investigating the economic viability of small modular nuclear reactors
DESCRIPTION
Investigating the Economic Viability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. Ahmed Abdulla, Inês Azevedo, and M. Granger Morgan May 2012. Large reactors are falling out of favor. On cost: Building a large reactor is viewed as a big , complicated , scary , long-term commitment - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Investigating the Economic Viabilityof Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
Ahmed Abdulla, Inês Azevedo, and M. Granger Morgan
May 2012
2
Large reactors are falling out of favor
Carnegie Mellon University
On cost:Building a large reactor is viewed as a
big, complicated, scary, long-term commitment
Average size of U.S. reactor = 1,000MWe (NRC 2011)
Move to large reactors driven by scale economies
Can we produce nuclear reactors like aircraft?
Safety of reactor operations
Spent fuel management
Diversion of fuel to nefarious ends
High capital cost
3
Small reactors produce less than 300MWe (IAEA)
Variety of sizes and technologies (light water and non-light water)
Interest in small modular reactors (SMRs)
Carnegie Mellon University
Possible advantages:
Factory fabrication
Modular construction
Flexibility in siting and sizing
Shorter construction schedules
Lower capital outlay
Expanding the market:
Orgs that cannot afford large plants
Difficult geographies
Constrained grids
New approaches to safety
Alternative end-uses
Charleston Regional Business Journal (2012, April 11). NuScale, NuHub to partner on small modular reactors. Retrieved May 14, 2012, from http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/news/43456-nuscale-nuhub-to-partner-on-small-modular-reactors?rss=0
4
2011/12: DOE spent $110 million on SMR RD&D “The department is hoping for $500 million over the next five years”*
These adopt familiar PWR operational principles Most U.S. vendor designs (any many intl. ones) are of this variety
We focus on integral light water SMRs
Carnegie Mellon University
* Wald, M.L. (2011, February 11). Administration to Push for Small ‘Modular’ Reactors. The New York Times. Retrieved September 30, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/science/earth/13nuke.html?_r=2
** DOE. (2011, February 15). Small Modular Reactors. Retrieved July 21, 2011, from DOE - Office of Nuclear Energy: http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/factSheets/2012_SMR_Factsheet_final.pdf
***Dan Ingersoll, personal communication, September 27, 2011.
Funding reflects the DOE’s belief “that these SMRs can be commercially deployed within the next decade.”**
“the question mark to me…. is: where are they going to come out in dollars per kWe?”
“the best data available, which is [sic] largely conjecture, exists [sic] with vendors.”***
5
Building on techniques developed at CMU for focussed elicitation of expert opinion, we conduct technical interviews to arrive at
estimates of cost, working with experts in the nuclear industry.
Here we try to generate such estimates
Carnegie Mellon University
Twelve nuclear experts agreed to participate in our elicitation:All actively working on SMR projects, or closely related to SMR vendors
Experts come from several departmentsTechnical services, project management, and supply chain development
6
We explore 3 nuclear reactor designs
Carnegie Mellon University
Scenario 1:1,000MWe
‘conventional’ GenIII+ reactor
Scenario 2:45MWe
SMR Number 1
Scenario 5:225MWe
SMR Number 2
Left: Thompson, K. (2011, June 27). Concepts and Prototypes: Two Next-Gen Nukes. Popsci. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-06/next-gen-nuke-designs-promise-safe-efficient-emissions-free-energy
Center: Heft, G. (2011, April). Small Modular Reactors Make Headway in Many Countries. Black & Veatch Solutions Magazine. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://solutions.bv.com/small-modular-reactors-make-headway-in-many-countries/
Right: Westinghouse Nuclear (2011). Explore the SMR. Westinghouse SMR. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/smr/smr.swf
60ft18m
89ft27m220ft
66m
7
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5
1 unit GenIII+
1,000MWe
1 unit SMR No. 1
45MWe
5 unitsSMR No. 1
225MWe
1 unitSMR No. 2
225MWe
24 unitsSMR No. 1
1,080MWe
We explore 5 nuclear plant deployment scenarios
Carnegie Mellon University
8
One-unit scenarios: overnight cost per kWe
Carnegie Mellon University
1 unit GenIII+ 1,000MWe
1 unit SMR No. 145MWe
1 unit SMR No. 2225MWe
Scenar.
Expert * * *
* Incl. owner’s cost
9
How much would an SMR project cost?
Carnegie Mellon University
1 unit SMR No. 145MWe
5 units SMR No. 1225MWe
1 units SMR No. 2225MWe
Scenar.Expert * * *
* Incl. owner’s cost
10
It will take less time to construct SMR plants
Carnegie Mellon University
There is consensus that a conventional, 1,000MWe nth-of-a-kind plant would take 5 years from first concrete to commissioning
The single-unit SMR nth-of-a-kind plants would take 3 years from first concrete to commissioning
0%
100%
% p
roje
ct
com
plet
ion
construction duration (years): 3 5
11
Assessing the economic attractiveness of SMRs
Carnegie Mellon University
“Both academic studies and vendor materials tout the potential economic benefits of SMRs. After studying the literature, we have compiled a list of these benefits. Here, we would like your opinion on these benefits: how valuable do you consider each?”
12
Safety and security: challenges faced by SMRs
Carnegie Mellon University
“Here, we would like your opinion on which safety concerns are alleviated by SMR deployment (compared to GenIII+) and which concerns are not.”
13
We have estimates of how much deployment scenarios would cost Factory fabrication, modular construction, and shorter constructions
schedules hold promise in “improving the chances” of iPWRs iPWRs do not constitute a paradigm shift when it comes to safety and
security
Technology will cater to a larger marketthan conventional nuclear
What would an SMR cost schedule look like? Where in the world would these be viable now? How do you move to a place where SMRs can be deployed in different
parts of the world? (Institutions + proliferation) How do the communities hosting these plants feel about them? (does
the public’s perception of SMRs differ from that of large reactors?)
Moving forward with data from elicitation
Carnegie Mellon University