Thrust 13 ChitID 13.001 Sam Cohen 6/09/2009 14:00 Thrust 13 Once DEMO starts operating with D-T, how long will it take for the reprocessing system to extract as much tritium in a day as is burnt in a day ( or as fueled in a day)? ChitID 13.002 Bruce Lipschultz 6/09/2009 14:09 Thrust 13 I think your emphasis of liquid metals was with respect to test blanket modules. But you also mention divertors and other areas. Please make it clear when you talk about flowing Li that you mean TBMs and not divertors. Li and other flowing liquid metals make sense for TBMs but are unlikely to make sense in a reactor for PFCs given the high temperatures where their evaporation rate rises to levels rivaling the highest incident ion fluxes in the divertor. ChitID 13.003 Mike Ulrickson 6/09/2009 14:18 Thrust 13 A question was raised in the thrust 13 talk about whether technology development required for this thrust should be done in thrusts 10-12 or in thrust 13. While this development might be able to be done in thrust 13 it will be done more cost effectively in thrusts 10-12 where the development can be done without all the complications of the full nuclear issues. The nuclear regulatory requirements will greatly constrain the ability to try configurations and increase the cost of maintenance. A step by step approach is more effective. Without the science foundation of thrusts 10-12 (and possibly 9) the probability of success of thrust 14 is small. ChitID 13.004 Martin Greenwald 6/09/2009 14:19 Thrust 13 I want to 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. (I note that thrust 14 is organized along similar lines.) ChitID 13.005 Clement wong 6/09/2009 14:25 Thrust 13 This is in respond to the comment by Rob Goldston. There is no reason for us to assume that CTF should be designed to take 1 disruption per year. This is the wrong approach of work out the problem. The approach that most of us are recommending is to do our best to avoid and mitigate disruption and Type-I ELMs. However at the same time, as a conservative engineering measure, we will have to develop disruption tolerance surface, to take care of a few disruption for the case of un-expected disruptions. This could be a minor point, but it has significant difference on the approach we go about to find the solutions to handle disruption and Type-I ELMs. ChitID 13.006 Dave Hill 6/09/2009 14:31 Thrust 13 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. ChitID 13.007 Rob Goldston 6/09/2009 14:48 Thrust 13 There is a kind of chicken-and-egg problem with respect to disruption and CTF. For example, in Ted Strait's talk at the Theme III workshop, he indicated that a VDE in FDF would be 2.2x worse than in ITER, and of course ITER needs a thick Be/Cu/steel first wall. Laila El-Guebaly and Rene Raffray submitted a white paper to the Theme IV workshop which, in referring to ARIES FS first wall designs, indicated: "ITER-type VDEs could deposit up to 60 MJ/m2 in 0.2 sec. Not even one VDE can be accommodated based on such severe VDE parameters." They also indicate that "There is no practical means to enhance the breeding of the DCLL blanket if the off-normal events require adding more than 1-2 mm FS on the FW." ChitID 13.008 Roger Raman 6/09/2009 15:52 Thrust 13 The goal of fusion research is to burn fuel and produce power. Controlling fusion plasma discharges simply does not mean control current and heat the plasma. In an ignited system no external heating is needed. In a high bootstrap current fraction discharge the plasma will generate a substantial part of its own current. The more this self driven current is the more efficient is the reactor. Thus, capability for precise fueling is a powerful profile control tool. Another benefit of core fueling is increased tritium burn-up (hence less amount of it trapped in walls) and reduced burden on the pumping and tritium processing systems. While there are on-going programs for various other means of control (current, ELMs, RWMs, NTMs), there is no program in the US or internationally to develop precision core fueling capability. This is a severely lacking capability needed for a Demo and quite possibly for the AT phase of ITER. So it should not be hidden in the thrust descriptions under the genera ChitID 13.009 Larry Baylor 6/09/2009 17:26 Thrust 13 This thrust writeup seems overly detailed on tritium breeding and lacking other fuel cycle aspects. The areas of fueling, pumping, and exhaust processing also have significant challenges to go to a FNSF/DEMO. ChitID 13.010 Graydon Yoder 6/10/2009 09:54 Thrust 13 There needs to be more words regarding safety in this thrust area. At least some of the data and codes developed in this thrust will be used for safety arguments and in the licensing process. Safety needs to be integrated throughout the program. ChitID 13.011 Graydon Yoder 6/10/2009 09:59 Thrust 13 Although the modeling and code efforts are now integrated in thrust 15, this is an important aspect of thrust 13, and some discussion of how the data/models/codes will be developed and used should be included in the discussion of thrust 13 as well. ChitID 13.012 Brad Patton 6/10/2009 10:07 Thrust 13 Discussion of safety and RAMI need to be added to Thrust 13 or a new Thrust area needs to be established to address these overarching issues essential to the success of the program. ChitID 13.013 Graydon Yoder 6/10/2009 10:22 Thrust 13 Development of instrumentation necessary for control and monitoring of power extracton systems is another element of this thrust that might be better integrated. ChitID 13.014 Brad Patton 6/10/2009 10:39 Thrust 13 Discussion of applied research on measurement techniques should be added. Successful R&D in the tritium measurements would provide significant contributions to advancing the fusion fuel cycle. Advances in real-time tritium monitoring are essential to understanding the fuel cycle phenomena in the R&D stage and in the follow on monitoring and control of FNSF and DEMO. It is recommended an aggressive R&D effort be directed at measurement of tritium distributions in the full fusion environment. ChitID 13.015 Rob Goldston 6/10/2009 10:45 Thrust 13 There is a kind of chicken-and-egg problem with respect to disruption and CTF. For example, in Ted Strait's talk at the Theme III workshop, he indicated that a VDE in FDF would be 2.2x worse than in ITER, and of course ITER needs a thick Be/Cu/steel first wall. Laila El-Guebaly and Rene Raffray submitted a white paper to the Theme IV workshop which, in referring to ARIES FS first wall designs, indicated: "ITER-type VDEs could deposit up to 60 MJ/m2 in 0.2 sec. Not even one VDE can be accommodated based on such severe VDE parameters." They also indicate that "There is no practical means to enhance the breeding of the DCLL blanket if the off-normal events require adding more than 1-2 mm FS on the FW." ChitID 13.016 rajesh maingi 6/10/2009 13:24 Thrust 13 There is an apparent 1:1 overlap between the testing of PFCs and Internal Components in this thrust and thrust 11. This topic is the sole mission of thrust 11. Suggest that the PFC and IC testing in dedicated test stands be ceded to thrust 11, while integration of the components remains in this thrust. The overlap then would be in concept development portion, which would be shared between the two thrusts. ChitID 13.017 richard nygren 6/10/2009 16:50 Thrust 13 Neil - reminder: Lookover/add comments re engineering diagnostics. Non-nuclear and nuclear component test facilities may have greataer demands and more challenging requirements for engineering diagnostics than DEMO where there is an expectation fors operating in a quiescent regime and showing robustness and efficiency.