Description of need

Vacuum pumps are the most critical gap in the fuel cycle for fusion energy.

The vacuum pumps in Nuclear fusion power plants need to be tritium-compatible. Tritium destroys all the seals, bellows, oils, lubrications, and other organic components found in pumps. After a few months, they turn to “putty” under the effect of tritium. This is true for all pumps except cryopumps. As a result, pumps employed in the fuel cycle may need to be replaced every 6-12 months. In addition to the replacement cost, the operational handling and exposure of the operator becomes problematic. The problem is there isn’t a pull for pump suppliers to do R&D around this! (Even the fission industry uses pumps for move moderators around, but the contamination is low.) There other pump challenges, most of which are concept-specific. For example, CFS has to deal with tritiated fluoride in its molten salt circulation pumps, in addition to the usual radioactive decay from tritium. Concepts that employ a lithium-lead blanket suffer from a similar problem.

Two pathways:

Problem severity (1-10)

6

Who has this need

Fusion companies! Mentioned by both CFS and Tokamak Energy

Total addressable market (TAM)

Unknown

Solutions today, and their shortcomings

  • Traditional vacuum pumps. Tritium destroys all the seals, bellows, oils, lubrications, and other organic components found in pumps. After a few months, they turn to “putty” under the effect of tritium. As a result, pumps employed in the fuel cycle may need to be replaced every 6-12 months. In addition to the replacement cost, the operational handling and exposure of the operator becomes problematic.
  • Liquid Helium Cryopumps. Extremely inefficient and difficult to scale.
  • Mercury diffusion pumps. Extreme environmental concerns. Costly disposable and maintenance.
  • Metal foil pumps for direct internal recycling in fusion reactors. Low TRL and not a complete solution: still requires mercury pumps.

Potentially relevant capabilities

References