nuscale technology & economic overview simple, safe, economic
TRANSCRIPT
Nonproprietary
© 2015 NuScale Power, LLC
NuScale Technology & Economic Overview
Simple, Safe, EconomicJay Surina
Chief Financial Officer
August, 2015
Disclaimer
2
“This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-NE0000633.”
“This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States (U.S.) Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof.”
3
NuScale Power History/Status
NIST-1 One-third scale Test Facility
NuScale technology in development and design since 2000 (DOE) MASLWR program
Electrically-heated 1/3-scale Integral test facility first operational in 2003
Began NRC design certification (DC) pre-application project in April 2008
Twelve-reactor simulated control room operational in May 2012 for Human Factors Engineering development
200 Patents Granted or Pending in 19 countries
>600 people currently on project DOE announced FOA win in 2013 and
Cooperative Agreement signed May 2014 $217M matching funds
Fluor has invested >$270MM life-to-date Plan is to submit DCA to NRC in December
2016 First deployment in Idaho by 2023.
Plant Design Overview
4
containment
reactorvessel
steamgenerator
fuel
*Source: NRC
NuScale Power ModuleCombined Containment Vessel and
Integral Reactor System
Typical Pressurized-Water ReactorContainment & Reactor System
Size Comparison
5
Site Aerial View
annex building
warehouse
cooling towers A
cooling towers B
reactor building
administration building
radwaste building
switchyard
turbine building B
ISFSI (dry cask storage)
turbine building A
parking
control building
protected area fence
6
Reactor Building Cross‐SectionReactor building houses NuScale power modules, spent fuel pool, and reactor pool
reactor building cranerefueling machine
reactor poolweir reactor vessel flange tool
containment vessel flange tool
NuScale Power Module
biological shield
spent fuel pool
Reactor Building Overhead View
reactor building cranecontainment vessel flange tool
reactor vessel flange tool
refueling machinespent fuel pool
module import trolley reactor poolNuScale Power
Module
Basic Plant Parameters
9
Overall Plant Net electrical output Up to 570 MWe (nominal)
Plant thermal efficiency > 30%
Number of power generation units Up to 12
Nominal plant capacity factor > 95% Total plant protected area Total owner controlled area
~32 acres~70 acres
Power Generation Unit Number of reactors One
Gross electrical output 50 MWe
Steam generator number Two independent tube bundles (50% capacity each)
Steam generator type Vertical helical coil tube (secondary coolant boils inside tube)
Steam cycle Superheated
Turbine throttle conditions 3.3 MPa (475 psia)
Steam flow 67.5 kg/s (536,200 lb/hr)
Feedwater temperature 149 C (300 F)
Reactor Core Thermal power rating 160 MWth (gross)
Operating pressure 12.7 MPa (1850 psia)
Fuel design UO2 (< 4.95% U235 enrichment); 37 half height 17x17 geometry lattice fuel assemblies; negative reactivity coefficients
Refueling interval 24 months (capable of 48 months)
Simplicity Enhances Safety
Natural Convection for Cooling Passively safe, driven by gravity, natural
circulation of water over the fuel No pumps, no need for emergency generators
Seismically Robust System submerged in a below-ground pool of
water in an earthquake resistant building Reactor pool attenuates ground motion and
dissipates energy Simple and Small
Reactor core is 1/20th the size of large reactor cores
Integrated reactor design, no large-break loss-of-coolant accidents
Defense-in-Depth Multiple additional barriers to protect against the
release of radiation to the environment
Steel containment has >10 times pressure rating than typical PWR
Water volume to thermal power ratio is four times larger than typical PWR
Reactor core has onlyfive percent of the fuelof a large reactor
160 MWt NuScale Power Module
All safety equipment needed to protect the core is shown on this picture
10
Containment Design
Containment volume sized so that core does not uncover following a LOCA (prevents fuel heat-up)
Large water pool keeps containment shell cool and promotes efficient post-LOCA steam condensation
Insulating vacuum significantly reduces heat transfer during normal operation requires no insulation on reactor vessel improves LOCA steam condensation rates by eliminating air prevents combustible hydrogen mixture in the unlikely event of
a severe accident (i.e., little or no oxygen) reduces corrosion and humidity problems inside containment
High Pressure Containment – Enhanced Safety
Containment
Reactor Vessel
11
Normal Operation
Primary side natural circulation integral pressurizer No Reactor Coolant
Pumps
Secondary side feedwater plenums two helical steam
generators with large surface area per volume to maximize thermal efficiency
steam plenums
main steam line
pressurizer
helical coil steam generator
main feedwater line
hot leg riser
downcomercore
primary coolant flow path
12
NuScale Power Train
NOT TO SCALE
main steam isolation valves
main feedwater isolation valves
decay heat removal actuation valves
decay heat removal passive condenser
control rod drives
reactor vent valves
steam header
feedwater header
control rodsreactor recirculation
valves
reactor pool
containment vessel
reactor pressure vessel pressurizer
upper plenum
steam generators
hot leg riser
reactor coredowncomer
lower plenum
safety relief valves
13
• Each NuScale power module feeds one turbine generator train eliminating single-shaft risk
• 100% turbine bypass capability• Generator is totally enclosed water to air
cooled (no hydrogen cooling required)• Small, simple components support short,
simple refueling outages
Decay Heat Removal System
The DHR system is composed of:
– DHR actuation valves– DHR heat exchangers– Main steam and feedwater
isolation valves– Ultimate heat sink (reactor
pool)
Two 100% redundant trains
DHR Actuation Valves
DHR Heat Exchanger
FWIVs
MSIVs
Reactor Pool
14
Emergency Core Cooling System
The ECC system is composed of:– Two reactor vent valves – Two reactor recirculation valves– Containment vessel– Containment isolation valves– Ultimate heat sink (reactor pool)
Only 1 RVV and 1 RRV neededReactor Vent Valve
Reactor Pool
Reactor Recirculation Valve
Containment
15
Response to Loss of All Power
WATER COOLING BOILING AIR COOLING
Stable Long‐Term Cooling Under all ConditionsReactor and nuclear fuel cooled indefinitely without pumps or power
* Based on conservative calculations assuming all 12 modules in simultaneous upset conditions and reduced pool water inventory
16
Reducing Plant Risk
Risk = (frequency of failure) X (consequences)
Probability of core damage due to NuScale reactor equipment failures is 1 in 100,000,000 years
Ground level
ReactorVessel
ContainmentPool StructureAnd Liner
Fuel Clad
Reactor Pool
BiologicalShield
Reactor Building
10‐8
10‐7
10‐6
10‐5
10‐4
10‐3
NRC Goal (new reactors)
Operating PWRs
Operating BWRs
New LWRs(active)
New LWRs(passive)
NuScale10‐9
Core Dam
age Freq
uency
17
NuScale Reactor Qualification Test PlanNuScale Reactor Qualification Test Plan outlines Design Certification and First Of A Kind Engineering (FOAKE) projects for reactor safety code development, validation, reactor design and technology maturation to reduce First Of A Kind (FOAK) design risk.
18
NuScale Integral System Test Facility
containment vessel
reactor building pool
reactor pressure vessel
pressurizer
steam drum
SG helical coils
core shroud
riser
core heaters
19
Full Scale 12 Unit Control Room Simulator
Supports HFE studies, control room staffing exemption, and plant performance studies
NRC HFE audit of NuScale simulator in January 2013
20
NuScale Non-Electrical Applications
NuScale Energy Supply for Oil Recovery and Refining Applications, Authored by NuScale and Fluor, ICAPP-2014, April 6-9, 2014
Integration of NuScale SMR With Desalination Technologies, Authored by NuScale, Fluor, and Aquatech, ASME 2014 SMR Symposium, Washington, DC, April 15-17, 2014
NuScale small modular reactor for Co-generation of electricity and water, Authored by NuScale, Fluor, and Aquatech, Published in Desalination 349,(2014) pp 84-93
Extending Nuclear Energy to Non-Electrical Applications, Authored by NuScale, Fluor, Aquatech and INL, (oil, desalination, H2 production) PBNC-2014, August 24-28, 2014
Can Nuclear Power and Renewables be Friends? Authored by NuScale, ENW, and UAMPS, ICAPP-2015, May 03-06, 2015
21
NuScale Diverse Energy Platform (NuDEP) Initiative
22
• SAFE• SMALL• SCALABLE• FLEXIBLE• RELIABLE
NuScale Diverse Energy Platform - Completed Studies
10‐Module Plant coupled to a 250,000 barrels/d refinery
Oil Refineries Study ‐ Reduction of Carbon Emissions (Fluor and NuScale)
Hydrogen Production Study – High‐Temperature Steam Electrolysis
(INL and NuScale)
Desalination Study – Sized for the Carlsbad Site
(Aquatech and NuScale)
1‐Module dedicated to UAMPS 57.6 MW wind farm
Integration with Wind Study ‐Horse Butte Site
(UAMPS, ENW and NuScale)
23
6‐Module Plant for Emission Free Hydrogen Production
8‐Module Plant can produce 50 Mgal/d (190K m3/d) of clean water plus 350 MWe
Summary The NuScale Design: Offers proven LWR components in a simple and innovative
operational framework. Provides a truly scalable approach to nuclear plant deployment. Captures the “Economy of Small” Is supported by comprehensive test programs and modeling. Provides long term protection against “Fukushima type events
(i.e., prolonged station blackout) without additional water, power, or operator action
NuScale plant can be used for non-traditional applications of nuclear power.
24
© NuScale Power, LLC 2014
TM
NuScale Power, LLC Non‐Proprietary
Jay Surina
August 2015
NuScale Plant Market Competitiveness, Economics & Financeability
SMR Market Potential• UK NNL* calculated the potential SMR market to be approximately 65‐85GW by
2035, 55‐75 GW excluding Russia
• This is equivalent to 1100 – 1500 NuScale Power Modules (NPMs)• At 25% market share, and 10 year deployment timeframe, 28–38 NPM / year• At 36 NPM / year, approximately 1000 workers dedicated to machining, assembling
and testing NPMs
*UK National Nuclear Laboratory “SMR Feasibility Study”, December 2014
SMR Market Potential
Source: BP Statistical View of World Energy 2014
SMRs & the Clean Power Plan (CPP)
TM28
EPA issued its proposed Clean Power Plan to regulate CO2 emissions from existing power plants under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act
The CPP issued varying, state-specific targets; rule is not prescriptive about how to meet the targets The CPP is tough on coal plants, the largest and highest rate emitters, and many will have to close CPP 2022-2029 “glide path” matches well with NuScale first deployment in 2023 Base load power will have to come from nuclear power, CCGT or renewables + storage
Renewables + storage is currently too expensive to be used for base load demand Utilities will resist becoming overly dependent on natural gas as a fuel source
32% reduction in GHG from affected EGUs is ~100 GW of coal which could be replaced by a combination of renewables, energy efficiency and nuclear. 100 GW represents 2000 NuScale Power Modules or 175 570 MWe plants UK NNL forecast for US is 15 GW of SMR deployment by 2035
Construction Cost SummaryOverall EPC Overnight Plant Costs
($1,000,000)
Note: Delivered costs shown are in 2014 $’s.
$ 5,078 per kWe net
~10,000 man hour effort over 6 months.
Detailed equipment lists to individual valves and instruments.
Takeoffs developed for all piping, duct, wire, excavation, civil/structural materials, and architectural items.
Total equipment and commodity input over 14k line items.
All equipment tagged with building, system, unit, and safety classification.
Updated construction plan with estimate input.
84% of equipment pricing based on budgetary quotes.
Plant Cost Estimate Development
Plant Cost Estimate Assumptions Generic southeastern USA site. Labor hours based on Fluor standard unit
rates with productivity adjustments. Labor rates based on existing Fluor
project. Indirect costs based on staffing plan,
construction schedule, and temporary facility plan. Bottoms up indirect cost estimate.
Schedule based on 51 months mobilization to mechanical completion. 28.5 month critical path - first safety concrete to mechanical completion.
Class 4 estimate per AACE with an expected accuracy range of +35%/-10%.
Owners cost, estimated at $300 mm, not included in EPC estimate. Estimates for transmission, admin building, licensing, etc. carried in LCOE costs.
NuScale LCOE results of $98‐$108/MWhr (2015 $’s)Key Assumptions:
– Financing is 55% debt (@5.5%) and 45% equity (@10.0%).
– Modeled as a 40 year project life, but the plant is designed for 60 years
– Excludes owner’s costs such as:– HR and management infrastructure, central office– COLA, permits, NRC and ITAAC inspections, and
legal fees– Switchyard– Owner's project development costs– Owner's engineering services (post‐COLA)– Owner contingency
– Including an estimate of owners costs would add ~ $6/MWhr
NuScale Levelized Cost of Electricity Estimates (LCOE)
NuScale LCOE in North America
33
90
100 90
96116
147
66 64
91
128
104 96
48
10380
130
243
85
Gas: A
dv’d Com
bine
d Cycle w CCS
Gas: A
dv’d Com
bine
d Cycle
Gas: Con
vent’l Co
mbine
d Cycle
Advanced
Coal w
CCS
Advanced
Coal
Conven
tional Coal
250
200
150
100
50
0
Hydro
Solar T
herm
al
Solar P
V
Wind
Biom
ass
Geo
thermal
Advanced
Nuclear
Gas: A
dv’d Com
bustion Turbine
Gas: Con
ven’l Com
bustion Turbine
NuScale (12‐pack)
First ofa Kind (FOAK)
Gas power options
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Levelized Cost and LevelizedAvoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2014, April 2014,except NuScale (12‐pack); NuScale LCOE Model
Estimated Average US Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources2019 costs in 2012 $/MWh
NuScale FOAK (12‐Pack) LCOE of $100/MWh includes owner’s cost of $5.10/MWh. NuScale NOAK (12‐Pack) LCOE of $90/MWh includes Owner’s Cost of $5.10/MWh. For all other technologies, EIA included transmission investment from $1.10/MWh (Advanced Nuclear) to $6.00/MWh (Solar Thermal). NuScale included $1.10/MWh for transmission investment in the FOAK and NOAK LCOE values.
Assumptions for EIA and NuScale (12‐Pack): WACC of 6.5%; 30 yr cost recovery period.
33
Note: EIA projects 2019 Henry Hub spot natural gas prices of approx.$4.70/mmbtu (2012 Dollars) (Annual Energy Outlook 2014)
Nth ofa Kind (NOAK)
LCOE Breakdown
FOAK with Regulated Utility Financing (IOU)• 55% debt at 5.5%, 45% equity at 10%
FOAK with Municipal Financing • 100% debt at 3.5%, no equity
$ 108 USD $ 74 USD
Levelized Cost in 2015 US Dollars
Note: Capital costs reflect the Fluor SE estimate completed in 2014.
$52
$18
$24
$14
$‐
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
LCOE (USD)
Other
Decommissioning
Fuel and Fuel WasteCosts
Outage Costs
O&M
Taxes (Incl. PropertyTaxes)
Capital
$31
$26
$16
$‐
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
LCOE (USD)
4732
4663
2822 17 16
248 16 11 9 4 8
24
20
25
40
1513 21
13
21
20 97 6 10 18
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
SO EXC D DUK PCG EIX FE ETR PPL NRG DTE AEE SCG DYN CPN
$ in Billions
Remaining Enterprise ValueMarket Cap
Reduced Financial Risks
Source: Capital IQ; data for 1/23/2015; Platts; AlixPartners and NuScale AnalysisNote: SO Southern; EXC Exelon; D Dominion; DUK Duke; PCG PG&E Corp.; EIX Edison Int’l; FE FirstEnergy; ETR Entergy; PPL PPL Corp.; NRG NRG Energy; DTE DTE Energy; AEE Ameren; SCG
Scana Corp; DYN Dynegy; CPN Calpine; nuclear capacity data based on plants shown as on operating status in Platts ; “Year spent” estimate for traditional nuclear plant based on JP Morgan and other sources
1 Edison, through Southern California Edison owns the San Onofre, CA nuclear plant. All units have been permanently retired2 As part of a joint venture with Austin Energy and CPS, NRG operators 4 nuclear units at the South Texas plant generating 2.8 GW of capacity
Enterprise and Market Values of Major US Utilities
10 55 22 17 31 01 22 30 11 02 10 08 16 0% of operating capacity from
Nuclear
New nuclear units planned or under
construction
2 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 00 2 0
“Year spent” cost of 2,200 MW traditional nuclear new build: $11‐17.6 Bn
