ThorEA - Towards an Alternative Nuclear Future.pdf

Chapter 5: The economics of thorium-fuelled ADSR technology
The returns on investment in an R&D programme to deliver
thorium fuelled ADSR technology are diverse and manifold
and include, for example, cost competitive low carbon
electricity, export of IP and facilities, inward investment,
education and training, skilled workforce, new businesses,
new products and service, regional development & UK
reputation and leadership. Some of these benefits are
discussed in this Appendix.
5.1 ADSRs as a cost competitive, low carbon
technology
ADSRs excel when considering social and environmental
benefits such as diversifying the fuel mix, reducing radioactive
waste products, increasing proliferation resistance and
avoiding carbon emissions. However, alongside these benefits
it is necessary that ADSRs are cost competitive with alternative
forms of electricity generation. The following preliminary cost
benefit analysis indicates firstly, how an n th-of-a-kind 600MWe
ADSR competes with a contemporary n th-of-a-kind 600MWe
uranium cycle nuclear power station, and secondly calculates
the carbon price above which ADSRs outperform gas fired
power generation. In the analysis both conventional Linac and
ns-FFAG driven thorium fuelled ADSRs, are considered.
The study is an extrapolation from the analysis performed by
(Kennedy, 2007). It is assumed that the cost of a uranium cycle
power station is the same as that of an ADSR, except for fuel
and accelerator costs. Costs are divided into six categories:
capital expenditure for the nuclear power station (Nuclear
CapEx) and the accelerator complex (Accel. CapEx); Fuel;
Operations and Maintenance for the nuclear power station
(Nuclear O&M) and the accelerator complex (Accel. O&M); and
finally the geological disposal and site decommissioning funds.
40 Towards an Alternative Nuclear Future
The LINAC accelerator complex cost is based on predictions
performed under the Euratom programme (European
Commission, 2001). A 600MeV 20mA accelerator is predicted to
cost €210 million, assuming zero cost increase for cryogenics,
the superconducting LINAC cost has been linearly scaled
(Ruggiero, 1997), accounting for increasing the beam energy
from 600MeV to 1 GeV. This gives cost of construction of €290
million (excluding the cost of financing) for a LINAC accelerator
complex. An exchange rate of €1=£1 has been used. Preliminary
projections indicate that the cost of ns-FFAGs will be £60 million
(excluding the cost of financing). It is considered that it might
be advantageous to employ three ns-FFAGs to drive an ADSR.
Accelerator O&M costs for LINACS and ns-FFAGs are derived
from those reported by the existing high-powered accelerator
facilities, the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge and the
European Synchrotron Radiation Source.
The added costs of the accelerators are estimated to be
£14/MWh for a LINA and £10/MWh for the ns-FFAG option.
In terms of the fuel costs, uranium mining makes up
approximately a quarter of the uranium cycle fuel cost (WNO,
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf22.html). It requires
enrichment, which accounts for approximately 50 % of the
uranium cycle fuel cost (WNO, http://www.world-nuclear.
org/info/inf28.html); the remaining fuel cost is dominated
by fuel rod fabrication. The efficiency of the thorium oncethrough
fuel cycle is greater than for uranium. Over 8 times
more uranium ore is required per MWe of electricity produced
compared to thorium (Bryan, 2009). Thorium does not require
enrichment. The contemporary uranium fuel cycle costs £3.9/
MWh, thorium is expected to cost only £1.1/MWh.
The savings associated with a thorium fuel cycle therefore
amount to almost £3/MWh.