1 / 19

LEADER

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

sahara
Download Presentation

LEADER

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WP1 REFERENCE DESIGN OBJETIVES AND SPECIFICATION (SCK-CEN) LEADER LEADER 1

  2. TASK 1.4 ELFR Cost estimate (ALFRED) (NRG-EA) LEADER LEADER 2

  3. CONTENTS 1. Cost estimate methodologies 1.1 Top-down methodology 1.2 Bottom-up methodology 2. Conclusions LEADER

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 1.2 BOTTOM-UP COST ESTIMATE MainAssumptions LEADER

  9. 1.2 BOTTOM-UP COST ESTIMATE Summary LEADER

  10. 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

  11. “Thanks for your attention” LEADER LEADER 11

  12. “Thanks for your attention” LEADER LEADER 12

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE Contingenciesapplied to ELFR based on Gokcek et al. (1995) LEADER

  17. 1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE Engineering, Licensing & Construction Costs 130% more expensive than 4300 €/kWe LEADER

  18. 4.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY • Historical inflation rate of the US Dollar compared to a fit with 2.5% LEADER

  19. 4.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY • Historical inflation rate of the Euro compared to a fit with 2.1% LEADER

More Related