# Presentation: 493764

## FIRE 

**FIRE**** **
**A Next Step for Magnetic Fusion**

**Dale Meade**
**Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory**
**Princeton, NJ**
**May 14, 2004**

## The Need for FIRE

- •  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.

**The Need for FIRE**

## Slide 3

## Slide 4

## The FIRE Mission would satisfy the goals set by the President’s Science Advisor and FESAC.

- The first part (of a future fusion program) is to create and control a burning plasma.         *President’s Science Advisor to NRC BPAC Nov 2002*
- Create and understand a controlled, self-heated, burning starfire on earth.     *FESAC Key Overarching Theme (2004)*

**The FIRE Mission would satisfy the goals set by the President’s Science Advisor and FESAC.**

## 	fbs = Ibs/Ip	~ 80% as target, ARIES-RS/AT≈90%

- 	Q	~ 5 as target, higher Q not precluded
- 	fbs = Ibs/Ip	~ 80% as target, ARIES-RS/AT≈90%
- 	N	~ 4.0, n = 1 wall stabilized, RWM feedback

**Quasi-Stationary Burn Duration (use plasma time scales)**
- 	Pressure profile evolution and burn control	> 10 E
- 	Alpha ash accumulation/pumping	> several He
- 	Plasma current profile evolution	~ 2 to 5 skin
- 	Divertor pumping and heat removal	> many divertor
- 	First wall heat removal	> 1 first-wall

## Fusion Ignition Research Experiment  (FIRE)

**Fusion Ignition Research Experiment  (FIRE)**

-  **R = 2.14 m,  a = 0.595 m**
** ****B = 10 T,      (~ 6.5 T, AT)**
** ****I****p****  = 7.7 MA, (~ 5 MA, AT)**
** ****P****ICRF**** = 20 MW**
** ****P****LHCD**** ≤ 30 MW (Upgrade)**
** ****P****fusion**** ~ 150 MW**
** ****Q ≈ 10,  (5 - 10, AT)**
** ****Burn time ≈ 20s (2 ********CR ****- Hmode)**
**      ≈ ****40s (< 5 ********CR ****- 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. **

## Characteristics of FIRE

**Characteristics of FIRE**

-  40% scale model of ARIES-RS plasma
-  Strong shaping x = 2, x = 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 @ full field
-  30,000 pulses @ 2/3 field
-  1 shot/hr @10T/20s/150 MW
-  Site needs comparable to previous
-      DT tokamaks (TFTR/JET).

## 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 -N (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, cr) | Typical 5, 2
(max = 5 hrs) | 3000, 8 | 40, 5 | months |
| Cooling       Divertor, First Wall | Inertial(SS)
inertial | Steady
steady | Steady
inertial | Steady
steady |

## FIRE Proposes to Explore and Exploit Advanced Tokamak Operating Modes for ARIES

| Physics Items | Existing Toks | ITER-AT | FIRE-AT | ARIES-RS/AT |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| x | ≤ 2.2 | 1.85 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| x | ≤ 0.8 | 0.49 | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| Configuration | SN & DN | SN | DN | DN |
| N | ≤ 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 |

## time,(current redistributions) 

**“****Steady-State” High-******** Advanced Tokamak Discharge on FIRE**

- 0               1                 2                 3                4

- time,(current redistributions)

- ~ 40 s pulse

## Slide 12

## 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-Steady-State Advanced Tokamak Regimes for ITER and FIRE”

## 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.”

## 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.