Acumen7

1

Accelerating UK Nuclear New Build

Tony Roulstone

July 2006

2

Contents

• Background;

• Setting the conditions for success;

• Why is time important?

• Challenge for UK industry;

• Is the answer to the nuclear power gap

- Modular design & Off site construction?

3

Background

• Three cycles of nuclear build:

o Magnox 11 stations 3 GWe 1960 & 70’s

o AGR 7 plants 8 GWE 1970 & 80’s

o PWR 1 plant 1.2GWe 1990s

• Nuclear contribution to UK electricity supply declining from ~25% to ~3% over the period 2000 – 2020 as first Magnox then AGRs close;

• Energy Reviews:

o 2002/3 promoted energy saving & wind/wave providing subsidies through supply obligations - 10% renewables.

o 2005/6 considering fall-off in UK oil & gas, security of supply & how to meet environmental targets.

4

Nuclear debate – drivers & inhibitors

New Nuclear?

Carbon Emissions

Energy Security

Stable & competitive electricity price

Waste disposal

Capital Costs uncertain & large

Doubts about Nuclear Safety

Terrorism

Drivers Inhibitors

5

Setting the conditions for success

• Clear understanding by public of the need for new nuclear;

• Waste disposal policy;

• Planning & licensing modernisation;

• Transitional incentive for nuclear re-start;

• Clarity on electricity market including use of carbon credits.

6

UK programme assumptions

• Nuclear new build programme ‘like with like’ 10GWe;

• On existing licensed sites - British Energy & NDA ex Magnox;

• Privately funded & managed;

• Modern standard foreign plant – one of top 4 Gen III+ designs;

• Major public enquiry for the first station - with only site specific

issues being considered for later stations.

7

Hartlepool B En

Torness B En

Dungeness B En & NDA

Sizewell NDA & B En

Trawsfynydd NDA

Wylfa NDA

Berkeley NDA

Heysham B En

Hunterston NDA & B En

Chapelcross NDA

Calder Hall NDA

Oldbury NDA

Hinkley Point NDA &

B En

Bradwell NDA

Nuclear power sites

8

Generation III+ candidates for UK

Candidate systems for UK each based on a successful international design with the latest safety features:

• ACR 1000 AECL Canada

• AP1000 Westinghouse US

• ESBWR GE US

• EPR Areva France

9

ACR 1000 – Atomic Energy of Canada

• 1000 MWe heavy water reactor derived from successful CANDU design built in Canada, Rumania & China;

• Cycle efficiency – 36%

• Capacity factor - 90% based on CANDU-6;

• Design life - 60 years;

• Construction cycle – 42 months;

• Yet to receive safety certification;

10

AP1000 - Westinghouse

• 1GWe simplified passive PWR derived from CE & Westinghouse designs with over 100 reactors in US, Europe & Far East;

• Cycle efficiency – 33%;

• Capacity factor - 90% based on PWR family record;

• Design life - 60 years;

• Construction cycle – 36 months;

• US NRC design certificated;

• Selected by US utilities for NuStart applications made for site licences.

11

ESBR - GE

• 1500 MWe boiling light water reactor evolved from ABWR built in large numbers in US, Sweden & Japan;

• Cycle efficiency – 36%;

• Capacity factor - 90% based on ABWR experience;

• Design life - 60 years;

• Construction cycle – 45 months;• NRC design certification in

process;• Selected by utilities in US for

NuStart.

12

EPR - Areva

• 1600 MWe light water reactor evolved from proven French N4 & German Konvoi designs;

• Cycle efficiency - 36%;

• Capacity factor - 92% improving on N4 record;

• Design life - 60 years;

• 42 month construction cycle:

• Designed to EU safety standards;

• Being built at Olkiluoto in Finland & Flamville in France.

13

Why is time important – for Investor?

• Individual build timescales for stations

• 2 years delay & 10% cost => +£250m investment

+15% through life costs

• 1GWe plant

• £1bn cost

• Build time 4 &1 yr

Cummulative Cash Flow

-1500

-500

500

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51

Yr

M

14

Why is time important – for HMG?

• Long timescale of re-starting nuclear build & enquiry ~ 10

years to first electricity;

• Constrains of capacity & build timescale mean

o Further 20 years to replace current nuclear capacity i.e. by 2037.

o Decommissioning of current stations opens up carbon free energy

gap lasting many years.

15

Challenge for UK industry

• Previous Gas reactors – too slow and very expensive;

• Cost overruns on major infrastructure projects – Wembley,

West Coast Mainline etc.;

• Loss of experienced & specialist nuclear engineers;

• Scale & complexity of programme – multiple stations

geographically dispersed, in same time frame.

16

Conventional site based approach

Standard

• 8 Reactors 1.2GWe

• Capacity constraint - no more than 2 sites at any one time

R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8

Programme timescale 25 years

17

An Alternative

Modular Design & Off-site

• 10 reactors @ 1GWe

• No parallel capacity constraints

R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9R10

Programme timescale 13 years

18

Capacity increase

Capacity Build-up

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Yrs

GW

e

Standard

Modular

19

Facing the issues – discussion topic

• Could modular build & off site construction be the answer?

o New plants designed for modular & shorter construction;

o Take best nuclear construction practice from anywhere in

the world – China & Korea?

o Learn from other major projects using build off site

techniques;

o Factory infrastructure & logistics?

o Radical programme coordination requirements.