DOCSLIB.ORG

Opportunities in the Fusion Energy Sciences Program Appendix C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Opportunities in the Fusion Energy Sciences Program Appendix C Cover design adapted with permission of the Contemporary Physics Education Project from the wall chart “Fusion—Physics of a Fundamental Energy Source” (http://FusEdWeb.pppl.gov/CPEP/chart.html). OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES PROGRAM Appendix C TOPICAL AREAS CHARACTERIZATION June 1999 Prepared by the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee for the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy On the World Wide Web: http://wwwofe.er.doe.gov/More_HTML/FESAC_Charges_Reports.html ii PREFACE This document has been prepared in response to a charge to the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Com- mittee (FESAC) from Dr. Martha Krebs, Director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science: ... to make final a program plan for the fusion energy science program by the end of 1999 (FY). Such a program plan needs to include paths for both energy and science goals taking into account the expected overlap between them. The plan must also address the needs for both magnetic and inertial confinement options. It will have to be specific as to how the U.S. program will address the various overlaps, as well as international collaboration and funding constraints. Finally, this program plan must be based on a ‘working’ consensus (not unanim- ity) of the community, otherwise we can’t move forward. Thus I am turning once again to FESAC. I would like to ask FESAC’s help in two stages. First, please prepare a report on the opportunities and the requirements of a fusion energy science program, including the tech- nical requirements of fusion energy. In preparing the report, please consider three time-scales: near-term, e.g., 5 years; mid-term, e.g., 20 years; and the longer term. It would also be useful to have an assessment of the technical status of the various elements of the existing program. This document should not exceed 70 pages and should be completed by the end of December 1998, if at all possible. I would expect to use this work, as it progresses, as input for the upcoming SEAB review of the magnetic and Inertial Fusion Energy Programs. A FESAC Panel was set up to prepare the document. The Panel decided to follow the approach used in the preparation of the reports from the Yergin Task Force on Strategic Energy Research and Development of June 1995 and from the National Laboratory Directors on Technology Opportunities to Reduce U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions of October 1997. As a first step, a two-page description of each of the main topical areas of fusion energy sciences was obtained from key researchers in that area. The descriptions give the status and prospects for each area in the near-term, midterm, and longer term, discussing both opportunities and issues. These two- pagers are published as a separate report. The two-pagers were used as background information in the prepara- tion of this overview, Opportunities in Fusion Energy Sciences Program. FESAC thanks all of those who par- ticipated in this work. iii iv CONTENTS Page C.1 AUTHOR LIST........................................................................................................................................ 1 C.2 MAGNETIC FUSION ENERGY (MFE) ............................................................................................... 3 M-1 Stellarator .................................................................................................................................... 6 M-2 Compact Stellarator..................................................................................................................... 8 M-3 Tokamak ...................................................................................................................................... 10 M-4 Advanced Tokamak .................................................................................................................... 12 M-5 Electric Tokamak ........................................................................................................................ 14 M-6 Spherical Torus ........................................................................................................................... 16 M-7 Reversed-Field-Pinch Concept ................................................................................................... 18 M-8 Spheromak................................................................................................................................... 20 M-9 Field-Reversed Configuration .................................................................................................... 22 M-10 Levitated Dipole Fusion Concept............................................................................................... 24 M-11 Open-Ended Magnetic Fusion Systems ..................................................................................... 26 M-12 Gas Dynamic Trap ...................................................................................................................... 28 M-13 Plasmas with Strong External Drive........................................................................................... 30 M-14 Magnetized Target Fusion .......................................................................................................... 32 M-15 Boundary Plasma/Wall Interactions...........................................................................................34 M-16 Burning Plasma Science ............................................................................................................. 36 M-17 Burning Plasma Experimental Options ...................................................................................... 38 M-18 Integrated Fusion Science and Engineering Technology Research .......................................... 40 M-19 Volumetric Neutron Source........................................................................................................ 42 M-20 Advanced Fuels........................................................................................................................... 44 C.3 INERTIAL FUSION ENERGY (IFE) .................................................................................................... 47 I-1 National Ignition Facility............................................................................................................ 50 I-2 Indirect-Drive Inertial Fusion Energy ........................................................................................52 I-3 Direct-Drive Inertial Fusion Energy........................................................................................... 54 I-4 Fast Ignition Approach to Inertial Fusion Energy ..................................................................... 56 I-5 Heavy Ion Accelerators for Fusion............................................................................................. 58 I-6 Repetition-Rate Krypton Fluoride Laser.................................................................................... 60 I-7 Solid-State Laser Drivers............................................................................................................ 62 I-8 Laser and Plasma Interactions .................................................................................................... 64 I-9 Pulsed Power ............................................................................................................................... 66 I-10 Target Design and Simulations................................................................................................... 68 I-12 Final Optics—Laser IFE............................................................................................................. 70 I-13 Laser-Driven Neutron Sources ................................................................................................... 72 C.4 PLASMA AND FUSION TECHNOLOGIES........................................................................................ 75 T-1 Superconductivity........................................................................................................................ 78 T-2 Electromagnetic Heating and Current Drive.............................................................................. 80 T-3 Neutral Beams ............................................................................................................................. 82 T-4 Fueling and Vacuum ................................................................................................................... 84 T-5 Divertor........................................................................................................................................ 86 T-6 High Heat Flux Components and Plasma Materials Interactions.............................................. 88 T-7 MFE Liquid Walls....................................................................................................................... 90 T-8 Shield/Blanket ............................................................................................................................. 92 T-9 Radiation-Resistant Materials Development.............................................................................. 94 T-10 International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility.................................................................... 96 v T-11 Tritium Systems .......................................................................................................................... 98 T-12 Remote Maintenance..................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Legacy of Masahiro Wakatani
    J. Plasma FusionFusion Res.Res. SERIES,SERIES, Vol. Vol. 6 6(2004) (2004) 100–106 000–000 The Legacy of Masahiro Wakatani VAN DAM James W. and HORTON C. Wendell, Jr. Institute for Fusion Studies, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712, USA (Received: 18 February 2004 / Accepted: 7 April 2004) Abstract As a memorial to Masahiro Wakatani, late professor of plasma physics at Kyoto University, a review is given of his legacy of achievements in scientific research, international collaborations, university administration, student guidance, and personal life. Keywords: Hasegawa-Wakatani equation, turbulent transport, helical system stability, drift wave, reduced MHD equation 1. Introduction Division (1976-1978). The international community of fusion plasma physicists In 1978 he joined the Plasma Physics Laboratory at was deeply saddened by the unexpected loss of one of its Kyoto University as an Associate Professor. He was promoted most respected members, Prof. Masahiro Wakatani, of Kyoto to full Professor in 1985. In 1996 he became a Professor in University, who died from a cerebral hemorrhage on 9 the Department of Fundamental Energy Science and the January 2003. This paper, based on a talk [1] presented during Department of Nuclear Engineering. a special memorial session at the 13th International Toki He was elected a Fellow of the American Physical Conference (9-12 December 2003), is offered as a tribute in Society in 1990. his memory. He died on 9 January 2003. Two obituaries about him Professor Wakatani had a brilliant career as a scientific have been published [2,3]. researcher, international collaborator, university leader, and teacher. In this paper, after providing a brief biographical 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Superconducting Magnets Research for a Viable US Fusion Program Joseph V
    Superconducting Magnets Research for a Viable US Fusion Program Joseph V. Minervini1, Leslie Bromberg1, Peter J. Lee2, David C. Larbalestier2, Introduction Magnet systems are the ultimate enabling technology for magnetic confinement fusion devices. Powerful magnetic fields are required for confinement of the plasma, and, depending on the magnetic configuration, dc and/or pulsed magnetic fields are required for plasma initiation, ohmic heating, inductive current drive, plasma shaping, equilibrium and stability control. Almost all design concepts for power producing commercial fusion reactors rely on superconducting magnets for efficient and reliable production of these magnetic fields. Future superconducting magnets for fusion applications require improvements in materials, components, and configurations to significantly enhance the feasibility and practicality of fusion reactors as an energy source. A demonstration of large-scale demountable High Temperature Superconducting (HTS) magnets could revolutionize fusion energy development, dramatically reducing program cost and development time. Background OFES established and maintained a robust magnet technology development for several decades. Until the end of the ITER EDA (1998), the magnet technology R&D program was arguably the most successful of all enabling magnet technology programs. Most of the laboratories and universities performing superconducting magnet R&D had robust programs. A major milestone was the first (and only) successful operation of the massive superconducting magnet system for MFTF-B at LLNL in 1986. The high point was the successful completion (1999) and operation (2000) of the ITER CS Model Coil (CSMC). Since that time, funding for the development of superconducting magnets and almost all other enabling technologies has been on a steady decline, leading to the proposed magnet technology budget for FY 2013 of $765,000 or 0.19% of the total fusion budget.
    [Show full text]
  • ERC Implementing Arrangements Call for Expression of Interest 2017
    ERC Implementing Arrangements Call for Expression of Interest 2017 Project ID: Project Acronym: Evaluation Panel: 681178 G-EDIT LS1 Principal Investigator: Dr Mariusz Nowacki Host Institution: Universitat Bern - CH Mechanisms of RNA-guided genome editing in eukaryotes The goal of this project is to contribute to our understanding of RNA-mediated epigenetic mechanisms of genome regulation in eukaryotes. Ciliated protozoa offer a fantastic opportunity to investigate the complex process of trans-generational programming of chromosomal rearrangements, which is thought to serve as a form of immune defense against invasive DNA. Developmental processes in ciliates include extensive rearrangements of the germline DNA, including elimination of transposons and the precise excision of numerous single-copy elements derived from transposons. This process is considered to be maternally controlled because the maternal genome provides essential information in the form of RNA that determines the offspring's genome content and organization. This programmed DNA subtraction, the so-called ‘RNA scanning’ process, is mediated by trans-generational comparison between the germline and the maternal somatic genome. One of the most intriguing questions is how a complex population of small RNAs representing the entire germline genome can be compared to the entire rearranged maternal genome, resulting in the efficient selection of germline-specific RNAs, which are able to target DNA deletions in the developing genome. All this occurs in a very short time and involves a massively coordinated transport of all the components between three types of nuclei. This project focuses on characterizing the molecular machinery that can orchestrate the massive genome rearrangements in ciliates through nucleic acids and protein interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Next Generation of Fusion Energy Research
    THE NEXT GENERATION OF FUSION ENERGY RESEARCH HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION OCTOBER 29, 2009 Serial No. 111–61 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 52–894PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas BARON P. HILL, Indiana HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania ALAN GRAYSON, Florida SUZANNE M.
    [Show full text]
  • Thermonuclear AB-Reactors for Aerospace
    1 Article Micro Thermonuclear Reactor after Ct 9 18 06 AIAA-2006-8104 Micro -Thermonuclear AB-Reactors for Aerospace* Alexander Bolonkin C&R, 1310 Avenue R, #F-6, Brooklyn, NY 11229, USA T/F 718-339-4563, [email protected], [email protected], http://Bolonkin.narod.ru Abstract About fifty years ago, scientists conducted R&D of a thermonuclear reactor that promises a true revolution in the energy industry and, especially, in aerospace. Using such a reactor, aircraft could undertake flights of very long distance and for extended periods and that, of course, decreases a significant cost of aerial transportation, allowing the saving of ever-more expensive imported oil-based fuels. (As of mid-2006, the USA’s DoD has a program to make aircraft fuel from domestic natural gas sources.) The temperature and pressure required for any particular fuel to fuse is known as the Lawson criterion L. Lawson criterion relates to plasma production temperature, plasma density and time. The thermonuclear reaction is realised when L > 1014. There are two main methods of nuclear fusion: inertial confinement fusion (ICF) and magnetic confinement fusion (MCF). Existing thermonuclear reactors are very complex, expensive, large, and heavy. They cannot achieve the Lawson criterion. The author offers several innovations that he first suggested publicly early in 1983 for the AB multi- reflex engine, space propulsion, getting energy from plasma, etc. (see: A. Bolonkin, Non-Rocket Space Launch and Flight, Elsevier, London, 2006, Chapters 12, 3A). It is the micro-thermonuclear AB- Reactors. That is new micro-thermonuclear reactor with very small fuel pellet that uses plasma confinement generated by multi-reflection of laser beam or its own magnetic field.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Physics: Science, Technology and Applications
    Prof. Kim Molvig April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) DDD-T--TT FusionFusion D +T → α + n +17.6 MeV 3.5MeV 14.1MeV • What is GOOD about this reaction? – Highest specific energy of ALL nuclear reactions – Lowest temperature for sizeable reaction rate • What is BAD about this reaction? – NEUTRONS => activation of confining vessel and resultant radioactivity – Neutron energy must be thermally converted (inefficiently) to electricity – Deuterium must be separated from seawater – Tritium must be bred April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) ConsiderConsider AnotherAnother NuclearNuclear ReactionReaction p+11B → 3α + 8.7 MeV • What is GOOD about this reaction? – Aneutronic (No neutrons => no radioactivity!) – Direct electrical conversion of output energy (reactants all charged particles) – Fuels ubiquitous in nature • What is BAD about this reaction? – High Temperatures required (why?) – Difficulty of confinement (technology immature relative to Tokamaks) April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) DTDT FusionFusion –– VisualVisualVisual PicturePicture Figure by MIT OCW. April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) EnergeticsEnergetics ofofof FusionFusion e2 V ≅ ≅ 400 KeV Coul R + R V D T QM “tunneling” required . Ekin r Empirical fit to data 2 −VNuc ≅ −50 MeV −2 A1 = 45.95, A2 = 50200, A3 =1.368×10 , A4 =1.076, A5 = 409 Coefficients for DT (E in KeV, σ in barns) April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) TunnelingTunneling FusionFusion CrossCross SectionSection andand ReactivityReactivity Gamow factor . Compare to DT . April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) ReactivityReactivity forfor DTDT FuelFuel 8 ] 6 c e s / 3 m c 6 1 - 0 4 1 x [ ) ν σ ( 2 0 0 50 100 150 200 T1 (KeV) April 20, 2006: 22.012 Fusion Seminar (MIT) Figure by MIT OCW.
    [Show full text]
  • Fusion Energy Science Opportunities in Emerging Concepts
    Fusion Energy Science Opportunities in Emerging Concepts Los Alamos National Laboratory Report -- LA-UR-99-5052 D. C. Barnes Los Alamos National Laboratory For the Emerging Concepts Working Group Convenors: J. Hammer Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory A. Hassam University of Maryland D. Hill Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory A. Hoffman University of Washington B. Hooper Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory J. Kesner Massachusetts Institute of Technology G. Miley University of Illinois J. Perkins Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory D. Ryutov Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory J. Sarff University of Wisconsin R. E. Siemon Los Alamos National Laboratory J. Slough University of Washington M. Yamada Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory I. Introduction The development of fusion energy represents one of the few long-term (multi-century time scale) options for providing the energy needs of modern (or postmodern) society. Progress to date, in parameters measuring the quality of confinement, for example, has been nothing short of stellar. While significant uncertainties in both physics and (particularly) technology remain, it is widely believed that a fusion reactor based on the tokamak could be developed within one or two decades. It is also widely held that such a reactor could not compete economically in the projected energy market. A more accurate statement of projected economic viability is that the uncertainty in achieving commercial success is sufficient that the large development costs required for such a program are not justified at this time. While technical progress has been spectacular, schedule estimates for achieving particular milestones along the path of fusion research and development have proven notoriously inaccurate. This inaccuracy reflects two facts.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of Coherent Magneto-Hydrodynamic Modes and Transport in Plasmas of the Tj-Ii Heliac
    TESIS DOCTORAL IDENTIFICATION OF COHERENT MAGNETO-HYDRODYNAMIC MODES AND TRANSPORT IN PLASMAS OF THE TJ-II HELIAC Autor: Baojun Sun Directores: Daniel López Bruna María Antonia Ochando García Tutor: Víctor Tribaldos Macía DEPARTAMENTO DE FISICA Leganés, septiembre de 2016 ( a entregar en la Oficina de Posgrado, una vez nombrado el Tribunal evaluador , para preparar el documento para la defensa de la tesis) TESIS DOCTORAL IDENTIFICATION OF COHERENT MAGNETO-HYDRODYNAMIC MODES AND TRANSPORT IN PLASMAS OF THE TJ-II HELIAC Autor: Baojun Sun Directores: Daniel López Bruna Maria Antonia Ochando Garcia Firma del Tribunal Calificador: Firma Presidente: (Nombre y apellidos) Vocal: (Nombre y apellidos) Secretario: (Nombre y apellidos) Calificación: Leganés/Getafe, de de Acknowledgements Once I recalled, the motivation that drove me to change major to fusion was twofold: 1. I saw fusion as the ultimate resource of energy and I expected to witness the construction of ITER; 2. I had the curiosity, the beliefs and the expectation. Chinese philosopher Chuang Tzu, said “newborn calves are not afraid of tigers”, this quote may describe my 5 year adventure. “Being as a newborn calf” makes me to be in trouble but also helps me to get out. What is PhD? In the beginning, I didn’t make myself this question seriously. As a newborn calf, I believed PhD as a chance and thought my PhD would innovate the research field. After about two years of turmoil, the question came again, what is PhD? Istartedto think PhD was about solving a unanswered question. My story was nearly ended there at that moment, but I was a lucky man, since I met with Daniel López Bruna (Daniel) and María Antonia Ochando García (Marian), and later on they became my Thesis directors.
    [Show full text]
  • Formation of Hot, Stable, Long-Lived Field-Reversed Configuration Plasmas on the C-2W Device
    IOP Nuclear Fusion International Atomic Energy Agency Nuclear Fusion Nucl. Fusion Nucl. Fusion 59 (2019) 112009 (16pp) https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab0be9 59 Formation of hot, stable, long-lived 2019 field-reversed configuration plasmas © 2019 IAEA, Vienna on the C-2W device NUFUAU H. Gota1 , M.W. Binderbauer1 , T. Tajima1, S. Putvinski1, M. Tuszewski1, 1 1 1 1 112009 B.H. Deng , S.A. Dettrick , D.K. Gupta , S. Korepanov , R.M. Magee1 , T. Roche1 , J.A. Romero1 , A. Smirnov1, V. Sokolov1, Y. Song1, L.C. Steinhauer1 , M.C. Thompson1 , E. Trask1 , A.D. Van H. Gota et al Drie1, X. Yang1, P. Yushmanov1, K. Zhai1 , I. Allfrey1, R. Andow1, E. Barraza1, M. Beall1 , N.G. Bolte1 , E. Bomgardner1, F. Ceccherini1, A. Chirumamilla1, R. Clary1, T. DeHaas1, J.D. Douglass1, A.M. DuBois1 , A. Dunaevsky1, D. Fallah1, P. Feng1, C. Finucane1, D.P. Fulton1, L. Galeotti1, K. Galvin1, E.M. Granstedt1 , M.E. Griswold1, U. Guerrero1, S. Gupta1, Printed in the UK K. Hubbard1, I. Isakov1, J.S. Kinley1, A. Korepanov1, S. Krause1, C.K. Lau1 , H. Leinweber1, J. Leuenberger1, D. Lieurance1, M. Madrid1, NF D. Madura1, T. Matsumoto1, V. Matvienko1, M. Meekins1, R. Mendoza1, R. Michel1, Y. Mok1, M. Morehouse1, M. Nations1 , A. Necas1, 1 1 1 1 1 10.1088/1741-4326/ab0be9 M. Onofri , D. Osin , A. Ottaviano , E. Parke , T.M. Schindler , J.H. Schroeder1, L. Sevier1, D. Sheftman1 , A. Sibley1, M. Signorelli1, R.J. Smith1 , M. Slepchenkov1, G. Snitchler1, J.B. Titus1, J. Ufnal1, Paper T. Valentine1, W. Waggoner1, J.K. Walters1, C.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fusion Test Facility for Inertial Fusion
    A Fusion Test Facility for Inertial Fusion The Fusion Test Facility would be part of an integrated IFE program where the essential elements are developed and implemented as systems in progressively more capable IFE oriented facilities. Fusion Test Facility (FTF) Direct laser drive Sub-megaJoule laser energy Goal of ~150 MW fusion power High flux neutron source Development path to a power plant Presented by Stephen Obenschain U.S. Naval Research Laboratory September 27 2006 Fusion Power Associates Meeting Introduction The scientific underpinnings for ICF has and is being developed via large single shot facilities. The IFE application, while greatly benefiting from this effort, requires a different and broader perspective. • Development of sufficiently efficient and durable high repetition rate drivers. • High gain target designs consistent with the energy application. • Development of economical mass production techniques for targets. • Precision target injection, tracking & laser beam steering. • Reaction chamber design and materials for a harsh environment. • Operating procedures (synchronizing a complex high duty cycle operation) • Overall economics, development time and costs. Individual IFE elements have conflicts in their optimization, and have to be developed in concert with their own purpose-built facilities. HAPL= $25M/yr High Average Power Laser program administered by NNSA See presentations by John Sethian and John Caird this afternoon. Typical GW (electrical )designs have >3 MJ laser drivers @ 5-10 Hz Target Factory Electricity
    [Show full text]
  • Part 1: April 24, 2007 Presentations
    UCRL-MI-231268 IFE Science and Technology Strategic Planning Workshop - Part 1: April 24, 2007 Presentations To select an individual presentation, click the table of contents entry on the next page or click the title on the agenda for Day 1 (using the Hand Tool icon). To save only a portion of this document, go to File/Print, select Adobe PDF as your printer, specify the desired range of pages, and save to a new file name. This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the University of California nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or the University of California, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. Portions of this work performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48. Part 1 Contents Agenda ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Presentations 1. Welcome and Perspectives, Ed Synakowski, LLNL............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Introduction 2. the ROSE Code
    M. Drevlak et al. New results in stellarator optimisation M. Drevlak , C. D. Beidler, J. Geiger, P. Helander, S. Henneberg, C. N¨uhrenberg, Y. Turkin Max-Planck-Institut f¨ur Plasmaphysik, 17491 Greifswald, Germany Email: [email protected] Abstract The ROSE code was written for the optimisation of stellarator equilibria. It uses VMEC for the equilibrium calculation and several different optimising algorithms for adjusting the boundary coefficients of the plasma. Some of the most important capabilities include optimisation for simple coils, the ability to simultaneously optimise vacuum and finite beta field, direct analysis of particle drift orbits and direct shaping of the magnetic field structure. ROSE was used to optimise quasi- isodynamic, quasi-axially symmetric and quasi-helically symmetric stellarator configurations. 1. Introduction The performance of stellarators, characterised by properties related to MHD stability, confinement of fast particles, neoclassical and anomalous transport and engineering complexity, is known to depend strongly on the underlying equilibrium configuration. While the first fully optimised stellarators, HSX and Wendelstein 7-X, have entered operation, new stellarator designs are being considered. In particular, a possible stellarator reactor needs to be optimised beyond the optimisation level achieved for these devices. A strong need for progress has been identified in the confinement of fast particles significantly away from the magnetic axis. At the same time, coil complexity must not exceed the limits of feasibility. 2. The ROSE Code The ROSE [1] code was written for the optimi- VMEC Equilibrium field sation of stellarator equilibria. Like other tools Brents algorithm created for the optimisation of stellarator equilib- Parallel Line−Search VM2MAG B spectrum ria [2] [3], it uses VMEC [4] for the equilibrium Genetic Optimisation mn calculation and several different optimising algo- Harmony Search SURFGEN, Coil complexity rithms for adjusting the coefficients of the bound- Particle Swarm NESCOIL ary shape of the plasma.
    [Show full text]