Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
A Personal view Richard Beake, RBPD LLP
Why SMRs – Where Next? A Personal view Richard Beake, RBPD LLP
2
Why SMR? – Many Advantages
Good where demand is not GW scale, supports incremental growth Good where demand is isolated from grid or grid is weak Offers greater flexibility, better load following potential Compliments intermittent renewables Smaller sites, less cooling requirement Smaller EPZ, build close to demand Smaller plant, modular factory assembly > quicker build Fleet deployment will achieve rapid learning and cost optimisation Enhanced safety performance Richard Beake Project Development LLP
3
Why SMR? – the ‘Killer Arguments’
Much lower OCC Easier to finance Supports competitive market Lower LCOE Will not require ‘subsidy’ Competitive in its own right with other forms of generation Richard Beake Project Development LLP
4
SMR – The Economic Case 100 LCOE £/MWhr 60 20 0.2 2.0 20.0 OCC £bn SMR
Affordable but not competitive Barely affordable and not competitive Large Nuclear LCOE £/MWhr 60 SMR Affordable and competitive 20 0.2 2.0 20.0 OCC £bn Richard Beake Project Development LLP
5
TEA Study for DECC (now BEIS)
Study was heavily dependent on vendor provided data and was open to any vendor who wished to participate: 34 Vendors contacted 17 Vendors expressed interest 14 Vendors uploaded responses to questionnaire (15 reactor designs) Wide international response: UK, USA, China, South Korea, South Africa Technologies represented: IPWR, HTGR, LFR, MSR, SFR First a big thank you to all the vendors who participated. We appreciated that the effort required was not insignificant, the time available to respond was limited. Richard Beake Project Development LLP
6
SMR – Light Water Reactors
PWR and Integral PWR Factory production of NSSS Transportable Integral – No LB LOCA Known technology Deliverable mid 2020s Not to scale Richard Beake Project Development LLP
7
Typical iPWR Design Elements
Pressuriser Pumps Some Statistics Diameter 4m Hight 26m Weight 540t Output 180MWe Steam Generator Control rod drives Core Richard Beake Project Development LLP
8
SMR – Advanced Reactors
Many technologies HTGR, SFR, MS, LFR Designs less advanced but TRLs vary widely Potentially higher (intrinsic) reactor safety Claims for potential cost breakthrough Materials challenges Wastes challenges Lack of prototype data Richard Beake Project Development LLP
9
Technical Readiness Levels
Many published systems, similar scales. Key Finding: Leading IPWR designs at 6+ Advanced reactors much lower 3-5 from international studies NOTE: TRL is ordinal but not linear in time/cost implications TRL is time specific TRL is context specific TRL is a GUIDE as to current maturity The Technical maturity assessment made use of the concept of Technology Readiness Levels. This is a widely used technique with a large number of variants adopted by different organisations, some of which are shown on the slide. The graphic here is the NASA scale, note that Level 9 includes Launch – we don’t plan to launch any of our SMRs into space! A few cautionary points on the use of TRLs This is a useful guide to how far the technology had got but should not be considered definitive. We used an adaptation of the UD DoE scale, which is presented for information on the next slide. Richard Beake Project Development LLP
10
Investment / Risk / Maturity
Richard Beake Project Development LLP
11
Temperature / Pressure Illustrates Wide Variations in Technologies
ARC100 Richard Beake Project Development LLP LWR: Light Water Reactor, SCWR: Supercritical Water Reactor, HTGR: High Temperature Gas Reactor, GFR: Gas Fast Reactor, MSR: Molten Salt Reactor, SFR: Sodium Fast Reactor, LFR: Lead Fast Reactor
12
The Valley of Death Less than 1 in 5 technical innovation start-ups reach commercial deployment The TEA received responses on 15 reactors: Statistically only 2 will make it! So far none have made it. Richard Beake Project Development LLP
13
Where are SMRs now? Vendors are ‘selling’ incomplete designs
There are no buyers with cheque books open Nobody has crossed the ‘Valley of Death’ Most will die in the valley SMR will not move forward without government support and commitment Design development and licensing costs are >$1bn Risks are high There is no client imperative to buy SMR Richard Beake Project Development LLP
14
The Economics Today 100 Key Capex Drivers Size Complexity LCOE £/MWhr
Affordable but not competitive Unaffordable and not competitive Large Nuclear Gen III IPWR SMR Key Capex Drivers Size Complexity LCOE £/MWhr 60 Gen IV SMRs Affordable and competitive 20 0.2 2.0 20.0 OCC £bn Richard Beake Project Development LLP
15
The SMR Challenge 60x30x2 LCOE of £60 or less, for a global market allowing true mass production FOAK operating by 2030, beyond 15 years to payback will not attract investors Capex less than £2bn, within the capability of large private utilities Richard Beake Project Development LLP
16
How Will We Meet The Challenge?
SMR needs a ‘paradigm shift’ Governments must support and commit to deployment In UK this fits with a Nuclear Industrial Strategy Think outside of the comfort zones: Global ambition Competitive ‘Can do’ attitude Rethinking the operating model – ‘Ultra safe’ reactors UK has the skills and capability, we need to ‘Turbodrive’ our indistry Richard Beake Project Development LLP
17
What is SMR’s Destiny? Drove down costs ppm
Technical triumph at high cost ppm Niche market Commercial failure Drove down costs ppm Mass market Commercial success Its all about LCOE – Price, Price and Price again! Richard Beake Project Development LLP
Similar presentations
