DOE OSTI2019
A primary engineering challenge for the realization of fusion energy involves the development of high-performance structural and plasma-facing materials with dimensional stability and resistance to neutron degradation of mechanical properties. The harsh fusion environment, including high levels of helium production and other transmutation products along with high operating temperatures, poses an extreme challenge for materials. Identifying materials that can withstand these conditions is a high priority for fusion energy research. Critical to resolving this gap in scientific understanding is developing a neutron source facility with the ability to mimic the extreme conditions in a fusion reactor. Working with the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and the Virtual Laboratory for Technology (VLT) organized a workshop to discuss the need for a Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source (FPNS). [1] While there are a variety of uses for FPNS neutrons, the main driver of US interest is expanding the scientific understanding of materials degradation in the deuterium-tritium (D-T) fusion environment. FPNS will help build the scientific foundation required to enable design of a next step fusion device. Using specifications from previous projects as a guide, key parameters were agreed upon for a near term, moderate cost US facility that would be complementary to the more extensive plans of the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF). Types of facilities that could potentially meet those criteria were identified. A scoping study for three technologies was initiated to answer three critical questions: 1) Can the concept meet the key parameters, 2) What is the estimated cost, and 3) What is the estimated schedule. One approach selected for the scoping study is a D-Li stripping source similar to the design of the IFMIF but at a lower beam power and atomic displacement rate for cost and schedule reasons. The purpose of this report is to document the results of the D-Li stripping source option study, providing answers to the three questions. The approach to generating a fusion prototypic neutron source using a deuteron beam incident on a flowing lithium target has been studied for more than 40 years. As a result of the research and development recently executed primarily in Europe and Japan, the ability of this approach to meet key parameters (damage parameters, irradiation volume) outlined in the US workshop for a near-term, moderate cost fusion prototypic neutron source facility is not in doubt. The main question that must be answered is the cost of such a facility. As a result, a strong focus was placed on understanding alternatives for developing the facility and their relative costs. The project was broken into four components for the cost estimate: the ion source, accelerator, lithium target system, and conventional facilities. The cost of the accelerator is an important cost driver for the D-Li stripping concept. To fully understand the range of the accelerator cost, multiple alternatives were considered including normal conducting and superconducting linacs and the frequency of the radiofrequency quadrupole. Multiple previous design studies dating from 1989 through 2017 were examined (costs were escalated to 2019 dollars) and compared. After analysis, two options were selected for costing, one superconducting and one room temperature. We found similar project costs for the two accelerator options, on the order of $100M including design and project management but excluding contingency. Including everything except the conventional facilities, the estimate for the neutron source facility is estimated to be $220M without contingency. Additional significant costs for the facility are the conventional costs arising from the need to construct buildings for the accelerator and target facilities, bringing electrical power to the site including a new substation, and removing the heat from the facility using heat exchangers. While ORNL would oversee this work, much of the effort would be executed by contractors. Estimates for this effort was based on similar projects that are currently being executed at ORNL or were executed at ORNL in the recent past. The estimate for conventional facilities for the neutron facility is $173M without contingency, bringing the total project cost to $393M without contingency. With a 50% contingency, the estimated cost is $589M. The estimate range was established using guidance from the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE). Specifically, guidance from recommended practice 17R-97 provides insight on the expected accuracy range of estimates based on the degree of project definition and the position of the project in the stage-gate process or maturity timeline. An AACE Class 5 type estimate is appropriate for concept screening. The expected accuracy range includes a low end of -50% to -20% and a high end of +30% to +100% around the estimated cost. For the D-Li stripping neutron source, a -20% to +100% cost range was applied for a recommended cost range of $471M to $1,179M. Less emphasis was placed on determining the project schedule due to the fact that the project costs were large and may eliminate this option from consideration. The development of the accelerator facility may require on the order of five years without contingency. A more realistic schedule with contingency may be seven years. However, this estimate should be scrutinized in a preconceptual design activity if a more realistic estimate is needed. Finally, one lesson learned in this process is that the requirements for a near-term, moderate cost facility drives the alternative selection toward existing facilities and infrastructure. The D-Li stripping neutron source option requires a green field site due to the lack of existing buildings and infrastructure that can be reused for this effort. As a result, the conventional facilities costs are a significant fraction of the total facility cost. Other neutron source options where buildings, electrical power, and cooling infrastructure already exist may be able to meet the requirements for a near term, moderate cost facility.
70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗