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

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

3. 3 Petten 9 July 2012 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.

4. 4 Petten 9 July 2012 Approach G4Econs 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

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

6. 6 Petten 9 July 2012 Approach Comparative 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 1.Determine cost distribution for an LFR on 2 nd level COA 2.Determine relative costs on 3 rd 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

7. Approach Cost 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 7 Petten 9 July 2012 Cost distribution Building & Structures19% Reactor37% Turbine14% Electric1% Miscellaneous12% Heat Rejection1% Specials1% Simulator1% Construction Services7% Other (owners costs)7%

8. 8 Petten 9 July 2012 Approach Comparative 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) Scaling factors Structures0.59 Reactor0.80 Turbine0.83 Electric0.39 Miscellaneous0.59 Heat Rejection1.06 Construction Services0.66 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

9. Approach Comparative Analysis Benefits of Modular Construction –4-factor equation for modular construction: = M learn ·M mod ·M multi ·M design –M learn : Learning factor (number of reactors constructed world-wide) = min[100%; 100%-( 2 log(P ref /P new )·4%)] –M mod : Modularity factor (related to the size of the reactor) = min[100%; 0.12·ln(P new /100)+0.72)] –M multi : Multiple units factor (number of reactors at the same site) = min[100%; max[90%; 100%-(ln(P ref /P new )·4%)]] –M design : Design factor (cost reduction by assumed possible design simplifications for smaller reactors) = min[100%; ln(P new ·10 8 )/25.5] 9 Petten 9 July 2012

10. Approach Comparative Analysis Benefits of Modular Construction –4-factor equation (previous slide) –Simplified equation: min[100%; 0.195·ln(P new /100)+0.63·10 -4 ·P ref ] –Specific construction costs ELFR compared to AP1000 ~ 86% 10 Petten 9 July 2012

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

12. Approach Contingencies 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 12 Petten 9 July 2012 Contingencies Structures10% Reactor20% Turbine5% Electric10% Miscellaneous10% Heat Rejection10% Construction Services15% Owners Costs20%

13. 13 Petten 9 July 2012 Approach G4Econs 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

14. Assumptions Comparative Analysis Site size: –41 m 2 /MWe for AP1000 corresponding to ~243 m x 187 m –33 m 2 /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 m 2 resulting in 270 m 2 /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 14 Petten 9 July 2012

15. Assumptions Comparative 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. 15 Petten 9 July 2012

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

17. Results Comparative 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 evaluation 150% AP1000 = 4800 €/kWe 17 Petten 9 July 2012

18. Sensitivity Comparative Analysis Sensitivity analysis of main assumptions (see previous sheets) Total uncertainty: ~25% leading to a range of 3600 – (4800) – 6000 €/kWe 18 Petten 9 July 2012 RefSite 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% 150%140%154%147%152%138%163%138%162%

19. Assumptions G4Econs 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) 19 Petten 9 July 2012

20. Results G4Econs 20 Petten 9 July 2012

21. Results G4Econs Nominal Costs R&D- Engineering, licensing & construction4800 €/kWe Engineering, licensing & construction (including first core, D&D and contingencies) 3400 M€ or 5700 €/kWe O&M111 €/kWe/a Fuel Cycle8.1 €/MWh 21 Petten 9 July 2012 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€

22. Sensitivity G4Econs Large sensitivity to assumed range of: –Fuel cycle costs –Operational life Similar sensitivity to assumed range of: –Construction costs –O&M costs 22 Petten 9 July 2012

23. 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. 23 Petten 9 July 2012

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