Prospects for Nuclear Power
EPRI Global Climate Change Research Seminar May 18-19, 2010 Westin Grand Hotel, Washington, DC Revis James Director, Energy Technology Assessment Center
Presentation Overview • Role of nuclear power in the context of climate analyses • Nuclear technology options • Long-term operations of existing nuclear units • New nuclear units • Issues © 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
2
Role of Nuclear under CO2 Emissions Constraints
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
3
MERGE U.S. Electric Generation Mix 7
7
Limited Portfolio
Full Portfolio
6
6
5
Biomass 4
Wind
Solar
4
Hydro Wind
Nuclear
Biomass
3
3
Hydro
Nuclear Gas
2
2
Gas
Coal
1
Coal 0 2000
2010
New Coal + CCS
CCS Retrofit 2020
2030
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
2040
2050 2000 4
2010
2020
2030
2040
1
0 2050
Trillion kWh per year
5
Trillion kWh per year
Demand Reduction
Demand Reduction
Key Technology Insights from Economic Analyses
• Aggressive energy efficiency will be needed under most scenarios. • Substantial renewables generation (e.g. >20%) will occur. • Combined generation from nuclear and coal will exceed 50% for several decades.
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
5
Snapshot of Existing Nuclear Fleet
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
6
Worldwide Nuclear Power
Operating NPPs
438
Installed Capacity
372 GWe
Nuclear Energy Produced in 2008
2,597 TWh
Share of Nuclear Power Worldwide Production
15%
Number of countries with operating NPPs
31
NPPs Under Construction Since 2004
43 GWe
Source: IAEA – May 2010 © 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
7
U.S. Regional Electricity Generation Fuel Mixes
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Power Plant Operations Report (EIA-923); 2008 preliminary generation data.
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
8
U.S. Nuclear Industry Efficiency Gains Equivalent to 27 reactors
Sources: Nuclear Energy Institute & Energy Information Administration © 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
9
U.S. Plants Sustaining ~90% Capacity Factor
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
10
Extending Operations of Existing Nuclear Units
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
11
Nuclear Long Term Operations • Original fleet of plants licensed for 40 years of operation • License renewal process established to extend operations from 40-60 years. – EPRI led technical basis for first plants (e.g. Calvert Cliffs) • R&D underway to extend beyond 60 years – EPRI/ DOE collaborating on the technical basis effort • Preliminary surveys of the utility community indicate that roughly 60% of the fleet are likely (> 75%) to seriously consider extending licenses for 80 years.
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
12
Potential for Significant Nuclear Generation
57% of NPPs have Received Life Extensions to 60 Years
Source: DOE Life Beyond 60 Workshop © 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
13
Nuclear Long-Term Operations: EPRI R&D Scope Provide the technical basis for license renewal and life extension decisions beyond 60 or 80 years • Aging of passive structures and components • On-line diagnostics to prevent equipment failures • Managing crack growth in primary system metals • Realistic and efficient safety analysis tools
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
14
Demo Plant Activities: Ginna and Nine Mile Point 1 • EPRI, U.S. DOE, and Constellation Energy have a 3-year collaboration to demonstrate the assessment of aging concerns at Ginna and NMP-1 – Long-term operations actions • •
examine data, inspect and test for aging degradation pilot technical approaches for long-term operations
– Key areas • • •
Comprehensive containment examination Incremental reactor internals inspection for > 60 years Others include confirmation of reactor pressure vessel life and assessment of cable condition in severe environments
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
15
Building New Nuclear Units
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
16
The Technology… Gen III/III+ LWR Designs Under Consideration
Westinghouse * AP1000 (1117 MWe)
MHI APWR (1700 MWe)
AREVA US EPR (1600 MWe)
Current Status of Announced U.S. Intentions Technology
GE-Hitachi & Toshiba * ABWR (1,371 MWe)
Units
AP1000
14
EPR
7
TBD
4
ABWR
4
APWR
2
ESBWR
1
* Design Certified © 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
17
GE-H ESBWR (1535 MWe)
New Nuclear Plants Under Consideration in US
Alternate Energy Holdings 1-USEPR (1,600 MW)
Nine Mile Point, UNE 1-USEPR (1,600 MW) Bell Bend/PPL, UNE 1-USEPR (1,600 MW)
Fermi, DTE 1-ESBWR (1,550 MW) Blue Castle, TP 1-Unspecified Technology Callaway, AEE 1-USEPR (1,600 MW)
Lee Station, DUK 2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)
Amarillo, UNE 2-USEPR (3,200 MW)
Filed COLA
Bellefonte, NS/TVA 2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)
Comanche Peak, LUM/TXU 2-USAPWR (3,400 MW)
Selected Finalist for US DOE Loan Guarantee Program / Filed COLA Announced Intentions to File COLA
North Anna, D 1-Unspecified Technology
Grand Gulf, NS/ETR 1-Unspecified Technology
South Texas Project, NINA/NRG 2-ABWR (2,700 MW)
River Bend, ETR 1-Unspecified Technology
Harris, PGN 2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)
Summer, SCG 2-AP1000 (2,200 MW) Alvin W. Vogtle, SO 2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)
Levy County, PGN 2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)
Victoria, EXE 2-ABWR (2,700 MW) Turkey Point, FPL 2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)
COLA Review Suspended / Partially Suspended Source: NRC Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications (July 2009) / U.S DOE Nuclear Power Deployment Scorecard © 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Calvert Cliffs, UNE 1-USEPR (1,600 MW)
18
The Numbers… • 32 nuclear units under consideration at 21 nuclear sites, representing 20 nuclear operators
• 18 Combined Operating License Applications (COLAs) filed to date for 28 new units - Five COLAs suspended/partially suspended (6 new units) pending technology decision or for financial reasons
• Four early site permits issued by NRC (Clinton, Grand Gulf, North Anna and Vogtle)
• Projecting 10 GW by 2020; 64 GW by 2030 • Four sites down selected for US DOE’s Loan Guarantee Program; seven units equivalent to 8700 MW – SCANA’s VC Summer Units 3&4 – Southern Nuclear Operating Companies Vogtle Units 3&4 – Unistar Nuclear Energy’s Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 – NINA/NRG’s South Texas Project Units 3&4 Source: NRC Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications (July 2009) / U.S DOE Nuclear Power Deployment Scorecard © 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
19
Modular Nuclear Plants - Strategy •
Construction – Pre-fabricated components/systems – Smaller scale increases number of potential suppliers – Shipping to site simplified – Onsite engineering/construction reduced
•
Operational/safety ¾ Passive safety systems/safety design simplified ¾ On-line refueling
•
Financial ¾ Can sequentially add modules to match load growth ¾ Smaller plant size minimize financial risks, complexity and uncertainty ¾ Off-site manufacturing improves productivity and mitigates construction risks 20
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
20
Modular Nuclear Reactor - NuScale 2 PRVs
STEAM H
400 mm (16 in.)
300 mm (12 in.)
Only 1 of 2 Feedwater Lines and Steam Lines Shown
TURBINE GENERATOR
H
M
z ~40 MWe TURBINE BYPASS
CONDENSER COOLERS
H
CONDENSATE POLISHERS 150 mm (6 in.)
FEEDWATER FW PUMP
STEAM VENT SPARGER
¾ Inherently safe – Eliminates major accident scenarios ¾ Reduced cost - Eliminates pumps, pipes, auxiliary equipment
TH
HELICAL COIL STEAM GENERATOR
¾ Major components prefabricated and shipped by rail, truck or barge Entire nuclear system is 60’ x 15’ / 300 tons.
z Natural Circulation Cooling:
CONTAINMENT VESSEL
CONTAINMENT POOL (WATER)
z Construction:
RISER
z Below Ground:
SHROUD RECIRCULATION VALVES
¾ Enhanced security and safety – Critical components - reactor, control room, fuel pool - located below ground
VACUUM
CORE TC
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
21
Modular Nuclear Reactor - B&W
Decay heat removal heat sink
• mPower Reactor: ~ 125 MWe • Underground containment • Used fuel stored in spent fuel pool for life
Module
Spent fuel pool
Pressure Suppression
• Natural circulation decay heat removal system for emergency/refueling cooling • Primary coolant treatment system within containment • Steam generator inspection within containment
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
22
Potential Long-Term Nuclear Technology Deployment
LWR Retirements HTRs
Transition to fast reactors and recycle
New ALWRs
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
23
Key Challenges for Nuclear Power
• Cost • Siting • Water • Waste management
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
24
Capital Investment Hurdle (Market values as of 3.26.09)
Exelon
$30.2 billion
Southern
$23.9 billion
Dominion
$18.5billion
FPL
$21.2 billion
Duke
$18.6 billion
Entergy
$13 billion
Two-unit nuclear power station
$12-16 billion
PPL Corp.
$11.3 billion
Progress
$10.04 billion
AmerenUE
$4.95 billion
DTE Energy
$4.62 billion
NRG
$4.16 billion
SCANA
$3.75 billion
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
25
Impact of Construction Delays $/MWh (Const. 2007 $) 140 120
3-Year Start-Up Delay ($4,785/kW) 100
LCOE $88/MWh 80
LCOE $73/MWh 60
Base Case ($3,980/kW)
40 20 0 2020
2025
2030
2035 Year
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
26
2040
2045
Conclusion Nuclear power will very likely be a key element of a leastcost portfolio of electricity generation technology options under CO2 emissions constraints. Continued safe and reliable operation of the existing nuclear fleet is critical. Ultimately, a substantial number of new nuclear units will be needed. It is technically feasible to expand nuclear electricity generation over the long-term.
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
27
© 2010 Image from Electric NASA Power VisibleResearch Earth Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
28
Backup Slides
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
29
Comparative Levelized Costs of Electricity – 2015 All costs are in December 2008 $
Levelized Cost of Electricity, $/MWh
130
No investment or production tax credits are assumed for any technology. Solar thermal LCOE ranges between $225-$290/MWh.
120 110 100
Wind (35% Capacity Factor)
Biomass
NGCC ($10/MMBtu)
90
NGCC ($8/MMBtu)
80
Nuclear
70
IGCC NGCC ($5/MMBtu)
60 PC 50 90% confidence level
40 0
10
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Rev. October 2009
20 30 Cost of CO2, $/Metric Ton 30
40
50
Comparative Levelized Costs of Electricity – 2025 All costs are in Levelized Cost of Electricity, $/MWh December 2008$ 130 No investment or production tax credits are assumed for any technology.
Solar thermal LCOE ranges between $225-$290/MWh.
120 110
PC + CCS 100 90
IGCC + CCS Wind (42% Capacity Factor)
80
Biomass
70
Nuclear
60
NGCC ($8/MMBtu)
50 50% confidence level
40 0
10
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CCS = CO2 Capture, Compression, Transport & Storage. Capture and Compression included within plant gate in $/kw; transportation and sequestration assumed to be @ $10/metric ton
20 30 Cost of CO2 $/Metric Ton 31
Rev. October 2009
40
50
MERGE De-carbonization Results Wholesale Electricity Cost (2007 cents/kWh)
Cost of Electricity
22 MERGE Projections 2020-2050
2050 2050
20
Limited Limited Portfolio Portfolio
18 16
2040 2040
14 12 2020 2020
10 8
2020 2020
2007
6
Full Portfolio
2030 2030 2030 2030
2040 2050
Full Portfolio
4 2 0 0.70
0.60
0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 Emissions Intensity (metric tons CO2 /MWh) De-Carbonization
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
32
0.10
0.00
Key Nuclear Points for the Prism Analysis • The Prism analysis is based on an assumed level of nuclear deployment. • Assumption is based on domain expert assessment of what would be technically feasible, based on current technology and anticipated new technology. • Prism assumption is 64 GW of new nuclear by 2030, or about 45 new units assuming 1400 MW/unit. • Under this assumption – – historical peak build rates would not be exceeded – Nearly all new plants could be located on existing sites • Prism assumes that all existing and new units operate to 60 years. © 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
33
Key Nuclear Points for the MERGE Analysis • The MERGE analysis calculates level of deployment for nuclear and other technologies based on key assumptions: – Current and future electricity production costs – Available primary fuel reserves – CO2 emissions constraint • MERGE assumes that all existing and new units operate to 60 years – retirements are considered. • Nuclear costs assumed to improve 3%/decade due to learning. • Horizon of analysis is 2050.
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
34
MERGE ASSUMPTIONS – URANIUM • Nuclear power is based on a once-through fuel cycle, in which spent fuel is not reprocessed and in which other nuclear fuels are not used (e.g. advanced fuel cycles). • The 2009 MERGE analysis models a finite amount of energy equivalent to known global uranium reserves. • The assumed global uranium reserve is 7,700 exajoules (EJ), based on a detailed assessment performed by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. • Current annual global consumption is around 30 EJ.
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
35
MERGE Assumptions - Nuclear
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
36
Nuclear Capital Requirements – Reference Case Project Duration:
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Year:
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Project Expenditure
5%
5%
5%
14%
25%
23%
23%
Total Plant Cost ($/kW, including site specific costs, engineering, & contingency)
2670
Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC, $kW)
1010
Owner’s Cost ($/kW)
300
Total Capital Requirement (TCR, $/kW, constant 2007 $)
3980
• Site specific costs assume standard substation, raw water intake, transmission tie-in costs. • No inflation and escalation to future operations date included. © 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
37
Capital Requirements – Different Methods of Quoting $/kW
7000 Escalation
6000 AFUDC (Allowance for Funds Used During Construction) - Short-Term Project Financing
5000
Owners Cost
4000
Contingency
3000 2000
Engineering and Construction Management
1000
General Facilities and Site Specific Costs
0 EPRI Technical Assessment Guide (Constant $)
Utility Site Specific Project (Current $)
EPRI Technical Assessment Guide (Current $)
Source: EPRI Report 1018329, Section 1.8.3 © 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
38
Process Capital Cost (Equipment and Construction Labor)
Levelized Cost of Electricity (MIT 2009)
Table 1: Summary of Results
Overnight Cost $2002/kW Nuclear Coal Gas
2,000 1,300 500
MIT (2003) LCOE w/ Carbon Base Case Charge $25/tCO2 2002¢/kWh 2002¢/kWh 6.7 4.3 4.1
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Update w/ same cost of capital 2002¢/kWh 4.4
6.4 5.1
39
Overnight Cost
Base Case
$2007/kW
2007¢/kWh
LCOE w/ Carbon Charge $25/tCO2 2007¢/kWh
4,000 2,400 900
8.4 7.2 6.5
9.3 7.4
w/ same cost of capital 2007¢/kWh 6.5
Historical worst case nuclear capital costs could bounded at ~ $5000/kW - $5500/kW
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
40
Impact of Financing Options
TCR ($/kW)
Debt/Equity Ratio
Return On Equity (Nominal)
Debt Interest (Nominal)
AFUDC ($/kW) (Calculated)
LCOE ($/MWhr)
3980
50/50
11.5%
7.5%
1010
73
Reference case (LCOE DR 5.5%)
58
Lower interest rate, ROE (LCOE DR 2.7%)
3607
80/20
11.5%
6%
652
3882
80/20
20%
6%
917
70
Lower interest rate, higher ROE (LCOE DR 4.4%)
4812
80/20
20%
12%
1811
98
Higher interest rate, ROE (LCOE DR 7.3%)
•
Base Case varied with D/E ratio, ROE, and debt interest.
•
•
All cases use same Total Plant Cost ($2670/kw)and Owner’s Cost ($300/kw).
TCR- Total Capital requirement (all inclusive installed costs). TCR is impacted by D/E,ROE, and DI.
•
AFUDC – Allowance for funds used during construction. AFUDC calculated with weighted cost of capital in real terms (no inflation).
•
LCOE- Levelized Cost of Electricity over the life of the plant.
•
All costs in constant December 2007 $.
•
Debt Interest deduction from revenue included in LCOE calculation.
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
41
R&D Focus: Materials Aging Extension of Materials Degradation Matrix for primary metals for failure mechanisms to 80 years PZR instrument nozzles
Safety & relief valve nozzles
CEDM motor housing CEDM/ICI nozzles to RV head welds Monitor tube
PZR surge line nozzle
RVH vent nozzle PZR heater sleeves
Heat transfer tubing PZR & RC pipe-surge line connections
Shutdown cooling outlet nozzle
Tubesheet (TS) cladding Tube-TS cladding weld
Spray nozzles
Partition plate & welds
Let-down & drain nozzles RCS instrument nozzles
Primary nozzle closure rings & welds
Safety injection & SDC inlet nozzle
Bottom channel head drain tube & welds
Charging inlet nozzles
Guide lugs flow skirt
ICI nozzles-ICI guide tubes
© 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
42
RCP suction & discharge
EPRI Nuclear R&D Activities Inspection Risk & Safety
Equipment Reliability
Material Degradation
Fuel Reliability © 2010 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Adv. Nuclear Technology
Radiation Exposure and Waste Management 43
