1 / 18

Findings from the 2003 FESAC Report on the Development of Fusion Energy

Findings from the 2003 FESAC Report on the Development of Fusion Energy. Mike Campbell Director, Energy Systems Logos Technologies December 16,2010. The separation of components and the flexibility of drivers lead to a range of options for IFE that were discussed in the 2003 FESAC report.

nashs
Télécharger la présentation

Findings from the 2003 FESAC Report on the Development of Fusion Energy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Findings from the 2003 FESAC Report on the Development of Fusion Energy Mike Campbell Director, Energy Systems Logos Technologies December 16,2010

  2. The separation of components and the flexibility of drivers lead to a range of options for IFE that were discussed in the 2003 FESAC report • Drivers • Lasers • Diode pumped Solid state (DPSSL) • KrF • Pulse Power • Heavy Ions (HI) • Target Concepts • Indirect (x-ray drive) • Direct drive • Magnetized Liner cylindrical implosions • Concepts that separate compression from ignition • “fast ignition” • Shock ignition • Non-ablative concepts (HI) • Chamber concepts • Dry wall (gas fill, B field protection) • Liquid wall

  3. The 2003 FESAC report identified critical transition points/milestones in the development of Fusion (MFE & IFE) • 2003-2009: Acquire S&T data to support burning plasma experiments and decide on an Integrated Research experiment (IRE) • 2009-2019: Study and optimize Burning plasmas, test materials and “fusion relevant Technologies” • 2019-2029: Qualify Materials and technology in a “fusion” environment-construct and operate a “Engineering Test Facility (ETF)” • 2030-2035: Construct a Demonstration Plant

  4. The report correctly assumed that DOE-NNSA would continue ICF support for SSP in the 2003-2009 time frame • NIF has been successfully completed and experiments leading to ignition with indirect drive targets are underway (NIC Campaign) • Ignition and propagating burn experiments will be conducted in next several years • Cryogenic target capability and Omega EP added to Omega • High ρR DT implosions (ρR fuel >0.3 g/cm2 ) • Polar direct drive (Direct drive with illumination requirements compatible with NIF) • Target concepts that “separate” compression from heating can be explored • Fast ignition (couple ~kJ, 10 psec laser pulses from Omega EP to compressed fuel imploded on Omega) • Shock ignition

  5. The Challenge of Ignition and a DT “burning plasma” will be addressed on NIF Tritium Handling 1.8 MJ, 500 TW 0.35 µm Laser Driver Cryogenic Targets

  6. LLE has added significant capability since the 2003 FESAC Report 2008 OMEGA EP 2003 OMEGA • Cryogenic DT implosions • “Conventional “hot spot” direct drive • Fast ignition • Shock ignition • Polar direct drive ( ignition/gain follow-up with NIF in ~2015 ) • Wide variety of new diagnostics-versions being deployed on NIF

  7. The report correctly assumed that DOE-NNSA would continue ICF support for SSP in the 2003-2009 time frame • Pulse Power Facility at Sandia ( ZR) completed • Load Current: 26MA • 22 MJ stored energy with 15% coupled to load • X-ray Power : 330 TW • 10-50 MGauss • 1-100 Mbar • Variety of target concepts Z pinch driven Hohlraums Magnetized imploding liners

  8. The report correctly assumed that DOE-NNSA would continue ICF support for SSP in the 2003-2009 time frame • The NNSA investment has resulted in unquestioned US leadership in ICF/IFE • Facilities • Computations and target design • Experimental science and diagnostics • Target fabrication • Science, engineering and supporting Technology But…………

  9. The report also assumed that DOE/Congress support for IFE would grow/continue in the 2003-2009 time frame • LLNL and NRL with Congressional Support initiated the High Average Laser Program (HAPL) in 1999 to develop IFE technologies focused on diode pumped Solid state and KrF lasers • From 1999 to 2008 Congress appropriated ~$190M to NNSA • Program eventually included other IFE technologies (target fabrication and injection, optics, chamber studies) with principle focus on laser direct drive • Program was never taken up by DOE and funding stopped in 2009 Mercury (DPSSL) Electra (KrF)

  10. DOE-OFES has supported the VNL (LBNL, LLNL, PPPL) Heavy Ion Fusion Program at a modest level (<$10M/yr) limiting scope and maturity • Significant Progress in modeling and demonstrating beam manipulations (Space and time compression) required for IFE • Innovative target concepts have been proposed • Limited target experiments (warm dense matter) have been conducted • Ongoing collaboration with HI program at GSI NCDX-II funded by “stimulus bill” -complete in 2012 ~36 A, 50 nC,1.2 MeV Li+ ions -Warm dense Matter experiments

  11. The 1999 FESAC Priorities and Balance Report Specified IFE Proof-of-Principle Goals & Metrics which the 2003 study supported • Ion beam development • Perform single-beam, high-current experiments to validate accelerator concept ion (significant progress at small scale) • Perform focusing and chamber transport experiments ( progress at small scale) • Complete detailed end-to-end numerical simulations of the IRE and full-scale drivers. • Develop technologies to minimize the cost of the IRE. • Laser development (Electra and Mercury) • Energy of several hundred joules in a laser architecture scalable to 2 MJ at a cost of ≤ $500/J. • Wall plug efficiency of 6-10% at a repetition rate of 5 Hz. • Reliability of 105 to 108 shots between maintenance cycles. • Irradiation uniformity of ≤ 0.3%. (Nike, Omega) • Chamber development • Demonstrate that an IFE chamber can be cleared in less than ~200 ms (little work done on “liquid wall chambers and “dry” chamber concepts have evolved) • Driver/Chamber Interface issues: • Heavy ions: Produce a self-consistent design for final-focus magnets (limited work) • Lasers: Tests to determine the plausibility of achieving laser final optics lifetimes of >1 full-power-year (isolation strategies have evolved and limited HAPL work is encouraging) • Identify methods for low cost manufacture and rapid injection of both direct and indirect drive targets (concepts identified )

  12. The FESAC report also identified IRE’s ( Integrated Research Experiment) as a step in IFE Development • Each Integrated Research Experiment program: address the key issues (i.e. Driver-target engagement) that enable an Engineering Test Facility: • For the laser approaches–representative beam line with efficiency, durability, cost and beam quality, target fabrication and injection, first chamber wall materials and protection, and final optics durability. • For the heavy ion approach–focal spot size under fusion chamber relevant conditions, accelerator cost, target fabrication, thick liquid protected chambers with target material recovery and focus magnet lifetime. • For the z-pinch approach–demonstrated and” sustainable” RTLs, rep-rated pulsed power, target fabrication blast mitigation effects for the first wall,,, and thick liquid protected chambers with target material recovery. A phased approach, addressing the “most miraculous” aspects will lead to an IRE which can be a component of an ETF

  13. An IFE Program must leverage the substantial progress that has been made from the NNSA sponsored program and relevant commercial and DOD activities Ignition-specification cryogenic targets are being fabricated and fielded Ignition campaign is well underway, with burn expected by end of FY2012 Semiconductor diode lasers are now available at low cost and high capacity Major advances made in optics damage thresholds and mitigation

  14. For example, Diode Pumped Solid State Lasers have developed significantly in the past few years – helped in part by a wide range of markets DIODE COST DIODE CAPACITY Normalized to 500 W/bar 100 Quoted Price (¢/W) 10 1 10-1 100 101 102 103 104 105 Diode Volume (MW) Substantial cost reductions using currently available production methods. Industry quotes 2-3 ¢/W with no new R&D Diode production capacity set by epitaxial growth. LED TVs demonstrate industry’s ability to respond to the required demand Commercial DPSSL systems now show lifetimes of 1010 – 1012 shots, with 1-2 year MTBF

  15. Demonstrated two methods to suppress E-beam instability on Nike Main amplifier No physics limit on diode size Patterned cathode Ceramic Cathode ~7% wall-plug efficiency appears feasible. High efficiency E-beam transport to gas Intrinsic (experiment) 12% Pulsed power (experiment) 82% Hibachi @ 800 kV (experiment) 80% Optical train to target (est) 95% Ancillaries (est) 95% ______________________________ Global Efficiency 7.1% electron beam guided by tailored magnetic field Progress in pulse power has benefited KrF lasers as an IFE Driver Laser Fusion All solid state 10 Hz 180 kV 5KA pulse power system >107 shots continuous Components show > 300 M shots, no failures

  16. M. Mazarakis, W. Stygar et al., (2010) Rep-rated Pulse power driver technology (Linear Transformer Driver (LTD) will be tested in 2011 • 1 MA, 0.2 TW, 25 kJ, two cavity tests planned in FY2011 • Fire 40,000 shots (= 1,600,000 switch firings) at 6 shots/minute with resistive load • Engineer and test a replaceable transmission line system • 1 MA, 1 TW, 125 kJ, 10 cavity test planned to follow • ZR was built for 4$/J. This technology scales more favorably. • Gen 3 LTD designs have 80% peak current with 50% cavity radius MYKONOS LTD Driver Test Bed Prototype costs are: $11/Joule ~10-4 cents/peak watt

  17. Summary: A robust IFE Program is both timely and warranted • Since the 2003 FESAC report the US has constructed new facilities (NIF, Omega-EP, ZR) that will address the scientific feasibility of ICF • Attractive IFE reactors have been further developed for all concepts with varying levels of maturity and risk • Critical S&T issues have been identified and progress through HAPL,OFES and internal funding have/will retired some of them (Mercury, Electra, NCDX-II, MYKONOS ) Much of the 2003 FESAC Report remains valid but a new roadmap reflecting the progress to date is required

  18. The Fusion community has much to learn from the experience of the present U.S. Nuclear Fleet Capacity Factors (%) 1971-2009 Source: Energy Information Administration Updated: 5/10

More Related