Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “COST ESTIMATION”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Microreactor Optimization Using Simulation And Economics (mouse)

Microreactor Optimization Using Simulation and Economics (MOUSE) is a tool that integrates both nuclear microreactor design and reactor economics to provide comprehensive evaluations and optimizations. This tool enables stakeholders to explore the interplay between technical and economic variables, guiding them towards effective and competitive microreactor solutions. For the reactor core simulations, MOUSE leverages the OpenMC Monte Carlo Particle Transport Code to perform detailed core simulations for various microreactor designs. The included OpenMC models are 2D core designs of a Liquid Metal Thermal Microreactor (LMTR), a Gas-Cooled TRISO-Fueled Microreactor (GCMR), and a Heat Pipe Microreactor. Beyond core design, MOUSE includes simplified calculations for: - Calculating the masses of heat exchangers within the system. - Mechanical power of pumps. - Estimating the area occupied by various buildings within the nuclear plant. For the economic analysis, MOUSE provides detailed bottom-up cost estimates, encompassing a wide range of costs including preconstruction costs, direct costs, indirect costs, training costs, financial costs, operation & maintenance (O&M) costs, and fuel costs. These cost estimations are developed using data from the MARVEL project and additional literature sources, enabling the calculation of total capital costs and levelized cost of energy for both first-of-a-kind and nth-of-a-kind microreactors. MOUSE also enables analysis of the cost drivers and competitiveness in the electricity market. MOUSE allows users to modify a wide array of technical and economic parameters to evaluate different scenarios and their impacts. Examples of these parameters include: Fuels, coolants, or reflector materials Enrichment levels Control drum materials and geometry Fuel pin geometry and materials Moderator pin geometry and materials Reactor core and reflector dimensions Packing factor for the TRISO particles Nuclear reactor power and reactor burnup Number of sensors Shielding thickness Reactor vessel and guard vessel dimensions Operational staff requirements Number of emergency shutdowns Levelization period Interest rate Construction duration Since MOUSE is powered by the WATTS toolkit, it supports optimization studies, parametric analyses, and uncertainty calculations/propagation. The optimization techniques enable users to identify optimal design and economic configurations. The parametric analysis tools allow users to explore the sensitivity of various parameters, while uncertainty propagation helps quantify the impact of uncertainties on overall performance and cost. User Interface and Workflow: Currently, MOUSE is a command-line-based tool. Users can input various reactor design or economic parameters, modify the designs, run simulations, and visualize results through comprehensive data visualization and reporting capabilities. The typical workflow involves setting up the reactor model, defining economic parameters, running simulations, and analyzing the results to make informed decisions. By combining advanced design calculations with detailed economic modeling, MOUSE provides a robust framework for optimizing nuclear microreactor technologies, enhancing their competitiveness, and guiding stakeholders towards innovative and cost-effective solutions.

Hanna, Botros [Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Id↗
DOE OSTI2024

Production of Carbon Nanomaterials and Sorbents from Domestic U.S. Coal (Final Report)

The main goal of this project was to produce high-value carbon nanomaterials and carbon sorbents from domestic coal resources in a cost-effective manner. Four types of domestic coal samples were processed through a combination of deashing, devolatilization, oxidation, reduction, and activation treatments to produce graphene oxide (GO), reduced graphene oxide (RGO), and activated carbon (AC). The precursors and developed materials were extensively characterized by various methods to investigate the impact of the coal feedstock type on the yield and quality of each product. A commercial graphite-based GO sample was included in the experimental work as the baseline material for comparison with the coal-based materials developed in this work. The performed work also included a technoeconomic analysis and cost estimation for a plant processing 20 tons/day coal, a market evaluation for the graphene materials, and a technology gap analysis. A simple process by concentrated nitric acid oxidation is used to oxidize coal precursors for the production of GO. Fine oxidized coal particles that were separated from larger oxidized coal particles had significantly higher oxygen contents and were identified as coal-based GO samples. Coarse oxidized coal particles were used as precursors for production of AC. Based on the Raman spectroscopy results, coal-based GO samples exhibited G and D bands similar to those of graphite-based GO samples. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy revealed that coal-based GO samples had surface oxygen contents of ~26-35% that were higher than the oxygen contents of graphite-based GO samples. Larger particles of oxidized coal samples were activated under different conditions to produce high surface area functionalized AC. Prepared materials had surface areas exceeding 1,500 m 2 /g and pore volumes more than 1 cm 3 /g with different pore size distributions. Reduced graphene oxide samples were prepared by thermal reduction of both coal-based and graphite-based GO samples at 170-2800 ºC. Coal-based and graphite-based RGO samples exhibited similar carbon contents, Raman spectra, and XRD profiles. Heat treatment above 1500 ºC shifted RGO to synthetic graphite. Among anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite coals tested, anthracite was the best precursor to produce carbon nanomaterials exhibiting properties similar to those of graphite-based materials. Anthracite-based carbon nanomaterials also had the highest production yields. Technoeconomic analysis estimated the production cost of GO and RGO for anthracite-based samples at about 2,600 and 4,200 $/ton, respectively, which is about two orders of magnitude lower than the current estimated price of graphite-based materials. Several gaps to further develop the proposed technology were identified and discussed that include process and equipment optimization, process integration, need for additional bench- and pilot-scale experiments, and other items to reduce the scale up risk. Market analysis reports suggested a compound annual growth rate of 40% for graphene and related materials. Short-term applications include composites, inks, and coatings. However, energy storage applications appear to be the dominant potential long-term applications. Different applications of coal-based GO and RGO need to be explored and clear metrics and standards for each application need to be developed.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2023

ACCERT

The main function of ACCERT (The Algorithm for the Capital Cost Estimation of Reactor Technologies) is to provide an item-by-item estimate of the cost of a facility, at present a nuclear reactor complex, primarily nuclear power stations. The core of ACCERT is the large number of algorithms that have been developed and will continue to be developed. ACCERT is also a general methodology for identifying and organizing the individual items that are estimated using the ACCERT algorithms. ACCERT also summarize status and results; to save results and pull information from previous analyses; and to provide an interactive dynamic graphical user interface for a wide range of functions and visualizations.

Zhou, Jia [Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argo↗
DOE OSTI2024

Retrofitting Holcim Ste. Genevieve Cement Plant with CO2 Capture Plant Using Air Liquide Cryocap™ FG Technology

The global cement manufacturing industry is a major contributor to carbon dioxide emissions. The International Energy Agency's "Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario" identifies CCS as a major strategy for meeting that goal. This project is among the first attempts to transfer capture technology developed at coal-fired power plants to the cement industry. The main objective of the project is to execute and complete a front-end engineering and design (FEED) studies for commercial-scale, carbon capture projects that separates 95% of the total CO2 emissions at the Holcim (US) Ste. Genevieve cement manufacturing facility using Air Liquide’s Pressure Swing Adsorption system (PSA) assisted Cryocap™ technology. The Holcim Ste. Genevieve cement plant in Missouri, US, boasts one of the largest single cement production lines in the world, with a capacity of approximately 12,000 t/day. The plant currently uses traditional fuels, namely coal and petcoke. The captured CO2 will be pipeline and geological storage grade. The industrial host site emits approximately 3.0 million tonne CO2/yr. Air Liquide’s Cryocap™ technology has been developed over the last 18+ years for CO2 capture applications. It has been shown to be applicable to a variety of industrial applications (e.g., steel, cement, SMR, Fluidized Catalytic Crackers (FCCs)). Cryocap™ FG consists of a Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) unit coupled with a Cryogenic System. The PSA pre-concentrates the CO2 from the flue gas, while the cryogenic unit enables the CO2 purity to be increased to the desired level. The project team is led by the Prairie Research Institute at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The tasks include: complete FEED study for retrofitting the industrial facility with a carbon capture system to support developing a detailed cost estimate; business case analysis outlining the anticipated revenue and credits if projects was built and operated; technoeconomic analysis (TEA) outlining how capture system achieves DOE capture goals; and life cycle (LCA) analysis demonstrating zero net carbon emissions. The FEED study was successfully completed. This includes completing the process basis of design; preliminary engineering; outside battery limits (OSBL) detailed engineering including a Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) wastewater treatment system; inside battery limits (ISBL) detailed engineering [1]. An overall project capital cost estimate within a -20%/+30% accuracy was developed. The major contributors to the Total Plant Cost (TPC), by system, are the costs associated with the Outside Battery Limit (OSBL) section of the plant which includes a new river water intake structure and a Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) system. By cost category, the major contributors to the TPC are equipment and subcontractor costs, followed closely by engineering, construction management, home office and contractor fees. The TEA has been created to reflect the findings of the project. It analyzes the economic performance of the Cryocap™ technology by reviewing the estimated capital costs, operating cost, and revenue. The Cost of Capture (COC) associated with the Cryocap™ technology for 95% CO2 capture, when considering NETL 2018 economic assumptions (42/58 debt/equity ratio, 5.15% interest on debt and 1.42% return on equity in real dollars) and 2022 economic assumptions (42/58 debt/equity ratio, 8.82% interest on debt and 4.90% return on equity in real dollars) was found to be much lower than that for the DOE-NETL’s base-line cases. The highest contributors to the COC are annualized capital expenditures (CAPEX) and electricity consumption which can be offset by using lower cost renewable sources. The LCA was conducted using OpenLCA which is an open-source software that is recommended by NETL. The database utilized for this study was a modified version of TRACI 2.1 (developed by the US. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory and modified by NETL). The Cryocap™ FG technology does not consume fuels in significant quantities and does not utilize specialized chemical solvents subject to decomposition, such as those utilized in amine-based carbon capture systems. The Cryocap™ FG technology mainly utilizes electricity as its energy input; hence, its calculated emissions are mainly associated with the generation of electricity offsite and are dependent on the energy matrix of the grid at the time of project implementation. The water consumption impact of the Cryocap™ FG is mostly for makeup of the water lost by evaporation in the cooling tower; however, the carbon capture plant will be equipped with a ZLD system to avoid effluent streams and minimize water consumption. The successful construction and operation of this plant based on this study results will provide a means to demonstrate an economically attractive and transformational capture technology that can be used to retrofit existing plants and be deployed at new plants.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2023

Patterns, drivers, and a predictive model of dam removal cost in the United States

Given the burgeoning dam removal movement and the large number of dams approaching obsolescence in the United States, cost estimating data and tools are needed for dam removal prioritization, planning, and execution. We used the list of removed dams compiled by American Rivers to search for publicly available reported costs for dam removal projects. Total cost information could include component costs related to project planning, dam deconstruction, monitoring, and several categories of mitigation activities. We compiled reported costs from 455 unique sources for 668 dams removed in the United States from 1965 to 2020. The dam removals occurred within 571 unique projects involving 1–18 dams. When adjusted for inflation into 2020 USD, cost of these projects totaled $\$1.522$ billion, with per-dam costs ranging from $\$1$ thousand (k) to $\$268.8$ million (M). The median cost for dam removals was $\$157$k, $\$823$k, and $\$6.2$M for dams that were< 5 m, between 5–10 m, and > 10 m in height, respectively. Geographic differences in total costs showed that northern states in general, and the Pacific Northwest in particular, spent the most on dam removal. The Midwest and the Northeast spent proportionally more on removal of dams less than 5 m in height, whereas the Northwest and Southwest spent the most on larger dam removals > 10 m tall. We used stochastic gradient boosting with quantile regression to model dam removal cost against potential predictor variables including dam characteristics (dam height and material), hydrography (average annual discharge and drainage area), project complexity (inferred from construction and sediment management, mitigation, and post-removal cost drivers), and geographic region. Dam height, annual average discharge at the dam site, and project complexity were the predominant drivers of removal cost. The final model had an R 2 of 57% and when applied to a test dataset model predictions had a root mean squared error of $\$5.09$M and a mean absolute error of $\$1.45$M, indicating its potential utility to predict estimated costs of dam removal. We developed a R shiny application for estimating dam removal costs using customized model inputs for exploratory analyses and potential dam removal planning.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Sensitivity Analysis Tool for Electrochemical Conversion of CO2 to CO

Data presented in poster is sourced from the Electrochemical Catalyst Sensitivity Analysis Tool. This tool comprises a material balance model with cost estimation to estimate the levelized cost of product for CO production via CO2 electrolysis. A set of sensitivity analyses on key system and financial parameters is included with results so that users can test the impacts of these parameters on LCOP.

Henry, Samuel↗
DOE OSTI2024

Technoeconomic Evaluation of Microreactor Using Detailed Bottom-up Estimate (Rev.1)

Microreactors are a novel class of nuclear reactors that are expected to be factory produced, transportable, and self-regulating. They are expected to be several orders of magnitude smaller in size than traditional reactors (with power outputs in the 1–20 MWe range typically). They are primarily envisaged to target niche, remote markets that are difficult to access and where energy costs are high. There has been a scarcity of technoeconomic assessment for these types of reactors due to the scarcity of designs without proprietary restraints (e.g., those that include balance of plants and building layouts) and cost estimates. The primary objective of this report was to develop a transparent, detailed, bottom-up cost estimate for a microreactor. While there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with the projected costs, this work provides a foundation that can built upon and improved to better model the economics of microreactors. The Microreactor Applications Research, Validation, and Evaluation (MARVEL) microreactor was selected for this analysis. This Department of Energy–sponsored demonstration was chosen because (1) its final design was recently completed and (2) a detailed class-3 cost-and-schedule estimation was conducted for it. This provided a strong technical basis for further analysis.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Quantifying Capital Cost Reduction Pathways for Advanced Nuclear Reactors

The framework developed in this study is provided both as an excel sheet (https://inl.gov/content/uploads/2023/11/Nuclear-Reactor-Cost-Reduction-Pathway-Spreadsheet-Tool.xlsx) and a Python (Jupyter) Notebook (link: https://github.com/accert-dev/ACCERT/tree/main/Cost%20Reduction). Capital cost considerations are one of the primary inhibitors to the large-scale deployment of nuclear power plants. While it is widely accepted that first units will likely be expensive and relatively uncompetitive, it is reasonable to expect that subsequent units, built in relative quick succession, will be cheaper as they benefit from the so-called “learning effects”. However, the large degree of uncertainty associated with this parameter renders it challenging for first movers to invest in the first few expensive units. To resolve this impasse, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Nuclear Liftoff study advocated for the formation of large, committed order books of plants of the same technology to spread the costs across several units and kickstart the nuclear supply chain. The study also advocated best practices for avoiding overruns and keeping reactors on budget. This report builds on these key recommendations by attempting to quantify specific pathways toward cost reduction for nuclear energy. A capital cost estimation framework was built to untangle the effect of learning into a subset of key cost drivers, referred to as “levers”. Collectively, the choice of these levers is intended to reflect the decision-making of high-level stakeholders like plant owners and the government. In addition to the size of the firm orderbook, these levers included (a) cost drivers that are most often attributed to cost overruns such as architect/engineering (A/E) proficiency, construction proficiency, procurement service proficiency, design completion prior to the start of construction, and design maturity, and (b) cost reduction strategies such as modular construction, cross-site standardization, safety classification of the reactor building, and of the balance of plant. Two advanced reactor designs were leveraged as use cases and bottom-up cost estimates made with assumptions consistent with a well-executed first-of-a-kind project (WE-FOAK, i.e., almost no overruns) were used as baselines for the models. Cost correlations were surveyed from the literature to determine the impact of important variables on projected timelines and costs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies: Capital Cost Scaling Methodology: Revision 4b Report

The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) regularly updates legacy analysis with new studies and cases as the Department of Energy objectives change, technology performance improves, costs are reduced, regulations change, market drivers are established, fuel prices fluctuate, and any number of other relevant factors vary in the market. As legacy studies are updated by NETL, the underlying performance and cost of the cases presented changes, and as such, the methods for interpreting and scaling the cost estimates change. Therefore, it is important that NETL maintain public guidance documents associated with different sets of cost estimates that delineate how a specific set, based on report vintage and/or year published, should be scaled. This Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies report, providing guidance on capital cost scaling, should generally be applied to NETL case costs included in the report “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity Revision 4b,” (NETL, 2025) or any cases derived from the cases presented in the referenced report.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Design, scaling and cost evaluations of circulating fluidized-bed systems for biomass pyrolysis

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. Here in this work, 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.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Powering Data Centers with Clean Energy: A Techno-Economic Case Study of Nuclear and Renewable Energy Dependability

Rising data demands from artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) generating images, videos, and text have prompted increased need for larger and more robust data centers in the United States. Major companies interested in these larger data centers face the choice of linking them to existing regional grids, building stand-alone power supplies onsite, or a combination of both. The request, review, and approval process for new transmission lines to grids in the United States, however, has grown in recent years to times spans rivaling those of new construction for nuclear power plants. Building an islanded power supply for each data center is therefore becoming a prominent option. In this case study, several technologies are modeled in techno-economic simulations for long-term system costs subject to fixed electricity demand from a singular data center. A 250 MWe data center is assumed with additional 50 MWe for resiliency. Techno-economic simulations are conducted using the Holistic Energy Resource Optimization Network (HERON) software, which is a part of the Framework for Optimization of Resources and Economics (FORCE) tool suite. Technologies considered include solar, wind, lithium-ion batteries, and several types of nuclear reactors: large-scale reactors, small modular reactors, and microreactors. A low- and high-cost estimate for each technology is assumed to develop a range of expected economic performance. Low-cost estimates included several clean energy production tax credits. Different combinations of renewable energy generators with nuclear reactors are considered, ranging from a fully renewable-powered data center to a fully nuclear-powered data center. Historic time series of wind and solar availability from the Texas grid are used to train a reduced order model; this model then generates unique time series with similar characteristics of the training dataset. Multiple scenarios of weather and subsequent operations are simulated for each renewable-nuclear combination to determine total costs throughout the project lifetime. Fully renewable-powered configurations required large amounts of installed capacity (GW scale) in the simulations to meet the fixed demand of the data center. This is due to some scenarios in the historical dataset which captured low-wind and low-solar days, requiring over-building of these technologies as well as batteries to compensate for the low amounts of electricity generation. Fully nuclear-powered configurations outperformed the fully renewable and mixed renewable-nuclear configurations in terms of cost, with ranges between $1B and $10B in 2023 USDs compared to $40B+ for fully renewable configurations. Of the nuclear technologies, small modular reactors performed better economically than large-scale nuclear models due to lower projected capital costs, and both performed better than the microreactor models. These results demonstrate the applicability of firm, dispatchable electricity resources from baseload generators like nuclear power plants for operating facilities that run at constant power without daily variability.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Documents 2 Production Based Costing

The purpose of this section is to outline a method of cost analysis whereby a significantly better representation of “should achieve” costs may be attained for NOAK systems. Based on economists’ notions of producer theory, and grounded in the cost analysts’ and project managers’ tool called the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), this section describes best practices in cost estimation. It then illustrates how the Code of Accounts (COA) structure, developed by the Economic Modeling Working Group (EMWG) of the Generation IV International Forum in “Cost Estimating Guidelines for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems [EMWG 2007] (hereafter “Gen IV Guidelines Document”), can be used to differentiate “should achieve” versus “did experience” costs.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Validation of the NLR Pumped Storage Hydropower Cost Model

The National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) first released its pumped storage hydropower (PSH) cost model in 2023 as the most detailed bottom-up PSH cost model available to the public. It is available both as a spreadsheet and an interactive web tool, enabling users with a variety of PSH interests to transparently characterize costs of alternative PSH sites and designs. The PSH cost model cannot replace detailed site-level studies and design, but it is important to validate it against other industry PSH cost estimates. The initial model methodology report validated the cost model for a single proposed site, the Eagle Mountain Project in California. This slide deck documents an expanded validation exercise using cost data from six other sites: Goldendale (Washington), Seminoe (Wyoming), Gordon Butte (Montana), Swan Lake (Oregon), White Pine (Oregon), and Lewis Ridge (Kentucky). It compares itemized costs from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) applications and other reported costs with NLR PSH cost model outputs after customizing inputs for each site. The validation exercise finds that the NLR model's conservative indirect cost assumptions often drive overall cost overestimation, with direct cost comparisons typically agreeing more closely. All cost model estimates are well within an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 5 estimation range (-50% to +100%), with five within the AACE Class 4 range (-30% to +50%) and four being within 15%. This result is considered reasonable performance for a parametric model applied at a preliminary design stage.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Engineering Design of a Linde-BASF Advanced Post-Combustion CO 2 Capture Technology at a Linde Steam Methane Reforming H 2 Plant

Linde carried out an initial engineering design study for a Linde-BASF advanced post combustion CO 2 capture technology to be installed at a commercial-scale steam methane reforming (SMR) hydrogen plant located in the US Gulf Coast. This pre-FEED equivalent study included following: (1) basic design, including specific project scope definition and design basis, (2) basic engineering, including development of process flow diagrams and heat & material balances, (3) inside the battery limit (ISBL) equipment and systems specification, (4) balance of plant outside the battery limit (OSBL) equipment and systems specifications, (5) technology maturation plan, (6) hazard and operability (HAZOP) review, (7) environmental, health and safety (EH&S) assessment and environmental permitting analysis, (8) constructability review, (9) ISBL and OSBL EPC cost estimation, and (10) commercial-scale techno-economic analysis including capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operating expenditures (OPEX) and CO 2 capture cost estimates.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2023

Engineering Study of Svante’s Solid Sorbent Post-Combustion CO 2 Capture Technology at a Linde Steam Methane Reforming H 2 Plant

An initial engineering design study was performed for an advanced post combustion CO 2 capture (PCC) technology to be installed at a commercial-scale steam methane reforming (SMR) hydrogen plant located in the US Gulf Coast. The PCC process integrated the VeloxoTherm™ structured adsorbent technology from Svante for the CO 2 separation and CO 2 compression and purification and balance of plant systems provided by Linde. This pre-FEED equivalent study included following: (1) design basis, (2) basic engineering, including development of process flow diagrams and heat & material balances, (3) inside the battery limit (ISBL) equipment and systems specification, (4) balance of plant outside the battery limit (OSBL) equipment and systems specifications, (5) technology maturation plan, (6) hazard identification (HAZID) review, (7) environmental, health and safety (EH&S) assessment and environmental permitting analysis, (8) constructability review, (9) ISBL and OSBL EPC cost estimation, and (10) commercial-scale techno-economic analysis including capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operating expenditures (OPEX) and CO 2 capture cost estimates.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Amorphous ZrCl 4 -Based Superionic Conductor as a Cost-Effective Solid Electrolyte for Batteries

Developing highly conductive and cost-effective solid electrolytes is essential for the commercialization of all-solid-state batteries (ASSBs). Zr-based halide electrolytes hold great promise due to their low estimated cost and high oxidation stability. However, the ionic conductivities of most of them are not high enough to enable moderate- and high-rate cycling of ASSBs. Here, fast ion transport is achieved in a group of cost-effective ZrCl 4 -based electrolytes via a design strategy to create highly disordered amorphous structures. Amorphous Li 0.8 ZrCl 4 (SO 4 ) 0.4 , with a low estimated cost of $21 kg –1 , achieves an ionic conductivity of 1.86 mS cm –1 at 25 °C. It also shows a high oxidation limit of 4.5 V vs Li/Li + and good compatibility with high-voltage cathodes, as demonstrated by the stable cycling of ASSBs (73.7% capacity retention after 1000 cycles at 1 C). Synchrotron X-ray diffraction, pair distribution function analysis, and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy reveal that the outstanding conductivity of these amorphous electrolytes is closely related to their short-range and medium-range ordering, revealing new insights for designing high-performance, cost-effective solid electrolytes.

Zhang, Guangxing [Georgia Institute of Technology,↗
DOE OSTI2024

Integrated Off-gas System: A Preconceptual Design of an Integrated Off-Gas Treatment System

The U.S. has a vested interest in the advancement of nuclear energy to achieve aggressive net-zero goals, with reprocessing and recycling of used nuclear fuels (UNF) playing a vital role. It will not be possible to meet U.S. regulatory requirements without robust off-gas treatment, so it is crucial to advance treatment technologies to facilitate the design of future reprocessing facilities. For many years, teams of researchers across the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Laboratory complex have been investigating off-gas treatment technologies for the capture and removal of volatile radionuclides (i.e., 85 Kr, Xe, 14 C, and 129 I) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) that are produced from reprocessing. These investigations have been focused on developing individual technologies for the capture of Kr, Xe, iodine, and CO 2 . Capture technologies for each constituent were tested independently from one another by utilizing nonradioactive surrogates to simulate simplified off-gas streams. The tests have been relatively small, laboratory-scale experiments of up to approximately 1 L/minute total gas flow rate. To increase the readiness of these technologies for deployment, an integrated test system with a larger-scale capacity is needed to bridge the gap between promising bench scale and fully scalable UNF reprocessing off-gas treatment. This document contains the goals, design basis, functional requirements, preconceptual design, and cost estimates for an integrated off-gas demonstration system for the capture and removal of NO x , Kr, Xe, CO 2 , and iodine at 10× higher throughput than earlier laboratory studies. The order-of-magnitude cost estimate for this system is approximately $\$$886,000. Next phases include conceptual design, detailed design, fabrication, and commissioning.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Technoeconomic Analysis of High-Value, Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Module Recycling Processes

Recycling is an important circular economy strategy, and for photovoltaics (PV), the one that has received the greatest research attention. Recycling of PV modules is required in Europe; everywhere else it competes in the market of end-of-life options, where cost is a primary decision factor. The vast majority of PV modules sold globally are crystalline-silicon (c-Si); most of the rest of the market are cadmium telluride thin film modules whose primary manufacturer runs its own commercial-scale recycling program. While many different c-Si recycling approaches and technologies have been proposed, they generally lack accompanying cost estimates or enough process information to model costs. Herein we develop detailed estimates of seven categories of capital and operating costs along with estimates of revenue from recovered materials for each step in two proposed recycling processes for c-Si PV modules. Using these results, we develop a hypothetical third recycling process merging process steps from the original two, estimate surcharges required to achieve minimum sustainable prices for each recycling process, as well as consider how economies of scale could reduce costs. Increasing the purity of and identifying higher-value markets for recovered materials are approaches to reducing costs and increasing recycling rates in voluntary markets.

crystalline silicon↗