Small Modular Reactor Design and Deployment IREA 10/14/2018 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

www.inl.gov

Small Modular Reactor Design and Deployment

IREA 10/14/2018

INL/MIS-15-34247

• INL is supporting multiple LWR SMR vendors

– Small, <300MWe reactors and less expensive reactors compared to current LWR reactors (Small) – Often, but not always, multiple reactors at the same site that can be deployed as power is needed (Modular) – Primary cooling system and reactor core in a single containment structure, but not always (Reactors) – Factory built, usually, which improves quality and costs

• Integrated PWR SMR’s are closest to deployment

– designed to be inherently safer and simple – primary reactor system inside a single factory built containment vessel – Higher dependence on passive systems to simplify operation and design

• INL works with all vendors to provide fair access to the

laboratory benefits

• INL works with industry on SMR technology and

deployment INL SMR Activities

Reactor Power

Los Angeles Class Submarine -26 MW Enterprise Class Aircraft Carrier 8x Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier 2x97MW, 194MW NuScale Reactor 12 x 60MW, 720MWe Cooper BWR, 800MWe Westinghouse AP-1000, 1000MWe European Pressurized Reactor, 1650MWe

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Thermal Power MW

Nuclear Plant Power

Unit Power Plant Power

Multiple Units

• SMR Nuclear Power Plants are built with multiple reactors

– NuScale Nuclear Power Plant 12 units 60 MWe

• Benefit of smaller size
• Factory building of critical safety components
• Fit on grid with fewer changes to high power electrical grid
• Allows operational flexibility and alternate uses
• Unique operational challenges

– Units in different operating modes at the same time

• Maintenance
• Outage
• Power changes

Integrated Reactor

SMR reactor and full primary system in one vessel

Simplified systems Fewer Failure Modes

PWR Reactor IPWR Reactors

Factory Built

Not a reactor but similar quality and complexity

Challenges to Nuclear Power

• AP600 licensing started in 1985
• Two AP1000 Power Plants are being built currently

– Licensing started in 2002 – Westinghouse experienced vendor – Westinghouse declared bankruptcy after $9B in debt building reactors – Construction started in VC Summer 3/2013 online in 2017

• $9.8B+$1.2B project cost
• 1 year schedule slip to 2017
• Construction stopped in 3/17

– Construction Started on Vogtle 3/2013

– $14B project cost – currently $25B – Georgia Power $18.5B Capitalization – Oglethorpe Power $3.9B Capitalization – EXELON $30B Capitalization – Schedule is set for 2021 and 2022 on the grid. – Requires utility cost collection before completion

iPWR Solutions

• Cost

– Smaller size, smaller inputs, smaller projects

• $225M/Reactor, $3.0B Nuclear Power Plant
• Can be installed in stages
• Smaller changes in required grid
• Factory built

– Reduces construction uncertainties – Changes quality control – Less uncertainty in schedule

• Economic Flexibility

– Smaller units operating economically – Complex power grid with renewables

• Improved safety

– Simplified – Integrated – Passive – Below grade construction

• Easier to license

– Accelerated approval

NuScale plant showing multiple reactors with largely below grade construction

Nuscale

• Gravity driven circulation
• No external power needed for emergency systems
• Passive decay heat removal system
• ECCS floods containment
• Air cooling long term cooling
• No operator action
• No electricity
• No additional water

NuScale

Single unit

• 160 MWt, 60 MWe, 28% efficient

12 units per plant planned 720 MWe total

• Vessel 2.7m diameter, 20m high, 264t
• Rail, truck or barge shipping
• Natural circulation operation
• ECCS is passive and depends on natural circulation

NuScale plant showing multiple reactors with largely below grade construction

Nuscale

• Winners of second DOE licensing funding
• pportunity ~$250M
• Developing NRC licensing application submitted at

the end of 2016, approval in 2020.

• INL supported the developing safety evaluation

code, RELAP-5 3D, to perform licensing calculations

• Initial preferred site selection completed.
• Evaluation of site for DOE licensing starting in

2019.

• Scheduled on-line in 2026.

Initial Steps

12

• Need agreement to allow DOE to host a commercial nuclear reactor
• Defines how site support, responsibility and regulation (20 months)
• DOE and UAMPS signed agreement to select, develop and operate a SMR

nuclear power plant on the INL site.

• Use agreement allows commercial, NRC license and a commercial power

plant to operate on an approved site.

• INL and CFPP operations will be separate. Needed interface and access will

be established and allowed in agreement.

• CFPP will operate under local, state and federal regulations.

Land Use Agreement

• DOE Licensing Technical Support (LTS) Program started in 2012
• Discussions with vendors and companies started in 2013
• Proposals initially looking for significant support
• Primarily advanced reactor designs
• Combinations of research and demonstration
• Licensing ambiguity
• Limited funding for siting
• Start pf mPower (2013) and NuScale (2014) Support

Siting Process

• UAMPS using a NRC approved EPRI process. (EPRI, “Siting Guide:

Site Selection and Evaluation Criteria for an Early Site Permit Application”, Mar 21, 2002)

• Define a region of interest.

– Reasonable area that can support needs of the project – Large enough that potential sites can be differentiated

• Large number of sites are evaluated on initial priorities

– INL has GIS data on ~250 site characteristics – INL provided data on 19 potential sites. – Down select to 4 preferred sites

• Established procedure allows INL/DOE to evaluate new proposals

– Being used on two new projects

• Advanced SMR reactor
• Unique technology activity

13

17

CFPP Site Options

Joint Use Modular Plant – JUMP program

• DOE is looking to increase value of SMR and current LWR nuclear power

plants.

• NuScale reactors allow development of beyond the grid applications.
• New applications can be demonstrated.

– District Heating – Drying applications – Water desalination – Hydrogen production – Grid stability

• Initial lab scale demonstration leads to industrial partners and products.
• Enable nuclear supply chain solutions
• Evaluate and inform new regulatory approaches

DOE Evaluating Power Purchase

• DOE is looking to by power from the Carbon Free Power Project.
• Provides fixed sales and reliable power to INL.
• Requires cooperation of multiple power sales companies.

Terrestrial Energy USA

INL selected as site for TE-USA loan guarantee

• INL provided TE-USA with a siting document based
• n our siting experience with UAMPS/NuScale
• DOE and INL signed MOU’s with TE-USA to support

Part 2 application, which will be submitted next week. INL is supporting Hybrid Energy for TE-USA

• INL and TE-USA are exploring higher-temperature

commercial demonstrations of the Hybrid Energy Systems (HES) proposed for UAMPS/NuScale’s JUMP proposal. TE-USA setting schedule for reactor design submittal to NRC TE-USA is engaged in licensing discussions

20

Terrestrial Energy IMSR

NuScale

• Lead IPWR SMR
• NRC design submittle

Westinghouse

• Lead reactor concept
• Micro reactor concept

Transatomic Power

• Molten salt power reactor

NGNP Alliance

• HTGR

Flibe Energy

• sCO2 thorium molten salt reactor

Tri Alpha Energy

• Fusion System

DOD

• Pulsed test reactor

Molten Salt Critical Test Loop

• Low Power material test reactor

Fast Spectrum DOE Test Reactor

• New material test reactor

GEH Prism

• Fast test and power proposal

OKLO

• 2 MW portable reactor

Elysium

• Small molten salt reactor

Terrestrial Energy

• Molten salt reactor
• Advanced design status

Terrapower

• 2 advanced reactor designs
• Adapting deployment strategy

General Atomics

• Fast HTGR

Holtec

• IWPR design

X-energy

• 200 MWth Pebble bed reactor

Micro Reactors

• Less than 20 MWe

21

INL Siting of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

Initial or development discussions with vendors on siting options and conc

Conclusions

• SMRs designs address many of the barriers to increased

use of nuclear energy

– Cost – Schedule – Uncertainty – Safety

• SMR designs may allow improved economics
• Open issues remain on SMR licensing, deployment,

economics and market

• INL is supporting multiple companies with different

capabilities. – Siting, fuels, reactor design, safety codes, testing, power technology

• SMR market is rapidly developing.
• Many levels of maturity are displayed by the industry.

Backup Slides

Site data

Requirements, go/no-go in regulation, how much effort to mitigate

• Go/No-Go examples

– >10 miles from an airport, <0.5 Peak Ground Acceleration, >5 miles from surface faults and capable tectonic structures, away from population center (>25,000 people), >5 miles from hazardous sites, >1mile from rail line

• Weighted information

– Seismic data- faults, age, depth, history – Flooding- history, severity – Volcanic- hazards, criteria – Environmental- wildlife, botany, grouse leks, song bird breeding, wetlands, on- going sampling sites, snake hibernaculum – Hydrology- aquifer depth, water quality, yield, contaminates, discharge, water rights – Cultural- historic peoples, historic homesteads – INL missions– electronic quiet areas, geologic power plans, event effects on

• perations, historic operations, Navel Research Laboratory, complex project
• rganization, explosive test range

– Logistics- Power lines, rail access, highway access, infrastructure investment, construction support, site area

24