SSRN Id3198421

Techno-economic Analysis Methods for Nuclear Power Plants
Hari C. Mantripragada1* and Edward S. Rubin2

1
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, 940 Benedum Hall, 3700
O’Hara St, Pittsburgh, PA 15261. Email: ham103@pitt.edu, Phone: +1-412-624-9630,
2
Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, BH 129, 5000
Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. Email: rubin@cmu.edu
*Corresponding author
Abstract
This paper focuses on critically reviewing the prevailing techno-economic analysis methods used
for traditional and new nuclear power plants (NPPs). The organizations whose methods are
compared here are – International Atomic Energy Agency; Massachusetts Institute of
Technology; University of Chicago, U.S. Department of Energy / Oak Ridge National
Laboratory; Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and International Energy Agency –
Nuclear Energy Agency. We identify technology and market factors that changed in the past few
years that have a direct impact on the economic feasibility of nuclear power. Based on the
review, we identify areas in which the traditional methods could be improved to better fit the
changed global scenario, so as to give a more realistic picture of the feasibility of NPPs. We
found that there are many similarities across organizations in terms of methodology. The
differences were mainly regarding the terminology and the levels of aggregation. We identified a
costing method which combines the salient features of other methods to better fit the changed
global scenario, so as to give a more realistic picture of the feasibility of NPPs.
Electroniccopy
Electronic copyavailable
available at:
at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3198421
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3198421
1. Background and Objectives
Techno-economic assessments play a critical role in technical, business, and policy

decisions related to the development and deployment of energy technologies and systems. The
type and scope of these assessments depend on factors such as the entity performing the
assessments and the intended audience. Across the energy spectrum, such assessments—defined
loosely as an analysis of the expected costs and (in some cases) the economic benefits of a new
or improved technology—are widely used to evaluate the merits of alternative technologies
relative to a baseline of current systems. Common applications include technologies for power
generation, transportation, building energy systems, appliances, industrial processes, and energy
storage.
Toward that end, techno-economic analyses performed by researchers and organizations

commonly employ what appear to be standard methods to answer the question: “what is the cost
of technology X?” However, a closer look reveals a far more complex situation in which
different analysts and organizations often employ not only different assumptions, but different
methods of analysis that can result in substantially different conclusions regarding the cost and
competitiveness of a given technology [UChicago, 2011; Dhaesaleer, 2013; Rubin et al, 2013].
Cost estimates for new or “advanced” technologies that are not yet commercial are especially
problematic, yet critical to R&D planning and energy-environmental policy analysis. In this
paper, we focus on techno-economic assessments of nuclear power plants (NPP) which include
all of the complexities described above.
Nuclear power is identified as one of the key technologies towards achieving a decarbonized
electricity sector for climate change mitigation [IEA 2017]. The importance of nuclear power has
not translated into the expected deployment and use required to meet climate targets. For
example, the rate of deployment of NPPs (in terms of capacity additions) globally has slowed
down considerably while at the same time, the share of power generation from NPPs has also
seen a steadily decline, as shown in Fig 1.
There are several factors that are causing these trends, of which the high cost of NPPs relative to
other alternatives is a big reason. In this context, it is important to note that the cost of NPPs as
estimated by different organizations have varied widely, with a priori estimates consistently
underestimating the actual incurred cost [UChicago, 2004; UChicago, 2011; D’haeseleer, 2013].
Electroniccopy
available at:
Figure 1. Nuclear electricity production and its share in global electricity (Source: Schneider and Frogatt, 2017)
Moreover, almost all the existing plants use reactor technology that is at least 2 decades old.
[IAEA, 2017]. Another interesting trend in the global nuclear power scenario is that most of the
planned new NPPs will be in countries which traditionally did not have significant NPP capacity
and many new planned NPPs will use advanced reactor technologies, which have not been used
commercially before. Electricity markets have also changed in the past two decades. For
example, since the last NPP was built in the U.S., a significant portion of the country moved
from a traditional regulated utility structure to a market-based deregulated structure. This trend is
likely to continue in several parts of the world.
Thus, we see evidence of disparity in the existing cost estimates of NPPs, while there are
continual significant changes in the geographical spread, nuclear reactor technology and market
structures around the world. Conversely, the changes in global NPP scenario are also causes for
the variation in cost estimates. Some of the reasons identified in the literature, for differences in
cost estimates, are listed in Table 1. Given the critical role of NPPs in the global energy sector, it
is important to understand the underlying methods used for techno-economic assessment of
NPPs. On top of this, it is important to evaluate the feasibility of these methods in light of the
changing nuclear landscape of advanced technology and deployment patterns.
To that end, this paper focuses on critically reviewing the prevailing techno-economic analysis
methods used for traditional and new nuclear power plants. The organizations whose methods
are compared here are:
• International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA, 2000]
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT, 2003]
• University of Chicago [UChicago, 2004]
• U.S. Department of Energy / Oak Ridge National Laboratory [DOE/ORNL, 2005]
Electroniccopy
available at:
• Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Technical Assessment Guide [EPRI, 2009], and
• International Energy Agency – Nuclear Energy Agency [IEA-NEA, 2015].
In addition to these, we also reviewed the following studies which previously conducted reviews
of techno-economic methods: University of Chicago [UChicago, 2011] and D’hasaleer (2013).
Table 1. Reasons for variation in NPP cost estimates

University of Chicago (2004):
• Differences in reactor technologies
• Variations in costs of reactor components
• Lack of adjustment of costs and prices from different times to a common year
• Allowance for contingencies
University of Chicago (2011):
• Status of technological maturity
• Site specific factors such as owner’s costs
• Changes in commodity costs
• Amortization of first of a kind engineering (FOAKE) costs
D’haeseleer (2013):
• Lack of clear definitions of cost components
• Lack of consistency in estimating cost escalations
• Underestimation of price increases of raw materials, coupled with overestimation of learning
effects, and
• Potential lack of peer-review
We identify technology and market factors that changed in the past few years that have a direct
impact on the economic feasibility of nuclear power. Based on the review, we identify areas in
which the traditional methods could be improved to better fit the changed global scenario, so as
to give a more realistic picture of the feasibility of NPPs.
As a broader goal, this exercise is used to identify and prioritize research needs to improve upon
current methods. Specifically, we will focus on “bottom up” costing methods of NPPs, as
opposed to the “top down” methods. In our analysis, we aim to answer some key research
questions including:
• How do the “bottom up” costing methods of NPPs currently used by major governmental
and private-sector organizations compare to one another?
• How do the NPP costing methods compare with the costing methods of fossil fueled
power plants?
• What are the resulting policy and technology outlook implications of major differences
and inconsistencies in current NPP costing methods?
• How can we best estimate (or characterize) the future cost of a new technology? What are
the factors that most influence future costs and how well can they be modeled?
• What methodological improvements are needed to correct deficiencies and enhance the
quality and usefulness of techno-economic assessments?
Electroniccopy
available at:
2. Technological Trends in Nuclear Power Plants
Nuclear reactors contribute a significant portion of the total cost of a nuclear power plant.
Nuclear reactors have gone through several “generations” of technological improvements. Figure
2 shows the classification of generations. Most NPPs today use what are referred to as the
“Generation II” reactors [WNA, 2017a]. The most common Generation II reactors include light
water reactors (LWRs), comprising of both pressurized water reactors (PWR) and boiling water
reactors (BWR); the heavy water CANada Deuterium Uranium reactors (CANDU); advanced
gas-cooled graphite moderated reactors (AGR); and the Reaktor Bolshoy Moshchnosty Kanalny
(RBMK) reactors. Each of these designs offer particular economic and operational advantages,
specific to a country and inter-country relations.
Figure 2. Generations of Nuclear Reactor Technology (Source: GIF, 2018)
Though these reactors were designed for a typical operational lifetime of 40 years, many are
being life-extended to 50 or 60 years, and a second life-extension to 80 years may also be
economic in many cases. For example, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
has granted 20-year license renewals to 74 of the 100 operating reactors in the United States.
These reactors may now operate for a total period of 60 years. In addition, NRC is currently
reviewing license renewal applications for an additional 17 reactors and expects to receive seven
more applications in the next few years [GIF, 2018].
Generation-III designs are an evolution of current light and heavy water reactor technology with
improved performance and extended design lifetimes, and also more favorable characteristics in
the case of extreme events such as those associated with core damage. There are only four
Generation III reactors in operation at the present time (Japan, Russia and South Korea). In
addition, Generation III+ designs are in development, offering significant improvements in
safety over Gen III reactor designs.
Electroniccopy
available at:
From basic research on new reactor designs to actual commercial exploitation takes many years,
if not decades. Already, the nuclear research community is looking at a range of advanced - so-
called Generation-IV - reactor designs that could be commercially deployed from 2040.
3. Audiences and Purposes of Cost Estimates
The audiences for NPP cost estimates include a wide spectrum of entities ranging from
government (policymakers, analysts, regulators and R&D agencies), utility, industry (operators,
vendors, EPC contractors, A&E firms, venture capital, tech developers, R&D organizations),
financiers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs – environmental, media, academia and
foundations) [Rubin et al, 2013; WNA, 2018b].
The main purposes of cost estimations for NPPs are to compare different technological
components (eg. reactors); to evaluate the cost of a particular project where the choice of
individual technologies has already been made; to evaluate the feasibility of NPPs in comparison
with other options (fossil fuel or renewable power generation); to estimate the potential of NPPs
in reaching a region’s energy and climate mitigation objectives.
The purposes of the cost estimates also vary by the organizations which produce them. The users
of cost estimates also have differing purposes. For example, UChicago (2011) notes that “The
EIA estimates are performed to support the EIA Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) modeling
activity. The EIA contracts for the completion of cost estimates for the full suite of new
electricity-generating technologies, using common assumptions and methodologies, for purposes
of comparing the cost of electricity from new generating technologies and the potential market
shares of various fuels and technologies. Because this effort is designed to support the EIA
National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), the assumptions and methodologies are set
according to model requirements, including the need for internal consistency among generating
options. As such, the EIA estimates of overnight capital costs for new nuclear plants are not
necessarily consistent with reported regulatory filings, but provide a point of comparison. The
cost estimates in EPRI’s Technical Assessment Guide (TAG) are performed as part of its
Program on Technology Innovation”. Given the diversity in the audiences and purposes, care
should be taken in using the cost estimates and interpreting them.
4. Defining the Project Scope and Design
To better understand and perform cost estimates, it is important to understand the project scope.
The scope of a project involves defining the reactor technology and its maturity, plant boundaries
(battery limits), plant location, regulatory and electricity market environment, definition of the
“life-cycle” (front end and back end of the fuel cycle), site specific factors such as owner’s costs,
to name a few. Cost estimates depend particularly on whether the project deals with the building
Electroniccopy
available at:
of a (greenfield) plant or extending the life of an older plant by relicensing. Some of these are
elaborated in the following sub-sections.
4.1. Type of plant: New vs. Relicensing
The variables to be considered in cost estimation of a new project are significantly different from
those that are needed for a relicensing plant. As noted earlier, the landscape of NPPs has changed
in the recent past both in terms of the technology and the regions where they are likely to be
built. While older plants are predominantly in the Western hemisphere, Russia and the far east,
newer plants are most likely to be built in the developing world. Older plants use Generation II
reactors while newer plants are most likely to use Generation III+ reactors. A common practice
in the nuclear energy sector is to extend the plant life time by relicensing existing power plants
with some nominal safety upgrades [IAEA, 2002]. While the technology used in older plants is
now mature, newer technology, because of the lack of experience, involves significant “learning
by doing”. Older reactor systems were fabricated on-site while Generation IV reactors (eg. small
modular reactors or SMRs) are more likely to be fabricated in factories elsewhere and brought to
the plant site. The operational life time for a new plant project is likely to be much longer than
for the period of extension of an existing plant. The difference in technologies and geographies
lead to vastly different considerations which are important for cost estimation.
Thus, there are vital technological, economic, environmental, life-cycle, regulatory’ and market
differences that are encountered by a new nuclear power project compared to a project involving
relicensing (life time extension) of an existing plant. The cost estimation methodology has to be
appropriately modified depending on the type of project [D’haeseleer, 2013].
4.2. Definition of “life-cycle”
The battery limit of a NPP differs from a typical fossil fuel power plant. For a fossil fuel power
plant, upstream fuel cycle (mining and transportation) are typically not part of the battery limits.
Fuel costs are typically considered as “as-received” at the plant boundary and the waste disposal
of ash is considered as a part of O&M costs. On the other hand, the fuel cycle of NPPs includes
both the front-end (fuel supply, conversion and enrichment; fabrication and transport to the
plant) and back-end (spent fuel storage and disposal). As will be shown later in the paper, most
cost estimating methods incorporate the entire fuel cycle. Some of them also consider a fund for
permanent storage of spent fuel. Though NPPs are capital intensive in nature, accounting for the
fuel cycle costs, particularly the backend items, is gaining increasing importance.
Electroniccopy
available at:
4.3. Regulated vs deregulated market
Electricity markets have changed from a traditional regulated utility to deregulated markets. In a
regulated market electricity prices are directly related to the cost of generation, while in a
deregulated market, the wholesale electricity price is set by the marginal generation unit in the
overall system. In regulated utilities, the costs of the entire life-cycle of the NPP (including waste
management and decommissioning) are transferred to the consumer, while in a deregulated
market those costs are provided by the NPP operator, thereby reducing the profit margins [IAEA,
2006; D’haseleer, 2013]. Thus, financial risk is also valued and distributed differently in both the
markets.
Though the cost estimation methodology is likely to be the same for both the markets, the
specific assumptions about the distribution of financial risks, the management model and the
metrics which are used to evaluate the feasibility are likely to be different. The type of market
also affects financial parameters such as debt-equity ratio and discount rates, which will be
discussed later. Given the importance of the market structure, the cost estimating methodologies
should identify and quantify variables that account for the market type.
5. Cost categories for NPP cost estimates
Given a project scope, we next address the classification scheme for project cost items. Over the
years, several prominent industrial and governmental organizations, including the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI), the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(DOE/ORNL), the International Energy Agency’s Nuclear Energy Agency (IEA/NEA), the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have each developed costing procedures and
guidelines to help bring a greater degree of consistency and uniformity to their own NPP cost
estimates. In this section, we review the costing methods of these organizations to study their
similarities and differences, paying close attention to the terminology, cost elements considered
and levels of aggregation, so that consumers of cost numbers can clearly identify what those
numbers and the assumptions behind them mean. Other research organizations (e.g.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2003) and University of Chicago (2011)) have used these
methods to derive their own methodology for NPP cost estimates. Hence, they are also included
in Table 2.
Below, we give a brief overview of the elements of capital cost, O&M costs and other cost-
related items such as levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and financing charges used in the
studies reviewed here. The goal is to understand how these organizations account for these cost
elements, rather than on identifying the quantitative assumptions they used in different studies.
Electroniccopy
available at:
5.1. Elements of capital cost
Table 2 shows the method and nomenclature for aggregated capital cost items employed by each
of the five organizations surveyed. Perhaps not surprisingly, there are many similarities across
organizations in terms of methodology. But there are also some differences, mainly regarding the
terminology and the levels of aggregation. For example, owner’s costs and contingencies are
included at different points in the calculations of different organizations. Some widely used
terms, like Total Overnight Cost, Total Capital Investment, Total Capital Cost, Total Cost of
Construction, Total Capital Requirement etc sound very similar but different organizations mean
different things in their levels of aggregation of capital costs. Similar discrepancies in fossil fuel
power plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) have been documented by Rubin et al
(2013).
Table 2. Elements of Capital costs

IAEA (2000) MIT (2003) U Chicago DoE/ORNL EPRI (2009) IEA-NEA
(2004) (2005) (2015)
Direct cost Direct cost Direct cost Direct cost Direct cost
+ + + + +
Indirect cost = Indirect cost = Indirect cost Indirect cost = Indirect cost
Base cost EPC (incl owner’s PFC +
+ + costs) = + Pre-construction
Supplementary Contingency Base cost GFC = (owner’s cost)
cost + + Bare Erected +
(contingency Owner’s cost Contingency = Cost Contingency =
etc) + +
+ FOAKE = E&HO Overnight
Owner’s cost = Overnight Overnight cost + construction
Overnight cost construction Total overnight Contingency = cost (OCC)
+ cost cost + Total plant cost +
Escalation + Escalation + IDC
+ IDC + Owner’s cost =
= Investment
IDC IDC Total overnight
cost
+ cost
Fees +
= Total capital = Total cost of = Total capital Escalation
investment cost construction cost +
(TCIC) Financial costs =
Total Capital
Requirement
5.1.1 Overnight capital cost
A cost element that is common to all the organizations is the “overnight” capital cost. Though
actual term used varies between studies (such as “total overnight cost”, “overnight construction
cost” or simply “overnight cost”), the list of items used in the calculation are fairly consistent
Electroniccopy
available at:
across organizations. “Overnight” cost assumes that all the construction happens overnight,
without including escalation and financial costs. As it will be shown below, most of the studies
include the same cost items while calculating overnight capital costs. All the organizations
(except MIT) consider the following cost components while calculating overnight costs – direct
construction costs, indirect construction costs, owner’s costs and contingencies. However, there
is some difference in the aggregation levels of these cost components. These terms are briefly
described below.
Direct costs: Direct construction costs essentially include an itemized list of all process
equipment and structures, together with the cost of installation, site labor and material. Some of
the process equipment that are need to be included in cost estimation are shown in Table 3. The
nomenclature, with minor differences, is common in all the studies. Though not shown here,
Chicago (2004) also shows overnight costs classified into equipment, labor and materials cost
components.
Indirect costs: Indirect construction costs essentially include engineering and home office
services, construction services and supervision. Here also, the nomenclature, with minor
differences, is common in all the studies. Only DOE/ORNL includes Owner’s costs also as part
of indirect costs.
Table 3. List of components for direct and indirect costs (IAEA, 2013)
Components of overnight capital costs:
Common power plant
• Conventional building
• Turbogenerator system
• Electrical systems (excluding the generator)
• Condenser or heat transfer to the heat sink
• Other miscellaneous equipment
Nuclear power plant equipment
• Containment or confinement
• Core vessel
• Control rods
• Primary to secondary heat exchangers (steam generators)
• Spent fuel management system
• Instrumentation and control system
• Coolant management and control system
• Primary pumps or compressor, pressure regulation equipment
• Other reactor equipment
Indirect capital costs:
• Special equipment for reactor mounting
• Engineering costs
• Fixed indirect costs
• Indirect conventional costs
• Indirect nuclear costs
• Other indirect costs
10
Electroniccopy
available at:
Base costs: The sum of direct and indirect costs is called as “base cost” [DOE/ORNL and
IAEA]; as “engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) cost” [UChicago]; and as “process
facilities capital (PFC)” [EPRI].
Contingencies: Contingency costs are generally added to the base costs to account for “all
unexpected costs resulting from unforeseeable events up to the date of commercial operation
which are not in the supplier’s scope and which are related to the other accounts.” [IAEA, 2014].
Table 4 shows the definitions of contingency as given in different reports. These uncertainties
can occur at the process (eg. reactor technology) or the project level. According to EPRI,
“project contingency is a capital cost contingency factor covering the cost of additional
equipment or other costs that would result from a more detailed design of a definitive project at
an actual site” and “process contingency is a capital cost contingency factor applied to a new
technology to quantify the uncertainty in the technical performance and cost of commercial scale
equipment.” In terms of NPPs, process contingency is likely to be a key cost parameter because
of different levels of technological maturity of new nuclear reactors (such as Generation III+
which has seen limited commercial experience). AACE and EPRI suggest contingency factors
based on the technological maturity of a technology as well as the level of detail used in the cost
estimation. Contingency also matters when estimating costs of FOAK vs NOAK plants, with
FOAK plants having a much higher contingency compared to NOAK plants.
However, other than EPRI, all other studies use a single entity for overall contingency. As we
will explore later, contingency factor is a key parameter to consider when evaluating NPPs in the
current scenario.
Chicago (2011) partitioned “contingency” into three parts when calculating the levelized unit
energy cost (LUEC). The first contingency is typically the one applied to the base cost and
covers construction cost uncertainty. The second one, applied to the IDC term, covers the cost
effect of construction schedule uncertainty. The third contingency is a factor applied to cover
uncertainty in plant performance as measured by the capacity factor.
Owner’s costs: A significant source of discrepancy in the costs of NPPs reported by different
organizations is the cost item referred to as “owner’s costs”. Owner’s costs are the expenses that
are paid by the owner, associated specifically with project and plant site, and are not included in
base cost estimate in general. (An exception is DoE/ORNL which includes owner’s cost as part
of the indirect costs). Table 5 shows the list of items considered by different organizations under
the category of “owner’s costs.” As can be seen, there is a variation in the details of what is
considered as owner’s costs. A typical practice is to account for owner’s costs as a percentage of
the base costs. The magnitude of owner’s cost depends strongly on the items included in the
definition of scope [UChicago, 2011].
11
Electroniccopy
available at:
Table 4. Definition and Accounting of “Contingency” in Different Studies
IAEA (2000) MIT (2003) U Chicago (2004) DoE/ORNL (2005) EPRI (2009) IEA-NEA (2015)
Comprises To these direct and Includes allowance Project To account for

allowances for all No details indirect costs, for indeterminates contingency is a changes in
unexpected costs vendors add a and shall be capital cost overnight cost
during
resulting from percentage referred calculated as a contingency factor
construction,
unforseeable to as percentage of base covering the cost resulting from
events up to the contingencies construction of additional unforeseen
date of (account 96). They cost…. A equipment or other technical or
commercial will need to justify contingency cost of costs that would regulatory events
operation which these contingency 25% of the result from a more (15% of overnight
are not in the costs to a buyer, applicable base cost detailed design of costs for nuclear)
supplier’s scope and shall be calculated a definitive project
and which are they may be for those systems at an actual site.
related to the other negotiated. that are innovative, Process
accounts. This Sometimes a that represent a contingency is a
account may government will substantial capital cost
include costs of agree to pay departure from contingency factor
repair, contingency costs. previously built applied to a new
disassembly, These may range designs, or that technology to
return from 9 to 12 require a high quantify the
transportation to percent of total assurance of quality uncertainty in the
the supplier, and direct and indirect in construction and technical
reinstallation, if costs, or be as low operation. For performance and
not specifically as zero. systems or cost of commercial
included in the components that scale equipment.”
supplier’s contract. are standard, a
It does not include contingency cost of
financial cost 15% of the
contingencies. applicable base cost
shall be calculated.
Overnight capital cost:

The sum of base costs, owner’s costs and contingencies is called as “overnight cost” (IAEA, and
UChicago), “total overnight cost” (DOE/ORNL), “overnight construction cost” (MIT) and “total
plant cost” (EPRI). EPRI also adds a separate entity called general facilities capital (GFC) in
calculating the bare erected cost (BEC) (refer to Table 2). Other studies include this as part of the
indirect construction costs. Thus, though there are minor differences in terminology, all the
studies seem to agree on the cost items to be included in the calculation of “overnight cost.”
5.3. Total capital requirement
To calculate the total capital required before the plant goes into operation, escalation and other
costs incurred over the period of construction should be added to the overnight capital cost.
These costs are functions of financial parameters such as discount rate, debt-equity ratio, interest
rate, loan schedule and the period of construction. Besides these, the accounting of currency –
constant or current – also affects the cost estimates. Some of these are elaborated in this section.
12
Electroniccopy
available at:
Table 5. Definitions and Accounting of “Owner's costs” in Different Studies
IAEA (2000) MIT (2003) U Chicago (2004) DoE/ORNL (2005) EPRI (2009) IEA-NEA (2015)
-Land and land rights Paid directly by the - Management, - pre-paid royalties Include expenses
-On-site and off-site No details buyer. These are engineering, -Pre-production (or incurred by the
infrastructure (e.g. costs of testing integration and startup) costs owners associated
with the plant and
camp construction, systems within the QA/QC -Inventory capital
plant site, but
electricity and water plant, training a staff - Taxes and - initial cost of excluding off-site,
supplies, (which may take insurance catalyst and “beyond the busbar”,
telecommunications) several years while - Spare parts and chemicals transmission costs
; the plant is being initial supplies - Land
-Buildings, built), various - Staff training and
workshops, garages, inspections, etc. startup
canteen and These range from 5 - General and
information centre; to 10% of direct and administrative costs
-Main transformer (if indirect costs - Capital equipment
not included in
account 24), and
switchyard;
-Administration and
service costs for the
above installations;
-Equipment, machine
tools for workshops,
hand tools and
instruments;
-Storage of
equipment, fuel
and/or heavy water
beyond that of the
initial
contract;
-Operating the plant
from first criticality
to the commercial
operation date;
-Spare parts and
consumables for the
equipment and tools;
-Insurance, taxes,
fees, licensing,
personnel and
additional training (if
applicable).
Constant vs. current dollar values

Cost estimates should always identify the year of the currency quoted and identify whether the
costs are reported in constant (real) or current (nominal) currency, and what the reference year is
in case of the latter. Current (nominal) money includes the effect of inflation while constant
(real) money excludes it. Inconsistencies or lack of clarity in currency accounting lead to
inconsistent cost estimates because of double counting of escalation effects.
Escalation costs
Cost escalations occur because of inflation or real escalation (beyond inflation) in prices of raw
materials or process equipment. Inflation costs are usually expressed by a gross domestic product
13
Electroniccopy
available at:
(GDP) deflator or consumer price index. Real escalation of costs over the years is commonly
expressed in terms of indices provided by different organizations – such as chemical engineering
plant cost index or power capital cost index. Cost estimation methods should clearly identify
whether one or both the escalation costs are included in the final costs. Care must also be taken
not to double count inflation effects, since escalation costs could contribute significantly to the
final costs.
It can be seen from Table 2 that not all studies account for escalation. UChicago (2004), MIT
(2003) and IEA-NEA (2015) do not include escalation in the calculation of the final capital costs.
For the studies which consider escalation, the items considered and the methods used for
different. For example, IAEA (2000) considers only inflation-based escalation costs which
calculated on the basis of price adjustment formulas submitted by the bidders, using labor,
materials and other official indices. They also apply escalation to capital costs, owners costs as
well as some O&M cost items. Similarly, DOE/ORNL also assumes escalation only at the same
rate as inflation without real escalation. On the other hand, EPRI (2009) considers both inflation
and real escalation in calculation of the overall cost.
Interest during construction (IDC)

Interest during construction (IDC) indicates the expenditure required during the period of
construction for paying the interest on the capital investment.
According to IAEA, “IDC comprises the accumulated money disbursed to pay off interest on the
capital invested in the plant during construction. Associated with every project are financial costs
related to the use of capital. The financing terms cover the conditions and costs of the loans
offered by the different suppliers and/or lending agencies (banks, credit institutions, etc.) for the
scope of supply and services contained in the relevant bids.”
Table 6 shows the ways in which different organizations account for IDC. Since calculation of
these costs depend on the period of construction as well as financial parameters like interest rates
and inflation, other parameters such as debt-equity ratio and delays in construction are very
important, particularly for highly capital-intensive projects such as NPPs. Because of
construction delays experienced at many nuclear power projects, there is a tendency for investors
to add a risk premium to the interest rates. Such a measure would significantly increase the IDC
and hence the total project cost [WNA, 2018b]. Thus, uncertainty in construction delays should
be explicitly dealt with in estimating IDC charges.
14
Electroniccopy
available at:
Table 6. Definitions and Accounting of Interest During Construction (IDC) in Different Studies
IAEA (2000) MIT (2003) U Chicago (2004) DoE/ORNL EPRI (2009) IEA-NEA (2015)
(2005)
As a general rule, In order to finance Interest costs are The IDC rate is the Interest paid on No details
the owner of an construction, the deductible against average cost of the cash
NPP must pay the project takes on the corporate money and expended during
includes both
following debt obligations income tax. They the construction
equity and debt
financing charges: and attracts equity are affected by capital used to period. This
- Interest on the investors with risk finance a project. interest is
amount of money certain considerations, accumulated and
drawn from the requirements. Debt which will be compounded
total loan, and equity each analyzed, and by until the plant goes
committed have an expected loan guarantees, into service.
according to the minimum rate of which is one of the [No details for
progress of return and debt has financial policies NPPs]
construction. a specified that will be
- Commitment repayment period. considered.
fees on the total or The interest on [Most of chapter 5
remaining amount debt and imputed discusses what
of the loan. interest on equity should be the
Payment starts are added to the interest on debt
after signing of the overnight cost to and equity]
loan agreement find the total cost
and extends over of construction,
the disbursement employing an
period effective interest
(e.g. 0.25% per rate (derived from
year on the interest rate on
balance of the debt and equity).
committed funds
not yet drawn).
- Management fee
to be paid at the
beginning of the
loan period for all
operations
related to loan
management (e.g.
0.3% of the
committed funds).
Total capital requirement

The sum of overnight costs, escalation and IDC is the actual capital expenditure required before
the plant starts operating. As shown in Table 2, the sum is called as “Total Capital Investment
Cost”, “Total Capital Cost”, “Total Cost of Construction” or “Total Capital Requirement” by
different organizations. IAEA (2013), not shown in the table, uses the term “Total Lump Sum
Capital Cost” for this. Rubin et al (2013) recommend the usage of the term “Total Capital
Requirement” for this cost.
15
Electroniccopy
available at:
5.2. Elements of O&M costs
Table 7 shows a comparison of the O&M cost elements considered by the organizations
reviewed here. The comparison shows a significant similarity in the cost items, terminology and
levels of aggregation. The main categories of O&M costs which are common to all organizations
are: fuel cycle (front-end and back-end), variable O&M (such as labor and consumables) and
fixed O&M. Typically, for nuclear power plants, non-fuel O&M costs are higher than fuel O&M
costs, compared to other technologies [WNA, 2018b]. IAEA and DOE include waste disposal
into the back-end fuel cycle costs while other organizations have waste disposal as a separate
category (waste fund or waste fee). All the organizations, except EPRI, consider
“decommissioning” costs also as part of O&M cost items. EPRI does not include
decommissioning cost anywhere in the costing methodology.
5.3. Other cost-related elements
Capital costs and O&M costs are combined to calculate total cost of generating electricity
($/MWh). This calculation requires several plant financing parameters such as interest rate,
discount rate, plant lifetime, fixed charge factor, and weighted cost of capital. These parameters
depend on several factors such as the country of the planned project, the type of investor and the
market environment. For example, a low discount rate is appropriate for plants operating under
the more traditional regulated utility model where revenues are guaranteed by captive markets,
while a high discount rate is more appropriate for a riskier deregulated environment where the
plant must compete with other generation sources for revenues [DOE/ORNL, 2005]. All the
organizations use the same formula to calculate the COE.
6. Cost Evaluation of FOAK Plants
As discussed earlier in the paper, the global nuclear energy sector is going through a period of
transition in terms of technology, geography and policy. As a result, many of the plants that will
be built in the future can be deemed as first-of-a-kind (FOAK). There is an increasing
recognition of this fact by organizations involved in NPP project planning [DOE/ORNL, 2005;
D’haeseleer, 2013; IAEA, 2013; Chicago, 2004&11; WNA, 2018b]. This section addresses the
factors that need to be considered in cost estimation for FOAK plants.
16
Electroniccopy
available at:
Table 7. Elements of O&M costs
IAEA (2000) MIT (2003) U Chicago DoE/ORNL EPRI IEA-NEA (2015)
(2004) (2005) (2009)
Fuel cycle costs: Fuel (no details) Fuel (no details) Fuel cycle costs: Fuel Fuel:
-U supply, -U supply, - front end
conversion, Fixed O&M Fixed O&M conversion, Fixed (mining,
enrichment,
enrichment and enrichment and O&M
conditioning)
fabrication Variable O&M Variable O&M fabrication - back end (spent
-Transport -Transport Variable fuel removal,
-Spent fuel Waste fund Waste fee -Spent fuel O&M disposal and
storage and final storage and final storage)
disposal Decommissioning Decommissioning disposal Waste - Fixed O&M
fee -
Decommissioning
Non-fuel costs: Incremental Incremental Non-fuel costs:
-Staffing, capital capital -Staffing,
consumable consumable
operating operating
materials and materials and
equipment equipment
-repair and -repair and
interim interim
replacements replacements
-purchased -purchased
services services
-nuclear -nuclear
insurance insurance
-taxes and fees -taxes and fees
- -
decommissioning decommissioning
allowances allowances
-miscellaneous -miscellaneous
costs costs
-costs of general -costs of general
and and
administrative administrative
support functions
support functions
and cost of
and cost of providing
providing working capital
working capital for plant O&M
for plant O&M
6.1. Definitions of FOAK
In the nuclear industry, the term FOAK could be applied for new reactor technologies (Gen III+)
or new practices for plant construction (e.g. pre-fabricated modular reactors brought to the plant
site), which are different from established practices. Developing detailed engineering
specifications required for incorporation of a new reactor design into a full-scale project is likely
17
Electroniccopy
available at:
to encounter huge cost increases relative to the same reactor design at a simple conceptual stage
[Chicago, 2004]. Thus, FOAK factors have to be considered in any cost estimate of new NPPs.
There are two aspects to FOAK designs – new designs; and incorporating those designs in
different sites. Accordingly, D’haesaleer (2013) define two kinds of FOAK reactors – FOAK1,
meaning the first of a kind reactor ever built; and FOAK2, which are the first reactors of a certain
kind within a particular country. They consider only FOAK2 scenarios in developing cost
estimation guidelines. The key difference between the two is that once the FOAK1 reactor is built
somewhere, the same design efforts need not be repeated for elsewhere. However, its
engineering design needs to be adapted for placing this reactor in a different site, with its site-
specific characteristics. Without accounting for these costs, the cost evaluations are likely to be
underestimated. Thus, the cost estimation methods should clearly identify whether the proposed
project is FOAK1 or FOAK2.
Another area of uncertainty with new technologies is the advanced fuel-cycles which involve
steps such as fuel recycling or actinide partitioning/transmutation, that are not commercially
available [IAEA, 2013]. There is an inherent lack of information on prices, process losses, timing
of purchases or even optimum facility size for many steps.
6.2. Accounting for FOAK costs
The way in which FOAK costs are added to plant capital costs depends mainly on how the
vendor wishes to allocate these across its reactor sales [WNA, 2018b]. Based on the study of cost
estimation methods in Section 5, contingency values, discount rates, debt-equity ratio and plant
construction period are the cost items that can be varied to account for FOAK issues.
OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) constituted a Generation IV International Forum (GIF)
for development of a standard protocol for cost estimation of projects using new generation
nuclear reactors [NEA, 2007]. They identified that development of new guidelines for
Generation IV concepts would not be simply a matter of updating input parameters such as labor
rates, commodity prices, etc. but a much broader evaluation spanning the technical scope,
product streams, and the international institutional environment. Table 8 shows the main
differences between the guidelines for older technologies and Generation IV technologies (NEA,
2007).
18
Electroniccopy
available at:
Table 8. Comparison of cost estimating guidelines for older and Generation IV technology (Table 1.1 in NEA, 2007).
ALMR – Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor; EEDB – Energy Economic Database; GFR – Gas-cooled Fast Reactor;
HEU – Highly Enriched Uranium; HTGR – High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor; LFR – Lead-cooled Fast
Reactor; LMR – Liquid Metal Reactor; MHTGR – Modular High-Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor; MSR –
Molten Salt Reactor; SFR – Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor; SCWR – Supercritical Water-cooled Reactor;
UNSRC – U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; VHTR – Very High-Temperature Reactor.
UChicago (2004) observe that, “Vendors may deal with the pricing problem by either (1) quoting
nth-of-a-kind costs, which exclude FOAKE costs and include cost reductions due to learning
over the construction of the first (n-1) reactors, or (2) quoting capital cost for a first plant in $ per
kW terms and placing the FOAKE cost alongside as a cover charge.”
UChicago (2004) considered three reactor designs in different stages of development (mature
design, new design, and advanced new design) and developed a lower-range, mid-point, and
upper-range estimate for each design. They accounted for the FOAK costs by having different
values for contingency, owner’s costs and a dedicated FOAK engineering (FOAKE) factor for
different maturity levels. They estimated that the full amount of FOAKE could be as high as
35% of the total overnight capital costs.
Another way of accounting for the FOAKE costs is by amortization, which could have a
significant impact on the cost of the early plants [UChicago, 2011]. FOAKE costs can be
amortized differently over the number of units in a particular project or over a number of plants
using the same technology. For example, if the FOAKE cost were amortized over two units, it
19
Electroniccopy
available at:
would amount to about 11% of the total overnight capital cost estimate, but if it were amortized
over four plants FOAKE costs would represent only about 1.5% of the total overnight capital
cost.
D’haeseleer (2013) accounted for the FOAK costs by using different contingency factors for
different maturity levels. For example, the contingency factors for FOAK1 would be in the range
of 30-50%, for FOAK2 in the range of 15-30% and for NOAK plants in the range of 10-15%. As
already mentioned before, UChicago (2011) partitioned “contingency” into three parts when
calculating the levelized unit energy cost (LUEC) – to cover the construction capital cost
uncertainty, to cover the cost of construction schedule uncertainty and to to cover uncertainty in
plant performance as measured by the capacity factor.
IAEA (2013) has developed a suite of models for economic evaluation of Gen IV small modular
reactors (SMRs), of which the G4-ECONS model is a “bottom-up” model for cost-estimation of
NPPs. They suggest the use of a time-dependent discount rate to take into account the
uncertainties related to the deployment of Gen IV technologies which have not seen any
commercial application to date. To account for the uncertainties caused by lack of information
on advanced fuel cycles, they suggest division of equilibrium fuel cycle into definable steps for
which unit cost information is available or derivable. However, they do not explicitly account for
FOAK costs in the bottom-up method.
The review above shows that new plants have several uncertainties covering different phases of
the project, which have a direct impact on the overall cost of generating electricity from NPPs.
The uncertainties include inherent cost of FOAK design; site-specific cost of FOAK engineering;
uncertainties in fuel-cycle costs; construction delays for various reasons; and those related to
unforeseen stoppages in the plant operation, as reflected in the capacity factor. A robust cost-
estimation methodology should include factors which account for all these uncertainties.
7. Calculating key cost metrics
Several cost metrics are used for evaluating the economic feasibility of power plants. Levelized
cost of electricity (LCOE) is a widely used cost measure for comparative analysis. While the
specific procedures, definitions, and assumptions employed by different organizations can and
do vary, all approaches rely on “present value” or “discounted cash flow” calculations in order to
place expenditures that occur in different time periods on a common value basis. Differences
arise, however, in whether nominal or real values are used (and how they are treated), how real
escalation rates are incorporated (either explicitly or implicitly), and what financing mechanisms
and parameter values are assumed. Such differences may not be readily apparent to a casual
reader, but they inhibit or preclude direct comparisons of LCOE values across studies (Rubin et
al, 2013).
20
Electroniccopy
available at:
To account for the changing nuclear landscape, several other cost metrics could be used as
indicators for the economics of NPPs, particularly for deregulated markets. Some of them are
reviewed here.
7.1. Levelized cost of electricity
The LCOE is a characteristic “cost of electricity generation” ($/MWh) that incorporates all
expenses for building and operating a power plant over its economic life with an expected rate of
return on invested capital, normalized over the total net electricity generated. It thus represents a
price per MWh that utilities must charge in order to recoup all expenses plus its desired rate of
return. In words, it also can be defined as, “the present value of the sum of discounted costs
divided by total production adjusted for its economic time value” [IEA, 2017]. Some
organizations reviewed here also refer to LCOE as levelized unit energy cost (LUEC) or bus bar
cost of electricity.
7.2. Other economic indicators
IAEA (2013) identified some cost metrics which are crucial for the profitability of NPPs in a
deregulated market. Two of these measures (in $/MWh) are described below.
Going forward cost (GFC)

Going forward cost is the sum of nuclear O&M cost, indirect cost, fuel cost, the carrying cost on
going forward net outstanding capital additions, and inventory for a given period divided by the
net generation over the same period. GFC includes all categories of cost for a given period
associated with the production of electricity, excluding all outstanding investment carrying costs.
While LCOE is a measure of all the costs over the lifetime of the plant, GFC is a measure of all
costs minus the sunk costs. Thus, GFC is an effective economic measure suitable to estimate the
cost-effectiveness when a plant changes ownership in mid-life.
Production cost
Production cost is the sum of nuclear O&M cost plus nuclear fuel cost, for a given period,
divided by the net generation produced over the same period. It provides an effective measure of
the variable and controllable costs of the O&M of nuclear units, but do not include annual
carrying costs associated with capital investments. Thus, this cost is an indicator of the marginal
cost of producing electricity, without considering the capital costs, and hence is a useful indicator
of the NPP’s competitiveness in a deregulated electricity market.
21
Electroniccopy
available at:
7.3. Cost of CO2 avoided
The “cost of CO2 avoided” is an indicator of the feasibility of nuclear power as a CO2 mitigation
pathway. This cost measure compares a NPP to a “reference plant” to quantify the average cost
of avoiding a unit emission of CO2 to the air while still providing a unit of useful product (e.g.,
one MWh of electricity). The reference plant in this case could be a fossil-fueled plant for which
a NPP is considered as an alternative. For more discussion on this cost, refer to Rubin et al
(2013).
8. Discussion and Conclusion
In the sections above, we reviewed the prevailing techno-economic analysis methods used for
traditional and new nuclear power plants by several organizations. We now revisit the questions
raised in section 1 and answer them based on the review conducted in the previous sections.
How do the “bottom up” costing methods of NPPs currently used by major governmental and
private-sector organizations compare to one another?
A summary of the costing methods used by different organizations is given in Table 2. We found
that there are many similarities across organizations in terms of methodology. The differences
were mainly regarding the terminology and the levels of aggregation, as listed below:
• The sum of direct and indirect costs is called as “base cost” [DOE/ORNL and IAEA]; as
“engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) cost” [UChicago]; and as “process
facilities capital (PFC)” [EPRI]. However, DOE/ORNL includes owner’s costs also in the
base cost.
• Table 5 shows that there is a variation in the details of what is considered as owner’s
costs by different organizations.
• Owner’s costs are not included in base cost estimate in general, except for DoE/ORNL
which includes owner’s cost as part of the indirect costs.
• Owner’s costs and contingencies are included at different points in the calculations by
different organizations.
• Other than EPRI, all other organizations use a single entity for overall contingency.
• The sum of base costs, owner’s costs and contingencies is called as “overnight cost”
[IAEA, UChicago], “total overnight cost” [DOE/ORNL], “overnight construction cost”
[MIT] and “total plant cost” [EPRI]. EPRI also adds a separate entity called general
facilities capital (GFC) in calculating the bare erected cost (BEC) (refer to Table 2).
Other studies include this as part of the indirect construction costs.
• Not all studies account for escalation (Table 2). UChicago (2004), MIT (2003) and IEA-
NEA (2015) do not include escalation in the calculation of the final capital costs. IAEA
(2014) considers only inflation-based escalation costs which are applied to capital costs,
owner’s costs as well as some O&M cost items. DOE/ORNL also assumes escalation
22
Electroniccopy
available at:
only at the same rate as inflation without real escalation. On the other hand, EPRI (2009)
considers both inflation and real escalation in calculation of the overall cost.
• Table 2 shows the difference in nomenclature for the total capital costs. The sum is called
as “Total Capital Investment Cost”, “Total Capital Cost”, “Total Cost of Construction”,
“Total Capital Requirement”. Rubin et al (2013) recommend the usage of the term “Total
Capital Requirement” for this cost.
In order to avoid repetition of words and to minimize the chances of misinterpretations, we

recommend not using “total” in the overnight costs. We suggest the use of the term “overnight
construction cost”, as done by MIT (2003) and IEA-NEA (2015) to denote the overnight costs
and “total capital requirement” for the final cost, as done by EPRI (2009).
How do the NPP costing methods compare with the costing methods of fossil fueled power
plants?
Rubin et al (2013) conducted a review of some of the prevalent costing methods used for fossil
fueled power plants. A comparison of those with the methods reviewed here shows that there are
difference in the terminology used for the cost items included in overnight capital cost
calculations. For example, the sum of direct and indirect capital cost is in general called as “Bare
Erected Cost (BEC)” for fossil fueled power plants, while it is called as “base cost” or are kept
separate in NPP cost estimating methods. Organizations such as EPRI which do cost estimations
for different types of power plants, use the same methodology for fossil plants and NPPs.
What are the resulting policy and technology outlook implications of major differences and
inconsistencies in current costing methods?
In the changing nuclear scenario, cost items such as contingencies, owner’s costs, interest rates,
debt-equity ratios, construction periods, discount rates and capacity factor are of critical
importance that affect the overall costs of NPPs. Though this review did not find major
inconsistencies in the costing methods as such, as noted by D’haeseleer (2013), the actual
numerical assumptions made by different organizations lead to vastly different cost numbers.
Such variation in assumptions has major policy implications, by either grossly underestimating
the cost of NPPs or in some cases, overestimating the cost. Given the uncertain scenario
witnessed by nuclear power in recent times, we also recommend that uncertainty ranges be
considered for these crucial factors.
How can we best estimate (or characterize) the future cost of a new technology? What are the
factors that most influence future costs and how well can they be modeled?
In the “bottom-up” methods reviewed in this paper, the only parameters that are directly linked
to technology maturity are contingency and FOAK factors. “Learning rates”, (not discussed in
this paper) which are used more in the traditional “top-down” costing methods can be used to
characterize the evolution of cost of a new technology.
23
Electroniccopy
available at:
What methodological improvements are needed to correct deficiencies and enhance the quality
and usefulness of techno-economic assessments?
Recent trends in global nuclear power showed a change in technological (Generation III+),
market (deregulated vs regulated) and geographical factors, with the existing NPPs in the
developed world more prone to relicensing and new plants being built in other parts of the world.
All these factors can be accounted for in the costing methods by using a nuanced estimation of
contingency and FOAK factors. Thus, we recommend the use of a costing method which
combines the salient features of EPRI (2009), Chicago (2011) and Dhaeseleer (2013).
Specifically, we recommend the use of multiple contingency factors, as has been done by
Chicago (2011), to account for uncertainties in capital cost (to take into account technological
maturity), IDC (to take into account for uncertainties in construction delays) and capital cost (for
plant performance uncertainty). We also recommend partitioning the contingency into “process”
and “project” continencies as done by EPRI (2009). Debt-equity ratio and discount rates should
be clearly identified as they affect the IDC significantly. An outline of this recommended
methodology is shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Recommended capital cost estimation method, based on the salient features of EPRI (2009), UChicago (2011) and
D’haeseleer (2013).
Direct cost
+
Indirect cost (also includes GFC and E&HO)
=
Base cost
+
Capital cost contingency (process and project)
+
Owner’s cost
+
FOAKE
=
Overnight construction cost
+
Escalation (real escalation + inflation, depending on the currency method)
+
Interest during construction (IDC)*
+
IDC contingency
=
Total Capital Requirement
*Discount rates and debt-equity ratio should be clearly defined to account for differences in market factors, for both
relicensing and new plants.
24
Electroniccopy
available at:
We recommend the usage of the term “levelized cost of electricity (LCOE)”, rather than
“levelized unit energy cost (LUEC)”, in order to make the metric consistent with other power
generation technologies. We recommend inclusion of a third contingency factor to cover
uncertainty in plant performance as measured by the capacity factor. We also recommend
calculating and reporting cost metrics such as going forward cost and production cost to assess
the feasibility of NPPs in different market, regulatory and policy conditions.
We reviewed costing methods practiced by different organizations and identified a costing

method which combines the salient features of other methods to better fit the changed global
scenario, so as to give a more realistic picture of the feasibility of NPPs.
References
D’haeseleer, W.D., 2013, “Synthesis on the economics of nuclear energy”, Study for European
Commission, Final Report, November.
DOE/ORNL, 2005, “Cost estimating guidelines for generation IV nuclear energy systems”,
Economic Modeling Working Group (EMWG), U.S. Department of Energy, September.
EPRI, 2009, TAG Technical Assessment Guide – Power Generation and Storage Technology
Options. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, December (Report No. 1017465).
GIF, 2018, The Generation IV International Forum, https://www.gen-

4.org/gif/jcms/c_9260/public, accessed January, 2018.
IAEA, 2017, “International Status and Prospects for Nuclear Power 2017”, Report by Director
General, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. July.
IAEA, 2000, “Economic Evaluation of Bids for Nuclear Power Plants 1999 Edition”, Technical
Reports Series No. 396, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
IAEA, 2002, “Cost drivers for the assessment of nuclear power plant life extension”, TecDoc
1309, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
IAEA, 2006, “Economic Performance Indicators for Nuclear Power Plants”, Technical Reports
Series No. 437, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
IAEA, 2013, “Approaches for Assessing the Economic Competitiveness of Small and Medium
Sized Reactors”, Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-3.7, International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna.
25
Electroniccopy
available at:
IAEA, 2014, “Preparation of a Feasibility Study for New Nuclear Power Projects”, Nuclear
Energy Series No. NP-T-3.3, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
IEA, 2017, “Tracking Clean Energy Progress”, Energy Technologies Perspective 2017 Excerpt,
International Energy Agency. June.
IEA-NEA, 2015, “Projected costs of generating electricity,” IEA Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris,
France.
MIT, 2003, “The Future of Nuclear Power”, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston,
USA.
NEA, 2007, “Cost estimating guidelines for generation IV nuclear energy systems”, Economic
Modeling Working Group (EMWG), OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, September.
Rubin E.S., Short, C., Booras, G., Davison, J., Ekstorm, C., Matuszewski, M., McCoy, S., 2013,
“A proposed methodology for CO2capture and storage cost estimates”, International Journal of
Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 488-503.
Schneider M., and Frogatt, A., 2017, “The World Nuclear Energy Status Report”, A Mycle
Schneider Consulting Project, Paris, September.
UChicago, 2004. “The Economic Future of Nuclear Power”, A Study Conducted at the
University of Chicago, IL USA.
UChicago, 2011. “Analysis of GW-Scale Overnight Capital Costs”, Technical paper, Energy
Policy Institute at Chicago (EPIC), University of Chicago, November.
WNA, 2018a,. World Nuclear Association, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-

library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors.aspx, accessed April
2018.
WNA, 2018b,. World Nuclear Association, Economics of Nuclear Power http://www.world-

nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx, accessed
April 2018.
26
Electroniccopy
available at:

SSRN Id3198421

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSRN Id3198421

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Techno-economic Analysis Methods for Nuclear Power Plants

Hari C. Mantripragada1* and Edward S. Rubin2

Techno-economic assessments play a critical role in technical, business, and policy

Toward that end, techno-economic analyses performed by researchers and organizations

Table 1. Reasons for variation in NPP cost estimates

Figure 2. Generations of Nuclear Reactor Technology (Source: GIF, 2018)

3. Audiences and Purposes of Cost Estimates

4. Defining the Project Scope and Design

4.1. Type of plant: New vs. Relicensing

4.2. Definition of “life-cycle”

5. Cost categories for NPP cost estimates

Table 2. Elements of Capital costs

5.1.1 Overnight capital cost

Comprises To these direct and Includes allowance Project To account for

Overnight capital cost:

5.3. Total capital requirement

Constant vs. current dollar values

Interest during construction (IDC)

Total capital requirement

5.3. Other cost-related elements

6. Cost Evaluation of FOAK Plants

6.1. Definitions of FOAK

6.2. Accounting for FOAK costs

7. Calculating key cost metrics

7.1. Levelized cost of electricity

7.2. Other economic indicators

Going forward cost (GFC)

8. Discussion and Conclusion

In order to avoid repetition of words and to minimize the chances of misinterpretations, we

We reviewed costing methods practiced by different organizations and identified a costing

GIF, 2018, The Generation IV International Forum, https://www.gen-

WNA, 2018a,. World Nuclear Association, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-

WNA, 2018b,. World Nuclear Association, Economics of Nuclear Power http://www.world-

You might also like