200 likes | 390 Views
WP1 REFERENCE DESIGN OBJETIVES AND SPECIFICATION (SCK-CEN). LEADER. 1. TASK 1.4 ELFR Cost estimate (ALFRED) (NRG-EA). LEADER. 2. CONTENTS 1. Cost estimate methodologies 1.1 Top-down methodology 1.2 Bottom-up methodology 2. Conclusions. 1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE. Inflation
E N D
WP1 REFERENCE DESIGN OBJETIVES AND SPECIFICATION (SCK-CEN) LEADER LEADER 1
TASK 1.4 ELFR Cost estimate (ALFRED) (NRG-EA) LEADER LEADER 2
CONTENTS 1. Cost estimate methodologies 1.1 Top-down methodology 1.2 Bottom-up methodology 2. Conclusions LEADER
1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE • Inflation • Currency exchange • Reference Plant • G4Econs Tool • US Dollar (1994-2011): 2.5% • Euro (1998-2011): 2.1% 1.33 $/€ • AP 1000 • Scalingrelationship • Costdistribution (ELSY) • Modular construction • Mainassumptions Mainassumptions 135% more expensive than AP1000 ELFR Top-Down Cost Estimate LEADER
1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE Cost estimate was made using top-down cost accounting approach in combination with the G4Econs tool. • Owner & land costs • Site preparation costs • D&D costs • Project supervision • Insurances and taxes to compare with bottom-up cost estimate without 2600 M€ LEADER
1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE Conclusions of sensitivityanalyses Negligible Influence • Site size, main heat transport equipment, and decommissioning and decontamination • Reactor equipment, operation and maintenance costs, efficient and load factor • Fuel cycle, operational life, scaling factors, and modularity factors Uncertainties in cost items Minor Influence Major Influence LEADER
1.2 BOTTOM-UP COST ESTIMATE MainAssumptions • The plant will be constructed on a green-field site • The plant is built in a non-seismically active region governed by a regulatory body • Only one unit will be constructed on the site • D&D costs have not been considered • R&D costs and Owner costs are excluded • Insurances, taxes, duties, permits and financial costs (IDC, fees...) are not considered • The costs are considered for the development of the first lead-cooled fast reactor. For additional units, part of the costs (engineering, licensing, …) could be reduced • In the case of an overall turnkey contract, the main contractor’s overheads, risk & reserves, related costs and profit are not considered LEADER
1.2 BOTTOM-UP COST ESTIMATE MainAssumptions LEADER
1.2 BOTTOM-UP COST ESTIMATE Summary LEADER
2. CONCLUSIONS • Top-down Cost Estimate: • Engineering, Licensing & Construction without: • Owner & landcosts • Sitepreparationcosts • D&D costs • Project supervision • Insurances and taxes • High Price: 2600M€ • Bottom-up Cost Estimate: • The Best Estimate (Base Cost + Contingency) calculated is 1292.5 M€ • Final average uncertainty is 31% • Final average contingency is 43% • Low Price: 902.7 M€ • High Price:1568.8 M€ 65% more than LEADER
“Thanks for your attention” LEADER LEADER 11
“Thanks for your attention” LEADER LEADER 12
1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE Scaling relationships based in the Nuclear Energy Cost Data Base, provided from Delene et al. Scaling factor (MacDonald & Buongiorno, 2002) LEADER
1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE Main Assumption about Reference Plant • Sitesize: 80% of a genericGeneration III LWR.(ESNII, 2012) • Reactor equipment: 220% comparedwith a contemporary PWR. • Mainheattransportsystem: 120% more expensivethan PWR. (Nitta, 2010) • Safety system: Similar costs are takenintoaccount. • Lead: 300% more expensivethandemineralizedwater (includingadditionalcostsfor a specialwatertreatmentplant) Sensitivity Analysis LEADER
1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE Mainassumptionabout G4Econs Tool • ConstructionCosts • R&D costs are nottakenintoaccount (LEADER project) • D&D costs: 1/3 of constructioncosts (GIF/EMWG, 2007) • Operation & MaintenanceCost • Permanentstaff: 53% comparedto EPR. • Repaircosts: 115% comparedto a contemporary LWR. • Fuel CycleCosts (Advanced Fuel CycleCostsDatabase, Shropshire et al., 2009) • Contingencies • No interestduringconstructionhavebeentakenintoaccount. • ELFR net efficiency: 42% (LEADER DEL003, Frogheri et al.) • ELFR availability: 85% (mean of thevaluesmentioned in LEADER DEL003) • Relevantcore and fuel data are obtainedfrom LEADER DEL005. • Refuellinginterval: 2.5 years (LEADER DEL005) • Insurances and taxes: 0.45% of the pre-constructioncosts (recommendedby GIF/EMWG, 2007) LEADER
1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE Contingenciesapplied to ELFR based on Gokcek et al. (1995) LEADER
1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE Engineering, Licensing & Construction Costs 130% more expensive than 4300 €/kWe LEADER
4.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY • Historical inflation rate of the US Dollar compared to a fit with 2.5% LEADER
4.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY • Historical inflation rate of the Euro compared to a fit with 2.1% LEADER