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