AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD, GA, GIT, LLNL, INEEL, MIT, ORNL, PPPL, SNL, SRS, UCLA, UCSD, UIIC, UWisc

1. NSO Collaboration http://fire.pppl.gov AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD, GA, GIT, LLNL, INEEL, MIT, ORNL, PPPL, SNL, SRS, UCLA, UCSD, UIIC, UWisc FIRE - A Test Bed for Advanced DEMO (ARIES) Physics and Plasma Technology Dale Meade Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 7th International Symposium on Fusion Nuclear Technology Tokyo, Japan May 24, 2005

2. ARIES Economic Studies have Defined the Plasma Requirements for an Attractive Fusion Power Plant Plasma Exhaust Pheat/Rx ~ 100MW/m Helium Pumping Tritium Retention High Gain Q ~ 25 - 50 ntET ~ 6x1021 m-3skeV Pa/Pheat = fa ≈ 90% Low rotation Plasma Control Fueling Current Drive RWM Stabilization High Power Density Pf/V~ 6 MWm-3 ~10 atm Gn ≈ 4 MWm-2 Steady-State ~ 90% Bootstrap Significant advances are needed in each area. A Broad International Approach is needed to provide the R&D Needed for DEMO

3. Can a fusion fire be controlled and sustained? • A fusion plasma will be a complex non-linearly coupled system that can not be simulated by a large number non-burning experiments: one addressing confinement, another addressing MHD, etc as separate issues • New Issues for a self-heated Burning Plasma (Q > 10) include: • Global energy balance • Local burn profile control • Alpha ash removal • Bootstrap Current Profile control (fbs/Ip > 70%) • The difficulty of controlling and sustaining a fusion fire should not be underestimated. - a second burning plasma experiment would greatly reduce the risk of burning plasma problems in ITER.

4. FIRE Physics Objectives Burning Plasma Physics (Conventional Inductively Driven H-Mode) Q ~10 as target, higher Q not precluded fa = Pa/Pheat ~ 66% as target, up to 83% @ Q = 25 TAE/EPM stable at nominal point, access to unstable Advanced Toroidal Physics (100% Non-inductively Driven AT-Mode) Q ~ 5 as target, higher Q not precluded fbs = Ibs/Ip ~ 80% as target, ARIES-RS/AT≈90% bN ~ 4.0, n = 1 wall stabilized, RWM feedback Quasi-Stationary Burn Duration (use plasma time scales) Pressure profile evolution and burn control > 20 - 40 tE Alpha ash accumulation/pumping > 4 - 10 tHe Plasma current profile evolution ~ 2 to 5 tskin Divertor pumping and heat removal > 10 - 20 tdivertor First wall heat removal > 1 tfirst-wall

5. Fusion Ignition Research Experiment (FIRE) • R = 2.14 m, a = 0.595 m • B = 10 T, (~ 6.5 T, AT) • Ip = 7.7 MA, (~ 5 MA, AT) • PICRF = 20 MW • PLHCD ≤ 30 MW (Upgrade) • Pfusion ~ 150 MW • Q ≈ 10, (5 - 10, AT) • Burn time ≈ 20s (2 tCR - Hmode) • ≈ 40s (< 5 tCR - AT) • Tokamak Cost = $350M (FY02) • Total Project Cost = $1.2B (FY02) at new site. 1,400 tonne LN cooled coils Mission: to attain, explore, understand and optimize magnetically-confined fusion-dominated plasmas

6. FIRE is Based on ARIES-RS Vision • 40% scale model of ARIES-RS plasma • ARIES-like all metal PFCs • Actively cooled W divertor • Be tile FW, cooled between shots • Close fitting conducting structure • ARIES-level toroidal field • LN cooled BeCu/OFHC TF • ARIES-like current drive technology • • FWCD and LHCD (no NBI/ECCD) • • No momentum input • • Site needs comparable to previous • DT tokamaks (TFTR/JET). • • T required/pulse ~ TFTR ≤ 0.3g-T

7. FIRE has Passed DOE Physics Validation Review • The DOE FIRE Physics Validation Review (PVR) was held March 30-31 in Germantown. • The Committee included: S. Prager, (Chair) Univ of Wisc, Earl Marmar, MIT, N. Sauthoff PPPL, F. Najmabadi, UCSD, Jerry Navratil, Columbia (unable to attend), John Menard PPPL, R. Boivin GA, P.  Mioduszewski ORNL, Michael Bell, PPPL, S. Parker Univ of Co, C. Petty GA, P. Bonoli MIT, B. Breizman Texas, • PVR Committee Consensus Report: • The FIRE team is on track for completing the pre-conceptual design within FY 04. FIRE would then be ready to launch the conceptual design. The product of the FIRE work, and their contributions to and leadership within the overall burning plasma effort, is stellar. • Is the proposed physical device sufficiently capable and flexible to answer the critical burning plasma science issues proposed above? • The 2002 Snowmass study also provided a strong affirmative answer to this question. Since the Snowmass meeting the evolution of the FIRE design has only strengthened ability of FIRE to contribute to burning plasma science.

8. Significant Progress on Existing Tokamaks Improves FIRE (and ITER) Design Basis since FESAC and NRC Reviews • Extended H-Mode and AT operating ranges • Benefits of FIRE high triangularity, DN and moderate n/nG • Extended H-Mode Performance based ITPA scaling with reduced b degradation, and ITPA Two Term (pedestal and core) scaling (Q > 20). • Hybrid modes (AUG, DIII-D,JET) are excellent match to FIRE n/nG, and projects Q > 20. • Slightly peaked density profiles (n(0)/<n> = 1.25)enhance performance. • Elms mitigated by high triangularity, disruptions in new ITPA physics basis will be tempered somewhat.

9. New ITPA tE Scaling Opens Ignition Regime for FIRE Unstable side Stable side • Systematic scans of tE vs b on DIII-D and JET show little degradation with b in contrast to the ITER 98(y, 2) scaling which has tE ~b-0.66 • A new confinement scaling relation developed by ITPA has reduced adverse scaling with b see eq. 10 in IAEA-CN-116/IT/P3-32. Cordey et al. • A route to ignition is now available if high bN regime can be stabilized.

10. FIRE Conventional H-Mode Operating Range Expanded Nominal operating point • Q =10 • Pf = 150 MW, 5.5 MWm-3 Power handling improved • Pf ~ 300 MW, 10 MWm-3 Physics basis improved (ITPA) • DN enhances tE, bN • DN reduces Elms • Hybrid mode has Q ~ 20 Engineering Design Improved • Pulse repetition rate tripled • divertor & baffle integrated Advanced DEMO power density of 5 - 10 MWm-3 could be produced.

11. “Steady-State” High-b Advanced Tokamak Discharge on FIRE Pf/V = 5.5 MWm-3 Gn ≈ 2 MWm-2 B = 6.5T bN = 4.1 fbs = 77% 100% non-inductive Q ≈ 5 H98 = 1.7 n/nGW = 0.85 Flat top Duration = 48 tE = 10 tHe = 4 tcr FT/P7-23

12. Q = 5 FIRE AT Mode Limited by First Wall not TF Coil Nominal operating point • Q = 5 • Pf = 150 MW, • Pf/Vp = 5.5 MWm-3 (ARIES) • ≈ steady-state 4 to 5 tCR Physics basis improving (ITPA) • required confinement H factor and bN attained transiently • C-Mod LHCD experiments will be very important First Wall is the main limit • Improve cooling • revisit FW design

13. 25 MW/m2

15. Cool 1st Wall OFHC TF (≤ 7 T) Opportunities to Optimize FIRE for the Study of ARIES AT Physics and Plasma Technologies ARIES AT (bN ≈ 5.4, fbs ≈ 90%) 12 0 50 100 time (sec)

16. RWM Coils in every third port, no shield module • FIRE-like RWM coils would be located inside the vacuum vessel behind shield module but inside the vacuum vessel on the removable port plugs. FIRE-like RWM coils would have large stabilizing effect on n=1 Applying FIRE-Like RWM Feedback Coils to ITER Increases b-limit for n = 1 from bN = 2.5 to ~4 VALEN Analysis Columbia University G. Navratil, J. Bialek Columbia University RWM Coil Concept for ITER Baseline RWM Coils • Baseline RWM coils located outside TF coils No-wall limit • Integration and Engineering feasibility of internal RWM coils is under study.

17. The proposed RWM Coils would be in the Front Assembly of Every 3rd Mid-Plane Port Plug Assembly RWM coils located behind shielding module on Port Plug

18. ITER with FIRE would provide a strong basis for Adv. DEMO FIRE ARIES-RS ITER

19. Concluding Remarks • DOE Physics Validation Review of FIRE passed. March 30-31, 2004 • FIRE Pre-Conceptual Activities are completed. September 30, 2004 • Ready to begin FIRE Conceptual Design Activities. Now • Areas of additional R&D for FIRE and ITER include: • high power density all metal PFCs and actively cooled first wall • internal feedback coils to allow higher beta (power density) plasmas • A Broadened Approach with FIRE as a supporting burning plasma experiment would reduce ITER Technical risk and help fully exploit ITER’s ultimate capability to help provide the basis for advanced DEMO.