Stellarator reactor: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Although the main effort of the fusion community for the development of a fusion reactor is focused on the tokamak design ([[ITER]]), design studies have been made for a fusion reactor based on the stellarator design. | Although the main effort of the fusion community for the development of a fusion reactor is focused on the [[Tokamak|tokamak]] design ([[ITER]]), design studies have been made for a fusion reactor based on the [[Stellarator|stellarator]] design. | ||
<ref> | <ref>H. Wobig, ''The theoretical basis of a drift-optimized stellarator reactor'', [[doi:10.1088/0741-3335/35/8/001|Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion '''35''' (1993) 903-917]]</ref> | ||
<ref> | <ref>J.F. Lyon and G.H. Neilson, '' Compact Stellarators'', [[doi:10.1023/A:1021841825478|Journal of Fusion Energy '''17''', 3 (1998) 189-191]]</ref> | ||
<ref> | <ref>G.H. Neilson et al, ''Physics issues in the design of high-beta, low-aspect-ratio stellarator experiments'', [[doi:10.1063/1.874015|Phys. Plasmas '''7''' (2000) 1911]]</ref> | ||
<ref>[http://www.jspf.or.jp/JPFRS/PDF/Vol5/jpfrs2002_05-149.pdf | <ref>C.D. Beidler et al, ''Stellarator Fusion Reactors - an overview'', [http://www.jspf.or.jp/JPFRS/PDF/Vol5/jpfrs2002_05-149.pdf J. Plasma Fusion Res. SERIES '''5''' (2002) 149-155]</ref> | ||
<ref>[ | <ref>H. Wobig and F. Wagner, [[doi:10857629_17|''Nuclear Energy. Chapter 7, Magnetic confinement fusion: stellarator'' (2005)]] {{ISBN|978-3-540-42891-6}}</ref> | ||
<ref>R.C. Wolf et al, ''A stellarator reactor based on the optimization criteria of Wendelstein 7-X'', [[doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2008.05.008|Fusion Engineering and Design '''83''', Issues 7-9 (2008) 990-996]]</ref> | |||
The main advantages of the stellarator concept over the tokamak concept are: | The main advantages of the stellarator concept over the tokamak concept are: | ||
* The [[Greenwald limit|density limit]] is 2 to 5 times higher | * The [[Greenwald limit|density limit]] is 2 to 5 times higher | ||
* Performance ( | * Performance ([[Beta|beta]] or β) is not limited by [[Disruption|disruptions]]. β values of up to 5% have been achieved | ||
* Access to continuous operation due to the reduced amplitude or absence of net plasma current | * Access to continuous operation due to the reduced amplitude or absence of net plasma current | ||
* [[Edge Localized Modes|ELMs]] occur but can be controlled by selecting the magnetic configuration ([[Magnetic shear|iota]] windows or magnetic field ergodicity) | * [[Edge Localized Modes|ELMs]] occur but can be controlled by selecting the magnetic configuration ([[Magnetic shear|iota]] windows or magnetic field ergodicity) | ||
* The magnetic configuration can be specifically optimized to reduce transport | * The magnetic configuration can be specifically optimized to reduce transport | ||
* Nearly complete external control of the configuration increases operational robustness and lessens the need for control and feedback systems | * Nearly complete external control of the configuration increases operational robustness and lessens the need for control and feedback systems | ||
* Stellarator divertors, with long connection lengths and embedded magnetic islands, may mitigate heat loads on target plates by radiating some of the power | * Stellarator [[Divertor|divertors]], with long connection lengths and embedded magnetic islands, may mitigate heat loads on target plates by radiating some of the power | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
Latest revision as of 11:38, 26 January 2023
Although the main effort of the fusion community for the development of a fusion reactor is focused on the tokamak design (ITER), design studies have been made for a fusion reactor based on the stellarator design. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
The main advantages of the stellarator concept over the tokamak concept are:
- The density limit is 2 to 5 times higher
- Performance (beta or β) is not limited by disruptions. β values of up to 5% have been achieved
- Access to continuous operation due to the reduced amplitude or absence of net plasma current
- ELMs occur but can be controlled by selecting the magnetic configuration (iota windows or magnetic field ergodicity)
- The magnetic configuration can be specifically optimized to reduce transport
- Nearly complete external control of the configuration increases operational robustness and lessens the need for control and feedback systems
- Stellarator divertors, with long connection lengths and embedded magnetic islands, may mitigate heat loads on target plates by radiating some of the power
References
- ↑ H. Wobig, The theoretical basis of a drift-optimized stellarator reactor, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 35 (1993) 903-917
- ↑ J.F. Lyon and G.H. Neilson, Compact Stellarators, Journal of Fusion Energy 17, 3 (1998) 189-191
- ↑ G.H. Neilson et al, Physics issues in the design of high-beta, low-aspect-ratio stellarator experiments, Phys. Plasmas 7 (2000) 1911
- ↑ C.D. Beidler et al, Stellarator Fusion Reactors - an overview, J. Plasma Fusion Res. SERIES 5 (2002) 149-155
- ↑ H. Wobig and F. Wagner, Nuclear Energy. Chapter 7, Magnetic confinement fusion: stellarator (2005) ISBN 978-3-540-42891-6
- ↑ R.C. Wolf et al, A stellarator reactor based on the optimization criteria of Wendelstein 7-X, Fusion Engineering and Design 83, Issues 7-9 (2008) 990-996