Amount of Plasma [g] in nuclear fusion designs

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mass of plasma in nuclear fusion reactor designs, specifically referencing ITER and Wendelstein. The plasma volume in ITER is noted to be 840 cubic meters, with the participant expressing skepticism about the actual working mass of plasma being significantly lower compared to the mass of air that could fill the reactor in an emergency. The conversation highlights the safety mechanisms in fusion reactors, suggesting that a containment breach would result in minimal damage, primarily affecting sensors rather than causing catastrophic failures as seen in fission reactors.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Lawson criterion in nuclear fusion
  • Familiarity with plasma density calculations
  • Knowledge of ITER and Wendelstein reactor designs
  • Basic principles of nuclear fusion versus fission
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the plasma density values for ITER and Wendelstein reactors
  • Explore the implications of the Lawson criterion on fusion reactor efficiency
  • Investigate safety mechanisms in fusion reactors compared to fission reactors
  • Learn about the design and operational principles of commercially viable fusion reactors
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, physicists, and safety analysts involved in nuclear fusion research, as well as policymakers interested in the safety and efficiency of fusion energy compared to traditional fission reactors.

Thomas Sturm
Messages
9
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
What is the typical mass of the plasma (in typical working configuration) in current nuclear fusion reactor designs?
Hi everyone,
I am trying to figure out the following question:
What is the typical mass of the plasma (in typical working configuration) in current nuclear fusion reactor designs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER: "...plasma volume of 840 cubic meters..."
So all I need is the plasma density. Enter the "Lawson criterion" and the "triple product"...all very interesting reads, but I couldn't find any values for, let's say: Wendelstein, ITER and a "commercially viable fusion reactor".

Reason why I'm asking: I strongly suspect the actual "working mass" of plasma in a fusion reactor to be really low as compared to, say, the amount of Uranium in a fission reactor. 840 m^3 filled with air would amount to 1071 kg. This is the amount of air roughly rushing into the core of a fusion reactor (ITER type) if push comes to shove and the core containment breaks. Very, very cold air, and lots of it, seems to be the perfect "emergency off" button build into the very design of fusion reactors - as opposed to fission reactors, two of which (in Tchernobyl and Fukushima) are currently on their (slow, but steady) way towards the center of the planet.
If m(plasma) << m(air), a "Super-Accident" in a fusion plant would be a fly's burp as compared to the same mishap in a fission reactor. Or am I completely wrong somewhere?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know the exact plasma density, but I know that you are correct in your understanding that the amount of plasma is very, very small. The total energy released by the plasma in the event of complete containment loss would perhaps scorch the inside of the reactor and damage some sensors. That's it.

Thomas Sturm said:
840 m^3 filled with air would amount to 1071 kg. This is the amount of air roughly rushing into the core of a fusion reactor (ITER type) if push comes to shove and the core containment breaks. Very, very cold air, and lots of it, seems to be the perfect "emergency off" button build into the very design of fusion reactors

That's not even necessary to be honest. Any significant change in the reactor's internal conditions away from just what it needs to sustain fusion would immediately halt the reaction. You could literally just hit a big red button to turn the power off to the electromagnets and all you'd get is what I wrote above. Some light damage to the internal surface of the reactor and some damaged sensors.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K