| Chamber Subgroup Question #1 Comments |
| From | Date & Time | Subject |
| Rick Nebel | Sat 24 April 1999 09:22 | Necessity of Liquid Walls |
| Neil Morley | Fri 25 June 1999 10:22 | Quick Comment |
| Neil Morley | Wed 30 June 1999 11:56 | Suggestion |
| Neil Morley | Wed 30 June 1999 11:56 | CliFF (PDF) |
| Karani Gulec | Fri 9 July 1999 13:30 | Novel Liquid Blanket Configurations and Their Hydrodynamic Analyses for Innovative Confinement Concepts (PDF) |
| Grant Logan | Fri 9 July 1999 13:30 | Tokamaks Can Benefit from Innovative Technology as Much as From Innovative Physics (PDF) |
| Grant Logan | Mon 12 July 1999 9:00 | A Tokamak Reactor with Li Walls (PDF) |
|
Rick Nebel Sat 24 April 1999 09:22 Subject: Necessity of Liquid Walls I don't mean to quibble, but I think you're asking the wrong question. The question shouldn't be can liquid walls work, the right question is how do we make liquid walls work. This isn't an optional item, it's a requirement for all conventional magnetic confinement fusion systems if they are going to be economical. This is based on the following simple arguments: 1. The Mass Power Density of conventional systems scales ONLY with the wall load. There are no geometry factors. 2. Conventional systems will require wall loads in excess of 20 MW/m**2 (neutrons + thermal) to be economical. These were the numbers from the Titan study for RFPs. Numbers for tokamaks and stellarators will probably be higher (I think Riggatron came in at about 50 MW/m**2) 3. If we have to be economically competitive at 300MWe unit size, these numbers will probably be considerably higher. The wall load issue is the single most important issue facing the program. It is FAR more important than which confinement system is used. I would like to see this panel stand up and tell that to the DOE. Rick Nebel |
