1

31st USAEE/IAEE North American Conference Online Proceedings (Poster)

i. Title of poster: Investigating the Economic Viability of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

ii. Authors and their organizational affiliation: Ahmed Abdulla Inês L. Azevedo Granger Morgan Carnegie Mellon University

iii. Complete contact details for the lead author/student Ahmed Abdulla Ph.D. Student Carnegie Mellon University 129 Baker Hall, Department of Engineering and Public Policy 5000 Forbes Avenue, Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 E-mail address: aya1@cmu.edu

  2

Investigating*the*Economic*Viability**of*Small*Modular*Reactors*(SMRs)*

*

Ahmed*Abdulla,*Inês*L.*Azevedo,*and*Granger*Morgan**

Department)of)Engineering)and)Public)Policy,)Carnegie)Mellon)University,)Pittsburgh)PA)15213)

Background*information!!Nuclear!technology!vendors!promise!that!the!small,!modular!nuclear!reactors!(SMRs)!they!have!been!

developing!will!become!players! in! the! =ield!of!energy!provision.!This!con=idence!stems!from!their!belief!that!SMRs!ameliorate!many!of!the!concerns!surrounding!large!nuclear!power!plants.!

!SMRs!range! in!size! from!tens! to!several!hundreds!of!megawattsBelectric!(MWe),! in!contrast!with! the!

large! reactors! currently! operating,! which! –! on! average! –! produce! 1,000MW! of! electricity.! New!conventional!designs!produce!in!excess!of!this:!some!provide!upwards!of!1,500MWe![1].!SMRs!encompass!a!wide!range!of!technologies,!including!both!light!water!and!nonBlight!water!designs.!!!

Why*choose*SMRs*over*large*reactors?!!Advantages!–!SMRs!may:!-  exploit!factory!fabrication!economies!while!achieving!high!levels!of!quality!control.!!-  cost!less,!compared!to!large!reactors,!even!if!the!cost!per!kWe!is!greater.!-  adopt!modular!construction!techniques,!which!would!result!in!shorter!construction!schedules.!-  allow!for!multiBmodule!deployment!at!a!single!site.!-  be!incorporated!into!more!modest!grids.!!-  be!operated!in!challenging!geographies.!-  incorporate!innovative!approaches!to!both!safety!and!siting.!-  reduce!the!risk!of!proliferation:!some!(nonBlight!water)!designs!propose!that!the!module!be!sealed!

prior!to!delivery,!which!would!prevent!tampering!with!the!fuel.!!Disadvantages!–!SMRs:!-  have!to!contend!with!=ixed!costs,! like!all!nuclear!reactors.!Thus,!the!larger!a!reactor’s!capacity,!the!

cheaper!it!is!on!a!cost!perBkW!basis.!When!downsizing!capacity,!these!economies!of!scale!are!lost.!-  are!posing!questions!that!have!yet!to!be!resolved!by!regulatory!agencies,!mainly!because!of!some!of!

their!innovations,!such!as!the!siting!of!multiple!reactors!in!close!proximity.!-  may! lead! to! an! increase! in! the! number! of! plants! worldwide! if! they! are! successful.! Given! the!

importance! of! the! international! market! to! the! business! case! for! SMRs,! the! question! of! exporting!these!reactors! to!nations! that! lack! the! institutions!required!to!safeguard!nuclear! facilities!must!be!addressed.!

-  do!little!to!address!questions!of!operator!training,!maintenance!culture,!and!regulatory!competence.!!-  of! the! light! water! type!must! address! familiar! concerns! regarding!waste!management! and! safety:!

these! designs! call! for! onBsite! management! of! spent! fuel,! and! passive! safety! measures! remain!unproven!on!a!commercial!scale.!

[1]$Current$(Genera.on$III+)$designs$include$the$1,100MWe$Wes.nghouse$AP@1000,$the$1,600MWe$GE@Hitachi$Economic$Simplified$Boiling$Water$Reactor$(ESBWR),$the$1,650MWe$Areva$NP$European$Pressurized$Reactor$(EPR),$and$the$1,400MWe$Korea$Hydro$and$Nuclear$Power$(KHNP)$Advanced$Power$Reactor$1400$(APR@1400).$

[2]$Du$Y,$Parsons$JE.$Update$on$the$Cost$of$Nuclear$Power.$MassachuseYs$Ins.tute$of$Technology:$Center$for$Energy$and$Environmental$and$Policy$Research$[Internet].$2009$May$[cited$2011$November$16].$Available$from:$hYp://web.mit.$edu/mitei/docs/$spotlights/nuclear@fuel@cycle@du.pdf$

[3]$Reynolds$R,$BarreY$R.$Applicability$of$NRC$Light$Water$Reactor$Licensing$Process$to$SMRs.$Idaho$Na.onal$Laboratory:$Small$Modular$Reactor$Program$[Internet].$2010$July$[cited$2011$November$16].$Available$from:$hYps://smr.inl.gov/Document.ashx?path=DOCS%2FReading+Room%2FPolicy+and+regula.on%2FANS+SMR+APPLICABILITY+OF+THE+NRC+LWR+LICENSING+PROCESS+910.pdf$

[4]$Matzie$RA.$The$AP1000$Reactor$Nuclear$Renaissance$Op.on.$Presenta.on$at$the$Tulane$Engineering$Forum;$New$Orleans,$LA.$2003$September$26.$Slide$9.$$[5]$Nuclear$Street$News$Team.$Wes.nghouse$Unveils$New$Small$Modular$Reactor$Design.$Nuclear$Street$–$Nuclear$Power$Portal$[Internet].$2011$February$18$[cited$

November$16,$2011].$Available$from:$hYp://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/$nuclear_$power_news/archive/2011/02/18/wes.nghouse@unveils@new@small@modular@reactor@design021804.aspx$

[6]$Schneider$M,$FroggaY$A,$Thomas$S.$The$World$Nuclear$Industry$Status$Report$2010@2011:$Nuclear$Power$in$a$Post@Fukushima$World.$Worldwatch$Ins.tute$[Internet].$2011$April$[cited$2011$December$5]$Page$No.:$25.$Available$from:$hYp://www.worldwatch.$org/system/files/WorldNuclearIndustryStatusReport2011_%20FINAL.pdf$

[7]$Rosner$R,$Goldberg$SM.$Small$Modular$Reactors:$Key$to$Future$Nuclear$Power$Genera.on$in$the$U.S.$University$of$Chicago:$Energy$Policy$Ins.tute$at$Chicago$[Internet].$2011$November$29$[cited$2011$December$11].$Available$from:$hYp://csis.org/files/aYachments/111129_SMR_White_Paper.pdf$

[8]$Updated$Capital$Cost$Es.mates$for$Electricity$Genera.on$Plants.$U.S.$Department$of$Energy:$Energy$Informa.on$Administra.on$[Internet].$2010$November$[cited$2011$December$5].$Available$from:$hYp://www.eia.gov/oiaf/$beck_plantcosts/pdf/updated$plantcosts.pdf$

The*SMRs*and*scenarios*under*investigation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

Number*and*type*of*units* Total*plant*capacity*

Scenario!1! 1!×!1,000MWe!Gen!III+!reactor! 1,000MWe!

Scenario!2! 1!×!45MWe!light!water!SMR! 45MWe!

Scenario!3! 5!×!45MWe!light!water!SMRs! 225MWe!

Scenario!4! 24!×!45MWe!light!water!SMRs! 1,080MWe*

Scenario!5! 1!×!225MWe!light!water!SMR! 225MWe!

Overnight*capital*cost*!

The!scope!of!the!speci=ic!overnight!cost!value!we!elicited!is!the!lump!sum!payment!that!a!utility!transfers!to!a!vendor!to!acquire!the!plant!in!question.!In!other!words,!it!is!the!cost!of!the!plant!to!the!utility!in!2011!dollars,!excluding!=inancing!and!owner’s!cost.!Also,!the!cost!is!that!of!an!nthBofBaBkind!(NOAK)!plant.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The!speci=ic!overnight!cost!estimates!above!can!be!multiplied!by!the!capacity!of!each!

scenario!to!arrive!at!estimates!of!total!“project”!overnight!cost:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Expert*valuation*of*promised*SMR**economic*and*safety*advantages*!

A!review!of!the!literature!yields!a!list!of!factors!that!authors!tout!as!SMRBspeci=ic!economic!and!safety!advantages.!We!asked!experts!for!their!judgment!as!to!the!value!of!each!of!these!factors,!which!they!rendered!by!checking!–!for!each!factor!–!one!of!seven!boxes!on!a!sevenBpoint!scale.!The!two!=igures!below!reproduce!their!results:!the!darker!the!box,!the!more!experts!checked!it.!Each!number!denotes!the!number!of!experts!who!checked!that!particular!box.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!There!was!consensus!that!factory!fabrication!and!shorter!construction!schedules!are!of!value.!

Experts!agreed!that!iPWRs!do!not!constitute!a!paradigm!shift!when!it!comes!to!safety.!Issues!that!vendors,!customers,!and!regulators!are!concerned!with!are!present!in!iPWR!designs!also.!

We!thank!the!Steinbrenner!Institute!and!the!Center!for!Climate!and!Energy!Decision!Making,!both!at!Carnegie!Mellon!University,!for!their!support!of!this!work.!We!also!thank!

the!Crown!Prince’s!International!Scholarship!Program,!Bahrain.!

The*main*question*is*one*of*capital*cost!!The!capital!investment!required!to!build!a!conventional!nuclear!plant!dominates!the!cost!of!operating!

and!maintaining!the!plant!over!its!lifetime![2].!None!of!these!SMRs!has!been!built,!so!there!are!no!data!that!allow!for!a!bottomBup!cost!comparison.!

!Here,*we*conduct*a*topPdown*investigation*of*the*cost*of*deploying*two*light*water*

SMR*designs.*We*consider*two*economic*characteristics:*overnight*cost*and*construction*duration.*

!We! focus! on! light! water! SMRs! because! they! are! in! line! with! the! existing! regulatory! framework!

employed!by!the!U.S.!Nuclear!Regulatory!Commission![3].!Therefore,!they!are!likely!to!hold!potential! for!deployment!in!the!nearBtoBmedium!term.!!

We! investigate! a! subset! of! light!water! SMRs! called! integral! light! water!reactors! (or! integral! pressurized! water!reactors:! iPWRs).! These! reactors,! as!their! name! implies,! integrate! the!components! found! in! a! conventional!reactor’s!containment!dome!into!a!single!pressure!vessel.!This!vessel!is!called!the!“module”.!These!components!are!(1)!the!nuclear! core,! (2)! the! steam! generator,!(3)! the! pressurizer,! and! (4)! the!associated! nuclearBgrade! plumbing.!Figure!sources![4!–!5].!

SMRBspeci=ic!!economic!advantages$

SMRBspeci=ic!!safety!advantages$

! !Overnight cost estimates elicited from each expert for each of the five scenarios. The solid horizontal line is the EIA’s 2011 estimate of the overnight cost of a dual-unit power plant ($5,300/kWe). The dashed line is an estimate of Gen III+ overnight cost made by a 2011 Argonne/Chicago/Stanford study ($4,200/kWe). The dotted line is the “common

assumption” of Gen III+ overnight cost made at the start of the twenty-first century, adjusted to 2011$ using the Power Capital Cost Index (PCCI) and the Consumer Price Index (CPI)!($2,500/kWe). Note that these three estimates include owner’s cost. Expert L provided estimates that included owner’s cost.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

A B C D E F G H I J K L A B C D E F G H I J K L A B C D E F G H I J K L A B C D E F G H I J K L A B C D E F G H I J K L

1 2 3 4 5

Ove

rnig

ht

Cos

t ($

/kW

e)

Expert Scenario

“Common assumption” of Gen III+ costs at the dawn of the nuclear revival [6] 2011 estimate of Gen III+ costs: Argonne National Labs/Chicago/Stanford [7]

2011 estimate of Gen III+ costs: Energy Information Administration [8]

!Overnight project cost (in millions of dollars) for the four SMR scenarios under investigation. Expert L provided estimates that included owner’s cost

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

A B C D E F G H I J K L

Ove

rnig

ht

Cos

t ($

x 1

06)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

A B C D E F G H I J K L 0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

A B C D E F G H I J K L 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

A B C D E F G H I J K L Expert

Scenario 3 5 × 45MWe

Scenario 4 24 × 45MWe

Scenario 5 1 × 225MWe

Scenario 2 1 × 45MWe

http://www.pennenergy.com/etc/medialib/nuclearBpower_!international/2010/mar.Par.62127.Image.400.193.1.gif!

Through*a*technical,*structured*elicitation,*the*judgments*of*12*experts*are*elicited*concerning*Uive*reactor*deployment*

scenarios.*These*scenarios*are*presented*below:*