Journal of Fusion Energy

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 305–316 | Cite as

Path to Market for Compact Modular Fusion Power Cores

  • Simon Woodruff
  • Jennifer K. Baerny
  • Nathan Mattor
  • Don Stoulil
  • Ronald Miller
  • Theodore Marston
Brief Communication

Abstract

The benefits of an energy source whose reactants are plentiful and whose products are benign is hard to measure, but at no time in history has this energy source been more needed. Nuclear fusion continues to promise to be this energy source. However, the path to market for fusion systems is still regularly a matter for long-term (20 + year) plans. This white paper is intended to stimulate discussion of faster commercialization paths, distilling guidance from investors, utilities, and the wider energy research community (including from ARPA-E). There is great interest in a small modular fusion system that can be developed quickly and inexpensively. A simple model shows how compact modular fusion can produce a low cost development path by optimizing traditional systems that burn deuterium and tritium, operating not only at high magnetic field strength, but also by omitting some components that allow for the core to become more compact and easier to maintain. The dominant hurdles to the development of low cost, practical fusion systems are discussed, primarily in terms of the constraints placed on the cost of development stages in the private sector. The main finding presented here is that the bridge from DOE Office of Science to the energy market can come at the Proof of Principle development stage, providing the concept is sufficiently compact and inexpensive that its development allows for a normal technology commercialization path.

Keywords

Commercial fusion systems Compact fusion power cores Spheromak Compact torus Deuterium-tritium fusion 

References

  1. 1.
    J.D. Galambos, L.J. Perkins, S.W. Haney, J. Mandrekas, Commercial tokamak potential with advanced physics operation. Nucl. Fusion 35, 551 (1995)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Sheffield, J. Galambos, Prospects for toroidal fusion reactors. Fusion Technol. 26, 1122 (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L.J. Perkins, The role of inertial fusion energy in the energy marketplace of the 21st century and beyond. J. Fusion Energ. 16, 307 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Najmabadi, Historical perspectives and pathways to an attractive power plant, (May 2009), Presented at the 23rd Symposium on Fusion Engineering in San Diego, CA, http://aries.ucsd.edu/Aries/
  5. 5.
    R.A. Krakowski, Simplified fusion power plant costing: a general prognosis and call for ‘‘New Think’’. Fusion Technol 27 (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Woodruff, M. Brown, E.B. Hooper, R. Milroy, M. Schaffer, Why compact tori for fusion? J. Fusion Energ. 29, 447 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D.C. Barnes, J. Hammer, A. Hassam, D. Hill, A. Hoffman, E.B. Hooper, J. Kesner, G. Miley, J. Perkins, D. Ryutov, J. Sarff, R.E. Siemon, J. Slough, M. Yamada, Fusion energy science opportunities in emerging concepts. J. Fusion Energ. 18, 13 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Integrated Program Planning Activity, DOE/SC-0028, December 2000. Available at http://www.ofes.science.doe.gov/
  9. 9.
    A. Majumdar, Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.L. Hagenson, R.A. Krakowski, Fusion Techn. 8, 1606 (1985); see also “The Spheromak as a Compact Fusion Reactor,” LANL Report LA-10908-MS, March 1989Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nuclear Energy Institute, “Small Modular Reactors Provide Clean, Safe Power and Industrial Heat”, (January 2010) [Available at www.nei.org/filefolder/Small_Modular_Reactors_FS_01-10-1.pdf]
  12. 12.
    J.P. Holdren, D.H. Berwald, R.J. Budnitz, J.G. Crocker, J.G. Delene, R.D. Endicott, M.S. Kazimi, R.A. Krakowski, B.G. Logan, K.R. Schultz, Summary of the report of the Senior Committee on Environmental, Safety, and Economic Aspects of Magnetic Fusion Energy, LLNL, Report UCRL-53766 (1987)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Sheffield, D–D Power Plants: the ultimate fusion goal, White paper submitted to ReNeW Theme IV http://burningplasma.org/web/renew_whitepapers_theme4.html
  14. 14.
    W.M. Nevins, A review of confinement requirements for advanced fuels journal of fusion energy Volume 17, Number 1/March, 1998, see also W.M. Nevins and R. Swain, “The Thermonuclear fusion rate coefficient for p-11B reactions”. Nucl. Fusion 40, 865 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Woodruff
    • 1
  • Jennifer K. Baerny
    • 1
  • Nathan Mattor
    • 1
  • Don Stoulil
    • 1
  • Ronald Miller
    • 2
  • Theodore Marston
    • 3
  1. 1.Woodruff Scientific Inc.SeattleUSA
  2. 2.Decysive Systems LLCSanta FeUSA
  3. 3.Marston ConsultingPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations