This report provides a comprehensive review of existing literature on advanced reactor cost estimations in the form of a ‘meta-study’. Over 30 references were evaluated and considered as part of this effort. The information is then distilled into different tiers, each with varying levels of detail and granularity. The recommendations consist of low/medium/high estimates for capital and operating costs that can be adjusted using various correction factors (based on learning, numbers of plants per site, etc.). In addition, reference breakdown in costs based on a code of account structure is provided for the main four types of advanced reactors.

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.

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

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 thebuild is neither a first nor a ‘Nth’ of a kind, but somewhere in between. All costs are escalated to 2022 USD values.

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.