Transcript Advanced Energy Storage (AES) and its Applications

A New Energy Age for DoD
Unlimited Power to Support DoD Missions
Presented to 1st Thorium Energy Alliance Conference!
The Future Thorium Energy Economy
20 October 2009
James R. Howe
Vision Centric Inc.
256- 489-0869
[email protected]
Thorium
The Enabler
The Future
Becomes Reality 1
Outline
•
•
•
•
Background
Historic Service Programs Provide Foundation
Proposed Solution
DoD Energy requirements
-- DoD Distributed Power Requirement
-- DoD Remote Power Missions
-- DoD Logistics Issues: Electricity, Fuel, and Water
-- DoD Power Projection Missions
• Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) Support to Service Missions
- Army/Marines
- Air Force
- Navy
• Conclusions
2
Background
• DoD energy needs are increasing as available fossil fuels increase in cost
and decrease in availability
• Hundreds of small nuclear reactors have been built, mostly for naval use and
as neutron sources
• National Security requirement for independent power supply for DoD bases
– Multiple small reactors could either be distributed or clustered to solve
energy demand
– Could be part of a Sandia National Laboratory micro grid concept
• Characteristics of smaller nuclear reactors:
– Greater simplicity of design
– Economy of mass production
– Reduce cost of site
– High level of passive/inherent safety
Congress is funding research:
 Advanced gas cooled designs
 Factory provided, assembled on-site
3
Background (Continued)
• Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne, IL) has developed a liquidlead-cooled, fast-spectrum, solid-core reactor concept.
– Requires a minimum of maintenance and can operate 30 years w/o
refueling
– Passive safety systems
– Cooled by natural convection
• Office of the Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment
– Leverages Energy and Environment projects
– Uses catalyst technology projects
– Executed by Florida International University
• USAF is considering building a nuclear power reactor at one or more
of its bases, to be privately owned and operated
– Started by Kevin Billings, Assistant Secretary AF for energy,
environment, saftey and occupational health (MAR 08)
• Senator Larry Craig (ID) sent letter to SAF asking if AF was interested
• Senator Pete Domenici (NM) sent a similar letter
4
Three Branches—Three Reactor Programs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Naval Reactor efforts began in the late 1940s with Rickover’s
pursuit of a nuclear reactor for a submarines, culminating in the
launch of the USS Nautilus in 1954.
Pressurized water reactor technologies were chosen based on
their compactness and relative simplicity.
The Air Force also had a desire for a nuclear-powered aircraft that
would serve as a long-range bomber.
An aircraft reactor was far more challenging than a terrestrial
reactor because of the importance of high-temperatures, light
weight, and simplicity of operation.
The Nuclear Aircraft Program led to revolutionary reactor designs,
one of which was the liquid-fluoride reactor.
The Army Reactor Program began in
1953 to enable nuclear power for
remote sites—they chose PWR
technology because the Navy did.
Reactors for Ft. Belvoir, Ft. Greely,
Camp Century, and other sites were
built.
5
Army Nuclear Power Program
The Army Nuclear Power Program (ANPP) was a program of the United States
Army to develop small pressurized water and boiling water nuclear power
reactors for use in remote sites.
Eight reactors were built in all: (Of the 8 built, 6 produced operationally useful power for an
extended period)
•
SM-1, 2 MWe. Fort Belvoir, VA, first criticality 1957 (several months before the Shippingport Reactor) and the first
U.S. nuclear power plant to be connected to an electrical grid.
SM-1A, 2 MWe, plus heating. Fort Greely, Alaska. First criticality 1962.
PM-2A, 2 MWe, plus heating. Camp Century, Greenland. First criticality 1961.
PM-1, 1.25 MWe, plus heating. Sundance, Wyoming. Owned by the Air Force, used to power a radar station. First
criticality 1962.
PM-3A, 1.75 MWe, plus heating. McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Owned by the Navy. First criticality 1962,
decommissioned 1972.
SL-1, BWR, 200kWe, plus heating. Idaho Reactor Testing Station. First criticality 1958. Site of the only fatal accident
at a US nuclear power reactor, on January 3 1961, which destroyed the reactor.
ML-1, first closed cycle gas turbine. Designed for 300 kW, but only achieved 140 kW. Operated for only a few
hundred hours of testing before being shut down in 1963.
MH-1A, 10 MWe, plus fresh water supply to the adjacent base. Mounted on the Sturgis, a barge converted from a
Liberty ship, and moored in the Panama Canal Zone. Installed 1968, removed on cessation of US zone ownership in
1975 (the last of the eight to permanently cease operation).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MA-IA Reactor

Key to the codes:

First letter: S - stationary, M - mobile, P - portable.

Second letter: H - high power, M - medium power, L low power.

Digit: Sequence number.

Third letter: A indicates field installation.
6
Reactors can be very small and powerful, such as
the Nuclear Aircraft Concept

Convair B-36 X-6


Four nuclear-powered
turbojets
200 MW thermal reactor
Liquid-Fluoride
Reactor
7
Navy Nuclear Power Program
11 Nuclear Powered Carriers
69 Nuclear powered Submarines
More than 5500 reactor years without accident
8
Proposed Solution
• Small liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) driving
closed cycle gas turbine engines
– Characteristics;
• Capacity: 10 – 100 MW
• Modular construction, capable of transportation by air and ground
vehicles.
• Reactor size: 3m diameter, 6m high.
– Potential Cooling Methods
• Water cooled – desalinate with waste heat
• Air cooled
– Elements of design
•
•
•
•
•
•
Strongly negative power coefficient and void coefficient
Simple internal fuel and blanket reprocessing
High-temperature heat exchangers
Hastelloy-N core vessel stable in fluoride salt
Closed-cycle gas turbine with ~50% conversion efficiency
Hydrogen/ammonia production and desalination capability
9
DoD Power – Remote and Naval Ships
DoD Power – Remote
and Naval Ships
Army
Marine
Corps
AF
• Kwajalein Test Range
• BMD Early Warning Radars
• Ft. Greely, AK
• Major Overseas Bases: 17
• Global Power Projection
• Global Power Projection
– Lily Pad Strategy
– Lily Pad Strategy
• Global Air and Missile Defense
Sites
• Major Overseas Bases: 36
• Major Overseas Bases: 6
• Global Power Projection
– Lily Pad Strategy
DoD CONUS
Bases
Navy
• Major Overseas Bases: 16
• Global Power Projection
– Sea Basing
• Naval Ships
– Carriers: 11
– SSBN: 18
– SSN: 53
– CG(N)-X: 19?
– Other Major Surface
Combatants
• Power for each major base/ critical
installation independent of the US
Power Grid
– USAF: 71
– USA: 59
– USN: 57
– USMC: 15
10
Ambassador Woosley: DoD Needs Distributed
Power – “Small is Beautiful” (1)
Defense Infrastructure at Risk to
National Grid Vulnerabilities
Major Bases
•Army – 36
•Navy – 16
•Air Force – 17
•Marines – 15
•Intelligence community
1. National Security and Homeland Security Issue
Need Power for Remote Sites, Global Bases,
and Support to Expeditionary Forces
U.S. Overseas Deployments
• > 700 bases in > 130 countries
• > 250,000 personnel
• > 44,000 buildings
Joint Remote Site Power Production
•
All services have remote sites that require dependable 24/7/365 operation
Energy is a Major Component of Power
Projection Logistics
• How can we sustain forward deployed and power projection forces in
the face of uncertain energy supplies and asymmetric threats?
 Nuclear energy is a compact, cost-effective sustainable energy source
• Combat Logistics – “Tooth to tail” ratio > 10-1
 Extended (and vulnerable) supply lines
 Prohibitive transportation costs – Fuel costs $100-600/gallon
 Storage and distribution challenges – Large infrastructure costs
 No, or inadequate local sources
 Combat Losses
-- Men and material
-- Impact on Combat operations
 Fuel Consumption per soldier is rapidly increasing
• 2004  20 gallons/day
• 2040  80 gallons/day
 Battlefield supply volume
• Bulk petroleum  40%
• Water  50%
Energy is the Enabler of Military Operations
Transportable Reactors could Provide Electricity, Fuel
and Water
The Past
• ML-1 Reactor-1965
• 6 Containers required
The Future
• LFTR -10-30 MW
• Air Transportable
•Emplace in 3-5 days??
DoD Power Projection Missions
Iraq Bases
Afghanistan Bases
LFTR could produce Power, Potable Water, and
Hydrogen/Ammonium fuel for vehicles
Thorium
LiquidFluoride
Thorium
Reactor
Power
Conversion
Process Heat
Low-temp Waste
Heat
Electrical
Generation (50%
efficiency)
Thermo-chemical H2
Desalination to
Potable Water
Facilities
Heating
Electrical load
Electrolytic
H2
Hydrogen fuel cell
Ammonia (NH3)
Generation
Automotive Fuel Cell
(very simple)
Deployed forces logistics could be greatly reduced-no water, fuel, generators
LFTR Can Power Advanced Army
Weapon/Sensor Concepts
Advanced high energy lasers, electromagnetic guns, and sensors
will enable highly cost-effective ballistic missile defense and space operations
Global, real time communications
Electromagnetic Guns
17
Illustrative Long Range Strike Capabilities
Enabled by Thorium Reactor Power Source
 Cost – Cost – Cost: EMG Radically changes cost of waging war
 Offensive: $10-30 k/Rd and ~ $6 to launch 3000-6000 km
 Defensive: ~ $30 k/Interceptor
 Greater Standoffs = Reduced Ship Vulnerability
 Volume and Precision Fires (< 3m CEP)
 Multiple Objectives
 Time Critical Strike (6-15 min)
 All Weather Availability (24/7/365)
 Variety of Payloads
 WH: Penetrators/KEPs –
Hypervelocity Impact Imparts
can destroy most targets of interest
High Energy
 Sensors: Air, Ground, Sea
 Scaleable Effects
 Minimize Collateral Damage
 Deep Magazines (1000-3000+ rounds/gun)
 Non-explosive Round/No Gun Propellant
 Simplified Logistics
Hypervelocity Impact
(M5+)
Game Changing Technology Across Conflict Spectrum
(1) Long-range Offensive Missiles cost ~ $500k to $3M+ and Defensive Interceptors cost $1-3M+
18
LFTR can Power Advanced Air Force Concepts
Radars
Overseas Bases
Long Endurance UAV’s
Power Space Based Systems
- Communications
- Sensors
Thorium Reactors Can Be Cost-Effectively
Used for All Navy Ships
Aircraft Carriers - 12
Frigates – 30
Littoral Combat Ships - TBD
Cruisers - 22
Amphibious Assault
Ships - 11
Destroyers – 53+
SSBN – 14
SSGN – 4
SSN - 53
Thorium Reactors are expected to be smaller, lighter, safer and less costly 20
Requirements to Construct Nuclear Powered Naval Ships
1) FY 2008 Defense Authorization Act
• Section 1012 of the 2008 Defense Authorization Act (H.R.
4986/P.L. 110-181 of January 28, 2008
Nuclear Power Systems for Major Combatant Naval Vessels –
Requires that all new classes of submarines, aircraft carriers,
cruisers, large escorts for carrier strike groups,
expeditionary strike groups, and vessels comprising a sea
base have integrated nuclear power systems, unless the
Secretary of Defense submits a notification to Congress that
the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in a
given class of ship is not in the national interest.
2) Rapidly emerging need for high MW Electric Power ships for
advanced weapons and sensors.
7/7/2015
21
21
What Future Vessels Must Provide
“Four themes hardware producers need to
accommodate
 Systems must be capable of supporting the
transformation mission

–
–
Reduced manning is vital
–

As personnel costs drive total cost, value of
reducing crew size achieves similar
importance to acquisition system cost
reduction
Logistics must be simplified
–

LCS – shallow water; High speed
Advanced weapons and sensors
–
Common elements, reduced numbers of
models/series
De-salinated water and other products
Open Architecture is paramount
–
–
Allows rapid upgrade of systems to the latest
technologies
Allow for continuing competition of the best
ideas/capabilities”
Donald C. Winter, Secretary of the Navy, remarks to Bear Sterns Defense and Aerospace
Conference, 31 May 2006, Ritz Carlton, Arlington, VA
7/7/2015
LFTR successfully addresses each
 Scaleable to fit LCS and other ships
 Power for EM Guns/sensors
 Global range at flank speed
 Simplicity & safety reduces operations
manpower, increases flexibility which further
reduces crew size
 LFTR reduces ship fire and damage control
crews
 Reduced logistics- Cuts the single biggest
supply line - fuel
 Scales favorably
 All electric systems have reduced
maintenance & weapons have reduced
logistics and storage requirements
 Potentially fits into existing DDX vessel
designs
 All electric systems allow fast upgrades and
retrofitting
22
22
Thorium Reactors Can Capitalize on Existing Engine Design/Technology,
Significantly Reducing Engine Development Cost/Schedule
Billions have been spent on
optimizing jet engine
technologies.
Available infrastructure is ready
to optimize closed-cycle jet
engine architecture
Key components:
 Single crystal turbine blade
manufacturing
 Low-friction magnetic and
mechanical bearings
• Existing turbojet/turbofan engine technology can be adapted
− Small cruise missile class to very large ship class
− Dual mode is commonplace
− Technologies developed for early nuclear propulsion programs can be
applied
 Computational fluid codes
to model engine dynamics
 Aerogel insulation
7/7/2015
23
23
Ex: Pressurized-water Naval Nuclear Propulsion System
SSBN: 42’
SSN: 33’
CGN: 42’
SSBN: 55’
SSN: 42’
CGN: 37’
7/7/2015
24
24
LFTR Could Cost 30-50% Less Than
Current Naval Reactors






No pressure vessel required
Liquid fuel requires no expensive fuel fabrication and qualification
Smaller power conversion system
No steam generators required
Factory built-modular construction
Smaller containment vessel needed


More simple operation




Steam vs. fluids
No operational control rods
No re-fueling shut down
Smaller Crew
Lasts for Ship Lifetime
Recent Ship Propulsion Designs at NPGS have included thorium reactors
•Preliminary LFTR design in work for a ship propulsion system
•Neutronic codes for liquid fuels under development – Needed to design propulsion system
•LFTR ship propulsion is expected to be smaller, lighter and cheaper than current nuclear
propulsion systems
•Utilizes closed-cycle gas turbines which can take advantage of existing gas turbine engine
25
technology.
LFTR Supports Maritime Strategic Concept
 Strategic Imperatives
– Limit regional conflict with forward deployed, decisive maritime power
– Deter major power war
– Win our nation’s wars
– Contribute to homeland defense in depth
– Foster and sustain cooperative relations with more international partners
– Prevent or contain local disruptions before they impact the global system
 Expanded Core Capabilities
– Forward Presence
– Deterrence
– Sea Control
– Power Projection
– Maritime Security
– Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief
7/7/2015
26
26
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors Significantly Enhance
the Following Capabilities:
Ship
 Higher sustained speeds provides real-time response
– Transit
– Operations in Theatre
 No requirement to re-fuel
– Transit
– Operations in Theatre
 Power
– Advanced Radars (New Aegis radar requires ~ 30 MW power)
– Electro-magnetic guns – Need GW power levels
- Self Defense
- Strike
2020: 500+ km
2030: 3000+ km
- Ballistic Missile Defense
2020: 500+ km
2030: 3000+ km
– Directed Energy Weapons
– Other Sensors, e.g. Pulsed Sonars
– High Power Microwave Weapons
 High Power Density Propulsion
– Frees weight/space for high value/high impact assets
 Survivability
– No exhaust stack – reduced IR/RCS signatures
– No fuel supply line
– Power self defense capabilities
7/7/2015
Fully Integrated Propulsion, Sensors, Weapons
27
27
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors Significantly Enhance
the Following Capabilities (Cont.):
Force Enhancement
 Reduced energy independence – no reliance on fuel tankers
– No need to provide protection to tankers, LOCs, or fuel
suppliers
– No dependence on foreign oil
– No reduced transit speed/time off station to re-fuel
 Greater forward presence
 Response to crises/conflicts
 Un-paralleled flexibility moving between theatres
– Surge ability
– On-station time
 Superiority on the sea
 Reduced cost/ship = more ships
7/7/2015
28
28
Reduced Transit Times to Potential Conflict Zones
A - Pearl Harbor
to Taiwan
4283 nm
A
C
E - Norfolk to
Persian Gulf
(via Suez canal)
~ 8,300 nm
C - San Diego
to Taiwan
5933 nm
D - San Diego
to Persian Gulf
B
(via Singapore)
D
~ 11,300 nm
B - Pearl Harbor
to Persian Gulf
(via Singapore)
~ 9500 nm
B&D
Transit time - hours
• ~ 20 kt speed
• Need to re-fuel every 4-6 days
7/7/2015
Route
20 KT*
35 KT+?
A
B
C
D
E
214
475
296
565
415
122
271
169
322
237
*Plus Re-fuel time
LFTR Powered Ships Could Maintain 35+ KT Speed – No Refueling
29
29
Illustrative Example of Thorium Reactor Provides
Weapon Power Source for All Naval Ships
Directed Energy Weapon
Advanced Radars
> 30 MW power needed
Electromagnetic Guns
7/7/2015
2020: > 500 km
2030: > 3000 km?
30
30
A 100 MW LFTR Can Provide the Power Needed for Electromagnetic
Guns for Both Advanced Weapons and Sensors (1)
Figure 2. Naval EM Gun System Architecture
Figure 5. Power Requirements as a
Function of Firing Rate.
EM Gun
20 kg Launch package
15 kg flight
2.5 km/s at muzzle
63 MJ Muzzle Energy
Range: ~ 500 km
(1) Data from “Integration of
Electromagnetic Rail Gun into
Future Electric Warships.”, A.
Chaboka, et al.
31
Is this the future of naval forces?
The
Return
the
Battleship
Era Cover
Naval Figure
EM Guns9:
With
3,000
- 6,000ofkm
Range
Can 24/7/365
All Target Areas of Interest
3,000 Km
6,000 Km
6,000 Km
3,000 Km
3,000 Km
6,000 Km
3,000 Km
3,000 Km
3,000 Km
6,000 Km
Long
LongRange
Rangenaval
navalforces
forcesare
aretransformational,
transformational,change
changehow
howwars
wars
are
arefought,
fought,reduce
reduceresources
resourcesrequired
requiredand
andconflict
conflicttimeline.
timeline.
32
32
Conclusions
• Liquid fluoride thorium reactors can provide a substantial proportion of
future DoD energy requirements
 Major US Bases
 Electricity
 Remote Sites
 Fuel
 Forward Deployed Forces
 Water
 Power Projection Forces
 Naval Ship Propulsion
 Power New Weapon & Sensors