1
A New Energy Age for DoDUnlimited Power to Support DoD Missions
ThoriumThe Enabler
The Future Becomes Reality
Presented to 1st Thorium Energy Alliance Conference! The Future Thorium Energy Economy 20 October 2009
James R. Howe Vision Centric Inc. 256- [email protected]
2
Outline
• Background• Historic Service Programs Provide Foundation• Proposed Solution• DoD Energy requirements
-- DoD Distributed Power Requirement
-- DoD Remote Power Missions
-- DoD Logistics Issues: Electricity, Fuel, and Water
-- DoD Power Projection Missions• Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) Support to Service Missions
- Army/Marines
- Air Force
- Navy• Conclusions
3
Background• DoD energy needs are increasing as available fossil fuels increase in cost
and decrease in availability
• Hundreds of small nuclear reactors have been built, mostly for naval use and as neutron sources
• National Security requirement for independent power supply for DoD bases
– Multiple small reactors could either be distributed or clustered to solve energy demand
– Could be part of a Sandia National Laboratory micro grid concept
• Characteristics of smaller nuclear reactors:
– Greater simplicity of design
– Economy of mass production
– Reduce cost of site
– High level of passive/inherent safety
Congress is funding research: Advanced gas cooled designs Factory provided, assembled on-site
4
Background (Continued)
• Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne, IL) has developed a liquid-lead-cooled, fast-spectrum, solid-core reactor concept.– Requires a minimum of maintenance and can operate 30 years w/o
refueling– Passive safety systems– Cooled by natural convection
• Office of the Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment– Leverages Energy and Environment projects– Uses catalyst technology projects– Executed by Florida International University
• USAF is considering building a nuclear power reactor at one or more of its bases, to be privately owned and operated– Started by Kevin Billings, Assistant Secretary AF for energy, environment,
saftey and occupational health (MAR 08)• Senator Larry Craig (ID) sent letter to SAF asking if AF was interested• Senator Pete Domenici (NM) sent a similar letter
5
Three Branches—Three Reactor Programs
• Naval Reactor efforts began in the late 1940s with Rickover’s pursuit of a nuclear reactor for a submarines, culminating in the launch of the USS Nautilus in 1954.
• Pressurized water reactor technologies were chosen based on their compactness and relative simplicity.
• The Air Force also had a desire for a nuclear-powered aircraft that would serve as a long-range bomber.
• An aircraft reactor was far more challenging than a terrestrial reactor because of the importance of high-temperatures, light weight, and simplicity of operation.
• The Nuclear Aircraft Program led to revolutionary reactor designs, one of which was the liquid-fluoride reactor.
• The Army Reactor Program began in 1953 to enable nuclear power for remote sites—they chose PWR technology because the Navy did.
• Reactors for Ft. Belvoir, Ft. Greely, Camp Century, and other sites were built.
6
Army Nuclear Power ProgramThe Army Nuclear Power Program (ANPP) was a program of the United States
Army to develop small pressurized water and boiling water nuclear power reactors for use in remote sites.
Eight reactors were built in all: (Of the 8 built, 6 produced operationally useful power for an extended period)
• SM-1, 2 MWe. Fort Belvoir, VA, first criticality 1957 (several months before the Shippingport Reactor) and the first U.S. nuclear power plant to be connected to an electrical grid.
• SM-1A, 2 MWe, plus heating. Fort Greely, Alaska. First criticality 1962.• PM-2A, 2 MWe, plus heating. Camp Century, Greenland. First criticality 1961.• PM-1, 1.25 MWe, plus heating. Sundance, Wyoming. Owned by the Air Force, used to power a radar station. First
criticality 1962.• PM-3A, 1.75 MWe, plus heating. McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Owned by the Navy. First criticality 1962,
decommissioned 1972.• SL-1, BWR, 200kWe, plus heating. Idaho Reactor Testing Station. First criticality 1958. Site of the only fatal
accident at a US nuclear power reactor, on January 3 1961, which destroyed the reactor.• ML-1, first closed cycle gas turbine. Designed for 300 kW, but only achieved 140 kW. Operated for only a few
hundred hours of testing before being shut down in 1963.• MH-1A, 10 MWe, plus fresh water supply to the adjacent base. Mounted on the Sturgis, a barge converted from a
Liberty ship, and moored in the Panama Canal Zone. Installed 1968, removed on cessation of US zone ownership in 1975 (the last of the eight to permanently cease operation).
Key to the codes: First letter: S - stationary, M - mobile, P - portable.
Second letter: H - high power, M - medium power, L - low power.
Digit: Sequence number.
Third letter: A indicates field installation.
MA-IA Reactor
7
Reactors can be very small and powerful, such as the Nuclear Aircraft Concept
Convair B-36 X-6 Four nuclear-powered
turbojets 200 MW thermal reactor
Liquid-Fluoride Reactor
8
Navy Nuclear Power Program
11 Nuclear Powered Carriers 69 Nuclear powered Submarines
More than 5500 reactor years without accident
9
Proposed Solution
• Small liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) driving closed cycle gas turbine engines– Characteristics;
• Capacity: 10 – 100 MW• Modular construction, capable of transportation by air and ground
vehicles.• Reactor size: 3m diameter, 6m high.
– Potential Cooling Methods• Water cooled – desalinate with waste heat• Air cooled
– Elements of design• Strongly negative power coefficient and void coefficient • Simple internal fuel and blanket reprocessing• High-temperature heat exchangers• Hastelloy-N core vessel stable in fluoride salt• Closed-cycle gas turbine with ~50% conversion efficiency• Hydrogen/ammonia production and desalination capability
10
DoD Power – Remote and Naval Ships
Army AFMarineCorps
Navy
DoD Power – Remote and Naval Ships
• Kwajalein Test Range• Ft. Greely, AK• Global Power Projection
– Lily Pad Strategy• Global Air and Missile Defense
Sites• Major Overseas Bases: 36
• BMD Early Warning Radars• Major Overseas Bases: 17• Global Power Projection
– Lily Pad Strategy
• Major Overseas Bases: 6• Global Power Projection
– Lily Pad Strategy
• Major Overseas Bases: 16• Global Power Projection
– Sea Basing• Naval Ships
– Carriers: 11– SSBN: 18– SSN: 53– CG(N)-X: 19?– Other Major Surface
Combatants
DoD CONUS Bases
• Power for each major base/ critical installation independent of the US Power Grid
– USAF: 71– USA: 59– USN: 57– USMC: 15
Ambassador Woosley: DoD Needs Distributed Power – “Small is Beautiful” (1)
Defense Infrastructure at Risk to National Grid Vulnerabilities
Need Power for Remote Sites, Global Bases, and Support to Expeditionary Forces
1. National Security and Homeland Security Issue
U.S. Overseas Deployments•> 700 bases in > 130 countries•> 250,000 personnel•> 44,000 buildings
Major Bases•Army – 36•Navy – 16•Air Force – 17•Marines – 15•Intelligence community
Joint Remote Site Power Production• All services have remote sites that require dependable 24/7/365 operation
Energy is a Major Component of Power Projection Logistics
• How can we sustain forward deployed and power projection forces in the face of uncertain energy supplies and asymmetric threats?
Nuclear energy is a compact, cost-effective sustainable energy source• Combat Logistics – “Tooth to tail” ratio > 10-1 Extended (and vulnerable) supply lines Prohibitive transportation costs – Fuel costs $100-600/gallon Storage and distribution challenges – Large infrastructure costs No, or inadequate local sources Combat Losses -- Men and material -- Impact on Combat operations Fuel Consumption per soldier is rapidly increasing• 2004 20 gallons/day• 2040 80 gallons/day Battlefield supply volume• Bulk petroleum 40%• Water 50%
Energy is the Enabler of Military Operations Energy is the Enabler of Military Operations
Transportable Reactors could Provide Electricity, Fuel and Water
The Past• ML-1 Reactor-1965• 6 Containers required
The Future• LFTR -10-30 MW• Air Transportable•Emplace in 3-5 days??
DoD Power Projection Missions
Iraq Bases Afghanistan Bases
LFTR could produce Power, Potable Water, and Hydrogen/Ammonium fuel for vehicles
Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor
Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor
Desalination to Potable WaterFacilities Heating
Deployed forces logistics could be greatly reduced-no water, fuel, generators
Thorium
Electrical Generation (50% efficiency)
Low-temp Waste Heat
Power Conversion
Power Conversion Electrical
loadElectrolytic H2Process HeatProcess Heat
Thermo-chemical H2
Hydrogen fuel cellAmmonia (NH3) Generation
Automotive Fuel Cell (very simple)
17
LFTR Can Power Advanced Army Weapon/Sensor Concepts
Global, real time communications
Advanced high energy lasers, electromagnetic guns, and sensors will enable highly cost-effective ballistic missile defense and space operations
Electromagnetic Guns
18
Illustrative Long Range Strike Capabilities Enabled by Thorium Reactor Power Source
Hypervelocity Impact Imparts High Energy
Hypervelocity Impact (M5+)
(1) Long-range Offensive Missiles cost ~ $500k to $3M+ and Defensive Interceptors cost $1-3M+
Game Changing Technology Across Conflict Spectrum
Cost – Cost – Cost: EMG Radically changes cost of waging war Offensive: $10-30 k/Rd and ~ $6 to launch 3000-6000 km Defensive: ~ $30 k/Interceptor
Greater Standoffs = Reduced Ship Vulnerability Volume and Precision Fires (< 3m CEP)
Multiple Objectives Time Critical Strike (6-15 min) All Weather Availability (24/7/365) Variety of Payloads
WH: Penetrators/KEPs – can destroy most targets of interest
Sensors: Air, Ground, Sea Scaleable Effects
Minimize Collateral Damage Deep Magazines (1000-3000+ rounds/gun) Non-explosive Round/No Gun Propellant
Simplified Logistics
LFTR can Power Advanced Air Force ConceptsRadars Long Endurance UAV’s
Overseas Bases Power Space Based Systems - Communications - Sensors
20
Thorium Reactors Can Be Cost-Effectively Used for All Navy Ships
Thorium Reactors are expected to be smaller, lighter, safer and less costlyThorium Reactors are expected to be smaller, lighter, safer and less costly
Frigates – 30Littoral Combat Ships - TBD
Aircraft Carriers - 12 Cruisers - 22 Destroyers – 53+
Amphibious Assault Ships - 11 SSBN – 14
SSGN – 4SSN - 53
21
Requirements to Construct Nuclear Powered Naval Ships
1) FY 2008 Defense Authorization Act• Section 1012 of the 2008 Defense Authorization Act (H.R.
4986/P.L. 110-181 of January 28, 2008Nuclear Power Systems for Major Combatant Naval Vessels – Requires that all new classes of submarines, aircraft carriers, cruisers, large escorts for carrier strike groups, expeditionary strike groups, and vessels comprising a sea base have integrated nuclear power systems, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a notification to Congress that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in a given class of ship is not in the national interest.
2) Rapidly emerging need for high MW Electric Power ships for advanced weapons and sensors.
04/21/23 21
22
What Future Vessels Must Provide
“Four themes hardware producers need to accommodate
Systems must be capable of supporting the transformation mission
– LCS – shallow water; High speed– Advanced weapons and sensors
Reduced manning is vital– As personnel costs drive total cost, value of
reducing crew size achieves similar importance to acquisition system cost reduction
Logistics must be simplified– Common elements, reduced numbers of
models/series– De-salinated water and other products
Open Architecture is paramount– Allows rapid upgrade of systems to the latest
technologies– Allow for continuing competition of the best
ideas/capabilities”Donald C. Winter, Secretary of the Navy, remarks to Bear Sterns Defense and Aerospace
Conference, 31 May 2006, Ritz Carlton, Arlington, VA
LFTR successfully addresses each Scaleable to fit LCS and other ships Power for EM Guns/sensors Global range at flank speed Simplicity & safety reduces operations
manpower, increases flexibility which further reduces crew size
LFTR reduces ship fire and damage control crews
Reduced logistics- Cuts the single biggest supply line - fuel
Scales favorably All electric systems have reduced
maintenance & weapons have reduced logistics and storage requirements
Potentially fits into existing DDX vessel designs
All electric systems allow fast upgrades and retrofitting
04/21/23 22
23
Thorium Reactors Can Capitalize on Existing Engine Design/Technology, Significantly Reducing Engine Development Cost/Schedule
• Existing turbojet/turbofan engine technology can be adapted−Small cruise missile class to very large ship class−Dual mode is commonplace
− Technologies developed for early nuclear propulsion programs can be applied
Billions have been spent on optimizing jet engine technologies.
Available infrastructure is ready to optimize closed-cycle jet engine architecture
Key components:
Single crystal turbine blade manufacturing
Low-friction magnetic and mechanical bearings
Computational fluid codes to model engine dynamics
Aerogel insulation
04/21/23 23
24
Ex: Pressurized-water Naval Nuclear Propulsion System
SSBN: 55’SSN: 42’CGN: 37’
SSBN: 42’SSN: 33’CGN: 42’
04/21/23 24
25
LFTR Could Cost 30-50% Less Than Current Naval Reactors
No pressure vessel required Liquid fuel requires no expensive fuel fabrication and qualification Smaller power conversion system No steam generators required Factory built-modular construction Smaller containment vessel needed
Steam vs. fluids More simple operation
No operational control rods No re-fueling shut down
Smaller Crew Lasts for Ship Lifetime
•Preliminary LFTR design in work for a ship propulsion system•Neutronic codes for liquid fuels under development – Needed to design propulsion system•LFTR ship propulsion is expected to be smaller, lighter and cheaper than current nuclear propulsion systems•Utilizes closed-cycle gas turbines which can take advantage of existing gas turbine engine technology.
Recent Ship Propulsion Designs at NPGS have included thorium reactors
26
LFTR Supports Maritime Strategic Concept
Strategic Imperatives– Limit regional conflict with forward deployed, decisive maritime power– Deter major power war– Win our nation’s wars– Contribute to homeland defense in depth– Foster and sustain cooperative relations with more international partners– Prevent or contain local disruptions before they impact the global system
Expanded Core Capabilities– Forward Presence– Deterrence– Sea Control– Power Projection– Maritime Security– Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief
04/21/23 26
27
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors Significantly Enhance the Following Capabilities:
ShipHigher sustained speeds provides real-time response
– Transit– Operations in Theatre
No requirement to re-fuel– Transit– Operations in Theatre
Power– Advanced Radars (New Aegis radar requires ~ 30 MW power)– Electro-magnetic guns – Need GW power levels
- Self Defense- Strike 2020: 500+ km 2030: 3000+ km- Ballistic Missile Defense 2020: 500+ km 2030: 3000+ km
– Directed Energy Weapons– Other Sensors, e.g. Pulsed Sonars– High Power Microwave Weapons
High Power Density Propulsion– Frees weight/space for high value/high impact assets
Survivability– No exhaust stack – reduced IR/RCS signatures– No fuel supply line– Power self defense capabilities
04/21/23 27Fully Integrated Propulsion, Sensors, Weapons
28
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors Significantly Enhance the Following Capabilities (Cont.):
Force EnhancementReduced energy independence – no reliance on fuel tankers
– No need to provide protection to tankers, LOCs, or fuel suppliers
– No dependence on foreign oil– No reduced transit speed/time off station to re-fuel
Greater forward presenceResponse to crises/conflictsUn-paralleled flexibility moving between theatres
– Surge ability– On-station time
Superiority on the seaReduced cost/ship = more ships
04/21/23 28
29
Reduced Transit Times to Potential Conflict Zones
• ~ 20 kt speed• Need to re-fuel every 4-6 days• ~ 20 kt speed• Need to re-fuel every 4-6 days
E - Norfolk to Persian Gulf
(via Suez canal) ~ 8,300 nm
D - San Diego to Persian Gulf (via Singapore)
~ 11,300 nmB - Pearl Harbor to Persian Gulf (via Singapore)
~ 9500 nm
C - San Diego to Taiwan5933 nm
A - Pearl Harbor to Taiwan 4283 nm
04/21/23 29LFTR Powered Ships Could Maintain 35+ KT Speed – No Refueling
Transit time - hours
Route 20 KT* 35 KT+?
ABCDE
214475296565415
122271169322237
*Plus Re-fuel time
B & D
C
D
A
B
30
Illustrative Example of Thorium Reactor ProvidesWeapon Power Source for All Naval Ships
> 30 MW power needed
2020: > 500 km2030: > 3000 km?
Directed Energy Weapon Advanced Radars
Electromagnetic Guns
04/21/23 30
31
A 100 MW LFTR Can Provide the Power Needed for Electromagnetic Guns for Both Advanced Weapons and Sensors (1)
Figure 5. Power Requirements as a Function of Firing Rate.
EM Gun20 kg Launch package15 kg flight2.5 km/s at muzzle63 MJ Muzzle EnergyRange: ~ 500 km
Figure 2. Naval EM Gun System Architecture
(1) Data from “Integration of Electromagnetic Rail Gun into Future Electric Warships.”, A. Chaboka, et al.
32
04/21/23
Naval EM Guns With 3,000 - 6,000 km Range Can 24/7/365 Cover All Target Areas of Interest
Figure 9: The Return of the Battleship Era
3,000 Km
3,000 Km
Long Range naval forces are transformational, change how wars are fought, reduce resources required and conflict timeline.
Long Range naval forces are transformational, change how wars are fought, reduce resources required and conflict timeline.
6,000 Km
6,000 Km
3,000 Km
3,000 Km
6,000 Km6,000 Km
3,000 Km3,000 Km
32
Is this the future of naval forces?
Conclusions
• Liquid fluoride thorium reactors can provide a substantial proportion of future DoD energy requirements
Electricity
Fuel
Water
Major US Bases
Remote Sites Forward Deployed Forces
Power Projection Forces
Naval Ship Propulsion
Power New Weapon & Sensors
Top Related