NuScale signs MOU with Bruce Power to support efforts to bring small modular reactor technology to Canada
27 November 2018
NuScale Power signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Bruce Power L.P., Canada’s first private nuclear generator, to develop a business case to introduce NuScale’s small modular reactor (SMR) technology to the Canadian market.
Through the agreement, Bruce Power will support evaluation, planning and licensing activities. This will include studies on the impacts of deployment of a NuScale plant in the province, feasibility studies for proposed SMR sites, and other risk evaluation exercises to show how SMR deployment can benefit Canadians.
The NuScale design has advanced to a stage where Bruce Power can participate in understanding and developing a conceptual business case as part of our efforts to provide low-cost, clean, reliable electricity to Canadian families and businesses. We look forward to working with NuScale.
—Bruce Power President and Chief Executive Officer Mike Rencheck
Bruce Power is a privately-owned operator of nuclear power generating stations and provides 30% of the power delivered in the Province of Ontario at 30% below the average cost to produce residential power through its operation of approximately 6,400 MW of nuclear generation capacity.
In May 2018, Bruce Power and the County of Bruce announced a partnership to establish the Nuclear Innovation Institute (NII) as an international center of excellence for applied research and training, which will evaluate applications for new nuclear technologies including Small Modular Reactor (SMRs).
The announcement follows an MOU that NuScale signed earlier this month with Ontario Power Generation Inc. to support NuScale in its vendor design review with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is scheduled to complete NuScale’s Design Certification application in September 2020.
NuScale Power is developing a new modular light water reactor nuclear power plant to supply energy for electrical generation and process heat applications including district heating and desalination. The small modular reactor (SMR) design features a fully factory-fabricated NuScale Power Module capable of generating 60 MW of electricity using a safer, smaller, and scalable version of pressurized water reactor technology.
The majority investor in NuScale is Fluor Corporation, a global engineering, procurement, and construction company with a 60-year history in commercial nuclear power.
Are SMRs the best economical solution to produce enough low cost, safe and reliable clean electricity to progressively replace the aging 18 CANDUs in Ontario and to supply enough electricity to meet a growing demand due to fast population growth and the arrival of e-vehicles?
Up to 200+ SMRs would be required?
Posted by: HarveyD | 27 November 2018 at 08:18 AM
China, India and Russia are doing fast reactors, use up the depleted uranium and plutonium with no meltdowns.
Posted by: SJC | 27 November 2018 at 09:07 AM
The CANDUs are not "aging". The are rebuilt periodically and made literally better than new. It makes sense to do this as long as they are the cheapest clean power on the grid.
SMRs are not direct competitors for CANDUs; for one thing, an existing CANDU is going to be cheaper than a new SMR. However, SMRs can be sited in places which make new applications possible. District heating plus electricity for entire cities is just one of the many possibilities.
Nuclear reactors cost about the same to run no matter how hard they're running. This means that there's a lot of potential for cheap interruptible heat much of the year. Imagine a city without natural gas pipes but where outdoor hot tubs are practically standard.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 27 November 2018 at 09:16 AM
So far, refurbishing older CANDUs, has cost over 3X estimates. In other words, the final refurbishing cost per CANDU may be 3 x $2.5B = $7.5B and will take 3X longer than planned.
Quebec Hydro could supply enough clean e-energy to replace 2 to 3 CANDU at a time (during refurbishing) but new HV power lines and interconnections will have to be built in Ontario. With access much lower cost replacement energy, Ontario Hydro could pay for the new HV lines and interconnections. The Q-H 38 existing production plants could easily be upgraded and/or expanded if required to meet this new load.
Posted by: HarveyD | 28 November 2018 at 08:50 AM
I believe the old saw is "don't believe everything you hear, or anything you say."
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 28 November 2018 at 10:07 AM
Cost estimates for new/refurbished NPPs have been wrong (on the low side) worldwide for many years. The Bruce project may go about the same way as the Point Lepreau, New Brunswick project about a decade ago. The error was about 3 folds and final cost is 3+ times over estimates and still rising with on-going law suits and clean up works.
The main problem with NPPs is high rising initial and refurbishing cost leading to much higher electricity cost and/or hugh on-going deficits instead of profits.
Will China manage to reverse this trend before solar and wind REs become much cheaper?
Meanwhile, Hydro + Wind + Solar, without other sources of storage other than the water reservoirs, is very interesting.
Posted by: HarveyD | 29 November 2018 at 08:13 AM
Oh, really? You think contractors will mistakenly wire-brush the exterior of the calandria vessel causing leaks AGAIN?
And where's your support for this absurd claim—a claim, I must note, which is on top of your earlier errors, as if you've been absorbing disinformation from a source which wants CANDU out of the market so it can profit from the lack of competition?
One of the things your disinformation source didn't tell you is that the four Bruce A units were refurbished once already, A3/4 restarted in 2003/2 and A1/2 restarted in 2012. There's plenty of experience which will be applied to the 3300 MW(e) of units in Bruce B5-8.
USD1.65 billion for 825 MW(e) is about $2000/kW, for always-on, emission-free power. That's a pretty darn good price.
It wouldn't matter if they were free; they can't supply always-on power. That's why people switched from wind to coal-fired steam to pump water out of mines in the first place; wind was "free", but it couldn't keep the mines dry.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 29 November 2018 at 10:30 AM
You have to move out of the CANDU inner circle and supporters to get a better idea of the real total cost and delays. Every year of delays in initial construction and refurbishing is very costly and have to be added to the total cost.
Solar and Wind energy is approaching 40% and 50% in a few countries and is increasing fast as construction time and cost are reduced.
We have already coupled 40 Wind farms with existing 38 Hydro plants to make better use of wind and hydro energy. The cost (per kWh) of building new Hydro Plants is now about the same as for new Wind power plants. With Hydro plants cost going up and Wind plants cost going down we will most likely progressively go from 95% Hydro and 5% Wind towards 50%/50% by 2050 or so.
Ontario may refurbish the 18 CANDUs but will call on the Federal Government for $180+B to cover all or part of the total cost. Any 10 to 18 CANADUs may be required to meet increasing demands/loads by 2050 or so.
Posted by: HarveyD | 30 November 2018 at 05:16 PM
I am in precisely no inner circles. Where is this occult information that can't be found with search engines, Harvey? Are you pulling it out of your rear end? It sure looks like it.
FFS, yes. A year of delay is a huge amount of purchased power. That appears to have happened precisely once. Now, SHOW YOUR SOURCES.
FFS again. Those countries are part of REGIONAL grids with much smaller total penetration. Those "successes" are accounting fictions, ignoring the backup systems which make them possible (and have huge amounts of energy storage either as hydro reservoirs or fossil fuels).
FFS AGAIN, Harvey. You cannot build hydro plants where you have no water! There is only so much rainfall and you cannot engineer more of it. You destroy fish runs and other resources with every hydro dam you build.
The fixed-price quote is for CDN2.185B apiece, roughly CDN2650/kW(e). Made-up numbers like $10 billion a pop are fearmongering disinformation, and you should be ashamed of yourself for writing such things.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 01 December 2018 at 06:25 AM