1 / 22

Systems Modeling and Analyses - Progress Update and Recent Results

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.

oleg
Download Presentation

Systems Modeling and Analyses - Progress Update and Recent Results

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. 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

More Related