Cost estimate guidelines for advanced nuclear power technologies

Abstract

To make comparative assessments of competing technologies, consistent ground rules must be applied when developing cost estimates. This document provides a uniform set of assumptions, ground rules, and requirements that can be used in developing cost estimates for advanced nuclear power technologies. 1. INTRODUCTION Several advanced power plant concepts are currently under development. These include the Modular High Temperature Oas Cooled Reactors (MHTGR), the Advanced ta Liquid Metal Reactor (ALMR) and the Advanced Light Water Reactors (ALWR). One • measure of the attractiveness of a new concept is its cost. Invariably, the cost of a new type of power plant will be compared with other alternative forms of electrical generation. This report provides a common starting point, whereby the cost estimates for the various power plants to be considered are developed with common assumptions and ground rules. Comparisons can then be made on a consistent basis. This is the second update of these cost estimate guidelines, t_ Changes have been made to make the guidelines more current (January 1, 1992) and in response to suggestions made as a result of the use of the previous report.2 The principal changes are that the reference site has been changed from a generic Northeast (Middletown) site to a more central site (EPRI's East/West Central site) and that reference bulk commodity prices and labor productivity rates have been added.This report is designed to provide a framework for the preparation and reporting of costs. The cost estimates will consist of the overnight construction cost, the total plant capital ms_ cost, the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, the fuel costs, decommissioning costs and _. the power production or busbar generation cost. While providing a generic set of assumptions and ground rules, this document does not provide scenarios or assumptions specific to the 2 individual concepts, nor does it provide reporting requirements. Thus, these guidelines may be used in a variety of studies when supplemented with concept specific data.Power plant capital costs in this report will be developed using the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Economic Data Base3 (EEDB) Program Code of Accounts that has evolved from the NUS Corporation Code of Accounts 4 through modification and expansion over two decades.The utilization of the EEDB Code of Accounts will allow for comparisons between the advanced concept cost estimate and costs of other plants reported it,, the EEDB format.The levelized busbar generation costs will be developed using the methodology presented in the U.S. DOE Nuclear Energy Cost Data Base (NECDB). 5 Ali costs will be developed using the methods and tax provisions in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.These ground rules will be updated as necessary to provide and maintain a common and consistent cost basis. The DOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) is responsible for approving changes to this document. Requested changes should be made in writing to

Economic goals and requirements for competitive fusion energy

“…Traditional costing methods [7,44] based on the Revenue Requirements Method (RRM), while suitable to the regulated regime, may prove inappropriate to the future scene. Under the traditional cost-of-service model, retail rates are set (usually by state-level public service commissions), to compensate for expenses plus an allowed rate of return applied to the rate base.…”

“…The annualized value of decommissioning cost, C D , is 1 mill kWh − 1 . Funds to be spent at end-of-life for decommissioning are accumulated over the first 30 years (analysis life) in an external sinking fund [7]. An explicit term for R&D cost, C R&D , could be included, as well, but assuming such costs can be effectively ammortized over a number of plants, it is dropped here, consistent with traditional practice.…”

Generation IV Nuclear Systems: State of the Art and Current Trends with Emphasis on Safety and Security Features

“…Operation and maintenance (O&M) and decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) costs, along with electricity production information, yield the contributions of non-fuel costs to the overall cost of electricity. These algorithms have been derived from earlier Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) nuclear energy plant databases (NECDB) [46,47], to calculate these costs.…”

Technology resource document for the assembled chemical weapons assessment environmental impact statement. Vol. 3 : assembled systems for weapons destruction at Pine Bluff Arsenal.

“…Therefore, construction inputs and resource requirements for PBA were estimated by taking into account the variation in the amounts and types of chemical agent as compared with those at BGAD and PCD (PMACWA 1999b). Environmental conditions at the site were assumed to be similar to those of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Standard Hypothetical East/West Central Site, as defined in Appendix F of the DOE Cost Estimate Guidelines for Advanced Nuclear Power Technologies (Delene and Hudson 1993). (Detailed information concerning the present design of the incineration facility at PBA was not available for this analysis.…”