140 likes | 247 Vues
Welcome to the sixth HAPL meeting, where we explore the remarkable advancements in Laser Fusion Energy. Our modular approach promotes lower costs and mitigates risks through a phased development strategy. We’re focused on scalable technologies, including Krypton fluoride lasers and efficient target design. Discover our engineering breakthroughs leading to a full-scale test facility, aimed at delivering commercially viable fusion energy by addressing key challenges with simplicity and collaborative team efforts. Join us in transforming energy systems with cutting-edge laser fusion science!
E N D
HAPL Program Principals We like Laser Fusion Energy because it leads to an attractive power plant We have made significant advances in Laser Fusion Science & Technology This thing just might work! Truly modular architecture lowers both development cost and risk. Allows phased approach: Science and technology Full-scale component development Full scale Engineering Test Facility that can evolve into a demo We are developing Laser Fusion Energy as an integrated system Foster team work & cross institutional collaborations Good ideas can come from anywhere (and are encouraged!) We are addressing (as much as we can) the biggest challenges first We value simplicity
Scalable Technologies • Krypton fluoride laser • Diode pumped solid state laser • Target fabrication & injection • Final optics • Chambers materials/design Phase I: Basic fusion science & technology 1999- 2005 The Path to develop Laser Fusion Energy • Target design & Physics • 2D/3D simulations • 1-30 kJ laser-target expts Phase II Validate science & technology 2006 - 2014 • Full Scale Components • Power plant laser beamline • Target fab/injection facility • Power Plant design • Ignition Physics Validation • MJ target implosions • Calibrated 3D simulations Full size laser: 2.4 MJ, 60 laser lines Optimize targets for high yield Develop materials and components. 300-700 MW net electricity Resolve basic issues by 2028 Phase III Engineering Test Facility operating 2020
We are rapidly achieving the goals needed to start Phase II (page 1 of 3) • LASERS • Develop technologies that can meet fusion energy requirements for efficiency (> 6%), repetition rate (5-10 Hz), and durability (>100,000,000 shots continuous). • Demonstrate required laser beam quality and pulse shaping. • Laser technologies employed must scale to reactor size laser modules and project to have attractive costs for commercial fusion energy. • FINAL OPTICS • Meet laser induced damage threshold (LIDT) requirements • of more than 5 Joules/cm2, in large area optics. • Develop a credible final optics design that is resistant to degradation from neutrons, x-rays, gamma rays, debris, contamination, and energetic ions.
We are rapidly achieving the goals needed to start Phase II (page 2 of 3) • CHAMBERS • Develop a viable first wall concept for a fusion power plant. • Produce a viable “point design” for a fusion power plant. • TARGET FABRICATION • Develop mass production methods to fabricate cryogenic DT targets that meet the requirements of the target design codes and chamber design. Includes characterization. • Combine these methods with established mass production costing models to show targets cost will be less than $0.25.
We are rapidly achieving the goals needed to start Phase II (page 2 of 3) • TARGET INJECTION AND TRACKING • Build an injector that can place targets at chamber center (~6.5 m) in 16 milliseconds or less. • Demonstrate target tracking with sufficient accuracy for a power plant (+/- 20 microns). • TARGET DESIGN/PHYSICS (also includes Nike and Omega ICF programs) • Develop credible target designs, using 2D and 3D modeling, that have sufficient gain (> 100) + stability for fusion energy. • Benchmark underlying codes with experiments on Nike & Omega. • Integrate design into needs of target fab, injection and reactor chamber.
Description of Phase III (ETF) • The ETF will have operational flexibility to perform four major tasks: • Full size driver with sufficient energy for high gain. • 2.4 MJ Laser • Replications of the beam line developed in Phase II. But allow improvements. • Optimize targets for high yield. • Address issues specific to direct drive and high yield. • Test, develop, and optimize chamber components • Includes first wall and blanket, tritium breeding, tritium recovery. • Requires thermal management (100-200 MWth). • Electricity production (300-700 MW net)potential for high availability. • Chamber with blanket and electrical generator (1500-2000 MWth). • Laser, final optics and target technologies should be mature and reliable by now
ETF-Tasks 1 & 2 (driver demo and optimize gain) Target fabrication & injection. DEMO Scale. Capable of continuous 5 Hz runs Target factory Laser : DEMO Scale ~ 2.4 MJ > 106 shots MTBF for entire system (Beam lines > 108 from Phase II) OPTIMIZE TARGETS FOR HIGH GAIN Single shot and burst mode Final Optics:DEMO Scale (Full LIDT threat & debris) Chamber: see next Viewgraph
Full yield, rep-rate, burst -- target physics, chamber dynamics 10% yield, rep-rate, continuous -- material/component tests TWO MODES: Test multiple blanket concepts, if desired 40cm x 40 cm cooled samples @ 2 m radius ETF-First Generation Chamberfor Task 1 (demo driver), Task 2 (optimize gain), andTask 3 (materials/components blanket development) FIRST WALL (6.5 m radius) 1. Full laser energy & yield (400 MJ), 5 Hz runs, up to few hours duration: < 0.02 micron erosion/shot 105 shots maximum 2. Full laser energy with 10% yield (40 MJ), continuous operation: negligible erosion/shot 107shots or more Design allows annual replacement BLANKET / COOLING 125-200 MWth (10% yield @ 5 Hz) Breed Tritium (Sombrero TBR= 1.25 (LiO2)]
ETF-Task 4 (Electricity Production) Upgrade chamber materials based on R&D Upgrade to best blanket to come out of R&D Upgrade chamber cooling: (200 MW to 2.0 GW thermal) Generate 300-700 MW net electricity by 2028
We have decided to concentrate on a "front runner" first wall....HAPL materials and chambers community has chosentungsten armored- low activation ferritic. • Why choose a "Front Runner" approach? • Focuses our resources. • Should lead to a workable solution faster • Why tungsten/ ferritc? • Most mature data base • Most viable candidate to field on the ETF within the next 12-15 years. • Takes advantage of vast body of fission and other fusion work • Battle plan to develop this first wall concept will be discussed tomorrow. • Goal of plan: Assess this approach in archival paper by Dec 31, 2003 • Note that front runner does not imply other approaches are abandoned. • Means we will concentrate resources on the most promising approach • Same methodology we are following with the final optic.
Agenda-Wed Be sure to give me electronic copies of your talk