systems modeling and analyses progress update and recent results n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Systems Modeling and Analyses - Progress Update and Recent Results PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Systems Modeling and Analyses - Progress Update and Recent Results

play fullscreen
1 / 22
Download Presentation

Systems Modeling and Analyses - Progress Update and Recent Results - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

oleg
105 Views
Download Presentation

Systems Modeling and Analyses - Progress Update and Recent Results

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. UCRL-PRES-219894 Systems Modeling and Analyses - Progress Update and Recent Results Wayne Meier LLNL HAPL Program Meeting Oak Ridge National Laboratory March 21-22, 2006 Work performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48

  2. Outline/Topics • Recent model improvements • Analyses of reference case plant design (dry-wall chamber with Li breeder/coolant) • Preliminary look at potential advantages of design improvements including fast ignition targets HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  3. Many new models have been added • Targets • New direct-drive target gain curves (Perkins UR-LLE talk, 11/05) • New fast ignition target gain curves (Tabak Fusion Sci and Tech paper) • New target factory capital and operating cost models (GA published studies) • Chamber and BOP • Chamber scaling/costing based on W-armor coated, ferritic steel first wall (with or without gas) (Radius scaling from Meier IFSA paper 9/05, radial build/neutronics from UW UCLA talks, 6/04) • Reactor building cost now scales with final optic radius and beam cone angle (to allow for future studies of two-sided illumination) • Plant electric conversion efficiency based on Brayton cycle with options for LAF and ODS FS operating temps (past HAPL talks by Raffray, Meier) • Economics: Unit costs based on ARIES data (Les Waganer and ARIES reports). All results inflated to 2005$. Economic methods consistent with NECDB (Delene) • Lasers • Driver efficiencies from published reports (Orth for DPSSL, Sombrero for KrF) • Still need detailed models (cost/performance vs. design and operating characteristics) HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  4. Recent direct-drive target gain curves give significantly higher gain at low energy • Ref. John Perkins • Solid curves from 11/05 UR-LLE Mtg. • Dashed curves from 9/03 UW Mtg • New curves: • Based on new HAPL baseline target designs @ 1/3 and 1/4 mm • Consistent with present LLE NIF direct-drive target of same design (gain ~60 at 1 MJ) • Energy scaling (~E0.6) same as before HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  5. Fast ignition gain curves are even higher Ref. Max Tabak (to appear in April 2006 issue of Fusion Science and Technology (More on this later) HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  6. Yield and rep-rate vs laser energy for 1.0 GWe net power Laser efficiencies: KrF = 7.5% DPSSL 3w = 9.6% DPSSL 2w = 10.8% Plant eff. = 48% (ODS FS) Yield curves ____ KrF ____ 3w ____ 2w Rep-rate curves 10 Hz points (Ed, Y): KrF: (1.86 MJ, 232 MJ) 3w: (2.24 MJ, 229 MJ) 2w: (2.48 MJ, 229 MJ) 350 MJ points (Ed, RR): KrF: (2.40 MJ, 6.40 Hz) 3w: (2.90 MJ, 6.33 Hz) 2w: ( 3.21 MJ, 6.32 Hz) HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  7. Target factory model based on GA studies Constant net power = 1 GWe Constant yield = 350 MJ Note: - Weak dependence on production rate (= rep-rate) - Annual O&M costs exceed annual capital charges HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  8. Total capital cost (TCC) vs laser energy Net power = 1000 MWe 3w gain curve as an example Laser efficiency = 9.6% Assumed laser total capital cost: TCC = $400/J (TCC = 1.94Direct Capital Cost) > 10 Hz Note: - DPSSL TCC cost with diodes at 5¢/Wpeak + other costs from Orth paper escalated from 1994$ to 2005$ = $430/J - KrF TCC from Sombrero report escalated from 1991$ to 2005$ = $440/J HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  9. COE vs laser energy for different gain curves and laser efficiencies Pnet = 1000 MWe • COE minimizes at 1.3-1.6 MJ • COE differences are small, 6.8-6.9 ¢/kWeh (higher gain offset by lower laser eff.) • - Rep-rates are >20 Hz at min COE points (see next slide) • Some COE comparisons (see back-up slides): • ARIES-AT = 7.3 ¢/kWeh • (LSA-2, 85% CF, 2005$, ref. Miller) • ARIES-RS = 8.9 ¢/kWeh • (2005$, 85% CF, ref. Miller) • ALWR = 6.0 ¢/kWeh • (1000 MWe, 90% CF, 2005$, ref. Delene) • ALMR = 6.3 ¢/kWeh • (1000 MWe, 90% CF, 2005$, ref. Delene) HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  10. COE minimizes at >20Hz – feasible or not???(laser cooling, target injection and tracking, beam steering, chamber clearing, etc.) Pnet = 1000 MWe 3w example results: COE min = 6.9 ¢/kWeh RR at COE min = 22 Hz COE = +4% at 10 Hz COE = +16% at 5 Hz HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  11. Target injection may limit maximum rep-rate Pnet = 1000 MWe Solid = COE Dashed = Injection velocity (assumes target in chamber for ½ of interpulse time) ____ KrF ____ 3w ____ 2w Note: Chamber radius decreases with increasing rep-rate since yield decreases for fixed net power. HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  12. 10 Hz points Economics get better for larger plants 3w example: 10 Hz COE results: 750 MWe = 8.23 ¢/kWeh (at 1.91 MJ) 1000 MWe = 7.15 ¢/kWeh (at 2.24 MJ) 1250 MWe = 6.45 ¢/kWeh (at 2.54 MJ) 1300 MWe ALWR = 4.1 ¢/kWeh 1300 MWe ALMR = 4.9 ¢/kWeh (2005$, 90% CF, ref. Delene) HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  13. Besides larger plants, how else can we improve economics? • Higher gain (G) at low driver energy (e.g., fast ignition) • Higher driver efficiency (h) (e.g., improved diodes) • Higher electric conversion efficiency (e) (e.g., advanced high-temp materials) • Lower cost ($/J) lasers (e.g., design innovations) • Lower cost BOP (minimize gross power, compact power conversion, etc.) Net power = gross power – auxiliary power – laser power - Plant costs scale with thermal power (Pt) or gross electric power (Pg = ePt), while revenues scale with net power (Pn). - Minimize recirculating power by increasing target gain, laser and plant efficiencies. HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  14. Scoping studies for 1000 MWe plant HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  15. Summary • Significant progress has been made on the systems modeling with model updates for several key subsystems • Latest direct-drive target gain curves lead to optimized COE at lower driver energies and much higher rep-rates than previously • More important to understand rep-rate constraints and rep-rate impact on costs and performance • For stated assumptions, there is little difference in bottom line COE for the different direct-drive gain curve and corresponding laser efficiencies • Opportunities exist to make laser IFE more cost competitive with other options HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  16. Next steps • Work on laser cost models • Capital cost models including scaling as function of energy, rep-rate and key design parameters (number of beams, J/cm2, etc.) • Driver efficiency as function of design choices (gain media, aperture size) and operating parameters (energy, rep-rate, etc.) • O&M costs (e.g. optics replacement) and dependencies • Include costing model for Brayton power systems • Continue to look at advanced options • Fast ignition issues and opportunities • Innovative laser architectures (e.g., Al Erlandson’s shared diode scheme) HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  17. Back-ups HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  18. HAPL direct capital cost (excluding laser) on $/kWe gross power basis is consistent with other fusion and liquid metal fission reactors HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  19. COE for other technologies Note: 2005$ = 1999$ x 1.14 PC-FGD – pulverized coal with flue gas desulfurization PFBC – pressurized fluidized-bed combustion CCG – coal gasification combined cycle CCCT – combined cycle combustion turbine ALWR – advanced light water reactor ALMR – advanced liquid metal reactor Ref. G. Delene, J. Sheffield, et al. “An Assessment of the Economics of Future Electric Power Generation Options and the Implications for Fusion—Revision 1, ” ORNL-TM1999/243/R1 (Feb. 2000) HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  20. IFE power balance Fusion Chamber E = driver energy Driver h = efficiency * RR = Rep-rate G = Target gain M = Multiplication factor Pt = Thermal power Power Conversion e = conversion efficiency Pg = gross power Pa = auxiliary power Pd = Driver input power Recirculating power fraction = Pd / Pg = 1/(hGMe) Pn = Net electrical power HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  21. Some basic relationships Pt = E·RR·G·M = thermal power, MW RR = pulse repetition rate, Hz M = overall energy multiplication factor (due to neutron reactions), 1.08 Pg = Pt·e = gross electrical power, MWe e = thermal conversion efficiency, 0.45 Pn = Pg - Pa - Pd = net electrical power, MWe Pa = fa·Pg = plant auxiliary power, MWe fa = auxiliary power fraction, 0.04 Pd = E·RR / h = driver power, MWe h = driver efficiency Pd / Pg = 1 / hGMe = Driver recirculating power fraction Example: h = 10%, G =100, M = 1.08, e = 45% Pd / Pg = 21% HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06

  22. Cost of electricity (COE) COE = Cost of electricity, ¢/kWeh FCR = Fixed charge rate, 0.0966/yr TCC = Total capital cost, $ OM = annual operations & maintenance costs, $ (function of plant power) F = annual fuel cost, ~ $106 D = decommissioning charge, 0.05 ¢/kWeh) 0.0876 = (8760 h/yr)  (0.001 kW/MW)  (0.01 $/¢) Pn = Net electric power, 1000 MWe CF = annual capacity factor, 0.75 Fusion plant COE is a useful figure of merit for self-consistent design trades and optimization. It is far less useful as a predictor of future reality due to large uncertainties in technologies and costing. HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06