AI 中文总结
本文针对ERCOT区域200 MWₑ数据中心，经109组场景分析，明确了同址布置小型模块化反应堆热电联产的技术经济边界，给出成本差距及缩小条件，为相关方案的竞争力判定提供依据。
AI 中文摘要
超大规模数据中心新增的稳定、高利用率用电需求增速快于电网的供电能力，这重新引发了将数据中心与小型模块化反应堆（SMR）同址布置的兴趣。这类电站可通过两种方式获取收益：一是销售低碳电力，二是将蒸汽输送至吸收式制冷机，后者承担的数据中心冷却负荷占设施总用电量的20%-40%，但目前尚无在所有需同时满足的条件下对两种收益流进行定价的研究。本文针对得克萨斯州电力可靠性委员会（ERCOT）区域一座200 MWₑ的数据中心，在涵盖资本、市场、政策、融资及冷却效率的109组运行场景下，对反应堆调度、蒸汽抽取、吸收式制冷及电网交互进行逐小时协同优化。在2023年反应堆资本成本的中间值水平下，即便享受《第45Y条生产税收抵免》，核配置方案的成本仍比电网供电高49%-62%；可行区间在资本成本接近5000 kWₑ⁻¹时开启，同类后续反应堆的资本成本在2023年可降低77%-89%，不过在2024年低价市场中，成本处于平价到高出34%的区间。53-64美元/吨CO₂的碳价结合逐小时出口抵免可缩小中间值成本差距。吸收式制冷机根据逐小时电价调度，承担了全年38%的冷却负荷，与仅配反应堆的电站相比，年额外成本为920万美元；该成本差距在吸收式制冷机安装成本为60美元/kW꜀⁻¹（基准效率）或570美元/kW꜀⁻¹（传统效率园区）时可消除，而调研的商业价格为450-1200美元/kW꜀⁻¹。这些结果共同界定了同址布置反应堆热电联产与电网采购具备竞争力的资本、市场及政策条件，以及各条件对结果的影响范围。
英文摘要
Hyperscale data centers are adding firm, high-utilization demand faster than grids can serve it, renewing interest in colocating them with small modular reactors. Such a plant could earn revenue in two ways, selling low-carbon power and diverting steam to absorption chillers that serve a cooling load accounting for 20-40% of facility electricity use, but neither revenue stream has been priced across the conditions that must coincide. Here we co-optimize reactor dispatch, steam extraction, absorption cooling and grid exchange hourly for a 200 MW$_\mathrm{e}$ data center in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) region, across 109 runs spanning capital, market, policy, financing and cooling efficiency. At 2023 mid-range reactor capital, the nuclear configurations cost 49-62% more than grid supply even with the Section 45Y production tax credit. The viable region opens near \$5,000 kW$_\mathrm{e}^{-1}$, and nth-of-a-kind capital makes them 77-89% cheaper in 2023, though between parity and 34% more expensive in the low-price 2024 market. A carbon price of \$53-64 tCO$_2^{-1}$ closes the mid-range gap under hourly export crediting. Absorption cooling is dispatched in response to hourly electricity prices and supplies 38% of annual cooling, at an added cost of \$9.2 million yr$^{-1}$ relative to the reactor-only plant; that gap closes at an installed absorption cost of \$60 kW$_\mathrm{c}^{-1}$ at baseline efficiency and \$570 kW$_\mathrm{c}^{-1}$ on a legacy-efficiency campus, against surveyed commercial prices of \$450-1,200 kW$_\mathrm{c}^{-1}$. Together these results delineate the capital, market and policy conditions under which colocated reactor cogeneration is competitive with grid procurement, and the range over which each condition moves the outcome.
