analysis of the energy system requirements in a uk low ... · power plant siting study results 16...

©2016 Energy Technologies Institute LLP - Subject to notes on page 1

©2016 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.

Analysis Of The Energy System Requirements In A UK Low Carbon Economy

Culham Energy Seminar – 11th February 2016

Mike Middleton – Energy Technologies Institute


Presentation Structure

Introduction to the ETI• The Energy Technologies Institute - what do we do?• Nuclear in a UK low carbon 2050 energy system• “Large” Nuclear – deployment constraints• Finding a UK niche for small nuclear

Recent ETI projects and analysis• Power Plant Siting Study• Alternative Nuclear Technologies Study• ESME Sensitivity Analysis For Nuclear

Conclusions• Confidence in results?• ETI’s Nuclear Insights


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 projectstypically ....£5-15m, 2-4 yearsTRL 3-5

Technology Demonstration projectsLarge projects delivered primarily by large companies, system integration focustypically ....£15-30m+, 3-5 yearsTRL 5-6+


Typical ESME Outputs

EnergySystemModellingEnvironment


2010(Historic)

2020 2030 2040 2050

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Mt C

O2/y

ear

DB v3.4 / Optimiser v3.4

International Aviation & ShippingTransport SectorBuildings SectorPower SectorIndustry SectorBiocreditsProcess & 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.

Typical ETI Transition Scenario

Net UK CO2 Emissions


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2010(Historic)

2020 2030 2040 2050

GW


Geothermal PlantWave PowerTidal StreamHydro PowerMicro Solar PVLarge Scale Ground Mounted Solar PVOnshore WindOffshore WindH2 TurbineAnaerobic Digestion CHP PlantEnergy from WasteIGCC Biomass with CCSBiomass Fired GenerationNuclearCCGT with CCSCCGTIGCC Coal with CCSPC CoalGas Macro CHPOil Fired GenerationInterconnectors

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

Typical Scenario

Installed Electrical Generation Capacity


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2010(Historic)

2020 2030 2040 2050

TWh


Geothermal PlantWave PowerTidal StreamHydro PowerMicro Solar PVLarge Scale Ground Mounted Solar PVOnshore WindOffshore WindH2 TurbineAnaerobic Digestion CHP PlantEnergy from WasteIGCC Biomass with CCSBiomass Fired GenerationNuclearCCGT with CCSCCGTIGCC Coal with CCSPC CoalGas Macro CHPOil Fired GenerationInterconnectors

Notes:•Nuclear used as base load •CCGT CCS does more load following, both summer/winter and within day

Typical Scenario

Annual Electricity Generation


The Established Role For Nuclear

• Low carbon• Baseload

electricityProven

• For ranges of LCOE

• For ranges of CO2 abatement

Choice

• Cap of 40GW

• For nearly all ETI scenarios

To Maximum

LCOE – Levelised Cost Of Energy


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

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 Identification and Selection


Up To 75 GW Nuclear Capacity?

Site Layout Image courtesy of Google and edfenergy.com


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

New Nuclear Policy In Scotland


Potential For 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

Installed Capacity

Site Capacity

16 GW

40 GW ?75 GW ?

Potential coastal locations to access CCS transport and disposal infrastructure

Competition For Sites?


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. BaseloadElectricity

1. BaseloadElectricity

2. Variable Electricity To Aid Grid Balancing

Waste Heat Rejected To The Environment 3. Heat Recovery To Energise

District Heating Systems

Niche For Small Nuclear In The UK?

Containment structure

Reactor vessel

Turbine

Condenser

Generator

Steam GeneratorControl rods


2010(Historic)

2020 2030 2040 2050

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Mt C

O2/y

ear


International Aviation & ShippingTransport SectorBuildings SectorPower SectorIndustry SectorBiocreditsProcess & 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

Decarbonising Heat Is Important


Heat demand variability in 2010 – Unattractive to electrify it all

Hea

t / E

lect

ricity

(G

W)

0

50

100

150

250

200

Jan 10 Apr 10 July 10 Oct 10

HeatElectricity

Design pointfor a GB heat delivery system

Design pointfor a GB electricity delivery system

GB 2010 heat and electricity hourly demand variability - commercial & domestic buildingsR. Sansom, Imperial College

Heat demand

Electricity demand

Decarbonising Heat Is Challenging


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 Aug 2015• Delivered by Atkins for ETI following

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 Aug 2015• Delivered by Mott MacDonald for ETI following

competitive open procurement process• Outputs to be used in ETI scenario analysis to

determine attractiveness of such a “black box” power plant to the UK low carbon energy system


So What Have We Learned?

• Power Plant Siting Study• System Requirements For Alternative Nuclear Technologies• ETI ESME Scenario and Sensitivity Studies For Nuclear


ETI Nuclear Capacity Deployment Assumptions

Assumptions for large reactors:• No sound basis to challenge/change existing site selection criteria• Some potential brownfield nuclear site capacity to be diverted to gas with CCS

Assumptions for small modular reactors:• No sound basis to change existing nuclear site selection criteria, but in application:

– Operational footprint will be smaller for small units than large– Infrastructure between site and cooling water source of less significance– Cooling water demands will be lower for small units than large– In CHP applications, it is logical and realistic to extend distance from cooling water

body from 2km; 20km has been assumed in ANT and PPSS projects


Power Plant Siting Study Results

16 GW• Consistent with development sites already announced

24 GW• Adjacent to existing nuclear sites England and Wales• Maximum of 2.5 to 3.5 GW/site

42 GW• Brownfield power sites 2.5 to 3.5 GW/site• Greenfield sites 2.5 to 3.5 GW/site

62 GW• Existing nuclear sites; more than 2.5/3.5 GW/site

68 GW• Remaining capacity for SMRs at existing nuclear sites

developed at more than 2.5 to 3.5 GW/site

129 GW• Additional “feasible” SMR capacity at brown and

greenfield sites not suitable for large nuclear

Issues• Unattractiveness of

developing more than 2.5 to 3.5 GW per site

• Buffer zones to ecologically designated areas

• Maximum large unit capacity not necessarily realisable; unit average 1.4 GW

• Impact of parallel CCS development & site stealing

• Holdback of large reactor capacity for later (Gen IV?)

• Not all “desk top” capacity is converted to a licensed site with all necessary consents

Majority of SMR capacity is “feasible” rather than “pass”, as for PPSS large reactor sites; limit of SMR capacity is unexplored

Cumulative Capacity


Siting Data Applied In ESME

Capacity constraints applied in ESME


Representative SMR service offerings

Baseload Flexible Extra-flex

Electricity only SMR power plant

Baseload power (runs

continuously)

Operated in load-following mode

(Slightly) reducedbaseload power

with extra storage& surge capacity

Combined Heat & Power (CHP) plant

As above butwith heat

As above but with heat


ANT Project Results


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 MWePeak generating rating, 120 MWe

Surge Power• Diurnal load following• Balance intermittent

renewables• Targeting peak prices

120 MWhstorage

20% boost120% nominal

100% nominal93% nominal

Power profile

Boost


CHP – mostly waste heat

Tap off high quality steam to raise grade of DH, but steals power

Low grade steam (‘waste heat’)

Main heatexchanger

Heat to DHNetwork

Condenser

Cooling water

Feed water pump

Superheated steam

Steam Turbine Generator

Electricity

www

w ww


• 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


Distribution Of SMR Site Capacity

SMR Capacity (GWe)By Cooling Water Source

SMR Capacity (GWe)By Regional Location To Meet Demand

SMR Capacity (GWe)By Distance From Potential District Heating Network

Site capacity from the Power Plant Siting Study -Further potential locations likely to be found; the limit has not been explored


Extension Of Water Source Distance to 20 km

• More cost effective for piping and pumping• Wider choice of potential locations


The Timeline Challenge

Target 2032

Broadly 17 years:• 5 years GDA• 7 year to build FOAK anywhere in world and

restart operations after re-fuelling outage• 5 years to build and start operations of Second

of a kind commercial plant in UK

GDA start to Second Of A Kind Plant Operating in UK Assuming LWR technology

Now


SMR Deployment Schedule To Decarbonise Heat From 2030 to 2045 – Single Technology


ANT Project - Economic model


Caveat• High uncertainty• Many assumptions• Multi-decadal timescale• Treat results with caution• Indicative only

ANT Cost, Revenue And Economic Modelling


Assumptions: Prices


Cost Reduction Model - Factory & Learner

Target CAPEX for a first fleet of SMRs providing baseload electricity is challenging


Target CAPEX: CHP SMR

Target CAPEX more achievable for a first fleet of SMRs as CHP Plants


Updated ESME Baseline – Capacity with35 GWe Large Gen III+ and without SMRs


Updated ESME Baseline – Capacity with35 GWe Large Gen III+ with SMRs available

2050 Nuclear Capacity• 1 GWe legacy (SZB)• 35 GWe Gen III+• 16 GWe CHP SMRs

SMR deployment capacity influenced by:• Speed to first UK SMR operations • Capital cost (£/kWe)


The Case For CHP SMRs


Requirement For SMR Flexible Power Delivery

Reduction in SMR summer overnight power generation in this model run

• Flexibility is likely to be important to be able to modulate power to help balance the grid• The “flexibility” here is diurnal, within a seasonal pattern• Remember also the impact from intermittent renewables and associated peak generation


Baseload Flexible Extra-flex

Electricity only SMR power plant

Baseload power (continuous full power operation

between outages)

Operated with daily shaped

power profile when required to help balance the grid

(Slightly) reducedbaseload power

with extra storage& surge capacity

Combined Heat & Power (CHP) plant




ESME Analysis Results For Nuclear In UK

Large reactors optimal here

SMRs optimal here


Impact On Cost Of System Transition - SMRs

Abatement Cost• Energy system costs would be incurred even if no carbon targets• Abatement cost is additional cost for low-carbon solution to given set of demands

ESMEv3.4 Baseline (with District Heating available but without SMRs deployed)• Annual abatement cost by 2050 - £58.24 Bn/yr• Equivalent to 1.55% of GDP• Scenario – UK SMR first plant starting operations in 2030 with CAPEX of £4500/kWe

Annual Cost Of Abatement in 2050 (£bn/year) and as % of GDP

Approach to decarbonising heat WITHOUT District Heating WITH District Heating

Abatement Cost/year £64.7 Bn £54.6 BnAbatement as % of GDP 1.72% 1.45%


Dissemination via ETI’s Website

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 x 1

ANT

Independent Peer Review x 3

ANT Results

ETI Energy Storage & DistributionPPSS with ANT

New nuclear uptake; large and small. Impact on the mix?

NNL SMR Feasibility Study

http://www.eti.co.uk/the-role-for-nuclear-within-a-low-carbon-energy-system/


ETI’s Nuclear Insights - Key Conclusions


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.


Energy System Beyond The UK

Characteristic UK European Grid ChinaGeneration Mix • Baseload

• Intermittent Renewables• Dispatchable sources

Same? Same?

Demand • Seasonal variation• Diurnal variation

Same? Same?

Cooling water for thermal plants

• Coast• Larger riversImpact of climate change?

Same? Same?

Wriggle room for addition of large baseload plants?

Difficult; much of system will be renewed by 2050

Little nuclear new build in western Europe outside UK

Growth and decarbonisation suggests yes

Nuclear energy use beyond electricity?

Potentially low grade heat? Low grade heat already used in some locations

Low grade heat; CHP and de-salination.High grade heat?

Energy system density and interconnectivity

Dense and highly interconnected by 2050; electricity/gas/heat

More mixed Vast country with regionally well developed systems

analysis of the energy system requirements in a uk low ... · power plant siting study results 16...

Documents