[Rematog]

Dynamite…..very funny. I assume that was a joke.

Rematog

[Rematog]

Eric,

I can understand why you would use helium for your cooling fluid for the electrode (I’m using this term for the cathode/anode combination, is this correct?). For completely different reasons, large (>100MW) generators are commonly cooled by hydrogen gas. The gas is then cooled in turn by the cooling water, with the heat exchange occurring in a shell and tube heat exchanger. This just adds another piece of capital equipment, and something else to maintain and monitor. (even low maintenance items need repair eventually).

Regarding the cost, I believe I answered the question of cost linearity with a statement saying “Generally linear within a limited range”. I had in mind something on the order of 1/2 the size costing 60% as much (or, conversly, twice the size being 180% the cost). Please note my figure of $3.12/kw for cooling tower (without cooling water pumps, piping, make-up water and blowdown systems) was for a (relatively small) 200MW size. A single 5 MW FF power block is a 40:1 size reduction from this. The cost would not be linear over that range. For a very small system, the cost would most likely be N times as much per Kw, with N being a small integer. I have not tried to price a system this tiny, so don’t really have a good feel for it.

While a direct water/air contact cooling tower (a “wet” tower) is lower in cost than a non-contact (water in finned tubes, referred to as a dry type cooling tower) at the larger sizes used in the power industry, It may well be that at the small size of a single 5 MW power block, a radiator type cooler is the most cost effective way to reject the heat from the cooling water into the atmosphere. But I would be quite sure the cost per KW will be more than $3.12 per KW I calculated for a much larger system, and the fan horsepower for moving cooling air will be greater as well (more air needed as only sensible heat added to air, no evaporative cooling with dry types such as a radiator). Again, this is an example of economies of scale.

Yes, you could use helium directly cooled by helium to air radiator, but this would mean a larger radiator. It would take an engineering study to determine if that was truly less expensive. Water’s high thermal carrying capacity, plus it’s low cost and lack of dangerous traits (with corrosion inhibitors) are why it is the most commonly used coolant. Helium will have more problems with coolant leakage than water and would cost much more to keep the system full of coolant (cost of replacement helium).

Regarding internal combustion engine (diesel or gasoline), yes, a lot of the fuel is converted to waste heat. And a good portion goes out the exhaust pipe as sensible heat in the exhaust gases and heat of evaporation of the water formed from combustion of the hydrogen part the of fuel. And another large part of the waste heat is transferred to the cooling water and rejected by the radiator. I imagine if someone was to try and put 200 large diesels on one site to generate 1GW, they would find a cooling tower less expensive then the 200 radiators, if the radiator was not already part of the standard engine package. Remember, the radiators would all have to have a source of cool air and a way to vent the heated air.

I will repeat my prior statements that I feel it highly unlikely that, at least in the US or Western Europe, distributed fusion reactors, with a fuel system using a neurotoxic, skin absorb-able gas, would be permitted at an unattended site or in urban areas, for at least a couple of decades.

But, shop fabricated modules, which can be installed quickly in the field, are a very economical way to build equipment. So Focus Fuson technology, with factory made modules, may well be quite practical, even if the modules are then installed at larger facilities.

I would also expect them to be used at large industrial facilities, for both power and process heat. And again, in non-urban areas, and with constant supervison and site security.

[Rematog]

Quick thought on economies of scale.

Which do you think would be less expensive and lower maintenance:

One 5000 hp diesel engine or twenty 250 hp V-8’s.

Rematog

[Rematog]

The only thought I’ve had on size has been; Can you cool the electrode as output goes up due to higher “pulse rate”? I know next to nothing about the heatload anticipated at the electrode, hence my stated 5% placeholder assumption for that.

By my assumptions, the cooling water flow (using a 40F rise on the cooling water temp) is 730 gpm. This a big flow by some standards (12 gallons per second, a big hose, not quite a fire hose though).

In the US, there are temperature limits and total heat limits on flows returning to bodies of water. This is why most plant’s have a cooling tower. Note, the tower consumes a significant amount of water, both thru evaporation and due to the necessary blowdown to control solids concentration (referred to as “cycles of concentration”).

Scaling is generally linear over a limited range, but some items (electrical equipment costs come to mind) don’t change as fast as capacity. Economy of scale does apply.

Just to give an idea of scale, the pipes for the cooling towers where I work are 8 foot inside diameter. A rough conversion estimate is that this would be the size needed to support 1600MW of FF power blocks (The pipe serves a 575MW steam unit, a big part of the difference, the steam unit has a lower hot water temperature due to need to keep condenser back pressure to as low as possible in order to maximize cycle efficiency).

Reusing waste heat is done where there is a useful load for low temperature heat. District heating is popular in Northern Europe. Industrial uses happen too, both in US and elsewhere. FF may have an advantage, as it’s electrical generation efficiency and output would be mostly independent of outlet cooling water temperature (not true of steam turbines, as I mentioned above). A higher outlet cooling water temperature will expand the uses to which it can be put (Hotter water can be used for more things). It will also reduce the water flow required for a given heat load, and if cooling towers are used, reduce the size and cost.

This condenser cost reduction effect would be especially important in dry regions, where air cooling of the water (by fined tubes as opposed to direct air/water contact) is needed to eliminate the water usage for the cooling tower. Air cooling by finned tubes is more expensive, both of capital cost and in parasitic load for fans, pumps etc.

So even in area of waste heat rejection, Focus Fusion has technical/cost advantages.

[Rematog]

Cooling Load and Cooling tower design.

I’ve been looking into cooling loads needed for a 5MW Focus Fusion Power Block.

My Assumptions:

Net output power is 5000kw
raw ion power is 98% of input power
raw x-ray power is 57% of input power
raw ion power coversion to electrical power eff. = 90%
raw x-ray power conversion to electrical power eff = 80%
Therefore: 0.98(Input) x 90% + 0.57(Input) x 80% = 5000kw + (Input)
so: 1.338(Input) = 5000kw + (Input)
Input = 14,793 Kw

Heat wasted is (100% – coversion eff) x raw power
Heat(Ion Beam) = 0.98(14,793kw) x 10% = 1450 kw
Heat(X-Ray) = 0.57(14793kw) x 20% = 1686 kw
Allowance for heat at electrode 5% of Input power = 14793kw x 5% = 740 kw.
Total Heat rejected 1450kw + 1686kw + 740 kw = 3876 kw = 13.2 MMBtu/hr for 5 MW net output.

Assume heat load linear with scaling reactor block output.

Cooling Tower Design

I’ve just gotten a cost estimate for a cooling tower which would be sufficient to meet the cooling needs for 200 MW of Focus Fusion output, based on my assumptions stated above.

I’d be glad to forward a PDF of the quote, and the URL of the site which provided it.

Bottom line was bare cooling tower materials $434K, FOB Factory. My rough estimate for installed cost is $625K, not including the circulating water pumps and piping, blow down systems and waste water disposal, make-up water supply and treatment and land.

Result summary: a bare Cooling tower will add $3.12/kw to the capital cost. It’s fans will consume 157kw of the Fusion blocks net output. The cooling water system would have a flow rate of 29,000 gpm and the tower would impose a 24′ head on the cooling water system (to be added to piping pressure loss and delta P flange to flange of the Focus Fusion power blocks cooling system heat exchangers). This was based on an assumed hot water temp of 140F and cool water temp of 100F. It was designed for a Louisiana environment.

The Hot temp is an important design/cost factor, as hotter water is easier to cool with a given ambient air temperature and humidity. I ran the cost estimate again with 180F hot water and 1/2 the flow rate (same heat rejected). Capital cost would be roughly 65%, fan Hp 125% (250 vs 200 HP) and cooling water pump head 2′ more (fan HP more as the same heat is rejected at higher temp, so outlet air temp higher, air less dense, more volume to move….)

In both cases I assumed the more expensive fiberglass construction as opposed to cheaper wood. FG lasts longer and requires less maintenance. For a project with a 30 yr design life, FG gets the nod.

If anyone wonders why I’m assuming a water based cooling system, just ask….

[Rematog]

I agree with Transmute…

While special interests have a loud voice (mostly with the speech of $), the U.S. is at it’s heart a democracy.

Any politician who was publicly perceived as standing between Americans and their standard of living would be road kill at the next election.

So sops to the special interests there will be, but oil and utilities have as much chance of stopping this as the movie industry had of stopping television, or the buggy builders of stopping Henry Ford.

Regulated utilities will likely be seeking recovery of their “prudently invested” capital, per the social contract giving them their monopoly. If you consider a graph with two lines, the higher being “rates” (utility gross income actually), and the other being “cost to produce power” (total utility operating cost & allowed profit actually), then if the “rates” drop at X% per year, and “Costs” drop at X-N% per year, both going down till they reach the new equilibrium and rejoin (Focus Fusion fully deployed), then the area between the to lines needs to be the value of the stranded assets (Obsolete power plants). These will likely not be straight lines, with early cost decreases to fulfill customer expectations, but an extension of higher “rates” after full deployment of Focus Fusion, in order to make the “area between the lines” match the needed capital recovery.

Non-regulated Independent Power Producers (called IPP in the industry) will not have recourse to this and will have to write off tens or hundreds of billions in obsolete plant. Some people will lose their shirts. If fact, I foresee the regulated utilities using the leverage of the new lower prices to attempt to kill off IPP and regain that market for themselves.

Other existing and new industries will deploy as fast as they can get delivery of power blocks and regulatory approval. I hope Mr. Lerner and crew hurry, it will be a wonderful, busy, time to be in this business.

(Despite what you may think, this will cause a massive increase in demand for people like me….in order to deploy FF, if it happens before I retire. I have worked for a regulated utility and currently work for an IPP, so I know both beasts and will likely be one of the initial losers. But, there will be work to do, and I’ve changed jobs before, it’s part of life.)

Rematog

[Rematog]

I would also expect this model to be common in the developed world. In the developing world, without our expensive power transmission network, the Fusion power block will likely be distributed, though still likely with several blocks sited together for ease of maintenance and supervision. If you think about it, they would still be attended (to prevent theft of valuable copper parts if for no other reason).

The power would then still travel by a local distrbution network to the end users homes and businesses.

Certain, cheap fusion power would be a massive boon to the developing world. Making life better, allowing heating and cooking without stripping forests for wood and making new economic opportunities available. (pumping water for irrigation, etc). Some of the best foreign aid to deveoping countries could be providing them with fusion power blocks and training in their operation and maintenance.

BUT…no technology short of fantasy will help the third world unless the third world deals with it’s population increase issues. For countries already overpopulated to have population growth rates of 4% (doubling in about 18 years!!!) is unsupportable for even another lifetime.

[Rematog]

Being under NRC regulation may, or may not, be “regulating it out of existance”.

My opinion is that it will be somewhere in between the extremes. They will require some things that add to the cost, but not so much as to more than double or triple the cost. Not enought to kill by anymeans.

Thinking about the fuel being a neurotoxin. How powerful? Is it a gas at atmospheric temperature and pressure? If it is truely dangerous, that alone is a strong arguement against unattended, distributed deployment. (Not just concerned about accidental release, but preventing theft and mis-use).

As Focus Fusion Power block become more common, and develops a proved safety record, risks become will be more understood and accepted by the public, then it will become more of a caniadate for urban use. But I don’t understand the big need for it to be used completely distributed and unattended, except in possible special cercumstances.

I could see Power Blocks being used as back-up power for hospitals, etc. They would likely then contract out the maintenance. But this kind of urban use would only be accepted by the general public after a large number of years to a safe track record.

Focus Fusion can provide very cheap energy, and the grid can be supplied by multiple “nodes”, beginning by repowering existing sites, progressing to new facalities progressively closer to loads as the technology becomes accepted and proven safe. It can be used for large scale desalination projects, power clean metals production and either directly charge electric vehicle, or be used to produce fuel for vehicles, either H2 or some varity of synthetic liquid fuel, and be used provide the energy needed to make fertilizer and pump irrigating water…none of these uses require unattended distributed use.

With time, costs will come down, and a wider varity of users will emerge. But, even if a power block drops to $250k fully installed cost, how many individuals would have, or spend on a power source, that much money. Remember too, most user do not want to deal with utilities (which is what power is, just like water and sewer). Think about it, almost no one in areas served by city water and sewer opt to install a well and septic system. Simplier, easier and actually cheaper (economies of scale) to let an specialist deal with it.

[Rematog]

Regarding NIMBY and Nuclear.

One thing I’ve not seen mentioned by anyone else. A Focus Fusion power block would be a nuclear device and would, i imagine, be regulated by the NRC.

NRC regulation would greatly impact design, building costs and siting issues. Would they require a concrete containment capable of withstanding the impact of a fully fueled jumbo jet?…. fission plants have one, so……

Hope you enjoyed the good news……..

Rematog

[Rematog]

Brian H wrote:

Lots of items there that don’t quite mesh with available info.

1) the units are conceived as factory pre-fab, trucked in and erected. The man-hours for installation etc. estimate is way high, probably at least an order of magnitude.
2) capacitors are off-the-shelf, and $50,000 seems high
3) profit for the installed unit seems questionable, as the revenue projections use licensing as pretty much the sole profit source.
4) Normal grid interfaces are not necessarily a good model for connection costs, as distributed generation would argue against large “brown field” clusters as the dominant model. Many, particularly in industrial zones, would likely be primarily dedicated to local consumption. Further, standardized interfaces would certainly be developed and implemented at far less than these projected costs for the volumes of installations projected.
5) Offices & site buildings are overstated, IMO; the projection I saw was for one office housing one or two technicians per 5 or 10 generation sites, remotely monitored.
6) Land costs are not part of any estimate process for the units. They would vary from $0 to a few hundred thousand perhaps, for the garage-sized building and interconnect facility, and the control site is a “shared” cost between 5 or 10, and might even be an office rented in a local commercial building.

Etc.

Brian,

Thank you for responding by my post. I enjoy getting intelligent, thought out feedback.

Pre-Fab: I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear that the first section of the estimate is for the factory fab. of the power block. I did this as a “reality check” of the number given by Focus Fusion. I intentionally kept cost what I considered very low. So, to me, this showed their number was reasonable as a very low end estimate.

Capacitors: are indeed off the shelf. An I have no data other the capacitance needed, nor did I try pricing by contacting vendors. I used a number that seemed reasonable for something that big, operating at 3-4 Kv. If you know what a real price would be, please post it and I’ll use it.

Profit: The Overhead and Profit figure I put in ($100,000K/module) was for the company factory fabricating the modules, not Focus Fusion. The royalty is part of the overhead, which also includes cost of owning and operating a factory, insurance, taxes, management and engineering salaries, etc. I used roughly a 25% mark-up for the O&P figure. If someone has real life business experience with the O&P for large, high tech skid mounted equipment in series production, please post and I’ll use it.

Distributed Generation: I agree that distributed generation was advantages that will drive the industry in that direction in the long run. But, in my posts, I am considering more the initial phase of deployment, say the first decade or two. In that time frame, due to the fact of this being a nuclear technology (fusion is a nuclear reaction), I firmly believe that the NRC, local regulation, and especially local opinion as expressed by zoning, permits and intervention, would prohibit it’s use in urban areas. Second, several economic factors (ease of maintenance, operations/oversight, security and economies of scale in construction) would make having the power block located on larger sites attractive. Third, the organizations doing the installation would be, again in my opinion, utilities, whether investor owned or governmental, and this will have advantage to those organizations of allowing reuse of facilitates. Think of this as being the business version of “realpolitik”.

Office, buildings, Control room: Again, my estimate is based on a large site with a lot of modules. I did divide the cost by the number of modules, so per unit, it is not that high. The control room I’m discussing has a DCS system (Distributed Control System, an industrial automation system to accept analog, discreet (on/off) and digital field signals, process them, make control outputs, again analog, discreet and digital. These systems provide user interfaces via multiple touch screen stations) which can monitor and control a large, complex operation. Other more mundane, but necessary, things also fall under this and site improvements, such as roads, outdoor lighting, water and sewer, etc. While I would not say my estimates are dead on, I would argue that based on my experience, they represent the low end of the cost range.

Land: You say they are not part of a cost estimate, then go one to say this is because they are extremely variable. I agree they are variable, but that does not, to me, mean they should be ignored in a greenfield cost estimate. If you disagree with my estimated value, fine, lets discuss why. One of the advantages I mention for brownfield development is the (arguable) assumption that the land on the existing site is already paid for and thus “free”. And re-use of brownfields does reduce environmental impact, worthwhile in itself.

In general, remember that I am using the standard of a heavy industrial installation with a 30 year design life, meeting OSHA, NEC, NEMA, ASME, ASCE, HEI, NFP and other codes and standards (including the insurance carrier’s) that all industrial facilities in the United States must meet. Yes, this stuff makes it more expensive, but all existing power technologies, and the prices your comparing Focus Fusion to, meet these requirements. It would be unfair, and un-realist, to make a comparison to Focus Fusion built to light commercial standards, not meeting codes. I.e. you could not expect to put a reactor in a lightly built trailer and sting cables from the ceiling, then park it in a neighborhood.

And, thinking about it, if the NRC gets involved with design, QA/QC requirements, etc., expect the cost to go up something like ten fold. (Modules costing $3-5 million ea, at factory, uninstalled).

[Rematog]

How I see it happening.
Yes, this is just my opinion. But, I would submit that it is an educated opinion. I base it on the way the power industry exists today, in the United States, with it

[Rematog]

Ran busbar estimate again. Didn

[Rematog]

Cogen for low level heat (HVAC, etc.) could be possible for distributed units. But that will be a good decade or two after initial deployment. The fact that this is the nuclear reactor (yes, I know it’s fusion…but it still will be licensed by the NRC and puts out radiation (yes, I know it’s x-ray wavelength electromagnetic)…I just do not believe you would get a permit to site one anywhere NEAR a residential or commercial area. And make no mistake, it will take a permit to install a fusion power block for the foreseeable future. (I am currently working on a project with an electrically powered x-ray tube used for analysis of coal. We will have to have a permit from the state to install it.)

Speaking of Heat, I neglected to include cooling water and plant auxiliary loads in my calculations.

I went back to my calculations, and used the inefficiencies of beam and x-ray conversion (90% eff, 80% x-ray) and calculated the waste heat. I added to this a reactor electrode cooling load of 5% of the gross energy (input + fusion) and come up with a heat load of 13.2 MMBtu per 5 MW power block or 1,586 MMBtu for a 600 MW plant re-powering with 120 FF power blocks. For comparison, from a modern 600 MW steam turbine heat balance, the condenser heat rejection is 2,492 MMBtu.

So, a cooling tower of 65% of the size can be used to cool Focus Fusion Block generating the same typical 600MW net. This works well for repowering, as the existing circulating water system would be re-used to supply cooling water.

I completely agree that my waste heat estimate is only a placeholder (esp. the electrode cooling) and better data on cooling loads is needed.

But, in all my cost estimate cases, I need to add the costs for plumbing the cooling systems up. While this adds to Focus Fusions costs, this will only decrease it’s advantage slightly.

Also, need to look at power requirements for plant site auxiliaries, including cooling tower fans and pumps, lighting, offices, etc. These will reduce plant net output by a very small percentage. For reference, a cooling tower of this size that I have data for, has 19 fans @150 Hp each and two circulating water pumps @ 3,500 Hp ea. So cooling alone will take 5.5 MW assuming 95% motor efficiency. I will re-run the busbar cost estimates with a total 3% parasitic load.

[Rematog]

My estimate. I am very sorry about the readability. I’ve yet to find a way to get this forum to format tables or allow posting files.

Rematog

Power Block Fabrication
Controls $10,000 PLC with local screen
Building $20,000 Prefab building, skid mounted
Cables, conduit, etc $20,000 power and control
MCC, Low voltage xformer $20,000 power distribution, 480V aux power
Solid State Power Controls $50,000 specialized high speed switching (to pulse reactor)
Capacitors, power supply $50,000 SWAG
HV xformer, disconnects $20,000 Output step up, required isolation devices.
Reactor Vessel $5,000 SWAG
Discharge Electrodes $5,000 SWAG
Vacuum pump $5,000 SWAG
Fuel system $5,000 SWAG
Ion beam power converter $10,000 SWAG
X-ray power converter $20,000 SWAG
Shielding $20,000 SWAG
Radiation detectors, other sensors $10,000 SWAG
Fabrication Labor $36,000 1200 $30.00 30 man-weeks @ 40 hr/wk
Overhead and Profit $100,000 Very arguable number
–
$406,000
Site Work, Installation
Foundation $20,000 excavation, fill, forms, rebar and mud, incs labor
Site Work (civil, fences, roads) $5,000 $500,000 Additions and changes
Control Room, etc $50,000 $5,000,000 Oversight for all system, DCS and Datalogging
Installation Labor $50,000 1000 $50.00 20 man-weeks @ 50 hr/wk (typ field work)
Shipping $5,000 for Power Block
Interconnection Cables $20,000 Power to transmission transformer yard
Engineering, supervision $10,000 $1,000,000
Rental Equipment $10,000
–
$170,000

Site Cost, New Development
Land $5,000 1/2 acre @ $10k/acre
Site Work (civil, fences, roads) $20,000 $2,000,000
Other Site Buildings $25,000 $2,500,000 Offices, maint, warehouse
Transformer Yard $200,000 $20,000,000
–
$250,000

Brown Field Cost $576,000
Green Field Cost $826,000

[Rematog]

Brian H. You state that $300K has been given as an “all in figure”. I’ve seen miss-understandings regarding what was included or was not included in prices.

I’ve spent over 25 years working with industrial equipment, including power supplies. Electrical and control equipment is expensive. Motor control centers, transformers, conduit, cables, etc rated from 480V to 13Kv cost serious money. I am certain output power from a 5 to 20 MW power block would be at no less then 4160V, more likely 13Kv, just to keep the cost of copper cables or bus bars down (>V = <A).

I worked up an admittedly very rough calculation of what I’d estimate (technical term is SWAG: Silly Wild Ass Guess) the cost to be for various component parts. Things like reactor vessel and X-ray power converter area really guess. Other items are likely low end, based on my experience.

I came up, to my surprise, at just over $300k for materials and labor to factory fabricate a power block. But, that is with zero cost for Overhead and Profit. Anyone making something has overhead costs (factory building, insurance, management, design) and will certainly need to make a profit. Allowing $100k for O&P takes the FOB Factory price to about $400K.

If 100 modules (assumed to be 20MW) are placed on an existing site (Brown Field development) then I estimated the site installation costs to be $170k per module. This includes things like shipping, field labor, project design, a new control room, etc.

Finally, if the project is a new development (Green Field) then I’d allow anther $250K per module for things like land, civil (grading and roads) and the big ticket item, the transmission substation (to raise the entire facilities output to transmission voltage, provide power conditioning, control and metering).

So, I came up with $575k per module for Brown Field and $825K for Green Field. My judgement is that all of these are low end estimates, i.e., the cost will be this much or more. I would guess more, likely double.

Do not think for a second that this means that I don’t realize that even at ten times my estimate, this would still be very cheap power. I know, from recent professional experience,what a new coal fire plant would cost, roughly $1,500 per kw capital cost, then you have to buy coal. Roughly 1 lb of coal for every KW-hr. If you do the math, to generate the power that a hundred 20MW modules would, you’d need to burn roughly 10 barge loads, or three trains of 73 cars each, EVERY DAY. This cost a lot more that the numbers we are tossing around in this forum.

[Author]

Posts