L. Waganer Consultant for ARIES Project / UCSD / DOE ARIES Project Meeting 21-22 May 2013

1. Comparing AT and ACT Cost Results L. Waganer Consultant for ARIES Project / UCSD / DOE ARIES Project Meeting 21-22 May 2013 Hampton Inn, Oak Room Germantown, MD Page 1

2. Status of ARIES Systems CodeEconomic Subroutines • The ASC Economic Subroutines have been updated to reflect the new Cost Algorithms • All coding errors have been corrected by M. Tillack • On 22 Feb 2013, it was requested to compare the current ACT-1d capital cost results with published AT results on a common dollar basis (2010$). This is not the ACT-1d run of 26 July 2012 as it has a cost escalation error. • A very detailed cost comparison document and spreadsheet were provided to Najmabadi and Tillack • This presentation only touches on some highlights Page 2

3. Acct 20, Land and Land Rights • The AT and prior studies Land basis was $10 M + $2 M for Land Rights, and when escalated to 2010$ is $15.3 M • The revised basis (ACT and following) is $20 M +$4 M in 2009$ or $24.3 M in 2010$. • Cost increase is $8.94 M Page 3

4. Acct 21, Structures and Site Facilities • These costs increased from AT by 20% or $72 M. • The subaccounts are not available for AT, so line by line comparisons were not easily available. However the ACT costs were exactly as predicted by the new algorithms, line by line, so the ASC results are correct. • The Power Core Building costs remained the same • The new adopted Turbine Building cost algorithm increased the cost by $24.7 M to $77.8 M (more in line with A&E estimates) • Heat Rejection uses rejected heat, with reduction of -$8 M • New algorithms added for Hot Cell and Fuel Buildings • Cost increase $71.68 M for Acct 21 Page 4

5. Power Core Equipment, Acct 22 • Power Core Equipment, Acct 22, is much higher, but probably is correct. Some accounts not yet defined or estimated • Fusion Energy Capture and Conversion, A22.1, is $153 M higher due to added subaccounts (LT shield, penetration shield), better definition and higher cost materials – See details on next slide • Plasma Confinement, A22.2, is $268 M higher, mainly due to adding the Bucking Cylinder, Cryostat/Thermal Shield, etc. (Need to verify these costs) • Plasma Formation, A22.3, is $25 M higher • Vacuum, Power Core, A22.4, $223 M higher, but no AT breakdown. Pumps and piping not yet included. Method of estimate is not valid. Need tocheck • Primary Structure, A22.5, is $29 M higher (more massive structure) • MHTT, A22.6, is lower by -$9 M. Escalation might not be applied properly. • Remaining subaccounts were not itemized in AT, but roughly comparable (about $36 M higher) (Rad. Waste, Fuel Handling, Maint. Equip, I&C, Other) • Acct 22 cost increase $724 M Page 5

6. Details on Fusion Energy Capture, A22.1 • On the FWB and HS, I am not able to delve into how the volumes and masses are calculated; I do not believe the ASC volume calculations agree with the engineering configuration • The AT first wall and blanket ($93 M), whereas the ACT first wall and blanket is $50.5 M and the second blanket is $56.4 M. Thus the sum of the two is nearly the same. • The ACT divertor is nearly double at $17 M (due to materials?) • The AT HT shield and structure was $100 M, whereas theACT HT shield and structure seems low at $32 M • The LT shield is surprisingly high at $156 M, as much as three times what I calculated based on current composition and thickness. We need to recheck this account. • The penetration shielding is a new account at $39.5 M. Page 6

7. Remaining Power Core Accts Acct 23, Turbine-Generator Equipment - This account was correct per my calculations. No changes required. Acct 24, Electric Plant Equipment – Algorithm working correctly, but leading coefficient needs to be modified to 182.98. Change removed AT 0.75 LSA factor Acct 25, Heat Rejection Equipment - This account Algorithm working correctly, but leading coefficient needs to be modified to 87.52 Acct 26, Miscellaneous Plant Equipment - This account Algorithm working correctly, but leading coefficient needs to be modified to 88.89; removed 0.85 LSA factor. Acct 27, Special Materials – Presently ACT cost is about 1/3 of AT, due to enrichment costs ($121 M (AT) vs. $44 M (ACT)). This account needs to be revised for corrected enrichment unit costs. Page 7

8. Summary of Total Direct Costs These cost increases are a mixture of improved algorithms, but others may still be in error and need to be re-examined regarding how they are computed. Page 8

9. Total Indirect Costs The higher ACT Direct Capital Cost is reflected in the Indirect Costs and the Project Contingency – Same algorithms The cost algorithm for Interest During Construction was lowered slightly; 0.1652 for AT to 0.1313 for ACT per Gen IV approach Page 9

10. Cost of Electricity COE = [CAC + (CO&M + CSCR + CF) * (1 + y)Y] + CD&D , where 8760*Penet* pf Page 10

11. Cost of Electricity From Slide 9 Although the Capital Costs are about 1/3 higher, the much lower FCR adopted from GEN IV yields an annual Capital cost lower by 20%. However, other COE elements are increased, resulting in a comparable bottom line COE Page 11