TO: PULSAR Study Team DATE: 11 Oct 1994

FROM: L. Waganer

SUBJECT: Starlite Conference Call Minutes, Tuesday, 11 October 1994

PARTICIPANTS (by organization): Billone, Sze, Sager, Wong, Herring, Bathke, Waganer, Jardin, Hofer, Steiner, Tillack, Miller, Mau, El-Guebaly

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

The 28 Sept conference call minutes were adopted with no changes.

F. Najmabadi has updated the EXEC, TEAM and ENGR lists and the team aliases on the UCSD computer. We should transmit any changes to him for incorporation. For instance, Wong's Fax number should be -2266 and T.K. Mau UCSD phone is 619-534-9711.

San Diego was selected as the location of the next project meeting. F. Najmabadi will check on the suitability of week of December 5-9. Sze and Waganer will confer with Najmabadi during the Utility Advisory Committee Meeting this week regarding possible dates. The group generally found the Dec 5-9 and the Nov 30-Dec 2 favorable.

The Utility Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for Oct 13-14 in San Diego. Sze, Najmabadi, Dove, Wong, Miller, Tillack and Waganer are planning to attend and Wong will bring a Professor Sheng from China to observe.

The next conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, October 26 at 11:30 CDT with the same conference phone number.

L. Waganer transmitted a survey of the e-mail capabilities within the project team.

Starlite PROJECT STATUS

Task Results:

Task 1 - No reported activity.

Task 2. - R. Miller reported he is giving an IAEA talk on Starlite economic assessment. There is a growing interest in the international community in the development and use of a common economic evaluation framework.

Task 3 - No reported activity.

Task 4. - D. Steiner reported the second interation of the licensing strategy paper is in review. He has been getting advice from B. Dove and hopes to confer with the Utility Advisory Committee members for advice.

Greg Hofer has the NRC jurisdiction and the NRC regulation reports in review and the licensing report is almost ready for peer review. One possible benefit is to take advantage of existing processes to streamline the licensing process.

S. Herring noted that in regard to the G. Hofer and the J. DeLooper PPPL presentation he was concerned about the long 15-year time scale. C. Wong also expressed concern that the scheduled presentation of the recommended licensing process to the commissioners may be too early.

D. Steiner recommended all comments to be forwarded to the entire licensing group for consideration. C. Wong reported he has been reviewing the strategy paper.

Task 5A. - S. Jardin expressed concern that the Physics Group needed to focus their efforts on fewer and more specific problems. C. Wong thought they were doing the right thing by identifying critical physics issues (+ characteristics, advantages/ disadvantages, and cataloging where the issue will be resolved). S. Jardin took the action to establish a (weeky?, bi-weekly?) Physics Group conference call. He will also record the major discussion items and action items. The physics group will also have a splinter meeting at the November APS meeting. [Steve, please inform F. Najmabadi of the members of the Physics Group so he can establish an e-mail alias.]

T.K. Mau mentioned that Starlite should take a critical look at the low aspect ratio tokamak devices. This class of device could show very high beta when scaled to a reactor size. There is a small device at Culham called START that demonstrates some of the basic physics features of a low aspect ratio device. The Russians are also interested in this area.

D.K. Sze expressed a concern about the likelihood of a MARFE occurring on Demo and if the Engineering Group should include a related design requirement. S. Jardin thought that ITER will have solved any MARFE-related problem and we should not be concerned. C. Wong held the view that we should identify the MARFE as a critical issue to be resolved by some TBD experimental or developmental program (not by the Starlite team). He also thought some variant of a MARFE may be beneficial and we should not groundrule away its existence.

T.K. Mau reported he has been working with C. Kessel's data from the equilibrium code results at A=4.5. He has been optimizing his current drive ray tracing code and has achieved a bootstrap current fraction of 77% as compared to D. Ehst's estimate of 82%. C. Bathke noted that this was not close to the TPX predicted value of 90%. S. Jardin cautioned that C. Kessel's data was just for a point value that has not been optimized. These data needs to be analyzed more carefully before drawing generalized conclusions. Temperature, density, and size all affect these results.

Task 5B - L. El-Guebaly reported she has been working on optimizing the lithium/ vanadium shield. On the low temperature shield, she is using steel, B4C, or borated steel. The latter allows a thinner shield with less heating. In the breeding blanket, she is evaluating 5 liquid metals and 13 solid breeder blanket combinations. C. Bathke encouraged the Engineering Group to improve the safety aspects of the liquid metal (lithium) blanket to the equivalent of an LSA = 1 (even though we may not use an LSA rating scheme in the future.) The concern only was related to the chemical safety (stored energy) of lithium. D.K. Sze stated that safety is only one measure of merit and the liquid options has many other attractive features. C. Bathke mentioned the Europeans are recommending vanadium with helium or lithium-lead coolants. M. Billone related that the European view of material databases is substantially different than our view in many areas.

D.K. Sze mentioned he has been looking into helium cooling with the microfin design and would be conferring with C. Wong before reporting results.

C. Wong offered to prepare a simple form for reporting critical issues. He may prepare some strawman data for comment by the group. He has started working on data for SiC.