university of texas confidential, patents pending fusion driver (cfns) nstx - super u and cfns m....
TRANSCRIPT
University of Texas Confidential, Patents pending
Fusion Driver (CFNS) NSTX - Super U and CFNS
M. Kotschenreuther, S. Mahajan,
P.Valanju
Institute for Fusion Studies
The University of Texas
PPPL
30 April, 2009 UT-IFS Super-X Divertor
Neutronshield
PoloidalCoils
100 MW CFNS core
University of Texas Confidential, Patents pending
The fusion driver for a hybrid (CFNS) has some differences
from ST-CTFDifferences have significant consequences
• First wall temperature can be lower
– Thermal conversion efficiency of fusion blanket is a minor consideration
– Low temperature opens a window for liquid Li walls (porous?)
– Many first wall problems could be solved by this
• MUCH less tolerance for large blanket penetrations for fission
– NB may be a “no go” for many fission blanket concepts
– RF current drive much more desirable
• Cu center post should last longer, so ~ 10 cm shield needed
– Even less room for central transformer
– Aspect ratio might be slightly increased to make more room
University of Texas Confidential, Patents pending
• Liquid Metal (LM) wall on porous media
– Solves many first wall problems, could be DEMO relevant
with some LMs
• Room in Vacuum vessel for full Super-X divertor
– Need to test SXD with LM wall (Li), higher power than MAST
• Single turn water cooled TF for long pulses (possibly with
higher field)
– Should the first single turn long pulse TF magnet be a
multi-Billion CFNS/CTF?
• Emphasize RF current drive that would require minimal/no
blanket penetrations in a hybrid
– EBW (synergy with Li?), HHFW, perhaps high field launch
ECCD, LHCD, etc?
Desirable characteristics of a “super upgrade” of NSTX
leading to CFNS
University of Texas Confidential, Patents pending
• Success with porous Li limiter on T-11, FTU
• Estimate: porous media with pore size ~ T-11 would have
sufficient suction to retain Li even in the presence of j x
B forces where j is limited by the ion saturation current
• Hence Li would not get ejected from the wall into to plasma
• It will be, perhaps, possible to develop materials with
much lower pore size and hence much higher Li suction,
giving much higher margin for wall retention of Li
• Estimate: capillary forces (in a ~ 2 T field) suffice to be
able to replace the LM over meter sized distances in ~ 1
hour
• This should allow rapid enough Li replacement to prevent
un-accepable T inventory in the Li in the wall for a CFNS
– (T would have to be removed quickly from Li ex-vessel by
heating)
Porous LM wall 1
University of Texas Confidential, Patents pending
• This could provide a solution to many PMI problems plus allow the benefits of Lithium operation
– PMI problems avoided- first wall T retention
– Erosion/ re-deposition
– Flaking of solid PFC materials into the plasma
– Bubble formation in solid PFC/ unacceptable evolution of solid surfaces
– Dust formation
– Robustness to transient events, etc.
• A higher temperature operating window could be provided by high recycling LMs
– Tin-Lithium (effectively a low Z PFC)
– Gallium or Tin (high Z PFCs, low vapor pressure at high temperature > 500 C)
– This higher temperature operating window could be desirable for DEMO
Porous LM wall 2
University of Texas Confidential, Patents pending
• Magnet engineers at UT (Center for Electromechanics) indicate
this should be much lower cost, higher strength than a
traditional TF designs
• Main engineering issues: high current low voltage power
supplies and sliding joint
• Two options for power supply
– unconventional semiconductor power supplies
– homopolars with LM brushes for very long pulse lengths (>
1000s seconds), conventional brushes for pulse lengths of
100s seconds
• Magnet engineering is not so certain than it should not be
tested
• Do we want the first test of a single turn long pulse TF to be
on a multi-billion dollar device with DT?
• This would also provide a long pulse length, high field
capability for plasma operation
Single turn water cooled TF
University of Texas Confidential, Patents pending
• Fission blankets are FAR less tolerant of penetrations than fusion blankets
– Heating power density is 1 1/2 orders of magnitude higher
– Much more serious safety issues if cooling is less than absolutely reliable
– Fission products are much more easily released, but must be retained even in accidents
– Large penetrations of a fission blanket are highly undesirable for all these reasons
– MHD drag on coolant makes a penetration even more problematic
• Ways of driving current without penetrating the fission blanket or interfering with fission coolant paths are highly desirable-may even be a practical requirement for licensing
• RF current drive options that could meet these demands must be emphasized
– EC based options (EBW, inboard ECCD), HHFW, LHCD launched in high field, etc.
RF current drive
University of Texas Confidential, Patents pending
Back-up Slides
University of Texas Confidential, Patents pending
Reference Hybrid Design with CFNS “Module”
• “Real” fusion plasma design using CORSICA+SOLPS codes– Conservative (credible) plasma parameters give required neutron flux
– Super-X divertor needed to (and can) handle huge heat and neutron fluxes
• “Real” fission blanket design using MCNPX code– Based on standard reactor designs, so quite credible
– Huge fusion neutron flux allows very safely burning the worst nuclear waste
University of Texas Confidential, Patents pending
Super X Divertor: Community Response
• Worldwide plans are in motion
to test Super X Divertor-
designs are underway
– MAST upgrade (Culham, UK)
– NSTX (PPPL)
– DIII-D, possibly this year (GA)
– Long-pulse superconducting
tokamak SST (India) Super X Divertor
for MAST Upgrade
University of Texas Confidential, Patents pending
Replaceable Fusion Driver Concept
• Due to SXD, the whole CFNS is small enough to fit
inside fission blanket
• CFNS driver to last about 1-2 full power years
• It can be replaced by another CFNS driver and
refurbished away from hybrid
• CFNS driver itself is small fraction of cost, so a
spare is affordable
B A
University of Texas Confidential, Patents pending
Replaceable Fusion Driver Concept
• Pull CFNS driver A out to service bay once every
1-2 years or so - at the same time when fission
blanket maintenance is usually done
• Refurbish driver A in service bay - much easier
than in-situ repairs
B A
University of Texas Confidential, Patents pending
Replaceable Fusion Driver Concept
• Put driver B into fission blanket
• This can coincide with fission blanket maintenance
• Use driver B while driver A is being repaired
B A
University of Texas Confidential, Patents pending
ITER (the next fusion flagship)
and Hybrid (on same scale) CFNS “Module” in Hybrid Reactor
How compact is compact?
Fission Waste& Coolant
Neutron Reflector
3 GW Fission Blanket
Neutron Reflector
UT-IFS Super-X Divertor: The Key
Neutronshield
PoloidalCoils
100 MW CFNS core