Prospective Benefits Analysis of the DOE Nuclear Energy Portfolio: NE

To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 9.0.124 or greater is installed.

Please login or register to make a comment!

Prospective Benefits Analysis of the DOE Nuclear Energy Portfolio: NE R&D Program Data Assumptions, Approach, & Results Submitted to: Office of Nuclear Energy Department of Energy October 31, 2006 Prepared by: Vatsal Bhatt, Paul Friley, John Lee and Ann Reisman Energy, Environment and Economic Analysis Group Nuclear Science and Technology Division Energy Sciences and Technology Department Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, New York 11973-5000 www.bnl.gov/est Managed by Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC For the United States Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 2 P P R R O O G G R R A A M M I I N N P P U U T T S S F F O O R R F F Y Y 2 2 0 0 0 0 8 8 B B E E N N E E F F I I T T S S E E S S T T I I M M A A T T E E S S T T A A B B L L E E O O F F C C O O N N T T ... more. less.

E E N N T T S S Glossary of Terms.............................................................................................................. ......................................... 4 Office of Nuclear Energy Programs.............................................................................................. ............................ 5 Introduction................................................................................................................... ........................................... 5 Assumed Budget Projections and Significant Policy or Program Shifts............................................................ ...... 6 Strategic Context for Planning and Achieving Goals............................................................................. .................. 7 Long-term NE Goals and Advanced Fuel Cycle Strategy............................................................................ ............ 8 Program Strategies to Achieve RD&D Goals....................................................................................... ................... 9 NE Programs Descriptions....................................................................................................... ................................ 11 Nuclear Power 2010............................................................................................................. ..................................... 11 Program Overview............................................................................................................... .................................. 11 Program Activities/Outputs..................................................................................................... ............................... 11 Representation of Program-Relevant Technologies in the AEO Reference Case.................................................. 12 Immediate Program Outcomes..................................................................................................... .......................... 12 Additional References for Cost Estimates....................................................................................... ....................... 13 Additional Key Factors in Shaping Market Adoption of NE technologies........................................................... . 15 Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative................................................................................ ................. 17 Program Overview............................................................................................................... .................................. 17 Program Activities and Milestones.............................................................................................. .......................... 17 US Specific Activities and Goals............................................................................................... ............................ 19 Immediate Program Outcomes..................................................................................................... .......................... 21 Additional References for Cost Estimates....................................................................................... ....................... 21 Additional Key Factors in Shaping Market Adoption of NE technologies........................................................... . 22 Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative ................................................................................................... ................................. 23 Program Overview............................................................................................................... .................................. 23 Program R&D Plan............................................................................................................... ................................. 23 Immediate Program Outcomes..................................................................................................... .......................... 24 Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.............................................................................................. .......................... 27 Program Overview............................................................................................................... .................................. 27 Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative................................................................................................. ............................... 28 Program Overview............................................................................................................... .................................. 28 Future Expansion of Nuclear Plants and Repository Capacity..................................................................... .......... 28 Proliferation Risks............................................................................................................ ...................................... 30 Treatment of Spent Fuel........................................................................................................ ................................. 30 Program Outputs, Activities and Milestones..................................................................................... ..................... 31 Immediate Program Outcomes..................................................................................................... .......................... 33 Translating Program Outputs to Market Outcomes................................................................................. ............ 35 Baseline Adjustments to the AEO 2006 Reference Case............................................................................ ........... 39 Final Outcomes (Benefits) ..................................................................................................... ................................ 39 Bibliography................................................................................................................... ........................................... 42 Page-2 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted Appendix A 3MARKAL Model Baseline Case Assumptions and Projections .................................................... 44 Economic and Demographic Assumptions .......................................................................................... .................. 44 Assumptions on Energy Prices................................................................................................... ............................ 44 Primary Energy Consumption..................................................................................................... ........................... 45 End-Use Energy Demand.......................................................................................................... ............................. 45 Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 3 Page-3 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted Glossary of Terms ABR Advanced Burner Reactor ABWR Advanced Boiling Water Reactor ACR-700 Advanced CANDU Reactor ADS Accelerator Driven Systems AFCI Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative ALWR Advanced Light Water Reactor Am Americium AP600/AP1000 Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor 3 600 MW or 1000 MW CANDU Canada Deuterium Uranium Cm Curium COL Construction and Operating License EPR European Pressurized water Reactor EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ESBWR Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor ESP Early Site Permits FOAKE First-of-a-kind engineering Generation IV Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative GIF Generation IV International Forum GNEP Global Nuclear Energy Partnership GT-MHR Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor IRIS International Reactor Innovative and Secure ITRG Independent Technology Review Group LLFP Long-lived Fission Product LWR Light Water Reactor MARKAL MARKet ALlocation NEI Nuclear Energy Institute NEP National Energy Policy NERAC Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee NGNP Next Generation Nuclear Plant NHI Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative NP 2010 Nuclear Power 2010 NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission PBMR Pebble Bed Modular Reactor PMA President 9s Management Agenda Pu Plutonium PYROX Pyrochemical SNF Separation Process RES Reference Energy System SLFP Short-lived Fission Product SNF Spent Nuclear Fuel SWR 1000 Siemens developed advanced BWR TRL Technology Readiness Level TRU Transuranics UREX+ Uranium Extraction Plus SNF Separation Process VHTR Very High Temperature Reactor Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 4 Page-4 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted Office of Nuclear Energy Programs Introduction The Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) leads the U.S. Government 9s efforts to develop new nuclear energy generation technologies to meet energy and climate goals, and to develop advanced proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel technologies that maximize energy from nuclear fuel; contributes to the R&D for a possible transition to a hydrogen economy; and maintains and enhances the national nuclear technology infrastructure. NE serves the present and future energy needs of the Nation by managing the safe operation and maintenance of the Department of Energy (DOE) critical nuclear infrastructure, providing nuclear technology goods and services, and conducting R&D. Nuclear energy has the potential to be a major contributor to the electricity generation infrastructure to drive our 21 st century economy. Furthermore, nuclear technologies have the potential to produce vast quantities of affordable hydrogen for transportation use without emitting greenhouse gases, and to produce process heat and clean desalinated water to support growing industry and populations all over the world. At the same time, nuclear energy presents technical challenges, such as nuclear waste and economics, that must be overcome. Fully realizing nuclear energy 9s potential requires investment in long-term research to address the issues hindering its worldwide expansion. Much of the research at issue is far beyond the province of private industry given its long-term, high-risk nature; thus, the role of government in establishing a long-term future for nuclear power is essential. Through NE Research and Development (R&D) programs and initiatives, NE seeks to develop advanced, proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel technologies that maximize energy output, minimize wastes, and operate in a safe and environmentally sound manner. In the short-term, governmental and institutional issues will be addressed to enable new plant deployment decisions by nuclear power plant owners and operators who wish to be among the first to license and build new commercial nuclear facilities in the United States, since 1978 no new nuclear power plant orders have been placed. In the longer-term, new nuclear technologies will be developed, enabling power providers to select from a diverse group of generation options that are economical, reliable, safe, secure, and environmentally acceptable. Within the Energy Supply and Conservation appropriation, NE has funded nine programs: University Reactor Infrastructure and Education Assistance, Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization, Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, Nuclear Power 2010, Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, Radiological Facilities Management, and Idaho Facilities Management. This document provides Projected Benefits of NE Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) that include NE R&D activities for advancing commercial nuclear power; only four of the nine are considered for Research and Development Investment Criteria (RDIC). The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) develops technologies that would enable the reduction of spent nuclear fuel requiring geologic disposal and the recovery of spent fuel 9s valuable energy. Over the last five years, the U.S. has joined several countries including Japan, France, Canada, the European Union, and The Republic of Korea in an international effort to pursue advanced technologies that could treat and transmute spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants, while reducing overall proliferation risk. Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 5 Page-5 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted This work will be accelerated under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) which will further enable the expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. and around the world; promote nuclear nonproliferation goals; and help resolve nuclear waste disposal issues. GNEP will help meet the growing demand for electricity in the developing world through an international framework that will eliminate the need for foreign countries to build enrichment and recycling capabilities. In addition, GNEP will replace old recycling technologies that separate free plutonium, thus minimizing a proliferation risk. The Nuclear Power 2010 program (NP 2010), unveiled by the Secretary on February 14, 2002, is a joint government/industry cost-shared effort to identify sites for new nuclear power plants, develop and bring to market advanced nuclear plant technologies, evaluate the business case for building new nuclear power plants, and demonstrate the new streamlined licensing and other regulatory processes. To facilitate the deployment and construction of new nuclear power plants in the U.S., the budget also provides funds to develop regulations for nuclear power plant standby support, one of three incentive programs authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Under this authority, the Department will be able to offer risk insurance that will protect sponsors of new nuclear power plants against the financial impact of certain delays during construction that are beyond the sponsors 9 control and could hold up full power operations. The NE budget request also supports development of new nuclear technologies that provide significant improvements in sustainability, economics, safety and reliability, and non- proliferation and resistance to attack. Specifically, the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative (NHI) will develop advanced technologies that can be used in tandem with next generation nuclear energy plants to generate economic, commercial quantities of hydrogen to support a new sustainable, clean energy future for the U.S. The Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative (Generation IV) establishes a basis for expansive cooperation with international partners to develop next generation reactor and fuel cycle systems that represent a significant leap in economic performance, safety, and proliferation resistance. Assumed Budget Projections and Significant Policy or Program Shifts The NE research and development indicative funding profile by subprograms for FY 2008-2012 is highlighted in Table 1, which is not yet public. Earlier this year, the President announced the Advanced Energy Initiative in his State of the Union address. GNEP is an integral part of this initiative, and incorporates the AFCI program. The technologies that are planned to be demonstrated and deployed under GNEP are those most promising technologies that have been identified under AFCI. AFCI has focused on long-term research and development in advanced separations technologies, waste and storage forms, and advanced transmutation fuels. This long- term research will develop technologies which show potential but require further research prior to engineering-scale demonstration and deployment. This report, however, does not include details related to GNEP because detailed GNEP-related information, such as life cycle costs, waste streams, and energy inputs are currently under development and are not yet available. However, general information on the GNEP research and development program, which will build on and accelerate existing DOE programs, including AFCI, is available in the c Report to Congress 3 Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Program Plan d issued in May 2006 . The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the Secretary to establish a program to provide standby support contracts for six new advanced nuclear energy reactors. The Department has implemented a new phase of the Nuclear Power 2010 program in FY 2007 to develop the Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 6 Page-6 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted regulations, criteria and process under which the Department would accept and approve applications for indemnification. The Department anticipates that sponsors may submit applications for standby support contracts as soon as FY 2008. Table 1: NE Research and Development Funding Profile by Subprogram (millions of dollars) NE Programs FY 2006 Appropriation FY 2007 Request FY 2008 Request Nuclear Power 2010 65 54 149 Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative 54 31 49 Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative 25 19 25 Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 79 243 737 Total, Research and Development 224 347 960 Strategic Context for Planning and Achieving Goals Following publication of the Administration 9s cNational Energy Policy d, the Department developed a Strategic Plan that defines its mission, four strategic goals for accomplishing that mission, and seven general goals to support the strategic goals. Each appropriation has developed quantifiable goals to support the general goals. Thus, the cgoal cascade d is the following: Department Mission Strategic Goal (25 Yrs) Program Goal - GPRA Unit (10-15 Yrs) General Goal (10-15 Yrs) To provide a concrete link between budget, performance, and reporting, the Department developed a cGPRA unit d concept. Within DOE, a GPRA unit defines a major activity or group of activities that support the core mission and aligns resources with specific goals. A unique program goal was developed for each GPRA unit. A numbering scheme has been established for tracking performance and reporting. The goal cascade accomplishes two things. First, it ties major activities for each program to successive goals and, ultimately, to DOE 9s mission. This helps ensure the Department focuses its resources on fulfilling its mission. Second, the cascade allows DOE to track progress against quantifiable goals and to tie resources to each goal at any level in the cascade. Thus, the cascade facilitates the integration of budget and performance information in support of the GPRA and the President 9s Management Agenda (PMA). Another important component of NE strategic planning 3 and the President 9s Management Agenda 3 is use of the Administration 9s R&D investment criteria to plan and assess programs and projects. The criteria were developed in 2001 and further refined with input from agencies, Congressional staff, the National Academy of Sciences, and numerous private sector and nonprofit stakeholders. Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 7 The chief elements of the R&D investment criteria are quality, relevance, and performance. Programs demonstrate fulfillment of these elements. For example, to demonstrate relevance, programs are expected to have complete plans with clear goals and priorities. To demonstrate quality, programs are expected to commission periodic independent expert reviews. There are Page-7 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted several other requirements, many of which R&D programs have and continue to undertake. An additional set of criteria were established for R&D programs developing technologies that address industry issues. Other key elements of the criteria include: the ability of the programs to articulate the appropriateness and need for Federal assistance; relevance to the industry and the marketplace; identification of a transition point to industry commercialization (or of an off-ramp if progress does not meet expectations), and; the potential public benefits, compared to absence of the R&D, that may accrue if new technologies are successfully deployed. Long-term NE Goals and Advanced Fuel Cycle Strategy NE 9s projection for the long-term future of nuclear energy in the United States is shown in Figure 1. NE programs are anticipated to introduce successive generations of more advanced reactors to the U.S. energy infrastructure. As the number of deployed reactors increases, the demands that a once-though fuel cycle place on the repository also increase. GNEP (previously AFCI) is developing technologies to reduce the need for significant expansion of repository space. In the next two decades, introducing ultra-high-burnup fuels and proliferation-resistant recycle of plutonium (Pu), Uranium, and transuranics in reactors can reduce the spent fuel accumulation rate, as compared to the once-through fuel cycle. In the long-term (beyond 2040), a fuel cycle based on sustained actinide recycle could actually decrease the spent fuel inventory due to efficient utilization of the spent fuel resource. In addition, the resulting high-level waste product bound for geologic disposal would be dramatically less toxic than the spent fuel that is currently produced by the once-through cycle. This evolution of the fuel cycle improves the acceptability of an increasing role for nuclear power (AFCI, 2005). * * Currently scheduled for 2017 Figure 1: NE Long-term Goals While the future is uncertain, it is nevertheless highly probable that light water reactors (LWRs) will continue to operate for many years in this country and that advanced light water reactors (ALWRs) are likely to be ordered within the next decade. As a result, it is expected that the Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 8 Page-8 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted amount of LWR-type spent fuel is expected to grow for many decades beyond the scheduled opening of Yucca Mountain, which is currently scheduled for 2017. Orders may occur as early as 2020 for the first Generation IV reactors and a decade or more afterward for Generation IV fast reactors, for which new fuel systems and fuel cycles will be required. For this reason, a strategy that focuses solely on the end-state and neglects the transitional phase would not be robust. The AFCI strategy anticipates the transition over the next several decades from the current fuel cycle to one that is progressively becomes more sustainable (AFCI, 2005). The evolution of the fuel cycle envisioned by the AFCI program is summarized in Figure 1. The once through fuel cycle is fully achieved with the opening of the geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. The primary strategy for enhancing transuranic management and advancing beyond the current once through fuel cycle is the introduction of high burnup and ultra-high burnup fuels that will reduce the amount of transuranics produced per unit of generated energy. Limited recycling will begin with the introduction of spent fuel treatment and fuel fabrication facilities (by year 2025). Limited recycling will permit the recycling of transuranics through LWR and ALWR plants, and possibly Generation IV very high temperature thermal reactors (VHTR). The transitional recycling phase will begin with the introduction of the first Generation IV fast reactors (by year 2040). Transitional recycling will allow for the consumption of transuranics in a reactor fleet made up of thermal and fast spectrum reactors. Finally, the sustained recycling is the final evolution of the fuel cycle obtained when the reactor fleet consists of a high percentage of fast spectrum reactors (by year 2100). The sustained recycle fuel cycle will allow not only for the consumption of transuranics during energy generation but also for the consumption of natural, depleted or recycled uranium (AFCI, 2005). Program Strategies to Achieve RD&D Goals There are many external factors that will affect NE 9s ability to achieve its ultimate goal of developing and deploying new nuclear energy generation technologies to meet our nation 9s future energy needs. The future deployment of nuclear technologies will depend to a large extent on growth in electricity demand and other macro-economic and environmental factors beyond the scope of NE 9s research and development programs. In the near-term, it depends on complex economic and regulatory decisions made by NE 9s industry partners and regulators. Deployment of advanced fuel cycle technologies will depend upon political decisions made by the U.S. and partner governments to implement advanced spent fuel reprocessing technologies. NE 9s strategy of partnering with the private sector, national laboratories, universities, and international partners allows NE to leverage its RD&D budget with both private sector and foreign government funding. These partnerships enhance NE 9s probability of achieving its RD&D goals by increasing the total available funding and accessing key scientific and engineering talent. Examples of these collaborative activities are: " NE teaming up with NRC to coordinate program planning to assure that their research and development activities are complimentary, cost-effective, and without duplication. " NE working with industry on a cost-shared basis to conduct demonstrations of untested Federal regulatory and licensing processes governing the siting, construction, and operation of nuclear power plants. Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 9 Page-9 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted " NE 9s Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative is receiving broad international cooperation and support, consistent with the objectives of the program. The Generation IV International Forum (GIF), composed of representatives from ten governments and the European Union, provides guidance for executing the research and development of these next-generation nuclear energy systems. " NE participating in international experiments related to the development of advanced fuel cycle technologies is being performed in support of the objectives of AFCI. " NE collaborates with other programs within the DOE, such as the Office of Science and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, on the President 9s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 10 Page-10 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted NE Programs Descriptions Nuclear Power 2010 Program Overview The Nuclear Power 2010 program (NP 2010) supports intermediate-term technology development and regulatory demonstration activities that advance the cNational Energy Policy d (NEP) goals of enhanced long-term U.S. energy independence and reliability and expanded contribution of nuclear power to the Nation 9s energy portfolio. NP 2010 is a joint government and industry cost-shared effort to identify sites for new nuclear power plants, develop and bring to market advanced standardized nuclear plant designs, demonstrate untested regulatory processes, and evaluate the business case for building new nuclear power plants (NTDG, 2001). To achieve the objective of new nuclear plant deployment, the technical, regulatory and institutional barriers that currently exist must be addressed successfully and cooperatively by government and industry. More specifically, these obstacles include the uncertainties associated with new nuclear plant designs, the Federal regulatory and licensing processes and the business risks resulting from these uncertainties. These efforts are designed to pave the way for industry decisions to build and operate new, advanced nuclear power plants in the United States. Additional information is available at: (http://nuclear.gov/np2010/neNP2010a.html). Program Activities/Outputs The technology focus of the Nuclear Power 2010 program is on Generation III+ advanced, light water reactor designs, which offer advancements in safety and economics over the Generation III designs certified in the 1990s by NRC. The demonstration of the untested Federal regulatory processes for the siting, construction, and operation of new nuclear plants is essential to reduce the regulatory uncertainties and enable the deployment of new Generation III+ nuclear power plants in the United States. Additionally, design development and NRC certification of these near-term Generation III+ advanced reactor concepts is required to reduce the high initial capital costs of the first new plants so that these new technologies can be competitive in the deregulated electricity market and deployable within the next decade. In order to demonstrate the untested regulatory process for obtaining NRC approval for siting new nuclear power plants, the Department established competitively selected, cost-shared cooperative agreements in FY 2002 with three nuclear power generating companies to obtain Early Site Permits (ESP) for three commercial sites. The ESP process includes resolution of site safety, environmental, and emergency planning issues in advance of a power company 9s decision to build a new nuclear power plant. To demonstrate the untested regulatory process for obtaining NRC approval for constructing and operating a new nuclear power plant, the Department established competitively selected, cost- shared cooperative agreements in FY 2005 with industry to obtain combined Construction and Operating Licenses (COLs). The COL process is a cone-step licensing d process established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and is intended to resolve all public health and safety issues associated with the construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant before construction begins. The Department selected two power company-led consortia to conduct New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects to obtain NRC licenses to construct and operate two new nuclear power plants in the United States. The two new nuclear plant licensing projects include design certification and completion of state-of-the-art Generation III+ nuclear plant designs for Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 11 Page-11 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted Westinghouse 9s Advanced Passive Pressurized Water Reactor, the AP 1000, and General Electric 9s Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, the ESBWR, as well as site specific analysis and engineering required to obtain COLs from the NRC. The two project teams involved in these two licensing demonstration projects represent power generation companies that operate more than two-thirds of all the U.S. nuclear power plants in operation today. Already this approach has encouraged more than ten power companies to announce their intention to apply for combined construction and operating licenses. Several have specifically stated that they are building on work being done in the Nuclear Power 2010 program as the basis for their applications. The licensing and engineering activities necessary to finish the preparation of the first COL application for submittal to the NRC are going on. Title VI, Section 638, cStandby Support for Certain Nuclear Plant Delays, d of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, allows the Secretary to pay covered costs to project sponsors if full power operation of an advanced nuclear facility is delayed. The Secretary is permitted to enter into contracts covering a total of six reactors to insure against certain delays. NE will develop the process to accept and approve applications for agreements that will later convert into standby support contracts once plant construction is commenced. NE anticipates that sponsors may submit applications for standby support contracts as soon as FY 2008. Representation of Program-Relevant Technologies in the AEO Reference Case EPACT 2005 provides an 8-year production tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for up to 6 gigawatts of capacity built before 2021. If the capacity limit is reached before 2021, no additional units can be covered. The AEO 2006 reference case nuclear increase includes 6.0 gigawatts of capacity at new plants stimulated by EPACT 2005 tax incentives (EIA, 2006). It is uncertain weather the production tax credit alone would succeed in stimulating the construction of new reactors before 2021 under a business-as-usual scenario. The NP2010 standby support contracts would further reduce the risks in building a new reactor. However, for the GPRA08 analysis, the base-case was not adjusted to account for these regulatory uncertainties. Immediate Program Outcomes Program outputs in the marketplace are first translated into costs or minimum market prices. It is these costs that are reported by the NP 2010 program, and used as input in the integrated energy market models to estimate benefits. Table 2 indicates such costs and other technology specifications developed by the program. Table 2: Program Outcomes of NP 2010 - Generation III+ Technologies 1 (in 2005 $) Technology Parameter Time Independent Data 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Capital Cost (Overnight, $/kW) upper 2 1659 1422 Capital Cost (Overnight, $/kW) lower 3 1111 1111 1111 1111 Capital Cost used in MARKAL (Overnight, $/kW) 1659 1267 1111 1111 1111 Fixed O&M Cost ($/kW) 64 64 64 64 64 Variable O&M Cost ($/MWh) 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Capacity Factor (%) 92 Thermal Efficiency (%) 35 Availability Date (Year) 2014 Plant Life (Years) 60 Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 12 Page-12 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted Notes for Table 1: 1. A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010, published in 2001 <http://nuclear.gov/nerac/NTDRoadmapVolII.PDF>, suggested seven technologies for near-term deployment namely, Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR), Siemens developed advanced BWR (SWR 1000), Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR), Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (AP600 or AP1000), International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS), Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) and Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR). Currently, ABWR, ESBWR, AP1000 and European Pressurized water Reactor (EPR) are considered for early deployment. Due to this uncertainty on technologies selected for actual deployment under NP 2010, a generic generation III+ technology has been considered to indicate program outputs. 2. Capital cost estimates for years 2010 and 2020 have been derived from Tennessee Valley Authority study. A consortium led by TVA undertook a $4 million feasibility study co- funded by DOE on building two new ABWRs at Bellefonte in Alabama. The TVA has two large PWR units whose construction was abandoned in 1988. However the figures are noteworthy: twin 1371 MWe ABWRs are estimated to cost $1611 per kilowatt. If the reactors were uprated to 1465 MWe each, the cost is projected to fall to $1535/kW. Source: ABWR Cost/Schedule/COL Project at TVA 9s Bellefonte Site: New Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Demonstration Project, Prepared by Tennessee Valley Authority, Toshiba Corporation, General Electric Company, USEC, Bechtel Power Corporation and Global Nuclear Fuel 3 America, August 2005, available from: http://nuclear.gov/np2010/reports/mainReportAll5.pdf. 3. Capital cost estimates for years 2030 - 2050 have been derived from the Westinghouse AP- 1000, scaled-up from the AP-600, which has now been given final design certification by NRC as the first late generation III+ type. It represents the culmination of a 1300 man-year and $440 million design and testing program. Capital costs are projected at $1000 per kilowatt and modular design will reduce construction time to 36 months. Additional References for Cost Estimates Capital costs and capitalized interest are the two most important components of the costs of providing nuclear power, and we have provided the following estimates for comparison. For ABWRs already built in Asia, the overnight capital costs, or undiscounted capital outlays, account for over one-third of levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), and the interest costs on the overnight costs account for another quarter of the LCOE. While there is a wide range in estimates in capital cost, NE believes that the use of standardized, modular designs and streamlined permitting processes will reduce both capital costs and reactor construction time. AEO 2006 In AEO2006, for nuclear power plants, two additional advanced nuclear cost cases analyze the sensitivity of the projections to lower costs for new plants. The cost assumptions for the advanced nuclear cost case reflect a 20 percent reduction in the capital and operating cost for the advanced nuclear technology in 2030, relative to the reference case. Since the reference case assumes some learning occurs regardless of new orders and construction, the reference case already projects a 14 percent reduction in capital costs between 2005 and 2030. The advanced nuclear case therefore assumes a 31 percent reduction between 2005 and 2030. Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 13 Page-13 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted The Nuclear vendor estimate case assumptions are consistent with estimates from British Nuclear Fuel Limited (BNFL) for the manufacture of their AP1000, as provided to DOE 9s Office of Nuclear Energy 9s Near-Term Deployment Working Group. In this case, the overnight capital cost of a new advanced nuclear unit is assumed to be $1,659 per kilowatt initially, declining to $1,136 per kilowatt for plants coming on line in 2030 (in year 2004 dollars) 418 percent lower initially than assumed in the reference case and 44 percent lower in 2030 (Table 49). Table 3: AEO 2006 Advanced Nuclear Cost Cases University of Chicago Report This report analyzed overnight cost estimates from different sources that have ranged from less than $1,000 per kW to as much as $2,300 per kW. After examining reasons for differences in estimates, with the aim of reaching a smaller range and consideration of the following reactor types contributed to the choice of $1,200, $1,500, and $1,800 per kW overnight costs. The ABWR is a mature design, having been built recently in Japan by a U.S. firm teaming with a Japanese firm, so its first-of-a-kind engineering (FOAKE) costs may be considered already paid. An overnight cost of $1,246 per kW was estimated for it. The CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) ACR-700 (Advanced CANDU Reactor) has had units of a closely related model, the CANDU 6, built recently in China and Romania. Construction times have been short, and vendor estimates of overnight costs are quite low, around $1,000 per kW, although EIA estimates $1,100 to $1,200 per kW for a third-of-a-kind twin unit. Its cost characteristics would appear to overlap those of the ABWR, despite their size differences (1,350 MW versus 753 MW), so the first reactor design chosen for analysis may be considered as representing either the ABWR or the ACR-700. The AP1000 is closely related in design to the already certified AP600, but neither design has been built yet, so its FOAKE costs remain to be paid. Assuming its entire FOAKE costs are paid on the first plant, $1,500 per kW overnight cost was considered. The SWR 1000 is based on design features proven in the European market. Framatome 9s EPR has been selected for Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 14 Page-14 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted construction in Finland. Estimates for the EPR in Finland suggest an overnight cost of $1,800 per kW for that reactor design, which would roughly parallel those of the SWR 1000. Other Estimates Science Applications International Corporation 9s 2002 report uses the Power Choice model to estimate capital costs for various nuclear technologies. In 2003 $, capital costs for AP 1000 and PBMR were estimated at 1365 $ per KWe, ABWR 1600 $ per KWe and GT-MHR 1126 $ per KWe (Reis, et al, 2002). Scully Capital 9s 2002 estimates for AP 1000 capital cost was 1247 3 1455 $ per KWe (Scully Capital, 2002). Texas Utility TXU Corporation has announced that it will build two and up to six new nuclear power reactors to meet growing demand in Texas and diminish the utility's vulnerability to increased gas prices. Two units will be added to the Comanche Peak plant, others at one or two other sites in the region, totaling 2000 - 6000 MWe by 2020. TXU expects to drive down capital costs of the new plants from currently-estimated $2100/kW to $1300-1500/kW. It plans to apply for COL applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission late in 2008 (Nucleonics Week, 2006). Additional Key Factors in Shaping Market Adoption of NE technologies US Public Opinion A recent national public opinion survey found that public support for nuclear energy and for new nuclear power plants is now close to historically high levels, a national public opinion survey found in September 2006 (Bisconti Research, 2006). Nearly 7 in 10 Americans favor nuclear energy and would support building a new reactor at existing nuclear power plant sites. The survey continues the 23-year tracking of public opinion toward nuclear energy, sponsored by Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). The latest survey was conducted September 7-10, 2006, by Bisconti Research, Inc. with GfK NOP (formerly NOPWorld and RoperASW). This survey and trends all are based on telephone interviews with nationally representative samples of 1,000 U.S. adults age 18 and older. The margin of error in these surveys is plus or minus three percentage points. Support for new nuclear power plants starts with the perception that nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting future electricity needs. In the September survey, 81 percent expressed this belief. Also, 83 percent support existing nuclear plants 4that is, they agree that federal licenses to operate these facilities should be renewed if they continue to meet federal safety standards. Three out of four people surveyed (76 percent) agree that electric utilities should prepare now so that new nuclear power plants could be built if needed in the next decade, and 63 percent favor definitely building new nuclear power plants in the future. Finally, 68 percent would accept a new reactor at the nearest nuclear power plant site to where they live. The 63 percent figure in support of definitely building more nuclear power plants tracks a BBC World Service public opinion survey of adults in 19 nations in June 2006 that included a sample of 1,003 U.S. adults. Sixty-three of Americans interviewed for BBC World Service were in favor and 33 percent opposed to building new nuclear power plants cto reduce reliance on oil and coal. d Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 15 Page-15 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted A Bloomberg-LA Times survey of 1478 people conducted at the end of July showed 61% of Americans favoring increased use of nuclear power as a source of energy to help prevent global warming (NEI, 2006). Local Governments Incentives to Entice Nuclear Plants Certain locations are suitable for industrial development of any kind. When the location of a new reactor project is defined as being at the site of the nearest nuclear power plant that is already operating, the national public 4by 68 percent to 25 percent 4find a new reactor acceptable. A 2005 survey of adults living within 10 miles of the 64 U.S. nuclear power plant sites found even higher acceptability 476 percent 4for reactors at the plant nearest to where these residents live (average across sites) (Bisconti Research, 2006). About a dozen states and communities have passed resolutions or legislation in support of new nuclear power plant construction. Whether new reactors are proposed for existing or new sites, they are likely to be in areas with public support (Bisconti Research, 2006). The Calvert County, Maryland Board of County Commissioners has offered several million dollars in incentives for Constellation Energy to build a third nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs power plant. It offered a 15 year, 50% property tax break. The site is being considered for an Areva US EPR reactor under the UniStar Nuclear joint venture. This would bring 400 permanent jobs and 3200 construction jobs over five years (Nucleonics Week, 2006). Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 16 Page-16 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative Program Overview The Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative (Generation IV) addresses the fundamental research and development issues necessary to establish the viability of next- generation nuclear energy system concepts. Successfully addressing the fundamental research and development issues of Generation IV system concepts that excel in safety, sustainability, cost-effectiveness and proliferation-resistance will allow these advanced systems to be considered for future commercial development and deployment by the private sector. Generation IV is the program that implements Energy Policy Act guidance for next-generation reactors. Over the coming decades, the Department believes that Generation IV nuclear energy systems can play a vital role in fulfilling the Nation 9s needs for low cost and efficient electricity and commercial quantities of hydrogen. Generation IV systems represent a new generation of nuclear energy technologies that can be commercialized in the 2020-2030 timeframe, and offer significant advances in the areas of sustainability, proliferation resistance and physical protection, safety, and economics. Generation IV nuclear energy systems are being developed to use high burnup fuel, transmutation fuel, and recycled fuel. Such fuel cycle strategies allow for more efficient utilization of our domestic uranium resources and minimization of waste generation. Proliferation resistance and physical protection improvements are being designed into Generation IV nuclear energy systems to help thwart security threats from potential terrorist attacks or the use of nuclear reactors to develop nuclear weapons. Generation IV plants will feature advances in safety 4with a goal of eliminating the need for offsite emergency response 4 to improve public confidence in the safety of nuclear energy while providing improved investment protection for plant owners. Competitive life cycle costs and acceptable financial risk are being factored into Generation IV designs with high efficiency electricity generation systems, modular construction, and shortened development schedules before plant startup. Generation IV nuclear energy systems will not only be safer, more economic, and more secure, but will also include energy conversion systems that produce non-electricity products such as hydrogen, desalinated water, and process heat. The cTechnology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems d ( cThe Roadmap d) was prepared under the auspices of the Department 9s independent Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) and the Generation IV International Forum (GIF). GIF is a formal, chartered organization of governments with representatives from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, EURATOM, and the United States. Additional information is available at: http://nuclear.gov/genIV/neGenIV1.html. Program Activities and Milestones With six most promising Generation IV systems and ten countries in the GIF, the approach to building integrated programs for any of the systems becomes an important issue. While, the GIF countries have expressed a strong interest in collaborative R&D on Generation IV systems, it has always been acknowledged that each country will participate only in the systems that they choose to advance. In light of the considerable resources required for the development of any Generation IV system 4roughly 1 billion U.S. dollars each 4not all of the six systems are likely Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 17 Page-17 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted to be chosen for collaborations. Those chosen will need to assemble the priority R&D for the system and the necessary crosscutting R&D, and then set the desired development schedule for the program. (A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, December 2002) Five of the six technology concepts identified in the Technology Roadmap are currently being pursued by NE at varying levels of effort based on their technology status and potential to meet program and national goals. Two are thermal neutron spectrum systems (Very-High- Temperature Reactor (VHTR) and Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor (SCWR)) with coolants and temperatures that enable hydrogen or electricity production with high efficiency, and three are fast neutron spectrum systems (Gas-Cooled (GFR), Lead-Cooled (LFR), and Sodium-Cooled (SFR) fast reactors) that will enable more effective management of actinides through recycling of most components in the discharged fuel. The U.S. is not currently researching the molten salt reactor (MSR). While NE is supporting research on several reactor concepts, priority is being given to the VHTR, a system compatible with advanced electricity and hydrogen electricity generation capabilities. The VHTR concept is being pursued in the United States as the next generation nuclear plant (NGNP) in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. With regard to the timing of programs, Figure 2 below shows an overall summary of the expected duration of the R&D activities for the various systems. It is apparent that the systems do not complete their viability and performance phases at the same time. As a result, for each of the systems, the GIF will need to periodically reassess the systems viability and weather to continue development. The technology roadmap has taken care to include R&D on evaluation methodology that will support the need for these continuing assessments. After the performance phase is complete for each system, at least six years and several US$ billion will be required for detailed design and construction of a demonstration system. Figure 2: System Development Timelines Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 18 Page-18 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted US Specific Activities and Goals Proposed timelines for the two goals are shown in Figure 3. The VHTR in Goal 1 shows a 12- year period. This balances the benefit of demonstrating a large-scale, economically competitive nuclear hydrogen system in the near term with the technical issues and risks that must be addressed for its development. (Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Ten-Year Program Plan 3 Fiscal Year 2005, March 2005) The fast-spectrum reactor in Goal 2 shows a 20 to 25-year timeline. This fits with the expected future need for radiotoxicity reduction and closure of the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle. It also allows the progression of several of the most promising candidate systems to a down selection in about a decade followed by a demonstration of all elements of a closed fuel cycle within a decade thereafter. Figure 3: Timeline for US Goals 1 & 2 The Generation IV Roadmap facilitates the assembly of larger R&D programs or smaller projects on which the GIF countries choose to collaborate. Entire programs consist of all or most of the R&D needed to advance a system. Individual country projects consist of R&D on specific technologies (either system-specific or crosscutting) or on subsystems that are needed for a Generation IV system. In either case, the program or project is focused on key technology issues and milestones. This section highlights the major milestones and development needs that have been identified for the collective R&D activities. Figure 4 shows the objectives and endpoint products of the R&D. The R&D activities in the Generation IV Program Plan have been defined to support the achievement of these endpoints. The viability phase R&D activities examine the feasibility of key technologies. Examples of these include adequate corrosion resistance in materials in contact with lead alloys or supercritical water, fission product retention at high temperature for particle fuel in the very high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor, and acceptably high recovery fractions for actinides for systems employing actinide recycle. Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 19 Page-19 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted Periodic evaluations of the system progress relative to its goals will determine if system development is to continue. The performance phase R&D activities undertake the development of performance data and optimization of the system. Although general milestones were shown in the Generation IV Roadmap, specific milestones and dates will be defined based on the viability phase experience. As in the viability phase, periodic evaluations of the system progress relative to its goals will determine if the system development is to continue. The viability and performance phases will likely overlap because some of the performance R&D activities may have long lead times that require their initiation as early as possible. Assuming the successful completion of viability and performance R&D, a demonstration phase of at least six years is anticipated for any system. This phase involves the licensing, construction, and operation of a prototype or demonstration system in partnership with industry and perhaps other countries. The detailed design could be completed during this phase, as well as the detailed licensing work. Figure 4: Generation IV Endpoints Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 20 Page-20 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted Immediate Program Outcomes Program outputs in the marketplace are first translated into costs or minimum market prices. It is these costs that are reported by the Generation IV program, and used as input in the integrated energy market models to estimate benefits. Table 4 indicates such costs and other technology specifications developed by the program. Table 4: Program Outcomes of Generation IV Technologies 1 (in 2005 $) Technology Parameter Time Independent Data 2020 2030 2040 2050 Capital Cost (Overnight, $/kW) 2 1750 1663 1426 1000 Total O&M Cost ($/MWh) 2 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 Capacity Factor (%) 92 95 95 95 Thermal Efficiency (%) 43 49 49 49 Availability Date (Year) 2025 Plant Life (Years) 60 Notes to Table 4: 1. Technologies Covered: SFR, VHTR, GFR, MSR, SCWR, LFR; using VHTR as the surrogate 2. Given the current stage of development, preliminary estimates related to the capital cost and operations and maintenance (O&M) cost were established by the Program. Furthermore, Program estimates were validated by the Generation IV Economic Modeling Working Group. Because of the lack of a single design definition and the considerable leap in technology from current reactors; it was difficult to extrapolate future plant economics with any degree of certainty. Additional References for Cost Estimates ITRG Report on VHTR for NGNP DOE authorized the Idaho National Laboratory to lead the Independent Technology Review Group (ITRG) conduct a review of design features and important technology uncertainties of a very-high- temperature reactor (VHTR) concept for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) represented by the helium-cooled prismatic reactor. The report of ITRG published in June 2004 demonstrated an economically viable nuclear system, licensable in the United States, with important commercially attractive production capabilities including high-efficiency power conversion, effective utilization of process heat (e.g., for production of hydrogen), and intrinsic safety, allowing greater freedom of choice in locating the plant. The NGNP is to be designed, constructed, licensed, and operating by no later than 2020, with a target date for initial operations of 2017. ITRG used results from recent high-temperature gas reactor cost studies performed by the commercial industry [Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), architectural engineer (AE), nuclear utility] and considered current best-guess projections of NGNP future costs offered by proponent organizations. Capital cost for NOAK plant was estimated at $ 1100 3 1225 per Kwe, where as the target was to achieve costs less than $ 1000 per kWe. Combined O&M costs including fixed and variable ranged 7.4 3 11 $ per MWh. Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 21 Page-21 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted Sodium Fast Reactor Estimates Initial estimates provided by the Program on Sodium Fast Reactor were derived from an ICAPP paper on S-PRISM Fuel Cycle Study by Dubberley et al. published in 2003. In 2006 dollars the capital cost ranged $ 1558 3 1640 per kWe and the total O&M cost was estimated $ 7.8 per MWh. Other Estimates Science Applications International Corporation 9s 2002 report uses the Power Choice model to estimate capital costs for various nuclear technologies. In 2003 $, capital costs for Advanced Fast Reactor was estimated at $ 1126 per kWe (Reis, et al, 2002). Additional Key Factors in Shaping Market Adoption of NE technologies Nuclear Capacity Growth Apart from energy demand, annual nuclear capacity growth will be dependent on the industry 9s ability to supply technology, materials, requisite infrastructure and manpower to commission and run future nuclear reactors. An analysis of historic annual builds of nuclear plants and annual commission of commercial operation data provided preliminary estimate on future nuclear capacity growth rates. The Nuclear Energy Blue Book: Nuclear Reactors Built, Being Built, or Planned , contains information about nuclear facilities in the United States as of January 2003. In two instances, for years 1974 and 1986, 9,866 MW and 9,086 MW of nuclear capacity respectively were commissioned for commercial operation. Based on this data, the current GPRA analysis limits the growth rate of future annual nuclear builds to a maximum of 10,000 MW in the BAU and High Fuels scenario. In case of the carbon scenario, it is assumed that an additional 2,000 MW capacity could be built per year over the next several decades. NE believes that these are conservative estimates for future nuclear growth constraints. The capacity data for 1974 and 1986 was comprised of a range of different reactor sizes. Future reactor designs are likely to be larger on average than previous. Upcoming Generation III+ and Generation IV modular reactor designs are in the range of 1000-1500 MWe. Additionally, with innovations in modular design, streamlined licensing, permitting and siting procedures and growing public acceptance of nuclear technologies, higher rates of nuclear capacity additions may be achievable. Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 22 Page-22 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative Program Overview The Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative (NHI) will conduct R&D activities to demonstrate the economic, commercial-scale production of hydrogen using nuclear energy. The research in this area is focused on using high-temperature heat and/or electricity from next generation and advanced nuclear system that could be supplied to a hydrogen-producing thermochemical or high-temperature electrolysis (HTE) plant through an intermediate heat exchanger. Additional information is available at: http://nuclear.gov/NHI/neNHI.html. Program R&D Plan The Nuclear Hydrogen R&D Plan defines the research necessary to develop hydrogen production options for the demonstration of hydrogen production from nuclear energy by 2017. Though early in the development stage of these promising methods (none have been demonstrated at a pilot plant-scale), the Nuclear Hydrogen R&D Plan identifies baseline processes that meet NHI performance criteria and are sufficiently demonstrated to provide reasonable confidence that the processes would be technically viable in a large plant. Two thermochemical cycles (sulfur family and calcium bromine) and HTE (based on fuel cell technology) were identified as the highest priority production processes for further development. The recognition of several common R&D issues applicable to more than a single cycle further leverages the research investment (NE, 2004). Initially, a broader research effort is required. The planned R&D effort will include laboratory- scale demonstrations, where justified, in addition to analytical evaluations of technology pathways with promise but whose viability is uncertain. This approach will provide a more consistent and complete assessment upon which to base future R&D funding and scaling decisions. NHI research will follow a systematic approach to developing the required information for the sequence of scaling decisions. Confirmation of performance potential based on consistent thermodynamic analyses of candidate cycles will be confirmed in laboratory-scale tests to support pilot plant scaling decisions. Pilot plant demonstrations of the selected processes confirm engineering viability and establish a basis for process cost estimates. Pilot plant performance and cost information provides a basis for selecting the NGNP nuclear-heated engineering demonstration. This nuclear hydrogen R&D strategy is summarized in Figure 5. Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 23 Page-23 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted Figure 5: Summary of NHI R&D plan for the development and demonstration of a nuclear hydrogen production capability by 2017. Immediate Program Outcomes Program outputs in the marketplace are first translated into costs or minimum market prices. These costs were provided by the NHI program, and used as input in the integrated energy market models to estimate benefits. Table 5 indicates such costs and other technology specifications developed by the program. Table on the following page: Projected Benefits of Federal Nuclear Energy Programs (FY 2008-FY 2050) 24 Page-24 Draft for discussion 3 not to be quoted Table 5: Program Outcomes of NHI Technologies (in 2005 $) Technology Parameter Time Independent Data 2020 2030 2040 2050 Thermochemical (Sulfur-Iodine) Production of Hydrogen Capital Cost (Overnight, $/kWth) 1200 1000 800 650 Fixed O&M Cost ($/kWth) 175 60 50 40 Variable O&M Cost ($/kg of H 2 ) 0.90 0.60 0.45 0.40 Capacity Factor (%) 55% 75% 87.5% 90% Thermal to H 2 Energy Efficiency (%) 35 42.5 47.5 50 Availability Date (Year) 2020 Plant Life (Years) 40 Estimated Technology Maturity Date 2030 High-Temperature Electrolysis (HTE) Capital Cost (Overnight, $/kWth) 1250 950 900 800 Fixed O&M Cost ($/kWth) 200 55 47.5 40 Variable O&M Cost ($/kg

less