DOCSLIB.ORG

The Impact of the UK's Public Investments in UKAEA Fusion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The impact of the UK’s public investments in UKAEA fusion research Final report January 2020 A report for the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) by London Economics Acknowledgements This independent research report was produced by Daniel Herr, Charlotte Duke, Moritz Godel, Wouter Landzaat, Ryan Perkins, and Carolyn Visser from London Economics. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy or the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), nor do they reflect Government policy. We are grateful to all stakeholders for their time and insights. We would also like to acknowledge the support provided by BEIS, UKAEA and the Department for International Trade (DIT). Finally, we would like to acknowledge the peer reviewers for the time and effort invested into reviewing the final report of this study and would like to thank them for their valuable comments and feedback. © Crown copyright 2020 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: [email protected] The impact of the UK’s investments in UKAEA fusion research Contents Executive summary _________________________________________________________ 5 1 Introduction ____________________________________________________________ 9 1.1 Study objectives and scope ___________________________________________ 12 1.2 Approach and methodology ___________________________________________ 12 1.3 Baseline and counterfactual ___________________________________________ 13 1.4 Caveats and limitations _______________________________________________ 14 1.5 Structure of report ___________________________________________________ 15 2 Fusion research in the UK ________________________________________________ 17 2.1 Early period (50s/60s) ________________________________________________ 17 2.2 70s-early 2000s ____________________________________________________ 19 2.3 Current and planned future developments ________________________________ 21 3 Income and expenditure on UKAEA fusion research ___________________________ 23 4 Impact of UKAEA’s fusion programme ______________________________________ 28 4.1 Scientific impact ____________________________________________________ 28 Development of adjacent technologies ______________________________________ 30 4.2 Industrial impact ____________________________________________________ 32 4.3 Impact on skills _____________________________________________________ 35 4.4 International leadership _______________________________________________ 38 4.5 Other impacts ______________________________________________________ 40 5 Economic Impact ______________________________________________________ 42 5.1 Impact of UKAEA contract expenditure ___________________________________ 44 Estimating direct, indirect and induced effects of UKAEA contract expenditure _______ 44 Direct impact of UKAEA contract expenditure _________________________________ 45 Indirect and induced impact of UKAEA contract expenditure _____________________ 47 Geographical distribution of UKAEA contract expenditure _______________________ 49 5.2 Impact of UKAEA staff expenditure ______________________________________ 50 Estimating direct, indirect and induced effects of UKAEA staff expenditure __________ 50 Direct job creation by UKAEA _____________________________________________ 52 Direct, indirect and induced effects of UKAEA staff expenditure ___________________ 53 5.3 Impact of other UKAEA expenditure on raw materials and consumables, and other external expenses _______________________________________________________ 54 5.4 Impact of ITER contract expenditure _____________________________________ 55 Direct impact of ITER contract expenditure ___________________________________ 56 Indirect and induced impact of ITER contract expenditure _______________________ 59 3 The impact of the UK’s investments in UKAEA fusion research Scale of underestimation of ITER impacts ___________________________________ 62 Potential additional impact from spin-offs ____________________________________ 62 5.5 Total economic impact _______________________________________________ 64 6 Additionality of impacts __________________________________________________ 67 6.1 Additionality of UKAEA staff expenditure _________________________________ 67 6.2 Additionality of UKAEA contract expenditure ______________________________ 68 6.3 Additionality of ITER contract contracts to UK companies ____________________ 68 Net impacts of ITER ____________________________________________________ 69 6.4 Tipping point analysis ________________________________________________ 69 7 Impact of the “no UKAEA” counterfactual scenario on the UK ____________________ 72 7.1 Impact on fusion-related research and skills _______________________________ 72 7.2 Impact on industry ___________________________________________________ 74 7.3 Alternative uses of the Culham site ______________________________________ 75 The fate of other WWII airfields ____________________________________________ 75 7.4 Focus of government investment in absence of the UKAEA ___________________ 76 8 Environmental impact ___________________________________________________ 77 9 Future opportunities for fusion energy ______________________________________ 79 10 Conclusions _________________________________________________________ 81 References _______________________________________________________________ 82 Index of Tables and Figures __________________________________________________ 87 Tables _________________________________________________________________ 87 Figures ________________________________________________________________ 87 Annexes _________________________________________________________________ 89 Annex 1: Logic map ______________________________________________________ 89 Annex 2: Methodological annex _____________________________________________ 91 Overview of methodology ________________________________________________ 91 Rationale for the chosen modelling approach _________________________________ 95 Caveats and Limitations _________________________________________________ 95 Annex 3: Survey _________________________________________________________ 98 Compilation of sampling frame ____________________________________________ 99 Survey questionnaire __________________________________________________ 100 Annex 4: Scientific impact of Fusion Research in Culham – Bibliometric analysis ______ 109 SCIENTIFIC IMPACT OF FUSION RESEARCH IN CULHAM _______________________ 110 Introduction ____________________________________________________________ 113 Overview of research activities in the Culham Science Centre _____________________ 113 Comparison with Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics ________________________ 116 Trends in Nuclear Fusion Research _________________________________________ 117 4 The impact of the UK’s investments in UKAEA fusion research Executive summary Fusion produces energy by emulating the process that powers the sun and stars in experimental fusion devices such as tokamaks. Fusion energy has vast potential, offering the promise of a safe, green, and abundant power source. Nevertheless, substantial challenges remain to harnessing fusion as an energy source, with fully operational commercial fusion reactors not expected for the next 30-50 years. This study by London Economics for the Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) assesses the costs and benefits of the UK’s investments in UKAEA fusion research to date. It does not consider the sizable future benefits of fusion research to the UK as this was out of scope for this present study. UKAEA is a world leading facility for the advancement of fusion energy. Located at the Culham Science Centre in Oxfordshire, it is home to the Joint European Torus (JET) tokamak which currently holds the world record for fusion energy output. The location also supports a range of advanced technology research operations including the Remote Applications in Challenging Environments Centre (RACE), connected and autonomous vehicles research (Pit Lane), and the Hydrogen-3 Advanced Technology (H3AT) centre of excellence. The Culham site is also home to over 20 diverse businesses including stored energy solutions, architectural services, healthcare equipment, aerospace engine technology and software consultancy. Economic impact UKAEA’s economic impact includes the creation of direct employment such as researchers and other highly skilled staff as well as direct contract and materials spend in the UK. In addition, UKAEA brings commercial benefits to UK industry from working with, or being supported by, UKAEA. UKAEA’s world leading knowledge in fusion helps to attract foreign investment, such as contracts related to ITER - a worldwide collaboration intended to provide a technical demonstration of large-scale fusion power - to the UK and generates spin-offs in the form of new technologies and firms. The total economic impact of UKAEA to the UK economy is estimated to be between £1.3 billion and £1.4 billion
Recommended publications
  • Selection of Retrieval Techniques for Irradiated Graphite During Reactor Decommissioning - 11587

    Selection of Retrieval Techniques for Irradiated Graphite During Reactor Decommissioning - 11587

    WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ Selection of Retrieval Techniques for Irradiated Graphite during Reactor Decommissioning - 11587 D.J. Potter*, R.B. Jarvis*, A.W. Banford*, L. Cordingley*, and M. Grave** * National Nuclear Laboratory, Chadwick House, Birchwood Park, Warrington, Cheshire, WA3 6AE, UK ** Doosan Babcock, Baltic Business Centre, Gateshead, NE8 3DA, UK ABSTRACT Globally, around 230,000 tonnes of irradiated graphite requires retrieval, treatment, management and/or disposal. This waste has arisen from a wide range of reactors, predominantly from the use of graphite moderated reactors for base-load generation, but also from experimental research facilities. Much of the graphite is presently still in the reactor core while other graphite is stored in a variety of forms in waste stores. The first step in the management of this significant waste stream is retrieval of the graphite from its present location. Doosan Babcock and the UK National Nuclear Laboratory are participants in the CARBOWASTE European research project which brings together organisations from a range of countries with an irradiated graphite legacy to address the graphite waste management challenge. This paper describes the issues associated with retrieval of graphite from reactors, potential approaches to graphite retrieval and the information needed to select a particular retrieval method for a specified application. Graphite retrieval is viewed within the context of the wider strategy for the management of irradiated graphite waste streams. The paper identifies the challenges of graphite retrieval and provides some examples where modelling can be used to provide information to support retrievals design and operations. INTRODUCTION A four year collaborative European Project ‘Treatment and Disposal of Irradiated Graphite and other Carbonaceous Waste (CARBOWASTE)’ was launched in April 2008 under the 7th EURATOM Framework Programme [1].
  • Spherical Tokamak) on the Path to Fusion Energy

    Spherical Tokamak) on the Path to Fusion Energy

    Spherical Torus (Spherical Tokamak) on the Path to Fusion Energy ST can support fast implementation of fusion Demo in unique, important ways 1) Opportunities to support the strategy of Demo after ITER 2) Important ways in which ST can do so 3) Component Test Facility for steady state integrated testing 4) Broad progress and the remaining CTF physics R&D needs Martin Peng, NSTX Program Director Fusion Power Associates Annual Meeting and Symposium Fusion: Pathway to the Future September 27-28, 2006, Washington D.C. EU-Japan plan of Broader Approach toward Demo introduces opportunities in physics and component EVEDA OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY S. Matsuda, SOFT 2006 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FPA Annual Mtg & Symp, 09/27-28/2006 2 Korean fusion energy development plan introduces opportunities in accelerating fusion technology R&D OAK RIDGEGS NATIONAL Lee, US LABORATORY2006 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FPA Annual Mtg & Symp, 09/27-28/2006 3 We propose that ST research addresses issues in support of this strategy • Support and benefit from USBPO-ITPA activities in preparation for burning plasma research in ITER using physics breadth provided by ST. • Complement and extend tokamak physics experiments, by maximizing synergy in investigating key scientific issues of tokamak fusion plasmas • Enable attractive integrated Component Test Facility (CTF) to support Demo, by NSTX establishing ST database and example leveraging the advancing tokamak database for ITER burning plasma operation and control. ST (All) USBPO- ITPA (~2/5) Tokamak (~3/4) OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FPA Annual Mtg & Symp, 09/27-28/2006 4 World Spherical Tokamak research has expanded to 22 experiments addressing key physics issues MAST (UK) NSTX (US) OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY U.
  • MHD in the Spherical Tokamak

    MHD in the Spherical Tokamak

    21 st IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, Chengdu, China, 2006 MHD in the Spherical Tokamak MAST authors: SD Pinches , I Chapman, MP Gryaznevich, DF Howell, SE Sharapov, RJ Akers, LC Appel, RJ Buttery, NJ Conway, G Cunningham, TC Hender, GTA Huysmans, EX/7-2Ra R Martin and the MAST and NBI Teams NSTX authors: A.C. Sontag, S.A. Sabbagh, W. Zhu, J.E. Menard, R.E. Bell, J.M. Bialek, M.G. Bell, D.A. Gates, A.H. Glasser, B.P. Leblanc, F.M. Levinton, K.C. Shaing, D. Stutman, K.L. Tritz, H. Yu, and the NSTX Research Team EX/7-2Rb Office of Supported by Science This work was jointly funded by the UK Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council and Euratom MHD physics understanding to reduce performance risks in ITER and a CTF – Error field studies – RWM stability in high beta plasmas – Effects of rotation upon sawteeth – Alfvén cascades in reversed shear EX/7-2Ra EX/7-2Rb Error field studies in MAST EX/7-2Ra Error fields: slow rotation, induce instabilities, terminate discharge Mega Ampere Spherical Tokamak R = 0.85m, R/a ~ 1.3 Four ex-vessel (ITER-like) error field correction coils wired to produce odd-n spectrum, Imax = 15 kA·turns (3 turns) Locked mode scaling in MAST EX/7-2Ra Error fields contribute to βN limit: n=1 kink B21 is the m = 2, n = 1 field component normal to q = 2 surface: • Similar density scaling observed on NSTX • Extrapolating to a Spherical Tokamak Power Plant / Component Test Facility gives locked mode thresholds ≈ intrinsic error ⇒ prudent to include EFCCs [Howell et al .
  • NRC Collection of Abbreviations

    NRC Collection of Abbreviations

    I Nuclear Regulatory Commission c ElLc LI El LIL El, EEELIILE El ClV. El El, El1 ....... I -4 PI AVAILABILITY NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources: 1. The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555-0001 2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P. 0. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20402-9328 3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161-0002 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publica- tions, it is not intended to be exhaustive. Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; licensee event reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee docu- ments and correspondence. The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the Government Printing Office: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference pro- ceedings, international agreement reports, grantee reports, and NRC booklets and bro- chures. Also available are regulatory guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regula- tions, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances. Documents available from the National Technical Information Service Include NUREG-series reports and technical reports prepared by other Federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal articles, and transactions.
  • 22.615, MHD Theory of Fusion Systems Prof. Freidberg Lecture #14: Real Tokamaks (With Bob Granetz)

    22.615, MHD Theory of Fusion Systems Prof. Freidberg Lecture #14: Real Tokamaks (With Bob Granetz)

    22.615, MHD Theory of Fusion Systems Prof. Freidberg Lecture #14: Real Tokamaks (with Bob Granetz) 1. Today’s lecture presents a qualitative picture of various members of the tokamak family. These include: a. Ohmic tokamak - discussed in class b. High E tokamak - discussed in class (ITER) c. Advanced tokamak (AT operation – not so hot) d. Reversed shear tokamak (RS operation – good AT operation) e. Spherical tokamak (NSTX, MAST) 2. It will also include a discussion of the MHD behavior of Alcator C-Mod presented by Dr. Bob Granetz. 3. We begin with a brief discussion of elongation and why it is good as well as a short summary of the main instabilities of interest. These instabilities are discussed in more detail during the second part of the term. 4. Elongation – from an MHD point of view, elongation is desirable because it allows higher current I and higher E without sacrificing stability. High I also improves transport: WvI . 5. Recall that q* 1/I so that increasing I tends to decrease qa, therby decreasing stability. Elongation can compensate this effect. 6. The idea is as follows. If we assume that stability depends upon the value of q* or q,a regardless of plasma shape, then we can show that elongation allows higher I without changing q. 7. The assumption that stability depends largely on q* turns out to be approximately true for current driven kinks (that lead to disruption). Also, elongation uses the critical E for stability for a fixed q. 8. Let us determine an approximate relation between q, I, and elongation N .
  • Nuclear Materials and Waste Management – RSRL Harwell Credible & Preferred Options (Gates a & B)

    Nuclear Materials and Waste Management – RSRL Harwell Credible & Preferred Options (Gates a & B)

    Exotic Fuels, Nuclear Materials and Waste Management – RSRL Harwell Credible & Preferred Options (Gates A & B) August 2011 Exotic Fuels, Nuclear Materials and Waste Management – RSRL Harwell – Credible and Preferred Options (Gates A & B) Issue 1 Doc Ref: SMS/TS/C3-EF/RSRL/001/A-B Exotic Fuels, Nuclear Materials and Waste Management – RSRL Harwell Credible & Preferred Options (Gates A & B) August 2011 Contents Contents.......................................................................................................................2 Executive Summary .....................................................................................................3 1 Background ..........................................................................................................4 1.1 Project Objective ..........................................................................................4 1.2 Harwell Fuel, Nuclear Materials and Wastes ...............................................4 1.4 What is Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU)? .......................................................5 1.5 What are concrete-lined drums? ..................................................................5 1.6 What are contact-handled Intermediate Level Waste (CHILW) drums?.......5 1.7 Hazard Potential and Reduction?.................................................................6 2 Strategic Case......................................................................................................6 2.1 Existing Situation..........................................................................................6
  • Compact Fusion Reactors

    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.
  • R:\TEMP\Bobbi\RDD-8 3-16-04 Reprint.Wpd

    R:\TEMP\Bobbi\RDD-8 3-16-04 Reprint.Wpd

    OFFICIAL USE ONLY RESTRICTED DATA DECLASSIFICATION DECISIONS 1946 TO THE PRESENT (RDD-8) January 1, 2002 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Health, Safety and Security Office of Classification Contains information which may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), exemption number(s) 2. Approval by the Department of Energy prior to public release is required. Reviewed by: Richard J. Lyons Date: 3/20/2002 NOTICE This document provides historical perspective on the sequence of declassification actions performed by the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies. It is meant to convey the amount and types of information declassified over the years. Although the language of the original declassification authorities is cited verbatim as much as possible to preserve the historical intent of the declassification, THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR DECLASSIFYING DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS without specific authorization from the Director, Information Classification and Control Policy. Classification guides designed for that specific purpose must be used. OFFICIAL USE ONLY OFFICIAL USE ONLY This page intentionally left blank OFFICIAL USE ONLY OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOREWORD This document supersedes Restricted Data Declassification Decisions - 1946 To The Present (RDD-7), January 1, 2001. This is the eighth edition of a document first published in June 1994. This latest edition includes editorial corrections to RDD-7, all declassification actions that have been made since the January 1, 2001, publication date of RDD-7 and any additional declassification actions which were subsequently discovered or confirmed. Note that the terms “declassification” or “declassification action,” as used in this document, refer to changes in classification policy which result in a specific fact or concept that was classified in the past being now unclassified.
  • Tokamak Elongation – How Much Is Too Much? I Theory J. P. Freidbergι

    Tokamak Elongation – How Much Is Too Much? I Theory J. P. Freidbergι

    Tokamak elongation – how much is too much? I Theory J. P. Freidberg1, A. Cerfon2 , J. P. Lee1,2 Abstract In this and the accompanying paper the problem of the maximally achievable elongation κ in a tokamak is investigated. The work represents an extension of many earlier studies, which were often focused on determining κ limits due to (1) natural elongation in a simple applied pure vertical field or (2) axisymmetric stability in the presence of a perfectly conducting wall. The extension investigated here includes the effect of the vertical stability feedback system which actually sets the maximum practical elongation limit in a real experiment. A basic resistive wall stability parameter γτ is introduced w to model the feedback system which although simple in appearance actually captures the essence of the feedback system. Elongation limits in the presence of feedback are then determined by calculating the maximum κ against n = 0 resistive wall modes for fixed γτ . The results are obtained by means of a general formulation culminating in a w variational principle which is particularly amenable to numerical analysis. The principle is valid for arbitrary profiles but simplifies significantly for the Solov'ev profiles, effectively reducing the 2-D stability problem into a 1-D problem. The accompanying paper provides the numerical results and leads to a sharp answer of “how much elongation is too much”? 1. Plasma Science and Fusion Center, MIT, Cambridge MA 2. Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, NYU, New York City NY 1 1. Introduction It has been known for many years that tokamak performance, as measured by pressure and energy confinement time, improves substantially as the plasma cross section becomes more elongated.
  • Signature Redacted %

    Signature Redacted %

    EXAMINATION OF THE UNITED STATES DOMESTIC FUSION PROGRAM ARCHW.$ By MASS ACHUSETTS INSTITUTE Lauren A. Merriman I OF IECHNOLOLGY MAY U6 2015 SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING I LIBR ARIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY FEBRUARY 2015 Lauren A. Merriman. All Rights Reserved. - The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly Paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. Signature of Author:_ Signature redacted %. Lauren A. Merriman Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering May 22, 2014 Signature redacted Certified by:. Dennis Whyte Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering I'l f 'A Thesis Supervisor Signature redacted Accepted by: Richard K. Lester Professor and Head of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering 1 EXAMINATION OF THE UNITED STATES DOMESTIC FUSION PROGRAM By Lauren A. Merriman Submitted to the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering on May 22, 2014 In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Nuclear Science and Engineering ABSTRACT Fusion has been "forty years away", that is, forty years to implementation, ever since the idea of harnessing energy from a fusion reactor was conceived in the 1950s. In reality, however, it has yet to become a viable energy source. Fusion's promise and failure are both investigated by reviewing the history of the United States domestic fusion program and comparing technological forecasting by fusion scientists, fusion program budget plans, and fusion program budget history.
  • Helicity-Injected Current Drive and Open Flux Instabilities in Spherical

    Helicity-Injected Current Drive and Open Flux Instabilities in Spherical

    Helicity-injected current drive and open flux instabilities in spherical tokamaks D.P. Brennan1, P.K.Browning2, J. Gates1, R.A.M. Van der Linden3 1 University of Tulsa 2 University of Manchester 3 Royal Observatory of Belgium Presented at the Sherwood Fusion Theory Conference Denver, CO, May 1, 2009 ABSTRACT The toroidal current driven by relaxation processes in a cylindrical spherical tokamak (ST) geometry with coaxial injected flux is estimated by use of the linear ideal stability boundary of equilibria with a high current on the open driven flux and a lower current on the closed flux. Instabilities with toroidal mode number n = 1 have been shown to play a vital role in the helicity injection current drive, being closely associated with the relaxation process which distributes current from a directly driven open flux to a closed flux. Previous results for spheromaks (1D and 2D equilibria) and STs (1D equilibria) have predicted stabilization, for a given open flux current, if the closed flux plasma current is sufficiently large, suggesting that the current drive mechanism is self-limiting. New results presented here for 2D ST equilibria are consistent with the 1D results, but new features appear in the stability maps as the axial length and toroidal field (TF) strength are varied in the equilibria. These include changes in the shape of stability boundaries and the estimated driven current, changes in the mode structure due to equilibrium changes and resonance effects which extend stability boundaries into the stable region. As the minimum and maximum of the safety factor q profile cross integer rational values, the resonant mode is destabilized, causing regions of enhanced instability in the current profile parameter space.
  • A Short History of Reactors : the First Generation

    A Short History of Reactors : the First Generation

    AA shortshort HistoryHistory ofof ReactorsReactors :: TheThe firstfirst GenerationGeneration Bertrand BARRÉ Scientific Advisor AREVA Pr. Emeritus INSTN Oklo, Gabon : Generation 0 Nuclear Power – B. Barré - Garching – February 2010. - p.2 Nuclear reactors « Generations » Future Advanced Operating Nuclear Systems Reactors Reactors Pionner Facilities 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 Generation I Generation II Generation III Generation IV Nuclear Power – B. Barré - Garching – October 2010. - p.3 Fission 1938 - 1942 1938 : Fermi plays with neutrons & U. Hahn-Meitner say «fission !» 1939 : Joliot et al. «chain reaction» 1942 : Staggs Field Nuclear Power – B. Barré - Garching – February 2010. - p.4 December 2, 1942 Prospects & Prerequisites to Renaissance – B. Barré Gassummit 2009 The 50s : Nuclear Electricity 1956 : Inauguration of Calder Hall by Elisabeth II 1951 : EBR 1 lits 4 Bulbs) 1954 : Obninsk, 5 MWe Nuclear Power – B. Barré - Garching – February 2010. - p.6 Obninsk 5 MWe NPP Calder Hall : from Opening to Decommissioning Prospects & Prerequisites to Renaissance – B. Barré Gassummit 2009 Paleontology Nuclear Power – B. Barré - Garching – February 2010. - p.8 Many Possible Combinations Fissile Material U235, Pu, U233 Fertile Material U238, Th232 Moderator D2O, Graphite, H2O, or none Fuel Composition Metal, oxide, carbide, nitride, salt, solid, liquid, suspension Fuel Geometry Cylinder, rod, pin, sphere, particle Coolant Air, H2O, D2O, CO2, He, Na, Pb Cycle Direct, indirect Nuclear Power – B. Barré - Garching – February 2010. - p.9