Date post: | 18-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | martina-merritt |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 1 times |
©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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1 2.
Introduction to the ETI organisation
• 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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1 3.
What does the ETI do?
System level strategic planning
Technology development & demonstration
Delivering knowledge & innovation
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1 5.
ETI Invests in projects at 3 levels
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+
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
2010 (His-toric)
2020 2030 2040 2050
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Mt
CO
2/y
ea
r
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
UK legal target (2050)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
UK Energy System CO2 Reduction(including aviation and shipping)
2010 £/Te CO2
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
The Role For Nuclear Within A UK Low Carbon Energy System
• Low carbon• Baseload
electricity
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
2010 (His-toric)
2020 2030 2040 20500
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
GW
DB v3.4 / Optimiser v3.4
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
2010 (His-toric)
2020 2030 2040 20500
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
TW
h
DB v3.4 / Optimiser v3.4
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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?
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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 Nuclear Installed Capacity
Site Capacity
Replacement 16 GW
Expansion To Cap Applied In Most ETI Scenarios
40 GW ?
Expansion To Extreme Scenarios 75 GW ?
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Where Might Small Nuclear Plants Be Located (2)?
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Where Might Small Nuclear Plants Be Located (3)?
Image courtesy of Google and commons.Wikimedia.org
Or a large open space in Derby near the river Derwent?
This location fails to meet the established siting criteria
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Where Might Small Nuclear Plants Be Located (4)?
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?
This location fails to meet the established siting criteria
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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 vendorso utilities and investorso consumers & taxpayers
Realistic objective for SMRs to be economically attractive to all stakeholders
FID – Final Investment Decision
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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 Environment
3. 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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Interfaces With the ETI PPSS and ANT Projects
Scope of Siting and Alternative Technology
projects
Technology
Identification &
selection NNL SMR feasibility
study
Socio & Economic challenge
s in decarboni
sing domestic
space heating
ETI smart heat
programme
Public Acceptabli
lity Knowledge
of alternativesNew Sites
Nearer urban areas
Connection via hot
water pipe
Wider considerat
ion of solutions to aid grid balancing ETI energy
storage and
distribution programmeNNL
National Nuclear Laboratory
Public AcceptabilityCurrently out of scope
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
Provisional Results – Subject to change
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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 DHNetwork
Condenser
Cooling water
Feed water pump
Superheated steam
Steam Turbine Generator
Electricity
ww
ww
ww
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
MWerating
120 MWe
Peak generating rating, 120 MWe
Surge Power• Diurnal load following• Balance intermittent
renewables• Targeting peak prices
120 MWh storage
20% boost120% nominal
100% nominal
93% nominalPower profile
Boost
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
• 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?
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
SMR Deployment Schedule To Decarbonise Heat From 2030 to 2045
Provisional 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
Inst
alle
d C
apac
ity (
GW
e)
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Caveat
• High uncertainty
• Many assumptions
• Multi-decadal timescale
• Treat results with caution
• Indicative only
Provisional Results – Subject to change
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Assumptions: Prices
Provisional Results – Subject to change
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Stepped cost reduction pathway
Provisional Results – Subject to change
Specific CAPEX / LOCE
FOAK First iteration
Factory built modules
Cost reduction within factory setting
Time
NOAK
10-20 years
2nd Factory
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Target CAPEX: Baseload electricity SMR
Provisional Results – Subject to change
~£10,000/kWFOAK
~£4200 -4700/kWN O A K
10% investor hurdle rate
~£3000-4000/kW
Breakeven CAPEX ~£4000/kW
Spe
cific
CA
PE
X:
£/k
W
5GW 20GW
Cumulative deployment (not to scale)
2nd Factory
10 years at 20x100MW
1st Factory
10 years at 10x100MW
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Internal Rates of Return (IRR)
Provisional Results – Subject to change
Elec baseload
Elec flex
Extra- flex
CHP baseload
CHP flex CHP Extra- flex
F O A KN O A K
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Target CAPEX: CHP SMR
Does not include heat network costs (except connecting mains)
Provisional Results – Subject to change
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
Spe
cific
ca
pex:
£/k
W Projected 1st factory NOAK costs
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Cost reduction drivers
Provisional Results – Subject to change
30%
28%
10%4% 15%
40-60%LCO
E:
£/M
Wh
FOAK1x100MW
FactoryProduction
Learning Multiple units (x4)
Early power Lower WACC
Heat Value
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
Provisional Results – Subject to change
Licensing
FOAK (demo)Build
FOAK Operation /Test
Fleet Plant 1 (NOAK) operation Fleet Plant 1 (NOAK) build
Fleet Plant 2 build
Fleet Plant 3 build
ConceptDesign
DetailedDesign
NOAK Refuelling outage 1
FOAK Refuelling outage 1
t = 0 t = 3yr t = 6yr t = 10yr t = 13yr t = 15yr t = 18yr t = 20yr t = 23yr
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Completion & Dissemination Summer 2015 ETI Insight Report
PPSS
Summary Report
ANT
Summary Report
EMSE Sensitivity Modelling
Report Interfaces
ETI ESME Scenarios
PPSS ResultsETI 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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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 InstituteHolywell BuildingHolywell ParkLoughboroughLE11 3UZ
For all general enquiries telephone the ETI on 01509 202020.