1 / 24

Top Down Cost Estimate ELFR LEADER WP1.4

Top Down Cost Estimate ELFR LEADER WP1.4. Status Petten, Netherlands Ferry Roelofs roelofs@nrg.eu. Contents. NRG Contribution Approach G4Econs Cost Accounting Comparative Analysis Contingencies Outlook. Contents. NRG contribution

arion
Télécharger la présentation

Top Down Cost Estimate ELFR LEADER WP1.4

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Top Down Cost Estimate ELFRLEADER WP1.4 • Status • Petten, Netherlands • Ferry Roelofs • roelofs@nrg.eu

  2. Contents • NRG Contribution • Approach • G4Econs • Cost Accounting • Comparative Analysis • Contingencies • Outlook Petten • 9 July 2012

  3. 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. Petten • 9 July 2012

  4. ApproachG4Econs • G4Econs: Generation 4Excel 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 Petten • 9 July 2012

  5. ApproachCost Accounting • Accounting system developed by IAEA and adopted by GIF • Flexible • Multiple levels of detail (first most generic, later levels contain increasing details) Petten • 9 July 2012

  6. 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 approach • Determine cost distribution for an LFR on 2nd level COA • Determine relative costs on 3rd level COA for an LFR in comparison to reference plant • Calculate specific construction costs for an LFR based on reference plant costs determined from literature Petten • 9 July 2012

  7. ApproachCost Distribution Petten • 9 July 2012 • 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

  8. ApproachComparative Analysis • 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) 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 Petten • 9 July 2012

  9. ApproachComparative Analysis Petten • 9 July 2012 • 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]

  10. ApproachComparative Analysis Petten • 9 July 2012 • 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%

  11. ApproachComparative Analysis • Step 3: Calculate specific construction costs for each reactor relative to AP1000 reference costs which can be determined from literature Petten • 9 July 2012

  12. ApproachContingencies Petten • 9 July 2012 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

  13. 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 Petten • 9 July 2012

  14. AssumptionsComparative Analysis Petten • 9 July 2012 • 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

  15. AssumptionsComparative Analysis Petten • 9 July 2012 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.

  16. AssumptionsEscalation rates & currency exchange US$ (1994-2011): 2.5% Euro € (1998-2011): 2.1% Petten • 9 July 2012 • Historical inflation rates (€1 = 1.333 US$ in 2010) • US$: usinflationcalculator • Euro €: eurostat

  17. ResultsComparative Analysis Petten • 9 July 2012 • 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

  18. SensitivityComparative Analysis Petten • 9 July 2012 Sensitivity analysis of main assumptions (see previous sheets) Total uncertainty: ~25% leading to a range of 3600 – (4800) – 6000 €/kWe

  19. AssumptionsG4Econs Petten • 9 July 2012 • 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)

  20. ResultsG4Econs Petten • 9 July 2012

  21. ResultsG4Econs For comparison: ELSY 1200 - 2100 M€ excluding: owner & land costs site preparation D&D costs project supervision insurances & taxes If the items excluded in the ELSY cost estimate would be excluded in ELFR analysis the analysis result in 2900 M€ Petten • 9 July 2012

  22. SensitivityG4Econs Petten • 9 July 2012 • Large sensitivity to assumed range of: • Fuel cycle costs • Operational life • Similar sensitivity to assumed range of: • Construction costs • O&M costs

  23. Conclusions Petten • 9 July 2012 • 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.

  24. The End “Thanks for your attention” Petten • 9 July 2012

More Related