FIRE

1
FIRE A Next Step for Magnetic Fusion
Dale Meade Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory Princeton, NJ May 14, 2004
2
The Need for FIRE
It has been clear for more than a decade that
a Burning Plasma Experiment was needed to
address the critical issues of a self-heated
plasma for the development of magnetic fusion.
In mid-1997, it became apparent that the
10B ITER EDA Project was too expensive to be
funded. At that time, the Fusion Energy
Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) recommended
that the U.S. undertake a study of lower cost
options to achieve the burning plasma goals.
The FIRE (Fusion Ignition Research Experiment)
Design Activity was undertaken in 1999 to develop
a Pre-Conceptual design for a device to address
the burning plasma physics issues with a project
construction cost of 1B. The use of simple
cryogenically-cooled coils and reactor level
field of 10T allows smaller extrapolations in
physics and technology than ITER. Numerous
fusion community and FESAC reviews over the past
several years have concluded the the FIRE design
is sound technically and is likely to achieve its
goals. FIRE now stands at the ready to be put
forward if the redesigned 5B ITER does not go
forward.
3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
The FIRE Mission would satisfy the goals set by
the Presidents Science Advisor and FESAC.
The first part (of a future fusion program) is to
create and control a burning plasma.
Presidents Science Advisor to NRC BPAC Nov
2002 Create and understand a controlled,
self-heated, burning starfire on earth. FESAC
Key Overarching Theme (2004)
6
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/AT90 bN 4.0, n 1 wall stabilized,
RWM feedback
Quasi-Stationary Burn Duration (use plasma time
scales) Pressure profile evolution and burn
control gt 10 tE Alpha ash accumulation/pumping gt
several tHe Plasma current profile evolution 2
to 5 tskin Divertor pumping and heat removal gt
many tdivertor First wall heat removal gt 1
tfirst-wall
7
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 (lt 5 tCR - AT)
• Tokamak Cost 350M (FY02)
• Total Project Cost 1.2B (FY02)

1,400 tonne LN cooled coils
FIRE is comparable in size to the three large
tokamaks (TFTR, JET and JT-60u) constructed in
the early 1980s.
8
Characteristics of FIRE

• 40 scale model of ARIES-RS plasma
• Strong shaping kx 2, dx 0.7, DN
• All metal PFCs
• Actively cooled W divertor
• Be tile FW, cooled between shots
• T required/pulse TFTR 0.3g-T
• LN cooled BeCu/OFHC TF
• no inboard nt shield, allows small size
• 3,000 pulses _at_ full field
• 30,000 pulses _at_ 2/3 field
• 1 shot/hr _at_10T/20s/150 MW
• Site needs comparable to previous
• DT tokamaks (TFTR/JET).

9
FIRE Would Produce Fusion Power Density
Comparable to a Fusion Power Plant
Technology Items Existing Toks ITER-AT FIRE-AT ARIES-RS/AT
B(T) 1.5 - 7 5.3 6.5 6 - 8
Ip(MA) 1 - 3 9 5 11
Core Power Density (MWm-3) 0.15 - 0.3 0.5 5 5 - 6
FW - GN (MW/m-2) 0.1 0.5 2 4
FW - Prad (MWm-2) 5 15 15 100
First Wall C, Be Be Be Mo
Div Target (MWm-2) 1 5 - 20 5 - 20 5 - 20
Divertor Target C, (Mo,W) C,W? W W
Pulse Length(s, tcr) Typical 5, 2 (max 5 hrs) 3000, 8 40, 5 months
Cooling Divertor, First Wall Inertial(SS) inertial Steady steady Steady inertial Steady steady
10
FIRE Proposes to Explore and Exploit Advanced
Tokamak Operating Modes for ARIES
Physics Items Existing Toks ITER-AT FIRE-AT ARIES-RS/AT
kx 2.2 1.85 2.0 2.0
dx 0.8 0.49 0.7 0.7
Configuration SN DN SN DN DN
bN 4.5 3 4 5
Non-inductive 100 100 100 100
bootstrap 85 50 80 90
Equilibration 50 100 100 steady
Plasma rotation high low Very low Very low
RWM Coils (rel. to First Wall) Inside VV Outside TF Integrated With FW Inside TF Outside VV
On axis CD PNB,NINB NINB ICFW ICFW
Off axis CD LH,PNB,(EC) LH LH LH
11
Steady-State High-b Advanced Tokamak Discharge
on FIRE
0 1 2
3 4
40 s pulse
time,(current redistributions)
12
(No Transcript)
13
Plan A A Decision is made to Construct ITER
FIRE activities would be completed ASAP, and
NSO activities would be directed toward other
areas within its charter. The thrust of the
NSO/FIRE activities will be to make progress on
fully exploiting the capability of ITER with an
emphasis on those features required for an
attractive tokamak fusion power plant presently
envisioned by ARIES-RS. This would include
development and optimization of metallic
PFCs, development of RWM technology
(insulation, feedback control,..) disruption
mitigation techniques under high power density
conditions plasma control tools (ICRF, LHCD,
Pellets, ..) development of diagnostics for
ITER (esp. AT modes)
An example is the synopses submitted for 20th
IAEA FEC High-b Steady-State Advanced Tokamak
Regimes for ITER and FIRE
14
Plan B No Decision is made to Construct ITER
An alternative to ITER must be put forward
before interest in BPP is lost. Put FIRE
forward immediately as recommended by FESAC -
FIRE should be advanced as a U.S.-based burning
plasma experiment with strong encouragement of
international participation Energy Policy Act
of 2003 - introduced in the Senate on Feb 11,
2004 - If at any time during the
negotiations on ITER, the Secretary determines
that construction and operation of ITER is
unlikely or infeasible, the Secretary shall send
to Congress, as part of the budget request for
the following year, a plan for implementing the
domestic burning plasma experiment known as FIRE,
including costs and schedules for such a plan.
Similar recommendation has been made for the EU
program by Airaghi (2000)  In the same 2-year
period(2001-2002), due to the uncertainty over
the outcome of the international negotiations,
Europe should study an alternative to New-ITER,
which would be suitable to be pursued by Europe
alone. For example, a copper magnet machine which
would still achieve the required objective of
demonstrating a burning plasma under reactor
conditions even if this would delay the
integration of the superconducting technologies.
15
Concluding Remarks
FIRE has been technically vetted within the
U.S. fusion community, and is ready to begin
Conceptual Design. FIRE fits naturally within
an international multi-machine strategy to
develop fusion. Informal discussion have taken
place at the working level on possible
international collaboration activities. The
ITER decision is due in July 2004, the fusion
program needs to have contingency plans in place
if the ITER decision is not concluded as planned.