FusionPower objective

[ddudt]

Very similar to #1168, but this one is for output power.

[f0uriest]

The actual fuel in these two cases is both D+D. I think the "correct" way would be to have the user input the actual fuel, not just the reaction, and then we sum the energy/reactivity over the different possible reactions (which might be kind of annoying, especially if you want to account for further reactions between the products)

The other option would be to limit to just D+T and D+He3 since they only have 1 reaction path and generally no secondary reactions

[ddudt]

OK I switched this to fuel instead of reaction. For now let's only implement DT, and we can worry about adding more complicated fuels later if people want them.

One idea I though of is adding an additional kwarg to allow the user to specify the energy themselves if they want to include extra reactions between products (and if not supplied it would default to the basic case for that fuel). But I don't love adding lots of extra compute kwargs

[github-actions]

|             benchmark_name             |         dt(%)          |         dt(s)          |        t_new(s)        |        t_old(s)        | 
| -------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | ---------------------- | ---------------------- | ---------------------- |
 test_build_transform_fft_lowres         |     -5.54 +/- 7.73     | -3.09e-02 +/- 4.31e-02 |  5.27e-01 +/- 4.0e-02  |  5.57e-01 +/- 1.7e-02  |
 test_build_transform_fft_midres         |     -4.39 +/- 7.73     | -2.81e-02 +/- 4.95e-02 |  6.12e-01 +/- 4.5e-02  |  6.40e-01 +/- 2.1e-02  |
 test_build_transform_fft_highres        |     -6.29 +/- 3.71     | -6.62e-02 +/- 3.90e-02 |  9.86e-01 +/- 3.7e-02  |  1.05e+00 +/- 1.2e-02  |
 test_equilibrium_init_lowres            |    -10.13 +/- 3.69     | -4.26e-01 +/- 1.55e-01 |  3.77e+00 +/- 7.6e-02  |  4.20e+00 +/- 1.3e-01  |
 test_equilibrium_init_medres            |     -1.83 +/- 11.40    | -7.66e-02 +/- 4.78e-01 |  4.11e+00 +/- 1.5e-01  |  4.19e+00 +/- 4.5e-01  |
 test_equilibrium_init_highres           |     -2.17 +/- 11.72    | -1.21e-01 +/- 6.55e-01 |  5.46e+00 +/- 1.8e-01  |  5.59e+00 +/- 6.3e-01  |
+test_objective_compile_dshape_current   |     -8.06 +/- 1.78     | -3.34e-01 +/- 7.38e-02 |  3.81e+00 +/- 6.8e-02  |  4.14e+00 +/- 2.8e-02  |
+test_objective_compile_atf              |     -7.55 +/- 1.02     | -6.46e-01 +/- 8.69e-02 |  7.91e+00 +/- 6.3e-02  |  8.55e+00 +/- 6.0e-02  |
 test_objective_compute_dshape_current   |     -2.51 +/- 1.99     | -9.03e-05 +/- 7.14e-05 |  3.51e-03 +/- 5.2e-05  |  3.60e-03 +/- 4.9e-05  |
+test_objective_compute_atf              |    -14.09 +/- 2.60     | -1.68e-03 +/- 3.11e-04 |  1.03e-02 +/- 9.7e-05  |  1.20e-02 +/- 3.0e-04  |
 test_objective_jac_dshape_current       |     -4.36 +/- 7.23     | -1.86e-03 +/- 3.08e-03 |  4.07e-02 +/- 2.4e-03  |  4.26e-02 +/- 2.0e-03  |
 test_objective_jac_atf                  |     -4.99 +/- 3.06     | -1.01e-01 +/- 6.21e-02 |  1.93e+00 +/- 4.2e-02  |  2.03e+00 +/- 4.6e-02  |
 test_perturb_1                          |     -8.47 +/- 10.36    | -1.16e+00 +/- 1.42e+00 |  1.25e+01 +/- 4.4e-01  |  1.37e+01 +/- 1.4e+00  |
 test_perturb_2                          |     +8.24 +/- 6.76     | +1.45e+00 +/- 1.19e+00 |  1.91e+01 +/- 4.8e-01  |  1.76e+01 +/- 1.1e+00  |
 test_proximal_jac_atf                   |     +1.73 +/- 2.03     | +1.42e-01 +/- 1.67e-01 |  8.34e+00 +/- 1.3e-01  |  8.20e+00 +/- 1.0e-01  |
 test_proximal_freeb_compute             |     -0.35 +/- 1.85     | -6.50e-04 +/- 3.40e-03 |  1.83e-01 +/- 2.8e-03  |  1.84e-01 +/- 1.9e-03  |
 test_proximal_freeb_jac                 |     -1.95 +/- 1.07     | -1.46e-01 +/- 8.03e-02 |  7.33e+00 +/- 5.6e-02  |  7.47e+00 +/- 5.8e-02  |
 test_solve_fixed_iter                   |     +1.41 +/- 60.22    | +7.07e-02 +/- 3.01e+00 |  5.07e+00 +/- 2.1e+00  |  5.00e+00 +/- 2.2e+00  |

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 93.75000% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 95.32%. Comparing base (fd73bdb) to head (fd6b57c).

Files	Patch %	Lines
desc/objectives/_power_balance.py	90.69%	4 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1220      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.33%   95.32%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          90       90              
  Lines       22581    22643      +62     
==========================================
+ Hits        21527    21585      +58     
- Misses       1054     1058       +4     

Files	Coverage Δ
desc/compute/_equil.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
desc/compute/_profiles.py	99.19% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
desc/objectives/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
desc/objectives/_power_balance.py	89.58% <90.69%> (ø)

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

[f0uriest]

Is this the most sensible default?

[ddudt]

A good target will depend on the scale of the machine, but I changed it to 1,000 MW to be realistic for a power plant

[dpanici]

Approving, but is Fusion power density something that could be of interest/be optimized? would it make sense to have one compute quantity be local fusion power density and then another that does the integration to get total power?

[ddudt]

Approving, but is Fusion power density something that could be of interest/be optimized? would it make sense to have one compute quantity be local fusion power density and then another that does the integration to get total power?

If someone wants that they can add it in another PR.