Minimizing the economic cost and risk to Accelerator-Driven Subcritical Reactor technology. Part 2: The case of designing for flexibility

This paper presents a simple, systematic, and integrated methodology to analyse the expected Levelised Cost Of Electricity (LCOE) generation of a new nuclear technology facing significant technological uncertainty. It shows that flexibility in the design and deployment strategy of a demonstration commercial thorium-fuelled Accelerator-Driven Subcritical Reactor (ADSR) park significantly reduces the expected LCOE. The methodology recognizes early in the conceptual design a range of possible technological outcomes for the ADSR accelerator system. It suggests appropriate flexibility “on” and “in” the first-of-a-kind design to modify the demonstration park development path in light of uncertainty realizations. It then incorporates these uncertainties and flexibilities in the design evaluation mechanism. The methodology improves existing approaches for design and engineering decision-making, providing guidance for government support for a new, secure, clean, and publicly acceptable alternative technology for power generation.

[1]  C. P. Haigh NUCLEAR POWER IN THE UNITED KINGDOM , 1965 .

[2]  Max Henrion,et al.  Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis , 1990 .

[3]  Christopher J. Jablonowski,et al.  Estimating the Cost of Errors in Estimates Used During Concept Selection , 2008 .

[4]  S. Myers Determinants of corporate borrowing , 1977 .

[5]  Tom Reynolds,et al.  Airport systems planning, design, and management , 2003 .

[6]  Juliana de Moraes Marreco,et al.  Flexibility valuation in the Brazilian power system: A real options approach , 2006 .

[7]  H. G. Hughes,et al.  Nuclear energy generation and waste transmutation using an accelerator-driven intense thermal neutron source , 1992 .

[8]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  Designing systems for adaptability by means of architecture options , 2008 .

[9]  Yingxia Yang,et al.  A screening model to explore planning decisions in automotive manufacturing systems under demand uncertainty , 2009 .

[10]  Michel-Alexandre Cardin,et al.  Minimising the economic cost and risk to accelerator-driven subcritical reactor technology: The case of designing for flexibility: Part 1 , 2012 .

[11]  D. Braha,et al.  Complex Engineered Systems: A New Paradigm , 2006 .

[12]  Carlo Rubbia,et al.  Conceptual design of a fast neutron operated high power energy amplifier , 1995 .

[13]  Leyuan Shi,et al.  A real-options-based analysis for supply chain decisions , 2005 .

[14]  David Kennedy New nuclear power generation in the UK: Cost benefit analysis , 2007 .

[15]  R. Pindyck Investments of Uncertain Cost , 1992 .

[16]  Afzal S. Siddiqui,et al.  How to Proceed with the Thorium Nuclear Technology: a Real Options Analysis ⁄ , 2008 .

[17]  Afzal S. Siddiqui,et al.  How to Proceed with Competing Alternative Energy Technologies: A Real Options Analysis , 2009 .

[18]  Daniel D. Frey,et al.  Empirical evaluation of procedures to generate flexibility in engineering systems and improve lifecycle performance , 2013 .

[19]  Luciano Burgazzi,et al.  Reliability studies of a high-power proton accelerator for accelerator-driven system applications for nuclear waste transmutation , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[20]  Daniel E. Hastings,et al.  Real Options in Enterprise Architecture: A Holistic Mapping of Mechanisms and Types for Uncertainty Management , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[21]  Olivier L. de Weck,et al.  Designing Capital-Intensive Systems with Architectural and Operational Flexibility Using a Screening Model , 2009, Complex.

[22]  Claudia Eckert,et al.  Engineering change: drivers, sources and approaches in industry , 2009 .

[23]  Mark Rubinstein,et al.  The Valuation of Uncertain Income Streams and the Pricing of Options , 1976 .

[24]  Dan Braha,et al.  Complex Engineered Systems: Science Meets Technology , 2010 .

[25]  Y. Bar-Yam,et al.  Complex Engineered Systems: Science Meets Technology (Understanding Complex Systems) , 2006 .

[26]  Robert S. Pindyck,et al.  Irreversibilities and the Timing of Environmental Policy , 2000 .

[27]  F. Carminati,et al.  An energy amplifier for cleaner and inexhaustible nuclear energy production driven by a particle beam accelerator , 1993 .

[28]  G. Rothwell A real options approach to-evaluating new nuclear power plants , 2006 .

[29]  F. Black,et al.  The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities , 1973, Journal of Political Economy.

[30]  M. Abdelhamid,et al.  A real options approach to investing in the first nuclear power plant under cost uncertainty: comparison with natural gas power plant for the Tunisian case , 2009 .

[31]  Sam Savage,et al.  The Flaw of Averages , 2002 .

[32]  Tao Wang,et al.  Real Options "in" Projects and Systems Design: Identification of Options and Solution for Path Dependency , 2008 .

[33]  Eduardo S. Schwartz,et al.  Investment Under Uncertainty. , 1994 .

[34]  T. Copeland Real Options: A Practitioner's Guide , 2001 .

[35]  M. Chesney,et al.  Long-term risk management of nuclear waste: a real options approach , 2002 .

[36]  Paolo Pierini THE ACCELERATOR ACTIVITIES OF THE EUROTRANS PROGRAMME , 2007 .

[37]  Michel-Alexandre Cardin,et al.  Quantitative performance-based evaluation of a procedure for flexible design concept generation , 2011 .

[38]  Eriko Kiriyama,et al.  Use of Real Options in Nuclear Power Plant Valuation in the Presence of Uncertainty with CO2 Emission Credit , 2004 .

[39]  Armin P. Schulz,et al.  Design for changeability (DfC): Principles to enable changes in systems throughout their entire lifecycle , 2005 .

[40]  Nalin Kulatilaka,et al.  Real Options: Managing Strategic Investment in an Uncertain World , 1998 .

[41]  Olivier L. de Weck,et al.  Staged Deployment of Communications Satellite Constellations in Low Earth Orbit , 2004, J. Aerosp. Comput. Inf. Commun..

[42]  S. Ross,et al.  Option pricing: A simplified approach☆ , 1979 .

[43]  Warren E. Walker,et al.  Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-making , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[44]  Richard de Neufville,et al.  Flexibility in Engineering Design , 2011 .