Small Modular Reactors –
UK Energy System Requirements For Cogeneration
Mike Middleton – Energy Technologies Institute
5th SMR Summit – Charlotte – 14th & 15th April 2015
©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.
©2015
Energy
Technologies
LLP
- Subject
to tonotes
page 1Institute LLP, no warranty or representation is given concerning such information,
This information
is given
in good faith basedInstitute
upon the latest
information
available
Energy on
Technologies
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.
Presentation Structure
•
•
•
Introduction to the ETI
Potential role for nuclear in a UK low carbon 2050 energy system
Finding a niche for small nuclear in a 2050 UK low carbon energy system
•
•
•
Current ETI projects & Interfaces
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
ETI members
• 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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
ETI programme associate
2.
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
3.
ETI Invests in projects at 3 levels
Knowledge Building
Projects
typically ....
up to £5m, Up to 2
years
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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+
5.
Typical ESME Outputs
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Net UK CO2 Emissions – Typical ETI Transition Scenario
600
International Aviation & Shipping
Transport Sector
Buildings Sector
Power Sector
Industry Sector
Biocredits
Process & other CO2
500
Mt CO2/year
400
300
200
Notes:
100
0
-100
2010
(Historic)
2020
-200
DB v3.4 / Optimiser v3.4
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
2030
2040
2050
•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.
2050 UK system cost
2010 £/Te CO2 first appearances of major technologies, in order of increasing
Marine
effective carbon price
500
450
400
>£300/Te or >$480/Te
350
Offshore
Wind
300
Light vehicles
250
(fuel cell / electrification)
200
150
Energy storage and distribution
Efficiency improvement
100
Appliances, heating, buildings,
vehicles, industry
Nuclear
CCS
50
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
UK Energy System CO2 Reduction
(including aviation and shipping)
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
60%
70%
80%
UK legal
target (2050)
90%
100%
The Role For Nuclear Within A UK Low Carbon Energy System
Proven
• Low carbon
• Baseload
electricity
Choice
• For ranges
of LCOE
• For ranges
of CO2
abatement
LCOE – Levelised Cost Of Energy
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
To
Maximum
• Cap of
40GW
• For nearly
all
scenarios
Installed Electrical Generation Capacity – Typical Scenario
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
140
120
GW
100
80
60
40
20
0
Notes:
2010
(Historic)
2020
DB v3.4 / Optimiser v3.4
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
2030
2040
2050
•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
Annual Electricity Generation – Typical Scenario
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
700
600
TWh
500
400
300
200
100
0
2010
(Historic)
2020
DB v3.4 / Optimiser v3.4
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
2030
2040
2050
Notes:
•Nuclear used as base load
•CCGT CCS does more load
following, both summer/winter
and within day
Can Small Nuclear Build
A Niche Within The UK
Energy System?
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
Small Nuclear
Large Nuclear
FID – Final Investment Decision
Realistic objective for SMRs to be economically attractive to all stakeholders
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Niche For Small Nuclear In The UK Technology Mix?
Single Revenue Stream
Multiple Revenue Streams
1. Baseload
Electricity
1. Baseload
Electricity
Containment
structure
Control
rods
2. Variable
Electricity To
Aid Grid
Balancing
Containment
structure
Steam Generator
Generator
Control
rods
Turbine
Steam Generator
Generator
Turbine
Condenser
Reactor vessel
Condenser
Reactor vessel
Waste Heat Rejected To
The Environment
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
3. Waste Heat Recovery To Energise
District Heating Systems
Net UK CO2 Emissions – Decarbonising Heat Is Important
600
International Aviation & Shipping
Transport Sector
Buildings Sector
Power Sector
Industry Sector
Biocredits
Process & other CO2
500
Mt CO2/year
400
300
200
Notes:
100
0
-100
2010
(Historic)
2020
-200
DB v3.4 / Optimiser v3.4
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
2030
2040
2050
•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.
Heat demand variability in 2010 – Unattractive to electrify it all
Design point
for a GB heat
delivery
system
250
Heat
Electricity
Heat / Electricity (GW)
200
Heat demand
150
100
Design point
for a GB electricity
delivery system
Electricity demand
50
0
Jan 10
Apr 10
July 10
Oct 10
GB 2010 heat and electricity hourly demand variability - commercial & domestic buildings
R. Sansom, Imperial College
©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
Delivered by Atkins for ETI through
competitive open procurement process
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
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
•
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
So What Have We Learned So Far?
•
•
System Requirements For Alternative Nuclear Technologies
ETI ESME Sensitivity Studies For Nuclear incorporating the Power Plant Siting Study
Provisional Results – Subject to change
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Alternative Nuclear Technologies Project - Results
Representative SMR service offerings
Baseload
Flexible
Extra-flex
Electricity only SMR
power plant
Baseload power
(runs
continuously)
Operated in loadfollowing 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
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
CHP – mostly waste heat
Steam Turbine
Generator
wwwwww
Superheated
steam
Tap off high
quality steam to
raise grade of
DH, but steals
power
Electricity
Low grade steam
(‘waste heat’)
Main heat
exchanger
Condenser
Feed water
pump
Cooling water
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Heat to DH
Network
Extra-flex example (30% boost)
MWe
rating
Issues:
• ‘Bar-to-bar’ efficiency
• CAPEX uplift
• Speed of response
Peak generating
rating, 120 MWe
120 MWe
Surge Power
• Diurnal load following
• Balance intermittent
renewables
• Targeting peak prices
120% nominal
20% boost
Boost
100 MWe
93 MWe
100% nominal
SMR reactor
Rating, 100MWe
00.00
04.00
93% nominal
Energy
discharge
Power profile
Energy charge
08.00
12.00
Hours
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
120 MWh
storage
16.00
20.00
Energy
charge
24.00
Future Heat Networks?
•
Almost 50 GB urban conurbations
with sufficient heat load to support
SMR energised heat networks
•
Heat networks in England and Wales
would theoretically require 22 GWe
CHP SMR capacity operating at 40%
annual capacity factor for heat
Provisional Results – Subject to change
©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
25
Low SMR build rate 4 x 100MWe
20
Installed Capacity (GWe)
Mid SMR build rate 4 x 100MWe
15
High SMR build rate 4 x 100MWe
10
5
0
2020
2030
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
2040
2050
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
Stepped cost reduction pathway
FOAK
First
iteration
Specific
CAPEX /
LOCE
Factory built modules
Cost reduction within
factory setting
NOAK
2nd Factory
10-20 years
Time
Provisional Results – Subject to change
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Target CAPEX: Baseload electricity SMR
Specific CAPEX: £/kW
~£10,000/kW
FOAK
N
O
10% investor
hurdle rate
K ~£4200 -4700/kW
A
Breakeven CAPEX ~£4000/kW
~£3000-4000/kW
1st Factory
10 years at 10x100MW
2nd Factory
10 years at 20x100MW
5GW
Cumulative deployment (not to scale)
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
20GW
Provisional Results – Subject to change
Internal Rates of Return (IRR) From The Model
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
FOAK
NOAK
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Elec
baseload
Elec
flex
Extraflex
Provisional Results – Subject to change
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
CHP
CHP flex
baseload
CHP
Extra- flex
Target CAPEX: CHP SMR
Breakeven capex for NOAK CHP plant
8,000
Specific capex: £/kW
7,000
Projected 1st factory
NOAK costs
6,000
5,000
4,000
£85/MWh
3,000
£60/MWh
2,000
£40/MWh
1,000
0
40%
30%
Annual capacity factor of heat
Provisional Results – Subject to change
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
20%
Does not include heat
network costs (except
connecting mains)
Cost reduction drivers
30%
LCOE: £/MWh
28%
10%
4%
15%
40-60%
FOAK
1x100MW
Factory
Learning
Production
Provisional Results – Subject to change
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Multiple
units
(x4)
Early power
Lower
WACC
Heat
Value
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
©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
ETI Likely Conclusions Regarding Cogeneration With SMRs
SMRs offer additional electricity generating capacity but with uncertainty regarding costs and
their status as a key technology in lowest cost transition to 2050 CO2 abatement compliance
Likely SMR CHP niche in UK markets 2030 to 2045; energising large low carbon DH systems:
• Heat is valuable in a low carbon energy system
• Low thermal efficiency & operating costs make SMRs financially attractive for CHP
• Flexible siting allows SMRs to energise DH systems that other technologies cannot reach
• Timing and location of developing low carbon heat markets suggests large Gen III+ for early
low carbon baseload power, combined with a later dispersed Fleet of SMRs delivering CHP
An energy mix with more nuclear and more intermittent renewables makes energy system
balancing more challenging; flexible/extraflex SMRs are likely to be more valuable to the system
Greatest barrier to UK SMR deployment is not technology or economics but public acceptability
Work yet to complete and is subject to Peer Review – To Be Disseminated Autumn 2015
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
Registered Office
Energy Technologies Institute
Holywell Building
Holywell Park
Loughborough
LE11 3UZ
©2015 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1
For all general enquiries
telephone the ETI on
01509 202020.
For the latest ETI news
and announcements
email info@eti.co.uk
For more information
about the ETI visit
www.eti.co.uk
The ETI can also be
followed on Twitter
@the_ETI