Panel Report To Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory .
Panel Report To Fusion Energy Sciences AdvisoryCommittee (FESAC)“Review of theInternational Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor(ITER) Detailed Design Report”April 18, 1997Panel Members Robert W. Conn*, ChairmanD. E. BaldwinR. J. Briggs*J. D. Callen*R. J. GoldstonR. D. Hazeltine*R. E. SiemonT. S. Taylor*This report was prepared by a Panel established by, and reporting to, the Fusion EnergyScience Advisory Committee (FESAC). The report of this Panel has been endorsed byFESAC. Four other people who were also chairs of sub-panels were de-facto “Panel members”.They are Drs. M. Knotek*, J. Luxon, E. S. Marmar* and S. J. Zweben*.* Members of FESAC
Table of ContentsPreface.1I. Executive Summary. 3Question 1. 5Question 2. 6Question 3. 7Question 4. 8Question 5. 9II.Background: The Role of ITER in the World and US Fusion Programs.10III. DOE Charge to FESAC and the Committee’s Approach to the Charge.14IV. Assessment of the Design Basis .18Physics Basis.18Engineering and Technology.22V. Assessment of Construction, Operation, and Maintenance .25Magnets.26In-Vessel Components.27Facilities .27Operability and Safety.28VI. Assessment of Confidence in Performance and the Degree of Operational Flexibility.31Confidence in Performance Projections .31Advanced Operational Modes, Flexibility and Heating.36The Basic Performance Phase and Enhanced Performance Phase.38VII. Assessment of Environment and Safety.39Public and Worker Safety .39Non-nuclear Safety.41VIII. Cost and Schedule.42Appendix A, Review team members and meetingsAppendix B, SWG-1 reportAppendix C, Charge Letters to FESACAppendix D-1, Sub Panel I Report on Physics BasisAppendix D-2, Sub Panel II Report on Heat Flux Components, Fuel CycleAppendix D-3, Sub Panel III Report on Disruptions/VDEs and Blanket/Shield AttachmentAppendix D-4, Sub Panel IV Report on Advanced Modes, Flexibility, and HeatingAppendix D-5, Sub Panel V Report on Operability and SafetyAppendix D-6, Sub Panel VI Report on MagnetsAppendix D-7, Sub Panel VII Report on In-Vessel ComponentsAppendix D-8, Sub Panel VIII Report on Cost and ScheduleAppendix D-9, Sub Panel IX Report on Facilitiesi
Review Panel Members Dr. Robert W. Conn (Chairman)*Dr. David BaldwinDr. Richard J. Briggs*Prof. James D. Callen*Prof. Robert GoldstonProf. Richard D. Hazeltine*Dr. Richard E. SiemonDr. Tony S. Taylor* Four other people who were also chairs of sub-panels were continuously invloved in Paneldeliberations and were thus de-facto Panel members. These people are Drs. Michael Knotek*, JamesLuxon, Earl Marmar*, and Stewart Zweben*, three of whom are also members of FESAC. As aresult, five chairs of subpanels were effectively “members” of the Panel.* Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee memberii
Sub-Panel MembersSub-Panel I. Physics Performance, Projections, Experimental & Theoretical Basis, Global ScalingDr. Tony S. Taylor (Co chairman)*Dr. William Tang (Co chairman)Prof. Glen BatemanDr. Keith BurrellDr. Vincent ChanProf. Lui ChenDr. Steven CowleyDr. Patrick DiamondDr. William DorlandDr. James DrakeDr. Raymond J. FonckDr. Martin J. GreenwaldDr. Gregory W. HammettDr. Richard D. HazeltineDr. Wayne A. HoulbergDr. Stanley M. KayeDr. Michael KotschenreutherDr. Joseph A. Johnson, III*Dr. John D. Lindl*Dr. Kevin M. McGuireDr. Janardhan ManickamDr. Stewart C. PragerDr. Mickey WadeDr. Ronald WaltzDr. Steven M. WolfeDr. Michael ZarnstorffSub-Panel II. Divertor Concept, Integrated Fuel CycleDr. Earl S. Marmar (Chairman)*Prof. Ira B. Bernstein*Dr. Bastiaan J. BraamsDr. Katherine B. Gebbie*Dr. John R. HainesDr. Dave HillDr. Charles KarneyDr. Bruce LipschultzDr. Stanley LuckhardtDr. Peter MioduszewskiDr. Gary PorterDr. Charles Skinneriii
Sub-Panel III. Disruptions, VDE’s, Blanket/Shield AttachmentDr. S.J. Zweben (Chairman)*Prof. Hans FleischmannDr. Eric FredricksonDr. Robert S. GranetzDr. Arnold KellmanDr. George SheffieldSub-Panel IV. Advanced Modes/FlexibilityDr. Farrokh Najmabadi (Chairman)Dr. Steven AllenDr. Nathaniel FischDr. Richard FreemanProf. Michaele E. MauelDr. Dale MeadeDr. Miklos PorkolabSub-Panel V. Achieve Availability Goals, Achieve Safety Assurance Goals,PFC Tritium InventoryDr. James Luxon (Chairman)Dr. Richard CallisDr. Tom CasperMs. Melissa Cray*Dr. John DeLooperDr. Richard HawrylukDr. James IrbyDr. David JohnsonDr. Arnold KellmanDr. Michael WilliamsSub-Panel VI. Magnet PerformanceDr. V. Karpenko (Chairman)Dr. Richard J. Briggs*Mr. Charles BushnellDr. Karl KrauseMr. Tom PetersonDr. Clyde TaylorSub-Panel VII. Neutron Irradiation Effects, In-vessel ComponentsDr. Samuel D. Harkness (Chairman)*Dr. Tom J. McmanamyDr. Tom ShannonDr. Dale SmithProf. Don SteinerSub-Panel VIII. Cost Methodology and ScheduleDr. Michael Knotek (Chairman)*Dr. Richard Callisiv
Dr. John HainesDr. Victor KarpenkoDr. John A. SchmidtDr. L. Edward TempleDr. Michael SaltmarshSub-Panel IX. FacilitiesMr. John Davis (Chairman)*Dr. G. Hutch Neilson, Jr.Dr. Michael Saltmarsh*Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee memberv
Glossary of TJT-60UKBML-modeLHLHCDAs Low As Reasonably AchievableTokamak experiment in GermanyAmerican Society of Mechanical EngineeringAdvanced TokamakBeta-driven Alfven Mode instabilityThe initial “Basic Performance Phase” of ITERConceptual Design Activities of the ITER programCarbon Fiber Composite materialHigh field Tokamak at MITCentral SolenoidCompact TorusDetailed Design DescriptionDetailed Design ReportDeuterium - TritiumTokamak experiment at General AtomicsElectron CyclotronElectron Cyclotron Current DriveElectron Cyclotron HeatingEngineering Design Activities of the ITER programElectro-MechanicalEdge Localized Mode plasma disturbanceThe second “Enhanced Performance Phase” of ITEREnvironmental Safety and HealthFinal Design ReportFusion Energy Science Advisory CommitteeFailure Modes and Effects AnalysisFast WaveFast Wave Current DriveGeneral Design RequirementsGeneral Design Requirements DocumentHydrogen - Tritium - OxygenHeat Transfer SystemHigh (good) energy confinement modeIon Bernstein WavesInterim Design DocumentIon Cyclotron HeatingIon Cyclotron Radio FrequencyInternational Thermonuclear Experimental ReactorIon Temperature GradientJapanese Atomic Energy Research InstituteJoint Central Team of the ITER design groupJoint European Torus experiment at Culham EnglandTokamak Experiment in JapanKinetic Ballooning Mode instabilityLower energy confinement modeLower HybridLower Hybrid Current Drivevi
ρ*Neutral Beam injectionMagneto-Hydro-DynamicNuclear Analysis GroupNon-site Specific Safety ReportPlasma energy gain (fusion power / injection power)President's Committee of Advisors on Science and TechnologyPartially Detached DivertorPoloidal Divertor ExperimentPoloidal FieldPlasma Facing ComponentsPlant Gaseous Effluent StackTransport code used by the JCTRun Away emote Handling / MaintenanceReverse shearSulfur hexaflorideClassification for most severe earthquake.Scrape-Off-Layer in plasma edgeSpecial Working Group 1Technical Advisory Committee for ITERToroidially Induced Alven Eigenmode instabilityToroidal FieldTokamak Fusion Test ReactorToroidal Peaking FactorThermal ShieldUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyVertical Displacement Event (vertical movement of the plasma)Wide Area NetworkWork Breakdown StructurePlasma pressure / magnetic pressureion gyro radius / characteristic plasma sizevii
PrefaceDr. Martha Krebs, Director, Office of Energy Research at the U.S. Department of Energy(DOE), wrote to the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC), in letters datedSeptember 23 and November 6, 1996, requesting that FESAC review the InternationalThermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Detailed Design Report (DDR) and “provide its viewof the adequacy of the DDR as part of the basis for the United States decision to enter negotiations”with the other interested Parties regarding “the terms and conditions for an agreement for theconstruction, operations, exploitation and decommissioning of ITER.” The letter from Dr. Krebs,referred to as the Charge Letter, provided context for the review and a set of questions of specificinterest.Addressing the Charge from Dr. Krebs and the specific questions associated with it has beena substantial undertaking because the development of the ITER design involves a wide range ofphysics, technology, engineering, and management areas. Furthermore, Dr. Krebs’ request for areport from FESAC by May 1, 1997, made the time period for the review limited. As a result,FESAC formed a panel (hereafter referred to as the “Panel”) and charged it to carry out the review,with the objective of presenting a report to the full FESAC before May 1st. This report has beenprepared by the Panel and includes our findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding theissues addressed to FESAC.Eleven subpanels were constituted in January, 1997, three of which were subsequentlycombined into one. Each of these now nine subpanels was given the responsibility for reviewingparticular elements of the ITER DDR report, and providing the Panel with findings andrecommendations. The reports of each subpanel are included in this report as a series of appendices.The formation of the subpanels also provided the Panel with the means to hear from and includemany outside experts and to insure the broad representation of the fusion scientific and technicalcommunity in the review. The Chair of FESAC determined that FESAC members who wereemployed primarily in ITER activities should not participate in the preparation of the subpanelreports, but should participate to provide clarifying information. The Chair of the Panel agreed toprovide copies of each subpanel report to the U.S. ITER Home Team for the sole purpose ofchecking these reports for factual accuracy. The Panel report itself however has been prepared by thePanel and has received no other review. The membership of the Panel, as well as of the ninesubpanels, together with the dates of their various meetings, are given in Appendix A.Finally, the Panel wishes to express our enormous gratitude to all those who workedtirelessly over an intense six week period to produce the subpanel reports, which in turn informedthis Panel’s deliberations, along with the ITER DDR report itself. The Panel is also very grateful toall the members of the ITER international design team, headed by Dr. Robert Amyar, and the U.S.1
ITER Home Team, headed by Dr. Charles Baker, for their presentations and for their extensiveefforts to provide answers quickly to queries from both the subpanels and the Panel itself. It is clearfrom the scale and depth of the ITER DDR report that this international team has accomplished anenormous task and our appreciation is extended to them.2
I.Executive SummaryITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project, is now in theEngineering Design Phase (EDA) of a worldwide effort to conceive, design and ultimately constructan experimental device to advance the development of fusion power. The major partners in the ITEReffort are the European Union, Japan, the Russian Federation and the United States, and the EDAphase of the program is scheduled to be completed in 1998.The objectives of ITER are “.to demonstrate controlled ignition and extended burn .,” “.todemonstrate steady-state operation.” and “.to demonstrate the technologies essential for a fusionreactor.” ITER brings together three threads important for the advancement of fusion: burningplasma physics, steady-state operation, and the testing of key technologies. It has long been agreed inthe US fusion program that the threshold to burning plasma physics occurs at Q 5, where the alphaheating power equals the externally supplied input power. Technology testing of divertor systemsand plasma facing components, as well as qualification of nuclear blanket modules, requires at least 1GW of fusion power in ITER, with a neutron fluence of about 1 MW-yr/m2 accumulated over aperiod of about 10 years. Thus if ITER can achieve Q 5 for long pulses at Pfus 1 GW, with anavailability of 10 - 15%, this will constitute a dramatic step toward demonstrating the scientific andtechnological feasibility of fusion energy. Together with further improvements in plasmaperformance and plant availability in the ongoing fusion science and technology programs, resultsfrom ITER will provide critical information required for the design of an attractive fusion DEMOpower plant.The general objectives and the plasma performance and engineering performance objectivesfor ITER are specifically set out in the 1992 report of the Special Working Group-I (SWG-I) as:General"The ITER detailed technical objectives and the technical approaches, including appropriatemargins, should be compatible with the aim of maintaining the cost of the device within the limitscomparable to those indicated in the final report of the ITER CDA as well as keeping its impact inthe long-range fusion program. ITER should be designed to operate safely and to demonstrate thesafety and environmental potential of fusion power."Plasma Performance"ITER should have a confinement capability to reach controlled ignition. The estimates ofconfinement capability of ITER should be based, as in the CDA procedure, on established favorablemodes of operation. ITER should demonstrate controlled ignition and extended burn for a durationsufficient to achieve stationary conditions on all time scales characteristic of plasma processes andplasma wall interactions, and sufficient for achieving stationary conditions for nuclear testing of3
blanket components. This can be fulfilled by pulses with flat top duration in the range of 1000 s. Fortesting particular blanket designs, pulses of approximately 2000 s are desirable, with the ultimate aimof demonstrating steady state operation using non-inductive current drive in reactor relevantplasmas."Engineering Performance and Testing"ITER should demonstrate the availability of technologies essential for a fusion reactor (suchas superconducting magnets and remote maintenance); test components for a reactor (such asexhaust power and particles from the plasma); test design concepts of tritium breeding blanketsrelevant to a reactor. The tests foreseen on modules include the demonstration of a breedingcapability that would lead to tritium self-sufficiency in a reactor, the extraction of high-grade heat, andelectricity generation."The remainder of the SWG-1 report outlining the design and operation requirements is givenin Appendix B. Commitments by the parties to proceed to construction and a decision on selectionof the construction site are scheduled for the 1998 time frame. All parties recognize the importanceof ITER, both to their national fusion efforts and as an opportunity to do cooperative internationalscience on an unprecedented scale. As recently as Fall 1996, a meeting of some sixty U.S. fusionprogram leaders reaffirmed support for U.S. participation in ITER and ITER's importance as aninvestment in fusion research, even if the U.S. participation were on the basis of a less-than-fullmember. There was a strong consensus that, at present U.S. fusion funding levels, continuation ofthe present funding level into the ITER construction phase is very well justified.Dr. Martha Krebs, Director, Office of Energy Research at the U.S. Department of Energy(DOE), wrote to the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC), in letters datedSeptember 23 and November 6, 1996, requesting that FESAC review the InternationalThermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Detailed Design Report (DDR) and “provide its viewof the adequacy of the DDR as part of the basis for the United States decision to enter negotiations”with the other interested Parties regarding “the terms and conditions for an agreement for theconstruction, operations, exploitation and decommissioning of ITER.” The letter from Dr. Krebsprovided context for the review and specifically asked that the following five questions be addressed:1. Are the ITER physics basis, technology base, and engineering design sound? Focus onthe critical physics, technology, and engineering issues that affect the design while allowing for theR&D planned in each of the areas through the end of the EDA.2. Is ITER likely to meet its performance objectives as agreed upon by the four Parties anddocumented in the 1992 SWG-1 report? Evaluate predicted performance margins, comment on therange of operating scenarios, and identify opportunities to improve the performance.4
3. Do the design and operating plans adequately address environment, safety, and healthconcerns? Focus on the methodology used by the Joint Central Team to address these concerns.4. Are the proposed cost estimates and schedules for the construction project and subsequentoperations, exploitation and decommissioning credible, and are they consistent with the procurementmethods and staffing arrangements recommended by the ITER Director? Focus on the methodologyused to prepare the estimates.5. Are there any cost effective opportunities for pursuing modest extensions of the currentdesign features in order to enhance operational flexibility and increase scientific and technologicalproductivity of ITER? Focus on areas where cost effectiveness of any design extensions would behigh.In this Executive Summary, the Panel provides our primary findings, conclusions andrecommendation
Appendix D-7, Sub Panel VII Report on In-Vessel Components . EC Electron Cyclotron ECCD Electron Cyclotron Current Drive ECH Electron Cyclotron Heating EDA Engineering Design Activities of the ITER program EM Elec
8. Install VMware Fusion by launching the “Install VMware Fusion.pkg”. 9. Register VMware Fusion when prompted and configure preferences as necessary. 10. Quit VMware Fusion. Create a VMware Fusion Virtual Machine package with Composer 1. Launch VMware Fusion from /Applications. 2. Cre
2 FUSION SOFTWARE USER GUIDE - V17 FUSION-CAPT FOR FUSION FX7, SL7, PULSE 7, SOLO 7S, SOLO 7X EVOLUTION-CAPT FOR FUSION FX6, SL6, PULSE 6, SOLO 6S, SOLO 6X Thank you Dear Customer, On behalf of Vilber Lourmat, we would like to thank you for choosing the Fusion imaging system. In order to learn the capabilities of your Fusion imaging system, we kindly ask
Accessible Fusion Brochure PDF. Accessible Fusion Brochure PDF. STANDARD FEATURES . FUSION / FUSION HYBRID / FUSION ENERGI. STANDARD FEATURES . GASOLINE ENGINE MODELS. . 2019 Fusion ford.com. 1 After your trial period ends, SiriusXM audio and data services each require a subscription sold separately, or as a package, by SiriusXM Radio Inc. .
Hush Panel 28 Hush Panel 32 Hush Panel 33 Hush Panel 37 Hush Panel 48 Hush Panel 52 Hush Ply 28 Hush Ply 32 When installing Hush Cem Panel 28 or Hush Cem Panel 32 the tongue and groove joints are to be glued using Hush Cem Panel Adhesive. All joints to be glued, on all sides of the panel to give the best bond. Adhesive not to be spared .
3 Get Fusion 360 for educational use c. If you are a student or design competition mentor, click Get Product on the Download Fusion 360 tile. If you are an educator, make sure you are on the Individual tab and then click Get Product on the Download Fusion 360 tile. The Download Fusion 360 tile is for downloading the Fusion 360 software.
fusion, a style of jazz that came of age in the 1970s. A few scholars have been labeling this music as jazz-rock fusion instead of jazz fusion; however the idea of fusion and jazz remains vague at best.1 Historically speaking, jazz has embraced fusion since the very beginning. As a nation comprised of immigrants, America and its culture is .
FUSION HYBRID ford.com The New 2011 Fusion Hybrid It's no wonder Motor Trend magazine 2 praised "the Fusion's combination of performance, comfort, fuel efficiency, and technology." Fusion continues to deliver on all fronts for 2011. Choose from the ultra-efficient 41-city-mpg Fusion Hybrid , the exhilarating
Fixed Scope Offer - 3 for Human Capital Management & Talent Management List of Modules: Fusion Human Capital Management Base Cloud Service Fusion Goal Management Cloud Service Fusion Performance Management Cloud Service Fusion Talent Review Cloud Service
