Systems Modeling and Analyses - Progress Update and Recent Results

1
Systems Modeling and Analyses - Progress Update
and Recent Results
UCRL-PRES-219894
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

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)

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 _at_ 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

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)
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)
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 OM costs exceed
annual capital charges
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)
gt 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
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 gt20 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)

10
COE minimizes at gt20Hz 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
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.
12
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)
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.
14
Scoping studies for 1000 MWe plant
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

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.)
• OM 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
  Erlandsons shared diode scheme)

17
Back-ups
18
HAPL direct capital cost (excluding laser) on
/kWe gross power basis is consistent with other
fusion and liquid metal fission reactors
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
FusionRevision 1, ORNL-TM1999/243/R1 (Feb.
2000)
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
21
Some basic relationships
Pt ERRGM thermal power, MW RR pulse
repetition rate, Hz M overall energy
multiplication factor (due to neutron reactions),
1.08 Pg Pte gross electrical power, MWe e
thermal conversion efficiency, 0.45 Pn Pg -
Pa - Pd net electrical power, MWe Pa faPg
plant auxiliary power, MWe fa auxiliary power
fraction, 0.04 Pd ERR / 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
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.