WP1: Reference design objectives and specifications Didier De Bruyn SCKCEN Fourth PCC meeting FP7 LEADER Bologna, 27 October 2011 Copyright © 2011 SCKCEN

Recall: Schedule D29 D01 D02 D30D30 R1 D29 R1D29 R2 D01: Updated design options for the LFR reference D02: Design options for the ETDR D29: Roadmap for LFR development D30: Cost estimate for LFR & ETDR © SCKCEN 2

Task 1.1 Roadmap The “Rev 1” version is on-going: Include PALLAS together with JHR & MYRRHA Include ELECTRA in parallel to the other facilities (from GUINEVERE to the industrial one) Rename the facilities to avoid misunderstanding Consider the current design updates (ALFRED – D02) Check the schedules with experts for the different concepts (detailed NRG level  global level) some misunderstanding NRG >< experts (Fukushima) recall the inherent favourable LFR characteristics (but no comparison!) Include a § on funding opportunities. © SCKCEN 3 Blue: foreseen & done Red: foreseen but not done Green: not foreseen but done

Renaming the different concepts ELSY is the design performed in an FP6 project, but also still the name of the FOAK facility, so the risk of misunderstanding is real! Proposal: 100 MW th Technology Pilot Plant: MYRRHA 300 MW th Demonstration: ALFRED MW th Prototype: ELSY  PROLFR Min 600 MW el Industrial plant: ILFR  ELFR DONE ! 4 © SCKCEN

Tasks 1.2 LFR options & 1.3 ETDR options Del 01 finalized & distributed. Del 02 written, distributed for comments & finalized (July ‘11). © SCKCEN 5

Task 1.4 Cost estimate Methodology proposed by EA after iteration with NRG, but input will be required from all partners (distribution proposed by EA); Some guidelines to ensure consistency : Costs are expressed in € (Dec 2010); Separate investment costs (engineering, licensing, construction) from operation costs (O&M, fuel cycle) Where to put D&D? Proposal: in investment Consider R&D? Proposal: no, but to be mentioned Interest during construction? Proposal: no (in other words overnight costs are calculated without escalation) Contingencies? Proposal: yes, preferably per item To allow comparison: recalculate the FP6 ELSY following those rules. © SCKCEN 6 Decision WP1 meeting 24 october ‘11

Some comments from the WP leader Good participation from most partners: NRG is interacting in 1.1 & 1.4 Good input from WP2 & WP3 partners Good feedback from reviewers Less good participation from AGH Not present in 2010 (for good reason) Few feedback since then (mixing with WP2 ?) Work has been performed so far, but sometimes by other partners than originally foreseen Can we envisage to re-distribute the WP budget? 7 © SCKCEN

Original distribution of resources 8 partnernamet1,1t1,2t1,3t1,4Total 1Ansaldo AGH6 6 3CEA 4CIRTEN 6EA55 7ENEA31 4 8KIT0,250, INR2 2 10JRC-Petten0,5 11KTH 12NRG437 13PSI 14SCKCEN SRS 16NRI 17Uni Bologna Total11,257, ,5

Copyright notice Copyright © SCK  CEN All property rights and copyright are reserved. Any communication or reproduction of this document, and any communication or use of its content without explicit authorization is prohibited. Any infringement to this rule is illegal and entitles to claim damages from the infringer, without prejudice to any other right in case of granting a patent or registration in the field of intellectual property. SCKCEN Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie Centre d'Etude de l'Energie Nucléaire Stichting van Openbaar Nut Fondation d'Utilité Publique Foundation of Public Utility Registered Office: Avenue Herrmann-Debrouxlaan 40 – BE-1160 BRUSSEL Operational Office: Boeretang 200 – BE-2400 MOL