Top Down Cost Estimate ELFR LEADER WP1.4 Status Petten, Netherlands Ferry Roelofs [email protected].

Top Down Cost Estimate ELFRLEADER WP1.4

StatusPetten, Netherlands

Ferry [email protected]

2Petten • 9 July 2012

Contents

• NRG Contribution• Approach

– G4Econs– Cost Accounting– Comparative Analysis– Contingencies

• Outlook


Contents

• NRG contribution– Cost estimation supplementary to bottom-up approach followed by

Empresarios Agrupados– Following top down cost estimation approaches presented:

• Roelofs & Van Heek, 2011. Nuclear Technology Cost Assessments using G4Econs and it’s Cost Accounting System. ICAPP’11, Nice, France.


ApproachG4Econs

• G4Econs: Generation 4 Excel Calculation Of Nuclear Systems • Excel based tool developed by GIF EMWG for economic

assessment of Gen IV systems including fuel cycle– Reactor Economics Model to compute Levelised Unit Electricity

Costs (LUEC)

– Four Sections• Capital costs

– Construction costs» Direct costs (based on COA)» Indirect costs (based on COA)» Owners costs

– Interest

• O&M costs (Based on COA)– Staffing, regulation, maintenance, overhead, etc…

• Fuel cycle costs– Considering all steps in the associated fuel cycle

• D&D costs


ApproachCost Accounting

• Accounting system developed by IAEA and adopted by GIF– Flexible– Multiple levels of

detail (first most generic, later levels contain increasing details)

Account Title

1 Capitalized pre-construction costs

2 Capitalized direct costs

21 Structures and improvements

22 Reactor equipment

23 Turbine generator equipment

24 Electrical equipment

25 Heat rejection system

26 Miscellaneous equipment

27 Special materials

28 Simulator

3 Capitalized indirect services costs

4 Capitalized owner’s costs

5 Capitalized supplementary costs


ApproachComparative Analysis

• Cost accounting systems– Bottom-up: find credible values for each account– Top-down: determination of accounts relative to

reference plant (Gen III)

• Three step approach1. Determine cost distribution for an LFR on 2nd level

COA

2. Determine relative costs on 3rd level COA for an LFR in comparison to reference plant

3. Calculate specific construction costs for an LFR based on reference plant costs determined from literature

ApproachCost Distribution

• Cost distribution based on ELSY Deliverable 10-002

• Specials– Coolant costs for lead. According to

Gromov et al. (1997) the bismuth costs for an LBE cooled reactor are 10 times that of lead and only make about 1% of the total investment costs


Costdistribution

Building & Structures 19%

Reactor 37%

Turbine 14%

Electric 1%

Miscellaneous 12%

Heat Rejection 1%

Specials 1%

Simulator 1%

Construction Services 7%

Other (owners costs) 7%



• Step 2: Determine relative costs on 3rd level COA for each reactor in comparison to AP1000 as reference. AP1000 selected because of it’s high degree of passive safety systems like ELFR

• Largely based on scaling relationships, like e.g.

• Taking into account benefits of modular construction following analysis of Boarin & Ricotti (2011)

factor scaling theis `a`in which a

PowerPower

CostCostref

newrefnew

Scaling factors

Structures 0.59

Reactor 0.80

Turbine 0.83

Electric 0.39

Miscellaneous 0.59

Heat Rejection 1.06

Construction Services 0.66

MacDonald & Buongiorno, 2002. Design Of An Actinide Burning, Lead or Lead-Bismuth Cooled Reactor That Produces Low Cost Electricity. INEEL/EXT-02-01249, Idaho, USA


• Benefits of Modular Construction– 4-factor equation for modular construction:

= Mlearn·Mmod·Mmulti·Mdesign

– Mlearn: Learning factor (number of reactors constructed world-wide)= min[100%; 100%-(2log(Pref/Pnew)·4%)]

– Mmod: Modularity factor (related to the size of the reactor)= min[100%; 0.12·ln(Pnew/100)+0.72)]

– Mmulti: Multiple units factor (number of reactors at the same site)= min[100%; max[90%; 100%-(ln(Pref/Pnew)·4%)]]

– Mdesign: Design factor (cost reduction by assumed possible design simplifications for smaller reactors)= min[100%; ln(Pnew·108)/25.5]


75.0%

85.0%

95.0%

1 6 11 16 21 26 31

Le

arn

ing

Fa

cto

r

#Units

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

100 300 500 700 900 1100

Mo

du

larit

y F

act

or

Size (MWe)

90.0%

92.5%

95.0%

97.5%

100.0%

1 6 11 16 21 26 31

Mul

tiple

Uni

ts o

n-s

ite

Fac

tor

#Units

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

100 300 500 700 900 1100

De

sign

Fa

cto

r

Size (MWe)


• Benefits of Modular Construction– 4-factor equation (previous slide)– Simplified equation:

min[100%; 0.195·ln(Pnew/100)+0.63·10-4·Pref]

– Specific construction costs ELFR compared to AP1000 ~ 86%


50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

Mod

ular

Con

stru

ctio

n F

acto

r

Size (MWe)

4 Factor Equation

Simplified Equation (range 600-1800 MWe)



• Step 3: Calculate specific construction costs for each reactor relative to AP1000 reference costs which can be determined from literature

ApproachContingencies

• Assuming that contingencies are not taken into account in the determination of literature values for specific construction costs

• Based on Gokcek (1995) data for ALMR cost analysis


Contingencies

Structures 10%

Reactor 20%

Turbine 5%

Electric 10%

Miscellaneous 10%

Heat Rejection 10%

Construction Services 15%

Owners Costs 20%


ApproachG4Econs

• Comparative analysis is part of G4Econs input

• Other input based on LEADER information or reputed sources– > 100 items

• G4Econs provides– Construction costs– O&M costs– Fuel cycle costs– Electricity generation costs

AssumptionsComparative Analysis

• Site size: – 41 m2/MWe for AP1000 corresponding to ~243 m x 187 m– 33 m2/MWe (80%) for ELFR (Taken from KPIs for ESNII, 19 March 2012)

• Alternatively, the ELSY dimensions could be taken 450 m x 360 m = 162000 m2 resulting in 270 m2/Mwe or ~700% AP1000 !!

• Reactor equipment is a factor of 5 more expensive than for a PWR:– based on Nitta (2010) data for SFR who indicates that an SFR vessel is a factor of 2 more

expensive than a PWR vessel– Taking into account that an LFR vessel has an increased mass in comparison with SFR

(MacDonald & Buongiorno, 2002: p.p. 145-146) giving another factor of 2.5. Although outer dimensions of the reactor vessels may be similar, the LFR vessel needs to be thicker because of the significantly higher mass of lead compared to sodium. Further it is assumed that the reactor vessel material will have the same prize as for an SFR.

• Main heat transport system is a factor of 1.5 more expensive than for a PWR:– based on Nitta (2010) data for SFR who indicated that the SFR main heat transport system is a

factor of 2 more expensive than a PWR main heat transport system– taking into account that the cost reduction which can be achieved due to the absence of the

intermediate circuit but material expenses are larger because of the amount of material needed (Hejzlar, 2004) giving a factor of 0.75


AssumptionsComparative Analysis

• A ‘walk-away’ design for ELFR is assumed allowing to compare directly the costs for the safety systems of the highly passive AP1000. Although AP1000 is not really walk-away, it is assumed that the extra costs to deal with that are compensated by more expensive (e.g. material costs) passive safety systems for ELFR.

• Lead costs a factor of 3 more than water based on lead cost estimate (Fernandez, 1996) and costs for demineralized water.


AssumptionsEscalation rates & currency exchange

• Historical inflation rates (€1 = 1.333 US$ in 2010)– US$: usinflationcalculator– Euro €: eurostat


100.0

105.0

110.0

115.0

120.0

125.0

130.0

135.0

140.0

145.0

150.0

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Actual Cummulative

Average Cummulative (1994-2011)

100.0

105.0

110.0

115.0

120.0

125.0

130.0

135.0

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Actual Cummulative

Average Cummulative

US$ (1994-2011): 2.5% Euro € (1998-2011): 2.1%

ResultsComparative Analysis

• Gen III specific construction costs: 3200 €/kWe– Keystone (2007) ~ 2400 €/kWe

– Jansen (2008) ~ 3100 €/kWe

– S&P (2008) ~ 3200 €/kWe

– Tarjanne (2008) ~ 2900 €/kWe

– MIT (2009) ~ 3200 €/kWe

• ELFR specific construction costs– Applying scaling factors and assumptions:

172% AP1000

– Applying modularity factor:149% AP1000

– Final evaluation150% AP1000 = 4800 €/kWe


SensitivityComparative Analysis

• Sensitivity analysis of main assumptions (see previous sheets)

• Total uncertainty: ~25% leading to a range of 3600 – (4800) – 6000 €/kWe


Ref Site size(80%)

Reactor equipment

(500%)

Main heat transport

equipment(150%)

Modularity factor(86%)

Scaling factors

61% 100% 300% 600% 100% 200% 80% 95% 120% 80%

Total specific costs

149% 149% 150% 140% 154% 147% 152% 138% 163% 138% 162%

AssumptionsG4Econs

• All costs expressed in Dec 2010 €• No interest during construction• R&D costs are excluded• D&D costs taken as 1/3 of construction costs (recommendation from GIF EMWG)• The 42% target net efficiency provided by LEADER D03• Mansani (2011) provides 80-90% as target load factor. A value of 85% is selected.• Relevant core and fuel data are taken from LEADER D05• Refuelling interval is assumed once in 900 days ~ 2.5 yr (LEADER D05)• Fuel cycle costs are based on the Advanced Fuel Cycle Costs Database (Shropshire et al.,

2009)• Insurances and taxes taken as 0.45% of (pre-)construction costs (recommendation from GIF

EMWG)• O&M costs based on assessment of Fischer (1999) or EPR scaled by net power:

– Required workforce scaled according to workforce equation from Roelofs et al. (2011): wf(ELFR) ~ 53% wf(EPR)– Consumables are scaled by125% (O&M cost comparison between SFR and LWR in Nitta (2010))– Repair costs are scaled by 115% (According to Nitta (2010), taking into account that LFR may have less repair costs

thanks to absence of specific sodium related risks)


ResultsG4Econs


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Engineering, Licensing & Construction

Engineering, Licensing & Construction(incl. first core, D&D & contingencies)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

O&M

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Fuel Cycle

ResultsG4Econs

Nominal Costs

R&D -

Engineering, licensing & construction 4800 €/kWe

Engineering, licensing & construction (including first core, D&D and contingencies)

3400 M€or

5700 €/kWe

O&M 111 €/kWe/a

Fuel Cycle 8.1 €/MWh


For comparison: ELSY 1200 - 2100 M€excluding: owner & land costs

site preparationD&D costsproject supervisioninsurances & taxes

If the items excluded in the ELSY cost estimate would be excluded in ELFR analysis the analysis result in 2900 M€

SensitivityG4Econs

• Large sensitivity to assumed range of:– Fuel cycle costs

– Operational life

• Similar sensitivity to assumed range of:– Construction costs

– O&M costs


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Construction Costs

D&D

Construction Costs + D&D

Fuel Cycle

O&M

Efficiency & Load Factor

Operational Life (40-60-80)

Total

Energy Generation Costs

Conclusions

• The top down estimate for ELFR shows considerable higher values than the ELSY estimate.– As reference for the top down cost estimate, an

investment cost estimate for a generic Gen III is selected. This value has increased considerably over the recent years.

– D&D costs are taken as 1/3 of the construction costs based on recommendation from GIF. Lefevre (XT-ADS cost estimate) favours 1/5.

– Fuel data was taken from non-optimized ELSY calculations for the closed hexagonal core configuration with a limited value for the average burn-up and an assumed refuelling interval.



The End

“Thanks for your attention”

Top Down Cost Estimate ELFR LEADER WP1.4 Status Petten, Netherlands Ferry Roelofs [email protected].

Documents

Transcript of Top Down Cost Estimate ELFR LEADER WP1.4 Status Petten, Netherlands Ferry Roelofs [email protected].