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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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 Atomic Energy Commission
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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
• Powe r pe r module :
110.5 MWe
(gros s )
103 MWe (ne t)
• 2 units /plant
• Effic ie ncy: 44%
• 0.3 g s e is micity
• Online re fue ling
South Kore an iPWR
• Powe r pe r module :
123 MWe (gros s )
103 MWe (ne t)
• 2 units /plant
• Effic ie ncy: 32%
• 0.3 g s e is micity
• 30- 36 month
re fue ling cycle
Rus s ian iPWR
• Powe r pe r module :
57 MWe (gros s )
52.5 MWe (ne t)
• 6 units /plant
• Effic ie ncy: 32%
• 0.3 g s e is micity
• 48- 72 month
re fue ling cycle
Ame rican iPWR
• Powe r pe r module :
60 MWe (gros s )
57.5 MWe (ne t)
• 12 units /plant
• Effic ie ncy: 31%
• 0.5 g s e is micity
• 24 month re fue ling
cycle
Ame rican HT R
• Powe r pe r module :
81.5 MWe (gros s )
75 MWe (ne t)
• 4 units /plant
• Effic ie ncy: 40.8%
• 0.3 g s e is micity
• Online re fue ling
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
Comparison of SMRs (2/3)
16
parameter HTR-600 HTR-200 SMART RITM NuScale Xe-100
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
Comparison of SMRs (3/3)
17*Construction duration is determined as the period between First Concrete Date (FCD) and Commercial Operation Date (COD) for NOAK design
parameter HTR-600 HTR-200 SMART RITM NuScale Xe-100
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
Amra Region
۱۹
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
Candidate Areas & Sites for Majdal3 Candidate Areas 6 Candidate Sites
۲۰
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission21
Aqaba North
Region 3
Aqaba East
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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.
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
Business Model
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
Next StepsFinalize Technical Evaluation
Conduct Economic & Financial Assessment
Conduct BIS or Beauty Contest
Select Preferred Technology Provider
Justification of Investment
26
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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
Jordan Atomic Energy Commission
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