L. Waganer Consultant for The Boeing Company ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting 23-24 April 2009

1. Completion of Cost Account Documentation L. Waganer Consultant for The Boeing Company ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting 23-24 April 2009 University of Wisconsin, Madison Page 1

2. Cost Account Status • Documented ARIES Cost Accounts are shown below: • Accounts 20, Land and Land Rights Previously Reported • Accounts 21, Structures and Site Facilities Previously Reported • Partially Acct 22, Power Core Plant Equipment • Acct 22.01, Fusion Energy Capture and Conversion (FWB, shielding) Previously Reported • Acct 22.02, Plasma Confinement (Being developed by Dragojlovic/Bromberg/Kessel) • Acct 22.03, Plasma Formation and SustainmentTK Mau responsible • Acct 22.04, Vacuum, Power CorePreviously Reported • Acct 22.05 Primary Structure and Support, Power Core Previously Reported • Acct 22.06 – 13 Power Supplies, Main HT&T, Cryo, Rad Matls, Fuel Handl, Maint, I&C, and Other Plant Equipment Reported this Meeting • Account 23 Turbine Plant Equipment Reported this Meeting • Account 24 Electric Plant Equipment Reported this Meeting • Account 25 Heat Rejection Equipment Reported this Meeting • Account 26 Misc Plant Equipment Reported this Meeting • Account 27 Special Materials Reported this Meeting • Accounts 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 Previously Reported Page 2

3. Cost Account Managers • No. Account CAM • Land and Land Rights Waganer • Structures and Site Facilities Waganer • Power Core Plant Equipment • 22.01 Fusion Energy Capture and Conversion • 22.01.01 First Wall and Blanket Malang • 22.01.02 Second Blanket Malang • 22.01.03 Divertor Assenbly Raffray • 22.01.04 High Temperature Shielding El-Guebaly • 22.01.05 Low Temperature Shielding El-Guebaly • 22.01.06 Penetration Shielding El-Guebaly • 22.02 Plasma Confinement • 22.02.01 Toroidal Field Coils (TBD) • 22.02.02 Poloidal Field Coils (TBD) • 22.02.03 Feedback Coils Kessel • 22.03 Plasma Formation and Sustainment Mau • 22.04 Vacuum, Plasma Core (equipment) Najmabadi • 22.05 Primary Structure and Support Wang • 22.06 Power Supplies, Switching and Energy Storage Cadwallader • 22.07 Main Heat Transfer and Transport Raffray • 22.08 Cryogenic Cooling, Magnets Bromberg • 22.09 Radioactive Materials Treatment and Management El-Guebaly • 22.10 Fuel Handling and Storage Steiner • 22.11 Maintenance Equipment Waganer • 22.12 Instrumentation and Control Weaver • 22.13 Other Plant Equipment Waganer • Turbine Plant Equipment Schultz • Electric Plant Equipment Schultz • Miscellaneous Plant Equipment Waganer • Heat Rejection Equipment Waganer • Special Materials Waganer Page 3

4. Support I have contacted Ron Miller several times to help understand the ARIES costing algorithms and he has provided a lot of data and understanding. TK Mau said that he will work on the Plasma Confinement accounts to define the coils and power supply algorithms. Farrokh Najmabadi offered to define requirements for the vacuum pumping system. Ken Schultz is having someone look into the cost of Turbine Plant Equipment. Page 4

5. Comment • Researching the cost databases and reports for prior fusion conceptual designs back to 1980 has been very time consuming and challenging • Analyzing using common cost basis requires normalizing the cost estimates using the Gross Domestic Product Price Deflators for each year. • LSA factors are applied for some accounts and some studies • Definitions of cost accounts evolve and change over time • Documentation is spotty, at best • Not all costs are reported and some are hidden • Not all dependant parameters are provided or documented • Quite a few calculational and reporting errors were found • ASC code internally reformats the algorithm to a linear format limiting traceability Page 5

6. Assessment of ARIES Costing Estimating Process Most presentations start with an Objective, then Details, followed by a Conclusion or Summary Objective: Establish a set of Costing Algorithms that are reasonably correct and consistent with prior studies Details: Details of basis and assessment provide Conclusion: Cannot develop algorithms that accurately predict fusion systems costs – Best we can hope for are algorithms that show right trends, in the ballpark, and are applied consistently. Anomalies abound in the prior study cost databases. Page 6

7. Main Heat Transfer and Transport Costs, Account 22.06 Page 7

8. Main Heat Transfer and Transport Cost Definition This account includes all the heat transfer piping, fluid circulation subsystem, intermediate heat exchangers, steam generators/ piping (if design is a Rankine cycle), pressurizing or cover gas subsystem, and in-systems instrumentation and metering. This system interfaces between the high-temperature heat generating components in the power core elements and the turbine control and isolation valves (supply side) and the feed-water heating piping (return side). This is in agreement with the Starfire and Gen-IV definition. Page 8

9. Heat Transfer and Transport Cost Algorithms Cost = EF x A x (Pth/3500)^0.55 EF is escalation factor from 1992$ A = $265.98 for Primary Li, LiPb, He A = $75.95 Primary OC, H2O A = $49.24 Intermediate coolant A = $80.1 Secondary coolant ? • Curves were ARIES II-IV algorithms by Ron Miller • Basis is Titan (Pth 3500MW scaled to 0.55 exponent) • Basis updated in 2008 for ARIES-AT (1.2% to 21.3% increase) • Cost basis is LSA of 4 • LSA factors are 0.9 or 0.6 with He or LM and IHX (LSA=1), or 1.0 (LSA = 2,3,4) • He & LiPb have same cost algorithm; ditto for OC & H2O • Li needs Na intermediate loop (ARIES-I said Li?), Not on SPPS • Not sure what Secondary coolant refers to? • Dual coolant (He + LiPb) maximizes at 50/50) and is most expensive system; systems usually do not split equally, so this is a limiting case LSA = 4 shown ARIES-AT algorithms Page 9

10. Chronological ARIES-AT algorithms Brayton Cycle Grouped and Ordered ARIES-AT algorithms Primary (H2O 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 Main Heat Transfer and Transport Cost Database These data are with Ron Miller’s updated ARIES-AT cost algorithms are 1.2% higher than the ARIES II-IV costing algorithms Color coding indicates type of heat transfer fluids employed Page 10

11. Starfire (H2O) EBTR (H2O) ARIES-III (OC) Pressurized Water and OC HTT Cost Comparisons • Starfire and EBTR are R.M. Parsons estimates and are higher than algorithm than predicted. They were the most detailed estimates, but the oldest. • There is no Organic Coolant cost documentation in ARIES-III. It is likely the cost algorithm and the reported cost were the same. • If we feel we need to refine this algorithm, might be able to get data from fission PWR databases Page 11

12. Helium or LiPb Primary Coolant HTT Typical Schematic This is Figure 9.4-1, Schematic flow diagram of ARIES-I of power cycle with steam generator, reheater and superheater, Ref ARIES-I Final Report. Notice this only includes the helium and steam loops. This would be a fairly typical power flow diagram with no intermediate loop. Helium Steam The exceptions are ARIES-II and ARIES-RS, which have intermediate loops. Also the Brayton cycles of ARIES-AT, ST and CS. Page 12

13. LSA = 2,3,4, factor = 1.0 ARIES-I (He) LSA = 1, factor = 0.6 ARIES-I' (He) ARIES-AT (LiPb) ARIES-IV (He) Helium or LiPb Primary Coolant HTT Cost Comparisons • ARIES-I HTT cost is 17% higher than predicted. • This data predates the existence of the algorithm • Final Report said there was no intermediate coolant loop, just He and steam • Final report cost showed both an intermediate loop ($77.7M) and a secondary loop ($8K) (in 88$) ; Likely this is an error • ARIES -I’ & -IV reported costs are 12-13% low and –AT is 8% high with 0.6 LSA factor used • Footnote in II-IV Sys Studies Rpt says to use 0.6 factor for LSA=1 case with LM, He, or double walled HX. • I do not think it appropriate to use 0.6 factor as it will not be a realized cost reduction. Page 13

14. ARIES-RS (Li + Na) ARIES-II (Li + Na?) Li Primary and Na Intermediate Coolant HTT Cost Comparisons • Both ARIES –II and –RS used lithium as the primary coolant plus an intermediate coolant loop to separate Li from steam (but not SPPS) • -II said it used Li in intermediate loop to but it might have been Na • -RS used Na in intermediate loop • ARIES-RS was well predicted with the 4% difference probably being the escalation factor error • ARIES-II reported cost is less than predicted, due to updated algorithm coefficient • Therefore, Li Primary + Na Intermediate loop algorithm seems appropriate Page 14

15. ARIES-CS (LiPb & He) ARIES-ST (LiPb & He) Prom-L (Pb& He) Dual Coolant (LiPb and He) HTT Cost Comparisons • It is thought that dual coolant systems incur a cost penalty because the coolant flow is split and they cannot benefit from size scaling • A 50/50 split would be ~36% more costly than one system • Prometheus had dual coolant system with Pb and He. Ebasco made a detailed cost estimate of the heat transport system, but the escalated cost is 40% below the algorithm prediction • ARIES-ST is right on, whereas – CS is 12% high • Not sure of correlation Page 15

16. ARIES-CS (LiPb & He) ARIES-ST (LiPb & He) ARIES-RS (Li + Na) ARIES-I (He) ARIES-II (Li + Na?) Prom-L (Pb& He) ARIES-I' (He) Starfire (H2O) ARIES-AT (LiPb) ARIES-IV (He) EBTR (H2O) ARIES-III (OC) Complete Data Set of Heat Transfer and Transport Costs Shown for Reference only ARIES-AT algorithms Page 16

17. Heat Transfer and Transport Cost Summary Should consistently use algorithms to estimate and scale HTT System costs Basis (Titan @ 0.55 exponent) is nebulous but generally reasonable - Gen IV uses these exponents: Steam turbines 0.50 Gas turbines 0.50 Gas Compressor 0.82 Cent. Pumps 0.41 Tanks 0.63 Heat Exchanger 0.65 Prior studies costs generally do not correlate with existing algorithms, but cannot go back and change(see next page) Recommend continue to use Ron Miller’s ARIES-AT algorithms as amended, reported at subaccount levels If Divertor is a separate loop, use appropriate subaccount If Intermediate loop is required, make sure it is estimated and included Page 17

18. Suspected Errors in Reported Costs Starfire, EBTR: Contractor estimated costs seem high or algorithm is low Prometheus: Contractor estimated costs seem low for a dual coolant system ARIES-I: Report says no intermediate loop, yet costs are reported for intermediate and secondary loops. Higher than predicted cost may be due to incorrect inclusion of intermediate loop ($77M in 88$) ARIES-I’, -IV, & -AT: Costs vary on both sides of algorithm (with 60% scaling). Should look at code to see if HTT cost algorithms are correct ARIES-II: Used and costed a Na intermediate loop and prediction is correct per prior algorithm, but the new algorithm increased by 23%, which introduces the discrepancy. Need to check the new algorithm coefficient. ARIES-CS: Estimate for a dual coolant system was about 12% high. Need to recheck the system code for this discrepancy. Right on the Algorithm Predictions ARIES-III (OC, Rankine) ARIES-RS (Li, Na (Intermediate), Rankine) ARIES-ST (LiPb + He, Brayton) Page 18

19. Radioactive Materials Treatment and Handling Equipment CostsAccount 22.07 Page 19

20. Radioactive Materials Treatment and HandlingEquipment Costs This account includes all the equipment to treat and manage, off-line, all the produced radioactive materials. This system would accept the radioactive materials processed in the Hot Cell. This system will also accept the impurities and difficult-to-process materials from the Fuel Handling and Storage system. This would include all the liquid, gaseous, and solid materials produced or processed by the entire plant. This system will prepare the radioactive materials to be released, cleared, recycled, or disposed to the proper off-site facilities. It is not the intent to accomplish intensive processing on-site. Efficiently recovered tritium or deuterium will be returned to the Fuel Handling and Storage system. The function and content in the Radioactive Materials Treatment and Handling Equipment account is not well known at this time. The present functional definition is shown at the left, but materials handling interfaces may change and equipment functionality will likely significantly be modified and improved over the next few decades. The recommended LSA factors for all levels are 0.85 (LSA1) and 0.94 (LSA 2). Three very similar costing algorithms have been used to estimate this system. However they probably significantly underestimate the real cost of this system. Page 20

21. Not identified in reports Radioactive Materials Treatment and Handling Equipment Cost Database The three algorithms are linear functions of Gross Thermal Power, differing only by the leading coefficient. They were probably based originally on Starfire. Suggest retaining current scaling algorithm but tripling the coefficient to bring the system cost to the $15M or $25M range. Page 21

22. Fuel Handling and Storage Equipment CostsAccount 22.08 Page 22

23. Fuel Handling and Storage Equipment Costs This account includes on-line processing for the extraction, recovery, purification, preparation, and storage of the fuel elements. Fuel injection is handled in a separate account (22.03.04). The sources of the liquids and gases for processing are the chamber gases, purge and cover gases, primary and intermediate coolant streams, all tritium-bearing liquid and gas streams, and the atmospheric detritiation systems in the Reactor, Hot Cell and Fuel and Handling Storage Buildings. This system is also responsible for maintaining safe levels of tritium in all reactor and heat transfer fluid streams and in the atmospheres in the detritiated buildings, for both normal and emergency conditions. ITER considers this to be the Tritium Plant. New set of functional accounts The function and content in the Fuel Handling and Storage Equipment account is well known from several existing and under-construction facilities. Some cost escalation will occur due to higher reliability requirements for power plant applications, but learning curve effects for 10th of a kind will tend to compensate. The recommended LSA factors for all accounts are 0.85 (LSA1) and 0.94 (LSA 2). Page 23

24. Fuel Handling and Storage Equipment Cost Algorithm Comparison Designs completed by different groups defined the subaccounts differently, so comparisons are difficult. Starfire and EBTR subsystem estimates were based on Mound Facility and TSTA. Prometheus is probably not especially relevant as it is an IFE fuel cycle. ARIES always used algorithms (constants or functions of mass or volume flow rates) for all designs, but did not report Fuel System costs from ARIES-I’ through ARIES-ST. Only ARIES-I and –CS were reported. The equation for Blanket recovery and handling was never provided, but reported values were identical to Water Detritiation. Notice the repeated use or reporting of $5.892 in Pellet Injectors, Fuel Storage, Water Detritiation, and Blanket Detritiation. Note that 22.5.2 did not use provided algorithm, instead used the $5.892 as a constant value. Thus, algorithms in code are messed up. The cost algorithms do not seem to reflect reality. Use of constant values do not help compare designs of different capacities. Flow rates may be correct, but are difficult to find. Suggest scaling to fusion power for fuel related accounts and building volume for Atmospheric Tritium Recovery account. Use next slide for cost data. Page 24

25. Fuel Handling and Storage Equipment Cost Database Comparison As noted previously, Starfire and EBTR were based on experimental facilities, but their database is very dated. ITER is included to reflect a current experiment (1989$) reported in Snowmass, so this may also be a dated estimate. The ARIES data looks very low for all subsystems (compared to ITER and Starfire) ITER is the only one reporting a Chamber Exhaust Handling and Processing Cost ARIES purge and cover gas handling and processing seems very low ITER’s primary (water) coolant stream processing is three times that of ARIES ITER’s Purification and Isotope Separation seems low compared to Starfire/EBTR data ITER’s Storage and ATR are significantly higher See next page for more discussion Provided for Fueling Reference Page 25

26. Fuel Handling and Storage Equipment Cost Database Comparison I would think that ARIES Fuel Handling and Storage costs are too low and ITER is closer to being correct. We are probably underestimating how complex the fuel handling, aka Tritium Plant, really is. However, it is a first of a kind unit and some learning experience will bring down the cost. Prometheus used a 0.85 learning curve, which results in the tenth unit costing 58% of the first unit, CN =C1 x N^(ln(LC)/ln(2)) . You have to consider the relative cost of the Fuel Handling and Storage System relative to the other major Power Core Systems. Is it more reasonable at $70M or $125M? The Plasma Fueling and Constituent Control System will add another $16M-17M. I recommend that we need to keep the Fuel Handling and Storage system around $70M. We need to rescale the complete system to the fusion power to around 0.80 power. For example, CostFH&S = $70M x (Fusion Power/1758MW)^.80 (normalized on ARIES-AT) Page 26

27. Maintenance Equipment CostsAccount 22.09 Page 27

28. Maintenance Equipment Costs This account includes all the remote maintenance equipment necessary to install, service, and remove (disassemble) all the radioactive components and assemblies in the power plant. The maintenance equipment is subdivided into categories associated with the primary area where significant radioactivity will be present, namely the power core, hot cell, fuel handling and storage and another miscellaneous areas. General purpose building cranes and hoists are included in the Account 26.10, Transportation and Lifting. The subaccounts include the overhead manipulators supported by the building cranes, mobile casks, transporters, servo-manipulators, hoists, handling machines, end-effectors, inspection and surface metrology equipment, leak detection equipment, cutting/welding/cleanup tools, fixtures, supports and lighting equipment. These equipment classes will service all subsystems contained within the Power Core Building, Hot Cell, and Fuel Handling Buildings and within the power core. This equipment will be used in the initial assembly, operational service and repair/replacement, and end-of-life disassembly and decommissioning. Page 28

29. I would like to adopt a Maintenance Equipment cost closer to Starfire ($150M), but this seems to be too high in terms of other systems. $60M seems to be too low, therefore I would recommend a cost of $100M in $2008$ scaled to thermal power^0.8. Maintenance Equipment Cost Comparison Maintenance has always been a key design and performance issue for fusion power plants, but seldom have they been defined or reported in the study. Starfire and EBTR reported costs at the component level for Power Core and Hot Cell and provided a 35% spares allowance. I added an allowance for the Fuel Handling and Other Plant Maint. Equipment accounts so totals do not reflect reported values. To obtain a rough estimate of the ARIES maintenance equipment costs, I evaluated the ARIES Other Power Core algorithms, which yielded $6M-$7M for all designs. In contrast, ARIES-I and CS reported $64M-$68M. Therefore they must have included a maintenance cost around $58M to $60M. Page 29

30. Instrumentation and Control Equipment CostsAccount 22.10 Page 30

31. Instrumentation and Control Equipment Costs This account includes all the power core instrumentation and control. This would include plasma diagnostics. However for the 10th of a kind plant, plasma diagnostics should be a mature understanding of the plasma behavior and its control aspects. Therefore, all those diagnostic instruments will be incorporated into the plasma and power core instrumentation and control systems. It is anticipated the I&C technologies will be much more advanced than current capabilities. This system will include the power core instrumentation and control, radiation and monitoring equipment, isolated indicating and recording equipment, data acquisition and recording, and communication equipment. The overall control function for the power plant probably will be included in this account although the WBS would indicate it is just for the power core. Page 31

32. Instrumentation and Control Equipment Cost Algorithm Comparison The Instrumentation and Control (I&C) is notionally described, but the exact equipment content will not be known until the Demo has operated. Significant technology advances are anticipated in this system. The fusion I&C estimates were all were based on the Starfire estimate of $54M in 2008$.ITER is still developing its I&C architecture and equipment specifications and the ITER I&C cost is a factor of 6 greater than the fusion estimates. The three ARIES constant algorithms have been escalated over the years, but still remain in the $50-$60M class. The instrumentation for a fusion power plant should be simpler than an experiment (ITER is $327M), but it is still a very complex facility to control. LSA factor applied The fusion plant I&C probably should cost in the $55M-$60M class to be consistent with the other plant systems. Suggest retaining the present constant cost of $58M. Page 32

33. Other Power Core Equipment CostsAccount 22.11 Page 33

34. Other Power Core Equipment Costs This account encompasses all other power core equipment not specifically identified elsewhere. This does include the special heating systems, special cooling systems (low temperature shield, vacuum vessel, and other systems), coolant receiving/storage/makeup system, gas systems and inert atmosphere systems. In earlier cost assessments, the maintenance equipment was included in this account. However, the plant maintenance is such an important element in the plant, it was removed and entered under its own major account (22.09), leaving five general subaccounts. Page 34

35. Other Power Core Equipment Cost Algorithm Comparison Starfire, EBTR, and Prometheus provided a detailed breakdown of these subaccounts. However, all ARIES designs lumped maintenance and all other power core equipment into a single algorithm. Only ARIES-1 and –CS reported at the 22.11 level. ARIES provided an algorithm based on Gross Thermal Power to estimate the cost of the Other Power Core Equipment. The data in the table would indicate that the algorithm is only estimating the cost of the other equipment and is not estimating the cost of the maintenance equipment. The reported costs for ARIES-I and –CS probably have maintenance included. The cost algorithm with the updated coefficient is probably reasonable for the power core equipment without the maintenance equipment included. We need to examine the equation for this account to make sure maintenance is not included. Page 35

36. Turbine Plant Equipment CostsAccount 23 Page 36

37. Turbine 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 Page 37

38. Turbine Plant Equipment Cost Algorithms TPE Cost Algorithms Cost (OC, H2O) = EF x $257.55 x (PET/1200) ^.83 Cost (Li, LiPb) = EF x $243.34 x (PET/1200) ^.83 Cost (He) = EF x $208.08 x (PET/1200) ^.70 EF is escalation factor from 1992$ ARIES-AT algorithms • Curves were ARIES II-IV algorithms by Ron Miller • Basis is Titan (PET 1200MW scaled to .83 or .70 exponent) • Basis updated in 2008 for ARIES-AT (1.2% increase for all) • Cost basis is LSA of 4, but LSA factors are all 1.0 • 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 Page 38

39. Chronological Brayton Cycle Grouped and Ordered Primary (H2O 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 Turbine Plant Equipment Cost Database ARIES-AT algorithms 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 ARIES-AT algorithms Page 39

40. ARIES-ST (LiPb & He) ARIES-III (OC) ARIES-RS (Li + Na) ARIES-I' (He) ARIES-II (Li + Na?) Prom-L (Pb& He) Starfire (H2O) EBTR (H2O) ARIES-I (He) ARIES-IV (He) ARIES-CS (LiPb & He) ARIES-AT (LiPb) Turbine Plant Equipment Costs ARIES-AT algorithms • LSA factor is 1.0 for all cycles, therefore the costs for all cycles already consider the nuclear aspects inherent in the LSA approach. • All reported costs are about 16-23% higher than algorithms • Suggest scrapping existing algorithms and develop new ones based on type of cycle • Rankine • Adv. Rankine • Brayton – Helium • Brayton – Supercritical CO2 • Brayton – Cascaded SC CO2 • Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Page 40

41. Electric Plant Equipment Costs Account 24 Page 41

42. Electric Plant Equipment Costs This account defines the costs associated with the Electric Plant Equipment, which takes the electrical energy from the turbine-generator sets and distributes to the plant power systems and to the grid connection. The subaccounts in this account are switchgear, stations service equipment, switchboards, trace heating, protective equipment, electrical structures, wiring containers, power and control wiring, and electrical wiring. Page 42

43. Electric Plant Equipment Cost Algorithms EPE Cost Algorithms, ARIES-AT Cost = EF x $127.97 x (PET/1200)^.49 EF is escalation factor from 1992$ LSA1 factor 0.75 LSA 2,3 factor 0.84 LSA 4 factor 1.0 ARIES-AT algorithms • Curves were ARIES II-IV algorithms by Ron Miller • Basis is Titan (PET 1200MW • Basis updated in 2008 by Miller for ARIES-AT (1.2% increase) I do not understand why LSA factors would be used for Electric Plant Equipment as It probably not be nuclear rated. Should we continue this LSA usage? Page 43

44. Electric Plant Equipment Cost Database Chronological ARIES-AT algorithms These data are with Ron Miller’s ARIES-AT cost algorithms that are 1.2% higher than the ARIES II-IV costing algorithms Notice that all pre- ARIES estimates are around 16% or more higher than algorithm, but after the algorithm began use on ARIES, it is now slightly higher than the updated algorithm (which was raised 1.2% in this assessment). Page 44

45. Prom-L (Pb& He) Starfire (H2O) ARIES-I (He) EBTR (H2O) ARIES-ST (LiPb & He) ARIES-III’ (OC) ARIES-RS (Li + Na) ARIES-CS (LiPb & He) ARIES-II (Li + Na?) ARIES-IV (He) ARIES-I' (He) ARIES-AT (LiPb) Electric Plant Equipment Costs Base Case Pre LSA Reported Costs are high LSA = 2 costs, well correlated LSA = 1 costs, well correlated Page 45

46. Heat Rejection Equipment CostsAccount 25 Page 46

47. Heat Rejection Equipment Costs This account defines the costs associated with the Heat Rejection Equipment, which takes the lower grade heat rejected from the turbine plant equipment (Pth- PET) and the auxiliary coolant systems, turbine plant cooling systems, electrical component cooling loads, cryogenic systems and the I&C systems. This system dissipates this heat to the local environment. The ultimate heat sink is commonly a wet or dry cooling tower and/or groundwater. This Heat Rejection account typically was lumped with Turbine Plant Equipment, but ARIES-AT and subsequent designs plus the Gen IV have separated it as a separate account, Account 25. Several costing algorithms have been developed over the years to estimate this system. The LSA factors for all levels are 1.0 Page 47

48. No data Heat RejectionEquipment Cost Database Starfire and EBTR costs were developed from R. M. Parsons vendor quotes Prometheus was from an Ebasco vendor quote ARIES 1 had a cost breakout for Heat Rejection as well as ARIES-AT, ST and CS, which were all low compared to the algorithm Page 48

49. and ARIES-AT Starfire (H2O) EBTR (H2O) Prom-L (Pb& He) ARIES-ST (LiPb & He) ARIES-CS (LiPb & He) ARIES-I (He) ARIES-AT (LiPb) Heat Rejection Equipment Cost Algorithms • Starfire, EBTR, and Prometheus were based on vender quotes • ARIES-I used an algorithm, • = $0.1456M x (PRej)^0.8(in 2008$) • Thompson had an algorithm, • = $2.341x (PRej x10^6)^0.8(in 2008$) • Delene had an algorithm, • = $87.326M x (PRej /2300)^1.0 (in 2008$) • Prometheus used an algorithm, • = $85.07M x (PRej /1860)^0.8(in 2008$) • ARIES-AT had an algorithm, • = $88.105M x (PRej /2300)^1.0 (in 2008$) • All LSA factors are 1.0 for all LSA levels ARIES-AT algorithm seems to work fairly well except for ARIES-ST. Page 49

50. Miscellaneous Plant Equipment Costs Account 26 Page 50