l. waganer consultant for aries project/ucsd/doe aries-pathways project meeting 4-5 april 2011

ARIES- Pathways, April 4-5, 2011, Bethesda, MD

L. WaganerConsultant for ARIES Project/UCSD/DOE

ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting 4-5 April 2011Bethesda, MD

Addressing Lingering Cost Questions


Questions Remain on Several Cost Topics

• The cost of the enriched Lithium and Li17Pb83

• The cost of the Main Heat Transfer and Transport system

• The added cost for safety and nuclear grade materials

• Validation of Turbine-Generator System Costs


The Cost of the Enriched Lithium and Li17Pb83

PS, The more accurate atom percentage per Laila El-Guebaly is Li15.7Pb84.3


Cost of Enriched Li17Pb83The cost of lithium and Li17Pb83 in the previous ARIES Systems Code was (roughly) based on the 1982 UWTOR-M data, which was not referenced or substantiated. The cost of 35% enriched Li was quoted at $410/kg in 1982$ or $811 in 2009$*. (UWTOR-M)

The cost of 35% enriched Li17Pb83 was quoted at $6.35/kg in 1982$ or $12.56 in 2009$*.

The linear extrapolation suggests the use of enriched lithium is mixed with natural lithium to obtain the desired enrichment (not cost effective)

The U.S. discontinued the production of large-scale lithium enrichment in 1963 with no production basis since.

Therefore no large-scale enrichment production or cost basis exists

* 2009$/1982$ = 1.979

UWTOR-M


Proposed Li Enrichment CostsA new scaling law is needed for the enrichment of lithium to provide incentive to develop new enrichment processes

Notional Lithium Enrichment Cost

$0.00

$100.00

$200.00

$300.00

$400.00

$500.00

$600.00

$700.00

$800.00

$900.00

$1,000.00

$1,100.00

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1Lithium Enrichment

Co

st, $

/kg

, 200

9$

•A cost of $1000/kg for 90% enriched lithium was selected as opposed to the escalated $2300/kg cost projected by UWTOR-M data

•A curve between natural and 90% enrichment was developed to indicate an ever increasingly difficult enrichment process

•The 90% enrichment point and the curve are only notional targets to provide attractive breeder and coolant costs and to stimulate process research and development


“Difficulty” in Forming Li17Pb83 Eutectic

•The Li17Pb83 eutectic melts at 235ºC as opposed to lithium at 180.54ºC and lead at 327.5ºC

•The referenced experimental processes below used commercially-pure Li and Pb for their tests.

•Common solder is a typical eutectic

Several technical papers (below) documented the process of forming the Li17Pb83 eutectic with no difficulty using simple processes and hardware. The more accurate atom % is Li15.7Pb84.3 , but the coolant atom % need only to be in the lower temperature regime.

Ref 1, U. Jaunch, V. Karcher, and B. Schlutz, “Thermo-Physical Properties in the System Li-Pb,” by, KfK report 4144, September, 1986Ref 2, D. W. Jeppson. “Summary of Lithium-Lead Alloy Compatibility Tests” Westinghouse Hanford Company report, WHC-EP-0202, dated January 1989


Commercially Available Lithium

The demand for lithium has increased since the 1980s due to greater usage in glass industries, metal alloying and high capacity batteries

• In March 2011, the LME price was averaging $62.3/kg including VAT. (99.0% pure, China)

•For the present, we should adopt $80/kg as a natural lithium baseline cost

• In Sept 2008, www.metalprices.com lithium prices were $78/kg

• In 7/2009, Chemetall-Lithium provided a ROM estimate for 99.9% pure natural lithium in large quantities at $75-85/kg. [No resource problem foreseen. They have their own mines.]


Commercially Available LeadThe demand for lead remains relatively stable, but the costs have shown recent fluctuations

•In July 2009, the LME lead price was $1.628/kg

•In 2009, the RotoMetals web site had 99.9% pure at $1.85/kg and around $2.00/kg delivered (surcharge ~$0.35)

•In March 2011, the LME price was averaging $2.46/kg including VAT. (99.97% purity (minimum) conforming to BS EN 12659:1999 )

• For the present, we should adopt $3.00/kg as a lead baseline cost


A Reasonable Li17Pb83 Cost Estimate An updated Li17Pb83 cost estimate was developed using the current commercially available lead and lithium prices as well as my postulated lithium enrichment costs.

Li Li Unit Cost* Pb Unit Cost Li Cost Pb Cost Li17 Pb83 CostEnrichment 2009$ 2009$ 2009$ 2009$ 2009$

0.075 $80.00 $3.00 $0.55 $2.98 $3.520.1 $91.00 $3.00 $0.62 $2.98 $3.600.2 $140.00 $3.00 $0.95 $2.98 $3.930.3 $196.00 $3.00 $1.34 $2.98 $4.320.4 $259.00 $3.00 $1.76 $2.98 $4.740.5 $334.00 $3.00 $2.28 $2.98 $5.260.6 $427.00 $3.00 $2.91 $2.98 $5.890.7 $546.00 $3.00 $3.72 $2.98 $6.700.8 $714.00 $3.00 $4.87 $2.98 $7.850.9 $1,000.00 $3.00 $6.81 $2.98 $9.79

* Cost of enriched lithium is interpolated from graph

• Up to 60% enrichment, lead is the more costly constituent in Li17Pb83

• New natural lithium cost is close to UWTOR-M but ARIES-AT was 3X higher

• ARIES-AT 90% enriched Li was 22% lower than UWTOR-M

• Lower lithium and lead costs plus the new $1000/kg enriched Li reduces costs by >50%.

Recommend adopting new Enrichment Cost Table

Cost Comparison of lithium and Li17Pb83 in 2009$

Natural 90% Enrch Natural 90% EnrchUWTOR-M $72 $2,294 $7.37 $22.94ARIES-AT $235 $1,791 $7.62 $23.78

New Algorm $80 $1,000 $3.52 $9.79

Lithium Li17Pb836313 tonnes

$151 M

$62 M


The Cost of the Main Heat Transfer and Transport

System


The Main Heat Transfer and Transport System is Thought to be too Expensive

The previous MHTT costs were equal to the magnets and the sum of the FWB and Shields, which seems excessive

MHTT contains only piping, IHX, insulation, pumps and storage tanks

It does not have to handle an intense neutron environment, disruptions, are simple shapes and simple maintenance

Suggest it being in the range of 125K to $150K for a single coolant primary system

Selected ARIES-AT Costs in 1992$ and 2009$

Account 1992$, M$ 2009$,M$

22.1.1 $64.280 $92.06622.1.2 $69.406 $99.40822.1.3 $126.686 $181.44822.1.4 $37.060 $53.08022.1.5 $26.933 $38.57522.1.6 $98.772 $141.46822.1.7 $50.746 $72.68222.1.8 $4.094 $5.86422.1.9 $0.00 $0.000

22.1.10 $3.975 $5.69322.1 $481.956 $690.28822.2 $125.968 $180.419

Reactor EquipMain Heat T&T

ShieldsMagnets

Direct Energy ConvECRH Breakdown

Divertors

Heating/CDPrimary StructureVacuum SystemPower Supplies

Description

FW/Blanket

The previous MHTT costs estimated Li, LiPb and He systems with a single equation. A second equation was provided for H2O and OC.

It would be more appropriate to use a nominal Pth of 2000 MWth as opposed the previous value of 3500 MWth. This does not change the baseline cost and is only a minor correction of the leading coefficient. (see graph on a subsequent page)

LSA = 1 factor of 0.60 applied


Possible MHTT ConfigurationsBlanket and Divertor May Use Different Fluids

Brayton

Liquid Metal

Power Core IHX

Gas

Primary Loop

Intermediate Loop

Turbine Loop

Sodium

Turbine Loop

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

Dual coolant

Dual coolant

Dual coolant

Dual coolant

Dual coolant

Direct Cycle

Direct Cycle

Direct Cycle

Direct Cycle


More MHTT Definition Is Needed The prior slide illustrated possible MHTT combinations:

• LM vs. gas • Primary/intermediate/turbine loops• Blanket/shield with or separate from divertor More detailed data is required for better estimates• Thermal power from Blanket, Hot Shield, and

Divertor by coolant type and by loop• Added pump work that can be recovered in each loop• There should be a tally of thermal powers at exit of

power core, exit from IHX, exit of Intermediate Loop (if used) and entrance to Turbine (this would be the Gross Thermal Power value)

• Include safety or nuclear cost adders


Comparing Old and New MHTT Algorithms

The previous ARIES 3500 MWth and adjusted Pth baseline 2000 MWth MHTT algorithms (LSA=1) are the superimposed upper curves

The lower curves are the proposed LM and Helium MHTT algorithms (26% less for LM and 35% less for helium)

The new curves are for single heat transfer media in the primary loop

Primary and diverter loops Water and organic coolant: $50 M x (gross thermal power/2000)0.55 (in 2009$) ~

EqualLiquid Metal (Li and LiPb): $125 M x (gross thermal power/2000)0.55 (in 2009$) 26%

lowerHigh Pressure Helium: $110 M x (gross thermal power/2000)0.55 (in 2009$) 35%

lowerAdder for Nb IHX $0.010 M x gross thermal power in MW (in 2009$) Ref.

MalangIntermediate loop Sodium or Helium: $50 x (gross thermal power/2000)0.55 (in 2009$) 30%

higher

Note: $228 in equation is Li or He coefficient $265 (1992$) x 1.4323 (inflation) x 0.60 LSA=1 Modified coefficient is 2.28 x 0.735 = 168.0

Comparison of Old and New Algorithms

$0.00

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500

Gross Thermal Power, MWth

Co

st o

t M

HT

T, M

$

$228.57 * 3500 MWthBaseline$228.57*0.735*2000 MWthBaseline$125 * 2000 MWthBaseline, LM$110* 2000 MWth Baseline,He

Compared to AdjustedPrior Algorithms


Procedure for Estimating Dual Coolant Systems Dual coolant systems employ two separate primary loops, all with unique subsystems handling different levels of thermal power. The prior equations will be used with the appropriate fluid power level. The nominal 2000 MWth is shown in blue (a 2500 MWth version is in pink).

Total Cost of LiPb and He Loops

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Fraction of Power in LiPb Loop

To

tal C

ost

of

LiP

b a

nd

He

Lo

op

s

P (Total) = 2000 MWth P (Total) = 2500 MWth

$125 M for a single 2000 MWth LM coolant

$110 M for a single 2000 MWth He coolant

Dual coolant systems are definitely more costly than single coolant systems, but they seem to be the better option. Let’s model the MHTT systems to correctly portray them. This is a first approximation.


The Added Cost for Safety and Nuclear Grade

Materials


Remember, All Costs Should Assume a 10th of a Kind Plant

• Preceding the 10th-of-a-kind plant will be the Demo (a one-of-a-kind plant) maybe a second one-of-a-kind plant and then nine near-identical power plants with learning factors being applied

• All estimates should reflect current prices unless resources are limited

• All research and development costs would have been amortized and would not apply to the 10th-of-a-kind

It would not be appropriate to adopt the costs of prototypes, experimental hardware, or first of a kind subsystems for our 10th-of-a-kind estimate


The ARIES Philosophy for EstimatingSubsystems Using Material Unit Costs

• Raw materials can be estimated using current bulk material quotes

− The exception is enriched lithium which has no large production basis

• Power core subsystems cost estimates are based on: 1) the raw material cost plus a fabrication factor based on “expert” judgment or

2) a more detailed bottoms-up fabrication estimate (ref: ARIES-AT VV or ARIES-ST centerpost and monolithic CS TF structural shell)

However these procedures do not effectively address the extra cost associated with either Safety or Nuclear systems


Some Added Costs Are Appropriate for the Safety and Nuclear Subsystems

• Higher material quality and fabrication process controls from certified vendors on basic materials and critical components

• Increased testing and documentation (traceability)• Higher levels of assembly process control, documentation,

inspection and checkout testing

However any increased design and analysis efforts would have been borne by the initial plants and is not applicable to the 10th plant

Applicable subsystems might be • Nuclear-rated - FWB, divertor, shield, main VV, RF launchers

• Safety-rated – VV doors, VV maintenance ports and doors, RF windows

• Not-rated – Magnets, power core structures, LT shields, cryostat, bioshield• What about the Main Heat Transfer and Transport Subsystem?

Most other subsystems are analyzed by performance parameters


Re-Evaluation of Turbine-Generator System

Costs


Turbine-Generator 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

23 Turbine - Generator Equipment23.01 Turbine - Generators

Turbine-Generators and AccessoriesFoundationsStandby- ExcitersLubrications Gas SystemsReheaters

23.02 Main Steam or other Main Heat Transfer Fluid SystemPipingValvesPumpsSupports

23.03 Condensing or Heat Sink Heat Exhanger SystemsCondensersCondensate SystemGas Removal SystemTurbine By-pass Systems

23.04 Feedwater Heating or Heat Recovery SystemRegenerators & RecuperatorsPipingPumpsTanks

23.05 Other Turbine Plant EquipmentTurbine AuxiliariesAuxiliaries Cooling SystemMakeup Treatment SystemChemical Treatment and Condensate Purification SystemCentral Lubrication Service System

23.06 Turbine Plant Instrumentation & ControlProcess Instrumentation & ControlAutomatic Monitoring and ControlIsolated Indicating and Recording Gauges, Meters and Instr

Spare Parts Allowance (include in individual costs)23.99 Contingency Allowance (include in Acct 96)


Turbine Plant Equipment Costs

$250.00

$300.00

$350.00

$400.00

$450.00

$500.00

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

Gross Electric Power, MWe

Co

st, M

$ in

200

8$

H2O or OC

Li or LiPb

He

Prior Turbine-Generator Plant Equip Cost Algorithms

Curves were based on ARIES II-IV algorithms by Delene/Miller

• Basis is Titan (PET 1200 MW scaled to .83 or .70 exponent)

• Basis updated in 2008 for ARIES-AT (1.2% increase for all)

• Cost basis was LSA of 4, but LSA factors were all 1.0

Prior ARIES-AT 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$

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

ARIES-AT algorithms

He

Li, LiPb

0C, H2O


Reported T-G Costs Did Not Match 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

Brayton Cycle

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

ChronologicalSummary of data for plotting TPE 2008$ 2008$

Using Updated Algorithms Reported CalculatedFusion Plant Design Coolant Pet $ TPE $ TPE Compared to Algorithm

Starfire H2O 1440 $390.80 $424.62 8% lowEBTR H2O 1430 $390.80 $422.17 8% low

Prom-L Pb & He 1382 $388.07 $387.74 OKARIES-I He 1247 $351.66 $302.94 16% highARIES-I' He 1400 $388.30 $328.50 18% highARIES-II Li 1180 $396.52 $340.08 16% highARIES-III' OC 1310 $458.17 $392.55 16% highARIES-IV He 1240 $353.30 $301.75 17% highARIES-RS Li 1204.50 $403.11 $345.93 16% highARIES-AT LiPb 1169.60 $344.42 $289.65 18% highARIES-ST LiPb & He 1517.90 $480.82 $347.63 38% highAFIES-CS LiPb & He 1253.00 $351.85 $303.96 16% high

Grouped and OrderedOrdered data for plotting TPE 2008$ 2008$

Using Updated Algorithms Reported CalculatedFusion Plant Design Coolant Pet $ TPE $ TPE Compared to Algorithm

ARIES-III' OC 1310 $458.17 $392.55 16% highStarfire H2O 1440 $390.80 $424.62 8% lowEBTR H2O 1430 $390.80 $422.17 8% low

ARIES-II Li 1180 $396.52 $340.08 16% highARIES-RS Li 1204.50 $403.11 $345.93 16% highARIES-CS LiPb & He 1253.00 $351.85 $303.96 16% high

Prom-L Pb & He 1382 $388.07 $387.74 OKARIES-ST LiPb & He 1517.90 $480.82 $347.63 38% highARIES-AT LiPb 1169.60 $344.42 $289.65 18% highARIES-IV He 1240 $353.30 $301.75 17% highARIES-I He 1247 $351.66 $302.94 16% highARIES-I' He 1400 $388.30 $328.50 18% high

ARIES-AT algorithms

ARIES-AT algorithms

A&E Developed


New Proposed T-G Cost Algorithms


$200.000

$250.000

$300.000

$350.000

$400.000

$450.000

$500.000

$550.000

$600.000

1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Thermal Power Input, MW

TP

E C

ost

, M

$

Rankine, 43-45% Eff iciency

Brayton, 45% Eff iciency




To better represent and parametrically scale T-G costs, these algorithms were proposed:C23 = $350M x (Pth gross/2620)0.70 Rankine = $360M x (Pth gross/2000)0.80 x (ηth gross/.60) Brayton

Note: 2620 MW is 2000 MW x 59%/45%


New Proposed T-G Cost AlgorithmsTo better represent and parametrically scale T-G costs, these algorithms were proposed:C23 = $350M x (Pth gross/2620)0.70 Rankine = $360M x (Pth gross/2000)0.80 x (ηth gross/.60) Brayton


$200.000

$250.000

$300.000

$350.000

$400.000

$450.000

$500.000

$550.000

$600.000

1500 2000 2500 3000 3500


TP

E C

ost

, M

$

Rankine, 43-45% Eff iciency





ARIES-AT, η=59% ARIES-CS, η=43%

ARIES-ST, η=45%

ARIES-RS, η=46%

• Note CS has 50% more Pth, but the same cost (New algorithms would properly reflect that trend)• RS and ST seem high, compared to new equation• However both reported data and new algorithms

are just “estimates”


General Atomics Provided Some RelevantTurbine Plant Equipment

Cost Data on Gas and Steam Cycles


Turbine-Generator Learning Curves

GA suggested a 0.95 learning curve, but CCGT technology might be better represented with a learning curve of 0.88.(ref. Energy Technology Systems Analysis Program)

We can apply these learning curve data to the GA turbine cost estimates

Representative Learning Curves

$0.00

$20.00

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

$140.00

0 10 20 30 40 50Number of Units

Co

st

pe

r u

nit

, M$

(2

01

0$

)

95% Learning Cuve

88% Learning CurveDOE’s criteria for turbine-generator maturity is 8 GWe (approximately 38 turbine modules or 10 plants)

0.95

0.88

~ 8 GWe


Scaling of GA Data on Turbine-Generator Costs

Ken Schultz and Puja Gupta provided gas turbine and steam T-G data

These quantity learning curve data will be used to estimate the ARIES plants

Learning curves are referenced from prior chart

Note: This example has four turbines per plant

(Four Turbines)

Inlet TemperaturePower/Turbine

EfficiencyPower/Generator, MWe

Turbines/PlantLearning Curve 0.95 0.88

1st Turbine Cost, M$ $118.03 $127.65Cost of 1-4 Turbines, M$ $445.49 $443.09Non-Recurring Cost, M$ $29.51 $31.91FOAK Turbine Plant, M$ $475.00 $475.00NOAK Turbine Plant, M$ $360.36 $260.46

Gas Turbine850ºC

48%

4216

450 MWth


Scaling T-G Costs to ARIES-AT

C610 = $260.46 x (610/450)0.81 = $333 M, for 2440MWth

Size Scaling:Note that ARIES has used 0.8 size scaling for LM & He & 0.70 for H20 & OC.

• Scaled Unit Cost = UC450 x (Pth/450)0.81 per DOE guidance.

Assume ARIES-AT parameters for CCGT

Pe net = 1000 MWe, Pe gross = 1170 MWe, η = 0.48, Pth = 2440 MWth with four turbine modules at 610 MWth each (red data are new parameters)• 610 MW is probably the present size limit

Learning Curve Scaling:Four NOAK turbines @ 450 MWth each & 0.88 LC = $260.46M

Combined Cost for Four Turbines at 610 MWth each



$200.000

$250.000

$300.000

$350.000

$400.000

$450.000

$500.000

$550.000

$600.000

1500 2000 2500 3000 3500


TP

E C

ost

, M

$

Brayton, 45% Efficiency




Fit GA Brayton Turbines Onto Existing CurvesThe GA turbines costs, scaled to NOAK and to a larger size, is just between the proposed 45% and 50% efficient Brayton algorithms

ARIES-AT, η=59% ARIES-CS, η=43%

ARIES-ST, η=45%

ARIES-RS, η=46%

GA Brayton Turbines, η=48%

Excellent collaborative data for our algorithms


Conclusions• Use current commodity prices for Special Materials

• Adopt $1000/kg for 90% enriched lithium

Use provided table

• Better define technical design of Main Heat Transfer and Transport

Piping size, length, pumps, HX, tanks, makeup, pump work, power balance

• Continue with new MHTT cost algorithms

• Laila should recommend safety and neutron-related cost adders for certain subsystems

• Accept new Rankine and Brayton Turbine-Generator Plant algorithms


Some Sobering Economic ProjectionsEscalating capital costs were also highlighted in the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2010 report “Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants“. The US cost estimate for new nuclear was revised upwards from $3902/kW by 37% to a value of $5339/kW for 2011 by the EIA. This is in contrast to coal, which increases by only 25%, and gas which actually shows a 3% decrease in cost. Renewables estimates show solar dropping by 25% while onshore wind increases by about 21%. The only option to increase faster than nuclear is offshore wind at 49%, while the increase in coal with CCS is about the same as nuclear. In the previous year's estimate, EIA assumed that the cost of nuclear would drop with time and experience, and that by 2030 the cost of nuclear would drop by almost 30% in constant dollars.

By way of contrast, China is stating that it expects its costs for plants under construction to come in at less than $2000/kW and that subsequent units should be in the range of $1600/kW. This estimates is for the AP1000 design, the same as used by EIA for the USA. This would mean that an AP1000 in the USA would cost about three times as much as the same plant built in China. Different labour rates in the two countries are only part of the explanation. Standardised design, numerous units being built, and increased localisation are all significant factors in China.

Ref: World Nuclear Association, Economics of Nuclear Power, Updated 9 March 2011, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

l. waganer consultant for aries project/ucsd/doe aries-pathways project meeting 4-5 april 2011

Documents