SVR 2008

Alushta-2008 - International Conference and

School on Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion

Alushta (Crimea), Ukraine, September 22-27, 2008

Sept. 26, Friday. Session X. 3-6

HELIUM-3 - BASED FUSION PLASMA

Sergei V. Ryzhkov
Thermal Physics Department (E6)
Bauman Moscow State Technical University
Moscow, Russia
E-mail: svryzhkov@gmail.com
SVR 2008

FUSIONLAB in BMSTU
http://fusionlabgroup.com/

Mirror Trap
Oblate Spheromak

Open and Closed Systems

– by plasma confinement
and field lines

Prolate FRC Advanced fuels

Simple Cylindrical Configurations –

Don’t mix up with FRP, FRM and RFP !!!
Astron is ring of relativistic electrons within a magnetic mirror device.
ASTRON (the E-layer) never succeeded at achieving field reversal
SVR 2008

TABLE I. Experimental Plasma Parameters Ranges

Field Reversed Mirror Device Spheromak

Configuration
Radius (or 0.02 – 0.40 m 0.02 – 0.40 m 0.01 – 0.30 m
separatrix), rs
Length, ls 0.2 – 1.5 m 0.25 – 12 m 0.2 – 0.7 m

Electron density, ne 0.005 – 5 x 1021 m-3 1016 – 7.5 x 1022 m-3 0.001 – 1 x 1020 m-3

Ion temperature, Ti 0.05 – 3 keV 0.03 – 10 keV 0.05 – 0.5 keV

Electron 0.03 – 0.5 keV 0.004 – ４ keV 0.02 – 0.5 keV

temperature, Te
External B-field, Be 0.05 – 2 T 0.005 – 15 T 0.03 – 3 T

Average beta, <β> 50 – 95 % 12 – 70 % 5 – 20 %

Energy confinement 0.05 – 0.5 ms 0.01 – 1 ms 0.02 – 2 ms

time, τE
SVR 2008

Alternative Experiments

G. Fiksel, ICPP 2008 A.Anikeev, Zvenigorod 2008

Main chamber 6 m long Central cell 7 m long

LSX: 2.5 m long FRTP chamber

TCSU: Ultra high vacuum
2 m long translation section 6 m long

http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/RPPL/programs/tcs.html

J. Santarius, APS Meeting, 2006

SVR 2008

TABLE II. MF Experimental Devices (in alphabetical order)

FRC: Mirror: Spheromak:
CBFR – University of AMBAL-M - Budker BCTX – UC Berkeley,
California, Irvine, p-11B Institute heating of a decaying S
FIREX - Cornell U, Ithaca CLM – Columbia University BSX, CT injection, Caltech,
Munsat–UColorado,Boulder relevance to astrophys. jets
FIX – Osaka University, GAMMA 10 Tandem Mirror HIT-CT – Himeji, Japan,
NUCTE-3 – Nihon Univ. –PRC,University of Tsukuba CTIX–UCDavis,acceleration
FRX-L – LANL, MIF/MTF GDT, SHIP – BINP, LLNL, HIT-SI – U. Washington
compression, high density tokamak refueling new for form. S inductively
KT, BN, TL, TOR – TRINITI, GOL-3 Multiple Mirror Trap SPHEX – UMIST, pf
compression, translation – Budker Instute structure, applied toroid field
Lebedev Physical Institute FLM - Uppsala Univ.; MAP- SSPX – LLNL, high currents,
RAS, Moscow II - Univ. of Tokyo, Hanyang good confinement
MRX – Princeton, oblate HANBIT Device – Korea SSSX, multi-probe surveys
flux-conserver, stability Basic Science Ins of the reconnection bet. 2 S
TCS, STX, TRAP, PHD, IPA MultiCusp Trap – TS-3,4 – Tokyo, merging of
– RMF, raise T, flux Kurchatov Institute spheromaks, FRC, other TC
FRM, Int. Coil Device, LD, LHD, LPD, RFP, rotomak, RT-1, TST-2, Z, Ө-pinch
SVR 2008
Field Reversed Configurations:
a) racetrack; b) Hills vortex/sphere, c) elongated
Non-uniform FRC equilibria
Open-filed lines (DEC)
High β (plasma/magnetic pressure)
Poloidal magnetic field

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 1 2 3 4 5

SVR 2008

Hill’s Vortex and Racetrack

Fusion Study Experiments

B0 = 10 000; Bw = 10 000; rc = 150; rs = 100; L = 500; b = 400;

B0 = 8500; Bw = 8500; rc = 10; rs = 5; L = 50; b = 40 σ = 1.5

SVR 2008

Analytical Equilibrium for FRC

Sphere/ Hill’s vortex (HV) and Quasi-Equilibrium (SQE)

Bc2 2r
jθ (r , z ) = U / sec h 2U
ψ HV =−
Br 2
(
1 − ( r / a ) 2 − ( z / b) 2 ) B(r , z ) = Bc tanh U 2μ 0 R 2 ( z )
2
ψ HV
Br 2
(
= − 2 a2 − r 2 − z2
2a
) ⎛ B2 ⎞
⎛ B2 ⎞ ⎛ Bc2 ⎞ ⎜⎜ p m = c ⎟⎟ p ( r , z ) = p m sec h 2U
p + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = const ⎝ 2μ 0 ⎠
⎝ 2μ 0 ⎠ ⎝ 2μ 0 ⎠ 1γ
⎛ p ⎞
= nm (sec h U )
2γ
n( r , z ) = nm ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ pm ⎠
U (u ) = κ
tanh −1 σu
=
κ ⎛ 1 + σu ⎞
ln⎜ ⎟ (
U / = dU du = κ 1 − σ 2 u 2 ) ⎛ p ⎞
(γ −1) γ
σ 2σ ⎝ 1 − σu ⎠ T (r , z ) = Tm ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = Tm (sec h U )
2(γ −1) γ

⎝ pm ⎠
B is the nominal magnetic field, Be = Bc = B0 is the field at ∞;
u = r 2 R 2 (z ) − 1 (
R ( z ) = R0 1 − z 4 ( L s 2 ) )
4 12

k and σ are small shaping parameters, and Г ~ 4/3.

SVR 2008

Analytical Equilibrium for Elongated FRC

Solov’ev/ Hill’s vortex (EHV) and Steinhauer Quasi-Equilibrium (SAE)

Br 2 ⎧ r 2 z 2 1− N
ψ EHV =−
4a 2
(
3B0 r 2 2 2
a − r −ζ 2 ) ψ SAE =− ⎨1 − 2 − 2 +
2 ⎩ a b 1 + (6 + N )(ε / 4) + (1 + N )(ε 4 / 4) + N (ε 6 / 32)
2

B r2 ⎛ a3 ⎞ ⎡ε 2 ⎛ ε2 ⎞ ε 4 ⎛ ε 2r 2 z 2 ⎞ ⎛ ε 2 ⎞⎛ ε 4 r 4 3ε 2 r 2 z 2 z 4 ⎞ ⎤ ⎫⎪
ψ ext
= 0 ⎜⎜1 − 2 ⎟ ×⎢ ⎜⎜1 + ⎟⎟ − (1 − )⎜⎜ − 2 ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜1 + ⎟⎟⎜⎜ − + 4 ⎟⎟ ⎥ ⎬
2 3/ 2 ⎟
2 4 2 2
⎣4 ⎝ 2 ⎠ 8 ⎝ 4 b ⎠ ⎝ 4 ⎠⎝ 8 2 b ⎠ ⎦ ⎪⎭
EHV
2 ⎝ (r + ζ ) ⎠ a a a b

where B0 is the external magnetic field, R2 =r2 +z2 , ζ≡z/k, B a2 ⎡ r 2 r2 ⎛ r2 z2 ⎞

ψ ext SAE = 0 ⎢ E0 2 + E1 2 ⎜⎜ 2 − 4 2 ⎟⎟ +
k=b/a, ε=a/b, a=rs, b=ls. N is the shape index (1-EHV,0-RT) 2 ⎣ a a ⎝a a ⎠
⎛ αb + z αb − z ⎞⎤
4εE1 + 3αλ5 E 2 1 + E2 ⎜ + ⎟⎥
λ=
N ≡ b / aR s = 2
[ ] [r ]
2

[ ] [1 + (α / ε ) ] ⎜ r 2 + (αb + z ) 2 ⎟⎥
1/ 2 1/ 2
ε − εE1 + ελ (2 + λ 2 ) E 2 2 1/ 2
⎝
2
+ (αb − z ) 2 ⎠⎦
SVR 2008

FRC Operating Regimes

R. Siemon, ITC 2001, no RC

S*/E < 3.5 (≤ 7-reactor). S* = rs/(c/ωpi) ~ rs/ρi. Elongation E=ls/rs, k ≡ Ls/rs

The FRC kinetic parameter S* is the ratio of the separatrix radius to the ion skin depth
SVR 2008

The Spheromak has a q-profile,FRC Large Safety Factor

The most probable q profile (TCS) has
significant magnetic shear dq/dψ, where ψ is
Typical Confinement Region in the poloidal flux function.
(r, Pθ, E) space for racetrack The safety factor
1 Bθ dl 2 E Bθ
q(ψ ) =
2π ∫ψ Bz r
q~
π Bz
The edge value of the safety factor
ls ⎛ 1 dBθ ⎞
qedge = ⎜ ⎟
π ⎜⎝ Bz dr ⎟⎠ r = 0 qedge ≈ 2.2
First known instance of a very high-β
plasma with a safety factor greater than 1.

The nominal stability is achieved if

Bθ /( μ0 mi n0 )1 / 2 > γ g ls / 2
γg is the growth rate of the “gravitational”
mode in a FRC.

E is the total energy of a proton, Pθ is its

Highly sheared flows are likely to play a
canonical angular momentum. The separatrix
stabilizing role and possibly a transport
radius rs=1 м, and half length
reducing role.
ls=4 м, external magnetic field Be=1 Т.
SVR 2008

FRC Power Balance

The global plasma power balance (the power losses are due to charged particle transport, neutrons,
and bremsstrahlung radiation) is given by
Pf + Pin = Pq + Pn + Pb + Ps , (1)
where Pf - fusion power, Pin - injection power, Pq - charged-particle transport power, Pn - neutron
power, Pb - bremsstrahlung power, and Pq - synchrotron radiation power. Power in units of
MW/m3, with T in keV.
Pf = ∑ ( ni1 ⋅ ni2 ⋅ σv i E f i 1 i 2 ),
z z
(2)
n1
n 2
σ
where i and i are the density of fuel ions, i is the average reaction rate for reaction type i, and E f is
v
the fusion power of the reaction with zi , zi - charges of ion species i.
The charged particle transport power is evaluated 3V ∫ ( n0Ti + neTe )V / du
1 2

Pq = 0 ,(3)
2 τe /
where 0 is the FRC plasma volume, 0 is the total ion density, i is the ion temperature,V is the
V n T
dimensionless volume, and τ e is the energy confinement time. This is the same as the thermal
energy divided by energy confinement
2 time.
nD n n
Pn = σv DD E DD
f + χ D T σv DT E DT
1
f , (4)
χ 2
where is the part of reacted tritium nuclei.
1 2
The power per unit volume with relativistic correction due to bremsstrahlung (Bauman fusionlabgroup
formula) is P = 4.836 ⋅ 10−43 n 2T 1/ 2 ⎡ Z (1.1 + 0.59 x + 3.06 x 2 − 2.56 x3 + 0.85 x 4 ) + 1.78 x − 0.15 x 2 + 0.58 x3 ⎤ ,
b e e ⎣ eff ⎦
where Z eff is the effective charge. x =103 Te e/(mec 2 ) , (6)
where Te, e and me are the electron temperature, charge and mass, respectively, and c is the speed of
light.
The synchrotron power is (Trubnikov's formula) to estimate the power loss due to synchrotron
radiation in trap and compact torus. ne (1 − rref ) 1/ 2
Ps = C ⋅ ( B ⋅ Te )5 / 2 ( ) , (7)
rs
where rref is the reflection coefficient of the mirrors located at the plasma boundary, C is the constant
for a layer, cylinder, or torus. For example, 9 10-29 for the tandem mirror and 4,1 10-17 for FRC.
β for plasma in both open systems (Mirror Trap and FRC) is summarized as:
βΣ = βα + β p + βT + β D + β 3 He + βe = const TD = T3 He = T fuel = const.
SVR 2008
Bremsstrahlung Power
(Bauman FusionLabGroup formula)
4 ò
ò

ì
pb = 4.836 ⋅10 −43 ne2Te1/ 2 Z eff (1.1[
ò à

3 ò ì
ì
à
æ
æ
æ Bauman
+ 0.59 x + 3.06 x 2 − 2.56 x 3 + 0.85 x 4 )
ò à
ì æ
+ 1.78 x − 0.15 x 2 + 0.58 x 3 ).
à
ò ì æ
à à Svensson
ò ì æ
2 ò ì
à
æ
à
æ
ò ì
ò
ì
ì
æ
à
à
æ ì McNally Total (with corrections for dipole &
1 ò
ì
æ
à
ò
ì
æ
à
æ
à
quadrupole) radiation power in the
ò
ì
æ
à ò Rider
ì
ò
æ
0 òìæà
à
electron
0 50 100 150 200 250 temperature range 1-500 keV.
x =103 Te e/(me c 2 )
The impurity coefficient Z = 5/3, ne=2 1020 m-3
1.2 à

à
1.0 à
æ
æ
à
0.8 æ

P b HMWê m L
3
à æ
à æ
0.6 à
æ
æ
à
æ
0.4 à
æ
à
æ
æ
à
0.2 æ
à
æ
à
æ
à

0.0 æ
à

0 50 100 150 200 250

TeHkeV L
SVR 2008
TABLE. D-3He Tokamak and FRC Reactors
Parameter Apollo ARIES-III ARTEMIS D-3He FRC
Electrical power 1000 MW 1000 1000 MW 1000
Fusion power 2144 MW 2682 1610 MW 1962
Bremss + Synchr. radiation 652+1027 MW Fraction0.72 357 MW 776+8.7
Neutron power 147 MW 110 77 MW 51.7
Injected (Current Dr.) power (138 MW) (172) 5 MW 62.6 MW
Net efficiency 0.43 Recirc. 0.24 0.36-0.62 0.49
Neutron wall load peak Aver. 0.1 MW/m2 Aver. 0.08 0.27 MW/m2 0.15
3He to D density ratio 0.63 ~1 0.5 1
Major (separatrix) radius 7.89 m 7.5 1.12 m 1.23
Minor radius (separt. length) 2.5 m 2.5 17 m 30.75
Ion temperature 57 keV 55 87.5 keV 68.5
Electron temperature 51 keV 53 87.5 keV 68.5
Electron density 1.9 x 1020 m-3 3.3 x 1020 6.6 x 1020 m-3 5.4 x 1020
Ion density 1.3 x 1020 m-3 2.1 x 1020 3.46 x 1020
Plasma current 53 MA 30 160 MA 298.8
TF on axis (external B-field) 10.9 (19.3) T 7.6 (6.7) T 6.38
Averaged beta 6.7 % Toroid. 24 % 90 % 74.8 %
Energy confinement time 16 s 11.8,τp/τE=2 2.1 s 1.44 s
SVR 2008 Main Reactions:
D + T → n (14.07 MeV) + 4He (3.52 MeV).
D + D → n (2.45 MeV) + 3He (0.82 MeV),
D + D → p (3.02 MeV) + T (1.01 MeV),
D + 3He → p (14.68 MeV) + 4He (3.67 MeV).
Aneutronic/ Low Radioactive Reactions:
3He + 3He → 2p + 4He + 12.86 MeV.
p + 6Li → 4He + 3He + 4.018 MeV.
p + 11B → 3 4He + 8.681 МэВ.
3He + T→ D + 4He + 14.32 MeV. (3He + T→ n + p + 4He + 12.096 MeV)
6Li + 3He → p + 2 4He + 16.878 MeV. (6Li + 3He → n + p + 7Be - 2.112 MeV)

D + 6Li → 2 4He + 22.371 MeV. (D + 6Li → n + 7Be + 3.381 MeV)

Fuel Cycle Radioactive fuel Direct radioactivity Indirect radioactiv
D-T T n n, T
D-D - n, T n
D-3He - - n, T
3He -3He - - -
p-6Li - - n, T, 7Be, 11C
p-11B - - n, 14C
3He -T T n n, T
6Li - 3He - n, 7Be n, T
D - 6Li - n, 7Be n, T
SVR 2008

Alternative Systems + Advanced Technology

Fig. . D-T and D-3He Design

Nonproliferation
Near term – medical isotope production, cancer therapy,
FRC fueler for tokamak design (FFT), detection of explosives and chemical wastes.
18O + p → n + 18F; 94Mo + p → n + 94mTc; 14N + p → 4He + 11C;
16O + p → 4He + 13N; 13C + p → n + 13N; 15N + p → n + 15O

.
Mid term – destruction of fissile material Long term – small EPP plants, space
and radioactive wastes. propulsion, hydrogen and synthetic fuel production.
SVR 2008

D-3He-6Li Fusion Cycle

is a combination of conventional
(more deuterium) and aneutronic fuels:

а). 2 stages reactor. The part of the

D-3He fusion power going to support the
p-6Li reaction.
Main reactions are shown

b). 1 reactor with D-3He-6Li mixture

(assumed lunar helium-3)

c). Hybrid system (combination of

first and second schemes). Additional
reactions shown in the last box.

The auxiliary reactor:

1) Polarized beams
2) Catalyzed cycles
3) QSSPA
4) Reactor-breeder
5) Colliding Beam Reactor
SVR 2008

Quasi-steady FRC Fusion Reactor

0,1 m diameter, 2 m length

0,5 m diameter, 0,8 m length

Fig. . PHDX and TCS-U in the University of

Washington (RPPL) and
Compact Tori in the Lebedev Physical
0,8 m diameter, 1,5 m length
Institute RAS
SVR 2008

Transport in Compact Torus (CT)

Classical or Bohm or Anomalous?

Two-fluid effects Poloidal flows Two-fluid analysis

NON-LINEAR WAVES IN SHEARED FLOWS
Non-ideal effects, particularly finite Larmor radius

Distribution function fα (r,v,t) for “α”-species of ash particles (p, α, T) is described by

Fokker-Planck equation:
∂f a ∂f a eza ∂f a
+v + ( E + [v, B ]) =
∂t ∂r ma ∂v ⎛ ∂f ⎞ ⎛ ∂f ⎞ f
= ⎜ a ⎟ + ⎜ a ⎟ + Sa − a
⎝ ∂t ⎠ FP ⎝ ∂t ⎠ B τa
where the first term at the right hand of equation is the Fokker-Planck collisional operator;
the second is the Boltzman collisional operator taking into account nuclear elastic
interactions; Sα is the source of “α”-species; τα is the loss time. The last term is
modelling the ash removing.
SVR 2008

Particles Orbits MAGO

Uses a magnetic field within a
fusion plasma to suppress
thermal conduction.

MAGO (Russian abbreviation for

magnetic implosion) in Russia and
as MTF (Magnetized Target Fusion)
in the United States is an alternative
to the main approaches (magnetic
confinement systems and inertial
confinement fusion). Iskra 5,6

Fig.1. Proton (14.7 MeV) trajectory in (X-Y)

space. Typical example for particle orbits in
LAE with initial parameters B=1 T, x=y=0.4 m,
z=0, θ(theta)=90°, β(beta)=0°.
SVR 2008

Applications of AFs and CTs

Reactor
Thick Liquid Walled - Liquid Litium
Low recycling (wall pumping)
Resource ~ 50 y
Commercial Power Plant

Thermonuclear Engine
Magnetic Fusion Rocket (MFR)
Proton/Neutron Source
SVR 2008

Conceptual Designs

R/a = 6.2 m/2 m, circumference 17 m

Diameter 4 m, length 25 m
Plasma radius 1.12 m, length 17 m

Plasma major radius 7,5 m, minor radius 2,5 m

H. Momota, NIFS, 1992. L. El-Guebaly, J.F. Santarius, ARIES Team. FTI, 2008.
Advanced Research Innovation and Evaluation Study

Fig.. ITER, Artemis (D-3He FRC), and ARIES III (D-3He Tokamak)
SVR 2008

Inertial Electostatic Confinement (IEC)

Steady-state D-3He proton production in an IEC fusion device
- ion source with low pressure

The first known non electrical application of

D-3He fusion energy –
the medical isotope of technetium
production, using molybdenum
94Mo ( p , n ) 94mTc; 16O ( p , 4He ) 13N

S. Krupakar Murali, Ph.D. thesis 2004.

SVR 2008

Magneto Inertial Fusion (MIF)/

Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF)
Plasma gun

Plasma jet

Arrows indicate
flow direction Plasma
liner
Magnetized
target plasma
“Merging Target Jets These “Stagnation Target Afterburner
radius" parameters at point"
Radius (m) 0.10 p=145 Mbar instant of impact Radius(m) 0.00537 0.00943
n (m-3) 1024 initial 1024 and at peak n (1027 m-3) 6.0 5.9
Velocity 27 km/s compression for
T (keV) 0.002 0.001 DT-liner (Zn, Ar, T (keV) 10 0.02
B (T) 1 Energy req 100 MJ Xe pusher) B (T) 240 299
SVR 2008
Requirement/Fea
MFE MTF ICF
ture
Starting density 1014 cm-3 1017cm-3 1021cm-3
Starting
20 keV 200 eV cyrogenic
temperature
1000 seconds or Yes, a few Yes, a few
Pulsed
longer microseconds nanoseconds
Driver >150 MW, 25 MA, 10 MJ, 50 MA 1.8 MJ laser (NIF
characteristics (ITER) pulsed power class)
Cost of driver $10 Billion $50 Million $ 1.2 Billion
Fusion Yield ~0.5-1.5 GW ~ 20 MJ ~ 5 MJ
Yes,
Magnetic field
superconducti yes no
required
ng
Rayleigh-Taylor
Plasma wall Yes, wall erosion Mix of metal and
limits
interactions is a problem plasma is bad
convergence
~1 to >> 1 ( the
Plasma Beta <1 plasma may ----
lean on wall)
SVR 2008

Natural Gas Resources in East Siberia and Republic

Sakha (Yakutia)
~ 30х1012 m3 Gazprom
Main components, %
Gas field
Methane Nitrogen Helium Ethane С3-С6
Kovykta (Kovyktinskoe) 91,39 1,52 0,28 4,91 1,78

Chayandinskoe 85,48 6,44 0,5 4,57 2,58

Yurubcheno-Tokhomskoe 81,11 6,39 0,18 7,31 5,06

Srednebotuobinskoe 88,61 2,93 0,2-0,6 4,95 3,12

Sobinsko-Paiginskoe 67,73 26,29 0,6 3,43 1,55

V. Timoshilov, Oil & gas vertical 7, 2006.

Even % is a volume fraction, then for 3He/4He = 0,7х10-6 1 m3 contains 0,005 х 0,7х10-6=
0,35х10-8 m3 of helium-3. Total 30х1012 х 3,5х10-9 = 105 m3 or 1,5х104 kg, i.е. ~ 15 tones!
Just in Eastern Siberia! US + Algeria + Canada + Japan (Niigata bassin - 3He/4He higher
ratio) + China + Australia (reserve and resource)

Approximate power inputs on helium detachment (low temperature separation or produced

rectification) from gases contained 0,02; 0,05; 0,5% He - 250, 100 and 10 kW•h/m3.
SVR 2008

Terrestrial and Extraterrestrial Resources of 3He

Sample Helium content 3He/4He 3He Potential
(volume x 10-6) (atom x10-6) (kg)
Atmosphere 5,24 1,4 4 x 106
Mantle gas vents - 11 – 21 3/year
US natural gas wells: 3000 (7 10-10 3He volume ratio) 0,2 187
Storage 106 0,2 29
RF natural gas reserves: ~ 48 х 1012 m3
Storage (3,5 10-9 volume ratio of 3He) ~ 0,2 – 0,5 ~ 3500 (!!!)
World resources ~ 1014 m3 (3 1010 helium ) ~ 0,1 – 0,3 ~ 5500 (!)
(μg /g)
Solar wind 1,4 x 105 ion/m3 480 3 107 ion/m2 s
Lunar surface: 30 (20% of surface, 5m
Maria depth) 400 6 x 108
Highlands 7(80%of surface,10m d.) 400 5 x 108
Jupiter 2,2 – 3,5 x 105 140 7 x 1022
Saturn 2,2 – 3,5 x 105 140 2 x 1022
Some numbers - Wittenberg L.J., Santarius J.F., Kulcinski G.L., Fusion Technology 10, 1986.
SVR 2008
3He activities
1st Lunar Development Symposium, Atlantic City, 22-24 September 1986–GLK, JFS, LJW (KSW).
1st Wisconsin Symposium on Helium-3 and Fusion Power, 21-22 August 1990, Madison.
US-USSR Workshop on D-3He Reactor Studies,25 September–2 October 1991, Moscow.
2nd Wisconsin Symposium on Helium-3 and Fusion Power, 19-21 July 1993, Madison.
The Intern. Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG) is a public forum created in 1994.
9th International Conference on Exploration and Utilisation of the Moon (ICEUM9) held 22 - 26
October 2007 in Sorrento (2005 Toronto's Lunar Conf, ICEUM5 Hawaii 2003).

$1100/5l for 3He, liquid 4He ~ $5/kg, gas 3He ~ 1,64M$/kg ($1,64 billion a ton), ρ=134 g/m3
The abundance of helium on the Earth are estimated as 3x1010 m3. In the crust, the concentration
of He is in 200 bigger than in the atmos. RF total deep-laid gas - 48 x 1012 m3 (1680 х 1012 f3).
East Siberia, Yakutia resources of natural gas - 30х1012 m3 (helium-rich >0.5%).
Moon: ~ 500 million tones (regolith). Uranium: 3He/4He = 1/3000, Jupiter: 1020 t (atmosphere),
Saturn + asteroids + comets (asteroids more rich of helium-3).

• 3He-3He - 12,86 MeV (2,06x10-12 J). 1 gram ~ 2x1023 particles of helium-3. 1 ton of 3He:
12,86x106 x 1,6x10-19 x 2x1029 = 20,6x1016 J heat energy. I.е. 1 t of 3He ~ 5,4 million of oil!
• D-3He - 18,36 MeV (3x10-12 J). 1 ton of 3He: 18,36x106 x 1,6x10-19 x 2x1029 = 59x1016 J
thermal energy. I.е. 1 t of 3He ~ 15,5 millions of oil!
• Oil - ~$150/bar. Urals (main russian brand) coefficient ~ 7,28 bar/t. 1 oil ton costs 1092$.
At two billion dollars a t, the energy cost of 3He is equivalent to oil at $7 per barrel
We can go up to $10-15 billion/t for Helium-3 from the Moon!

Even, for Wittenberg figures (7 x 10-10 for 3He Volume Fraction in natural gas) we have:
just for Siberia 30x1012 х 7х10-10 = 21х103 m3 of 3He 2,8х103 kg, i.е. 2,8 t (tones, not a few kg) !
Irkutsk region (He reserve in 2025) ~ 30 106 m3. World: 27,8 109 х 1,4 10-6 x 0,134 = 5,2 t He-3 !!!
SVR 2008

Helium3 Fusion and Resource Papers: Refereed

• 1. J.F. Santarius, G.L. Kulcinski, and L.A. El-Guebaly, “A Passively Proliferation-Proof Fusion Power Plant,” Fusion Science
and Technology, Vol. 44, p. 289 (2003).
• 2. H.H. Schmitt, “Business Context of Space Tourism,” December 2002 [accepted by the Space Technology and Applications
International Forum (STAIF-2003), 2-5 February 2003, Albuquerque NM], (see also UWFDM-1192).
• 3. H.H. Schmitt, “Business Approach To Lunar Base Activation,” December 2002, STAIF-2003 (see also UWFDM-1191).
• 4. H.H. Schmitt, “Return to the Moon: Exploration, Enterprise and Energy in the Human Settlement of Space,” Springer,
Berlin (2005) (see also Report UWFDM-1190: http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pubs?rm=uwfdm).
• 5. G.L. Kulcinski and J.F. Santarius, “New Opportunities for Fusion in the 21st Century-Advanced Fuels”, Fusion Technology,
Vol. 39, p. 480 (2001).
• 6. G.H. Miley, J.F. Santarius, and L.C. Steinhauer, “On Design and Development Issues for the FRC and Related Alternate
Confinement Concepts,” Fusion Engineering and Design 48, 327 (2000).
• 7. L.A. Taylor and G.L. Kulcinski, “Helium-3 on the Moon for Fusion Energy: the Persian Gulf of the 21st Century”, Solar
System Research, Vol. 33, No. 5, 1999, 338 and Astronomicheskii Vestnik, Vol. 33, No. 5, 1999, 386 (UWFDM-1103).
• 8. G.L. Kulcinski and J.F. Santarius, “Advanced Fuels Under Debate,” Nature, 396, Dec. 24/31, 724 (1998).
• 9. G.L. Kulcinski, “Non-Electric Applications of Fusion Energy – An Important Precursor to Commercial Electric Power,”
Fusion Technology, 34, 477 (1998).
• 10. K.R. Harris-Kuhlman, G.L. Kulcinski, “Terrestrial Analogs for Lunar Ilmenite,” p. 533 in SPACE, Proc. 6th International
Conf. on Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Space, Eds., R. G. Galloway and S. Lokaj, Am. Soc. Civil Engr. (1998)
• 11. J.F. Santarius, G.L. Kulcinski, L.A. El-Guebaly, H.Y. Khater, “Could advanced fusion fuels be used with today's
technology?,” J. of Fusion Energy, 17(1), 33 (1998).
• 12. J.F. Santarius and B.G. Logan, “Generic Magnetic Fusion Rocket Model,” Journ of Propulsion and Power 14, 519 (1998).
• 13. J.F.Santarius, “Advanced-Fuel Heat Flux, Power Density, and Direct Conversion Issues,” Tr. Fusion Tech. 27, 567 (1995)
• 14. J. Sved, G.L. Kulcinski, G.H. Miley, “A Commercial Lunar 3He Power Infrastructure,” British Interplanetary Soc. 48, 55.
• 15. G.A. Emmert, L.A. El-Guebaly, G.L. Kulcinski, J.F. Santarius, I.N. Sviatoslavsky, and D.M. Meade, “Improvement in
Fusion Reactor Performance Due to Ion Channeling,” Journal of Fusion Technology 26, 1158 (1994).
• 16. K.R. Harris, H.Y. Khater, G.L. Kulcinski, “Remote Sensing of Astrofuel,” Engineering, Construction and Operations in
Space-IV, Vol. 1, p. 648, Amer. Soc. Civil Engrs., NY (1994). Reviewed book.
• 17. E. Teller, A.J. Glass, T.K. Fowler, A. Hasegawa, and J.F. Santarius, “Space Propulsion by Fusion in a Magnetic Dipole,”
Fusion Technology, 22, 82 (1992).
• 18. L.J.Wittenberg, J.F.Santarius, G.L.Kulcinski, “Lunar source of 3He for commercial fusion power,” Fusion T. 10, 167 (1986).
• 19. L.J. Wittenberg, E.N. Cameron, G.L. Kulcinski, S.H. Ott, J.F. Santarius, G.I. Sviatoslavsky, I.N. Sviatoslavsky, and H.E.
Thompson, “A review of 3He resources and acquisition for use as fusion fuel,” Fusion Technol. 21, 2230 (1992).
 D-3He Fusion Papers:
• 20. V.I. Khvesyuk, S.V. Ryzhkov, J.F. Santarius, G.A. Emmert, C.N. Nguyen, and L.C. Steinhauer, “D-3He Field-
Reversed Configuration Fusion Power Plants,” Transactions of Fusion Technology 39, 410 (2001).
• 21. R.F. Post and J.F. Santarius, “Open Confinement Systems and the D-3He Reaction,” Fusion Technology, 22,
13 (1992).
• 22. S.V. Ryzhkov, V.I. Khvesyuk, A.A. Ivanov. “Progress in an alternate confinement system called a FRC,”
Fusion Science and Technology 43, 304 (2003).
• 23. S.G. Bespoludennov, V.I. Khripunov, V.I. Pistunovich, G.A. Emmert, J.F. Santarius, G.L. Kulcinski, “D-3He
Tokamak - Reactor,” Fourteenth International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion
Research, 30 September - 7 October 1992, Würzburg, Germany (IAEA, Vienna, 1993), Peer-reviewed conference.
• 24. M.V. Krivosheev, V.N. Litunovsky, “Compact D-3He fueled fusion reactor based on an FRC,” Trans. of Fusion
Technol. 27, 337 (1995).
• 25. F. Najmabadi, R. W. Conn, et al., "The ARIES-III Tokamak Fusion Reactor Study - The Final Report,“
UCLA report UCLA-PPG-1384 (1994). See http://aries.ucsd.edu/LIB/REPORT/ARIES-3/final.shtml.
• 26. W. Kernbichler, “Operational parameters for D-3He in field-reversed configurations,” Fusion Technol. 21, 2297
(1992).
• 27. B. Coppi, P. Detragiache, S. Migliuolo, M. Nassi, B. Rogers, “D-3He burning, second stability region, and the
Ignitor experiment,” Fusion Technol. 25, 353 (1994).
• 28. C.G. Bathke and the ARIES team, “Systems analysis in support of the selection of the ARIES-RS design
point,” Fusion Eng. and Design 38, 59 (1997).
• 29. G.L. Kulcinski, G.A. Emmert, J.P. Blanchard et al., “Summary of APOLLO, a D-3He tokamak reactor design,”
Fusion Technol. 21, 2292 (1992).
• 30. H. Momota, A. Ishida, Y. Kohzaki et al., “Conceptual design of D-3He FRC reactor ARTEMIS,” Fusion
Technol. 21, 2307 (1992).
• 31. Moir R.W. et al., “Thick liquid-walled, field-reversed configuration”. Preprint UCRL-JC-139086 (2000).
• 32. J.F. Santarius, E.A. Mogahed, G.A. Emmert, H.Y. Khater, C.N. Nguyen, S.V. Ryzhkov, M.D. Stubna, L.C.
Steinhauer, G.H. Miley, “Final report for the field-reversed configuration power plant critical-issue scoping study”.
Fusion Technology Institute, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Report UWFDM-1129 (2000).
• 33. S.V. Ryzhkov, “Compact Toroid and Advanced Fuel - Together to the Moon?!,” Fusion Science and Technol.,
47 (№ 1), 342 (2005).
SVR 2008

CONCLUSIONS:

1. FRC – viable high power density alternative to the tokamak

2. Advanced fuels such as p, D, and 11B are plentiful on Earth, but large
scale deployment of D-3He power plants would require developing either
breeding or the large resource (~ 109 kg) on the lunar surface
3. JAEA, NASA, NASDA, Russian Space (Cosmos) Agency are seriously
investigating the near term return of humans to the Moon, including the
assessment and mining technology. Solar system exploration and
development will be in progress, and lunar operations for science and
possibly 3He acquisition are likely to have begun. 3He acquisition requires
essentially developed technology
4. The importance of energy for the global environmental and theoretical
research program exists for the high beta configurations best suited to
burning advanced fusion fuels
5. As such, they deserve further study, but the present worldwide budget for
advanced fuel research is less than $1M...