Implications of uncertainties on European DEMO design

During the pre-conceptual design phase of fusion devices such as the European demonstration fusion power plant (DEMO), systems codes provide a fast evaluation of optimal design points and highlight high impact areas. However, determining or evaluating a design point at such an early stage comes with uncertainties in many of the design parameters. These uncertainties are both associated with the physics as well as the engineering basis of the European DEMO design. The work applies an uncertainty quantification analysis to the 2017 pulsed European DEMO design using the PROCESS systems code. It assumes that DEMO will be built as suggested by the baseline and explores what implications the currently known physics and engineering uncertainties have on the expected performance parameters (net electric output and pulse length), while optimising the fusion gain Q. A more detailed single parameter analysis clearly identifies high impact parameters. This confirms previous investigations as well as revealing new areas that warrant deeper investigation in particular in the technology area

Impact of plasma-wall interaction and exhaust on the EU-DEMO design

In the present work, the role of plasma facing components protection in driving the EU-DEMO design will be reviewed, focusing on steady-state and, especially, on transients. This work encompasses both the first wall (FW) as well as the divertor. In fact, while the ITER divertor heat removal technology has been adopted, the ITER FW concept has been shown in the past years to be inadequate for EU-DEMO. This is due to the higher foreseen irradiation damage level, which requires structural materials (like Eurofer) able to withstand more than 5 dpa of neutron damage. This solution, however, limits the tolerable steady-state heat flux to ~1 MW/m2, i.e. a factor 3–4 below the ITER specifications. For this reason, poloidally and toroidally discontinuous protection limiters are implemented in EU-DEMO. Their role consists in reducing the heat load on the FW due to charged particles, during steady state and, more importantly, during planned and off-normal plasma transients. Concerning the divertor configuration, EU-DEMO currently assumes an ITER-like, lower single null (LSN) divertor, with seeded impurities for the dissipation of the power. However, this concept has been shown by numerous simulations in the past years to be marginal during steady-state (where a detached divertor is necessary to maintain the heat flux below the technological limit and to avoid excessive erosion) and unable to withstand some relevant transients, such as large ELMs and accidental loss of detachment. Various concepts, deviating from the ITER design, are currently under investigation to mitigate such risks, for example in-vessel coils for strike point sweeping in case of reattachment, as well as alternative divertor configurations. Finally, a broader discussion on the impact of divertor protection on the overall machine design is presented

Assessment of alternative divertor configurations as an exhaust solution for DEMO

Plasma exhaust has been identified as a major challenge towards the realisation of magnetic confinement fusion. To mitigate the risk that the single null divertor (SND) with a high radiation fraction in the scrape-of-layer (SOL) adopted for ITER will not extrapolate to a DEMO reactor, the EUROfusion consortium is assessing potential benefits and engineering challenges of alternative divertor configurations. Alternative configurations that could be readily adopted in a DEMO design include the X divertor (XD), the Super-X divertor (SXD), the Snowflake divertor (SFD) and the double null divertor (DND). The flux flaring towards the divertor target of the XD is limited by the minimum grazing angle at the target set by gaps and misalignments. The characteristic increase of the target radius in the SXD is a trade-off with the increased TF coil volume, but, ultimately, also limited by forces onto coils. Engineering constraints also limit XD and SXD characteristics to the outer divertor leg with a solution for the inner leg requiring up-down symmetric configurations. Capital cost increases with respect to a SND configuration are largest for SXD and SFD, which require both significantly more poloidal field coil conductors and in the case of the SXD also more toroidal field coil conductors. Boundary models with increasing degrees of complexity have been used to predict the beneficial effect of the alternative configurations on exhaust performance. While all alternative configurations should decrease the power that must be radiated in the outer divertor, only the DND and possibly the SFD also ease the radiation requirements in the inner divertor. These decreases of the radiation requirements are however expected to be small making the ability of alternative divertors to increase divertor radiation without excessive core performance degradation their main advantage. Initial 2D fluid modeling of argon seeding in XD and SFD configurations indicate such advantages over the SND, while results for SXD and DND are still pending. Additional improvements, expected from increased turbulence in the low poloidal field region of the SFD also remain to be verified. A more precise comparison with the SND as well as absolute quantitative predictions for all configurations requires more complete physics models that are currently only being developed

Consistency of ℓ1\ell_1-Regularized Maximum-Likelihood for Compressive Poisson Regression

We consider Poisson regression with the canonical link function. This regression model is widely used in regression analysis involving count data; one important application in electrical engineering is transmission tomography. In this paper, we establish the variable selection consistency and estimation consistency of the $\ell_1$-regularized maximum-likelihood estimator in this regression model, and characterize the asymptotic sample complexity that ensures consistency even under the compressive sensing setting (or the $n \ll p$ setting in high-dimensional statistics)

Preliminary analysis of alternative divertors for DEMO

A physics and engineering analysis of alternative divertor configurations is carried out by examining benefits and problems by comparing the baseline single null solution with a Snowflake, an X- and a Super-X divertor. It is observed that alternative configurations can provide margin and resilience against large power fluctuations, but their engineering has intrinsic difficulties, especially in the balance between structural solidity and accessibility of the components and when the specific poloidal field coil positioning poses further constraints. A hybrid between the X- and Super-X divertor is proposed as a possible solution to the integration challenge

Preliminary analysis of alternative divertors for DEMO

A physics and engineering analysis of alternative divertor configurations is carried out by examining benefits and problems by comparing the baseline single null solution with a Snowflake, an X- and a Super-X divertor. It is observed that alternative configurations can provide margin and resilience against large power fluctuations, but their engineering has intrinsic difficulties, especially in the balance between structural solidity and accessibility of the components and when the specific poloidal field coil positioning poses further constraints. A hybrid between the X- and Super-X divertor is proposed as a possible solution to the integration challenge