Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Techno-economic Assessment Methodology and ResultsJason Quinn
Department of Mechanical Engineering
ENERGY INSTITUTE2
Acknowledgements
• Benjamin Vegel
• Department of Energy Funding #: DE-EE0007562
• Meeting organizers
ENERGY INSTITUTE3
General Approach
Sustainability Modeling
Economic Viability-TEA
Environmental Impact-LCA/RA
Experimental Systems
Knowledge Gaps
Model Validation
Feasibility Demonstration
System Performance
System Modeling
Modular in Construction High Fidelity Large Scale
ENERGY INSTITUTE4
Technology SpaceEnergy FoodMicroalgal Biosystem
Yeast BiosystemsNuclear Power Systems
WPT for Transportation Desert Agriculture
Water Systems
Power System Optimization
ENERGY INSTITUTE5
Techno-economic Methodsnth Plant Assumptions
Description Assumed ValueInternal rate of return 10%
Financing debt / equity 60% / 40% of total capital investmentPlant life 30 years
Income tax rate 35%Debt interest rate 8% annually
Term for debt financing 10 yearsWorking capital cost 5.0% of fixed capital investment (w/o land)
Depreciation schedule 7-years MACRSConstruction period 3 years (8% 1st yr, 60% 2nd yr, 32% 3rd yr)Plant salvage value No value
Start-up time 6 months
Revenue and costs during start-up
Revenue = 50% of normal Variable costs = 75% of normal Fixed costs = 100% of normal
On-stream factor 90% (330 operating days per year)Indirect capital costs 60% of total installed downstream capital
ENERGY INSTITUTE6
CAPX – OPX Tradeoff
• Correlation between CAPX, OPX, and yearly revenue:
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵$𝑦𝑦𝐵𝐵
≈ 0.140 ∗ 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 $ + 1 + 1.44% ∗ 𝑂𝑂𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶$𝑦𝑦𝐵𝐵
Fuel + Co-products
+ Credits
Weight of Capital:IRR, depreciation, loan interest, etc
From Year 1 start-up
ENERGY INSTITUTE7
CAPX – OPX Tradeoff
• Tradeoff of $7.3 CAPX ≈ $1 yr-1 OPX• Ratio depends on CAPX term
– Weight of upfront vs. recurring costs
– Especially IRR
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵$𝑦𝑦𝐵𝐵
≈ 0.140 ∗ 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 $ + 1 + 1.44% ∗ 𝑂𝑂𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶$𝑦𝑦𝐵𝐵
nth
plant
ENERGY INSTITUTE8
Impact of Methodology: Biofuel ExampleGovernment subsidies Depreciations Schemes
Loan Scenarios
ENERGY INSTITUTE9
Techno-economic RequirementsThree Core Components
Overnight Capital Cost Operational Cost Annual Output & Products
ENERGY INSTITUTE10
Techno-Economic Assessment
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
Coal NaturalGas
CoalCCS
NaturalGas CCS
PV CSP Nuclear Wind
Leve
lized
Cos
t of E
nerg
y ($
2020
kW
h-1)
Social Cost 3%-95thSocial Cost 2.5%Social Cost 3%Social Cost 5%Standard TEA
ENERGY INSTITUTE11
Capital Cost EstimationExisting estimates for LR
Materials estimates Cost estimatesCapital Cost
Top-down Method
Bottom-up Method
Scaling factorsLearning curves
ENERGY INSTITUTE12
Top Down: Capital Estimation$5,460 kWe -1
LR input
Top-down: scaling factorsComponent n
Building 0.5
Spent fuel management 1
Instrumentation and control 0.6
Other, electric 0.6
Other, direct 0.3
Contingency 0.55
Owner’s costs 0.29
Reactor pressure vessel 1
Control rods 1
Steam generation 1
Chemical volume controls 0.667
Other, reactor 0.6
Containment 0.667
Condenser 0.72
Turbo-generator 0.8
Special equipment 0.4
Conventional indirect 0.75
Engineering 0.2
Nuclear indirect 0.5
Learning curveFactory production
Factory production integration
Construction from 6-9 years to ~3 years
Reduced contingency
Reactor
Generatorcomponents
Construction
Other
Co-siting benefitsSharing of componentsUpfront
decrease SMR costsincrease SMR costs
ENERGY INSTITUTE13
Top-down capital costs $5,576 kWe -1
ENERGY INSTITUTE14
Factory facility cost addition
Input Parameters
Factory capital ($/ft2) $200-$500
SMR dimensions 89’ by 32’
Space increase factor 2x-5x
Reactor orders 58
Generator space increase Up to 50%
Build time 2 years
Cost distribution over units 20 years
Facility capacity 6 unitsBaseline model: median value
• 3 cost and space scenarios
• Costs are allocated across reactors (based on demand)
$19.42 kWe-1
$5.52 kWe-1
$44.64 kWe-1
ENERGY INSTITUTE15
Capital Cost EstimationExisting estimates for LR
Materials estimates Cost estimatesCapital Cost
Top-down Method
Bottom-up Method
Scaling factorsLearning curves
ENERGY INSTITUTE16
Bottom Up CostingComponent n
Building 0.5
Spent fuel management 1
Instrumentation and control 0.6
Other, electric 0.6
Other, direct 0.3
Contingency 0.55
Owner’s costs 0.29
Reactor pressure vessel 1
Control rods 1
Steam generation 1
Chemical volume controls 0.667
Other, reactor 0.6
Containment 0.667
Condenser 0.72
Turbo-generator 0.8
Special equipment 0.4
Conventional indirect 0.75
Engineering 0.2
Nuclear indirect 0.5
Concrete (Gen IV):76.3 m^3/MWe
Materials: GT-MHR (helium Gen . IV)
Structure TypeMaterial Cost
($/m^3) Concrete (m^3) Concrete (m^3/MWe)
Reactor pressure vessel Substructure Nuclear 18000 62.94
Steam generation Superstructure Nuclear 0 0.00
Other, reactor Substructure Nuclear 0 0.00
Containment Superstructure Nuclear 1973 6.90
Conventional building Substructure Non-nuclear 1586 5.55
Other, electical Substructure Non-nuclear 188 0.66
Other, direct Substructure Non-nuclear 68 0.24
252.81
252.81
252.81
252.81
168.43
168.43
168.43
ENERGY INSTITUTE17
Bottom up costing
$M
$200M
$400M
$600M
$800M
$1000M
$1200M
GT-MHR Gen IV
Contingency
Owner's costs
Indirect
Factory capital
Other, direct
Other, electical
Conventional Building
Containment
Other, reactor
Steam generation
Reactor pressure vessel
non-nuclear
nuclear
$3,697 kWe -1
cost input
ENERGY INSTITUTE18
Operational Costing$17.38 MWh -1 $9.10 MWh -1
fueling$2,896 MWt -1
annual regulatory fee sliding scale (max $5,223,000)
ENERGY INSTITUTE19
Techno-economics Analysis
$M
$50M
$100M
$150M
$200M
$250M
$300M
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233
Income taxRegulatory feesFuelingOperationalLoan interest Loan principal Fixed capitalElectricity sales
ENERGY INSTITUTE20
Levelized Cost of ElectricityLCOE Gen III+
$91.80 MWh-1 LCOE (30 years)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Reactor
Income taxRegulatory feesFuelingOperationalLoan interest Loan principal Fixed capital
LCOE Gen IV
$49.43 MWh-1 LCOE (30 years)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Reactor
Income tax
Regulatory fees
Fueling
Operational
Loan interest
Loan principal
Fixed capital
ENERGY INSTITUTE21
Direct Comparison
Perc
enta
ge o
f LCO
E Operation
Capital
Income tax
ENERGY INSTITUTE22
The Value
• Existing modeling work in place• Identify strategic targets based on economic metrics• Evaluate the impact of technological changes• Non-dilutive addition
Sustainability Modeling
Economic Viability-TEA
Environmental Impact-LCA/RA
System Modeling
Modular in Construction High Fidelity Large Scale
