1. Recent Results on Compact Stellarator Reactor Optimization J. F. Lyon, ORNL ARIES Meeting Sept. 3, 2003

2. TOPICS Plasma and coil characterization 1-D POPCON calculations Improvements over May reference cases  A proposed new reference case Sensitivities to different assumptions Status of systems code calculations

3. Plasma and Coil Characterization Plasma configuration – A p = /,  limit,  (r/a) – n(r/a) and T(r/a) shapes, C and Fe % –  -particle loss %,  He /  E Modular coil parameters – A  = /  min, d & k set the minimum value for – I coil (  1/B 0 ) & d determine – B 0 /B max (d,k) sets the maximum value for B 0 – min. coil-coil distance/ sets the max. value for k – d = coil depth, k = coil aspect ratio Plasma to coil distance – t =  – d/2k 1/2 = scrapeoff + first wall + blanket + shield + coil structure sets the min. value for

4. B 0 /B max depends on A , d & k

5. Plasma and Coil Candidates Ku’s three period 2/25/03 coils – A p = 4.5, A  = 6.88, I coil = 13 MA (R = 8.25 m, B 0 = 5.3 T), – B 0 /B max = 0.456 (R = 8.25 m, d = 0.3 m, k = 1) – min. coil-coil distance/ = 0.107; 30%  loss Ku’s three period 8/1/03 coils – A p = 4.5, A  = 5.9, I coil = 16.5 MA (R = 8.3 m, B 0 = 6.5 T), – B 0 /B max = 0.38 (R = 8.3 m, d = 0.3 m, k = 1) – min. coil-coil distance/ = 0.099 ; 30%  loss ? Garabedian’s two period 8/14/03 case – A p = 3.5, A  = 5.53; potentially interesting – no information on I coil, B 0 /B max, min. coil-coil dist. – insufficient information for assessments

6. TOPICS Plasma and coil characteristics 1-D POPCON calculations Improvements over May reference cases  A proposed new reference case Sensitivities to different assumptions Status of systems code

7. 1-D POPCON Calculations Input variables – magnetic configuration:,, B 0,  (r/a), – plasma properties:  E ISS-95 multiplier H,  He /  E,  particle loss %, n(r/a) & T(r/a) shapes, C & Fe % Constraints – fusion power P fop, n < 2n Sudo,  <  limit, Calculated quantities – oper. point:,,, P fusion, %He, %D-T, Z eff – minimum ignited point:,,, P fusion – saddle point:,,, P in – P in (, ) contours – P rad (, ): coronal and bremsstrahlung; P  losses

8. Profile Assumptions Other Variables P fus = 2 GW H ISS-95 = minimum 30%  loss  He /  E = 6 C 1%, Fe 0.01%

9. POPCON Features n = n Sudo ignition contour (P in = 0) operating point P fus target = 4% 10 MW 300 10 20 100 30 40 30 thermally stable branch saddle point

10. Constraints Limit Operating Space  < 6% n < 2n Sudo

11. TOPICS Plasma and coil characteristics 1-D POPCON plots Improvements over May reference cases  A proposed new reference case Sensitivities to different assumptions Status of systems code

12. Drop Earlier (May 2003) Cases

13. Increasing to 5.8% and  limit to 7% Improves Case with R = 8.3 m and B 0 = 5.3 T

14. New Optimization Approach Minimize = A  (t + d/2k 1/2 ) with constraints – maximum B 0 that gives B max on coil = 16 T (also looked at B max = 14 T and 12 T) – < 330 MA/m 2 for high-T c superconductor (110–135 MA/m 2 if low-T c Nb 3 Sn) – minimum distance between coils > 0 (2.5-cm case) Determine minimum H-ISS95 that satisfies – fusion power P = 2 GW – operating point on thermally stable branch of ignition curve – average neutron wall loading < 4 MW/m 2 –  <  limit

15. Parameter Scaling (2/25/03 coil set) = A  (t + d/2k 1/2 ); t = 1.1m (Laila, May 2003) = 13 (B 0 /5.3)(R/8.25)/d 2 B 0 = 16 B 0 /B max (d,k) / {(B 0 /5.3)(R/8.25)} Min. coil-coil dist. = 0.88(R/8.3) – k 1/2 d - 2(0.025)

16. Can Improve If Allow k > 1

17. 2/25/03 Coils with R = 7.96 m and B 0 = 8.19 T

18. Can Do Better with Ku’s 8/1/2003 Coils

19. Variation of Cost and Maximum Power Relative Cost / P electric = 0.62

20. 8/1/03 Coils with R = 6.93 m and B 0 = 7.59 T New reference case?

21. TOPICS Plasma and coil characteristics 1-D POPCON plots Improvements over May reference cases  A proposed new reference case Sensitivities to different assumptions Status of systems code

22. H-ISS95 Required Increases with  Loss

23. Other Considerations Smallest leads to lowest cost – blanket, shield, and coil volume (for fixed j coil )  R 2  gives R = 6.93 m, B 0 = 7.59 T, rel. cost = 0.7 for t = 1.1 m, d = 3, k = 4, B max = 16 T, high-T c SC Other considerations – is t = 1.1 m OK? 1.2 or 1.3 m? – d = 0.3 m and k >> 1 OK? – B max = 16 T OK? 14 T or 12 T? – high-T c superconductor for larger (and smaller d) or Nb 3 Sn? P = 1.5 GW or 2 GW desirable? – larger but lower cost of electricity – higher  and neutron wall loading

24. Smaller t Gives a More Attractive Reactor

25. Larger t Gives a Less Attractive Reactor

26. Can Reduce B max to 14 T or 12 T If Needed

27. H-ISS95 Scales as 0.38

28. Nb 3 Sn Coils Give a Less Attractive Reactor

29. TOPICS Plasma and coil characteristics 1-D POPCON plots Improvements over May reference cases  A proposed new reference case Sensitivities to different assumptions Status of systems code

30. Systems Code Being Updated Have upgraded to current math libraries and operating system Incorporating plasma and modular coil geometry – plasma shape, plasma-coil separations, B max (d,k), etc. Will update outdated ARIES-IV cost and materials models from Les Wagner Can use Ku’s B max (d,k)/B 0 as model for coils? Will use Bromberg’s model for (B max ) Still need to decide on a number of parameters and constraints

31. Simplified MHHOPT Optimization Approach Minimizes core cost or size or COE with constraints for a particular plasma and coil geometry using a nonlinear constrained optimizer with a large number of variables Large number of constraints allowed (=, ) – P electric, ignition margin,  limit, ISS-95 multiplier, radial build, coil j and B max, plasma-coil distance, blanket and shielding thicknesses, TBR, access for divertors and maintenance, etc. Large number of fixed parameters for plasma and coil configuration, plasma parameters and profiles, transport coefficients, cost component algorithms, and engineering model parameters Calculates (and iterates on) a large number of variables – plasma: T e (r), T i (r), n e (r), n e (r), E r (r), , Z eff, H-ISS95, power components (coronal and bremsstrahlung radiation,  i,  e),  losses, etc. – coils: max. & min. width/depth of coils, clearance between coils, components volumes and costs, j, B max, forces – reactor variables: B 0,, blanket volumes, TBR, neutron wall loading, P electric, divertor area, access between coils, radial build, etc. – costs: equipment cost, annual operating cost, total project cost

32. MHHOPT Reactor Optimization Code input: physics, coil, costing, and reactor component parameters and constraints plasma solver: T e (r), T i (r), n e (r), n i (r), E r (r), , Z eff, P rad, P fusion, P ,loss, P wall, P divertor,  E, etc. masses of coil and structure, j, B max blanket volumes, TBR, access, radial build forces on coil and structure costs of all ARIES accounts, P electric evaluate all parameters & constraints output: all parameters and profiles nonlinear optimizer: optimizes targets with constraints

33. Input Parameters Configuration geometry – plasma aspect ratio, surface area, coil aspect ratio, closest approach aspect ratio,  limit,  (r), ripple effective (r), etc. Reactor component parameters – inside & outside shield thickness; coil width and depth – blanket thickness inside & outside, under and between coils – coil case & dewar thickness inside, outside, top & bottom for modular coils and VF coils; scrapeoff thickness – first wall and reflector thickness; coil to cryostat gap – allowable nuclear heating in coil; j max (B) – blanket energy multiplication Cost assumptions – modular and VF costs /kg – costs and multipliers for blanket and shield – duty factor, inflation, safety assurance

34. Output Plasma parameters and profiles –, B 0, W plasma,  E, H factors,,  *, n Fe / n e, n O / n e, Z eff –, T i0, T i,edge, T e0, T e,edge,  0 / T e0,, n i0, n e0, / n Sudo, n DT / n e, – ignition margin, P fusion, P electric, P neutron, P charged, P divertor, components of P rad and P wall, P loss Coil parameters – modular & VF coil dimensions, currents, forces, inductance, stored energy, j, B max, case thickness Reactor parameters – blanket area accessible and blocked, inboard and outboard shield thickness, cryostat gap, access between coils

35. Output (cont.) Cost elements – land & structures; power supplies; impurity control; heat transport; power conversion; startup power – blankets & first wall; shields; modular & VF coils; structure; vacuum vessel – turbine plant equipment; electric plant equipment; misc. plant equipment; special materials; total direct cost – construction; home office; field office; owner’s costs; project contingency; construction interest; construction escalation; total capital cost – unit direct cost; unit base cost; total unit cost; capital return; O&M costs; blanket/first wall replacement; decommissioning allowance; fuel costs; cost of electricity Summary of all component masses & mass utilization Dimensions of each element in the radial build

36. Summary We should drop the earlier (May) reference cases – (1) B max & too high or (2) too large Have improved the reactor parameters by choosing – Ku’s 8/1 coil configuration (smaller A  ) – set B max = 16 T and k = 4 (coil-coil distance > 0) B max = 14 T or 12 T, t = 1.2 or 1.3 m, Nb 3 Sn also possible, but larger reactors Not enough data to assess Garabedian’s case Systems code being resurrected – needs updated cost assumptions – need to agree on other assumptions