Abstract Details

files Add files

icc2007rfp.pdf2007-02-18 22:40:34Ronald Miller


Author: Ronald L. Miller
Requested Type: Poster Only
Submitted: 2006-12-22 15:52:26


Contact Info:
Decysive Systems
813 Calle David
Santa Fe, NM   87506-6

Abstract Text:

Ronald L. Miller
Decysive Systems, Santa Fe NM

At least two distinct embodiments for the Reversed-Field Pinch (RFP) as a DT fusion power plant are still considered viable. The first retains the high plasma density and modest energy confinement time of the TITAN conceptual design (c1990) and leads to a high-power-density, high first-wall 14-MeV-neutron wall load (10-18 MW/m2), compact system. The second, exploiting the improved energy confinement times recently seen in the MST experiment, probably extrapolates to a more modest neutron wall load (4-5 MW/m2) and a fusion power core size similar to that of an advanced tokamak design (e.g., ARIES-RS) or compact stellarator (e.g., ARIES-CS), recalling early RFP pulsed configurations (c1980). The relative competitiveness depends, as expected, on required technologies, recirculating power fraction, plant availability (i.e., scheduled and forced outages), etc.. Generic advice from the ARIES tokamak study utility advisory committee suggests that a DEMO plant should incorporate all technologies expected in the follow-on first commercial plant to avoid technological surprises, but the DEMO might operate with reduced power (~75%, at slightly lower beta and/or confining field) and reduced availability (~50 %). The DEMO would probably have the same components (size and nominal performance) as the first commercial plant as the first increment savings from manufacturing learning. Thus, a number of issues must be sorted out prior to integrated DEMO design. Most recent blanket development work (e.g., ARIES, European PPCS, US-Japan Jupiter-II) is focused on the 4-5 MW/m2 regime, such that options for the compact regime may be lacking, other than the thick-liquid option considered for the FRC [1]. Can the RFP be a candidate for a driven component test facility (CTF) or volumetric neutron source (VNS), the results from which, combined with ITER DT burn information, lay adequate generic groundwork for DEMO design? What RFP physics experiment, addressing size and/or plasma-current scaling, current drive [e.g., oscillating-field current drive (OFCD), pulsed-poloidal current drive (PPCD), hybrid operation], quasi-single helicity (QSH), etc. might be necessary as a precursor to a viable CTF/VNS candidate? Must the CTF/VNS address both low and high neutron wall load regimes?

[1] R. W. Moir, R. H. Bulmer, K. Gulec, P. Fogarty, B. Nelson, M. Ohnishi, M. Resnick, T. D. Rognlien, J. F. Santarius, and D. K. Sze, “Thick Liquid-Walled,
Field-Reversed Configuration Magnetic Fusion Power Plant,” Fusion Technology,
2, 2, Part 2 (March 2001) 758.

ICC2007 Categories: A2, A4

Characterization: A2


University of Maryland

Innovative Confinement Concepts Workshop
February 12-14, 2007
College Park, Maryland

ICC 2007 UM logo