Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD, GA, GIT, LLNL, INEEL, MIT, ORNL, PPPL, SNL, SRS, UCLA, UCSD, UIIC, UWisc FIRE Collaboration

Published byAndra Clarke Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1 AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD, GA, GIT, LLNL, INEEL, MIT, ORNL, PPPL, SNL, SRS, UCLA, UCSD, UIIC, UWisc FIRE Collaboration"— Presentation transcript:

1 1 AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD, GA, GIT, LLNL, INEEL, MIT, ORNL, PPPL, SNL, SRS, UCLA, UCSD, UIIC, UWisc FIRE Collaboration http://fire.pppl.gov Next Step Option (NSO) Dale Meade US ITER Project/VLT Meeting Princeton, NJ October 21, 2004

2 2 The purpose of the Next Step Options activity is to investigate and assess various opportunities for advancing the scientific understanding of fusion energy, with emphasis on plasma behavior at high energy gain and for long duration. The Next Step Options (NSO) study has been organized as a national integrated physics/engineering design activity within the Virtual Laboratory for Technology (VLT). The NSO program’s objective is to develop design options and strategies for burning plasmas in the restructured fusion sciences program, considering the international context. Examples of specific tasks to be pursued include investigation of a modular program pathway, with initial emphasis on the burning plasma module. The initial effort has been focused on a design concept called the Fusion Ignition Research Experiment (FIRE) that includes both burning plasma physics and advanced toroidal physics mission objectives. NSO-PAC: 15 members, Chaired by Tony Taylor, 5 meetings, all reports are on the web at http://fire.pppl.gov/nso_pac5.html FIRE effort evolved form the US ITER Design Home Team,and involved >15 institutions and >50 individuals. FIRE has been engaged in a PreConceptual design activity at a budget of ≈ $2M/year with FY04 =FY05 = $0.6 M. The FIRE PreConceptual design was completed in FY04. The Next Step Option (NSO) Activity

3 3 FIRE followed recommendations of Snowmass and FESAC (BPPS & 35 Yr Plan) Developed “Steady-state” High-  AT Mode for FIRE Expanded Operating Range for H-Mode and AT, longer pulse, faster rep rate AT duration limited by first wall more than TF in present design PVR March 29-30, 2004 Strong positive recommendations from the PVR Committee Technically Ready to begin Conceptual Design Identified areas for more R&D – (most in common with ITER) Pre-Conceptual Design Completed - September 30, 2004 Original Goals Exceeded Excellent Technology support from VLT Team Strong Support from the Base Program (both Technology and Physics) Documentation is on web (needs to organized/indexed) NSO/FIRE Status

4 4 “Steady-State” High-  Advanced Tokamak Discharge on FIRE 0 1 2 3 4 time,(current redistributions)

5 5 ARIES-like AT Mode Operating Range Greatly Expanded Q = 5 Nominal operating point Q = 5 P f = 150 MW, P f /V p = 5.5 MWm -3 (ARIES) ≈ steady-state 4 to 5  CR Physics basis improving (ITPA) required confinement H factor and  N 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.

6 6 FIRE followed recommendations of Snowmass and FESAC (BPPS & 35 Yr Plan) Developed “Steady-state” High-  AT Mode for FIRE Expanded Operating Range for H-Mode and AT, longer pulse, faster rep rate AT duration limited by first wall more than TF in present design PVR March 29-30, 2004 Strong positive recommendations from the PVR Committee Technically Ready to begin Conceptual Design Identified areas for more R&D – (most in common with ITER) Pre-Conceptual Design Completed - September 30, 2004 Original Goals Exceeded Excellent Technology support from VLT Team Strong Support from the Base Program (both Technology and Physics) Documentation is on web (needs to organized/indexed) NSO/FIRE Status

7 7 FIRE PVR 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.

8 8 FIRE PVR (2) The panel identified FIRE-specific areas that can benefit from further pre- conceptual design work including: alpha driven instabilities, generic port plug design, more modeling of particle exhaust, n>1 resistive wall modes and neoclassical modes. The panel also identified generic burning plasma areas that can benefit from further work : investigation of the suppression of neoclassical tearing modes (NTM) by RF current drive, development of modified and new diagnostics for burning plasma research, development of an integrated simulation capability applicable to burning plasmas, investigation of effects of ELMs on tungsten divertor components and systematic antenna development. Possible elements in a US burning plasma program. Nearly all these items are also on the ITER task list.

9 9 FIRE followed recommendations of Snowmass and FESAC (BPPS & 35 Yr Plan) Developed “Steady-state” High-  AT Mode for FIRE Expanded Operating Range for H-Mode and AT, longer pulse, faster rep rate AT duration limited by first wall more than TF in present design PVR March 29-30, 2004 Strong positive recommendations from the PVR Committee Technically Ready to begin Conceptual Design Identified areas for more R&D – (most in common with ITER) Pre-Conceptual Design Completed - September 30, 2004 Original Goals Exceeded Excellent Technology support from VLT Team Strong Support from the Base Program (both Technology and Physics) Documentation is on web (needs to organized/indexed) NSO/FIRE Status

10 10 Uncertainty of ITER Construction Decision (This is no surprise) Follow FESAC recommendations Support the ITER process, more aggressive outreach is needed to get greater community involvement in ITER. Stay on track, and “Hold our FIRE” as per FESAC/NRC NSO was chartered for this situation Proposed Option “extend performance of ITER using Advanced Tokamak operation” Fully exploit the capability of ITER (increase power to ~1GW at steady-state) Would address several physics tasks requested by IT Leader Coincident with US program emphasis on advanced physics and technology Aligns with FIRE mission if ITER does not go forward Issues and Recommended Approach

11 11 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] Physics Tasks Requested by the International Team Leader [US ITER Project Status @ TOFE, 9/04] (TAE instabilities in Steady-state scenarios)

12 12 Develop higher performance steady-state AT mode for ITER (NINBCD, FWCD,LHCD) Initial results to be presented at IAEA and ITPA  N ≈ 3.3, f bs ≈ 50% with 100% non-inductive drive (NINB, LHCD, bootstrap) LH for off-axis CD can put q min at r/a ~0.8, compare with ECCD Lots of opportunity for improvement!! Optimize NIND, ICFW, ECCD and LHCD mix and plasma startup(ITPA) Evaluate RWM feedback stabilization requirements and integrate with first wall Initial results from Columbia (VALEN, DIII-D) look promising stable up to  N = 3.7, for coils inside VV, integrated with shield modules Key issue is the technical feasibility of coils near the plasma Interest expressed by G. Janeshitz in RWM in port plug first wall Resources for design of integrated first wall and coil are already over committed. FY05 Plans Highlighting ITER Support

13 13 First Results from ITER-AT Studies Using TSC,TRANSP and NOVA-K Goal is Steady-State,  N ≈ 3.5, f bs > 60% f bs, Q > 5 using NINB, ICFW and LHCD This case has  N ≈ 3.3, f bs ≈ 44%, ≈ 100% non-inductive and Q ≈ 5. IAEA Paper FT/P7-23 Optimize CD mix & startup to flatten q profile Invited to join ITPA Integrated Modeling paper at IAEA and Nuclear Fusion.

14 14 Develop higher performance steady-state AT mode for ITER (NINBCD, FWCD,LHCD) Initial results to be presented at IAEA and ITPA  N ≈ 3.3, f bs ≈ 50% with 100% non-inductive drive (NINB, LHCD, bootstrap) LH for off-axis CD can put q min at r/a ~0.8, compare with ECCD Lots of opportunity for improvement!! Optimize NIND, ICFW, ECCD and LHCD mix and plasma startup(ITPA) Evaluate RWM feedback stabilization requirements and integrate with first wall Initial results from Columbia (VALEN, DIII-D) look promising stable up to  N = 3.7, for coils inside VV, integrated with shield modules Key issue is the technical feasibility of coils near the plasma Interest expressed by G. Janeshitz in RWM in port plug first wall Resources for design of integrated first wall and coil are already over committed. FY05 Plans Highlighting ITER Support

15 15 ITER RWM coils located outside TF coils Applying FIRE-Like RWM Coils to ITER Increases  limit from  N = 2.5 to 3.7 Engineering feasibility needs to be determined G. Janeschitz has expressed interest in RWM coils integrated with first wall IAEA Paper FT/P7-23 VALEN Analysis- Columbia

16 16 Coordinate with PFC and TBM activities on design issues for higher power densities if AT scenario yields extended performance (~1,000 + MW), ITER will need a first wall capable of higher power (~ 1MWm -2 ) recovering performance approaching the original ITER is the ultimate goal More Proactive Outreach for ITER and Burning Plasma Program US ITER Project Info on web at http://fire.pppl.gov/iter_us_news.html Two Symposia at AAAS Annual Meeting (Feb 2005) in Washington, DC on Energy and Fusion (Talk on ITER-NRS) KPS-DP: Special Lecture on Burning Plasmas Community Workshop next Spring on Burning Plasma Activities FY05 Plans Highlighting ITER Support(2)

17 17 Follow up on themes started in FY05 Use output of Spring 2005 Burning Plasma workshop to refine directions FY06 Plans Recommended Approaches to Increased Effectiveness Greater involvement of the fusion community in ITER Establish a National Burning Plasma Program Been proposed since December 2000 at Austin BP Workshop Increase outreach to the fusion community as well as scientific community Community Workshop next Spring on Burning Plasma Activities

18 18 FIRE Pre-Conceptual Design has been completed - exceeding original goals. Special thanks and a debt of gratitude to the VLT/FIRE team members for their “stellar” work on/under FIRE. Maintain FIRE at a holding position to be put forward as an attractive burning plasma experiment if the ITER negotiations remain deadlocked. 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 larger ITER. Already some progress. Need to stay the course with community strategy as events unfold. We must expand the fusion outreach activities in any eventuality. Concluding Remarks

Download ppt "1 AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD, GA, GIT, LLNL, INEEL, MIT, ORNL, PPPL, SNL, SRS, UCLA, UCSD, UIIC, UWisc FIRE Collaboration"

Similar presentations

1 NNSAs ICF Strategy Presented to Fusion Power Associates 34th Annual Meeting and Symposium Washington, DC December 11, 2013 Kirk Levedahl NNSA NATIONAL.

1 NNSAs ICF Strategy Presented to Fusion Power Associates 34th Annual Meeting and Symposium Washington, DC December 11, 2013 Kirk Levedahl NNSA NATIONAL.
Physics Basis of FIRE Next Step Burning Plasma Experiment Charles Kessel Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory U.S.-Japan Workshop on Fusion Power Plant.

Physics Basis of FIRE Next Step Burning Plasma Experiment Charles Kessel Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory U.S.-Japan Workshop on Fusion Power Plant.
Extension of IEA Implementing Agreement on Large Tokamak Facilities Presented to Committee on Energy Research Technologies October 18-19, 2005 Paris, France.

Extension of IEA Implementing Agreement on Large Tokamak Facilities Presented to Committee on Energy Research Technologies October 18-19, 2005 Paris, France.
The PPPL Perspective on Ten Year Planning S. Prager Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.

The PPPL Perspective on Ten Year Planning S. Prager Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.
Stability, Transport, and Conrol for the discussion Y. Miura IEA/LT Workshop (W59) combined with DOE/JAERI Technical Planning of Tokamak Experiments (FP1-2)

Stability, Transport, and Conrol for the discussion Y. Miura IEA/LT Workshop (W59) combined with DOE/JAERI Technical Planning of Tokamak Experiments (FP1-2)
Burning Plasma Bringing a Star to Earth Final Report of the Burning Plasma Assessment Committee John F. Ahearne Sigma Xi, Duke University Raymond Fonck.

Burning Plasma Bringing a Star to Earth Final Report of the Burning Plasma Assessment Committee John F. Ahearne Sigma Xi, Duke University Raymond Fonck.
FES International Collaboration Program: Vision and Budget Steve Eckstrand International Program Manager Office of Fusion Energy Sciences U.S. Department.

FES International Collaboration Program: Vision and Budget Steve Eckstrand International Program Manager Office of Fusion Energy Sciences U.S. Department.
VLT Report the fusion trend line Stan Milora (ORNL) and Richard Nygren (SNL) FNST/PFC/MASCO Meeting Aug 2-6, 2010 - UCLA.

VLT Report the fusion trend line Stan Milora (ORNL) and Richard Nygren (SNL) FNST/PFC/MASCO Meeting Aug 2-6, UCLA.
ELECTRON CYCLOTRON SYSTEM FOR KSTAR US-Korea Workshop Opportunities for Expanded Fusion Science and Technology Collaborations with the KSTAR Project Presented.

ELECTRON CYCLOTRON SYSTEM FOR KSTAR US-Korea Workshop Opportunities for Expanded Fusion Science and Technology Collaborations with the KSTAR Project Presented.
Community Input on Plasma Materials Interactions Rajesh Maingi (PPPL), chair Steve Zinkle (UTK), co-chair Pete Pappano, FES program POC FESAC meeting Gaithersburg,

Community Input on Plasma Materials Interactions Rajesh Maingi (PPPL), chair Steve Zinkle (UTK), co-chair Pete Pappano, FES program POC FESAC meeting Gaithersburg,
EFDA Fusion Roadmap Status of implementation Francesco Romanelli EFDA Leader.

EFDA Fusion Roadmap Status of implementation Francesco Romanelli EFDA Leader.
Steps Toward a Compact Stellarator Reactor Hutch Neilson Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory ARIES Team Meeting October 3, 2002.

Steps Toward a Compact Stellarator Reactor Hutch Neilson Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory ARIES Team Meeting October 3, 2002.
Summary and Closing Remarks Farrokh Najmabadi University of California San Diego Presentation to: ARIES Program Peer Review August 18, 2000 UC San Diego.

Summary and Closing Remarks Farrokh Najmabadi University of California San Diego Presentation to: ARIES Program Peer Review August 18, 2000 UC San Diego.
Contributions of Burning Plasma Physics Experiment to Fusion Energy Goals Farrokh Najmabadi Dept. of Electrical & Computer Eng. And Center for Energy Research.

Contributions of Burning Plasma Physics Experiment to Fusion Energy Goals Farrokh Najmabadi Dept. of Electrical & Computer Eng. And Center for Energy Research.
Burning Plasma Gap Between ITER and DEMO Dale Meade Fusion Innovation Research and Energy US-Japan Workshop Fusion Power Plants and Related Advanced Technologies.

Burning Plasma Gap Between ITER and DEMO Dale Meade Fusion Innovation Research and Energy US-Japan Workshop Fusion Power Plants and Related Advanced Technologies.
FY 2000 System Studies Activities Farrokh Najmabadi VLT/FWP Meeting April 6-9, 1999 OFES Headquarters, Germantown Electronic copy:

FY 2000 System Studies Activities Farrokh Najmabadi VLT/FWP Meeting April 6-9, 1999 OFES Headquarters, Germantown Electronic copy:
Optimization of a Steady-State Tokamak-Based Power Plant Farrokh Najmabadi University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA IEA Workshop 59 “Shape and.

Optimization of a Steady-State Tokamak-Based Power Plant Farrokh Najmabadi University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA IEA Workshop 59 “Shape and.
Overview of Advanced Design White Paper Farrokh Najmabadi Virtual Laboratory for Technology Meeting June 23, 1998 OFES Headquarters, Germantown.

Overview of Advanced Design White Paper Farrokh Najmabadi Virtual Laboratory for Technology Meeting June 23, 1998 OFES Headquarters, Germantown.
Physics Issues and Trade-offs in Magnetic Fusion Power Plants Farrokh Najmabadi University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA APS April 2002 Meeting.

Physics Issues and Trade-offs in Magnetic Fusion Power Plants Farrokh Najmabadi University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA APS April 2002 Meeting.
Y. Sakamoto JAEA Japan-US Workshop on Fusion Power Plants and Related Technologies with participations from China and Korea February 26-28, 2013 at Kyoto.

Y. Sakamoto JAEA Japan-US Workshop on Fusion Power Plants and Related Technologies with participations from China and Korea February 26-28, 2013 at Kyoto.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google