Systems Modeling and Analyses - Progress Update and Recent Results

Systems Modeling and Analyses - Progress Update and Recent Results

HAPL Program MeetingOak Ridge National Laboratory

March 21-22, 2006

Wayne MeierLLNL

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

UCRL-PRES-219894

HAPL Systems - WRM 3/22/06 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


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)


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 m- Consistent with present LLE NIF direct-drive target of same design (gain ~60 at 1 MJ)- Energy scaling (~E0.6) same as before

0 1 2 3 40

50

100

150

200KrFDPSSL 3wDPSSL 2wKrF (previous)3w (previous)2w (previous)

Driver energy, MJ

Targ

et g

ain


Fast ignition gain curves are even higher

0 1 2 3 40

100

200

300

400

500

600KrFDPSSL 3wDPSSL 2wFI 3w compressionFI 2w compression

Driver energy, MJ

Targ

et g

ain

Ref. Max Tabak (to appear in April 2006 issue ofFusion Science and Technology

(More on this later)


Yield and rep-rate vs laser energy for 1.0 GWe net power

0 1 2 3 40

200

400

600

800

0

5

10

15

20

Driver energy, MJ

Targ

et y

ield

, MJ

Rep

-rat

e, H

z

Yieldcurves

Rep-ratecurves

Laser efficiencies:KrF = 7.5%DPSSL 3 = 9.6%DPSSL 2 = 10.8%

Plant eff. = 48% (ODS FS)

10 Hz points (Ed, Y):KrF: (1.86 MJ, 232 MJ)3: (2.24 MJ, 229 MJ)2: (2.48 MJ, 229 MJ)

350 MJ points (Ed, RR):KrF: (2.40 MJ, 6.40 Hz)3: (2.90 MJ, 6.33 Hz)2: ( 3.21 MJ, 6.32 Hz)

____ KrF____ 3____ 2


Target factory model based on GA studies

0 5 10 15 200

20

40

60TotalO&MCapital

Production rate, Hz

Ann

ual c

osts

, $M

Constant net power = 1 GWe

0 5 10 15 200

20

40

60TotalO&MCapital

Production rate, Hz

Ann

ual c

osts

, $M

Constant yield = 350 MJ

Note: - Weak dependence on production rate (= rep-rate) - Annual O&M costs exceed annual capital charges


Total capital cost (TCC) vs laser energy

Net power = 1000 MWe3 gain curve as an exampleLaser efficiency = 9.6%Assumed laser total capital cost:TCC = $400/J(TCC = 1.94Direct Capital Cost)

0 1 2 3 40

1

2

3

4

5

Total Capital Cost Chamber, Target Fab, BOPLaser

Driver energy, MJ

Tota

l cap

ital c

ost,

$B

> 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


COE vs laser energy for different gain curves and laser efficiencies

0 1 2 3 45

6

7

8

9

10

KrFDPSSL 3wDPSSL 2w

Driver energy, MJ

CO

E, c

/kW

eh

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)


COE minimizes at >20Hz – feasible or not???(laser cooling, target injection and tracking, beam steering, chamber clearing, etc.)

Pnet = 1000 MWe

3 example results:COE min = 6.9 ¢/kWehRR at COE min = 22 HzCOE = +4% at 10 HzCOE = +16% at 5 Hz

Pno 1000.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 305

6

7

8

9

10

KrFDPSSL 3wDPSSL 2w

Rep-rate, Hz

CO

E, c

/kW

eh


Target injection may limit maximum rep-rate

0 5 10 15 20 25 305

6

7

8

9

10

0

100

200

300

400

500

Rep-rate, Hz

CO

E, c

/kW

eh

Targ

et in

ject

ion

velo

city

, m/s

Solid = COEDashed = Injection velocity(assumes target in chamber for ½ of interpulse time)

____ KrF____ 3____ 2

Pnet = 1000 MWe

Note: Chamber radius decreases with increasing rep-rate since yield decreases for fixed net power.


Economics get better for larger plants

3 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)

0 1 2 3 45

6

7

8

9

10

750 MWe1000 MWe1250 MWe

Driver energy, MJ

CO

E, c

/kW

eh

10 Hz points

1300 MWe ALWR = 4.1 ¢/kWeh1300 MWe ALMR = 4.9 ¢/kWeh(2005$, 90% CF, ref. Delene)


Besides larger plants, how else can we improve economics?• Higher gain (G) at low driver energy (e.g., fast ignition)• Higher driver efficiency () (e.g., improved diodes)• Higher electric conversion efficiency () (e.g., advanced high-

temp materials)• Lower cost ($/J) lasers (e.g., design innovations)• Lower cost BOP (minimize gross power, compact power

conversion, etc.)

εMG

11ε fPP at n

- Plant costs scale with thermal power (Pt) or gross electric power (Pg = Pt), while revenues scale with net power (Pn).

- Minimize recirculating power by increasing target gain, laser and plant efficiencies.

Net power = gross power – auxiliary power – laser power


Scoping studies for 1000 MWe plant


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


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)


Back-ups


HAPL direct capital cost (excluding laser) on $/kWe gross power basis is consistent with other fusion and liquid metal fission reactors


COE for other technologies

PC-FGD – pulverized coal with flue gas desulfurizationPFBC – pressurized fluidized-bed combustionCCG – coal gasification combined cycleCCCT – combined cycle combustion turbineALWR – advanced light water reactorALMR – advanced liquid metal reactor

Note: 2005$ = 1999$ x 1.14

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)


IFE power balance

Driver

= efficiency

Fusion Chamber

*G = Target gainM = Multiplication

factor

Power Conversion

= conversion efficiencyPg = gross power

Pa = auxiliary power

Pt = Thermal power

Pn = Net electrical power

Pd = Driver input power

E = driver energy

RR = Rep-rate

Recirculating power fraction = Pd / Pg = 1/(GM)


Some basic relationships

Pt = E·RR·G·M = thermal power, MWRR = pulse repetition rate, HzM = overall energy multiplication factor (due to neutron reactions), 1.08

Pg = Pt· = gross electrical power, MWe= thermal conversion efficiency, 0.45

Pn = Pg - Pa - Pd = net electrical power, MWePa = fa·Pg = plant auxiliary power, MWefa = auxiliary power fraction, 0.04Pd = E·RR / = driver power, MWe= driver efficiency

εMG

11ε fPP at n

Pd / Pg = 1 / GM= Driver recirculating power fraction

Example: = 10%, G =100, M = 1.08, = 45% Pd / Pg = 21%


Cost of electricity (COE)

DCFnPFOMTCCFCRCOE

0876.0

COE = Cost of electricity, ¢/kWehFCR = Fixed charge rate, 0.0966/yrTCC = 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.

Documents

Systems Modeling and Analyses - Progress Update and Recent Results