ARIES Program
Public Information Site
 
 
 
 

ARIES Documents -- Meetings Archive

ARIES Conference Call, 29 July 2008

Documented by L. Waganer


Participants:
(ANL) -
(Boeing) - Waganer, Weaver
(DOE) -
(FPA) -
(FZK) -
(GA) Schultz
(GT)
(INL)  
(MIT)  
(NYU)  
(ORNL)  
(PPPL) Kessel, Meade
(RPI)  
(UCSD) Dragojlovic, Malang, Mau, Najmabadi, Raffray, Tillack, Wang
(UW) El-Guebaly

Administrative

Tentatively, the next ARIES meeting should be held on the East Coast to allow OFES personnel participation, preferably in Atlanta, pending approval of Said Abdel-Khalik and Minami Yoda. The suggested dates are Sept 3-4 or 4-5 with the latter day being a half day to allow for flight connections to points West. Les Waganer will query the team for the better dates. Farrokh Najmabadi thought the meeting should help prepare the upcoming TOFE papers and presentations at the FESAC meeting. To better accomplish this, it was suggested to use a workshop format in three general areas: Concluding the Pathways Interim Report (Tillack), Example of TRL Assessment of FESAC Theme C entitled "Harnessing Fusion Power" via candidate subsystems (Raffray), and Utilization of ARIES Systems Code (Dragojlovic) rather than our typical presentation format.

The next ARIES conference call has not been scheduled.

Rene Raffray noted that following the manner of prior ARIES Town Meetings, a Town Meeting is scheduled for December 10-12 on tokamak solid wall high-heat-flux components. More information will be forthcoming.

Status of ARIES-Pathways Interim Report

Mark Tillack is working to complete the Pathways interim report. He is trying to finalize the definition of the alternative scenarios that will be assessed as illustrative examples. Section 5 has been revised by Les Waganer et al. and is now in a much better shape. The most difficult aspect of the assessment for the team members is to clearly define the fidelity of the technology development and the testing environment. Describing the technology development maturation in ITER is viewed quite differently by researchers from different country regions.

One suggestion is that it is not proper to first define a test facility and then justify the technology developments that can be done in that facility. Rather, the requirements to mature the technologies should be defined first and then the existing and new test facilities should be evaluated for use or new construction.

A question was raised to clarify if "integration of subsystems" should be a separate TRL assessment. It was agreed that each technology would be developed separately at the lower TRL levels, but at higher TRL levels the technology hardware and software fidelity and the testing environment fidelity continues to increase to operational levels. So system integration is an integral part of the TRL process.

Status of ARIES-Pathways Example TRL Assessment

Rene Raffray explained he and his team is trying to develop a more detailed example of applying the TRL assessment to show applicability to the FESAC Theme C, "Harnessing Fusion Power". The definition of subsystems involved along with the known other interfacing power plant subsystems. They approached the assessment first as a generic process and will later develop a more definitive example of the DCLL blanket, divertor, shield, and power cycle subsystems.

Status of ARIES-Pathways Systems Code Development

Zoran Dragojlovic said that he has been working on the code to produce, by the end of August 2008, credible code results to be presented at the upcoming TOFE conference. Chuck Kessel is at UCSD to help Zoran more fully integrate Chuck's physics and preliminary engineering module with Zoran's code. The power flow algorithms have been finalized and differenced resolved. Preliminary results from the TF and PF coil parameters were verified as close to expected values. Data on the first wall, blanket, and shield are being examined. The heating and current drive system parameters will also be examined shortly.

The expected code outputs for inclusion in the TOFE paper are: benefits of higher beta values, effect of the blanket efficiency (such as ARIES-AT versus DCLL blanket), effect of the thermal conversion efficiency (Brayton vs. Rankine cycle), and effect of radiation fraction that goes into divertor.

Laila El-Guebaly stated that TOFE attendees would like to hear the relative impact of the technology-related parameters on the cost of electricity. Such parameters include the thickness of the inboard blanket/shield, peak neutron wall loading limit, peak field at magnet, radiation limits for magnet, and the comparison of the DCLL and the SiC/LiPb blanket. If these data could be generated with the Systems Code, this would be valuable presentation material at TOFE. Farrokh agreed, but noted that the code is currently just being validated and that some data would not be available yet. Chuck Kessel thought that simplified assumptions on the DCLL and the SiC/LiPb blanket comparison might be achievable and a large difference in COE is expected between the two blanket concepts. A conference call between UW, UCSD and PPPL will be scheduled.

Status of ARIES-Pathways Task Activities

TK Mau noted that he has been working with ORNL on defining the cost of the pellet injector subsystems. He hoped to leverage off the ITER experience base. It was suggested to revisit the ARIES-RS that used pellet injectors as TK wrote that section.

Xueren Wang said that he was working on the TOFE paper on the helium cooled, two part divertor design that accommodates a wider range of heat and particle fluxes.

Status of ARIES-Pathways Industrial Advisory Committee

Ken Schultz thought that the TRL approach and an example assessment might be an appropriate subject for the advisory committee. Should we try to add more fusion experts and then schedule a meeting? Ken suggested a separate meeting with Farrokh to discuss and finalize an approach.