Small Modular Reactors UK Energy System Requirements

©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1

©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP The information in this document is the property of Energy Technologies Institute LLP and may not be copied or communicated to a third party, or used for any purpose other than that for

which it is supplied without the express written consent of Energy Technologies Institute LLP.

This information is given in good faith based upon the latest information available to Energy Technologies Institute LLP, no warranty or representation is given concerning such information,

which must not be taken as establishing any contractual or other commitment binding upon Energy Technologies Institute LLP or any of its subsidiary or associated companies.

Small Modular Reactors – UK Energy System Requirements

Mike Middleton – Energy Technologies Institute

Nuclear Institute Midlands Branch – 27th March 2015


Presentation Structure

• Introduction to the ETI

• Potential role for nuclear in a UK low carbon 2050 energy system

• Constraints in the deployment of “large” nuclear

• Finding a niche for small nuclear in a 2050 UK low carbon energy system

• Current ETI projects & Interfaces

• Provisional Conclusions – Power Plant Siting Study

• Provisional Conclusions – Alternative Nuclear Technologies Study

• Provisional Conclusions – ESME Sensitivity Analysis For Nuclear

• Next Steps

• Likely ETI Conclusions


Introduction to the ETI organisation

2.

• The Energy Technologies Institute

(ETI) is a public-private partnership

between global industries and UK

Government

Delivering...

• Targeted development,

demonstration and de-risking of new

technologies for affordable and

secure energy

• Shared risk ETI programme associate

ETI members


What does the ETI do?

3.

System level strategic planning

Technology development & demonstration

Delivering knowledge &

innovation


ETI Invests in projects at 3 levels

5.

Knowledge Building Projects

typically ....

up to £5m, Up to 2 years

Technology Development projects

typically ....

£5-15m, 2-4 years

TRL 3-5

Technology Demonstration projects

Large projects delivered primarily by large companies, system integration focus

typically ....

£15-30m+, 3-5 years

TRL 5-6+


Typical ESME Outputs


2010(Historic)

2020 2030 2040 2050

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Mt

CO

2/y

ear

DB v3.4 / Optimiser v3.4

International Aviation & Shipping

Transport Sector

Buildings Sector

Power Sector

Industry Sector

Biocredits

Process & other CO2

Notes:•Usual sequence in the least-cost

system design is for the power sector

to decarbonise first, followed by heat

and then transport sectors

•“Biocredits” includes some pure

accounting measures, as well as

genuine negative emissions from

biomass CCS.

Net UK CO2 Emissions – Typical ETI Transition Scenario


UK legal

target (2050)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2010 £/Te CO2

UK Energy System CO2 Reduction(including aviation and shipping)

Efficiency improvementAppliances, heating, buildings,

vehicles, industry

Energy storage and distribution

2050 UK system cost

first appearances of major technologies, in order of increasing

effective carbon price

>£300/Te or >$480/TeOffshore

Wind

Light vehicles (fuel cell / electrification)

Nuclear CCS

Marine


The Role For Nuclear Within A UK Low Carbon Energy System

• Low carbon

• Baseloadelectricity

Proven

• For ranges of LCOE

• For ranges of CO2

abatement

Choice

• Cap of 40GW

• For nearly all scenarios

To Maximum

LCOE – Levelised Cost Of Energy


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2010(Historic)

2020 2030 2040 2050

GW


Geothermal Plant

Wave Power

Tidal Stream

Hydro Power

Micro Solar PV

Large Scale Ground Mounted Solar

PV

Onshore Wind

Offshore Wind

H2 Turbine

Anaerobic Digestion CHP Plant

Energy from Waste

IGCC Biomass with CCS

Biomass Fired Generation

Nuclear

CCGT with CCS

CCGT

IGCC Coal with CCS

PC Coal

Gas Macro CHP

Oil Fired Generation

Interconnectors

Notes:•Nuclear a key base load power

technology. Almost always deployed to

maximum (40GW)

•Big increase in 2040s is partly due to

increased demand (for heating and

transport), and partly because the

additional renewables need backup

Installed Electrical Generation Capacity


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2010(Historic)

2020 2030 2040 2050

TW

h


Geothermal Plant

Wave Power

Tidal Stream

Hydro Power

Micro Solar PV

Large Scale Ground Mounted Solar

PV

Onshore Wind

Offshore Wind

H2 Turbine

Anaerobic Digestion CHP Plant

Energy from Waste

IGCC Biomass with CCS

Biomass Fired Generation

Nuclear

CCGT with CCS

CCGT

IGCC Coal with CCS

PC Coal

Gas Macro CHP

Oil Fired Generation

Interconnectors

Notes:•Nuclear used as base load

•CCGT CCS does more load

following, both summer/winter

and within day

Annual Electricity Generation


UK Constraints In The

Deployment Of

Nuclear

Nuclear capacity in the 2050 energy system

Optimum Contribution In The Mix

Capability & Capacity To

Expand Programme

ProgrammeDelivery

Experience

Sites

Are there suitable and sufficient sites

for nuclear deployment or will this

become an additional constraint?


Nuclear Power Stations – Site Identification and Selection

Hierarchy Of Selection Site Capacity Required

Current Nuclear Power Sites

Current Nuclear Sites Not Used For Power

Current or Historic Thermal Power Sites

New Greenfield Sites

Role For NuclearInstalled

Capacity

Site

Capacity

Replacement 16 GW

Expansion To Cap

Applied In Most

ETI Scenarios

40 GW ?

Expansion To

Extreme Scenarios75 GW ?


Site Availability For Up To 75 GW Nuclear

Capacity

Site Layout Image courtesy of Google and edfenergy.com

nuclear power site

nuclear research/process

site

Need to find sites for 25 of these, in this


Policy Of Scottish Government Is

To Not Support New Nuclear With

Focus On Renewables Instead

Eliminates from consideration:

• existing nuclear sites in Scotland

• existing thermal power station sites in

Scotland

• greenfield sites in Scotland otherwise

suitable for new nuclear power stations


Potential Competition For Sites

Between Nuclear and New Thermal

Plants With CCS

• CO2 disposal sites in Irish and North Seas

• CO2 storage and transport infrastructure expected to

be located on the coast nearer the disposal sites

• New thermal plant requires CCS connection and

access to suitable and sufficient cooling water

• CCS Generation capacity in typical ETI scenario:

– 30 GW Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

– 30 GW Combined Cycle Gas Turbine

– 3 GW Pulverised Coal

Installed

Capacity

Site

Capacity

16 GW

40 GW ?

75 GW ?

Potential coastal locations to access CCS transport and disposal infrastructure


Where Might Small Nuclear Plants Be Located (1)?

Siting criteria expected to be consistent with large nuclear plant:

• large open space for construction and lay down areas

• access to a large source of cooling water

• grid connection

• full scope of criteria as per current National Policy Statement for nuclear

Potentially closer to developed areas:

• not constrained to the coast for seawater cooling

• opportunity to re-use some thermal power station sites

• assumed that semi-urban siting criterion will continue to be applied irrespective of

greater safety claims made by some vendors of small reactor designs



Image courtesy of Google and en.Wikipedia.org

A large open space near a source of cooling water?

This location fails to meet the established siting criteria



Image courtesy of Google and commons.Wikimedia.org

Or a large open space in Derby

near the river Derwent?




Image courtesy of Google and fr.Wikimedia.org

Or is this site closer to a larger source of cooling

water from the nearby river Trent?



Can Small Nuclear Build

A Niche Within The UK

Energy System?Small Nuclear Large Nuclear

For SMRs to be deployed in UK:

• technology development to be

completed

• range of approvals and consents to

be secured

• sufficient public acceptance of

technology deployment at expected

locations against either knowledge or

ignorance of alternatives

• deployment economically attractive to

o reactor vendors

o utilities and investors

o consumers & taxpayers

Realistic objective for SMRs to be economically attractive to all stakeholders

FID – Final Investment Decision


Containment

structure

Reactor vessel

Turbine

Condenser

Generator

Steam GeneratorControl

rods

Single Revenue Stream Multiple Revenue Streams

1. Baseload

Electricity

1. Baseload

Electricity

2. Variable

Electricity To

Aid Grid

Balancing

Waste Heat Rejected To

The Environment3. Waste Heat Recovery To Energise

District Heating Systems

Niche For Small Nuclear In The UK Technology Mix?

Containment

structure

Reactor vessel

Turbine

Condenser

Generator

Steam GeneratorControl

rods


ETI Projects Delivered

Power Plant Siting Study

• Explore UK capacity for new nuclear

based on siting constraints

• Consider competition for development

sites between nuclear and thermal with

CCS

• Undertake a range of related sensitivity

studies

• Identify potential capacity for small nuclear

based on existing constraints and using

sites unsuitable for large nuclear

• Project schedule June 2014 to Dec 2014

• Being delivered by Atkins for ETI through

competitive open procurement process

System Requirements For Alternative Nuclear

Technologies

• Develop a high level functional requirement

specification for a “black box” power plant for

– baseload electricity

– heat to energise district heating systems, and

– further flexible electricity to aid grid balancing

• Develop high level business case with

development costs, unit costs and unit revenues

necessary for deployment to be attractive to

utilities and investors

• Project schedule August 2014 to Dec 2014

• Being delivered by Mott MacDonald for ETI

through competitive open procurement process

• ETI scenario analysis to determine attractiveness

of such “black box” to UK low carbon energy

system


Interfaces With the ETI PPSS and ANT Projects

Scope of Siting and Alternative Technology

projects

Technology Identification &

selection

NNL SMR feasibility study

Socio & Economic challenges in decarbonising

domestic space heating

ETI smart heat programme

Public Acceptablility

Knowledge of alternatives

New Sites

Nearer urban areas

Connection via hot water pipe

Wider consideration of solutions to aid

grid balancing

ETI energy storage and distribution

programme

NNL

National Nuclear Laboratory

Public Acceptability

Currently out of scope


So What Have We Learned So Far?

• Power Plant Siting Study

• System Requirements For Alternative Nuclear Technologies

• ETI ESME Sensitivity Studies For Nuclear

Provisional Results – Subject to change


Power Plant Siting Study Results

16 GW• At development sites already announced

7 GW

• At other sites listed in National Policy Statement

• Maximum of 2.5 to 3.5 GW/site

6 GW

• Brownfield power sites 2.5 to 3.5 GW/site

• Greenfield sites 2.5 to 3.5 GW/site

23 GW• Existing nuclear sites; more than 2.5/3.5 GW/site

5 GW

• Remaining SMR capacity at existing nuclear sites developed at more than 2.5 to 3.5 GW/site

9 GW

• SMR capacity at brown and greenfield sites not suitable for large nuclear

Issues

• Buffers to ecologically

designated sites

• Maximum capacity not

necessarily realisable; unit

average 1.4 GW

• Impact of parallel CCS

development

• Unattractiveness of

developing more than 2.5 to

3.5 GW per site

• SMR Fleet likely to be

required to realise mid range

new nuclear scenario of 40

GW



Representative SMR service offerings

Baseload Flexible Extra-flex

Electricity only SMR

power plant

Baseload power

(runs

continuously)

Operated in load-

following mode

(Slightly) reduced

baseload power

with extra storage

& surge capacity

Combined Heat &

Power (CHP) plant

As above but

with heat

As above but with

heat

As above but with

heat

ANT Project Results


CHP – mostly waste heat

Tap off high

quality steam to

raise grade of

DH, but steals

power

Low grade steam

(‘waste heat’)

Main heat

exchanger

Heat to DH

Network

Condenser

Cooling water

Feed water

pump

Superheated

steam

Steam Turbine Generator

Electricity

ww

ww

ww


Extra-flex example (30% boost)

00.00 04.00 08.00 12.00 16.00 20.00 24.00

Energy

charge

Energy

discharge

Energy chargeSMR reactor

Rating, 100MWe

Hours

Issues:

• ‘Bar-to-bar’ efficiency

• CAPEX uplift

• Speed of response

100 MWe

93 MWe

MWe

rating

120 MWe

Peak generating

rating, 120 MWe

Surge Power

• Diurnal load following

• Balance intermittent

renewables

• Targeting peak prices

120 MWh

storage

20% boost

120% nominal

100% nominal

93% nominalPower profile

Boost


• Almost 50 GB urban conurbations

with sufficient heat load to support

SMR energised heat networks

• Would theoretically require

22.3GWe CHP SMR capacity

Future Heat Networks?


SMR Deployment Schedule To Decarbonise Heat From

2030 to 2045Provisional Results – Subject to change

2020 2030 2040 2050

0

5

10

15

20

25

Low SMR build rate 4 x 100MWe

Mid SMR build rate 4 x 100MWe

High SMR build rate 4 x 100MWe

Insta

lled

Ca

pa

city (

GW

e)


ANT Project - Economic model


Caveat

• High uncertainty

• Many assumptions

• Multi-decadal timescale

• Treat results with caution

• Indicative only



Assumptions: Prices


Baseload

electricity

Mid merit

electricity

Peak

electricity

(25% ACF)

Heat (MWh

thermal)

80

116

163

85

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

£/MWh


Stepped cost reduction pathway


Specific

CAPEX /

LOCE

FOAK First

iteration

Factory built modules

Cost reduction within

factory setting

Time

NOAK

10-20 years

2nd Factory


Target CAPEX: Baseload electricity SMR


~£10,000/kW

FOAK

~£4200 -4700/kWN O A K

10% investor

hurdle rate

~£3000-4000/kW

Breakeven CAPEX ~£4000/kW

Sp

ecific

CA

PE

X: £

/kW

5GW 20GW

Cumulative deployment (not to scale)

2nd Factory

10 years at 20x100MW

1st Factory

10 years at 10x100MW


Internal Rates of Return (IRR)


Elec

baseloadElec

flex

Extra-

flexCHP

baseloadCHP flex CHP

Extra- flex

F O A K

N O A K

18%

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%


Target CAPEX: CHP SMR

Does not include heat

network costs (except

connecting mains)


40% 30% 20%

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Breakeven capex for NOAK CHP plant

£85/MWh

£60/MWh

£40/MWh

Annual capacity factor of heat

Sp

ecific

ca

pe

x: £

/kW Projected 1st factory

NOAK costs


Cost reduction drivers


30%

28%

10%4% 15%

40-60%

LC

OE

: £

/MW

h

FOAK

1x100MW

Factory

Production Learning Multiple

units

(x4)

Early power Lower

WACCHeat

Value


The Timeline Challenge

• Concept design to FOAK plant re-fuelling

• At least 15 years for PWR based technology

• Earliest FOAK build starts in 2021

Current near

term SMRs

Target

2030

2015


Licensing

FOAK (demo)

BuildFOAK Operation /Test

Fleet Plant 1 (NOAK) operation Fleet Plant 1

(NOAK) build

Fleet Plant 2

build

Fleet Plant 3

build

Concept

Design

Detailed

Design

NOAK

Refuelling outage 1FOAK

Refuelling outage 1

t = 0 t = 3yr t = 6yr t = 10yr t = 13yr t = 15yr t = 18yr t = 20yr t = 23yr


ESME Energy System Model - Sensitivity Analysis For Nuclear

Approach

• Legacy nuclear capacity identified

• Large nuclear siting capacity and location constraints applied

• Single Generation IV plant added as 1200 MWe capacity from 2045

• Each of the 3 following variants tested in turn using ANT Project costings:

– Baseload electricity SMRs at locations identified - ESME

– CHP SMRs at locations identified - ESME

– Extraflex CHP SMRs at locations identified - ESME

Conclusions – looks promising so next steps:

• Load the additional phase 2 project results into ESME

• Allow the ESME optimiser to select the preferred SMRs variants location by location

and float above the 40 GW ETI imposed cap

• Learn which technologies are deployed and which displaced

• Learn the overall positive impact to the energy system transition if SMRs are

available within the timescales and cost envelopes identified


Follow On Work From December 2014

Power Plant Siting Study – Phase 2

• Address known area of underestimate for

large nuclear capacity – access to river

flow data successfully negotiated

• Energise ANT heatworks with SMR site

capacity “twice-over”

• Respond to peer review

System Requirements For Alternative Nuclear

Technologies – Phase 2

• Incorporate additional SMR sites from PPSS to

energise heat networks

• Consider options and implications of future DH

system design and potential impacts on SMR CHP

economics

• Consider the range of plant operating modes

• Consider deployment, operating and financing

issues relevant to SMRs

• Respond to peer review

5 overlapping peer reviews commissioned; each in 3 stages

ESME Sensitivity Studies For Nuclear using PPSS & ANT Phase 2 Results


Completion & Dissemination Summer 2015

ETI Insight Report

PPSS

Summary Report

ANT

Summary Report

EMSE Sensitivity

Modelling

Report Interfaces

ETI ESME Scenarios

PPSS Results

ETI Smart Heat

Programme

PPSS

Independent Peer

Review

ANT

Independent Peer

Review

ANT Results

ETI Energy Storage &

DistributionPPSS with ANT

New nuclear uptake;

large and small.

Impact on the mix?

NNL SMR Feasibility

Study


Likely ETI Conclusions• Large nuclear unlikely to deliver the optimum UK nuclear contribution alone

• SMRs offer additional electricity capacity but with uncertainty regarding costs

• SMR niche in UK CHP markets 2030 to 2045 from energising large low carbon DH systems

– Inefficiency & relatively low operating costs make SMRs financially attractive for CHP

– Flexible siting allows SMRs to energise DH systems that other technologies cannot

reach

• “Inflexibility” of nuclear not a barrier to increased deployment with energy storage solutions

• Greatest barrier to UK SMR deployment is not technology or economics but public

acceptability

• The urgent challenge is in making sufficient progress now so that SMRs are available as a

UK technology option in the mid 2020s;

– No need to commit to either CHP or Extra-flex options now, provided that these are

enabled as “bolt on” customer options to be included with the scope of UK GDA

– No need to make commitment now to deploy, or even construct a FOAK demonstrator

– No need to tackle public acceptability head-on at the current time

– No progress now means foreclosing on realistic deployment options for the future

Make progress now or foreclose on SMRs as a UK technology option in the 2020s


For more information

about the ETI visit

www.eti.co.uk

For the latest ETI news

and announcements

email [email protected]

The ETI can also be

followed on Twitter

@the_ETI

Registered Office

Energy Technologies Institute

Holywell Building

Holywell Park

Loughborough

LE11 3UZ

For all general enquiries

telephone the ETI on

01509 202020.

Small Modular Reactors UK Energy System Requirements

Documents

Transcript of Small Modular Reactors UK Energy System Requirements