GA Target Fabrication Tasks

1
GA Target Fabrication Tasks
Presented by Dan Goodinand Elizabeth Stephens
atHAPL Project ReviewSan Diego,
CaliforniaApril 4-5, 2002
2
Topics

• 1) Cost modeling of DD target fabrication (Dan
  Goodin)
• Addressing the feasibility issue of low-cost
  mass production of targets
• 2) Update on high-Z coatings (Elizabeth
  Stephens)
• Au/Pd alloys, permeation at elevated temperatures

GA/Schafer and LANL are part of a team addressing
the issues of IFE target supply (LANL lead for
fabrication GA lead for injection)
Target Supply Includes
Exploiting our experience with ICF targets -
similar materials and processes
Manufacture of Capsules
Filling with DT
Assembling Cryohandling
Layering Process
Injection and Tracking
.... demonstrate credible pathway
500,000 targets/day
3
Target Mass Production
Classic chemical engineering approach to Target
Fabrication Facility (TFF) design
The TFF is a chemical process plant
Alternate Process
Microencapsulation For Mandrels
PFDs
Baseline Process
Capsule Manufacture
Microencapsulation Int. Polycondensation Sputter
Coating
Fluidized Bed Ctg. -GDP -Solution
Mass-Bal. FSs
E-Bal. FSs
Prel. Equip. Types/Sizes
Permeation Cooldown DT Removal Transfer
Fluidization E by IR/RF Removal
Layering
Filling

• Status
• Completed preliminary layout and equip. sizing
• Costing model for radiation preheat target
• Cost results encouraging!
• Planning review more details

Preliminary TFF Layout -Floor Space -Height
Reqs.
Sabot Loading Removal Recycle Prop. Gas
RR Tracking
Injection
Demonstrate a credible pathway to producing
500,000 per day at 0.25 each
IRE Support
.... Important step in showing feasibility of
target fabrication
4
Approach to cost estimating of the TFF

• What this is not
• a final design and layout of the TFF plant
• doesnt mean that RD is done and process
  decisions are made
• It does
• assume that development is accomplished to allow
  scaling of current laboratory methods to larger
  sizes
• provide a generous allowance for equipment,
  labor, and process time for currently known
  processes
• uses chemical engineering scale-up principles and
  practices
• use established industrial and power plant
  cost-estimating methods and factors for an nth of
  a kind plant
• Model provides
• a first cut at the facility design concepts and
  cost
• a framework to compare and contrast future design
  decisions
• a tool to help guide future research directions

5
Direct Drive TFF major parameters summary

• 1) Production rate 500,000 usable radiation
  preheat targets/day
• 2) Assumed reject rate of 25 (at end of
  process)
• 3) Use of 60 moveable contactors of 100
  liters with an 8h target supply
• 4) Forty supply and interim processing tanks
• 5) Targets spend 3-5 weeks on the assembly
  line
• 6) Approximately 100 by 200 single-story
  facility
• 7) Total employees estimated at 127 (24/7
  shifts)
• 8) Installed Capital cost estimated at 68M
• 9) Annual materials and utilities 3M
• 10) Annual maintenance costs (labor and
  materials) 4M
• 11) Cost per ready-to-inject target is estimated
  at 13.8

Additional cost of injection is estimated at
about 1.6 , making the total estimated cost
15.4
. We think this is a very important conclusion
for the feasibility of direct drive IFE!
6
So what are we modeling?- fabrication of the NRL
radiation preheat target
Finished Cryogenic Target
Solid layered DT at 18K
DVB foam shells by microencapsulation
DT filling by permeation
DT Gas
DT-filled divinyl benzene foam
Seal coat by interfacial polycondensation
DT layering in a cryogenic fluidized bed
Drying, including supercritical CO2
Loading into sabot
1-5 ?m full density CH polymer (seal)
0.03 ?m high-Z layer (Au/Pd)
Injection with a gas gun
Sputter coating of High-Z
7
TFF proposed layout
8
Process step 1 - generation of DVB foam shells
Flowsheet (4-8 hrs per batch)
DVB
Water
Fragile shell in suspension
Water/PVA (external)
Schematic of microencapsulation process
CAD model of lab unit for microencapsulation
DVB foam shells, with dibutyl phthalate foam
solvent and benzoyl peroxide initiator, flow with
the outer water into rotary contactors where the
targets comprise 8 of the contactor volume
9
The droplet generator feeds into a rotary
contactor
Laboratory scale contactor
The rotary contactor is a basic functional unit
of the TFF
16 cm
4
Production scale contactor

• Rotary contactor does first 9 process steps
• Contactor 50 cm ID x 50 cm long and holds a 8h
  target supply
• Duty cycle on order of 2-4 weeks
• Stagewise backmix concept eliminates shell
  transfers and potential attrition to improve
  yields

10
TFF proposed layout
11
Process step 2-ambient temperature curing and
spheroidizing
DVB foam
Partially cross-linked
Water
Water/PVA (external)
The freshly formed DVB targets are gently stirred
by the rotation of the contactor as the foam
partially cross-links at ambient temperatures
12
TFF proposed layout
13
Process step 3 - heated curing (60C)
Flowsheet (48-72 hrs per batch)
DVB foam
Water
Water/PVA (external)
The partially cross-linked targets are heated to
60C to more fully polymerize cross-link the
DVB foam
Cross linking completed
14
TFF proposed layout
15
Process step 4- isopropanol exchange
DVB foam
Flowsheet (48-72 hrs per batch)
H2O
IPA
IPA (external)
IPA is sufficiently miscible in both water and
oil to facilitate the transition to inner oil
(step 5)
Counter-current exchange process to minimize
material use and wastes
16
TFF proposed layout
17
Process step 5 - oil exchange
Flowsheet (48-72 hrs per batch)
IPA
Oil
Oil (external)
Oil is transferred into the targets to facilitate
dissolution of Monomer A (Step 6)
Setting up for seal coat formation
18
Process Step 6 - loading of Monomer A
Flowsheet (48-72 hrs per batch)
Oil
Oil/A
Oil/A
Monomer A is dissolved into the oil inside of the
targets and inside the foam
19
Process Step 7 - water/surfactant exchange
Flowsheet (48-72 hrs per batch)
Oil/A
H2O/surfactant (external)
Oil/Water Interface
Water/surfactant replaces the oil outside of the
targets, keeps them from sticking together, and
provides an aqueous medium for dissolution of
Monomer B (Step 8)
20
Process Step 8 - Monomer B (interfacial
polycondensation)
Flowsheet (48-72 hrs per batch)
Oil/A
H2O/surfactant /Monomer B (external)
1-5 ?m CH
Monomer B is added to the water/surfactant to
initiate the formation of the 1-5 micron thick
seal coat via polymerization at the oil/water
interface (on the target surface)
21
Process Step 9 - isopropanol exchange
Flowsheet (48-72 hrs per batch)
Oil/A
IPA
IPA is sufficiently miscible in both oil and CO2
to facilitate the transition from inner oil/outer
water (step 8) to inner/outer CO2 (step 10)
22
Process Step 10 - CO2 rinsing and critical point
drying
Flowsheet (48-72 hrs per batch)
Liquid subcritical CO2 replaces the inner IPA
then heating beyond the critical point reduces
surface tension to zero for drying
IPA
CO2
8
Supercritical dryers operate at 1100 psig
Courtesy Thar Tech..
23
Process Step 11- high-Z sputter coating
Flowsheet (48-72 hrs per batch)
0.03 ?m Au and/or Pd
Industrial batch or roll coater
24
TFF proposed layout
25
Process Step 12 - DT filling in a permeation cell
1-5 ?m CH
Flowsheet (48-72 hrs per batch)
DVB foam with DT gas
DT Gas
0.03 ?m Au and/or Pd
36 I.D. X 40 Tall, 8 trays, 290,000 targets
Perm cell with trays
Tritium Systems
26
Process Step 13 - cryogenic fluidized bed
layering transfer to target injection
Solid layered DT at 18K
Flowsheet (4-6 hrs per batch)
DT
10
27
Equipment cost summary for foam target production

• Countercurrent contacting
• 25 reject rate through process

Total equipment cost 17M Equipment cost per
target 1.3
28
Balance of Plant costs for foam target production
By Millers method
Total install equipment cost 68M
Countercurrent contacting 25 reject rate through
process
Total BOP cost 51M BOP cost per target 3.7
29
Target Fabrication Facility capital costs are
treated as an annualized expense

• Design and construction costs are typically paid
  for by a combination of
• Debt (bonds)
• Preferred dividend stock
• Common equity stock
• Standard financial treatments (Ref. 1) result in
  a levelized fixed charge rate of expressing the
  annualized expense or repaying the design and
  construction costs to these three sources.
• The fixed charge rate is calculated using inputs
  ranging from interest rates, stock returns, tax
  rates, depreciation schedules, etc.
• For a 30-year facility with typical financial
  assumptions, the fixed charge rate is estimated
  to be 12.5 per year.
• Ref. 1 A Reference Data Base for Nuclear and
  Coal-fired Powerplant Power Generation Cost
  Analysis, DOE/NE-0095, 1988.

30
Operating labor costs for foam target production
Total Staff for TFF 127

• Countercurrent contacting
• 25 reject rate through process

31
Operating cost summary for foam shell
production(Ready for injection)

• Countercurrent contacting
• 25 reject rate through process

32
Total foam target production costs(Ready for
injection)

• Countercurrent contacting
• 25 reject rate through process

33
Process economics are robust even with
significant perturbations

• 35 targets are still attainable even after
  making any of these
• changes to the process assumptions
• 5.3X increase in capital costs, or
• 5.8X increase in staffing levels, or
• 10X increase in annual maintenance costs, or
• Target QA/QC reject rates of up to 74

These are single-variable sensitivities need a
propagation-of-errors analysis to provide
confidence levels for the cost estimates
34
Reject rate is a critical parameter - RD must
lead to high yields
35
Target injection costs are estimated at less than
2 each

• Less detail than fabrication study
• Estimate 6 full-time staff and an installed
  capital cost of 20 million (negligible utility
  costs assumed for now)
• Using factors developed in the fabrication study
  produces these results
• Annualized capital cost of 12.5 x 20M 2.5M
• Operating costs 0.5M
• Total annual costs 3M
• Cost per usable target 1.6

HYLIFE-II power plant concept showing basic
injector components
36
NEXT STEP Build modular components to
demonstrate scaleup

• Pilot-scale, or perhaps full-scale
• Start with droplet generator and contactor
• Flexible system - focus on evaluation of process
  scale-up parameters
• Funded by GA internal funds this year
• Install in IFE/FI development facility that we
  envision for Bldg 22 (ready June 2002)

37
Conclusions

• A first cut at modeling the production of direct
  drive targets on an industrial scale is very
  encouraging for meeting cost goals
• The process economics appear relatively
  forgiving, but a confidence assessment is planned
• A review - either by an independent reviewer or
  by IFE community participants - is needed
• Now need to show that these steps actually work
  when scaled up!

38
Comparison to prior data - Woodworth and Meier

• UCRL-ID-117396 (3/95) concluded reactor cost goal
  of 30 each
• W/M based on simple polystyrene capsule plus
  plastic/Pb hohlraum (HIF)

• Total Installed Capital Investment 6.3 times
  purchased equipment costs (or 5.3 times if not
  including working capital costs) method by
  Peters Timmerhouse in Chem Engr Plant Design
  Economics. Current work uses uses 4.3 times
  purchased equipment costs and does not include
  working capital costs - method by Miller in
  Perrys Chemical Engineering Handbook)