Cost Model Update and Comparison
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 27

L. Waganer Consultant for The Boeing Company ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting 26-27 August 2009 PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Cost Model Update and Comparison. L. Waganer Consultant for The Boeing Company ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting 26-27 August 2009 Georgia Technology, Atlanta, GA. Cost Model Background.

Download Presentation

L. Waganer Consultant for The Boeing Company ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting 26-27 August 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Cost Model Update and Comparison

L. Waganer

Consultant for The Boeing Company

ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting

26-27 August 2009

Georgia Technology, Atlanta, GA

Page 1

Cost Model Background

  • Dr. Farrokh Najmabadi requested that I research the ARIES cost databases and costing algorithms to update the databases and cost models to upgrade the systems code capabilities and clearly document the ARIES cost database.

  • Over the past two years, I have been researching, modeling, and documenting the fusion cost model and the related costing algorithms. I have also restructured the cost work breakdown structure to better match other similar power plant cost structures.

  • I have made about seven cost model update presentations to the ARIES team meetings.

  • I have constructed an Excel spreadsheet model (ESC) that compares the new algorithm results with the published ARIES-AT cost data. I have also documented the research and recommended changes for the ARIES cost model.

Page 2

Cost Model Basis and Structure

  • The fusion power plant cost databases and reports for fusion conceptual designs back to 1980. These were researched to make sure the new model is reasonably consistent with prior cost estimates.

  • Analyzing using common cost basis requires normalizing the cost estimates using the Gross Domestic Product Price Deflators for each year (new update July 30, 2009)

  • LSA factors were applied for some accounts and some studies

  • Not all dependant parameters were provided or documented

  • Quite a few calculational and reporting errors were found

  • Lots of cost accounts were never accurately described or reported

Page 3

I Have Been Working with these Cost Account Managers

  • No. AccountCAM

  • Land and Land RightsWaganer

  • Structures and Site FacilitiesWaganer

  • Power Core Plant Equipment

  • 22.01 Fusion Energy Capture and Conversion

  • 22.01.01 First Wall and BlanketMalang

  • 22.01.02 Second BlanketMalang

  • 22.01.03 Divertor AssenblyRaffray

  • 22.01.04 High Temperature ShieldingEl-Guebaly

  • 22.01.05 Low Temperature ShieldingEl-Guebaly

  • 22.01.06 Penetration ShieldingEl-Guebaly

  • 22.02 Plasma Confinement

  • 22.02.01 Toroidal Field Coils(TBD)

  • 22.02.02 Poloidal Field Coils(TBD)

  • 22.02.03 Feedback CoilsKessel

  • 22.03 Plasma Formation and Sustainment[Mau]

  • 22.04 Vacuum, Plasma Core (equipment)Najmabadi

  • 22.05 Primary Structure and SupportWang

  • 22.06 Power Supplies, Switching and Energy StorageCadwallader

  • 22.07 Main Heat Transfer and TransportRaffray

  • 22.08 Cryogenic Cooling, Magnets[Bromberg]

  • 22.09 Radioactive Materials Treatment and ManagementEl-Guebaly

  • 22.10 Fuel Handling and StorageSteiner

  • 22.11 Maintenance EquipmentWaganer

  • 22.12 Instrumentation and ControlWeaver

  • 22.13 Other Plant EquipmentWaganer

  • Turbine Plant EquipmentSchultz

  • Electric Plant EquipmentSchultz

  • Miscellaneous Plant Equipment Waganer

  • Heat Rejection EquipmentWaganer

  • Special MaterialsWaganer

Page 4


I have contacted Ron Miller several times to help understand the ARIES costing algorithms and he has provided a lot of data and understanding.

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 5

Present Status

  • All the modeling and documentation has been completed and reported, most recently April 2009

  • Developed an Excel spreadsheet comparing most Cost Accounts to the ARIES-AT published estimate

    • Model contains new recommended cost algorithms for inclusion into systems code

    • Spreadsheet results indicated some inconsistencies that required model adjustments

    • Documentation was revised to be compatible

    • Model and algorithms provided to systems code developer

Page 6

Major Changes and Remaining Needs

  • All building costs settled

  • Recommending discontinuing the use of all LSA factors

  • Material costs are updated, but need Systems Code to calculate FWB, shields, manifolds, power core structure, and vacuum vessel masses.

  • Need further definition from Design Team on:

    • Magnet System (need to document algorithms)

    • Heating and Current Drive (need to define algorithms and parameters)

    • Vacuum System (need to define algorithms and parameters) (Vessel OK)

  • Main Heat Transfer and Transport algorithms revised and recommended

  • Rad Waste, Fuel Handling, Maintenance Equipment and I&C revised

  • GA is working on the Turbine Plant Equipment costs

  • Other plant equipment updated

  • Special Materials (primary lithium) not updated in 25 years. Obtained a quote for lithium and worked with Laila El-Guebaly on enrichment costs (much lower price)

Page 7

Relative Subsystem Costs Helped Normalize Specific Subsystems


These are results from the published ARIES-AT published data in the new Cost Breakdown Structure. Depending on the LSA rating, the MHTT is a little less or greater than most power core subsystems. These data were used to help adjust the relative costs of the subsystems.

Page 8

New Algorithms




Main Heat Transfer and TransportARIES-AT Cost Comparison



Expressed in 2009$

22. 1. 1. FW/blanket/reflector 93.373

22. 1. 2. shield 100.824

22. 1. 3. magnets 184.024

22. 1. 4. supplemental-heating/CD systems 53.833

22. 1. 5. primary structure & support 39.123

22. 1. 6. reactor vacuum systems 143.476

22. 1. 7. power supply, switching & energy storage 73.714

22. 1. 8. impurity control 5.947

22. 1. 9. direct energy conversion system 0.000

22. 1.10. ecrh breakdown system 5.746

22. 1. reactor equipment 700.089

22. 2. main heat transfer & transport systems 182.981

22. 1. 1. FW/blanket/reflector 98.560

22. 1. 2. shield106.425

22. 1. 3. magnets 194.247

22. 1. 4. supplemental-heating/CD systems 59.533

22. 1. 5. primary structure & support 43.266

22. 1. 6. reactor vacuum systems 158.669

22. 1. 7. power supply, switching & energy storage 81.518

22. 1. 8. impurity control 6.577

22. 1. 9. direct energy conversion system 0.000

22. 1.10. ecrh breakdown system 6.386

22. 1. reactor equipment 755.185

22. 2. main heat transfer & transport systems 304.969

The main heat transfer subsystem is generally too high in relationship to any of the other power core subsystems, except when the LSA=2 factor of 0.60 is applied. New algorithms are in better agreement with other subsystems. Nb IHX is an adder.

Page 9

  • Primary and diverter loops

  • Water and organic coolant: $50 M x (gross thermal power/2000)0.55 (in 2009$)

  • Liquid Metal (Li and LiPb): $125 M x (gross thermal power/2000)0.55 (in 2009$)

  • High Pressure Helium: $110 M x (gross thermal power/2000)0.55 (in 2009$)

  • Adder for Nb IHX $0.010 M x gross thermal power in MW (in 2009$)

  • Intermediate loop

  • Sodium or Helium: $50 x (gross thermal power/2000)0.55 (in 2009$)

Revised Main Heat Transfer and TransportCosting Algorithms

  • Cost modeling seldom matched documented engineering design

  • Prior ARIES modeling used 3500 MW thermal power as basis

  • Modeled Primary, Intermediate, and Secondary? (Turbine) loops

  • LSA1 Cost factor (0.6) skewed results, new designs probably LSA = 1

  • Nb IHX in LiPb not used, S. Malang estimated $0.0174M/MW – then I scaled down by 60% for 85% learning curve.

  • MHTT subsystem costs much too high in comparison to other power core subsystems

Page 10

Main enriched lithium data source was UWTOR-M (1982). Lithium heat transfer fluid increased cost by 10 and enriched Li increased it by another factor of 10 or so.

Quoted natural Li prices were in line with inflation. Open literature suggests new, lower cost enrichment processes may be available in the future. For the moment, the 90% enriched lithium price is set at $1000/kg as opposed to $2300/kg (UWTOR basis). Also the cost/kg should increase faster due to reduced processing efficiency at higher enrichment levels (not linear).

Special Material Costs

Page 11

A Few Pages From the Spreadsheet

Land and Land Rights

This gives you an idea of how the spreadsheet is constructed, with Cost Accounts identified, new cost algorithms defined and evaluated for ARIES-AT with published AT data for LSA 4, 1, and 2. Any known omissions are noted. Additionally, the Systems Code must generate powers, flow rates and volumes to provide data for some algorithms, so these are blank at the moment.

Page 12

Scaled constant by acres used

Use ARIES Algorithm, better calculate building volume

Use Prometheus Algorithm, scaled to Pe gross

Use Prometheus Algorithm, scaled to rejected thermal power

Use Prometheus Algorithm, scaled to net electrical power

Use Prometheus Algorithm, scaled to Pe gross

Use 34% of Power Core Building

Structures and Site Facilities

Page 13

Fusion Energy Capture and Conversion

Not a complete sum

This page illustrates that Systems Code data on volumes and masses are needed to complete the cost assessment.

Page 14

Plasma Confinement

  • Some magnet costing algorithms do exist, but more definitive design information is needed and these algorithms need to be documented

  • Feedback coils need to be added

  • Cryogenics and Power Supplies need to be defined and estimated. The costs shown were subdivided from prior grouped cost accounts (Team decided to subdivide to user account)

Page 15

Plasma Formation and Sustainment

  • More definitive subsystems information and costing algorithms are needed

  • Need to define Startup, Stability Control, and Plasma Fueling and Constituent Control Subsystems

  • Need to define Power Supplies and Cryogenics for all subsystems

Page 16

Vacuum, Power Core and Primary Structure

  • Need definition on all vacuum pumps, liquefiers, ducts, and plumbing

  • Need definition on primary structure (carry through structure plus other)

Page 17

Main Heat Transfer and Transport

Already Discussed

Page 18

Rad Materials, Fuel Handling, and Maintenance

  • Rad Waste tripled as a temporary definition

  • Fuel Handling has been underestimated- Increase by 60% (ref ITER w/learning )

  • Maintenance never estimated – Use placeholder of $100M scaled to Pe net

Page 19

I&C and Other Power Core Equip

  • All I&C estimates originate from Starfire estimate of $55M (now obsolete technology). ITER is more complex at roughly $336M. Need to re-estimate, but use placeholder of $60M.

  • Starfire and EBTR had a detailed definition of Other Power Core Costs, but since then it has been lumped into a Misc category. Suggest $8M scaled to net electrical power

  • Spares are now estimated with the prime account

Page 20


ARIES incorrectly related to primary coolant fluid - GA assessing

No reason to use LSA factors. Use ARIES algorithm scaled to Pe gross

Use ARIES algorithm scaled to P rej thermal

Use ARIES algorithm scaled to P e gross (ARIES-AT and ST did not use?)

Page 21

Special MaterialsLithium Already Discussed

  • Need to estimate the cost of helium and argon at present prices.

Page 22

Indirect Costs

Retain all present ARIES indirect cost factors, but calculate based on Direct costs and Indirect Costs as opposed to relating only to direct costs

Page 23

Cost of Electricity Calculations

Page 24

Gen IV Cost of Money and Financing assumptions have considerable impact

Annual Capital Cost represents 77% of Annual Costs. So these factors have a lot of impact on the COE.



Thus the change in cost of money, no tax or depreciation effects, and a longer economic lifetime has reduced the Fixed Charge Rate by 40% and lowered the COE by 30% (see next chart).

Page 25

Bottom Line COE Results


Page 26

Current Status and Future Effort

These recommended cost algorithms were provided to be input into the ARIES Systems Code. Hopefully Zoran Dragojlovic has had the opportunity to make some estimates with these inputs.

Future Effort:

Analyze the complete results for consistency

Make any adjustments necessary

Provide additional information for Systems Code

Help validate Systems Code results

Perhaps publish costing documentation (at least post on Web)

Page 27

  • Login