Economic Analysis of the Modular Pebble Bed Reactorweb.mit.edu/pebble-bed/Economics.pdfModular...
25
Economic Analysis of the Modular Pebble Bed Reactor These slides present the conclusions of a preliminary study base These slides present the conclusions of a preliminary study base d on d on existing cost data found in existing cost data found in “ “ Evaluation of the Gas Turbine Helium Evaluation of the Gas Turbine Helium Reactor Reactor ” ” - - DOE DOE - - HTGR HTGR - - 90380 90380 - - Dec. 1993 and compared against an Dec. 1993 and compared against an NEI report issued in 1992 on the economics of alternative option NEI report issued in 1992 on the economics of alternative option s. s. The purpose was to evaluate on a relative scale whether the pebb The purpose was to evaluate on a relative scale whether the pebb le le bed could be competitive. For the purposes of this study the ga bed could be competitive. For the purposes of this study the ga s price s price in 1992 was assumed constant and did not increase. This study w in 1992 was assumed constant and did not increase. This study w ill ill be revised as better data is developed. be revised as better data is developed. June 1998 June 1998 Pebble Bed Reactor Project MIT Nuclear Engineering Department
Transcript of Economic Analysis of the Modular Pebble Bed Reactorweb.mit.edu/pebble-bed/Economics.pdfModular...
Economic Analysis of the Modular Pebble Bed Reactor
These slides present the conclusions of a preliminary study baseThese slides present the conclusions of a preliminary study based on d on existing cost data found in existing cost data found in ““Evaluation of the Gas Turbine Helium Evaluation of the Gas Turbine Helium ReactorReactor”” -- DOEDOE--HTGRHTGR--90380 90380 -- Dec. 1993 and compared against an Dec. 1993 and compared against an NEI report issued in 1992 on the economics of alternative optionNEI report issued in 1992 on the economics of alternative options. s. The purpose was to evaluate on a relative scale whether the pebbThe purpose was to evaluate on a relative scale whether the pebble le bed could be competitive. For the purposes of this study the gabed could be competitive. For the purposes of this study the gas price s price in 1992 was assumed constant and did not increase. This study win 1992 was assumed constant and did not increase. This study will ill be revised as better data is developed.be revised as better data is developed.
June 1998June 1998
Pebble Bed Reactor ProjectMIT Nuclear Engineering Department
Turbine Hall Boundary
Admin
Training
ControlBldg.
MaintenanceParts / Tools
10
9
8
7
6 4 2
5 3 1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0
20
40
60
80
100
Primary island withreactor and IHX
Turbomachinery
Ten-Unit MPBR Plant Layout (Top View)(distances in meters)
Equip AccessHatch
Equip AccessHatch
Equip AccessHatch
Economic Analysis
• Group Goals– determine cost estimate for construction– compare cost estimate with that of existing
technologies– examine financing options– examine economies of scale vs. productivity
MPBR Cost Estimate
• Capital cost• O&M cost• Fuel cost• Decommissioning cost
Capital Cost
• Cost savings come from:– more factory fabrication, less site work– learning effect from 1st to 10th unit– natural safety features– shorter construction time
• Total capital cost for 1100 MWe plant$2,296 million
Plant Construction
• Construction Plan / Techniques• Plant Physical layout• Construction Model
Construction Plan / Techniques
• Factory Assembly• Existing Technology• Modular Construction Allows:
– Parallel Construction– Ease of Shipment– Rapid Assembly– Streamlined Testing
G r a p h f o r U n i t 12 0 0
1 0 0
00 4 0 8 0 1 2 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 8 0 3 2 0 3 6 0 4 0 0
T im e ( W e e k )
U n it 1 : M o s t L ik e ly
G r a p h f o r U n i t 22 0 0
1 0 0
00 4 0 8 0 1 2 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 8 0 3 2 0 3 6 0 4 0 0
T im e ( W e e k )
U n it 2 : M o s t L ik e ly
G r a p h f o r U n i t 42 0 0
1 5 0
1 0 0
5 0
00 4 0 8 0 1 2 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 8 0 3 2 0 3 6 0 4 0 0
T i m e ( W e e k )
U n i t 4 : M o s t L i k e l y
G r a p h f o r U n i t 52 0 0
1 5 0
1 0 0
5 0
00 4 0 8 0 1 2 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 8 0 3 2 0 3 6 0 4 0 0
T i m e ( W e e k )
U n i t 5 : M o s t L i k e l y
G r a p h f o r U n i t 62 0 0
1 5 0
1 0 0
5 0
00 4 0 8 0 1 2 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 8 0 3 2 0 3 6 0 4 0 0
T i m e ( W e e k )
U n i t 6 : M o s t L i k e l y
G r a p h f o r U n i t 72 0 0
1 5 0
1 0 0
5 0
00 4 0 8 0 1 2 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 8 0 3 2 0 3 6 0 4 0 0
T i m e ( W e e k )
U n i t 7 : M o s t L i k e l y
G r a p h f o r U n i t 82 0 0
1 5 0
1 0 0
5 0
00 4 0 8 0 1 2 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 8 0 3 2 0 3 6 0 4 0 0
T i m e ( W e e k )
U n i t 8 : M o s t L i k e l y
G r a p h f o r U n i t 92 0 0
1 5 0
1 0 0
5 0
00 4 0 8 0 1 2 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 8 0 3 2 0 3 6 0 4 0 0
T i m e ( W e e k )
U n i t 9 : M o s t L i k e l y
G r a p h f o r U n i t 1 02 0 0
1 5 0
1 0 0
5 0
00 4 0 8 0 1 2 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 8 0 3 2 0 3 6 0 4 0 0
T i m e ( W e e k )
U n i t 1 0 : M o s t L i k e l y
G r a p h f o r U n i t 32 0 0
1 5 0
1 0 0
5 0
00 4 0 8 0 1 2 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 8 0 3 2 0 3 6 0 4 0 0
T i m e ( W e e k )
U n i t 3 : M o s t L i k e l y
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Un it 1 Unit 5
Un it 6
Un it 7
Unit 8
Unit 9
Unit 10
U n it C on stru ction F low p ath
G r a p h f o r In s t a n t a n e o u s W o r k i n P r o g r e s s8 0 0
6 0 0
4 0 0
2 0 0
00 4 0 8 0 1 2 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 8 0 3 2 0 3 6 0 4 0 0
T im e (W e e k )
In s ta n ta ne o us W o rk in P ro g re s s : M o s t L ik e ly W e e k
Graph for Income During Construction60,000
30,000
00 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400
Time (Week)
Income During Construction : MostLikely
Dollars/Week
Graph for Indirect Construction Expenses4 M
2 M
00 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400
Time (Week)
Indirect Construction Expenses : Most Likely Dollars/Week
Graph for hardware cost600 M
300 M
00 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400
Time (Week)
hardware cost : Most Likely
G rap h fo r N e t C o n s tru c t io n E x p en se2 B
1 .5 B
1 B
5 0 0 M
00 4 0 8 0 1 2 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 2 4 0 2 8 0 3 2 0 3 6 0 4 0 0
T ime (W e e k )
N e t C o nstruc tio n E xp e nse : M o st L ik e ly
Construction Model
• Can it be done?• Influence of external factors?• What are vulnerabilities / areas for time and
cost savings?• What is the relationship between
construction time and cash flow?• Sensitivity analysis
Graph for Net Construction Expense2 B
1.499 B
999.7 M
499.55 M
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400Time (Week)
Net Construction Expense : Most LikelyNet Construction Expense : Unit-4 Hits WaterNet Construction Expense : IntervenorsNet Construction Expense : Module Delay
Graph for Instantaneous Work in Progress800
600
400
200
00 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400
Time (Week)
Ins tantaneous W ork in Progres s : M os t Likely W eekIns tantaneous W ork in Progres s : Unit-4 Hits W ater W eekIns tantaneous W ork in Progres s : Intervenors W eekIns tantaneous W ork in Progres s : M odule Delay W eek
0
MPBR PLANT CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE(MILLIONS OF JAN. 1992 DOLLAR WITHOUT CONTINGENCY)
Account No. Account Description Cost Estimate
20 LAND & LAND RIGHTS 2.521 STRUCTURES & IMPROVEMENTS 19222 REACTOR PLANT EQUIPMENT 62823 TURBINE PLANT EQUIPMENT 31624 ELECTRIC PLANT EQUIPMENT 6425 MISCELLANEOUS PLANT EQUIPMENT 4826 HEAT REJECT. SYSTEM 25
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 1,275
91 CONSTRUCTION SERVICE 11192 HOME OFFICE ENGR. & SERVICE 6393 FIELD OFFICE SUPV. & SERVICE 5494 OWNERÕS COST 147
TOTAL INDIRECT COST 375
TOTAL BASE CONSTRUCTION COST 1,650CONTINGENCY (M$) 396
TOTAL OVERNIGHT COST 2,046UNIT CAPITAL COST ($/KWe) 1,860AFUDC (M$) 250
TOTAL CAPITAL COST 2296
O&M Cost
• Simpler design and more compact• Least number of systems and components• Small staff size: 150 personnel• $31.5 million per year
Fuel Cost
• Assumptions:– One fuel pebble will cost $20.00 (‘92$)– One third of the fuel pebble bed is replaced
annually (120,000 per unit per year)– 1.0 mill/kWh for spent fuel disposal and
radioactive waste management• Cost: $32.7 million / year
Decommissioning Cost
• $211 million• Remove all radioactive wastes from site and
all construction material to a level of 3ft below grade.
• Less than 1 mill/kWh levelized busbar cost
MPBR Busbar Generation Costs (‘92$)Reactor Thermal Power (MWt) 10 x 250Net Efficiency (%) 45.3%Net Electrical Rating (Mwe) 1100Capacity Factor (%) 90
Total Overnight Cost (M$) 2,046Levelized Capital Cost ($/kWe) 1,860Total Capital Cost (M$) 2,296Fixed Charge Rate (%) 9.4730 Year Level Cost (M$/yr):Levelized Capital Cost 217Annual O&M Cost 31.5Level Fuel Cycle Cost 32.7Level Decommissioning Cost 5.4
Revenue Requirement 286.6
Busbar Cost (mill/kWhr):Capital 25.0O&M 3.6Fuel 3.8Decommissioning 0.6
Total 33.0
Financing Construction
• Cost of capital– debt-to-equity ratio– distribution of risk
• Consortium approach– share risk– lower return on investment
Amortization of debt
• Determine annual revenue requirements– debt-to-equity ratio– return on preferred equity– return on common equity– income taxes
Debt Service Coverage
• Ratio of total revenue generated to annual revenue required– depends on amortization length– distribution of risk
• Consortium approach best
Competitive With Gas ?
• Natural Gas 3.4 Cents/kwhr• AP 600 3.62 Cents/kwhr• ALWR 3.8 Cents/kwhr• MPBR 3.3 Cents/kwhr
Levelized Costs (1992 $ Based on NEI Study)
Group Findings
• Low levelized cost– low fuel cost– low O&M cost
• High unit capital cost– low capacity design– high contingency factor (24%)
Future Work
• Determine optimal capital structure• Adjust cost estimate to design changes• Create detailed cash flow statement
Major MPBR Conclusions• Naturally Safe (Regulatory / Safety Implications)
– Constrained by Fuel Particle failure above 1600oC• Core power density chosen as 3.54 MW/m3
• Fuel pebble manufacturing defects are the most significant source of fission product release
• Economically Competitive– 3.3 cents/kWhr (natural gas = 3.4 cents/kWhr)
• Producing revenue within 3 years (rapid construction)• Low staffing and O&M costs• Factory Assembly
• Societal Acceptance– Proliferation Resistance -- promising, but future work needed– Waste Disposal -- promising, but future work needed
