1. NHI Economic Analysis of Candidate Nuclear Hydrogen Processes
Daniel Allen
Technology Insights, San Diego, California
Paul Pickard
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Mike Patterson
Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Carl Sink
Office of Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington DC
Fourth NEA Information Exchange Meeting on Nuclear Production of Hydrogen
Oak Brook, Illinois
April 16, 2009

2. Outline
Methods
Issues
2007 Results
2009 Results
Conclusions

3. Methods

4. Nuclear Hydrogen Production Cost Framework
Data Base and Calculation Model
To assess the comparative costs of bulk hydrogen production processes to support NHI prioritization
Consistent, Transparent
To support tradeoff studies optimizing the design and the allocation of limited R&D resources.
To understand relative cost and risk (uncertainty) drivers as guide to R&D resource allocation.
To quantify impact of pertinent market issues and uncertainties as further guide to R&D.

5. Nuclear Hydrogen Production Cost Framework
Approach
Use DOE H2A based Groundrules and Economic Model (Discounted Cash Flow)
Decouple H2 process from HTGR energy source
Near-term focus on H2 process
Follow-on to address reactor-specific optimization
Develop and maintain consistent databases for NHI systems

6. Major Input Elements Process Plant Capital Costs - $
Direct
Equipment
Installation (Field Material & Labor)
Indirect
Replacement Capital
Process Plant Operation & Maintenance
Fixed - $/yr
Staff
Other Labor Costs
Materials & Services for Maintenance & Repair
Variable - $/kg H2
Thermal Power Consumption and Costs
Electric Power Consumption and Costs
Feedstock: Water; Chemicals; Catalyst
Performance
Efficiency
Capacity Factor

7. Nuclear Hydrogen Production Cost Evaluation
2007 Study
Interacted with Technology Developers: Sulfur-Iodine, High-Temperature Electrolysis and Hybrid Sulfur
Estimates (Baseline Costs) from developers
Contingency (20%) added to input total to represent Expected (Mean) cost
Uncertainties (10%/90% Range Limits) estimated with developers
Analysis with Nuclear Heat and Electricity Parametrically
Nominally 60 $/MWe-h, 20 $/MWt-h
HTSE Case Posted on DOE H2A Website

8. Nuclear Hydrogen Production Cost Evaluation
2009 Status
Continuing Interaction with Technology Developers: Sulfur-Iodine, High-Temperature Electrolysis and Hybrid Sulfur
Hydrogen Plant Alternatives Study (HPAS) by WEC/PBMR/Shaw Team (Shaw lead) for NGNP concluded in January
Building data base from HPAS

9. Issues

10. Nuclear Hydrogen Production Cost Evaluation
Issues/Concerns
Variation in “Maturity” of Flowsheets
Development and “Depth” of Cost Estimates among system components and between Technologies
Validity of Scaling (e.g.- Process Temperature Effects)

11. 2007 Results

12. Nuclear Hydrogen Production Cost Evaluation
Nuclear Options Modeling
Nuclear Heat Source
Electric Power Generation
Hydrogen Production Process
2030
Sulfur-Iodine Thermo-chemical and HTGR
Modular High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Rector (HTGR)
none
Sulfur-Iodine (S-I) Cycle– Reactive & Extractive HI
High Temperature Electrolysis and HTGR
Closed Cycle Gas Turbo-Compressor/ Generator
High-Temperature Steam Electrolysis (HTSE)
Hybrid Sulfur and HTGR
Steam Turbine-Generator (T/G)
Hybrid Sulfur Cycle

13. 2007 Results - Hydrogen Price
Earlier Published Estimates
2007 Analysis
Sulfur-Iodine
HI section: extractive distillation 1
- -
3.41 $/kg
HI section: reactive distillation 2
1.95 $/kg 3
3.05 $/kg
High-Temperature Electrolysis
1.92 $/kg 4
3.22 $/kg
Hybrid Sulfur
1.60 $/kg $/kg 6
2.94 $/kg
1 Present INERI baseline
2 Projected process improvement
3 GA/INL/TexasA&M NERI (GA-A25401, APR06)
4 GA/INL/TexasA&M NERI (GA-A25402, APR06), electrolyzers 500 $/kWe
5 SRNL (WSRC-TR , APR05), electrolyzers 2000 $/m2
6 Westinghouse/Shaw (HTR 2006, OCT06), electrolyzers 2650 $/m2

14. Cash Flow Example: 2007 S-I Case, Extractive Distillation
for H2 levelized
price
3.41 $/kg

15. Contributions to H2 Price Example: 2007 S-I Case, Extractive Distillation
Total
3.41 $/kg

16. Major Parameters Varied 10% and 90% Probability Indicative Limits
Capital Costs: Overall, of Major Sections, of Major Equipment
Finance / Performance Variation
After-Tax Real IRR - 8%, 10%, 15% (100% Equity)
Capacity Factor - 85%, 90%, 95%
Process Efficiency - ± 5% points
With and without O2 sales credit
With and without CO2 avoidance credit
Power Input
Thermal Power Cost - 18 $/MWt-h, 20 $/MWt-h, 25 $/MWt-h
Electric Power Cost - 55 $/MWe-h, 60 $/MWe-h, 75 $/MWe-h
Other
Process Plant Materials and Services - ± 20%
Other factors (staff, etc.) at 10% and 90% probability

17. Example of Sensitivity to Uncertainty 2007 - HTSE
Key cost factor: Electrolyzers 500 $/kWe
Uncertainties (10% 90% probability estimates)
From INL: 250 $/kWe to 800 $/kWe

18. Example of Uncertainty Results HTSE Case “Tornado” Plot - Varying Economic and Operating Cost Drivers 55 60 75
$/MWe-h 8%
10%
15%
49%
44%
39%
27 $/tonne CO2
20 $/tonne
95%
85%
90%
100
200
160 18 25
$/MWt-h 20
80%
120% 30 40

19. Example of Uncertainty Results 2007 - HTSE Case “Tornado” Plot - Varying Plant Capital Cost Drivers
250
500
800
80%
100%
150%
20 yrs
10 yrs
5 yrs
70%
130%
70%
130%
70%
130%
70%
130%

20. 2009 Results
(Shaw Led Study)

21. Shaw 2009 Assessment Three Designs and Cost Data on the Same Basis
Three process simulations by Shaw
Mass and energy balances
Flow diagrams
Realistic pressure drops, energy recovery
Three sets of PFDs and equipment sizing
Non-developmental equipment and installation costs estimated by industry specialists
Development item costs reviewed
Sulfuric Acid Decomposition Reactor
Solid Oxide Electrolysis Module
SO2 Electrolysis Module
O&M estimates on same basis for three designs

22. 2009 Shaw Comparative Evaluation
Base Case for Each Technology
No reactor technologies
No specific combinations
Reactor thermal rating: 550 MWt
System Energy Balance
Excess heat used to generate electricity via a Rankine cycle, with variable efficiency based on available temperature
Electricity deficit or surplus is balanced by the grid at a set price and charged with a carbon penalty
Hydrogen output: 140 million SCFD (345 t/d, 4 kg/s)
Lifetime: 30 years
Plant baseline availability: 8200 hours per year average (94%)
Operating temperatures
Max Process side temperature: 870°C (Reactor Outlet = 950°C)

23. Nuclear Hydrogen Production Cost Evaluation
Nuclear Options – 2009 Modeling
Nuclear Heat Source
Electric Power Generation
Hydrogen Production Process
2030
Sulfur-Iodine Thermo-chemical and HTGR
Modular High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Rector (HTGR)
none
Sulfur-Iodine (S-I) Cycle – Reactive HI
High Temperature Electrolysis and HTGR
Steam Turbine-Generator (T/G)
High-Temperature Steam Electrolysis (HTSE)
Hybrid Sulfur and HTGR
Hybrid Sulfur Cycle

24. Shaw 2009 Assessment Issues Raised
Results very sensitive to economic assumptions: cost of heat, electricity and electricity escalation
Equipment costs at peak of commodity prices (summer 2008)
Problems remain using new technology item “Target” costs
Lack of usable performance lifetimes and output change rates
Process flowsheet uncertainties (particularly S-I) give varying electric power consumption

25. Resolving Assessment Cost Factors
Revise Energy Costs per 2007 study
Nuclear heat from 30 to 20 $/MWt-h
Electric power
from 75 to 60 $/MWe-h
escalation from 1%/yr to zero
Use H2A default water costs
Assume heat integration with steam cycle
No thermal energy input
Reduce Capital Cost for Conventional Equipment
Costs were ~1.5 times higher in mid-2008 than before ( ) or since
Include O2 By-product Credit for HTSE

26. Revising Cost Factors Shaw base case results
Shaw base case results with revised energy costs
Lower capital costs
O2 credit for HTSE

27. Resolving Assessment Cost Factors
Additional Revisions
Addresss S-I cost conservatism
Account for less tanatlum pipe and vessel lining in HI section
HTSE and HyS non-conservatism
Increase equipment cost for electrolyzers

28. Revising Cost Factors Shaw base case results
Shaw base case results with revised energy costs
Lower capital costs
O2 credit for HTSE
Tantalum reduced for S-I and electrolyzer costs doubled for HTSE and HyS

29. Resolving Assessment Efficiency Factors
S-I
Use earlier GA flowsheet, particularly HI section thermodynamic factors
Efficiency improvement from 25% to 42%
HyS
Lower cell voltage (525 vs. 600 mV)
Reduced thermal demand in the acid concentration step
Efficiency improvement from 35% to 38%
HTSE
Eliminate the air sweep subsystem
Efficiency improvement from 33% to 37%

30. Revising Flowsheet Efficiency
dotted extensions are to Shaw base case result

31. Conclusions

32. Conclusions from Evaluation Studies
Within Hydrogen Production Technologies
Cost drivers become apparent
Comparisons Between Technologies
Little distinction in required H2 price
Adjusting capital cost, cases converge
Considering variation in efficiencies, cases overlap
Uncertain flowsheet efficiencies and simulation models
Immature cost bases for technology items
No bases for performance stability and lifetime
H2 Price Compared to Alternatives
Energy input costs significant
Nuclear Heat
Electric power, generated on site or imported
Need to assure optimal conventional plant

33. End