pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.27549 · v1 · pith:DFKKAFNAnew · submitted 2026-05-26 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

Compact Experimental Negative TriAngUlarity Reactor (CENTAUR): A design study for a compact, affordable breakeven tokamak

The CENTAUR Collaboration , Samuel W. Freiberger , Evan Bursch , Javier Chiriboga , Hiro J. Farre-Kaga , Eliot Felske , Sophia Guizzo , John Labbate
show 28 more authors
Shreyas Seethalla Frederick Sheehan Jamie L. Xia Anson Braun Daniel A. Burgess Nathaniel Chen Jacob Halpern Mohammed Haque Abdullah Hyder Alexandra Lachmann Rohan Lopez Kian Orr Kalen Richardson Melanie Russo Avigdor Veksler Christopher J. Hansen Andreas Holm Nils Leuthold Orso Meneghini Andrew O. Nelson Matthew Pharr Tim Slendebroek Ian G. Stewart Filippo Scotti Matthew Tobin Haley Wilson C. F. B. Zimmermann Carlos Paz-Soldan
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 15:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords tokamaknegative triangularitybreakevenfusion reactorhigh-temperature superconductorREBCOplasma stabilityreactor design
0
0 comments X

The pith

A compact negative-triangularity tokamak design reaches 40 MW fusion power and scientific breakeven at $1.6 billion overnight cost.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents a full engineering design study for CENTAUR, a small high-field tokamak that uses negative triangularity to achieve predicted fusion power of 40 MW and scientific energy gain of 1.3. Ballooning stability calculations place the pedestal in the first regime, consistent with ELM-free operation, while edge transport simulations show 13.5% radiated power that keeps heat loads below material limits. An 18-coil REBCO magnet system at 10.9 T is protected by a 12 cm B4C shield that limits heating below quench limits and supports magnet lifetime beyond 3000 pulses. Iteration between technical choices and a custom costing model produces a total overnight cost of $1.6B ±0.2B, meeting the $2B target. A sympathetic reader would care because the work supplies a concrete, cost-constrained blueprint for a breakeven-scale experiment that avoids the scale of conventional tokamak projects.

Core claim

The CENTAUR design achieves a predicted total fusion power of 40MW and scientific energy gain of 1.3, with ballooning stability in the first regime, 13.5% radiated power fraction, heat loads below limits, magnet survival over design lifetime, and overnight cost of $1.6B±0.2B using a custom costing model.

What carries the argument

Negative triangularity geometry in the divertor region, which enables high radiated power fraction and first-regime ballooning stability while supporting compact high-field operation with REBCO coils.

If this is right

  • Ballooning stability in the first regime supports expected ELM-free operation of negative-triangularity plasmas.
  • The 13.5% radiated power fraction between separatrix and walls keeps heat loads on plasma-facing components below material limits.
  • The 12 cm B4C shield keeps superconducting magnet heating below the 33 K quench limit and allows survival more than ten times the 3000-pulse design lifetime.
  • The custom costing model iterated with the technical design yields an overnight cost of $1.6B ±0.2B that meets the $2B goal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the modeled negative-triangularity radiation and stability hold at scale, the same geometry could be used to shrink the size of higher-power devices.
  • Early coupling of costing models to plasma and engineering choices may allow other tokamak concepts to stay within similar budget envelopes.
  • Experimental tests of the NT divertor radiation fraction on existing machines would provide direct data to refine the heat-load predictions.
  • Success at the modeled parameters would demonstrate that high-field REBCO magnets plus negative triangularity can lower the capital threshold for breakeven experiments.

Load-bearing premise

The ballooning stability calculations, edge heat transport simulations, neutronics analysis for the 12 cm B4C shield, and custom economic costing model accurately represent real-device behavior for this negative-triangularity geometry without unmodeled losses or cost overruns.

What would settle it

Construction and 10-second 40 MW DT operation of the device to measure whether actual fusion power reaches 40 MW with energy gain 1.3, heat loads stay below limits, magnets avoid quench, and total overnight costs remain within the modeled $1.6B ±0.2B range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27549 by Abdullah Hyder, Alexandra Lachmann, Andreas Holm, Andrew O. Nelson, Anson Braun, Avigdor Veksler, Carlos Paz-Soldan, C. F. B. Zimmermann, Christopher J. Hansen, Daniel A. Burgess, Eliot Felske, Evan Bursch, Filippo Scotti, Frederick Sheehan, Haley Wilson, Hiro J. Farre-Kaga, Ian G. Stewart, Jacob Halpern, Jamie L. Xia, Javier Chiriboga, John Labbate, Kalen Richardson, Kian Orr, Matthew Pharr, Matthew Tobin, Melanie Russo, Mohammed Haque, Nathaniel Chen, Nils Leuthold, Orso Meneghini, Rohan Lopez, Samuel W. Freiberger, Shreyas Seethalla, Sophia Guizzo, The CENTAUR Collaboration, Tim Slendebroek.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Full CAD render of the CENTAUR design. The volume in pink is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Poloidal cross section showing the primary components and the equi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: POPCON visualization of parameter space surrounding CENTAUR’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Operating point indicated by stars at βN = 1.5, fGW = 0.61, and q95 = 2.58. Operational space data from supplementary data supplied with the work by Paz-Soldan et. al. [24]. Stars indicate where the CENTAUR operat￾ing plot falls within operating space of strongly shaped, negative triangularity plasmas on DIII-D. DIII-D Average Experimental NT Profile Normalized minor radius 0.92 (edge) 1 (separatrix) MHD s… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Integrated modeling flowchart showing the codes used over various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The normalized pressure gradient (blue curve) occupies the 1st stabil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Selected ASTRA profiles as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Vertical control coil voltage needed to stabilize plasma for a given initial perturbation scale. (b) Vertical position of the plasma over time in the case of a 14.5% perturbation. (c) Control coil voltage and current over time in the case of a 14.5% perturbation. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The UEDGE Computational mesh, configured to be from normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Imposed electron heat, ion heat, and particle cross-field diffusivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Electron heat radial falloff outside the LCFS at the midplane (left). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Inner (left column) and outer (right column) divertor plate per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Peak perpendicular heat flux (red) and full-width-half-max (FWHM) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Power radiated in the computational domain calculated by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Simplified representation of the region between the divertor plate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: (a) Solenoid flux swing as a function of solenoid inner radius and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Cross section of CENTAUR with PF coils locations where blue, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Magnet and structural build of one toroidal section. The CS resin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Von Mises stress on the toroidal field coils, central solenoid,and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Current quench stresses on the vacuum vessel from VDE and ver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: CENTAUR radial build compared to SPARC[78] at the midplane of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Representative OpenMC Monte Carlo neutron heating simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: HTS magnet neutron heating over a 10-second shot. The star rep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Total cost breakdown of CENTAUR by system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_24.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This work presents the compact experimental negative triangularity reactor (CENTAUR), a low overnight cost, high-field tokamak, breakeven reactor design, achieving a predicted total fusion power of 40MW and scientific energy gain of 1.3. Ballooning stability calculations confirm that the device's pedestal is within the first stability regime, which is consistent with the expected ELM-free operation associated with negative triangularity (NT) plasmas. The geometry of the NT divertor allows for high fraction of radiated power (13.5$\%$) between the separatrix and plasma facing components. Heat transport modeling based on simulations of the edge region show heat loads into plasma facing components well below material limits. The magnet system employs rare-earth barium copper oxide (REBCO) high-temperature superconductors in 18 toroidal field coils, an hourglass-shaped central solenoid, and six poloidal field coils to support high-field ($B_0=10.9$ T) plasma confinement, shaping, and current drive. Neutronics analysis shows that a 12 cm $B_4C$ shield keeps superconducting magnet heating below the 33~K quench limit during 10 s, 40 MW DT pulses. With this shielding, the modeled fluence indicates HTS components can survive more than ten times the 3000-pulse design lifetime. Iteration of economic analysis in tandem with the technical design process allows CENTAUR to achieve its overnight cost goal of $\$$2B determined using a custom costing model that predicts a total overnight cost of $1.6$B$\pm0.2$B.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a design study for the CENTAUR compact high-field negative-triangularity tokamak, claiming 40 MW total fusion power and scientific Q=1.3 at B0=10.9 T using REBCO magnets. It reports first-regime ballooning stability consistent with ELM-free NT operation, 13.5% radiated power fraction, edge heat loads below material limits from transport simulations, magnet survival over >10x the 3000-pulse lifetime with a 12 cm B4C shield, and an overnight cost of $1.6B±0.2B obtained via a custom economic model iterated with the technical design to meet a $2B target.

Significance. If the simulation chain and costing model prove accurate for this NT geometry, the work would demonstrate a viable low-cost pathway to breakeven using high-field HTS and NT for ELM-free operation, advancing compact reactor concepts. The integration of stability, transport, neutronics, and economic modeling is a positive feature of the study.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported overnight cost of $1.6B±0.2B is obtained by iterating the custom costing model in tandem with the technical design to achieve the $2B goal; this process makes the cost prediction dependent on the model's internal parameters and iteration choices rather than an independent forecast anchored to external device benchmarks or scaling laws for NT at B0=10.9 T.
  2. [Stability/Transport/Neutronics sections] Ballooning stability, edge transport, and neutronics sections: the central performance claims (first-regime stability, 13.5% radiation, heat loads, and shield performance for 10 s 40 MW pulses) rest on a chain of simulations whose validation details, sensitivity to free parameters (B0, shield thickness), and applicability to this specific NT geometry at high field are not shown; without these, the predictions remain untested against real-device behavior.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Title] The stylized acronym 'TriAngUlarity' in the title is unconventional; consider standardizing to 'triangularity' for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review. The comments highlight important aspects of how the cost model and simulation chain are presented. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity and transparency without altering the core technical claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported overnight cost of $1.6B±0.2B is obtained by iterating the custom costing model in tandem with the technical design to achieve the $2B goal; this process makes the cost prediction dependent on the model's internal parameters and iteration choices rather than an independent forecast anchored to external device benchmarks or scaling laws for NT at B0=10.9 T.

    Authors: We agree that the reported cost results from an iterative process in which the technical parameters were adjusted in tandem with the economic model to meet the $2B target. This is standard practice in conceptual reactor design studies. The underlying costing model draws on component-level estimates and scaling relations from the literature, but the final figure is indeed goal-constrained. We have revised the abstract and the economic analysis section to state explicitly that the $1.6B±0.2B value is the outcome of a target-driven iteration rather than an unconstrained prediction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Stability/Transport/Neutronics sections] Ballooning stability, edge transport, and neutronics sections: the central performance claims (first-regime stability, 13.5% radiation, heat loads, and shield performance for 10 s 40 MW pulses) rest on a chain of simulations whose validation details, sensitivity to free parameters (B0, shield thickness), and applicability to this specific NT geometry at high field are not shown; without these, the predictions remain untested against real-device behavior.

    Authors: The stability, transport, and neutronics results were obtained with established codes whose validation on conventional tokamaks is documented in the literature. The first-regime ballooning stability for NT is consistent with published experimental observations on devices such as TCV. Nevertheless, the manuscript does not include explicit sensitivity scans with respect to B0 or shield thickness, nor a dedicated discussion of code applicability limits for high-field NT. We have added a new subsection summarizing the validation basis for each code, reporting sensitivity to the key free parameters, and noting the extrapolation uncertainties for the CENTAUR parameter regime. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Cost 'prediction' obtained by iterating custom model to meet $2B target; physics chain uses unanchored NT-specific simulations

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Iteration of economic analysis in tandem with the technical design process allows CENTAUR to achieve its overnight cost goal of $2B determined using a custom costing model that predicts a total overnight cost of $1.6B±0.2B."

    The model and design parameters are adjusted together until the $2B target is met; the reported $1.6B figure is therefore the output of that fitting loop rather than an independent forecast from external benchmarks or first-principles costing.

full rationale

The sole load-bearing circular step is the economic costing model, which is explicitly iterated in tandem with the design to achieve the $2B goal and then presented as predicting $1.6B. This matches the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. Ballooning stability, edge transport, and neutronics results are simulation outputs rather than reductions to their own inputs by construction; no self-citation chains or ansatzes imported from prior author work are quoted in the provided text. The derivation is therefore partially circular but not fully forced by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The design depends on domain assumptions about plasma stability and transport models plus a custom economic model with adjustable parameters tuned to the target cost; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • B0 on-axis field = 10.9 T
    Set at 10.9 T to enable compact high-performance operation
  • Custom costing model parameters
    Adjusted iteratively with design choices to reach the $2B target
  • Shield thickness = 12 cm
    Chosen as 12 cm B4C to keep magnet heating below quench limit
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Ballooning stability calculations confirm first-regime operation consistent with ELM-free NT plasmas
    Invoked to support expected stable pedestal behavior
  • domain assumption Edge heat transport simulations accurately predict heat loads to PFCs
    Used to claim compliance with material limits

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5990 in / 1479 out tokens · 55743 ms · 2026-06-29T15:00:55.293741+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The Negative Triangularity Tokamak Path for Fusion Pilot Plants: Experimental Progress and Future Prospects

    physics.plasm-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    Review of experimental progress indicating negative triangularity tokamaks achieve ELM-free high confinement with advantages in divertor wetted area, detachment compatibility, and operational robustness compared to po...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    Robust Avoidance of Edge-Localized Modes alongside Gradient Formation in the Negative Triangularity Tokamak Edge

    A. O. Nelson et al. “Robust Avoidance of Edge-Localized Modes alongside Gradient Formation in the Negative Triangularity Tokamak Edge”. en. In:Physical Review Letters131.19 (Nov. 2023), p. 195101.issn: 0031- 9007, 1079-7114.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.195101.url:https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.195101(visited on 05/02/2026)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.195101.url:https: 2023

  2. [3]

    Diverted Negative Triangularity Plasmas on DIII- D: The Benefit of High Confinement without the Liability of an Edge Pedestal

    M. E. Austin et al. “Diverted Negative Triangularity Plasmas on DIII- D: The Benefit of High Confinement without the Liability of an Edge Pedestal”. In:Nuclear Fusion61.11 (2021), p. 116016.doi:10 . 1088 / 1741 - 4326 / ac1f90.url:https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1088 / 1741 - 4326 / ac1f90

    2021

  3. [4]

    Divertor heat flux challenge and mitigation in SPARC

    A. Q. Kuang et al. “Divertor heat flux challenge and mitigation in SPARC”. en. In:Journal of Plasma Physics86.5 (Oct. 2020), p. 865860505.issn: 0022-3778, 1469-7807.doi:10.1017/S0022377820001117.url:https: //www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-plasma-physics/ article / divertor - heat - flux - challenge - and - mitigation - in - sparc/A25A8CFADBBA3...

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377820001117.url:https: 2020

  4. [6]

    Exploring the fusion power plant design space: com- parative analysis of positive and negative triangularity tokamaks through optimization

    T. Slendebroek et al. “Exploring the fusion power plant design space: com- parative analysis of positive and negative triangularity tokamaks through optimization”. In:Nuclear Fusion66.2 (2026).doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ ae27e6.url:https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ae27e6

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ 2026

  5. [8]

    MANTA: a negative-triangularity NASEM- compliant fusion pilot plant

    The MANTA Collaboration et al. “MANTA: a negative-triangularity NASEM- compliant fusion pilot plant”. en. In:Plasma Physics and Controlled Fu- sion66.10 (Oct. 2024), p. 105006.issn: 0741-3335, 1361-6587.doi:10. 1088/1361-6587/ad6708.url:https://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/1361-6587/ad6708(visited on 01/14/2026). 39

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ad6708(visited 2024

  6. [9]

    ARC: A Compact, High-Field, Fusion Nuclear Sci- ence Facility and Demonstration Power Plant with Demountable Mag- nets

    B.N. Sorbom et al. “ARC: A Compact, High-Field, Fusion Nuclear Sci- ence Facility and Demonstration Power Plant with Demountable Mag- nets”. In:Fusion Engineering and Design100 (Nov. 2015), pp. 378–405. issn: 09203796.doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2015.07.008. (Visited on 02/18/2024)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2015.07.008 2015

  7. [10]

    First access to ELM-free negative triangularity at low aspect ratio

    A.O. Nelson et al. “First access to ELM-free negative triangularity at low aspect ratio”. en. In:Nuclear Fusion64.12 (Oct. 2024), p. 124004.issn: 0029-5515.doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad89db.url:https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1741-4326/ad89db(visited on 02/10/2026)

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad89db.url:https://doi.org/ 2024

  8. [11]

    Lunia, A

    P. Lunia, A. O. Nelson, and C. Paz-Soldan.Energy Confinement Time Scaling Law Derived from Paz-Soldan NF 2024. 2025. arXiv:2509.04279 [physics.plasm-ph].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.04279

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [12]

    TokaMaker: An open-source time-dependent Grad-Shafranov tool for the design and modeling of axisymmetric fusion devices

    C. Hansen et al. “TokaMaker: An open-source time-dependent Grad-Shafranov tool for the design and modeling of axisymmetric fusion devices”. In:Com- puter Physics Communications298 (May 2024), p. 109111.issn: 0010- 4655.doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109111.url:http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.cpc.2024.109111

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109111.url:http://dx.doi.org/10 2024

  10. [13]

    H-Mode Grade Confinement in L-mode Edge Plasmas at Negative Triangularity on DIII-D

    A. Marinoni et al. “H-Mode Grade Confinement in L-mode Edge Plasmas at Negative Triangularity on DIII-D”. In:Physics of Plasmas26.4 (Apr. 2019), p. 042515.issn: 1070-664X.doi:10 . 1063 / 1 . 5091802. eprint: https : / / pubs . aip . org / aip / pop / article - pdf / doi / 10 . 1063 / 1 . 5091802/19778787/042515_1_online.pdf.url:https://doi.org/10. 1063/1.5091802

    2019

  11. [14]

    Observationofanarrowpentaquarkstate𝑃 𝑐 (4312) +andoftwo-peakstructure of the𝑃 𝑐 (4450) +.Phys

    M. E. Austin et al. “Achievement of Reactor-Relevant Performance in Negative Triangularity Shape in the DIII-D Tokamak”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.122 (11 Mar. 2019), p. 115001.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122. 115001.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122. 115001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122 2019

  12. [15]

    Tom Body et al.cfs-energy/cfspopcon: v7.0.2. 2024

    2024

  13. [16]

    Contour Analysis of Fusion Reactor Plasma Performance

    W.A. Houlberg, S.E. Attenberger, and L.M. Hively. “Contour Analysis of Fusion Reactor Plasma Performance”. In:Nuclear Fusion22.7 (July 1982), p. 935.doi:10.1088/0029-5515/22/7/006.url:https://doi. org/10.1088/0029-5515/22/7/006

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/22/7/006.url:https://doi 1982

  14. [17]

    Automated System for TRansport Analysis in a tokamak

    Gregorij V Pereverzev and e PN Yushmanov.ASTRA. Automated System for TRansport Analysis in a tokamak. 2002

    2002

  15. [18]

    Gyro-Landau Fluid Equa- tions for Trapped and Passing Particles

    G. M. Staebler, J. E. Kinsey, and R. E. Waltz. “Gyro-Landau Fluid Equa- tions for Trapped and Passing Particles”. In:Physics of Plasmas12.10 (Oct. 2005), p. 102508.issn: 1070-664X.doi:10.1063/1.2044587. eprint: https : / / pubs . aip . org / aip / pop / article - pdf / doi / 10 . 1063 / 1 . 2044587/14688354/102508_1_online.pdf.url:https://doi.org/10. 1063...

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2044587 2005

  16. [19]

    TokaMaker: An Open-Source Time-Dependent Grad- Shafranov Tool for the Design and Modeling of Axisymmetric Fusion De- vices

    C. Hansen et al. “TokaMaker: An Open-Source Time-Dependent Grad- Shafranov Tool for the Design and Modeling of Axisymmetric Fusion De- vices”. In:Computer Physics Communications298 (2024), p. 109111.issn: 0010-4655.doi:10 . 1016 / j . cpc . 2024 . 109111.url:https : / / www . sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010465524000341

    2024

  17. [20]

    A Fully Implicit, Time Dependent 2-D Fluid Code for Modeling Tokamak Edge Plasmas

    T. D. Rognlien et al. “A Fully Implicit, Time Dependent 2-D Fluid Code for Modeling Tokamak Edge Plasmas”. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials. Plasma-Surface Interactions in Controlled Fusion Devices 196–198 (Dec. 1992), pp. 347–351.issn: 0022-3115.doi:10 . 1016 / S0022 - 3115(06 ) 80058- 9.url:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S002231150680...

    1992

  18. [21]

    Stable Equilibria for Bootstrap-Current-Driven Low Aspect Ratio Tokamaks

    R. L. Miller et al. “Stable Equilibria for Bootstrap-Current-Driven Low Aspect Ratio Tokamaks”. In:Physics of Plasmas4.4 (Apr. 1997), pp. 1062– 1068.issn: 1070-664X.doi:10.1063/1.872193. eprint:https://pubs. aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/4/4/1062/19079719/1062_1_online. pdf.url:https://doi.org/10.1063/1.872193

    work page doi:10.1063/1.872193 1997

  19. [22]

    Overview of Results from the 2023 DIII-D Negative Triangularity Campaign

    K E Thome et al. “Overview of Results from the 2023 DIII-D Negative Triangularity Campaign”. In:Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion66.10 (Sept. 2024), p. 105018.doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ad6f40.url:https: //doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ad6f40

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ad6f40.url:https: 2023

  20. [24]

    Simultaneous access to high normalized density, current, pressure, and confinement in strongly-shaped diverted negative triangularity plasmas

    C. Paz-Soldan et al. “Simultaneous access to high normalized density, current, pressure, and confinement in strongly-shaped diverted negative triangularity plasmas”. en. In:Nuclear Fusion64.9 (Aug. 2024), p. 094002. issn: 0029-5515.doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad69a4.url:https://doi. org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad69a4(visited on 04/03/2026)

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad69a4.url:https://doi 2024

  21. [25]

    ASTRA Automated System for TRansport Analysis in a Tokamak

    G. Pereverzev and P. N. Yushmanov. “ASTRA Automated System for TRansport Analysis in a Tokamak”. In:Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, Garching, Germany(2002).url:https://pure.mpg.de/rest/ items/item_2138238/component/file_2138237/content

    2002

  22. [26]

    Novel free-boundary equilibrium and transport solver with theory-based models and its validation against ASDEX Upgrade current ramp scenarios

    E. Fable et al. “Novel free-boundary equilibrium and transport solver with theory-based models and its validation against ASDEX Upgrade current ramp scenarios”. In:Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion55.12 (2013), p. 124028.doi:10.1088/0741-3335/55/12/124028.url:https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/55/12/124028

    work page doi:10.1088/0741-3335/55/12/124028.url:https://dx 2013

  23. [27]

    A theory-based transport model with comprehensive physicsa)

    G. M. Staebler, J. E. Kinsey, and R. E. Waltz. “A theory-based transport model with comprehensive physicsa)”. In:Physics of Plasmas14.5 (2007), p. 055909.issn: 1070-664X.doi:10 . 1063 / 1 . 2436852.url:https : //doi.org/10.1063/1.2436852. 41

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2436852 2007

  24. [28]

    Examining transport and integrated modeling predictive capabilities for negative-triangularity scenarios

    J McClenaghan et al. “Examining transport and integrated modeling predictive capabilities for negative-triangularity scenarios”. In:Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion66.11 (2024), p. 115008

    2024

  25. [31]

    First-Principle Based Predictions of the Effects of Neg- ative Triangularity on DTT Scenarios

    A. Mariani et al. “First-Principle Based Predictions of the Effects of Neg- ative Triangularity on DTT Scenarios”. In:Nuclear Fusion64.4 (Feb. 2024), p. 046018.doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad2abc.url:https://doi. org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad2abc

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad2abc.url:https://doi 2024

  26. [33]

    Guizzo et al.Assessment of vertical stability for negative triangularity pilot plants

    S. Guizzo et al.Assessment of vertical stability for negative triangularity pilot plants. en. arXiv:2401.15217 [physics]. Jan. 2024.doi:10 . 48550 / arXiv.2401.15217.url:http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.15217(visited on 03/23/2026)

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [34]

    What are we really decoding? Unveiling biases in EEG -based decoding of the spatial focus of auditory attention,

    A.O. Nelson et al. “Implications of vertical stability control on the SPARC tokamak”. en. In:Nuclear Fusion64.8 (June 2024), p. 086040.issn: 0029- 5515.doi:10.1088/1741- 4326/ad58f6.url:https://doi.org/10. 1088/1741-4326/ad58f6(visited on 04/01/2026)

    work page doi:10.1088/1741- 2024

  28. [35]

    Mas lowski and N

    Charlie Sanabria et al. “Development of a high current density, high temperature superconducting cable for pulsed magnets”. en. In:Super- conductor Science and Technology37.11 (Nov. 2024), p. 115010.issn: 0953-2048, 1361-6668.doi:10.1088/1361- 6668/ad7efc.url:https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6668/ad7efc(visited on 01/14/2026)

    work page doi:10.1088/1361- 2024

  29. [36]

    Scrape-off layer and divertor physics: Chapter 5 of the special issue: on the path to tokamak burning plasma operation

    K. Krieger et al. “Scrape-off layer and divertor physics: Chapter 5 of the special issue: on the path to tokamak burning plasma operation”. In:Nuclear Fusion65.4 (Mar. 2025), p. 043001.doi:10 . 1088 / 1741 - 4326/adaf42.url:https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/adaf42

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/adaf42 2025

  30. [37]

    Department of Energy.Report on Science Challenges and Research Opportunities in Plasma Materials Interactions

    U.S. Department of Energy.Report on Science Challenges and Research Opportunities in Plasma Materials Interactions. Technical Report. Wash- ington, DC, USA: U.S. Department of Energy, 2015. 42

    2015

  31. [38]

    P. C. Stangeby.The Plasma Boundary of Magnetic Fusion Devices. Insti- tute of Physics Publishing, 2000

    2000

  32. [39]

    Plasma Detachment in JET Mark I Divertor Exper- iments

    A. Loarte et al. “Plasma Detachment in JET Mark I Divertor Exper- iments”. In:Nuclear Fusion38.3 (Mar. 1998), p. 331.issn: 0029-5515. doi:10.1088/0029-5515/38/3/303. (Visited on 04/03/2026)

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/38/3/303 1998

  33. [40]

    Plasma detachment in divertor tokamaks

    A. W. Leonard. “Plasma detachment in divertor tokamaks”. In:Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion(2018).doi:10.1088/1361-6587/aaa7a9

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/aaa7a9 2018

  34. [41]

    Physics of ultimate detachment of a tokamak di- vertor plasma

    S. I. Krasheninnikov. “Physics of ultimate detachment of a tokamak di- vertor plasma”. In:Journal of Plasma Physics(2017)

    2017

  35. [42]

    Recent progress of plasma exhaust con- cepts and divertor designs for tokamak DEMO reactors

    N. Asakura, K. Hoshino, et al. “Recent progress of plasma exhaust con- cepts and divertor designs for tokamak DEMO reactors”. In:Nuclear Ma- terials and Energy(2023).doi:10.1016/j.nme.2023.101446

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nme.2023.101446 2023

  36. [43]

    Plasma–material interactions in current toka- maks and their implications for next step devices

    G. Federici and C. Skinner. “Plasma–material interactions in current toka- maks and their implications for next step devices”. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials(2001). Review of underlying physical processes and experimen- tal database

    2001

  37. [44]

    Chapter 5: Physics of the ITER divertor

    R. A. Pitts et al. “Chapter 5: Physics of the ITER divertor”. In:Nuclear Fusion47.6 (2007), S143–S194.doi:10 . 1088 / 0029 - 5515 / 47 / 6 / S05. url:https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/47/6/S05

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/47/6/s05 2007

  38. [45]

    Scaling of the tokamak near the scrape-off layer H-mode power width and implications for ITER

    T. Eich et al. “Scaling of the tokamak near the scrape-off layer H-mode power width and implications for ITER”. In:Nuclear Fusion53.9 (2013), p. 093031.doi:10.1088/0029-5515/53/9/093031.url:https://doi. org/10.1088/0029-5515/53/9/093031

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/53/9/093031.url:https://doi 2013

  39. [46]

    Scaling of the tokamak scrape-off layer power fall-off length in L-mode plasmas

    A. Scarabosio et al. “Scaling of the tokamak scrape-off layer power fall-off length in L-mode plasmas”. In:Nuclear Fusion53.11 (2013), p. 113002. doi:10.1088/0029-5515/53/11/113002.url:https://doi.org/10. 1088/0029-5515/53/11/113002

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/53/11/113002.url:https://doi.org/10 2013

  40. [47]

    T. D. Rognlien and M. E. Rensink.Users manual for the UEDGE edge- plasma transport code. LLNL Report, 2023.url:https://github.com/ llnl/UEDGE/releases/tag/v8.1.1-patch.0

    2023

  41. [48]

    TokaMaker: An open-source time-dependent Grad-Shafranov tool for the design and modeling of axisymmetric fusion devices

    C. Hansen et al. “TokaMaker: An open-source time-dependent Grad-Shafranov tool for the design and modeling of axisymmetric fusion devices”. en. In:Computer Physics Communications298 (May 2024), p. 109111.issn: 00104655.doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109111.url:https://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010465524000341(visited on 01/16/2026)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2024.109111.url:https://linkinghub 2024

  42. [49]

    Impurity Transport at Arbitrary Densities in the Divertor Plasma

    Yu. L. Igitkhanov. “Impurity Transport at Arbitrary Densities in the Divertor Plasma”. In:Contributions to Plasma Physics28.4-5 (1988), pp. 477–482.doi:https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1002 / ctpp . 2150280435. eprint:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ctpp. 2150280435.url:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1002/ctpp.2150280435. 43

    work page doi:10.1002/ctpp 1988

  43. [50]

    Divertor characterization and access to dissipative diver- tor conditions in negative triangularity discharges in DIII-D

    F Scotti et al. “Divertor characterization and access to dissipative diver- tor conditions in negative triangularity discharges in DIII-D”. In:Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion67.9 (2025), p. 095030.doi:10 . 1088 / 1361 - 6587 / adf881.url:https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1088 / 1361 - 6587 / adf881

    2025

  44. [51]

    Sputtering of beryllium, tungsten, tungsten oxide and mixed W–C layers by deuterium ions in the near-threshold energy range

    M.I Guseva et al. “Sputtering of beryllium, tungsten, tungsten oxide and mixed W–C layers by deuterium ions in the near-threshold energy range”. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials266-269 (1999), pp. 222–227.issn: 0022- 3115.doi:https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / S0022 - 3115(98 ) 00819 - 8. url:https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii...

    1999

  45. [52]

    Deuterium retention in single-crystal tungsten irradi- ated with 10–500 eV/D+

    J.P. Roszell et al. “Deuterium retention in single-crystal tungsten irradi- ated with 10–500 eV/D+”. In:Journal of Nuclear Materials438 (2013). Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Plasma-Surface Inter- actions in Controlled Fusion Devices, S1084–S1087.issn: 0022-3115.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2013.01.238.url:https:// www.scien...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2013.01.238.url:https:// 2013

  46. [53]

    Scalar field vacuum expectation value in- duced by gravitational wave background

    Q. Zhang et al. “Spectroscopic investigation of the tungsten deuteride sputtering in the EAST divertor”. In:Nuclear Materials and Energy33 (2022), p. 101265.issn: 2352-1791.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nme.2022.101265.url:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2352179122001466

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2022

  47. [54]

    A Review of Radiative Detachment Studies in Toka- mak Advanced Magnetic Divertor Configurations

    V A Soukhanovskii. “A Review of Radiative Detachment Studies in Toka- mak Advanced Magnetic Divertor Configurations”. In:Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion59.6 (Apr. 2017), p. 064005.issn: 0741-3335.doi: 10.1088/1361-6587/aa6959. (Visited on 04/08/2026)

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/aa6959 2017

  48. [55]

    Stangeby.The Plasma Boundary of Magnetic Fusion Devices

    Peter C. Stangeby.The Plasma Boundary of Magnetic Fusion Devices. Plasma Physics Series. Bristol [ u.a. ]: Institute of Physics Publ, 2000. isbn: 978-0-7503-0559-4

    2000

  49. [56]

    Broadening of the Power Fall-off Length in a High Den- sity, High Confinement H-mode Regime in ASDEX Upgrade

    M. Faitsch et al. “Broadening of the Power Fall-off Length in a High Den- sity, High Confinement H-mode Regime in ASDEX Upgrade”. In:Nuclear Materials and Energy26 (Mar. 2021), p. 100890.issn: 2352-1791.doi: 10.1016/j.nme.2020.100890. (Visited on 04/08/2026)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nme.2020.100890 2021

  50. [57]

    Experimental Observation of Heat Flux Mitigation during Divertor Detachment in the DIII-D Small Angle Slot Divertor

    J. Ren et al. “Experimental Observation of Heat Flux Mitigation during Divertor Detachment in the DIII-D Small Angle Slot Divertor”. In:Nu- clear Materials and Energy26 (Mar. 2021), p. 100887.issn: 2352-1791. doi:10.1016/j.nme.2020.100887. (Visited on 04/08/2026)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nme.2020.100887 2021

  51. [58]

    Divertor Heat Flux Reduction and Detachment in NSTX

    V A Soukhanovskii et al. “Divertor Heat Flux Reduction and Detachment in NSTX”. In: ()

  52. [59]

    Integration of Full Divertor Detachment with Improved Core Confinement for Tokamak Fusion Plasmas

    L. Wang et al. “Integration of Full Divertor Detachment with Improved Core Confinement for Tokamak Fusion Plasmas”. In:Nature Communica- tions12.1 (Mar. 2021), p. 1365.issn: 2041-1723.doi:10.1038/s41467- 021-21645-y. (Visited on 04/08/2026). 44

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467- 2021

  53. [60]

    Physics basis for the first ITER tungsten divertor

    R.A. Pitts et al. “Physics basis for the first ITER tungsten divertor”. en. In:Nuclear Materials and Energy20 (Aug. 2019), p. 100696.issn: 23521791.doi:10.1016/j.nme.2019.100696.url:https://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352179119300237(visited on 03/05/2026)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nme.2019.100696.url:https://linkinghub 2019

  54. [61]

    Recrystallization and grain growth induced by ELMs- like transient heat loads in deformed tungsten samples

    A. Suslova et al. “Recrystallization and grain growth induced by ELMs- like transient heat loads in deformed tungsten samples”. en. In:Scien- tific Reports4.1 (Nov. 2014), p. 6845.issn: 2045-2322.doi:10 . 1038 / srep06845.url:https://www.nature.com/articles/srep06845(vis- ited on 02/16/2026)

    2014

  55. [62]

    The SPARC Toroidal Field Model Coil Pro- gram

    Zachary S. Hartwig et al. “The SPARC Toroidal Field Model Coil Pro- gram”. In:IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity34.2 (Mar. 2024), pp. 1–16.issn: 1558-2515.doi:10 . 1109 / TASC . 2023 . 3332613. url:https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10316582/(visited on 01/14/2026)

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [63]

    Experimental Assessment and Model Validation of the SPARC Toroidal Field Model Coil

    D G Whyte et al. “Experimental Assessment and Model Validation of the SPARC Toroidal Field Model Coil”. en. In:IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON APPLIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY34.2 (2024)

    2024

  57. [64]

    Development and large volume production of extremely high current density YBa2Cu3O7 superconducting wires for fusion

    A. Molodyk et al. “Development and large volume production of extremely high current density YBa2Cu3O7 superconducting wires for fusion”. en. In:Scientific Reports11.1 (Jan. 2021), p. 2084.issn: 2045-2322.doi:10. 1038/s41598-021-81559-z.url:https://www.nature.com/articles/ s41598-021-81559-z(visited on 01/14/2026)

    2021

  58. [65]

    Critical Current Densities of 482 A/mm 2 in HTS CrossConductors at 4.2 K and 12 T

    Michael J. Wolf et al. “Critical Current Densities of 482 A/mm 2 in HTS CrossConductors at 4.2 K and 12 T”. en. In:IEEE Transactions on Ap- plied Superconductivity28.4 (June 2018), pp. 1–4.issn: 1051-8223, 1558- 2515.doi:10.1109/TASC.2018.2815767.url:https://ieeexplore. ieee.org/document/8316945/(visited on 02/12/2026)

    work page doi:10.1109/tasc.2018.2815767.url:https://ieeexplore 2018

  59. [66]

    Large Superconducting Magnet Designs for Fusion Reactors

    J. File, R. G. Mills, and G. V. Sheffield. “Large Superconducting Magnet Designs for Fusion Reactors”. In:IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 18.4 (Aug. 1971), pp. 277–282.issn: 1558-1578.doi:10.1109/TNS.1971. 4326354.url:https : / / ieeexplore . ieee . org / document / 4326354 (visited on 01/14/2026)

    work page doi:10.1109/tns.1971 1971

  60. [67]

    Plasma Design Considerations of Near Term Tokamak Fusion Experimental Reactor

    Masayoshi SUGIHARA et al. “Plasma Design Considerations of Near Term Tokamak Fusion Experimental Reactor”. In:Journal of Nuclear Sci- ence and Technology19.8 (Aug. 1982). eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.1982.9734193, pp. 628–637.issn: 0022-3131.doi:10.1080/18811248.1982.9734193. url:https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.1982.9734193(visited on 01/14/2026)

    work page doi:10.1080/18811248.1982.9734193 1982

  61. [68]

    Pri- vate communication

    Jim Leuer.Ramp-Up Flux Consumption of +- Triangularity Plasmas. Pri- vate communication. May 2020. 45

    2020

  62. [69]

    Electro- mechanical properties of REBCO coated conductors from various indus- trial manufacturers at 77 K, self-field and 4.2 K, 19 T

    Christian Barth, Giorgio Mondonico, and Carmine Senatore. “Electro- mechanical properties of REBCO coated conductors from various indus- trial manufacturers at 77 K, self-field and 4.2 K, 19 T”. In:Superconductor Science and Technology28.4 (2015), p. 045011.doi:10 . 1088 / 0953 - 2048/28/4/045011

    2015

  63. [70]

    The ITPA disruption database

    N.W. Eidietis et al. “The ITPA disruption database”. en. In:Nuclear Fusion55.6 (May 2015), p. 063030.issn: 0029-5515.doi:10.1088/0029- 5515/55/6/063030.url:https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/55/6/ 063030(visited on 01/16/2026)

    work page doi:10.1088/0029- 2015

  64. [71]

    Fatigue behavior of Austenitic Type 316L Stain- less Steel

    K A Mohammad et al. “Fatigue behavior of Austenitic Type 316L Stain- less Steel”. en. In:IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engi- neering36 (Sept. 2012), p. 012012.issn: 1757-899X.doi:10.1088/1757- 899X/36/1/012012.url:https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/1757-899X/36/1/012012(visited on 03/22/2026)

    work page doi:10.1088/1757- 2012

  65. [72]

    ThinCurr: An open-source 3D thin-wall eddy current modeling code for the analysis of large-scale systems of conducting structures

    Christopher Hansen et al. “ThinCurr: An open-source 3D thin-wall eddy current modeling code for the analysis of large-scale systems of conducting structures”. In:Computer Physics Communications315 (2025), p. 109713. issn: 0010-4655.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2025.109713. url:https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii / S0010465...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2025.109713 2025

  66. [73]

    OpenMC: A state-of-the-art Monte Carlo code for research and development

    Paul K. Romano et al. “OpenMC: A state-of-the-art Monte Carlo code for research and development”. In:Annals of Nuclear Energy82 (2015), pp. 90–97.doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2014.07.048.url:https://doi. org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.07.048

    work page doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2014.07.048.url:https://doi 2015

  67. [74]

    The effect of fast neutron irradiation on the su- perconducting properties of REBCO coated conductors with and without artificial pinning centers

    D. X. Fischer et al. “The effect of fast neutron irradiation on the su- perconducting properties of REBCO coated conductors with and without artificial pinning centers”. In:Superconductor Science and Technology31.4 (2018), p. 044006.doi:10.1088/1361-6668/aaadf2

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6668/aaadf2 2018

  68. [75]

    ARC: A compact, high-field, fusion nuclear science facility and demonstration power plant with demountable magnets

    B. N. Sorbom et al. “ARC: A compact, high-field, fusion nuclear science facility and demonstration power plant with demountable magnets”. In: Fusion Engineering and Design100 (2015), pp. 378–405.doi:10.1016/ j.fusengdes.2015.07.008

    2015

  69. [76]

    Overview of the SPARC tokamak

    A. J. Creely et al. “Overview of the SPARC tokamak”. In:Journal of Plasma Physics86.5 (2020), p. 865860502.doi:10.1017/S0022377820001257

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377820001257 2020

  70. [77]

    An OpenMC model of the SPARC tokamak for the di- agnostic scoping studies

    X. Wang et al. “An OpenMC model of the SPARC tokamak for the di- agnostic scoping studies”. In:Fusion Engineering and Design221 (2025), p. 115390.issn: 0920-3796.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes. 2025.115390.url:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0920379625005861. 46

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes 2025

  71. [78]

    Overview of the SPARC Physics Basis towards the Exploration of Burning-Plasma Regimes in High-Field, Com- pact Tokamaks

    P. Rodriguez-Fernandez et al. “Overview of the SPARC Physics Basis towards the Exploration of Burning-Plasma Regimes in High-Field, Com- pact Tokamaks”. In:Nuclear Fusion62.4 (Sept. 2022), p. 042003.issn: 0029-5515, 1741-4326.doi:10 . 1088 / 1741 - 4326 / ac1654. (Visited on 10/21/2024)

    2022

  72. [79]

    United States Congress.Energy Policy Act of 2005. H.R. 6, 109th Cong. (Aug. 8, 2005), became Public Law 109-58. U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005.url:https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/ house-bill/6

    2005

  73. [80]

    Grant and Thomas P

    Paul M. Grant and Thomas P. Sheahen.Cost Projections for High Tem- perature Superconductors. Tech. rep. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA 94304; SAIC, Gaithersburg, MD 20878. Palo Alto, CA and Gaithersburg, MD: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), 2002

    2002

  74. [81]

    Westinghouse Wins$180 Million Contract For Assembly Of ITER Vacuum Vessel

    David Dalton. “Westinghouse Wins$180 Million Contract For Assembly Of ITER Vacuum Vessel”. In:NucNet(July 2025). Accessed: 2026-02-10. url:https://www.nucnet.org/news/westinghouse- wins- usd180- million - contract - for - assembly - of - iter - vacuum - vessel - 7 - 3 - 2025

    2025

  75. [82]

    Modeling and analysis of the tritium fuel cycle for ARC- and STEP-class D-T fusion power plants

    R´ emi Delaporte-Mathurin Samuele Meschini Sara E. Ferry and Dennis G. Whyte. “Modeling and analysis of the tritium fuel cycle for ARC- and STEP-class D-T fusion power plants”. In:Nuclear Fusion(2023)

    2023

  76. [83]

    L. M. Waganer.ARIES Cost Account Documentation. Tech. rep. Univer- sity of California, San Diego, 2013

    2013

  77. [84]

    Cost Assessment of a Generic Magnetic Fusion Reac- tor

    J. Sheffield et al. “Cost Assessment of a Generic Magnetic Fusion Reac- tor”. In:Fusion Technology9.2 (1986), pp. 199–249.doi:10.13182/FST9- 2-199.url:https://doi.org/10.13182/FST9-2-199. 47

    work page doi:10.13182/fst9- 1986