IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/rensus/v155y2022ics1364032121011473.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Capital cost estimation for advanced nuclear power plants

Author

Listed:
  • Stewart, W.R.
  • Shirvan, K.

Abstract

The first-of-a-kind (FOAK) nuclear plants built in the last 20 years are 2X over budget and schedule in the US and some European countries. One of the nuclear industry's proposed remedies is the small modular reactor (SMR). SMR designs leverage five factors to be more economically competitive than large reactors: 1) multiple units; 2) increased factory production and learning; 3) reduced construction schedules; 4) plant design simplification and 5) unit timing. There are currently no bottom-up studies that quantitatively account for these factors and compare different near-term light water reactor SMRs with Gen III + large plants. This work presents a nuclear plant cost estimating methodology using a detailed bottom-up approach for over 200 structures, systems, and components. The results compare relative costs for two large pressurized water reactors, one with active safety and one with passive safety, to two SMR designs, one with multiple reactor power modules and one with a single reactor module. Passive safety systems showed noticeable savings at both the large and small-scale reactors. The power uprating of an SMR by 20% resulted in ∼15% savings in the overnight unit capital cost. Overall, if built by an inexperienced vendor and work force, the two SMRs' overnight costs were higher than large reactors, since significant on-site labor still remains while losing economy of scale. However, the single-unit SMR had significantly less total person-hours of onsite labor, and if built by an experienced workforce, it could avoid cost-overrun risks associated with megaprojects.

Suggested Citation

  • Stewart, W.R. & Shirvan, K., 2022. "Capital cost estimation for advanced nuclear power plants," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:155:y:2022:i:c:s1364032121011473
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111880
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032121011473
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111880?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giorgio Locatelli, 2018. "Why are Megaprojects, Including Nuclear Power Plants, Delivered Overbudget and Late? Reasons and Remedies," Papers 1802.07312, arXiv.org.
    2. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2014. "What You Should Know About Megaprojects, and Why: An Overview," Papers 1409.0003, arXiv.org.
    3. Lovering, Jessica R. & Yip, Arthur & Nordhaus, Ted, 2016. "Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 371-382.
    4. Mignacca, B. & Locatelli, G., 2020. "Economics and finance of Small Modular Reactors: A systematic review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aman Gupta & Piyush Sabharwall & Paul D. Armatis & Brian M. Fronk & Vivek Utgikar, 2022. "Coupling Chemical Heat Pump with Nuclear Reactor for Temperature Amplification by Delivering Process Heat and Electricity: A Techno-Economic Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-25, August.
    2. Hui Liu & Nazirah Zainul Abidin, 2024. "A Review on Research of Prefabricated Building Costs: Exploring Collaborations, Intellectual Basis, and Research Trends," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-30, November.
    3. Pablo Fernández-Arias & Diego Vergara & Álvaro Antón-Sancho, 2023. "Bibliometric Review and Technical Summary of PWR Small Modular Reactors," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-15, July.
    4. Asuega, Anthony & Limb, Braden J. & Quinn, Jason C., 2023. "Techno-economic analysis of advanced small modular nuclear reactors," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 334(C).
    5. Mulako D. Mukelabai & K. G. U. Wijayantha & Richard E. Blanchard, 2022. "Hydrogen for Cooking: A Review of Cooking Technologies, Renewable Hydrogen Systems and Techno-Economics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-30, December.
    6. Hui, Jiuwu, 2024. "Coordinated discrete-time super-twisting sliding mode controller coupled with time-delay estimator for PWR-based nuclear steam supply system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    7. Li, Zhen & Qi, Mingliang & Wang, Renlong & Yan, Xuesong & Yang, Yangyang & Gao, Mingang, 2024. "A novel cost analysis method for accelerator driven advanced nuclear energy system (ADANES) considering uncertainty throughout the R&D cycle," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 360(C).
    8. Okunlola, Ayodeji & Davis, Matthew & Kumar, Amit, 2023. "Assessing the cost competitiveness of electrolytic hydrogen production from small modular nuclear reactor-based power plants: A price-following perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 346(C).
    9. Patrycjusz Zarębski & Dominik Katarzyński, 2023. "Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) as a Solution for Renewable Energy Gaps: Spatial Analysis for Polish Strategy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-23, September.
    10. Hui, Jiuwu & Lee, Yi-Kuen & Yuan, Jingqi, 2023. "Load following control of a PWR with load-dependent parameters and perturbations via fixed-time fractional-order sliding mode and disturbance observer techniques," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wealer, B. & Bauer, S. & Hirschhausen, C.v. & Kemfert, C. & Göke, L., 2021. "Investing into third generation nuclear power plants - Review of recent trends and analysis of future investments using Monte Carlo Simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    2. Asuega, Anthony & Limb, Braden J. & Quinn, Jason C., 2023. "Techno-economic analysis of advanced small modular nuclear reactors," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 334(C).
    3. Elaheh Shobeiri & Filippo Genco & Daniel Hoornweg & Akira Tokuhiro, 2023. "Small Modular Reactor Deployment and Obstacles to Be Overcome," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-19, April.
    4. Carlo L. Vinoya & Aristotle T. Ubando & Alvin B. Culaba & Wei-Hsin Chen, 2023. "State-of-the-Art Review of Small Modular Reactors," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-30, April.
    5. Li, Zhen & Qi, Mingliang & Wang, Renlong & Yan, Xuesong & Yang, Yangyang & Gao, Mingang, 2024. "A novel cost analysis method for accelerator driven advanced nuclear energy system (ADANES) considering uncertainty throughout the R&D cycle," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 360(C).
    6. Mignacca, Benito & Locatelli, Giorgio & Sainati, Tristano, 2020. "Deeds not words: Barriers and remedies for Small Modular nuclear Reactors," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    7. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2021. "Four Ways to Scale Up: Smart, Dumb, Forced, and Fumbled," Papers 2101.11104, arXiv.org.
    8. Diane Coyle & Marianne Sensier, 2020. "The imperial treasury: appraisal methodology and regional economic performance in the UK," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(3), pages 283-295, March.
    9. Schreiner, Lena & Madlener, Reinhard, 2022. "Investing in power grid infrastructure as a flexibility option: A DSGE assessment for Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    10. Herve Kabanda & Alex Romard & Fuze Yurtsever & Anjali Wadhera & Joshua Andrews & Craig Merrett, 2021. "Construction Time Estimation Function for Canadian Utility Scale Power Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-16, August.
    11. Alexander Budzier & Bent Flyvbjerg & Andi Garavaglia & Andreas Leed, 2019. "Quantitative Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis of Nuclear Waste Storage," Papers 1901.11123, arXiv.org.
    12. Francesco Di Maddaloni & Roya Derakhshan, 2019. "A Leap from Negative to Positive Bond. A Step towards Project Sustainability," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, June.
    13. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier & M. D. Christodoulou & M. Zottoli, 2024. "Uniqueness Bias: Why It Matters, How to Curb It," Papers 2408.07710, arXiv.org.
    14. Kim, Eun-Hwan & Park, Yong-Gi & Roh, Jae Hyung, 2019. "Competitiveness of open-cycle gas turbine and its potential in the future Korean electricity market with high renewable energy mix," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1056-1069.
    15. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2019. "On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 397-408.
    16. Finocchiaro Castro, Massimo & Guccio, Calogero & Rizzo, Ilde, 2023. "“One-size-fits-all” public works contract does it better? An assessment of infrastructure provision in Italy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 994-1014.
    17. Love, Peter E.D. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic & Welde, Morten & Odeck, James, 2017. "Light rail transit cost performance: Opportunities for future-proofing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 27-39.
    18. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier, 2018. "Report for the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry," Papers 1805.12106, arXiv.org.
    19. Karen Lucas & Ian Philips & Ersilia Verlinghieri, 2022. "A mixed methods approach to the social assessment of transport infrastructure projects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 271-291, February.
    20. Shutian Zhou & Guofang Zhai & Yijun Shi, 2018. "What Drives the Rise of Metro Developments in China? Evidence from Nantong," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:155:y:2022:i:c:s1364032121011473. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.