Fusion Energy Division

American Nuclear Society

June 2000 Newsletter

The June 2000 newsletter of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) Fusion Energy
Division (FED) has been archived on the ANS-FED Web site: http://fed.ans.org/. Please
share this newsletter with your colleagues. If you did not receive this newsletter directly
and would like to subscribe to the ANS-FED newsletter or provide us with a change in
the E-mail address, simply reply to this message and include your contact information.
We send this E-mail to fusion scientists in the U.S. and abroad. If you believe you are
outside the fusion community, please inform the editor (elguebaly@engr.wisc.edu) and
accept our apology for the inconvenience. A text version of the newsletter is appended
below for those who do not have the capability to access the Internet. If you have a
choice, please use the Web version as it contains formatting that is lost upon conversion
to the text version. The topics for this issue include:

Message from the Chair Wong

Officers and Executive Committee List Houlberg

Treasurer’s Report Brereton

14th ANS Fusion Technology Topical Steaming Ahead Longhurst

FED Awards: Call for Nominations Kulcinski

Ongoing Fusion Research:

– Plasma Technologies–Recent Progress and Future Directions Milora
– Z-Pinch for High Yield and IFE Olson

International Activities:
– IAEA Activities Dolan

Calendar of Upcoming Conferences on Fusion Technology

Message from the Chair, Clement Wong, General Atomics, San Diego, California

I would like to touch on three topics of interest to FED members. The first is the status of
the fiscal year 2001 fusion budget, the second is the activity of generation IV Fission
Power Systems, and the third is the fusion application of fission waste burning. I also
add my observations on fusion development at the end of this message.

Fiscal Year 2001 budget (Quoted from Fusion Power Associate report)

In March of this year, 43 members of the U. S. fusion community signed and delivered a
“Statement on the Fiscal Year 2001 Fusion Energy Science Budget" to the Subcommittee
on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S.
House of Representatives, chaired by Rep. Ron Packard (R-CA), asking the Committee
to fund fusion research at a level of $300 million. In the statement, the group asked the
Subcommittee to "fund the DOE/SC Office of Fusion Energy Sciences at $275M for
FY2001, as authorized by the House Science Committee (last year), and that IFE related
laser research be funded at $25M, to be allocated between DOE/DP Office of Inertial
Confinement Fusion and the DOE/SC Office of Fusion Energy Sciences as deemed
appropriate by the Subcommittee." The group said, "Such funding will allow the set of
5-year objectives established by the FESAC to be achieved in a timely fashion, without
sacrificing the SEAB-recommended (Secretary of Energy Advisory Board) balance
among elements in the program." (http://vm1.hqadmin.doe.gov/seab/)

Generation IV* Nuclear Fission Power Systems (Quoted from the joint statement
after the workshop)

An International Workshop on Generation IV Nuclear Power Systems was held in

Washington, D.C. on January 27-28, 2000. The attendees of the International Workshop,
representing Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, Republic of Korea, South Africa,
United Kingdom, and United States of America, on Generation IV Nuclear Power
Systems have reached a consensus view (http://www.ne.doe.gov/ ). They recognized
significant growth in electricity demand will occur during the next 50 years,
predominantly in developing countries. Currently, two billion people have no access to
electricity, reducing the quality of life for that sector of the Earth's population. There are
growing worldwide concerns about the consequences of air pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions. Nuclear power currently provides 17 percent of the world's electricity without
emitting air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Nuclear power continues to hold important
electricity supply and clean air benefits for the future. Third-generation nuclear power
technology will continue to provide a viable option for the nuclear power industry in
some countries for the next two decades, although its cost-competitiveness must be
improved. Future nuclear power technology should be developed in concert with future
nuclear fuel cycles.

Future nuclear power technology development should take into account enhancements in
economics, safety, energy supply security, waste management and nonproliferation. Such
technology must be equally accessible to both industrialized and industrializing nations
and provide for technology transfer to and economic participation by customer nations.
Generation IV nuclear power systems should effectively address these issues in a fashion
that will promote greater public acceptance, and particularly by providing a cost-
competitive option.

Governments can foster the advance of nuclear power technology by:

- Conducting long-term research, development, and demonstration,
- Resolving waste disposition issues,
- Investing in human and technological infrastructure, and
- Assuring effective nuclear regulation for the twenty-first century.

Therefore, Generation IV Nuclear Power Systems should be investigated as an option for

the future. Such an investigation should be pursued on a multilateral basis, involving
both industrialized and industrializing countries and, as appropriate, intergovernmental
organizations. As a next step, a technical group composed of representatives of the
governments present will be assigned the task of further discussion on technology issues
associated with Generation IV and making recommendations regarding potential future
multilateral cooperation.

Subsequent to the above international workshop, the American Nuclear Society issued
the following resolution on generation IV nuclear power plant:

The American Nuclear Society Board of Directors supports the design,

construction, and operation of a Generation IV nuclear energy plant in the
near term to maintain United States leadership in nuclear energy, and to
address the issues of carbon dioxide buildup in the environment, nuclear
non-proliferation, and maintenance of our young generation's interest in
entering the field of nuclear engineering, science, and technology.

Fusion Applications

At the February 2000 Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee meeting in

Washington, W. M. Stacey of Georgia Institute of Technology presented and summarized
a white paper on “Neutron Transmutation of Spent Nuclear Fuel-- An Intermediate Term
Objective For Magnetic Fusion,” (co-authors are: D. E. Baldwin of General Atomics, R.
R. Parker of MIT, and J. A. Schmidt of Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory). They
stated that they believe that transmutation of spent nuclear fuels is an appropriate
objective for magnetic fusion in the intermediate term, which directly contributes to the
long-term goal of fusion energy. Fusion energy, the white paper stated, could serve as
one way for DOE to treat 87,000 tons of commercial spent nuclear fuel. Sen. Pete
Domenici, R-N.M., has been a leading proponent of accelerator transmutation of waste
(ATW). DOE has estimated it could cost $280 billion and take 117 years to treat the
fission waste. Congress had allocated $9 million in FY-2000 funds for ATW activities
(http://www.pnl.gov/atw/ReportToCongress).
The white paper recommended that fusion researchers should be involved in the ATW
project, and provided detailed recommendations on such an involvement
(http://www.frc.gatech.edu/pdf/transm1.pdf, http://www.frc.gatech.edu/pdf/transm2.pdf)

Observations

The three topics reported above represent some of the factors that will have impacts on
the fusion power development in the U.S. The somewhat volatile state in the world
energy supply, such as the recent increase of gasoline prices and various reports on the
changes of the world’s weather pattern, would remind people and politicians of the need
for long-term energy policy and development with the inclusion of the fusion energy
option. In parallel, fission power will continue to improve as noted by the Generation IV
activities. At the same time, the interest of technical collaboration between the fission
and fusion programs has been renewed, as evident by the nuclear waste disposal white
paper. However, in order to advance the frontier of fusion research, in the near term, I
believe that we need to have a serious assessment of the next step device. We should be
looking for a device that has the possibility of addressing the needs for the scientific
development of plasma physics and fusion technology. For MFE, three scenarios can be
contemplated:
1. Participate in ITER and with parallel involvement in an international fusion
neutron source device,
2. Support the development of an advanced tokamak concept, such as FIRE, and aim
at the volumetric neutron source as an upgrade or follow on, and
3. Continue the support of the low aspect ratio concept development and the
corresponding approach of fusion development facility including the capability of
providing high neutron fluence for material and nuclear components development.
Cost and benefit, and inherent risks will have to be figured into the selection process.
The obvious scenario is to consider any of these next step options to be constructed at a
nuclear ready site. Such recognition would also bring in the necessary development of
nuclear technology. Based on the assessment of the development cost of the next step
option, additional budget support beyond the annual budget of $300M will be needed.

In the last six months, there were exciting developments in the use of liquid metal for the
fusion power core design. Preliminary modeling results indicate that the presence of
lithium in the plasma core could actually improve the plasma performance, which was
also indicated by experimental results at PPPL in 1996. Another exciting development is
the use of vaporizing lithium with refractory structural material. This could lead to high
power density first wall and blanket concepts with high power conversion efficiency.
These are innovative concepts at very early stage of evaluation, but they are showing new
development directions and the unexpected benefits derived in the direct coupling of the
development of fusion technology and plasma science.

* Footnote: “Generation IV” nuclear energy plants: these were defined as plants that were smaller,
modular, cost-competitive, proliferation-resistant, and with improved safety levels over current nuclear
plants.
Officers and Executive Committee List, Wayne Houlberg, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

We have a very capable set of officers and Executive Committee members representing the
FED in ANS. For your convenience in contacting them, their terms and e-mail addresses are:

Chair: Kathryn McCarthy (INEEL) (00-01) km3@inel.gov

VC/Chair-Elect: James Stubbins (UIUC) (00-01) jstubbin@staff.uiuc.edu

Secy/Treas: René Raffray (UCSD) (00-01) raffray@fusion.ucsd.edu

Exec Committee:
James Blanchard (UW) (99-02) blanchard@engr.wisc.edu
Mohamed Bourham (NCSU) (98-01) bourham@ncsu.edu
Lee Cadwallader (INEEL) (99-02) lcc@inel.gov
Chris Hamilton (GA) (00-03) hamiltonc@gat.com
Jeffery Latkowski (LLNL) (00-03) latkowski1@llnl.gov
Charles Martin (DNFSB) (98-01) charlesm@dnfsb.gov
Stan Milora (ORNL) (98-01) milorasl@ornl.gov
Scott Willms (LANL) (99-02) willms@lanl.gov
Dennis Youchison (SNL) (00-03) dlyouch@sandia.gov

FED Standing Committee Chairs:

Nominating Clement Wong - Chair (GA)
Program Steve Herring - Chair (INEEL)
Honors and Awards Gerald Kulcinski - Chair (UW)

FED Special Committee Chairs:

Membership Ken Schultz (GA)

FED Representatives on National Committees:

ANS Publications Ken Schultz (GA)
ANS Public Policy Bill Hogan (LLNL)

Editors:
Fusion Technology Journal George Miley (UIUC)
Newsletter Laila El-Guebaly (UW)

Liaisons to other organizations

and ANS divisions: Jim Anderson (DOE) - AAD
John Davis (Boeing) - MS&T
George Miley (UIUC) - IEEE

Web site maintenance: Mark Tillack (UCSD)

Treasurer’s Report, Sandra Brereton, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Livermore, California

As of April 2000, the Fusion Energy Division has a balance of $5,563. Income in 1999
included:
- $612 from membership
- $6233 carry forward from 1998.

Expenses in 1999 included:

- $500 for awards
- $500 donation to the Edward Teller endowment
- $442 for national meeting expenses (conference calls).

For 2000, our income will include approximately $600 from membership dues, carryover
from 1999 (~$5400), and income from the 14th Topical Meeting on the Technology of
Fusion Energy in October. Anticipated expenses in 2000 include:

- $500 for outstanding awards

- $1500 for new awards
- $1500 for student support
- $400 for national meeting expenses (conference calls).

The projected balance at the end of 2000 is approximately $4100.

14th ANS Fusion Technology Topical Steaming Ahead, Glen Longhurst, Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho

The 14th ANS Topical Meeting on the Technology of Fusion Energy is developing into
another excellent gathering in this series. This international meeting is sponsored by the
ANS Fusion Energy Division, by the Idaho and NORCAL sections of the ANS and by
the Fusion Engineering Division of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan. The focus will
be on bringing together international leaders in both magnetic and inertial fusion
research, to explore directions that will lead to viable fusion technology in this century.
It will also be a great place to meet international colleagues and update personal contacts
and familiarity with the interesting and groundbreaking work coming from fusion
research efforts underway around the world. While travel plans have been uncertain for a
number of potential participants, we note that this important topical meeting will be in the
new U.S. fiscal year and will provide a significant forum for ideas and opinions as well as
for new technical results.

Park City is one of the world's most scenic areas in the early fall. One of the non-
technical highlights of the week will be the "Heber Creeper" steam locomotive train tour
of the area between Park City and Heber City (some poetic license is taken in the second
word in both names). Another highlight for guests and participants alike is access to
factory outlets in Park City from many of the world's most famous clothiers, jewelers,
and furniture makers. An organized shopping tour of these businesses is planned for
Tuesday afternoon.

Park City is located about 30 miles east of Salt Lake City, Utah. Transportation to Park
City from the Salt Lake City airport can be arranged through "All Resort Express",
www.allresort.com. Learn more about the community at http://www.parkcityinfo.com.

The meeting site is the spacious Park City Marriott Hotel (http://www.parkcityutah.com).
It will run from Sunday October 15 through Thursday October 19, 2000. The conference
has reserved 175 rooms at the current U.S. Government perdiem rate. That rate is
adjusted periodically and is presently $75 plus applicable taxes, double occupancy. These
rooms are available at the conference rate until September 15, 2000 (ask for the IANS
conference rate). After this date, rates are not guaranteed. Registration for these rooms is
available by telephone (800-234-9003) and by fax (435-649-4852). The fax forms are
available electronically at the conference web site, http://ev2.inel.gov/ParkCity/. Other
hotels are available in Park City and in the surrounding area
(http://www.parkcityinfo.com/lodging/hotelsWin.con.html)

On-site registration opens Sunday afternoon, October 15 from 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm, and
each morning thereafter at 7:30 am. The opening plenary session will be Monday ,
October 16 at 8:30 am. Oral sessions will run Monday through Thursday from 8:30 am
through 12:30 pm. Opening plenary sessions each day followed by three parallel oral
sessions are planned, but details will be determined by paper submissions. Poster
Sessions are planned from 2:00 - 5:00 pm Monday through Wednesday.

A reception will be held Monday evening from 7:00 - 9:00 pm with a no-host bar. A
conference banquet will be held Wednesday evening from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm with a
choice of dinner entrée.

Technical sessions are planned on a wide range of subjects including:

Plasma Technology
Plasma Engineering, Heating, and Current Drive
Divertor Design and Experiments
Plasma Fueling and Particle Control
Plasma Facing Components Technology
Plasma and Fusion Diagnostics
Magnet Engineering and Superconductor Development
Fusion Materials
Structural Materials
Breeder Materials
Optical and Diagnostic Materials
Low activation Materials
Fusion Technology
Fuel Cycle/Tritium Handling Technology
Fusion Chamber Technologies
 Neutronics Experiments and Analyses
Nuclear Testing and Design Studies
Safety and Environment
Remote Maintenance Technology
Next Steps (ITER and NIF)
Alternative and Advanced Concepts
Advanced Designs and Fusion Systems
Recent Results from Large Fusion Experiments
Fusion Power Reactors
Non-electrical Applications
Fusion Economics and System Studies

While the published abstract submittal deadline has passed, the organizing committee
will continue to accept abstracts until June 1, 2000. Electronic submission is preferred at
http://ev2.inel.gov/ParkCity/. Note that your web browser must be set to receive
electronic mail for the electronic submission process to work properly.

KEY DATES
Abstracts due - June 1, 2000
Author Notification of Acceptance - July 15, 2000
Hotel Registration Rate Guarantee - September 15, 2000
Full Paper Submission for review (at meeting) - October 15, 2000
Final Paper Submission - December 15, 2000

REGISTRATION
Registration Fee (includes reception, banquet, proceedings)
ANS and AESJ Members: $450 before September 15, 2000, $500 after September 15,
2000
Nonmembers: $500 before September 1, 2000, $550 after September 15, 2000
Student Registration (meeting and reception only) members free, non-members $50
Extra Banquet Tickets $35
Guest Registration (Hospitality Room and Shopping Tour) $30
Heber Creeper Tour $40
VISA/ Master Card accepted

Register electronically at http://ev2.inel.gov/ParkCity/ or contact the conference

secretary:
Marie Warnick
Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC
P.O. Box 1625
Idaho Falls, ID 83415-3860
Phone: 208-526-6977
Fax: 208-526-2930
E-Mail: mri@inel.gov
FED Awards: Call for Nominations, Gerald Kulcinski, Fusion Technology Institute,
University of Wisconsin-Madison

This is a repeat announcement for 3 awards to be given at the 14th ANS Fusion Topical
Meeting in Park City, Utah, October 15-19, 2000. These awards are:

* 2000 Outstanding Technical Accomplishments Award

* 2000 Outstanding Achievement Award
* 2000 FED Student Award for Fusion Science and Engineering

Descriptions of the selection criteria and deadlines for the nominations are posted on the
ANS-FED Web site: http://fed.ans.org/.

Nomination deadline is July 30, 2000

Please make this announcement known to your colleagues and students. Thank you for
your cooperation and I am looking forward to your submissions

Mail nominations to: Professor Gerald L. Kulcinski

Chair FED Honors and Awards Committee
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Department of Engineering Physics
1500 Engineering Drive, #443
Madison WI 53706-1687

Ongoing Fusion Research:

Plasma Technologies—Recent Progress and Future Directions, Stan L. Milora,

Fusion Energy Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Plasma technologies are those used to create, control and understand the plasma state.
While they are normally associated with supporting the near-term needs of the science
program experimental facilities, they, nevertheless, play an important role in the vision of
an attractive fusion product primarily through the capability to achieve and sustain
advanced plasma performance leading to improvements in fusion science metrics such as
the fusion power density, Pf ~ <β2>B4 and the minimum value of nτT~ (β/χ)a2B2 for
ignition and burn. If we examine the parametric dependence of these two relationships, it
is not difficult to identify certain front line technologies that contribute directly to the
performance improvements; namely, higher-field lower-cost magnets, and an
increasingly more sophisticated suite of plasma profile control technologies (heating,
current drive, and fueling) to increase β and β limits and/or reduce transport (χ).

Equally important are technologies that enable devices to operate at their full
performance potential and cope with the higher performance such as effective and
reliable mitigation of disruptions and plasma facing components (PFCs) that handle the
higher heat fluxes while maintaining edge plasma conditions conducive to stability and
the formation of edge transport barriers.

The importance of plasma technologies in sustaining progress across the entire range of
scientific issues associated with the portfolio of magnetic fusion energy concepts, and the
integration of those issues into their steady-state and burning plasma embodiments was
acknowledged at the 1999 Fusion Summer Study (Snowmass). Snowmass identified two
overarching themes that cut across the various scientific disciplines and MFE concepts:
(1) the need for physics understanding and predictive capability to develop the scientific
basis for fusion energy, and (2) the development and employment of “sharper” plasma
profile control tools to enable scientific understanding and performance optimization.

The community’s call for a science/technology partnership and innovative technology to

help solve the major fusion science research challenges is closely aligned with the goals
and objectives of the Plasma Technology program element of the Virtual Laboratory for
Technology (VLT). Its mission is to provide the tools and understanding for creation,
confinement, and control of high-temperature plasmas. This mission closely mirrors the
Snowmass challenge to “develop control tools for detailed physics investigation” of the
outstanding cross-cutting science issues (turbulence and transport, MHD stability, and
plasma boundary physics).

The supporting R&D objective—to provide the technological advances that enable
existing and near-term plasma experiments to succeed in achieving their full
performance goals and ultimate research potential — addresses the other component of
the Snowmass partnership theme; namely, the need to improve the performance of the
MFE concepts portfolio currently operating and those that are anticipated or planned in
the near future (i.e., steady-state and burning plasma devices).

For the remainder of the article we focus on recent results and future directions of the
science/technology partnership emphasizing technology’s role in scientific understanding
and performance optimization.

Fueling

The first example, from the fueling area, summarizes the latest high-field side (HFS)
pellet fueling results from the DIII-D tokamak. The fueling facility developed for DIII-D
is the most powerful tool of its kind for investigating the physics of fueling and density
profile control and it can do this from four different poloidal locations (mid-plane low
field side (LFS) to mid-plane HFS).

In the typical LFS case, density is deposited up to the expected position of maximum
pellet penetration, but the radial particle deposition profile is outwardly skewed. In
contrast, HFS pellets penetrate only about half as far, but the peak of the particle
deposition profile is observed well beyond the point where pellet evaporation is
complete, and a significant amount of fuel is deposited at the magnetic axis. And this is
accomplished with an injection velocity one fifth of that used in the LFS case. From the
perspective of fueling, assuming that these results extrapolate to larger plasmas, this
should result in higher operating density, better control of the density level and profile
shape, and, of course, higher burn up fractions.

Deep fueling has perhaps an even more important consequence, namely, the generation of
internal transport barriers via local turbulence suppression resulting in what has come to
be known as the Pellet Enhanced Phase (PEP) mode. An important signature of the PEP
mode is a region of strong central shear reversal where extremely steep density,
temperature and pressure gradients exist. Through the radial force balance, this pressure
gradient gives rise to strong radial electric field shear which in turn generates the sheared
poloidal flows that decorrelate or suppress the turbulence. This situation is associated
with and likely triggered by a very strong off-axis bootstrap current and the resulting
strong negative central shear that is responsible for reducing the growth rates of the
microinstabilities thereby providing conditions conducive to transport reductions and
pressure profile steepening.

Another consequence of the reversed shear profile is an increased stability to ballooning

modes which allows us to take advantage of the transport barrier by permitting an
increase in the core pressure gradient and central β. Such improvements give rise to a
substantially higher fusion power density that scales as β2.

Heating and Current Drive

In the heating and current drive area, the technology program is responding to the
community’s call for a shift in reliance on the blunt instruments used in the past for bulk
heating and current drive to more precise spatial and temporal control of the pressure and
current density profiles. Recent examples of the science/technology partnership in this
area include a phased array high-harmonic fast wave (HHFW) antenna developed jointly
by ORNL and PPPL for the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) and the 1-MW
long-pulse electron cyclotron current drive (ECCD) gyrotron developed by CPI (in
collaboration with GA, MIT, Univ. Maryland, and Univ. of Wisconsin) for DIII-D. Both
of these technologies are key elements in the respective facility’s research program from
both the operational and performance points of view. With its limited volt-second
capability, NSTX will rely on non-inductive techniques to drive a large fraction of the
plasma current. ECCD is being pursued on DIII-D for precise localized current drive to
affect negative central shear and to stabilize MHD modes. As such, it is a mainstay of the
DIII-D advanced tokamak program.

The NSTX twelve-strap antenna and its associated tuning and matching system
represents a level of sophistication never before achieved. This leading edge technology
is required in the HHFW system in order to match the phase velocity of the launched fast
waves to the electron thermal velocity as the NSTX discharge evolves from a tenuous
low-temperature start-up phase to the fully developed high temperature and high
β H-mode phase. This requires real time control of the current strap phasing. The physics
of heating/current drive on NSTX is also leading edge because of the rapidly varying
shear and high beta. A high absorption rate of HHFWs in the high β NSTX plasma is
expected, thereby providing NSTX with an off-axis current drive capability for sustaining
shear reversal.

Precision current drive technologies will be required to achieve the high β equilibria of
the advanced tokamak (AT) in particular. Transport simulations for DIII-D indicate that
the required current density profile can be achieved by 10-MW of off-axis localized
ECCD, leading to the desired shear reversal and consequent increases in β (higher
stability limits) and reductions in turbulence inside the shear reversal radius.

Magnet Technology

Magnet technology is fundamental to all MFE concepts and is also essential to the
development of the heavy ion beam inertial fusion energy (IFE) concept. The long-term
goal of this program element is to improve overall cost and performance of magnet
systems by approximately a factor of two within the next decade. For MFE this would be
accomplished through both incremental and innovative improvements in materials
(superconductors, conduit, insulation) and individual components (such as improved
quench detection and protection systems) while for IFE the appropriate approach is the
development of advanced superconducting quadrupole array prototypes for the heavy ion
beam driver. Consistent with the fusion program emphasis on innovation is a high
priority placed on concept exploration activities of both low- and high-temperature
superconductors where the potential exists to reduce cable costs by a factor of three to
ten.

Recent examples of innovation in this area include the development of the world’s most
powerful pulsed superconducting magnet—the 13-T, CS Model coil now undergoing
testing in Japan—and the development of both innovative low- and high-temperature
superconducting cables and conductors. High-temperature superconductors being
developed by MIT and the American Superconductor Corporation offer the potential for
higher performance (magnetic field) and increased stability for future applications.

The Magnet Technology program is also addressing the near-term needs of the fusion
program. The floating dipole magnet for the Levitated Dipole Experiment (LDX) is
being constructed using a new, highly advanced Nb3Sn wire with critical current density
1.6 times higher than ITER wire in order to achieve long floating times. The program is
also presently developing, with industry, the first application of high-temperature
superconductor for the LDX levitation magnet. High-temperature superconductors are
practical in the near term for specialized applications such as the LDX device and may
soon be the conductor of choice for advanced tokamaks, next-step stellarators, and KrF
laser diodes. Another example of how the program is addressing the near-term needs of
the community is in the development of compact, low-cost, high-current density NbTi
quadrupole magnets for heavy ion fusion drivers, such as the High Current Experiment
(HCX) and the Integrated Research Experiment (IRE).
We now turn our attention to technologies that enable devices to operate at their full
performance potential.

Disruption Mitigation Technologies

Techniques to control and mitigate disruptions were given high priority at Snowmass
particularly with respect to the advanced tokamak. Present disruption mitigation
technologies are closely related to pellet injection systems commonly used in fueling
experiments. Recent exploratory studies with high-Z pellets on Alcator C-MOD, and
DIII-D and high-pressure He gas injection on DIII-D in particular have demonstrated the
ability of the technology to significantly lessen the effects of the thermal quench and
reduce vacuum vessel forces during staged disruptions (vertical displacement event,
VDE). By injecting a massive helium gas puff of 7000 Torr-liters, the line density on
DIII-D can be increased to 1021 m-2 in 7 ms. This cools the plasma rapidly, increasing its
resistive decay rate such that a large fraction of the current dissipates before the plasma
contacts the vessel walls. The net effect is a twofold reduction in the halo current and a
factor of two reduction in the toroidal peaking factor leading to a factor of four reduction
in peak forces on in-vessel components.

In the near term, further progress in developing effective and reliable mitigation
techniques and procedures will require a broad based research and development program
involving multiple tokamaks to scope out physics parameters experimentally and a
parallel development effort to explore the most promising technologies such as low-Z
liquid jet injection. In the long term, disruption detection and mitigation systems will
need to be integrated into the control systems of existing tokamaks for testing and to
demonstrate reliability.

Plasma Facing Components/Plasma Materials Interactions

As discussed earlier, PFCs will have to deal with the consequences of this improved
performance. To this end, dramatic progress has been made in the past five years in the
area of heat removal capability and component reliability. Advanced heat removal
devices, such as the tungsten rod divertor mockup developed for ITER, already operate
routinely at a heat flux of 3 kW/cm2 for thousands of thermal cycles, a performance level
that was unimaginable just five years ago. This remarkable progress was made possible
by the use of rods (which reduce thermal stresses) to conduct heat to an actively cooled
copper substrate and improved joining techniques that bond the tungsten armor to the
copper. A near-term goal of this program that addresses the need for improved power
handling expected in future high performance plasma configurations is to develop PFCs
with a 50% improvement in both heat flux and erosion lifetime. Candidate technologies
that are being explored include high-pressure He gas cooling, and enhanced water
cooling (higher critical heat fluxes). Liquid surfaces may offer the potential for even
higher performance while essentially solving the problem of PFC lifetime. The near-term
objective for this activity is to perform exploratory studies of this concept on a plasma
facility such as the Current Drive Experiment Upgrade (CDX-U).
The Plasma Boundary Working Group at Snowmass identified as a key to achieving
high-plasma performance the need to develop a better physics understanding of the
coupling between the core and edge plasmas and the effect of plasma facing materials on
plasma performance. This is captured by the program’s long-range goal to develop a
theoretical code which couples a core plasma to the first wall while integrating all of the
known major plasma/first wall interactions in order to provide a more complete
theoretical understanding of wall interactions with the core plasma and allow for
significant improvements in the design of more accurate alternate concept proofs-of-
principle and new devices.

Recent progress on this front has also been excellent as evidenced by our ability to
measure and predict material erosion rates and to relate the results to plasma erosion
mechanisms. Other areas which are being addressed in the R&D program include wall
retention of hydrogen—a key to minimizing tritium wall inventories—and the generation
and subsequent transport of impurities which is so important in understanding the effect
of plasma facing materials on core plasma performance.

In summary, the MFE concept and cross-cutting science subgroups at Snowmass told us
that in order to continue to progress in the direction of steady-state advanced performance
and burning plasmas, we will need to sharpen our profile control tools across the board.
The technology response to this challenge includes better gyrotrons and ion cyclotron
launchers and control systems, faster inside launch pellets, lower-cost increased-
performance magnets, fast reliable disruption detection, low-Z liquid or gas injection
mitigation systems, and lower erosion/higher heat flux PFCs.

Z-Pinch for High Yield and IFE, Craig Olson, Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The Z accelerator at SNL is the most powerful multi-module synchronized pulsed-power

accelerator in the world. X-rays from a z-pinch can be used in a hohlraum configuration
to drive an inertial confinement fusion (ICF) capsule target. Demonstration of a single-
shot high-yield target is presently a goal of the ICF z-pinch program at SNL (funded by
DOE Defense Programs). For Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE), a rep-rated fusion capability
is needed. Recent developments have led to a viable conceptual approach for a rep-rated
z-pinch power plant for IFE, as is discussed here. In addition, Z could presently be used
for x-ray material response experiments relevant to all IFE scenarios.

Rapid development of z-pinch loads on Z has led to outstanding progress in the last few
years, resulting in radiative powers of up to 180 TW in 4 ns, and a total radiated x-ray
energy of 1.8 MJ. Z nominally provides a 20 MA current pulse for about 100 ns to a
small cylindrical wire array (radius typically 1-2 cm, and length 1-2 cm) consisting of a
large number (up to 300) of high-Z, low-mass wires. The magnetic pinch force
accelerates the wires to the axis, where they stagnate, thereby producing a hot, dense,
radiating plasma with temperatures up to 200 eV. This radiation can be "captured" in a
hohlraum and used to drive a fusion target.
LASNEX computer calculations indicate that a pulsed power accelerator delivering about
60 MA could drive a high-yield ICF target with a yield above 500 MJ. Pulsed power
technology is both very efficient (Z has a wall-plug to x-ray efficiency of 15 %) and
relatively inexpensive. The current vision is to proceed from Z (20 MA), to Z-MOD (up
to 28 MA), and then go either to an intermediate facility ZX (~40 MA) or directly on to
X-1 (60 MA). Note that the high-yield driver goal of 60 MA is a factor of three higher in
current (a factor of nine higher in energy) than the present 20 MA on Z. The increased
current is used to drive a higher-mass z-pinch, but with the same or smaller convergence
ratio as used on Z. Since the Rayleigh-Taylor instability (the main concern for z pinches)
depends on the convergence ratio and not the mass, there should be no increased risk for
this instability as the current increases from 20 MA to 60 MA. Given this plausible
scenario for achieving high yield on a single-shot basis, the key question is "Could this be
done on a rep-rated basis?"

Up until now, it has been assumed that z-pinch fusion could not be used to generate
electricity because the fusion explosion would destroy a portion of the magnetically-
insulated transmission line (MITL) near the target, which would have to be replaced after
each shot. The existing z-pinch machines use a massive transmission line structure that
would be prohibitively expensive to replace after each shot. However, a rep-rated z-
pinch power plant concept has evolved that exploits the advantages of going to high yield
(~ few GJ) at low rep-rate (~ 0.1 Hz) and uses a Recyclable Transmission Line (RTL) to
provide the necessary standoff from the fusion target. The RTL could be cast out of a
conventional power plant coolant material, such as Li or Flibe. Other rep-rated z-pinch
concepts have been considered such as use of liquid-Li electrodes; or an ion or electron
beam to transport power to a small convertor; or a high velocity projectile stopped by a
flux compression current convertor. However, none of these concepts has the simplicity
and attractiveness of the RTL approach.

For an IFE power plant using the RTL concept with a z-pinch target, the sequence of
operation would begin with the lowering of the RTL into an empty chamber, the
connection of it electrically to the driver, and the insertion of the z-pinch target at its
center. Vacuum is required nominally only in the RTL, and this could be pumped down
before loading. The chamber itself would then be filled with a liquid or solid-with-voids
Li-bearing coolant, chosen to mitigate the effects of shock to the first wall. The RTL
(constructed of Li or Flibe), and the Li-bearing coolant (such as Li or Flibe) absorb the
heat from the fusion reaction and also breed tritium. The thickness of the Li-bearing
coolant, based on calculations, would typically be greater than about 1 meter. This
thickness is sufficient to absorb the bulk of the neutron energy, provide a tritium breeding
ratio above unity, and effectively protect the first wall from neutron damage. After filling
the chamber with the Li-bearing coolant, a lid would be placed on the chamber, and the z-
pinch fusion capsule would be fired. After the shot, the chamber would be opened, and
the molten mixture containing the Li-bearing materials would be forced out to other parts
of the power plant for heat extraction and tritium removal. The radius of the cylindrical
chamber would be in the range of 3 or more meters. Since large yields (~ few GJ) would
be used, the rep-rate would be low (~ 0.1 Hz). Also, more than one chamber might be
driven by the same pulsed power. In any case, there would be of the order of 10 seconds
or more to perform the whole sequence of operations. [Conventional IFE power plant
concepts operate at lower yields (~ few 100 MJ) and higher rep-rate (~ 5 Hz).] The time
scale of 10 seconds or more appears to be reasonable for the operations involved, but this
needs to be investigated in detail. Initial cost estimates by the Advanced Manufacturing
Group at SNL for recycling the RTL ($0.70/shot) are already in an acceptable range.
The RTL rep-rated z-pinch power plant concept is simple and robust, and already has
several outstanding advantages:
(1) The RTL concept simply recycles the transmission line, which is made out of
typical power plant coolant materials.
(2) Because the RTL can have bends, the vacuum insulator can easily be shielded
from line-of-sight from the fusion reaction.
(3) There is essentially no chamber vacuum requirement (as compared to other IFE
power plant concepts) since the RTL's can be pumped down before insertion
into the chamber.
(4) Solid or liquid Li-bearing materials with voids can fill the chamber essentially
directly up to the target, and be appropriately tailored to mitigate the shock to
the first wall.
(5) Other materials, such as lead or tin, may also be used in the RTL, since these
are immiscible with, e.g., the coolant Flibe.
(6) Multiple chambers may be used, and this would increase the time between shots
in each chamber.
(7) This approach uses simple technology in a robust environment of metal and
plastic, that works in a dirty environment, and can survive shocks and debris.
(8) The problem of a final optic/magnet (which is required for all laser or ion beam
approaches to IFE) is completely eliminated.
(9) The problem of high speed target injection, and the problems of accurately
pointing and tracking a large number of laser or ion beams to precisely hit the
target, is also eliminated.
(10) The z-pinch target is hard-wired to the accelerator, essentially guaranteeing that
it will work.

Key issues for this RTL concept that will be addressed in initial research include the
following goals:
(1) Demonstrate that a suitable material exists for constructing the RTL that is
compatible with the overall power plant concept. The RTL must have appropriate
electrical and structural properties, be inexpensive to manufacture, and be
compatible with the power plant operational cycle.
(2) Test actual candidate materials on the Saturn (~10 MA) and Z (~20 MA)
accelerators at SNL.
(3) Calculate the breakup of the RTL into plasma, liquid, and solid projectiles and
examine their effects on the coolant material and first wall.
(4) Investigate the use of tailored density gradients of liquid or solid coolants to
mitigate the shock to the first wall.
(5) Consider the design of targets with directed venting of debris to minimize impulse
loads to the RTL connection hardware.
 (6) Develop a suitable rep-rated pulsed power concept to drive the power plant,
drawing on expertise gained in the RHEPP (Repetitive High Voltage Pulsed
Power) program at SNL.
(7) Refine the overall rep-rated RTL power plant concept, and systematically initiate
a pre-systems analysis of the concept.

The RTL concept was presented at the Snowmass Fusion Summer Study in 1999, where
it was listed as the prime candidate for CE (Concept Exploration) for IFE. The RTL
concept is also listed as the prime candidate under CE on the IFE Road Map. A one-year
Laboratory Directed Research and Development at SNL ($160k for FY00) has just been
awarded (March, 2000) to begin research on the RTL concept with a collaborative team
(SNL, UCB, UCD, UW). A three-year collaborative proposal has also been made to
DOE OFES in response to their recent solicitation for IFE CE research. The results of
this research will also be relevant to any concept that uses pulsed power directly to drive
a fusion target, such as Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF).

In addition, Z could presently be used for x-ray material response experiments relevant to
all IFE scenarios. These experiments could be "added on" to existing Z shots at relatively
low cost. A collaborative proposal (SNL, UCB, UCSD, UW) has been made to DOE
OFES in response to their solicitation for IFE chamber and target research. A broader
collaborative proposal, that would establish Z and related pulsed power facilities at SNL (
Saturn, RHEPP, IBEST) as a national users facility to support the mission and goals of
the DOE OFES Enabling Technology program, has been submitted to the VLT (Dr.
Charles Baker, Director). For example, Z can produce extremely high x-ray fluence
levels (~3000 J/cm2), and IBEST can produce very high ion fluence levels (~15 J/cm2)
over ~100 cm2 with ion energies above 0.5 MeV. These facilities appear to be uniquely
qualified to support the Enabling Technology program.

International Activities:

IAEA Activities, Tom Dolan, Head Physics Section, IAEA, Vienna, Austria

The following activities are planned by the IAEA in 2000 and 2001.
TCM = Technical Committee Meeting,
RCM = Research Coordination Meeting (for a Coordinated Research Project).

2000

– IFRC Subcommittee on Atomic and Molecular Data for Fusion, May 7-8, 2000,
Vienna.
– TCM, Physics and technology of inertial fusion energy targets and chambers, June 7-9,
Madrid, Spain
– TCM, Fusion Safety, June 13-16 , Cannes, France
– Consultant meeting, Coolant Technology for Subcritical Blankets of Fusion/Fission
Hybrids, July 6-7, Moscow
– RCM, Comparison of Compact Toroid Configurations, July 10-14, Vienna
– International Fusion Research Council (IFRC), October 3, Sorrento, Italy
– 18th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, October 4-10, Sorrento, Italy
– Workshop on Plasma Diagnostics and Industrial Applications at the International
Centre for Theoretical Physics, October 12-14, Trieste, Italy
– TCM, Applications of fusion research to science and technology, 30 Oct.-3 Nov.,
Chengdu, China
– RCM, Elements of power plant design for inertial fusion energy, Fall, Vienna

2001

– TCM on Research Using Small Fusion Devices (RUSFD), April 2001, Brazil,
– TCM on H-mode Physics/Transport Barriers, September 2001, NIFS, Japan,
– TCM on Control, Data Acquisition and Remote Participation for Fusion Research
(possible collaboration with IEA), July 2001, General Atomics, San Diego, USA,
– TCM on Steady-State Operation of Magnetic Fusion Devices (SSO), March 2001,
France
– TCM on Energetic Particles in Magnetic Confinement Systems (former alpha particle
workshop), October 2001, IPP, Garching, Germany
– TCM on Spherical Tori, June 2001, possible hosts: Brazil, Russia or UK
– TCM on Divertor Concepts (possible collaboration with IEA), September 2001, host:
France
– TCM on High Average Power Drivers, GSI Darmstadt, Germany
– TCM on Plasma Theory, EPFL-Lausanne, Spring 2001. (Focus to be determined)
– IFRC meeting, June, Vienna
– RCM, Dense magnetized plasmas.

For further information about these meetings, please contact u.schneider@iaea.org

Calendar of Upcoming Conferences on Fusion Technology

ANS Annual Meeting

June 4-8, 2000, San Diego, CA, USA
http://www.ans.org/

FPA Annual Meeting and Symposium: Science and Technology for Fusion Power.
July 17, 2000, San Diego, CA, USA
fpa@compuserve.com

21st Symposium on Fusion Technology (SOFT)

Sep 11-15, 2000, Madrid, Spain.
http://21SOFT.ciemat.es/
i.girrido@ciemat.es

18th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference

 Oct 4-10, 2000, Sorrento, Italy
http://www.iaea2000.enea.it/index.html/
t.dolan@iaea.org

ANS 14th Topical Meeting on the Technology of Fusion Energy

Oct 15-19, 2000, Park City, Utah
http://ev2.inel.gov/ParkCity/

ANS Winter Meeting

Nov 12-17, 2000, Washington, DC, USA
http://www.ans.org/

ANS Annual Meeting

June 17-21, 2001, Milwaukee, WI, USA
http://www.ans.org/

10th International Conference on Fusion Reactor Materials - ICFRM-10

October 19-24, 2001, Karlsruhe, Germany

ANS Winter Meeting

Nov 11-15, 2001, Reno, NV, USA
http://www.ans.org/

6th International Symposium on Fusion Nuclear Technology - ISFNT-6

April 7-12, 2002, San Diego, CA, USA

ANS Annual Meeting

June 9-13, 2002, Hollywood, FL, USA
http://www.ans.org/

The content of this newsletter represents the views of the authors and
the ANS-FED Executive Committee and does not constitute an official
position of any U.S. governmental department or international agency.