A Study of New Nuclear Baseload Generation in New England.pptx … · 2011-06-22 · – ISO New...

A Study of New Nuclear BaseloadGeneration in New England

Dr. Regis A. Matzie

Executive ConsultantWestinghouse Electric Company LLC

June 22, 2011

CT ANS Dinner Meeting June 22, 20111

Purpose of StudyPurpose of Study• Inform the Connecticut state legislature of the advances in

l h l d h i l i h ’nuclear power technology and the potential impact on the state’s economy if new baseload generation were built so that they have sufficient understanding in case they decide to promote this technology for future deploymenttechnology for future deployment

• Connecticut Energy Advisory Board (CEAB) determined that an independent and unbiased study would be in the best interests of the citizens– Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering was

therefore commissioned by the CEAB to perform this study• Currently, Connecticut State Statutes, Section 22a-136

– Moratorium on construction of nuclear power facilities – “…until the Commissioner of Environmental Protection finds that the U.S. Government…has identified and approved a demonstrable technology for the disposal of high level nuclear waste.”


gy p g

Scope of StudyScope of Study• Identification of advances in nuclear power technology• Overview of use of nuclear power in the U.S. and other

countries• Identification of the most current and projected costs ofIdentification of the most current and projected costs of

nuclear power• Economic development potential – Economic impact

analysisanalysis• Local acceptance/education of nuclear power – survey• Spent fuel disposition – storage, disposal, and p p g , p ,

reprocessing• Other issues (nuclear safety and security, transmission,

waste heat siting environmental concerns etc )


waste heat, siting, environmental concerns, etc.)

Study Committee, Research Team, d R iand Reviewers

• Study Committee (17 members)y ( )– CT Academy of Science and Engineering (9 members, including

Chuck Kling and Regis Matzie, formerly of Westinghouse)– Northeast Utilities and Dominion Generation– CT Dept of Environmental Protection (ret.)– Dept of Public Utilities Commission (ret.)– Division of Radiation, CT Dept of Environmental Protectionp– American Nuclear Society

• Research Team (2 members from University of Hartford)– Chair of Civil Environmental and Biomedical EngineeringChair of Civil, Environmental and Biomedical Engineering– Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering

• Study Reviewers (3 members, including Sten Caspersson Westinghouse)


Caspersson, Westinghouse)

Conduct of Study(12 months, completion September 2011)

• Literature reviews• Specific contracted work (economic impact analysis,

survey of local acceptance and education)• Site visits (CT Yankee, Millstone)

N t ti• Numerous presentations– Westinghouse, Areva, B&W– Dominion Generation

DOE (Dr Pete Lyons NE 1)– DOE (Dr. Pete Lyons, NE-1)– IAEA (Geoffrey Shaw, Director General to United Nations)– ISO New England– Others (Kadak, von Hippel, etc.)( , pp , )

• Numerous discussions of Study Committee, including agreement on study findings and recommendations

• Final report and oral presentation to CT Energy Advisory B d


Board

Types of Reactors Operating, Being B ilt U d D l tBuilt, or Under Development

• Light Water Reactors• Light Water Reactors (operating) Generation II– Boiling Water Reactors

Pressurized Water Reactors– Pressurized Water Reactors• Generation III and III+

Reactors (being built)– Active Safety Systems– Passive Safety Systems

• Small Modular Reactors (under development)

• Generation IV Reactors (potentially ready >2030)

Millstone Plant Site


(potentially ready 2030)

Status of Nuclear Power PlantsCurrently Operating

• 443 nuclear plants operating worldwide i 29 t i ( 16% f l t i itin 29 countries (~16% of electricity generated) – most Generation II

• 104 nuclear plants operating in U.S. in 31 states (19.6% of electricity generated) mostly in eastern part ofgenerated) mostly in eastern part of country

• 64 new nuclear reactors under construction in 15 countries

• 5 new nuclear reactors under construction in U.S. – 4 Generation III+– Watts Bar 2 (TVA)– Vogle 3&4 (Southern Nuclear)– V.C. Summer 2&3 (SCANA)

• U.S. lifetime extensions (20 years)– 66 approved by US NRC– 16 filed for approval

• 5.8 GWe power upgrades already d 3 4 GW t d


approved; 3.4 GWe more expected

New Generation III and III+ Reactor Designs S f Swith Active Safety Systems

• Rely on AC electrical power to f t f tipower safety functions

• Utilize active pumps, valves, and support systems– Cooling water systems

APWR

Cooling water systems– HVAC systems

• Typically have 4 trains of mechanical safety systems

M h 2 4 t i f EPR– May have 2 or 4 trains of emergency electrical systems

• Core decay heat removal is provided by:

EPR

– Steam Generators– Safety Injection System– Accumulators

• Containment heat removal is APR1400


Containment heat removal is provided by Containment Spray System

APR1400

New Generation III and III+ Reactor Designs S f Swith Passive Safety System

D t l AC l t i l• Do not rely on AC electrical power to provide safety functions

U t l f f h t– Use natural forces of heat transfer, gravity, evaporation, etc.

• Use systems and water

ESBWR

Use systems and water already inside the plant, e.g., inside containment, for core cooling and inventory control g yof reactor/fuel

• Containment heat removal by gravity feed, evaporation and AP1000


g y pand/or air cooling

AP1000

Small Modular ReactorsStarting the Development Cycle

• Reasons the SMR concept is appealing • Affordability by new customers – 1 BUSD versus 5 BUSD• Site constraints, including water, transmission, land area

• Hurdles• Some economies of scale issues: Development costs p

(design, testing, licensing), I&C systems, plant staff, various regulatory and insurance fees, etc.

• To overcome the economies of scale– Passive safety systems must be used

M t b hi hl t d di d d f t b ilt t t l– Must be highly standardized and factory built to control cost and achieve quality

– Must have short construction schedule– Must be rail shippable to be broadly accessible

Must have certain prescriptive regulations revised– Must have certain prescriptive regulations revised– Must have smaller EPZ to site near load centers

• Designs currently being considered for DOE SMR program are water cooled for mid-term deployment

mPower NuScale Westinghouse SMR mPower SMR


– mPower, NuScale, Westinghouse SMR mPower SMR

Locations of Proposed New R t i U SReactors in U.S.


CT Study Survey Results(600 out of 4,413 Completed Survey)

• Majority thought that fossil fuels account for most of electricity generated in CTfor most of electricity generated in CT

• Many did not know that there is an operating nuclear power plant in CT

• Generally very concerned about climate y ychange issues and need to reduce CT’s reliance on fossil fuels for electricity

• Most not thinking about nuclear power as potential source of electricitypotential source of electricity

• Favor green/renewable energies over fossil fuels and nuclear

• Reducing property taxes not seen as g p p yincentive for locating nuclear power plant

• Building new nuclear power plant more favorable to those with graduate school experience and degrees

51% of CT’s Electricity actually fromNuclear Power Today


experience and degrees

Survey Results (cont’d)Survey Results (cont d)

R bl /G G tiRenewable/Green GenerationMost Favorable

Fossil Fuels Most Expensive


New England Electrical Energy Marketg gy• ISO New England is Independent

System Operator administering wholesale electricity markets in 6 states

• Wholesale markets include– Day-ahead energy market– Real-time energy market– Forward capacity Market– Financial transmission rights– Ancillary services (Regulation market,

Forward Reserve Market Real time

Residential Electricity Price

Forward Reserve Market, Real time reserve pricing, Voltage support)

• Single grid to which all generation connected and from which all customers are servedcustomers are served

• Every day, ISO New England publishes the total load for next 2 days and generators bid specific amounts of power at specific prices


amounts of power at specific prices for those 2 days All-in Cost of Electricity in ISO NE

Clearing Price of ElectricityClearing Price of Electricity• Bids are arranged from lowest to

highest cost, then accepted in same order until total amount of power equals total load

• Price paid to all generators is price offered by highest-price generator chosen to run

• Typical bid stackBaseload Coal/Steam $6-12/MWhr

Nuclear $2-4/MWhrIntermediate Oil/Steam $6-12/MWhr

CCGT $6-12/MWhrPeaking Gas Turbines $20+/MWhr Generation by


Fuel Type (2009)

Power Plants On-line(Nuclear Plants Run Essentially Continuously)


Nuclear Power Plants in New England(Past and Present)


Positive Economic Impacts of New N l G tiNuclear Generation

• New nuclear capacity is likely to be at or near the bottom of the bid stack

• As new capacity is added, it displaces more expensive generation in the bid stack – driving overall electricity price lower

• In addition to depressing the electricity generation price, nuclear generation also drives down the price for the capacity and the reserve markets

• Adding new nuclear capacity in Connecticut will also reduce prices to CT ratepayers because of the reduction of transmission costs when compared to purchases from units further away

• Power supply with nuclear generators provide price stability because of the low and stable fuel costs (and without the threat of future carbon taxes) compared to new fossil-fueled generation


Past and Projected Overnight Cost f N l P Pl tof Nuclear Power Plants


Economic Impact Analysis Results(for new baseload generation in CT)

• Impact on the overall economy of Connecticut analyzed; l li d t f l t i it l f tlevelized cost of electricity only one factor

• Only Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCTG) and Nuclear plants considered

• Considered siting the new baseload plants at either previous Connecticut Yankee site or Millstone site

• Economic model used was that developed by Du and Parsons (2009), which was used in the recent MIT study, “The Future of Nuclear Power”

• Economic impact includes net new – Employment (both construction and operations)– Purchases of goods and services from CT economy– State and local taxes


– Impact of new baseload generation on LCOE for ISO NE system

Economic Impact Analysis Results (Preliminary Results – Nuclear Plant Added)

• 2400 total new jobs created2400 total new jobs created• State GDP increases 0.52 BUSD

annually• State Output (sales in all• State Output (sales in all

sectors of economy) increases 0.85 BUSD annually

• State revenues (taxes) increase• State revenues (taxes) increase 27 MUSD annually

• Wholesale price of electricity will be reduced depending onwill be reduced depending on what high price generation is driven off the bid stack

Connecticut Yankee Site Today


Likely RecommendationsLikely Recommendations

• State push to have “orphan site”• State push to have orphan site fuel removed to central government facility

• Move Millstone Unit 1 fuel from spent fuel pool to dry storagespent fuel pool to dry storage

• Follow the Administration’s Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations on fuel cycle

• Perform in-depth study workingPerform in depth study working with ISO New England of additional/replacement baseloadpower for Connecticut to help drive down high cost of electricity i t tin state

• Initiate education campaign for Connecticut residents on energy supply in state

New England Nuclear Siteswith only Spent Fuel Storage


Questions?Questions?


A Study of New Nuclear Baseload Generation in New England.pptx … · 2011-06-22 · – ISO New...

Documents

Transcript of A Study of New Nuclear Baseload Generation in New England.pptx … · 2011-06-22 · – ISO New...