TVA’s Clinch River SMR Project

1,786 views

Published on

Dan Stout ORAU Council Meeting 2014 Presentation

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,786
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
19
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
29
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • First, a little background: TVA is a federal corporation funded entirely by power sales We provide electricity, economic development, flood control, and navigation As the nation’s largest Public power provider, we serve;7-state region80,000 square miles9 million people650,000 businesses and industries155 distributors56 large industrial customers2010 revenue: $10.9 billion As you can see on the pie chart about half of our generation was from coal, 36% nuclear, 9% hydro, and the rest natural gas and renewables. Generation numbers are not the same as capacity. For example, we have more natural gas and renewable capacity, but natural gas is often more expensive than coal or nuclear and renewables sometimes aren’t available when needed. Nuclear is only about 30% of TVA’s capacity, but as shown generated 36% in 2010.
  • The upfront cost of nuclear is the biggest challenge we have right now. Gas plants can be built fast and cheap and with current low price of gas, the high efficiency plants compete economically – at least in the near term.A key to building new nuclear capacity is affordable financing.One solution for high capital costs and affordable financing is to use a different technologyThe incremental nature of the SMRs as well as their size provides a very different financing option where the capital necessary is significantly less than that required for the current near-term ALWRs, and subsequent units can be financed through the use of revenues from the earlier modules. This will expand the potential owners lists to include small and medium sized utilities including the generating and transmitting cooperatives. The incremental nature of the small modular reactors also provides confidence that the supply chain can keep up with the demand, while the incremental modules are a very good fit for providing the incremental growth that many utilities need. The smaller size provides a “good match” for replacing the aging fossil units since they are similar in power generation size. This allows for the sites infrastructure to be re-used and minimizes the need for extensive transmission capability increases. By utilizing a design that has air cooling, the number of sites where the SMRs can be sited increases significantly. In the near term, the SMR option is focused on designs that utilize the LWR technology of the current operating fleet. By utilizing LWR technology, there is a strong technical foundation as well as confidence in the licensability of the new designs.  In addition, a primary driver in bringing the mPower design to market is the substantial opportunity for the supply chain to be exclusively US manufacturing with the exception of the S/G which will be from Canada—this includes the turbine and the reactor. This leads to developing job opportunities—good jobs in engineering and manufacturing. 
  •  TVA’s charter also calls for support of National Defense. TVA was involved in supporting world war two explosives manufacturing and powering Oak Ridge facilities that were part of the Manhattan Project. Today TVA is the only supplier of tritium, used by the Department of Defense in every nuclear warhead in our arsenal. TVA also collaborates with the Department of Energy on a number of programs, including modeling and simulation of nuclear reactors and working on accident tolerant fuels, to name a few. TVA is also collaborating with DOE on evaluating the impacts of potentially using MOX fuel to power TVA reactors, a program that would destroy surplus plutonium supporting non-proliferation objectives.TVA and DOE have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to explore the potential of supplying power from an SMR at the Clinch River site to power the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation facilities to help DOE meet its power needs with clean energy
  •  TVA’s charter also calls for support of National Defense. TVA was involved in supporting world war two explosives manufacturing and powering Oak Ridge facilities that were part of the Manhattan Project. Today TVA is the only supplier of tritium, used by the Department of Defense in every nuclear warhead in our arsenal. TVA also collaborates with the Department of Energy on a number of programs, including modeling and simulation of nuclear reactors and working on accident tolerant fuels, to name a few. TVA is also collaborating with DOE on evaluating the impacts of potentially using MOX fuel to power TVA reactors, a program that would destroy surplus plutonium supporting non-proliferation objectives.TVA and DOE have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to explore the potential of supplying power from an SMR at the Clinch River site to power the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation facilities to help DOE meet its power needs with clean energy
  • Wasn’t sure whether you would want this slide or not. Nuclear industry personnel are aware that DOE is helping fund this effort . This slides describes that support plus shows a potential path forward for others.
  • TVA’s Clinch River SMR Project

    1. 1. March 5, 2014 TVA’s Clinch River SMR Project Dan Stout
    2. 2. Tennessee Valley Authority Public power provider  7-state region  80,000 square miles  9 million people  650,000 businesses  155 distributors  56 direct-served customers Slide 2
    3. 3. Established in 1933 as “a corporation clothed with the power of government but possessed of the flexibility of a private enterprise” TVA’s Technology Priorities: − Small Modular Reactors − Energy Utilization − Grid Modernization Our Mission: − Reliable & affordable electricity − River & natural resource management − Economic development & technology innovation − National defense & environmental stewardship Our Vision: One of the Nation’s leading providers of low-cost and cleaner energy by 2020 Tennessee Valley Authority Slide 3
    4. 4. Moving to a More Balanced Portfolio Fuel Diversity Enhances Reliability 58% 10% 26% 6% 2007 Sources Coal Nuclear Gas 42% 10% 34% 11% 3% 2014 Sources Coal Nuclear Gas Hydro Renewables 27% 19% 41% 10% 3% 2024 Sources Coal Nuclear Gas Hydro Renewable Slide 4 0% Renewables Hydro
    5. 5. Watts Bar Sequoyah Bellefonte Browns Ferry — Operational — Construction — Potential Clinch River TVA’s Nuclear Fleet Slide 5
    6. 6. Nuclear Provides Bigger Economic Stimulus Tech- nology Size (MW) Direct Jobs Ave. Pay ($/hr) Direct Income Coal 1000 187 28 $11M Gas 630 34 28 $2M Nuclear 1000 504 31 $32.5M Compared to fossil generation, nuclear generation projects employ more people at higher wages! Source: Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry - Final Report, Navigant Consulting, Inc., Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, June 2013 Slide 6
    7. 7. Challenges Facing TVA and Most Utilities • Demand is flat and recession recovery is slower than expected • Customers have changed their electricity use behaviors and are taking advantage of energy efficiency and demand response programs • Gas prices are cheap and expected to stay low • Regulations are making older and smaller coal plants uneconomical • Current policies and incentives are resulting in wide-spread deployment of renewables that take away market share from utilities • As coal plants are shut down and more highly-variable renewables are deployed, the grid becomes stressed getting generation to consumers Slide 7 It is difficult to justify funding technology innovation and large capital expenditures in an uncertain demand, revenue & regulatory environment
    8. 8. Why is TVA Evaluating SMRs? • The need for a more diversified generating fleet with increased use of reliable, cleaner, low-cost energy generation • Potential for next generation nuclear technology that is more flexible and has improved safety margins • SMRs could help TVA and the nation improve energy security with clean and reliable new nuclear technology Option for clean and reliable energy in lower cost increments Slide 8
    9. 9. Why Should TVA be First to Deploy SMRs? Slide 9 Aligned with our Purpose & Needs We are committed to keep nuclear as part of our balanced generation portfolio and want an option besides large LWRs Technology Innovation is part of TVA’s mission and charter We have a good site next to a large DOE customer that needs clean and reliable energy TVA is Uniquely Qualified Build on other successful DOE and DoD programs/support Relevant recent WBN2 experience can transfer to the SMR project Advantages from being a Government Corporation
    10. 10. Operating SMRs: Changing Paradigms • Simple design • Slow accident progression • Long coping time • Fast load following • Automatic “Island Mode” • Small EPZ • Reduced plant staffing • Standardized operator training & licensing Slide 10 Economical fleet of standardized SMRs in U.S. and abroad
    11. 11. B&W mPowerTM Reactor Design • 530 MWt reactor results in 180 MWe – Core, CRDMs, SG, Pressurizer, and Coolant Pumps – No penetrations below top of core • 4-Year fuel cycle with “standard” PWR fuel – 69 fuel assemblies with <5% 235U enrichment – Reactivity controlled with Rods, not boron chemistry • Simple, fully “passive safety” design – Core remains covered during design basis accidents – No power required for emergency core cooling 1. Pressurizer 2. Once-Through Steam Generator 3. Feedwater Inlet / Steam Outlet 4. Reactor Coolant Pumps 5. Electro- Hydraulic CRDMs 6. Upper Internals 7. Reactor Core 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Slide 11
    12. 12. Nuclear Island Features Simple, robust architecture could enhance safety, lower licensing risk Fully underground  Protected from external threats  Enables security-informed architecture  More efficient seismic design  Steel containment, with space for O&M activity “Passive safety” design  No safety-related emergency AC power  72-hour safety-related control/monitoring battery  No shared active safety systems between units  14-day underground ultimate heat sink  Defense-in-depth layers deliver ~10-8 core damage frequency Enhanced Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) configuration  20-year wet storage capacity  SFP inside reactor building  Large heat sink with 30-day “coping time” Slide 12
    13. 13.  2 x 180 MWe units  ~40 acre standard plant  Low site profile  Safety systems underground  Smaller security boundary Small, low-impact footprint could offer more siting options © 2010 Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Energy, Inc. All rights reserved. mPower “Twin Pack” Site Layout Patent PendingPatent Pending Plant Site Layout Slide 13
    14. 14. Modular Manufacturing & Construction Modularization Attributes: • Modularity part of the design process • Goal of > 70% of construction to be modular • Design optimization through “area design” • Strong attention to tolerances, interfaces, & integration • Repeatability through automation and common tooling • Robust quality assurance in fabrication facilities “Economies of Mass Production vs. Economies of Scale” Slide 14
    15. 15. Clinch River Site Slide 15
    16. 16. Reactor Locations on Site SMR Units 3 & 4 SMR Units 1 & 2 Slide 16
    17. 17. Clinch River Site Plot Plan Slide 17
    18. 18. Rendering of Plant Appearance Rendered View of Clinch River SMR from Speers Road looking north-northeast Slide 18
    19. 19. Site Characterization Completed • Core Borings • Ground Water Wells • Meteorology • Biology • Botany • Wetlands • Cultural Resource Surveys • Numerous Studies Slide 19
    20. 20. Site Characterization Work Remaining • Groundwater Analysis • Hydrothermal Analysis • Flood Analysis • Establishment of Environmental Baseline Slide 20
    21. 21.  Establish NRC License and Perform Environmental Reviews  Site Characterization  Resolve key regulatory uncertainties needed to improve the business case  Prepare and submit license application to NRC, support NRC’s review & approval  Evaluate Design  TVA participates in mPower standard plant design reviews along with other utilities  Evaluation of engineering and licensing documents and reports supporting DCA  Establish Viability of the SMR option  Define deployment scope, cost and schedule  Establish success criteria  Pursue agreements for SMR electricity supply  Evaluate business case  Operator training program development and accreditation  Develop Plan for Next Phase  Detailed engineering  Long lead procurements  Operator training SMR Option DevelopmentLicensingEngineeringPlanning Slide 21
    22. 22. Risk Management Risk Today Construction Decision Technology Certainty Regulatory Certainty Project Development Certainty Financial Certainty Time Slide 22 Schedule Certainty
    23. 23. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Traditional Planned A Different Approach to Engineering Cost per Subsequent Unit Reactor and construction vendors integrated early GmP business entity formed for integrated plant EPC • Detailed Design of Standard Plant includes bid- evaluate-award of component subcontracts and subsequent detailed system engineering • Area-Based Design Optimization includes: – Optimization and modularization of integrated plant design after detailed design complete – Design for manufacturing and construction • Safer, faster, leaner • Some systems de-optimized for overall optimization of plant economics Increased standardization should result in: – Fewer utility options, but lower cost – Lower engineering cost for subsequent utilities – Increased O&M efficiency (e.g. fleet training, spare parts, etc.) Area-based design optimization following detailed design leads to lower cost of lead plant and flatter learning curve Slide 23
    24. 24. Avoided risk/rework cost Potential Engineering Cost/Risk Approach Generic Design E P C Generic Design e P C Traditional Model: Final detailed engineering in EPC Contract, design not optimized Vendor funded Utility funded Potential Model: Detailed engineering and area design before construction starts Vendor funded Detailed & Area Design Shared funding Utility funded Optimized design benefits all plants! Slide 24
    25. 25. • 10 CFR Part 50 approach for first nuclear plant, subsequent plants would be licensed under Part 52 • Anticipate design changes for improved constructability/cost savings • Certified Design will be updated to be the Clinch River design – TVA does not want a “one-off design” – B&W wants its Standard Design to be informed by lessons learned during construction of the first plant NRC Licensing/Design Approach Slide 25 Part 50 Provides Flexibility for New Technology Deployment
    26. 26. Licensing Schedule Slide 26
    27. 27. The Learning Curve First-of-a-kind factors and economy of subsequent units on the site/ multi-module plants: • Factory fabrication is also subject to “learning” • FOAK plants are reported to be 15-55% more expensive than the second one • For serial units, the reduction of the effective (per unit) SMR capital cost could be 10-25%. © OECD/NEA 2011 – Graph and data Will FOAK risks be addressed by the Federal Government? Will NOAK be competitive without government support? Slide 27
    28. 28. DOE’s Strategic Vision for SMR Deployment  Our long term goal is to enable deployment of a fleet of SMRs, not just 1 or 2 units  Envision need for >50 GWe capacity in coming decades based on coal plant replacements alone  Long term vision is that SMRs would evolve through anticipated deployment phases Regulatory (where we are today) Early adopters (first 20 units) Full-scale factory production (20 – 40 units/year) Presented by Asst. Secretary Lyons at ANS on 11/12/13 Slide 28
    29. 29. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Licensing Technical Support (6-year, $452M, cost-sharing) FOA Selection Cooperative Agreement 2nd Selection Federal Support Programs & Timing First Movers & Early Adopters Full-scale Factory Production - Serve as “model homes” - Reduce uncertainties - Move down the learning curve - Enables creation of order books - Creates manufacturing infrastructure - Achieve Nth-of-a-kind costs - Significant job creation & U.S. leadership - Sustainable without government support - Supports reactor design - Proves out licensing process 2nd Cooperative Agreement? 2nd FOA Enabling Legislation Slide 29  Policy tools for first movers and early adopters may involve • Power purchase agreements • Loan guarantees • Production tax credits • Clean energy credits Source: DOE at ANS on 11/12/13
    30. 30. U.S. Government as Customer for First Several SMRs • SMRs Could Meet DOE & DoD Critical Facility Electricity Needs – Only available option that is both reliable and clean • Supports Mission Critical Loads – Self supporting (SMR does not require offsite power) – Less vulnerable to terrorist / cyber threats / natural phenomena – Can provide power long term during an extended event – Provides DOE/DoD with clean energy, helping to meet Federal directives • Clinch River SMRs could provide “enhanced reliability” to DOE’s facilities in Oak Ridge, which DoD could observe/support – “Smart Grid” applications (Uninterruptable Power Supply type features) – Operational limitations (never schedule both units off at the same time) – Acceptable voltage and frequency tolerance during shift to Island Mode – Robust transmission (e.g. armored transformers) Slide 30
    31. 31. Conclusion • SMRs are consistent with TVA’s Vision and Mission of having a cleaner, balanced electricity generation portfolio • TVA has a suitable site with an interested key customer • Design and licensing costs are being supported by the Government, and there appears to be support to share FOAK risks • Work is underway to mature the design, test key components, obtain an NRC license, and better understand cost, schedule and economic projections before making a construction decision Slide 31 Attractive SMR Features and Potential Government Support Warrant Continued Investment to Develop a Unique Nuclear Generation Option
    32. 32. Acknowledgement and Disclaimer Acknowledgment: "This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-NE0000583." Disclaimer: "This presentation was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States 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 United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof." Slide 32

    ×