Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Identification of safety gaps for fusion demonstration reactors


To assist in the development of nuclear fusion as a viable commercial power source, preparation is underway for the fusion demonstration reactor (DEMO), which will build on the work of ITER, the international experimental fusion reactor. Like other advanced nuclear energy systems, DEMO must satisfy several goals including a high level of public and worker safety, low environmental impact, high reactor availability, a closed fuel cycle and the potential to be economically competitive. Yet there are still large scientific and technological safety gaps between the on-going ITER project and DEMO that will need to be addressed. Here we review international fusion safety research and development relevant to DEMO, following the lessons learned so far from ITER. We identify the main scientific and technological safety gaps, drawing on knowledge from the development of fission energy, in particular Generation IV (Gen-IV) fission reactors. From this survey, we discuss the corresponding implications for the design and operation of DEMO.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Safety goals and main safety functions for nuclear energy systems.
Figure 2: Confinement and multiple barriers for different nuclear energy systems.
Figure 3: Safety assessment methodologies for different nuclear energy systems.


  1. 1

    Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation (NREL, 2013);

  2. 2

    Chu, S. & Majumdar, A. Opportunities and challenges for a sustainable energy future. Nature 488, 294–303 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Technology Roadmap: Nuclear Energy (OECD/NEA, 2015);

  4. 4

    Bigot, B. Pull together for fusion. Nature 522, 149–151 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Ongena, J., Koch, R., Wolf, R. & Zohm, H. Magnetic-confinement fusion. Nat. Phys. 12, 398–410 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Luo, D. ITER Implementation and Fusion Energy Research in China KN7 (ISFNT, 2015);

  7. 7

    Qiu, L. et al. A low aspect ratio tokamak transmutation system. Nucl. Fusion 40, 629–633 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Wu, Y. & FDS Team. Conceptual design of the China fusion power plant FDS-II. Fusion Eng. Des. 83, 1683–1689 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Wu, Y., Jiang, J., Wang, M., Jin, M. & FDS Team. A fusion-driven subcritical system concept based on viable technologies. Nucl. Fusion 51, 103036 (2011).

  10. 10

    Federici, G. et al. Overview of the design approach and prioritization of R&D activities towards an EU DEMO. Fusion Eng. Des. 109–111, 1464–1474 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Deshpande, S. ITER and Beyond: Indian Perspective KN6 (ISFNT, 2015);

  12. 12

    Yamada, H. et al. Japanese endeavors to establish technological bases for DEMO. Fusion Eng. Des. 109–111 1318–1325 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Kim, K. Korean Progress on Fusion Research and Future Plan KN2 (ISFNT, 2015);

  14. 14

    Kuteev, B. V. et al. Development of DEMO-FNS tokamak for fusion and hybrid technologies. Nucl. Fusion 55, 073035 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Kessel, C. E. et al. The fusion nuclear science facility, the critical step in the pathway to fusion energy. Fusion Sci. Technol. 68, 225–236 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Safety of Nuclear Power Plants: Design, Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR-2/1 (IAEA, 2016); This IAEA standard establishes requirements applicable to the design of nuclear power plants and elaborates on the safety objectives, safety principles and concepts.

  17. 17

    Considerations on the Application of the IAEA Safety Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants IAEA TECDOC-1791 (IAEA, 2016);

  18. 18

    Duderstadt, J. J. & Hamilton, L. J. Nuclear Reactor Analysis (Wiley, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Taylor, N. & Elbez-Uzan, J. Preliminary Safety Report (RPrS)_3ZR2NC_v3_0–11 (ITER, 2011). This report mainly covers the description of ITER facility and environment, and preliminary safety demonstration, which was examined by the French Nuclear Safety Authorities for the ITER licensing.

  20. 20

    Van Dorsselaere, J. P. et al. Progress of IRSN R&D on ITER safety assessment. J. Fusion Energ. 31, 405–410 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Guide No. 13: Protection of Basic Nuclear Installations Against External Flooding (ASN, 2013);

  22. 22

    Basic Safety Rule 2001–01. Determination of the Seismic Risk for the Safety of Surface Basic Nuclear Installations (ASN, 2001);

  23. 23

    Stieglitz, R. et al. Aspects of Fusion Safety Considering Fission Regulations (IAEA, 2015);

  24. 24

    Causey, R. A. Hydrogen isotope retention and recycling in fusion reactor plasma-facing components. J. Nucl. Mater. 300, 91–117 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Bell, M. G. et al. Plasma response to lithium-coated plasma-facing components in the National Spherical Torus Experiment. Plasma Phys. Contr. Fusion 51, 124054 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Ono, M. Lithium as Plasma Facing Component for Magnetic Fusion Research. Report Number(s) PPPL–4808 (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Ono, M. et al. Recent progress in the NSTX/NSTX-U lithium programme and prospects for reactor-relevant liquid-lithium based divertor development. Nucl. Fusion 53, 113030 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Wong, C. P. C. & Merrill, B. Use of system code to estimate equilibrium tritium inventory in fusion DT machines, such as ARIES-AT and components testing facilities. Fusion Eng. Des. 89, 1482–1485 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Humrickhouse, P., Ying, A. & Rapisarda, D. Tritium in DEMO (IAEA, 2015);

  30. 30

    Petrangeli, G. Nuclear Safety (Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public. NRC: 10 CFR 20.1301 (NRC, 1991);

  32. 32

    Classification of Radioactive Waste No. GSG-1 (IAEA, 2009);

  33. 33

    French Act: Sustainable Management of Radioactive Materials and Waste (French, 2006);

  34. 34

    Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste. NRC: 10 CFR 61 (NRC, 2015);

  35. 35

    Classification of Radioactive Waste HAD401–04 (Ministry of Environmental Protection of China, 1998).

  36. 36

    Alejaldre, C. Lessons Learned in the Safety and Licensing of ITER, 01 (IEA, 2015); This paper reviews the lessons learned in the safety and licensing of ITER.

  37. 37

    Wu, Y. et al. Development strategy and conceptual design of China Lead-based Research Reactor. Ann. Nucl. Energ. 87, 511–516 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Pamela, J. et al. ITER tritiated waste management by the host state and first lessons learned for fusion development. Fusion Eng. Des. 89, 2001–2007 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39

    Taylor, N. et al. ITER safety and licensing update. Fusion Eng. Des. 87, 476–481 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Fundamental Safety Principles No. SF-1 (IAEA, 2006);

  41. 41

    Basic Safety Principles for Nuclear Power Plants 75-INSAG-3 Rev. 1 (IAEA, 1999);

  42. 42

    A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems (US DOE, GIF, 2002);

  43. 43

    Generation IV International Forum. Annual Report 2013 (GIF, 2013).

  44. 44

    Taylor, N. & Cortes P. Lessons learnt from ITER safety& licensing for DEMO and future nuclear fusion facilities. Fusion Eng. Des. 89, 1995–2000 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45

    Defence in Depth in Nuclear Safety INSAG-10 (IAEA, 1996);

  46. 46

    Taylor, N. in 26th Symposium on Fusion Engineering (SOFE). Safety and Licensing of Nuclear Facilities for Fusion (IEEE, 2015);

  47. 47

    Risk and Safety Working Group. An Integrated Safety Assessment Methodology (ISAM) for Generation IV Nuclear Systems (GIF, 2011). This paper presents an integrated safety assessment methodology for evaluating the safety of Generation IV nuclear systems.

  48. 48

    Pinna, T. et al. Fusion component failure rate database (FCFR-DB). Fusion Eng. Des. 81, 1391–1395 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49

    Pinna, T. et al. Operating experiences from existing fusion facilities in view of ITER safety and reliability. Fusion Eng. Des. 85, 1410–1415 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50

    Wu, Y. et al. Summary of the 1st international workshop on environmental, safety and economic aspects of fusion power. Nucl. Fusion 56 127001 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51

    Proceedings of 1st IAEA Technical Meeting on Fusion Power Plant Safety (IAEA, 2016);

  52. 52

    Wu, Y. The development of high intensity D-T fusion neutron generator HINEG. Int. J. Energ. Res. (2016).

  53. 53

    Wu, Y. & FDS Team. Conceptual design and testing strategy of a dual functional lithium–lead test blanket module in ITER and EAST. Nucl. Fusion 47, 1533–1539 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54

    Wu, Y. & FDS Team. Design status and development strategy of China liquid lithium–lead blankets and related material technology. J. Nucl. Mater. 367, 1410–1415 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55

    Wu, Y. & FDS Team. CAD-based interface programs for fusion neutron transport simulation. Fusion Eng. Des. 84, 1987–1992 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56

    Wu, Y. & FDS Team. Conceptual design activities of FDS series fusion power plants in China. Fusion Eng. Des. 81, 2713–2718 (2006). This paper presents a series of fusion power plants designed and assessed for the examination of the feasibility and the safety, environmental and economic potential of fusion.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57

    Wu, Y. & FDS Team. Fusion-based hydrogen production reactor and its material selection. J. Nucl. Mater. 386, 122–126 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58

    Song, Y. T. et al. Concept design of CFETR Tokamak machine. IEEE T. Plasma Sci. 42, 503–509 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59

    Perrault, D. Safety issues to be taken into account in designing future nuclear fusion facilities. Fusion Eng. Des. 109–111 1733–1738 (2016). This paper gives the IRSN's position on the safety issues which should be considered in the design of future nuclear fusion facilities.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60

    Séropian, C., Barrachin, M., Van Dorsselaere, J. P. & Vola, D. Adaptation of the ASTEC code system to accident scenarios in fusion installations. Fusion Eng. Des. 88, 2698–2703 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61

    Fischer, U., Bachmann, C., Palermo, I., Pereslavtsev, P. & Villari, R. Neutronics requirements for a DEMO fusion power plant. Fusion Eng. Des. 98, 2134–2137 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62

    Pereslavtsev, P., Lu, L., Fischer, U. & Bitz, O. Neutronic analyses of the HCPB DEMO reactor using a consistent integral approach. Fusion Eng. Des. 89, 1979–1983 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63

    Jin, X. Z. et al. Preliminary safety studies for the DEMO HCPB blanket concept. Fusion Eng. Des. 98, 2157–2161 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64

    Ricapito, I., Ciampichetti, A. & Benamati, G. Pb–17Li/water interaction in DEMO WCLL blanket: water micro-leaks. Fusion Eng. Des. 65, 577–587 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65

    Carpignano, A. et al. Safety issues related to the intermediate heat storage for the EU DEMO. Fusion Eng. Des. 109–111, 135–140 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66

    Tobita, K., Federici, G., Okano, K. & The BA DEMO Design Activity Unit. Research and development status on fusion DEMO reactor design under the Broader Approach. Fusion Eng. Des. 89, 1870–1874 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67

    Rivas, J. C. et al. Safety studies of plasma-wall events with AINA code for Japanese DEMO. Fusion Eng. Des. 109–111, 1653–1657 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68

    Nakamura, M. Progress in thermohydraulic analysis of accident scenarios of a water-cooled fusion DEMO reactor. In 26th Symposium on Fusion Engineering (IEEE, 2015);

  69. 69

    Kobayashi, K. et al. Studies on the behaviour of tritium in components and structure materials of tritium confinement and detritiation systems of ITER. Nucl. Fusion 47, 1645–1651 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70

    Someya, Y. et al. Waste management scenario in the hot cell and waste storage for DEMO. Fusion Eng. Des. 89, 2033–2037 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71

    Nakamura, M. et al. Thermohydraulic responses of a water-cooled tokamak fusion DEMO to loss-of-coolant accidents. Nucl. Fusion 55, 123008 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72

    Hashizume, H. et al. Overview of fusion engineering in Japan. Fusion Sci. Technol. 68, 201–210 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73

    Oh, K., Kang, M. S., Heo, G. & Kim, H. C. Safety studies on Korean fusion DEMO plant using integrated safety assessment methodology. Fusion Eng. Des. 89, 2057–2061 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74

    Oh, K., Kang, M. S., Heo, G. & Kim, H. C. Safety studies on Korean fusion DEMO plant using integrated safety assessment methodology: Part 2. Fusion Eng. Des. 98–99, 2152–2156 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75

    Kang, M.-s., Lee, S., Lee, H. G. & Heo, G. Gap study on technical standards and quality assurance between ITER and Korean regulation. Fusion Eng. Des. 109–111, 1475–1479 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76

    Lee, J. H. et al. Thermal-hydraulic analysis of water cooled breeding blanket of K-DEMO using MARS-KS code. Fusion Eng. Des. 98–99, 1741–1746 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77

    Petti, D. A. et al. Recent accomplishments and future directions in the US fusion safety and environmental program. Nucl. Fusion 47, S427–S435 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78

    Safety of Magnetic Fusion Facilities: Requirements DOE-STD-6002–96 (DOE, 1996);

  79. 79

    Safety of Magnetic Fusion Facilities: Guidance DOE-STD-6003–96 (DOE, 1996); This standard, the first standard of its kind in the fusion community, provides guidance to successfully achieve public and worker safety at magnetic fusion facilities.

  80. 80

    DOE HDBK-6004-99: Supplementary Guidance and Design Experience for the Fusion Safety Standards DOE-STD-6002-96 and DOE-STD-6003-96 (Department of Energy, 1999);

  81. 81

    Merrill, B. J. Code Development for Fusion Safety Applications 05 (IEA, 2015);

  82. 82

    Humrickhouse, P. W. & Merrill, B. J. MELCOR accident analysis for ARIES-ACT. Fusion Sci. Technol. 64, 340–344 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83

    Merrill, B. J. et al. Safety assessment of the ARIES compact stellarator design. Fusion Sci. Technol. 54, 838–863 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84

    Merrill, B. J., Wong, C. P. C., Cadwallader, L. C., Abdou, M. & Morley, N. B. Normal operation and maintenance safety lessons from the ITER US PbLi test blanket module program for a US FNSF and DEMO. Fusion Eng. Des. 89, 1989–1994 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85

    Marcus, G. H. Considering the next generation of nuclear power plants. Prog. Nucl. Energ. 37, 5–10 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86

    Nuclear Research and Development Capabilities: 3rd Report of Session 2010–12 (House of Lords, 2011);

  87. 87

    Goldberg, S. M. & Rosner, R. Nuclear Reactors: Generation to Generation (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2011);

  88. 88

    Aswathanarayana, U., Harikrishnan, T. & Thayyib Sahini, K. M. Green Energy: Technology, Economics and Policy (Taylor & Francis Group, 2010).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  89. 89

    The Fukushima Daiichi Accident. Report by the Director General (IAEA, 2015);

Download references


We thank all the members of IEA ESEFP, the participants in the First International Workshop on ESEFP, other FDS Team Members, and other contributors and authors of references cited in this work. In particular, the efforts of B. Merrill (Idaho National Laboratory), D. Panayotov (F4E), C. Grisolia (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives, CEA), J. van der Laan (ITER), D. van Houtte (CEA), T. Pinna (ENEA), S. Konishi (Kyoto University), M. Zucchetti (Politecnico di Torino), B. Kolbasov (Kurchatov Institute), Lee Cadwallader (Idaho National Laboratory), and N. Taylor (Culham Centre for Fusion Energy) are highly appreciated. This work is supported by the National Magnetic Confinement Fusion Energy Program of China (Grant No. 2014GB112000), and the International Science and Technology Cooperation Program of China (Grant No. 2015DFG62120).

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y. Wu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, Y., Chen, Z., Hu, L. et al. Identification of safety gaps for fusion demonstration reactors. Nat Energy 1, 16154 (2016).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing