TO: PULSAR Study Team
DATE: 3 Oct 1994
FROM: L. Waganer
SUBJECT: Starlite Conference Call Minutes, Wednesday, 28 Sept 1994
PARTICIPANTS (by organization): Billone, Sze, Dean, Sager, Stewart, McCarthy, Bathke, Waganer, Bromberg, Kessel, Hofer, Steiner, Najmabadi, Mau, El-Guebaly
The 9/14-16/94 project meeting minutes were adopted with no changes.
F. Najmabadi is updating the project e-mail lists -- send him any last minute changes for incorporation.
San Diego was selected as the location of the next project meeting. Due to conflicts with other meetings and commitments, all suitable dates in November were generally discounted. F. Najmabadi will check on the suitability of week of December 5-9 -- we will decide at the next conference call. The area of emphasis for the first or last day was discussed with no resolution. F. Najmabadi will contact ITER to determine if they wish to continue to send a representative to our Starlite project meetings.
It was noted that the next Utility Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for Oct 13-14 in San Diego. F. Najmabadi mentioned that the EPRI Fusion Working Group is holding their meeting together with our Utility Advisory Committee. Farrokh will shortly issue an agenda.
The next conference call is scheduled for October 11 at 11:30 CDT with the same conference phone number.
L. Waganer took an action to determine the use of Eudora within the project team.
Since I currently have your attention, would all team members or people who receive our communications send me back a note telling me if you are using Eudora or what other e-mail software you are using along with the information that you are using a Macintosh, PC, or a work station.
PULSAR REPORT STATUS
L. Bromberg reported that all the figures for the Magnet chapter have been sent to Farrokh. F. Najmabadi will issue a status of all PULSAR Report chapters, noting which chapters have not been forwarded electronically for incorporation.
Starlite PROJECT STATUS
Waganer issued (by fax) a 9/27 revision of the Action Item List that represented a summary of the items noted in the latest project meeting.
Task 1 - F. Najmabadi is updating his draft of the Demo mission and goals to be reissued to the project team for review this week or early next week. We all should begin to define quantifiable goals at the next level. Specifically, D. Steiner should consolidate the safety and licensing goals for incorporation.
Task 4. - D. Steiner reviewed the results of the Sept 16 afternoon meeting with the Safety and Licensing group held at PPPL. The group discussed how to address the macroscopic issues. One task group was set up which consisted of John DeLooper, Fred Silady, Steve Herring and Greg Hofer with Greg leading the group. The purpose was to draft a paper outlining a proposed strategy approach for licensing of future fusion plants.
Greg Hofer mentioned that his report detailing the NRC jurisdiction in fusion is still in review and he is almost finished writing the second report dealing with the NRC regulations that may apply to fusion.
Task 5A. - C. Kessel reported S. Jardin summarizing the physics operating regimes achieved and anticipated for possible application in our Demo. The current plan is to assess the merits of Demo with two classes of machines, one with nominal performance (Demo I) and another with a higher level of performance (Demo II). Accordingly, the physics group is grouping the physics operating regimes in these categories to assess the requirements and available performance capabilities.
Critical physics issues are being defined. Currently those identified (and being investigated) include: kink stability, radiative mantle, alpha-effects on bootstrap current, density control, and current profile control. Areas considered as "innovative" include alpha channeling and "rising buckets" (moving magnetic regions that transport helium ash to plasma edge). The plasma group are also refining the plasma figure of merit building upon the R. Goldston work presented in the last meeting.
C. Kessel has completed a TEQ analysis (is this acronym correct?) of the reverse shear operating regime at A=4.5 and forwarded the data to T.K. Mau for the current drive analysis. Chuck Kessel is having difficulty at A=3.0 and C. Bathke suggested backing off to A=3.5 as an alternative condition. Regarding the alpha pressure effects analyses, D. Ehst has been doing a simplified approach whereas C. Kessel is pursuing a more refined and detailed approach. Due to the difficulty of the latter, Kessel may adopt the simpler approach.
Task 5B - In her evaluation of the candidate liquid and solid breeders for Demo, L. ElGuebaly has added five more candidates to her list, totaling to 20 different breeders. D-K Sze is continuing to investigate the wall load limitations on the design aspects of the solid breeder highlighting the design requirements associated with the use of beryllium. He is also conferring with C. Wong on the heat transfer capabilities and limitations of a silicon carbide divertor cooled with helium. One option to be assessed is the microfin cooling design.