ARIES Documents -- Meetings ArchiveARIES Conference Call, 6 December 2013
Documented by M. Tillack
AdministrativeThe next US-Japan workshop on power plant studies has been scheduled for March 13-14 at UC San Diego. Mark will ask Ogawa for a list of expected participants from Japan. An agenda will be created in the January/February time frame. If you plan to attend, please send an email to Mark Tillack with a title if you plan to present.
The planned December briefing at DOE HQ has been cancelled. This was intended to review ACT results with the office staff. It may be rescheduled for next year, but there are no specific plans at present.
The FNSF kickoff will be Jan 28-30 at PPPL.
Documentation of ARIES ACT1 is still planned as a special issue of FST. Farrokh wants to set Dec 31 as the final deadline for papers to be submitted (to him). Please send a copy of you article to Mark Tillack for posting on the ARIES web site (see http://aries.ucsd.edu/ARIES/DOCS/FST2013/. This will allow other authors to check for consistency before reviews. Farrokh intends to send all of the papers together as a package. Jake agreed to ask Laila to send her paper to Mark.
Jake asked if his disruption work should be included in the larger paper on the vacuum vessel or as a standalone paper. Mark told him he should contact Farrokh, who is responsible for the vacuum vessel article.
As work is coming to an end on ACT2, the following papers are in preparation:
ARIES Technical ProgressCosting - Les Waganer and Chuck Kessel reported on the documentation provided to DOE regarding the methodology for costing power plants as compared with the costing of ITER. The document summarizes of a lot of work done previously. The main conclusion is that a head-to-head comparison is difficult and perhaps not very useful. Chuck mentioned that some people at PPPL do not agree with our conclusions, and continues to push for more work to be done in this area. Mark asked if this document is public, to which Les and Chuck suggested it is up to AL Opdenaker and DOE to decide upon distribution.
ACT2 engineering - Malang is looking for a draft of the ACT2 engineering report and will review it when available. Wang promised he will finish by the end of month and send to co-authors for review.
Edge physics - Tom Rognlien and Marv Rensink explained that not much effort will be placed on ACT2. Mark asked if they expect any differences between ACT1 and ACT2. Probably they are qualitatively the same, with differences in the details. Chuck noted that ACT1 system parameters agree well with detailed calculations. ACT2 was constrained to 10 MW/m2 in the system scans.
Chuck asked if their ACT1 paper had been reviewed by anyone else. Tom replied that it was distributed locally (at LLNL), but they are waiting for it to be submitted before giving it broader distribution.
Safety - Paul Humrickhouse indicated that his ACT1 paper still in the works, and hopes to finish this month. Some preliminary work was done on ACT2, but that will probably be dropped due to lack of time, lack of funding, and lack of priority.
Disruption analysis - Jake Blanchard is documenting the disruption results.
Neutronics - Mark mentioned that we need neutronics from Laila for the small-module design. This is an important part of the comparison between large-module and small-module blanket designs for ACT2.
CAD - Xueren Wang noted that CAD drawings for ACT2 components are done. The layout of the power core and maintenance will not be as detailed as ACT1. He will post all CAD figures within one week. His main focus now is ACT2 paper writing.
Materials - Arthur Rowcliffe is working on a paper for ICFRM. He may prefer to submit it to FED. Mark asked if we should expect ay more writing on materials for the ACT1 paper by the end of December. Arthur suggested we use the ICFRM plenary paper on SiC (from Katoh) and recent reviews on W. Arthur will send Mark some recent papers.
Plasma analysis - Chuck Kessel reported on progress. He is trying to complete the physics analysis for ACT2. Time-dependent simulations are being run for 6 cases. He is looking at several HCD options: ICE, ECE, LH and neutral beams. We want to know what a NB can do for us, with the constraint of fitting between 2 TF coils. NB is appealing for the plasma due to broad current profile, which is good for MHD stability. We are aware of several engineering problems. People at Culham are also looking at NB for power plants. Francesca Poli may write a detailed paper on HCD for ACT2.
MHD stability work is ongoing. For ACT2, no credit has been given for wall stabilization. beta is low; high BT is a result (8.75 T at R=0, 14.5 at coil). Stability is still tricky at low beta because of the absence of wall stabilization. He is trying to take credit for a wall behind the blanket and determine the benefits. beta may rise from 2.6 to 3.2 with this minimal amount of wall stabilization.
The ACT2 paper on the plasma is going to be shorter: no edge analysis and no fast particle stability analysis.
ACT3 and ACT4 systems analysis - ACT3 and ACT4 systems analysis is mostly finished, but interpreting and describing the results is still under consideration. What is "distinct" about these cases?
The main parameter on the technology side affecting results is the conversion efficiency (44% vs. 58%). Les asked what affects the major radius and plasma volume, which seem to have grown a lot? Chuck believes it is mainly due to the conversion efficiency. High BT is also affecting HCD. High cyclotron radiation may eliminate the need for Ar impurity.