Install a 20 MW ICRF system in the first operational phase (AFP) on ITER

Comments

#4

I fully support the proposal

Bertrand Beaumont (Puyricard, 2023-09-02)

#6

I fully agree with the text of this petition

Jean-Michel BERNARD (Cadarache, 2023-09-07)

#12

High scientific importance

Kristel Crombe (Brussels, 2023-09-07)

#13

I'm signing because I agree with all the arguments highlighted in this petition and I think that 20MW of ICRF heating is going to contribute substantially to ITER operations in both the AFP and DT phases.

Ernesto Lerche (Brussels, 2023-09-07)

#14

High power ICRH is essential for ion heating, accelerated access to fusion burn, reduction of turbulence (improved confinement), synergy with alpha heating, etc.

Yuichi Takase (Abingdon, 2023-09-07)

#16

It took several years in to decide to have or not the ICRF system on ITER. There was very time consuming discussion between high level physicist and many experimental campaigns to argue of its usefulness. To decide now otherwise, it's throwing in the bin years of work, hence money. It's very deceiving.

Marie-Line Mayoral (Abingdon, 2023-09-07)

#18

We need to keep all options open. Every heating system has its advantages and disadvantages, and these are not yet all discovered. We have to make sure that we can operate the machine in the best possible scenario, which has yet to be investigated.

Johan Buermans (Brussels, 2023-09-07)

#19

It will be of highest importantce for finding solutions of future alternative energy to speed the development steps at ITER up by installing the 20 MW ICRF system already in AFP.

Dr. Nico Pupeter (Wuppertal, 2023-09-07)

#22

ICRH is a well-established heating mechanism in today's experimental reactors. It has proven its effectiveness not only in ion heating but also in several other areas, such as impurity control and plasma stabilization, as properly addressed in this petition. For the reasons stated, I suggest reconsidering the current plan and allowing for the full potential of an ICRH system for the benefit of the ITER project.

Dani Gallart Escolà (Barcelona, 2023-09-07)

#23

Delaying the installation of the full-power phase of the ICRH system is likely to result in not installing it at all, because of the knowledge, the resources, the industry, the available space, etc...

Julien Hillairet (St Paul Lez Durance, 2023-09-07)

#28

because it's just obvious, no ion heating means no fusion.

Eric FAUDOT (Nancy, 2023-09-07)

#29

I think is the best option

Ruben Otin (OXFORD, 2023-09-07)

#31

I think it is the right thing to do. With a single tokamak we are already putting all our eggs in one basket. If we also only rely on a single heating method, we are further worsening the situation. Diversity has always benefited humanity.

Jean-Marie Noterdaeme (Aachen, 2023-09-07)

#36

ICRF is far and away the most reactor ready heating source.

Michael Brookman (Shirley, MA, 2023-09-07)

#40

I fully support this petition.

Riccardo Ragona (Lyngby, 2023-09-07)

#41

I am a transport expert who used ICRH extensively and studied in detail the positive effects of ICRH ion heating and fast ions on thermal transport and plasma performance. Thus I am convinced that ICRH in ITER will be an important tool to optimise scenarios, especially during ramp-up, towards the Q=10 goal.

Paola Mantica (Milano, 2023-09-07)

#46

We need the power from fusion process as quick as possible. Therefore it is the best to install all necessary equipment as early as possible, instead of having no operation to do that later and loosing time.

Klaus-Peter Hollfeld (Roetgen, 2023-09-08)

#47

I'm signing to highlight the importance of a high power ICRF system for the success of ITER

Krassimir Kirov (Abingdon, 2023-09-08)

#49

I am signing because Iter indeed need 20 MW ICRF system for D-T research!

Chengming Qin (Hefei, 2023-09-08)

#50

IO thought that pronouncing "RF sheaths" was enough to motivate a reduction of the intended ICRF power for AFP. They did before even starting any quantitative RF sheath assessment. Adressing this topic scientifically contradicts this preconcieved idea.

Laurent COLAS (Saint Paul lez Durance, 2023-09-08)

#53

ICRF is the most important methods of heating ion for reactor in the future. More fusion power need more ICRF power especially for the D-T operation.

Yaoyao Guo (Hefei, 2023-09-08)

#54

ICRF heating is important to D-T reation, it can directly heating the ions. ICRF also can reduce sawtooth. The benefits of high power ICRF system is obvious.

Yuhao Jiang (Hefei, 2023-09-08)

#56

ICRF is very important for physics study in tokamak. The benefits are much more than disadvantages obviously.

Zhengshuyan Wang (Hefei, 2023-09-08)

#64

ICRH is beneficial only at high power in metallic environments, as was shown in JET (among others). The argument that tests are going to be made at 5MW to inform a later decision regarding a potential 20MW IC power phase is therefore moot.

Remi Dumont (Saint-Paul-lez-Durance, 2023-09-08)

#68

I'm signing because: (1) the authors of the petition make a clear case for why full power ICRF is needed sooner rather than later; (2) I can see no benefit in delaying installation other than an attempt to save time and money, but this is a false economy as it's actually more time and cost in the end as two systems need to be installed; (3) I want to see commercial fusion, I believe ITER success is a key step towards that, and as a fusion scientist I am convinced that early full power ICRH is a much better option than delaying installation of the full power ICRH in order to support ITER success

Stephen Biggs-Fox (York, 2023-09-08)

#70

I agree with the position of the petition authors

Igor Girka (Kharkiv, 2023-09-08)

#74

I support the construction of Iter icrf system with 20MW.

MAO Yuzhou (Hefei, 2023-09-08)

#76

I agree that ICRH should continue to be used

Tom Gedling (Culham, 2023-09-08)

#78

I believe that at the current level of knowledge, no established heating method should be excluded.

Christian Linsmeier (Bedburg, 2023-09-08)

#79

We have the finance, capability, drive and vision, what we are fast running out of is time....

Haroon Sheikh (Buckingham, 2023-09-08)

#81

I believe ITER is most likely to be a success with a fully operational ICRF system in the early stages.

Gregory Wallace (Snoqualmie, 2023-09-08)

#82

I am signing because I think that reducing from 20 to 5MW the initial installed power in the AFP phase will only bring minor cost reduction while severely putting at risk the achievements of ITER goals

Raymond Koch (Verviers, 2023-09-09)

#83

I'm signing because it would be a strategic mistake to build ITER without fully testing a heating technique that has proven to be extremely valuable and versatile. ICRH needs to be present at significant power from the early days of the ITER operation and onwards.

Dirk Van Eester (Sint-Katherina-Lombeek, 2023-09-09)

#84

I'm signing because I fully agree with the recommendations expressed in the petition text.

Frédéric Brochard (Nancy, 2023-09-09)

#85

Fusion happens when ions are sufficiently hot. ICRH should be available to ensure tjis happens.

Emilia Solano (Madrid, 2023-09-09)

#88

I'm signing because I fully agree with the recommendations expressed in the petition text.

Francesco Mirizzi (Bari, 2023-09-10)

#89

ICRF is very important for fusion reaction，which could be used to heat ions in plasma.

Liu Lunan (Hefei, 2023-09-10)

#91

ICRH is the strong guarantee for the commercialization of fusion reactors.

Jiahui Zhang (Xian, 2023-09-10)

#95

ICRF heating is one of the most effective auxiliary heating methods！

刘 卓琪 (大连(Dalian), 2023-09-10)

#99

xiangwu

xiang wu (xi an, 2023-09-10)

#102

ICRF is one of the only two ways (along with NBI) to heat ions in hot plasma to fusion temperature. It should be tested in reactor devices, especially in ITER.

Hua-sheng Xie (Langfang, 2023-09-10)

#104

I'm signing because it is very import to increase ion temperature for fusion experiments, and this importance has been demonstrated in JET and TFTR.

Li LiangLiang (HeFei, 2023-09-10)

#105

I hope that 20 MW ICRF system in AFP on ITER

Yang Zhang (HeFei, 2023-09-10)

#107

I believe that the reasons highlighted in the petition, based on the status of art of IC heating systems in tokamak, represents enough good reasons for keeping the 20 MW ICRF system in ITER-AFP

Angelo A. Tuccillo (Piano Di Sorrento, 2023-09-10)

#110

Hiroshi Kasahara

Hiroshi KASAHARA (Gifu, 2023-09-11)

#111

ITER needs a more powerful ICRF system in all operational phases to ensure the goal of ITER.

Mirko Salewski (Kgs. Lyngby, 2023-09-11)

#118

I believe the reasons are opened up in the document clearly. The decision should be based on science.

Antti Snicker (Espoo, 2023-09-11)

#119

I do not think that we can pretend to know today all possible side-effects of any of the plasma heating methods. Therefore, to make fuse the ions in order to obtain Q=10, it is best to include a 20MW ICRH system (a proven technology) from the beginning AFP in ITER.

Maarten VERGOTE (Brussels, 2023-09-11)

#120

I fully subscribe to this petition

Fulvio Zonca (Frascati, 2023-09-11)

#122

Indeed the fusion reactor can be realized by generating the sufficiently energetic fuel ions. I think the ICRH with sufficient input power will guarantee the success of ITER project. NBI alone is not enough.

Junghee Kim (Daejeon, 2023-09-11)

#123

To prove IC heating right from the beginning in W wall with full power in steps of 5MW is required to study experimentally.

If procurement is required to be done in steps of 5MW each with a big gap between two procurement, it will be technological and cost risk

Rajeshkumar Trivedi (Gandhinagar, 2023-09-11)

#124

ICRH is an effective way to increase the ion temperature of the fusion device globally, although it will bring some bad effects. So we expect the qualitative heating effect caused by quantitative changes at very high power (20MW)

Guanghui Zhu (Hefei, 2023-09-11)

#125

ITER is supposed to be a test bench for all viable ways of fusion to then further develop on DEMO, ICRH is definitely one of the easier and cheaper heating mechanisms. As such I think it would be a wasted opportunity to limit such a high potential heating candidate, essentially neglecting it completely for DEMO.

Arthur Adriaens (Brussels, 2023-09-11)

#127

I am in full support of this petition

Alexander Melnikov (MOSCOW, 2023-09-11)

#128

ICRF is a reactor relevant technology for future fusion reactors, while NBI is not. While ITER will clearly need NBI for achieving the projects stated goals, demonstration of ICRF heated plasams is critical to the future development of fusion reactors.

Samuel Lazerson (Greifswald, 2023-09-11)

#130

I fully agree with the four points of the petition

giorgio maddaluno (Monte Porzio Catone, 2023-09-11)

#131

I 'am signing because ICRF is well proven technology and the most effective way to heat ions

Helmut Fuenfgelder (Eching, 2023-09-11)

#141

I support the petition since ICRF will give many unique tool for ITER from wall conditions, ion heating, impurity ejection, electron heating....

Masayuki O no (Princeton, 2023-09-11)

#143

I believe that it is important for ITER to have a 20 MW ICRF system in the first operational phase for the reasons explained in this petition.

Thomas Jonsson (Stockholm, 2023-09-11)

#145

I support the cause of this petition. ICRF actuators provide with a wide spectrum of pathways regarding control and operation of a fusion reactor and its complex physical phenomena. It is crucial to continue the research & industrial activities in this area, not only to achieve ITER's final goal, but also for the future of fusion energy.

Álvaro Sánchez-Villar (Princeton, NJ, 2023-09-11)

#146

I have been working on modeling of ICRF heating and understand its importance in controlling fusion plasmas.

Atsushi Fukuyama (Tokyo, 2023-09-11)

#148

Ion cyclotron heating is the most effective method to heat ions at a low cost

zhao Xin (Beijing, 2023-09-12)

#151

I'm signin because I strongly agree with the community of scientists involved in this research.

Ewa Kowalska-Strzęciwilk (Warsaw, 2023-09-12)

#153

ITER will require maximum flexibility in all auxiliary measures to achieve its goals. Not only the fast particle elements as stated are relevant, but achievable pedestal performance is also an open question. Reduction of available heating in the startup phase will increase the possibility that the plasma edge could fail to successfully enter the H-mode regime. This isn't Paul Rebut's design anymore. We will need all the margin we can get concerning all of these questions.

Bruce Scott (Freising, 2023-09-12)

#161

I'm signing because ICRF works

Oleksii Girka (Garching, 2023-09-12)

#162

I think a powerful ICRF is very important to obtain the main goals of ITER and in the understanding of reactor plasmas.

Jose Luis de Pablos (Madrid, 2023-09-12)

#165

I am signing this petition because I wish to support the compelling scientific arguments presented by the initiators of this petition in favour of the early availability of the ITER 20 MW ICRF Heating System.

Karl Krieger (Garching, 2023-09-12)

#166

Technology choice is a balance between potential benefit and risk+cost.

ICRH is the only system that will provide direct ion heating on ITER, the potential benefit of the system outweights the risks.

Philippe Jacquet (Abingdon, 2023-09-12)

#169

I am a plasma physicist, expert in ICRF physics and ICRF antenna design, with a 25 years experience in the field. I am signing because it would be a strategic mistake to exclude the only system able to directly heat the ions, and so the only system able to directly increasing the fusion reactivity.

Fabrice Louche (Brussels, 2023-09-12)

#171

It will allow diagnostics to study/optimisation of energetic particle in the AFP phase

Perry Beaumont (Abingdon, 2023-09-12)

#174

As stated ICRH is the most efficient way of heating ions and to achieve ion temperature relevant to DT fusion condition. Restoring 20 MW of IC power is the best way to ensure ITER goals.

Akhil Jha (Gandhinagar, 2023-09-13)

#176

It would be definitively wiser to guarantee at least that 20 MW of ICRF is available from the very beginning, although it can be deliverable just only from one antenna.
At this point of the fusion research (== running out of time w.r.t. the quest of energy), it is a hazard to spare less than 1% of the total building budget by cutting the ICRF available power. There are many open questions that ITER have to address for future reactors, and ICRF heating can play a key role in all this, if and only if the ICRF power is enough.

Roberto Bilato (Garching, 2023-09-13)

#179

I share and support the views expressed in the petition

Marco Zerbini (Frascati, 2023-09-13)

#183

I agree with the arguments presented for not delaying the installation of the 20MW ICRF system. ITER is behind schedule already. The cost of the system is but a small fraction of ITER's total cost, but gaining experience with the full 20MW system is of vital importance in preparing for the effort of attaining ITER's main physics goal.

Seppo Sipilä (Espoo, 2023-09-15)

#184

[I] The importance of a high power ICRF system for the success of ITER, [II] The benefits from installing a 20 MW ICRF system already in AFP, [III] The risks of not installing a 20 MW ICRF system already in AFP, and finally, [IV] The compatibility of the ITER ICRF system with high power operation and low ICRF-specific sputtering.

Bili Ling (Hefei, 2023-09-18)

#186

We have already paid so much time and money to ITER. The cost of ICRF shall be minor compared to the whole ITER project. The experience and technique accumulated in the ICRF R&D can contribute to other reactors, not only ITER.

Wenyin Wei (Heifei, 2023-09-18)

#190

On a (still) experimental reactor like ITER we have to keep all possible auxiliary heating methods open at a relevant power level.

Guido Van Oost (Ghent, 2023-09-22)

#191

I am concerned about insufficient power in ITER

Henri Weisen (Bussigny, 2023-09-22)

#193

I support the arguments presented in this letter in favor of the ICRF system planned to be used on ITER.

Nikolai Gorelenkov (Princeton, 2023-10-19)



Paid advertising

We will advertise this petition to 3000 people.

Learn more...