The SMR designers’ cost data (converted to 2009 USD) for various SMRs described in Chapter 4 are given in Table 6.2 and Table 6.3.

Where not indicated, the designers’ overnight costs do not take into account the interest rates during construction. In most of the cases, the discount rate used in designers’ LUEC calculation[42] is 5%. Several caveats should be understood:

• Regarding the CCR [4.1], the cost target is stated as “comparable to the state-of-the-art Japanese ABWR”. The CCR electricity cost data in Table 6.2 correspond to the ABWR cost projection for 2010 from reference [4.31].

• For mPower, the cost data from [6.16] has been used.

• For the NuScale and the New Hyperion Power Module the designers indicate generation cost targets as equal or better than for current LWRs. This being rather ambiguous, no data for the NuScale and the New Hyperion Power Module are included in the tables below.

Table 6.2. Cost data for water cooled SMRs (in 2009 USD)* Unit power MWe LUEC** USD per MWh Levelised heat cost USD per GCal Levelised desalinated SMR Overnight capital cost USD per kWe water cost USD cent per m3 PWRs ABV [6.2] 8.5 9 100 <120 <45 <160 CAREM-25 [6.8, 6.19] 27 3 600*** ~42 at 8% discount rate n/a 81 at 8% DR KLT-40S [6.17] 35 3 700-4 200 49-53 21-23 85-95 NHR-200 [6.8] 200 MWth 809 n/a — 66-86 SMART [6.8] 100 — 60 n/a 70 mPower [6.16] 125 — 47-95 CAREM-125 [4.8] 125 1 900 — n/a n/a CAREM-300 [6.8] 300 1 200 — n/a n/a VBER-300 twin-unit [6.8] 325 2 800 barge 3 500 land 33 barge 35 land 18 n/a QP300 two units average [6.18] 325 2 800 Pakistan — n/a n/a IRIS [6.8] 335 1 200-1 400 IC 34-45 n/a n/a BWRs VK-300 [6.8] 750 1 100 13 4 n/a CCR 423 3 000-4 000 50 n/a n/a HWRs/AHWRs PHWR-220 [6.19] 220 1 400-1 600 39 50 at 7% discount rate n/a 100-110 at 7% DR AHWR [6.8] 300 1 300 F 25 single 24 four plants — n/a CANDU-6 twin-unit [6.18] 715 3 600 35 Canada 32 China n/a n/a * IC — investment cost, F — first-of-a-kind plant, N — nth-of-a-kind plant, barge — barge-mounted plant, land — land-based plant. ** At a 5% discount rate by default. *** In the latest official announcement a range of 8 000 — 14 000 USD per kWe is quoted (see http://en. mercopress. com/2011/04/29/argentina-will-press-ahead-with-plans-to-develop-small-scale-nuclear-reactors).

SMR	Unit power MWth	Overnight capital cost, USD per kWe	O&M cost, USD per MWh	Fuel cost, USD per MWh	LUEC[43] USD per MWh	Levelised heat cost, USD per GCal	Levelised desalinated water cost, US cent/m3	Levelised hydrogen cost, USD per kg
HTGRs
HTR-PM [6.8]	250	<1 500	9	12	51	n/a	n/a	n/a
PBMR (previous design) [6.8]	400	<1 700	1.0 O&M+Fuel	1.0 O&M+Fuel	As large LWR	n/a	n/a	—
GT-MHR [6.8]	600	1 200	4	9	36	n/a	—	1.9
GTHTR300 [6.8]	600	<2 000	—	—	<40	—	—	—
Sodium cooled fast reactors
4S [6.2]	30	—	—	—	130-290	n/a	—	—
Lead-bismuth cooled fast reactors
PASCAR [6.20,6.21]	100	—	—	—	100	n/a	n/a	n/a
SVBR-100 [6.2]	280	1 200 prototype	—	—	19 for 1600 MWe plant; 42 for 400 MWe plant	—	88 for 400 MWe plant	n/a

* At a 5% discount rate by default.

Table 6.4 presents the ranges of energy product costs for SMRs of different technology lines, based on the data from Table 6.2 and Table 6.3. For comparison, the median case of the projected generating costs in operating nuclear and non-nuclear plants is included, based on the data from reference [6.1]. Also, Table 6.4 gives a comparison of the designers’ data on LUEC to the projected costs of generating electricity by large nuclear power plants in relevant countries in 2010 [6.1].

Table 6.4. Ranges of energy product costs for different technology lines of SMR (in 2009 USD) LUEC USD per MWh Levelised heat Levelised desalinated water SMR cost USD per GCal cost at 5-8% DR USD cent per m3 Levelised hydrogen cost USD per kg PWR (without very small ABV) 33-60 18-23 66-95 — PWR-ABV < 120 <45 < 160 — BWR2 50 — — — HWR/AHWR 24-39 — 100-110 — HTGR 36-51 — — 1.9 Sodium cooled fast reactors (very small 4S) 130-290 — — — Lead-bismuth cooled fast reactors (without very small PASCAR) 18-42 — 88 — Lead-bismuth cooled fast reactors (very small PASCAR) 100 — — —

IEA-NEA/OECD projections for electricity generating costs in 2010 (Table 5.2 of reference [6.1], Median case) Technology[44] Nuclear CCGT SC/USC Coal Onshore wind Solar PV Levelised cost of electricity at 5% discount rate, USD per MWh 58.5 85.8 65.2 96.7 41.1

• The generating cost (LUEC) for some very small (well under 100 MWe) nuclear power plants intended for distributed deployment exceeds the median case projection of the cost of generating electricity by nuclear power plants roughly by a factor of two.

• For all other SMRs the designers’ evaluations of the generating costs appear to be close to, or below the median case projection.

• On a country-by-country level, the designers’ evaluations of generating costs are in many cases higher than the projected costs of generating electricity by large nuclear power plants in the countries where SMRs are designed.

The vendors’ cost data indicate that the designers of advanced SMRs generally intend to compete with larger nuclear power plants (see Figure 6.2). The exceptions are very small (below 100 MWe) NPPs that are being designed for distributed deployment in remote off-grid locations where the electricity costs could be much higher compared to the areas with common electricity grids.

As SMRs do not benefit from the economy of scale, the designers have to rely on other factors to reach the economic targets. These factors and their possible impact on SMR economy are analysed and quantified further in this chapter.

In Chapter 7 independent estimates of LUEC for the selected “typical” NPP configurations with SMRs are obtained and then compared to the designers’ data on LUEC given in this section.

Figure 6.2. Comparison of the designers’ data on SMR LUEC (Table 6.2 and Table 6.3) to the projected costs of generating electricity by nuclear power plants in the corresponding countries (Table 3.7a in [6.1])

VVER-1200 VVER-1200

^OPR-1000 Ж* щ SMART A

)0 KLT-40S VBER

OECD member countries

LUEC for NPP with SMR

LUEC for NPP with large

reactors

The investment component of LUEC (the investment cost in Table 6.1) reads:

У /Investment^

h 4 (1 + r)1 )

„ /ElectricityA { (1 + r/ )

The main factors affecting the investment cost are:

• The investments spread over construction years (their sum is often referred to as the “overnight capital cost”) depending on the construction schedule, and

• The discount rate r defining the interest on investments, also known as the cost of financing.

An additional important factor is the contingency costs, i. e., cost increases resulting from unforeseen technical or regulatory difficulties. According to reference [6.1], the contingencies for a nuclear option constitute 15% of the investment costs in all countries, except France, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United States, and are typically included in the investments attributed to the last year of construction. For countries with a large number of operating nuclear power plants (like France) the contingency rate is often taken as approximately 5% (similar to other technologies, see reference [6.1]), because the technical and regulatory procedures could be considered as running in a well established way. In the case of factory manufactured SMRs the contingency rate would probably be lower than for large nuclear power plants, once the production of units is mastered.

The investment cost is the largest component of LUEC, and its share grows with the increase of the discount rate, see Table 6.1. Therefore, the factors that impact the investment cost are of prime importance for the competitiveness of any NPP. The following sections reflect on how these factors may affect the economy of SMRs, with a focus on the comparative assessment of NPPs with large reactors and those with SMRs.