Professional Documents
Culture Documents
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
ARIESStudies
Capital Cost
typically accounts
for 80% of the
annual cost to
operate a fusion
power plant
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
Factor
Influence
Capital Cost
Operating Cost
Fuel very low cost; Maybe small operating staff; Power core
maintenance may be high for wall, blanket, and divertor
Thermal Power
Thermal
Efficiency
Fusion will have to push the limit with Brayton gas cycle to stay
competitive with efficiencies around 60% (>1100C fluids)
Recirculating
Power
Availability
ARIESStudies
Operating Time
Operating Time + Sum of Outage Times
1
=
1+
Preventative Maintenance
Time Between
Maintenance Periods
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
ARIESStudies
ARIESStudies
ARIESST
Definevertical
maintenancescheme
Removecenterpostonly
Removetotalpowercore
UsedemountableTFcoils
SplitTFreturnshell
Elevation View Showing FPC Maintenance Paths
ARIESRS
Integratemaintenanceintopowercore
Designpowercorewithremovable
sectors
Designhightemperature,removable
structureforlifelimitedcomponents
ArrangeallRFcomponentsina
singlesector
Defineandassessmaintenanceoptions
Definepowercoreandmaintenance
facility
ARIESAT
Improvemaintainability
Refineremovablesector
approach
Definecontaminationcontrol
duringmaintenanceactions
Assessmaintenanceoptions
Definemaintenanceactions
Estimatescheduled
maintenancetimes
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
Core
Plasma
Withdrawalof
PowerCore
Sectorwith
LimitedLife
Components
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
Sector Removal
Remoteequipment
isdesignedtoremove
shieldsandportdoors,
enterportenclosure,
disconnectallcoolant
andmechanical
connections,connect
auxiliarycooling,and
removepowercore
sector
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
ARIES-AT
Maintenance Options Assessed
In-situ maintenance
All maintenance conducted inside power core
ARIESStudies
Blanket to Shield
4
4
Sector to Header
5
Total
4
9
Blanket to Shield
(4 in hot cell)
(4 in hot cell)
Sector to Header
5
Total
5
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
Comparison of
Maintenance
Approaches
In-Situ Advantages
Smallest buildings
Low maintenance
and spares costs
Corridor Advantages
Low spares costs
Reduced irradiated
waste
Scoring:0=Lowest,4=Highest
Maintenance Approach
Criteria (Importance)
Maintenance Time
Replacement Sector
Reliability
Building Cost
Maintenance Equipment
Cost
Waste Volume
Contamination Control
Applicability to Scheduled
and Unscheduled
Maintenance
Totals
MAX. SCORE
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
Sector Transport Approach
Compare
Transport
Approaches
Criteria stresses
maintenance time
and contamination
control
Minimal
differences between
approaches
Selected cask
enclosed as
baseline approach
based on safety
considerations
Criteria (Importance)
Removal of components
and transit time should be as fast
as bare sector. However time to
accomplish shrink-wrap will
increase the overall time. All
serial operations.
Replacement Sector
Reliability
Building Cost
Maintenance Equipment
Cost
Contamination Control
(Importance increased)
Applicability to Scheduled
and Unscheduled
Maintenance
Totals
MAXIMUMSCORE
Nearly Equal
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
Frequency
Assessment
Recommendation
1/4ofcore
(4sectors)
12m/availability
Yearlymaintenanceisfeasible.Cooldownand
startupdurationswillbedetrimentalto
availabilitygoals.Requiresminimalnumberof
hotmaintenancespares.
Toofrequent.
1/3ofcore
(5or6sectors)
16m/availability
Verysimilartoannual.Fixedtaskscontinueto
beamajorfactorofoutagetime.Requiressmall
numberofhightemperaturestructurespares.
MaintainBOPeveryothercycle.
#2choice
1/2ofcore
(8sectors)
24m/availability
ProbablywillmatchupwellwithBOPmajor
repair.Requireseightsetsofsparehot
structures.
#1choice
Entirecore
(16sectors)
48m/availability
Thisfouryearfrequencyalsomightbewell
matchedwiththeBOPmajorrepairs.Requires
alargenumberofsparehotstructuresand
maintenanceequipment.Probablywouldyield
highestavailability.
#3choice
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
ARIESStudies
2.6 m
Bioshield (2.6-m-thick) is
incorporated into building inner
wall
Building wall radius determined
by transporter length + clear area
access
Extra space provided at airlock to
assure that docked cask does not
limit movement of other casks
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
Power Core
Removal Sequence
Cask contains debris and dust
Vacuum vessel door removed
and transported to hot cell
Core sector replaced with
refurbished sector from hot
cell
Vacuum vessel door
reinstalled
Multiple casks and
transporters can be used
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
Animation of
Power Core Removal
Sequence
(1)RemoveShield
(2)MoveShieldtoStorageArea
(3)RemovePortEnclosureDoor
(4)RemoveVacuumVesselDoor
(5)MoveVVDoortoStorageArea
(6)RemoveCoreSector
(7)TransportSectorinCorridor
(8)ExitCorridorThroughAir
Lock
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
Maintenance Action
Duration of Serial
Operations, h
Assumes
streamlined
processesfor
coreevacuation,
bakeout,and
coolantfills
Maintenance Action
Duration of
Parallel
Operations, h
24
2.0
2.0
Dominatedby
cooldownof
systemsand
core
6.0
30
Startup Timeline
Startup tasks
Move transporters and casks to hot cell
Evacuate core interior
Initiate trace or helium heating
Fill power core coolants
Bake out (clean) power core chamber
Checkout and power up systems
Subtotal for startup
Duration of Serial
Operations, h
Duration of
Parallel
Operations, h
0.8
10.0
10.0
8.0
12.0
4.0
34.0
12.0
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
Maintenance Action
Repetitive
Maintenance Times
for Replacement of
a Single Power
Core Sector
Duration of
Serial
Operations, h
Duration of
Parallel
Operations, h
1.0
0.2
3.6
0.2
2.0
0.2
1.0
0.2
1.0
0.2
2.5
0.2
3.2
0.2
0.2
2.0
0.6
0.2
1.0
0.2
3.0
0.2
1.0
7.7
1.0
1.0
5.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
2.5
0.2
1.0
5.7
1.0
3.0
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
34.8
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
Maintenance
Action
Duration, h
203.2
238
272.8
342.4
620.8
Maintenance Availability
Actions Over for Scheduled
Four FPYs, h Core Outages
812.8
0.9773
748.8
0.9791
Incl.inAbove
0.9808
684.8
620.8
0.9826
Equivalent
Days/Year
8.47
7.80
7.13
6.47
34.8 h x # Sectors
ARIESStudies
2
5.57
4.90
4.23*
3.57
4
4.12
3.45
2.78
2.12
8
3.39
2.73
2.06
1.39
16
3.03
2.36
1.70
1.03
8.00
7.00
Maint Days/Year
Optimum
Number
Of Sectors
No. of
Sectors
Replaced
4
5&6
8
16
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
ARIESStudies
Avail Goal
0.975
0.975
0.947
0.900
Annual Days
9.37
9.37
20.56
~ 39.3
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003
ARIESStudies
Summary of Maintainability
Approach and Availability Analysis
Approach addresses the need to quickly
accomplish remote maintenance in a safe and
responsible manner
Reasonable timelines are postulated for a
highly automated maintenance system
Power core availability goals should be
attainable with a margin
L.M. Waganer
US/Japan Workshop
9-10 October 2003