US-Japan workshop on Fusion Power Reactor Design and Related Advanced Technologies, March at UCSD.

Transcription

1 US-Japan workshop on Fusion Power Reactor Design and Related Advanced Technologies, March at UCSD. Overview Overview of of Design Design Integration Integration toward toward Optimization -type Fusion Optimization of of LHD LHD-type Fusion Reactor Reactor FFHR FFHR Presented by Y. Kozaki Akio Sagara, O. Mitarai1, S. Iamagawa, Y. Kozaki, T. Watanabe, T. Tanaka, N. Yanagi, K. Takahata, H. Tamura, H. Chikaraishi, S. Yamada, T. Mito, A. Shishkin2, Y. Igitkhanov3, H. Igami, T. Morisaki, M. Kobayashi, R. Sakamoto, H. Yamada, O. Motojima and FFHR design group National Institute for Fusion Science, Japan 1Kyushyu Tokai University, Japan Institute of Physics and Technology, Ukraine 3Max-Planck-Institut fur Plasmaphysik, Germany 2Kharkov FFHR 2 GWth 6 Tesla 25, ton Sagara-1 / 16

2 Sagara-2 2 / 16 Presentation outline toward design optimization 1. Reactor size and cost 2. Minimization of heating power 3. High density ignition and control 4. Large SC magnet system 5. Access to Demo 6. Concluding remarks

3 Magnetic field B (T) LHD Ap ~ FFHR2 Ap ~ 8 γ =1.15 ARIES-CS Ap~4.5 ITER Ap~ FFHR2m1 Ap ~ 8 γ =1.15 outer shift 1995 FFHR1(l=3) Ap ~ 1 γ =1 optimum? FFHR2m2 Ap ~ 6 γ =1.25 inner shift Coil major radius R c (m) Reactor size optimization w/o increasing neutron wall loading in in FFHR Ergodic layer is is important for for alpha-heating efficiency > 9 9 %, %, Helical (a) X-point Divertor (HXD) T. Morisaki (b) et al., FED 81 (26) by T. Watanabe Sagara-3 / 16

4 Sagara-4 / 16 Three candidates are proposed to increase blanket space > 1.1 m (1) Reduction of the inboard shielding thickness using WC Plasma Breeding layer [Flibe+Be] (32cm) Radiation shield (6 cm) (Magnet) (2) Improvement of the symmetry of magnetic surfaces by increasing the current density at the inboard side of the helical coils LHD FFHR-2S by splitting the helical coils. N. Yanagi et al., in this conference.

5 Sagara-5 / 16 Three candidates are proposed to increase blanket space > 1.1 m Design parameters LHD FFHR2 FFHR2m1 FFHR2m2 Polarity l Field periods m Coil pitch parameter γ Coil major Radius R c m Coil minor radius a c m Plasma major radius R p m Plasma radius a p m Plasma volume Vp m Blanket space m Magnetic field B T Max. field on coils B max T Coil current density j MA/m Magnetic energy GJ Fusion power P F GW Neutron wall load Γ n MW/m External heating power P ext MW α heating efficiency η α Density lim.improvement H factor of ISS Effective ion charge Z eff Electron density n e () 1^19 m Temperature T i () kev Plasma beta <β> % Plasma conduction loss P L MW Diverter heat load Γ div MW/m Total capital cost G$(23) COE mill/kwh (Cost evaluation based on the ITER (22) report) P f (GW), TCC (G$), B o (T) (3) (3) Optimization of of reactor size around Rc of of m J = 25 ~ 33 A/mm 2 Γ n = 1.3 ~ 1.5 MW/m 2 B TCC (total capital cost) P f (fusion output) FFHR2 blanket space > 1 m W g (magnetic energy) COE FFHR2m Coil major radius R c (m) FFHR2m Wg (GJ), COE (mil/kwh)

6 n() (m -3 ) f alpha n limit ()/n() τ E (s) P EXT (MW) NE NELMT PF PF DLM PEXT (b) (c) (d) Minimized heating power ~ 3 MW O. Mitarai al. Nucl.. Fusion 47 (27) (a) rise-up time 2 h FALPHA WPV TAUE Time (s) T DWDTV P f (GW) T i () (kev) dw/dt(mw) Wp(MJ) P EX T + P α = dw dt + (P L + P B + P S ) Reduction of thermal stress Sagara-6 / 16

7 IDB Ignition Scenario with SDC Conventional design n, T parabola profile: (1-x 2 ) IDB scenario Design parameters FFHR2m1 SDC Fusion power P F GW 1.9 Density lim.improvement H factor of ISS Electron density n e () 1^2 m Temperature T i () kev Effective ion charge Zeff Plasma beta <β> % Energy confinem. time τ Ε s Bremsstrahlung loss P B MW Plasma conduction loss P L MW Heat load to first wall Γ div MW/m Heat load to divertor Γ div MW/m IDB profile Divertor heat load is drastically reduced. Sagara-7 / 16

8 Neutron wall loading is is ave. 1.5 MW/m 2 and peaking factor < 1.3 Evaluated using the recently developed 3D neutronics calculation system for non- axisymmetric helical systems T. Tanaka et al. 21th IAEA (26) Cell 2 Quick feedback Cell 1 between 3D CAD and 3D Monte-Carlo code MCNP5, using numerical mesh prepared Quadrangular in Fig. 2 mesh (a) helical equations. prepared in Fig. (a). Total TBR > 1.1 Two cases of neutron sources Ion density: n (1-r 2 ) Temperature: T (1-r 2 ) Max. Temp.: 16 kev p n 2 < v>(t) First wall of blanket on helical coil Max. 1.8 for helical source Max. 2. for uniform source Average 1.5 First wall of blanket at divertor area (unit : MW/m 2 ) Sagara-8 / 16

9 Sagara-9 9 / 16 Presentation outline toward design optimization 1. Reactor size and cost 2. Minimization of heating power 3. High density ignition and control 4. Large SC magnet system 5. Access to Demo 6. Concluding remarks

10 Sagara-1 / 16 Base design of CICC magnet system S. Imagawa et al., in this conference. Nuclear heating in FFHR2m1 5 times Max. cooling path is 5 m for the nuclear heat of 1 mw/cm 3. This value is 5 times larger on the FFHR magnets. Gamma-ray heating is dominant.

11 Sagara-11 / 16 Nuclear shielding of SC magnets by by Discrete Pumping with with Semi-closed Shield (DPSS) cover rate > 9% Acceptable level achieved Fast neutron < 1E22 n/m 2 in 3 years Max. nuclear heating <.2 mw/cm 3 Total nuclear heating ~ 4 kw Cryogenics power ~ 12 MW (1% of P f ) 3D design with DPSS

12 Indirect cooling system as as an an alternative with quench protection candidates K. Takahata et al., 24 th SOFT, 26. SS316 Nb 3 Sn+Cu SS316 Indirect Cooling Ceramic 1 ka Superconductor High effective thermal conductivity High mechanical rigidity and strength Quench protection by external dumping Conventional protection circuit using an external resistor τ=2 s Six subdivisions V max =1 kv Hot spot temperature < 15 K Cross-sectional structure of the helical coil Quench protection by internal dumping K. Takahata et al., in this conference. Quench back with a secondary circuit to increase a decay time constant to reduce a transient voltage to avoid a serious hot spot Sagara-12 / 16

13 Sagara-13 / 16 LHD-type support post for FFHR H. Tamura et al., in this conference. Gravity per support = 16, ton / 3 legs ~ 53 ton. Thermal contraction < max. 55 mm Total heat load to 4K ~.34 kw ( 1/2 of stainless steel post) (Carbon Fiber Reinforcement Plastic)

14 Design parameters LHD FFHR2m1 SDC Polarity l 2 2 Field periods m 1 1 Coil pitch parameter γ Coil major Radius R c m Coil minor radius a c m Plasma major radius R p m Plasma radius a p m Plasma volume Vp m 3 3 Blanket space m.12 Magnetic field B T 4 Max. field on coils B max T 9.2 Coil current density j MA/m 2 53 Magnetic energy GJ 1.64 Fusion power P F GW Neutron wall load Γ n MW/m External heating power P ext MW 8 α heating efficiency η α.9 Density lim.improvement H factor of ISS Electron density n e () 1^2 m Temperature T i () kev Effective ion charge Zeff Plasma beta <β> % Energy confinem. time τ Ε s α ash confiment τ α /τ Ε 3 < 7 Bremsstrahlung loss P B MW Plasma conduction loss P L MW Heat load to first wall Γ div MW/m Heat load to divertor Γ div MW/m Diverter heat load Γ div MW/m Total capital cost G$(23) 5.6 COE mill/kwh 16 LHD experiments External heating High energy particle New density limit Enhancement of τ E Impurity shielding He exhaust Sagara-14 / 16

15 Role -Reactor Roleof ofdesign DesignStudy Studyto tohelical HelicalDemo Demo-Reactor based basedon onlhd LHDProject Project Tokamak Experimental Rector ITER LHD-type Helical Reactor FFHR Electric Power 1GW Weight 25,ton Magnetic Field 6T Helical Demo Rector (29 years to go) Physics of burning plasmas LHD Demonstration of steady-state, highdensity, high beta by net-current free plasma Multi-layer models covering physics and engineering LHD-NT LHD Numerical Test Reactor Basic Science Sagara-15 / 16

16 Sagara-16 / 16 Concluding remarks 1. Helical reactor is superior in steady state operation and Reduced neutron wall loading by optimization of large reactor size, Minimized heating power by long access time to ignition, High density operation with reduced heat load on divertor. 2. Large SC magnet system is conceptually feasible. 3. Helical reactor is economically comparable to Tokamak. 4. Numerical Test Reactor is planned to Helical Demo. 5. Large sized construction is important R&D issue. 6. LHD experiments can open new reactor regimes.