1 / 25

Comments on ARIES-ACT 1/2011 Strawman

Comments on ARIES-ACT 1/2011 Strawman. L. El-Guebaly Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin-Madison http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/UWNeutronicsCenterOfExcellence Contributors: L. Carlson (UCSD), L. Waganer (Boeing), X. Wang (UCSD) ARIES Project Meeting UCSD San Diego, CA

jody
Download Presentation

Comments on ARIES-ACT 1/2011 Strawman

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comments on ARIES-ACT 1/2011 Strawman L. El-Guebaly Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin-Madison http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/UWNeutronicsCenterOfExcellence Contributors: L. Carlson (UCSD), L. Waganer (Boeing), X. Wang (UCSD) ARIES Project Meeting UCSD San Diego, CA January 26 - 27, 2011

  2. ARIES-ACT 1/2011 Strawman Key features: • Newly updated costing algorithms from L. Waganer. • Cost evaluated in 2009 dollars (1992 $ x 1.4323, per L. Waganer). • No LSA credit (  costing accounts for LSA = 4). • Aggressive technology: • SiC/LiPb blanket • ~ 58% th • He-cooled divertor • LT S/C TF magnet with LN shield. • Two physics cases examined by ASC: • ARIES-ACT with Aggressive Physics • ARIES-ACT with Conservative Physics a la ARIES-AT NEW – not in ARIES-AT same magnet technology in both cases

  3. ARIES Designs Larger magnet due to field difference ARIES-ACT Aggressive Physics R = 5.5 m a = 1.4 m Ave. NWL < 2.2 MW/m2 ?! Elongation = 2.2 Kink shell between OB blkt segments. Vertical stabilizing shell @ 0.33 a. ARIES-ACT Conservative Physics R = 6.5 m a = 1.6 m Ave. NWL < 1.8 MW/m2 ?! Elongation = 2.0 No Kink shell. Vertical stab. shell @ 0.4 a. ARIES-AT R = 5.2 m a = 1.3 m Ave. NWL = 3.3 MW/m2 Elongation ~ 2.2 ( Kink shell between OB blanket segments)

  4. Examining ARIES-ACT Aggressive Physics Strawman issued Jan 2011 by L. Carlson

  5. Volumes of Individual Components New Strawman (1/2011) Old Pre-strawman (10/2010) • Note that: • Shield volume does not include penetration shield (10% to be added) • VV volume does not include port enclosures • 36 PF coil volume includes 8 spares. Enough spares? • Check cryostat dimension and composition.

  6. Cost of Individual Components(Sub-accounts 22.1, 22.2, 22.4 of Power Core Equipment) New Strawman (1/2011) Old Pre-strawman (10/2010) To do: • Check cost of29 PF coils • Include cost of PFcoil spares • Check cryostat cost.

  7. How many PF Coils and Spares? Volume based on 36 coils (14 x 2 + 8 spares) Cost based on 29 coils (14 x 2 + 1 spare)

  8. LiPb Mass and Cost(90% enriched LiPb) Total LiPb mass = mass of LiPb in FPC x 2.5 missing 2.5 factor LiPb unit cost ~23 $/kg (2009 $) (a la ARIES-AT)

  9. L. Waganer Suggests Lower Unit Cost for LiPb • 90% enriched LiPb could cost $8.3/kg based on: • Current cost of 99.9% pure Pb ($2/kg) • Predicted cost for 90% enriched Li ($1000/kg) • LiPb cost = Pb cost x Pd-wt% + Li cost x Li-wt% • Need to confirm cost of enriched Li. • Besides cost of individual elements, what other factors determine cost of LiPb eutectic?

  10. Recirculating Power New Strawman (1/2011): Precirc = Pgross - Pnet   = 1265 - 983 =  282MW Pgross= eta_brayton * Pth = 0.5765 * 2194.8 = 1265 MW Breakdown: Old StrawmanNew Strawman (11/2010) (1/2011) P_recirc = P_plasma_heating / eta_plasma_heating 26.3 26.3 + P_cd_generic / eta_cd_generic 104.6 104.6 + P_aux_func 5063 + P_cryo 2 2 + P_pump_blanket / eta_pump 4.8 ~ 5 + P_pump_divertor / eta_pump 72.4 ~ 81 260 MW 282 MW To be updated

  11. Recirculating Power (Cont.) Old Pre-strawman (10/2010) New Strawman (1/2011) will be updated

  12. Costing Accounts 20 Land and Land Rights 21 Structures and Site Facilities 22 Power Core Equipment 23 Turbine - Generator Equipment 24 Electric Plant Equipment 25 Heat Rejection Equipment 26 Miscellaneous Plant Equipment 27 Special Materials (LiPb cost ) 90 Direct Cost 91 - 98 Indirect Cost 99 Total Cost Cost of Electricity (COE) in mills/kWh.

  13. Costing Accounts (Cont.) New Strawman (1/2011) Old Pre-strawman (10/2010) • Significant differences ($60-770M): • Account 21 - Structures and Site Facilities • Account 22 - Power Core Equipment • Account 23 - Turbine - Generator Equipment • Account 27 - Special Materials (LiPb cost). • Lower indirect/direct cost ratio for ACT ?! • Notable reduction in total cost of ACT – larger machine than AT! • Check: • Account 21 • Sub-account 22.5 • Sub-account 22.6

  14. Account 21(Structures and Site Facilities) Sub-accounts 21.2 and 21.7 zeroed out. Why?

  15. Sub-account 22.5(Primary Structure and Support) (Formerly Account 22.1.5 in old ASC) • Sub-account 22.5 zeroed out in new ASC. • In old ASC, it represented: • – Steel support structure underneath torus • – ~15% of FPC volume.

  16. ? ? Sub-account 22.6(Main Heat Transfer and Transport) (Formerly Account 22.2 in old ASC) Expected this account to increase in ACT compared to ARIES-AT to reflect higher cost for dual coolants(He for divertor and LiPb for blanket/shield)

  17. Direct Cost

  18. Indirect Cost(New Algorithms from L. Waganer) ARIES-ACT Indirect/Direct Cost ratio= 0.81 ARIES-AT Indirect/Direct Cost ratio= 1.06

  19. Cost of Electricity (2009 $) To be updated

  20. Looking for consistency… • Additional items to be checked and/or fixed: • Radial build • Average NWL @ plasma surface • FW and divertor surface areas • Scrape off layer thickness.

  21. Radial Build(SiC/LiPb System) ARIES-AT ARIES-ACT Comments/QuestionsAggressive Physics Average NWL (MW/m2) 3.3 2.2 ? at plasma surface Thickness (cm) Inboard: FW/Blanket 35 33.656Reason for thinner IB blkt? HT Shield 24 23.35 (changing blanket thickness will impact TBR) VV 40 40 Outboard: FW/Blanket-I 30 28.855 Reason for thinner OB FW/blkt-I? Blanket-II 45 43.77 Reason for thinner OB blkt-II? HT Shield 15 14.35 (changing blanket thickness will impact TBR) VV 25 25 Top / Bottom: Divertor 3.35 ? Not listed in output file Replaceable HT Shield 15 ? HT Shield 30 ? VV 40 ?

  22. Average NWL @ Plasma Surface = Fusion power x 0.8 / plasma surface area = 1907.4 x 0.8 / 475 (from CAD) = 3.2 MW/m2 2.2 MW/m2 from ASC !? • plasma surface area = 694 m2 !? Fix it. Higher NWL impacts: Peak NWL Shield thickness Peak heating Heat removal rate etc.

  23. FW and Divertor Surface Areas • Incorrect IB and OB FW areas calculated by ASC. • Divertor area seems reasonable.

  24. Scrape Off Layer Thickness@ Midplane 5, 7, or 8.5 cm ? in CAD drawings in ASC recommended by Chuck

  25. Concluding Remarks • COE will be updated to reflect: • Necessary changes • Higher unit costs for: • Nuclear grade materials • Safety-related components. • Higher decommissioning cost (that varies with radwaste volume and level of waste). • ASC output should display dimensions, compositions, and unit costs for all materials and components. • Just received latest costing algorithms from L. Waganer. Will check costing accounts evaluated by new ASC.

More Related