Title: CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN FOR COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ADVANCED CONVERTERS.

The Department of Energy (DOE) issued an RFP for a "System Design Study to Reduce Capital and Operating Cost and Bench Scale Testing of a Circulating-Bed AFB Advanced Concept." The design and cost study of a 150,000 pounds per hour steam boiler comprised Phase-I of the RFP. The objective was to produce a design with improved performance and reduced capital and operating costs compared with conventional atmospheric pressure fluidized bed (AFB) boilers. The final result was a significant reduction of capital cost - 36% below the lowest AFB plant cost. The steam cost was 24% below the corresponding cost formore » the AFB process. In June 1985, DOE issued a Change Order (C001) to the Phase-I study in order for MWK to design and estimate the cost for a scaled-down coal-fired (Illinois No. 6, 3% S) CFBC plant producing low pressure and low temperature steam (75,000lbs/hr, 200 psig, 387{degree}F), and to compare the costs -capital and steam costs -with those for a packaged high sulfur (3%) fuel oil-fired boiler, which is of the same capacity and requires SO{sub 2} removal. An additional objective was to estimate the cost for a No. 2 fuel oil-fired boiler that does not need any SO{sub 2} scrubber. An evaluation of the sensitivity of the steam cost to the oil-fired boiler capital cost and to fuel prices was also to be undertaken. The cost of steam produced by the No. 6 fuel oil boiler is 52% higher than the cost for CFBC, and the corresponding cost for the No. 2 fuel oil plant is 43% higher. Again, a large advantage for the CFBC comes from the low price of coal relative to that of oil. The large cost advantage of steam calculated for the MWK CFBC using coal as a fuel over the oil-fired boilers would remain even in the worst case scenario of a declining oil price accompanied by a steady coal price. 7 refs., 25 figs., 34 tabs.« less

The US Army Engineer Division, Huntsville (USAEDH) has reviewed, validated, and updated a capital cost estimate of the Commercial Clean Boiler Fuel Coal Conversion Plant prepared by COALCON Company, New York, NY. This facility was designed to have a feed rate of approximately 30,000 tons of coal per day and is expected to produce approximately 15,000 barrels per day of heavy fuel oil, 6,000 barrels per day of raw gasoline, 5.5 million standard cubic feet per day of LPG, 135 million standard cubic feet per day of pipeline gas, 87 short tons per day of dark sulfur, and 545 shortmore » tons per day of bright sulfur. Capital cost was estimated by COALCON to be 604.5 anti M based on mid-1977 dollars. This estimate was revised by COALCON in September of 1977 to be 540.7 anti M based on mid-1977 dollars. Evaluation by USAEDH resulted in a fixed capital cost of 575.7M for the facility based on mid-1977 dollars. The overall accuracy factor of the COALCON estimate was determined to be plus or minus 6.5 percent.« less

The US Army Engineer Division Huntsville (USAEDH) has reviewed, validated and updated a capital cost estimate of the ''Conceptual Commercial Design and Commerical Feasibility Evaluation for Clean Boiler Fuel Facility'', Report No. FE-1772-13 dated February 1976, as prepared by DRAVO Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA. This facility was designed to have a feed rate of 50,000 tons of coal per day and is expected to produce 58,000 barrels per day of heavy fuel oil, 21,000 barrels per day of light fuel oil, 122 million standard cubic feet per day of LPG fraction, 240 million standard cubic feed per day of pipeline gas,more » 170 tons per day of ammonia and 1100 tons per day of sulfur. Capital cost was estimated by DRAVO to be at 1.2 billion dollars based on last quarter 1975 dollars. Escalation and validation by USAEDH resulted in a fixed capital cost of $1.16 billion dollars for the facility. The overall accuracy factor of the DRAVO estimate was determined to be plus or minus 17%.« less

The purpose of this particular report is (1) to provide an overview of information regarding costs of the nuclear fuel cycle and plant construction and (2) to consider explicitly monetary uncertainties of the Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant.