncertainty.
Commonwealth Fusion Systems
 Fragmentation of fusion neutronics workflows impedes analysis
speed and uncertainty quantification

Model definition
Consider the analysis of “shutdown dose rate” (SDR) for
and user inputs the maintenance of fusion power plants

Neutron Activated Photon Photon

Reaction Activation Photon
transport material source transport SDR
rates solve spectrum
solve compositions generation solve

Radiation sources
Cross for transport and
section data
shielding analysis
Waste disposal ratings, transmutations
over time, decay heat
Energy deposition, damage, tritium production,
etc
 Fragmentation of fusion neutronics workflows impedes analysis
speed and uncertainty quantification

Code A Code B Code C Code A

Model definition Model definition Model definition Model definition
and user inputs and user inputs and user inputs and user inputs

Neutron Activated Photon Photon

Reaction Activation Photon
transport material source transport SDR
rates solve spectrum
solve compositions generation solve

Cross Cross Cross

section data section data section data

Barriers prevent uncertainty propagation, solution acceleration,

and robust verification and validation (V&V)
 Streamlining these workflows enables scalable and sustainable
nuclear analysis for fusion power plants

● Open-source, community-driven ecosystem

● Designed for exascale architectures
● Extensible for coupling with other applications
● Single source of truth for transparent V&V

Model definition
and user inputs

Neutron Activated Photon Photon

Reaction Activation Photon
transport material source transport SDR
rates solve spectrum
solve compositions generation solve

Cross
section data
Goal: An analysis platform for the first rigorous assessment
of nuclear-driven engineering margins in fusion power plants

Streamlining analyses was the first step Example fusion neutronics analyses
towards a comprehensive assessment and 10x
reduction of uncertainties for complex
workflows

Discrepancy
2x
Uncertainties come from many places:
nuclear data, material and geometry
specifications, method approximations 0.1x

To have confidence in our predictive 0.01x

modeling tools we have to find better Size + Complexity
agreement between experiments and
simulations for large complex systems
 The role of fusion energy in a
decarbonized electricity system
October 17, 2024

energy.mit.edu @mitenergy