Configuration Studies for an ST-Based Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) Presented by Dr. Laila El-Guebaly on behalf of: J. Menard 1, M. Boyer 1, T.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
PPPL ST-FNSF Engineering Design Details Tom Brown TOFE Conference November 10, 2014.
Advertisements

Studies of ST-FNSF mission and performance dependence on device size J. Menard 1, T. Brown 1, J. Canik 2, L. El Guebaly 3, S. Gerhardt 1, S. Kaye 1, M.
Scoping Neutronics Analysis in Support of FDF Design Evolution Mohamed Sawan University of Wisconsin-Madison With input from R. Stambaugh, C. Wong, S.
April 23-24, 2009/ARR 1 Proposed Effort Over the Next 1-2 Years on ARIES-DB DCLL A. René Raffray, Siegfried Malang, Xueren Wang University of California,
09 FNST meeting Preliminary Neutronics Analysis for IB Shielding Design on FNSF (Standard Aspect Ratio) Haibo Liu Robert Reed Fusion Science and Technology.
Physics of fusion power Lecture 14: Anomalous transport / ITER.
Neutronics Analysis on a Compact Tokamak Fusion Reactor CREST Q. HUANG 1,2, S. ZHENG 2, L. Lu 2, R. HIWATARI 3, Y. ASAOKA 3, K. OKANO 3, Y. OGAWA 1 1 High.
Benefits of Radial Build Minimization and Requirements Imposed on ARIES Compact Stellarator Design Laila El-Guebaly (UW), R. Raffray (UCSD), S. Malang.
First Wall Thermal Hydraulics Analysis El-Sayed Mogahed Fusion Technology Institute The University of Wisconsin With input from S. Malang, M. Sawan, I.
Optimization of Stellarator Power Plant Parameters J. F. Lyon, Oak Ridge National Lab. for the ARIES Team Workshop on Fusion Power Plants Tokyo, January.
Optimization of Spherical Torus as Power Plants -- The ARIES-ST Study Farrokh Najmabadi and the ARIES Team University of California, San Diego ISFNT-5.
1 ANS 16 th Topical Meeting on the Technology of Fusion Energy September , 2004 Madison, Wisconsin.
Status of the Power Core Configuration Based on Modular Maintenance Presented by X.R. Wang Contributors: S. Malang, A.R. Raffray and the ARIES Team ARIES.
Poloidal Distribution of ARIES-ACT Neutron Wall Loading L. El-Guebaly, A. Jaber, D. Henderson Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Optimization of a Steady-State Tokamak-Based Power Plant Farrokh Najmabadi University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA IEA Workshop 59 “Shape and.
April 27-28, 2006/ARR 1 Support and Possible In-Situ Alignment of ARIES-CS Divertor Target Plates Presented by A. René Raffray University of California,
ARIES-CS Systems Studies J. F. Lyon, ORNL Workshop on Fusion Power Plants UCSD Jan. 24, 2006.
Status of 3-D Analysis, Neutron Streaming through Penetrations, and LOCA/LOFA Analysis L. El-Guebaly, M. Sawan, P. Wilson, D. Henderson, A. Ibrahim, G.
The main function of the divertor is minimizing the helium and impurity content in the plasma as well as exhausting part of the plasma thermal power. The.
Highlights of ARIES-AT Study Farrokh Najmabadi For the ARIES Team VLT Conference call July 12, 2000 ARIES Web Site:
June19-21, 2000Finalizing the ARIES-AT Blanket and Divertor Designs, ARIES Project Meeting/ARR ARIES-AT Blanket and Divertor Design (The Final Stretch)
Role of ITER in Fusion Development Farrokh Najmabadi University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA FPA Annual Meeting September 27-28, 2006 Washington,
Recent Results on Compact Stellarator Reactor Optimization J. F. Lyon, ORNL ARIES Meeting Sept. 3, 2003.
March 20-21, 2000ARIES-AT Blanket and Divertor Design, ARIES Project Meeting/ARR Status ARIES-AT Blanket and Divertor Design The ARIES Team Presented.
Y. ASAOKA, R. HIWATARI and K
Minimum Radial Standoff: Problem definition and Needed Info L. El-Guebaly Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin - Madison With Input from:
Indian Fusion Test Reactor
Development of the FW Mobile Tiles Concept Mohamed Sawan, Edward Marriott, Carol Aplin University of Wisconsin-Madison Lance Snead Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Maintenance Schemes for a DEMO Power Plant and related DCLL Designs Siegfried Malang 2 nd EU-US DCLL Workshop2 nd EU-US DCLL Workshop University of California,University.
Configuration Studies for an ST-Based Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) Dr. Jonathan Menard on behalf of: M. Boyer 1, T. Brown 1, J. Canik 2, B. Covele.
Kaschuck Yu.A., Krasilnikov A.V., Prosvirin D.V., Tsutskikh A.Yu. SRC RF TRINITI, Troitsk, Russia Status of the divertor neutron flux monitor design and.
Neutronics Parameters for Preferred Chamber Configuration with Magnetic Intervention Mohamed Sawan Ed Marriott, Carol Aplin UW Fusion Technology Inst.
Bohm 1 Preliminary Neutronics Analysis of 3x2 Toroidal and Poloidal Legs of ELM Coils Tim Bohm and Mohamed Sawan University of Wisconsin 7/22/2010.
Systems Analysis Development for ARIES Next Step C. E. Kessel 1, Z. Dragojlovic 2, and R. Raffrey 2 1 Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 2 University.
Neutronics Analysis for K-DEMO Blanket Module with Helium coolant June 26, 2013 Presented by Kihak IM Prepared by Y.S. Lee Fusion Engineering Center DEMO.
V. A. Soukhanovskii NSTX Team XP Review 31 January 2006 Princeton, NJ Supported by Office of Science Divertor heat flux reduction and detachment in lower.
V. A. Soukhanovskii 1 Acknowledgement s: R. Maingi 2, D. A. Gates 3, J. Menard 3, R. Raman 4, R. E. Bell 3, C. E. Bush 2, R. Kaita 3, H. W. Kugel 3, B.
J. Menard 1 L. Bromberg 2, T. Brown 1, T. Burgess 3, D. Dix 4, L. El-Guebaly 5, T. Gerrity 2, R.J. Goldston 1, R.J. Hawryluk 1, R. Kastner 4, C. Kessel.
Three-Dimensional Nuclear Analysis for the US DCLL TBM M. Sawan, B. Smith, E. Marriott, P. Wilson University of Wisconsin-Madison With input from M. Dagher.
The Spherical Tokamak Components Test Facility Rapporteured by Howard Wilson representing Plasma Science and Fusion Engineering Conditions of Spherical.
NSTX-U NSTX-U PAC-31 Response to Questions – Day 1 Summary of Answers Q: Maximum pulse length at 1MA, 0.75T, 1 st year parameters? –A1: Full 5 seconds.
Divertor Design Considerations for CFETR
Systems Code – Hardwired Numbers for Review C. Kessel, PPPL ARIES Project Meeting, July 29-30, 2010.
NSTX-U cryo/particle control discussion #8 December 19, 2012 What have we done, or plan to do to be responsive to PAC questions, and in prep for 5 year.
Conceptual Design Requirements for FIRE John A. Schmidt FIRE PVR March 31, 2004.
1 Neutronics Assessment of Self-Cooled Li Blanket Concept Mohamed Sawan Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI With contributions.
ST-FNSF Mission and Performance Dependence on Device Size J. Menard 1 T. Brown 1, J. Canik 2, L. El-Guebaly 3, S. Gerhardt 1, A. Jaber 3, S. Kaye 1, E.
1 Neutronics Parameters for the Reference HAPL Chamber Mohamed Sawan Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI With contributions.
Fusion Nuclear Science - Pathway Assessment C. Kessel, PPPL ARIES Project Meeting, Bethesda, MD July 29, 2010.
Heat Loading in ARIES Power Plants: Steady State, Transient and Off-Normal C. E. Kessel 1, M. A. Tillack 2, and J. P. Blanchard 3 1 Princeton Plasma Physics.
R EFINEMENT OF THE P OWER C ORE C ONFIGURATION OF THE ARIES-ACT SA X.R. Wang 1, M. S. Tillack 1, S. Malang 2 and F. Najmabadi 1 1 University of California,
Characteristics of Transmutation Reactor Based on LAR Tokamak Neutron Source B.G. Hong Chonbuk National University.
Systems Analysis Development for ARIES Next Step C. E. Kessel 1, Z. Dragojlovic 2, and R. Raffrey 2 1 Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 2 University.
1 Nuclear Assessment of HAPL Chamber with Magnetic Intervension Mohamed Sawan Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI With contributions.
US-Japan Workshop on Fusion Power Plants and Related Advanced Technologies February 23-24, 2010 at USCD in USA Platform on integrated design of fusion.
Required Dimensions of HAPL Core System with Magnetic Intervention Mohamed Sawan Carol Aplin UW Fusion Technology Inst. Rene Raffray UCSD HAPL Project.
ZHENG Guo-yao, FENG Kai-ming, SHENG Guang-zhao 1) Southwestern Institute of Physics, Chengdu Simulation of plasma parameters for HCSB-DEMO by 1.5D plasma.
Neutron Wall Loading Update L. El-Guebaly, A. Jaber, A. Robinson, D. Henderson Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin-Madison
Open house 2013 slides T. Brown. 1.6-m FNSF Super-X Divertor Configuration.
BACKGROUND Design Point Studies for Future Spherical Torus Devices Design Point Studies for Future Spherical Torus Devices C. Neumeyer, C. Kessel, P. Rutherford,
1 Radiation Environment at Final Optics of HAPL Mohamed Sawan Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI HAPL Meeting ORNL March.
Neutronics Issues for Final Optics of HAPL Mohamed Sawan, Ahmad Ibrahim, Tim Bohm, Paul Wilson Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin,
Pilot Plant Study Hutch Neilson Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory ARIES Project Meeting 19 May 2010.
DCLL TBM Reference Design
X.R. Wang, M. S. Tillack, S. Malang, F. Najmabadi and the ARIES Team
DCLL Blanket Analysis and Power Core Layout for ARIES-DB
Can We achieve the TBR Needed in FNF?
Farrokh Najmabadi Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering
Martin Peng, ORNL FNST Meeting August 18-20, 2009
Updated DCLL TBM Neutronics Analysis
Presentation transcript:

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) Presented by Dr. Laila El-Guebaly on behalf of: J. Menard 1, M. Boyer 1, T. Brown 1, J. Canik 2, B. Covele 3, C. D’Angelo 4, A. Davis 4, L. El-Guebaly 4, S. Gerhardt 1, S. Kaye 1, C. Kessel 1, M. Kotschenreuther 3, S. Mahajan 3, R. Maingi 1, E. Marriott 4, L. Mynsberge 4, C. Neumeyer 1, M. Ono 1, R. Raman 5, S. Sabbagh 6, V. Soukhanovskii 7, P. Valanju 3, R. Woolley 1, A. Zolfaghari 1 25 th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference St. Petersburg, Russia October 2014 This work supported by the US DOE Contract No. DE-AC02-09CH Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA 3 University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA 4 University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA 5 University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA 6 Columbia University, New York, NY, USA 7 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA Paper FNS/1-1

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) There are several possible pathways from ITER to a commercial fusion power plant FNSF = Fusion Nuclear Science Facility CTF = Component Test Facility ITER First of a kind Power Plant Supporting Physics and Technology Core Physics Materials R&D Plasma Material Interface Pilot Plant FNSF/CTF with power-plant like maintenance, Q eng ≥ 1 Q eng = 3-5 e.g. EU DEMO FNSF/CTF Blanket R&D, T self-sufficiency 2 DEMO

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) This talk considers possible spherical tokamak (ST) Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) options FNSF = Fusion Nuclear Science Facility CTF = Component Test Facility ITER First of a kind Power Plant Supporting Physics and Technology Core Physics Materials R&D Plasma Material Interface Pilot Plant FNSF/CTF with power-plant like maintenance, Q eng ≥ 1 FNSF/CTF Blanket R&D, T self-sufficiency 3 Q eng = 3-5 e.g. EU DEMO DEMO

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) Overview Recent U.S. studies for ST-FNSF have focused on assessing achievable missions versus device size Possible missions: –Electricity break-even Motivated analysis of R=2.2m ST Pilot Plant –Tritium self-sufficiency (tritium breeding ratio TBR ≥ 1) Motivates present ( ) analysis of R=1m, 1.7m ST FNSF devices to address key questions: –How large must ST device be to achieve TBR ≥ 1? –How much externally supplied T would be needed for smaller ST? –What are device and component lifetimes? –Fusion-relevant neutron wall loading and fluence STs studied here access 1MW/m 2, 6MW-yr/m 2 (surface-avg. values) 4

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) Outline Physics design Configuration, shielding, tritium breeding Conclusions 5

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) PF coil set identified that supports combined Super-X + snowflake divertor for range of equilibria 2 nd X-point/snowflake increases SOL line-length Breeding in CS ends important for maximizing TBR PF coil set supports wide range of l i : 0.4 – 0.8  Elongation and squareness change with l i variation  Fixed strike-point R, controllable B-field angle of incidence (0.5-5˚) Divertor coils in TF coil ends for equilibrium, high  Increased strike-point radius reduces B, q || Strike-point PFCs also shielded by blankets TF coil All equilibrium PF coils outside vacuum vessel PF coilBlanketVessel Components: 6

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) Up/down-symmetric Super-X/snowflake  q  -divertor 2mm) P heat = 115MW, f rad =0.8, f obd =0.8,  pol = 2.1 R strike = 2.6m, f exp = 1.4, q-int =2.05mm, N div = 2 P heat = 115MW, f rad =0.8, f obd =0.8,  pol = 2.1 R strike = 2.6m, f exp = 1.4, q-int =2.05mm, N div = 2 P heat (1-f rad ) f obd sin(  pol ) 2  R strike f exp q-int N div q  -strike  Peak q || = 0.45GW/m 2 1 angle of incidence Peak q  < 10MW/m 2 Eich NF 2013: q-int = q × S, q = 0.78mm, S ≈ q (closed divertor) Partial detachment expected to further reduce peak q  factor of 2-5 × 7

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) 0.5 MeV NNBI favorable for heating and current drive (CD) for R=1.7m ST-FNSF NBCD increases for E inj ≤ 0.5 MeV but saturates for E inj = 0.75 – 1MeV Fixed target parameters in DD: –I P = 7.5MA,  N = 4.5, l i = 0.5 –n e / n Greenwald = 0.75, H 98y,2 = 1.5 –A=1.75, R=1.7m, B T = 3T,  = 2.8 –  T e  =5.8keV,  T i  =7.4keV Optimal tangency radii: 1.7m ≤ R tan ≤ 2.4m Control q(0), q min Shine-thru limit Maximum efficiency: R tan = m

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) Outline Physics design Configuration, shielding, tritium breeding Conclusions 9

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) R=1.7m configuration with Super-X divertor Cu/SC PF coils housed in VV lower shell structure SC PF coils pairs located in common cryostat TF leads Vertical maintenanceDesign features Cu/SC PF coils housed in VV upper lid VV outer shell w/ shield material Angled DCLL concentric lines to external header 10 Ports for TBM, MTM, NBI Blankets TF coils

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) ST-FNSF shielding and TBR analyzed with sophisticated 3-D neutronics codes CAD coupled with MCNP using UW DAGMC code Fully accurate representation of entire torus No approximation/simplification involved at any step: –Internals of two OB DCLL blanket segments modeled in great detail, including: FW, side, top/bottom, and back walls, cooling channels, SiC FCI –2 cm wide assembly gaps between toroidal sectors –2 cm thick W vertical stabilizing shell between OB blanket segments –Ports and FS walls for test blanket / materials test modules (TBM/MTM) and NNBI TBM LiPb, cooling channel, FCI Heterogeneous OB Blanket Model, including FW, side/back/top/bottom walls, cooling channels, and SiC FCI 11 NBI

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) Two sizes (R=1.7m, 1m) assessed for shielding, TBR Parameter: Major Radius1.68m1.0m Minor Radius0.95m 0.6m Fusion Power162MW62MW Wall loading (avg)1MW/m 2 1MW/m 2 TF coils1210 TBM ports44 MTM ports11 NBI ports43 Plant Lifetime~20 years Availability10-50% 30% avg 6 Full Power Years (FPY) Neutron source distribution 12

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) Peak Damage at OB FW and Insulator of Cu Magnets Peak dpa at OB midplane = 15.5 dpa / FPY 3-D Neutronics Model of Entire Torus Dose to MgO insulator = 6x FPY < Gy limit Dose to MgO insulator = 2x FPY < Gy limit Peak He production at OB midplane = 174 appm/FPY  He/dpa ratio = 11.2 Center Stack OB Blanket R=1.7m configuration 13

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) Mapping of dpa and FW/blanket lifetime (R=1.7 m Device) dpa / FPY Peak = 15.5 dpa / FPY FW/blanket could operate for 6 FPY if allowable damage limit is 95 dpa FW/blanket could operate for 6 FPY if allowable damage limit is 95 dpa 14 R=1.7m configuration  Peak EOL Fluence = 11 MWy/m 2

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) TBR contributions by blanket region Inner Blanket Segment = 0.81 Outer Blanket Segment = 0.15 Total TBR ~ 1.03 with no penetrations or ports (heterogenous outboard blanket) Total TBR ~ 1.03 with no penetrations or ports (heterogenous outboard blanket) Breeding at CS ends important:  TBR = R=1.7m configuration

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) Impact of TBM, MTM, NBI ports on TBR 16 No ports or penetrations, homogeneous breeding zones: TBR = 1.03 Add 4 Test Blanket Modules (TBMs) TBR = 1.02 (  TBR  = -0.01) TBM LiPb, cooling channel, FCI 1 Materials Test Module (MTM) TBR = 1.01 (  TBR = -0.02) Ferritic Steel MTM 4 TBM + 1 MTM + 4 NBI TBR = 0.97 Approx.  TBR per port: TBM: -0.25% MTM: -2.0% NBI: -0.75%

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) Options to increase TBR > 1 Add to PF coil shield a thin breeding blanket (  TBR ~ +3%) Smaller opening to divertor to reduce neutron leakage Uniform OB blanket (1m thick everywhere; no thinning) Reduce cooling channels and FCIs within blanket (need thermal analysis to confirm) Thicker IB VV with breeding Potential for TBR > 1 at R=1.7m PF Coils 17

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) R 0 = 1m ST-FNSF achieves TBR = 0.88 TBM NBI Distribution of T production MTM 18 1m device cannot achieve TBR > 1 even with design changes Solution: purchase ~ kg of T/FPY from outside sources at $ k/g of T, costing $12-55M/FPY

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) Summary: R = 1m and 1.7m STs with Γ n = 1MW/m 2 and Q DT = 1-2 assessed for FNS mission Ex-vessel PF coil set identified to support range of equilibria and Super-X/snowflake divertor to mitigate high heat flux 0.5MeV NNBI optimal for heating & current drive for R=1.7m Vertical maintenance approach, NBI & test-cell layouts identified Shielding adequate for MgO insulated inboard Cu PF coils –Outboard PF coils (behind outboard blankets) can be superconducting Calculated full 3D TBR; TBR reduction from TBM, MTM, NBI Threshold major radius for TBR ~ 1 is R 0 ≥ 1.7m R=1m TBR = 0.88  kg of T/FPY  $12-55M/FPY R=1m device will have lower electricity and capital cost  future work could assess size/cost trade-offs in more detail 19

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) 20 Backup slides

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) Free-boundary TRANSP/NUBEAM used to compute profiles for 100% non-inductive plasmas with Q DT ~2 Neoclassical  ion n e / n Greenwald = 0.7 H 98,y2 = 1.4 I P = 8.9MA, B T = 2.9T f NICD = 100%, f BS = 65% P NNBI = 80MW (0.5MeV) P fus = 200MW (50-50 DT) –2.6% alpha bad orbit loss Q DT = 2.5  N = 5.5, W tot = 58MJ –W fast / W tot = 14% Maintain q min > 2 q(0) / q min controllable via R tan and density 21

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) VV lid / PF cryostat enclosure Full blanket assembly TF center- stack Upper TF horizontal legs Upper dome structure located on test cell shield plug TF power supplies JT-60SA NNBI R=1.7m ST-FNS facility layout using an extended ITER building 22

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) Summary of ST-FNSF TBR vs. device size 23 R=1.7m: TBR ≥ 1R=1.0m: TBR < 1 (≈ 0.9) TBM NBI MTM TBM MTM NBI 1m device cannot achieve TBR > 1 even with design changes Solution: purchase ~ kg of T/FPY from outside sources at $ k/g of T, costing $12-55M/FPY

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) FNSF center-stack can build upon NSTX-U design and incorporate NSTX stability results Like NSTX-U, use TF wedge segments (but brazed/pressed-fit together) –Coolant paths: gun-drilled holes or grooves in side of wedges + welded tube Bitter-plate divertor PF magnets in ends of TF achieve high triangularity –NSTX data: High  > 0.55 and shaping S  q 95 I P /aB T > 25 minimizes disruptivity –Neutronics: MgO insulation can withstand lifetime (6 FPY) radiation dose 24

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) Glidcop plates Insulator Bitter coil insert for divertor coils in ends of TF 25

Configuration Studies for an ST-Based FNSF (J. Menard) MgO insulation appears to have good radiation resistance for divertor PF coils 26