1. Progress Meeting 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe LEADER 1LEADER1 WP1 REFERENCE DESIGN OBJETIVES AND SPECIFICATION (SCK-CEN)

2. Progress Meeting 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe LEADER 2LEADER2 TASK 1.4 ELFR Cost estimate (ALFRED) (NRG-EA)

3. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 LEADER 3 CONTENTS 1. Cost estimate methodologies 1.1 Top-down methodology 1.2 Bottom-up methodology 2. Conclusions 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe

4. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 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 – – Scaling relationship – – Cost distribution (ELSY) – – Modular construction – – Main assumptions Main assumptions 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe LEADER 4 135% more expensive than AP1000 ELFR Top-Down Cost Estimate

5. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe LEADER 5 Cost item Pessimistic Cost Nominal Cost Optimistic Cost R&D--- Engineering, licensing & construction5300 €/kWe4300 €/kWe3500 €/kWe Engineering, licensing & construction (incl. 1 st core, D&D, contingencies) 6600 €/kWe5500 €/kWe4300 €/kWe Operation & maintenance143 €/kWe/a110 €/kWe/a81 €/kWe/a Fuel cycle19 €/MWh8 €/MWh4 €/MWh Energy generation71 €/MWh38.5 €/MWh23 €/MWh Cost estimate was made using top-down cost accounting approach in combination with the G4Econs tool. without 2600 M€ to compare with bottom-up cost estimate –Owner & land costs –Site preparation costs –D&D costs –Project supervision –Insurances and taxes

6. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe LEADER 6 Conclusions of sensitivity analyses Uncertainties in cost items Negligible Influence Minor Influence Major 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

7. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 1.2 BOTTOM-UP COST ESTIMATE 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe LEADER 7 Main Assumptions –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

8. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 1.2 BOTTOM-UP COST ESTIMATE 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe LEADER 8 Main Assumptions Base Price The sum of costs incurred in manufacturing/construction, material procurement, installation and commissioning, insurance and spare parts. Uncertainty The accuracy which future market price is known in January 2011. Contingency Resulting from engineering and overlooked ambiguities, unexpected modifications in costs and rates, construction problems, planning shifts, inaccurate estimations, and miscellaneous unforeseen costs. Accounts for unpredicted issues, both technical and commercial. High Price Best estimation plus uncertainty and contingency.

9. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 1.2 BOTTOM-UP COST ESTIMATE 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe LEADER 9 COMPONENTS BASE PRICE CONTINGENCYUNCERTAINTY HIGH PRICE (MEu)(%)(MEu)(%)(MEu) Buildings & Civil structures 368.640%147.430%110.6626.6 Nuclear fuel52.750%26.440%21.1100.1 Primary Coolant (Lead)9.750%4.840%3.918.4 Primary Circuit components 110.447%51.734%37.8199.9 Balance of Plant (BOP)104.640%41.820%20.9167.4 Emergency systems1.040%0.420%0.21.7 Power Supply7.240%2.930%2.212.2 Auxiliaries150.050%75.040%60.0285.0 Engineering98.440%39.420%19.7157.4 TOTAL902.743%389.831%276.31568.8 Summary

10. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 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€ Top-down Cost Estimate: – Engineering, Licensing & Construction without: Owner & land costs Site preparation costs D&D costs Project supervision Insurances and taxes –High Price: 2600M€ 2. CONCLUSIONS 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe LEADER 10 65% more than

11. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 LEADER 11 “Thanks for your attention” LEADER11 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe

12. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 LEADER 12 “Thanks for your attention” LEADER12 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe

13. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 AccountSmall Power DifferenceLarge Power Difference Buildings & Structures0.50.59 Reactor0.60.80 Turbine0.80.83 Electric0.40.39 Miscellaeneous0.81.06 Heat Rejection Systems0.30.59 Construction Services0.420.66 Scaling factor 1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe LEADER 13 (MacDonald & Buongiorno, 2002) Scaling relationships based in the Nuclear Energy Cost Data Base, provided from Delene et al.

14. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe LEADER 14 Main Assumption about Reference Plant –Site size: 80% of a generic Generation III LWR.(ESNII, 2012) –Reactor equipment: 220% compared with a contemporary PWR. –Main heat transport system: 120% more expensive than PWR. (Nitta, 2010) –Safety system: Similar costs are taken into account. –Lead: 300% more expensive than demineralized water (including additional costs for a special water treatment plant) Sensitivity Analysis

15. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe LEADER 15 Main assumption about G4Econs Tool –Construction Costs R&D costs are not taken into account (LEADER project) D&D costs: 1/3 of construction costs (GIF/EMWG, 2007) –Operation & Maintenance Cost Permanent staff: 53% compared to EPR. Repair costs: 115% compared to a contemporary LWR. –Fuel Cycle Costs (Advanced Fuel Cycle Costs Database, Shropshire et al., 2009) –Contingencies –No interest during construction have been taken into account. –ELFR net efficiency: 42% (LEADER DEL003, Frogheri et al.) –ELFR availability: 85% (mean of the values mentioned in LEADER DEL003) –Relevant core and fuel data are obtained from LEADER DEL005. –Refuelling interval: 2.5 years (LEADER DEL005) –Insurances and taxes: 0.45% of the pre-construction costs (recommended by GIF/EMWG, 2007)

16. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe LEADER 16 Contingencies applied to ELFR based on Gokcek et al. (1995) AccountContingency Structures10% Reactor30% Turbine5% Electric10% Miscellaneous30% Heat Rejection10% Construction Services25% Owners Costs30% Fuel Cycle30%

17. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 1.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe LEADER 17 Literature source AP1000 / generic Gen III specific construction costs Keystone (2007)2400 €/kWe Standard & Poor (2008)3200 €/kWe Tarjanne (2008)2900 €/kWe MIT (2009)3200 €/kWe OECD (2010)3300 €/kWe Selection3200 €/kWe Engineering, Licensing & Construction Costs 4300 €/kWe 130% more expensive than

18. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 4.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY   Historical inflation rate of the US Dollar compared to a fit with 2.5% 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe LEADER 18

19. Progress Meeting. Task 1.4 4.1 TOP-DOWN COST ESTIMATE METHODOLOGY   Historical inflation rate of the Euro compared to a fit with 2.1% 20 Nov 2012, Karlsruhe LEADER 19