Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
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.
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
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 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
Typical ESME Outputs
©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
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
©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 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
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2010(Historic)
2020 2030 2040 2050
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 NuclearInstalled
Capacity
Site
Capacity
Replacement 16 GW
Expansion To Cap
Applied In Most
ETI Scenarios
40 GW ?
Expansion To
Extreme Scenarios75 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 vendors
o utilities and investors
o 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 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
©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 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
©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 DH
Network
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
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
©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 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)
©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
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/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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Internal Rates of Return (IRR)
Provisional Results – Subject to change
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%
©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
Sp
ecific
ca
pe
x: £
/kW 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%
LC
OE
: £
/MW
h
FOAK
1x100MW
Factory
Production Learning Multiple
units
(x4)
Early power Lower
WACCHeat
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)
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
©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 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
©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 Institute
Holywell Building
Holywell Park
Loughborough
LE11 3UZ
For all general enquiries
telephone the ETI on
01509 202020.