View
222
Download
3
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
©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.
Scenarios For The Deployment Of New Nuclear Power StationsMike Middleton – Energy Technologies InstituteLecture For The Energy Institute – 2nd November 2015
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Presentation Structure
Introduction to the ETI• The Energy Technologies Institute - what do we do?• Nuclear in a UK low carbon 2050 energy system• “Large” Nuclear – deployment constraints• Finding a UK niche for small nuclear
Recent ETI projects and analysis• Power Plant Siting Study• Alternative Nuclear Technologies Study• ESME Sensitivity Analysis For Nuclear
Conclusions• Confidence in results?• ETI’s Nuclear Insights
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
What does the ETI do?
3.
System level strategic planning
Technology development & demonstration
Delivering knowledge &
innovation
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
ETI Invests in projects at 3 levels
5.
Knowledge Building Projects typically ....up to £5m, Up to 2 years
Technology Development projectstypically ....£5-15m, 2-4 yearsTRL 3-5
Technology Demonstration projectsLarge projects delivered primarily by large companies, system integration focustypically ....£15-30m+, 3-5 yearsTRL 5-6+
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Typical ESME Outputs
EnergySystemModellingEnvironment
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
2010(Historic)
2020 2030 2040 2050
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Mt C
O2/y
ear
DB v3.4 / Optimiser v3.4
International Aviation & ShippingTransport SectorBuildings SectorPower SectorIndustry SectorBiocreditsProcess & 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.
Typical ETI Transition Scenario
Net UK CO2 Emissions
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2010(Historic)
2020 2030 2040 2050
GW
DB v3.4 / Optimiser v3.4
Geothermal PlantWave PowerTidal StreamHydro PowerMicro Solar PVLarge Scale Ground Mounted Solar PVOnshore WindOffshore WindH2 TurbineAnaerobic Digestion CHP PlantEnergy from WasteIGCC Biomass with CCSBiomass Fired GenerationNuclearCCGT with CCSCCGTIGCC Coal with CCSPC CoalGas Macro CHPOil Fired GenerationInterconnectors
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
Typical Scenario
Installed Electrical Generation Capacity
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2010(Historic)
2020 2030 2040 2050
TWh
DB v3.4 / Optimiser v3.4
Geothermal PlantWave PowerTidal StreamHydro PowerMicro Solar PVLarge Scale Ground Mounted Solar PVOnshore WindOffshore WindH2 TurbineAnaerobic Digestion CHP PlantEnergy from WasteIGCC Biomass with CCSBiomass Fired GenerationNuclearCCGT with CCSCCGTIGCC Coal with CCSPC CoalGas Macro CHPOil Fired GenerationInterconnectors
Notes:•Nuclear used as base load •CCGT CCS does more load following, both summer/winter and within day
Typical Scenario
Annual Electricity Generation
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
The Established Role For Nuclear
• Low carbon• Baseload
electricityProven
• For ranges of LCOE
• For ranges of CO2 abatement
Choice
• Cap of 40GW
• For nearly all ETI scenarios
To Maximum
LCOE – Levelised Cost Of Energy
©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
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 ?
Site Identification and Selection
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Up To 75 GW Nuclear Capacity?
Site Layout Image courtesy of Google and edfenergy.com
©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
New Nuclear Policy In Scotland
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Potential For 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
Installed Capacity
Site Capacity
16 GW
40 GW ?75 GW ?
Potential coastal locations to access CCS transport and disposal infrastructure
Competition For Sites?
©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 vendorsoutilities 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. BaseloadElectricity
1. BaseloadElectricity
2. Variable Electricity To Aid Grid Balancing
Waste Heat Rejected To The Environment 3. Heat Recovery To Energise
District Heating Systems
Niche For Small Nuclear In The UK?
Containment structure
Reactor vessel
Turbine
Condenser
Generator
Steam GeneratorControl rods
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
2010(Historic)
2020 2030 2040 2050
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Mt C
O2/y
ear
DB v3.4 / Optimiser v3.4
International Aviation & ShippingTransport SectorBuildings SectorPower SectorIndustry SectorBiocreditsProcess & 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
Decarbonising Heat Is Important
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Heat demand variability in 2010 – Unattractive to electrify it all
Hea
t / E
lect
ricity
(G
W)
0
50
100
150
250
200
Jan 10 Apr 10 July 10 Oct 10
HeatElectricity
Design pointfor a GB heat delivery system
Design pointfor a GB electricity delivery system
GB 2010 heat and electricity hourly demand variability - commercial & domestic buildingsR. Sansom, Imperial College
Heat demand
Electricity demand
Decarbonising Heat Is Challenging
©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 Aug 2015• Delivered by Atkins for ETI following
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 Aug 2015• Delivered by Mott MacDonald for ETI following
competitive open procurement process• Outputs to be used in ETI scenario analysis to
determine attractiveness of such a “black box” power plant to the UK low carbon energy system
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
So What Have We Learned?
• Power Plant Siting Study• System Requirements For Alternative Nuclear Technologies• ETI ESME Scenario and Sensitivity Studies For Nuclear
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
ETI Nuclear Capacity Deployment Assumptions
Assumptions for large reactors:• No sound basis to challenge/change existing site selection criteria• Some potential brownfield nuclear site capacity to be diverted to gas with CCS
Assumptions for small modular reactors:• No sound basis to change existing nuclear site selection criteria, but in application:
– Operational footprint will be smaller for small units than large– Infrastructure between site and cooling water source of less significance– Cooling water demands will be lower for small units than large– In CHP applications, it is logical and realistic to extend distance from cooling
water body from 2km; 20km has been assumed in ANT and PPSS projects
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Power Plant Siting Study Results
16 GW• Consistent with development sites already announced
24 GW• Adjacent to existing nuclear sites England and Wales• Maximum of 2.5 to 3.5 GW/site
42 GW• Brownfield power sites 2.5 to 3.5 GW/site• Greenfield sites 2.5 to 3.5 GW/site
62 GW• Existing nuclear sites; more than 2.5/3.5 GW/site
68 GW• Remaining capacity for SMRs at existing nuclear sites
developed at more than 2.5 to 3.5 GW/site
129 GW• Additional “feasible” SMR capacity at brown and
greenfield sites not suitable for large nuclear
Issues• Unattractiveness of
developing more than 2.5 to 3.5 GW per site
• Buffer zones to ecologically designated areas
• Maximum large unit capacity not necessarily realisable; unit average 1.4 GW
• Impact of parallel CCS development & site stealing
• Holdback of large reactor capacity for later (Gen IV?)
• Not all “desk top” capacity is converted to a licensed site with all necessary consents
Majority of SMR capacity is “feasible” rather than “pass”, as for PPSS large reactor sites; limit of SMR capacity is unexplored
Cumulative Capacity
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Siting Data Applied In ESME
Capacity constraints applied in ESME
©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) reducedbaseload power
with extra storage& surge capacity
Combined Heat & Power (CHP) plant
As above butwith 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
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 MWePeak generating rating, 120 MWe
Surge Power• Diurnal load following• Balance intermittent
renewables• Targeting peak prices
120 MWhstorage
20% boost120% nominal
100% nominal93% nominal
Power profile
Boost
©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 heatexchanger
Heat to DHNetwork
Condenser
Cooling water
Feed water pump
Superheated steam
Steam Turbine Generator
Electricity
www
w ww
©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
Distribution Of SMR Site Capacity
SMR Capacity (GWe)By Cooling Water Source
SMR Capacity (GWe)By Regional Location To Meet Demand
SMR Capacity (GWe)By Distance From Potential District Heating Network
Site capacity from the Power Plant Siting Study -Further potential locations likely to be found; the limit has not been explored
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Extension Of Water Source Distance to 20 km
• More cost effective for piping and pumping• Wider choice of potential locations
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
The Timeline Challenge
Target 2032
Broadly 17 years:• 5 years GDA• 7 year to build FOAK anywhere in world
and restart operations after re-fuelling outage
• 5 years to build and start operations of Second of a kind commercial plant in UK
GDA start to Second Of A Kind Plant Operating in UK Assuming LWR technology
Now
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
SMR Deployment Schedule To Decarbonise Heat From 2030 to 2045 – Single Technology
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
ANT Project - Economic model
©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
ANT Cost, Revenue And Economic Modelling
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Assumptions: Prices
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Cost Reduction Model - Factory & Learner
Target CAPEX for a first fleet of SMRs providing baseload electricity is challenging
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Target CAPEX: CHP SMR
Target CAPEX more achievable for a first fleet of SMRs as CHP Plants
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Updated ESME Baseline – Capacity with35 GWe Large Gen III+ and without SMRs
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Updated ESME Baseline – Capacity with35 GWe Large Gen III+ with SMRs available
2050 Nuclear Capacity• 1 GWe legacy (SZB)• 35 GWe Gen III+• 16 GWe CHP SMRs
SMR deployment capacity influenced by:• Speed to first UK SMR operations • Capital cost (£/kWe)
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
The Case For CHP SMRs
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Requirement For SMR Flexible Power Delivery
Reduction in SMR summer overnight power generation in this model run
• Flexibility is likely to be important to be able to modulate power to help balance the grid• The “flexibility” here is diurnal, within a seasonal pattern• Remember also the impact from intermittent renewables and associated peak generation
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Baseload Flexible Extra-flex
Electricity only SMR power plant
Baseload power (continuous full power operation
between outages)
Operated with daily shaped
power profile when required to help balance the grid
(Slightly) reducedbaseload 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
ESME Analysis Results For Nuclear In UK
Large reactors optimal here
SMRs optimal here
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Impact On Cost Of System Transition - SMRs
Abatement Cost• Energy system costs would be incurred even if no carbon targets• Abatement cost is additional cost for low-carbon solution to given set of demands
ESMEv3.4 Baseline (with District Heating available but without SMRs deployed)• Annual abatement cost by 2050 - £58.24 Bn/yr• Equivalent to 1.55% of GDP• Scenario – UK SMR first plant starting operations in 2030 with CAPEX of £4500/kWe
Annual Cost Of Abatement in 2050 (£bn/year) and as % of GDP
Approach to decarbonising heat WITHOUT District Heating WITH District Heating
Abatement Cost/year £64.7 Bn £54.6 BnAbatement as % of GDP 1.72% 1.45%
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Dissemination via ETI’s Website
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 x 1
ANT
Independent Peer Review x 3
ANT Results
ETI Energy Storage & DistributionPPSS with ANT
New nuclear uptake; large and small. Impact on the mix?
NNL SMR Feasibility Study
http://www.eti.co.uk/the-role-for-nuclear-within-a-low-carbon-energy-system/
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
ETI’s Nuclear Insights - Key Conclusions
©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 info@eti.co.uk
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.
Recommended