WP1: Reference design

objectives and specifications

Didier De BruynSCK•CEN

didier.de.bruyn@sckcen.be

Fourth PCC meeting FP7 LEADERBologna, 27 October 2011

Copyright © 2011

SCK•CEN

task 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36

T1.1

T1.2

T1.3

T1.4

Recall: Schedule

D29

D01

D02

D30 D30 R1

D29 R1 D29 R2

D01: Updated design options for the LFR referenceD02: Design options for the ETDRD29: Roadmap for LFR developmentD30: Cost estimate for LFR & ETDR

© SCK•CEN2

Task 1.1 Roadmap

The “Rev 1” version is on-going:Include PALLAS together with JHR & MYRRHAInclude ELECTRA in parallel to the other facilities

(from GUINEVERE to the industrial one)Rename the facilities to avoid misunderstandingConsider the current design updates (ALFRED –

D02)Check the schedules with experts for the different

concepts (detailed NRG level global level) some misunderstanding NRG >< experts

(Fukushima) recall the inherent favourable LFR characteristics (but no comparison!)

Include a § on funding opportunities.

© SCK•CEN3

Blue: foreseen & doneRed: foreseen but not doneGreen: not foreseen but done

Renaming the different concepts

ELSY is the design performed in an FP6 project, but also still the name of the FOAK facility, so the risk of misunderstanding is real!

Proposal:100 MWth Technology Pilot Plant: MYRRHA

300 MWth Demonstration: ALFRED

800-1200 MWth Prototype: ELSY PROLFR

Min 600 MWel Industrial plant: ILFR ELFR

DONE !

4 © SCK•CEN

Tasks 1.2 LFR options & 1.3 ETDR options

Del 01 finalized & distributed.Del 02 written, distributed for comments &

finalized (July ‘11).

© SCK•CEN5

Task 1.4 Cost estimate

Methodology proposed by EA after iteration with NRG, but input will be required from all partners (distribution proposed by EA);

Some guidelines to ensure consistency :Costs are expressed in € (Dec 2010);Separate investment costs (engineering, licensing,

construction) from operation costs (O&M, fuel cycle)

Where to put D&D? Proposal: in investmentConsider R&D? Proposal: no, but to be mentionedInterest during construction? Proposal: no (in other

words overnight costs are calculated without escalation)

Contingencies? Proposal: yes, preferably per itemTo allow comparison: recalculate the FP6 ELSY

following those rules. © SCK•CEN6

Decision WP1 meeting 24 october ‘11

Some comments from the WP leader

Good participation from most partners:NRG is interacting in 1.1 & 1.4Good input from WP2 & WP3 partnersGood feedback from reviewers

Less good participation from AGHNot present in 2010 (for good reason)Few feedback since then (mixing with WP2 ?)

Work has been performed so far, but sometimes by other partners than originally foreseenCan we envisage to re-distribute the WP budget?

7 © SCK•CEN

Original distribution of resources

8

partner name t1,1 t1,2 t1,3 t1,4 Total1 Ansaldo 1 5 1 1 82 AGH 6   63 CEA    4 CIRTEN    6 EA 5 57 ENEA 3 1   48 KIT 0,25 0,75 1   29 INR 2   2

10 JRC-Petten 0,5   0,511 KTH    12 NRG 4 3 713 PSI    14 SCK•CEN 1 1 3   515 SRS    16 NRI    

17 Uni Bologna          Total 11,25 7,25 12 9 39,5

Copyright notice

Copyright © 2011 - SCKCEN

All property rights and copyright are reserved. Any communication or reproduction of this document, and any communication or use of its content without explicit authorization is prohibited. Any infringement to this rule is illegal and entitles to claim damages from the infringer, without prejudice to any other right in case of granting a patent or registration in the field of intellectual property.

SCK•CENStudiecentrum voor KernenergieCentre d'Etude de l'Energie Nucléaire

Stichting van Openbaar Nut Fondation d'Utilité Publique Foundation of Public Utility

Registered Office: Avenue Herrmann-Debrouxlaan 40 – BE-1160 BRUSSELOperational Office: Boeretang 200 – BE-2400 MOL