Assumptions, Options and Risks for an MFE DEMO. D J Ward CCFE Culham Science Centre Abingdon, OX14 3DB, UK. Overview. This is a personal view, intended to motivate discussion.
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
D J Ward
Culham Science Centre
Abingdon, OX14 3DB, UK
CCFE is the fusion research arm of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
This assumes that development takes time. It also costs money and increases risks of failure. Note that this is not a roadmap!
Vizvary et al SOFT 2010
This example assumes that 100 MW of heating is used as current drive in the flat top, to extend the pulse length. Is it better to achieve pulse length with inductive flux or can non-inductive support be useful?
Allowing increasing amounts of CD power suggests that size (and cost) reduces as the current drive power is increased. (Suggests that a steady-state device is generally the better option.)
Alternatively a fixed size device can have its pulse length varied by adding some current drive power. This may be the solution to achieve sufficient fatigue life.
Fixed device size but use current drive power to extend the pulse length and achieve the required fatigue life.
Using current drive to support the pulse length, reducing the device size increases the divertor challenge.
Mitigating action needed, e.g. impurity seeding. What if a related device were taken to full steady-state?
This is an example of high current drive (~200MW) steady-state rather than an AT option. Could turn it into a supported pulse version. High Zeff is due to impurity seeding to protect the divertor. Study as a later plant DEMO Gen2?