Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Update on Systems Modeling and Analyses

Published byStuart Garrett Modified over 6 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Update on Systems Modeling and Analyses"— Presentation transcript:

1 Update on Systems Modeling and Analyses
UCRL-PRES Update on Systems Modeling and Analyses Wayne Meier LLNL HAPL Program Meeting LLNL June 20-21, 2005 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 Driver cost and efficiency trades in support of DPSSL studies
Outline Driver cost and efficiency trades in support of DPSSL studies COE scaling with net power and sensitivity to assumptions for KrF Info from other studies on common subsystems HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

3 Target gain curves are a key part of the analyses
Direct-drive gain curves for different laser wavelengths Constant yield curves Ref. John Perkins HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

4 Laser power consumption likely to be ~ 20% of gross power
Laser (DPSSL) efficiencies: 9.5% at 2w 8.4% at 3w Power conversion eff. = 45% System energy mult. = 1.08 HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

5 Total capital cost (TCC) vs laser energy on target based on Sombrero study scaling
Net power = 1000 MWe Assumes laser total capital cost = $500/J (Orth study had $1871M/3.68MJ = $504/J) TCC = 1.94  Direct Capital Cost HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

6 Normalized COE and rep-rate vs laser energy
TCC_laser = $500/J Net power = 1000 MWe Normalized to 3 MJ result using 2w gain curve COE curve shows broad minimum: 2.0 – 3.9 MJ within ~5% (25 – 5.2 Hz) HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

7 COE dependence on laser total capital cost
Net power = 1000 MWe Laser eff. = 9.5% 2w gain curve HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

8 COE dependence on laser efficiency
Net power = 1000 MWe Laser TCC = $500/J HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

9 Reducing laser cost and improving efficiency are both important
A: 2x decrease in laser efficiency is equivalent to 82% increase in laser cost B: 2x increase in laser efficiency is equivalent to 27% decrease in laser cost Normalized to result at E = 3 MJ, 2w gain curve Pnet = 1000 MWe TCC_laser = $500/J Laser eff. = 9.5% Sensitivity to cost is linear Sensitivity to efficiency decreases with increasing efficiency; small beyond ~10% HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

10 COE scaling with net power and sensitivity to assumptions for KrF
Outline Driver cost and efficiency trades in support of DPSSL studies COE scaling with net power and sensitivity to assumptions for KrF Info from other studies on common subsystems HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

11 How does COE vary with net power and other assumptions?
These analyses also used old Sombrero chamber and BOP models Evaluated for different KrF gain curves KrF laser efficiency was fixed at 7.5% and independent of rep-rate (need this dependence for future models) Evaluated various scenarios for scaling with net power: held rep-rate fixed (5 Hz) held target yield fixed (350 MJ) varied both RR and Y to get minimum COE at a given net power HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

12 Estimates of target gain for KrF vary widely
HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

13 Schmitt-derated gain curve
For all cases (fixed RR, fixed Y and optimum), COE decreases rapidly with increasing net power Schmitt-derated gain curve Normalized to current base case for chamber studies: E = 2.5 MJ, G = 140 (Schmitt-derated gain) Y = 350 MJ RR = 5 Hz Pnet = 650 MWe (assumes 45% thermal conversion efficiency) Results at Pnet = 650 MWe E, Y, RR, Norm COE - 1 2.2 MJ, 268 MJ, 6.78 Hz, -2.1% 2.5 MJ, 350 MJ, 5.00 Hz, 0% HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

14 Schmitt-high gain curve
COE vs Net Power Schmitt-high gain curve Normalized to current base case for chamber studies: E = 2.5 MJ, G = 140 (Schmitt-derated gain) Y = 350 MJ RR = 5 Hz Pnet = 650 MWe (assumes 45% thermal conversion efficiency) Results at Pnet = 650 MWe E, Y, RR, Norm COE - 1 1.94 MJ, 263 MJ, 6.69 Hz, -6.4% 2.17 MJ, 341 MJ, 5.00 Hz, -4.8% 2.19 MJ, 350 MJ, 4.85 Hz, -4.5% HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

15 COE vs Net Power Perkins KrF gain curve
Normalized to current base case for chamber studies: E = 2.5 MJ, G = 140 (Schmitt-derated gain) Y = 350 MJ RR = 5 Hz Pnet = 650 MWe (assumes 45% thermal conversion efficiency) Results at Pnet = 650 MWe E, Y, RR, Norm COE - 1 2.33 MJ, 262 MJ, 7.12 Hz, +0.6% 2.70 MJ, 356 MJ, 5.00 Hz, +2.9% 2.68 MJ, 350 MJ, 5.10 Hz, +2.7% HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

16 Rep-rates for fixed yield and optimal COE vs net power
Schmitt-derated gain curve 5 Hz is below optimal over entire range This conclusion may change when driver cost and efficiency dependence on rep-rate are accounted for. Both will tend to favor lower rep-rates. HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

17 Optimum yield vs. net power
Schmitt-derated gain curve 350 MJ, our base case, is higher than optimal for Pnet <1150 MWe This conclusion may change when driver cost and efficiency dependence on rep-rate are accounted for. Both will tend to favor lower rep-rates and higher yields. HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

18 Summary of fixed rep-rate results for different gain curves
RR = 5 Hz = fixed For fixed 650 MWe, COE varies from to 1.029 For fixed COE (1.00), net power varies from 590 to 690 MWe HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

19 Summary of fixed yield results for different gain curves
Y = 350 = fixed For fixed 650 MWe, COE varies from to 1.027 For fixed COE (1.00), net power varies from 600 to 680 MWe HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

20 Info from other studies on common subsystems
Outline Driver cost and efficiency trades in support of DPSSL studies COE scaling with net power and sensitivity to assumptions for KrF Info from other studies on common subsystems HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

21 Cost info is being gathered from other studies in order to improve laser IFE plant models
Refs: Meier and C. W. von Rosenberg, Jr., "Economic Modeling and Parametric Studies for SOMBRERO - A Laser-Driven IFE Power Plant," Fusion Technol., 121, 1552 (1992). F. Najmabadi et al., Overview of the ARIES-RS reversed-shear tokamak power plant study,” Nucl Eng. & Design, 38, 3 (1997) J. Delene, “An Assessment of the Economics of Future Electric Power Generation Options and the Implications for Fusion,” ORNL-TM (1999) HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

22 Updated and improved models are needed for HAPL systems modeling
Drivers – working on updates for different options 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 Chamber – typically estimated based on $/kg of structures, breeding blanket, etc. Cost scaling as a function of radius (depends on yield, rep-rate) and design choices (breeder, coolant, structure) O&M (periodic first wall replacement) Target Factory - based on proposed high production rate methods and required equipment and building sizes. Need to incorporate results from GA study for capital and O&M BOP - everything else (buildings, heat transfer and power conversion) Based on fission plant cost estimates Need Models for combined liquid metal (e.g., Li) primary with Brayton (gas) cycle power conversion system HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

23 Back-ups HAPL COE - WRM 6/20/05

24 * IFE power balance Power Conversion e = conversion efficiency
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 COE - WRM 6/20/05

25 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 COE - WRM 6/20/05

26 Cost of electricity (COE)
COE = Cost of electricity, ¢/kWeh FCR = Fixed charge rate, /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) = (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 COE - WRM 6/20/05

Download ppt "Update on Systems Modeling and Analyses"

Similar presentations

Tom Mulford John Sheffield Fusion Power Associates Annual Meeting Washington, D.C. December 15, 2011. Fusion Energy Assessment – Status Report.

Tom Mulford John Sheffield Fusion Power Associates Annual Meeting Washington, D.C. December 15, Fusion Energy Assessment – Status Report.
Conceptual design of a demonstration reactor for electric power generation Y. Asaoka 1), R. Hiwatari 1), K. Okano 1), Y. Ogawa 2), H. Ise 3), Y. Nomoto.

Conceptual design of a demonstration reactor for electric power generation Y. Asaoka 1), R. Hiwatari 1), K. Okano 1), Y. Ogawa 2), H. Ise 3), Y. Nomoto.
September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 1 Armor Configuration & Thermal Analysis 1.Parametric analysis in support of system studies 2.Preliminary.

September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 1 Armor Configuration & Thermal Analysis 1.Parametric analysis in support of system studies 2.Preliminary.
Systems Analysis for Modular versus Multi-beam HIF Drivers * Wayne Meier – LLNL Grant Logan – LBNL 15th International Symposium on Heavy Ion Inertial Fusion.

Systems Analysis for Modular versus Multi-beam HIF Drivers * Wayne Meier – LLNL Grant Logan – LBNL 15th International Symposium on Heavy Ion Inertial Fusion.
CARE07, 29 Oct. 2007 Alexej Grudiev, New CLIC parameters. The new CLIC parameters 29.10.2007 Alexej Grudiev.

CARE07, 29 Oct Alexej Grudiev, New CLIC parameters. The new CLIC parameters Alexej Grudiev.
Liquid Wall Thickness, Life, Pumping Power, COE trade-offs Wayne R. Meier and Ryan P. Abbott LLNL ARIES Meeting Oct. 2-5, 2002 PPPL.

Liquid Wall Thickness, Life, Pumping Power, COE trade-offs Wayne R. Meier and Ryan P. Abbott LLNL ARIES Meeting Oct. 2-5, 2002 PPPL.
Wayne R. Meier Lawrence Livermore National Lab Heavy Ion Fusion Modeling Update - Spot Size Model Changes* ARIES Meeting April 22-23, 2002 * This work.

Wayne R. Meier Lawrence Livermore National Lab Heavy Ion Fusion Modeling Update - Spot Size Model Changes* ARIES Meeting April 22-23, 2002 * This work.
Dealing With Uncertainty

Dealing With Uncertainty
Wayne R. Meier Lawrence Livermore National Lab Heavy Ion Fusion Modeling Update* ARIES e-Meeting October 17, 2001 * This work was performed under the auspices.

Wayne R. Meier Lawrence Livermore National Lab Heavy Ion Fusion Modeling Update* ARIES e-Meeting October 17, 2001 * This work was performed under the auspices.
ARIES-IFE SYSTEMS ISSUES Ronald Miller ARIES-IFE Project Meeting General Atomics July 1-2, 2002.

ARIES-IFE SYSTEMS ISSUES Ronald Miller ARIES-IFE Project Meeting General Atomics July 1-2, 2002.
June 14-15, 2007/ARR 1 Trade-Off Studies and Engineering Input to System Code Presented by A. René Raffray University of California, San Diego With contribution.

June 14-15, 2007/ARR 1 Trade-Off Studies and Engineering Input to System Code Presented by A. René Raffray University of California, San Diego With contribution.
ARIES Meeting April 22-23, 2002 U. Wisconsin, Madison Work performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by University of California Lawrence.

ARIES Meeting April 22-23, 2002 U. Wisconsin, Madison Work performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by University of California Lawrence.
Impact of Liquid Wall on Fusion Systems Farrokh Najmabadi University of California, San Diego NRC Fusion Science Assessment Committee November 17, 1999.

Impact of Liquid Wall on Fusion Systems Farrokh Najmabadi University of California, San Diego NRC Fusion Science Assessment Committee November 17, 1999.
November 8-9, 2005 1 Blanket Design for Large Chamber A. René Raffray UCSD With contributions from M. Sawan (UW), I. Sviatoslavsky (UW) and X. Wang (UCSD)

November 8-9, Blanket Design for Large Chamber A. René Raffray UCSD With contributions from M. Sawan (UW), I. Sviatoslavsky (UW) and X. Wang (UCSD)
Findings and Recommendations from Wetted-Wall IFE Designs Jeff Latkowski Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory March 9, 2001 Work performed under the.

Findings and Recommendations from Wetted-Wall IFE Designs Jeff Latkowski Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory March 9, 2001 Work performed under the.
October 24, 2001 1 1. Remaining Action Items on Dry Chamber Wall 2. “Overlap” Design Regions 3. Scoping Analysis of Sacrificial Wall A. R. Raffray, J.

October 24, Remaining Action Items on Dry Chamber Wall 2. “Overlap” Design Regions 3. Scoping Analysis of Sacrificial Wall A. R. Raffray, J.
Large Fusion Power Plant Study L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 2000 1 Results of Large Fusion Power Plant Study L. M. Waganer The Boeing Company and John Sheffield,

Large Fusion Power Plant Study L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar Results of Large Fusion Power Plant Study L. M. Waganer The Boeing Company and John Sheffield,
Aug. 8-9, 2006 HAPL meeting, GA 1 Advanced Chamber Concept with Magnetic Intervention: - Ion Dump Issues - Status of Blanket Study A. René Raffray UCSD.

Aug. 8-9, 2006 HAPL meeting, GA 1 Advanced Chamber Concept with Magnetic Intervention: - Ion Dump Issues - Status of Blanket Study A. René Raffray UCSD.
Highlights of ARIES-IFE Study Farrokh Najmabadi VLT Conference Call April 18, 2001 Electronic copy: ARIES Web Site:

Highlights of ARIES-IFE Study Farrokh Najmabadi VLT Conference Call April 18, 2001 Electronic copy: ARIES Web Site:
Highlights of ARIES-AT Study Farrokh Najmabadi For the ARIES Team VLT Conference call July 12, 2000 ARIES Web Site:

Highlights of ARIES-AT Study Farrokh Najmabadi For the ARIES Team VLT Conference call July 12, 2000 ARIES Web Site:

Similar presentations

Ads by Google