Three Confinement Systems—Spherical Tokamak, Standard Tokamak, and Stellarator: A Comparison of Key Component Cost Elements

Since the 1950s “next-step” fusion devices and power plant studies have been developed for a number of magnetic confinement systems but an open question remains: can a magnetic fusion device be simplified to the point where it will be cost competitive and operate with high availability? Concept designs based on the ARIES advanced tokamak, spherical tokamak (ST), and the quasi-axisymmetric (QAS) stellarator option have progressed in recent years through a series of Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) studies with an underlying intent to improve the engineering feasibility of each, giving special attention to concepts that simplify the device configuration and improve maintenance features. For the ST option, design details centered on a 3-m Fusion Nuclear Science Facility that evolved to incorporate vertical maintenance, high temperature superconductor magnets, a small inboard duel coolant lead lithium blanket, and a liquid metal divertor. In collaboration with the Korean fusion demonstration reactor (K-DEMO) and CFETR concept study teams the tokamak design has evolved to increase plasma component access within a vertical maintenance approach using enlarged toroidal field coils incorporating a low- and high-field Nb3Sn winding pack that provide a peak field of 16 T. A recent PPPL stellarator study focused on simplifying the stellarator winding topology to improve access to in-vessel components; combining coil optimization with winding surfaces that incorporated geometry constraints specified by engineering. This paper centered on a 1000-MW power plant design with a tokamak like vertical maintenance scheme that allows access to remove large internal blanket sectors. Results of three confinement studies (PPPL developed ST, K-DEMO, and QAS stellarator) will be presented to highlight concepts that simplify each device configuration and improved their maintenance features. Scaling each option to a common 1000-MW net electric power plant mission allows comparisons to be made of key cost elements such as the size of major core components, sizing of the reactor hall, or external facilities needed to handle and store activated in-vessel components.