skip to main content

SciTech ConnectSciTech Connect

This content will become publicly available on December 22, 2016

Title: The ARIES Advanced and Conservative Tokamak Power Plant Study

Tokamak power plants are studied with advanced and conservative design philosophies to identify the impacts on the resulting designs and to provide guidance to critical research needs. Incorporating updated physics understanding and using more sophisticated engineering and physics analysis, the tokamak configurations have developed a more credible basis compared with older studies. The advanced configuration assumes a self-cooled lead lithium blanket concept with SiC composite structural material with 58% thermal conversion efficiency. This plasma has a major radius of 6.25 m, a toroidal field of 6.0 T, a q₉₅ of 4.5, aᵦtotal N of 5.75, an H98 of 1.65, an n/nGr of 1.0, and a peak divertor heat flux of 13.7 MW/m² . The conservative configuration assumes a dual-coolant lead lithium blanket concept with reduced activation ferritic martensitic steel structural material and helium coolant, achieving a thermal conversion efficiency of 45%. The plasma has a major radius of 9.75 m, a toroidal field of 8.75 T, a q₉₅ of 8.0, aᵦtotalN of 2.5, an H₉₈ of 1.25, an n/nGr of 1.3, and a peak divertor heat flux of 10 MW/m² . The divertor heat flux treatment with a narrow power scrape off width has driven the plasmas to larger majormore » radius. Edge and divertor plasma simulations are targeting a basis for high radiated power fraction in the divertor, which is necessary for solutions to keep the peak heat flux in the range 10 to 15 MW/m² . Combinations of the advanced and conservative approaches show intermediate sizes. A new systems code using a database approach has been used and shows that the operating point is really an operating zone with some range of plasma and engineering parameters and very similar costs of electricity. Other papers in this issue provide more detailed discussion of the work summarized here.« less
 [1] ;  [2] ;  [2] ;  [1] ;  [1] ;  [1] ;  [2] ;  [2] ;  [2] ;  [3] ;  [4] ;  [4] ;  [4] ;  [4] ;  [5] ;  [6] ;  [6] ;  [7] ;  [7] ;  [7] more »;  [7] ;  [7] ;  [7] ;  [8] ;  [8] ;  [8] ;  [9] ;  [10] ;  [11] « less
  1. Princeton Plasma Physics Lab. (PPPL), Princeton, NJ (United States)
  2. Univ. of California, San Diego, CA (United States)
  3. Karlsruhe Inst. of Technology (KIT) (Germany)
  4. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (United States)
  5. Idaho National Lab. (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)
  6. Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
  7. Georgia Inst. of Technology, Atlanta, GA (United States)
  8. General Atomics, La Jolla, CA (United States)
  9. Consultant, O'Fallen, MO (United States)
  10. Fusion Nuclear Technology Consulting, Linkenheim-Hochstetten (Germany)
  11. Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States), Retired
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
Report Number(s):
Journal ID: ISSN 1536-1055; TRN: US1500501
Grant/Contract Number:
AC07-05ID14517; AC02-76CH03073; AC52-07NA27344; FC02-04ER54698
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Fusion Science and Technology
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 67; Journal Issue: 1; Journal ID: ISSN 1536-1055
American Nuclear Society
Research Org:
Idaho National Lab. (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)
Sponsoring Org:
Country of Publication:
United States