Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Overnight capital cost”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Reducing the Overnight Capital Cost of Advanced Reactors Using Equipment-Level Seismic Protective Systems

Consideration of the effects of earthquake shaking on the design and construction of nuclear power plants adds substantially to the overnight capital cost, with anecdotal estimates as high as 35+%, attributed to additional construction materials, need for one-off and sub-optimal designs of equipment due to conflicting design choices, the high cost of seismic qualification of equipment, and regulatory review. Safety-critical equipment in large light water reactors is designed and qualified for seismic demands imposed by the supporting reactor building, optimal mechanical designs are not possible, and designs of a given piece of equipment may vary with height above grade. Similar negative impacts are expected for advanced reactors unless the seismic design paradigm is changed. The overarching goal of this transformational MEITNER project, which involved a multidisciplinary engineering team and designers of three fundamentally different advanced reactors, was to adapt proven seismic isolation and damping technologies to operationalize modular protective systems for safety-class equipment inside advanced reactor buildings. Such seismic protective systems would be tightly integrated into design development for reactor support systems and balance-of-plant construction. The adoption of the technology, which is widely used in non-nuclear sectors, would simplify plant design, enable the use of standardized equipment and buildings, optimized for operational performance, and reduce plant size and weight. The need for site-specific equipment would be eliminated, enabling identical equipment to be used across multiple plants sited across the US and economies of scale, and catalyzing new interest and investment. The equipment-based protective systems would allow siting of advanced reactors in regions of high seismic hazard.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Updating Nuclear Energy Cost Estimates for Net Zero World Initiative

Energy modeling of decarbonized scenarios in integrated energy systems requires nuclear energy parameters that are critical for forecasting, modeling and cost structure analysis. Using updated real-world data has always been a challenge to estimate current nuclear reactors costs and deployment scenarios. Given this, an updated set of parameters for overnight capital costs and operation and maintenance costs are estimated for the Net Zero World initiative using recent reports that provided a vast set of open sources data inputs. This paper follows the methodology developed in the Net Zero World report and applies the new ranges estimated in the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear report that address many of the current challenges in obtaining accurate cost data for advanced nuclear concepts. The final goal is to provide new estimates of the overnight capital costs and operational costs for different countries. The present paper improves the earlier capital cost estimations, building on recent literature that aims to obtain accurate data for modeling and simulation to enhance energy system evaluations and support decision-making in areas like de-carbonization and capacity expansion. Finally, the paper compares the new cost estimates with the old cost results.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Meta-Analysis of Advanced Nuclear Reactor Cost Estimations

Supporting Data can be downloaded at: https://gain.inl.gov/content/uploads/4/2024/06/INL-RPT-24-77048-R1.xlsx Nuclear energy is a critical cornerstone of the current United States clean energy supply and may play a larger role in the future in support of a transition to a net-zero economy. The current fleet of nuclear reactors predominantly consists of large light-water reactors (LWRs), while many of the reactor designs under consideration are smaller and/or different technologies. Because these new designs have not yet been built, there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with their cost. This complicates energy-planning efforts because cost projections are not always standardized, consistent, and centralized in an easily accessible location. To help support energy planning in the US, this report provides advanced nuclear cost ranges using a transparent methodology along with other relevant information that can be used to help support decision making and energy planning. The purpose of this work was to conduct a methodical process for cost evaluation using only public information that was vetted with the end-goal to provide reference cost projections for nuclear energy. To provide a solid basis for these values, the approach and assumptions are explicitly laid out throughout the report allowing any user of the data to challenge or reconsider them. Because future US nuclear-reactor costs are still unknown due to little recent observed data, the report opted to compile a comprehensive list of bottom-up estimates and evaluate averages/trends within the data to identify reference ranges. This was deemed preferable to opining on the robustness or validity of one cost estimation versus another. To that end, the work evaluated thousands of lines of cost subaccounts from several bottom-up cost estimates. A wide variety of different reactor types captured in the data are of various sizes and technologies. Some of these reactors will be representative of advanced reactors under development while others will not. Thus, the results here are dependent on the data that are available and the accuracy of the estimates that are used. Each bottom-up estimate was reviewed to determine whether it was complete. Incomplete data sets were corrected to ensure an adequate basis of cross-comparison. The report is not without limitations and should be interpreted as an initial step to develop cost ranges for nuclear technology. Ultimately, future work can build upon the methodology with refined cost estimates to reduce uncertainty. US-based overnight capital cost (OCC) estimates were compiled from extensive data sets into ranges for both large and small reactor sizes for 2030. To project the cost declines over time, learning rates were sampled from literature sources. No SMRs were previously built; hence, learning rates based on bottom-up approaches (e.g., by quantifying the impact stemming from fabrication of different components, modular work, site construction, commissioning) were prioritized. For larger reactors, actual learning rates from deployments were used to project future costs (adjusted to account for standardization or lack thereof between designs). Other costs included are fixed and variable operations and maintenance costs. The final variables were capacity factors and ramp rates to support energy planning.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Nuclear Energy Cost Estimates for Net Zero World Initiative

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

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Techno-economic analysis of advanced small modular nuclear reactors

Here, small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) represent a robust opportunity to develop low-carbon and reliable power with the potential to meet cost parity with conventional power systems. This study presents a detailed, bottom-up economic evaluation of a 12 × 77 MW e (924 MW e total) light-water SMR (LW-SMR) plant, a 4 × 262 MW e (1,048 MW e ) gas-cooled SMR (GC-SMR) plant, and a 5 × 200 MW e (1,000 MW e total) molten salt SMR (MS-SMR) plant. Cost estimates are derived from equipment costs, labor hours, material inputs, and process-engineering models. The advanced SMRs are compared to natural gas combined cycle plants with and without post-combustion carbon capture and a conventional large nuclear reactor. Overnight capital cost (OCC) and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) estimates are developed. The OCC of the LW-SMR, GC-SMR, and MS-SMR are found to be $\$4,844$/kW, $\$4,355$/kW, and $\$3,985$/kW respectively. The LCOE of the LW-SMR, GC-SMR, and MS-SMR are found to be $\$89.6$/MWh, $\$81.5$/MWh, and $\$80.6$/MWh respectively. A Monte Carlo analysis is performed, for which the OCC and construction time of the LW-SMR is found to have a lower mean and standard deviation than a conventional large reactor. The LW-SMR OCC is found to have a mean of $\$5,233$/kW with a standard deviation of $\$658$/kW and a 90 % probability of remaining between $\$4,254$/kW and $\$6,399$/kW, while the construction duration is found to have a mean of 4.5 years with a standard deviation of 0.8 years and a 90 % probability of remaining between 3.4 and 6.0 years. The economic impact of economies of scale, simplification, modularization, and construction time for SMRs are discussed. Additionally, policy implications for direct SMR capital subsidies and the impact of a carbon tax on natural gas emissions are explored.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Parametric and Nonparametric Models of U.S. Cost Overruns for Nuclear Power Plants

This study presents new data-driven models to estimate the effect of capacity on the percentage of cost overruns in the United States for nuclear power plant construction projects before and after the Three Mile Island accident. Parametric and nonparametric models have been developed that describe the significant shifts in nuclear energy costs during the dynamic environment. Employing a contemporary descriptive methodology and a quantitative analysis, we furnish a comprehensive overview of the alterations in cost overrun distribution and show the changes observed in other pivotal metrics alongside cost overruns. Our emphasis lies in documenting the fluctuations in cost overruns alongside nuclear reactor capacity levels and the increase of the overnight capital costs to build nuclear reactors. Our results show that increasing the size of nuclear reactors is not a factor statistically significant to decrease the percentage of cost overruns, and the probit model results provide evidence that an increase in size increases the probability of having cost overruns larger than 100% (double the estimated cost). We also compare our findings to two other regions: Asia and Europe.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Q1-2024 Solar Cost Benchmarks

Each year, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) and its national laboratory partners develop cost benchmarks for U.S. solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. These benchmarks track progress toward reducing solar costs and guide R&D priorities. Unlike typical studies that report only $/W, SETO uses intrinsic units (e.g., $/m² for mounting structures) to better capture how technology improvements such as module efficiency would impact system costs. This allows flexible modeling where inputs can vary significantly to assess cost sensitivity. Costs are reported in two ways: Minimum Sustainable Price (MSP): Long term, financially viable price under stable market conditions. Modeled Market Price (MMP): Actual market price, influenced by short term distortions such as tariffs or subsidies. Three national labs collect cost data from industry stakeholders, ensuring no duplication in outreach to stakeholders. Data reflects real transactions (primarily from Q1) and is weighted based on the number of sources per cost element. The PV System Cost Model (PVSCM) divides total installed system cost into eight categories: 1. Module (PV) 2. Inverter 3. Energy Storage System (ESS) 4. Structural BOS (SBOS) 5. Electrical BOS (EBOS) 6. Fieldwork 7. Office work 8. Other (developer/EPC costs) The first five are hardware costs, while the last three are soft costs. Each category includes fixed and variable cost components, where “size” depends on context (e.g., manufacturing capacity for modules vs. system capacity for installation costs). Variable costs are expressed using appropriate intrinsic units. The model reflects the owner’s upfront overnight capital cost, excluding tax credits. Tariffs and subsidies are treated as temporary market distortions affecting MMP but not MSP. PVSCM is implemented in Excel, where cost elements are aggregated into total system cost. Additional sheets handle unit conversions and operation & maintenance (O&M), with O&M costs levelized over the system’s lifetime.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Annual Technology Baseline: The 2022 Electricity Update

Consistent cost and performance data for various electricity generation technologies can be difficult to find and may change frequently for certain technologies. With the Annual Technology Baseline (ATB), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory annually provides an organized and centralized set of such cost and performance data. The ATB uses the best information from the Department of Energy national laboratories' renewable energy analysts. The ATB has been reviewed by experts and it includes the following electricity generation and storage technologies: land-based wind, offshore wind, distributed wind, utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV), commercial-scale solar PV, residential-scale solar PV, concentrating solar power, geothermal power, hydropower, utility-scale battery storage, commercial battery storage, residential battery storage, pumped storage hydropower, coal, and natural gas. EIA data for nuclear and conventional biopower are included for reference. This webinar presentation introduces the 2022 update to the ATB Electricity data and documentation.

capacity factor↗
DOE OSTI2026

Uncertainty Quantification and Sensitivity Analysis of Nuclear Construction Cost Reduction Pathways

High construction costs have plagued recent nuclear projects and they hamper the widespread deployment of nuclear technology. The Nuclear Cost Reduction Tool is a plant economic framework that quantifies the impact that various plant design and construction attributes have on construction costs and cost overruns and shows the positive effects of learning over a series of deployments. However, a downside of the current model is that all model outputs and capabilities are deterministic. To provide a more comprehensive view, this study evaluated the impact of model parameter uncertainty through a sensitivity analysis applied to 18 model parameters. This approach quantified the impact of model uncertainty on the output variables of Net Overnight Capital Cost (Net OCC), Construction Duration (CD), and Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE). Monte Carlo analysis revealed uncertainty distributions for these variables, showing that absolute uncertainty decreases over a series of deployments. A local sensitivity analysis showed that even small parameter perturbations (5%) can have a significant impact on project execution, highlighting areas that could reduce costs by billions across an order book of plants. The results of this study have improved the understanding of the model and identified the most impactful model parameters and construction attributes.

Levelized Cost of Electricity↗
DOE OSTI2026

Physics basis for the reference flat-top plasma scenario in the ST–E1 fusion power plant

As part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Milestone-Based Fusion Energy Development Program, Tokamak Energy has completed the pre-concept design of the ST–E1 fusion power plant. ST–E1 is envisaged to operate in two phases: a pilot plant phase, targeting sustained net power production of 300 - 500 MWe for a duration >1 hr, followed by a commercial power plant phase targeting steady-state operations and a normalised overnight capital cost of ⩽12 000 $\$$/kWe. The design process adopted was highly iterative, integrating all major plant systems and progressing in a phased fidelity approach. At the pre-conceptual stage, the emphasis has been on exploring the design space, identifying the main system-level trade-offs, and making the key decisions that define the overall plant concept, rather than optimising a single operating point. This paper, part of a focused collection detailing the ST–E1 pre-concept design, addresses the development of a series of reference flat-top plasma operating points for the pilot plant phase. A modelling workflow was established to develop and assess candidate plasma design points and explore key dependencies. The workflow includes integrated core plasma modelling, magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) stability assessment, equilibrium generation, scrape-off-layer and exhaust modelling, heating & current drive design and optimisation, and turbulent transport modelling. Using this framework, the impact of several key parameters on the flat-top operating space was investigated, including the density limit, core radiation fraction and divertor power loading, level of external heating and curent drive power and assumed pedestal characteristics. The MHD stability, controllability and micro-stability characteristics of these plasmas were also analysed. These investigations informed the definition of a set of fully non-inductive, flat-top reference operating points that satisfy the high-level ST–E1 mission, including a low and high density case, a case that is stable to resistive wall modes and a case with reduced divertor power loading.

ST–E1↗
DOE OSTI2024

High Performance Heat Pipe Power Transient Testing at SPHERE Facility

Microreactors are being researched, designed, and built at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). Microreactors are small reactors defined at less than 20MW of power. These reactor concepts are also being looked at throughout industry for various applications. An important aspect of these reactor designs is economic feasibility i.e. lower overnight capital cost. The driving factors for implementing microreactors are quick setup and takedown, minimal operators, and the ability to manufacture them readily and to fit in mid-sized containers for transport. A specific area of research to aid in successful integration of these factors within the designs is passive heat removal of the core’s thermal power. Interest in heat pipes to achieve this passive heat removal has been shown across multiple industry partners. Because of this interest, INL has developed a test facility to facilitate experimental tests for sodium filled heat pipes. INL has developed the Single Primary Heat Extraction and Removal Emulator (SPHERE) facility to run experiments on high performance, sodium filled heat pipes. As mentioned above, heat pipes are passive heat transfer devices. Radially, heat pipes are broken up into an outer wall, a small annular gap, a wick structure, and a centerline gap. They function by utilizing latent heat transfer. Heat pipes are traditionally separated into three regions, an evaporator (heat input), an adiabatic region, and finally a condenser region (heat removal). As heat is being applied to the evaporator, the working fluid undergoes a phase change to a vapor. This phase change causes a differential pressure across the axial length of the pipe driving flow down the center gap of the heat pipe. The vapor flows down past the adiabatic region to the condenser where the heat is removed. This heat removal forces the working fluid to phase change back to a liquid. The wick structure is then utilized to drive the flow back towards the evaporator by capillary forces. This backflow is aided by the annular gap. Because this heat transfer mechanism functions with latent heat transfer, the heat pipe is close to isothermal down the axial length. Heat pipes can operate under a wide range of working fluids. Considerations for these working fluids are primarily driven by operating temperatures amongst other important factors based around overall performance. Sodium filled heat pipes operate from 450°C up to 900°C. This temperature range works well for the current microreactor designs. In conjunction with this experimental capability, INL has developed a modeling software to simulate heat pipe physics within reactor cores. This modeling software is called Sockeye and functions under the established INL Multiphysics Object Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE). SPHERE also supports Sockeye development by providing the modeling team with experimental data on an array of setups and operating parameters to support validation efforts. A power transient experiment was performed utilizing the SPHERE facility to continue to aid with Sockeye development. The testing followed a proposed test plan to ramp up and down the temperature of the heat pipe. Sockeye models steady state heat pipe operation with high accuracy, the data provided by the power transient testing aims to assist with the validation efforts and further enhance transient modeling capability of the tool [2].

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Benchmarking MCNP models to support gamma irradiation experiments

Seismic isolators and damping devices have been used for 30+ years to reduce seismic forces and deployed in 10,000+ structures, including bridges, buildings, and mission-critical infrastructure. Studies have shown that seismic isolation of nuclear power plants can reduce the seismic risk by several orders of magnitude and substantially reduce the overnight capital cost. Advanced reactor developers are considering seismic isolation as an integral design feature in their reactor design. It can either be deployed at the building level, isolating the entire reactor building, or at the component level, isolating individual pieces of safety-class equipment, such as a reactor vessel or a steam generator. For equipment isolation, located close to the reactor vessel, the seismic isolators and/or damping devices may be exposed to gamma and neutron radiation, with a possible effect on their mechanical properties which would affect the response of the isolated equipment under earthquake shaking. The Department of Energy, as part of its Nuclear Energy University Program (NEUP), in collaboration with the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), is funding a project at the University at Buffalo (UB) to investigate the effect of gamma radiation on the mechanical properties of various seismic protective devices. (When isolating equipment, the seismic protective devices will be located outside the reactor vessel where the neutron exposure will be insignificant.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Annual Technology Baseline: The 2023 Electricity Update

Consistent cost and performance data for various electricity generation technologies can be difficult to find and may change frequently for certain technologies. With the Annual Technology Baseline (ATB), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory annually provides an organized and centralized set of such cost and performance data. The ATB uses the best information from the Department of Energy national laboratories' renewable energy analysts. The ATB has been reviewed by experts and it includes the following electricity generation and storage technologies: land-based wind, offshore wind, distributed wind, utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV), commercial-scale solar PV, residential-scale solar PV, concentrating solar power, geothermal power, hydropower, utility-scale battery storage, commercial battery storage, residential battery storage, pumped storage hydropower, coal, and natural gas. EIA data for nuclear and conventional biopower are included for reference. This webinar presentation introduces the 2023 update to the ATB Electricity data and documentation.

capacity factor↗
DOE OSTI2024

Annual Technology Baseline: The 2024 Electricity Update

Consistent cost and performance data for various electricity generation technologies can be difficult to find and may change frequently for certain technologies. With the Annual Technology Baseline (ATB), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory annually provides an organized and centralized set of such cost and performance data. The ATB uses the best information from the Department of Energy national laboratories' energy analysts. The ATB has been reviewed by experts and it includes the following electricity generation and storage technologies: land-based wind, offshore wind, distributed wind, utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV), commercial-scale solar PV, residential-scale solar PV, concentrating solar power, geothermal power, hydropower, utility-scale battery storage, commercial battery storage, residential battery storage, pumped storage hydropower, nuclear, coal, and natural gas. EIA data for conventional biopower are included for reference. This webinar presentation introduces the 2024 update to the ATB Electricity data and documentation.

battery storage↗
DOE OSTI2022

2022 Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) Cost and Performance Data for Electricity Generation Technologies

These data provide the 2022 update of the Electricity Annual Technology Baseline (ATB). Starting in 2015 NREL has presented the ATB, consisting of detailed cost and performance data, both current and projected, for electricity generation and storage technologies. The ATB products now include data (Excel workbook, Tableau workbooks, and structured summary csv files), as well as documentation and user engagement via a website, presentation, and webinar. Starting in 2021, the data are cloud optimized and provided in the OEDI data lake. The data for 2015 - 2020 are can be found on the NREL Data Search Page. The website documentation can be found on the ATB Website.

Array↗
DOE OSTI2023

2023 Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) Cost and Performance Data for Electricity Generation Technologies

These data provide the 2023 update of the Electricity Annual Technology Baseline (ATB). Starting in 2015 NREL has presented the ATB, consisting of detailed cost and performance data, both current and projected, for electricity generation and storage technologies. The ATB products now include data (Excel workbook, Tableau workbooks, and structured summary csv files), as well as documentation and user engagement via a website, presentation, and webinar. Starting in 2021, the data are cloud optimized and provided in the OEDI data lake. The data for 2015 - 2020 are can be found on the NREL Data Search Page. The website documentation can be found on the ATB Website.

Array↗
DOE OSTI2024

2024 Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) Cost and Performance Data for Electricity Generation Technologies

These data provide the 2024 update of the Electricity Annual Technology Baseline (ATB). Starting in 2015 NREL has presented the ATB, consisting of detailed cost and performance data, both current and projected, for electricity generation and storage technologies. The ATB products now include data (Excel workbook, Tableau workbooks, and structured summary csv files), as well as documentation and user engagement via a website, presentation, and webinar. Starting in 2021, the data are cloud optimized and provided in the OEDI data lake. The data for 2015 - 2020 are can be found on the NREL Data Search Page. The website documentation can be found on the ATB Website.

Array↗
DOE OSTI2023

Annual Technology Baseline: ATB-calc Open Source Tools [Slides]

The Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) team will introduce the new open-source Python tools for processing and interacting with electricity ATB data and provide helpful user demonstrations, including how to: extract data from the ATB workbook and calculate levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) in Python; programmatically interact with and modify ATB data; and use the tools to modify the tax credit assumptions of the ATB to account for bonus credits from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗