ARIES Program
Public Information Site

ARIES Documents -- Meetings Archive

ARIES Conference Call, 23 June 2008

Documented by L. Waganer

(ANL) -
(Boeing) -
(DOE) -
(FPA) -
(FZK) -
(MIT) Bromberg
(PPPL) Kessel
(UCSD) Dragojlovic, Malang, Najmabadi, Raffray, Tillack
(UW) El-Guebaly


The next ARIES conference call is scheduled for July 29th, 2008 at the usual 9:00 PDT.

Status of ARIES-Pathways Tasks

Chuck Kessel reported that he had completed a bigger scan of variation of major radius and toroidal field for system code comparison and these data have been forwarded to Zoran. It was noted that there are power flow discrepancies between Chuck's and Zoran's code results that need to be resolved. Laila agreed to provide a generic breakdown of the nuclear heating deposited in the inboard, outboard, and divertor regions along with the fraction of heating in the shield.

Farrokh Najmabadi noted that he thought the costs of the magnet systems were underestimated, the current drive power is too low, and the cost of the startup system for plasma heating is also too low.

Zoran Dragojlovic said that he needed to update power flow for better consistency with Chuck's results, update the TF coils to include "less aggressive" costing, and link the physics model from Chuck to system code once current discrepancies and bugs are fixed.

Chuck Kessel or Zoran Dragojlovic - Recent results from Chuck's scan: COE goes up with major radius, but very slowly with increasing toroidal field. Need to understand why.

Rene Raffray suggested to set up separate conference call with Chuck and Zoran to discuss action items and how best to proceed in order to iron out the bugs and discrepancies, implement physics module and get code ready for production runs.

Mark Tillack reported that the interim report is proceeding with Rev 8 now posted on web site. There remain a few problematic areas including difficulty of getting input from INL. Mark said that he will use all input provided by end of June and issue the report. Mark also brought up the question about level of waste proposed by Les Waganer for 2 scenarios: "moderately aggressive" and "advanced"? What is the best method to quantify the waste issues? Laila pointed out that the radwaste volume of the fusion power core will be 25-40% lower than ITER's but the total radwaste volume, including bio-shield, will decrease slightly compared to ITER.

Rene mentioned that at the last ARIES meeting, Farrokh asked Said and Rene to start working on developing TRL's for the FESAC Greenwald Panel Themes, starting with the one on "Harnessing Fusion Power", and we now have a small group including Siegfried and Laila to get going on this, before getting feedback from the wider team. Also, we can benefit a lot from the TRL effort so far and get input from Mark. We want to take a component or subsystem approach and develop TRL's for these components or subsystems. Thus, we would like first to specify the key subsystems within Theme C "Harnessing Fusion Power" that covers the Fusion Fuel Cycle, Power Extraction, Materials Science, Safety, and RAMI. The first subsystem within this Theme includes the blanket, tritium fuel cycle and power conversion systems. Our first example is the blanket and we are iterating on defining a generic TRL for it.

Mark Tillack mentioned that there will be a TRL presentation to FESAC in August and that it would be timely and useful to include results from this effort in the presentation.