Development Paths for IFEDevelopment Paths for IFE

Mike Campbell

General Atomics

FPA 25th Anniversary Meeting

December 13,2004

A comprehensive Fusion Energy A comprehensive Fusion Energy Development program was recently Development program was recently

completedcompleted

• Panel chaired by R Goldston submitted plan to FESAC in March,2003– MFE and IFE were included– Need for “burning plasma “demonstration was

highlighted• ITER• NIF

– “balanced program”-science (plasma physics,material science),engineering physics, technology was advocated

– ~30 years and ~$25B to DemoAnd……

Why?Why?• Fusion is a science program and not energy development

– Energy R&D is not to demonstrate “it works”but to “make it better!”

• Clean coal• Nuclear 2010• Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP)

– “If JFK had said we would be on the moon by the end of the century not by the end of the decade….”

• No Presidential mandate– NASA Mars Initiative– Hydrogen

• No Congressional mandate– NGNP (Dominici and Craig)

There is support for ICF/IFE There is support for ICF/IFE and HEDPand HEDP

• ICF is supported by DOE-NNSA as a key element of Stockpile stewardship with NIF as central element and strong support for Omega and Z

• Renewed commitment to ignition demonstration (Priority for Congress too)

• Congressional (House) support for Omega-EP in NNSA budget ($28M)• Congressional (Senate) support for ZR, Petawatt on Z in NNSA budget($13)• Congressional (House) support for Laser IFE (HAPL)in NNSA budget($25M)• Congressional (Senate) support for Z-IFE in NNSA budget (part of $9M)• Congressional support (Senate) for target fabrication ($5M)• Congressional (Senate) support for HEDP at universities (UNR,UT)in NNSA

budget• HEDP and FI were part of OFES $12M plus-up • HIF is supported for its contributions to beam and HEDP physics

However, today there is no Executive/Congressional support for an integrated IFE program

IFE Power Plants are highly modular

targetElectricity Generator

“combustion chamber

Targetfactory

Driver

Final optics

Modularity allows for multiple approaches and affordable development-”interface issues” must ultimately be addressed-average power experiments!

Phased development enabled by IFE Modularity remains valid

Phase IIValidatescience &technology2009 - 2020

Phase IIIEngineeringTest Facilityoperating 2030

Full size driver Optimize targets for high yield Develop materials and components. 300-700 MW net electricity

Phase I:Basic fusionscience &technology1999- 2008

Ignition Physics Validation

•MJ target implosions•Calibrated 3D simulations

Target design & Physics

•2D/3D simulations•1-30 kJ laser-target expts•MJ Z pinch expts

Full Scale Components

•Power plant beamline (IRE) •Target fab/injection facility •Power Plant design

Scalable Technologies•Krypton fluoride laser•Diode pumped solid state laser•Heavy Ion Accelerators•Rep-rated Z pinch•Chambers materials/design•Target fabrication

There is reason for optimism for ICF

physics today • NIF is getting done-it is hard but it will work (and 3D design codes)!• Direct drive physics

– Targets with R-T control • “Adiabat” shaping• Reduction in Laser imprinting

– Ignition/gain without 4 illumination (“polar direct drive”)– Target fabrication (foams)

• Pulse power development– Targets with low l mode control– Dynamic Hohlraum

• Target Fabrication for indirect drive(all drivers)– Be/Cu ablators for R-T growth reduction and “low cost” cryo– Symmetry control (shims)

• Fast igntion– GEKO experiments -FIREX1– PW additions to all US HEDP facilities

The ICF “physics” story is much richer than at the initiation of NIF

The HAPL Program has made significant progress in Direct Drive IFE development

TurboPumps

Gun Barrel

TargetCatcher

Target Position

Detectors

Sabot Deflector

RevolverChamber

ExpansionTanks Turbo

Pumps

Gun Barrel

TargetCatcher

Target Position

Detectors

Sabot Deflector

RevolverChamber

ExpansionTanks

Predicted Threat to wall* Material

Predicted Ablation

Threshold

Measured Ablation

Threshold

Measured Roughening Threshold

154 MJ target

400 MJ target

Pyrolitic Graphite

4.0 J/cm2 3.5 - 4 J/cm2

2.5 J/cm2 X-rays (10 nsec exposure) Tungsten not done

yet 2 J/cm2 1.3 J/cm2

0.40 J/cm2

1.20 J/cm2

Pyrolitic Graphite

4.5 J/cm2 3.5 - 4 J/cm2

2.5 J/cm2

Tungsten (pure)

4.75 J/cm2 5 J/cm2 1.25 J/cm2 IONS (60 nsec exposure) Tungsten +

25% Re Not yet modeled

5 J/cm2 3.5 J/cm2

8.5 J/cm2

(1.41 J/cm2)

21.1 J/cm2

(3.52 J/cm2)

0 2 4 6 8 10time (? )sec

Surface1 micron5 microns10 microns100 microns

Surface1 micron5 microns10 microns100 microns

3000

2600

2200

1800

1600

1200

600

200

KrF lasers Solid State lasers

Target Injection Chamber Physics

Several opportunities exist to catalyze IFE support over the next 5-10 years

• Ignition/gain on NIF– NIF capsule gains (indirect drive) ~100– Polar Direct drive (?)

• Successful low (<4) implosion on Omega• Q ~0.1 to 0.5 at FIREXI or Omega-EP with

Fast Ignition• High R implosion (symmetry control,

pulse shaping) on ZR

A plump J. Sethian

IFE support thru Congress is possible but support must be broadened and there must

be an “exit strategy”

• Executive (DOE) advocacy is ultimately required for IFE program– OFES (ITER?)– NNSA(?)

• New missions that are extensions of nuclear weapons activities can be developed (I.e. Pu disposition)

• It is possible to maintain Congressional advocacy at the ~$30-40M/year (HAPL ,Z-IFE ,others(targets, reactor Physics)) for ~5 years within NNSA if ICF/IFE community (including lab advocacy) works together– Completion of Omega-EP, ZR and Z Petawatt are “opportunities”

• HEDP may also enable support outside of NNSA

Iraq and the Deficit are real constraints

What to do?

• Continue progress in ICF and IFE• Integrated IFE program planning (all approaches) and coordination

– Since at present-no agency “owns” IFE and this is outside the role/capability of Congress, the community must do it-already happening at some level

– Assume constant dollar level until “catalyzing event” • Criteria for moving into Phase II

– Timing problem?– Influenced (determined) by “catalyzing event”

• Broaden congressional support (low number of electoral votes!) and

establish a lab advocacy