1. How does laser cost scaling affect the power plant optimization? HAPL Program Meeting PPPL Dec 12-13, 2006 Wayne Meier LLNL 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-226670

2. HAPL Systems - WRM 12/12/06 2 Background Detailed systems models for lasers have not been updated as part of the HAPL study Past HAPL systems modeling presentations have used a simple linear $/J cost scaling with zero intercept Here we consider other scaling assumptions to see how COE results change Still need to develop improved laser systems models –Needed for both KrF and DPSSLs –Include driver efficiency and O&M cost scaling –Include dependence on driver energy, rep-rate, number of beams, illumination geometry, etc.

3. HAPL Systems - WRM 12/12/06 3 Past example: Cost of KrF laser in Sombrero study scaled like C = a + b·E Direct capital cost 1991 $M CL = 175 + 120  E(MJ) (shown here) Direct capital cost 2005 $M CL = 233 + 160  E(MJ) (escalate by 33%) Total capital cost 2005 $M CL = 450 + 310  E(MJ) (Total = 1.936  Direct) At E = 4 MJ, CL = $1690M Avg. $/J = $422/J Ref. Sombrero report. Fig. 8.20, p. 8-38 Laser

4. HAPL Systems - WRM 12/12/06 4 Consider different laser cost scalings, all with same total cost at 4 MJ Assume we know the cost at 4 MJ, but not how it scales to lower energy. Consider three cases: 1. Linear with $0 intercept 2. Linear with $450M intercept 3. Square root with $450M intercept In this example, we take total capital cost at 4 MJ = $1.69B Real scaling is likely closer to Case 2 than Case 3 due to highly parallel architecture. Intercept and slope likely different for KrF and DPSSL More work is needed, but these cases probably bound reality (at least shape of curves). If not linear, scaling likely closer to E 0.8-0.9, so E 0.5 is worst case.

5. HAPL Systems - WRM 12/12/06 5 Example total capital cost vs driver energy Example case assumptions: Pnet = 1000 MWe 3  direct-drive gain curve Laser efficiency= 9.6% Laser total capital cost ($M) CL = 450 + 310·E(MJ)

6. HAPL Systems - WRM 12/12/06 6 COE results for KrF gain curve and KrF laser efficiency KrF case: Pnet = 1000 MWe 0.25  m direct-drive gain curve Laser efficiency= 7.5% CL = a + b·E c 10 Hz @ 1.9 MJ At 10 Hz (E = 1.91 MJ), COE results: 1. 6.51 ¢/kWeh 2. 6.82 ¢/kWeh (+4.8%) 3. 7.16 ¢/kWeh (+10%) If no rep-rate limit, optimal laser energy: 1. 1.43 MJ (17 Hz) 2. 1.56 MJ (14 Hz) 3. 1.67 MJ (13 Hz)

7. HAPL Systems - WRM 12/12/06 7 COE results for 3  gain curve and 3  DPSSL efficiency 3  DPSSL case: Pnet = 1000 MWe 3  direct-drive gain curve Laser efficiency= 9.6% CL = a + b·E c 10 Hz @ 2.3 MJAt 10 Hz (E = 2.29 MJ), COE results: 1. 6.69 ¢/kWeh 2. 6.94 ¢/kWeh (+3.7%) 3. 7.23 ¢/kWeh (+8.1%) If no rep-rate limit, optimal laser energy: 1. 1.61 MJ (19 Hz) 2. 1.77 MJ (16 Hz) 3. 1.93 MJ (14 Hz)

8. HAPL Systems - WRM 12/12/06 8 COE results for 2  gain curve and 2  DPSSL efficiency  DPSSL case: Pnet = 1000 MWe 2  direct-drive gain curve Laser efficiency= 10.8% CL = a + b·E c 10 Hz @ 2.5 MJ At 10 Hz (E = 2.53 MJ), COE results: 1. 6.81 ¢/kWeh 2. 7.02 ¢/kWeh (+3.1%) 3. 7.29 ¢/kWeh (+7.0%) If no rep-rate limit, optimal laser energy: 1. 1.71 MJ (20 Hz) 2. 1.89 MJ (17 Hz) 3. 2.09 MJ (14 Hz)

9. HAPL Systems - WRM 12/12/06 9 Summary of results The linear cost scaling with zero cost intercept is optimistic and certainly wrong If the cost scaling is linear but with non-zero intercept, –Optimum COE point shifts to slightly higher laser energy (+ 0.1-0.2 MJ with assumptions used here) –COE at fixed 10 Hz increases by 3-5% for these assumptions If the cost scales as square root of laser energy and has a non-zero intercept, –Optimum COE point shifts to slightly higher laser energy (additional 0.1-0.2 MJ) –COE at fixed 10 Hz increases by another 4-5% (up to 10% total)