A key success factor for SMR: load following by cogeneration...London - 8-9 June 2016 8 Sungyeol...

A key success factor for SMR:load following by cogeneration

Dr Giorgio Locatelli PhD CEng FHEA

Lecturer in Infrastructure Procurement and Management

School of Civil Engineering - University of Leeds

[email protected]

1

Dr Giorgio [email protected]

KEY PAPERS

You can freely download a selection of my SMR papers from here

Fell free to share!

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xsr4bfjw4gmmgy4/AABrs-2ToQUc485HzWYyLu-aa?dl=0

A key success factor for SMR: load following by cogeneration - NI-London - 8-9 June 2016 2



My research (and this presentation)

3

Megaprojects (Large engineering Infrastructures)

Nuclear Power plant projects

Small Modular Reactors (since 2006)

A key success factor for SMR: load following by cogeneration - NI-London - 8-9 June 2016


Megaprojects (what “big profs” say)


Sovacool, Benjamin K., DanielNugent, and Alex Gilbert."Construction cost overruns andelectricity infrastructure: anunavoidable risk?." The ElectricityJournal 27.4 (2014): 112-120.

“401 power plant and transmission projects in 57 countries […] with only39 projects across the entire sample experiencing no cost overrun”

Sovacool, Benjamin K., Alex Gilbert,and Daniel Nugent. "An internationalcomparative assessment ofconstruction cost overruns forelectricity infrastructure." EnergyResearch & Social Science 3 (2014):152-160.

“Hydroelectric dams and nuclear reactors have the greatest amountand frequency of cost overruns, even when normalized to overrun perinstalled MW […] solar and wind projects seem to present the leastconstruction risk.”

Sovacool, Benjamin K., Alex Gilbert,and Daniel Nugent. "Risk, innovation,electricity infrastructure andconstruction cost overruns: Testingsix hypotheses." Energy 74 (2014):906-917.

“H1 Bigger is badH5 - small is beautiful”

Ansar, Atif, et al. "Big is Fragile: An Attempt at Theorizing Scale." (2016).

“the propensity of big capital investments to systematically deliver pooroutcomes (a notion defined) as "fragility” […] big capital investments breakeasily — i.e. deliver negative net present value — due to various sources ofuncertainty that impact them during their long gestation, implementation,and operation periods. Big capital investments have a disproportionate(non-linear) exposure to uncertainties that deliver poor or negative returnsabove and beyond their economies of scale and scope.”

Big here is intended as • Unique, uncommon, long construction• With a unique new team of stakeholders delivering them


Can we have on time and budget“Nuclear reactors projects”?



Can we have on time and budget“Nuclear reactors projects”? YES!


R² = 0.5522

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

28/8/76 18/2/82 11/8/87 31/1/93 24/7/98 14/1/04 6/7/09

YEA

RS

CONSTRUCTION STARTED

CONSTRUCTION TIME FOR THE STANDARD 1 GW KOREAN PWR

HANBIT

HANUL

KORI

SHIN-KORI

SHIN-WOLSONG


Can we have good “Nuclear reactors projects”? YES!


Korean Nuclear Reactors (IAEA-PRIS data)

28 reactors (24 in operation)5 sites

24 PWR based onUSA-WEC technology!


Can we have good “Nuclear reactors projects”? YES!


Sungyeol Choi, Eunju Jun, IlSoon Hwang, Anne Starz, Tom Mazour,

SoonHeung Chang, Alex R. Burkart, Fourteen lessons learned from

the successful nuclear power program of the Republic of Korea,

Energy Policy, Volume 37, Issue 12, December 2009, Pages 5494-

5508,


Key lesson learned

Standardisation is the key!

• Design standardisation

• Supply chain (project delivery chain) standardisation



The challenges for SMR (and UK)

• Balance the “Diseconomy of Scale” with the “Economy of multiples”

• Many SMR needs to be produced

– Learning / costing

– Pay back investment in the supply chain

• Probably UK market not big enough for a “UK design”: export

• Increasing penetration of renewable and not dispatchable sources

• Load following required (See IAEA activities)

– Stress to the plant

– Worsen the economics

• Newcomers countries do not want “to be the first” and have “special needs” (IAEA meeting)


10 – 15 - 20 years scenario


Why we need load following?


Low EE Price High EE Price

FORECAST

ACTUAL


Why we need load following?“Traditional grid”


Not dispatchable sources- Wind farms- Photovoltaic- …

Smart Grids

“Unconventional users”- Cars

MORE CHALLENGES REQUIRING FLEXIBILITY FOR POWER PLANTS


We need load following!


• NPP must at least be capable of daily load cycling operation between 50% and 100% of its rated power

• Possibility of planned and unplanned load-following in the wide power range and with ramps of 5% per minute.

• The economic consequences of load-following are mainly related to the reduction of the load factor.

• In the case of nuclear, fuel costs represent a small fraction of the electricity generating cost, if compared with fossil sources


Why Load Following trough cogeneration?(Thinking about PWR)

NPP can do load following by modifying the reactivity within the core, e.g. by inserting control rods and neutrons absorbers into the coolant, but…

• the power is reduced, with a waste of potential energy

• thermo-mechanical stress on the plant whenever the power regime is changed

• unlike gas power plants, there is not a relevant cost saving

– Capital cost is a sunk cost

– O&M costs (e.g. personnel) are fixed and independent from the power rate.

– Nuclear fuel accounts for only about 10%-15% of generation costs,

– A lower power rate does not translate into a significant saving.

IDEA: LET’S KEEP THE PRIMARY CIRCUIT ALWAYS AT 100% AND USE ELECTRICITY OR THERMAL ENERGY TO COGENERATE USEFUL BY-PRODUCTS.



The Key idea


COGENERATION LOAD FOLLOWINGLOAD FOLLOWING

BYCOGENERATION

(Overnight) Use/Sell Electivity or thermal energy to Cogenerate a valuable product


The challengeFind the right cogeneration plant

• The total power issue:

– Typical LWR NPP 1000 MWe = 3000 MWt

– 50% load following 500 MWe OR 1500 MWt

THIS IS A LOT OF POWER!!!!

• Discontinuity

– Load following means that, for instance, this power will be available only overnight

– Requires cogeneration options that can be “interrupted” or “very flexible”

• Capital Cost

– NPP are already capital intensive investment

– “Cogenerating facilities” are/can be further cost

• Other issues…

– Safety

– Cost and efficiency in transporting the thermal power



The challengeSelling thermal energy: Find the right process


Required temperature for industrial processes and reactor types

(adapted from (IAEA, 2007), (IAEA, 1998) and (IAEA, 2002))


Let’s do it!

• Probably good ideas

– District heating

– Desalination

– Hydrogen production

• Probably not good ideas

– Oil refinery

– Plastic Waste Pyrolysis

– Oil Shale extraction

– Steam Explosion - Pellets production

– …


G. Locatelli et. al “Small Modular Reactors: Load Following by Cogeneration” 2016 (under review – ask me for a “preview”)


District heating


http://www.eti.co.uk


Desalination



Desalination

• Water scarcity is the lack of sufficient available water resources to meet the demands of water usage within a region.

• It already affects every continent and around 2.8 billion people around the world at least one month out of every year. More than 1.2 billion people lack access to clean drinking water.

• 6 to 8 million people die annually from the consequences of disasters and water-related diseases.

• Desalination is a very energy Intensive process (thermal and/or electrical)


www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml


Auxiliary Plant: the Desalination Plant

Marafiq – Kingdom ofSaudi Arabia

The largest MED-TVCoperating plant in theworld: 27 units (30.000m3/d each). Totalcapacity 800.000 m3/d

MED – TVC in Saudi Arabia


Estimates vary widely between 15,000–20,000 desalination plants producing more than 20,000 m3/day.


Auxiliary Plant: the Desalination Plant

• Simple physical process involved

• Modularity of the plants

• Technical restrictions:

• No-load requirement for steam turbines (3-10%)

• Minimum by-design working level for MED-TVC (20-30%)

YES load-following with a MED-TVC



Real Options (modular plants + switch)



NUCLEAR SITE. PRODUCTION BY-DESIGNFull Electricity IRIS(values per unit)

IRIS connected to MED-TVC (values per unit)

Power per unit (electric, nominal) 335 MWe 335 MWePower per unit (thermal) 1000 MWt 1000 MWt

Number of units 2 2Minimum thermal power to MED-TVC 0 231 MWt

Thermal power to turbine 1000 MWt 770 MWeElectric power 335 MWe 258 MWe

Minimum electric power MED-TVC 0 10 MWeElectric power to the grid 335MWe 248 MWe

ELECTRICITY for sale, per hour 335 MWh 248 MWhWater for sale, per hour 0 m3 4610 m3

NUCLEAR SITE. PRODUCTION OFF-DESIGNFull Electricity IRIS(values per unit)

IRIS connected to MED-TVC (values per unit)

Power per unit (electric, nominal) 335 MWe 335 MWePower per unit (thermal) 1000 MWt 1000 MWt

Number of units working in this production mode

2 2

Thermal power MED-TVC 0 922 MWtThermal power to turbine 1000 MWt 78 MWt0

Electric power 335 MWe 0Constant electric power MED-TVC 41 MWe N/A

Electric power to the grid 294MWe 0 MWeELECTRICITY for sale, per hour 294 MWh 0 MWh

Water for sale, per hour 0 m3 18440 m3



Long term equilibrium prices (day vs. night)


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

wat

er p

rice

[$

/m3

]

Electricity price [$/kWh]

BEP Water Price vs Electricity Price


Hydrogen: Introduction

• Worldwide hydrogen production : 600 billion Nm3/yr (54 mln tons)

• Mostly consumed ‘in situ’.

• Only about 3 mln tons are traded

• Production: 96% from fossil fuels

– most economic, most industrial know how, for large scale production

– Steam Methane Reforming takes great advantage from the current NG low price

48%

30%

18%

3.90%0.10%

Hydrogen production methods

Steam MethanReforming

Oil/Naphta Reforming

Coal gasification

Water Electrolysis

Other



Hydrogen Production Method

T_maxprocess

Energy Input [kWh/Nm3]

Nuclear Reactor Technical feasibility Economic profitability &

Alkaline Water Electrolysis (AWE)

80 °C

4.3 kWh

Only ELECTRIC ENERGY

SMR PWR Feasible

Depends on EE and H2 prices.All electric sources are the same.

No advantage with SMRLR PWR Feasible

SMR VHTGR Feasible

High Temperature Steam Electrolysis (HTSE), with Solid

Oxid Electrolyser Cell (SOEC)

850 °C

2.5 kWh_EE + 0.92 kWh_TH

EE for the mostpart

SMR PWR + ExternalHeater Feasible in theory. BUT difficult to

superheat steam until 850 °C, using an EXTERNAL thermal energy

source. SOEC under R&D

Uncertain, but increased efficiency and H2 production

LR PWR + ExternalHeater

Less profitable than with SMR

SMR VHTGRalso VHTGRunder R&D

NO External heating. Interesting

Sulfur IodineThermochemical

cycle (SI cyc)850 °C

4.9 kWh

Only THERMAL Energy

SMR PWR Feasible in theory. BUT difficult to superheat steam until 850 °C, using

an EXTERNAL thermal energy source. SI cyc under R&D

Further increased efficiency and H2 production

LR PWR Less profitable than with SMR

SMR VHTGRalso VHTGRunder R&D

NO External heating . Really interesting (coupling under R&D

in Japan – GTHTR300C)A key success factor for SMR: load following by cogeneration - NI-London - 8-9 June 2016 28


Hydrogen Breakeven Price: Deterministic

29

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

Hyd

roge

n p

rice

[€/N

m3

]

Electricity price [€/kWh]

Pessimistic

Expected value

Optimistic

A key success factor for SMR: load following by cogeneration - NI-London - 8-9 June 2016


We need to figure out the market in 10 – 20-30 years from now

A key success factor for SMR: load following by cogeneration NI- London - 8-9 June 2016 30


Conclusions and “Take home messages”

• Large engineering projects are usually delivered overbudget and late

• Larger the projects more likely to have issues with it delivery

• In Europe and USA Nuclear, power plants are usually delivered overbudget and late

• In South Korea nuclear reactors are delivered on time & budget and have good operational

performance

• Standardisation plays a key role in the South Korea success

• SMR might balance the “diseconomy of scale” with the “economy of multiples.”

• The delivery of several standardised SMR project might be the key to achieving good project

management performances

• UK needs to export to create a market “big enough” (and de-risk)

• Load following and cogeneration are fundamental

• SMR might have an advantage and they need to exploit it



KEY PAPERS


Fell free to share!




A key success factor for SMR:load following by cogeneration

Dr Giorgio Locatelli PhD CEng FHEA

Lecturer in Infrastructure Procurement and Management

School of Civil Engineering - University of Leeds

[email protected]

33


Selected bibliography

• G. Locatelli, S. Boarin, F. Pellegrino, M.E. Ricotti “Load following with small modular reactors: a real option analysis”. 2015 -Energy –Vol. 80, 1 February 2015, pp. 41–54

• G. Locatelli, E. Palerma, M. Mancini “Assessing the economics of large energy storage plants with an optimisation algorithm”. 2015 - Energy – Vol. 83, 1 April 2015, pp. 15-28

• T. Sainati, G. Locatelli, N. Brookes “Small Modular Reactors: licensing constraints and the way forward”. Discussion paper -Energy –Vol. 82, pp. 1092–1095, 2015 -

• G. Locatelli, C. Bingham, M. Mancini “Small Modular Reactors: a comprehensive overview of economics and strategic aspects”. 2014 – Progress in Nuclear Energy. Vol. 73, May 2014, pp. 75–85.

• G. Locatelli, M. Mancini, E. Romano “Systems Engineering to improve the governance in complex project environments”. 2014 – International Journal of Project Management – Vol. 32, Issue 8, November 2014, Pages 1395–1410.

• G. Locatelli, M. Mancini, N. Todeschini “Generation IV nuclear reactors: Current status and future prospects”. 2013 – Energy Policy, Vol. 61, October 2013, Pages 1503-1520.

• G. Locatelli, M. Mancini “Sustainability in the power plant choice”. 2013. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research. Vol. 7, No. 2, 2013, pp. 209-227.

• G. Locatelli, M. Mancini “A framework for the selection of the right nuclear power plant”. 2012. International Journal of Production Research. Vol. 50, No. 17, 1 September 2012, pp. 4753–4766.

• S. Boarin, G. Locatelli, M. Ricotti, M. Mancini, “Financial case studies on small-and medium-size modular reactors” Nuclear Technology, Vol. 178, No. 2, May 2012, pp. 218-232.

• G. Locatelli, M. Mancini “Looking back to see the future: Building Nuclear Power Plants in Europe” 2012 Construction Management and Economics. Vol. 30, No. 8, 2012, pp. 623-637.

• G. Locatelli, M. Mancini “Large and small baseload power plants: drivers to define the optimal portfolios” Energy Policy, Vol. 39, Issue 12, December 2011, Pp. 7762-7775.

• G. Locatelli, M. Mancini “The role of the reactor size for an investment in the nuclear sector: an evaluation of not-financial parameters”. Progress in Nuclear Energy. Vol. 53, Issue 2, 2011, Pp. 212-222.

• G. Locatelli, M. Mancini “Competitiveness of small-medium, new generation reactors: a comparative study on decommissioning” Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power. ASME Journal, October 2010, Vol. 132.

• G. Locatelli, M. Mancini “Small–medium sized nuclear coal and gas power plant: A probabilistic analysis of their financial performances and influence of CO2 cost”. Energy Policy, Vol. 38, Issue 10, October 2010, Pp. 6360-6374.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03605442/82/supp/Chttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03014215http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=#TOC#5713#2010#999619989#2275762#FLA#&_cdi=5713&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000058180&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2620285&md5=23ffd29ef1a0f05f288efd1f47220d1f


KEY PAPERS


Fell free to share!



A key success factor for SMR: load following by cogeneration...London - 8-9 June 2016 8 Sungyeol...

Documents

Transcript of A key success factor for SMR: load following by cogeneration...London - 8-9 June 2016 8 Sungyeol...