1 / 23

AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD, GA, GIT, LLNL, INEEL,

NSO Collaboration. http://fire.pppl.gov. AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD, GA, GIT, LLNL, INEEL, MIT, ORNL, PPPL, SNL, SRS, UCLA, UCSD, UIIC, UWisc. Thoughts on Fusion Development. Dale Meade Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory FPA Annual Meeting December 13, 2004.

jeannettegraham
Download Presentation

AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD, GA, GIT, LLNL, INEEL,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NSO Collaboration http://fire.pppl.gov AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD, GA, GIT, LLNL, INEEL, MIT, ORNL, PPPL, SNL, SRS, UCLA, UCSD, UIIC, UWisc Thoughts on Fusion Development Dale Meade Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory FPA Annual Meeting December 13, 2004

  2. Thoughts on the Magnetic Fusion Development Path • We will never get there if we don’t take the next step. • A plan was put forward by FESAC (Freidberg Panel) to establish a national technical consensus on a Next Step for Magnetic Fusion - A Burning Plasma Program is needed. A solid technical basis exists to design and construct a tokamak BPX. • A BP strategy and Development plan were developed with over whelming support of fusion program leaders, unanimous endorsement by FESAC and put forward to DOE. The technical basis for the strategy and plan is even stronger today. • We should follow this plan - do not go back to Square One!

  3. FESAC/DOE Plan for Developing Fusion Energy - 2003 If no ITER, then go with FIRE which leads into an advanced DEMO.

  4. ARIES Economic Studies have Defined the Plasma Requirements for an Attractive Fusion Power Plant Plasma Exhaust Pheat/Rx ~ 100MW/m Helium Pumping Tritium Retention High Gain Q ~ 25 - 50 ntET ~ 6x1021 m-3skeV Pa/Pheat = fa ≈ 90% Low rotation Plasma Control Fueling Current Drive RWM Stabilization High Power Density Pf/V~ 6 MWm-3 ~10 atm Gn ≈ 4 MWm-2 Steady-State ~ 90% Bootstrap Significant advances are needed in each area. A Burning Plasma experiment is to make progress in these areas.

  5. FIRE Physics Objectives Burning Plasma Physics (Conventional Inductively Driven H-Mode) Q ~10 as target, higher Q not precluded fa = Pa/Pheat ~ 66% as target, up to 83% @ Q = 25 TAE/EPM stable at nominal point, access to unstable Advanced Toroidal Physics (100% Non-inductively Driven AT-Mode) Q ~ 5 as target, higher Q not precluded fbs = Ibs/Ip ~ 80% as target, ARIES-RS/AT≈90% bN ~ 4.0, n = 1 wall stabilized, RWM feedback Quasi-Stationary Burn Duration (use plasma time scales) Pressure profile evolution and burn control > 20 - 40 tE Alpha ash accumulation/pumping > 4 - 10 tHe Plasma current profile evolution ~ 2 to 5 tskin Divertor pumping and heat removal > 10 - 20 tdivertor First wall heat removal > 1 tfirst-wall

  6. Fusion Ignition Research Experiment (FIRE) • R = 2.14 m, a = 0.595 m • B = 10 T, (~ 6.5 T, AT) • Ip = 7.7 MA, (~ 5 MA, AT) • PICRF = 20 MW • PLHCD ≤ 30 MW (Upgrade) • Pfusion ~ 150 MW • Q ≈ 10, (5 - 10, AT) • Burn time ≈ 20s (2 tCR - Hmode) • ≈ 40s (< 5 tCR - AT) • Tokamak Cost = $350M (FY02) • Total Project Cost = $1.2B (FY02) 1,400 tonne LN cooled coils Mission: to attain, explore, understand and optimize magnetically-confined fusion-dominated plasmas

  7. FIRE is Based on ARIES-RS Vision • 40% scale model of ARIES-RS plasma • ARIES-like all metal PFCs • Actively cooled W divertor • Be tile FW, cooled between shots • Close fitting conducting structure • ARIES-level toroidal field • LN cooled BeCu/OFHC TF • ARIES-like current drive technology • • FWCD and LHCD (no NBI/ECCD) • • No momentum input • • Site needs comparable to previous • DT tokamaks (TFTR/JET). • • T required/pulse ~ TFTR ≤ 0.3g-T

  8. Significant Progress on Existing Tokamaks Improves FIRE (and ITER) Design Basis since FESAC and NRC Reviews • Extended H-Mode and AT operating ranges • Benefits of FIRE high triangularity, DN and moderate n/nG • Extended H-Mode Performance based ITPA scaling with reduced b degradation, and ITPA Two Term (pedestal and core) scaling (Q > 20). • Hybrid modes (AUG, DIII-D,JET) are excellent match to FIRE n/nG, and projects Q > 20. • Slightly peaked density profiles (n(0)/<n> = 1.25)enhance performance. • Elms mitigated by high triangularity, disruptions in new ITPA physics basis will be tempered somewhat.

  9. New ITPA Scaling Opens High-Q H-Mode Regime for FIRE • Systematic scans of tE vs b on DIII-D and JET show little degradation with b in contrast to the ITER 98(y, 2) scaling which has tE ~b-0.66 • A new confinement scaling relation developed by ITPA has reduced adverse scaling with b see eq. 10 in IAEA-CN-116/IT/P3-32. Cordey et al. • A route to ignition is now available if high bN regime can be stabilized.

  10. Q = 5 FIRE AT Mode Operating Range Greatly Expanded Nominal operating point • Q = 5 • Pf = 150 MW, • Pf/Vp = 5.5 MWm-3 (ARIES) • ≈ steady-state 4 to 5 tCR Physics basis improving (ITPA) • required confinement H factor and bN attained transiently • C-Mod LHCD experiments will be very important First Wall is the main limit • Improve cooling • revisit FW design Opportunity for additional improvement.

  11. “Steady-State” High-b Advanced Tokamak Discharge on FIRE Pf/V = 5.5 MWm-3 Gn ≈ 2 MWm-2 B = 6.5T bN = 4.1 fbs = 77% 100% non-inductive Q ≈ 5 H98 = 1.7 n/nGW = 0.85 Flat top Duration = 48 tE = 10 tHe = 4 tcr FT/P7-23

  12. TAE Modes in FIRE AT Regime Nova-K: N. Gorelenkov • ba(0) = 0.62%, Rba = 3.34 %, T(0) = 14 keV • n = 6 - 8 unstable • radially localized just inside qmin @r/a = 0.8 • modes are weakly unstable due to low alpha-particle beta

  13. FIRE has Passed DOE Physics Validation Review • The DOE FIRE Physics Validation Review (PVR) was held March 30-31 in Germantown. • The Committee included: S. Prager, (Chair) Univ of Wisc, Earl Marmar, MIT, N. Sauthoff PPPL, F. Najmabadi, UCSD, Jerry Navratil, Columbia (unable to attend), John Menard PPPL, R. Boivin GA, P.  Mioduszewski ORNL, Michael Bell, PPPL, S. Parker Univ of Co, C. Petty GA, P. Bonoli MIT, B. Breizman Texas, • PVR Committee Consensus Report: • The FIRE team is on track for completing the pre-conceptual design within FY 04. FIRE would then be ready to launch the conceptual design. The product of the FIRE work, and their contributions to and leadership within the overall burning plasma effort, is stellar. • Is the proposed physical device sufficiently capable and flexible to answer the critical burning plasma science issues proposed above? • The 2002 Snowmass study also provided a strong affirmative answer to this question. Since the Snowmass meeting the evolution of the FIRE design has only strengthened ability of FIRE to contribute to burning plasma science.

  14. Steps to a Magnetic Fusion Power Plant FIRE ARIES-RS ITER

  15. Next Step Option Activities • FIRE • • FIRE Physics Validation Review successfully passed . March 30-31, 2004 • • FIRE Pre-Conceptual Activities are completed. September 30, 2004 • • Ready to begin Conceptual Design Activities. Now • • “Hold our FIRE” as per Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee • recommendation • ITER AT • • Extend performance of ITER using Advanced Tokamak operation • • Fully exploit the capability of ITER (increase power to ~1GW at steady-state) • • Recover original ITER capability for nuclear testing • • Would address several physics tasks requested by IT Leader

  16. (TAE instabilities in Steady-state scenarios) Physics Tasks Requested by the International Team Leader[US ITER Project Status @ TOFE , 9/04] • Magnets and PFCs (power and particle-handling, including tritium inventory): • How disruptions/VDEs which may affect the ITER design. • Characterization of thermal energy load during disruption • Model development of halo current width during VDEs based on experiments • Simulations of VDEs in ITER with 3D MHD code • Disruption mitigation by noble gas injection • Oxygen baking experiment, which could be possible during spring 2005 at D III-D and is under discussion at GA, may be one of the possible tasks. • Heating and Current-drive and advanced control: • ITER Plasma Integrated Model for ITER for Control • Feasibility study of ITER SS scenarios with high confinement, NBCD, ECCD, LHCD, ICCD and fueling by pellet injection. • RF launchers • Validation of enhanced confinement models and application to ITER. • Development of Steady State Scenarios in ITER • RWM in Steady State Scenario in ITER • Evaluation of Fast Particle Confinement of ITER • Diagnostics: • Specific diagnostic design tasks, including updating procurement packages[activities related to the diagnostics for which the US is responsible]

  17. Optimize CD mix & startup to flatten q profile First Results from ITER-AT Studies Using TSC,TRANSP and NOVA-K Goal is Steady-State, bN ≈ 3.5, fbs > 60% fbs , Q > 5 using NINB, ICFW and LHCD First case has bN ≈ 2.5, fbs ≈ 44%, ≈ 97% non-inductive and Q ≈ 5. FT/P7-23

  18. Applying FIRE-Like RWM Feedback Coils to ITER Increases b-limit for n = 1 from bN = 2.5 to 4.9 G. Navratil, J. Bialek VALEN Analysis Columbia University ITER PF Coils • Baseline RWM coils located outside TF coils No-wall limit RWM Coils in every third port • FIRE-like RWM coils would be located on port shield plugs inside the vacuum vessel. FIRE-like RWM coils would have large stabilizing effect on n=1 • Engineering feasibility of internal control coils needs to be determined

  19. The proposed RWM Coils would be in the Front Assembly of Every 3rd Port Plug Assembly RWM coils wrapped on end of Port Plug

  20. TAE Modes in ITER Hybrid Regime Nova-K: N. Gorelenkov • ba= 2.1%, Rba =15.5 %, Te(0) = 34 keV • n = 3 - 11 unstable (only odd modes have been studied). • radially localized near r/a = 0.5 • TAEs are strongly driven with beam ions as much as alphas (H.Berk talk)• strong drive is due to high ba as a result of high ion temperature • Perturbative approach may not be valid. • Strong particle transport is expected (H.Berk talk).

  21. Concluding Remarks • FIRE Pre-Conceptual Design has been completed - exceeding original goals. • Steady-state FIRE AT mode using FWCD and LHCD has fbs ≈ 77% and is 100% non-inductive. High bN(~4) with close coupled RWM stabilization would produce power-plant-level fusion-power densities of 5 MWm-3 for 4 tCR. • FIRE has passed DOE PVR and is ready to be put forward as an attractive burning plasma experiment if the six-party ITER negotiations breakdown. • Transition of NSO activities to supporting the “option” of extending ITER performance using AT operation has been accomplished without missing a step. The goal is to recover most of the capability of the original ITER. • Initial ITER-AT studies successfully at producing steady-state scenario using FWCD and LHCD with fbs ≈ 48% and 97% non-inductive current drive. Studies are continuing to optimize the current drive, and to increase bN from 2.5 to 3.5. • Close coupled RWM coils proposed by FIRE are expected to provide n = 1 stability up to bN = 4.2 in FIRE and 4.9 in ITER. • TAE instability studies indicate that AT modes in both ITER and FIRE will have multiple unstable modes, with NINB ions being a significant drive term in ITER.

  22. Uncle Sam’s Thoughts on Fusion I want you to get on with fusion, and don’t you dare go back to Square 1!

More Related