The role of the reactor size for an investment in the nuclear sector: An evaluation of not-financial parameters

Progress in Nuclear Energy

Bingham

Mancini

2014

Self Cite

183

A key challenge for engineers and scientists over the coming decades is to develop and deploy power plants with sufficient capacity and flexibility to meet the growing demand for energy (mainly electrical) whilst simultaneously reducing emissions (primarily greenhouse gases). With fusion-based power plants not currently being considered viable for large-scale deployment for at least 40 years, other technologies must to be considered. Renewable and high efficiency combined gas-fired plants, along with nuclear solutions, are regarded as the most suitable candidates, with Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) developing as a favoured choice. However, two main impediments to the current deployment of SMRs exist: (1) safety concerns, particularly following the Fukushima accident, and (2) their economic models, with high capital costs only being available through a limited number of investors. The goal of this paper is to provide a review and a holistic assessment of this class of nuclear reactor, with specific focus on the most common technology: the Light Water Reactor (LWR). In particular, the paper provides a state-of-the-art assessment of their life cycle, along with a comparison of their relative merits with other base-load technologies. It is shown that SMRs are a suitable choice when the power to be installed is in the range 1-3 GWe and the social aspects of the investment, such as the creation of new employment positions, is a goal of policy makers. The paper thereby provides governments and stakeholders with key economic and social boundaries for the viable deployment of SMRs.

Section: Non Financial Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[18,44] • SMRs can represent the ideal solution for "nuclear newcomers" without significant prior experience in building and operating nuclear reactors: to build and operate an SMR requires much less prior knowledge than LR counterparts [40].…”

Section: Evaluation Of Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Small modular reactors: A comprehensive overview of their economics and strategic aspects

Progress in Nuclear Energy

Bingham

Mancini

2014

Self Cite

183

“…(Boarin et al 2012) provide a full economic analysis reaching the same conclusions for a large plant vs. SMR plant comparison; (Locatelli & Mancini 2011a) offer a portfolio level analysis of large versus SMR plants. (Locatelli & Mancini 2011b) nonfinancial parameters such as electric grid vulnerability, public acceptance, the risk associated with the project, on the evaluation of the best reactor size for investment in the nuclear sector. For many of these parameters, the authors show many benefits of SMR respect to LR.…”

Section: The Key Idea: Load Following By Cogenerationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cogeneration: An option to facilitate load following in Small Modular Reactors

Progress in Nuclear Energy

Fiordaliso

Boarin

et al. 2017

Self Cite

Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) have been historically deployed to cover the base-load of the electricity demand. Nowadays some NPPs might perform daily load cycling operation (i.e. load following) between 50% and 100% of their rated power. With respect to the insertion of control rods or comparable action to reduce the nuclear power generation, a more L F C of power, respect to the electricity demand, to an auxiliary system. A suitable cogeneration system needs:1. To have a demand of electricity and/or heat in the region of 500 MWt 1 GWt;2. To meet a significant market demand;3. To have access to adequate input to process; 4. To be flexible: cogeneration might operate at full load during the night when the request (of) for electricity is low, and be turned off during the daytime.From the economic standpoint, it is essential that the investment in the auxiliary system is profitable. This paper provides a techno-economic assessment of systems suitable for coupling with a NPP for load following. The results show that district heating, desalination and hydrogen might be technically and economically feasible.

“…Once these factors are considered, the capital cost is comparable between the two technologies (Boarin et al, 2012;Carelli et al, 2008). Locatelli and Mancini (2011b) discuss the effects of 'non-financial parameters', such as electric grid vulnerability, public acceptance, risk associated with the project and others, on the evaluation of the best reactor size for an investment in the nuclear sector. For many of these parameters, they explain how SMRs show an advantage with respect to LRs.…”

Section: The Case For Small Modular Reactorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Appraisal of small modular nuclear reactors with ‘real options’ valuation

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Energy

Pecoraro

Meroni³

et al. 2017

Self Cite

2 3 4Small modular nuclear reactors have the advantage of flexibility in deployment and shorter construction time compared with large reactors. Investment appraisals in the energy sector are traditionally based on discounted cash flow, but this tends to underestimate the value of management flexibility during the decision-making process. The 'real options' valuation method can better support an investment appraisal. This paper, leveraging the real options approach, gives an account of two key strategic aspects to support the decision-making process in building small modular reactors: the time to market with the relative stage-gate process and the effect of a new plant on the existing portfolio. This paper assesses small modular reactors against other base-load power plants and, once applied to the UK scenario, it shows the superior performance of small modular reactors.differential coefficient' of a linear exercise threshold dp differential price dz differential Wiener process e Euler's number E expected ECTC t expected cost to complete the construction at time t ECTC threshold expected cost to complete the construction threshold ECTD t expected cost to complete the design at time t ECTD threshold expected cost to complete the design threshold G* gas price triggering the investment G 0 gas price at the time now G t gas price at time t I is the investment rate K remaining cost,'multiplication factor' of a linear exercise threshold P* price triggering the investment P 0 price at the time now P LB lower bound price P lim price limit P SR sharpe ratio price