SPARC Soonest/Smallest Private-Funded Affordable Robust Compact
A small high field torus for changing climates B. Mumgaard, Z. Hartwig, B. Sorbom, D. Brunner
Thoughts on new technology, private funding, and modern innovation techniques to accelerate fusion energy
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
We’ll start with a different area of science/technology: NASA science prior to the 2000’s Viking, 1975, $4B, 15+yr program
Carl
• Viking 1&2 landed on Mars • Opened an entire scientific enterprise • Next steps were obviously eminent!
2015 dollars SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
1
It looked like we were going to understand Mars! We just needed to take the next big step. Viking, 1975, $4B, 15+yr program
Carl
• Viking 1&2 landed on Mars • Opened an entire scientific enterprise • Next steps were obviously eminent! • Steps widely agreed upon, endorsed • But no agreement on the order to do it • So do it all or nothing! SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
1
Meanwhile, others at NASA were doing great, but very hard to wrangle missions. Voyager, 1977 $1B, on budget on time
Galileo, 1986 $3B, 3x cost overrun 10yrs to build, 7 years behind
Hubble, 1993 $3B, 6x cost overrun 15yrs to build, 6 years behind
Mars observer, 1992 $2B, 2x cost overrun 8yrs to build, 4yrs behind
Cassini/CRAF, 1997, $5B, 2x cost overrun 7yrs to build, 3 years behind
2015 dollars SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
2
Meanwhile, others at NASA were doing great, but very hard to wrangle missions. Voyager, 1977 $1B, on budget on time
Galileo, 1986 $3B, 3x cost overrun 10yrs to build, 7 years behind
Mars observer, 1992 $2B, 2x cost overrun 8yrs to build, 4yrs behind
They were technically and scientifically awesome with good ideas and great people behind them.
But when they went over budget and fell behind schedule they cannibalized other projects. Hubble, This1993 was, naturally, upsetting to Cassini/CRAF, everybody on1997, all $3B, 6x cost overrun sides of the issue. $5B, 2x cost overrun 15yrs to build, 6 years behind 7yrs to build, 3 years behind
Many studies have been performed to figure out why there were so many problems…
2015 dollars SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
2
Meanwhile, others at NASA were doing great, but very hard to wrangle things.
… the best synthesis came from someone who was there, speaking at the Mars observer, 1992 timeGalileo, it was 1986 happening:
$2B, 2x cost overrun Voyager, 1977 $3B, 3x cost overrun $1B,“The on budget more money that's lessbehind risk people 8yrs wanttotobuild, 4yrs behind 10yrsinvolved, to build, 7the years on time take. The less risk people want to take, the more they put into their
designs, to make sure their subsystem is super-reliable. The more things they put in, the more expensive the project gets. The more expensive it gets, the more instruments the scientists want to add, because the cost is getting so high that they're afraid there won't be another opportunity later on- they figure this is the last train out of town. Hubble, So little1993 by little, the spacecraft becomes gilded. And you Cassini, 1997, $3B, 6x cost have these badoverrun dreams about a spacecraft $5B, so bulky and so heavy it 2x cost overrun 15yrs toget build, years behindnever mind the won't off6the groundcost.”behind 7yrsoverblown to build, 3 years “That boils down to the higher the cost, the more you want to protect your investment, so the more money you put into lowering your risk. It becomes a vicious cycle.” - Rob Manning, Chief spacecraft engineer, JPL [Pathfinder, Muirhead] SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
3
Then awful things happened. And science, government treasure, people’s life’s work, and NASA’s reputation were impacted. Voyager, 1977 $1B, on budget on time
Galileo, 1986 $3B, 3x cost overrun 10yrs to build, 7 years behind
Mars observer, 1992 $2B, 2x cost overrun 8yrs to build, 4yrs behind
"Gone ... is another chunk of NASA's eroding reputation for technical brilliance“ –TIME
Hubble, 1993 $3B, 6x cost overrun 15yrs to build, 6 years behind
SPARC Underground
Cassini/CRAF, 1997, $5B, 2x cost overrun 7yrs to build, 3 years behind
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
4
This sucked. Hard. For everybody.
Voyager, 1977 $1B, on budget on time
Mars observer, 1992 Galileo, 1986 $2B, 2x cost overrun In 1993 NASA, Congress and The $3B, 3x cost overrun 8yrs to build, 4yrs behind President agree: 10yrs to build, 7 years behind
NASA is DONE doing multi-billion "Gone missions. ... is another chunk dollar science
of NASA's eroding The budgets willreputation be small,foriftechnical you go brilliance“ –TIME over budget it WILL be canceled.
Hubble, 1993 $3B, 6x cost overrun NASA andto science a punchline… 15yrs build, become 6 years behind
SPARC Underground
Cassini/CRAF, 1997, “One failure away from extinction.” $5B, 2x cost overrun 7yrs to build, 3 years behind
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
4
Switching over to fusion: We had a good thing going with tokamaks... and then stalled out JET, 1983, $0.5B, 5yrs to build & TFTR, 1982, $0.5B, 6yrs to build
Increase in DT fusion power over the first 2 days of D-T operation on TFTR
SPARC Underground
• In the 1970’s-1990’s tokamaks had drastically increasing demonstrated fusion performance • TFTR and JET showed >10MW fusion power • Next steps were obviously eminent!
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
5
Switching over to fusion: We had a good thing going with tokamaks... and then stalled out JET, 1983, $0.5B, 5yrs to build & TFTR, 1982, $0.5B, 6yrs to build
Increase in DT fusion power over the first 2 days of operation on TFTR
SPARC Underground
• In the 1970’s-1990’s tokamaks had drastically increasing demonstrated fusion performance • TFTR and JET showed >10MW fusion power • Next steps were obviously eminent! • Steps widely agreed upon, endorsed • But no agreement on the order to do it • So do it all or nothing!
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
5
Switching over to fusion: We had a good thing going with tokamaks... and then stalled out ITER $25-50B, 5-10x cost overrun >20yrs to build, >10 years behind Power plant Conditions
2030s
1990s
1980s
1970s
SPARC Underground
• Widespread agreement that the process, not the people, is to blame for the problems • Now under constant review about how/whether to proceed • Community’s future and people’s life’s work hang in the balance • Up to the politicians to decide PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
6
SPARC: A small tokamak for changing climates 4 changing climates outside of fusion…. • How innovation is done has changed • Private-funding is changing scientific R&D • The Earth’s climate, and the response, is changing • HTS changes the pathway to a tokamak fusion reactor … set the stage for SPARC… • A tokamak with a targeted mission • With a conservative plasma physics basis • A heat exhaust challenge with solutions that might work • Mitigation of radiation in the magnets … which we think could change fusion’s climate.
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
SPARC: A small tokamak for changing climates The 4 changing climates…. • How innovation is done has changed • Private-funding is changing scientific R&D • The Earth’s climate, and the response, is changing • HTS changes the pathway to a tokamak fusion reactor … set the stage for SPARC • A tokamak with a targeted mission • With a conservative plasma physics basis • A heat exhaust challenge with solution scoping • Mitigation of radiation in the magnets … which we think might change fusion’s climate. Back to that Mars community who now had no way to do what they wanted to do… SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
Something really interesting happened: A small group at JPL did things drastically differently They found a little pot of money, not much..
.. taking risks only small budgets allow..
…bounced to a landing...
.. launched it to the red planet...
…using a novel combination of new technology, proven engineering and hard-won experience.
.. quickly built a small, focused spacecraft..
…did 3 months of cutting-edge science...
Mars Pathfinder, 1995 $0.15B, on budget on time (34mos) 100% successful
Unfolded a lander... …booted up, phoned home...
…drove rover “Sojourner” to intriguing rocks...
...took spectacular pictures…
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
7
….and the world turned and watched in awe. • For 1/20th the price and for 1/3rd the development time of Viking, a team of ~100 people were able to land, drive a rover, and do compelling science on Mars • This mission was considered to be “impossible”, “foolish” and “career suicide”
• • • •
It was an incredibly compelling story Front page of every newspaper Broke internet records Inspired a generation of scientists and engineers • Spawned a continuing legacy
(Spoiler!!) And helped bring Matt Damon home so he could give MIT’s 2016 commencement address. (How do you like them apples?) SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
8
And it quintessentially changed the way NASA does robotic space while paving the way for a robust Mars program.
• •
• •
The successful mission came to define the era of “Better, Faster, Cheaper” The Mars budget grew from $50M/yr to $800M/yr A rapid series of missions were launched, each bootstrapping on the success of the others The program now attracts the best and brightest Now a multibillion dollar global endeavor making rapid progress and engaging the pubic
Everybody working together
Spirit/Opportunity 2003 : ~$820M
Curiosity 2012 : ~$2.4B
Looks like fun
2015: Flowing water! Sojourner 1995: ~$150M
SPARC Underground
Success breeds success PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
Mars 2020 Rover, caching samples for return
9
And it quintessentially changed the way NASA does robotic space while paving the way for a robust Mars program.
• •
After 20 years of little progress when budgets were loose • (1975-1995)… • …they made remarkable progress in 20 years when budgets were Everybody working together tight (1995-2015)…
The successful mission came to define “Better, Faster, Cheaper” The Mars budget grew from $50M/yr to $800M/yr A series of rapid missions were launched, each bootstrapping on the success of the others The program attracts the best and brightest Now a multibillion dollar global endeavor making rapid progress and engaging the pubic
…initiated by the right approach, Spirit/Opportunity Curiosity 2003 : ~$820M at the right time, in the2012 right : ~$2.4B
place, solving the right problems, to change the outlook.
Flowing water! Sojourner 1995: ~$150M
SPARC Underground
Success breeds success PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
Mars 2020 Rover, caching samples for return
9
Imagine if we could do something like this in fusion.
Increase in DT fusion power over the first 2 days of operation on TFTR
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
*SPARC foreshadowing
10
Imagine if we could do something like this in fusion. In 20 years it sure would be nice to say: • The fusion funding grew to from <$250M/yr to >$2,500M/yr and the sources diversified • Many targeted devices were built, retiring risks • The program now attracts the best and brightest • Now a multibillion dollar global endeavor making rapid progress and engaging the public • Building an industry to help alleviate climate change
Increase in DT fusion power over the first 2 days of operation on TFTR
“What is fusion energy’s version of Pathfinder?” SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
10
Pathfinder, without knowing it at the time, was executing what we now call the lean innovation cycle. 1. Landing on Mars and roving (as opposed to orbiting) will provide compelling technical demonstration and science, paving the way for further exploration
7. The science community, the public, and NASA are excited. Now have a proven way to land and do science. Launch more rovers, landers, orbiters. Each time repeating this cycle, building on past success. Each time retiring risks, raising excitement.
2. This could be done on a low budget using innovation and targeted risk taking.
3. Largest risk and cost is entry, descent, landing. Use innovations: Direct entry from deepspace, and use airbags to “just get it down”. 4. Test things extensively instead of adding redundancy. Use spare parts where possible. Engage the public early and often.
5. Build the smallest, simplest system possible. Stick to the budget and schedule, prevent scope creep.
6. Launch it and land as the world watches it work.
This is different from making a big list of feature, building a single large thing, and seeing if your assumptions were correct at the very end. (called waterfall development) SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
11
Goes by many names: virtuous feedback cycle/lean startup/customer development/agile development/disruptive/move-fast-break things.
Keys:
• Cycle as fast as possible
• Involve user/customer/sponsors early
• Always build the simplest, fastest, cheapest thing customer will pay for
• Cycling fast allows you to take risks by quickly pivoting away from failure
• Focus on the most valuable feature set, the sponsor helps you figure this out
• Success can be quickly measured and rewarded
• Learn about your technology and also about the customer at every cycle
• Eventually move from market to market, avoiding the valley of death
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
12
Goes by many names: virtuous feedback cycle/lean startup/customer development/agile development/disruptive/move-fast-break things. 1. A major barrier to commercial space is nobody thinks a private company can develop and launch a rocket
2. Success with a small rocket will lead to money for bigger rockets. 3. Largest risk is system integration, can be proven in small rocket. 4. Build a company to design, prove and integrate totally new engine and rocket
5. Make the (tiny) Falcon 1 7. Keep launching ever larger rockets, while cycling to learn. Eventually get to Mars.
6. Launch it. First 3 fail, 4th a success. Leads to large investment surge to begin developing larger Falcon 9 rocket.
This is now the standard way to do technology development Hardware, software, big company, small company… SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
13
Goes by many names: virtuous feedback cycle/lean startup/customer development/agile development/disruptive/move-fast-break things.
This is now the standard way to do technology development Hardware, software, big company, small company… SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
13
Goes by many names: virtuous feedback cycle/lean startup/customer development/agile development/disruptive/move-fast-break things. MIT courses this Fall that teach a variation of this Number
Title
6.933
Entrepreneurship in Engineering: The Founder's Journey
15.371
Innovation Teams
15.390A
New Enterprises
15.232
Business Model Innovation: Global Health in Frontier Markets
15.615
Basic Business Law for the Entrepreneur and Manager
2.009
The Product Engineering Process
2.75
Medical Device Design
15.375
Development Ventures
15.136
Principles and Practice of Drug Development
15.128
Neurotechnology Ventures
15.366
Energy Ventures
15.367
Healthcare Ventures
15.933
Strategic Opportunities in Energy
2.723
Engineering Innovation and Design
15.36
Introduction to Technological Entrepreneurship
15.364
Regional Entrepreneurship Acceleration Lab
15.369
Seminar in Corporate Entrepreneurship
15.378
Building an Entrepreneurial Venture: Advanced Tools and Techniques
This is now the standard way to do technology development Hardware, software, big company, small company… 15.389A
Global Entrepreneurship Lab
15.395A
Entrepreneurship Without Borders
15.399
SPARC Underground
Entrepreneurship Lab
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
13
Goes by many names: virtuous feedback cycle/lean startup/customer development/agile development/disruptive/move-fast-break things.
This is what the private fusion companies are doing • Involve user/customer/funders early $>100M? $5-10M
• Success can be quickly measured and rewarded $>10M? • Can quickly pivot away from failure
$>100M?
???
Eventuallywith move physics from market to Except they are doing it with• concepts way the valley of death behind the “standard” tokamak….market, Why avoiding aren’t we doing this? SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
14
SPARC: A small tokamak for changing climates The 4 changing climates…. • How innovation is done has changed • Private-funding is changing scientific R&D funding • The Earth’s climate, and the response, is changing • HTS changes the pathway to a tokamak fusion reactor … set the stage for SPARC • A tokamak with a targeted mission • With a conservative plasma physics basis • A heat exhaust challenge with solution scoping • Mitigation of radiation in the magnets
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
Private money is picking up some slack in federal funding.
• Private individuals, philanthropy, and industry are starting to fund science and early-stage technology R&D which was once exclusively federal
• There are more billionaires than tough impactful problems • There is much concern about this!
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
15
Private money is picking up some slack in federal funding. - For the certain type of projects. Astronomy: Thirty Meter Telescope, $1.4B GMT, $0.7B
Oceanography: Schmidt Ocean Institute, $0.2B
Ecstatic astronomer
Human Genome Project: Celera, $0.3B
Nuclear Power: Terrapower
Neuroscience: Allen Institute for Brain Science, $0.5B
Space launch: SpaceX, Orbital Sciences, Virgin Galactic, $1.1B/yr
Astrophysics: Kavli Institutes, $0.1B
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
*SPARC foreshadowing
16
Private money is picking up some slack in federal funding. - For the certain type of projects. Astronomy: Thirty Meter Telescope, $1.4B
Ecstatic astronomer
Oceanography: Schmidt Ocean Institute, $0.2B
Private funding for large scienceHuman andGenome Project: technology is growing, supplementing Celera, $0.3B what used to only be federal areas. But it isn’t a panacea. Space: $1.1B/yr
Neuroscience: Allen Institute for Brain Science, $0.5B
$1M- easy, $10M-maybe, $100M hard, $1B rare, $10B impossible But you’ve got to find a way to bootstrap from low amounts, these projects did.
And it has differences from the way fusion is used to operating.
Astrophysics: Kavli Institutes, $0.1B
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
16
Private funding picks different projects than federal funding. And has different metrics for success. Private funded projects:
Government funded projects:
• Visibility is important
• Constituency is important
• Outsider approach is a plus
• Consensus-based
• Performance leads to $ for next cycle
• Long term on parallel problems
• Someday payback with a product or quantifiable societal impact
• Supposed to show steady progress in understanding
• Private funders expect projects to operate with fast progress and maximal learning/dollar at each step • Private funders have many great options! This is cut-throat competition! • The story must be compelling • The steps must be doable soon • Progress must be impactful and demonstrable SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
17
Some clarifying remarks What I am NOT saying:
• The way we have worked in the past is inferior or bad • We should change how we do everything • We should abandon government funding • That private science R&D is better than government or vice versa What I AM saying: •
There are different innovation strategies for different types of problems and constraints •
•
The lean strategy has proven itself in risk intensive, resource constrained situations
We should recognize that there are larger forces out there and always have been • And recognize that we will be buffeted by many of them • This is a reason to move fast and lean
•
Government and Private funding sources are different and complementary • We should recognize the different opportunities, methodologies, metrics, and mechanisms that they put forward • Taking the best from each side is a strong strategy both for single institutions and for the program as a whole
Here and now is a unique place and time to try to do this with fusion SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
18
SPARC: A small tokamak for changing climates The 4 changing climates…. • How innovation is done has changed • Private-funding is changing scientific R&D funding • The Earth’s climate, and the response, is changing • HTS changes the pathway to a tokamak fusion reactor … set the stage for SPARC • A tokamak with a targeted mission • With a conservative plasma physics basis • A heat exhaust challenge with solution scoping • Mitigation of radiation in the magnets
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
Response to climate change may be getting serious, including from philanthropies, foundations, in addition to investors • Climate change is increasingly alarming to many people • Driving industry R&D funding back into clean energy, though slowly • Driving philanthropy and foundations into clean energy R&D “The new model will be a public-private partnership between governments, research institutions, and investors. Scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs can invent and scale the innovative technologies that will limit the impact of climate change while providing affordable and reliable energy to everyone. ” - Breakthrough Energy Coalition, $2B fund backed by $240B net worth
“The only reason I’m optimistic about this problem is because of innovation.” – Bill Gates
• Fusion fits what they are looking for • Yet fusion, as currently executed, is perceived to be too slow to impact climate change SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
19
SPARC: A small tokamak for changing climates The 4 changing climates…. • How innovation is done has changed • Private-funding is changing scientific R&D funding • The Earth’s climate, and the response, is changing • HTS changes the pathway to a tokamak fusion reactor … set the stage for SPARC • A tokamak with a targeted mission • With a conservative plasma physics basis • A heat exhaust challenge with solution scoping • Mitigation of radiation in the magnets
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
High Temperature Superconductors (HTS) are very well suited for use in robust, compact, high-field magnets • HTS has several important characteristics • It has high current density • It is tolerant to increased temperature • It is tolerant to high magnetic field • Its high strength metal tape construction Wassercraft Hydro Hydroworld.com
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
20
High Temperature Superconductors (HTS) are very well suited for use in robust, compact, high-field magnets • HTS has several important characteristics • It has high current density • It is tolerant to increased temperature • It is tolerant to high magnetic field • Its high strength metal tape construction Wassercraft Hydro Hydroworld.com
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
20
High Temperature Superconductors (HTS) are very well suited for use in robust, compact, high-field magnets • HTS has several important characteristics • It has high current density • It is tolerant to increased temperature • It is tolerant to high magnetic field • Its high strength metal tape construction • It is commercially available, it is good enough
Place your order today, get it in a few weeks SPARC Underground
½ km of HTS tape, delivered to PSFC in Sep. prior to being wound into coil
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
20
High Temperature Superconductors (HTS) are very well suited for use in robust, compact, high-field magnets • HTS has several important characteristics
We now have a new qualitatively different tool to produce higher magnetic fields than previously It is tolerant to increased temperature considered for fusion
• It has high current density •
• It is tolerance to high magnetic field
• Its high strength metal tape construction • It is commercially available, it is good enough 26T small bore non-insulated 1.HTS J.P. Friedberg, Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy. solenoid, SUNAM
7T intermediate bore non-insulated pancake coil at the PSFC
“Magnetic fusion, as its name implies, requires high magnetic fields.” 1 J.P. Freidberg ½ km of HTS tape, delivered to PSFC in Sep. Place your order today, get it in a few weeks [1] J.P. Freidberg, Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy.
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
21
Lets use this: Tokamaks use high-magnetic fields to confine the hot plasma long enough to produce fusion power Magnets
• Confine the hot plasma • Must be cryogenic superconductors for a reactor
Plasma
R0 B0
• Hotter than the sun • D-T reactions produce fusion power • Helium heats the plasma • High-energy neutrons escape
Divertor • Exhaust port for intense plasma heat • Converts neutrons into heat Shield/Blanket • Shields the magnet from neutron damage • Breeds the fusion fuel
Fusion Goals • The fusion reaction make much more energy than it consumes • In steady-state economically and reliably
𝑄=
𝑃𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔
We’ve never gotten Q > 1 SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
22
R, B plane.
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
23
Company/lab/ university scale
National scale
Multi-national scale
Size (and field to some extent) has implications for how large an organization is needed to execute the plan.
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
23
Company/lab/ university scale
National scale
Multi-national scale
Size (and field to some extent) has implications for how large an organization is needed to execute the plan.
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
23
Proposed
Under construction
Proposed
Company/lab/ university scale
National scale
Multi-national scale
Size (and field to some extent) has implications for how large an organization is needed to execute the plan.
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
23
Inaccessible with Nb3Sn superconductors (LTS)
Company/lab/ university scale
National scale
Multi-national scale
LTS super conductors put a limit on the field, closing off some operating space for steady-state devices.
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
23
High Q achievable in the upper right of the space made available by the previous generation of superconducting technology.
Inaccessible with Nb3Sn superconductors (LTS)
Company/lab/ university scale
National scale
Multi-national scale
Q
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
23
So reactors (which have to be SC), have to live above 5m and at 5-6T. Everybody knows this.
Reactor
Inaccessible with Nb3Sn superconductors (LTS)
Company/lab/ university scale
National scale
Multi-national scale
Q
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
24
The (old) plan: Go to highest field allowed first, then goes up in size. Minimize the number of steps since they’ll be $$.
Company/lab/ university scale
National scale
Multi-national scale
Q
SPARC Underground
Reactor
Inaccessible with Nb3Sn superconductors (LTS) ITER-EDA “This field is the highest that is practically achievable in large magnets with available superconducting materials.”[1] This path made sense using superconductors if non-superconducting devices were considered side-tracks or dead ends. [1] Huguet, M. “The ITER magnet system.” Fusion engineering and design 36.1 (1997): 23-32.
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
25
But HTS opens up a much larger plane. What are the implications?
Reactor
Company/lab/ university scale
National scale
Multi-national scale
Q
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
26
ARC becomes attractive as a smaller reactor, but its about the smallest reactor that one could build.
Reactor
National scale
Multi-national scale
Q
Company/lab/ university scale
Can’t shield for long (nuclear physics)
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
26
Higher field becomes attractive for smaller reactors, but ARC its about the smallest reactor that one could build. Multi-national scale
Q
Reactor
National scale
To scale
Company/lab/ university scale
Can’t shield for long (nuclear physics)
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
26
Such a device is still $$ and risky. What is the best path to get there? How does the opened space impact the desired path? Multi-national scale
Q
Reactor
National scale
To scale
Company/lab/ university scale
Can’t shield for long (nuclear physics)
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
26
SPARC: A small tokamak for changing climates The 4 changing climates…. • How innovation is done has changed • Private-funding is changing scientific R&D funding • The Earth’s climate, and the response, is changing • HTS changes the pathway to a tokamak fusion reactor … set the stage for SPARC • A tokamak with a targeted mission • With a conservative plasma physics basis • A heat exhaust challenge with solution scoping • Mitigation of radiation in the magnets
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
Using what we’ve discussed from the previous sections we arrive at the SPARC strategy: 1. Hypothesize high return problems and the appetites of private funding to make fusion relevant to climate change
2. Identify the space plasma physics and new HTS provides to solve problems
3. Identify physics, engineering, and funding risks to doing a small mission 4. Converge on a problem/device/funder combo within constraints
Repeat until fusion is a reality or disproven.
7. Retire physics and engineering risks and learn about the attractiveness of fusion SPARC Underground
5. Build as simple a device that gets the job done as soon as possible 6. Run the device, hit/miss milestones, show/don’t show the potential PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
*See Tesla 27
Using what we know from the previous sections we arrive at the SPARC strategy: 2. Identify the space plasma Successfully executing this cycle a few times and proving our hypothesis physics and HTS provides to that fusion is attractive could lead to: 1. Hypothesize high return solve problems 3. Identify physics, • and People start to problems the will appetites oftake notice of fusion as an important contributor engineering, and funding private funding • Interest will grow, bringing funding to the entire field risks • Other people will start other cycles • Competitors indicate we are on the right track! 4. Converge on a problem/device/funder Repeat until• Best to test all paths to the same goal combo within fusion •is aOpportunities for industry, universities, startups, governments, constraints reality orinternational organizations will be created disproven. • Together we will accelerate fusion development 5. Build as simple a • Nobody should plan to go it alone device that gets the job • There are plenty of problems to solve, sharing knowledge andas soon as done 7. Retire physics technology and engineering is the best strategy possible risks and learn about the 6. Run theall device, hit/miss lifts boats! attractiveness of fusion A rising tide milestones, show/don’t show the potential SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
28
Using ARC as a starting point, hypothesize which problems have the highest return on investment? • ARC was a good start, but it was too expensive and too integrated for SPARC strategy • It was targeted at the electricity generating industry, looks good there • We can’t just scale it down • Need to descope
ARC, MIT proposed reactor 9.2 T, 500MW, Q=10
How do we factor all this? Need a small enough, impactful enough, near-term enough set SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
29
Using ARC as a starting point, hypothesize which problems have the highest return on investment?
• We need to at least have a good plan for all of them • Some can be done offline in parallel or by others • Some require a pilot plant
ARC, MIT proposed reactor 9.2 T, 500MW, Q=10
How do we factor all this? Need a small enough, impactful enough, near-term enough set SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
30
Using ARC as a starting point, hypothesize which problems have the highest return on investment?
• Required in a long pulse integrated system • Done in other existing or planned machines • Doing them at high gain requires a large device • We need to at least have a good plan for all of them • Some can be done offline in parallel or by others • Some require a pilot plant
ARC, MIT proposed reactor 9.2 T, 500MW, Q=10
How do we factor all this? Need a small enough, impactful enough, near-term enough set SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
30
Using ARC as a starting point, hypothesize which problems have the highest return on investment? • These are very high visibility • Could be done in a small device at short(er) pulse • Others are not going to do these soon • Required in a long pulse integrated system • Done in other existing or planned machines • Doing them at high gain requires a large device • We need to at least have a good plan for all of them • Some can be done offline in parallel or by others • Some require a pilot plant
ARC, MIT proposed reactor 9.2 T, 500MW, Q=10
How do we factor all this? Need a small enough, impactful enough, near-term enough set SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
30
Using ARC as a starting point, hypothesize which problems have the highest return on investment? • These are very high visibility • Could be done in a small device at short(er) pulse • Others are not going to do these soon • Required in a long pulse Customer Hypothesis: integrated system Demonstrating high gain plasmas and the key HTS technology • Done in other existing or would change the outlook, it would be attractive to private at 100s of M$. plannedfunders machines • Doing them at high gain Technology Hypothesis: requires a large device
High gain utilizing HTS magnets could make large rapid progress in a single • Some require a pilot plant machine for this price range. ARC, MIT • Some can be done offline in Next step: parallel Technical scoping analysis to firm up• feasibility and identify We need to at least haverisks a good plan for all of them
proposed reactor 9.2 T, 500MW, Q=10
Then: Once we have a menu item, takeHow it outdointo realall world, wethe factor this? talk to potential funders and see if itaissmall compelling enough. i.e. test hypotheses Need enough, impactful enough, near-term enough set SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
31
Power gain appears to be a good metric for fusion, it is long established, and it is high impact
A survey of popular media reveals that “breakeven” or “more energy out than put in” is a common metric to judge whether fusion is viable or not
“The goal for all these machines is to pass the break-even point, where the reactor puts out more energy than it takes to run it.” - Time Magazine cover story, Nov. 2 2015
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
32
Power gain appears to be a good metric for fusion, it is long established, and it is high impact
A survey of popular media reveals that “breakeven” or “more energy out than put in” is a common metric to judge whether fusion is viable or not
“The goal for all these machines is to pass the break-even point, where the reactor puts out more energy than it takes to run it.” “The only problem is we haven’t yet figured out - Time Magazine cover story, Nov. 2 2015 how to reach the breakeven energy point in nuclear fusion—where we get out as much energy as we put in—” - Forbes article, Aug. 27 2015
SPARC Underground
How Close Are We to Fusion?
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
32
Power gain appears to be a good metric for fusion, it is long established, and it is high impact
A survey of popular media reveals that “breakeven” or “more energy out than put in” is a common metric to judge whether fusion is viable or not
“The goal for all these machines is to pass the break-even point, where the reactor puts out more energy than it takes to run it.” “The only problem is we haven’t yet figured out - Time Magazine cover story, Nov. 2 2015 how to reach the breakeven energy point in nuclear wething: get out as much “Here’s thefusion—where really important energy as we put viable, in—” you have to To be commercially - Forbes 2015 create morearticle, energyAug. than27the original energy you used to heat the fuel” - CNN article, Oct. 22, 2015
SPARC Underground
Is Nuclear Fusion About to Change Our World?
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
32
Power gain appears to be a good metric for fusion, it is long established, and it is high impact
A survey of popular media reveals that “breakeven” or “more energy out than put in” is a common metric to judge whether fusion is viable or not
“The goal for all these machines is to pass the break-even point, where the reactor puts out more energy than it takes to run it.” “The only problem is we haven’t yet figured out - Time Magazine cover story, Nov. 2 2015 how to reach the breakeven energy point in nuclear wething: get out as much “Here’s thefusion—where really important energy as we put viable, in—” you have to To be commercially - Forbes 2015 create morearticle, energyAug. than27the original energy you used to heat the fuel” “But on Earth, making hydrogen hot and dense - CNN article, Oct. 22, 2015 enough to sustain a controlled fusion reaction—one that does not detonate like a thermonuclear bomb— has been a challenge.” - New York Times article, Oct. 25, 2015
SPARC Underground
How Close Are We to Fusion?
Start-Ups Take On Challenge of Nuclear Fusion
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
32
Power gain appears to be a good metric for fusion, it is long established, and it is high impact
A survey of popular media reveals that “breakeven” or “more energy out than put in” is a common metric to judge whether fusion is viable or not
“The goal for all these machines is to pass the break-even point, where the reactor puts out more energy than it takes to run it.” “The only problem is we haven’t yet figured out - Time Magazine cover story, Nov. 2 2015 how to reach the breakeven energy point in nuclear wething: get out as much “Here’s thefusion—where really important energy as we put viable, in—” you have to To be commercially - Forbes 2015 create morearticle, energyAug. than27the original energy you used to heat the fuel” “But on Earth, making hydrogen hot and dense - CNN article, Oct. 22, 2015 enough to sustain a controlled fusion reaction—one that does not detonate like a thermonuclear bomb— “This could bring JET up to the has been a challenge.” coveted goal of “breakeven” - New York Times article, Oct. 25, 2015 where fusion yields as much energy as it consumes.” - BBC article, Apr. 24, 2014
SPARC Underground
How Close Are We to Fusion?
UK Center to Shoot for Fusion Record
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
32
Power gain appears to be a good metric for fusion, it is long established, and it is high impact
A survey of popular media reveals that “breakeven” or “more energy out than put in” is a common metric to judge whether fusion is viable or not This is not a new trend
“The goal for all these machines is to pass the break-even point, where the reactor puts out more energy than it takes to run it.” “The only problem is we haven’t yet figured out - Time Magazine cover story, Nov. 2 2015 how to reach the breakeven energy point in nuclear wething: get out as much “Here’s thefusion—where really important energy as we put viable, in—” you have to To be commercially - Forbes 2015 create morearticle, energyAug. than27the original energy you used to heat the fuel” “But on Earth, making hydrogen hot and dense - CNN article, Oct. 22, 2015 enough to sustain a controlled fusion reaction—one that does not detonate like a thermonuclear bomb— “This could bring JET up to the has been a challenge.” coveted goal of “breakeven” - New York Times article, Oct. 25, 2015 where fusion yields as much [TFTR]…will achieve the combination of high energy as it consumes.” temperature, fuel density and confinement time - BBC article, Apr. 24, 2014 needed for the generation of more energy required to produce the reaction, or “break-even”… - New York Times article, Aug. 8. 1986 SPARC Underground
How Close Are We to Fusion?
Fusion Machine Princeton UK Center to at Shoot for Outheats Sun’sRecord Core Tenfold Fusion
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
32
Power gain appears to be a good metric for fusion, it is long established, and it is high impact
A survey of popular media reveals that “breakeven” or “more energy out than put in” is a common metric to judge whether fusion is viable or not
This is not a new trend
It is a long-established goal of the fusion community
It is a central goal of ITER, FIRE, BPX, CIT, Ignitor….
These devices attracted significant resources
National Academies reports ITER construction site SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
33
Power gain appears to be a good metric for fusion, it is long established, and it is high impact
A survey of popular media reveals that “breakeven” or “more energy out than put in” is a common metric to judge whether fusion is viable or not
This is not a new trend
It is a long-established goal of the fusion community
It is a central goal of ITER, FIRE, BPX, CIT, Ignitor….
These devices attracted significant resources
High gain passes the “gut check” It is the major milestone identified by start-ups attracting significant money All the textbooks have a chapter, usually the first, dedicated to this
If a high-gain compact experiment using HTS would be attractive… What are the technical challenges? SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
34
We work through the different subsystems from the inside out, seeing if our system is feasible. Magnets
Lets see how:
Plasma
𝑄=
𝑃𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑃𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔
from ~1 to ~5
In a small HTS device affects these four areas, lets discuss how.
R0 B0
Divertor
Shield/Blanket
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
35
SPARC: A small tokamak for changing climates The 4 changing climates…. • How innovation is done has changed • Private-funding is changing scientific R&D funding • The Earth’s climate, and the response, is changing • HTS changes the pathway to a tokamak fusion reactor … set the stage for SPARC • A tokamak with a targeted mission • With a conservative plasma physics basis • A heat exhaust challenge with solution scoping • Mitigation of radiation in the magnets
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
The plasma physics defines our operating space. We need to take what the plasma gives us. • Use a 0D plasma physics model based on empirical scaling relations • Standard approach
Plasma • Use conservative plasma physics inputs widely demonstrated on tokamaks R0
SPARC
B0
Bottom line: Use existing, demonstrated plasma physics to determine what is physically feasible SPARC Underground
ARC
ITER
Limit
βN
2
2.6
1.8
<2.8
fG
<0.75
0.7
0.85
<1
q95
3
5
3
>3
H98
1
1.7
1
<1.7
• Self-consistently solve at different engineering parameters B0, R0, ε, κ, etc • Output Q, Pfus, Pext, Ip, ne, Te, etc • Check against existing devices and designs
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
36
What if we gave up the requirement to shield for a long lifetime? …This fits well with the lean cycle outlook. Multi-national scale
Q
Reactor
National scale
To scale
Company/lab/ university scale
Can’t shield for long
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
37
The lower left, with 15, 9T
Q
Reactor
National scale
To scale
Company/lab/ university scale
Can’t shield for long
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
37
This is ~10x smaller in volume than ARC, 10x larger than C-Mod. Similar in size to ASDEX-U, DIII-D, EAST, KSTAR, Tore Supra.
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
38
Such a device would make substantial fusion power, 3-10x the current record.
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
39
A pulse length of ~10s is long enough to learn a lot. This is a major advantage over larger machines.
With SPARC, a lot of learning can now happen in 10s. There are a lot of problems that are easier at 10s than 10 minutes: • Tritium issues • External Power • Nuclear issues • Cooling • Divertor heating
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
40
SPARC would operate at the PB/R, a figure of merit for divertors, of a reactor such as ARIES or ARC.
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
41
SPARC: A small tokamak for changing climates The 4 changing climates…. • How innovation is done has changed • Private-funding is changing scientific R&D funding • The Earth’s climate, and the response, is changing • HTS changes the pathway to a tokamak fusion reactor … set the stage for SPARC • A tokamak with a targeted mission • With a conservative plasma physics basis • A heat exhaust challenge with solution scoping • Mitigation of radiation in the magnets
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
The divertor is problematic for any magnetically confined reactor device, it takes the immense heat. Three major first-wall problems 1. Avoid melting the plate 2. Avoid eroding plate 3. Thermal fatigue from many cycles
•
R0 B0
Short-pulse, short-life experiments do not need to solve erosion problem, fatigue, and may not need active cooling
Divertor • Experience base: • Surface sun ~ 0.06 GW/m2 • C-Mod q||~1 GW/m2 • SPARC q||~60 GW/m2 • Reactors q||~60 GW/m2 • Completely unexplored physics territory
Bottom line: Treat this as a serious risk. Use all the known techniques. Find a solution for SPARC, it is ok if it doesn’t scale. SPARC Underground
• Physics models not yet predictive • Uncertain if today’s physics solutions will project to the future
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
42
Divertor risk mitigation strategy: Use all the techniques in the (current) book • 2 divertors (factor 2)
Simulate Strikepoint sweep with 2 cm wide heat flux on 25 cm long divertor plate
• 1° incident field angle (factor 60) • Sweep strike point (~factor 10) • Then see what fraction of power needs to be radiated to have solution for 10s pulse at full performance
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
43
Divertor risk mitigation strategy: Use all the techniques in the (current) book • 2 divertors (factor 2)
Simulate Strikepoint sweep with 2 cm wide heat flux on 25 cm long divertor plate
• 1° incident field angle (factor 60) • Sweep strike point (~factor 10) • Then see what fraction of power needs to be radiated to have solution for 10s pulse at full performance
q||=60 GW/m2 (PB/R=600), λq=0.3 mm (Bpol~2T)
Inertial cooled W tiles Tmelt
frad required = 0.75
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
43
Divertor risk mitigation strategy: Use all the techniques in the (current) book • 2 divertors (factor 2)
Simulate Strikepoint sweep with 2 cm wide heat flux on 25 cm long divertor plate
• 1° incident field angle (factor 60) • Sweep strike point (~factor 10) • Then see what fraction of power needs to be radiated to have solution for 10s pulse at full performance
q||=60 GW/m2 (PB/R=600), λq=0.3 mm (Bpol~2T)
Inertial cooled W tiles
ITER-style actively cooled W-monoblock
Tmelt
frad required = 0.75
SPARC Underground
Tmelt
frad required = 0.5
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
43
Divertor risk mitigation strategy: Use all the techniques in the (current) book A ‘standard’ divertor may be sufficient for the SPARC mission
Mitigation strategies identified thus far: 1. Run for shorter pulses 2. Draw from ITER technology and testing • But increases complexity, • Can beat it up since we have fewer pulses 3. Large scale strikepoint sweeping 4. Rely on seemingly reasonable radiative fractions
•
Untested at these heat flux densities
5. Take it slow, learn as you go 6. Lower power by lower the plasma’s βN 7. Change divertor to carbon (groans) Anticipate further research in this area to inform options. SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
44
Divertor risk mitigation strategy: Use all the techniques in the (current) book A ‘standard’ divertor may be sufficient Pathfinder landing for the 1997 SPARC mission
Mitigation strategies identified thus far: 1. Run for shorter pulses
Air bags weren’t the end-all-be-all of landing on Mars…
2. Draw from ITER technology and testing …but they allowed Pathfinder to quickly prove potential and generate momentum • But increases complexity, at low cost. • Can beat it up since we have fewer pulses 3. Large scale strikepoint sweeping 4. Rely on seemingly radiative fractions Curiosity landing reasonable 2012
•
Untested at these heat flux densities
5. Take it slow, learn as you go 6. Lower power by lower the plasma’s βN 7. Change divertor to carbon (groans)
Showing that Mars was interesting and de-risking other things generated the budgets that enabled us to get better at landing.
Anticipate further research in this area to inform options. SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
45
SPARC: A small tokamak for changing climates The 4 changing climates…. • How innovation is done has changed • Private-funding is changing scientific R&D funding • The Earth’s climate, and the response, is changing • HTS changes the pathway to a tokamak fusion reactor … set the stage for SPARC • A tokamak with a targeted mission • With a conservative plasma physics basis • A heat exhaust challenge with solution scoping • Mitigation of radiation in the magnets
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
By drastically thinning the shield the magnet is no longer protected from neutron damage or nuclear heating. (but the device is small!) The shield/blanket serves 3 purposes: •
Protect the magnets from neutron damage to the superconductor and insulator •
• R0 B0
Limits the lifetime of the machine
Absorbs the energy from the fusion power •
Avoid heating the cryogenic magnets
•
Heat for power conversion
•
Breeds the Tritium for the fuel cycle
•
To do these functions effectively the shield/blanket must be 1-1.2m thick
•
But this makes the machine R0>~3.5m
•
SPARC solution: Run with a thin shield
Shield/Blanket
Bottom line: Determine the magnitude of the problem created by making the shield/blanket much thinner SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
46
We created a new 3D parametric tokamak builder for MCNP to examine SPARC neutronics issues At the core is MCNP (Monte Carlo particle transport code from LANL), the gold-standard in neutronics
Top view of the tokamak
Plasma Volume TF Coils ZrH2 Shielding
• •
C++ code parametrically builds a highfidelity tokamak for MCNP input Takes Pfus(R, ε, κ, B) from plasma physics model • 3D geometry Side cutaway view of the tokamak
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
47
We created a new 3D parametric tokamak builder for MCNP to examine SPARC neutronics issues At the core is MCNP (Monte Carlo particle transport code from LANL), the gold-standard in neutronics
Top view of the tokamak
Plasma Volume TF Coils ZrH2 Shielding
• •
C++ code parametrically builds a highfidelity tokamak for MCNP input Takes Pfus(R, ε, κ, B) from plasma physics model • 3D geometry • Including the HTS and insulator
Quantitatively study SPARC neutronics issues: • TF HTS neutron flux >0.1 MeV • TF HTS insulator dose • Nuclear heating in TF coils
Pancake insulation
TF cross section with HTS CICC mockup
CICC with insulation
Winding pack insulation SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
47
Under the conservative assumptions, SPARC HTS TF magnets survive for thousands of DT shots Scan shield thickness and R0 to reach limits: • Insulator (polyamide) limit: 10 MGy is conservative [1] • HTS limit: 3x1018 n/cm2 is conservative [2] • Inner leg is the limiting point Example for R=150cm, shield=15cm, 10s shots BT [T]
Insulator: @10 Mgy
HTS: @3x1018cm-2
9
~9800 shots
~16800 shots
11
~4000 shots
~6900 shots
13
~1900 shots
~3300 shots
B = 11T Shield doesn’t fit
Total global experience with DT plasmas in tokamaks: ~875 shots (~3000 seconds) SPARC would increase DT operational experience >10x before burning out due to magnet irradiation [1] Minervini, J. V et al., 2011. Electrical Insulation issues for a Fusion Nuclear Science Mission, PSFC Report RR-11-10 [2] Prokopec, R. et al., 2010. Characterization of advanced cyanate ester/epoxy insulation systems before and after reactor irradiation. Fusion Engineering and Design, 85(2), pp.227–233. SPARC Underground PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
B = 11T 48
SPARC magnets are exposed to high nuclear heat loads due to minimal shielding, large solid angle •
Cryogenic magnets (SC + structural case) are sensitive to volumetric nuclear heating • Worst case: TF magnet quench • Bad case: performance limits (e.g. shorter pulse length) • All cases: lower operating temperature = higher sensitivity
Nuclear heating is assessed at the inner leg, where space is the most limited and the heat load will be highest
BT = 11T
Example: R=150cm, shield=15cm, ε=1/3 BT [T]
TF heating [MW/m3]
9
~1.0
11
~2.5
13
~5.2
Volumetric cooling points of comparison: • Very high for a LTS magnet: ITER is <0.01MW/m3 • Moderate for a boiling LN2 system • Moderate for a 1phase water system: Car radiator ~ 1MW/m3 • Very low for a boiling water system: Fission BWR is > 50MW/m3 SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
49
The high critical temperature of HTS allows operation at 20-30K, where magnet heating can be handled. •
Material properties are highly dependent on temperature at low temperatures •
Changing operating temperature drastically changes cooling capabilities LHe LH2 LNe LN2 Boiling point K 4.2 20.4 27.1 77.3 Carnot efficiency W/W 70 14 10 3 Steel heat capacity kJ/kg/K 2.6 14 23 0.2 Thermal conductivity of steel 10-3W/m/K 0.29 2.2 3.1 7.9
•
LHe is unattractive •
300K
•
20K
•
SPARC Underground
Allowing the magnet to adiabatically heat to 30-35K from 20K works for <2-5MJ/m3 (<0.2-0.5MW/m3 )
•
4.2K
LH2 and LNe are more attractive
This is likely not effective enough
Forced single-phase flow is marginal
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
50
The high critical temperature of HTS allows operation at 20-30K, where magnet heating can be handled. •
Boiling LH2 or LNe2 is very effective compared to LHe
Boiling point Liquid heat of vaporization Gas volume from boiling Critical boiling heat flux
•
LH2 cooled reactor
•
K kJ/L m3/kJ kW/m2
LH2 LNe LN2 20.4 27.1 77.3 32 104 161 26 14 4 50 60 200
Example calc for 1MW:
Liquid vaporization rate L/s Gas production rate (Tboil) m3 gas /s Gas production rate (STP) m3 gas/s
LHe 392 2.9 290
LH2 32 1.7 26.2
LNe 9.6 1.2 13.6
LN2 6.2 1.1 4.2
Thermohydraulic calculations show a reasonable TF cooling channel arrangement can be done using 2-phase flow for LH2 and LNe •
There is extensive test data in cooling 2-phase flow in LH2, some from LNe •
•
LHe 4.2 2.6 290 10
SDI reactors, nuclear rockets, rocket engines
•
These cryogens behave classically
•
Extensive user-base for managing them
But never been used to cool a superconducting magnet (because HTS is new)
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
51
The high critical temperature of HTS allows operation at 20-30K, where magnet heating can be handled.
•
•
• Boiling LH2 or LNe2 is very effective compared to LHe Magnet cryogenic heating risk mitigation strategies LHe LH2 LNe2 LN2 LHe won’t work, but LH2point (20K)and LNe (27K) Boiling K are attractive 4.2 20.4 27.1 77.3 Liquid heat of vaporization kJ/L power2.6 32 104 161 1. Increase shielding/decrease pulse length/lower and use m3/kJ 290 26 14 4 adiabatic heating Gas volume from boiling Critical boiling heat flux kW/m2 10 50 60 200 2. Forced flow at high pressure • Example calc for 1MW: 3. 2-phase boiling heat transfer LHe LH2 LNe2 LN2 Liquid vaporization rate L/s 392 32 9.6 6.2 Notes: Gas production rate (Tboil) m3 gas /s 2.9 1.7 1.2 1.1 • Low temperature superconductors take anywhere Gas production ratecould (STP) not m3 gas/s 290 26.2near 13.6 4.2 LH2 cooled reactor this heat load, and thus require a large shield Thermohydraulic calculations showitacan reasonable arrangement • But HTS is different, operateTFatcooling T>20K,channel thus small shield can be done using 2-phase flow for LH2 and LNe2 • This is only a problem in D-T pulses, not D-D • There is extensive test data in cooling 2-phase flow in LH2, some from LNe2 • •Experience by other with cryogens not typically used in SDI reactors, nuclearfields rockets, rocket engines fusion • These cryogens behave classically • Pulsed operation and small size allows accumulating cryogen in a • Extensive user-base for managing them big tank and then shoving it through the magnet to cool. But never been used to cool a superconducting magnet (because HTS is new)
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
52
Summary of technical investigations performed on SPARC thus far. Magnets
• HTS has useful properties for this mission • High field • High current density • High temperature • High strength
Plasma R0 B0
• Q= 1 to 5, Pfus =50-200MW • Away from limits • Small size allows short pulses
Divertor • Must survive high pulsed PB/R • Several mitigation strategies identified
• Thin shield allows small size device Shield/Blanket • Magnet survives for thousands of shots • Results in significant magnet heating • Several mitigation strategies Other technical work performed identified that work for HTS • Sensitivity to plasma physics assumptions • Tritium requirements, handling, licensing • Magnet current densities, stresses, tape requirements SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
53
Using what we know from the previous sections we arrive at the SPARC strategy:
1. Hypothesize high return problems and the appetites of private funding
2. Identify the space plasma physics and HTS provides to solve problem
3. Identify physics, engineering, and funding risks 4. Converge on a problem/device/funder combo within constraints
Repeat until fusion is a reality or disproven
7. Retire physics and engineering risks and learn about the attractiveness of fusion SPARC Underground
5. Build as simple a device that gets the job done as soon as possible 6. Run the device, hit/miss milestones, show/don’t show the potential PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
54
Using what we know from the previous sections we arrive at the SPARC strategy: 2. A R=1.25-2m, B=9-11T HTS device would be able to 1. High-gain demonstration using demonstrate high gain 3. Risks are divertor, magnet HTS could attract funding at a engineering, magnet heating, budget commiserate with mission cost and scope creep 4. Converge on a problem/device/funder combo within constraints
Repeat until fusion is a reality or disproven
7. Retire physics and engineering risks and learn about the attractiveness of fusion SPARC Underground
5. Build as simple a device that gets the job done as soon as possible 6. Run the device, hit/miss milestones, show/don’t show the potential PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
55
Remember our imagination exercise? A possible roadmap to fusion in 20 years.
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
56
Remember our imagination exercise? A possible roadmap to fusion in 20 years.
HTS model coils and conductors
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
SPARC
56
Remember our imagination exercise? A possible roadmap to fusion in 20 years.
HTS model coils and conductors
SPARC
SC + International PMI test stands Divertor Test Tokamak
+ Large, jointed HTS coils SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
Local test stands
56
Remember our imagination exercise? A possible roadmap to fusion in 20 years.
HTS model coils and conductors
SPARC
SC + International PMI test stands Divertor Test Tokamak
FNSF/Pilot Plant
+ Large, jointed HTS coils SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
Test stands and loops
56
Remember our imagination exercise? A possible roadmap to fusion in 20 years.
HTS model coils and conductors
SPARC
SC + International PMI test stands Divertor Test Tokamak
& nuclear facilities
+ Large, jointed HTS coils SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
FNSF/Pilot Plant
Test stands and loops
56
SPARC: A tokamak with a focused mission: To advance fusion energy by leveraging fast cycle times, private funding, new technologies, and the global need for carbon-free energy A natural thing for the MIT PSFC to do: • The PSFC invented the high-field approach. • It just needed material science to catch up! • The place with the most experience with high-field tokamaks and magnets. • Many major contributors HTS (& LTS) research and magnet development. • Close integration with nuclear, mechanical, materials engineering. • It is the right size lab to get things done well, done quickly, done cost-efficiently. • We have little to worry about by being perceived as “outsiders”. • We might have some spare space soon. • MIT is well equipped to seek and secure this kind of funding. • This approach dovetails with the MIT climate initiative and MIT in general. • A community of World-class scientists, engineers, technicians, students SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
57
BACK UPs
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
58
How is SPARC different from previous Cu high field device designs? Similarities: Ignitor, R=1.3m, B=13T Q=inf?, t=5s
FIRE, R=2.0m, B=10T Q=10, t=20s
• Similar size, field, current
• Nominally pulsed,
• Utilizing same well identified advantages of high-field plasma physics • Targeted toward the break-even/burning plasma mission • Based on the idea of learning quickly and retiring a specific set of risks SPARC Underground
BPX, R=2.6m, B=9T Q=25, t=10s
• Limited pulse number (1-5k) • With options for AT work in DD • Cryogenic magnets at 20-70K • Magnet heating sets pulse rep rate • Minimal shielding • Small, exploratory nuclear mission
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
How is SPARC different from previous Cu high field device designs? Physics differences: Ignitor, R=1.3m, B=13T Q=inf?, t=5s
FIRE, R=2.0m, B=10T Q=10, t=20s
• Cu devices and ITER would have operated in different physics regimes (density, field, size, confinement time) making projection uncertain •
SPARC and ARC operate in similar physics regimes
• ARC is an interpolation in major device parameters from SPARC+ world facilities SPARC Underground
BPX, R=2.6m, B=9T Q=25, t=10s
• Cu TF waveform severely constrained the pulse, the plasma was never be in steadystate (especially BPX, Ignitor) • SPARC plasma relaxes and could possibly do long-pulse DD • We have learned new things about plasmas since then • Mostly bad, mostly in the divertor
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
How is SPARC different from previous Cu high field device designs? Engineering differences: Ignitor, R=1.3m, B=13T Q=inf?, t=5s
FIRE, R=2.0m, B=10T Q=10, t=20s
• Cu TF fabrication required significant engineering R&D but was a dead-end • HTS is on the path to a reactor • Cu TF Ohmic heating had serious implications on the other engineering systems • Not an issue for HTS • Cu TF heating set rep rate even for DD operation • HTS for DD can be long pulse/high rep SPARC Underground
BPX, R=2.6m, B=9T Q=25, t=10s
• Cu TF has lower overall current density and strength compared to HTS projections • A larger magnet inner leg • FIRE TF took >600MW from the grid to operate, serious siting requirement • SPARC takes much less power (estimated <100MW) • Majority of cost (7/10s) was in pulsed power supplies >1100MW
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
How is SPARC different from previous Cu high field device designs? Programmatic differences: Ignitor, R=1.3m, B=13T Q=inf?, t=5s
FIRE, R=2.0m, B=10T Q=10, t=20s
• We have learned how bad big programs can be
BPX, R=2.6m, B=9T Q=25, t=10s
• These devices had long-range programs over long periods
• SPARC purposely tries to avoid scope • Climate change has placed a new emphasis on fast progress creep • HTS provides a compelling narrative element • These were large government funded • These were good ideas anyway, being similar programs is not so bad • SPARC is a fast focused privatefunded venture SPARC Underground
• SPARC is new, FIRE is the past PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
Avoid spending all your time making things that didn’t solve the highest value problem. Wait to solve those until you bootstrap. • Most companies fail because they develop something nobody wants • They spend all their time and money based on bad assumptions The old way of tech development: Ideas weren’t good
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
New technology is hard because both the technology and the final customer are unknown. • Most companies fail because they develop something nobody wants • They spend all their time and money based on bad assumptions Tried and true solution: • Test assumptions early with real stuff • Figure out what the right thing to build at each step is: • Who will pay for it? • Why will they pay for it? • Don’t prematurely optimize • You don’t know what you think you know SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
But industry won’t build giant machines until the risk is retired. Utility market value in billion U.S. dollars 0 20 40 60
Duke Energy
49.9
Dominion Resources
40.9
NextEra Energy
40.9
Southern Co
38.6
Exelon
28.7
American Electric
24.6
PPL
20.7
PG&E
19.4
PSEG Public Service…
19
Edison International
18.4
Consolidated Edison
15.6
Xcel Energy
15.1
Northeast Utilities
14
DTE Energy
13.2
• US electrical utilities: Are risk adverse Are bottom line driven Are really concerned about uncertainty Have short payoff horizons Value reliability and maintainability Don’t do early-stage R&D Want simple systems Know their business Have to justify to investors Need things to work for a long time Have lots of money Want to make more money
• They won’t do the early steps • But when it works they will be the ones that will buy it and advance it
14.2
FirstEnergy
SPARC Underground
$25B$50B: Too much
• Western governments don’t build power plants. Utilities do.
Forbes. 2014. Largest electric utilities in the U.S. in 2014, based on market value (in billion U.S. dollars)*. Statista. Accessed 03 December, 2014.
• Smaller/cheaper is better at first
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
But industry won’t build giant machines until the risk is retired. Utility market value in billion U.S. dollars 0 20 40 60
Duke Energy
49.9
• Western governments don’t build power plants. Utilities do. • US electrical utilities:
If government isn’t going to doAreit,riskand industry adverse bottom line driven NextEra Energy isn’t going to do it yet,Are then… Are really concerned about uncertainty
Dominion Resources
40.9 40.9
Southern Co
38.6
Exelon
28.7
Have short payoff horizons Value reliability and maintainability Don’t do early-stage R&D Want simple systems Know their business Have to justify to investors Need things to work for a long time Have lots of money Want to make more money
Who is going to fund the development of $25B- for fusion energy? tokamaks PPL
American Electric
24.6
20.7
PG&E PSEG Public Service…
$50B: Too Why 19aremuch they 19.4
Edison International
going to fund them?
18.4
Consolidated Edison
15.6
Xcel Energy
15.1
• They do the early steps How do the answers influence thewon’t development path? • But when it works they will be the Northeast Utilities 14.2
FirstEnergy
14
DTE Energy
13.2
SPARC Underground
ones that will buy it and advance it Forbes. 2014. Largest electric utilities in the U.S. in 2014, based on market value (in billion U.S. dollars)*. Statista. Accessed 03 December, 2014.
• Smaller/cheaper is better at first
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
Generally the federal funding path is loosing appeal for large projects.
• US Federal funding for basic R&D is structurally compromised • There is much concern about this! • Large, mission-oriented projects with long timescales are particularly difficult to get done SPARC Underground
• Industry and philanthropy/foundations are the growth areas
• There is much concern about this! • What do they want done?
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
Foundation/Philanthropy “shoot the moon” example • Identify new technologies that drastically change what can be done • Demonstrate each key piece at small scale
Next-generation giant telescopes GMT: $0.7B
Private
• Fundraise to scale up in risk-minimizing manner
TMT: $1.4B
Private
newest Federal
Ecstatic astronomer
US federal government doesn’t fund telescopes anymore (now 6% of observing time) Active optics, adaptive optics, and segmented mirrors lead to paradigm shift in telescope design Beat Hubble at a fraction of cost “Discovery machines”. SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
Foundation/Philanthropy “filing holes” example • Identify exciting opportunities that are being ignored by the federal government • Agility and accountability of for-profit with vison of a non-profit • Show that value can be added across the board by filling “hole”
Allen Institute for Brain Science: $0.5B
Federal research is too uncoordinated. Needs for “basic” stuff not being met. Map the brain, generate public resources, enable federal research to be more effective
SPARC Underground
Schmidt Ocean Institute: $0.2B
Schmidt paid for an oceanographic research ship since the federal government won’t. Open access science.
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
Market driven minimally-viable-product examples in space propulsion • Don’t make exactly what you want at each step, but make something SOMEONE will pay you for while still on your critical path
• Re-invest to solve new problems toward ultimate goal
2015
2006
2010
~$4.5B
Goal: Human space colonization • Progressively larger rockets • Create new markets in space • Big enough to go to Mars… someday SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
Private funding picks different projects than federal funding. And has different metrics for success. Private funded projects:
Government funded projects:
• At the whims of the funders
• At the whims of the politicians/bureaucrats
• Investor visibility is important
• Constituency is important
• Must have a narrative
• Narrative must serve nation
• Technology demonstration important
• Scientific payback is paramount
• “Outsider” approach is a plus
• Consensus-based
• Relatively large appetite for risk
• Relatively low appetite for risk
• Solve highest return problem first
• Long term programs on parallel problems
• Must start small and then scale up
• Must show steady progress in understanding
• Performance leads to $ for next problem
• Feedback not tied to performance
• Someday payback with a product or show • Vague and open ended goal quantifiable societal impact
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
A simple plasma physics model is used to scope the available plasma physics operating space. • Inputs: • Geometry and magnetic field: R0, ε, κ, B0 • Plasma physics: H, τE scaling, q95, βN, • Minor parameters: ne and Te peaking, dilution, Zeff, • Self-consistently solve for remaining parameters such as Q, Ip, Pfus, Ptrans, Pext, etc
• Iterate over fG (within limits) to optimize Q • Including radiation, dilution, cross-section dependence, etc • Check model against existing designs: ITER EDA, ITER FEAT, FIRE, ARC, EU DEMO
• Varying R0 and B0 with other inputs fixed to map region ε=0.33, κ=1.8, H=1, ITER98y2, q95=3.0, βN = 2, fG<0.95 Zeff=1.5, dilution=0.9, pressure peaking = 2 • Identify interesting operating widow • Check sensitivity to assumptions
SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
Precedent exists for small nuclear private T licenses, and novel reactor licensing is currently in flux A Q>1 with short DT pulse / low duty cycle operation could potentially be licensed as research facility, avoiding triggering full regulation • Minimal activation, onsite tritium (grams) • More flexible engineering, operations • Reduce required resources, financial cost, license timelines • TFTR operated in this mode (2g invessel)
Precedent exists for private tritium site licenses (~grams) ITER
>1000 g
Civilian National Labs
20-200g
D-T n generator manufacturers
<~ g
Jewelers/Gun sight manufacturers
~0.2 g
Academic/medical bio
<~0.1 g
Many private companies working to reform licensing of nuclear prototypes:
Including legislation to enable private nuclear companies and academia to have access to Natl. Labs for testing novel reactors via Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (H.R. 4084): “Enabling the private sector to partner with the National Laboratories to demonstrate novel reactor concepts for the purpose of resolving technical uncertainty associated with .. scientific discoveries https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4084/ relevant for nuclear… engineering”
Someday full US fusion licensing needs to be tackled. This will take substantial resources. SPARC Strategy: Near term avoidance while accumulating momentum, partners, and resources SPARC Underground
PSFC IAP, Jan 14th 2016, SPARC mission
