1 98

Providing the competitiveness of nuclear energy in the implementation of

PRORYV project

D. Tolstoukhov1

1ITCP «PRORYV», Moscow, Russian Federation

E-mail contact: tda@proryv2020.ru

Abstract. In the report considered the comparative competitiveness of NPPs and power plants with fossil fuel, renewable energy sources. Considered criteria of competitiveness for NPPs, allowing to ensure the effective development of nuclear power, taking into account of improving the technical and economic performance of alternative generation. Fixed the requirements for the technical and economic parameters of NPP FRs and closed NFC.

Key Words: Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Competitiveness, Fast Reactor, Technical and Economic Parameters

1. Introduction

Currently reduce in the share of nuclear energy (NE) there is in the world in the global energy mix. In the future authoritative organization engaged in intelligence issues of global energy development, predict a possible reduce the share of NE to the level of single digits [1, 2]. The basic condition for the development of modern NE is its competitiveness, which is directly related with security problems. Efforts to solve the issues of security build-up additional protection systems at NPPs naturally led to an increase in related costs and, as a consequence, reduce the competitiveness of the NE compared to alternative types of generation.

NPPs with thermal reactors almost completely depleted its potential to improve competitiveness, this technology is mature. At the same time, alternative power generation technology is constantly improving their technical and economic parameters (TEP), this contributes to increasing their competitiveness. Especially rapidly developing in the last decade renewable energy technology (Wind and Solar electricity stations).

In this report compared the existing NPPs projects with thermal reactors (TR) and NPPs with fast reactors (FR), developed by the PRORYV project, in the context of competitiveness with alternative types of generation, taking into account all elements of life cycle, identified competitive conditions for NE in the long term.

2. Algorithm for the evaluation of competitiveness

As competing energy technologies are considered Combined Сycle Gas Turbine (CCGT), Wind, Solar and NPPs with TR and FR.

Evaluation of competitiveness of the considered types of generation conducted in terms of Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) [3] for Russians and foreign conditions.

A list of the key TEP, needed to calculation LCOE: capacity, useful output of electricity by year, cost of construction (format overnight cost) and construction time, operational expenses, fuel expenses (missing at Wind and Solar), life time, emissions СО2 (in case of CCGT).

2 98

With the use of the TEP model sets, generated by monitoring, calculations were carried out, which revealed a range of possible values of the LCOE for the consideration of energy technologies for the purpose of further comparison.

All calculations were carried out based on the price level 2014 (1$=32ruble). Herewith:

comparison for Russian conditions was carried out taking into account the dynamics of macroeconomic indicators by data of The Economy Ministry of Russia;

comparison for foreign conditions was carried out excluding dynamics of macroeconomic indicators, corresponding methodologies of International Energy Agency (IEA).

2.1. TEP foreign objects of generation

The initial TEP for foreign objects of generation taken on the results of monitoring conducted by the specialized structures of ROSATOM in collation with the IEA information.

Based on the analysis of initial TEP for foreign objects of generation, model sets of TEP were formed in three variants:

conservative (maximum CAPEX, operating and fuel costs, time of construction, minimum load factor);

optimal (minimum CAPEX, operating and fuel costs, time of construction, the maximum load factor);

medium (on average TEP).

2.2. TEP Russian objects of generation

As sources of information on Russian TEP generation facilities in the calculations used:

monitoring data and available expert assessments in the case of CCGT; design characteristics for NPP with VVER-TOI and requirements for perspective

industrial energy complex (IEC) with FR-1200; TEP for Wind and Solar taken according to the monitoring of foreign generation

facilities conducted by the specialized structures of ROSATOM (this is due to lack of development of this energy sector in Russia, the lack of a reference information for the needed set of TEP).

In a Table 1 presents the main macroeconomic parameters that were taken into account during the calculations.

Moreover, in the calculations was assumed that the considered energy technologies compared to the comparable macroeconomic conditions, implying commissioning of facilities in the same year. Life time of NPP taken at the level of 60 years, CCGT – 30 years, Wind and Solar – 25 years.

TABLE I. Macroeconomic parameters of the calculation methodology LCOE

Parameter Foreign projects Russian projects

Account of inflation component –+

(project of The Economy Ministry of Russia)

Account of features taxation – +

Account fee for emissions CО2 6-30 $/т CО2 6 $/т CО2 (*)

3 98

Currency calculation $ USA ruble RUS

Discount rate 3%; 7%; 10%

Moment bring calculation LCOE year of commissioning year of commissioning* monitoring data for the central European countries.

3. LCOE calculation for foreign objects of generation

3.1. TEP analysis for foreign objects of generation

In a Table 2 presents the model sets of TEP for foreign objects of generation, that have been formed:

in the part of Wind. Solar and CCGT on the results of monitoring; in the part of NPP with TR – on the results of analysis of integrated specifications,

presented in the IEA materials.

At the same time take into account the following parameters, that are important in terms of calculating LCOE for CCGT (depending on the particular model set of the TEP):

the cost of gas by 200 to 400 $/ thousand м3; fee for emissions CO2 in the range 6-30 $/т.

TABLE II. Model set of the TEP for foreign objects of generation

ParameterModel set of the TEP

Optimal Medium Conservative

Solar

Capacity, MW(e) 580 218 94

Load factor, % 21 18 16

CAPEX (overnight cost), $/kW 1 546 2 305 2 708

OPEX, $/MW.year 8 475 12 585 16 695

Construction time, years 1 1 2

Wind

Capacity, MW(e) 600 228 72

Load factor, % 40 35 28

CAPEX (overnight cost), $/kW 1 870 2 113 2 344

OPEX, $/MW.year 16 296 33 333 50 369

Construction time, years 2 3 4

CCGT

Capacity, MW(e) 900 681 394

4 98

Load factor, % 93 72 40

CAPEX (overnight cost), $/kW 953 1 060 1 429

OPEX, $/MW.year 17 821 34 155 47 309

Consumption of equivalent fuel (e.f.), g e.f./kW.h 200 240 282

Construction time, years 2 3 5

NPP

Capacity, MW(e) 1200 1200 1200

Load factor, % 85 85 85

CAPEX (overnight cost), $/kW 2 318 3 041 3 764

OPEX, $/MW.year 43 178 68 800 109 626

Fuel, $/МВт.ч 5,09 9,33 14,15

Construction time, years 5 7 9

3.2. LCOE calculation results for foreign objects of generation

On a Figure 1 presents the results of calculations LCOE for foreign objects of generation by optimal, medium and conservative model set of the TEP. The figure shows that the LCOE values obtained using the TEP on the results of monitoring, lie within the range of similar IEA expert evaluations, indicating the reliability of the calculations. Exceptions are evaluating LCOE for CCGT, due primarily, with differences in assessment maximum parameters by: consumption of equivalent fuel, construction time, load factor.

А) discount 10% Б) discount 7% В) discount 10%

FIG. 1. LCOE foreign objects of generation, cent/kW.h

3.3. Main conclusions for foreign objects of generation

On the results of calculations LCOE for foreign objects of generation to the following main conclusions:

5 98

1. The resulting average LCOE values for foreign projects at a discount rate of 10%, shows that NPPs with TR lose Wind and CCGT. The range of values obtained LCOE for these energy technologies are comparable.

2. The resulting average LCOE values for foreign projects at a discount rate of 7% compete with CCGT, but lose Wind. The range of values obtained LCOE for these energy technologies are comparable.

3. The resulting average LCOE values for foreign projects at a discount rate of 3%, shows that NPPs with TR compete with all types of generating. But competitive position of NPPs with TR is not stable.

4. LCOE calculation for Russian objects of generation

4.1. TEP analysis for Russian objects of generation

Calculation LCOE considered energy technologies for Russian conditions was carried out taking into account the dynamics of the index-deflator according to available forecast data to The Economy Ministry of Russia.

In the Table 3 presents the main TEP considered NPP with TR (VVER-TOI) and BR-1200 taking into account the costs of the entire life cycle. It is assumed that the BR-1200 works in a closed nuclear fuel cycle (NFC) regime, and the VVER-TOI - in open NFC regime, when spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and burying the resulting waste.

TABLE III. Key TEP of NPPs with VVER-TOI and FR-1200 (cost indicators in the prices 2014, without value added tax)

ParameterTEP considered NPPs

NPP with VVER-TOI NPP with FR-1200 (requirements)

Capacity of one Unit, MW(e) 1255 1220

Number of units on plant, шт. 2 2

Availability factor, % 93 93

Expenses of electricity for own needs, % 6,4 5

Useful output of electricity from one Unit, mln kW.h/year 9364 9239

Staff ratio, human/MW(e) 0,37 0,3

Fuel type oxide nitride

Specific CAPEX, thousand rubles/kW 90 74

Construction time, years 8 8

Life time, лет 60 60

In the Table 4 presents the main TEP for a typical CCGT on the medium and optimum variants.

Fuel costs for CCGT are calculated taking into account the price of natural gas for industrial consumers at the beginning of 2014 г. [6]. The growth of the natural gas price in the

6 98

calculation of LCOE taken into account in accordance with the consumer price index according to The Economy Ministry of Russia (by the 2020 year the natural gas price in Russia reaches 180 $/ thousand m3).

TABLE IV. Key TEP of CCGT by two variants (cost indicators in the prices 2014, without value added tax, 1$=32ruble)

ParameterTEP of Russian CCGT

Conservative TEP Optimal TEP

Uniform parameters

Capacity, MW(e) 410 410

OPEX, thousand rubles/MW.month 107,4 107,4

Expenses of electricity for own needs, % 3,3 3,3

Emissions CО2 (modern projects of CCGT), t/MW.h 0,2 0,2

Variable parameters for factor analysis

Load factor, %87

(the achieved level of Russian CCGT)

93 (best foreign practice)

Useful output of electricity, mln kW.h/year 2952 3126

Specific CAPEX, thousand rubles/kW 64,1 57,0

Specific consumption of equivalent fuel (e.f.), g e.f./kW.h 225 (medium data) 200 (best practice)

Cost of natural gas, rubles/thousand m3 ($/thousand м3)

3 840

(120)

3 520

(110)

Fee for emissions CO2, $/t 6 -

As we mentioned above, due to the lack of development of renewable energy technologies in Russia and the lack of any significant reference base required TEP, key Wind and Solar specifications for the calculation LCOE in the Russian conditions were taken by foreign sources shown in Table II.

4.2. LCOE calculation results for Russian objects of generation

In the Table 5 presents the results of calculations LCOE for optimal (best) TEP for each of the considered types of generation provided them construction in Russia.

TABLE V. Results of calculation LCOE by optimal TEP of competing energy technologies, kop./kW.h

Discount 10% Discount 7% Discount 3%

Solar 485,4 284,0 228,8

7 98

Discount 10% Discount 7% Discount 3%

Wind 322,5 189,9 152,9

CCGT 248,3 152,9 136,2

TR (VVER-TOI) 268,1 151,8 116,6

FR-1200 231,8 129,2 96,7

On the Figure 2 presents a comparison of LCOE for NPPs with BR-1200 and other types of generation at the optimal TEP for different discount rates.

А) discount 10% Б) discount 7% В) discount 3%

FIG. 2. Comparison of LCOE BR-1200 and other types of generation in Russian conditions

On the Figure 3 presents the results of calculations LCOE by variants of gradual improvement of CCGT specifications (according to Table 4) compared with LCOE considered NPPs. LCOE values for NPPs are given for different values in the fuel costs.

304

288

274264

254248

248

274268

242

232

-16

-14

-9-10

-6

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

CC

GT

cons

erva

tive

CA

PEX

Con

sum

ptio

n of

fuel

Cos

t of n

atur

al g

as

Load

fact

or

Fee

for e

mis

sion

s

CC

GT

optim

al

NPP

with

VV

ER-T

OI

(Var

iant

1)*

NPP

with

VV

ER-T

OI

(Var

iant

2)*

IEC

with

FR

-120

0(V

aria

nt 1

)**

IEC

with

FR

-120

0(V

aria

nt 2

)**

kop/

kW.h

8 98

FIG. 3. LCOE CCGT and NPPs for Russian conditions (discount 10%), kop/kW.h(* for VVER-TOI different price levels in the NFC, ** for FR-1200 different burnup)

4.3. Main conclusions for Russian objects of generation

On the results of calculations LCOE for Russian objects of generation to the following main conclusions:

1. Modern NPP with TR operating in an open NFC cannot guarantee the further development of an effective competitive NE in Russia.

2. Achieving the established requirements to IEC with the BR-1200 operating in a closed NFC will support the competitiveness of the Russian AE even under optimal accounting TEP CCGT.

5. Key results and conclusions

Based on calculations LCOE for Russian and foreign objects of generation, the results of which are presented above, to the following conclusions:

1. The most accurate comparison of the competitiveness of different technologies may generate when dealing with specific projects linked to the region of placement, taking into account features of formation of value indicators on capital and operating expenses, as well as external macroeconomic parameters.

2. A key influence on the assessment of the efficiency and competitiveness of NPPs in the calculation LCOE have capital investments in the construction, the rationale for the discount rate, the region placement for NPP and fossil fuel prices.

3. Modern NPPs projects with TR almost exhausted reserves to improve the competitiveness and cannot guarantee the long-term effectiveness of NE.

4. The analysis showed that the task of increasing the competitiveness of nuclear power while addressing the systemic problems NE is now becoming especially acute.

5. In the case of confirmation of design studies exposed the requirements for competitiveness IEC with BR-1200 these requirements should be regarded as necessarily for large-scale NE.

9 98

Reference

[1] World Nuclear Association «The Nuclear Fuel Report. Global Scenarios for Demand and Supply Availability 2015-2035», 2015.

[2] The Energy Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, The Analytical Center for the Government of the Russian Federation. «Global and Russian Energy Outlook to 2040», 2014.

[3] International Energy Agency. «Projected Costs of Generating Electricity», 2015.

[4] Massachusetts Institute of Technology. «The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle», 2011.

[5] Nuclear Energy Agency. «The Economics of the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle», 2013.

[6] Federal Tariff Service of Russian Federation «On Approval of Wholesale Gas Prices for Industrial Consumers», 2013.