Upload
spencer
View
27
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Fusion Power Plants: Visions and Development Pathway. Farrokh Najmabadi UC San Diego 15 th ICENES May 15 – 19, 2011 San Francisco, CA You can download a copy of the paper and the presentation from the ARIES Web Site: ARIES Web Site: http://aries.ucsd.edu/ARIES/. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Fusion Power Plants: Visions and Development Pathway
Farrokh NajmabadiUC San Diego
15th ICENESMay 15 – 19, 2011San Francisco, CA
You can download a copy of the paper and the presentation from the ARIES Web Site:
ARIES Web Site: http://aries.ucsd.edu/ARIES/
The ARIES Team Has Examined Many Fusion Concepts As Power Plants
Focus of the talk is on Tokamak studies: ARIES-I first-stability tokamak (1990) ARIES-III D-3He-fueled tokamak (1991) ARIES-II and -IV second-stability tokamaks (1992) Pulsar pulsed-plasma tokamak (1993) Starlite study (1995) (goals & technical requirements for power
plants & Demo) ARIES-RS reversed-shear tokamak (1996) ARIES-AT advanced technology and advanced tokamak (2000)
Criteria for power plant attractiveness were developed in consultation with Electric Utilities and Industry
Nature of Power Plant Studies has evolved in time.
Concept Exploration (< 1990) Limited physics/engineering trade-offs due to lack of physic
understanding. The only credible vision was a large, expensive pulsed
tokamak with many engineering challenges (e.g., thermal energy storage).
Concept Definition ( ~ 1990-2005) Finding credible embodiments (Credible in a “global” sense). Better physics understanding allowed optimization of steady-
state plasma operation and physics/engineering trade-offs.
Concept Feasibility and Optimization (> 2010) Detailed analysis of subsystems to resolve feasibility issues. Trade-offs among extrapolation and attractiveness.
For the same physics and technology basis, steady-state devices outperform pulsed tokamaks
ARIES-I’Pulsar*
Medium (~ 8 m major radius)High (~ 9 m major radius)Size and Cost
Non-inductive driveExpensive & inefficient
PF SystemVery expensive but efficientCurrent-drive system
HighLowRecirculating Power
High Bootstrap, High A, Low IHigh Bootstrap, High A, Low IOptimum Plasma Regime
Yes, 65-%-75% bootstrap fraction, bN~ 3.3, b ~ 1.9%
No, 30%-40% bootstrap fractionbN~ 3, b ~ 2.1%Current profile Control
Higher (B ~ 16 T on coil) Lower because of interaction with PF (B ~ 14 T on coil)Toroidal-Field Strength
MediumLowPower Density
* Many engineering challenges such as thermal energy storage,lower performance of fusion core due to thermal cycling, etc.
Improving Economic Competitiveness
Reducing life-cycle cost: 80s goals:
Low recirculating power; High power density;
Later Additions High thermal conversion
efficiency; Less-expensive systems.
Mass power density= net electric output / mass of fusion core
QE = net electric output / recirculating electric power
Directions for Improvement
Increase Power Density (1/Vp)What we pay for,VFPC
rD
r > D r ~ D r < D Improvement “saturates” at ~5 MW/m2 peak wall loading
(for a 1GWe plant). A steady-state, first stability device with Nb3Sn
technology has a power density about 1/3 of this goal.
Big Win Little
Gain
Decrease Recirculating Power Fraction Improvement “saturates” at plasma Q ~ 40. A steady-state, first stability device with Nb3Sn Tech.
has a recirculating fraction about 1/3 of this goal.
High-Field Magnets ARIES-I with 19 T at
the coil (cryogenic). Advanced SSTR-2
with 21 T at the coil (HTS).
High bootstrap, High b 2nd Stability: ARIES-II/IV Reverse-shear: ARIES-
RS, ARIES-AT, A-SSRT2
ARIES-AT
5.2
9.2% (5.4)
11.5
3.3
36
0.14
0.59
5
COE insensitive of current drive
COE insensitive of power density
Evolution of ARIES Tokamak Designs1st Stability, Nb3Sn Tech.
ARIES-I’
Major radius (m) 8.0
b (bN) 2% (2.9)
Peak field (T) 16
Avg. Wall Load (MW/m2) 1.5
Current-driver power (MW) 237
Recirculating Power Fraction 0.29
Thermal efficiency 0.46
Cost of Electricity (c/kWh) 10
Reverse Shear Option
High-FieldOption
ARIES-I
6.75
2% (3.0)
19
2.5
202
0.28
0.49
8.2
ARIES-RS
5.5
5% (4.8)
16
4
81
0.17
0.46
7.5
A range of attractive tokamak power plants is available.
Estimated Cost of Electricity (1992 c/kWh)
02468
101214
Mid 80'sPhysics
Early 90'sPhysics
Late 90's Physics
AdvancedTechnology
Major radius (m)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mid 80's Pulsar
Early 90'sARIES-I
Late 90'sARIES-RS
2000 ARIES-AT
Approaching COE insensitive of power density High Thermal EfficiencyHigh b is used to lower magnetic field
Fusion Technologies Have a Dramatic Impact of Attractiveness of Fusion
ARIES-I Introduced SiC Composites as A High-Performance Structural Material for Fusion
SiC composites are attractive structural material for fusion Excellent safety & environmental
characteristics (very low activation and very low afterheat).
High performance due to high strength at high temperatures (>1000oC).
Large world-wide program in SiC: New SiC composite fibers with proper
stoichiometry and small O content. New manufacturing techniques based on
polymer infiltration or CVI result in much improved performance and cheaper components.
Recent results show composite thermal conductivity (under irradiation) close to 15 W/mK which was used for ARIES-I.
Continuity of ARIES research has led to the progressive refinement of research
High efficiency with Brayton cycle at high temperature
Impr
oved
Bla
nket
Tec
hnol
ogy
ARIES-I: • SiC composite with solid breeders• Advanced Rankine cycle
ARIES-RS:• Li-cooled vanadium• Insulating coating
ARIES-ST: • Dual-cooled ferritic steel with SiC inserts• Advanced Brayton Cycle at 650 oC
ARIES-AT: • LiPb-cooled SiC composite • Advanced Brayton cycle with h = 59%
Many issues with solid breeders; Rankine cycle efficiency saturated at high temperature
Max. coolant temperature limited by maximum structure temperature
Outboard blanket & first wall
ARIES-AT features a high-performance blanket
Simple, low pressure design with SiC structure and LiPb coolant and breeder.
Innovative design leads to high LiPb outlet temperature (~1,100oC) while keeping SiC structure temperature below 1,000oC leading to a high thermal efficiency of ~ 60%.
Simple manufacturing technique.
Very low afterheat. Class C waste by a wide
margin.
Design leads to a LiPb Outlet Temperature of 1,100oC While Keeping SiC Temperature Below 1,000oC
• Two-pass PbLi flow, first pass to cool SiCf/SiC box second pass to superheat PbLi
q''plasmaPb-17Li
q'''LiPb
Out
q''back
vback
vFW
Poloidal
Radial
Inner Channel
First Wall Channel
SiC/SiCFirst Wall SiC/SiC Inner Wall
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200800
900
1000
1100
1200
12345
6
00.020.040.060.080.1
00.020.040.060.080.1Radial distance (m)
Poloidaldistance(m)
SiC/SiCPb-17Li
Bottom
Top
PbLi Outlet Temp. = 1100 °C
Max. SiC/PbLi Interf. Temp. = 994 °C
Max. SiC/SiC Temp. = 996°C
PbLi Inlet Temp. = 764 °C
Modular sector maintenance enables high availability
Full sectors removed horizontally on rails Transport through maintenance corridors to hot
cells Estimated maintenance time < 4 weeks
ARIES-AT elevation view
10-710-6
10-510-4
10-310-2
10-1100
101
104 105 106 107 108 109 1010 1011
ARIES-STARIES-RS
Act
ivit
y (C
i/Wth
)
Time Following Shutdown (s)
1 mo 1 y 100 y1 d
After 100 years, only 10,000 Curies of radioactivity remain in the585 tonne ARIES-RS fusion core.
SiC composites lead to a very low activation and afterheat.
All components of ARIES-AT qualify for Class-C disposal under NRC and Fetter Limits. 90% of components qualify for Class-A waste.
Ferritic SteelVanadium
Radioactivity levels in fusion power plantsare very low and decay rapidly after shutdown
Level in Coal Ash
Fusion Core Is Segmented to Minimize the Rad-Waste
Only “blanket-1” and divertors are replaced every 5 years
Blanket 1 (replaceable)Blanket 2 (lifetime)
Shield (lifetime)
Waste volume is not large
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Blanket Shield VacuumVessel
Magnets Structure Cryostat
Cum
ulat
ive
Com
pact
ed W
aste
Vol
ume
(m3)
1270 m3 of Waste is generated after 40 full-power year (FPY) of operation.Coolant is reused in other power plants 29 m3 every 4 years (component replacement), 993 m3 at end of service
Equivalent to ~ 30 m3 of waste per FPYEffective annual waste can be reduced by increasing plant service life.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Class A Class C
Cum
ulative Com
pacted
Was
te Volum
e (m
3)
90% of waste qualifies for Class A disposal
Some thoughts on Fusion Development
Nature of Power Plant Studies has evolved in time.
Concept Exploration (< 1990) Limited physics/engineering trade-offs due to lack of physic
understanding. The only credible vision was a large, expensive pulsed
tokamak with many engineering challenges (e.g., thermal energy storage).
Concept Definition ( ~ 1990-2005) Finding credible embodiments (Credible in a “global” sense). Better physics understanding allowed optimization of steady-
state plasma operation and physics/engineering trade-offs.
Concept Feasibility and Optimization (> 2010) Detailed analysis of subsystems to resolve feasibility issues. Trade-offs among extrapolation and attractiveness.
ITER has changed the magnetic fusion landscape
ITER has heightened understanding of many subsystem issues: New sets of physics information/correlations has been
developed to define design requirements for many subsystems (e.g., in-vessel components, transients).
Realities of designing practical systems to be built. Increased interest in fusion nuclear engineering
and material Realization that new material and technologies have to be
developed now.
New Paradigms for Power Plant Studies in the ITER area
Detailed design of subsystems in context of a power plant environment and constraints Can only be done one system at a time. Parametric surveys to understand physics/engineering trade-offs. Sophisticated computational tools are now widely available. Interaction with material and R&D community to indentify material
properties and R&D needs. Current ARIES project is focusing on detailed design of in-
vessel components. System Tools to analyze trade-offs among R&D risks and
benefits. A new System approach based on the survey of parameter
space as opposed to optimizing to a design point.
Thank you!