©2015 energy technologies institute llp - subject to notes on page 1 ©2015 energy technologies...

©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

©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


What does the ETI do?

System level strategic planning

Technology development & demonstration

Delivering knowledge & innovation


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+


Typical ESME Outputs


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


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


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


2010 (His-toric)

2020 2030 2040 20500

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

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


2010 (His-toric)

2020 2030 2040 20500

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

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 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 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 vendorso utilities and investorso 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 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


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 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


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



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 DHNetwork

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

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


• 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 2045


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)


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/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


Internal Rates of Return (IRR)


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%


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

Spe

cific

ca

pex:

£/k

W Projected 1st factory NOAK costs


Cost reduction drivers


30%

28%

10%4% 15%

40-60%LCO

E:

£/M

Wh

FOAK1x100MW

FactoryProduction

Learning Multiple units (x4)

Early power Lower WACC

Heat 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)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


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 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


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 InstituteHolywell BuildingHolywell ParkLoughboroughLE11 3UZ

For all general enquiries telephone the ETI on 01509 202020.

©2015 energy technologies institute llp - subject to notes on page 1 ©2015 energy technologies...

Documents

energy system constraints

eti members

eti organisation

uk system cost

co2 notes

derisking of new technologies

steps likely eti conclusions

uk government