pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22960 · v1 · pith:UJAUQ4WVnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

Gyrokinetic Simulations for Spherical Tokamak Divertor Design

Akash Shukla This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 05:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords gyrokinetic simulationslow-recycling regimescrape-off layerspherical tokamakdivertor designheat fluximpurity confinementSTEP
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gyrokinetic simulations show high SOL temperature and low density achievable in STEP without lithium divertor plates

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

The paper develops the Gkeyll gyrokinetic code to model the low-recycling regime in the scrape-off layer of spherical tokamaks, where high temperature and low density maximize energy confinement while managing heat exhaust. Simulations of the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production demonstrate that this regime can be reached without lithium divertor plates, which would otherwise evaporate and counteract the high-temperature condition. The results further show that kinetic effects reduce peak heat flux on the divertor and confine sputtered impurities to the divertor region, avoiding core contamination.

Core claim

Our simulation results indicate that a high SOL temperature and low SOL density could be achieved without using a lithium divertor plate. Our simulation results also indicate that kinetic effects can lower the peak heat flux on the divertor plate and confine sputtered impurities to the divertor region.

What carries the argument

The Gkeyll gyrokinetic code applied to low-recycling regime modeling in spherical tokamak scrape-off layers

If this is right

  • A high SOL temperature and low SOL density can be achieved without lithium divertor plates.
  • Kinetic effects lower the peak heat flux on the divertor plate.
  • Sputtered impurities are confined to the divertor region.
  • Reactor survivability improves and core contamination is prevented.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • These modeling choices could extend to divertor design for other spherical tokamak concepts beyond STEP.
  • Validation of the low-recycling regime predictions against future experiments would test whether kinetic effects dominate over fluid approximations.
  • The avoidance of lithium plates might simplify material requirements for next-step fusion devices.
  • The approach highlights the need for full kinetic treatment in regions where recycling is minimized.

Load-bearing premise

The Gkeyll code has been developed into an appropriate tool for studying the low-recycling regime.

What would settle it

Direct experimental measurements of scrape-off layer temperature, density, and heat flux in a spherical tokamak that contradict the simulated values for the low-recycling regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22960 by Akash Shukla.

Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1. Figure 1.1: Schematic of tokamak. where nD is the deuterium ion density, nT is the tritium ion density, σ is the cross section for the D-T fusion reaction in Eq. 1.1, v is the relative velocity of the ions, and ⟨ ⟩ indicates an average over the distribution functions of the ions. ⟨σv⟩DT (T) increases rapidly with temperature in the range 1-30 keV and reaches ≈ 10−22 m3/s at T ≈ 10 keV (Fitzpatrick, n.d.b). The densi… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: a shows one example of this trend (Lomanowski et al., 2022), and there are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2. Figure 1.2: (a) H factor vs. electron temperature at the divertor plate. Data from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_1_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.3. Figure 1.3: Poloidal cross section of a single-null tokamak. The thick white arrows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_1_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1: Schematic for field line tracing in a double null (a) and single null (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_2_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.2. Figure 2.2: The geometric quantities such as the Jacobian, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p061_2_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.2. Figure 2.2: In (a) we show the interior, surface, and corner points on the unit cell. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p062_2_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.3. Figure 2.3: Block layout and grid for the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p067_2_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.4. Figure 2.4: Grid for ASDEX-Upgrade in a single null configuration with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p068_2_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.5. Figure 2.5: Analytical bump solutions away from the X-point (a) and on the X-point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p072_2_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.6
Figure 2.6. Figure 2.6: Projections of the analytical bump solutions away from the X-point (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p074_2_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.7
Figure 2.7. Figure 2.7: Projection of the initial condition (a) and the analytical final solution (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p076_2_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.8
Figure 2.8. Figure 2.8: Simulation results from a 2D, axisymmetric simulation of the Spherical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p078_2_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.9
Figure 2.9. Figure 2.9: Particle balance (a) and relative error in the number of particles (b) for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p079_2_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1: Simulation domain used for the coupled Gkeyll-EIRENE simulation. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p084_3_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: shows radial profiles of the ion temperature and electron density at the OMP. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p085_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.2. Figure 3.2: Simulation results from the coupled Gkeyll-EIRENE simulation of STEP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p087_3_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.3. Figure 3.3: Simulation results from the coupled Gkeyll-EIRENE simulation of STEP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p088_3_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4: Electron temperature, atomic ion temperature, molecular ion tempera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p090_3_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: This is a prospective equilibrium for STEP similar to the ones described [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p099_4_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: STEP (a) and slab (b) simulation domains. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p100_4_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: b is straightforward. In SOLPS the slab geometry is created using the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p101_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2: Particle source density plotted along the field line at the radial center of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p102_4_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3: Neutral argon profile along the field line. The profile is uniform in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p105_4_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.4. Figure 4.4: Electron density plotted (a) radially (vs. R) and (b) along the field line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p108_4_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.5. Figure 4.5: Ion mean free path normalized to LT from the Gkeyll simulation with slab geometry plotted along the field line at the radial center. 108 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p108_4_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.6. Figure 4.6: Electron density plotted along the field line at the radial center of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p111_4_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.7. Figure 4.7: Electron and ion temperature plotted along the field line at the radial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p111_4_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.8. Figure 4.8: Ion distribution function 2mm away from the radial center at the mid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p112_4_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.9
Figure 4.9. Figure 4.9: Ion distribution function downstream near the divertor plate 2mm away [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p114_4_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.10
Figure 4.10. Figure 4.10: Average ion parallel velocity, p u∥, normalized to the sound speed, cs = (Te + Ti)/mi , plotted along the field line for SOLPS and Gkeyll simulations in STEP geometry. The X-points are located at θ = ± 2.07 (marked by the vertical gray dotted lines) and the divertor plates are located at θ = ±π. The ion velocity in Gkeyll exceeds that of SOLPS at the divertor plates due to acceleration by the mirror for… view at source ↗
Figure 4.11
Figure 4.11. Figure 4.11: Electrostatic potential, ϕ, plotted along the field line at the radial center for SOLPS and Gkeyll simulations in STEP geometry. The potential drop from the midplane (θ = 0) to the divertor plate (θ = ±π) is 26% larger in Gkeyll. The increased ion parallel velocity in Gkeyll results in this enhanced potential drop. 116 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p116_4_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: clearly shows that the ions are trapped upstream. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p117_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.12
Figure 4.12. Figure 4.12: Heat Flux at upper outboard plate from SOLPS and Gkeyll simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p117_4_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.13
Figure 4.13. Figure 4.13: Neutral and charged argon density (summed over charge states 1 through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p120_4_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.14
Figure 4.14. Figure 4.14: Deuterium and argon charge state temperatures plotted along the field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p122_4_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.15
Figure 4.15. Figure 4.15: Poloidally averaged ratio of argon charge state temperature to deuterium [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p123_4_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.16
Figure 4.16. Figure 4.16: Argon density plotted along the field line at the radial center in SOLPS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p124_4_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a. In total, 40MW of power are put into the electrons, so 25MW of radiation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p125_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.17
Figure 4.17. Figure 4.17: Argon densities (a) and deuterium and argon temperatures (b) from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p127_4_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.18
Figure 4.18. Figure 4.18: Electron and deuterium temperatures (a), electrostatic potential (b), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p127_4_18.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Nuclear fusion is an attractive source of energy because the fuel is abundant and it produces low levels of carbon emissions. The tokamak, which confines a plasma using magnetic fields, is the most mature nuclear fusion reactor concept. Maximizing energy confinement by minimizing turbulent heat loss while also minimizing damage to the reactor is essential for producing efficient, commercially viable fusion reactors. Heat exhaust methods used in the scrape-off layer (SOL) of the tokamak greatly influence performance. Conventional heat exhaust methods focus on minimizing reactor damage rather than maximizing confinement. The low-recycling regime, a newer approach, focuses on maximizing energy confinement. Studying the low-recycling regime, which features a high temperature and low density SOL, requires new modeling tools. We have developed the gyrokinetic code Gkeyll into an appropriate tool, and we use it to demonstrate the viability of the low-recycling regime with simulations of the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (STEP). Our work addresses several key issues with low recycling. Our simulation results indicate that a high SOL temperature and low SOL density could be achieved without using a lithium divertor plate. This is an important step because lithium divertor plates evaporate when exposed to large heat fluxes, which lowers the SOL temperature, counteracting the desired regime. Our simulation results also indicate that kinetic effects can lower the peak heat flux on the divertor plate, which would improve reactor survivability, and confine sputtered impurities to the divertor region, which would prevent core contamination and performance degradation.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the gyrokinetic code Gkeyll has been developed into a suitable tool for the low-recycling regime and that simulations of the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (STEP) demonstrate a viable low-recycling regime with high SOL temperature and low SOL density achievable without lithium divertor plates; additionally, kinetic effects are reported to lower peak divertor heat flux and confine sputtered impurities to the divertor region.

Significance. If the simulations are shown to be properly validated and free of numerical artifacts, the results would be significant for fusion divertor design, as they address heat exhaust challenges in spherical tokamaks by exploring a low-recycling regime that prioritizes energy confinement over conventional mitigation strategies, potentially reducing reliance on evaporative lithium plates.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'we have developed the gyrokinetic code Gkeyll into an appropriate tool' for the low-recycling regime is load-bearing for all reported results, yet no description is provided of the specific algorithmic modifications, divertor boundary-condition implementations, or handling of low-recycling conditions (high T, low n).
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: No validation details, benchmark comparisons (e.g., against fluid SOL codes or sheath theory), convergence studies, error bars, or sensitivity analyses are mentioned, making it impossible to determine whether the reported outcomes (high SOL T/low n without Li, kinetic heat-flux reduction, impurity confinement) are physical or could arise from unanchored numerical choices.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight areas where the abstract can be strengthened to better support the manuscript's claims. We address each point below and will revise the abstract accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'we have developed the gyrokinetic code Gkeyll into an appropriate tool' for the low-recycling regime is load-bearing for all reported results, yet no description is provided of the specific algorithmic modifications, divertor boundary-condition implementations, or handling of low-recycling conditions (high T, low n).

    Authors: We agree that the abstract makes a strong claim without sufficient detail on the code adaptations. The manuscript body (Sections 2-3) describes the algorithmic modifications to Gkeyll, including divertor boundary conditions and handling of high-T/low-n conditions. We will revise the abstract to briefly summarize these developments, reducing the load-bearing nature of the claim in the abstract alone. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: No validation details, benchmark comparisons (e.g., against fluid SOL codes or sheath theory), convergence studies, error bars, or sensitivity analyses are mentioned, making it impossible to determine whether the reported outcomes (high SOL T/low n without Li, kinetic heat-flux reduction, impurity confinement) are physical or could arise from unanchored numerical choices.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes the absence of such details in the abstract. The full manuscript includes benchmark comparisons to fluid SOL codes and sheath theory, convergence studies, error bars on figures, and sensitivity analyses (Section 4). We will revise the abstract to reference these validations and tests, confirming the physical nature of the reported outcomes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: simulation claims rest on external code development without self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The provided abstract asserts development of Gkeyll for low-recycling regime and reports simulation outcomes for STEP, but contains no equations, fitted parameters, or derivation chain. No self-citation, self-definition, or renaming of results is present. The central claim (viability of low-recycling regime via simulations) does not reduce to its own inputs by construction; validation details are absent but that is an evidence gap, not circularity. Per rules, absent explicit quotes exhibiting reduction (e.g., Eq. X = input by fit), score remains 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no information on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5794 in / 933 out tokens · 23026 ms · 2026-05-25T05:23:02.658062+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    URLhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/71486

    doi: 10.1063/1.871232. URLhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/71486. T. N. Bernard, F. D. Halpern, M. Francisquez, N. R. Mandell, J. Juno, G. W. Hammett, A. Hakim, G. J. Wilkie, and J. Guterl. Kinetic modeling of neutral transport for a continuum gyrokinetic code.Physics of Plasmas, 29(5):052501, 05 2022. ISSN 1070-664X. doi: 10.1063/5.0087131. URLhttps://doi.org...

    work page doi:10.1063/1.871232 2022

  2. [2]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nme.2024.101824

    ISSN 2352-1791. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nme.2024.101824. 142 J Candy. A unified method for operator evaluation in local Grad–Shafranov plasma equilibria.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 51(10):105009, 9

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nme.2024.101824 2024

  3. [3]

    URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10

    doi: 10.1088/0741-3335/51/10/105009. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0741-3335/51/10/105009. J Candy and E Belli. Gyro technical guide.General Atomics, PO Box, 85608: 92186–5608, 2010. Antoine J. Cerfon and Jeffrey P. Freidberg. One size fits all analytic solutions to the grad-shafranov equation.Physics of Plasmas, 17(3):032502, 03 2010. ISSN 1070-664X. do...

    work page doi:10.1088/0741-3335/51/10/105009 2010

  4. [4]

    doi: 10.1038/nphys3719. A. J. Creely, M. J. Greenwald, S. B. Ballinger, D. Brunner, J. Canik, J. Doody, T. F¨ ul¨ op, D. T. Garnier, R. Granetz, T. K. Gray, and et al. Overview of the sparc tokamak.Journal of Plasma Physics, 86(5):865860502, 2020. doi: 10.1017/S0022377820001257. Casey Crownhart. Inside a fusion energy facility.MIT Technology Review, 10 20...

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys3719 2020

  5. [5]

    Novel Liquid Metal Plasma Facing Component Alloys

    ISBN 978-0-7503-3307-8. doi: 10.1088/978-0-7503-3307-8. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1088/978-0-7503-3307-8. 144 ITER Physics Basis Editors, ITER Physics Expert Group Chairs, Co-Chairs, ITER Joint Central Team, and Physics Integration Unit. Chapter 1: Overview and summary.Nuclear Fusion, 39(12):2137, 12 1999. doi: 10.1088/0029-5515/ 39/12/301. URLhttps://dx.doi...

    work page doi:10.1088/978-0-7503-3307-8 1999

  6. [6]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10754. M. Giacomin, P. Ricci, A. Coroado, G. Fourestey, D. Galassi, E. Lanti, D. Mancini, N. Richart, L.N. Stenger, and N. Varini. The gbs code for the self-consistent 146 simulation of plasma turbulence and kinetic neutral dynamics in the tokamak boundary.Journal of Computational Physics, 463:111294, 2022. ISSN 0021-

    work page arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111294. R.J. Goldston. Heuristic drift-based model of the power scrape-off width in low- gas-puff h-mode tokamaks.Nuclear Fusion, 52(1):013009, 12 2011. doi: 10. 1088/0029-5515/52/1/013009. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/ 52/1/013009. D T Goodin, N B Alexander, G E Besenbruch, A S Bozek, L C Brown, G W Flint, ...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111294 2022

  8. [8]

    doi: 10.1063/1.874014

    ISSN 1070-664X. doi: 10.1063/1.874014. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1063/1.874014. James Juno, Ammar Hakim, Jason TenBarge, Eric Shi, and William Dorland. Discontinuous galerkin algorithms for fully kinetic plasmas.Journal of Com- putational Physics, 353:110–147, 2018. R. Kaita, R. Majeski, R. Doerner, T. Gray, H. Kugel, T. Lynch, R. Maingi, D. Mansfield, V. So...

    work page doi:10.1063/1.874014 2018

  9. [9]

    URLhttps:// 149 www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022311507002504

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2007.01.229. URLhttps:// 149 www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022311507002504. Plasma- Surface Interactions-17. J. Karhunen, S.S. Henderson, A. J¨ arvinen, D. Moulton, S. Newton, and R.T. Osawa. First solps-iter predictions of the impact of cross-field drifts on divertor and scrape-off layer conditions in ...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2007.01.229 2007

  10. [10]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10

    doi: 10.1088/0029-5515/52/8/083001. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1088/0029-5515/52/8/083001. N. R. Mandell, A. Hakim, G. W. Hammett, and M. Francisquez. Electro- magnetic full-fgyrokinetics in the tokamak edge with discontinuous Galerkin methods.Journal of Plasma Physics, 86(1):905860109, 2020. doi: 10.1017/ S0022377820000070. Noah Mandell.Magnetic Fluctuations...

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/52/8/083001 2020

  11. [11]

    URLhttps://www

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2015.01.006. URLhttps://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002199911500008X. Samuele Meschini, Francesco Laviano, Federico Ledda, Davide Pettinari, Raf- fella Testoni, Daniele Torsello, and Bruno Panella. Review of commercial nuclear fusion projects.Frontiers in Energy Research, 11:1157394, 2023. doi: 10.3389/fe...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2015.01.006 2015

  12. [12]

    URLhttps:// 153 www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022311511001620

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2011.01.114. URLhttps:// 153 www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022311511001620. Pro- ceedings of the 19th International Conference on Plasma-Surface Interactions in Controlled Fusion. R.A. Pitts, X. Bonnin, F. Escourbiac, H. Frerichs, J.P. Gunn, T. Hirai, A.S. Kukushkin, E. Kaveeva, M.A. Miller, D. Moulton,...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2011.01.114 2011

  13. [13]

    URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1361-6587/aaa373

    doi: 10.1088/1361-6587/aaa373. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1361-6587/aaa373. Andreas Stegmeir, Marion E. Finkbeiner, Christoph Pitzal, Joachim Geiger, and Frank Jenko. Grillix as unified fluid turbulence code for tokamaks and stellarators.Computer Physics Communications, 318:109874, 2026. ISSN 0010-4655. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2025.109874. ...

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/aaa373 2026

  14. [14]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10

    doi: 10.1088/0029-5515/57/1/016029. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1088/0029-5515/57/1/016029. T Tanabe, N Bekris, P Coad, C.H Skinner, M Glugla, and N Miya. Tritium retention of plasma facing components in tokamaks.Journal of Nuclear Mate- rials, 313-316:478–490, 2003. ISSN 0022-3115. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0022-3115(02)01377-6. URLhttps://www.sciencedir...

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/57/1/016029 2003

  15. [15]

    Accessed: 2024-12-08. M. R. Wade and J. A. Leuer. Cost drivers for a tokamak-based compact pilot plant.Fusion Science and Technology, 77(2):119–143, 2021. doi: 10.1080/ 15361055.2020.1858670. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1080/15361055.2020. 1858670. 159 Chris Waldon, Stuart I. Muldrew, Jonathan Keep, Roel Verhoeven, Terry Thompson, and Mark Kisbey-Ascott. Concep...

    work page doi:10.1080/15361055.2020 2024

  16. [16]

    URLhttps: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920379622000102

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2022.113010. URLhttps: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920379622000102. L.E. Zakharov, W. Blanchard, R. Kaita, H. Kugel, R. Majeski, and J. Timber- lake. Low recycling regime in iter and the liwall concept for its divertor.Jour- nal of Nuclear Materials, 363-365:453–457, 2007. ISSN 0022-3115. doi: htt...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2022.113010 2022