Results of Large Fusion Power Plant Study
description
Transcript of Results of Large Fusion Power Plant Study
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 20001
Results of Large Fusion Power Plant
Study
L. M. WaganerThe Boeing Company
andJohn Sheffield, ORNL and JIEE - UT
William Brown, James Hilley, Thomas Shields, Duke Engr & ServicesGary Garret, Dennis McCloud, TVA
Joan Ogden, Princeton Univ
US/Japan Workshop on Fusion Power Plant Studies16-17 March 2000
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 20002
Purpose of Study
This study is designed to evaluate effects on electrical utility system hardware, operations, and system reliability of incorporating large generation units (≥ 3 GWe).
Scope of Study
• What are the consequences of deploying large, single-unit power plants?•Would the use of co-generation, e.g., hydrogen, improve the prospects of deployment of large plants?
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 20003
Impact Of Large Electrical Generating Plants
(> 1.5 GWe)If size exceeds maximum plant size on Utility system:
• Additional spinning and operational reserves are needed.
• Additional siting costs may be incurred to cover increased substation and transmission requirements.
• Utility production costs may increase due to production dispatch and operating modes of other generating plants.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4
Power Plant Output, GWe
Impact of Large Power Plants• Additional purchased power may be required during scheduled and unscheduled downtimes.
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 20004
Co-generation of Hydrogen and Electricity Can Help Lessen Utility Impact
Benefit:Generate hydrogen during the night when demand (and POE) is low and electricity when demand (and POE) is high
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 20005
Co-Generation Considerations
• Fusion power plant economics favors full power operation
• Co-generation lessens impact on electrical grid and allow load following
• Fusion plant can supply high or low temperature process heat to electrolyzers
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 20006
Study Baseline Assumptions
• ARIES-AT was chosen as power plant to supply electricity and process heat
• Hydrogen would be produced with high temperature electrolysis (endothermic and exothermic) or conventional alkaline electrolyzers
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 20007
Fusion Plant Design Basis
• Use ARIES-AT design (evolving from ARIES-RS)• Improve plasma physics modeling of Reversed Shear regime• Use SiC first wall and blanket structural material and LiPb/He
heat transfer media to enable exit temperatures of 1000 - 1100°C• Employ IHX and closed cycle helium gas turbine to yield thermal
efficiencies of 55% to 60%• Increase power core lifetime, reliability, and maintainability to
improve availability from 76% to 85+% • Employ low cost manufacturing techniques• Raise ARIES-AT plant capacity to 2 - 4 GW
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 20008
COE Scaling for Advanced Tokamaks
COE Scaling to Plant Size xxx
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Net Plant Output, GWe
ARIES-AT: ImprovedPerformance, Low CostComponents, 60% Efficiency,85% Availability
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 20009
System Elements
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 200010
Intercooler 1Intercooler 2
Compressor 1Compressor 2Compressor 3
Heat RejectionHX
WnetTurbine
Recuperator
Blanket
IntermediateHX
5'
1
2.A2.A'
389
47'
9'
10
6
T
S
1
2.A
3
4
5 6 7 8
9 10
Divertor(and FW)
LiPb blanketcoolant
He Divertor(and FW)coolant
Brayton Cycle for LiPb Blanket with He-Cooled Divertor andElectrolyzer Heat Exchanger
A. R. Raffray/September 23, 1999
11
11
Thermal Powerto Electrolyzer
Water
2.B
2.B
Low temperature process heat (150°C) is extracted after Brayton turbine. Less energy is available in recuperator. Hence, increasing hydrogen production decreases system efficiency
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 200011
As More Thermal Power Is Used In Electrolyzer, Fusion Plant Efficiency Decreases
Effect of Variable Electrolyzer Power ss
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Fraction of Power to Electrolyzer
Power toElectrolyzer
Power to Grid
Total Power
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 200012
Feasibility Issues for Hydrogen Production• Competition is pushing the price of hydrogen down
– Steam reforming of natural gas ~ $5/GJ– Gasification of hydrocarbon fuels ~ $8/GJ– Comparison to $1/gal gasoline ~ $8/GJ
• Electrolyzer Plant Equipment adds ~ $3/GJ to the price of H2
• The remainder of the cost of hydrogen (COH) is directly proportional to the input COE
• As electrical demand grows and capacity is reduced, there will be no cheap off-peak electricity (10 to 30 mills/kWh)
• Fusion COE would have to be in the range of 30 mills /kWh to competitively produce hydrogen in today’s market
• If price of gasoline is $2/gal, hydrogen production with fusion would be competitive with COE values around 60 mills/kWh
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 200013
Assessment Options and Trades• Dedicated Hydrogen Plant
– Plant size
• 1/2 Electricity (Peak) + 1/2 Hydrogen (Off-Peak) – Plant size– Peak electricity price– Electrolyzer cost– Electrolyzer efficiency– Conventional vs. HTE
• Off- Peak and On-Peak– Power split during On-Peak
0
100
Percent
0
100
Percent
0
100
Percent
0:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 24:00
75
Time of Day
H2Production
ElectricityProduction
Dedicated Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Off-Peak, Electricity On-Peak
Hydrogen Off-Peak, Hydrogen + Electricity On-Peak
H2Production
H2Production
ElectricityProduction
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 200014
HTE vs. Conventional ElectrolysisDedicated Hydrogen Production
Fusion Plant
5954 MWth
538 MWthof 150°C Steam
2869 MWe
High TempElectrolyzer,900°C, 3 bar,
η = 111 %
3185 MW H2( Enough H2 for a
7.4 )fleet of million cars
=Electrolyzer Capital Cost900/$ kWH2 3185 =x MW
2.87 $ billion
, High Temperature Electrolyzer Exothermic Operation
Fusion Plant
5954 MWth
3152 MWe
Conventional,Electrolyzer
70° , 1 ,C barη = 80 %
2521 MW H2( Enough H2 for a
5.9 )fleet of million cars
=Electrolyzer Capital Cost600/$ kWH2 2521 =x MW
1.51 $ billion
Conventional Alkaline Electrolyzer
Turbine Generator Turbine Generator
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 200015
COH, Dedicated Production
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Hi T Electrolyzer ARIES-AT
Conv. Electrol. $300/kW ARIES-AT
Conv. Electrol. $600/kW ARIES-AT
Co
st o
f H
ydro
gen
Pro
du
ctio
n (
$/G
J)
Fusion Power Plant Size (MWe)
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 200016
Comparison of Electrolysis Types and Costs(50-50 H2/Electricity, On-Peak Price is 6 mills/kWh)
Cost of H2 from Off-peak Fusion Power ARIES-AT On-Peak Power Cost is 6 cents/kWh, f=0.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Fusion Power Plant Size (MW)
Cost
of
Hyd
rog
en
($/G
J)
f=.5, High Temp. Electrolysis
f=.5, Conventional Electrolysis,$600/kWH2
f=.5, Conventional Electrolysis,$300/kWH2
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 200017
Comparison of On-Peak Electricity Price(50-50 H2/Electricity, Electrolyzer Cost $300/kWH2)
Cost of Electrolytic Hydrogen Production from Off-Peak Fusion Power:
Conventional Electrolysis $300/kWH2, ARIES-AT
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Pon= 5 cents/kWh
Pon=6 cents/kWh
Pon=7 cents/kWh
Pon=8cents/kWh
Price of On-Peak Electricity
Co
st o
f H
ydro
gen
Pro
du
ctio
n (
$/G
J)
Fusion Power Plant Size (MWe)
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 200018
Variable On-Peak Electricity Production(On-Peak Price 6 mills/kWh, Electrolyzer Cost $300/kWH2)
H2 Production Cost for Various Operating Strategies:
Dedicated H2 Production; 50% On-peak and 100% Off-peak H2 production;
25% On-Peak and 100% Off-peak H2; Off-peak H2 Production Only
ARIES-AT , On-Peak Power Cost 6 cents/kWh, Conv. Electrolyzer $300/kWH2
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Dedicated H2 production
50% On Peak H2 Production
25% On Peak H2 Production
Off-peak H2 Production (Conv.
Electrolysis=$300/kWH2)
Co
st o
f H
ydro
gen
Pro
du
ctio
n (
$/G
J)
Fusion Power Plant Size (MWe)
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 200019
COH Comparison with Other Sources
Cost of Hydrogen Production ($/GJ)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 10 100 1000
Hydrogen Plant Capacity (million scf H2/d)
H2 C
ost
($./
GJ)
Steam reforming(NG=$3/MBTU)
Steam Reforming(NG=$6/MBTU)
Steam Reforming(NG=$6/MBTU, w/COseq.)Fusion Dedicated HTEARIES-AT
Fusion Off-Peak ARIES-AT
Biomass Gasification
Coal Gasification
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 200020
Study Conclusions• Main H2 competitors are Biomass and Fossil (coal or
NG) gasification• Must use large fusion plants for economy of scale• Fusion plants must be affordable with high availability• COH is lower if subsidized by peak electricity
– Production COE must be lower than peak!
It may be possible for hydrogen from off-peak fusion power to compete with other low or zero CO2 options, but stringent cost and performance goals must be met and peak power must be valuable.
Large Fusion Power Plant Study
L. M. Waganer, 18 Mar 200021
Some Comparative Data To Visualize Hydrogen Production and Water Usage
Food for thought: This production rate would supply enough hydrogen fuel for 20% of the cars in the LA basin if equipped with fuel cells. (Ref. J. Ogden) (~ 1.3 million cars)
Product Units Per Second Per Hour Per Day Per year
Nm3 7.935E+01 2.857E+05 6.856E+06 2.002E+09
Hydrogen scf 2.953E+03 1.063E+07 2.551E+08 7.450E+10
kg 7.242E+00 2.607E+04 6.257E+05 1.827E+08
GJ 1.014E+00 3.649E+03 8.757E+04 2.557E+07
Water kg 6.472E+01 2.330E+05 5.591E+06 1.633E+09