Nuclear Energy: A New Beginning?

Nuclear Energy:a New Beginning?- Findings from a recent MIT study -Jacopo BuongiornoTEPCO Professor ofNuclear Science and EngineeringDirector, Center for Advanced NuclearEnergy Systems

2018study on the Future of NuclearKey messages:The Future of Nuclear Energyin a Carbon-Constrained WorldA N INT ERDISCIPLINARY MIT ST UDY When deployed efficiently,nuclear can prevent electricitycost escalations in adecarbonized grid The cost of new nuclear builds inthe West has been too high There are ways to reduce thecost of new nuclear Government’s help is needed tomake it happenDownload the report ergy-carbon-constrained-world/

The big picture

The World needs a lot more energyAustraliaGlobal electricity consumption is projected to grow 45% by 2040

The key dilemma is how to increase energygeneration while limiting global warmingLow CarbonFossil fuelsCO2 emissions are actually rising we are NOT winning!

The current role ofnuclear

Nuclear is the largest source of emission-freeelectricity in the U.S. and Europe by farShare of carbon-free electricity (2017 droE.U.R.O.K.Solar,Wind,Geo,etc.Growing in China, India, Russia and the Middle-East,declining in Western Europe, Japan and the U.S.

First priority: don’t shut down existing NPPsLicense extension for current NPPs is usually a cost-efficientinvestment with respect to emission-equivalent alternatives(the example of Spain)License extension forall 7 reactorsAll reactors are shutdown and replacedby renewables batteries to keep sameemissionsThe Climate and Economic Rationale for Investment in Life Extension of Spanish Nuclear Plants, by A.Fratto-Oyler and J. Parsons, MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research Working Paper2018-016, November 19, 2018. http://ssrn.com/abstract 3290828

Do we need nuclear todeeply decarbonize thepower sector?

The economic argumentExcluding nuclear energy can drive up the average costof electricity in low-carbon scenariosThe problem with the no-nuclear scenarios 250.00Installed Capacities in Tianjin: No Nuclear 200.00900000 150.00Installed Capacity (MW)Average Generation Cost ( /MWh)Tianjin-Beijing-TangshanExpensive NG, unfavorable renewables 100.00 50.00 -50010050101CO2 Emissions (g/kWh)Nuclear - NoneNuclear - Nominal CostNuclear - Low CostSimulation of optimal generation mix in powermarketsMIT tool: hourly electricity demand hourlyweather patterns capital, O&M and fuel costs ofpower plants, backup and storage ramp up rates800000CCGT w/CCS700000IGCC w/ CCS600000Battery Storage500000Pumped Hydro400000Solar PV300000Onshore ons (g/kWh)To meet demand and carbon constraintwithout nuclear requires significantoverbuild of renewables and storage

Sadly, the grid is becoming more complicated, overbuilt,inefficient and expensive and emissions are onlymarginally being reduced Supply (generators) and demand (end users) are geographicallyseparated and static, requiring massive transmission infrastructureComplex interconnected system is vulnerable to external perturbations(e.g., extreme weather, malicious attacks)

(Cont.) Capital-intensive equipment has low utilization factor because of highvariability in demand and intermittency in supply (e.g., back-up, storage,solar/wind overcapacity)Market is muddied by subsidies (e.g., renewables, nuclear) and unaccounted costs (e.g., social cost of carbon)Germany and California have spent over half a trillion dollars onintermittent renewables and have not seen a significant decrease inemissions

Low carbon intensity in Europe correlates withnuclear and hydro4540Share of (non-hydro) renewables generation (10/16 - 9/17)35(%)2520151050700600500(gCO2/kWh)EU countrieswith low carbonintensity4003002001000Carbon intensity of the power sector (10/16 - 9/17)Data source: European Climate Leadership report 201730(Energy for Humanity, Tomorrow, the Electricity Map Database)EU countrieswith highcapacity of solarand wind

Second priority: buildnew NPPs but what about cost?

Why are new NPPs in the West soexpensive and difficult to build?ASIA 90% detailed design completed before startingconstruction Proven NSSS supply chain and skilled labor workforce Fabricators/constructors included in the design team A single primary contract manager Flexible regulator can accommodate changes indesign and construction in a timely fashionUS/Europe Started construction with 50% designcompleted Atrophied supply chain, inexperiencedworkforce Litigious construction teams Regulatory process averse to designchanges during construction

Aggravating factorsConstruction laborproductivity hasdecreased in theWestConstruction and engineeringwages are much higher in the USthan China and KoreaEstimated effect of constructionlabor on OCC (wrt US):- 900/kWe (China)- 400/kWe (Korea)

Where is the cost of a new NPP?APR-1400AP-1000EPRNuclear Island equip12%5%Nuclear Island equip22%Nuclear Island equipTurbine Island Equip48%16%EPC45%Turbine Island Equip6%Owner CostEPC7%20%Turbine Island Equip6%50%Owner CostYard Cooling Installation19%18%15%EPCOwner CostYard Cooling Installation11%Yard CoolingInstallationSources:AP1000: Black & Veatch for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Cost and Performance Data for Power Generation Technologies, Feb. 2012, p. 11APR1400: Dr. Moo Hwan Kim, POSTECH, personal communication, 2017EPR: Mr. Jacques De Toni, Adjoint Director, EPRNM Project, EDF, personal communication, 2017 Civil works, site preparation, installation and indirect costs(engineering oversight and owner’s costs) dominateovernight cost Schedule and discount rate determine financing cost

What innovations could makea difference?Standardization on multi-unit sitesSeismic IsolationAdvanced Concrete SolutionsModular Construction Techniques andFactory/Shipyard FabricationApplicable to all new reactor technologies

With these innovations itshould be possible to: Shift labor from site to factories reduce installation costStandardize design reduce licensing and engineeringcosts maximize learningShorten construction schedule reduce interest duringconstructionIn other industries (e.g., chemical plants, nuclearsubmarines) the capital cost reduction from suchapproaches has been in the 10-50% range

Why advanced reactors

A perfect storm of unfortunate attributesSystemsizeFactoryfabricationTesting andlicensingHigh-returnproductNuclear PlantsLargeNoLengthyNoCoal PlantsLargeNoShortNoOffshore Oil and GasLargeNoMediumNoChemical Jet EnginesSmallYesLengthyNoPharmaceuticalsVery sumer RoboticsSmallYesShortYeshas resulted in long ( 20 years) and costly ( 10B)innovation cycles for new nuclear technology

Nuclear DD&D paradigm needs to shift to: smaller, serial-manufacturedsystems, with acceleratedtesting/licensing, producing high added-valueenergy products.

SMALLER SYSTEMSSmall ModularReactorsHigh Temperature GasCooled Reactors[ X-energy ][ NuScale, GE’s BWRX-300 ] 300 MWe 300 MWeHelium coolant, graphiteScaled-down, simplified versionsmoderated, TRISO fuel, up toof state-of-the-art LWRs650-700 C heat deliveryMust reduce scope of civil structures(still 50% of total capital cost)Nuclear Batteries[ Westinghouse’s eVinci ] 20 MWeBlock core with heat pipes,self-regulating operations,Stirling engine or air-Brayton

A SUPERIOR SAFETY PROFILE ENABLED BYINHERENT FEATURES AND ENGINEERED SYSTEMSDemonstrated inherent safetyattributes: No coolant boiling (HTGR,microreactors) Strong fission product retentionin robust fuel (HTGR) High thermal capacity (SMRs &HTGR) Strong negativetemperature/powercoefficients (all concepts) Low chemical reactivity (HTGR) Engineeredpassive safetysystems:– Heat removal– Shutdown No need foremergency ACpower Long copingtimes Simplified designand operations Emergencyplanning zonelimited to siteboundaryDesign certification of NuScale is showing U.S. NRC’s willingness to value newsafety attributes

ACCELERATED TESTING/LICENSINGENABLED BY SUPERIOR SAFETY PROFILE No need for emergencyAC power No need for operatorintervention Simplified design andoperations Emergency planningzone limited to siteboundaryNASA designed, fabricated and tested a nuclear battery ( 1MW)for space applications at a total cost of 20M, in less than 3 years(2015-2018)CAN SAVE A DECADE AND AN EARLY BILLION DOLLARS

HIGHER ADDED VALUECAN COME FROM A strong policy signal recognizing the non-emittingnature, economic impact, and contribution to energysecurity of nuclear electricity on the gridAND/OR Capture of new markets (heat, hydrogen, syn fuels,water desal, remote communities, miningoperations, propulsion, etc.) in which nuclearproducts could sell at a premium

Beyond the grid

Where are the carbon emissions?World’s distribution of CO2-equivalentemission by sector, from IPCC 2014Much more than electricity

In a low-carbon world, nuclear energy is thelowest-cost, dispatchable heat source for industryTechnologySolar PV: RooftopResidentialSolar PV: CrystallineUtility ScaleSolar PV: Thin Film UtilityLCOHDispatchable Low carbon /MWh-thermal190-320NoYes45-55NoYes40-50NoYesSolar Thermal Tower withStorage50-100YesYesWindNuclearNatural Gas (U.S. price)30-6035-6020-40NoYesYesYesYesNoLCOH Levelized Cost of Heat (LCOH)

A small (but not insignificant) potentialmarket for nuclear heat in industry now 240 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent per year( 7% of the total annual U.S. GHG emissions)Methodology: EPA database for U.S. sites emitting 25,000 ton-CO2/year or more Considered sites needing at least 150 MW of heat Nuclear heat delivered at max 650 C (with nuclear battery or HTGR technology) Chemicals considered include ammonia, vinyl chloride, soda ash, nylon, styrene Heat from waste stream not accessible

In the transportation sector, hydrogen and/orelectrification could create massive growthopportunities for nuclearCountryU.S.FranceJapanNew nuclear capacity required to decarbonizethe transportation sectorWith electrification*With hydrogen**285 GWe342 GWe and 111 GW th22 GWe28 GWe and 9 GW th33 GWe41 GWe and 13 GW thAustralia18 GWe22 GWe and 7 GW thWorld1060 GWe1315 GWe and 428 GW th* Assumes that (i) the efficiency of internal combustion engines is 20%, and (ii) the efficiency of electricvehicles is 60%** Assumes that (i) the efficiency of internal combustion engines is 20%, (ii) the efficiency of hydrogen fuelcells is 50%, (iii) hydrogen gas has a lower heating value of approximately 121.5 MJ/kg-H2, and (iv) theenergy requirement for high-temperature electrolysis of water is 168 MJ/kg-H2, of which 126 MJ/kg-H2 iselectrical and 41 MJ/kg-H2 is thermal.

“A doomsday future is not inevitable! But withoutimmediate drastic action our prospects are poor. Wemust act collectively. We need strong, determinedleadership in government, in business and in ourcommunities to ensure a sustainable future forhumankind.”Admiral Chris Barrie, AC RAN Retired, May 2019

Study TeamExecutive DirectorDr. David Petti (INL)Co-DirectorProf. Jacopo Buongiorno (MIT)Co-DirectorProf. Michael Corradini (U-Wisconsin)Co-DirectorDr. John Parsons (MIT)Team Members: Faculty, Students and Outside ExpertsProf. Joe Lassiter(Harvard)Dr. James McNerney(MIT)Ka-Yen Yau(MIT student)Amy Umaretiya(MIT student)Prof. Jessika Trancik(MIT)Prof. Richard Lester(MIT)Jessica Lovering(Breakthrough Institute)Rasheed Auguste(MIT student)Dr. Robert Varrin(Dominion Engineering)Lucas Rush(MIT student)Prof. DennisWhyte (MIT)Dr. CharlesForsberg (MIT)Eric Ingersoll(Energy Options Network)Patrick Champlin Patrick White(MIT student)(MIT student)Andrew Foss(Energy Options Network)Karen Dawson(MIT student)Magdalena Klemun(MIT student)Nestor Sepulveda(MIT student)

AcknowledgementsThis study is supported by generous grants and donations fromNeil RasmussenJames Del FaveroZach Pateand in-kind contributions fromDISCLAIMER: MIT is committed to conducting research work that is unbiased and independentof any relationships with corporations, lobbying entities or special interest groups, as well asbusiness arrangements, such as contracts with sponsors.