1 / 13

Status and Plans for Systems Modeling for Laser IFE

UCRL-PRES-146198. Status and Plans for Systems Modeling for Laser IFE. Wayne Meier, Charles Orth, Don Blackfield Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory *. HAPL Progress Meeting 13-14 November 2001 Pleasanton, CA.

ratana
Download Presentation

Status and Plans for Systems Modeling for Laser IFE

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. UCRL-PRES-146198 Status and Plans for Systems Modeling for Laser IFE Wayne Meier, Charles Orth, Don Blackfield Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory* HAPL Progress Meeting 13-14 November 2001 Pleasanton, CA * 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. Systems modeling work has included the following activities • Evaluation of the potential economic benefits of Fast Ignition applicable to both DPSSL and KrF (See Fast Ignitor Poster) • Charles Orth’s use of his DPSSL IFE code to develop a simple driver cost scaling relationship for a DPSSL • Use of Sombrero systems code with a DPSSL driver to evaluate sensitivity of COE to direct-drive target performance • Improvements to Orth’s DPSSL IFE code IFE Systems Part-1

  3. DPSSL cost scaling derived from Orth’s code The total laser cost is approximately given by CL = 570 + 370·(Cdiode/0.07)·E + 21·E2 $M where E = 3w laser energy (MJ) and Cdiode = diode cost per peak watt ($/Wp) • Established over driver energy range of ~ 1- 6 MJ • Fixed part likely dependent on assumed requirement for large number of beams (Orth set N  192) – needs further analysis • The term proportional to E is the diode cost IFE Systems Part-1

  4. Direct-drive target gain curves depend strongly on the Fermi degenerate parameter, a Representative curves – will be improved with additional work on direct-drive target designs a = 1 with zooming a = 2 a = 3 IFE Systems Part-1

  5. Optimal driver energy and COE decrease with increasing target performance Net power = 1 GWe, laser efficiency = 8.6% (fixed) • - Optimal driver energy decreases from 3.5 MJ for a = 3 to 1.5 MJ for a = 1 • Optimal rep-rate is 12-15 Hz • Minimum COE is significantly lower for low a: • COEmin1 = 7.8 ¢/kWeh • COEmin2 = 9.4 ¢/kWeh (+20%) • COEmin3 = 10.9 ¢/kWeh (+40%) COE, ¢/kWeh Rep-rate, Hz IFE Systems Part-1

  6. Achieving high driver efficiency is most important for the lowest gain curve Net power = 1 GWe, Rep-rate = 10 Hz Effect of doubling laser efficiency from 5 to 10%: a = 3: COE decreases 24 % a = 2: COE decreases 17 % a = 1: COE decreases 9 % COE, ¢/kWeh Future work – Determine the dependence of laser efficiency on laser energy and determine laser cost/efficiency trade-offs. IFE Systems Part-1

  7. Improvements to Orth’s DPSSL IFE code • Motivation • Objectives • Future Activities • Revised Code Structure IFE Systems Part-1

  8. Motivation: An improved, updated systems model will be valuable tool for the laser IFE community (1) • Overall objective is to provide useful information to the laser IFE community, including • Information to help make R&D decisions, e.g., • What is the value of developing optical switches and pinholes for average power operation? • What can we afford to pay for more efficient components (diode arrays, pulsed power for KrF)? • What is the point of diminishing returns for hibachi lifetime? • Input to the development plan by identifying optimal design points • How big (MJ’s) is a power plant driver and how does that influence development plan/steps? • How do design trades impact next step IRE design? e.g., minimize cost at expense of efficiency? IFE Systems Part-1

  9. Motivation: An improved, updated systems model will be valuable tool for the laser IFE community (2) • Consistent comparisons of laser IFE design options (different drivers/chambers/target combinations) • How does a more efficient but more expensive laser compare to a less efficient, lower cost option? How do the results depend on success in target performance? • What is the trade between higher plant efficiency (obtained by chamber/BOP designs that operate at higher temperature) and higher associated costs? IFE Systems Part-1

  10. A systems model will aid IRE decisions by narrowing design space for detailed designs • Current Development Strategy: IFE target design + Ignition on NIF + IRE + chamber and target technology development combine to make a compelling case for an ETF • The IRE will be cost constrained yet must demonstrate laser technology at a scale that extrapolates to an ETF driver (~ 1-2 MJ’s). It must also meet technical goals (efficiency, reliability, etc.). • A flexible systems model can rapidly examine a wide parameter space of IRE design options to define a limited numberof attractive points that would receive more detailed design effort (i.e., the type of detailed design required for Mercury, which is currently very time-consuming) • The system code will be used to address questions related to cost, performance and technology development • Results provide a technical basis for defending selection of final proposed IRE point design IFE Systems Part-1

  11. Minimum laser size Maximum allowable cost IRE Cost Increasing diode cost Laser energy A system model will aid IRE decisions –an example of one type of result Here the potential design space is above some minimum laser energy (set by need to demonstrate scalability to ETF driver or other technical objectives of the IRE) and below some maximum allowable cost based on projected IFE program budgets. Minimum laser size Maximum allowable cost Increasing crystal scale Laser energy Component cost - sensitivity to diode cost would allow one to select an IRE energy base on success in lowering diode costs Technology development – sensitivity to success in developing large laser crystals defines another aspect of the design space Efficiency and reliability – similar plots could be constructed to define design space and cost trades with respect to laser (or component) efficiency and reliability IFE Systems Part-1

  12. Objectives: Features required by a successful systems code • Should be able to quickly explore a highly dimensioned design space • Must contain up-to-date algorithms to remain relevant • Should be flexible so that design options can quickly be examined • Must be easy to modify by “non-experts” so that algorithms can be kept up-to-date • Should be extremely robust and prevent examination of “non-physical” design space • Should be easy to operate (user-friendly) • Output results should be understandable and design options clearly presented IFE Systems Part-1

  13. Future Activities: Improve driver, target, and Chamber/BOP models • Update and improve DPSSL model (dates to 1994) • e.g., beam smoothing, extraction model, diff. architectures • Need improved KrF Laser model from NRL (current model dates to Avco work in early 1990’s) • e.g., Scaling tied to physics, current thinking on component cost and performance, etc. • Update target gain curves to reflect target physics results and include dependence on other laser parameters (e.g., number of beams) • Update Sombrero chamber model to reflect ARIES and HAPL results on chamber radius vs. protective gas density and target yield • Review BOP and economics models and benchmark conventional subsystems (e.g., electric plant equipment) to MFE systems code IFE Systems Part-1

More Related