Development Paths for IFE Mike Campbell General Atomics FPA 25 th Anniversary Meeting December 13, 2004
A comprehensive Fusion Energy Development program was recently completed • Panel chaired by R Goldston submitted plan to FESAC in March, 2003 – MFE and IFE were included – Need for “burning plasma “demonstration was highlighted • ITER • NIF – “balanced program”-science (plasma physics, material science), engineering physics, technology was advocated – ~30 years and ~$25 B to Demo And……
Why? • Fusion is a science program and not energy development – Energy R&D is not to demonstrate “it works”but to “make it better!” • Clean coal • Nuclear 2010 • Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) – “If JFK had said we would be on the moon by the end of the century not by the end of the decade…. ” • No Presidential mandate – NASA Mars Initiative – Hydrogen • No Congressional mandate – NGNP (Dominici and Craig)
There is support for ICF/IFE and HEDP • ICF is supported by DOE-NNSA as a key element of Stockpile stewardship with NIF as central element and strong support for Omega and Z • Renewed commitment to ignition demonstration (Priority for Congress too) • Congressional (House) support for Omega-EP in NNSA budget ($28 M) • Congressional (Senate) support for ZR, Petawatt on Z in NNSA budget($13) • Congressional (House) support for Laser IFE (HAPL)in NNSA budget($25 M) • Congressional (Senate) support for Z-IFE in NNSA budget (part of $9 M) • Congressional support (Senate) for target fabrication ($5 M) • Congressional (Senate) support for HEDP at universities (UNR, UT)in NNSA budget • HEDP and FI were part of OFES $12 M plus-up • HIF is supported for its contributions to beam and HEDP physics However, today there is no Executive/Congressional support for an integrated IFE program
IFE Power Plants are highly modular Target factory Electricity Generator target “combustion chamber Driver Final optics Modularity allows for multiple approaches and affordable development-”interface issues” must ultimately be addressed-average power experiments!
Phased development enabled by IFE Modularity remains valid Phase I: Basic fusion science & technology 1999 - 2008 Scalable Technologies • Krypton fluoride laser • Diode pumped solid state laser • Heavy Ion Accelerators • Rep-rated Z pinch • Chambers materials/design • Target fabrication Phase II Validate science & technology 2009 - 2020 Phase III Engineering Test Facility operating 2030 Full Scale Components • Power plant beamline (IRE) • Target fab/injection facility • Power Plant design Target design & Physics • 2 D/3 D simulations • 1 -30 k. J laser-target expts • MJ Z pinch expts Ignition Physics Validation • MJ target implosions • Calibrated 3 D simulations Full size driver Optimize targets for high yield Develop materials and components. 300 -700 MW net electricity
There is reason for optimism for ICF physics today • • NIF is getting done-it is hard but it will work (and 3 D design codes)! Direct drive physics – Targets with R-T control • “Adiabat” shaping • Reduction in Laser imprinting – Ignition/gain without 4 illumination (“polar direct drive”) – Target fabrication (foams) Pulse power development – Targets with low l mode control – Dynamic Hohlraum Target Fabrication for indirect drive(all drivers) – Be/Cu ablators for R-T growth reduction and “low cost” cryo – Symmetry control (shims) • Fast igntion – GEKO experiments -FIREX 1 – PW additions to all US HEDP facilities The ICF “physics” story is much richer than at the initiation of NIF
The HAPL Program has made significant progress in Direct Drive IFE development Kr. F lasers Target Injection Solid State lasers Chamber Physics
Several opportunities exist to catalyze IFE support over the next 5 -10 years • Ignition/gain on NIF – NIF capsule gains (indirect drive) ~100 – Polar Direct drive (? ) • Successful low (<4) implosion on Omega • Q ~0. 1 to 0. 5 at FIREXI or Omega-EP with Fast Ignition • High R implosion (symmetry control, pulse shaping) on ZR
A plump J. Sethian
IFE support thru Congress is possible but support must be broadened and there must be an “exit strategy” • Executive (DOE) advocacy is ultimately required for IFE program – OFES (ITER? ) – NNSA(? ) • New missions that are extensions of nuclear weapons activities can be developed (I. e. Pu disposition) • It is possible to maintain Congressional advocacy at the ~$3040 M/year (HAPL , Z-IFE , others(targets, reactor Physics)) for ~5 years within NNSA if ICF/IFE community (including lab advocacy) works together – Completion of Omega-EP, ZR and Z Petawatt are “opportunities” • HEDP may also enable support outside of NNSA Iraq and the Deficit are real constraints
What to do? • Continue progress in ICF and IFE • Integrated IFE program planning (all approaches) and coordination – Since at present-no agency “owns” IFE and this is outside the role/capability of Congress, the community must do it-already happening at some level – Assume constant dollar level until “catalyzing event” • Criteria for moving into Phase II – Timing problem? – Influenced (determined) by “catalyzing event” • Broaden congressional support (low number of electoral votes!) and establish a lab advocacy
Скачать презентацию Development Paths for IFE Mike Campbell General Atomics
cb308790b8ebd6fe0da2b61089b29257.ppt