3,663 Search Results

Rigorous stakeholder-vetted techno-economic analysis was performed to assess the cost of hydrogen (H₂) produced using state-of-the-art Anion Exchange Membrane (AEM) electrolysis. Projected high-volume, untaxed and unsubsidized levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH)1 range from 2020 $$\$$$$1.78 to $$\$$$$3.68/kg H₂ depending on technology year, process design, and electrolyzer project scale, assuming an electricity price of $$\$$$$0.03/kWh and a capacity factor of 97%. The total installed capital cost for an AEM electrolysis plant was estimated from bottom-up stack and process plant cost models. The stack cost model accounts for manufacturing equipment, equipment maintenance, material, tooling, cycle time, yield, labor, utilities and general overhead. The process plant cost model accounts for purchased equipment, installation costs, site preparation, and general overhead costs. For this study, the AEM electrolysis plant is assumed to be a stick-built, greenfield project developed by an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) firm with electrolysis stacks purchased directly from an electrolysis stack manufacturer. The price of the electrolysis stacks is based on a bottom-up cost assessment with business markup for the electrolysis company fabricator. Methods from the Hydrogen Analysis (H2A) production model, a peer-reviewed national laboratory-developed discounted cash flow (DCF) model, were used to calculate the production LCOH in 2020 $$\$$$$/kg H₂. The baseline electricity price case ($$\$$$$0.03/kWh) corresponds to average wholesale electricity prices currently possible in U.S. markets with plentiful wind. Similar low-cost electricity pricing is possible from solar Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) although these prices are typically limited by renewable energy capacity factors.

Operations and maintenance (O&M) of floating offshore wind farms (FOWFs) poses various challenges in terms of greater distances from the shore, harsher weather conditions, and restricted mobility options. Robotic systems have the potential to automate some parts of the O&M leading to continuous feature-rich data acquisition, operational efficiency, along with health and safety improvements. There remains a gap in assessing the techno-economic feasibility of robotics in the FOWF sector. This paper investigates the costs and benefits of incorporating robotics into the O&M of a FOWF. A bottom-up cost model is used to estimate the costs for a proposed multi-robot platform (MRP). The MRP houses unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and remotely operated vehicle (ROV) to conduct the inspection of specific FOWF components. Emphasis is laid on the most conducive O&M activities for robotization and the associated technical and cost aspects. The simulation is conducted in Windfarm Operations and Maintenance cost-Benefit Analysis Tool (WOMBAT), where the metrics of incurred operational expenditure (OPEX) and the inspection time are calculated and compared with those of a baseline case consisting of crew transfer vessels, rope-access technicians, and divers. Results show that the MRP can reduce the inspection time incurred, but this reduction has dependency on the efficacy of the robotic system and the associated parameterization e.g., cost elements and the inspection rates. Conversely, the increased MRP day rate results in a higher annualized OPEX. Residual risk is calculated to assess the net benefit of incorporating the MRP. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis is conducted to find the key parameters influencing the OPEX and the inspection time variation. A key output of this work is a robust and realistic framework which can be used for the cost-benefit assessment of future MRP systems for specific FOWF activities.

This report provides recommended parameters for incorporating nuclear energy systems into decarbonization modeling scenarios. The values are primarily intended for the Net Zero World (NZW) Initiative but are expected to prove useful to other related efforts. Both costs and operational metrics are provided in the study. Several cost factors, namely overnight capital costs (OCC) and operational costs are taken to be country specific. OCC is defined as the value of building the reactor in one night considering all costs prior to the start of operations including fuel for the initial core load. The value assumes the build is neither a first nor a ‘Nth’ of a kind, but somewhere in between. All costs are escalated to 2022 USD values.

Microreactors have attracted significant attention and investment. By virtue of their smaller size (typically less than ~20 MWe), they are expected to be significantly easier to build, demonstrate, and deploy than larger reactors. This has led to several U.S. companies pursuing active demonstration efforts with a wide variety of designs under development. For example, the Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC), has recently announced they are planning to build a microreactor assembly plant in Alabama. The cost reduction of the microreactors via factory fabrication and mass production is expected to be the primary driver to the economic competitiveness of microreactors. While several entities are focused on first-of-a-kind demonstration of the technology, it is important to provide insights on longer-term considerations for mass production. The evaluation shown here was conducted primarily in collaboration with Munro & Associates Inc. The findings of this microreactor factory fabrication and mass production study were recently published in. In this paper, we start by summarizing the findings of this study. Next, we apply these findings to quantify the cost reduction of a heat pipe-cooled fast reactor (as an example of microreactors).

Rigorous stakeholder-vetted techno-economic analysis was performed to assess the cost of hydrogen (H₂) produced using state-of-the-art Liquid Alkaline (LA) electrolysis. Projected high-volume, untaxed levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) range from 2020US $$\$$ 1.84$ to $$\$$ 2.88$/kg-H₂ depending on technology year, process design, and electrolyzer project scale, assuming an electricity price of $$\$$ 0.03$/kWh. The total installed capital cost for a LA electrolysis plant was estimated from bottom-up stack and installed cost models that account for purchased equipment, installation costs, site preparation, and general overhead costs. For this study, the LA electrolysis plant is assumed to be a stick-built, greenfield project developed by an EPC firm with electrolysis stacks purchased directly from an electrolysis stack manufacturer. The price of the electrolysis stacks is based on a bottom-up cost assessment with business markup for the electrolysis company fabricator. Methods from the Hydrogen Analysis (H₂A) production model, a peer-reviewed national laboratory-developed discounted cash flow model, were used to calculate the LCOH production in 2020$/kg-H₂. The baseline electricity price case ($$\$$ 0.03$/kWh) corresponds to average wholesale electricity prices currently possible in U.S. markets with plentiful wind. Similar low-cost electricity pricing is possible from solar Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) although these prices are typically limited by renewable energy capacity factors.

A multi-tiered cost analysis is performed to estimate full costs of a nuclear power plant (NPP) based on sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) technology. To address the lack of fully transparent cost estimations from past undertakings for NPPs, we have developed a detailed and first-principles-based cost estimate for a generalized SFR NPP. Our intent is to achieve a high degree of transparency with our cost assumptions and develop a cost model that is flexible and easily extendable to variations in NPP design and other nuclear reactor types. Furthermore, we strive to achieve a clear organization of costs and complete identification of key cost drivers based on first principles. To this end, the cost results of our analysis as given in Table 24 and Table 25 are organized and categorized into a code of accounts (COA) under development at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). Varying degrees of first-principles methods are employed, such as design for manufacture and assembly® (DFMA® ), to elucidate costs in all process levels of the plant equipment, buildings and site structures, personnel, and other miscellaneous but significant cost elements. These approaches have been successfully applied in past cost analysis projects and are designed to enable rapid and flexible cost estimation. Application of these techniques for evaluating NPP costs is similar in concept to the full, detailed estimation of construction and fabrication costs determined in a later stage of NPP development. Note that our approach tries to avoid use of other past analysis results and data such as those from the legacy Energy Economic Data Base (EEDB) Program, as these resources are based on historical NPP costs and thus may not be indicative of new reactor technologies or construction and fabrication/manufacturing techniques. However, we provide a comparison of our SFR NPP cost results in Table 90 against those included in the EEDB for a representative pressurized water reactor (PWR).

Abstract To generate updated and transparent capital cost estimates for biomass fast pyrolysis equipment, refinery fluidized catalytic cracking design and sizing principles are examined and extended to pyrolysis of woody biomass. Capital costs for the sized equipment are estimated with process‐industry software. A one‐dimensional flow simulation with pyrolysis kinetics is leveraged to validate the fluidization conditions and thermal energy balance. After successful sizing and a system cost estimate of $2.8 M (in 2016 US$) at the biorefinery scale of 1000 metric tons per day (MTD), these methods were exercised for even smaller equipment at the distributed pyrolysis scale with modifications to the process design constraints, and not directly comparable with the 1000 MTD case, arriving at capital cost estimates of $1.2 M for a 500 ton/day system and $0.9 M for a 200 ton/day system. It is noted that this work only estimates purchased equipment costs at the ±50% accuracy level; there are significant other custom factors applicable to each installation based on location, maturity, scale, complexities during installation, engineering and licensing costs, etc. that need to be added on to these estimates to derive investment costs.

In the past few years, there has been a renewed interest in the deployment of nuclear power for decarbonizing the electricity grid as well as a range of industrial applications. As the demonstrations of advanced nuclear power plants start to begin, there will likely be a further increase in this interest. As nuclear is being considered as a part of the energy mix, understanding the cost of nuclear energy becomes increasingly important for all stakeholders including advanced reactor vendors (for making design decisions and marketing their designs), users of nuclear energy (e.g., to estimate the cost of decarbonization of other industries using nuclear), and government (e.g., in capacity expansion models that are used in framing policy). In this summary, we demonstrate a software tool called ACCERT that is currently being developed with funding from the Systems Analysis and Integration (SA&I) program under the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE NE). ACCERT is a cost estimation and techno-economics tool for nuclear power plant applications that includes a database of (a) cost estimates of various ‘reference’ nuclear power plant designs gathered from existing literature, and (b) algorithms developed from these costs that can be used extrapolate the existing costs and perform a bottom-up cost estimation of other designs. A companion summary describes the software and its design in more detail and this summary presents a demonstration for four different nuclear power plant designs: a pressurized water reactor (PWR), high-temperature gas reactor (HTGR), sodium fast reactor (SFR), and a heat-pipe microreactor. The demonstrations include the reference cost estimates and the cost estimates of a modified design for each reference case.

We propose a method for calibrating an industry-level technology to engineering (bottom-up) estimates with a particular focus on abatement opportunities. As a demonstration, substitution elasticities across inputs are adjusted in the nested cost function for the electricity sector to best fit a target marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve derived from engineering assessments of available technologies. Elasticities are optimized over an entire relevant range of the MAC, whereas current techniques use local point estimates under little or no abatement. In the context of fitting to a given MAC we evaluate alternative nesting structures and find that, while complexity in nesting improves the fit, even relatively simple nesting structures can reasonably approximate the target MAC. In our example, focused on the electricity sector, we find standard elasticities adopted in top-down models moderately overstate abatement costs relative to the engineering targets. In our preferred specification the most important adjustment is to escalate the substitution elasticity between energy and value-added inputs. This is consistent with an argument that the current set of point estimates fail to properly account for new capital-based technologies. These conclusions, however, are sensitive to our assumption about output-intensity abatement and consumer price responsiveness, both of which are not delineated in engineering estimates.

This report provides a comprehensive review of existing literature on advanced reactor cost estimations in the form of a ‘meta-study’. Over 30 references were evaluated and considered as part of this effort. The information is then distilled into different tiers, each with varying levels of detail and granularity. The recommendations consist of low/medium/high estimates for capital and operating costs that can be adjusted using various correction factors (based on learning, numbers of plants per site, etc.). In addition, reference breakdown in costs based on a code of account structure is provided for the main four types of advanced reactors.