Identification, Assessment and User Requirements of ...€¦ · Jordan Atomic Energy Commission Matrix Assessment Criteria Following is a detailed Assessment Criteria Matrix: General

Jordan Atomic Energy Commission

Identification, Assessment and User Requirements of Advanced SMRs for Electricity Generation in Jordan

Monday, July 8, 2019

Dr. Kamal J. ArajJordan Atomic Energy Commission

Second Meeting of the Technical Working Group for Small and Medium-sized or Modular Reactor (TWG-SMR)

8 – 11 July 2019Vienna International Centre

۱


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

MW

Conventional Coincident Renewable Gap Load

166

409

663

931

1167

1413

2405

2672

2951

3535

4244

4944

5272

5613

5970

7640

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

MW

Gap

Jordan Power Balance (2017-2040) [updated]


Jordan Requirements

• GIII+ or better technology• Demonstrated safety level with passive safety features • Grid compatibility• To be deployable in 2028 time frame as Nth of a kind• Added advantage for ability for co-generation, process heat, etc.• Limited EPZ to site boundary• Possibility of dry cooling• Design to withstand 0.3-0.45 g or greater• Enhanced protection against external hazards• Tariff to off taker competitive with average generation price• Transportability of equipment

۳


Technology Assessment

As s e s s me nt of s e le cte d SMR te chnologie s is be ing conducte d in twomain phas e s .

• Down- s e le cting the mos t advance d and compe titive te chnologie s that are de ployable and viable in Jordan

• Exchange of information with the s e le cte d T e chnology Provide rs• Information re ce ive d will the n be matche d to a initia l as s e s s me nt cr ite r ia matr ix

1s t Phas e(Ge ne r ic

As s e s s me nt Phas e )

Pre paration of a Fe as ibility Studie s (FS) bas e d on the s hor t- lis te d te chnologie s2nd Phas e

4


Technology Assessment ApproachT he diffe re nce s be twe e n te chnologie s and the ir impact on Jordan will beas s e s s e d through r igorous e valuation me thodologie s de s igne d to br ing fullvis ibility and trans pare ncy:

As s e s s me nt of the ve ndor te chnology towards Ke y Factors (important for Jordan)

Evaluation Matr ix

Be s t- in- Clas s for e ach e valuation cr ite r ia

Price unde r compe titive e nvironme nt

5


Key Factor EvaluationKe y Factor 1 2 3

1. Ge ne ral Safe ty De s ign

2. Exclus ion Zone

3. Se ismic

4. Aircraft Crash

5. Fukushima Daiichi Le s sons

6. Digital I&C Sys tems

7. Licens ing, De s ign Ce rtification, and Operating Expe rience

8. Fue l Supply and Se curity

9. Radioactive Was te Management

10. T he rmal Efficiency

11. Ope rability & Maintainability (including availability)

12. Cooling Wate r De s ign

13. Ve ndor Long T e rm Sus tainability

14. Back End of the Fue l Cycle

15. Non prolife ration

T otal

6


Matrix Assessment CriteriaFollowing is a detailed Assessment Criteria Matrix:

General ( meeting current international licenseability requirements, areas of risks, vendor and owner responsibilities, etc.) Design ( design lifetime, efficiency, design adaptation to Jordan’s environment and site characteristics, cooling, foot print

and plant layout, etc) Operation and maintenance (refueling outages, regular maintenance, staffing for operation and maintenance, etc.) Construction (Construction period, approach of modular construction and assembly, manufacturing capabilities,

transportation of heavy equipment, etc.) Reactor performance (Availability, efficiency, load follow capability, etc.) Nuclear Safety (Defense in depth, operational safety, internal and external hazards, passive safety features, grace period,

CDF, LERF, etc.) Fuel cycle, waste management and non-proliferation (Nuclear Fuel design and safety, SNF pool design and capacity, fuel

handling system to deal with failed fuel elements, experience in fuel supply, experience in waste management and reduction of waste, etc)

Licensing and operating experience ( proven design, compliance with IAEA safety standards, reference design, etc.) Vendor long term commitment (vendor readiness, localization, etc.) Economic (Capex, O&M, LCOE)

7


Technical Matrix Evaluation Criteria

Category Group Weight

General 5Design 7Operations and Maintenance 11.5Construction 9Reactor Performance 7Safety of the Reactor Design 16.5

Fuel Cycle, Waste Management and Non Proliferation 10.5

International Licensing and Operating Experience 14Vendor Long Term Commitment 11Site and Infrastructure 8.5

Total 100


Best-in-Class

An alternative way to evaluate the plant technology, and it is intended to complementthe evaluation matrix using a simple rule:

Best technology for each evaluation criteria is given a gold medal, and thesecond a silver medal and so on

۹


Economic Evaluation Approach

Economic Evaluation proce s s :

De taile d re vie w of Capital Cos t and

adjus tme nts .

Adjus te d Capital Cos t input to LCOE.

T e chnical Evaluation input for Fue l and

O&M pre pare d for LCOE analys is .

Se ns itivity and Ris ks .

10


Overall Evaluation

Category Group Weight General 3.63Design 5.08Operations and Maintenance 8.34Construction 6.53Reactor Performance 5.08Safety of the Reactor Design 11.96Fuel Cycle, Waste Management and Non Proliferation 7.61International Licensing and Operating Experience 10.15Vendor Long Term Commitment 7.98Site and Infrastructure 6.16Total technical 72.5Economic 27.5Total 100


Overall Evaluation Cate gory Group Weight 1 Weight 2Ge ne ral 4 3.5De s ign 5.6 4.9Ope rations and Mainte nance 8 9.1Cons truction 8 5.6Re actor Pe rformance 5.6 4.9Safe ty of the Re actor De s ign 14.4 10.5Fue l Cycle , Was te Manage me nt and Non Prolife ration 8.8 7Inte rnational Lice ns ing and Ope rating Expe r ie nce 12 9.1Ve ndor Long T e rm Commitme nt 8 8.4Site and Infras tructure 5.6 7T otal te chnical 80 70Economic 20 30T otal 100 100

12


Methodology Unit 1 2 3

Key Factor Evaluation % of total score

Evaluation Matrix %

Best-in-Class Number of gold medalsout of 88

Adjusted Price($/KWe)LCOE

Summary Decision Table

13


SMRs in Consideration HT R- 600 HT R- 200 SMART RIT M NuScale Xe - 100

Chine s e HT R

• Powe r pe r module :

111.7 MWe

(gros s )

104 MWe (ne t)

• 6 units /plant

• Effic ie ncy: 44%

• 0.3 g s e is micity

• Online re fue ling

Chine s e HT R


110.5 MWe

(gros s )

103 MWe (ne t)

• 2 units /plant




South Kore an iPWR


123 MWe (gros s )

103 MWe (ne t)

• 2 units /plant



• 30- 36 month

re fue ling cycle

Rus s ian iPWR


57 MWe (gros s )

52.5 MWe (ne t)

• 6 units /plant



• 48- 72 month

re fue ling cycle

Ame rican iPWR


60 MWe (gros s )

57.5 MWe (ne t)

• 12 units /plant



• 24 month re fue ling

cycle

Ame rican HT R


81.5 MWe (gros s )

75 MWe (ne t)

• 4 units /plant

• Effic ie ncy: 40.8%




Comparison of SMRs (1/3)

15

parameter HTR-600 HTR-200 SMART RITM NuScale Xe-100

Country of origin/Designer

China / INET, Tsinghua

University

China / INET, Tsinghua

University

South Korea /KAERI

Russia/ OKBM Afrikantov

USA/ NuScalePower LLC

USA / X-Energy LLC

Type Pebble Bed HTGR Pebble Bed HTGR iPWR iPWR iPWR Pebble Bed HTGR

Gross electrical capacity (MWe / module) 111.7 110.5 123 57 60 81.5

Net electrical capacity (MWe / module) 104 103 103 52.5 57.5 75

Gross Efficiency (%) 44 44 33 32 31 40

Modules / plant 6 2 2 6 12 4

Plant’s Footprint (m2) 380,000 275,000 120,000 121,400 141,640 131,712



16


Capacity Factor (%) > 90 > 90 > 90 90 > 95 95

Seismicity (g) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3

Safety Approach\trains Inherent Passive\3 trains

Inherent Passive\3 trains Passive\ 4 trains

Passive \ 2 trains

& Active\ 2 trains

Passive \ 2 trains

Inherent Passive \ 4 trains

CDF (per reactor year) NEGL NEGL < 10-6 < 10-5 3 x 10 -10 NEGL

Fuel enrichment (%) 8.5 8.5 < 5 < 20 < 4.95 15.5

Fuel Burn up (GWd/ton) 98 98 54 166 62 160

Fuel Cycle (months) On-line Refueling On-line Refueling 30-36 48-72 24 On-line Refueling

Cooling water quantity (m3/MWe.hour) * 3.343 3.348 3.392 4.400 3.775 0.521

*The values for All designs consider freshwater-wet cooling option except Xe-100 that considers dry cooling option based on available data



17*Construction duration is determined as the period between First Concrete Date (FCD) and Commercial Operation Date (COD) for NOAK design


Plant Configuration Option Above-ground Above-ground Above-groundOffshore (floating)

or onshore (aboveground)

Under-groundAbove or under ground (under evaluation in conceptual design)

Construction Duration *(months)

60 60 36 36 48 54

Design lifetime (years) 60 60 60 60 60 60

Design/ license status

- The demo. HTR-200 is under construction, Shidao bay, China

- Expected to be operational in 2019.

- potential sites at Bai-an (Guangdong), Wan-an (Fujian) and San-men (Zhejiang) are being considered for constructing HTR-600.

- The demo. HTR-200 is under construction, Shidao bay, China

- Expected to be operational in 2019

- Certified (SDA)- Under PPE design

phase.- Expected Construction in 2019-2020

-Design Approval-FOAK’s site license in Russia will be obtained by 2021.-FCD (construction license is obtained) by 2023 and COD by 2027.

- Under Design Certificate Application (DCA) /FSAR Review by USNRC. FSER to be complete in 2020.

- COD of FOAK’s design is by 2026

-Conceptual Design

- Preparing for USNRC DCA

Available Areas and Sites


Amra Region

۱۹


Candidate Areas & Sites for Majdal3 Candidate Areas 6 Candidate Sites

۲۰

Jordan Atomic Energy Commission21

Aqaba North

Region 3

Aqaba East


Overall Evaluation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

A B C D E F

Economic

Site and Infrastructure

Vendor Long Term Commitment

International Licensing and Operating Experience

Fuel Cycle, Waste Management and NonProliferation

Safety of the Reactor Design

Reactor Performance

Construction

Operations and Maintenance

Design

General


Project Structure

All Vendors have been relayed the following:

Total Project Debt to Equity is expected at 30% equity and 70% debt or better.

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is expected to be 6-10%. The levelized tariff of electricity generated from the plant is competitive to what is in Jordan 8-10 US cents per kilowatt hour.

The partner will be the Government of Jordan. Who is best able to manage the risk will be responsible for it.

The partner will be presented with incentives and tax breaks at par with the other IPP that have come and invested in Jordan.


Project Structure (2)

24

Joint Venture Operation 2028 Take-or-Pay PPA (20 -30 years) Competitive electricity price Tax breaks/exemptions agreed by both parties (Project or special

economic zone tax breaks). IRR 6%-10% Financing

competitive rate – 25 loan period -18 years’ repayment periodNo sovereign guarantee during constructionSovereign during operation via PPA


Business Model


Next StepsFinalize Technical Evaluation

Conduct Economic & Financial Assessment

Conduct BIS or Beauty Contest

Select Preferred Technology Provider

Justification of Investment

26


Baseline Timeline

End 2019: Finalization of all Technology AssessmentsFeasibility Study and Investment Decision

Mid 2020: Signing of All Project Agreements (EPC, PPA, FA HGA, SFA)

2025-26 FOAK Operational in Country of Origin

2028: COD of NOAK in Jordan


Project Risks

28

FOAK, lack of operating history Lisensability by EMRC and Reference Plant concept

No clear IAEA Safety Standards for SMR Little experience with HTR designs Licensing fees and schedule cannot copy Large LWR

Competitive price with alternatives (RE and natural gas) and large reactors Adequate & reasonable solution for spent fuel and radioactive waste

management Security implications Financing Supply chain Localization potential 123 Agreement with U.S.

Jordan Atomic Energy Commission29

Thank You

Documents

Identification, Assessment and User Requirements of ...€¦ · Jordan Atomic Energy Commission Matrix Assessment Criteria Following is a detailed Assessment Criteria Matrix: General