skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: The U.S. Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor Program (ALMR) Actinide Recycle System 1994 Capital and Busbar Cost Estimates

Abstract

This report presents the capital and busbar costs estimated for the design of the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor (ALMR). The previous bottom-up capital and busbar cost estimate for the ALMR was made in 1993 (Reference 1-1 ). Since that time there have been major changes in the plant design and steam cycle, as we11 as a comprehensive review of the 1993 cost estimates by an expert panel and issuance of a new, expanded set of DOE cost guidelines for advanced nuclear concepts (Reference 1-2). All of these changes and activities have impacted the costs in this 1994 estimate. With so many changes of different types, there has been no attempt made to identify the impacts of the individual changes in design and cost estimating methodology. The reference design is a modification of the 1993 ALMR reference design described in the Summary Plant Design Description (Reference 1-3). The plant feature changes made to the 1993 design are the following: 1. The reactor module thermal rating has been increased from 471 to 840 MWt and the net electric output of each power block has been increased from 496 to 622 MWe. 2. Burner core instead of break-even core. 3. Elimination of lHTSmore » isolation valves and associated support system. 4. Portion of the IHTS and SGS have been redesigned to be safety grade to compensate for the elimination of the main sodium isolation valves and associated subsystems. Additional valves were added to the steam/water system to accommodate safety grade requirements. 5. Change of sodium dump tank material to 2 1/4Co-1Mo to be compatible with the steam generator. 6. Change of lHTS pump elevation to simplify the IHTS piping design and cost. 7. The addition of the Primary Sodium Auxiliary Cooling System (PSACS) into the Primary Sodium Process System to facilitate maintenance at lHTS. 8. The adoption of a fixed localized reactor cover gas process system in place of the centralized reactor cover gas process system which requires a mobile unit to process and transport the cover gas between reactors and central process facility. The methods used to estimate the capital and busbar costs have also been improved since 1991 in several areas. Most notable of these are more detailed or significantly modified estimates made of: a) Equipment costs for the intermediate heat transport system (IHTS); b) factory manufacturing costs of facility modules; c) indirect capital costs; d) owner's costs; e) contingencies; f) interest during construction; and, g) fuel costs. Some of the modifications to the design and operation of the plant, as well as to the cost estimating methods and conditions, have sizable effects on the estimated costs. Examples are the addition of permanent refueling enclosures and larger turbine generator building which increase the direct capital costs. Another change that increases fuel busbar costs is the assignment of ownership of the fuel facilities to an industrial organization rather than a utility. Countering these increases are other changes which decrease the estimated values. The results of these changes for a 3-power block, NOAK plant in terms of 1994 dollars are as follows: - The total capital costs decreased more than 17.5 percent in terms of dollars per kilowatt electric. - The fuel costs increase by 52 percent in term of mills per kilowatt hour - The total busbar costs decreased by only 3.7 percent (from 42.00 to 40.5 mills per kilowatt hour). The reduction in total busbar costs from 1993 to 1994 for 3-block plants (in 1994 mills/kWh) are as follows: - First Plant reduced from 51.6 to 47.9 - Nth Plant reduced from 42.0 to 40.5. The 1994 results are summarized in this section. Sections 2 through I 0 provide details of the estimates for the different components of the capital and busbar costs, and Section 11 is a compilation of all the busbar cost estimates.« less

Publication Date:
Research Org.:
GE Nuclear Energy, San Jose, CA (United States). Advanced Reactor Programs
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1108730
Report Number(s):
GEFR-00940
DOE Contract Number:  
AC03-89SF17445
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS; Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor (ALMR); busbar; intermediate heat transport system (IHTS); NOAK plant

Citation Formats

. The U.S. Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor Program (ALMR) Actinide Recycle System 1994 Capital and Busbar Cost Estimates. United States: N. p., 1995. Web. doi:10.2172/1108730.
. The U.S. Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor Program (ALMR) Actinide Recycle System 1994 Capital and Busbar Cost Estimates. United States. doi:10.2172/1108730.
. Wed . "The U.S. Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor Program (ALMR) Actinide Recycle System 1994 Capital and Busbar Cost Estimates". United States. doi:10.2172/1108730. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1108730.
@article{osti_1108730,
title = {The U.S. Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor Program (ALMR) Actinide Recycle System 1994 Capital and Busbar Cost Estimates},
author = {},
abstractNote = {This report presents the capital and busbar costs estimated for the design of the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor (ALMR). The previous bottom-up capital and busbar cost estimate for the ALMR was made in 1993 (Reference 1-1 ). Since that time there have been major changes in the plant design and steam cycle, as we11 as a comprehensive review of the 1993 cost estimates by an expert panel and issuance of a new, expanded set of DOE cost guidelines for advanced nuclear concepts (Reference 1-2). All of these changes and activities have impacted the costs in this 1994 estimate. With so many changes of different types, there has been no attempt made to identify the impacts of the individual changes in design and cost estimating methodology. The reference design is a modification of the 1993 ALMR reference design described in the Summary Plant Design Description (Reference 1-3). The plant feature changes made to the 1993 design are the following: 1. The reactor module thermal rating has been increased from 471 to 840 MWt and the net electric output of each power block has been increased from 496 to 622 MWe. 2. Burner core instead of break-even core. 3. Elimination of lHTS isolation valves and associated support system. 4. Portion of the IHTS and SGS have been redesigned to be safety grade to compensate for the elimination of the main sodium isolation valves and associated subsystems. Additional valves were added to the steam/water system to accommodate safety grade requirements. 5. Change of sodium dump tank material to 2 1/4Co-1Mo to be compatible with the steam generator. 6. Change of lHTS pump elevation to simplify the IHTS piping design and cost. 7. The addition of the Primary Sodium Auxiliary Cooling System (PSACS) into the Primary Sodium Process System to facilitate maintenance at lHTS. 8. The adoption of a fixed localized reactor cover gas process system in place of the centralized reactor cover gas process system which requires a mobile unit to process and transport the cover gas between reactors and central process facility. The methods used to estimate the capital and busbar costs have also been improved since 1991 in several areas. Most notable of these are more detailed or significantly modified estimates made of: a) Equipment costs for the intermediate heat transport system (IHTS); b) factory manufacturing costs of facility modules; c) indirect capital costs; d) owner's costs; e) contingencies; f) interest during construction; and, g) fuel costs. Some of the modifications to the design and operation of the plant, as well as to the cost estimating methods and conditions, have sizable effects on the estimated costs. Examples are the addition of permanent refueling enclosures and larger turbine generator building which increase the direct capital costs. Another change that increases fuel busbar costs is the assignment of ownership of the fuel facilities to an industrial organization rather than a utility. Countering these increases are other changes which decrease the estimated values. The results of these changes for a 3-power block, NOAK plant in terms of 1994 dollars are as follows: - The total capital costs decreased more than 17.5 percent in terms of dollars per kilowatt electric. - The fuel costs increase by 52 percent in term of mills per kilowatt hour - The total busbar costs decreased by only 3.7 percent (from 42.00 to 40.5 mills per kilowatt hour). The reduction in total busbar costs from 1993 to 1994 for 3-block plants (in 1994 mills/kWh) are as follows: - First Plant reduced from 51.6 to 47.9 - Nth Plant reduced from 42.0 to 40.5. The 1994 results are summarized in this section. Sections 2 through I 0 provide details of the estimates for the different components of the capital and busbar costs, and Section 11 is a compilation of all the busbar cost estimates.},
doi = {10.2172/1108730},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {1995},
month = {3}
}