ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 1 L. Waganer Consultant for ARIES Project/UCSD/DOE ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting 4-5 April 2011 Bethesda, MD Addressing Lingering Cost Questions

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 2 Questions Remain on Several Cost Topics The cost of the enriched Lithium and Li 17 Pb 83 The cost of the Main Heat Transfer and Transport system The added cost for safety and nuclear grade materials Validation of Turbine-Generator System Costs

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 3 The Cost of the Enriched Lithium and Li 17 Pb 83 PS, The more accurate atom percentage per Laila El-Guebaly is Li 15.7 Pb 84.3

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 4 Cost of Enriched Li 17 Pb 83 The cost of lithium and Li 17 Pb 83 in the previous ARIES Systems Code was (roughly) based on the 1982 UWTOR-M data, which was not referenced or substantiated. The cost of 35% enriched Li was quoted at $410/kg in 1982$ or $811 in 2009$*. (UWTOR-M) The cost of 35% enriched Li 17 Pb 83 was quoted at $6.35/kg in 1982$ or $12.56 in 2009$*. The linear extrapolation suggests the use of enriched lithium is mixed with natural lithium to obtain the desired enrichment (not cost effective) The U.S. discontinued the production of large-scale lithium enrichment in 1963 with no production basis since. Therefore no large-scale enrichment production or cost basis exists * 2009$/1982$ = UWTOR-M

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 5 Proposed Li Enrichment Costs A new scaling law is needed for the enrichment of lithium to provide incentive to develop new enrichment processes A cost of $1000/kg for 90% enriched lithium was selected as opposed to the escalated $2300/kg cost projected by UWTOR-M data A curve between natural and 90% enrichment was developed to indicate an ever increasingly difficult enrichment process The 90% enrichment point and the curve are only notional targets to provide attractive breeder and coolant costs and to stimulate process research and development

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 6 “Difficulty” in Forming Li 17 Pb 83 Eutectic The Li 17 Pb 83 eutectic melts at 235ºC as opposed to lithium at ºC and lead at 327.5ºC The referenced experimental processes below used commercially- pure Li and Pb for their tests. Common solder is a typical eutectic Several technical papers (below) documented the process of forming the Li 17 Pb 83 eutectic with no difficulty using simple processes and hardware. The more accurate atom % is Li 15.7 Pb 84.3, but the coolant atom % need only to be in the lower temperature regime. Ref 1, U. Jaunch, V. Karcher, and B. Schlutz, “Thermo-Physical Properties in the System Li-Pb,” by, KfK report 4144, September, 1986 Ref 2, D. W. Jeppson. “Summary of Lithium-Lead Alloy Compatibility Tests” Westinghouse Hanford Company report, WHC-EP-0202, dated January 1989

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 7 Commercially Available Lithium The demand for lithium has increased since the 1980s due to greater usage in glass industries, metal alloying and high capacity batteries In March 2011, the LME price was averaging $62.3/kg including VAT. (99.0% pure, China) For the present, we should adopt $80/kg as a natural lithium baseline cost In Sept 2008, lithium prices were $78/kg In 7/2009, Chemetall-Lithium provided a ROM estimate for 99.9% pure natural lithium in large quantities at $75-85/kg. [No resource problem foreseen. They have their own mines.]

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 8 Commercially Available Lead The demand for lead remains relatively stable, but the costs have shown recent fluctuations In July 2009, the LME lead price was $1.628/kg In 2009, the RotoMetals web site had 99.9% pure at $1.85/kg and around $2.00/kg delivered (surcharge ~$0.35) In March 2011, the LME price was averaging $2.46/kg including VAT. (99.97% purity (minimum) conforming to BS EN 12659:1999 ) For the present, we should adopt $3.00/kg as a lead baseline cost

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 9 A Reasonable Li 17 Pb 83 Cost Estimate An updated Li 17 Pb 83 cost estimate was developed using the current commercially available lead and lithium prices as well as my postulated lithium enrichment costs. Up to 60% enrichment, lead is the more costly constituent in Li 17 Pb 83 New natural lithium cost is close to UWTOR-M but ARIES-AT was 3X higher ARIES-AT 90% enriched Li was 22% lower than UWTOR-M Lower lithium and lead costs plus the new $1000/kg enriched Li reduces costs by >50%. Recommend adopting new Enrichment Cost Table 6313 tonnes $151 M $62 M

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 10 The Cost of the Main Heat Transfer and Transport System

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 11 The Main Heat Transfer and Transport System is Thought to be too Expensive The previous MHTT costs were equal to the magnets and the sum of the FWB and Shields, which seems excessive  MHTT contains only piping, IHX, insulation, pumps and storage tanks  It does not have to handle an intense neutron environment, disruptions, are simple shapes and simple maintenance  Suggest it being in the range of 125K to $150K for a single coolant primary system The previous MHTT costs estimated Li, LiPb and He systems with a single equation. A second equation was provided for H 2 O and OC. It would be more appropriate to use a nominal P th of 2000 MW th as opposed the previous value of 3500 MW th. This does not change the baseline cost and is only a minor correction of the leading coefficient. (see graph on a subsequent page) LSA = 1 factor of 0.60 applied

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 12 Possible MHTT Configurations Blanket and Divertor May Use Different Fluids Brayton Liquid Metal Power Core IHX Gas Primary Loop Intermediate Loop Turbine Loop Sodium Turbine Loop A B C D E F G H I Dual coolant Direct Cycle

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 13 More MHTT Definition Is Needed The prior slide illustrated possible MHTT combinations: LM vs. gas Primary/intermediate/turbine loops Blanket/shield with or separate from divertor More detailed data is required for better estimates Thermal power from Blanket, Hot Shield, and Divertor by coolant type and by loop Added pump work that can be recovered in each loop There should be a tally of thermal powers at exit of power core, exit from IHX, exit of Intermediate Loop (if used) and entrance to Turbine (this would be the Gross Thermal Power value) Include safety or nuclear cost adders

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 14 Comparing Old and New MHTT Algorithms The previous ARIES 3500 MWth and adjusted P th baseline 2000 MWth MHTT algorithms (LSA=1) are the superimposed upper curves The lower curves are the proposed LM and Helium MHTT algorithms (26% less for LM and 35% less for helium) The new curves are for single heat transfer media in the primary loop Primary and diverter loops Water and organic coolant: $50 M x (gross thermal power/2000)0.55 (in 2009$) ~ Equal Liquid Metal (Li and LiPb): $125 M x (gross thermal power/2000)0.55 (in 2009$) 26% lower High Pressure Helium: $110 M x (gross thermal power/2000)0.55 (in 2009$) 35% lower Adder for Nb IHX $0.010 M x gross thermal power in MW (in 2009$) Ref. Malang Intermediate loop Sodium or Helium: $50 x (gross thermal power/2000)0.55 (in 2009$) 30% higher Note: $228 in equation is Li or He coefficient $265 (1992$) x (inflation) x 0.60 LSA=1 Modified coefficient is 2.28 x = Compared to Adjusted Prior Algorithms

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 15 Procedure for Estimating Dual Coolant Systems Dual coolant systems employ two separate primary loops, all with unique subsystems handling different levels of thermal power. The prior equations will be used with the appropriate fluid power level. The nominal 2000 MWth is shown in blue (a 2500 MWth version is in pink). $125 M for a single 2000 MWth LM coolant $110 M for a single 2000 MWth He coolant Dual coolant systems are definitely more costly than single coolant systems, but they seem to be the better option. Let’s model the MHTT systems to correctly portray them. This is a first approximation.

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 16 The Added Cost for Safety and Nuclear Grade Materials

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 17 Remember, All Costs Should Assume a 10 th of a Kind Plant Preceding the 10 th -of-a-kind plant will be the Demo (a one- of-a-kind plant) maybe a second one-of-a-kind plant and then nine near-identical power plants with learning factors being applied All estimates should reflect current prices unless resources are limited All research and development costs would have been amortized and would not apply to the 10 th -of-a-kind It would not be appropriate to adopt the costs of prototypes, experimental hardware, or first of a kind subsystems for our 10 th -of-a-kind estimate

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 18 The ARIES Philosophy for Estimating Subsystems Using Material Unit Costs Raw materials can be estimated using current bulk material quotes −The exception is enriched lithium which has no large production basis Power core subsystems cost estimates are based on: 1) the raw material cost plus a fabrication factor based on “expert” judgment or 2) a more detailed bottoms-up fabrication estimate (ref: ARIES-AT VV or ARIES-ST centerpost and monolithic CS TF structural shell) However these procedures do not effectively address the extra cost associated with either Safety or Nuclear systems

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 19 Some Added Costs Are Appropriate for the Safety and Nuclear Subsystems Higher material quality and fabrication process controls from certified vendors on basic materials and critical components Increased testing and documentation (traceability) Higher levels of assembly process control, documentation, inspection and checkout testing However any increased design and analysis efforts would have been borne by the initial plants and is not applicable to the 10 th plant Applicable subsystems might be Nuclear-rated - FWB, divertor, shield, main VV, RF launchers Safety-rated – VV doors, VV maintenance ports and doors, RF windows Not-rated – Magnets, power core structures, LT shields, cryostat, bioshield What about the Main Heat Transfer and Transport Subsystem? Most other subsystems are analyzed by performance parameters

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 20 Re-Evaluation of Turbine-Generator System Costs

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 21 Turbine-Generator Plant Equipment Costs This account includes the costs for the Turbine Plant equipment to take the thermal energy from the fusion power core and convert it into electrical energy. This system can either be an advanced Rankine (steam) or a Brayton (helium or other gas) turbine fluid or maybe a combined gas cycle turbine. Costs for all studies prior to ARIES-AT have included the Heat Rejection System within TPE Costs. However beginning with ARIES-AT, Heat Rejection System is a separate account

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 22 Prior Turbine-Generator Plant Equip Cost Algorithms Curves were based on ARIES II- IV algorithms by Delene/Miller Basis is Titan (P ET 1200 MW scaled to.83 or.70 exponent) Basis updated in 2008 for ARIES-AT (1.2% increase for all) Cost basis was LSA of 4, but LSA factors were all 1.0 Prior ARIES-AT TPE Cost Algorithms Cost (OC, H2O) = EF x $ x (PET/1200) ^.83 Cost (Li, LiPb) = EF x $ x (PET/1200) ^.83 Cost (He) = EF x $ x (PET/1200) ^.70 EF is escalation factor from 1992$ TPE algorithms based on primary fluid makes no sense, instead suggest adopting Rankine (steam) or Brayton (gas)-based algorithms. The next slide compares reported costs to algorithms used ARIES-AT algorithms He Li, LiPb 0C, H 2 O

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 23 Reported T-G Costs Did Not Match Algorithms Primary (H 2 O or OC) and Steam Primary (He) and Steam or Primary (LiPb) and He Primary (Li), Intermediate (Na), and Steam Primary (LiPb and He) and Steam or He Brayton Cycle These data are with Ron Miller’s updated ARIES-AT cost algorithms that are 1.2% higher than the ARIES II-IV costing algorithms Notice that all ARIES estimates are around 16% or more higher than algorithm that should have been used Chronological Grouped and Ordered ARIES-AT algorithms A&E Developed

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 24 New Proposed T-G Cost Algorithms To better represent and parametrically scale T-G costs, these algorithms were proposed: C 23 = $350M x (P th gross/2620) 0.70 Rankine = $360M x (P th gross/2000) 0.80 x (η th gross/.60) Brayton Note: 2620 MW is 2000 MW x 59%/45%

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 25 New Proposed T-G Cost Algorithms To better represent and parametrically scale T-G costs, these algorithms were proposed: C 23 = $350M x (P th gross/2620) 0.70 Rankine = $360M x (P th gross/2000) 0.80 x (η th gross/.60) Brayton ARIES-AT, η=59%ARIES-CS, η=43% ARIES-ST, η=45% ARIES-RS, η=46% Note CS has 50% more Pth, but the same cost (New algorithms would properly reflect that trend) RS and ST seem high, compared to new equation However both reported data and new algorithms are just “estimates”

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 26 General Atomics Provided Some Relevant Turbine Plant Equipment Cost Data on Gas and Steam Cycles

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 27 Turbine-Generator Learning Curves GA suggested a 0.95 learning curve, but CCGT technology might be better represented with a learning curve of (ref. Energy Technology Systems Analysis Program) We can apply these learning curve data to the GA turbine cost estimates DOE’s criteria for turbine- generator maturity is 8 GWe (approximately 38 turbine modules or 10 plants) ~ 8 GWe

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 28 Scaling of GA Data on Turbine-Generator Costs Ken Schultz and Puja Gupta provided gas turbine and steam T-G data These quantity learning curve data will be used to estimate the ARIES plants Learning curves are referenced from prior chart Note: This example has four turbines per plant (Four Turbines)

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 29 Scaling T-G Costs to ARIES-AT C 610 = $ x (610/450) 0.81 = $333 M, for 2440MW th Size Scaling: Note that ARIES has used 0.8 size scaling for LM & He & 0.70 for H20 & OC. Scaled Unit Cost = UC 450 x (P th /450) 0.81 per DOE guidance. Assume ARIES-AT parameters for CCGT Pe net = 1000 MWe, Pe gross = 1170 MWe, η = 0.48, Pth = 2440 MWth with four turbine modules at 610 MWth each (red data are new parameters) 610 MW is probably the present size limit Learning Curve Scaling: Four NOAK 450 MW th each & 0.88 LC = $260.46M Combined Cost for Four Turbines at 610 MWth each

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 30 Fit GA Brayton Turbines Onto Existing Curves The GA turbines costs, scaled to NOAK and to a larger size, is just between the proposed 45% and 50% efficient Brayton algorithms ARIES-AT, η=59%ARIES-CS, η=43% ARIES-ST, η=45% ARIES-RS, η=46% GA Brayton Turbines, η=48% Excellent collaborative data for our algorithms

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 31 Conclusions Use current commodity prices for Special Materials Adopt $1000/kg for 90% enriched lithium Use provided table Better define technical design of Main Heat Transfer and Transport Piping size, length, pumps, HX, tanks, makeup, pump work, power balance Continue with new MHTT cost algorithms Laila should recommend safety and neutron-related cost adders for certain subsystems Accept new Rankine and Brayton Turbine-Generator Plant algorithms

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD Page 32 Some Sobering Economic Projections Escalating capital costs were also highlighted in the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2010 report “Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants“. The US cost estimate for new nuclear was revised upwards from $3902/kW by 37% to a value of $5339/kW for 2011 by the EIA. This is in contrast to coal, which increases by only 25%, and gas which actually shows a 3% decrease in cost. Renewables estimates show solar dropping by 25% while onshore wind increases by about 21%. The only option to increase faster than nuclear is offshore wind at 49%, while the increase in coal with CCS is about the same as nuclear. In the previous year's estimate, EIA assumed that the cost of nuclear would drop with time and experience, and that by 2030 the cost of nuclear would drop by almost 30% in constant dollars. By way of contrast, China is stating that it expects its costs for plants under construction to come in at less than $2000/kW and that subsequent units should be in the range of $1600/kW. This estimates is for the AP1000 design, the same as used by EIA for the USA. This would mean that an AP1000 in the USA would cost about three times as much as the same plant built in China. Different labour rates in the two countries are only part of the explanation. Standardised design, numerous units being built, and increased localisation are all significant factors in China. Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants Ref: World Nuclear Association, Economics of Nuclear Power, Updated 9 March 2011,