Thrust 14 14.001 Jarboe Tom 6/08/2009 11:53 Thrust 14 Add "Develop" to the beginning of title. Seems like this thrust might belong in theme 3. 14.002 Hill David 6/09/2009 14:31 Thrust 14 There seems to be a lot in common between thrust 13 and 14 in terms of materials, radiation damage, and components. Should these be combined? If not, text needs to better differentiate the research. 14.003 Greenwald Martin 6/09/2009 14:37 Thrust 14 I wanted to reiterate my comment w/r to thrust 13 and endorse your step by step "science based" approach. It seems to me that this is right way to go for technical reasons and more likely to be attractive to policy makers. The tension between our missions as a science program or as an energy program is resolved appropriately with this approach. 14.004 Hsu Scott 6/09/2009 15:23 Thrust 14 I found it striking that the need for an IFMIF-class facility was not directly emphasized in this thrust nor any of the other related thrusts. A materials qualification capability is clearly needed before we can build a FDF/CTF. The US has an opportunity to go forward with this by leveraging on existing accelerators, such as the 800 MeV proton accelerator at Los Alamos. We could essentially carry out IFMIF's mission many years sooner at a fraction of the cost. This is needed to accelerate the pace of fusion energy development. 14.005 Buttery Richard 6/09/2009 15:42 Thrust 14 Should materials part of thrust 10 be merged into a new nuclear+heat materials thrust with 14 - and rest of thrust 10 into 11? >> ONE STRONG THRUST TO RESOLVE MATERIALS. 14.006 Berk Herbert 6/09/2009 22:18 Thrust 14 The issue helium entrainment appears to be very basic in degrading the plasma facing material, both for the energetic helium impinging on the plasma facing material and the neutrons producing transmutations deeper within the support structure. What directions are being considered to enable the material to maintain its integrity for a sufficient length of time during reactor operation. 14.007 Peng Martin 6/10/2009 10:36 Thrust 14 The statement that material irradiation data is absent or inadequate for the initial test modules in FNSF is not consistent with the facts broadly reported in the literature. The status of the knowledge relevant to thrust 14 in this regard: For FS (at >DBTT) in test modules and GlidCop (<300oC) in TF center post, material damage data are available for FNSF for up to ~10 dpa, assuming for both He/dpa ~ 10 appm/dpa and swelling limit of ~100 appm He. For FS radiation creep rupture, coefficient of k ~ 0.5x10-6/MPa-dpa shows that for 10 dpa, there is plenty of MPa margin in practical designs to stay within an elongation of 0.1% due to radiation induced creep. These facts should be included in the content of Thrust 14. 14.008 Peng Martin 6/10/2009 11:34 Thrust 14 The statement that material irradiation data is absent or inadequate for the initial test modules in FNSF is not consistent with the facts broadly reported in the literature. The status of the knowledge relevant to thrust 14 in this regard: For FS (at >DBTT) in test modules and GlidCop (<300oC) in TF center post, material damage data are available for FNSF for up to ~10 dpa, assuming for both He/dpa ~ 10 appm/dpa and swelling limit of ~100 appm He. For FS radiation creep rupture, coefficient of k ~ 0.5x10-6/MPa-dpa shows that for 10 dpa, there is plenty of MPa margin in practical designs to stay within an elongation of 0.1% due to radiation induced creep. These facts should be included in the content of Thrust 14.