DOCSLIB.ORG

STATUS of FUSION ENERGY Impact & Opportunity for Alberta Volume II

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
STATUS of FUSION ENERGY Impact & Opportunity for Alberta Volume II STATUS OF FUSION ENERGY Impact & Opportunity for Alberta Volume II Appendices Prepared by Alberta/Canada Fusion Energy Program March 2014 ALBERTA COUNCIL OF TECHNOLOGIES Gratefully acknowledges the support of: Alberta Energy Stantec Corporation University of Alberta Alberta/Canada Fusion Energy Advisory Committee Gary Albach Nathan Armstrong Brian Baudais Will Bridge Robert Fedosejevs Peter Hackett Chris Holly Jerry Keller Brian Kryska Axel Meisen Rob Pitcairn Klaas Rodenburg John Rose Glenn Stowkowy Martin Truksa Gary Woloshyniuk Perry Kinkaide Allan Offenberger A special thank you is extended to the institutions (identified in this report) that were visited and to the many persons who so graciously hosted our site visits, provided the briefing material presented in this status report and thereby assisted our fusion assessment. Report Authors Allan Offenberger Robert Fedosejevs Klaas Rodenburg Perry Kinkaide Contact: Dr. Perry Kinkaide [email protected] 780-990-5874 Dr. Allan Offenberger [email protected] 780-483-1740 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Acronyms ………………………………………………………………………….. iii List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………… iv Appendix A: Assessment of Major Global Fusion Technologies 1.0 Context - Global Energy Demand……………………………………………………… 1 1.0.1 Foreward ……………………………………………………………………… 1 1.0.2 Energy Trends………………………………………………………………… 2 1.0.3 Energy From Fusion Reactions……………………………………………… 4 1.1 Major Approaches to Fusion Energy………………………………………………….. 7 1.1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………. 7 1.1.2 Fusion Reactions & the Fuel Cycle………………………………………….. 8 1.1.3 IFE Approaches to Fusion…………………………………………………… 11 1.1.3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………….. 11 1.1.3.2 Indirect Drive…………………………………………………………14 1.1.3.3 Direct Drive…………………………………………………………. 16 1.1.3.4 Fast Ignition………………………………………………………… 17 1.1.3.5 Shock Ignition………………………………………………………..19 1.1.3.6 IFE Power Reactor Systems……………………………………….20 1.1.3.7 Modeling Codes……………………………………………………. 22 1.1.4 MFE Approaches to Fusion…………………………………………………. 24 1.1.4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………….. 24 1.1.4.2 Tokamaks…………………………………………………………… 24 1.1.4.3 Solenoids and Mirror Machines…………………………………… 27 1.1.4.4 Compact Toroids: Spherical Tokamaks, Spheromaks & Reversed Field Pinches……………………………………………. 27 1.1.4.5 Stellerators………………………………………………………….. 28 1.2 Alternative Approaches to Fusion Confinement or Fusion Applications ………… 29 1.2.1 Foreword ……………………………………………………………………… 29 1.2.2 Some Private Sector Companies in Fusion R&D…………………………. 30 1.3 Progress & Status of Major Fusion R&D Programs………………………………….35 1.3.1 Foreword ……………………………………………………………………… 35 1.3.2 Progress & Status of Indirect Drive IFE……………………………………..36 1.3.3 Planning for Inertial Fusion Power ………………………………………… 39 1.3.4 Progress in Direct Drive IFE………………………………………………… 41 1.3.5 Progress & Status of Tokamak MFE……………………………………….. 44 1.4 Safety and Regulatory Issues for Fusion……………………………………………...46 1.5 Summary Comments…………………………………………………………………… 48 Appendix A References……………………………………………………………………. 49 ii Page Appendix B: Assessment of an Alberta Role in Fusion (potential for enhancing R&D and diversification of Alberta economy) 2.0 Fusion as an Overarching Driver of Technologies ………………………………… 52 2.0.1 Foreword ……………………………………………………………………… 52 2.0.2 Laser & Photonics Opportunities……………………………………………. 52 2.0.3 Target Fabrication Opportunities……………………………………………. 55 2.0.4 Robotics & Maintenance Systems………………………………………….. 56 2.0.5 Reactor Chamber & Large Project Engineering…………………………... 57 2.0.6 Materials Engineering…………………………………………………………58 2.0.7 High Power Computing & Systems Modeling………………………………59 2.1 Link to Existing Provincial Initiatives ………………………………………………… 59 2.1.1 Foreword ……………………………………………………………………… 59 2.1.2 Nanotechnology………………………………………………………………. 60 2.1.3 Materials Technology………………………………………………………… 61 2.1.4 Information Technology……………………………………………………… 61 2.1.5 Large Scale Computing……………………………………………………… 62 2.1.6 Large Project Management…………………………………………………. 62 2.2 Expected Benefits & Economic Impact………………………………………………. 63 2.2.1 The Market……………………………………………………………………. 63 2.2.2 Post Ignition Opportunities……………………………………………………64 2.2.3 Anticipated Benefits………………………………………………………….. 68 2.2.4 Assessing the Opportunities………………………………………………… 69 2.2.4.1 Scenario: Status Quo………………………………………………. 70 2.2.4.2 Scenario: High Renewables ……………………………………… 71 2.2.4.3 Scenario: Fusion (“Canada Arm” or “All-In”) …………………… 72 2.3 Summary Comments…………………………………………………………… 73 Appendix B References…………………………………………………………………….. 74 Appendix C: Site Visits ………………………………………………………………… 75 Site Visit #1 – Institute of Laser Engineering (ILE), Hamamatsu Corporation Site Visit #2 – Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Site Visit #3 – General Atomics (GA), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Site Visit #4 – Central Laser Facility (CLF) at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL), Culham Centre for Fusion Energy (CCFE), Laser MegaJoule (LMJ) and Centre Lasers Intenses et Applications (CELIA) Site Visit #5 – Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE), Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS) Fusion Workshop Appendix D: Fusion Forum & Workshops ………………………………………….. 94 iii LIST OF ACRONYMS CEA – Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives (France) DEMO – demonstration fusion reactor to follow ITER DPSSL – diode pumped solid state laser ELECTRA – KrF laser system at NRL FI – fast ignition GA – General Atomics (USA) GW – gigawatt HQP – highly qualified personnel ICF – inertial confinement fusion IFE – inertial fusion energy ILE – Institute for Laser Engineering (Japan) ITER – international tokamak project based in Cadarache, France JET – Joint European Tokamak based in Culham, UK HAPL – high average power laser, program based in US HiPER – high power laser experiment, European proposal KrF – krypton fluoride (gas laser medium) LCOE – levelized cost of electricity LIFE – Laser Inertial Fusion Energy, LLNL inertial fusion power plant design LIFT – laser inertial fusion test, ILE fast ignition inertial fusion power plant design LLE – Laboratory for Laser Energetics (USA) LLNL – Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA) LMJ – Laser MegaJoule – laser system at CEA, Bordeaux MCF – magnetic confinement fusion MJ – megajoule (~the energy to heat 2.4 litres of water from 0 to100 degrees) MTBF – mean time between failures MW – megawatt MFE – magnetic fusion energy NIF – National Ignition Facility – 1.8MJ laser system at LLNL NIKE – KrF laser system at NRL NNSA – National Nuclear Security Administration NRL – Naval Research Laboratory (USA) OMEGA – laser system at LLE ORNL – Oak Ridge National Laboratory (USA) PDD – polar direct drive RF – radio frequency SI – shock ignition ST – spherical tokamak Physics symbols: α – alpha (helium) B – boron D – deuterium He – helium T – tritium n – neutron n – density p+ – proton p – pressure ρ – density τ − time keV – kiloelectron volt (11,600,000 degrees) iv Page List of Figures: Fig. 1.1 World trends in power consumption: (a) world marketed energy consumption; (b) world total installed electrical generating capacity. 18 (1 EJ = 10 joules = 0.95 Quads)……………………………………………… 3 Fig. 1.2 World energy consumption, 1990-2040 (Quad)……………………………… 4 Fig. 1.3 OECD and non-OECD electricity generation, 1990-2040 (trillion kWh)…… 4 Fig. 1.4 Fusion of isotopes of hydrogen (D,T) yields neutrons and helium + large energy release………………………………………………………….. 5 Fig. 1.5 Fuel comparison for coal, fission, fusion……………………………………… 5 Fig. 1.6 Radioactive waste comparison………………………………………………… 6 Fig. 1.7 (a) Guiding of particles by magnetic field lines, (b) mirror machines and (c) plasma instabilities……………………………………………………………… 7 Fig. 1.8 Basic Concepts of (a) indirect drive and (b) direct drive IFE and advanced techniques of (c) fast ignition and (d) shock ignition………………………….11 Fig. 1.9 NIF 1.8MJ laser system (left) & photos of laser bay, target chamber (right)14 Fig. 1.10 Scaling of predicted gain vs laser energy for different approaches to laser fusion……………………………………………………………………. 15 Fig. 1.11 Irradiation configuration for indirect drive fusion using 3 cones of beams from each side…………………………………………………………………… 15 Fig. 1.12 Schematic diagrams of a cone guiding and laser boring to bring the fast ignition laser beam close to the compressed fuel core and proton cone guiding……………………………………………………………...17 Fig. 1.13 Computer simulation of magnetic field guiding of electrons from cone tip towards the high density fuel core at two field strengths of 1kT and 10 kT (courtesy of ILE)…………………………………………………………………. 18 Fig. 1.14 Scaling of target gain versus laser system energy for fast ignition ……….. 19 Fig. 1.15 Shock ignition pulse shape and concept……………………………………… 19 Fig. 1.16 Shock ignition yield versus laser energy ……………………………………. 20 Fig. 1.17 Tokamak concept……………………………………………………………….. 25 Fig. 1.18 JET tokamak and ITER tokamak facilities ………………………………….. 27 Fig. 1.19 Compact Spherical Tokamak and NSTX Compact Torus at Princeton ….. 28 Fig. 1.20 Stellerator magnetic field coils and plasma ………………………………… 29 Fig. 1.21 Tri-Alpha compact toroid……………………………………………………….. 31 Fig. 1.22 Plasma focus……………………………………………………………………. 31 Fig. 1.23 General Fusion magnetized target experiment …………………………….. 32 Fig. 1.24 Tokamak Solutions spherical tokamak shown with conventional magnets. 34 Fig. 1.25 Hamamatsu high power solid state laser system ………………………….. 35 Fig. 1.26 Hamamatsu IFE roadmap……………………………………………………… 35 Fig. 1.27 LLNL cryogenic indirect drive target ………………………………………… 37 Fig. 1.28 Confirmation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Significance of MHD Effects in Stellarator Confinement
    Ms-313705 Final Paper Significance of MHD Effects in Stellarator Confinement A. Weller1, S. Sakakibara2, K.Y. Watanabe2, K. Toi2, J. Geiger1, M.C. Zarnstorff3, S.R. Hudson3, A. Reiman3, A. Werner1, C. Nührenberg1, S. Ohdachi2, Y. Suzuki2, H. Yamada2, W7-AS Team1, LHD Team2 1Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik, EURATOM-IPP Association, D-17491 Greifswald, Germany 2National Institute for Fusion Science, Toki 509-5292, Japan 3Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ 08543, USA Corresponding Author: Dr. Arthur Weller ( [email protected] ) Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik, EURATOM-IPP Association, Wendelsteinstr. 1, D-17491 Greifswald, Germany Fax: +49 (0)3834 88 2509 Content of Paper: Main Text: 27 pages (including references and figure captions) 12 Figures, no Table - 1 - Ms-313705 Final Paper Abstract Substantial progress has been achieved to raise the plasma beta in stellarators and helical systems by high power neutral beam heating, approaching reactor relevant values [1-3]. The achievement of high-β operation is closely linked with configuration effects on the confinement and with magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) stability. The magnetic configurations of the Wendelstein W7-AS stellarator and of the Large Helical Device (LHD) and their optimization for high-β operation within the flexibility of the devices are characterized. A comparative description of the accessible operational regimes in W7-AS and LHD is given. The finite-β effects on the flux surfaces depend on the degree of configuration optimization. In particular, a large Shafranov shift is accompanied by formation of islands and stochastic field regions as found by numerical equilibrium studies [2,4]. However, the observed pressure gradients indicate some mitigation of the effects on the plasma confinement, presumably because of the high collisionality of high-β plasmas and island healing effects (LHD [5-7]).
    [Show full text]
  • Discussion Paper DIS-16-04 Small Modular Reactors: Regulatory
    Discussion Paper DIS-16-04 Small Modular Reactors: Regulatory Strategy, Approaches and Challenges Section 3. Fusion Technologies CNSC would like to know: 1. What are the types and magnitudes of risks and hazards that would be posed by different fusion technologies (conventional and radiation hazards)? 2. With this in mind, how would the risks posed by activities involving fusion reactors differ from current nuclear fission reactors? 3. Should fusion reactors be regulated differently than fission reactors? 1. Risks and hazards posed by different fusion technologies Summary Response Fusion facilities, both research and development stage, and future commercial power producing systems, will have radiation hazards driven by three factors: • Inventory of volatile radioactive substances, primarily tritium • Prompt exposure to neutron or high energy photon flux from a fusion reaction • Radioactivity from decay of materials activated by fusion neutron flux The magnitudes of these radiation hazards will depend on the specific fusion technology and the nature of the system. Large volume magnetic fusion systems, for example, may have higher tritium inventories than pulsed approaches. Similarly, neutron and photon energy flux will depend on the design of blanket and shielding systems that may be technology specific. While total tritium inventory at any one time is unlikely to create a high accidental release risk to the public, total annual tritium throughput in a fusion power plant will be relatively high (a 500 MWt fusion plant will need to produce and consume ~30 kg of tritium per year). The management and containment of tritium flows during regular operation is therefore likely to be the most important area of interest for regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • An Unreal Reality Pushes Fusion Science Jet – the Most Successful Performance in Years How to Tame Plasma Turbulence
    FUSION IN EUROPE NEWS & VIEWS ON THE PROGRESS OF FUSION RESEARCH AN UNREAL REALITY PUSHES FUSION SCIENCE JET – THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE IN YEARS HOW TO TAME PLASMA TURBULENCE 4 2016 FUSION IN EUROPE 4 2016 Contents Delphine Keller from EURO­ fusion’s French Research Unit Moving Forward CEA is dressed for a jump into the virtual fusion world. Glas­ 3 A European fusion programme to be proud of ses, immersive headsets and motion trackers allow her to 4 The most successful performance in years study the interior of a tokamak. Picture: CEA 6 An unreal reality pushes fusion science 10 IAEA awards EUROfusion’s work 12 Impressions Research Units 14 COMPASS has changed its point of view 18 How to tame plasma turbulence 18 21 Mix it up! The simulation of electrostatic potential along 22 News the torus lines inside a fusion experiment. These experiments help to find origins of plasma turbulence.. Community Picture: GYRO/General Atomics 24 Supernovae in the lab – powered by EUROfusion 28 Pushing the science beyond fusion 30 Young faces of fusion – Robert Abernethy 12 Fuel for Thought Who says operators at the Czech tokamak 33 Combining Physics and Management Forces COMPASS don’t have a sense Perspectives of humour? – More amusing details from fusion on page 12 and 13. 34 Summing Up Picture: EUROfusion EUROfusion © Tony Donné (EUROfusion Programme Manager) Imprint Programme Management Unit – Garching 2016. FUSION IN EUROPE Boltzmannstr. 2 This newsletter or parts of it may not be reproduced ISSN 1818­5355 85748 Garching / Munich, Germany without permission. Text, pictures and layout, except phone: +49-89-3299-4128 where noted, courtesy of the EUROfusion members.
    [Show full text]
  • Present Status of Research Activities at the National Institute for Fusion
    PRESENT STATUS OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AT THE XA9745749 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR FUSION SCIENCE AND ITS ROLE IN INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION J. FUJITA National Institute for Fusion Science, Nagoya, Japan Abstract In the National Institute for Fusion Science (NIFS), Japan, a helical magnetic confinement system named Large Helical Device (LHD) is under construction with objectives of comprehensive studies of high temperature plasmas in a helical system and investigation of a helical reactor as an alternative approach. Superconducting coils ofl = 2,m= 10, major radius R = 3.9 m, produce a steady state helical magnetic field for confinement, together with poloidal coils on LHD. The magnetic field strength on the axis is 3.0 T in the phase I and 4.0 T in the phase II experiment. The plasma major radius of LHD is 3.75 m, and averaged plasma radius is 0.6 m. The plasma will be produced and heated with ECH, and further heated with NBI and ICRF. It is also planned to produce a steady state plasma in LHD. It is expected to have the first plasma in 1998. Small devices such as CHS and others are under operation in the NIFS for supporting the LHD project. The Data and Planning Center of NIFS is collecting, compiling and evaluating atomic and molecular data which are necessary for nuclear fusion research. The talk will include the present status of the construction of LHD, research activities on the development of heating and diagnostic devices for LHD, and experimental results obtained on CHS, JIPP T-IIU and other devices. The role of NIFS on promoting IAEA activities to bridge large scale institutions and small and medium scale laboratories for world-wide collaborations in the field of plasma physics and fusion research will also be introduced, together with an idea of organizing a regional center in Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Kit 2015 Fusion Quick Facts
    MEDIA KIT 2015 FUSION QUICK FACTS FUSION IS A GAME CHANGER It has the potential to handle the world’s future energy demands, cleanly, safely and inexpensively. FUSION ENERGY IS CLEAN Fusion will generate no greenhouse gases that produce climate change. Compare that to coal, which sends 1000 kilograms of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for every megawatt hour of electricity produced. Coal is still responsible for supplying 40% of the world’s electricity. FUSION IS CLOSER THAN YOU THINK Since the 1970s, progress in fusion energy has been moving at a pace similar to Moore’s Law – which states that computer processing power doubles every two years. Around the world, countries are launching programs to design the first demonstration fusion power plants. THE FUSION FUEL SUPPLY IS UNLIMITED Fusion is powered by deuterium and tritium. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen found in the oceans, and tritium is made in a fusion power plant from abundant lithium. Deuterium and lithium resources on earth could supply the world with energy for hundreds of millions of years. • Lithium is the earth’s 25th most abundant element. The total lithium content of seawater is very large and is estimated as 230 billion tonnes. Concerns regarding lithium availability for hybrid or electric vehicle batteries or other foreseeable applications are unfounded. FUSION IS NOT YOUR FATHER’S NUCLEAR POWER Compared to nuclear power, fusion is safe: • Fusion power plants cannot melt down. • A fusion plant would produce no long-lived radioactive material; at any given time it would contain only about as much radioactivity as a cancer radiation treatment machine.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Fusion Power – an Overview of History, Present and Future
    International Journal of Advanced Network, Monitoring and Controls Volume 04, No.04, 2019 Nuclear Fusion Power – An Overview of History, Present and Future Stewart C. Prager Department of Physics University of Wisconsin – Madison Madison, WI 53706, USA E-mail: [email protected] Summary—Fusion power offers the prospect of an allowing the nuclei to fuse together. Such conditions almost inexhaustible source of energy for future can occur when the temperature increases, causing the generations, but it also presents so far insurmountable ions to move faster and eventually reach speeds high engineering challenges. The fundamental challenge is to enough to bring the ions close enough together. The achieve a rate of heat emitted by a fusion plasma that nuclei can then fuse, causing a release of energy. exceeds the rate of energy injected into the plasma. The main hope is centered on tokamak reactors and II. FUSION TECHNOLOGY stellarators which confine deuterium-tritium plasma In the Sun, massive gravitational forces create the magnetically. right conditions for fusion, but on Earth they are much Keywords-Fusion Energy; Hydrogen Power; Nuclear Fusion harder to achieve. Fusion fuel – different isotopes of hydrogen – must be heated to extreme temperatures of I. INTRODUCTION the order of 50 million degrees Celsius, and must be Today, many countries take part in fusion research kept stable under intense pressure, hence dense enough to some extent, led by the European Union, the USA, and confined for long enough to allow the nuclei to Russia and Japan, with vigorous programs also fuse. The aim of the controlled fusion research underway in China, Brazil, Canada, and Korea.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Overview of JT-60U Progress Towards Steady-State Advanced Tokamak
    1 OV/1-1 Overview of JT-60U Progress towards Steady-state Advanced Tokamak S. Ide and the JT-60 Team Naka Fusion Research Establishment Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute Naka-machi, Naka-gun, Ibaraki, 311-0193 Japan e-mail contact of main author: [email protected] Abstract. Recent experimental results on steady state advanced tokamak (AT) research on JT-60U are presented with emphasis on longer time scale in comparison with characteristics time scales in plasmas. Towards this, modification on control in operation, heating and diagnostics systems have been done. As the results, ∼ 60 s Ip flat top and an ∼ 30 s H-mode are obtained. The long pulse modification has opened a door into a new domain for JT-60U. The high normalized beta (β N)of2.3 is maintained for 22.3 s and 2.5 for 16.5 s in a high β p H-mode plasma. A standard ELMy H-mode plasma is also extended and change in wall recycling in such a longer time scale has been unveiled. Development and investigation of plasmas relevant to AT operation has been continued in former 15 s discharges as well in which higher NB power ( 10 s) is available. Higher β N ∼ 3 is maintained for 6.2 s in high βp H-mode plasmas. High bootstrap current fraction (f BS)of∼ 75% is sustained for 7.4 s in an RS plasma. On NTM suppression by localized ECCD, ECRF injection preceding the mode saturation is found to be more effective to suppress the mode with less power compared to the injection after the mode saturated.
    [Show full text]
  • Compact Fusion Reactors
    Compact fusion reactors Tomas Lind´en Helsinki Institute of Physics 26.03.2015 Fusion research is currently to a large extent focused on tokamak (ITER) and inertial confinement (NIF) research. In addition to these large international or national efforts there are private companies performing fusion research using much smaller devices than ITER or NIF. The attempt to achieve fusion energy production through relatively small and compact devices compared to tokamaks decreases the costs and building time of the reactors and this has allowed some private companies to enter the field, like EMC2, General Fusion, Helion Energy, Lockheed Martin and LPP Fusion. Some of these companies are trying to demonstrate net energy production within the next few years. If they are successful their next step is to attempt to commercialize their technology. In this presentation an overview of compact fusion reactor concepts is given. CERN Colloquium 26th of March 2015 Tomas Lind´en (HIP) Compact fusion reactors 26.03.2015 1 / 37 Contents Contents 1 Introduction 2 Funding of fusion research 3 Basics of fusion 4 The Polywell reactor 5 Lockheed Martin CFR 6 Dense plasma focus 7 MTF 8 Other fusion concepts or companies 9 Summary Tomas Lind´en (HIP) Compact fusion reactors 26.03.2015 2 / 37 Introduction Introduction Climate disruption ! ! Pollution ! ! ! Extinctions Ecosystem Transformation Population growth and consumption There is no silver bullet to solve these issues, but energy production is "#$%&'$($#!)*&+%&+,+!*&!! central to many of these issues. -.$&'.$&$&/!0,1.&$'23+! Economically practical fusion power 4$(%!",55*6'!"2+'%1+!$&! could contribute significantly to meet +' '7%!89 !)%&',62! the future increased energy :&(*61.'$*&!(*6!;*<$#2!-.=%6+! production demands in a sustainable way.
    [Show full text]
  • Alberta-Fusion-Workshop-Panel-01
    Fusion Post–ignition Opportunities Alberta Fusion Project 25 October 2013 Early Fusion Skeptics Daily Fuel Requirements – 1000 MW A 1000 MW A 1000 MW Coal-Fired Plant: Fusion Plant: Enough to power ~ 500,000 Enough to power ~ 500,000 homes homes Consumes: Consumes: 9,000 tons of coal (~ 90 rail cars) 1 lb. of deuterium 3 lbs. of lithium-6 (1.5 lbs. of Produces: tritium) 30,000 tons of CO2 Produces: 600 tons of SO2 2 lbs. of helium-4 80 tons of NO 2 0.5 lbs. of neutrons Post Ignition Fusion Plants Plant evolution • Market entry plant (1000 MW) – 10 years • Second plant (1000 MW) – 15 years • Mature plant (1625 MW) – 20-25 years(fleet) Approaches • ITER - magnetic • LIFE – inertial NIF • HiPER – inertial Europe Technologies • Mature – 59% • Analogous systems – 15% • Unique to fusion – 26% Magnetic – ITER / JET ITER Economic Spin-offs • Engineering – civil, mechanical, electrical • Computer modeling • Plasma technology and instrumentation • Power supplies • Coils and magnets • Cryogenic systems • High energy data capture • Vacuum vessels and systems • Advanced materials • Remote handling • Nuclear systems • Neutron beam and microwave systems Source: Culham poster Inertial – NIF / LMJ NIF - LIFE Commercialization of LIFE • 152,200 – 417,400 jobs • $17.7 - $47.7 billion GDP http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/my-oxford/projects/129038 LMJ Economic Spin-offs LMJ Economic Spin-offs LMJ Economic Spin-offs HiPER 4,400 employees • Laser driven neutron sources • Laser sources • High energy physics • Semiconductor lasers • Optical measurements • Photo-multipliers
    [Show full text]
  • Density Limit Studies in the Large Helical Device
    JP0555011 Density Limit Studies in the Large Helical Device B. J. Peterson, J. Miyazawa, K. Nishimura, S. Masuzaki, Y. Nagayama, N. Ohyabu, H. Yamada, K. Yamazaki, T. Kato, N. Ashikawa, Yuhong Xu1, A. Yu. Kostrioukov2, Yi Liu3, R. Sakamoto, M. Goto, K. Narihara, M. Osakabe, K. Tanaka, T. Tokuzawa, M. Shoji, H. Funaba, S. Morita, T. Morisaki, O. Kaneko, K. Kawahata, A. Komori, S. Sudo, O. Motojima and the LHD Experiment Group National Institute for Fusion Science, Toki-shi, Gifu-ken 509-5292 JAPAN 'Forschungszentrum Juelich, Juelich, Germany 2St. Petersburg Technical University, St. Petersburg, Russia 3 Southwest Institute of Physics, Chengdu, China e-mail contact of main author: peterson(S>LHD.nifs.ac.ip PACS 52.55.Hc, 52.25.Vy, 52.25.Fi Abstract. Steady state densities of up to 1.6 x 1020m3 have been sustained using gas puff fuelling and NBI heating up to 11 MW in the Large Helical Device (LHD). The density limit in LHD is observed to be ~ 1.6 times the Sudo limit The density is ultimately limited by radiative collapse which is attributed to the onset of a radiative thermal instability of the light impurities in the edge region of the plasma based on several observations. First of all the onset of the radiative thermal instability is tied to a certain edge temperature threshold. Secondly, the onset of thermal instability occurs first in oxygen and then carbon as expected from their cooling rate temperature dependencies. Finally, radiation profiles show that as the temperature drops and the plasma collapses the radiating zone broadens and moves inward.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regulation of Fusion – a Practical and Innovation-Friendly Approach
    The Regulation of Fusion – A Practical and Innovation-Friendly Approach February 2020 Amy C. Roma and Sachin S. Desai AUTHORS Amy C. Roma Sachin S. Desai Partner, Washington, D.C. Senior Associate, Washington, D.C. T +1 202 637 6831 T +1 202 637 3671 [email protected] [email protected] The authors want to sincerely thank the many stakeholders who provided feedback on this paper, and especially William Regan for his invaluable contributions and review of the technical discussion. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 II. THE STATE OF FUSION INNOVATION 3 A) An Introduction to Fusion Energy 3 B) A Rapid Growth in Private-Sector Fusion Innovation 4 III. U.S. REGULATION OF ATOMIC ENERGY - NOT ONE SIZE FITS ALL 7 A) The Foundation of U.S. Nuclear Regulation - The Atomic Energy Act and the NRC 7 B) The Atomic Energy Act Embraces Different Regulations for Different Situations 7 1. NRC Frameworks for Different Safety Cases 8 2. Delegation of Regulatory Authority to States 9 IV. THE REGULATION OF FUSION - A PRACTICAL AND INNOVATION- FRIENDLY APPROACH 10 A) Fusion Regulation Comes to the Fore, Raising Key Questions 10 B) A Regulatory Proposal That Recognizes the Safety Case of Fusion and the Needs of Fusion Innovators 11 1. Near-Term: Regulation of Fusion Under the Part 30 Framework is Appropriate Through Development and Demonstration 11 2. Long-Term: The NRC Should Develop an Independent Regulatory Framework for Fusion at Commercial Scale, Not Adopt a Fission Framework 12 V. CONCLUSION 14 1 Hogan Lovells I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fusion, the process that powers the Sun, has long been seen Most fusion technologies are already regulated by the NRC as the “holy grail” of energy production.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Stellarator Research: in Search of the "Magic Magnetic Bottle"
    -Tt» «MM mna im oma [ REVIEW OF STELLARATOR RESEARCH: IN SEARCH OF THE "MAGIC MAGNETIC BOTTLE" NICOLAS DOMINGUEZ CCNF-920728-2 Fusion Energy Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, 77V 37831-8071, USA DE92 019045 ABSTRACT We summarize the current work on stellarators being carried out out in fusion research laboratories around the world. The theoretical aspects of the stellarator research are emphasized. *'~ 1. Introduction The steadily increasing need for energy makes it imperative to look for new sources of energy for the future. Fusion energy is one of the most promising posibilities. One of the main approaches to harnessing fusion energy is magnetic confinement. In this approach, the thermonuclear plasma containing the fuel to be fused is confined in a magnetic trap, where it can be heated to the high temperatures necessary for nuclear processes to occur1. Confining a plasma involves the creation of gradients of density, temperature and pressure. The presence of those gradients implies the creation of free energies. These free energies have the potential to destroy the magnetic confinement through magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) instabilities and microinstabilities. The central issue for magnetic confinement is to create a magnetic bottle that confines the plasma in such a way that the free energies are not too dangerous for confinement. It is fair to say that the history of fusion research for more than 30 years has been the search for a "magic magnetic bottle" -one with excellent confinement properties at low cost. A number of concepts have been developed as part of this search. Among them we can list the Model C stellarator, the mirror machines, the pinches, the tandem mirrors, the bumpy torus, the reversed-fisld pinches (RFPs), the tokamaks, the spherical tokamaks, and the advanced stellarators.
    [Show full text]