Tom Mulford John Sheffield Fusion Power Associates Annual Meeting Washington, D.C. December 15, 2011. Fusion Energy Assessment – Status Report.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 NNSAs ICF Strategy Presented to Fusion Power Associates 34th Annual Meeting and Symposium Washington, DC December 11, 2013 Kirk Levedahl NNSA NATIONAL.
Advertisements

Extension of IEA Implementing Agreement on Large Tokamak Facilities Presented to Committee on Energy Research Technologies October 18-19, 2005 Paris, France.
TITLE OF PROJECT PROPOSAL NUMBER Principal Investigator PI’s Organization ESTCP Selection Meeting DATE.
VLT Report the fusion trend line Stan Milora (ORNL) and Richard Nygren (SNL) FNST/PFC/MASCO Meeting Aug 2-6, UCLA.
1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES Procurement Dave Paveglio, Contract Administrator NSLS-II PAC Meeting May 25, 2007.
1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES National Synchrotron Light Source II Procurement Methodology David Dale NLSL II Procurement Manager.
Community Input on Plasma Materials Interactions Rajesh Maingi (PPPL), chair Steve Zinkle (UTK), co-chair Pete Pappano, FES program POC FESAC meeting Gaithersburg,
EFDA Fusion Roadmap Status of implementation Francesco Romanelli EFDA Leader.
Overview of the ARIES “Pathways” Program Farrokh Najmabadi UC San Diego 8 th International Symposium on Fusion Nuclear Technology Heidelberg, Germany 01–
Summary and Closing Remarks Farrokh Najmabadi University of California San Diego Presentation to: ARIES Program Peer Review August 18, 2000 UC San Diego.
Page 1 of 14 Reflections on the energy mission and goals of a fusion test reactor ARIES Design Brainstorming Workshop April 2005 M. S. Tillack.
Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (OFES) Perspective Gene Nardella, Acting Associate Director of Science for Fusion Energy Sciences
September 6-7, 2007/ARR 1 Power Management Technical Working Group: Status and Documentation A. René Raffray Mark Tillack University of California, San.
Overview of Advanced Design White Paper Farrokh Najmabadi Virtual Laboratory for Technology Meeting June 23, 1998 OFES Headquarters, Germantown.
Summary Report of the Energy Issues Working Group Organizer: Farrokh Najmabadi Covenors:Jeffrey Freidberg, Wayne Meier, Gerald Navaratil, Bill Nevins,
Thoughts on Fusion Nuclear Technology Development and the Role of ITER TBM Farrokh Najmabadi Prof. of Electrical Engineering Director of Center for Energy.
Role of ITER in Fusion Development Farrokh Najmabadi University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA FPA Annual Meeting September 27-28, 2006 Washington,
Challenges of a Harmonized Global Safety Regime Jacques Repussard Director General IRSN IAEA 2007 Scientific Forum.
Ashley Finan, 2006 Page 1 Nuclear Energy and Oil Sands? Ashley Finan Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Nuclear Science & Engineering.
Atlanta Public Schools Project Management Framework Proposed to the Atlanta Board of Education to Complete AdvancED/SACS “Required Actions” January 24,
HEPAP and P5 Report DIET Federation Roundtable JSPS, Washington, DC; April 29, 2015 Andrew J. Lankford HEPAP Chair University of California, Irvine.
1 BROOKHAVEN SCIENCE ASSOCIATES Authorization Basis Plan Steven Hoey, ESH Manager NSLS-II Project Advisory Committee Meeting December 10 – 11, 2009.
Nuclear Science User Facilities (NSUF) DOE Headquarters Perspective Michael Worley Director, Office of Innovative Nuclear Research Office of Nuclear Energy.
Opting for “Long Term Operations” Technical, economic and regulatory considerations MARC Conference June 8, 2010 Sean Bushart, EPRI Sr. Program Manager.
Overview of the ARIES “Pathways” Program Farrokh Najmabadi UC San Diego US-Japan Workshop on Power Plants Study and Related Advanced Technologies with.
Progress in Confinement & Heating Increasing laser energy nn Confinement Parameter & Temperature.
From ITER to Demo -- Technology Towards Fusion Power Farrokh Najmabadi Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering Director, Center for Energy Research.
An Expanded View of RAMI Issues 02 March 2009 RAMI Panel Members: Mohamed Abdou (UCLA), Tom Burgess (ORNL), Lee Cadwallader (INL), Wayne Reiersen (PPPL),
Plasma Exhaust Processing Closing the Fuel Cycle 1 C. A. Gentile, 1 C. Priniski, 2 J. Sethian, 1 W. Blanchard, 1 L. Ciebiera, 1 F. Dahlgren, 1 G. Gettelfinger,
Technology Transfer Execution Framework. 2 © 2007 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Relationship Between Your EPRI Value and.
ARIES “Pathways” Program Farrokh Najmabadi University of California San Diego ARIES brainstorming meeting UC San Diego April 3-4, 2007 Electronic copy:
1 Subprojects of IFERC K.Lackner (as Chair of IFERC Project Committee) Garching – 14 Apr 2011.
Integrated Used Nuclear Fuel Management Regulatory Information Conference U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission March 11, 2009 Steven P. Kraft Senior Director.
3 1 Project Success Factors u Project management important for success of system development project u 2000 Standish Group Study l Only 28% of system development.
1 Meeting on April 18, 2013 Washington DC Workshop on a Joint HDPE Roadmap for Current and Future Service.
Copyright Reserved GreenTech Malaysia 1 Project Brief/Summary  Project goal is to ensure realization of national green technology policy aspiration and.
U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science 20 th Meeting of the IEA Large Tokamak ExCo, May th Meeting of the IEA Poloidal Divertor ExCo, May.
NRC Study on Prospects for Inertial Confinement Fusion Energy Systems Presentation at Fusion Power Associates Annual Meeting December 1, 2010 David Lang,
Programmatic issues to be studied in advance for the DEMO planning Date: February 2013 Place:Uji-campus, Kyoto Univ. Shinzaburo MATSUDA Kyoto Univ.
Repository Design Overview Presented to: NSNFP Meeting Presented by: Joe Price Office of Repository Development April 13, 2005 Bethesda, MD.
ARIES- Pathways, October 25-26, 2010 Bethesda, MD Page 1 L. Waganer Consultant for The Boeing Company ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting October 2010.
Summary and Closing Remarks Farrokh Najmabadi UC San Diego Presentation to ARIES Program Peer Review August 29, 2013, Washington, DC.
U.S. Fusion Energy Sciences Program Fusion Program Summary for Program Leaders February 7, 2005 E xcellent S cience in S upport of A ttractive E nergy.
Nuclear Standards for Polymeric Piping Aaron Forster, NIST Engineering Laboratory NIST, MS Bureau Drive Gaithersburg, MD (301)
Response to TAC8 and Annual Review Recommendations John Haines Head of Target Division April 2, 2014.
AIAA Corporate Membership Advisory Committees Propulsion & Energy (P&E) Conference CMAC 7 June 2013 CMC Meeting.
Atlantic Innovation Fund Round VIII February 5, 2008.
PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE FOR PIPELINE PROTECTION AND THREAT INTERDICTION ARIES Pathways Study Kick-off Meeting Ken Schultz 3 April 2007 Determining the.
Page 1 of 9 Power Management Technical Working Group Structure and Goals ARIES Project Meeting June 2007 M. S. Tillack and A. R. Raffray.
FIRE Engineering John A. Schmidt NSO PAC Meeting February 27, 2003.
Future Direction of the U.S. Fusion Materials Program Dr. Pete Pappano US Department of Energy Fusion Energy Sciences Fusion Power Associates Annual Meeting.
PRESENTATION OF AWARDS Stephen O. Dean, President Fusion Power Associates Annual Meeting and Symposium December 16-17, 2015.
Advanced Design Activities in US Farrokh Najmabadi University of California, San Diego Japan/US Workshop on Fusion Power Plants & Related Technologies.
Plan to go forward Peter Wilson SBN Program Coordinator 27 September 2014.
Developing Technology for Inertial Fusion Energy David H. Crandall Advisor to the Under Secretary for Science On National Security and Inertial Fusion.
PRESENTED TO: ENERGY FACILITY CONTRACTORS GROUP SAFETY ANALYSIS WORKING GROUP SAFETY ANALYSIS WORKSHOP BY: CHRIS CHAVES NSR&D PROGRAM OFFICE OF NUCLEAR.
Role of Self-Assessment V.C. Agarwal, Director (HR) NPCIL,INDIA.
Implementing Program Management Standards at Duke Energy.
GAO’s Cost and Schedule Assessment Guides U.S. Government Accountability Office Applied Research and Methods Cost Engineering Sciences Jason T Lee, Assistant.
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Technical Business Consultancy Project
Systems Analysis and Design in a Changing World, 4th Edition
Pilot Plant Study Hutch Neilson Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory ARIES Project Meeting 19 May 2010.
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
The European Power Plant Conceptual Study Overview
Overview of the ARIES “Pathways” Program
Advanced Design Activities in US
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
TWG goals, approach and outputs
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Presentation transcript:

Tom Mulford John Sheffield Fusion Power Associates Annual Meeting Washington, D.C. December 15, Fusion Energy Assessment – Status Report

2 © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Objectives/Approach-Fusion Energy Assessment (FEA) To better understand the potential for fusion power to produce commercial electricity Utilize existing public information to select a target number of six to seven fusion initiatives for evaluation For each of the selected fusion power initiatives, provide a timeline to achieve an electric power production facility and identify the major obstacles/challenges to overcome to achieve that goal

3 © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Industry Executive Oversight Committee Championed the FEA Mike Wallace, Chairman (Constellation*) Ashok Bhatnagar (TVA) Don Brandt (Pinnacle West) Dave Christian (Dominion) Joe Donahue (Progress Energy) Steve Kuczynski (Southern Company) Rick Kuester (We Energies) * When FEA began

4 © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Advisory Committee Coordinated the FEA Tom Christopher (NPPA Consulting) Gene Grecheck (Dominion) Andrew Kadak (Exponent) Tom J. Mulford, (EPRI)

5 © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Technical Assessment Committee Provide Fusion Expertise Albert J. Machiels (EPRI) Martin Greenwald (MIT) Hermann Grunder (Director Emeritus ANL) Stan L. Milora (ORNL) John Sheffield (University of Tennessee) John Soures (LLE-Rochester)

6 © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Required Input from Participants Invited participants were asked to address the following key elements in their three hour FEA presentations –Conceptual design of electric plant –Technology readiness level –Research needs, schedule, cost and potential funding sources –Plan for resolving technical challenges including component testing –Overall schedule including the need for prototype, a demonstration plant and first commercial plant. –Best estimate and basis for the cost of power

7 © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Additional Information Requested – If Available What are the expected power plant parameters, including estimated COE (give details of the costing assumptions), and how long will it take to construct the plant? What is the product, electricity, hydrogen, support of fission…? What is the expected plant availability (capacity factor). The basis for this estimate: scheduled operational time for each component, and its expected replacement time? How is unavailability assigned, the mean time to failure, the meantime to repair or replace for each component? What is presently unknown and how will you obtain the data required to confirm the assumptions? What is the basis for component cost estimates and how will you confirm these estimates? What is the physics basis? What is known and what is yet to be confirmed, and how will you confirm it? What materials will you use and from where do you expect to obtain the data base for performance at the expected heat, plasma, and neutron fluxes and fluences—steady state or repetitively pulsed as appropriate? How long is the expected development path? What characteristics make this approach the best (one of the best) to achieving commercial fusion energy? If you were a critic, what would you criticize?

8 © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Participating Fusion Technologies 1.MFE: From Physics to DEMO. Advanced Tokamaks and STs Provide Support for a Fusion Nuclear Science Facility and a Fusion-Fission Hybrid – Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 2.Fusion-Fission Hybrids Based on STs – University of Texas 3.Magnetized Target Fusion. Compress Compact Torus with Thick Liquid Metal Liner - General Fusion (Canada) 4.LIFE– a DPSSL, Indirect Drive Based Approach to IFE – Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

9 © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Participating Fusion Technologies 5.A KrF Laser, Direct Drive Approach to IFE – Naval Research Laboratory 6.A Pulsed Field Reversed Configuration Fusion Reactor – Helion, Inc. 7.A Fusion-Fission Hybrid Based Upon an Advanced Tokamak - Georgia Institute of Technology

10 © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Current TAC Focus and Activity Preparing input on the scientific and technological status and risks associated with each technology, including: the estimated cost and timescale to plant operations the maturity of the economic evaluations the level of detail and rigor in the power plant delivery plans the investments made to date considerations of likely licensing pathways the industrial readiness of the technologies the integration maturity of the proposed designs with regard to power plant operations and maintenance the level of engagement by each project with regard to requirements from the end-user (utility and vendor) community

11 © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. General TAC Conclusions (to date) Collectively the groups made a compelling argument that fusion energy can be made practical in one or more ways. They provided a good sense of the challenges ahead and of the R&D required to overcome those challenges. Each proposed a timeline for fusion development, though under different assumptions of risk and resources. There are broad difference in the level of maturity for the physics and technology that underlie the different approaches; however, there are also a large number of cross-cutting issues evident. Notable perhaps are needs in: –Safety and licensing –Materials –Tritium fuel-cycle –Remote handling Work in these areas would generally benefit all concepts

12 © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Going Forward Complete TAC input on the scientific and technological status and risks associated with each technology – January 2012 Prepare a draft report that documents the elements and conclusions of the FEA – April 2012 Review draft report content with EOC and obtain input on continuing activities to develop a strategic plan (or roadmap) for commercialization of fusion energy for power production using one or more of the selected fusion technologies as input – May 2012 Finalize and publish final report on the FEA activities and recommendations – June 2012

13 © 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity