On the day before Budget 2020, on 10
March, a curious organisation called Energy
Systems Catapult (ESC) published a report ‘Innovating to Net Zero’ (https://es.catapult.org.uk/reports/innovating-to-net-zero/).
Its own publicity material stated: “A new report by Energy Systems Catapult has found Net Zero by 2050 is possible if the UK
supports innovation and scale-up across three essential areas – Low Carbon
Technology, Land Use and Lifestyle.
The Innovating to Net Zero report
modelled 100s of potential pathways to 2050 – ramping up or down different
technologies and behaviour changes – to understand the combinations,
interactions and trade-offs of competing decarbonisation approaches.
Meeting the UK’s Net Zero target will
require unprecedented innovation across the economy. Innovation not just in new
technologies, but in new ways of deploying existing technologies, new business
models, new consumer offerings, and, crucially, new policy, regulation and
market design”.
In coverage that was afforded high profile on BBC news platforms across the
day, Roger Harrabin BBC environment analyst, (Climate change: UK 'can't go
climate neutral before 2050',” BBC on line, 10 March 2020 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51804212
observed wryly :
“Controversially, it
calls for small, modular nuclear reactors to support three-quarters
of heating in cities through district heating systems. Modular reactors are
much smaller than conventional reactors, and brought to a site in a kit of
parts to be assembled.”
ESC made substantial
use of research and energy modelling done by the now defunct Energy
Technologies Institute, which was a public-private partnership between global energy and engineering companies and the UK Government.
Mike Middleton,
Practice Manager for Nuclear at ETI – whom he had joined in April 2013 – transferred to ESC as Practice Manager for Nuclear at ESC in
summer of 2019
On arriving at ESC , Middleton
wrote the following nuclear cheer-leading article, titled:
“New nuclear can earn its place within the energy mix” (Energy Strategies Catapult: 23 July 2019; https://es.catapult.org.uk/comments/new-nuclear-can-earn-its-place-within-the-energy-mix-by-mike-middleton/)
“New
nuclear does not need to be expensive and can earn its place within the energy
mix driving a Net Zero economy.
A combination of Government initiatives to
enable access to affordable finance and learning from nuclear deployment
programmes elsewhere illustrates how to further reduce nuclear project
schedules, risks and costs.
For the last 50 years nuclear energy has been
part of the diverse mix of power generation in the UK. However, most of
the UK nuclear power reactors operating today are expected to begin
decommissioning over the next decade. Construction is now well underway
at EDF’s Hinkley Point C new nuclear power station; this is the first plant to
be built since completion of the single unit pressurised water reactor at
Sizewell B in 1995. EDF report that construction at Hinkley Point C is
currently on track.
A range of scenarios and analysis reports
illustrate the system value of nuclear technology alongside other low carbon
technologies in decarbonising the UK’s economy. The relative contribution
from each of these low carbon technologies varies between these reports which
is not surprising. The extent of deployment of new nuclear is often
limited by the associated uncertainties, and from analysis these uncertainties
are relatively consistent:
·
Can the costs for new
nuclear be expected to reduce?
·
Can the perceived
risks associated with new nuclear build projects be addressed with confidence
so that such projects are attractive to potential investors?
·
How can investors be
secured, to finance such projects at an affordable cost of capital?
Addressing these uncertainties is important if
nuclear energy is to play a significant role in a decarbonised UK economy,
which would require a pipeline of projects beyond EDF’s Hinkley Point C and
Sizewell C and deliver associated benefits through infrastructure investment
for the UK economy.
In the Nuclear Sector Deal announced 27th
June 2018, the UK Government committed to keeping under consideration a range
of financing options when deciding how to proceed with future new nuclear
projects. Through negotiations with Horizon’s Wylfa Newydd project, the
UK Government demonstrated the willingness to engage with project developers on
this matter. The UK Government also committed to reviewing the viability of a
regulated asset base as a sustainable funding model for future projects beyond
Wylfa Newydd. Whilst these commitments may bring forward solutions to the
uncertainty of affordable funding, the uncertainties of cost and risk reduction
remain.
The Energy Technologies Institute paper titled
“Update to the role for nuclear in UK’s transition to a low carbon economy”
summaries the learning from its Nuclear Cost Drivers project which was
commissioned to address these two other uncertainties. The insight paper concluded
that contemporary giga-watt scale reactors are the only designs ready to be
deployed in the UK in numbers between 2025 and 2035.
The Nuclear Cost Drivers project was based on
recently completed or nearly completed reactor projects together with expert facilitated
interviews with senior personnel involved in the delivery of these projects.
This project demonstrated that there was strong evidence of applicable cost
reduction in the UK, but collective action was required by all project
stakeholders, including Government, to bring about the integrated programme of
activities necessary to realise this potential.
The project revealed from an international
perspective that whilst there were troubled nuclear projects in Finland, France
and the United States, there were many more projects from elsewhere including
Japan, Korea and China that used repeatable engineering with shorter and more
predictable project schedules. Such projects typically benefitted from
higher productivity levels in direct labour and indirect services,
demonstrating the pathway to shorter projects with lower costs and less risk.
The ETI insight concludes that further
evaluation of a potential UK integrated program could lead to better
understanding the range of UK policy options which can drive the nuclear cost
reduction curve.
Nuclear energy can be an important technology is the
UK’s transition to a carbon neutral economy and does not have to be expensive.”
[Mike Middleton is practice manager for nuclear
at the Energy Systems Catapult (Image courtesy of EDF).]
|
Then, last Autumn,
BEIS released a study it had commissioned from contractors, on nuclear
options (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/845660/energy-innovation-needs-assessment-nuclear-fission.pdf”
The nuclear sub-theme report was released in October 2019 a part of
BEIS’ Energy Innovation Needs Assessment
“The nuclear energy
sub-theme analysis focusses exclusively on nuclear energy, covering three
categories of nuclear power: Generation III (Gen III), Small Modular Reactors
(SMRs) and Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs). These technologies, with
different deployment timelines and energy system benefits, present important
innovation opportunities to bring system benefits. Nuclear fusion is out of
scope as technology remains in early development and experimental phase.
Gen III reactors are
advanced versions of Generation II designs, which were built in the UK until
the 1990s and are currently in use. Gen III reactors typically have improved
fuel technology, superior thermal efficiency, passive safety systems and
standardised design for reduced maintenance and capital costs. Gen III+
reactors are similar in design to Gen II but have more advanced safety
systems.
SMRs are reactors
under 300-500 MW which have been built using modular techniques. The ideal
size is a balance between manufacturing needs and economies of the reactor.
SMRs typically use Gen III technology and have deployment times estimated
around 2030.
AMRs are considered
“revolutionary” in design, as opposed to “evolutionary”, and as such qualify
as a new technology. They can be of small capacity, or full-scale nuclear
plant projects, and can be modularised. Reactor types and types of fuel vary
significantly depending on the design. AMRs differ from conventional
reactors, which use pressurised or boiling water for primary cooling.
AMRs aim to maximise
the amount of off-site factory fabrication and can also provide different
benefits:
• Low-low cost
electricity generation.
• Increased
flexibility.
• Increased
functionality (heat output for district heating or production of hydrogen).
There is a variety of
technologies within AMRs and some are closer to deployment than others. Some
reactors could be deployed in the 2030s while others such as sodium-cooled
reactors could become operative from the 2040s onwards.
This report has four
sections:
• Nuclear and the
whole energy system: Describes the role of nuclear fission in the energy
system, based on ESME modelling performed by the ESC.
• Innovation opportunities:
Provides lists of the key innovations available within nuclear fission, and
their approximate impact on costs.
• Business
opportunities: Summarises the export opportunities of biomass and bioenergy,
the GVA and jobs supported by these opportunities, and how innovation helps
the UK capture the opportunities.
• Market barriers to
innovation: Highlights areas of innovation where market barriers are high and
energy system cost reductions and business opportunities significant.”
Background to the
Energy Innovation Needs Assessment
“The Energy
Innovation Needs Assessment (EINA) aims to identify the key innovation needs
across the UK’s energy system, to inform the prioritisation of public sector
investment in low-carbon innovation. Using an analytical methodology
developed by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy
(BEIS), the EINA takes a system-level approach, and values innovations in a
technology in terms of the system-level benefits a technology innovation
provides.1 This whole system modelling in line with BEIS’s EINA methodology
was delivered by the Energy Systems Catapult (ESC) using the Energy System
Modelling Environment (ESMETM) as the primary modelling tool.
To support the
overall prioritisation of innovation activity, the EINA process analyses key
technologies in more detail. These technologies are grouped together into
sub-themes, according to the primary role they fulfil in the energy system.
For key technologies within a sub-theme, innovations and business
opportunities are identified. The main findings, at the technology level, are
summarised in sub-theme reports. An overview report will combine the findings
from each sub-theme to provide a broad system-level perspective and
prioritisation.
This EINA analysis is based on a combination of desk
research by a consortium of economic and engineering consultants, and
stakeholder engagement. The prioritisation of innovation and business
opportunities presented is informed by a workshop organised for each
sub-theme, assembling key stakeholders from the academic community, industry
and government.
This report was
commissioned prior to advice being received from the CCC on meeting a net
zero target and reflects priorities to meet the previous 80% target in 2050.
The newly legislated net zero target is not expected to change the set of
innovation priorities, rather it will make them all more valuable overall.
Further work is required to assess detailed implications.”
|
Philip New, Chief Executive Officer, states in the foreword
to the ESC report issued on 10 March 2020
“The brilliant British companies we work with
every day are devising new platforms, offers, technologies and services: from
new ways of generating nuclear power to storing and supplying energy; from
managing our networks in a more flexible way to heating our homes and charging
our cars; integrating the digital with the
physical, creating solutions for consumers that will deliver clean economic
growth.”
The backers of this work at ETI, carried over to ESC, included EDF Energy & Rolls Royce along with the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial
Strategy, all heavy nuclear backers.
Here are
some key extracts from the report that highlight
nuclear issues:
page 20
Patchwork
– a decentralised
pathway to Net Zero
In Patchwork, central Government
takes less of a leading role,
resulting in a patchwork of
regional low carbon strategies.
A programme for large nuclear
plants does not progress beyond
Hinkley Point C and two others,
although regions with a history
of nuclear power favour small
modular reactors (SMRs)
page 25
In Patchwork, there is greater
migration of the population to
major cities, which are more
suited for district heat networks.
Early heat networks are small and
most of the heat is provided by
gas and biomass CHP systems.
Heat offtake from thermal power
generators provides additional
energy as heat networks grow.
However, as carbon constraints
begin to limit operation of these
plants, heat must be provided by
other means. Solutions depend
on the region with some areas
making use of geothermal
resources, whilst others rely on
large-scale heat pumps. Some
areas
adopt nuclear small
modular
reactors, exploiting the
waste
heat from these plants.
Innovation needs for electricity
generation:
page
37
Support a basket of options,
given ongoing uncertainty.
For wind, this includes RD&D
for floating turbines, but
also continued significant
deployment of fixed offshore
wind farms. All our scenarios
see expansion of onshore wind
farms in the near term, given
their proven cost effectiveness.
• For nuclear, our
previous
analysis has shown how a
carefully designed programme
that engages all of the key
stakeholders with a shared
focus on the key characteristics
of low cost and high quality
construction can start the UK
down the path to affordable
nuclear power6.
…We also tested the possible
role of advanced nuclear
for hydrogen production,
drawing on data from one of
the engineering deep-dives in
our wider Net Zero Insights
programme.
page 38 The Japanese Atomic Energy
Agency (JAEA) has demonstrated
hydrogen production from
a sulphur-iodine cycle using
the heat supply from hightemperature
gas-cooled
reactors (HTGR).
Across a range of cost
assumptions, deployment of
these HTGRs looked favourable in
ESME, with annual production of
50-100TWh of hydrogen in 2050.
page 39
The accompaniment of largescale
heat storage would
alleviate some of this pressure
by smoothing out the demand
for electricity and providing a
reliable source for provision
of heat during daily peaks. In
addition to heat storage, further
reserve capacity is likely to be
needed to cope with extreme
cold weather events. For this,
the simplest low carbon solution
would be large-scale boilers
fuelled by hydrogen.
Small modular nuclear reactors
(e.g. 300 megawatts) offer the
potential for combined heat
and power as part of a more
distributed energy system, but
will require these small reactors
to be sited closer to population
centres (e.g. within 20km).
Crucially, this will depend on
political and social acceptance.
Areas with a history of nuclear
energy facilities and the
associated job opportunities
this can bring are likely to be
the first to support early trials. In
the meantime, local area energy
planning will require careful
phasing to maintain the option of
plugging in nuclear SMRs subject
to successful demonstration.
Innovation needs for
network heat:
• Robust, consistent and detailed
local area energy planning
will be essential to understand
the optimal phasing of heat
network deployment in any
given region, building out
from urban centres to more
suburban areas over time.
Options for heat supply,
storage and peak reserve can
be evaluated for each phase
of network deployment.
• UK deployment of tried and
tested solutions elsewhere
in the world, including
geothermal, heat pumps,
heat storage will deliver cost
reductions through learningby-
doing.
• Nuclear small modular reactors
require support through the
design and demonstration
stages. It is crucial that their
full potential for combined
heat and power is recognized
and demonstrated.
page 55
Over the course of this
Parliament, policy should
focus on:
• Large-scale
developments,
such as new nuclear, which will
require significant support
from Government. This could
come in the form of the
recently proposed Regulated
Asset Base (RAB) model12 to
secure private investment or
alternative models of risk
allocation to keep the cost of
capital as low as possible (see
Costing Net Zero). Government
should also bear down on the
costs of nuclear new build
projects, potentially taking a
fleet approach which learns
from previous reactor builds
and implementing a welldesigned
programme that
incorporates multiple project
performance and cost
reduction opportunities13.
• R&D funding and deployment
support for new and emerging
technologies that are key for
Net Zero, for example, floating
offshore wind and small
modular reactors (SMR).
Endnotes for the new ESC study include: :
ETI
(2018). Nuclear Cost Drivers Project.
ETI (2019). Update to
the Role for Nuclear in UK’s Transition to a Low Carbon Economy.
Informative post. Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteCompare Business Gas Prices