FUSION POWER CAPITAL COST STUDY  ARPA-E's ALPHA program seeks to create and systems, sensitivity analysis found that power demonstrate tools to aid in the development of systems comprised 5-20% of the total direct cost new, lower-cost pathways to fusion power and to (which includes reactor core, structures and site, enable more rapid progress in fusion research turbine plant, etc.). and development. Assuming we achieve excess energy production from a fusion core, a next  The up-front capital costs of a fusion power critical step is to understand the capital costs plant, as with many other power plant associated with a fusion power plant. An initial approaches, are likely to hinge heavily upon the capital cost study was performed by Bechtel scale of the plant and the balance of plant National’s power plant cost team, augmented by components. For example, if one treats fusion members of the fusion community who have like fission by borrowing its scaling factor of published in fusion cost estimating (Woodruff roughly 0.55, these 150 MWe designs might Scientific and Decysive Systems). The study scale to $2-6 per Watt at a 1 GWe scale.1 was based upon four conceptual designs for a Conclusions: fusion core and present-day standard components for the balance of plant (heat  First, we conclude it is best to aggressively exchanger, turbines, etc). The cost study team pursue multiple options for the fusion core in did not attempt to compose a levelized cost of light of the cost study finding that the economics electricity (LCOE) for a fusion power plant given of a fusion plant are relatively insensitive to the juxtaposition of the conceptual nature of the which of the four fusion approaches is chosen. fusion core designs versus the level of granular Fortunately, the cost of pursuing multiple knowledge commonly used as input for approaches does not appear to be prohibitive— calculating an LCOE. the four approaches considered in this cost study are believed to follow inherently more Highlights of the cost study findings include: affordable development paths than the more  Across four unique fusion core approaches, the mature magnetic or inertial confinement estimated cost of the core in all cases approaches. constituted less than half of the total direct cost,  Second, it would be prudent to link the ramp-up and, in some cases, was not even the most of the expensive engineering effort for the tritium expensive component. Accordingly, among the systems and neutronics to marked progress on four fusion approaches considered, there is no the fusion core. While tritium systems and outlier approach that should be singled out for neutronics will be important, their costs will not emphasis or de-emphasis. dominate the initial capital cost of a fusion power  We found that neither neutronics nor tritium plant. handling were major capital cost drivers. 1A common approach to estimating “to-be” power plant However, much engineering work remains to capital cost is via a scaling law based on “as-built” capital reach solutions that (1) appropriately account for cost: Cost ~ Cost x (Power / Power )sf, the effects of the high energy neutrons on to-be as-built to-be as-built where sf is the empirically determined scaling factor. various components, and (2) address tritium fuel There is today no “as-built” cost for a fusion power plant, extraction, transfer, and storage, among other but one could apply a mid-range scale factor for nuclear considerations. plants (~0.55) in order to examine potential cost ranges.  The uncertainty in the pulsed power system design and lifetime under power plant conditions should be a focus area in future work. Using a reasonable range for the cost of the power input Stabilized Liner Compressor Plasma Jet Driven Magneto-Inertial Fusion Staged Z-Pinch Sheared Flow Stabilized Z-Pinch Conceptual Cost Study for a Fusion Power Plant Based on Four Technologies from the DOE ARPA-E ALPHA Program Bechtel National, Inc. Woodruff Scientific, Inc. Decysive Systems Bechtel National, Inc. February 2017 Report No. 26029-000-30R-G01G-00001 Conceptual Cost Study for a Fusion Power Plant Report No. 26029-000-30R-G01G-00001 Based on Four Technologies from the DOE ARPA-E ALPHA Program February 2017 The information, data, or work presented herein was funded in part by the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), U.S. Department of Energy, under Award Number DE-AR0000757. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. ©2017 Bechtel National, Inc., Woodruff Scientific, Inc., Decysive Systems Page │ i Conceptual Cost Study for a Fusion Power Plant Report No. 26029-000-30R-G01G-00001 Based on Four Technologies from the DOE ARPA-E ALPHA Program February 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................ iii Abbreviations & Acronyms ................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... vi 1. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Background ................................................................................................................................................. 4 3. Fusion Reactor Concepts ................................................................................................................................ 6 3.1 Stabilized Liner Compressor (NumerEx, LLC) ............................................................................................ 6 3.2 Plasma Jet Driven Magneto-Inertial Fusion (LANL/HyperV) ...................................................................... 8 3.3 Staged Z-Pinch (MIFTI) ............................................................................................................................. 10 3.4 Sheared Flow Stabilized Z-Pinch (UW/LLNL) ........................................................................................... 12 4. Fusion Power Plant Concepts ....................................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Fusion Power Core (Reactor Island) ......................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Electric Power Conversion (Turbine Island) .............................................................................................. 17 4.3 Ancillary and Support Systems (Balance of Plant) ................................................................................... 18 5. Estimate Basis ................................................................................................................................................ 20 5.1 Cost Breakdown Structure ........................................................................................................................ 20 5.2 Estimate Bases and Assumptions ............................................................................................................ 22 6. Cost Estimate Summary ................................................................................................................................ 24 6.1 Overnight Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................................... 24 6.2 Sensitivity/Parametric Analyses ................................................................................................................ 27 6.3 Scaling ....................................................................................................................................................... 30 7. Other Costs ..................................................................................................................................................... 31 7.1 Tritium Plant Capital Cost ......................................................................................................................... 31 7.2 Start-Up Tritium Cost ................................................................................................................................ 33 7.3 Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs ............................................................................................. 33 7.4 Annual Waste Disposal Cost ..................................................................................................................... 35 7.5 Decommissioning Cost ............................................................................................................................. 35 8. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 37 9. References ...................................................................................................................................................... 38 ©2017 Bechtel National, Inc., Woodruff Scientific, Inc., Decysive Systems Page │ ii Conceptual Cost Study for a Fusion Power Plant Report No. 26029-000-30R-G01G-00001 Based on Four Technologies from the DOE ARPA-E ALPHA Program February 2017 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Dr. Patrick McGrath and Dr. Ryan Umstattd of DOE ARPA-E and Dr. Colleen Nehl, technical support to ARPA-E (Booz Allen Hamilton), for their guidance and input during the study and their review of the study report. We would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the technology proponents who provided the key technical inputs to the study and thank them for their review of the study report. These individuals include:  Dr. Peter Turchi for the Stabilized Liner Compressor technology being developed by NumerEx, LLC;  Dr. Scott Hsu for the Plasma Jet Driven Magneto-Inertial Fusion technology being developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory and HyperV Technologies Corporation;  Dr. Frank Wessel for the Staged Z-Pinch technology being developed by Magneto-Inertial Fusion Technologies, Inc.; and  Dr. Uri Shumlak for the Sheared Flow Stabilized Z-Pinch technology being developed by the University of Washington and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. ©2017 Bechtel National, Inc., Woodruff Scientific, Inc., Decysive Systems Page │ iii Conceptual Cost Study for a Fusion Power Plant Report No. 26029-000-30R-G01G-00001 Based on Four Technologies from the DOE ARPA-E ALPHA Program February 2017 Abbreviations & Acronyms ALPHA Accelerating Low-Cost Plasma Heating and Assembly ARIES Advanced Reactor Innovation and Evaluation Study ARPA-E Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy BOP Balance of plant CAD Computer-aided design CBS Cost breakdown structure DOE U.S. Department of Energy D-D Deuterium-deuterium D-T Deuterium-tritium EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ESECOM Senior Committee on Environmental Safety and Economics of Magnetic Fusion Energy ETS Energy transfer and storage FLR Fast Liner Reactor FPC Fusion power core FPP Fusion power plant FRC Field reversed configuration FW First wall HP High pressure HTS High temperature shield HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning HyperV HyperV Technologies Corporation I&C Instrumentation and control ICF Inertial confinement fusion IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IFE Inertial Fusion Energy ITER International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor kWh Kilowatt hour LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory LCOE Levelized cost of electricity LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LOCA Loss of coolant accident LP Low pressure LTD Linear transformer driver MCF Magnetic confinement fusion MFE Magnetic fusion energy ©2017 Bechtel National, Inc., Woodruff Scientific, Inc., Decysive Systems Page │ iv Conceptual Cost Study for a Fusion Power Plant Report No. 26029-000-30R-G01G-00001 Based on Four Technologies from the DOE ARPA-E ALPHA Program February 2017 MG Mega gauss MHD Magnetohydrodynamic(s) MIF Magneto-inertial fusion MIFTI Magneto-Inertial Fusion Technologies, Inc. MTF Magnetized target fusion MW Megawatt MWe Megawatt electric MWth Megawatt thermal NEA Nuclear Energy Agency NIF National Ignition Facility NPP Nuclear power plant NRL Naval Research Laboratory NumerEx NumerEx, LLC O&M Operations and maintenance OB Outer blanket PdV Pressure times volumetric change PJMIF Plasma Jet Driven Magneto-Inertial Fusion PJMTF Plasma Jet Driven Magnetized Target Fusion PLX Plasma Liner Experiment RFP Reversed field pinches SFS Sheared flow stabilized SLC Stabilized Liner Compressor SMR Small modular reactor TBR Tritium breeding ratio TCOE Total cost of electricity TFTR Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor USD U.S. dollars UW University of Washington ©2017 Bechtel National, Inc., Woodruff Scientific, Inc., Decysive Systems Page │ v Conceptual Cost Study for a Fusion Power Plant Report No. 26029-000-30R-G01G-00001 Based on Four Technologies from the DOE ARPA-E ALPHA Program February 2017 List of Tables Table # Title Page # 1 Parameters for 130 MJ of Fusion Yield with PJMIF 9 2 Staged Z-Pinch Experimental Parameters from Wessel, et. al 11 3 Parameters for Next Devices Beyond ZaP (Existing at UW) 13 4 Cost Breakdown Structure 20 5 Cost Estimate Summary Range of Four Fusion Power Plant Technologies 25 6 Cost Distribution by Major CBS Element 27 7 Fusion Power Plant Tritium Plant Capital Costs 32 8 STARFIRE and Generomak Sub-System Cost Breakdown 32 9 Fusion Power Plant Operations and Maintenance Costs 34 10 Fusion Power Plant Waste Disposal Costs 35 11 Fusion Power Plant Decommissioning Costs 36 List of Figures Figure # Title Page # 1 The SLC Concept is Based on the NRL LINUS Precursor 7 2 SLC Reactor Concept 7 3 The PJMIF Concept 8 4 Reactor Concept: Plasma at Peak Compression 9 5 The Staged Z-Pinch Concept 10 6 Diagram of the Staged Z-Pinch 11 7 The SFS Z-Pinch Concept 12 8 Z-Pinch Reactor Concepts 13 9 Power Flow Diagram 14 10 Power Balance Design Space 16 11 Schematic Arrangement of a Fusion Power Plant Turbine Island Steam/Feedwater System 17 12 Representative Fusion Power Plant Layout 19 13 Cost Estimate Model and Sources 24 Cost of Components—First Wall (o), Blanket (*), and Shield (+)—Versus Cost Factor Applied 14 28 to Materials Used to Manufacture Components Ratio of Total Capital Costs When Costs Are Varied (in Cost Categories 22.1.1, 22.1.2, 22.1.6, 15 29 22.1.7, and 22.1.11) to Total Capital Cost When Costs Are Fixed Ratio of Power Supply Costs (Cost Category 22.1.7) to Total Project Cost as a Function of 16 29 Cost Factor ©2017 Bechtel National, Inc., Woodruff Scientific, Inc., Decysive Systems Page │ vi Conceptual Cost Study for a Fusion Power Plant Report No. 26029-000-30R-G01G-00001 Based on Four Technologies from the DOE ARPA-E ALPHA Program February 2017 1. Executive Summary The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) is sponsoring research into a number of approaches to fusion power generation under the Accelerating Low-Cost Plasma Heating and Assembly (ALPHA) program [Reference 1]. The ALPHA program seeks to create and demonstrate tools to aid in the development of new, lower-cost pathways to fusion power and to enable more rapid progress in fusion research and development. Most fusion research currently focuses on one of two approaches to confining plasmas: magnetic confinement, which uses magnetic fields and lower-than-air ion densities; and inertial confinement, which uses heating and compression and involves greater than solid densities. The ALPHA program aims to create additional options for fusion research by developing the tools for new, lower-cost pathways to fusion, and with a focus on intermediate densities in between these two approaches. These new intermediate density options may offer reduced size, energy, and power density requirements for fusion reactors and enable low-cost, transformative routes to economical fusion power. Of the nine projects being pursued by the ALPHA program, four have been subjected to a conceptual design/capital cost study, including a sensitivity analysis of cost drivers, for preliminary designs of power plants based on each of the four approaches. This study was led by Bechtel National, Inc. [Reference 2], and supported by Woodruff Scientific, Inc. [Reference 3], and Decysive Systems [Reference 4]. The four concepts are:  Stabilized Liner Compressor (SLC) by NumerEx, LLC (NumerEx);  Plasma Jet Driven Magneto-Inertial Fusion (PJMIF) by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and HyperV Technologies Corporation (HyperV);  Staged Z-Pinch by Magneto-Inertial Fusion Technologies, Inc. (MIFTI); and  Sheared Flow Stabilized Z-Pinch (SFS Z-Pinch) by the University of Washington (UW) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). For each of the four fusion approaches, a conceptual design was created of a deuterium-tritium (D-T) fueled fusion power core (FPC), as part of a central-station electric power plant at an approximate 150 MWe output. A common cost model was developed and applied across the four conceptual designs to provide sensitivity analysis on key cost drivers among the plant subsystems and components, as well as conceptual capital cost estimates. The cost model was based on the pre-conceptual design detail available from the technology providers. For the FPC, the following methodology was used for cost assessment: first, a power balance was determined, then the FPC was built radially, with the assumption that the primary reaction will be D-T and produce neutrons to be absorbed in a blanket. Individual systems analyses for each of the four reactor visions were then performed. Costing for the Turbine Island and Balance of Plant (BOP) structures and systems was based on previous power plant designs and similar structures, adjusted as needed for the heating power, power output, and the pre- conceptual design information available from the developers. The key conclusions of the study are:  The calculated cost was relatively insensitive to changes within the range of expected uncertainty in FPC materials costs or radial build costs (consisting of the first wall, shield, and blanket).  Current uncertainties in the primary power system for the fusion core could result in significant impacts on the total estimated cost, with the primary power system potentially approaching 20% of the total direct capital cost. ©2017 Bechtel National, Inc., Woodruff Scientific, Inc., Decysive Systems Page │ 1 Conceptual Cost Study for a Fusion Power Plant Report No. 26029-000-30R-G01G-00001 Based on Four Technologies from the DOE ARPA-E ALPHA Program February 2017  Using a point design for 150 MW of electric power, the total estimated overnight cost encompassing the four pre-conceptual fusion power plants (FPP) ranges from approximately $0.7 billion to $1.93 billion (in 2016 U.S. dollars). The average estimated overnight cost is approximately $1.32 billion. The cost estimate and the pre-conceptual designs of the FPCs and associated systems are not adequately developed and detailed at this time to be used for scaling up the estimated overnight costs for potential larger capacity plants (e.g., in the 1 GWe range).  Cost categories had varying degrees of uncertainty, with the principal areas of uncertainty being in the FPC, heat exchanger, and tritium handling system. All principal uncertainties can be reduced by further work. The study results provide a costing framework and capital cost estimate range for each technology provider to eventually produce supportable levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) estimates when more detailed design data and information is developed in the future. It is recommended that additional analysis and design be conducted to develop more detail on the FPC and associated systems. The next steps would allow uncertainties in the costing analysis to be further mitigated by advancing the least certain design points beyond the pre-conceptual level and moving to the conceptual level. Recommendations include increased physics modeling, neutronics analysis, electrical engineering of the primary power systems, conceptual design of the tritium handling systems, and costing for the main heat exchanger. Due to the current state of the technologies, it should be recognized that this study is not intended to provide definitive cost estimates for the subject technologies. ARPA-E and the technology providers understand that the report does not contain sufficient accuracy or detail to be meaningful in connection with any securities offering or other financing effort and due to the status of the technology development, the uncertainties as to time horizon in which any of these technologies could be commercially deployed, and the limited scope of the review, this report is not intended to be relied upon by any third party in making investment decisions. ©2017 Bechtel National, Inc., Woodruff Scientific, Inc., Decysive Systems Page │ 2