ARIES Documents -- Meetings ArchiveARIES Conference Call, 22 June 2010
Documented by L. Waganer
Mark Tillack noted that Dara Naveai has joined the UCSD ARIES team and will be working on the design and analysis of ARIES concepts.
DOE requested to have the next ARIES meeting, tentatively in July, in the Washington, D.C. area so they can attend out meeting. The ARIES team was canvassed to determine the better dates and decided on July 29-30. Mark Tillack and Farrokh Najmabadi will confirm with Al Opdenaker regarding the meeting and the dates. (Follow-up: Mark confirmed that Al O. has agreed on the July 29-30 date and Al will start to make the meeting arrangements for July 29 and 1/2 day on July 30.) Due to the proximity of the July meeting, there will be no conference call in July. Les Waganer will commence generating the agenda, so if there are any topics to be included, please contact him.
Mark Tillack said the Town Meeting on edge physics was well attended and productive. The intent is to review the conclusions from the Town Meeting and summarize the lessons learned at the next project meeting. Chuck Kessel affirmed the good technical exchange and the high quality presentations and discussions. Many attendees said it was an excellent learning experience. Several innovative divertor solutions were proposed. Some presenters noted the possibility that a power plant may see less extreme conditions than ITER, as a result of the choice of operating regime. It is not always the case that ITER is a good starting point for assumptions regarding power plants.
ARIES Technical Efforts
Lane Carlson and Chuck Kessel have been working with the code to produce improved data points for use as the strawmen cases at the four corners of the physics/technology parameter space. The key parameters are the B-fields, beta N (4-6%) and major radius. Chuck has assembled a large data set into an Excel spreadsheet for more detailed examination and documentation. Many points exceeded the Greenwald criteria, so the major radius might have to be enlarged. The conservative physics and conservative technology generally had the highest COE whereas the aggressive physics and technology had the lowest COE, even somewhat lower than ARIES-AT when costing year dollars were normalized. Rob asked if this database might be used to examine the parameter space of the pilot plant (lower performance and lower net power). Chuck said that indeed the database might contain such data. Even if not, the data can be generated.
Laila is continuing to examine the design concepts and neutronic analysis for the assembly gaps between modules, primarily in the outboard region. She is also researching the thermal conductivity changes of tungsten when irradiated in a 14 MeV environment. ITER has some data, but at much lower dpa levels. There also was a question about the influence of tungsten armor on the TBR. Laila and Siegfried noted that thick W armor makes a difference in the TBR. This data will be reported at the next meeting.
Xueren Wang has been analyzing the tungsten first wall armor from 1 mm to 2 mm to reduce the primary stress (and plane strain). This should help qualify the armor for heat fluxes up to 2 MW/m2. Rob Goldston noted that ITER has several FW areas predicted to receive up to 5 MW/m2. Rob will send to Chuck the locations of special FW modules for ITER to help determine the high heat flux modules for ARIES. Jeremy Burke has been working on the improved T-tube divertor concept, especially on the transition joints.