Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why Compact Tori for Fusion?

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Fusion Energy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A compact torus (CT) has a toroidal magnetic and plasma geometry, but is contained within a simply-connected vacuum vessel such as a cylinder. Spheromaks and field-reversed configurations fall into this category. Compact tori are translatable and have a high engineering beta. The primary benefit of CTs for fusion is the absence of toroidal field and Ohmic Heating coils and the many problems brought on by them. Studying fusion-relevant plasma in simply-connected geometries affords the world fusion program both physics and technology opportunities not found in other configurations. This paper outlines the technology and physics opportunities of compact tori, and presents a cost model based on geometry for comparison with less compact configurations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The TF, OH and PF coils are also modeled, but the divertor is omitted to simplify the discussion.

  2. MPD is an important measure of economy for a fusion power core, see [7] for a discussion.

References

  1. FESAC TAP report David Hill (Chair), Rich Hazeltine (Vice Chair) http://fusion.gat.com/tap/final_report.php/

  2. BPO ReNeW report Rich Hazeltine (Chair). David Hill (Vice Chair) http://burningplasma.org/web/renew.html

  3. E.B. Hooper et al., ‘The Compact Torus: Spheromaks and FRCs’ white paper in preparation for this Journal

  4. J. Sheffield, Private communication with corresponding author, June 2009

  5. F. Najmabadi, Private communication with corresponding author August 2009

  6. R. Stambaugh, ‘Overview of the Fusion Development Facility’ presentation given at the 2–4 March ‘Harnessing Fusion Power’ workshop, UCLA available at http://www.fusion.ucla.edu/FNST/Renew_Presentations/

  7. R.A. Krakowski, ‘Simplified Fusion Power Plant Costing: A General Prognosis and Call for “New Think”’ Fusion Technology, March 1995, Volume 27

  8. P.M. Bellan, Phys. Plasmas 9, 3050 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  9. L.C. Steinhauer, Phys. Fluids B2, 3081 (1990)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. W.M. Nevins, A review of confinement requirements for advanced fuels. J. Fusion Energ. 17(1), (1998)

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge John Sheffield, and Farokh Najmabadi for outlining the starting point for the discussion of cost and to Ron Miller for indicating where it might go. Thanks also to Charlie Baker for encouraging this line of thinking. Work by E. B. Hooper was performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. S. Woodruff performed this work while supported by Department of Energy under subcontract numbers DE-FG02-06ER84449 and DE-FG02-07ER84924.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Woodruff Scientific Inc, 4501 Shilshole Ave NW, Seattle, WA, 98107, USA

    S. Woodruff

  2. Swarthmore College, 500 College Ave, Swarthmore, PA, 19081, USA

    M. Brown

  3. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Ave, Livermore, CA, 94550, USA

    E. B. Hooper

  4. Redmond Plasma Physics Lab, University of Washington, 14700 NE 95th Street, Redmond, WA, 98052, USA

    R. Milroy

  5. General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego, CA, 92186-5608, USA

    M. Schaffer

Authors
  1. S. Woodruff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. B. Hooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Milroy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Schaffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Woodruff.

Appendix: Matlab Cost Model

Appendix: Matlab Cost Model

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Woodruff, S., Brown, M., Hooper, E.B. et al. Why Compact Tori for Fusion?. J Fusion Energ 29, 447–453 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10894-010-9303-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10894-010-9303-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation