(565e) Can Fusion Help Decarbonize the Power Sector?

The power sector has been identified as the key to decarbonizing the global energy economy. As we work to electrify the other energy sectors (transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial), we must decarbonize our generator fleet. The majority of research focuses on conventional renewable resources, namely wind and solar. While these resources are economically competitive with fossil fueled generators based on levelized cost of electricity, their unpredictable intermittency poses problems at high penetration levels. Highly renewable systems often require expensive energy storage supplements.

Fusion is a prospective energy technology which is safe, low-carbon and firm, but also expensive. Fusion reactor create heat which can be used in conventional power conversion cycles to produce electricity. Fusion reactors produce very little nuclear waste, and are natural self-quenching, so there is no danger of a run-away reaction. This study explores the value of this technology or one with similar characteristics. Because this technology is not yet validated, there are very few studies which quantify its potential impact on the power sector. One such manuscript identifies capital cost ceilings that fusion must meet to be competitive with variable renewable energy (VRE) resources ¹. Another paper shows that fusion’s potential is highest in regions where conventional low-carbon options are limited, such as Japan, Korea, or Turkey ². Another paper demonstrations that fusion can contribute to the decarbonization of the global energy economy, but that its capital cost and commercialization date will impact these results ³.

This analysis adds considerable value to the current collection of knowledge in three main ways. First, this study dives into fusion’s impact both on the system’s unit commitment, and its investment decisions. It is shown that certain technologies pair more complimentarily with fusion than others. Additionally, generator fleet buildout impacts land requirements, which is a more significant topic in regions of high population density. Secondly, we evaluate fusion integration in nine regions within the US: Atlantic, California, Central, North Central, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Texas. A profile is created for each region, so that national conclusions can be extrapolated to international locations. This analysis is meant to illuminate understanding on what regional characteristics encourage or discourage the adoption of this type of technology. Lastly, we complete an extensive capital cost sensitivity analysis. This is important to understand how sensitive investment strategies are to fusion’s cost.

Preliminary results have been produced for the first two sections of this study. The model used to complete this analysis, Ideal Grid, is a greenfield linear capacity expansion model with an hourly timestep. Ten technologies are currently represented: wind, solar, run-of-river hydro, conventional hydro, fusion, natural gas combustion turbine, natural gas combined-cycle, natural gas combined-cycle with 90% carbon capture, pumped hydro storage, and lithium-ion batteries. It should be noted that fission is not included in this model due to current legislature and public opinion which are both preventing buildout. Both techno-economic analysis and life-cycle assessment methods are used to track costs and emissions from all stages of the life-cycle. For example, this means that solar panels are not considered carbon neutral. An extensive number of optimizations are conducted in order to fully capture the impact of fusion.

First, a case study is conducted in the Atlantic region. An imposed carbon ceiling is lowered from 50 gCO₂/kWh to 15 gCO₂/kWh. It is shown that fusion is not economically competitive until emissions intensity of 30 gCO₂/kWh or lower, but that it is heavily favored as regulations are further tightened. At the lowest emissions intensity, fusion satisfies 74% of electricity demand, while contributing 47% of emissions. Also, it can be seen that before fusion is introduced, the system installs slightly more wind resources than solar, but after fusion is introduced, more solar is installed than wind. Lastly, it should be noted that cost increases as fusion penetration increases because fusion is expensive, and system curtailment decreases because fusion operates at a higher capacity factor, so less generator capacity is required.

Fusion installation is tested in the aforementioned nine regions for comparison. It is shown that fusion is favored most heavily in the Californian and Southeast regions, and that the Northwest does not install any fusion resources. Further analysis is needed to understand the affinity of fusion in certain regions in contrast to others.

Preliminary results show that fusion has the potential to impact the power sector in a major way. Further analysis is being conducted to understand price sensitivity, regional characteristics that attract fusion, and fusion’s impact on land requirements.

References

1. Bustreo, C., Giuliani, U., Maggio, D. & Zollino, G. How fusion power can contribute to a fully decarbonized European power mix after 2050. Fusion Eng. Des. 146, 2189–2193 (2019).
2. Gi, K., Sano, F., Akimoto, K., Hiwatari, R. & Tobita, K. Potential contribution of fusion power generation to low-carbon development under the Paris Agreement and associated uncertainties. Energy Strateg. Rev. 27, (2020).
3. Turnbull, D., Glaser, A. & Goldston, R. J. Investigating the value of fusion energy using the Global Change Assessment Model. Energy Econ. 51, 346–353 (2015).