17 June 1994, Revised 7/8/94
Subject: Minutes of the 13-15 June 1994 STARLITE Project Meeting
To: ARIES Project List
From: F. Najmabadi, L. Waganer
Attendees: See attached list
Introduction - This meeting was the kickoff of the STARLITE DEMO concept formulation project and the culmination of the PULSAR conceptual design activity. B. Conn reviewed what is to be accomplished by STARLITE, what a DEMO must do, and how this project differs from previous commercial designs. B. Dove informed the group that the recent ARIES and PULSAR briefing to DOE at Washington was well received especially the concept of thermal storage. Bill stressed that the STARLITE study is timely-definition of a DEMO is needed to help shape and guide near-term experimental programs and facilities to deliver the required data, components, and subsystems necessary for the evolution to DEMO and the commercial tokamak. The definition of DEMO must be endorsed by the project, the fusion community, and the ultimate customers of the DEMO to achieve this consensus. The project members must have close and active involvement with all stake holders (ITER, TPX, industry, national laboratories, et al.). DEMO and the commercial plant must be based on the same technology and nearly the same scale. DEMO must develop the licensing procedures, demonstrate the safety capability, and establish D&D processes for the commercial plant.
F. Najmabadi outlined the procedure to establish the DEMO mission and requirements which are then used to develop and test alternate concepts to fulfill those missions and requirements. Farrokh described a general parameter space that may be used to describe minimal and optimal solutions. L. Waganer stressed that STARLITE is conceived to be in a concept formulation phase that will result in program requirements to achieve a DEMO tokamak power plant. One or more pre-conceptual designs may evolve to evaluate achievement of the stated requirements. DEMO is viewed as a "stepping stone" from the results of the near-term experimental devices and the first generation commercial power plants.
B. Schleicher of GA described the evolution of the HTGR concept from small experimental devices to design of large power plants. He stressed the needto remain flexible because of the long development cycle; external events will cause significant program and design changes. Above all, the end product must be economically competitive. The DEMO must be close enough to demonstrate, with minimal risk, that the economic goals can be achieved. Safety is good but economics prevail. The developmental pace of the HTGR, in retrospect, was very aggressive and highly success oriented. Maintenance considerations drove many design changes.
Detailed Discussion of Task Definition and Plans - F. Najmabadi discussed the general approach of Task 1, Definition of the Mission, Requirements, Milestones, and Features. These are to be developed first at a high level for the entire plant and then at a more detailed level for the plant subsystems. All subsystems and components must be demonstrated prior to DEMO, but perhaps not in a fully integrated fashion. The COE goal must be reasonably close to that of the best of the competition at the time of DEMO (R. Miller to define methodology). We need to propose new licensing rules and safety assessments specifically for fusion so we are not encumbered with fission regulations and policies.
B. Wiffen stressed the need to have better communication between the design team and the materials community. The design team needs to have the latest data and R&D results while the materials community needs requirements to help shape their future efforts. A consensus was reached that it would be beneficial for a materials person from the materials community be assigned to the STARLITE team. We will also hold special workshops to discussmaterial needs with the material community. Wiffen's group is working on development of structural materials in a fusion environment, namely ferritic (martensitic) steel, vanadium, and SiC/SiC components (indecreasing order). Each of these materials may have some difficulty achieving the DEMO structural materials requirements. Non-structural materials are under Marvin Cohen (PFC Materials) and Sam Berk (Multipliers and Breeders). S. Jardin described some preliminary assessment of a reverse-shear plasma which promises a better transport and higher power density. This may lead to a more attractive reactor. New requirements for this approach include a conductive wall and a rotating plasma will need to be assessed by the engineering group. D. Ehst reported results of a rudimentary systems analysis, but it was felt that the reverse-shear plasma must be evaluated in the ASC code. C. Bathke is to define modeling needs for the physics group and then evaluate a reverse-shear case in an ARIES context.
D-K Sze suggested concentrating the limited engineering resources (mainly devoted to the STELLARATOR) to assessing improvement to the shield, higher power densities, and advanced thermal conversion systems (and coolants/materials).
C. Wong presented the STARFIRE plant layouts and schematics that are to be shown to the Utility Advisory Committee as representative of a commercial fusion power plant. These will also be used as the starting points for the STARLITE DEMO. C. Wong will also develop a WBS list for the entire plant for use in defining the critical subsystems and the RAMI analyses.
R. Miller discussed his plans to upgrade his modeling capability for DEMO, to assess competitive energy modeling, and to establish economic goals. L. Waganer outlined the RAMI task objectives. L. Sas described his plans to obtain and catalogue MTTF and MTTR data. He will also model the DEMO systems in order to help establish DEMO and commercial RAMI goals.
D. Steiner summarized the licensing and safety task plans. [Revised] Itwas decided to follow a three-pronged approach; 1) review of the current NRC regulations (Hofer), 2) follow the evolution of the DOE fusion standardbeing developed (Herring), and 3), initiate a clean sheet licensing assessment (Silady).
The meeting concluded with the establishment of an action item list which follows. [Dates revised and time added] The next meeting is scheduled for September 14 (devoted to physics), 15, and 16 to be held at PPPL. The meeting will begin at 8:30 with coffee and the physics session beginning at 9:00 am. The meeting will conclude on the last day at 3:00 pm. [7/8/94:F. Najmabadi is to check with B. Conn on feasiblity of scheduling meeting on 19-20-12 Nov.]
Person - Action - Due Date
Waganer - Invite Canadian Power representative to discuss evolution of CANDU reactors at next meeting - 9/7
Wong/Hamilton - Obtain HTGR requirement and criteria documents - 9/7
Najmabadi/Waganer - Address level of system integration prior to DEMO - Scope out size of DEMO and commercial plant - 7/6
Miller - Formulate procedure/process we will use to measure/compare our COE value - 7/6
Steiner [Revised] - Identify alternate approaches for management of fusionradioactive waste - 9/7
Wiffen - Assign a materials person to work with STARLITE team supplementewith specific workshops - 9/7
Task Leaders - Prepare a top level mission and requirements list for major subsystems - 7/6
Najmabadi/Waganer - Ditto for DEMO program - 7/6
Wong [Revised] Prepare WBS format for DEMO Plant - 7/26
Brimer/Blanchard/Wong - Select design criteria for use on DEMO e.g. ASME Boil and P. code - 9/7
Davis - Work with materials community to obtain materials properties including cost - Continuous
Waganer - Work with ITER FWBS team to recommend range of structural fractions - 9/7
All? - Provide guidance to materials community for materials developmental needs - Continuous
Jardin/Ehst - Assess physics database, Subtask (1) - 9/14 R
- Characterize DEMO I, DEMO II, Subtask (2) - On-going R
- Physics innovation, Subtask (3) - On-going R
Bathke - Identify needed reverse shear scaling relationships for ASC code - 7/6
- After database is available, assess reverse shear physics in ASC code - 9/7
Sze/El-Guebaly - Assess improvement for shield (and FWB) - On-going R
Schleicher - Assess power conversion improvement - Prelim 9/15 R
Sze/El-Guebaly - Assess limits of power density Prelim - 9/15 R
Wong - Develop plant layout/diagrams as specified by UAC - 9/15 R
R. Miller - Update cost model, Assess status of competitive energy cost assessments - On-Going
Sas/Miller - Establish strawman operational timeline including scheduled/unscheduled outage allotments - 9/7
Sas - Investigate availability and accessibility of MTTR/MTBF databases - 7/6
Silady (GA) - Clean sheet licensing assessment - 9/15 R
Herring Propose DEMO safety goals 9/15 R
Hofer - Assess possible licensing delays/enhancements - 9/15 R
University of California at San Diego
13-15 June 1994
Name, Affiliation, Phone Number
Lester M. Waganer, McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
Mail Stop 3064204, PO Box 516, St. Louis, MO 63166