Analytical Framework for Analysis and Assessment of Transition Scenarios to Sustainable Nuclear Energy Systems

Summary

The IAEA’s International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) was established in 2000 to help ensure that nuclear energy is available to contribute to meeting global energy needs of the 21st century in a sustainable manner. INPRO activities on global and regional nuclear energy scenarios provide countries embarking on a new nuclear power programme (‘newcomers’) and countries with a mature nuclear power programme with a better understanding of the options available to achieve sustainable nuclear energy.
The INPRO Collaborative Project on Global Architecture of Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems Based on Thermal and Fast Reactors Including a Closed Fuel Cycle (GAINS), conducted in 2008 – 2011, developed an international analytical framework for assessing transition scenarios to future sustainable nuclear energy systems and applied it in sample analyses. This brochure presents major elements of the analytical framework and selected results of its application including:

• A common methodological approach, including basic principles, assumptions, and boundary conditions;
• Scenarios for long term nuclear power evolution based on IAEA Member States’ high and low estimates for nuclear power demand until 2050, and trend forecasts to 2100 based on projections of international energy organizations;
• A heterogeneous global model to capture countries’ different policies regarding the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle;
• Metrics and tools to assess the sustainability of scenarios for a dynamic nuclear energy system, including a set of key indicators and evaluation parameters;
• An international database of best-estimate characteristics of existing and future innovative nuclear reactors and associated nuclear fuel cycles for material flow analysis, which expands upon other IAEA databases and takes into account different preferences of Member States;
• Findings from analyses of scenarios of a transition from present nuclear reactors and fuel cycles to future nuclear energy system architectures with innovative technological solutions.

The framework is a part of the integrated services provided by the IAEA to Member States considering the initial development or expansion of their nuclear energy programmes.

Introduction

FIG.1. 5^th Meeting of the INPRO Collaborative Project GAINS, 27 May 2010.

One of the main objectives of INPRO is to help to ensure that nuclear energy is available to contribute to meeting the energy needs of the 21st century in a sustainable manner. A methodology for assessing capabilities of innovative nuclear energy systems to meet national sustainability requirements was developed in the first phase of INPRO [1, 2]. A significant task of the current, second phase of the Project is to find ways for an optimal introduction of innovative nuclear energy technologies into national energy systems, taking into account the regional and global trends of nuclear energy system development, the attractiveness of multilateral solutions for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) management and non-proliferation from an economic perspective, and the fact that nuclear energy is a global undertaking in terms of safety, nuclear material resources, and non-proliferation.
When performing a study on transition scenarios, it is essential to quantify the key aspects characterizing development and deployment of nuclear energy system components over particular periods of time, including estimations of technical parameters, economic performance, infrastructural and institutional arrangements. While many States and international organizations have performed relevant studies, it is increasingly recognized that more efforts are needed to harmonize national decisions on technical, institutional and political issues which are raised by the transition to a nuclear energy system with enhanced sustainability features. One of four INPRO major activities is to perform scenario studies to understand key issues in a transition to future nuclear energy systems. Several IAEA Member States have expressed interest in joint modelling of global trends toward a sustainable nuclear power supply, taking into account the potential of technical innovations and multilateral cooperation.
Responding to this request, the INPRO Collaborative Project GAINS was established in 2008. The project defined “architecture” as a system with different types of reactors and corresponding fuel cycle installations, as well as interactions between their components to serve a common goal. The objective of the GAINS project was to develop a standard framework for assessing future nuclear energy systems taking into account sustainable development, and to validate the simulation results through sample analyses. Sixteen participants from different regions of the world – Belgium, Canada, China, Czech Republic, France, India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine, the USA, the European Commission (EC), plus Argentina as an observer – carried out coordinated investigations and contributed to the GAINS final report [3]. This broad membership, as well as the cooperation of the thermal and fast reactor ‘communities’, collaboration with similar international initiatives, and the IAEA’s auspices and expertise are considered strengths of the project.
This brochure summarizes the results of and provides examples from the GAINS Collaborative Project.

Member States’ Needs in Developing Transition Scenarios towards Sustainable Nuclear Energy Systems

Existing nuclear energy systems, which are almost entirely based on thermal reactors operating in an open fuel cycle, will continue to be the main contributor to nuclear energy production for at least several more decades. However, results of multiple national and international studies show that the criteria for developing sustainable nuclear energy cannot be achieved without major innovations in reactor and nuclear fuel cycle technologies. New reactors, nuclear fuels and fuel cycle technologies are under development and demonstration worldwide. Expectations for their large-scale introduction into operational nuclear energy systems differ (Fig. 2).

FIG. 2. Set of reactor and fuel types with deployment time frames.

Innovative reactors expected to have a major impact on the future nuclear energy system architecture include advanced light water reactors (ALWR), advanced heavy water reactors (AHWR), high temperature reactors (HTR), fast reactors (FR), and potentially, accelerator driven systems (ADS) and/or molten salt reactors (MSR). Small and medium-sized reactors (SMR) were initially considered in the GAINS project, but were not evaluated as they are not distinctly different from their technology type (LWR, FR, etc.). Combining the different reactor types and associated fuel chains creates a multiplicity of nuclear energy system arrangements aimed at solving specific goals, such as production of various energy products, better use of natural resources, and minimization of radioactive waste.
Analytical groups and decision makers involved in developing a national nuclear power strategy typically select from the set of available technologies within a given period of time and adjust it to local needs, taking into account national capabilities and preferences as well as potential reactor sales and fuel cycle services provided by regional or global markets. It is becoming increasingly clear that national strategies will have to be harmonized with regional and global nuclear power architectures to make a national nuclear energy system more effective.
An established market exists at the front end of the fuel cycle, and there are also promising examples of cooperation at the back end. Simulations of the transition to sustainable nuclear energy systems at national, regional, and global levels have become an essential part of the scientific work that supports the decision making process on national nuclear power programmes.
The GAINS project provides IAEA Member States with a framework (hereafter called the GAINS framework) to help explore transition scenarios to a future global nuclear energy system that would combine the synergy of nuclear technologies together with innovative institutional approaches to foster collaboration among countries to amplify the benefits of the innovation.

Definition of the GAINS Framework

The GAINS framework is based on CP participants’ experiences in implementing similar studies at national and international levels. The framework can be used for developing national nuclear energy strategies, exploring opportunities for cooperation and partnerships on the nuclear fuel cycle, and highlighting how global trends may affect national developments (and vice versa). Individual countries can make use of this framework to evaluate particular approaches in a global or regional context based on national and regional data. The GAINS framework includes:

• A common methodological approach with the basic principles, assumptions and boundary conditions;
• Scenarios for nuclear power evolution and a future transition to innovative nuclear energy systems with thermal and fast reactors;
• Use of IAEA models and tools for material flow simulation to support evaluation along with national instruments;
• International data on reactors and associated fuel cycles as needed for material flow analysis and comparative economic evaluations;
• Agreed metrics for scenario analyses and assessment;
• Templates for analysis of simulation results;
• Sample scenario studies, including a set of basic cases which could be used for comparison and reference purposes.

A Common Methodological Approach

Basic principles and assumptions, uniform boundary conditions, and a common methodological platform are prerequisites for the development of a comprehensive framework for the analysis and assessment of transition scenarios. The underlying assumption of the GAINS project is that growing human needs in the 21st century will require large scale deployment of nuclear power together with other energy sources. The international community has recognized the risks associated with growing energy use, such as increasing levels of pollution, accelerated resource depletion, accumulation of waste, and other threats. Responding to these concerns, the United Nations has defined requirements for sustainable energy supply as part of the general concept of sustainable development [4, 5]. These requirements make it possible to assess whether prospective energy sources will meet the increasing demands of society and generate energy in a safe, environmentally-responsible, and affordable manner.
In cooperation with IAEA Member States, INPRO has defined the requirements for a sustainable nuclear energy system consistent with the UN concept for sustainable development [4, 5]. These requirements are also consistent with the high-level goals and requirements for a Generation IV nuclear energy system developed independently by the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) [6]. INPRO has also developed the methodology and manuals to assess how these achieve these requirements are achieved [7–9].
INPRO methodology is a holistic approach to assess the sustainability of innovative nuclear systems across seven areas: economics, infrastructure, waste management, proliferation resistance, physical protection, environment, and safety of nuclear installations. For each of these areas a hierarchical set of Basic Principles, User Requirements, and Criteria forms the basis for a sustainability assessment. Through a bottom-up approach, the fulfilment of a Criterion is confirmed by an Indicator complying with the Acceptance Limit(s); the fulfilment of a User Requirement is confirmed by the fulfilment of the corresponding Criterion (Criteria); and the fulfilment of a Basic Principle is achieved by meeting the related User Requirement(s). 14 Basic Principles, 52 User Requirements and 125 Criteria with Indicators and Acceptance Limits must be satisfied to confirm that a nuclear energy system is sustainable [9].
INPRO methodology and manuals provided a useful resource for the participants of the GAINS project. However, INPRO methodology was designed as a tool for assessing the capabilities of a national nuclear energy system to meet requirements of sustainability, whereas the GAINS framework is aimed at comparing options and possible scenarios at the national, regional, and global levels. Accordingly, the GAINS framework relates to INPRO methodology primarily through the concept of ‘key indicators’ (KIs) introduced in INPRO methodology reports [8, 9].
A nuclear energy system sustainability assessment must also take into account specific local conditions. Because the scope of indicators relevant to the GAINS objectives is limited to those aspects of a nuclear energy system that have a broader and more general context, KIs for GAINS have been defined for selected INPRO assessment areas that reflect the focus areas of the GAINS project. These KIs provide a distinctive capability for capturing the essence of a given area and provide a means to establish targets to be reached by improving technical or infrastructural characteristics of a nuclear energy system.
The GAINS framework measures the transition from an existing to a future sustainable nuclear energy system by the degree to which the selected targets (e.g. minimized waste, minimized amounts of direct use materials in storage, or minimized natural resource depletion) are approached in particular evolution scenarios. KIs are compared to determine the more promising options for achieving the selected targets. Possible benefits and issues between the different options are also analysed.
GAINS project participants sought to reduce the number of KIs to a minimum to facilitate implementation of a scenario-based approach. However, evaluation parameters (EP) were introduced as sub-indicators to further clarify the indicators, and in some cases, to obtain quantitative values. These parameters add an additional depth to the estimation of the nuclear energy system sustainability.
In addition to an expectation of large-scale deployment of nuclear energy in the future, the GAINS project is characterized by several general assumptions. In particular, project participants recognize the critical role of R&D in the sustainable deployment of nuclear power, and that there is wide variation in the development and deployment of nuclear technologies worldwide. It is assumed that this imbalance and the extent of multilateral cooperation (addressed in many IAEA publications, e.g. [10]) will continue to be important factors in the future evolution of the global nuclear energy system as a whole.

Scenarios for Nuclear Power Evolution

Nuclear power is an integral part of the energy sector. Similar to other energy options, deployment of nuclear power depends on demand for primary energy and electricity, environmental constraints, and progress in technological development, among other things. According to recent long term projections, the range of expected nuclear energy demand varies considerably because of the uncertainty in future conditions and the driving forces that define the need for energy [3].
Different assumptions of demographic, social, economic, technological, and environmental developments result in divergent trends of nuclear power deployment, from exponential growth to full phase-out. To help define an area of concern and allow for specific conclusions regarding nuclear architecture, GAINS participants developed the framework according to high- and moderate-growth scenarios.

FIG. 3. GAINS scenarios for modelling nuclear power generation (GWa values show actual electric power produced annually, not installed capacity)..png

In addition to surveying nuclear power projections based on macroeconomic studies, including the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) of the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) [11], the GAINS project also examined national medium and long term nuclear strategies and programmes, in close cooperation with the IAEA Planning and Economic Studies Section (PESS) [12]. This helped narrow the scope of uncertainty in selecting two long term nuclear energy demand scenarios based on high and low estimations of nuclear power deployment until 2100 (Fig. 3).
These scenarios can serve as reference points in analyses of the global nuclear energy system. The following was noted:

• The high nuclear energy demand scenario is an averaged expectations of the IPCC SRES – in this scenario, global annual nuclear electricity production reaches approximately 1500 GWa by 2050, and 5000 GWa by 2100;
• The moderate nuclear energy demand scenario assumes approximately 1000 GWa by 2050, and 2500 GWa by the end of the century.

The growth curves have three distinct growth periods. Each is modelled by linear growth to reach the specific level of the production by the end of the period:

• 2009−2030: 600 GWa for the moderate case and 700 GWa for the high case;
• 2031−2050: 1000 GWa for the moderate case and 1500 GWa for the high case;
• 2051−2100: 2500 GWa for the moderate case and 5000 GWa for the high case.

When analyzing thermal power annual production profiles (e.g. to study possible production of non-electrical nuclear energy products such as heat, potable water, hydrogen, etc.), these scenarios can be used to construct a set of companion profiles of thermal power production demand (GWa(th)) by applying an assumed thermal-to-electric efficiency conversion value.

Models and Simulation Tools

FIG. 4. Heterogeneous models for future global nuclear fuel cycles..png

FIG. 5. Heterogeneous model: non-synergistic (a) and synergistic (b).

Most studies on the future of nuclear energy are based on a homogeneous global model, which suggests a world rapidly converging toward global solutions for economic, social, and environmental challenges. This model emphasizes the opportunities facilitating creation of the regional and global nuclear architecture, such as unification of reactor fleets and associated technologies, infrastructure sharing, multinational fuel cycle centres, and innovative approaches to financing and licensing, among other things. However, it does not take into account the barriers to cooperation between different parts of the world, or national preferences and capabilities.
To complement this model, the GAINS project developed a heterogeneous model based on grouping countries with similar fuel cycle strategies. This model can facilitate a more realistic analysis of transition scenarios toward a global architecture of innovative nuclear energy systems. It can also illustrate the global benefits that would result from some countries introducing innovative nuclear technologies, which would limit the exposure of the majority of countries to the financial risks and other burdens associated with the development and deployment of these technologies.
The heterogeneous world model developed by GAINS organizes countries into groups according to their strategies of SNF management (see Fig. 4):

• Group NG1 countries pursue a general strategy to recycle spent nuclear fuel and plan to build, operate, and manage spent fuel recycling facilities and permanent geologic disposal facilities for highly radioactive waste;
• Group NG2 countries follow a strategy either to directly dispose SNF or send it abroad for reprocessing. These countries plan to build, operate, and manage permanent geologic disposal facilities for highly radioactive waste (either as spent fuel or reprocessing waste) but may work synergistically with countries from another group to recycle fuel;
• Group NG3 countries have a general strategy for the front end of the fuel cycle – to acquire fresh fuel from abroad and send spent fuel abroad for either recycling or disposal – but have not developed plans to build, operate, or manage spent fuel recycling facilities or permanent geologic disposal facilities for highly radioactive waste.

The heterogeneous model may involve some degree of cooperation between groups (synergistic case) as shown in Figure 4, or it may not involve any cooperation (non-synergistic case). Figure 5 illustrates the flow of nuclear fuel cycle operations for each group in a non-synergistic and a synergistic heterogeneous world model. Solid lines indicate required functions and actions, while dotted lines indicate additional options.
The GAINS project conducted analyses of national energy strategies and competent energy agencies’ surveys on short, medium and long term projections of global nuclear power deployment. On the basis of this analysis, estimated nominal scenarios of future annual nuclear electricity production were developed for each GAINS group (Table 1).

Table 1. Nominal scenario of annual nuclear electricity production for GAINS heterogeneous model groups

GAINS groups	GWa
	2008	2030 Moderate	2030 High	2050 Moderate	2050 High	2100 Moderate	2100 High
NG1	149	285	333	455	682	1000	2000
NG2	149	285	333	455	682	1000	2000
NG3	0	30	34	90	136	500	1000
World total	298	600	700	1000	1500	2500	5000

The heterogeneous model allows for indicators to be calculated for each group of countries (NG1, NG2, NG3), whereas a homogeneous model could only provide indicators for the world as a whole. (Due to uncertainty in the medium and long term forecasts, the group and world total scenarios should be considered as reference points. Variations of the country group shares were considered in the SYNERGIES project [16], a follow-up to GAINS, for possible use in sensitivity studies to complement the GAINS framework.)
Additionally, the IAEA and some Member States have developed analytical methods and computer codes for modelling scenarios which allow calculation of a wide range of indicators. Three codes – MESSAGE, NFCSS and DESAE – are distributed by the IAEA and are available to all interested Member States.
MESSAGE (Model for Energy Supply System Alternatives and their General Environmental impacts) is a large-scale dynamic model for development of medium to long term energy scenarios and policy analysis [13]. MESSAGE allows for different energy technologies (including nuclear) with their specific features to be modelled for the purpose of optimizing of a specific objective (e.g. least cost, lowest environmental impact, maximum self-sufficiency) under a set of constraints.
NFCSS (Nuclear Fuel Cycle Simulation System) [14] is a code which estimates the requirements for nuclear fuel cycle services and nuclear materials during each phase of a transition scenario. NFCSS was developed mainly to evaluate nuclear fuel cycle services and materials requirements for existing thermal nuclear reactor types and fast reactors of some types.
DESAE (Dynamics of Energy Systems – Atomic Energy) [15] is an interactive material flow analysis code for quantitative assessment of nuclear fuel cycle requirements, material balances, and economic parameters for a given combination of nuclear reactors during a specific time period.
GAINS participants also reviewed and took into consideration several of the modelling codes developed by Member States, including DANESS and VISION (USA), COSI (France), FAMILY (Japan), and TEPS (India).

Architectures for Nuclear Energy Systems and Data on Nuclear Reactors and Associated Fuel Cycles

In developing the GAINS framework, participants defined several nuclear energy system architectures and evaluated the effect implementation of innovative technologies and cooperation among countries belonging to different groups would have on KIs. Potential architectures include:

FIG. 6. Variation in technical maturity for reactor designs in the GAINS database

• A homogeneous ‘business-as-usual’ (BAU) scenario based on pressurized water reactors (PWRs) (94% of power generation) and heavy water reactors (HWRs) (6% of power generation) operating in a once-through fuel cycle, or a ‘BAU+’ variation involving Advanced PWRs;
• A homogeneous scenario for a closed fuel cycle based on thermal and fast reactors;
• A hybrid heterogeneous scenario comprised of a once-through fuel cycle strategy in NG2, a closed fuel cycle strategy in NG1, and use of thermal reactors in a once-through mode in NG3; (this scenario includes both synergistic and non-synergistic cases – in the synergistic case, NG3 receives fresh fuel from NG2 and NG1 and returns the associated SNF to those groups (see Fig. 6));
• Other innovative architectures in the homogeneous model, including fast-spectrum reactors or thermal-spectrum HWRs using thorium fuel to reduce natural uranium requirements, and those featuring reduction of minor actinides (MA) using accelerator driven systems (ADS) or molten salt reactors (MSR).

The GAINS architecture includes the entire range of reactor technologies – from the most common systems currently operating, to the systems planned for near to medium term deployment, to the most innovative systems which are in early stages of research and development (Fig. 6). Table 2 gives an example of the averaged parameters for a break-even fast reactor (the reactor with breeding ratio BR~ 1.0).
To build a simulation model for these architectures and assess related KIs, it is necessary to acquire data on material flows and economics for each reactor design and related nuclear fuel cycle technology. The GAINS framework incorporates and extends data from existing IAEA databases of modelling scenarios and also takes into account the different perspectives of countries which participated in the project.
For nuclear reactor systems, global mass flow analysis requires data on fuel burn-up performance and refuelling for each reactor concept. For nuclear fuel cycle systems, the basic flow diagrams of typical systems and some important conditions which affect mass flow analysis results are needed.
The basic fuel material flows for the examined architectures are defined together with key analysis conditions, e.g. uranium enrichment tails assay is assumed to be 0.2% and spent fuel from HWRs is assumed to be temporarily stored. The framework also assumes that there are no limitations to acquiring and operating fuel cycle infrastructure related to mining, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, long term storage for spent fuel, interim storage for separated nuclear materials (e.g. plutonium, minor actinides (MA), fission products), reprocessing and geological disposal capacities.

FIG. 7. Flow chart for a combined once-through cycle and fast reactor closed fuel cycle system.png

Table 2. Example of reactor data (break-even fast reactor)

Reactor net electric output	MW	870
Reactor thermal output	MW	2100
Thermal efficiency	%	41.43
Average load factor	%	85
Operation cycle length	EFPD	140
		Core	Axial blanket	Radial blanket
Power share of each region	%	94.5	3.0	2.5
No. of refuelling batches		3	3	3.5
Fuel residence time	EFPD	420	420	490
Specific power density	MW/t	157.00	11.465	8.532
Average discharged burnup	MW d/t	65939	4815	4181
Thermal power of each region	MW	1984.5	63.0	52.5
Heavy metal weight share Initial core and full core discharge Equilibrium refueling	%	52.0 54.0	22.6 23.5	25.4 22.5
Average burnup of whole core*	MW d/t	37677
Average residence time of whole core*	EFPD	435.771
Average power density of whole core*	MW/t	84.462
Initial fuel inventoty	tHM	24.288
Equilibrium Loading	tHM/y	17.292

Figure 7 provides an example of the flow chart for a combined once-through fuel cycle and fast reactor closed fuel cycle system. As shown in the figure, the once-through fuel cycle system consists of facilities for uranium mining, conversion, enrichment, depleted uranium storage, fuel fabrication, nuclear power production, spent fuel storage at the nuclear power plant, and long term spent fuel storage. In the case of HWRs, the steps of conversion, enrichment and depleted uranium storage do not exist because HWRs operate on natural uranium fuel.
The GAINS framework incorporates certain assumptions regarding the rate that fast reactors would be introduced into a system initially consisting of LWRs and HWRs. These assumptions impose a constraint on the power production by fast reactors in the years between 2030 and 2050 by specifying a maximum deployment rate depending on the overall nuclear energy growth scenario, resulting in a total electricity production rate of 10 GWa from fast reactors in 2030 and a total of 400 GWa in 2050 for the high scenario case. After 2050, the deployment rate of fast reactors is maximized and limited only by the amount of plutonium available and the overall nuclear growth rate.
The combined system shown in Fig. 7 includes a reprocessing facility for the recycle of plutonium, MA and uranium, and a radioactive waste management facility for the fast reactor cycle. The reprocessed uranium from LWRs or ALWRs can be used as the feed for re-enrichment or in fuel for FRs and HWRs.

Metrics for Scenario Analysis and Assessment

As described in Chapter 4, the GAINS framework employs the concept of ‘key indicators’ (KIs) and ‘associated evaluation parameters’ (EPs) to enable a comparative analysis and sustainability assessment of dynamic nuclear energy systems. The framework provides ten KIs with associated EPs (Table 3).

Table 2. GAINS key indicators and evaluation parameters

No.	Key indicators and Evaluation Parameters		INPRO assessment areas
	Color coding indicative of relative uncertainty level in estimating specific quantitative values for future NES (can vary based on a particular scenario)	Low	Resources sustainability	Waste Management Environmental Stressors	Safety	Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection	Economics	Infrastrurcture
		Medium-Low
		Medium-High
		High
Power production
KI-1	Nuclear power production capacity by reactor type							X
EP-1.1	(a) Commissioning and (b) decommissioning rates			X				X
Nuclear Material Resources
KI-2	Average net energy produced per unit mass of natural uranium		X	X
EP-2.1	Cumulative demand of natural nuclear material, i.e. (a) natural uranium and (b) thorium		X	X
KI-3	Direct Use material inventories per unit energy generated (Cumulative absolute quantities can be shown as EP-3.1)		X			X		X
Discharged Fuel
KI-4	Discharged fuel inventories per unit energy generated (Cumulative absolute quantities can be shown as EP-4.1)			X				X
Radioactive Waste and Minor Actinides
KI-5	Radioactive waste inventories per unit energy generated (Cumulative absolute quantities can be shown as EP-5.3)			X				X
EP-5.1	(a) Radiotoxicity and (b) decay heat of waste, including discharged fuel destined for disposal			X				X
EP-5.2	Minor actinive inventories per unit energy generated			X				X
Fuel Cycle Services
KI-6	(a) Uranium enrichment and (b) fuel reprocessing capacity, both normalized per unit of nuclear power productivity capacity					X		X
KI-7	Annual quantities of fuel and waste material transported between groups			X		X		X
EP-7.1	Category of nuclear material transported between groups					X
System Safety
KI-8	Annual collective risk per unit energy generation				X
Costs and investment
KI-9	Levelized unit of electricity cost (LUEC)						X
EP-9.1	Overnight cost for Nth-of-a-kind reactor unit: (a) total and (b) specific (per unit capacity)						X
KI-10	Estimated RD&D investment in Nth-of-a-kind deployment						X	X
EP-10.1	Additional functions of benefits						X

The set of KIs and EPs provided in Table 3 is based on more than one-hundred indicators comprising all assessment areas of the INPRO methodology. These KIs/EPs depict nuclear power production of a global nuclear energy system according to reactor type, resources, discharged fuel, radioactive waste, fuel cycle services, costs, and investments. Although developed for global architectures, the set of GAINS KIs and EPs can also be adapted for a more localized application of the framework.
Database values may not be readily available for calculating some of the KIs or EPs. For a more complete application of the framework, economic data and probabilistic risk assessment data for advanced systems should be collected, as technologies mature with time and data become available.