burning simulation and life-cycle assessment of fusion reactors
Post on 12-Jan-2016
53 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Burning Simulation and Life-Cycle Assessment
of Fusion Reactors
Kozo YAMAZAKINagoya University, Nagoya 464-8603, Japan
(with the help of T. Oishi, K. Mori, Y. Hori and K. Ban)
1
OUTLINE
1. Introduction
2. Burning Simulation using “TOTAL” (Toroidal Transport Analysis Linkage) ITB, D/T ratio, Impurity 3. Life-Cycle Assessment using “PEC” (Plasma, Engineering and Cost) Cost, CO2, Energy Payback etc.
4. Summary2
SmallExperime
nt
BurningSimulation
ReactorAssessme
nt
Toroidal Transport Analysis Linkage Physics, Engineering, Cost
Searching for Attractive Fusion ReactorIn our small Laboratory
TOKASTAR
1. Introduction
3
Start (~1980)Tokamak (2nd stability) Nuclear Fusion Vol.25 (1985) 1543.Helical Analysis Nuclear Fusion Vol.32 (1992) 633.Burning Simulation (Tokamak & Helical) Nuclear Fusion Vol.49 (2009) 055017.
Based on JT-60U ITB operation and LHD e-ITB data.
2. Burning Plasma Simulation:
“TOTAL” Code History
4
Core PlasmaEquilibrium Tokamak: :2D APOLLO Helical: 3D VMEC, DESCUR, NEWBOZ Transport Tokamak : TRANS 、 GLF23 、 NCLASS Helical : HTRANS, GIOTAStability NTM, Sawtooth, Ballooning mode
Impurity IMPDYN (rate equation) Tunsgtein ADPAC ( various cross-section )
Fueling NGS (neutral gas shielding) model mass relocation model NBI HFREYA, FIFPC Puffing AURORA
Divertor density control, two-point divertor
Edge transport H-mode edge transport
World Integrated Modeling
TOTAL-T,-H(J)TOPICS(J)
TASK(J)CRONOS(EU)TRANSP(US)ASTRA(RU)
5
Toroidal Transport Analysis Linkage
Main Feature of “TOTAL” is to performboth Tokamak and Helical Analyses
Advance Reactor Operation Scenario with ITB assisted by Pellet InjectionD/T fuel ratio adjustment for burn controlHigh-Z impurity(Tungsten) Effect and Diverter AnalysisNTM Effects on Burning PropertiesBS Current Fraction in ST reactor Stable against Ballooning Mode
Present Research Issues Using “TOTAL” Code
6
Time evolution of reversed-shear-mode operation
with continuous HFS pellet injection1GWe Tokamak Reactor TR-1
7
Ignition Tokamak Design (~1980,PPPL)Helical Design Assessment IAEA-Montreal (1996)Helical & Tokamak Assessment IAEA-Lyon (2002)Cost/CO2/EPR Analysis in MFE reactors IAEA-Geneva (2008)Cost/CO2/EPR Analysis in MFE & IFE reactors IAEA-Daejeon (2010)
3. System Code Assessment:
“PEC” Code History
8
Plasma beta value βIgnition margin
Target Electric Output (MWe)
Plasma Parameters
Assumption of ①Thickness of Blanket (m)
②Plasma major radius Rp(m)
input
Power Balance
Check Ptarget, tblanket, igm
Final Radial Build
Cost & CO2 emission amountsoutput
Driver Energy (MJ) Driver Efficiency (%)
Target Electric Output (MWe)
Fuel Mass (g)Fusion Energy (MJ)
Assumption of Repetition Ratio frep(Hz)
input
Power Balance
Check Ptarget
Final Radial Build
Cost & CO2 emission amountsoutput
MFE IFE Physics, Engineering, Cost
Main Feature is Comparative Assessment of Various Reactors
9
Thanks to US data (ARIES Group)
Data from OECD/IAE Energy Prices and Taxes (2009)
KoreaJapan Italy France Germany UK USA
HomeIndustry
HomeIndustry
International Comparisons of Present Commercial COE
(Supplementary Information)
US$/kWh
10
SC Coil
First WallBlanket
Shield
Gap
Plasma
RmR0
BmaxB0
SC or NC Coil
First WallBlanket
Shield
Gap
Plasma
RmR0
Bmax
B0
Reflector
SC Coil
First WallBlanket
Shield
Gap
Plasma
RmR0
BmaxB0
TR HRST
First Wall
Shield
Blanket
Laser
IR
Multiple Approaches Have Similar COE
Tokamak Reactor9.8¢/kWh
Spherical Torus10.4¢/kWh
Inertial Reactor10.7¢/kWh
Helical Reactor11.1¢/kWh
1¢~1\
11
1GWe Plant
MFE
0
5
10
15
20
0
2
4
6
8
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
ptarget
(MW)
COE(¢/kWh) Capital
Cost(B$)
Rp(m)
CO2
(g/kWh)
Rp
COE
CO2
Capital Cost
Capital Cost ~ P0.5
C.O.E. ~ P-0.5
CO2 Rate ~ P-0.3
Power Dependence on COE, CO2 rate
12
IFE
0
5
10
15
20
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
CO2
(g/kWh)
frep
(Hz)
Capital Cost(B$)
frep
COE
CO2
Capital Cost
ptarget
(MW)
COE(¢/kWh)
Power Dependence of IFE is similar to that of MFE
13
84.026.060.0max
31.093.050.096.3 1
10]mil/kWh[operthavaile
HR
tfBfPCOE
β
78.032.012.0max
40.090.048.009.2 1
10]mil/kWh[operthNavaile
TR
tfBfPCOE
β
04325.005.0max
02143.026.060.1
22
110]/kWhCOg[
operthNavaile
TR
tfBfPCO
54.035.063.0max
33.053.026.057.2
22
110]/kWhCOg[
operthavaile
HR
tfBfPCO
23.075.090.033.051.0
23.3
)1(
10[mil/kWh]
Foperavailthe
IR
tffPCOE
18.039.037.025.031.0
34.2
22
)1(
10/kWh]CO[g
Foperavailthe
IR
tffPCO
New Scaling Laws are derived
14
•Hondo et al., Socio-economic •Research Center (2000)
0 20 40 60 80 100
TR
ST
HR
TR(F-F)
TR (D-3He)
IR
fission
oil
coal
water
solar
wind
g-CO2/kWh/kWh¢
9.2
9
9.9
10.4
12.4
12.9
21.6
11.3
53.4
29.5
9.8
10.4
11.1
8.7
9.4
10.7
5
10.1
5.4
11.2
62.3
13.2
/kWh¢ , g-CO2/kWh
**
****
975
742
1¢~1\
Comparisons with Other Power Plants
15
CO2 Tax combines Cost and CO2
0
5
10
15
20
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000Carbon Tax (yen/t-CO2)
WindOilWater
Fusion
Coal
Fission
CCS-Coal
16
1US¢~1\1US$~100\
4 . Summary
● Comparative system studies have been done for several magnetic fusion energy (MFE) reactors and inertial fusion energy (IFE) reactor. ● We clarified new scaling formulas for cost of electricity (COE) and GHG emission rate with respect to key design parameters. ● The comparisons with other conventional electric power generation systems are carried out taking care of the GHG taxes and the CCS (carbon dioxide capture and storage) system to fossil power generators. 17
top related