A Study of New Nuclear Baseload Generation in New England

Transcription

1 A Study of New Nuclear Baseload Generation in New England Dr. Regis A. Matzie Executive Consultant Westinghouse Electric Company LLC June 22,

2 Purpose of Study Inform the Connecticut state legislature of the advances in 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 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. 2

3 Scope 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 of nuclear power Economic development potential Economic impact analysis Local acceptance/education of nuclear power survey Spent fuel disposition storage, disposal, and reprocessing Other issues (nuclear safety and security, transmission, waste heat, siting, environmental concerns, etc.) 3

4 Study Committee, Research Team, and dreviewers Study Committee (17 members) 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 Protection American Nuclear Society Research Team (2 members from University of Hartford) Chair of Civil, Environmental and Biomedical Engineering Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering Study Reviewers (3 members, including Sten Caspersson, Westinghouse) 4

5 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) Numerous presentations ti Westinghouse, Areva, B&W Dominion Generation DOE (Dr. Pete Lyons, NE-1) IAEA (Geoffrey Shaw, Director General to United Nations) ISO New England Others (Kadak, von Hippel, etc.) Numerous discussions of Study Committee, including agreement on study findings and recommendations Final report and oral presentation to CT Energy Advisory Board 5

6 Types of Reactors Operating, Being Built, or Under Development Light Water Reactors (operating) Generation II Boiling 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 6

7 Status of Nuclear Power Plants Currently Operating 443 nuclear plants operating worldwide in 29 countries (~16% of electricity it generated) most Generation II 104 nuclear plants operating in U.S. in 31 states (19.6% of electricity generated) 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 approved; 3.4 GWe more expected 7

8 New Generation III and III+ Reactor Designs with Active Safety S f S Systems Rely on AC electrical power to power safety f t ffunctions ti Utilize active pumps, valves, and support systems APWR Cooling water systems HVAC systems Typically have 4 trains of mechanical safety systems M May have h 2 or 4 ttrains i off emergency electrical systems EPR Core decay heat removal is provided by: Steam Generators Safety Injection System Accumulators Containment heat removal is provided by Containment Spray System 8 APR1400

9 New Generation III and III+ Reactor Designs with Passive Safety System Do not rely on AC electrical l power to provide safety functions Use natural forces of heat transfer, gravity, evaporation, etc. Use systems and water already inside the plant, e.g., inside containment, for core cooling and inventory control of reactor/fuel Containment heat removal by gravity feed, evaporation and and/or air cooling ESBWR AP1000 9

10 Small Modular Reactors Starting 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 (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 Must be highly hl standardized di d 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 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 10

11 Locations of Proposed New Reactors in U.S. 11

12 CT Study Survey Results (600 out of 4,413 Completed Survey) Majority thought that fossil fuels account for 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 change issues and need to reduce CT s reliance on fossil fuels for electricity Most not thinking about nuclear power as potential source of electricity Favor green/renewable energies over fossil fuels and nuclear Reducing gproperty p taxes not seen as incentive 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 from Nuclear Power Today 12

13 Survey Results (cont d) Renewable/Green Generation Most Favorable Fossil Fuels Most Expensive 13

14 New England Electrical Energy Market 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 reserve pricing, Voltage support) Single grid to which all generation connected and from which all customers 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 for those 2 days Residential Electricity Price All-in Cost of Electricity in ISO NE 14

15 Clearing 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 stack Baseload Coal/Steam $6-12/MWhr Nuclear $2-4/MWhr Intermediate Oil/Steam $6-12/MWhr CCGT $6-12/MWhr Peaking Gas Turbines $20+/MWhr Generation by Fuel Type (2009) 15

16 Power Plants On-line (Nuclear Plants Run Essentially Continuously) 16

17 Nuclear Power Plants in New England (Past and Present) 17

18 Positive Economic Impacts of New Nuclear 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 18

19 Past and Projected Overnight Cost of fnuclear Power Plants 19

20 Economic Impact Analysis Results (for new baseload generation in CT) Impact on the overall economy of Connecticut analyzed; levelizedli cost of electricity it 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 20

21 Economic Impact Analysis Results (Preliminary Results Nuclear Plant Added) 2400 total new jobs created State GDP increases 0.52 BUSD annually State Output (sales in all sectors of economy) increases 0.85 BUSD annually State revenues (taxes) increase 27 MUSD annually Wholesale price of electricity will be reduced depending on what high price generation is driven off the bid stack Connecticut Yankee Site Today 21

22 Likely Recommendations State push to have orphan site fuel removed to central government facility Move Millstone Unit 1 fuel from spent fuel pool to dry storage Follow the Administration s Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations on fuel cycle Perform in-depth study working with ISO New England of additional/replacement baseload power for Connecticut to help drive down high cost of electricity in state t Initiate education campaign for Connecticut residents on energy supply in state New England Nuclear Sites with only Spent Fuel Storage 22

23 Questions? 23