Jorge Morales Pedraza

Small Modular
Reactors for
Electricity
Generation
An Economic and Technologically Sound
Alternative
Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation
Jorge Morales Pedraza

Small Modular Reactors

for Electricity Generation
An Economic and Technologically Sound
Alternative

123
Jorge Morales Pedraza
Vienna
Austria

ISBN 978-3-319-52215-9 ISBN 978-3-319-52216-6 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52216-6
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017932000

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface

Nuclear technology is one of the main base-load electricity-generating sources

available in the world today, producing around 11.2% of the global power pro-
duction. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the use of
nuclear energy for electricity generation is expected to grow around the world,
particularly in Asia and the Pacific Rim, as demand for electricity increases in that
region as foreseen. It is also expected that the types of nuclear power reactors to be
used in the future in several countries will not be as large as today, more than 1,000
MW of capacity, opening the possibility to the introduction of small modular
reactors (SMRs) with a maximum capacity of 300 Me, which could be built in
factories and transported to the different sites, by truck, train, or ship.
The book has seven chapters. Chapter 1 “General Overview” has been prepared
to give the reader a general overview of the current situation and the future of the
nuclear industry, particularly the current situation and of the development of the
SMRs of different types. In 2016, a total of 31 countries was operating 447 nuclear
power reactors with an installed capacity of 389,051 MWe. At the end of 2015, the
electricity generated by nuclear power plants reached 2,441.33 TWh.
After a detailed analysis of the relevant information elaborated by the
IAEA-PRIS (2016), the World Nuclear Association (WNA 2016), and the World
Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO 2016), among other relevant sources on
the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation and the future of this energy
source, the following can be stated: It is expected that the nuclear market could
gradually recover from the decline it suffered from being included in the energy mix
of different countries during the period 2006–2014, particularly after the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear accident occurred in March 2011. However, the level of its recovery
will depend on the following elements:

• Level of fossil fuel reserves;

• Fossil fuel prices;
• Uranium fuel supply and the future of advanced fuel cycles;
• Energy security concerns;
• Environmental and climate change considerations;

v
vi Preface

• Nuclear safety concerns;

• Nuclear waste management;
• The availability of new design of nuclear power reactors;
• The cost of new nuclear power reactors now under development (Generation III,
III+, IV, and SMRs);
• Public opinion acceptance;
• Nuclear proliferation risks management.

Undoubtedly, the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation is not a cheap
alternative or/and an easy option free of risks for many countries. It is a fact that
many countries do not have the necessary conditions to use, in an economic and
safe manner, nuclear energy for electricity generation at least during the coming
decades. From the technological point of view, the use of nuclear energy for
electricity generation could be very complicated and costly for many countries,
particularly for those with a low level of technological development or with limited
financial resources to be invested in the nuclear energy sector.
There is an agreement within the nuclear industry that nuclear power plants
represent a long-term investment with deferred pay-outs. Moreover, the nuclear
industry is very capital-intensive. This means that a high upfront capital investment
is needed to set up the project (between 10–15 years) and a long payback period is
needed to recover the capital expenditure. The longer is this period, the higher is the
probability that, the scenario conditions may evolve in a different, unfavourable
way, as compared to the forecasts.
A capital-intensive investment requires the full exploitation of its operating
capability and an income stream as stable as possible. On a long-term horizon, a
low volatility in a variable trend might translate into a widespread range of reali-
sations of the variable value. This condition is common to every capital-intensive
industry. Nevertheless, some risk factors are specific or particularly sensitive to the
nuclear industry: Typically, the public acceptance, the political support in the
long-term energy strategy, and the activity of safety and regulatory agencies. For
these reasons, nuclear investment is usually perceived as the riskier investment
option among the different available power generation technologies.
In addition, some of the countries that are now considering nuclear power as a
potential option in the future, lack well-prepared and trained professionals, tech-
nicians, and highly-qualified workers, and have a relatively small electrical grid,
elements that could limit the use of this type of energy for electricity generation in
the future. In comparison to coal-fired and natural gas-fired-power plants, it is true
that for many countries nuclear power plants could be more expensive to build,
although less expensive to operate.
After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, all countries with major nuclear
programmes revised their long-term energy plans and have developed stringent safety
measures so that they can continue with their nuclear power development in the future.
Despite the introduction of additional stringent safety measures in almost all nuclear
power reactors currently in operation in the world, it is expected that the installation of
new units in several countries in the future will continue its growth trajectory, but
Preface vii

perhaps at a slower pace. In some countries, all nuclear power plants currently in
operation will be phased out during the coming decades, excluding with this action the
inclusion of nuclear energy for electricity generation in their future energy mix.
The future growth of nuclear power will be driven by large-scale capacity addi-
tions in the Asia and the Pacific market. Out of 495 new projects, 316 are planned to
be constructed in the Asia and the Pacific region (63.8% of the total). In addition, in
2014, a total of 47 units were under construction in that region (70% of the total units
under construction) and 142 units were planned for 2030. Asians’ investment in
nuclear projects could reach US$781 billion during the period up to 2030.
On the other hand, it is important to be aware that nuclear power capacity is
expected to rise steadily worldwide, but at a slower path than initially planned. This
increase is needed to satisfy an increase in the demand of energy in several
countries, particularly in China, India, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, UK,
Hungary, the Czech Republic, and in some newcomers like the UAE, Turkey,
Belarus, Poland, Vietnam, Jordan, and Bangladesh, to reduce the greenhouse
emissions, and the negative impact on the environment as a result of the use of
fossil fuels for electricity generation.
In 2016, there were 60 nuclear power reactors under construction in 15 countries
according to IAEA sources (IAEA-PRIS 2016). Although most of the planned
nuclear power reactors were in the Asia and the Pacific region (China 20 units;
India five units; Korea three units; Japan two units; and Pakistan three units), it is
important to highlight that Russia has also plans for the construction of seven new
nuclear power reactors during the coming years. In addition to the setting up of new
nuclear power reactors in the countries mentioned above, large amount of capacity
will be generated through plant upgrades in many others.
Based on what has been said before, it is expected that nuclear power capacity
will reach 520.6 GWe in 2025, and that nuclear power generation will reach 3,698
TWh by the same year; this means an increase of 56.8% with respect to 2014.
Chapter 2 “Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities”, written
by Eng. Alejandro Seijas López, will provide the reader with the latest information
about the different types of nuclear power reactors, particularly SMRs types cur-
rently under development or planned in several countries.
There are six different types of nuclear power reactors now operating in 31
countries. These are the following:

• Pressurised Water Reactors (PWR);

• Boiling Water Reactors (BWR);
• Fast-Neutron Breeder Reactors (FBR);
• Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR);
• Gas-Cooled Reactors (AGE and Magnox);
• Light Water Graphite Reactor (RBMK and EGP).

Advanced nuclear technologies are expected to drive the future of the nuclear
power market. They offer exciting potential for growth in the nuclear industry and
exportable technologies that will address energy security, feedstock security, and
viii Preface

emissions concerns. For this reason, the nuclear power sector is expected to benefit
soon from the following new nuclear technologies:

• Generation IV nuclear power reactors;

• European pressurised reactors (EPRs);
• Small modular reactors (SMRs).

A description of the economic and industrial potential features of SMRs is

included in this chapter. SMRs would be less than one-third the size of current
nuclear power reactors, and with a capacity less than 300 MWe. They have compact
designs and could be made in factories and transported to sites by truck, rail, or
ship. In other words, SMRs are designed based on the modularisation of their
components, which means the structures, systems and components are
shop-fabricated, then shipped and assembled on site, with the purpose of reducing
considerably the construction time of this type of units, one of the main limitations
that the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation has today in several
countries. For this reason, SMRs would be ready to ‘plug and play’ upon arrival. If
commercially successful, SMRs would significantly expand the options for nuclear
power and its applications. Their small size makes them suitable to small electric
grids so they are a good option for locations that cannot accommodate large-scale
nuclear power reactors. The modular construction process would make SMRs more
affordable by reducing capital costs and construction times. Their size would also
increase flexibility for utilities since they could add units as demand changes, or use
them for on-site replacement of aging fossil fuel power plants.
If nuclear energy is expected to continue to be part of the energy mix in several
countries in all regions in the future, then a new type of nuclear power reactors, less
costly and safer, should be developed and commercialised in the future. The SMRs is
seen, according to the opinion of different experts, the appropriate answer to this
concern.
Chapter 3 “The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular Reactors
Market in North and South America, Including the Caribbean Region” is composed
with the aim of giving the reader a general overview of the current situation and
perspective in the use of SMRs for electricity generation and other purposes in
several countries in that region. Some of these countries, like Canada, U.S.,
Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, are using now a nuclear power programme for
electricity generation, while some others are thinking to introduce nuclear energy in
their energy mix in the future, such as Chile.
The use of nuclear energy for electricity generation started to be used in the U.S.
since 1957, with the connection to the grid of two nuclear power reactors, GE
Vallecitos and Shippingport. Since 1957, a total of 171 nuclear power reactors were
built in the whole region, most them in the U.S. The Three Miles Island (1979) and
Chernobyl (1986) nuclear accidents stop all new construction of nuclear power
reactors in the U.S. until today, as well as in Canada, where the last unit was
connected to the grid in 1993. However, the construction of new units continued in
Argentina, where the last unit was connected to the grid in 2014, and in Brazil
Preface ix

where the last unit was connected to the grid in 2000. These two countries con-
tinued the construction of new units in 2016, one in Argentina and another in
Brazil. The new nuclear power reactors under construction in the region are mostly
large units (more than 1,000 MW), except for one SMR in Argentina the so-called
“CAREM-25” with a capacity of 25 MW.
However, the situation in the U.S. has changed in the last years due to the
support of the U.S. government to the development of SMRs as well as to the
construction of new large units. For this reason, in the FY 2012 Administration
budget, a new programme for the development and use of SMRs for electricity
generation was approved. This would involve obtaining design certification for two
light-water SMRs on a cost-share basis with the nuclear industry, with the purpose
of accelerating the commercial deployment of this type of reactor in the country in
the coming years. The NRC also requested US$11 million for pre-application work
on SMR licensing with two developers leading to filing the design certification
applications, and some initial review for one such application.
More advanced designs such as metal- or gas-cooled SMRs could get some funds
from DoE’s separate Reactor Concepts Research Development and Demonstration
programme, US$30 million of which is envisaged for SMR concepts.
In spite of what has been said in previous paragraphs, the U.S. market per-
spective for SMRs are not yet strong enough to be considered by the U.S. and by
foreign nuclear and investment companies as a good business investment oppor-
tunity. For this reason, SMRs must find a viable marketplace in domestic markets, if
this type of reactors would play an important role in the country future energy mix.
In Canada, there is only one type of nuclear power reactor operating for elec-
tricity generation, the so-called “CANDU reactor”, which is a PHWR reactor type.
Undoubtedly, nuclear power is an important energy source in Ontario’s industrial
heartland and supplies over half the province’s electricity (in 2015 around 60%
of the total electricity generated in the province). There are currently no nuclear
power plants operating in Western Canada: The British Columbia government has
prohibited the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation and uranium mining.
Over the border, Alberta’s government is considering proposals to use nuclear
energy to help extract oil from the tar sands. However, it is unlikely a nuclear power
plant in the tar sands could come online before the decade is out. Potential SMR
supply markets in Canada include remote off-grid applications, where prices
associated to diesel-fired power plants are high due to challenging access, as well as
higher consumption markets in more densely populated areas. Older nuclear power
plants remain a key power generation source in the south-east provinces of Ontario
and New Brunswick.
In the rest of the Latin American and the Caribbean countries, only Argentina is
building an SMR (CAREM-25) and this situation will not change in the coming
years.
Chapter 4 “The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular Reactors
Market in the European Region” is written with the purpose of giving the reader a
general overview of the current situation and the perspective of the nuclear sector in
the European region. The region can be divided in five groups of states. The first
x Preface

group is composed by those countries that are using nuclear energy for electricity
generation and has plans for the expansion in the use of this specific energy source
in the future, such as France, the Czech Republic, Russia, Romania, the UK,
Hungary, Finland, Slovakia, Slovenia, among others. The second group is com-
posed by those countries that are now using nuclear energy for electricity genera-
tion, but has no plans for an increase in the use of this type of energy source in the
coming decades, such as Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, among others. The third
group is composed of countries that are now using nuclear energy for electricity
generation, but will shut down all nuclear power plants during the coming years
such as Germany, Switzerland, among others. The fourth group is composed of
countries that are not using nuclear energy for electricity generation, but have plans
for the introduction of nuclear energy in their energy mix in the future, such as
Poland and Lithuania, among others. The fifth group is composed of countries that
are not using now nuclear energy for electricity generation and have no plans for the
introduction of this type of energy source in their energy mix in the future, such as
Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Italy, among others.
Today, there are 184 nuclear power reactors operating in the European region
generating a total of 162,135 MWe and 16 units under construction with a total
capacity of 14,810 MW.
Undoubtedly, the cost of the construction of a nuclear power plant is one of the
key problems facing a revival of nuclear power at world level, particularly in the
European region. Up to now, the sorts of nuclear power reactors used for generating
electricity have tended toward the gigantic with units reaching gigawatt levels of
output. With plants that large, small wonder that the cost of construction combined
with obtaining permits, securing insurance and meeting legal challenges from
environmentalist groups can push the cost of a conventional nuclear power plant
toward as much as US$9 billion in some cases. It also means very long build times
of 10–15 years. This is not helped by the fact that big nuclear power plants are
custom-designed from scratch in multi-billion dollar exercises, because even if the
same type of reactor is used in the construction of a nuclear power plant, the
structure is not always the same. With so much time and resources involved, an
unforeseen change in regulations or discovery of something like a geological fault
under the reactor site can make this a case of putting a lot of very expensive eggs in
a very insecure basket.
However, and despite the rejection of several European countries to the use of
nuclear energy for electricity generation, there are sound economic and technical
reasons for some other European countries to diversify nuclear generation by
building many SMRs instead of building a small number of large nuclear power
plants. It is a fact that in several European countries, nuclear-powered electricity
generation should be a key component of every country’s energy portfolio to reduce
their dependence on oil and coal for this purpose and of the CO2 emission. In
addition, with declining fossil fuel production and reserves in Europe, the continent
is increasingly dependent on imported coal and gas and so subject to volatile market
prices and the ever-present threat of politically motivated disruption of supply by
producers or even countries hosting pipelines.
Preface xi

According to Waddington (2014), it is expected that by the year 2035, Russia,

UK, Finland, Lithuania, and Slovenia will increase the nuclear power capacity by
installing different types of SMRs. Russia and UK are expected to be the two
European countries with the highest number of SMRs installed.
Chapter 5 “The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular Reactors
Market in the Asia and the Pacific Region” has been written with the aim of giving
the reader a general overview of the current situation and perspective of the use of
SMRs for electricity generation in Asia and the Pacific Rim, the region with the
current biggest nuclear power programme in the world. According to WNA, in
contrast to North America and most of Western Europe, where growth in
electricity-generating capacity and particularly nuclear power levelled out for many
years, a number of countries in East and South Asia are planning and building new
nuclear power reactors to meet their future increasing demands for electricity.
During the period 2014–2025, it is expected to add, in some countries of the
region, a nuclear generating capacity of 1,400 GWe, over 120 GWe per year. This
is about 46% of the world’s new capacity in that period—under construction and
planned (current world capacity is about 6,200 GWe, of which 380 GWe is
nuclear). Much of this growth will be in China, India, and Korea. The nuclear share
of these three countries until 2020 is expected to be considerable, especially if
environmental constraints limit fossil fuel expansion.
However, according to Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development/International Energy Agency (OECD/IEA) sources, nuclear power
has a limited role in Southeast Asia during the coming decades. This reflects the
complexities of developing a nuclear power programme in some of the countries in
that region and the slow progress to date of most countries that have included a
nuclear power programme in their long-term plans. Vietnam is the most active
country and is currently undertaking site preparation, workforce training and the
creation of a legal framework. Moreover, Vietnam has signed a co-operative
agreement (that includes financing) with Russia to build its first nuclear power
plant, and with Japan for its second nuclear power plant, with the aim of entering
the energy mix of the country before 2025. Thailand includes nuclear power in its
Power Development Plan from 2026, but these plans could face public opposition.
However, it is expected that Thailand could start producing electricity from nuclear
power plants before 2030.
Without doubt, Asia and the Pacific is the region of the world with the largest
nuclear power programme to be implemented in the coming decades. The countries
with the largest nuclear power programme are China (36 units), the Republic of
Korea (25 units), and India (22 units). Japan has also a large nuclear power pro-
gramme, but almost all units have been shut down after the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear accident in 2011 and all new construction has been suspended. China has
the largest nuclear power programme under construction in the world (20 units).
Chapter 6 “Benefits of Small Modular Reactors” has been composed by the
Nuclear Physics masters student, Mustapha Boubcher (Canada). The purpose of this
chapter is to give reader a comprehensive view of all benefits associated with the
use of SMRs for electricity generation.
xii Preface

Many countries are moving swiftly to develop and commercialise SMRs as they
offer an assortment of benefits that make them attractive to utilities and investors.
They have the potential to solve challenges faced by large nuclear power reactors,
such as cost overruns and construction delays risks, safety, and proliferation con-
cerns. SMRs are designed to be safer than large nuclear power reactors and offer
serious cost advantages over the larger units. SMRs are well-suited for locations
with small grid and remote areas and could be affordable for many countries with
limited investment capability. SMRs offer also a greater flexibility for utilities for
incremental capacity increase, which could potentially increase the attractiveness of
SMRs to investors.
The chapter includes several key benefits that SMRs can offer.
Chapter 7 “The Future of Small Modular Reactors” is written with the aim of
giving the reader a summary of the future of SMRs. The small size and the modular
structure of the SMRs make them suitable to small electric grids. For this reason,
they are a good option for locations that cannot accommodate large-scale nuclear
power plants. The modular construction process associated to SMRs would make
them more affordable by reducing capital costs and construction times. Their
modular structure would also increase flexibility for utilities since they could add
units as demand changes. This type of nuclear power reactors can be used for
on-site replacement of aging fossil fuel plants.
According to the IAEA Technical Review Panel Report (2012), the main pri-
orities in the field of research and development of a group of SMRs are the
following:
1. Priority research and development for Gas-cooled fast reactors;
2. Priority research and development for Lead-bismuth eutectic-cooled reactors
(LBE);
3. Priority research and development for Sodium-cooled reactors.

Vienna, Austria Jorge Morales Pedraza

Acknowledgements

During the preparation of the present book, different professionals assisted me in

the compilation of relevant information regarding the current and future role of
SMRs for electricity generation in the main regions of the world and in the
preparation of two chapters of the book. One of these competent professionals is the
Master of Engineering Alejandro Seijas López (Spain), in charge of the preparation
of Chap. 2 of the book. Mustapha Boubcher (Canada), M.Sc. in Nuclear Physics, is
another of the competent professionals in the nuclear field responsible for the
preparation of Chap. 6.
My lovely daughter Lisette Morales Meoqui, M.Sc., has been an extremely
helpful assistant in collecting the necessary information and reference materials
used in the preparation of the book, in addition to her current job as Head of
Finance in the Austrian firm Zeno Track GmbH from Bosch. My dear son Jorge
Morales Meoqui, Ph.D. in Economics, and Managing Director of the Austrian firm
Morales Project Consulting GmbH, registered in Vienna, Austria, has been also
highly useful in the recollection of the initial materials used during the preparation
of several chapters of the book.
Without any doubt, the present book is reality, thanks to the valuable support
of the four scientists mentioned above and in particular my lovely wife, Aurora
Tamara Meoqui Puig, who assumed other family responsibilities to give me the
indispensable time and the adequate environment to write the book.

xiii
Contents

1 General Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Types of Nuclear Power Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3.1 Benefits of the Use of Small Modular Reactors. . . . . . . . . 15
1.3.2 The Perspective of the Small Modular Reactors Market
at World Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.3.3 Main Safety Features of the Small Modular Reactors . . . . 26
1.3.4 Different Small Modular Reactor Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities . . . . . . . 35
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.2.1 Generation IV Nuclear Power Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.2.2 GIF Initiative Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.2.3 Descriptions of the Generation IV Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.2.4 The Future of the Generation IV Nuclear Power
Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.3 European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.3.1 EPR Design Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.3.2 EPR Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.3.3 Safety, Competitiveness and Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.3.4 EPR Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.4.1 Why the Interest in Small Modular Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.4.2 Small Modular Reactors and Their Attributes . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.4.3 Small Modular Reactor Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

xv
xvi Contents

2.5 Nuclear Fusion Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

2.5.1 Plasma Confinement and Its Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
2.5.2 Fusion Reactor Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
2.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular
Reactors Market in North and South America, Including the
Caribbean Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
3.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small
Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation in the United
States and Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
3.2.1 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
3.2.2 Nuclear Power Plants Operating in the United States . . . . 125
3.2.3 Types of Small Modular Reactors Under Development
in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
3.2.4 The Commercialisation Programme of Small Modular
Reactor Technology in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3.2.5 Financing of Small Modular Reactors in the United
States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.2.6 Market Perspective of the Small Modular Reactors in the
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
3.2.7 The Need of Small Modular Reactors in the United
States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
3.2.8 Public Opinion Regarding the Use of Nuclear Energy for
Electricity Generation in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
3.3 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
3.3.1 Current Nuclear Power Plants Operating in Canada . . . . . 141
3.3.2 Type and Capacity of Small Modular Reactors to Be
Built in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
3.3.3 The Future Role of Nuclear Power in Canada . . . . . . . . . . 147
3.4 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small
Modular Reactors in Latin America and the Caribbean . . . . . . . . . 147
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular
Reactors Market in the European Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 155
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 155
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small
Modular Reactors in the European Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
4.2.1 The Russian Federation (Russia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
4.2.2 The United Kingdom (U.K.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
4.2.3 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Contents xvii

4.2.4 Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

4.2.5 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4.2.6 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
4.2.7 Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
4.2.8 Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
4.2.9 The Nuclear Power Programme in Other European
Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular
Reactors Market in the Asia and the Pacific Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular
Reactors in the Asian and the Pacific Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
5.2.1 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
5.2.2 The Republic of Korea (South Korea) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
5.2.3 Iran, Islamic Republic of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
5.2.4 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
5.2.5 Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
5.2.6 Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
5.2.7 Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
5.2.8 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
5.2.9 Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
5.2.10 Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
5.2.11 Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
6 Benefits of Small Modular Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
6.2 Enhanced Safety Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
6.2.1 Improved Source Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
6.2.2 Reduced Linear Element Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
6.2.3 Enhanced Decay Heat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
6.2.4 Other Inherent and Passive Safety Features . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
6.3 Economic Competitiveness Between Small Modular Reactors
and Large Nuclear Power Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 247
6.3.1 Lower Upfront Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 249
6.3.2 Modularisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 249
6.4 Potential Solution for Remote Locations and Developing
Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
6.5 Proliferation Resistances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
6.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
xviii Contents

7 The Future of Small Modular Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
7.2 Investment in Nuclear Power Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
7.3 Safety Issues Associated to Nuclear Power Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
7.4 Construction of New Nuclear Power Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
7.5 The Small Modular Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
7.6 Priorities in Research and Development Activities to Be
Considered for a Group of Selected Small Modular Reactors . . . . . 265
7.6.1 Priority R&D for Gas-Cooled Fast Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . 265
7.6.2 Priority R&D for Lead-Bismuth Eutectic-Cooled
Reactors (LBE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
7.6.3 Priority Research and Development for Sodium-Cooled
Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
About the Author

Jorge Morales Pedraza currently works as a Senior Consultant for the Austrian
company Morales Project Consulting located in Vienna, Austria, and has degrees in
Mathematic and Economic Sciences.
Formerly, he was a Cuban Ambassador for more than 25 years. In the 1980s,
Morales Pedraza was appointed as Ambassador and Permanent Representative of
Cuba to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and in the 1990s gained
the same title with the Provisional Technical Secretariat of the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). During the 1980s, he was Alternate
Governor to the IAEA Board of Governors and Deputy Head of the Cuban dele-
gation to the IAEA General Conference during the same period. In the 1990s, he
was Invited University Professor in Mathematics Science and Invited Professor for
International Relations in the Diplomatic Academy of Cuba. Throughout the
beginning of the 1990s, he was appointed Special Adviser and Ambassador for
Disarmament and Non-proliferation and Chairman of the Disarmament
Interministerial Committee in the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Cuba. He was
also head of the Cuban delegations to different international conferences organised
by the United Nations and participated as United Nations experts in several inter-
national meetings. In 1995 and into the 2000s, Morales Pedraza worked for the
IAEA as Regional Project Coordinator for Latin American region, Interim
Section Head for the Latin American and the Caribbean region and Senior
Interregional Manager in the Director’s office.
Over the past years, he was involved in the preparation, as author and coauthor,
of more than 70 articles published by international publishers, as well as more than
15 chapters in various books focusing on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy,
renewable and conventional energy, the use of the radiation for sterilisation of
tissues, tissue banking, financial investment, disarmament and non-proliferation,
among other topics.
During this period, he also authored ten books and was invited editor for
international journals. Morales Pedraza is a member of the editorial teams of five
specialised international journals.

xix
Chapter 1
General Overview

Abstract There are several energy sources that can be used today for electricity
generation. These are: Fossil Fuels, mainly oil, coal, and gas as well as uncon-
ventional oil and gas; Renewables, mainly hydro, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal
and wave; and nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is one of the main base-load
electricity-generating sources available in the world today generating 12.9% of the
global power production in 2014. Undoubtedly, the use of nuclear energy for
electricity generation occupies a unique position in the debate over global climate
change as it is the only carbon-free energy source that: • Is already contributing to
world energy supplies on a large scale; • Has the potential to be expanded if the
challenges on safety, non-proliferation, waste management, public opinion, social
license challenges, and economic competitiveness are properly addressed; • Is
technologically fully mature. Among the new nuclear technology that is expect to
increase the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation in many countries is the
so called “Small Modular Reactor or SMR”.

1.1 Introduction

Energy development is an integral part of enhanced economic development.

Advanced industrialized countries use more energy per unit of economic output and
far more energy per capita than developing countries, especially those still in a
pre-industrial state. Energy use per unit of output does seem to decline over time in
the more advanced stages of industrialization, reflecting the adoption of increas-
ingly more efficient technologies for energy production and utilization as well as
changes in the composition of economic activity (Nakicenovic 1996).
Undoubtedly, energy intensity in today’s developing countries has probably
peaked sooner and at a lower level along the development path compared to the
industrialization period of the developed world. However, even with trends toward
greater energy efficiency and other dampening factors, total energy use and energy
use per capita continue to grow in the advanced industrialized countries, and even
more rapid growth is expected in the developing countries as their incomes advance

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 1

J. Morales Pedraza, Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52216-6_1
2 1 General Overview

in the coming decades. The fact that expanded provision and use of energy services
is strongly associated with economic development shows how important energy is
as a causal factor in the economic development of countries.
There are several energy sources that can be used today for electricity genera-
tion. These are:
• Fossil Fuels, mainly oil, coal, and gas as well as unconventional oil and gas;
• Renewables, mainly hydro, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and wave;
• Nuclear energy.
Each government should decide what is the best and most reliable energy mix
for the country’s electricity generation, taking into account the level of its energy
reserves, the available technologies and the experience of the country in the use of
these technologies, the infrastructure already built, the availability of well-trained
and experienced professionals and technicians, the costs associated with each
electricity generating source, the impact on the environment, the public opinion,
among others important elements. The cost of energy has emerged as an important
dimension of international competitiveness for the industry sector, in particular in
light of the “shale gas revolution” taking place in the U.S. Analyses show that while
fossil fuels still remain key drivers of electricity and natural gas price formation,
market opening and competition appear to have significant downward price effects
for both household and industrial consumers (European Commission 2014).
Energy is important for the competitiveness of a country’s economy as it affects
the production costs of industries and services as well as the purchasing power of
households. Energy costs are not only driven by the type of fuel mix used, but they
are influenced by energy policy choices as well as by technological evolutions that
can contribute to reducing the country’s energy needs (European Commission
2014).
Nuclear energy is one of the main base-load electricity-generating sources
available in the world today, generating 12.9% of the global power production in
2014 and 10.7% in 2015 (Schneider et al. 2016). Undoubtedly, the use of nuclear
energy for electricity generation occupies a unique position in the debate over
global climate change as it is the only carbon-free energy source that:
• Is already contributing to world energy supplies on a large scale;
• Has the potential to be expanded if the challenges on safety, non-proliferation,
waste management, public opinion, social license challenges, and economic
competitiveness are properly addressed;
• Is technologically fully mature.
It is important to highlight that in the view of several nuclear experts, any
alternative nuclear development pathway (such as additional flexibility in tech-
nology approaches and deployment strategies) would need to be evolutionary,
rather than a disruptive, radical shift (Rosner and Goldberg 2011).
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the use of
nuclear energy for electricity generation is expected to grow around the world,
1.1 Introduction 3

Fig. 1.1 Number of nuclear power reactors in operation, long-term shutdown and under
construction by regions. Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

particularly in Asia and the Pacific region, as demand for electricity increases as
foreseen. This is despite the negative impact that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
accident had on public opinion in several countries not only in the Asia and the
Pacific region, but in other regions as well.
In 2016, a total of 31 countries,1 or 16% of the 193 members of the United
Nations, were operating 447 nuclear power reactors with an installed capacity of
389,051 MWe distributed among all regions of the world (see Fig. 1.1).
In 2014, nuclear power plants generated 2410 TWh of electricity, which is 1.7%
more than the electricity generated in 2013. In 2015, a total of 448 units generated
2,441.33 TWh of electricity, which is 1.3% higher than the total electricity gen-
erated in 2014.
The number of nuclear power reactors in operation in 2015 and the evolution of
electricity generation with the use of nuclear energy during the period 2006–2015
are shown in Figs. 1.2 and 1.3 and in Table 1.1.
The number of nuclear power reactor in long-term shutdown is included in
Table 1.2.
The nuclear share of the world’s power generation remained stable over the past
four years, with 10.7% in 2015 after declining steadily from a historic peak of
17.6% in 1996. Nuclear power’s share of global commercial primary energy con-
sumption also remained stable at 4.4% prior to 2014, the lowest level since 1984.
The five biggest nuclear generating countries by rank are the U.S., France, Russia,
China, and South Korea, generated about two-thirds (69% in 2014) of the world’s
nuclear electricity in 2015. China moved up one rank. The U.S. and France
accounted for half of global nuclear electricity generation, and France produced half
of the European Union’s nuclear output (Schneider et al. 2016).

1
Close to half of the world’s number of countries that are using nuclear energy for electricity
generation are located in the European Union (EU), and in 2015 they accounted for exactly one
third of the world’s gross nuclear electricity production, with half that EU generation in France.
4 1 General Overview

Fig. 1.2 Number of nuclear power reactors in operation in 2015. Note The total number of
nuclear power reactors in China includes also six units in Taiwan. Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

Electricity generated (MWe)

2700 2,660 2,629
2,608 2,597
2,558 Electricity generated (MWe)
2600 2,517
2500 2,410 2,441
2,346 2,370
2400
2300
2200
2100
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Fig. 1.3 Evolution of the world’s generation of electricity by nuclear energy during the period
2006–2015. Source IAEA-PRIS 2016
1.1 Introduction 5

Table 1.1 Total number of nuclear power reactors in operation by country in 2016
Country Number of reactors Total net electrical capacity [MW]
Argentina 3 1632
Armenia 1 375
Belgium 7 5913
Brazil 2 1884
Bulgaria 2 1926
Canada 19 13,524
China 35 30,402
Czech Republic 6 3930
Finland 4 2752
France 58 63,130
Germany 8 10,799
Hungary 4 1889
India 21 5308
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 915
Japan 43 40,290
Korea, Republic of 25 23,133
Mexico 2 1440
Netherlands 1 482
Pakistan 3 690
Romania 2 1300
Russia 35 25,443
Slovakia 4 1814
Slovenia 1 688
South Africa 2 1860
Spain 7 7121
Sweden 10 9651
Switzerland 5 3333
Ukraine 15 13,107
United Kingdom 15 8918
United States of America 100 100,350
Total 447 389,051
The following information is included in the totals
Taiwan, China 6 5052
Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

As can be seen in Fig. 1.4, almost all countries included in it generated electricity
closed to the maximum historic records registered until 2016 except for Germany.
In the case of nuclear share, more than 10 countries have now a share well below
the maximum historic records registered until 2016 (see Fig. 1.5). Brazil, China,
Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Spain and the U.K.—a list that
includes three of the world’s four largest economies—now all generate more
6 1 General Overview

Table 1.2 Number of nuclear power reactor in long-term shutdown

Long-term shutdown reactors
Country Number of reactors Total net electrical capacity [MW]
Japan 1 246
Spain 1 446
Total 2 692
Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

Fig. 1.4 Annual nuclear power generation by country and historic maximum. Sources IAEA,
MSC, 2016

Fig. 1.5 Annual nuclear share in electricity mix by country and historic maximum. Sources
IAEA, MSC, 2016
1.1 Introduction 7

electricity from non-hydro renewables than from nuclear power. In 2015, annual
growth for global generation from solar was over 33%, for wind power over 17%, and
for nuclear power 1.3%, exclusively due to China. Compared to 1997, when the
Kyoto Protocol on climate change was signed, in 2015 an additional 829 TWh of
wind power was produced globally and 252 TWh of solar photovoltaics electricity,
compared to a nuclear additional of 178 TWh. In China, as in the previous three years,
in 2015, electricity production from wind alone (185 TWh), exceeded that from
nuclear (161 TWh). The same phenomenon is seen in India, where wind power (41
TWh) outpaced nuclear (35 TWh) for the fourth year in a row. Of all U.S. electricity,
8% was generated by non-hydro renewables in 2015, up from 2.7% in 2007.
The figures for the European Union illustrate the rapid decline of the role of
nuclear energy in electricity generation: during 1997–2014, wind produced an
additional 303 TWh and solar 109 TWh, while nuclear electricity generation
declined by 65 TWh.
According to Fig. 1.3, the nuclear electricity generated worldwide decreased
9.3% during the period 2006–2015, except for the 2009–2010 and 2012–2015
periods. The main reason for this decrease was that the number of nuclear power
reactors shutdown during those periods was higher than the number of new nuclear
power reactors connected to the electrical grid. Figure 1.3 clearly shows that
nuclear power generation went through a decline during the 2006–2009 and 2011–
2012 periods, caused by the drop in nuclear power generation in Japan and
Germany as well as other countries after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident.
The Fukushima Daiichi meltdown resulted not only in the shutdown of almost all of
Japan’s operating nuclear power plants, but also in the immediate shutdown of eight
units in Germany, among other plants across the world.
After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, all major nuclear power countries
revised their long-term nuclear power plans and carried out a deep revision of all
safety measures in force for all nuclear power plants in operation. Because of this
revision, governments developed and adopted additional stringent safety measures
to continue with their nuclear power development in the safest manner. However, at
least two countries have come up with plans to completely phase out nuclear power
from their energy mix: Germany before 2022 and Switzerland before 2035. Other
countries such as Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands, are thinking of following
the same path in the future, while others, such as China, Japan, France, the U.K. and
other EU countries have developed strong frameworks for nuclear safety and have
performed stress tests on their operating nuclear power reactors to ensure their safe
operation in the future. Despite the introduction of additional stringent safety
measures applicable to both existing and future nuclear power plants, it is expected
that the installation of new units will continue its growth trajectory, but at a slower
pace (Morales Pedraza 2015).2

2
According to WNA sources, seven countries have moved forward in actively developing nuclear
programmes and two countries (Belarus and the United Arab Emirates) have already started
constructing their first nuclear power plant. WNA places the seven countries in two categories:
8 1 General Overview

Nuclear power capacity is expected to rise steadily worldwide, particularly in the

Asia and the Pacific region. In other regions, the increase will be much slower, but
is still required to satisfy a foreseeable increase in energy demand in several
countries, particularly in Russia, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, U.K., Hungary,
and the Czech Republic. Some countries such as the UAE, Turkey, Belarus,
Poland, Vietnam, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Bangladesh, are taking specific mea-
sures to introduce a nuclear power programme for the first time to reduce green-
house gas emissions, and the negative environmental impact that is tied to the use of
fossil fuels for electricity generation (Morales Pedraza 2015).
According to the IAEA, the future growth of nuclear power will be driven by
large-scale capacity additions in the Asia and the Pacific market. There is a total of
495 projects for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the pipeline, 316
of which are planned to be constructed in the Asia and the Pacific region (63.8% of
the total). In addition, in 2014, a total of 47 units were under construction in that
region (71.2% of the total) and 142 units were planned for 2030. Asian investment
in nuclear projects could reach US$781 billion during the period up to 2030, based
on information provided by the World Nuclear Association (WNA). Certainly,
China has the biggest nuclear power programme in the Asia and the Pacific region
with 23 units in operation in the Mainland plus two in Taiwan (total 25 units), and
20 units under construction, according to information provided by the Chinese
government and the IAEA (see Fig. 1.6). In 2015, China will begin the construction
of five new nuclear power reactors with a capacity of 5 GW.
The number of nuclear power reactors under construction per country in 2016 is
shown in Fig. 1.6.
In January 2016, there were 62 nuclear power reactors under construction in 15
countries with a total capacity of 61,249 MW, according to IAEA sources (16 if
Taiwan is counted separately from China) (see Table 1.3). Although most of the
planned nuclear power reactors were in the Asia and the Pacific region (China 20
units; India six units; Korea three units; Japan two units3; and Pakistan three units,
see Table 1.3), it is important to highlight that Russia and Belarus have also plans
for the construction of eight and two new nuclear power reactors during the coming
years, respectively. In addition to the setting up of new nuclear power reactors in

(Footnote 2 continued)
• Contracts signed, legal and regulatory infrastructure well-developed or developing:
Bangladesh, Lithuania, Turkey and Vietnam;
• Committed plans, legal and regulatory infrastructure developing: Jordan, Poland and Egypt.
WNA, also claims that there are an additional 11 countries in which construction of nuclear
power plants is planned, which includes, those with “well-developed plans”, Chile, Indonesia,
Kazakhstan, Thailand and Saudi Arabia and those “developing plans” including, Israel, Kenya,
Laos, Malaysia, Morocco, and Nigeria. They further list another 20 countries in which nuclear is a
“serious policy option”.
3
These two units are still declared under construction by Japan, but at this stage it is difficult to
confirm that these units will be finished in the coming years, or will never be concluded.
1.1 Introduction 9

Fig. 1.6 Number of nuclear power reactors under construction in 2016. Source IAEA-PRIS

Table 1.3 Number of nuclear power reactors under construction by country in 2016
Country Number of reactors Total net electrical capacity [MW]
Argentina 1 25
Belarus 2 2218
Brazil 1 1245
China 20 20,500
Finland 1 1600
France 1 1630
India 6 3907
Japan 2 2650
Korea, Republic of 3 4,020
Pakistan 3 1644
Russia 8 6582
Slovakia 2 880
Ukraine 2 1900
United Arab Emirates 4 5380
United States of America 4 4468
Total 62 61,249
The following information is included in the totals
Taiwan, China 2 2600
10 1 General Overview

the countries mentioned above, a large amount of capacity will be created through
plant upgrades in many other countries, particularly in the U.S. and in some EU
countries.4
Only two newcomer countries are building new nuclear power reactors. These
countries are Belarus and United Arab Emirates (UAE). Public information on the
status of these construction projects is scarce. On the other hand, further delays
have occurred over the year in the development of nuclear power programmes in
Bangladesh, Egypt, Jordan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Vietnam. Chile and
Lithuania shelved their new-build projects, whereas Indonesia abandoned plans for
a nuclear programme altogether for the foreseeable future (Schneider et al. 2016).
Based on what was said before, it is expected that nuclear power capacity will
reach 520.6 GWe in 2025 such that nuclear power generation will reach 3698 TWh.
In the absence of major new-build programmes apart from China, the
unit-weighted average age of the world operating nuclear power reactor fleet
continues to rise, and by mid-2016 stood at 29 years. Over half of the total, or 215
units, have operated for more than 30 years, including 59 that have run for over
40 years, of which 37 are in the U.S. This situation could force many countries
either the closure of a high number of units in the coming decades or the extension
of their life operation license.

1.2 Types of Nuclear Power Reactors

There are six different types of nuclear power reactors now operating in 31 coun-
tries. These are the following:
• Pressurised Water Reactors (PWR)5;
• Boiling Water Reactors (BWR);
• Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR);
• Gas-Cooled Reactors (AGE and Magnox);
• Light Water Graphite Reactors (RBMK and EGP);
• Fast-Neutron Breeder Reactors (FBR).
The number of nuclear power reactors by type in operation worldwide in 2013 is
given in Table 1.4.
According to Table 1.4, most of the nuclear power reactors currently in opera-
tion in several countries are PWRs type (273 units in 2013), following by BWRs
type (81 units in 2013). Three of the types of nuclear power reactors included in

4
In the first half of 2016, five nuclear power reactors started up, three in China, one in South Korea
and one in the U.S. (Watts Bar 2, 43 years after construction start), while none were shut down.
However, the permanent closure of one additional nuclear power reactor has been announced in
Japan. Ikata-1, that had not generated any power since 2011 (Schneider et al. 2016).
5
About 62.6% of the nuclear power reactors in commercial operation (439 units) are PWRs.
A total of 58 PWRs units are under construction (84% of the total).
1.2 Types of Nuclear Power Reactors 11

Table 1.4 Nuclear power reactors in commercial operation in 2013

Reactor type Main Number GWe Fuel Coolant Moderator
Countries
Pressurised U.S., 273 253 Enriched Water Water
Water Reactor France, UO2
(PWR) Japan,
Russia,
China
Boiling Water U.S., 81 76 Enriched Water Water
Reactor (BWR) Japan, UO2
Sweden
Pressurised Canada 48 24 Natural Heavy Heavy
Heavy Water UO2 water water
Reactor
‘CANDU’
(PHWR)
Gas-Cooled U.K. 15 8 Natural U CO2 Graphite
Reactor (AGR (metal),
and Magnox) Enriched
UO2
Light Water Russia 11 + 4 10.2 Enriched Water Graphite
Graphite Reactor UO2
(RBMK and
EGP)
Fast Neutron Russia 2 0.6 PuO2 and Liquid None
Reactor (FBR) UO2 sodium
Total 434 372
Note In 2014, they were 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in 31 countries, five more than in
2013
Source IAEA

Table 1.4 are only in operation in two countries. These countries are U.K. (one type
of nuclear power reactor) and Russia (two types of nuclear power reactors).

1.3 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

A new boom in nuclear power maybe on its way and it can be detected in several
countries. This new boom may not be led by giant gigawatt nuclear power plants
like the ones that are now operating in several countries, but by batteries of small
nuclear power reactors.6 Why? The problem is that nuclear energy is the proverbial

6
It is important to note that the term small sized reactor does not necessarily mean small sized
nuclear power plant. In the case of the SMRs, a nuclear power plant can be constructed using
several units of this type of reactors and for this reason could have the size of a medium or large
nuclear power plants (700 MW or more).
12 1 General Overview

political hot potato, even in early days when the new energy source exploded onto
the world scene. Even worse, nuclear power suffers from the natural gas boom
brought on by new drilling techniques and fracking that opened vast new gas fields
in the U.S. and dropped the price of gas to the point where coal and nuclear have a
hard time matching it (Szondy 2012).
The tremendous amount of energy locked in the atom held the promise of a
future in which the electricity generation would be very cheap. But although
nuclear power did bring about incredible changes in our world in its primary role of
generating electricity for homes and industry, it ended up as less of a miracle and
more of a very complicated way of generating electricity, with a huge initial capital
investment and potentially dangerous if not handled with great care. Though
hundreds of nuclear power reactors were built all over the world and some coun-
tries, such as France, generate most of their electricity from it, nuclear power has
faced continuing questions over cost, safety, waste disposal, proliferation and a
strong public opposition to the use of this type of energy for electricity generation.
Public opposition to the use of nuclear power has provoked that many Western
countries are suffering a shortage of nuclear engineers to operate their nuclear
power plants, because many see it as a dying industry not worth getting into. This is
particularly acute in the U.S. and U.K., neither of which have retained the capacity
to build the required reactor vessels and must contract these capabilities from
overseas manufacturers.
On the other hand, nuclear power typically is associated with large nuclear
power plants, so the drive to downsize marks a significant departure from business
as usual. Four of the ten largest electricity plants in the world are nuclear-powered,
and the average capacity of U.S. nuclear power reactors is more than 1000 MWe
(large enough to power about 800,000 U.S. homes). The smallest U.S. nuclear
power reactor in operation, the Fort Calhoun power plant in Nebraska, is more than
500 MW.
The huge initial capital investment that is needed to finance the construction of a
nuclear power plant is another key problem faced by the revival of nuclear power in
many countries. Up until now, the capacity of nuclear power reactors used for
generating electricity have tended toward large nuclear power reactors with a
capacity of more than 1000 MW. With nuclear power plants that large, the cost of
construction combined with obtaining permits, securing insurance and meeting
legal challenges from environmentalist groups and the public, can push the cost of a
conventional 1000 MW nuclear power reactor towards as much as US$9 billion. It
also means very long construction times, between 10 and 15 years in some cases,
and operate under very different principles from those of previous generations.
It is important to highlight that sometimes it is perceived that SMRs are meant to
address users in countries that currently either do not have a nuclear infrastructure
in place, or have it on a small scale, and are contemplating the use of this type of
energy source for electricity generation for the first time or are thinking in a sig-
nificant expansion of nuclear power. Fortunately, this is not the case, because most
innovative SMR designs are intended to fulfil a broad variety of applications in
developed and developing countries alike, regardless of whether they have already
1.3 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 13

embarked on a nuclear power programme or are only planning to do so. For this
reason, SMR designs offer opportunities for scale-up and, therefore, could move us
faster to clean energy supplies. However, because of the high capital intensity of
nuclear energy projects, the cost of nuclear electricity is particularly sensitive to the
availability of financing at competitive rates (Rosner and Goldberg 2011).
To keep the nuclear power option, open in several countries, a series of different
nuclear power reactor designs have been emerging based on smaller, modular
designs. SMRs power plants are not different from those using large nuclear power
reactors. However, there are two main differences between these large nuclear
power reactors and SMRs: Higher degree of innovation implemented in their
designs, and specific conditions and requirements of target markets. Although
varied in type and state of development, these reactors offer potential advantages to
a numerous domestic and international needs for clean, carbon-free, baseload
electrical energy. A study conducted by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s
Joint Global Change Research Institute has projected the required growth of nuclear
power, along with advanced fossil, renewables and conservation/efficiency to sta-
bilize carbon concentrations in the atmosphere (Kim 2008). Under
carbon-constrained scenarios, nuclear power is expected to more than double by
2035, nearly triple by mid-century and increase more than tenfold by the end of the
century (Buelt 2009).
What is new in this type of nuclear power reactors that is promising an increase
in the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation? An important difference
between conventional nuclear power reactors and SMRs, in additional of what have
been mentioned early, is that this new type of nuclear power reactor can be con-
structed in factories in pre-fabricated modules to expedite the construction of a
single large nuclear power plant on the same site, and could be installed under-
ground, which improves containment and security, although may hinder emergency
access.7
In other words, SMRs are designed based on the modularisation of their com-
ponents, which means the structures, systems and components are shop-fabricated,
then shipped and assembled on site, with the purpose of significantly reduce con-
struction time and costs (Morales Pedraza 2015) (see Fig. 1.7).
Another important difference is the possibility to standardise this type of nuclear
power reactor. In other words, some types can be built in factories that can employ
economies of scale. The factory-built aspect is also important because a factory is
more efficient than on-site construction by as much as eight to one in terms of
building time. Factory assembly also allows SMRs to be built, delivered to site, and
returned to the factory for dismantling at the end of their service lives—eliminating
a major problem of conventional nuclear power reactors, i.e. their disposal (Szondy
2012).

7
SMR proponents claim that small size will enable mass manufacturing in a factory and shipment
to the site as an assembled unit, which will enable considerable savings in two ways. First, it would
reduce onsite construction cost and time; second, mass manufacturing will make up in economies
of volume production what is lost in economies of scale (Makhijani 2013).
14 1 General Overview

Fig. 1.7 Prototype of an SMR. Source ANS

The third important difference is that advanced SMRs would use different
approaches for achieving a high level of safety and reliability in their systems,
structures and components, which will be the result of complex interaction between
design, operation, material, and human factors, among others. Specifically, in a
post-Fukushima Daiichi lessons-learned environment, current SMR designs have
three inherent advantages over conventional large operating nuclear power reactors,
namely:
• These designs mitigate and, potentially, eliminate the need for back-up or
emergency electrical generators, relying exclusively on robust battery power to
maintain minimal safety operations;
• They improve seismic capability with the containment and reactor vessels in a
pool of water underground; this dampens the effects of any earth movement and
greatly enhances the ability of the system to withstand earthquakes;
• They provide large and robust underground pool storage for the spent fuel,
drastically reducing the potential of uncovering these pools (Rosner and
Goldberg 2011).
In SMR designs, as in larger nuclear power reactor designs, the defence in depth
strategy is used to protect the public and the environment from accidental releases
of radiation. Nearly all SMR designs seek to strengthen the first and subsequent
levels of defence by incorporating inherent and passive safety features. For
example, relatively smaller core sizes enable integral coolant system layouts and
larger reactor surface-to-volume ratios or lower core power densities, which
1.3 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 15

facilitate passive decay heat removal. Using the benefits of such features, the main
goal is to eliminate or prevent, through design, as many accident initiators and
accident consequences as possible. Remaining plausible accident initiators and
consequences are then addressed by appropriate combinations of active and passive
safety systems. The intended outcome is greater plant simplicity with high safety
levels that, in turn, may allow reduced emergency requirements off-site (IAEA
Technical Report No. NP-T-2.2 2009).
The fourth important difference is that SMRs enjoy a good deal of design
flexibility. In general, conventional nuclear power reactors are usually cooled by
water, which means that the nuclear power plants need to be situated near rivers or
coastlines. SMRs, on the other hand, can be cooled by air, gas, low-melting point
metals or salt. This means that SMRs can be placed in remote, inland areas where it
is not possible to site any other type of conventional nuclear power reactors.
For all the reasons mentioned above, interest in SMRs continues to grow as a
real option for future power generation and energy security,8 particularly in the U.S.
and in several developing countries located in different regions. However, the first
phase of advanced SMRs deployment must ultimately demonstrate high levels of
plant safety and reliability, and prove their economics to allow its further com-
mercialisation. It is important to highlight that this type of nuclear power reactor
would have greater automation, but will still rely on human interaction for super-
vision, system management, and operational decisions because operators are still
regarded as the last line of defence, if failures in automated protective measures
occur (Morales Pedraza 2015). For this reason, the preparation of operators for
SMRs should be the same than the preparation of operators for conventional nuclear
power plants.

1.3.1 Benefits of the Use of Small Modular Reactors

The use of SMRs for electricity generation or for any other non-electrical purpose,
offers several advantages in comparison with larger nuclear power reactors
including:
• Shorter construction time (modularisation):
• Design simplicity;
• Suitability for non-electric application (desalination, etc.);
• Fitness for smaller electricity grids;

8
One reason for government and private industry to take an interest in SMRs is that they have been
successfully employed for much longer than most people realize. In fact, hundreds of this type of
reactor has been steaming around the world inside the hulls of nuclear submarines and other
warships for 60 years. They have also been used in merchant ships, icebreakers, and as research
and medical isotope reactors at universities.
16 1 General Overview

• Reduced emergency planning zone9;

• Lower initial capital investment (in absolute terms, see Fig. 1.8) and easier
financing scheme;
• Scalability;
• Site flexibility for locations unable to accommodate larger nuclear power
reactors (remote areas);
• Potential for enhanced safety and security.10
However, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), their safety
advantages are not as straightforward as some proponents suggest. The reasons are
the following:
• SMRs use passive cooling systems that do not depend on the availability of
electric power. This would be a genuine advantage under many accident sce-
narios, but not all. Passive systems are not infallible, and credible designs should
include reliable active backup cooling systems. This would add to cost11;
• SMRs feature smaller, less robust containment systems than conventional
reactors. This can have negative safety consequences, including a greater
probability of damage from hydrogen explosions. SMR designs include mea-
sures to prevent hydrogen from reaching explosive concentrations, but they are
not as reliable as a more robust containment—which, again, would add to cost;
• Some proponents have suggested siting SMRs underground as a safety measure.
However, underground siting is a double-edged sword—it reduces risk in some
situations (such as an earthquake) and increases it in others (such as flooding). It
can also make emergency intervention more difficult and it too increases cost;
• Proponents also point out that smaller nuclear power reactors are inherently less
dangerous than larger ones. While this is true, it is misleading, because small
nuclear power reactors generate less power than large ones, and therefore more
of them are required to meet the same energy needs. Multiple SMRs may
present a higher risk than a single large nuclear power reactor, especially if plant
owners try to cut costs by reducing support staff or safety equipment per reactor.
As indicated in Fig. 1.8, on average, investor-owned U.S. utilities, representing
70% of nuclear generation, have about US$13 billion in average annual revenue.
A twin-unit GW-scale nuclear investment of US$11 billion would represent about
90% of their annual revenues—suggesting that a larger size project presents a risk

9
In the case of SMRs, the emergency planned zone is much smaller than the emergency planned
zone of a conventional nuclear power plant and for this reason can be built closer to population
areas.
10
For additional information about this important subject see Morales Pedraza (2015).
11
The need to reduce SMR capital costs is driving one important passive safety system—the
containment structure—to be smaller and less robust. None of the iPWR designs has a containment
structure around. The need to reduce SMR capital costs is driving one important passive safety
system—the containment structure—to be smaller and less robust. SMRs, therefore, must rely on
means to prevent hydrogen from reaching explosive concentrations.
1.3 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 17

Fig. 1.8 Comparison of size of investment (i.e., overnight cost) with average annual revenues of
investor-owned nuclear utilities. Source Rosner and Goldberg (2011)

premium due to size alone that cannot be ignored and may well be substantial.
However, for SMRs, the risk premium associated with project size has significant
potential to be mitigated because lower upfront investments potentially shorten the
pre-completion period and, therefore, lower pre-completion risk. These factors
would result in a lower risk premium and, in turn, a lower weighted-average cost of
capital. If lower weighted-average cost of capital is achieved, the opportunity to
compete with natural gas-fired generation in both regulated and unregulated terri-
tories would be larger than for GW-scale nuclear power plants, thus further
enhancing the future competitiveness of SMRs.12
In addition to the amount of capital cost associated with the construction of
SMRs, there are also safety issues that need to be considered as well. Tables 1.5
and 1.6 include a comparison of current generation nuclear power plant safety and
support systems to potential SMR designs.
It is important to highlight that safety issues in large nuclear power reactors are a
significant element that cannot be underestimated because they require very fast
reaction times to prevent damage in the event of an accident. This is not the case for
SMRs.

12
However, according to some expert’s opinions, SMR costs are unlikely to fall below current
reactor designs, and may well be higher. The investments risks will be at least as high, and
probably higher, though most of these risks will be shifted to the setup of the supply chain and the
assembly line. In the particularly case of the U.S. setting up a mass manufacturing supply chain
would likely require vast government subsidies, probably in the tens of billions of dollars
(Makhijani 2013).
18 1 General Overview

Table 1.5 Comparison of current-generation plant safety systems to potential SMR designs
Current‐generation safety‐related systems SMR safety systems
High‐pressure injection system. No active safety injection system required.
Low‐pressure injection system. Core cooling is maintained using passive
systems.
Emergency sump and associated net positive No safety‐related pumps for accident
suction head requirements for safety‐related mitigation; therefore, no need for sumps and
pumps. protection of their suction supply.
Emergency diesel generators. Passive design does not require emergency
alternating‐current power to maintain core
cooling. Core heat removed by heat transfer
through the vessel.
Active containment heat systems. None required because of passive heat
rejection out of containment.
Containment spray system. Spray systems are not required to reduce
steam pressure or to remove radioiodine from
containment.
Emergency core cooling system initiation, Simpler and/or passive safety systems require
instrumentation and control systems. less testing and are not as prone to inadvertent
Complex systems require a significant initiation.
amount of online testing that contributes to
plant unreliability and challenges of safety
systems with inadvertent initiations.
Emergency feed water system, condensate Ability to remove core heat without an
storage tanks, and associated emergency emergency feed water system is a significant
cooling water supplies. safety enhancement.
Source WNA

Table 1.6 Comparison of current-generation plant support systems to potential SMR designs
Current‐generation safety‐related systems SMR support systems
Reactor coolant pump seals. Leakage of seals Integral designs eliminate the need for seals.
has been a safety concern. Seal maintenance
and replacement are costly and time‐
consuming.
Ultimate heat sinks and associated interfacing SMR designs are passive and reject heat by
systems. River and seawater systems are conduction and convection. Heat rejection to
active systems, subject to loss of function an external water heat sink is not required.
from such causes as extreme weather
conditions and bio‐fouling.
Closed cooling water systems are required to No closed cooling water systems are required
support safety‐related systems for heat for safety‐related systems.
removal of core and equipment heat.
Heating, ventilating, and air‐conditioning The plant design minimizes or eliminates the
(HVAC). Required to function to support need for safety‐related room cooling,
proper operation of safety‐related systems. eliminating both the HVAC system and
associated closed water cooling systems.
Source WNA
1.3 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 19

In SMRs, the cooling system is often passive. What does this mean? This means
that the cooling system relies more on the natural circulation of the cooling medium
within the reactor’s containment flask than on pumps. This passive cooling system
is one of the ways that SMRs can improve safety. Because modular reactors are
smaller than conventional nuclear power reactors, they contain less nuclear fuel.
This means that there is less of a mass to be affected, if an accident occurs. If one
does happen, there is less radioactive material that could be released into the
environment, which makes it easier to design emergency systems. Since SMRs are
smaller and use less nuclear fuel, they are easier to cool effectively, which greatly
reduces the likelihood of a serious nuclear accident or meltdown in the first place.
This also means that nuclear accidents proceed much slower in SMRs than in
conventional nuclear power reactors of greater capacities. For conventional nuclear
power reactors, accident responses should be adopted in a very short period (in
some specific cases in minutes). However, for SMR accidents can be responded to
in hours or days, which reduces the chances of an accident resulting in major
damage to the main nuclear power reactor elements (Szondy 2012).
In the view of SMR designers, smaller capacity reactors have the following
generic features, potentially contributing to an effectiveness in the implementation
of inherent and passive safety features:
• Larger surface-to-volume ratio, facilitating easier decay heat removal, specifi-
cally, with a single-phase coolant;
• An option to achieve compact primary coolant system design, e.g., the integral
pool type primary coolant system, which could contribute to the effective
suppression of certain initiating events;
• Reduced core power density, facilitating easy use of many passive features and
systems, not limited to natural convection based systems;
• Lower potential hazard that generically results from lower source term owing to
lower fuel inventory, less non-nuclear energy stored in the reactor, and a lower
decay heat generation rate (IAEA Technical Report No. NP-T-2.2 2009).
According to DoE, some of the main benefits of the SMRs are the following:
• Modularity: The term “modular” in the context of SMRs refers to the ability to
fabricate major components of the nuclear steam supply system in a factory
environment and ship to the site;
• Lower capital investment (in absolute terms): SMRs can reduce a nuclear
power plant owner’s capital investment due to the lower plant capital cost.
Modular components and factory fabrication can reduce construction costs and
duration;
• Siting flexibility: SMRs can provide power for applications where large nuclear
power plants are not needed or sites lack the infrastructure to support a large
unit. This would include smaller electricity markets, the need to supply
20 1 General Overview

electricity in isolated areas13 and with small grids, sites with limited water and
acreage or unique industrial applications. SMRs are expected to be attractive
options for the replacement or repowering of aging fossil power plants or to
provide an option for complementing existing industrial processes or power
plants with an energy source that does not emit greenhouse gases;
• Gain efficiency: SMRs can be coupled with other energy sources, including
renewable and fossil energy, to leverage resources and produce higher effi-
ciencies and multiple energy end-products, while increasing grid stability and
security. Some advanced SMR designs can produce a higher temperature pro-
cess heat for either electricity generation or industrial applications;
• Non-proliferation and safety: SMRs also provide safety and potential
non-proliferation benefits to the international community. Most SMRs will be
built below grade for safety and security enhancements, addressing vulnera-
bilities to both sabotage and natural phenomena hazard scenarios. Some SMRs
will be designed to operate for extended periods without refuelling. The SMRs
could be fabricated and fuelled in a factory, sealed and transported to the sites
where they are going to be located for power generation or process heat, and
then returned to the factory for defueling at the end of the life cycle14;
• International marketplace: There is both a domestic and international market
for SMRs in several countries, particularly developing countries in all regions,
due to different reasons.
The design for a safer, smaller, modular-build/low-initial-cost nuclear power
reactor will alleviate some of the challenges facing nations looking to introduce
nuclear power. These challenges include:
• The need to develop a regulatory body in new nations that wish to use nuclear
energy for electricity generation;
• The need for public engagement on nuclear technology and public familiari-
sation with the nuclear regulatory process;
• The need to develop a specialised technical workforce;

13
Some SMR proponents argue that the size and safety of the designs of this type of nuclear power
reactors make them well suited for deployment to remote areas, military bases, and countries in the
developing world that have small electric grids, relatively low electric demand, and no nuclear
experience or emergency planning infrastructure. Such deployments, however, would raise
additional safety, security, and proliferation concerns (Lyman 2013).
14
SMRs can help with proliferation, nuclear waste and fuel supply issues because, while some
modular reactors are based on conventional PWRs and burn enhanced uranium, others use less
conventional fuels. Some, for example, can generate power from what is now regarded as nuclear
waste, burning depleted uranium and plutonium left over from conventional nuclear power
reactors. Depleted uranium is basically U-238 from which the fissile U-235 has been consumed. It
is also much more abundant in nature than U-235, which has the potential of providing the world
with energy for thousands of years. Other nuclear power reactor designs do not even use uranium.
Instead, they use thorium. This fuel is also incredibly abundant, is easy to process for use as fuel
and has the added bonus of being utterly useless for making weapons, so it can provide power even
to areas where security concerns have been raised (Szondy 2012).
1.3 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 21

• The usually high initial cost of building a gigawatt-output large nuclear power
reactor that may be alleviated by SMRs;
• The need for financial structures catering for the initial high cost of
reactor-build, but relatively lower operational and maintenance and fuel costs
during its 60-year lifecycle;
• The risk associated with a usually prolonged process for attaining a site-license
to build and license to operate;
• The need for a spent fuel repository, a reprocessing facility or a buy-burn-return
agreement from fuel suppliers (Paterson et al. 2014).
An important feature of SMRs relates to the waste problem. Supporters of SMRs
claim that with longer operation on a single fuel charge and with less production of
spent fuel per unit, waste management would be simpler. However, spent fuel
management for SMRs could be more complex than expected, under certain con-
ditions, and therefore more expensive, because the waste would be in many more
different sites, if several SMRs are built in the country (Morales Pedraza 2015).
Another important element associated with the SMRs that needs to be consid-
ered is the possibility of the construction of SMRs underground.15 In this case
waste retrieval, could be more difficult than in aboveground units, and could
complicate the retrieval of radioactive materials in the event of an accident. For
instance, it is highly unlikely that an SMR containing metallic sodium could be
disposed of as a single entity, given the high reactivity of sodium with both air and
water. Decommissioning a sealed sodium- or potassium cooled reactor could pre-
sent far greater technical challenges and costs per kilowatt of capacity than faced by
present-day aboveground SMR designs.
One of the important features associated with SMRs is the elimination of a single
shaft needed to generate power. Because SMRs can be bundled to operate with
multiple generators, a single module does not prevent continued operation of the
other modules. Hence, SMRs offer enhanced reliability of maintaining power to the
grid during single unit refuelling, maintenance, and unplanned events (Buelt 2009).
Finally, it is important to be aware of two issues that could have negative
implications in the use of SMRs if no adequate solutions are found. One is that the
use of SMRs will not be an immediate term climate solution. The long time—a
decade or more—that it will take to certify many of the different 45 prototypes of
SMRs will do little or nothing to help with the global warming problem that many
countries are now facing (Makhijani and Boyds 2010).
The second is the following: Proponents of SMRs point to the higher quality
control that would accompany mass manufacture of parts and assembly of reactors
in factories. This is indeed quite possible. But, none have so far pointed out the

15
Some industry representatives have suggested that underground siting could make SMRs less
vulnerable to attack, but this is true only in some possible attack scenarios—in others, underground
siting could work in the attackers' favour. No matter what safeguards are added to a plant’s design,
a robust and flexible security force will be needed.
22 1 General Overview

underbelly of manufacturing recalls. How SMRs would in this case be handled?

Would they all be shutdown pending resolution of an issue of comparable signif-
icance? What about grid stability, if SMRs supply almost 25% of the electricity by
2035, as suggested by some experts. Would the SMRs be sent back to the factory
on trucks or trains? Would the manufacturer train and equip technicians and
engineers and send them to sites all over the world to be fixed? The consideration of
this possibility is something that needs to be discussed in detail by government and
nuclear industry representatives (Makhijani 2013).16

1.3.2 The Perspective of the Small Modular Reactors

Market at World Level

The expansion in the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation has suffered
from the natural gas boom brought about by new drilling techniques and fracking17
that opened vast new gas fields in the West, particularly in the U.S., and in the
reduction in the oil price in the world market. However, the IAEA predicted
continued growth in nuclear power in the coming 15 years, but trimmed its pro-
jections because of low fossil fuel prices and competition from renewables. Nuclear
energy, in the long run, will continue to play an important role in the world’s energy
mix. The low end of its forecast sees worldwide nuclear power generating capacity
expanding 1.9% by 2030 to 390.2 GW—a gigawatt is one billion watts of electrical
power—from 2015.
The upper end foresees an expansion of 56% to 598.2 GW. Previously the
IAEA’s projections were higher, estimating growth of between 2.4 and 68%. The
low case assumes a continuation of current market, technology and resource trends
with few changes to policies affecting nuclear power. The high case assumes
current rates of economic and electricity demand growth, particularly in Asia, plus
countries turning more to nuclear to meet their commitments under the 2015 Paris
Agreement on climate change.

16
Failures occurred after the expected service life of the nuclear power reactor was exhausted.
Specifically, in the case of the nuclear power reactors used in nuclear icebreaker, depressurisation
of the pipe systems of steam generators and the pipelines of the pressurizing system occurred.
Analysis of the reasons for the failures showed previously overlooked phenomena affecting
equipment damageability. The main such phenomena are hydrogen pickup in the titanium tube
systems of steam generators, thermal cycling of pipelines and equipment assemblies, and nodal
corrosion of core elements made of zirconium alloys (Zverev et al. 2012).
17
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a controversial technique for extracting national gas from
deep oil and gas wells by injecting vast quantities of water mixed with chemicals and sand into the
ground at a high pressure to fracture shale rocks to release natural gas inside. Clearly, today,
because of an unanticipated abundance of natural gas in the U.S., nuclear energy, in general, is
facing tough competition. Natural gas prices are at historic lows. However, natural gas is a
commodity that has shown significant price volatility and is likely to exhibit similar patterns in the
future (Rosner and Goldberg 2011).
1.3 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 23

The use of these new technologies has dropped significantly the price of gas and
oil to the point where nuclear energy has a hard time competing with these two
types of energy sources. In addition, the strong public opposition to the use of
nuclear energy for electricity generation in several countries, particularly after the
Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accidents, is making the use of this type
of energy source for this specific purpose more difficult in many countries, par-
ticularly within the EU (Morales Pedraza 2015).
The lack of funds available for developing new nuclear power projects is
expected to delay the revival of the nuclear power industry in the U.S. and the EU.
The Fukushima Daiichi meltdown played a key role in the current lack of financial
support for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the U.S. and the EU
and is forcing several governments to reconsider their nuclear power policies,
particularly within the EU. The energy policy changes adopted, which are backed
by a fear of radiation, the concern on safe operation of nuclear power plants, the
management of nuclear waste, the negative impact on the environment, prolifera-
tion issues, the huge initial capital investment, the large construction time and
anti-nuclear public opinion, have caused uncertain market conditions, whereby
investment in nuclear power projects is deemed increasingly risky. Several inter-
national funding institutions have also become sceptical of financing nuclear power
projects and refuse to invest in such ventures, amplifying the uncertainty of the
nuclear market. The lack of government financial support for the construction of
new nuclear power plants has also had a negative impact in the expansion of the use
of nuclear energy for electricity generation in several countries, particularly in the
U.S. and in several European countries (Morales Pedraza 2015).
In the case of SMRs, opportunities for learning and productivity improvement
arise from the number of SMRs required to provide a fixed amount of power in a
large nuclear power plant. In addition, series production of a common design leads
to lower costs. Also, there is the potential for enhanced learning from factory
construction, made possible by their smaller size. Manufacturing learning leads to
progressive improvements in productivity and progressive reduction in cost
(Roulstone 2015). These elements make SMRs economically attractive for the
construction of new nuclear power plants.
To be competitive in anticipated markets, SMRs rely on design and deployment
approaches that can offset the adverse impacts of economy of scale. Such
approaches include:
• Design simplification resulting from the application of safety design features
that are the most appropriate for nuclear power reactors of smaller capacity;
• The economy of mass production of multiple prefabricated modules;
• The option of incremental capacity increase, with possible benefits resulting
from accelerated learning;
• Sharing of common equipment and facilities;
• Shorter construction periods, and unit timing (spread of investments over time);
• Possibly, greater involvement of local industry and local labour.
24 1 General Overview

The effectiveness of these approaches to SMR design and deployment depends

on the application and on market variables, such as interest rates, and needs to be
assessed and demonstrated for specific cases (IAEA No. NP-T-3.7 2013).
For these and other reasons, there is a move in several countries to develop
smaller units with the purpose of supplying them in the future to countries already
using nuclear energy for electricity generation and heating or to countries that are
interested in introducing a nuclear power program for the first time, even with a
relatively small electrical grid.
On the other hand, small units are a much more manageable investment than big
ones whose cost often rivals the capitalisation of the utilities concerned. This specific
characteristic of the SMRs makes them a real alternative for electricity generation in
several countries, including a group of developing countries. However, the suc-
cessful commercialisation of SMRs will require not merely a successful prototype
deployment, but also the development of an “order book” for an initial commercial
deployment programme. An order book of a substantial number of modules will be
needed to support the private sector investment in module manufacturing facilities so
that SMR vendors can manufacture sufficient modules to realise the benefits of
learning. Thus, the traditional energy technology commercialisation strategy of
building a one-of-a-kind demonstration is necessary, but not sufficient: it must be
closely linked to a follow-on order book for additional SMRs to lead to a com-
mercially viable SMR cost structure (Rosner and Goldberg 2011).
To make SMRs attractive and competitive, it is necessary to reduce the risk of
investment by verifying the technology itself, and by enhancing and incorporating
the accumulated experience associated with the implementation of this technol-
ogy.18 Newer SMR technologies may need to be deployed first to niche markets in
the nuclear power plant supplier countries to establish a technological base and
related infrastructure prior to offering them to other countries, particularly devel-
oping countries that are already using nuclear energy or are thinking of introducing
this type of energy source in the near future. Even though SMR designs and
concepts are numerous and ambitious, their deployment is not an easy task, as there
are many challenges; one such challenge is their economic competitiveness. SMRs
do not benefit from economies of scale. Instead, substantial efforts of their design
organisations are targeted at the improvement of plant economy. Nevertheless,
according to studies organised by the IAEA, scaling losses can be countered by
factors such as lower investment risk, improved cash flows, and shorter construc-
tion periods. The competitiveness of SMRs depends both on overcoming the lack of
economies of scale and on finding a suitable niche for them (IAEA No. NP-T-3.7
2013).

18
Many experts have commented on the low productivity of nuclear power plant construction,
caused by the constant evolution of reactor designs with many local and site-based variations.
Also, the long periods between projects, their geographic dispersion and the desire to employ local
staff, mean that lessons learned on one project are forgotten, particularly in the case that the
country nuclear power programme is very small (Roulstone 2015).
1.3 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 25

To be competitive, SMR designs need to meet two conditions. First, they must
have simplicity at the heart of their concept, which allows much of the complexity
of modern nuclear power reactors to be avoided and will result in a lower power
scaling effect. Second, SMRs must be designed at the outset for factory construction
and the design-for-manufacture approach must be applied across the whole power
plant, not just the reactor and turbine systems. Meeting these conditions will allow
to address the industrial questions, which then become the keys to a competitive
SMRs. How will the nuclear industry change from its fragmented design and
construction approach, where some parts of the power system are designed to
precision standards (reactor core and vessels) and will be built at the factory site and
other parts (containment building and the related systems) are left to site teams to
detail and construct? If positive answers can be found to these business problems,
among others, SMRs could have a bright future (Roulstone 2015).
Some simpler SMR designs have the potential to involve more the national
industry, contributing to increased national infrastructure development and
deployment. Most SMRs are also designed for a high level of passive or inherent
safety19 in the event of malfunction. This important feature of the SMRs is
something that policy makers should have in mind when considering the expansion
of existing nuclear power programmes in the country.
SMRs can be designed to be employed below ground level, giving a high
resistance to terrorist threats.20 The construction of below ground SMRs is cheaper,
faster to construct and less invasive than building a reinforced concrete containment
dome. There is also the point that putting a reactor underground makes it less
vulnerable to earthquakes. Underground installations make modular reactors easier
to secure and install in a much smaller footprint. This makes SMRs particularly

19
One attraction of SMRs is their ability to rely on passive natural convection for cooling, without
the need for fallible active systems, such as motor-driven pumps, to keep the cores from over-
heating. The approach is not unique to SMRs: The Westinghouse AP1000 and the GE ESBWR are
full-sized reactors with passive safety features. However, it is generally true that passive safety
features would be more reliable for smaller cores with lower energy densities. On this issue, it is
important to highlight the following: Certain SMR designs are small enough that natural con-
vection cooling should be sufficient to maintain the core at a safe temperature in the event of a
serious accident like a plant blackout. However, some vendors are marketing these designs as
“inherently safe”, which are a misleading term. While there is no question that natural circulation
cooling could be effective under many conditions for such small reactors, it is not the case that
these reactors would be inherently safe under all accident conditions. In general, passive systems
alone can address only a limited range of scenarios, and may not work as intended in the event of
beyond-design-basis accidents (Lyman 2013).
20
Some SMR vendors propose to locate their reactors underground, which they argue will be a
major safety benefit. While underground siting would enhance protection against certain events,
such as aircraft crash and earthquakes or military attack, it could have disadvantages as well.
Again, studying the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, emergency diesel generators and elec-
trical switchgear were installed below ground to reduce their vulnerability to seismic events, but
that location increased their susceptibility to flooding. Moreover, in the event of a serious accident,
emergency crews could have greater difficulty accessing underground units (Lyman 2013).
26 1 General Overview

attractive to military customers who need to build power plants for bases quickly.
Underground installation also enhances security with less sophisticated systems
needed, which also helps bring down costs (Szondy 2012).
However, the underground siting of nuclear power reactors is not a new idea and
has its own complications. Decades ago, both Edward Teller and Andrei Sakharov
proposed siting nuclear power reactors deep underground to enhance safety, but it
was recognised later that building nuclear power reactors underground increases
cost in a significant manner. Numerous studies conducted in the 1970s found
construction cost penalties for underground nuclear power reactor construction
ranging from 11 to 60% (Myers and Elkins 2009). In addition, there are also
problems with the management of the nuclear waste and the handles of nuclear
materials in case of an accident. As a result, the industry lost interest in under-
ground siting at that time and no nuclear power reactors for electricity generation
were built in this form.

1.3.3 Main Safety Features of the Small Modular Reactors

All prototype SMRs under research, improve all safety aspects associated with the
operation of a nuclear power reactor. A 2010 report by a special committee con-
vened by the American Nuclear Society (ANS interim report 2010) showed that
many safety provisions necessary or at least prudent in large nuclear power reactors
are not necessary in the small designs forthcoming. Safety systems for SMRs will
include the systems used to shutdown the reactor and those used to remove decay
heat. The safety systems of the SMR designs all include some version of a Reactor
Shutdown System (RSS). The RSS in SMRs will be inherently simpler than that of
the current generation of nuclear power reactors, primarily due to the smaller size of
the units. The RSS may be activated, either by loss of power, by the neutron
detection instrumentation or by any other process parameter, such as the core outlet
temperature of the nuclear power reactor vessel. When activated, the RSS will force
the nuclear power reactor to shutdown. Should the RSS fail to be activated, the
SMR’s power level would nonetheless drop, if the design incorporates a negative
power coefficient of reactivity, bringing the unit to a shutdown state in a safe
manner (Morales Pedraza 2015).
After the automatic shutdown of a nuclear power reactor, passive systems
remove energy from the reactor and connected loops, respectively, in case that the
units possess such systems. These passive safety systems do not require power for
valve movements to initiate them. These systems may rely on the natural circulation
of the process fluid and/or air and do not depend on operator action. The inherent
capability of these designs to remove decay heat through passive means avoids the
need to resort to active systems to maintain the nuclear power plant in a safe
shutdown condition. The improvement in nuclear power plant safety of the SMR
designs over conventional nuclear power reactor designs is illustrated by the fact
1.3 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 27

that many, if not all, of the systems/features upon which a current‐generation of

nuclear power reactor relies, are not required to be maintained in this type of units
(Morales Pedraza 2015).
On the other hand, some experts’ belief that SMRs will be easier to maintain
than existing nuclear power plants. Full-scale nuclear power plants have many
separately housed components—the reactor core, steam generator, pumping sys-
tems, and switchyard, to name a few—each of which requires maintenance per-
sonnel. In a SMR, these components are downsized and housed together making
easier all maintenance activities (Ferguson 2013). But, at the same time, it is
important to be aware that this type of reactors is more vulnerable to external threat,
because all its main components are built together, a feature that this type of nuclear
power reactors have that need to be in the mind of governments and the nuclear
industry during its construction, with the aim of avoiding any future problems
related to the safe operation of this type of nuclear power reactors.

1.3.4 Different Small Modular Reactor Designs

Of the various types of proposed SMRs, liquid metal fast reactor designs pose
safety concerns. Sodium leaks and fires have been a central problem because
sodium explodes on contact with water and burns on contact with air.
Sodium-potassium coolant, while it has the advantage of a lower melting point than
sodium, presents even greater safety issues, because it is even more flammable than
molten sodium alone (IPFM 2010). Sodium-cooled fast reactors have shown
essentially no positive learning curve (i.e., experience has not made them more
reliable, safer or cheaper) and this is something that governments and the nuclear
industry should have in mind during the consideration of the type of SMRs to be
built in the country.
According to WNA, a 2009 assessment by the IAEA under its Innovative
Nuclear Power Reactors and Fuel Cycle (INPRO) programme concluded that “there
could be between 43 and 96 SMRs in operation around the world by 2030, but none
of them in the U.S.21”. In 2011, there were 125 small and medium units—up to 700
MWe—in operation and 17 under construction in 28 countries totalling 57 GWe of
capacity, but only a few of them can be classified as SMRs.22
The projected timelines of readiness for deployment of SMRs generally range
from the present to 2025–2030. Currently, there are more than 45 SMR designs

21
According to the IAEA, the U.S. with its nuclear energy policy is not attractive enough to
mobilise the resources that are needed to expand its nuclear power programme.
22
In Chap. 2 a detail analysis of the main different SMRs under research, development and
construction can be found.
28 1 General Overview

under development for various purposes and applications, but most of these pro-
totypes will not be ready for a commercial operation before 2030 (see Tables 1.7,
1.8 and 1.9).23 The exceptions are five prototypes of SMR designs that were under
construction in 2014: CAREM-25, an industrial prototype in Argentina,24
KLT-40S25 and RITM-200,26 floating SMRs in the Russian Federation, expected to
be commissioned in 2016, HTR-PM,27 an industrial demonstration plant in
China and the PFBR-500 in India.
The SMRs that will be developed for deployment within the next decade are, in
most cases, intended for markets different from those in which large nuclear power
plants operate, i.e. markets that value more distributed electrical supplies, a better
match between supply increments and the investment capability or demand growth,
more flexible siting or greater product variety. These markets have different
investment, siting, grid, infrastructure, application and other conditions and limi-
tations. Therefore, the factors affecting the competitiveness of SMRs in such
markets are expected to be different from those observed in established markets for
electricity production. For example, upfront investment capability may be limited,

23
Advances in magnet technology have enabled researchers at MIT to propose a new design for a
practical compact tokamak fusion reactor that might be realised in as little as a decade. The era of
practical fusion power, which could offer a nearly inexhaustible energy resource, may be coming
near. Using these new commercially available superconductors, rare-earth barium copper oxide
superconducting tapes, to produce high-magnetic field coils “just ripples through the whole
design”, says Dennis Whyte, a professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering and director of
MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Centre. The stronger magnetic field makes it possible to
produce the required magnetic confinement of the superhot plasma—that is, the working material
of a fusion reaction—but in a much smaller device than those previously envisioned. The
reduction in size, in turn, makes the whole system less expensive and faster to build, and also
allows for some ingenious new features in the power plant design. The proposed reactor, using a
Tokamak (donut-shaped) geometry that is widely studied, is described in a paper in the journal
Fusion Engineering and Design, co-authored by Whyte, Ph.D. candidate Brandon Sorbom, and 11
others at MIT. The new reactor is designed for basic research on fusion and also as a potential
prototype power plant that could produce significant power. The basic reactor concept and its
associated elements are based on well-tested and proven principles developed over decades of
research at MIT and around the world (Chandler 2015).
24
The Central Argentina de Elementos Modulares (CAREM) reactor is a small, integral type PLW
reactor design, with all primary components located inside the reactor vessel and an electrical
output of 150–300 MW(e), is under construction. After the CAREM-25 prototype is constructed,
commercialisation is expected to start with modular units of different capacity ranging from 150 to
300 MW(e) (IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-3.7 2013).
25
The Russian Federation is building two units of the KLT-40S series, to be mounted on a barge
and used for cogeneration of process heat and electricity. The construction is to be completed by
the end of 2016 and expected electricity production is by 2017.
26
The RITM-200, an integral reactor with forced circulation for universal nuclear icebreakers, is
designed to generate 50 MW(e). Two reactor plants of RITM-200 are being manufactured for the
first multipurpose icebreaker aiming for complete delivery in 2016. A follow up deliveries of
RITM-200 reactors for two consequent nuclear icebreakers will be in 2017 and 2018.
27
The HTR-PM is a unique twin nuclear steam supply system feeding a single 200 MW(e)
superheated steam turbine generator. Construction has started in December 2012 with first
expected operation by the end of 2017.
1.3 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 29

Table 1.7 Snapshots of small and medium-sized reactor designs under development and
deployment
Water-cooled SMRs
CAREM-25 ACP100 Flexblue AHWR300 IRIS
(Argentina) (China) (France) (India) (International
Consortium)
DMS IMR SMART KLT-40S VBER-300
(Japan) (Japan) (Republic of (Russian (Russian
Korea) Federation) Federation)
ABV-6 M RITM-200 VVER300 VK-300 UNITHERM
(Russian (Russian (Russian (Russian (Russian
Federation) Federation) Federation) Federation) Federation)
RUTA-70 mPower NuScale Westinghouse SMR-160
(Russian (United (United SMR (United States)
Federation) States) States) (United States)
Elena SHELF
(Russian (Russian
Federation) Federation)
High temperature gas-cooled SMRs
HTR-PM GTHTR300 GT-MHR MHR-T MHR-100
(China) (Japan) (Russian (Russian (Russian
Federation) Federation) Federation)
PBMR-400 HTMR-100 EM2 SC-HTGR Xe-100
(South Africa) (South Africa) (United (United States) (United States)
States)
Liquid-metal cooled fast SMRs
CEFR PFBR-500 4S SVBR-100 BREST-300
(China) (India) (Japan) (Russian (Russian
Federation) Federation)
PRISM Gen4 Module
(United (United
States) States)
Source IAEA

which would favor capacity addition in smaller increments; grids may be small or
constrained, which may favor smaller capacities suitable for such grids; infras-
tructure and human resources may be insufficient, which would favor less complex
operation and maintenance requirements; and non-electric energy products, such as
potable water, which would favor plant locations reasonably close to the customers
(IAEA No. NP-T-3.7 2013).
Finally, it is important to highlight the fact that several countries are pioneers in
the development and application of transportable nuclear power plants, including
floating and seabed-based SMRs, such as the Russian Federation and the U.S. The
distinct concepts of operations, staffing and security requirements, size of emer-
gency planning zones, licensing process, legal and regulatory framework are the
main issues for the deployment of this specific type of SMR.
30 1 General Overview

Table 1.8 Updated status on global SMR development as of September 2014 reactor design
Reactor type Designer, country Capacity Design status
(MWe)/
Configuration
Water Cooled Reactors
CAREM-25 Integral CNEA, Argentina 27 Under
pressurised construction
water reactor
ACP-100 Integral CNNC 100 Detailed design
pressurised (NPIC/CNPE),
water reactor China
Flexblue Subsea DCNS, France 160 Conceptual design
pressurised
water reactor
AHWR300-LEU Pressure tube BARC, India 304 Basic design
type heavy
water
moderated
reactor
IRIS Integral IRIS, 335 Basic design
pressurised International
water reactor Consortium
DMS Boiling water Hitachi-GE 300 Basic design
reactor Nuclear Energy,
Japan
IMR Integral Mitsubishi Heavy 350 Conceptual design
modular water Industries, Japan completed
reactor
SMART Integral KAERI, Republic 100 Licensed/Design
pressurised of Korea certification
water reactor received in July
2012
KLT-40S Pressurised OKBM 35  2 Under
water reactor Afrikantov, modules construction,
Russian barge target of operation
Federation mounted in 2016–2017
VBER-300 Integral OKBM 325 Licensing stage
pressurised Afrikantov,
water reactor Russian
Federation
Westinghouse Integral Westinghouse ˃225 Preliminary
SMR pressurised Electric design completed
water reactor Company LLC,
U.S.
SMR-160 Pressurised Holtec 160 Conceptual design
water reactor International, U.
S.
(continued)
1.3 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 31

Table 1.8 (continued)

Reactor type Designer, country Capacity Design status
(MWe)/
Configuration
High temperature gas cooled reactors
HTR-PM Pebble Bed Tsinghua 211 Under
HTGR University, China construction
GT-HTR300 Prismatic Block Japan Atomic 100–300 Basic design
HTGR Energy Agency,
Japan
GT-MHR Prismatic Block OKBM 285 Conceptual design
HTGR Afrikantov, completed
Russian
Federation
MHR-T Prismatic Block OKBM 4  205.5 Conceptual design
reactor/Hydrogen HTGR Afrikantov, Hydrogen
production Russian production
complex Federation
MHR-100 Prismatic Block OKBM 25–87 Conceptual design
HTGR Afrikantov, cogeneration
Russian
Federation
PBMR-400 Pebble Bed Pebble Bed 165 Detailed design
HTGR Modular
Reactor SOC
Ltd., South Africa
HTMR-100 Pebble Bed Steenkampskraal 35 per Conceptual
HTGR Thorium Limited module (140 design,
(STL), South for 4 module preparation for
Africa plant) pre-license
application
SC-HTGR Prismatic Block AREVA, U.S. 272 Conceptual design
HTGR
Xe-100 Pebble Bed X-energy, U.S. 35 Conceptual design
HTGR
Liquid metal-cooled fast spectrum reactors
CEFR Sodium-cooled China Nuclear 20 In operation
fast reactors Energy Industry
Corporation,
China
PFBR-500 Sodium-cooled Indira Gandhi 500 Preparation for
fast breeder Centre for start-up,
reactor Atomic Research, commissioning
India
4S Sodium-cooled Toshiba 10 Detailed design
fast reactor Corporation
(continued)
32 1 General Overview

Table 1.8 (continued)

Reactor type Designer, country Capacity Design status
(MWe)/
Configuration
BREST-OD-300 Lead-cooled RDIPE, Russian 300 Detailed design
fast reactor Federation
SVBR-100 Lead Bismuth AKME 101 Conceptual design
cooled fast Engineering,
reactor Russian
Federation
PRISM Sodium-cooled GE Nuclear 311 Detailed design
fast breeder Energy
reactor
EM2 High General Atomics, 240 Conceptual design
temperature U.S.
helium-cooled
fast reactor
G4M Lead-bismuth Gen4 Energy 25 Conceptual design
cooled fast Inc., U.S.
reactor
Source IAEA

Table 1.9 SMRs under construction for immediate deployment—the front runners
Country Reactor Output Designer Number Site, Plant ID, and Commercial
Model (MWe) of units unit # Start
Argentina CAREM-25 27 CNEA 1 Near the Atucha-2 2017–2018
site
China HTR-PM 250 Tsinghua 2 mods, Shidaowan unit-1 2017–2018
Univ./ 1 turbine
Harbin
India PFBR-500 500 IGCAR 1 Kalpakkam 2015–2016
Russian KLT-40S 70 OKBM 2 Akademik 2016–2017
Federation (ship- Afrikantov modules Lomonosov units 1
borne) and 2
RITM-200 (Icebreaker) 50 OKBM 2 RITM-200 2017–2018
Afrikantov modules nuclear-propelled
Icebreaker ship
Source IAEA

References

Approaches for Assessing the Economic Competitiveness of Small and Medium Sized Reactors
(2013), IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-3.7, STI/PUB/1619, ISBN 978–92–0–144210–9,
Vienna, Austria, 2013.
Buelt, James L. (2009), Small Modular Reactors. An alternate path to achieving the nuclear
renaissance? Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2009.
References 33

Chandler, David L. (2015), A small, modular, efficient fusion plant. New design could finally help
to bring the long-sought power source closer to reality, MIT News Office, August 10, 2015.
Design Features to Achieve Defence in Depth in Small and Medium Sized Reactors (2009), IAEA
Nuclear Energy Series Technical Reports No. NP-T-2.2, STI/PUB/1399, ISBN 978–92–0–
104209–5, Vienna. Austria, 2009.
Energy Economic Developments in Europe (2014), European Commission 1725-3217,
Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Unit Communication, Brussels,
Belgium, 2014.
Ferguson, Will (2013), Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Planned for Tennessee, National
Geographic, published on June 07, 2013.
IAEA-PRIS, (2016), International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power, IAEA, Vienna,
Austria, 2008.
Interim Report of the ANS President’s Special Committee on SMR Generic Licensing Issues
(2010).
IPFM 2010, op. cit., p. 68, 2010.
Kim, S.H. (2008), The Impact of Fuel Recycling and Fast Reactors on the Global Deployment of
Nuclear Power for Addressing Climate Change, PNNL-17840, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Richland, Wash, 2008.
Lyman, Edwin (2013), Small Isn’t Always Beautiful. Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns about
Small Modular Reactors, Union of Concerned Scientists, September 2013.
Makhijani, Arjun and Boyds, Michele (2010); Small Modular Reactors, Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research, Physicians for Social Responsibility; USA, 2010.
Makhijani, Arjun (2013), Light Water Designs of Small Modular Reactors: Facts and Analysis,
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, 2013.
Morales Pedraza, Jorge (2015), The Current Status and Perspectives for the Use of Small Modular
Reactors for Electricity Generation, Chapter 4, Advances in Energy Research. Volume 21,
Nova Science Publishers, New York, USA, 2015.
Myers, W.; and Elkins N. (2009), Underground nuclear parks and the continental super grid;
Presentation at the SuperGrid 2 conference, October 25–27, 2004, Online at http://www.
conerences.uiuc.edu/supergrid/PDF/SG2_Meyers.pdf, accessed June 30, 2013.
Nakicenovic, N. (1996), Freeing Energy from Carbon, Daedalus 125 (3): 95–112, 1996.
Paterson, A.; Ho, Mark; and Storr, Greg (2014), New to Nuclear Countries: Considerations for
Adoption of Small Modular Reactors – A Guide to Future Adopters, The 19th Pacific Basin
Nuclear Conference, PBNC 2014.
Rosner, Robert and Goldberg, Stephen (2011); Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear
Power Generation in the U.S.; Energy Policy Institute at Chicago, The Harris School of Public
Policy Studies; White Paper; July 14, 2011.
Roulstone, Tony (2015), Economies of scale vs. economies of volume, Nuclear Engineering
International, www.neimagazine.com/features/featureeconomies-of-scale-vs, 2015.
Schneider, Mycle, and Froggatt, Antony and others (2016), World Nuclear Industry Status Report
2016, A Mycle Schneider Cong Project, 2016.
Szondy, David (2012), Small modular nuclear reactors - the future of energy, Gizmag Nuclear
Power, February 16, 2012.
Zverev, D.L.; Pakhomov, A.N.; Polunichev, V.I.; Veshnyakov, K.B.; and Kabin, S.V. (2012),
RITM-200: New-Generation Reactor For A New Nuclear Icebreaker, Atomic Energy, v.113,
No.6 (April 2013): pp. 404–409. Translated from Atomnaya Énergiya, Vol. 113, No. 6,
pp. 323–328, December, 2012. Link on the Web at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%
2Fs10512-013-9653-7, 2012.
Chapter 2
Advanced Nuclear Technologies
and Its Future Possibilities

Abstract Employment and supporting the use of nuclear energy for electricity
generation suffered a significantly reduction in several countries after Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear accident occurred in March 2011 in Japan due to the fear to a new
nuclear disaster. Nowadays, nuclear energy has demonstrated that it is a secure
energy source and it use for electricity generation is free of CO2 emissions. It is also
a mature technology that can assures an energy supply when needed and without
interruption. For all that, nuclear energy has become again a secure energy source
for many countries in all regions of the world. In order to increase the safe operation
of nuclear power plants, there are now three lines of investigation for the devel-
opment of new type of nuclear power reactors. These are: (a) European Pressurised
Reactor (EPR), a Generation III+ reactor; Generation IV reactors with six different
types of designs (GFR, LFR, SCWR, VHTR, MSR and SFR); and the so called
“Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)”, with tens of different concepts and designs at
various stages of development in several countries.

2.1 Introduction

Nuclear energy is an energy that guarantees the supply of electricity, curbs the
emissions of greenhouse gases effect, reduces external energy dependence and
produces continuously electricity with low, steady, and predictable costs.
The use of nuclear energy to produce electricity began at the end of 1950s and
grew until the 1990s. The nuclear technology has been developed for over 60 years
and currently continues to innovate in new concepts of nuclear reactors in which is
being incorporated all development and knowledge achieved.
In the second half of 1960s, U.S. launched the first nuclear power programme
focused to electricity generation. Although four years earlier, the former URSS
began the operation of the APS-1 Obninsk, the first nuclear power plant in the
world, according to IAEA sources. Little by little other developed countries

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 35

J. Morales Pedraza, Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52216-6_2
36 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

followed the example of the U.S. and the former URSS running their own nuclear
power programmes of construction and operation of nuclear power plants.
Economic stability, stronger growth in energy demand and promising economic
prospects in many countries were the engine of development of this energy source.
In the early 1970s, the oil energy crisis provided the definitive boost to the use of
nuclear energy for the electricity generation within the energy plans of several
developed countries, such as Germany, Canada, France, and Japan, among others.
Highlights the strong commitment to the development of nuclear energy for elec-
tricity generation made by France, on the basis of the use of graphite-gas reactors,
the government decided to favour the use of the American pressured water tech-
nology. In addition, some developing countries, such as Mexico, Brazil, Taiwan
and South Korea were prepared to begin the development of their nuclear power
programmes (Mínguez 2015).
In the coming years the main developed countries will continue to increase their
installed power capacity to face the industrial challenges, but much of the future
expansion of the electricity needs will take place in developing countries, partic-
ularly in China and India, who have part of its population with very limited access
to electricity or not access at all. These countries are expecting to have a quick
growth in the energy demand in the coming years.
In 2016, a total of 31 countries was operating 447 nuclear power reactors with an
installed capacity of 389,051 MWe distributed in all regions of the world. Nuclear
energy is one of the main base-load electricity-generating sources available in the
world today generating 11.5% of the global power production, according to WNA.
The nuclear energy continues to be an interest energy source for many countries in
spite of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Now, several alternatives are under
consideration, either throughout increasing power and the lifespan of currently
nuclear power plants up to 60 years of operation or with the development of new
nuclear reactor designs, some already under construction and others in design
phase. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, occurred on March 2011 in Japan,
caused a slowdown in the nuclear renaissance, and forced many countries to review
their approved nuclear power programmes, to adopt a decision to review the safety
of their nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities, such as Japan, the U.S.,
the EU, China, Russia, the Republic of Korea among others, and to adopt a
moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power reactors or to delay the
construction of new nuclear power plants. However, some of these countries are
now thinking to start the construction of new nuclear power plants (Mínguez 2015).
Many operating nuclear power plants will reach 40 years of operation in the next
5–10 years. One way to make nuclear power more competitive is to take a decision
to extend the life of these plants, from 40 to 60 years. Another way is to bet on the
construction of new plants.
2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors 37

2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors

Most nuclear power reactors that are now under construction or have recently
started operation are of the so-called “Generation III or III+”. These type of nuclear
power reactors were developed in the 1990s and in recent years several improve-
ments, in both safety and fuel efficiency, have been incorporated. The new nuclear
power reactors classified as Generation III+ are: ABWR, AP1000, ACR100,
APWR, ESBWR and EPR. It is expected that this generation of reactors will be the
ones to be built for much of this century, in its present form or with important
improvements (Mínguez 2015).
The so-called “Generation IV” reactors, were designed to incorporate significant
improvements in security, in the total cost of the nuclear power plant, in prolifer-
ation resistance and in the reduction of the production of radioactive waste. The aim
is to make better use of fuel source, both the U and the Pu and to some extent the
use of thorium. Another feature of this type of nuclear power reactors is the ability
to perform certain transmutation of minor actinides, so that energy efficiency and
the fuel recovery will be much higher than today (Mínguez 2015).
Ten countries make up the Generation IV International Forum or GIF.1The
group was created in January 2000 with the mandate to develop new types of
nuclear power reactors. It is important to highlight that this group of countries is
now working in the development of six new types of reactors, from which its basic
technology is well-known. However, there are certain areas that need an important
development, especially in materials, safety, fuel, and the use of such reactors to
produce not only electricity, but also heat and other products such as hydrogen or
other industrial uses.

2.2.1 Generation IV Nuclear Power Reactors

Nuclear reactor technology has been under continuous development since the first
commercial exploitation of civil nuclear power in the 1950s. This technological
development is presented in a number of broad categories, or generations, each
representing significant technical advance (either in terms of performance, costs or
safety) compared to the previous generation. The first generation, Generation-I,
advanced in the 1950s and 1960s with early prototype reactors (gas-cooled/graphite
moderated or prototype water cooled and moderated). The second generation,
Generation-II, began in the 1970s in the large commercial power plants that are still

1
These countries are: France, United Kingdom, United States, China, Japan, Canada, South Africa,
Republic of Korea, Russia and Switzerland. The group has today 14 members with the incorpo-
ration of Argentina, Australia, and Brazil. The European Union is also a member of the GIF. The
European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) is the implementing organisation for develop-
ment of nuclear energy within the European Union.
38 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

operating today. The advanced LWRs and other systems with inherent safety fea-
tures and more favourable characteristics in the event of extreme events such as
those associated with core damage, which are so-called “Generation-III”. These
reactors have been designed in recent years. Generation-III+ offers significant
improvements in safety and economics over Generation-III advanced reactors and
are under development and are being considered for deployment in several coun-
tries, in fact, new nuclear power reactors built between now and in the coming
decades will likely be chosen from this type of nuclear power reactor. A typical
example is the EPR—the European Pressurised-Water Reactor.
While the current second and third generation of nuclear power reactors designs
provide an economically, technically and publicly acceptable electricity supply in
many countries, further advances in nuclear energy system design can broaden the
opportunities for the use of nuclear energy for this specific purpose. The fourth
generation of nuclear power reactors, Generation IV, is expected to start being
deployed by 2030.

2.2.2 GIF Initiative Goals

GIF considers that nuclear energy is needed to meet future energy demand, and that
international collaboration is required to advance nuclear energy into its fourth
generation of systems, deployable after 2030.
A technology roadmap2 was made to guide the Generation IV effort. This
roadmap, defines and plans the necessary R&D and associated timelines to allow
deployment of Generation IV systems after 2030. When preparations for the
Generation IV Technology Roadmap began, it was essential to establish goals for
these nuclear energy systems.
The goals have three purposes: First, they serve as the basis for developing
criteria to assess and compare the systems in the technology roadmap. Second, they
are challenging and stimulate the search for innovative nuclear energy systems-both
fuels cycles and reactor technologies. Third, they will serve to motivate and guide
the R&D on Generation IV systems as collaborative efforts get underway (GIF
2002) (Fig. 2.1).
Eight goals are defined for Generation IV in the four broad areas of sustain-
ability, economic competitiveness, safety and reliability, proliferation resistance,
and physical protection. These goals are the following:
(a) Sustainability: Regarding sustainability, the main concern was the manage-
ment of the environment through clean air restrictions, waste management
restrictions and conservation of resources.

2
A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Energy Systems (GIF 2002).
2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors 39

Fig. 2.1 Types of nuclear fuel cycles: a one through fuel cycle, b closed fuel cycle, c transuranic
elements multi-recycling (González-Romero 2012)

(i) Sustainability-1: Generation IV nuclear energy systems will provide sus-

tainable energy generation that meets clean air objectives and promotes
long-term availability of systems and effective fuel utilisation for world-
wide energy production.
(ii) Sustainability-2: Generation IV nuclear energy systems will minimise and
manage their nuclear waste and notably reduce the long-term stewardship
burden, thereby improving protection for the public health and the envi-
ronment (GIF 2002).
40 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

Four classes of nuclear fuel cycles were considered:

• The once through fuel cycle;
• A fuel cycle with partial bred fissile Pu recycling (closed fuel cycle);
• Full plutonium recycling (closed fuel cycle);
• A cycle with transuranic elements recycling (GIF 2002).
It appears that waste management is a major concern with the existing once
through cycle because of the limited availability of repository space worldwide.
Closed fuel cycles or recycling reactors allow some of the fuel to be reused so less
of it has to be placed in a repository. Improvement in reactor performance can be
achieved if thermal and fast reactors are operated in a coupled mode (Fig. 2.1).
(b) Economics: Economic goals focus on competitive life cycle and energy pro-
duction costs and financial risks. New nuclear power reactors must be com-
petitive in a changing market place with energy demand.
(i) Economics-1: Generation IV nuclear energy systems will have a clear
life-cycle cost advantage over other energy sources.
(ii) Economics-2: Generation IV nuclear energy systems will have a level of
financial risk comparable to other energy projects (GIF 2002).
(c) Safety and Reliability: Safety and reliability goals focus on safe and reliable
operation, improved accident management and minimisation of consequences,
investment protection and essentially eliminating the technical need for off-site
emergency response.
Active and passive safety feature against accidents are to be carefully consid-
ered. International safety and regulations for the handling of fissile materials in pace
are to be strictly enforced. To reduce the probability of radioactive elements leaking
into the atmosphere or damaging to the nuclear power plants, there must be an
emphasis on the human factor pertaining to plant operations.
(i) Safety and Reliability-1: Generation IV nuclear energy systems will excel in
safety and reliability.
(ii) Safety and Reliability-2: Generation IV nuclear energy systems will have a
very low likelihood and degree of reactor core damage.
(iii) Safety and Reliability-3: Generation IV nuclear energy systems will elimi-
nate the need for offsite emergency response (GIF 2002).
(d) Proliferation resistance and physical protection: The proliferation resistance
and physical protection goal focus on controlling and securing nuclear material
and nuclear facilities.
New nuclear power plants are designed to cope with natural disasters such as
earthquakes. Attention is to be devoted to the possibility of sabotage or acts of
fissile material theft or dispersal by individuals or non-national groups.
Proliferation Resistance and Physical Protection-1: Generation IV nuclear
energy systems will increase the assurance that they are a very unattractive and the
2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors 41

least desirable route for diversion or theft of weapons-usable materials, and provide
increased physical protection against acts of terrorism (GIF 2002).
These considerations resulted in six concepts for research and development.

2.2.3 Descriptions of the Generation IV Systems

The Technology Roadmap exercise was a two-year effort by more than 100
international experts to select the most promising nuclear systems. In 2002, GIF
selected the six systems listed below, from nearly 100 concepts, as Generation IV
systems:
• Gas Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR);
• Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR);
• Supercritical Water Cooled Reactor (SCWR);
• Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR);
• Molten Salt Reactor (MSR);
• Lead Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR).
The Technology Roadmap defined, planned the necessary research, development
and associated timelines to achieve the previously described goals to allow
deployment of Generation IV energy systems after 2030. These timelines have
suffered changes and updates since their creation in 2002 (GIF 2014) (Fig. 2.2).
System arrangements have been established for four systems (SFR, VHTR,
SCWR and GFR) and Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) were agreed on for
each of the remaining systems (LFR and MSR). The status of these arrangements
and MoU as of January 2014 is the following (GIF 2014) (Fig. 2.3).

Fig. 2.2 System development timelines as defined in the original Roadmap in 2002 and in the
2014. Source Technology Roadmap Update for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems 2014
(These timelines are indicative and may change, depending on the components are not validated at
the planned dates)
42 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

Fig. 2.3 Status of the GIF system arrangements and MOU. Source Technology Roadmap Update
for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 2014

2.2.3.1 The Gas Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR)

This concept features a fast-neutron-spectrum, a He-gas cooled reactor and a closed

fuel cycle. A fast spectrum would efficiently convert fertile uranium into fissile fuel
and manage the actinides by burning them for energy (GIF 2014).
The high outlet temperature of helium coolant makes it possible to deliver
electricity, hydrogen or process heat with high efficiency. The reference design is a
2400-MWth/1100-MWe, helium-cooled system operating with an outlet tempera-
ture of 850 °C using three indirect power conversion systems with a combined
cycle (an indirect cycle with helium on the primary, a Direct-Bryton cycle on the
secondary circuit, and a steam cycle on the tertiary circuit) (GIF 2014).
Several fuel forms are candidates that hold the potential to operate at very high
temperatures and to ensure an excellent retention of fissile products: Composite
ceramic clad mixed actinide carbide fuel or advanced fuel particles. The core
configurations may be based on prismatic blocks, pin or plate-based hexagonal fuel
assemblies. The GFR reference design has an integrated, on site spent fuel treatment
and refabricating plant (GIF 2009). It uses a direct-cycle helium turbine of elec-
tricity generation or can optionally use its process heat for thermochemical pro-
duction of hydrogen. Hydrogen as a nuclear energy carrier is considered for a future
no pollution energy economy with fuel cells directly producing electricity from
hydrogen and releasing steam and water as a product.
Through the combination of a fast spectrum and full recycle of actinides, the
GFR minimises the production of long-lived radioactive waste. The GFR’s fast
spectrum also make it possible to use available fissile and fertile material including
depleted uranium considerably more efficiency than thermal spectrum gas cooled
reactors using the once-through fuel cycle (Fig. 2.4).

2.2.3.2 The Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR)

The SFR uses liquid sodium as the reactor coolant, allowing a low-pressure coolant
system and high-power-density operation with low coolant volume fraction in the
2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors 43

Fig. 2.4 Gas Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR). Source Technology Roadmap Update for
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 2002

core. Nuclear power reactor size options under consideration range from small, 50
to 300 MWe modular reactors to larger units up to 1500 MWe. The outlet tem-
perature range is 500–550 °C for the options under consideration (GIF 2014).
The fuel cycle employs a full actinide recycle with three configurations: pool,
loop and modular. A large size (600–1500 MWe) loop-type reactor with mixed
uranium-plutonium oxide fuel and potentially MA-bearing fuel, supported by a fuel
cycle with advanced aqueous processing at a central location serving a number of
units; an intermediate-to-large size (300–1500 MWe) pool-type reactor with oxide
or metal fuel; and a small size (50–150 MWe) modular type reactor with
metal-alloy fuel (uranium-plutonium-MA-zirconium), supported by a fuel cycle
based on pyro-metallurgical processing in facilities integrated with the nuclear
power reactor (GIF 2014).
The SFR is designed for management of high-level wastes and, in particular,
management of Pu and other actinides. Important safety features of the system
include a long thermal response time, a large margin to coolant boiling, a primary
44 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

Fig. 2.5 Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR). Source Technology Roadmap Update for
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 2002

system that operates near atmospheric pressure and intermediate sodium system
between the radioactive sodium in the primary system and the power conversion
system. Water/steam and alternative fluids are considered for the power conversion
system to achieve high performance in terms of thermal efficiency, safety and
reliability (GIF 2014).
With innovations to reduce capital cost, the SFR can competitively serve mar-
kets for electricity. Research must decide a choice between a metal alloy or a metal
oxide fuel. An economic consideration is the choice of structural components for
tubes and pipes. Ferritic steels with 12% Cr could be considered since they possess
better strength at high temperature than austenitic steels (GIF 2002).
The SFR’s fast spectrum also makes it possible to use available fissile and fertile
materials, including depleted uranium, more efficiently than thermal spectrum
reactors with once-through fuel cycles. The good management of the actinides is
expected as well as good resource life (Fig. 2.5).

2.2.3.3 The Supercritical Water Cooled Reactor (SCWR)

The SCWR system is a high temperature, high-pressure water-cooled reactor that

operates above the thermodynamic critical point of water at 374 °C, 22.1 MPa or
705 °F and 3208 psia (GIF 2002).
The supercritical water coolant enables a thermal efficiency about one-third
higher than current light-water reactors, as well as simplification in the balance of
2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors 45

the nuclear power plant. The balance of the plant is considerably simplified because
the coolant does not change phase in the reactor and is directly coupled to the
energy conversion equipment. However, steam above the critical point is highly
corrosive and requires special designed materials. The reference system is
1500 MWe with an operating pressure of 25 MPa and a nuclear power reactor
outlet temperature of 510 °C, possibly increasing up to 625 °C. The fuel is UO2.
Passive safety features are incorporated similar to those of simplified boiling water
reactors (SWBRs) (GIF 2009).
The SCWR system is primarily designed for efficient electricity production, with
an option for actinide management based on two options in the core design:
The SCWR may have a thermal or fast-spectrum reactor; the second is a closed
cycle with a fast-spectrum reactor and full actinide recycle based on advanced
aqueous processing at a central location. The concept may be based on current
pressure-vessel or on pressure-tube reactors, and thus may use light water or heavy
water as a moderator (Ragheb 2014) (Fig. 2.6).

Fig. 2.6 Supercritical Water Cooled Reactor (SCWR). Source Technology Roadmap Update for
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 2002
46 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

2.2.3.4 Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR)

The VHTR is the next generation in the development of high-temperature nuclear

power reactors and is primarily dedicated to the cogeneration of electricity,
hydrogen and heat processes for industry. Hydrogen can be extracted from water by
using thermo-chemical, electro-chemical or hybrid processes. The nuclear power
reactor is cooled by helium gas and moderated by graphite with thermal neutron
spectrum and a core outlet temperature greater than 900 °C, potentially more than
1000 °C in the future, to support the efficient production of hydrogen by
thermo-chemical processes. The high outlet temperature also makes it attractive for
the chemical, oil, and iron industries. The VHTR has for high burnup (150–
200 GWd/tHM), passive safety, low operation and maintenance costs, and modular
construction (GIF 2009).
Two baseline options are available for the VHTR core: The pebble bed type and
the prismatic block type. The fuel cycle will initially be once-through with
low-enriched uranium fuel and very high fuel burnup. The system has the flexibility
to adopt closed fuel cycles and offers burning of transuranic. Initially, the VHTR
will be developed to manage the back end of an open fuel cycle. Ultimately, the
potential for a closed fuel cycle will be assessed (GIF 2009).
The electric power conversion may employ either a direct (helium gas turbine
directly placed in the primary coolant loop) or indirect (gas mixture turbine)
Brayton cycle. In the near term, the VHTR will be developed using existing
materials, whereas its long term development will require new and advanced
materials (GIF 2009) (Fig. 2.7).

Fig. 2.7 Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR). Source Technology Roadmap Update for
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 2002
2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors 47

The reference pilot nuclear power reactor is a 600 MWth core connected to an
intermediate heat exchanger to deliver process heat.
Some advantages of this type of reactor are: the benefit of the strong negative
temperature coefficient of reactivity, the high heat capacity of the graphite core, the
large temperature increase margin and the robustness of TRISO fuel introducing a
nuclear power reactor concept that does not need off-site power to survive multiple
failures or severe events.

2.2.3.5 Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)

The MSR system produces fission power in a circulating molten salt fuel mixture
with an epithermal neutron spectrum reactor with graphite core channels, and full
actinide recycle fuel. The MSR can be designed to be a thermal breeder using the
Th-232 to U-233 fuel cycle (GIF 2002).
MSR can be divided into two subclasses. In the first subclass, fissile material is
dissolved in a molten fluoride salt. In the second subclass, the molten fluoride salt
serves as the coolant of a coated particle fuelled (GIF 2014).
In the MSR system, the fuel is a circulating liquid mixture of sodium, zirconium
and uranium fluorides. The molten salt fuel flows through graphite core channels,
producing an epithermal spectrum. The heat generated in the molten salt is trans-
ferred to a secondary coolant system through an intermediate heat exchanger, and
then through a tertiary heat exchanger to power conversion system. The reference
nuclear power plant has a power level of 1000 MWe. The system has a coolant
outlet temperature of 700 °C, possibly ranging up to 800 °C, allowing improved
thermal efficiency (GIF 2002).
The closed fuel cycle can be tailored to the efficient burn up of plutonium and
minor actinides. The MSR’s liquid fuel allows addition of actinides such as plu-
tonium and avoids the need for fuel fabrication. Actinides, and most fission
products, form fluorides in the liquid coolant. Molten fluoride salts have excellent
heat transfer characteristics and very low steam pressure, which reduce stresses on
the vessel and piping.
An Engineered Safety Feature involves a freeze plug where the coolant is cooled
into a frozen state. Upon an unforeseen increase in temperature, this plug would melt
and the liquid content of the reactor flow down into emergency dump tanks where it
cannot continue the fission and ensure the safety in cooling. In absence of moder-
ation by the graphite, the coolant would be in a subcritical safe state (Fig. 2.8).

2.2.3.6 Lead Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR)

The LFR system features a fast-spectrum Pb or Pb.Bi eutectic liquid metal-cooled

nuclear power reactor and a close fuel cycle for efficient conversion of fertile
uranium and management of actinides. The fuel is composed of fertile uranium and
transuranic, and is metal or nitride based. The plant can be large and monolithic
48 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

Fig. 2.8 Molten Salt Reactor (MSR). Source Technology Roadmap Update for Generation IV
Nuclear Energy Systems, 2002

with a factory manufactured battery of 1200 MWe or it could be a modular system

with 300–400 MWe or it could be a small battery of 50–150 MWe that features a
very long refuelling interval (GIF 2002) (Fig. 2.9).
It has a fast neutron spectrum with a closed full actinide recycle fuel cycle with
central or regional fuel cycle facilities. The LFR is cooled by natural convection

Fig. 2.9 Lead Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR). Source Technology Roadmap Update for
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, 2002
2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors 49

with a nuclear power reactor coolant temperature of 550 °C, possibly ranging up to
800 °C with advanced materials. The high temperature enables the production of
hydrogen by thermo-chemical processes (GIF 2002).
The small size LFR is designed as a nuclear battery. It is a small factory-built
turnkey nuclear power plant operating on closed fuel cycles with very long refu-
elling intervals of 15–20 years’ cassette core or replaceable reactor module. Its
features are designed to meet market opportunities for electricity production on
small grids and for developing countries that may not wish to deploy an indigenous
fuel cycle infrastructure to support their nuclear energy systems. The battery system
is designed for electricity distrusted generation and other energy products, including
hydrogen and fresh water obtained through sea water desolation (GIF 2002).

2.2.4 The Future of the Generation IV Nuclear Power

Reactors

It is important to take into account that some Generation IV systems enjoy a more
advanced state of development than others and each one need to make an effort in
research and development for specific issues of each design, but there are areas in
common which follow the same line of investigation, so it is possible to join efforts
to improve common topics. The common areas encompass: Fuel cycles, fuels and
materials choices, energy products, risk and safety, economics, proliferation, and
physical protection concerns.
(a) Gas Cooled Fast Reactor: Specific Challenges and Possibilities
It is the only Generation IV design with no operating antecedent, so a prototype
in not expected before 2022. However, a 75 MWt experimental technology
demonstration GFR, ALLEGRO, is planned by Euratom to be built from 2018. It
will incorporate all the architecture and the main materials and components fore-
seen for the GFR without the power conversion system. Euratom, France, Japan and
Switzerland have signed on to System Arrangements (SA) for the GFR under the
Framework Agreement (WNA 2016).
The General Atomics has team up with Chicago Bridge and Iron, Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries and Idaho National Laboratory to develop the Energy Multiplier
Module,3 according to WNA sources, but is not part of Generation IV programme
or mentioned in the 2014 roadmap.
In their report 2014, GIF poses the following ten-year objectives to reach goals
and to meet timelines:

3
Energy Multiplier Modular is an advanced modular reactor expected to produce 265 MWe of
power at 850 °C and be fully enclosed in an underground containment structure for 30 years
without requiring fuel.
50 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

• Reference concept of 2400 MWth nuclear power reactor capable of breakeven

breeding;
• Improving the design for the safe management of loss-of-coolant accidents
including depressurisation and a robust removal of decay heat without external
power supply;
• Advancing suitable nuclear fuel technologies with out-of-pile and irradiation
experiments;
• Building experimental facilities for qualifying the main components and
systems;
• Design studies for a small experimental nuclear power reactor.
There are four challenges need to be overtaken to achieve GIF objectives: Testing
the structure for resiliency during radiation under temperatures up to 1400 °C;
improvement in heat removal at low pressures of the He coolant in case of leakage
and low thermal inertia; study of passive approaches of natural convection cooling;
and the development of semi-passive heavy gas injectors and conduction paths.
(b) Lead Cooled Fast Reactor: Specific Challenges and Possibilities
A two-stage development programme leading to industrial deployment is
envisaged by 2025 for reactors operating with relatively low temperature and power
density, and by 2040 for more advanced higher-temperature designs.
In Japan, two basic design concepts have been developed: a small LFR called
LSPR and a direct contact PBWFR. In parallel, accelerator driven system
(ADS) activities have been performed. At present, the experimental activities are
concentrated on basic research related to thermal-hydraulics, material corrosion,
oxygen sensor, and oxygen control (GIF 2014).
The Russian Federation is carrying out design activities for the BREST-300,
expected to be in operation after 2020. In parallel activities are carried out on
SVBR-100, a Lead-Bismuth Eutectic Cooled Reactor, based on the previous
experience developed for naval propulsion systems (GIF 2014).
In Europe, significant activities included projects aimed at the conceptual design
of an industrial-size plant, the conceptual design of a 300 MWth demonstrator
called “ALFRED” (Advanced Lead Fast Reactor European Demonstrator) and the
activities on MYRRHA (an accelerator driven lead-bismuth cooled system)
designed by SCK-CEN in Belgium (GIF 2014).
In the U.S., only limited development of the Small, Sealed, Transportable,
Autonomous Reactor (SSTAR) has been carried out. However, private investors are
considering possible modifications of this design to shorten its implementation
phase, and there is some industrial interest in promoting a LFR concept (GIF 2014).
In China, the Chinese Academy of Sciences started in 2011 a new effort to
develop an ADS. The China Lead-Based Reactor (CLEAR) was selected as the
reference reactor. The CLEAR development plan includes three phases: The first
being a 10 MWth LBE-cooled research device (CLEAR-I), with both critical and
sub-critical modes of operation, expected to be built roughly 2017; the second phase
2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors 51

(CLEAR-II) is a 100 MWth ADS experimental reactor and expected to be built

around 2022; and the third phase (CLEAR-III) is a 1000 MWth ADS demonstration
reactor and envisaged to be built approximately 2032 (Bai et al. 2011).
In Republic of Korea, R&D activities on LFR are on-going since 1996. Helios,
one of the largest test loops, has been operated in both forced and natural circulation
conditions of PEACER (Proliferation resistance, Environment friendly, Accident
tolerant, Continual, Economics Reactor). The results were published in the
framework of the OECD/NEA Task Force on Benchmarking of Thermal-hydraulic
Loop Models for Lead-Alloy-Cooled Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems
(LACANES). Advanced corrosion-resistant materials have been developed and
tested in both static and dynamic conditions. SMR design has been developed to
explore their potential as distributed power/heat sources (GIF 2014).
The ten-year objectives by GIF are:
• Prototypes expected after 2020: Pb–Bi-cooled SVBR-100, Brest-300 in Russia;
• Proceeding with detailed design and licensing activities;
• Preliminary analyses of accidental transients, including earthquake and in-vessel
steam generator pipe ruptures;
• Main R&D efforts will be concentrated on: Materials corrosion and develop-
ment of a lead chemistry management system; core instrumentation; fuel han-
dling technology and operation; advanced modelling and simulation; fuel
development and possibly nitride fuel for lead-cooled reactors; actinide man-
agement (fuel reprocessing and manufacturing); In Service Inspection and
Repair (ISI&R) (techniques for operate medium, seismic impact).
(c) Supercritical Water Cooled Reactor: Specific Challenges and Possibilities
Since the SCWR builds both on much BWR experience and that from hundreds
of fossil-fired power plants operated with supercritical water, it can readily be
developed, and the operation of a 30–150 MWe technology demonstration nuclear
power reactor is targeted for 2022 (WNA 2016).
Japanese studies on a pressure-vessel design have confirmed target thermal
efficiency of 44% with 500 °C core outlet temperature, and estimate a potential cost
reduction of compared with present PWRs. Safety features are expected to be
similar to ABWRs. Canada is developing a pressure-tube design with heavy water
moderation. Euratom, Canada, and Japan have signed on a SA for the SCWR under
the Framework Arrangement. In 2011, Russia joint them, followed by China in
2014. Project arrangement are pending for thermal-hydraulics and safety.
Pre-conceptual SCWR designs include CANDU (Canada), LWR (Euratom) and
Fast Neutron (Japan) (WNA 2016).
The ten-year objectives by GIF are:
• Two baseline concepts (pressure-vessel-based and pressure-tube-based);
• R&D: Advancing conceptual designs of baseline concepts and associated safety
analyses; more realistic testing of materials to allow final selection and quali-
fication of candidate alloy for all key components; out-of-pile fuel assembly
52 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

testing; qualification of computational tools; first integral component tests and

start of design studies for a prototype; and in-pile tests of a small scale fuel
assembly in a nuclear reactor;
• Definition of a SCWR prototype (size and design features).
Issues for development include corrosion and stress corrosion cracking, radiol-
ysis as a function of temperature and fluid density, water chemistry, dimensional
and micro-structural stability and strength, embrittlement and creep resistance. The
effects of neutrons, gamma radiation and impurities introduced into the primary
system on water radiolysis needs to be studied. Water flow could affect the criti-
cality safety of the system, since cold water would have a higher moderating ability
possibly leading to a power surge.
(d) Very High Temperature Reactor: Specific Challenges and Possibilities
While the original approach for VHTR at the start of the Generation IV pro-
gramme focused on very high outlet temperature and hydrogen production, current
market assessments have indicated that electricity production and industrial pro-
cesses based on high temperature steam that require outlet temperatures of 700–
850 °C, already have a great potential for applications in the next decade and also
reduce the technical risk associated with higher outlet temperature. As a result, over
the past decade, the focus of design studies has moved from higher outlet tem-
peratures designs such as GT-MHR and PBMR to lower outlet temperature design
such as HTR-PM in China and the NGNP in the U.S. (GIF 2014).
The ten-year objectives by GIF are:
• In the future, the main focus will be on VHTR with core outlet temperatures of
700–950 °C;
• Further R&D on materials and fuels should enable higher temperatures up to
above 1000 °C and a fuel burnup of 150–200 GWd/tHM;
• Development of further approaches to set up higher-temperature process heat
consortia for end-users interested in prototypical demonstrations;
• Development of the interface with industrial heat users-intermediate heat
exchanger, ducts, values and associated heat transfer fluid:
– Advancing H2 production methods in terms of feasibility and commercial
viability to better determine process heat requirements for this application.
– Regarding nuclear safety: Verify the effectiveness and reliability of the
passive heat removal system; confirm fuel resistance to extreme temperatures
(*1800 °C) through testing; and proceed with the safety analyses of couple
nuclear processes for industrial sites using process heat.
(e) Molten Salt Reactor: Specific Challenges and Possibilities
For the MSR, no SA have been signed, and collaborative R&D is pursed by
interested members under the auspices of a provisional steering committee
involving France, Russia and Euratom (WNA 2016). There will be a long lead time
to prototypes, and the R&D orientation has changed since the project was set up,
2.2 Generation III, III+ and IV Nuclear Power Reactors 53

due to increased interest. It now has two baseline concepts: the Molten Salt Actinide
and Transmuter (MOSART), and the Molten Salt Fast Reactor (MSFR) (GIF 2014).
In 2011, a European project called “EVOL” (Evaluation and Viability of Liquid
Fuel Fast Reactor Systems) started, in parallel with a complementary Russian
project named “MARS” (Minor Actinide Recycling in Molten Salt). The common
objective of these projects was to propose conceptual design for the best MSFR
system configuration (GIF 2014).
The ten-year objectives by GIF are:
• A baseline concept: MSFR;
• Commonalities with other systems using molten salts (FHR, heat transfer
systems);
• Further R&D on liquid salt physical chemistry and technology, especially on
corrosion, safety-related issues and treatment of used salts.
(f) Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor: Specific Challenges and Possibilities
Alter entering in 2000s, the nuclear energy caught people´s attention again for its
capacity of supplying suitable energy without giving harmful effects to the envi-
ronment such as global warming. In France, Russia, India, China, the Republic of
Korea and Japan, each country made a development plan for the realisation of the
next generation SFR technology, which has an economic competitiveness in par-
allel with further enhanced built-in safety features.
In Russia, although they have faced the slow-down phase in the past, such as a
postponement of the construction of BN-800 reactor, they are now attaining
excellent capacity factor in the BN-600 reactor, have complemented the con-
struction of the BN-800 reactor and achieved the first critically in 2014. The
BN-1200 design has been in progress as the next generation reactor (Pioro 2016).
In China, an experimental fast reactor has been connected to the grid in 2011 as
the result of vigorous R&D as a response to the foreseen large increase in the
domestic energy demand. Then a prototype reactor, CFR-600 and the following
commercial reactor, CFR-1000 are planned. India is also about to start a prototype
fast breeder reactor (PFBR) (Pioro 2016).
France is proceeding a Generation IV SFR prototype project called “ASTRID”
(Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for Industrial Demonstration) and the
Republic of Korea and Japan proceed in their design of Prototype Generation IV
Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor (PGSFR) and the Japanese Sodium Cooled Fast
Reactor (JFSR), respectively (Pioro 2016).
The U.S. is continuing a modular SFR development whereas 4S, PRISM and
Travelling Wave Reactor-Prototype are being developed in the industry (Pioro
2016).
The ten-year objectives by GIF are:
• Three baseline concepts (pool, loop and modular configurations);
• Several sodium cooled reactors operational or under construction (e.g. in China,
India, Japan and Russia);
54 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

• Develop advanced national SFR demonstrators for near-term deployment

(France, Japan and Russia); proceed with respective national projects in China,
the Republic of Korea, and India.
In the coming years, the main R&D efforts will be concentrated on: safety the
operation (improving core inherent safety and instrumentation and control, pre-
vention and mitigation of sodium fires, prevention and mitigation of severe acci-
dents with large energy releases, ultimate hear sink, ISI&R consolidation of
common safety design criteria; advanced fuel development (advanced reactor fuels,
MA-bearing fuels); component design and balance plant (advanced cycles for
energy conversion, and innovative component design); used fuel handling schemes
and technologies; system integration and assessment; implementation of innovative
options and economic evaluations, and operation optimisation.

2.3 European Pressurised Reactor (EPR)

The EPR is an advanced nuclear power reactor of evolutionary design and, as such,
incorporates improvements arising from accumulated operating experience, new
passive intrinsic safety systems of high reliability and an advanced technology
instrumentation and control aimed at eliminating or mitigate operational human
mistakes. Thus, the EPR offers great progress both in technology and economic, in
addition, incorporates a high safety level and produces less high activity waste,
reduces notability the energy cost, flexibility and availability operation, along with
the better use of fuel.

2.3.1 EPR Design Project

In 1989, Framatome (France) and Siemens (Germany), the most experienced

makers of European nuclear power plants, decided to cooperate to design a new
PWR reactor generation, so they set up a joint venture, which they called “Nuclear
Power International (NPI)”. At the end of 1991, the electrical French company
Electricité de France (EdF) and the mainly part of the electrical German operators of
nuclear power plants merged their development programmes with NPI, and in this
manner, EPR design was started.
For this task, both manufacturers contributed the experience gained through the
design, the construction, putting into service and the operation of existing PWRs in
France and Germany, and they carried out an exhaustive analysis of technical
solutions, comparing and evaluating them before their integration into EPR design.
Thanks to the successfully collaboration of all parties involved, it has been
achieved very satisfactory results, not only for superposition of existing design
2.3 European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) 55

features, otherwise throughout a carefully reassessment and combination of the best

alternatives. The goal was to achieve a design that merged both features French and
German designs so that the optimal solution was reached with what the best of each
one. As a result, the EPR is the direct descendent of the French N4 series nuclear
power reactors, which are the most modern reactors in operation today, and Konvoi
Germans, the latest design of Siemens before its merger with Framatone.
The EPR reactor, therefore, provides new technologies based on about a
well-know and safe models like are N4 and Konvoi. For this reason, its design has
been based on an update and improve of the above mentioned type of nuclear
power reactors, giving rise to a safer, more efficient and more competitive reactor.
Main objectives assigned to EPR were twofold:
• After a carefully evaluation of specific passive safety systems features, it was
decided to design the EPR following an evolutionary approach: The advantage
of founding an advanced design on operational experience from approximately
100 nuclear power reactors constructed by Framatone and Siemens was deemed
by the designers to be quite important;
• As important as the evolutionary feature, was the objective to ensure the
competitiveness of nuclear power generation in comparison with other alter-
native energy sources. EPR was intended to provide a significant improvement
in terms of power generation costs as compared to most modern nuclear power
reactors, including gas power plants with combined cycles. To match this
objective a large unit power size was selected, i.e. in the 1600 MWe range
(Debontride 2006).

2.3.2 EPR Description

The EPR reactor is a PWR with a rated thermal power of 4500 MW and an
electrical power output around 1630 MW depending on conventional island tech-
nology and heat sink characteristics (Ardron 2009).
The EPR evolutionary design is based on experience gained many years of
operation of LWR worldwide. The EPR primary system design, loop configuration
and other main components are similar of currently operating PWRs, giving a
proven foundation for the design.
Relative to current generation PWRs, the EPR design philosophy has the fol-
lowing objectives:
• To reduce core damage frequency;
• To reduce the frequency of large releases of radioactivity;
• To mitigate severe accidents;
• To protect critical systems from external events such as aircraft impact;
• To achieve an improved plant availability factor (above 90%);
56 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

• To give extended flexibility for different fuel cycles lengths and capability for
load following;
• To give increased saving on uranium consumption per MWh produced;
• To achieve further reduction in long-lived actinides generation per MWh
through improved fuel management;
• To provide a plutonium recycling capability with a core able to accommodate up
to 50% of MOX4 fuel assemblies (Ardron 2009).
The EPR operating design life of 60 years, reduced fuel consumption and waste
production per unit energy output, contribute to long term sustainability. Economic
viability is provided by the fact that (Ardron 2009):
• The investment and operating costs are balanced by a large power output;
• The large scale core with a low power density provides an efficient use of fuel;
• The high steam pressure leads to a high net efficiency;
• The high availability is ensured by the use of proven technology and Konvoi
design features which allow short outages (Ardron 2009).
The EPR reactor is a four-loop PWR whose reactor coolant system
(RCS) comprises a reactor pressure vessel (RPV) containing the fuel assemblies, a
pressuriser (PSR) including control systems to maintain system pressure, one
reactor coolant pump (RCP) per loop, one steam generator (SG) per loop, associ-
ated piping, and related control and protection systems. These components are
standardised for all EPR projects.
In PWRs ordinary (light) water is utilised to remove the heat produced inside the
reactor core by the thermal nuclear fission. The water in the core acts to slow down
(moderate) the neutrons. Slowing down neutrons is necessary to sustain the nuclear
chain reaction. The heat produced inside the reactor is transferred to the turbine
through the steam generators. Only heat energy is exchanged between the reactor
cooling circuit (primary circuit) and the secondary circuit used to feed the turbine.
No exchange of cooling water takes place.
In the RCS, the primary cooling water is pumped through the reactor core and
the tubes inside the SGs, in four parallel closed loops, by four RCPs powered by
electric motors. The reactor operating pressure and temperature are such that the
cooling water does not evaporate in the primary circuit, but remains in the liquid
state, increasing its cooling effectiveness. A PSR, connected to one of the coolant
loops is used to control the pressure in the RCS. Feedwater entering the secondary
side of the steam generators absorbs the heat transferred from the primary side and
evaporates to produce saturated steam. The steam is dried inside the steam gen-
erators then delivered to the turbine. After exist the turbine, the steam is condensed
and returned as feedwater to the SGs. A generator, driven by the turbine, generates
electricity (Fig. 2.10).

4
Note with some plants modifications, 100% of the core could be composed of MOX fuel
assemblies.
2.3 European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) 57

Fig. 2.10 European Pressurised Reactor (EPR). Source AREVA (2008)

The EPR plant layout is shown in Fig. 2.11. Referring to that figure, the EPR
plant comprises a reactor building, a fuel building, four safeguard buildings, two
diesel buildings, a nuclear auxiliary building, a waste building, a turbine building
and C.I. electrical building.

Fig. 2.11 Typical EPR layout. Source AREVA (2008)

58 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

The reactor building is surrounded by the four safeguard buildings and the fuel
building. The internal structures and components within the reactor building, fuel
building and two safeguard buildings (including the plant main control room) are
protected against aircraft hazard and external explosions. The other two safeguard
buildings are no protected against aircraft hazard; however, they are geographically
separated by the reactor building, which prevents both buildings from being
simultaneously affected by such a hazard.

2.3.3 Safety, Competitiveness and Flexibility

(a) Safety properties:

According to Areva data base (2016), a twofold strategy is pursued for the EPR
safety requirements:
• Unrivalled level of safety: Resistance to plane crashes and seismic vibrations;
quadruple safety device redundancy; core meltdown risk further reduced and
minimisation of the consequences from such an accident thanks to a special
compartment isolating the molten core;
• Active and passive safety systems: Designed as an extension of the Konvoi and
N4 reactors, the EPR reactor combines active and passive safety systems to
increase safety and provide better process control over plant operation.
These safety requirements are implemented by designing the nuclear power plant
on a strong deterministic basis and, beyond this basis, by consideration of risk
reduction measures.
Low probability events with multiple failures and coincident occurrences up to
the total loss of safety-grade systems are considered, in addition to the deterministic
basis design. Representative scenarios are defined for both mitigations of core melt
and prevention of large releases, in order to provide a basis design for risk reduction
features.
(b) Competitiveness:
Due to an early focus on economic competitiveness during the design process,
the EPR offers significantly reduced power generation costs, estimated as being
10% lower than those of the most modern nuclear power reactors currently in
operation, and about 20% less than those of large combined-cycle gas plants
(Gerard et al. 2004).
According to Gerard et al. (2004), this competitiveness is achieved through:
• Unit power in the 1600 MW range, i.e. the highest unit power to date (a further
power increase is possible without major changes, as the reactor equipment is
already designed for a core thermal power of 4500 MWth);
• Between 36 and 37% efficiency depending on site conditions, the highest value
ever for LWR;
2.3 European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) 59

• Construction time from pouring of the first concrete not exceeding 48 months;
• Service life increased to 60 years;
• Enhanced fuel utilisation;
• Up to 92% availability factor, on average, during the entire service life of the
plant, obtained through long irradiation cycles, another shorter refuelling
outages and increase maintenance;
• Environment protection. Reduction in fuel consumption per kWh and produc-
tion of long-life waste products (−15%), through improved thermal efficiency
and uranium utilisation (Areva source);
• An unrivalled experience on large projects.
(c) Flexibility:
Due to its considerable margins for fuel management optimisation, EPR core is
designed for outstanding flexibility with respect to fuel cycle length and fuel
management strategy: Reference cycle length is 18 months, but fuel cycle lengths
up to 24 months, IN-OUT and OUT-In fuel management capabilities are offered.
A great flexibility for using MOX (Mixed UO2–PuO2) fuel assemblies in the core,
i.e. of recycling plutonium extracted from spent fuel assemblies is also provided
(Debontride 2006).
In terms of operation, EPR is designed to offer the utilities a high level of
manoeuvrability. It has the capacity to be permanent operated at any power level
between 20 and 100% of its nominal power in a fully automatic way, with primary
and secondary frequency controls in operation.
The EPR capability regarding manoeuvrability is a particular well adapted
response to scheduled and unscheduled power grid demands for loads variations,
managing of grid perturbations or mitigation of grid failures.

2.3.4 EPR Projects

(a) Olkiluoto 3 (Finland)

The construction of the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power reactor in Finland com-
menced in August 2005. It was initially scheduled to go online in 2009, but the
project has suffered many delays, and according to Areva operations are expected to
start in 2018. The nuclear power reactor will have an electrical power output of
1600 MWe (net). The construction is a joint effort of French Areva and German
Siemens through their common subsidiary Areva NP, for Finnish operator TVO.
Initial cost estimates were about €3.7 billion, but the project has since seen several
severe cost increments and delays.
Due to budget increase and delays in the construction of Olkiluoto 3, the Finland
operator, TVO, has sue Areva for €2.6 billion and, at the same time, Areva has sue
TVO for €3.52 billion. The claim includes payments delayed by TVO under the
construction contract, and penalty interest totalling about €1.45 billion and
60 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

€135 million in alleged loss of profit. In May 2016 Areva NP called off arbitration
negotiations for a settlement with TVO (WNA 2016).
(b) Flamanville 3 (France)
First concrete was poured for the demonstration EPR reactor at the Flamanville
nuclear power plant on 6 December 2007. As the name implies this will be the third
nuclear power reactor on the Flamanville site and the second instance of an EPR
being built. Electrical output will be 1630 MWe (net) and the project involves
around €3.3 billion of capital expenditure from EdF. It is important to highlight that
the construction of the Flamanville nuclear power plant also had suffered of certain
delay and increase in the budget allocated to the construction of the EPR reactor on
an estimated of €10.5 billion, three times its original estimate (WNN 2015).
(c) Taishan 1 and 2 (China)
In 2006, Areva took part in the first bidding process for the construction of four
new nuclear power reactors in China, together with Toshiba-owned Westinghouse
and Russian Atomstroexport. However, Areva lost this bid in favour of
Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactors, in part because of Areva’s refusal to transfer the
expertise and knowledge to China. Following this Areva managed to win a deal in
February 2007, worth about €8 billion for two EPRs located in Taishan,
Guangdong Province in southern China, in spite of sticking to its previous condi-
tions. The General Contractor and Operator is the China Guangdong Nuclear Power
Company. As of December 2012, the two Taishan EPRs will cost about the same as
the single EPR being built in the Finnish Olkiluoto estimated in €8.5 billion (WNN
2007).
In November 2007, former French president Nicolas Sarkozy signed a US
$12 billion deal that will allow the third and fourth EPR units to be constructed in
China (Nuclear Engineering International 2007).
(d) Hinkley Point C (United Kingdom)
On March 2013, planning consent for Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant was
given, and on October 2013, UK government have agreed with EdF, after more
than two years of negotiation, that the French company will be guaranteed a strike
price of £92.50 for every megawatt hour of power produced by the Hinkley Point C
power plant for 35 years, around double the current market rate at the time (Gribben
and Ronald 2013).
Following an 11-month investigation into UK support for Hinkley Point C
nuclear project, the European Commission approved a UK support package on
October 2014. Because of that, Austria and Luxembourg, on June 2015, launched
their appeal at the General Court of the European Union, challenging the European
Commission’s clearance decision (Buckworth et al. 2015).
EdF and UK government were about to sign off the subsidiary deal for the
£18 billion plant on 29 July 2016, after the board of EdF approved the project by
ten votes to seven, Greg Clark, the new Business and Energy Secretary, announced
2.3 European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) 61

a new review that the final decision will now be delayed until in the early autumn.
This announcement surprised EdF, whose directors were preparing to sign contracts
with the government (Gosden and Swinford 2016).
(e) Possible future nuclear power plants
In February 2009, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) signed a
MoU with Areva to set up two 1650 MWe reactors at Jaitapur in Maharashtra. This
was followed by a framework agreement in December 2010. NPCIL has ambitions
to build up to 9900 MW at the Jaitapur site, equating to six EPRs, according to
Areva sources. In July 2008, the French President announced that a second EPR
would be built in France due to high oil and gas prices. Penly was chosen as the site
in 2009, with construction planned to start in 2012. However, in 2011, following
the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, EdF postponed public consultations. In
2013, EdF confirmed there was no start plan for Penly, as expected demand did not
warrant it (WNA 2016).

2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

Further, a new group of nuclear power reactors, the so-called “Small Modular
Reactors or SMRs” has been developed, with new important features, which do not
fall into the above groups, but they can supply electricity to the market in countries
without great financial resources, lack of well-trained work forces, relative small
grid and moderate technology development.
The SMR systems adopt modularisation, by which the structures, systems, and
components are shop-fabricated then shipped and assembled on site, thus the
construction time for SMRs can be substantially reduced. Some of the SMRs are to
be deployed as multiple-module power plants allowing utilities to add additional
units and power conversion modules as demand for local power increases.
SMRs will use different approaches in comparison with large nuclear power
reactors for achieving a high level of safety and reliability in their systems, struc-
tures, and components. These improvements will be the result of a complex
interaction between design, operation, material, and human factors. Interest in
SMRs continues to grow in several developed countries as an option for future
power generation and energy security, but particularly in countries that are thinking
to introduce, for the first time, the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation,
according to IAEA sources.

2.4.1 Why the Interest in Small Modular Reactors

Small reactors and the modular construction of them are not a new concept.
Historically, early reactors for commercial electricity production were of small size,
62 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

a consequence of the prudent engineering process of constructing plans starting at

small ratings to gain the needed construction and operating experience necessary to
move confidently to larger ratings. Now a half-century of experience, commercial
civil reactors are being deployed with ratings of up to 1660 MWe. Additionally,
small units were built for terrestrial deployment to provide electric power for
remote, vulnerable military sites, for the propulsion of submarines, naval and
commercial ships, and for aircraft propulsion.
However, starting from the mid-1980s, a new set of requirements have moti-
vated the deployment of intentional smaller reactors in some countries aimed at the
niche markets that cannot accommodate nuclear power plants with reactors of large
capacity.
The main arguments in favour of SMRs are:
• Because of their size, construction efficiency and passive safety systems, the
upfront capital investment for one unit is significantly smaller than for a large
nuclear power reactor, and there is flexibility for increasing capacity. This
reduces financial risks and could potentially increase the attractiveness of
nuclear power to private investors and utilities (Kuznetsov and Lokhov 2011);
• Smaller nuclear reactors could represent an opportunity to develop new markets
for nuclear power plants. In particular, SMRs could be suitable for areas with
small electrical grids and for remote locations or, alternatively, in countries with
insufficiently developed electrical infrastructure;
• Effective protection of plant investment from the potential to achieve a reactor
design with enhanced safety characteristics;
• Possible reduction of the current emergency planning zone by virtue of smaller
core inventory and potential for added safety design features. According to
WAN, the emergency planning zone required is designed to be no more than
about 300 m radius;
• Potential benefits regarding non-proliferation of nuclear material;
• Reduction of transmission requirements and a more robust and reliable grid;
• SMRs are better adapted to low growth rates of energy demand;
• Use of components which do not require the ultra-heavy forgings of today’s
gigawatt-scale nuclear power plants and are rail shippable (Carelli and Ingersoll
2014).
SMR often offer a variety of non-electrical energy products (heat, desalinated
water, process steam, district heating mission or advanced energy carriers) via
operation in a co-generation mode.5

5
It is important to underline that co-generation is not unique to SMRs. However, the SMR power
range corresponds well to the infrastructure requirements for non-electrical products (e.g. district
heating) (Kuznetsov and Lokhov 2011).
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 63

2.4.2 Small Modular Reactors and Their Attributes

It is first worth defining what a “Small Modular Reactor (SMR)” is. SMR is defined
as a reactor of advanced generation of nuclear power reactors to produce equivalent
electrical power less than 300 MWe per unit, and designed to be built in factories in
modular form and shipped to utilities for installation as demand arises.
The philosophy is to add an incremental number of small units at the same site as
and when the electricity demand is there, or as and when the revenue from the
previous units is such that another unit can afford to be built by the owners
(National Nuclear Laboratory 2012).
The motivation in SMR design and potential implementation remains the same
as the large nuclear power plants (i.e. reduced CO2 emissions, energy security, and
economics), but with additional proposed benefits, including safer new plant
designs that require less investment.
The attributes of SMRs are:
• Small reactor size allowing transportation by truck (as well as by rail or barge)
and installation in proximity to the users, such as residential housing areas,
hospitals, military bases, or large government complexes;
• The compact architecture enables modularity of fabrication (in-factory), which
can also facilitate implementation of higher quality standards. Factory assembly
of the complete nuclear steam supply system and, therefore, short construction
duration on site;
• Lower requirement for access to cooling water, therefore suitable for remote
regions and for specific applications such as mining or desalination (WNA
2016);
• Small absolute capital outlay and an option of flexible capacity addition/removal
through modular approach to plant design, deemed attractive to private investors
(Kuznetsov and Lokhov 2011);
• Small power and compact architecture and usually employment of passive
concepts. Therefore, there is less reliance on active safety systems and addi-
tional pumps, as well as AC power for accident mitigation;
• Individual containments and turbine generators for each of the reactor modules;
• Potential for sub-grade (underground or underwater) location of the reactor
providing more protection and high level of safety and security from natural or
man-made hazards;
• Lower power leading to reduction of the source term as well as smaller
radioactive inventory in a reactor;
• Long refuelling interval and once-at-a-time whole core reloading on the site or
at a centralised factory (as a future option) (Kuznetsov and Lokhov 2011);
• Ability to remove reactor module or in situ decommissioning at the end of the
lifetime;
• Provision for flexible co-generation options (generating electricity with
co-production of heat, desalinated water, synthetic fuels, hydrogen, etc.).
64 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

2.4.2.1 Safety Designs of Small Modular Reactors

In general, the engineering challenges of ensuring safety in SMRs are not quali-
tatively different from those of large nuclear power reactors. No matter the size,
there must be systems in place to ensure that the heat generated by the reactor core
is removed both under normal and accident conditions at a rate sufficient to keep the
fuel from overheating, becoming damaged, and releasing radioactivity.
A major advantage of SMRs is their natural safety. No electrical supplies or
pumps are required to cool the reactor following an incident, as this is achieved by
natural convection and gravity coolant feed. This feature ensures the reactor will
remain safe under severe accident conditions.
Natural (passive) safety systems reduce the capital and maintenance costs
compared to large nuclear power reactors and fundamentally changes the economic
equation in favour of SMR nuclear power generation, according to SMR Nuclear
Technology.
Despite a large variety of SMR designs, they tend to share a common set of
design principles to enhance plant safety (National Nuclear Laboratory 2012):
• Eliminate potential accident initiators if possible [e.g. avoid loss of coolant
accident (LOCA)];
• Reduce probability of an accident occurring (e.g. reducing vessel dose during
operations reduces likelihood of RPV fail);
• Mitigate consequences of potential accidents (e.g. increased volume of primary
coolant slow down potential heat-up accidents).
Some of the typical features that enhance the safety, include (National Nuclear
Laboratory 2012):
• Incorporation of primary system components into a single vessel;
• Increased relative coolant inventory in the primary reactor vessel;
• Smaller radionuclide inventory per reactor;
• Vessel and component layout that facilitate natural convection cooling of the
core and vessel;
• More elective decay heat removal;
• Smaller decay heat per reactor;
• Enhanced resistance to seismic events.
It is also possible to enhance the security locating the reactor underground. This
significantly reduces the potential impact of external events such as aircraft colli-
sion or natural disasters. Locating the reactor below ground also reduces the number
of paths for fission product release following an accident. But this location could
have a disadvantage as well, so in case of accident, emergency crews could have
greater difficulty accessing underground reactors.
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 65

According to SMR Nuclear Technology, the key features depending on the type
of SMRs are the following:
• Key features of Small Modular Light Water Reactors:
– The most common power nuclear reactor type, with proven technology, and
extensive accumulated operational experience;
– Uses cheap demineralised water as the primary coolant;
– Natural or pumped coolant circulation and passive back-up systems for
safety;
– Coupled to standard turbine/generator as used in fossil fuelled power plant;
– In the PWR, the primary coolant water is kept under sufficient pressure to
prevent it from boiling, and the heat extracted from the nuclear fuel is
transferred to a secondary water circuit in a heat exchanger where steam is
produced to drive a turbine.
• Key features of Small Modular Fast Neutron Reactors:
– Very compact design due to high conductivity liquid metal coolant;
– Higher efficiency than LWR due to higher operating temperature;
– Very long operating time between refuelling (up to 30 years);
– Inherent safety features.
• Key features of Small Modular Very High Temperature Gas Reactors:
– Capable of operating at very high temperature for hydrogen production or
high efficiency (50%) electricity generation;
– Proven fuel technology;
– Inherent safety features due to fuel type and gas coolant.

2.4.2.2 Proliferation Resistance and the IAEA Safeguards System

Proliferation resistance has become one of the primary topics to be addressed if new
energy systems are going to be developed as any current nuclear system presents
potential proliferation risks. SMR systems could raise specific proliferation con-
cerns mainly because they could be deployed in: a) remote areas, b) small countries,
c) in large numbers, d) in countries that are “newcomers” in nuclear industry, and e)
can be used not only for electric generation, but also on potable water production,
heat, industrial processes, among others. In this sense, the whole SMR system
requires specific attention in order to reduce the attractiveness of fissile material that
could be used for nuclear weapons. The strategies to increase proliferation resis-
tance are presently oriented to prevent access to the fuel and/or develop reactor
designs implying quite long refuelling periods (Polidoro et al. 2013).
The IAEA provides international verification of nuclear activities in a host state,
through the implementation of nuclear safeguards that include inspections to verify
facility design and nuclear inventory, and also instrumentation and other measures
66 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

that provide “continuity of knowledge” between inspections. The IAEA safeguards

system is viewed as a key instrument of non-proliferation (Whitlock and Sprinkle
2012).
IAEA safeguards verify the operator’s declarations about activities involving
nuclear material. These declarations address the receipts, shipment, storage, move-
ment and production of nuclear material. Inspection intensity depends on the type of
nuclear material used (depleted uranium, high enriched uranium, low enriched ura-
nium, natural uranium, plutonium or thorium) and whether the material is irradiated.
Safeguards considerations take into account various aspects:
• Accessibility to the nuclear material;
• Whether the reactor facility is operated continuously;
• How the reactor facility is refuelled;
• Location and mobility of the reactor facility;
• Existence and locations of the other nuclear facilities in the state.

2.4.2.3 Economic Analysis of Small Modular Reactors

The full cost of electricity from SMRs have similar structures to large nuclear
power reactors, and according to WNA, the economics of nuclear power involves
consideration of several aspects:
• Capital costs, which include the cost of the establishment of a nuclear pro-
gramme (for newcomers), cost of licensing, site preparation, construction,
manufacturing, commissioning, and financing a nuclear power plant;
• Plant operation costs, which include the cost of fuel, operation, and maintenance
(O&M), and a provision for funding the costs of decommissioning the plant, and
treating and disposing of fuel and wastes;
• External costs to society for the operation, which in the case of a nuclear power
plant is usually assumed to be zero, but could include the costs of dealing with a
serious accident that is beyond the insurance limit and in practice need to be
picked up by the government;
• Others costs such as taxes and levies, as well as grid and backup costs (trans-
port, reserve capacity, etc.).
One of the main factors negatively affecting the capital cost of the SMRs is the
lack of economy of scale. As a result, the specific (per MWe) capital costs of the
SMR are expected to be tens to hundreds of percent higher than large nuclear power
reactors (Lokhov et al. 2013).
The construction duration of the SMRs could, in principle, be significantly
shorter than for large nuclear power reactors, especially in the case of
factory-assembled reactors. This would result in important savings for financial
costs, which are particularly significant if discount rate is high. Some SMRs could
be fully factory-assembled, and transported to the deployment site. Factory fabri-
cation is also subject to learning effects which could reduce the SMR capital costs.
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 67

The magnitude of this reduction is considered to be comparable or even higher to

that of the effects for series build of plants constructed on site. In particular, full
factory fabrication is possible for a barge-mounted plant.
According to the designers’ estimates a full factory-fabricated, barge-mounted
nuclear power plant could be 20% less expensive than land-based nuclear power
plant with an SMR of the same type. Further decrease of SMR capital cost can be
achieved due to learning effects of factory fabrication. However, to fully utilise this
effect, series of at least 5–7 units are needed. In some advanced SMRs, significant
design simplifications could be achieved through broader incorporation of
size-specific inherent safety features that would not be possible for large nuclear
power reactors. The designers estimate that these simplifications could reduce
specific capital costs by at least 15%. Even if all of the above mentioned factors are
taken into account where they are applicable, the investment component of the
levelised cost for a SMR still appears to be higher than in the case of large nuclear
power reactors (Lokhov et al. 2013).
The sum of the cost for O&M and the fuel cycle components for advanced
SMRs is expected to be close to the corresponding value for a large nuclear power
reactor (of similar technology). Lower O&M costs are expected for SMRs but, in
contrast, the fuel costs could be higher in the case of a SMR than for large nuclear
power reactors (in particular, because of lower fuel utilisation) (Lokhov et al. 2013).
The cost of electricity generation with SMRs might decrease for large scale serial
production, which is very important for providing the competitiveness of SMRs.
A large initial order of SMRs would be needed to launch the process and improve
the economic competitiveness. On the other hand, to obtain a large order, one
would already need to demonstrate the economic attractiveness of the SMR tech-
nology (Lokhov et al. 2013).

2.4.2.4 Waste Problem and Decommissioning

In addition to the problems mentioned above, there are other issues that need to be
considered associated to the use of SMRs for electricity generation and other uses.
These are:
• Waste problem: Proponents claim that with longer operation on a single fuel
charge and with less production of spent fuel per reactor, waste management
would be simpler. In fact, spent fuel management for SMRs would be more
complex, and therefore more expensive, because the waste would be located on
many more sites. In some proposals, the reactor would be buried underground,
making waste retrieval even more complicated and therefore complicating
retrieval of radioactive materials in the event of an accident (Makhijani and
Boyd 2010);
• Decommissioning: The modular nature of the reactor components not only
assists in the construction of the plant, but will also ease the decommissioning
timescales. With smaller modules, the ability to dispose of the entire unit could
68 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

be feasible, including in the case of the cartridge type spent fuel. In addition,
with many of the SMRs being based underground, there is the potential to back
fill the site as is, simply removing the outer shell and buildings (National
Nuclear Laboratory 2012).

2.4.3 Small Modular Reactor Designs

There are tens of SMR concepts and designs at various stages of development
around the world. Some are being developed by universities as pure research and
teaching projects, others by private investors looking to break into the new build
market and several by the large international reactor vendors (Tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.3
and 2.4).

2.4.3.1 Light Water Reactors (LWR)

This type of SMRs is moderated and cooled by ordinary water and have the lowest
technological risk, being similar to most operating power and naval reactors today.
They mostly use enriched fuel to less than 5% U-235 with no more than six-year
refuelling intervals, and regulatory hurdles are likely least of any small reactors.
They mostly have steam supply systems inside the reactor pressure vessel and
others have conventional pressure vessels plus external steam generators. This type
of SMR has enhanced safety features relative to a current LWRs and require
conventional cooling steam condensers (Fig. 2.12).

Table 2.1 Small nuclear power reactors operating in 2016

Name Capacity (MWe) Type Developer
CNP-300 300 PWR CNNC, operational in Pakistan and China
PHWR-220 220 PHWR NPCIL, India
EGP-6 11 LWGR At Bilibino, Siberia (cogen)
Source WNA

Table 2.2 Small reactor designs under construction

Name Capacity Type Developer
(MWe)
KLT-40S 35 PWR OKBM, Russia
CAREM 27 Integral CNEA & INVAP, Argentina
PWR
HTR-PM, 2  105 HTR INET, CNEC & Huaneng, China
HTR-200
Source WNA
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 69

Table 2.3 Small (25 MWe up) reactors for near-term deployment—development well advanced
Name Capacity (MWe) Type Developer
VBER-300 300 PWR OKBM, Russia
NuScale 50 Integral PWR NuScale Power + Fluor, U.S.
Westinghouse SMR 225 Integral PWR Westinghouse, U.S.
mPower 180 Integral PWR Bechtel + BWXT, U.S.
SMR-160 160 PWR Holtec, U.S.
ACP100 100 Integral PWR NPIC/CNNC, China
SMART 100 Integral PWR KAERI, South Korea
Prism 311 Sodium FNR GE-Hitachi, U.S.
BREST 300 Lead FNR RDIPE, Russia
SVBR-100 100 Lead-Bi FNR AKME-engineering, Russia
Source WNA

Table 2.4 Small (25 MWe up) reactors designs at earlier stages
Name Capacity Type Developer
EM2 240 MWe HTR, FNR General Atomics, U.S.
VK-300 300 MWe BWR RDIPE, Russia
AHWR-300 LEU 300 MWe PHWR BARC, India
CAP150 150 MWe Integral PWR SNERDI, China
ACPR100 140 MWe Integral PWR CGN, China
IMR 350 MWe Integral PWR Mitsubishi Heavy Ind, Japan
PBMR 165 MWe HTR PBMR, South Africa
SC-HTGR (Antares) 250 MWe HTR Areva, France
Xe-100 48 MWe HTR X-energy, U.S.
Gen4 module 25 MWe FNR Gen4 (Hyperion),U.S.
MCFR Unknown MSR/FNR Southern Co, U.S.
TMSR-SF 100 MWt MSR SINAP, China
PB-FHR 100 MWe MSR UC Berkeley, U.S.
Integral MSR 192 MWe MSR Terrestrial Energy, Canada
Moltex SSR c 60 MWe MSR Moltex, UK
Thorcon MSR 250 MWe MSR Martingale, U.S.
Leadir-PS100 36 MWe Lead-cooled Northern Nuclear, Canada
Source WNA

A brief technical description of the currently SMRs under development in

several countries is included in the following paragraphs:
(1) KLT-40S
The KLT-40S nuclear power plant was developed on the basis of a standard
KLT-40 type nuclear propulsion plant that has the experience of more than 250
reactor-years of failure-free operation. Components of the original plant have been
70 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

Fig. 2.12 LWRs: (a) NuScale, (b) IMR and (c) CAREM. Source (a) IAEA (2014), (b) and
(c) ANSTO IAEA

modernised to increase plant reliability, to extend its service life and to improve the
conditions of maintenance. The design of safety systems is based on safety regu-
lations for marine nuclear power reactors and was updated to meet the requirements
of the Russian Regulatory Authority—GAN RF—for nuclear power plants,
according to IAEA (2004).
The KLT-40S is a PWR developed for a floating nuclear power plant to provide
capacity of 35 MWe per module and 150 MWth. Floating power unit (FPU) has
been developed to produce electricity and heat and to transfer them to customers
making use of the coastal infrastructure. Safe positioning and retaining of FPU is
provided by the hydraulic-engineering structures. The coastal infrastructure
includes structures and special devices for reception and transmission of electric
power and heat to users, and is operated co-jointly with an FPU (IAEA 2004).
The FPU is a smooth deck non-self-propelled ship. The FPU consists of a living
module and a power module. The power module accommodates two KLT-40S
nuclear power reactors, two steam turbine plants and electric power system.
The FPU is manufactured at a specialised shipyard factory and transported to an
operation site fully assembled (IAEA 2004).
The floating ship-type configuration SMR (KLT-40S) provides cogeneration
capabilities for reliable power and heat supply to isolated consumers in remote areas
without centralised power plants. Besides, this FPU can be used for seawater
desalination complexes as well as for autonomous power supply for sea
oil-production platforms.
KLT-40S nuclear power reactor are designed to run 3–4 years between refu-
elling with on-board refuelling capability and used fuel storage. At the end of a
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 71

12-year operating cycle the whole plant is taken to a central facility for overhaul
and storage of used fuel. Two units will be mounted on a 20,000 tonnes barge to
allow for (70% capacity factor). Although the reactor core is normally cooled by
forced circulation (four-loop), the design relies on convention for emergency
cooling. The fuel is uranium aluminium silicide with enrichment levels of up to
20%, giving to a four-year refuelling intervals. A variant of this is the KLT-20
(WNA 2016).
According to Afrikantov OKBM, FPU is constructed in the factory conditions
that make it possible to reduce deadlines and cost of construction. Relatively small
capital cost, short construction period (four years) and increased resistance to
external impacts reduce the investment risk to minimum, and increase commercial
attractiveness of power units.
The first FPU carrying the KLT-40S is the Akademik Lomonosov in the
Chukatka region. The construction of this reactor start in 2007. The Akademik
Lomonosov is expect to be completed by the end of 2016 and expected electricity
production by 2017.
(2) RITM-200
The RITM-200 is being developed by OKBM Afrikantov as an integral nuclear
power reactor for multipurpose nuclear icebreaker, floating and land-based nuclear
power plants, with an electrical output of 50 MWe and a thermal power of
175 MWth (IAEA 2012). It incorporates the experience in design and operation of
many of Russian marine propulsion reactors.
An integrated approach was adopted to determine the main parameters of the
primary system, selection of equipment and layout, determining the optimal
inventory and parameters of the safety systems for the RITM-200. Inherent safety
characteristic of the RITM-200 is ensured based on the following principles: High
thermal storage capacity, primary coolant natural circulation sufficient for reactor
cool down, minimal length of the primary pipelines, leak stoppers in small nozzles,
greater volume of primary coolant in the reactor vessel as compared with the
modular arrangement increase the time margin until core drainage in loss of coolant
accidents, and introduction of active and passive safety systems, according to
Afrikantov OKBM.
The RITM-200 has four coolant loops and external main circulation pumps, use
low-enriched fuel (<20%) and refuel every seven years a 65% capacity factor, over
a 40-year total lifespan (WNA 2016).
The RITM-200 is designed to provide the shaft power on a typical nuclear
icebreaker and can be used on a vessel of 150–300 tonnes displacement. The
nuclear power reactor can also be considered for floating heat and power plants,
power and desalination complexes, and offshore drilling rigs. The designers also
claim that the overall size of the steam generating unit allows transport of the
nuclear power reactor by rail. The nuclear power reactor plant in containment has a
mass of 1100 ton (IAEA 2012).
72 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

The current status of RITM-200 concept is the two reactor plants for the first
multipurpose icebreaker (complete delivery in 2016) are being manufactured. In
2020, two serial universal nuclear icebreakers will be commissioned, according to
Afrikantov OKBM.
(3) CNP-300
This is based on the Qinshan 1 reactor in China as a two-loop PWR operating in
Pakistan and with further units being built there. It is 1000 MWth, 325 MWe with a
design life of 40 years. Fuel enrichment is 2.4–3.0%; fuel cycle 12 months. It is
from the China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC) (WNA 2016).
Two vertically mounted external reactor coolant pumps circulate the primary
coolant between the reactor pressure vessel and the two vertical U-tube steam
generators. Because of CNP-300 uses a loop-type configuration, a large-break loss
of coolant accident is possible and the multiple safety systems are incorporated to
mitigate its consequences, including high-pressure injection systems (Carelli and
Ingersoll 2014).
(4) NuScale
According to the IAEA (2014), NuScale reactor is made up of one to twelve
independent reactor modules each producing a net electric power of greater than
45 MWe resulting in a plant output greater than 540 MWe for a twelve-module
power plant. The reactor operates based on natural convection instead of using pumps
to circulate water through reactor core and adopts fully passive safety features. The
NuScale value proposition involves innovative design principles to achieve signifi-
cant improvement in safety, reduces capital at risk, and flexibility/scalability in plant
size and application. Each reactor module includes a high pressure containment
vessel immersed underwater in a below-grade pool. The NuScale primary system and
containment are prefabricated and transported by rail, truck or barge to the plant site,
which shortens construction schedule to approximately 36 months. The integral
modular design of NuScale allows new modules to be added to the plant or refuelled
independently while the other modules continue to operate. NuScale reactor uses
standard PWR fuel enriched to 4.95% in normal PWR fuel assemblies, with a
24-months refuelling cycle. Design life is 60 years (WNA 2016).
NuScale design is a modular reactor for electricity production and non-electrical
process heat applications. The NuScale Integral System test facility is being used to
evaluate design performance and improvements, and to conduct integral system
tests for NRC certification.
(5) mPower
The mPower is designed by Generation mPower and its affiliated Babcock &
Wilcox mPower, Inc. and Bechtel Power Corporation.6 According to Generation

6
In 2011, members of B&W and Bechel Power Corporation entered into a formal alliance called
“Generation mPower to design, license and deploy mPower modular nuclear power plant”.
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 73

mPower, the BWXT mPower reactor design is a scalable, SMR, and iPWR in
which the nuclear core and steam generators are contained within a single vessel. It
utilises passive safety systems and is housed in an underground containment
structure. With fewer components and systems, overall reliability is enhanced and
affordability improved.
The BWXT mPower generates a nominal output of 195 MWe per module. In its
standard plant design, each mPower plant is comprised of a ‘twin-pack’ set, or two
mPower units, generating a nominal 390 MWe, but it is possible to use a multi-unit
(1 to 10+) nuclear power plant depending on the energy demanded by customers
(the facility structure is composed of reactor modules that are fully
shop-manufactured on an as-needed basis to meet demand growth). The nuclear
steam supply system is shippable by rail.
The generation mPower solution is expected to lower the overall capital cost of
construction (three-year construction cycle) and optimise plant size to customers’
local power generation requirements. Also, the ability to bring increments of power
online, while additional modules are under construction, will provide early returns
on the investment.
The design adopts internal steam supply system components, once-through
steam generators, pressurised, in-vessel control rod drive mechanisms, and hori-
zontally mounted canned motor pumps for its primary cooling circuit and passive
safety systems. The plant is designed to minimise emergency planning zone
requirements.
The mPower reactor has a conventional reactor core and is standard fuel enri-
ched to almost 5%, with burnable poisons, to give a four-year operating cycle
between refuelling, which will involve replacing the entire core as a single car-
tridge. A 60-year service life is envisaged, as sufficient used fuel storage would be
built on site for this (WNA 2016).
Two features of the Babcock design could cut down on operating costs. First,
each nuclear power reactor will be housed in a containment structure big enough to
store all of the waste generated by the plant during its 60-year life span, eliminating
the need for a separate storage facility. That could be especially important, as
nuclear power plant operators may have to store their own waste while they wait for
the government to provide a permanent storage facility, which it is obligated to do
by law. Second, the nuclear power reactors are also designed so that fuel has to be
replaced only once every four years, instead of the usual two years. That will
increase the amount of time that the plant can operate (Advanced Materials &
Processes 2009).
The primary application for the mPower reactor is electricity production. The
mPower design could be retrofitted to support other heat-requiring or cogeneration
applications.
According to Generation mPower, the BWXT mPower reactor is expected to
play a critical role in providing electric power while contributing to the overall
reduction of greenhouse gas emission in the U.S. and around the world.
74 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

(6) International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS)

The IRIS is a LWR with a modular, integral primary system configuration. The
concept was originally pursued by an international group of organisations led by
Westinghouse. Currently the IRIS related activities, especially those devoted to
large scale integral testing, are being pursued by Italian organisations. IRIS is
designed to satisfy enhanced safety, improved economics, proliferation resistance
and waste minimisation. Its main characteristics are: Medium power of up to
335 MWe per module; simplified compact design where the primary vessel houses
the steam generators, pressurisers and pumps; an effective safety approach of active
and passive safety systems; optimised maintenance with intervals of at least four
years; and fuel is similar to present LWRs, enrichment is 5% with burnable poison
(IAEA 2014). IRIS is designed to accommodate a variety of core designs. Future
core designs will include higher enriched UO2 fuel and the capability to use MOX
fuel.
The primary application of IRIS design is electricity production. However, this
integrated PWR can support the heat producing process and seawater desalination
options. Coupling with renewable energy parks and energy storage systems has
been addressed as well.
The IRIS team has completed the design of the large scale test facility, currently
under construction. R&D activities in the field of design economics, financial risk
and SMR competitiveness are under way (IAEA 2014).
(7) Westinghouse SMR
The Westinghouse SMR is an integral PWR that improves on the concepts of
simplicity and advanced passive safety that are demonstrated in the company’s
AP1000 nuclear power plant. The Westinghouse SMR delivers a thermal output of
800 MWth and an electric output of greater than 225 MWe as a stand-alone unit,
completely self-contained within a compact plant site. The entire plant is designed
for modular construction with all components shippable by rail, truck, or barge.
The elimination of control rod drive mechanism penetrations through the RPV
head prevents postulated rod ejection accidents as well as potential nozzle cracking.
Eight seal-less canned motor pumps are mounted horizontally to the shell of the
RPV and provide forced reactor coolant flow through the core. The steam generator
is a straight tube configuration with the primary reactor coolant passing through the
inside of the tubes and the secondary coolant on the outside. The integral pres-
suriser located above the steam generator within the RPV is used to control pressure
in the primary system. Both the reactor vessel and the passive core cooling system
are located within a compact, high pressure, steel containment vessel (CV). The CV
operates at a vacuum, and is designed to be fully submerged in water to facilitate
heat removal during accident events.
The Westinghouse SMR is an advanced passive nuclear power plant, where the
safety systems are designed to mitigate accidents through the use of natural driving
forces such as gravity flow and natural circulation flow. The plant is not reliant on
AC power or other support systems to perform its safety functions. The seven day
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 75

minimum coping time following loss of offsite power is a fundamental advance-

ment over the three day coping time of the current best in class plants. The below
grade locations of the reactor vessel, containment vessel, and spent fuel pool
provide protection against external threats and natural phenomena hazards. The
nuclear power plant is designed to be standalone with no shared systems between
adjacent units on the same site.
Three diverse decay heat removal methods are used by the Westinghouse SMR:
1) Gravity feed, 2) Passive decay heat removal heat exchanger, and 3) Bleed and
feed enabled by a two-stage automatic depressurisation system.
The Westinghouse SMR uses a standard fuel product with enrichment at less
than 5% in a 24-month refuelling cycle over a 60-year plant design life.
(8) Holtec SMR-160
The SMR-160 conceptual design has been developed by Holtec International
(U.S.) as an advanced PWR-type, producing power of 525 MWth or 160 MWe
adopting passive safety features.
SMR-160 achieves its supreme safety by eliminating vulnerabilities that have
been the source of accidents in nuclear power plants, namely pumps and motors to
run the plant’s safety systems. Instead of motors or pumps, SMR-160 relies on
Mother Nature’s gravity to run all safety significant systems in the plant. Because
gravity cannot fail, a SMR-160 plant is assured to remain safe under every oper-
ating and accident scenario. Replacing motors and pumps with gravity driven fluid
flow systems not only hardens the plant against disasters, but leads to huge
reductions in the plant’s overnight, operating and maintenance costs (Holtec
International 2015).
The SMR-160 uses two external horizontal steam generators and using fuel very
similar to that in larger PWRs, including MOX. The 32 full-length fuel assemblies
are in a fuel cartridge, which is loaded and unloaded as a single unit. The whole
reactor system will be installed below the ground level, with used fuel storage.
A 24-month construction period is envisaged for each unit. A modular construction
plan for SMR-160 involves pre-assembling the largest shippable components prior
to arrival at a site. Holtec claims a one-week refuelling outage every 42 months and
an operational life of 80 years (WNA 2016).
The SMR-160 is designed to be an unconditionally safe reactor, which means it
will not release radioactivity regardless of the severity of the natural or manmade
disaster. Every conceivable catastrophic event—severe cyclones (hurricanes or
typhoons), tsunamis, flood, fire and crashing aircraft—has been considered, with
appropriate features incorporated in the design of SMR-160 to ensure that it will
withstand these events without releasing radioactivity or pose any risk to public
health and safety. Because of these, it can be sited next to population centers
without any threat to the local environment or populace. Placing SMR-1600 close
to cities and towns will reduce transmission losses and enable the plant’s workers to
live in the local community (Holtec International 2015).
76 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

A typical SMR-160 uses cooling water from a local natural source such as a
lake, river or ocean to condense its exhaust steam. However, it can also be deployed
in water-challenged regions by using air as the condensing medium (Holtec
International 2015).
The primary application of SMR-160 is electricity production with optional
cogeneration equipment (i.e., hydrogen generation, district heating, and seawater
desalination). Target applications include distributed electricity production,
repowering coal facilities, uprate existing nuclear facilities and providing electricity
and low temperature process heat for commercial and military installations. Design
optimisation includes air cooled condensation for no wet cooling.
The pre-application activities for the technology have started with the U.S. -
NRC. The project baseline plan reflects realistic work scope, task durations and
schedules to ensure Design Certification in time to support commercial operation of
the first plant by 2025.
(9) VVER-300 (V-478)
According to ARIS IAEA (2011a), the design of the VVER-300 is based on the
following concepts: Design is developed for the regions with smaller power grids;
structure, materials, heat-engineering parameters of loop main equipment (steam
generator, reactor coolant, pumps and main coolant pipelines) is optimally unified
with similar equipment in the design of VVER-640; core is designed on the basics
of fuel assemblies similar to VVER-1000 fuel assemblies with long-term experience
of nuclear power plant operation; and isolation of primary-to-secondary leak
without radioactive releases into atmosphere.
Enrichment of the fuel is 3.3%. The standard fuel cycle is not closed, length of
the cycles is 12 months and the time of fuel residence in the core (fuel life) is
eight years.
The nuclear power plant construction time, from the initial stage to commis-
sioning for commercial operation, is expected by the designer to be four
years (IAEA 2014). The VVER-300 is designed to generate a thermal power of
850 MWth or an electrical power of about 300 MWe. The design of the two loop
reactor is based on the VVER-640 (V-407) design (WNA 2016). The VVER-300
design is to be deployed in the remote areas with power grids of limited capacity.
(10) VBER-300
The VBER-300 nuclear power reactor is a medium sized power source for
ground-based nuclear power and cogeneration plants, as well as for floating nuclear
power plants and having an electric power output of 325 MWe and thermal power
output of 917 MWth. The thermal power increase is reflected in an increase in mass
and overall dimensions, while the reactor’s appearance and main design solutions
are kept as close as possible to those of marine propulsion reactors (ARIS IAEA
2011b).
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 77

According to Afrikantov OKBM, the VBER-300 nuclear power reactor,

designed on the basis of ship-based modular PWR, is an improved plant able to be a
part of co-generation plants. It embodies use, to the maximum degree, mastered
technologies of ship-based modular nuclear power reactors proved by long-term
operation under heavy navigation conditions, and technology and operation expe-
rience of VVER-type reactors that increases its reliability and safety.
The distinctive feature of the VBER-300 nuclear power reactor design is max-
imum usage of proved engineering solutions based on ship reactor-building and
VVER-type reactor experience.
VBER design solutions permit to create a wide power range of nuclear power
plants on the basis of unified equipment. The developed designs of VBER nuclear
power reactors are high consistency and cover the unit capacity range from 100 to
600 MWe. The possible nuclear power plant options are: Three-loop nuclear power
reactor, four-loop nuclear power reactor and five-loop nuclear power reactor.
A four-loop nuclear power reactor is accepted as a basic option.
The reactor is designed to have a 60-year life span and a 90% capacity factor.
VBER uses standard VVER fuel assemblies enriched to 5%. The VBER-300 design
concept allows a flexible fuel cycle for the reactor core with standard WWER fuel
assembly. The refuelling interval can be pushed from two years out to five years (6–
15 years fuel cycle) (WNA 2016).
The VBER-300 nuclear power reactors is intended to supply thermal and
electrical power to remote areas where centralised power is unavailable, and to
substitute capacities of available co-generation plants on fossil fuels. They are also
proposed to be used as power sources for seawater desalination complexes. Nuclear
power plants with the VBER-300 formed by two reactor units in the
steam-condensing mode are capable of generating 600 MWe, equivalent to power
demands of a city with 300,000 population.
The VBER-300 preliminary design was completed in 2002, and a technical and
commercial proposal (a shorter version of technical and economic investigation) for
construction of a land based or floating nuclear power plant with the VBER-300
was prepared.
(11) VK-300
According to NIKIET (2014), the VK-300 is a simplified integral single-circuit
BWR with natural circulation of coolant. The reactor’s key components are com-
paratively few: A vessel, a core, steam separators, and control. The vessel and the
fuel elements have the same design as in VVER reactors. The steam separators were
developed for the VVER steam generators as well. The VK-300 design relied a
great deal on a long-term successful experience of operating VK-50, a BWR with
natural coolant circulation based at NIIAR.
The core is cooled thanks to natural coolant circulation during normal operation
and in any emergency. The VK-300 design uses an innovative reactor coolant
circulation and multistep separation concept, which makes it possible to ensure the
78 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

required natural circulation rate and steam quality (humidity <0.1). Special
emphasis is placed on ensuring the required safety level. The safety systems are
passive, feature a simple design and have analogs.
The VK-300 is capable to produce 750 MWth or 250 MWe, it uses UO2 fuel
with an enrichment of 4% and with 18-month refuelling (WNA 2016). VK-300
reactor facility specially oriented to effective cogeneration of electricity and heat for
district heating and for seawater desalination having excellent characteristics of
safety and economics.
Research and development activities are currently under way for further vali-
dation and updating of the design approach adopted in the VK-300 design. In
September, it was announced that six would be built and to start operating in 2017–
2020.
(12) VKT-12
A smaller Russian BWR design is the 12 MWe transportable VKT-12, described
as similar to the VK-50 prototype BWR at Dimitrovgrad, with one loop. The unit’s
core cooling system is passive. It has a ceramic-metal core with uranium enriched to
2.4–4.8%, and 10-year refuelling interval with the reactor’s design life of 60 years
(WNA 2016).
(13) ABV-6M
According to IAEA (2012), the ABV-6M installation is a nuclear steam gen-
erating plant with an integral pressurised LWR and natural circulation of the pri-
mary coolant. The ABV-6M design was developed using the operating experience
of water cooled, water moderated nuclear power reactors and recent achievements
in the field of nuclear power plant safety. The main objective of the project is to
create small, multipurpose power sources based on proven marine nuclear reactor
technologies, providing easy transport to the site, rapid assembly, and safe
operation.
The ABV-6M reactor is designed to produce 45 MWth and 8.6 MWe in con-
densation mode, and 14 MWth and 6 MWE in co-generation mode. The core
lifetime without reloading or shuffling of fuel is 10–12 years. The ABV-6M reactor
has a service life about of 60 years.
The ABV-6M reactor installation is intended as a universal power source for
floating nuclear power plants. The reactor is designed with the capability of driving
a floating unit with a maximum length of 115 m, a beam of 26 m, a draft of 3.5 m
and a displacement of 8000 tonnes. Depending on the needs of the region, the
floating nuclear power plant can generate electric power or provide heat and power
co-generation or can be used for other applications.
The stationary nuclear power plant (land based or underground) is fabricated as
large, ready-made units, these units are transported to the site in a special truck or
by water. The floating nuclear power plant is factory fabricated.
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 79

Currently, the development of ABV-6M is at the finishing stage. The ABV-6M

installation is a nuclear steam generating plant producing 14 MWth or 6 MWe in
co-generation mode. This integral PWR has a natural circulation of the primary
coolant. The ABV-6M design was developed using the operating experience of
water cooled, water moderated power reactors, and recent achievements in the field
of nuclear power plant safety. The main objective of the project is to create a small,
multipurpose power source providing easy transport to the site, rapid assembly, and
safe operation for 10–12 years without refuelling at the berthing platform or on the
coast. Plant maintenance and repair, refuelling, and nuclear waste removal are
fulfilled at special enterprises suitable for that purpose (IAEA 2014). ABV-6M
reactor has a service life about of 60 years.
The ABV-6M reactor installation is intended as a universal power source for
floating nuclear power plants. The reactor is designed with the capability of driving
a floating unit with a maximum length of 115 m, a beam of 26 m, a draft of 3.5 m
and a displacement of 8000 tonnes. Depending on the needs of the region, the
floating nuclear power plant can generate electric power or provide heat and power
co-generation or can be used for other applications. Besides, a land-based config-
uration of the plant is also applicable. Currently, the development of ABV-6M is at
the finishing stage (IAEA 2014).
(14) Central Argentina of Modular Elements (Central Argentina de
Elementos Modulares, CAREM-25)
CAREM-25 is a national SMR development project based on LWR technology
coordinated by the Argentina National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA) in
collaboration with leading nuclear companies in Argentina. CAREM-25 reactor
was developed using domestic technology, at least 70% of the components and
related services were sourced from Argentinian companies.
According to Delmastro et al. (2011), CAREM-25 project consists on the
development, design, and construction of a small nuclear power reactor with high
economic competitiveness and high level of safety. It is a prototype with an elec-
trical output of about 27 MWe, CAREM-25, will be constructed in order to validate
the innovation of CAREM design (with 150–300 MWe) concept and the developed
to commercial version.
The design basis is supported by the cumulative experience acquired in research
reactors design, construction and operation, and PHWR nuclear power plants
operation, maintenance and improvement, as well as the finalisation of the CAN-II
and the development of advanced design solutions.
CAREM-25 is an indirect cycle nuclear power reactor with some distinctive and
characteristics features that greatly simplify the reactor and also contribute to a
higher level of safety. Some of the design characteristics of CAREM-25 are:
• Integrated primary cooling system;
• Primary cooling by natural circulation;
80 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

• Self-pressurised;
• Safety systems relying on passive features.
The most innovative feature of this design is that the entire primary coolant
system is contained within the reactor pressure vessel. The integral reactor vessel
contains the reactor core and support structures, steam generators, and the control
rod system. The primary system is self-pressurised by the steam generated inside
the vessel. The operating pressure is the steam pressure corresponding to the
temperature of the coolant at the core exit. A steam chamber, located near the top of
the reactor vessel, is used to regulate pressure against variations in the coolant
temperature (U.S. Department of Energy 2001).
Using natural circulation instead of coolant pumps has a number of important
benefits contributing to higher reliability and safety, better economic performance,
and sabotage and proliferation resistance. An disadvantage is that the CAREM
reactor is not highly modularised and requiring a substantial amount of on-site
construction (U.S. Department of Energy 2001).
Fuel is standard 3.1 or 3.4% enriched PWR fuel in hexagonal fuel assemblies.
With burnable poison, and is refuelled annually (WNA 2016).
CAREM-25 is designed as an energy source for electricity supply of regions
with small energy demands. It can also support seawater desalination processes to
supply water and energy to coastal sites.
The licensing process for the construction of CAREM-25 prototype was
approved by the Argentina Regulatory Body (ARN) in 2010.
(15) System Integrated Modular Advanced Reactor (SMART)
According to the ARIS IAEA (2011c), SMART is a small-sized integral type
PWR with a rated power of 330 MWth or 100 MWe. It is a nuclear power reactor
with a sensible mixture of proven technologies and advanced design features.
SMART aims at achieving enhanced safety and improved economics; the
enhancement of safety and reliability is realised by incorporating inherent safety
improvements features and reliable passive safety systems. The improvement in the
economics is achieved through a system simplification, component modularisation,
reduction of construction time, and high plant availability. The preliminary analyses
on the selected limiting accidents assure the reliability of the SMART reactor
system.
By introducing a passive residual heat removal system, and an advanced miti-
gation system for loss of coolant accidents, significant safety enhancement is
achieved. The low power density design, with about a 5% UO2 fuelled core, will
provide a thermal margin of more than 15% to accommodate any design basis
transients with regard to the critical heat flux. This feature ensures core thermal
reliability under normal operation and any design basis events. Design life is
60 years with a three-year refuelling cycle.
SMART as an integral-type nuclear power reactor contains major components
within a single RPV. Eight modular-type once-through steam generators consist of
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 81

helically coiled tubes producing 30 °C superheated steam under normal operating

conditions, and a small inventory of secondary side water sources as the steam line
break accident. Four reactor coolant pumps with a canned motor, which has no
pump seals, inherently prevents a loss of coolant associate with a pump seal failure.
Four channel control rod position indicators contribute to the simplification of the
core protection system and to an enhancement of the system reliability. The
in-vessel pressurised is designed to control the system pressure at a nearly constant
level over the entire design basis events (Koo Kim et al. 2014).
The integrated arrangement of reactor vessel assembly enables the large size
pipe connections to be removed, which results in the elimination of large break loss
of coolant accidents. Furthermore, an advanced man-machine interface system
using digital techniques and equipment reduce the human error factors, and con-
sequently improve the plant reliability.
SMART is applicable for electricity production suitable for small or isolated
grids and heat district as well as processing heat for desalination purposes having
the enough output to meet demands for a city of 100,000 population. SMART has
been fully licensed in South Korea and a standard SMART design was approved by
the Korean Nuclear Safety and Security Commission in July 2012.
(16) MRX
The Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute designed the MRX, a small (50–
300 MWth) integral PWR reactor for marine propulsion or local energy supply
(30 MWe). It has conventional 4.3% enriched PWR uranium oxide fuel and has a
water-filled containment to enhance safety (WNA 2016).
The advantage of the MRX design comes from its assembly-line fabrication of
the entire plant, and its transportability as a self-propelled ship. Refuelling every
3.5 years may be more frequent than desired, however, the capability of performing
refuelling and maintenance activities improves diversion and proliferation resis-
tance. The design lends itself to existing commercial LWR infrastructure for fuel
fabrication and handling, spent fuel processing, and waste disposal (U.S.
Department of Energy 2001).
The steam generator and pressurised are installed inside the pressure vessel,
although there are other major components of the primary coolant system which are
outside of the reactor vessel. A relatively large water inventory increases the
thermal capacity of the primary systems and reduces radiation damage to the vessel.
(17) NP-300
Technicatome (Areva TA) in France has developed the NP-300 PWR design
from submarine power plants and aimed it at export markets for power, heat, and
desalination. It has passive safety systems and could be built for applications of
100–300 MWe or more with up to 500,000 m3/day desalination (WNA 2016).
According to UxC Company, the reactor’s fuel is enriched to less than 5%
U-235 and one third of the fuel is replaced every 18 months to two years. The
82 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

NP-300 is based on Techicatome’s K15 naval nuclear power reactor of 150 MW

and it land-based equivalent called “Réacteur d’essais àterre (RES)”, a test version
of which in under construction at Cadarache. Depending on local conditions, the
NP-300 could be also modified to be used as a floating power unit.
(18) Nuclear Heating Reactor (NHR-200)
The Chinese NHR-200, developed by Tsingua University’s Institute of Nuclear
Energy Technology (now the Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology), is
a simple 200 MWth integral PWR design for district heating or desalination. It is
based on the NHR-5. Used fuel is stored around the core in the pressure vessel
(WNA 2016).
(19) ACP-100
ACP-100 is an innovative design developed by CNNC and producing power of
100 MWe. The ACP-100 is based on existing PWR technology adapting a passive
safety system which uses natural convection to cool down the reactor in case of
operational transients and postulated design basis accidents. The ACP-100 is an
integrated PWR in which the major components of its primary coolant circuits are
installed within the RPV. The ACP-100 plant design will allow the deployment of
one to eight modules to attain larger plant output as demands arise (IAEA 2014).
Safety-grade batteries provide backup power for up to 72 h in case of a plant
blackout and sufficient water is provided in the spent fuel pool to allow seven days’
grace period before fuel is uncovered (Carelli and Ingersoll 2014).
The expected average fuel enrichment is about 2.4–3.0% with 24-month refu-
elling and 60-year design life.
The ACP-100 is a multipurpose nuclear power reactor designed for electricity
production, heating, steam production or seawater desalination, and is suitable for
remote areas that have limited energy options or industrial infrastructure. The
operation of the first unit of this type of reactor is expected to begin in 2017.
(20) CAP-150
CAP-150 is an integral type SMR, which employs the most advanced PWR
technology, developed by Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research and Design
Institute (SNERDI), a subsidiary of the State Nuclear Power Technology
Corporation (SNPTC). It has more simplified systems and more safety than current
operating PWRs, to generate an electric power of 150 MWe (IAEA 2016).
CAP-150 design is based on the state of art philosophy of advanced PWR
reactor concepts. It aims to innovatively bring out a new Gen III+ LWR with higher
safety, reasonable and competitive economy, and good engineering feasibility.
As a supplement to large reactors, the CAP-150 is mainly developed for pro-
viding a flexible way for remote electric supply and district heating, and also to
replace the old thermal power plants near cities.
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 83

(21) CAP-200
The China Advanced Passive PWR 200MWe (CAP-200) is one of the serial
research and development products of PWRs adopting passive engineered safety
features initiated by SNERDI. The design of CAP-200 is based on the experience of
the PWR technology R&D for more than 45 years, construction and safe operation
for more than 20 years in China. It adopts safety enhancement measures based on
lessons learnt from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident (IAEA 2016).
Compared with large PWRs, CAP-200 has a number of advantages such as
higher inherent safety, lower frequency of large radioactivity release, longer time
without operator intervention, smaller environmental impact, lower site restrictions,
shorter construction period and smaller financing scale as well as lower financial
risk.
CAP-200 can be used as a supplement to large PWRs, this reactor is designed for
multiple applications, such as nuclear cogeneration and replacing retired fossil
power plants in urban areas.
(22) ACPR100
China General Nuclear Group (CGN) is developing the ACPR100 reactor with
passive cooling for decay heat and 60-year design life. ACPR100 has standard type
fuel assemblies and fuel enriched to <5% with burnable poison giving 30-month
refuelling. The ACPR100 is an integral PWR, 450 MWth, 140 MWe. It is designed
as a module in larger nuclear power plants and would be installed underground
(WNA 2016).
(23) ACPR50S
The ACPR50S is a small modular offshore floating nuclear power reactor
developed by the China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGNPC)—aiming for
high safety and adaptability, modularised design, and multi-purpose applications. It
is intended as a potential optimal solution for combined supply of heat, electricity,
and fresh water for marine resource development activities, energy supply and
emergency support on islands and along the coastal area (IAEA 2016).
The ACPR50S adopts design simplification with less cost and lower investment
risks in order to be competitive with conventional offshore energy sources. Modular
design is adopted through standardised streamline manufacturing aiming for shorter
construction period as well as less cost. Higher load factor to be attained by a long
refuelling cycle.
According to the Lyncean Group (2016), the major components of the nuclear
steam supply system (NSSS) are the reactor vessel, two steam generators and
primary pumps, and one pressuriser. The primary system is housed within a con-
tainment structure that is protected against damage from a ship collision. Active and
passive safety systems provide for core and containment cooling during an
84 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

accident. Severe (beyond design basis) accident mitigation measures include

operating safety plugs to submerge the NSSS in seawater to ensure continued core
cooling.
The floating nuclear power plant is designed for on-ship refuelling and
pre-treatment of radioactive waste. When the floating nuclear power plant is
deployed in a remote location, a visiting offshore engineering services vessel will
provide logistics and maintenance services as needed.
An industrial demonstration plant of ACPR50S is being planned to be con-
structed in China, with a target of start-up commissioning in 2020.
(24) Flexblue
According to Lee et al. (2015), DCNS in France is developing a submerged type
ocean nuclear power plant (ONPP) with an output capacity of 160 MWe, named
Flexblue. Flexblue is a submerged, cylindrical, fully-modular, and transportable
ONPP. Each module, with the length of 146 and 14 m diameter, is moored on a
stable seafloor at a depth of up to 100 m and 15 km from the shoreline. Undersea
cables would bring the electricity to customers.
Flexible is manufactured in factories, assembled in a shipyard using naval
modular construction techniques, transported by the ship, and located at the oper-
ation site. Depending on the seismic hazard, the module is either anchored hori-
zontally on the seabed, or suspended a few meters from the bottom of the ocean
with positive buoyancy. The modules can be manufactured in different places and
in parallel, allowing a shorter overall construction time.
Once the Flexblue is installed, it is monitored, protected, and operated from an
onshore center. If a safety issue developed with the nuclear power reactor, it could
be brought to the surface and taken to a regional support facility for repair and it
could be refuelled the same way. At the end of its life, it could be repatriated to a
shipyard for decommissioning, a process that would resemble the decommissioning
of nuclear submarines.
During exploitation, maintenance teams gain regular access to the module with
an underwater vehicle. This power unit can be used within a ‘nuclear farm’ that
includes other modules. This allows the owner to increment the number of units that
operated on the site, depending on the power needs. Water offers a natural pro-
tection against most of the possible external hazards and guarantees a permanently
and indefinitely available heat sink (IAEA 2012).
The enrichment is kept below 5% and reactivity is controlled without soluble
boron. This latter characteristic reduces the generation of radioactive wastes and
simplifies the chemical control system. Flexiblue is designed to supply electricity to
coastal grids. Presentations of the concept have been made to the French safety
authority. Technical discussions have been initiated with the French technical safety
authority.
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 85

(25) UNITHERM
According to IAEA (2007), the UNITHERM system is developed based upon
NIKIET’s experience in designing marine nuclear installations. In the first design
options, the core thermal power was defined as 15 MWth. Later, reactor power has
been increased to 30 MWth as a result of the discussion with potential users, with
an electrical output of 6.6 MWe. The land-based siting nuclear power plant or
barges siting conditions are both viable for the UNITHERM reactor design.
No refuelling of the reactor core is envisaged during the plant service life. This
would eliminate potentially hazardous activities related to core refuelling, simplify
operating technologies, and could ensure enhanced proliferation resistance. The
reactor core life can be equal to the plant lifetime and is estimated as 20–25 years at
the capacity factor of 0.7.
The design assumes that most of the fabrication, assembly, and commissioning
of the nuclear power plant modules can be done at the site. Nuclear power plant
with UNITHERM may consists of a number of units depending on purpose and
demand. To enhance security of supply, having at least two power units could be
recommended. Each unit includes the reactor and turbine unit; the design of the
latter varies depending on local demands.
The fuel is in the form of tiny blocks of UO2 grains coated with zirconium and
dispersed in a zirconium matrix.
The UNITHERM nuclear power plant can be used as a source of energy for
electricity generation, district heating, seawater desalination and process steam
production. In general, configuration and design of the UNITHERM is sufficiently
flexible to be adjusted or modified for different target functions and user require-
ments, without compromising the underlying principles of the concept.
The UNITHERM nuclear power plant requires no major research and devel-
opment for deployment. The detailed design stage would include qualification of
the core, heat exchangers, and other components.
(26) SHELF
The N.A. Dollezhal Research and Development Institute of Power Engineering
in the Russian Federation is currently developing a nuclear turbine-generator plant
of 6 MWe as an underwater energy source. The plant comprises a two circuit
nuclear power reactor facilities with a water cooled and water moderated reactor of
28 MWth, a turbine-generator plant with a capacity of 6 MW, and an automated
remote control, monitoring and protection system by means of engineered features,
including electricity output regulation, control and monitoring instrumentation
(IAEA 2012).
It uses low-enriched fuel of UO2 in aluminium alloy matrix with a fuel cycle of
56 months. It is intended as an energy supply for oil and gas developments in
Arctic seas (WNA 2016). At the present, the SHELF reactor is in the early design
phase and does not yet include a planned date of deployment.
86 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

(27) Integrated Modular Water Reactor (IMR)

The IMR is a medium sized nuclear power reactor with a reference output of
1000 MWth and producing electricity of 350 MWe. This integral primary system
reactor set a potential deployment after 2020. The IMR design goals are to attain
economic competitiveness with other electric power sources, including large-scale
nuclear power reactors, and attain a high degree of reliance on intrinsic safety
features, i.e., elimination of initiating events that might cause fuel failure,
operator-free management of accidents, no need for external water and power
during accidents, etc. To achieve these targets, IMR employs the hybrid heat
transport system, which is a natural circulation system under bubbly flow condition
for primary heat transportation, and no penetrations in the primary cooling system
by adopting the in-vessel control rod drive mechanism. These design features allow
the elimination of the emergency core cooling system (ARIS IAEA 2011d). It has a
design life of 60 years, 4.8% fuel enrichment, and a fuel cycle of 26 months.
The IMR is primarily designed to generate electricity as a land-based nuclear
power plant module. The capacity of the nuclear power plant can easily be
increased and adjusted to the demand by constructing additional modules. Because
of its modular characteristics, it is suitable for large-scale nuclear power plants
consisting of several modules and also suitable for small distributed-power plants,
especially when the capacity of grids are small. IMR also has the capability for
district heating, seawater desalination, process steam production, and so forth.
Validation testing, research and development for components and design methods,
and basic design development are required before licensing (ARIS IAEA 2011d).
The project has involved Kyoto University, the Central Research Institute of the
Electric Power Industry and the Japan Atomic Power Company and the target year
to start licensing is 2020 at the earliest.
(28) TRIGA
The TRIGA power system is a PWR concept based on U.S. General Atomics’
well-proven research reactor design. It is conceived as a 64 MWth, 16.4 MWe
pool-type system operating at a relatively low temperature. The secondary coolant
is perfluorocarbon. The fuel is uranium-zirconium hydride enriched to 20% and
with a little burnable poison and requiring refuelling every 18 months. Used fuel is
stored inside the reactor vessel (WNA 2016).
The primary coolant system of the TRIGA consists of the reactor core, primary
circuit piping, pressurised, coolant pump, and a heat exchanger. The reactor vessel
containing the core and the primary heat exchanger where heat is transferred from
the primary circuit to the secondary circuit constitutes two large factory-fabricated
modules to permit a transportable system. Not being an “integral PWR”, there is a
substantial amount of auxiliary equipment and piping systems needed to support the
TRIGA reactor. The secondary system is housed in a room adjacent to the reactor
room (U.S. Department of Energy 2001).
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 87

The spent fuel is stored inside the reactor vessel until it is cold enough to be
removed and shipped from the reactor site.
(29) Fixed Bed Nuclear Reactor (FNBR)
FNBR is an early conceptual design from the Federal University of Rio Grande
do Sul, in Brazil. It a PWR with pebble fuel, with a thermal power capacity of
134 MWth or 70 MWe, with flexible fuel cycle (WNA 2016).
The FNBR is suitable for both urban and remote locations and is designed to
produce electricity alone or to operate as a co-generation plant producing simul-
taneously electricity, desalinated water, steam for industrial purposes, and heat for
district heating.
According to UxC, this type of reactor uses spherical fuel elements that are at a
fixed position within the core. FBNR has long fuel cycle and operates without
on-site refuelling. FBNR has an integral primary system design and allows for an
incremental capacity increase through modular approach.
(30) Small Modular Adaptable Reactor Technology (SMART)
The SMART from Dunedin Energy Systems in Canada is a 30 MWth, 6 MWe
battery-type unit, installed below grade. It is replaced by a new one when it is
returned to a processing facility for refuelling, at 83% capacity factor this would be
every 20 years. Emergency cooling is by convection (WNA 2016).
(31) Double Modular Simplified and Medium Small Reactor (DMS)
According to the IAEA (2014), the concept design of this nuclear power reactor
has been developed by Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy under the sponsorship of the
Japan Atomic Power Company from 2000 to 2004. The design is small-sized BWR,
which generates thermal power of 840 MWth or 300 MWe. The heat from the core
is removed by natural circulation so recirculation pumps and their driving power
sources are eliminated. This feature allows for a simplified and compact RPV and
containment. Due to the natural circulation feature, reactor internals and systems are
also simplified. As a defence-in-depth measure, enhanced hybrid safety systems that
combine passive and active methods are adopted. Like in other BWR, steam sep-
aration is performed inside the RPV. In DMS however, this mechanism is done
through free surface separation in which the steam is separated from water by
gravity force. Hence, no physical separator assembly is required. DMS has fuel
enrichment of 4.3% and the refuelling period is 24 months.
A small-to-medium sized BWR is suitable for where budget for construction is
limited and electricity transmission networks have not been fully constructed. DMS
design also provides a nonelectric use of energy such as for district heating, mining,
and desalination. At the moment, no domestic license or pre-license activities for
SMR, since there is no SMR construction project in Japan. Some SMR design
applied or will apply for a pre-licensing in U.S. or Canada.
88 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

(32) RUTA-70
According to Kozmenkov et al. (2012), RUTA-70 is a pool-type water-cooled
water-moderated nuclear power reactor designed to work with forced convection of
coolant at nominal power of 70 MWth, but has a natural convection capability at
power below 30% of the nominal value. It is under development by Russia.
The reactor core and the core reflector are located at the lower part of the pool,
while the most of the plant equipment, including the primary-to-secondary side heat
exchangers reside at dry boxes outside the pool. The inner surfaces of the pool
concrete walls are plated with stainless steel.
The basic design principles of the nuclear power reactor are simplicity of the
design, high reliability and inherent safety features due to a low pressure and
temperature of the primary coolant as well as integrated design of the reactor. Due
to high safety features, the nuclear district heating plant using RUTA reactors could
be constructed in maximum proximity to the consumers. The period of continuous
operation of the reactor equipment without a need of maintenance is about one year.
Summing up can be stated that the RUTA concept and design is primarily
developed to provide district heating in remotely isolated areas of Russia suffering
from a lack of fossil fuels. The continuous increase of organic fuel costs in the
country essentially broaden the area of competitive application of RUTA as a
heating reactor. In addition, a promising way for the commercial application of low
potential thermal energy generated by the RUTA reactor is the distillation process
for seawater and brackish water desalination.
In this current status, RUTA is still in the conceptual design stages and a pilot
RUTA-70 plant is planned to be built at the site of the Institute of Physics and
Power Engineering (IPPE, Obninsk, Russia) (Kozmenkov et al. 2012).
(33) ELENA NTEP
According to IAEA TECDOC-1536 (2007), ELENA NTEP is a direct conver-
sion water-cooled nuclear power reactor capable to supply electricity and heat over
a 25-year life of the plant without refuelling. This is a very small nuclear power
reactor with just 68 kWe in power generating capacity and another 3.3 MWth of
heating capacity. The key aspect of this design is that it is meant to be an “unat-
tended” nuclear power plant, requiring nearly no operating or maintenance per-
sonnel over the lifetime of the unit. The ELENA NTEP project was developed
using the experiences in construction and operation of marine and space power
plants and the operation experience of the GAMMA reactor. The concept has been
developed by the Russian Research Centre Kurchatov Institute. The ELENA NTEP
is a land-based nuclear power plant; however, in principle it is possible to develop
versions for underground or underwater deployment. The nuclear power reactor and
its main systems are assembled from factory-fabricated finished units, whose weight
and dimensions enable any transport delivery for the complete plant, including
helicopter and ship. Pellet type uranium dioxide fuel is used with the average U-235
enrichment of 15.2%.
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 89

(34) KARAT-45
According to IAEA (2016), KARAT-45 is a small BWR, with a rated power of
45 MWe designed by NIKIET as an independent co-generation plant for producing
electric power, steam, and hot water. It is developed as the base facility for the
economic and social development of the Arctic region and remote extreme northern
areas of the Russian Federation.
The primary cooling mechanism for the reactor core is natural circulation for all
operating modes and the reactor will be shop-fabricated in modular fashion to make
it transportable. This SMR is designed for a long service life.
(35) KARAT-100
According to IAEA (2016), KARAT-100 is an integral type multi-purpose BWR
with a power output of 360 MWth and a rated electrical output of 100 MWe. The
design adopts engineering approaches proven at prototype and testing facilities.
This SMR is designed for the production of electrical power, heat for district
heating, and hot water in co-generation mode. The design adopts natural circulation
for its primary cooling system core heat removal in all operational modes. The
design configuration incorporates passive safety systems to enhance the safety and
reliability.
KARAT-100 reactor is being built as the base reactor for the evolution of power
generation in isolated or remote locations not connected to the unified grid. The key
factor that makes this SMR a perfect choice for a nuclear co-generation plant is its
economic competitiveness against other sources of thermal and electric power,
achieved primarily due to a combined generation of heat (for district heating) and
electricity.

2.4.3.2 Heavy Water Reactors

The heavy water, i.e. water in which the two hydrogen atoms are replaced by
deuterium atoms, is an attractive coolant and moderator because it has a much lower
tendency to absorb neutrons. This allows the reactor core to be fuelled by natural
uranium rather than requiring the complex and expensive process of enriching the
uranium. Because of the excellent neutron economy provide by the low neutron
absorption of the heavy water, this coolant became a favourite option for several
production reactors (Carelli and Ingerson 2014).
The following are some of the SMR heavy water reactors under development in
some countries:
(1) Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR-220)
According to the IAEA (2011), the Indian PHWR programme consists of the
fabrication of 220 MWe, 540 MWe and 700 MWe units. India is operating sixteen
220 MWe units at five nuclear power plants. The PHWR uses heavy water as the
90 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

moderator and coolant and natural uranium dioxide as the fuel. The reactor consists
of an integral assembly of two end shields and a calandria, with the latter being
submerged in the water filled vault.
Unlike most nuclear power reactors that use batch refuelling, the PHWR is
refuelled on a continuous basis using two refuelling machines—one on either end
of the core. Refuelling is accomplished by inserting a fresh fuel bundle into one end
of the pressure tube and collecting the spent fuel bundle that is forced out on the
other end, which then transported to a spent fuel area (Carelli and Ingersoll 2014).
(2) Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR-300 LEU)
According to ARIS IAEA (2013), the Indian Advanced Heavy Water Reactor
(AHWR) is a vertical pressure tube type, boiling light water cooled and heavy water
moderated reactor. The nuclear power reactor incorporates a number of passive
features and is associated with a closed fuel cycle having reduced environmental
impact. At the same time, the nuclear power reactor possesses several features,
which are likely to reduce its capital and operating costs.
The nuclear power reactor has been designed by Bhabha Atomic Research
Centre (BARC) mainly to achieve large-scale use of thorium for the generation of
commercial nuclear power plants. This nuclear power reactor will produce most of its
power from thorium, with no external input of uranium-233 in the equilibrium cycle.
AHWR300-LEU is a land-based nuclear power plant. The nuclear power reactor
is designed to produce 920 MW of thermal power, generating 300 MWe and
2400 m3/day of desalinated water. The nuclear power plant can be configured to
deliver higher desalination capacities with some reduction in electricity generation.
AHWR based nuclear power reactor can be operated in base load, as well as in load
following mode. The target lifetime load factor and availability factors for AHWR
are 80% and 90%, respectively.
According to BARC, AHWR300-LEU employs natural circulation for removal
of heat from the reactor core under operating and shutdown conditions. The reactor
physics design of AHWR300-LEU is optimised to achieve high burn-up with the
LEU-thorium based fuel along with inherent safety characteristics like negative
reactivity coefficients, among others.
The emphasis in design has been to incorporate inherent and passive safety
features to the maximum extent, as a part of the defence in depth strategy.
AHWR300-LEU design provides a grace period of seven days for absence of any
operator or powered actions in the event of accident, according to ARIS IAEA
(2013). One of the most important design objectives of AHWR300-LEU is to
eliminate any significant radiological impact, and therefore, the need for evacuation
planning in the public domain. This may facilitate sitting of these nuclear power
reactors close to population centres, according to BARC.
Site selection of several AHWR has been completed and the necessary clearance
from competent authorities is underway (Fig. 2.13).
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 91

Fig. 2.13 Layout of AHWR-300-LEU. Source BARC

2.4.3.3 High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors (HTRs)

After the operating experience of LWRs, gas cooled reactors have the next most
operating experience, with a number of more advanced designs being looked at in
the 1960s and 1970s.
HTRs are being developed which will be capable of delivering high temperature
(700–950 °C and eventually up to about 1000 °C) helium either for industrial
application via a heat exchanger, or to make steam conventionally in a secondary
circuit via a steam generator, or directly to drive a Brayton cycle gas turbine for
electricity with almost 50% thermal efficiency possible. Improved metallurgy and
technology developed in the last decade makes HTRs more practical than in the
past, though the direct cycle means that there must be high integrity of fuel and
reactor components.
Fuel for these reactors is in the form of TRISO (tristructural-isotropic) particles
less than a millimetre in diameter. Each has a kernel of uranium oxycarbide (or
uranium dioxide), with the uranium enriched up to 20% U-235, though normally
less. This is surrounded by layers of carbon and silicon carbide, giving a con-
tainment for fission products, which is stable to over 1600 °C.
There are two ways in which these particles are arranged: In blocks—hexagonal
‘prisms’ of graphite, or in billiard ball-sized pebbles of graphite encased in silicon
carbide, each with about 15,000 fuel particles and 9 g uranium. There is a greater
amount of used fuel than from the same capacity in a LWR. The moderator is
graphite. HTRs can potentially use thorium-based fuels, such as highly-enriched or
low-enriched uranium with Th, U-233 with Th, and Pu with Th.
92 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

Fig. 2.14 High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors: (a) GT-MHR, (b) PBMR-400 and ( c)
Antares. Source Oak Ridge National Laboratory (2011)

With negative temperature coefficient of reactivity (the fission reaction slows as

temperature increases) and passive decay heat removal, this type of reactors is
inherently safe. HTRs therefore do not require any containment building for safety.
They are sufficiently small to allow factory fabrication, and will usually be installed
below ground level (Fig. 2.14).
The following are some of the SMR High Temperature Gas Cooled
Reactor under development in some countries:
(1) Gas Turbine High Temperature Reactor (GT-HTR 300)
According to Takizuka (2005), the GT-HTR300 is a JAERI proposed design
concept of a gas-turbine high-temperature nuclear power reactor with 600 MWth
power at 850–950 °C. Based on experience gained with HTTR. The objective of
the project is to establish a feasible plant design and helium gas-turbine technology
with ultimate goal for commercialisation in 2020s in Japan. High temperature
capability enables a wider range of applications such as high temperature heat
applications.
The GT-HTR300 design features modular nuclear power reactor, fully inherent
and passive reactor safety, improved pin-in-block type fuel element, high burnup
and long refuelling interval, conventional steel RPV, non-intercooled Brayton cycle,
horizontal single-shaft turbo-machine, magnetic bearings to support turbo-machine
rotor, and separate containment of turbo-machine and heat exchangers.
The direct-cycle helium gas turbine of the GT-HTR300 design generates about
300 MW electric power for 600 MW reactor thermal power at 45\–50% thermal
efficiency.
The design incorporates all ceramic fuel, low power density, but high thermal
conductivity graphite core, and inert helium coolant to secure inherent reactor
safety. The inherent safety permits siting proximity to customers, in particular to
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 93

industrial heat users so as to minimise the cost and loss of high temperature heat
supply. Dry cooling becomes economically feasible due to the use of gas turbine.
The waste heat from the gas turbine cycle is rejected from 200 °C, creating large
temperature difference from ambient air and making dry cooling tower size per unit
of power generation comparable to the wet cooling towers used in nuclear plants
today. The economical dry cooling permits inland and remote reactor siting even
without a large source of cooling water.
The nuclear power plant system consists of three basic subsystem modules
including the reactor module, the gas turbine generator module, and the heat
exchangers module. The functionally-oriented modules are contained in individual
steel vessels situated in separate confinement silos. Partitioning the large nuclear
power plant into properly sized subsystems and arranging them separately facilities
cost-effective modular construction and independently-accessed modular mainte-
nance. The modules can be factory built in whole or in phase vessel subassemblies
and transported to site for erection in parallel, followed by simple piping connection
(Yan et al. 2002).
Typical applications of GT-HTR300 include electric power generation, ther-
mochemical hydrogen production, desalination co-generation using waste heat
only, and steelmaking. The maximum product output per reactor is 120 t/d
hydrogen enough to fuel about one million cars, 280–300 MWe electricity gener-
ation with additional seawater desalination co-generation of 55,000 m3/d potable
water for about a quarter of a-million population, and annual production of
0.65 million tons of steel. All these are produced without CO2 emission.
(2) High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Experimental Reactor (HTR-10)
China’s HTR-10, is a 10 MWt experimental nuclear power reactor. It has its fuel
as a pebble bed of oxide fuel. Each pebble fuel element has 5 g of uranium enriched
to 17% in TRISO-coated particles. The reactor operates at 700 °C (potentially
900 °C) and has broad research purposes. Eventually it will be coupled to a gas
turbine, but meanwhile it has been driving a steam turbine (WNA 2016).
(3) High Temperature Reactor Pebble-Bed Module (HTR-PM)
Construction of a larger version of the HTR-10, China’s HTR-PM, was
approved in principle in November 2005, with preparation for first concrete in
mid-2011, full construction started in December 2012 and is expected to conclude
at the end of 2017. This was planned to be a single 200 MWe (450 MWth) unit, but
it will now have twin reactors, each of 250 MWt driving a single 210 MWe steam
turbine. The fuel is 85% enriched uranium (WNA 2016).
The HTR-PM is a commercial demonstration unit for electricity production. The
twin reactor units driving a single turbine configuration was specifically selected to
demonstrate its feasibility. HTR-PM commercial deployment based on batch con-
struction is foreseeing, and units with more modules and bigger power size are
under investigation. Standardised reactor modules with two, six or nine units with a
single turbine (200, 600 or 1000 MW) are envisaged.
94 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

Development and research on process heat applications, hydrogen production

and gas turbines are continuing for future application.
(4) Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR-400)
According to ARIS IAEA (2011), South Africa’s Pebble Bed Modular Reactor
(PBMR) is a High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor based on the evolutionary
design of the German AVB, THTR and HTR-Module design. It is being designed
and marketed by PBMR (Pty) Ltd. The PBMR is designed in a modular fashion to
allow for additional modules to be added in accordance with demand. In addition,
the PBMR can be used as base-load power plant or load-following plant, and can be
configured to the size required by the community it serves.
The term modular stems from the design intent that identical modules can be
placed in a block of 4–8 units to make up a large nuclear power plant. The small
size and modularity allow short (24 months) construction times and give flexibility
to the utility to match generation capability more closely to demand than single
large nuclear power plants allow. The small size is dictated by the design
requirement that neither fuel nor major nuclear power plant systems may be
damaged to the extent that there could exist a danger to the public at the exclusion
zone of 400 m, following a total cessation of active system (Koster 2008).
The reactor core and power conversion unit components are contained within
steel pressure vessels similar to those employed for LWR. Cross-vessels and
external piping are provided to contain flow paths to and from the reactor core and
between other components of the power conversion unit.
Full-scale production units had been planned to be 400 MWth (165 MWe), but
more recent plans were for 200 MWth (80 MWe) (WNA 2016).
The PBMR-400 can produce electricity at high efficiency via a direct Brayton
cycle employing a helium gas turbine.
(5) Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR)
The GT-MHR is being developed by General Atomics in partnership with
Russia’s OKBM Afrikantov, supported by Fuji (Japan).
The use of modular helium nuclear power reactors makes the system flexible and
allows the possibility to use various power unit schemes: With gas turbine cycle,
steam-turbine cycle, and with the circuit supplying high-temperature heat to
industrial applications (LaBar et al. 2003). The modular high temperature gas
cooled unit possess salient safety features with passive decay heat removal pro-
viding a high level of safety even in case of total loss of primary coolant.
GT-MHR would be built as modules of up to 600 MWth, but typically
350 MWth, 150 MWe, nuclear power plant variation as a function of a module
number. This provides good manoeuvring characteristics of the nuclear power
reactor plant for regional power sources. Half core is replaced every 18 months and
the fuel enrichment is about 15.5% (WNA 2016).
The GT-MHR reactor module is located in an underground containment
building. The components of the primary cooling loop are house within two
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 95

metallic pressure vessels that are connected by a cross-vessel. One of the vessels
contains the modular high-temperature reactor nuclear heat source and the other the
conversion power conversion unit. The power conversion unit design is based upon
a recuperated direct gas-turbine cycle that is optimised for minimum cost and high
efficiency. During normal operation, the heated, high-pressure helium leaving the
core is routed via the hot duct inside the cross-vessel to the turbine where it is
expanded to produce mechanical energy. The mechanical energy produced in the
turbine is used to drive the generator, as well as two compressor gases located on
the same shaft (Baxi et al. 2006).
The GT-MHR can produce electricity at relative high efficiency (approximately
48%). As it is capable of producing high coolant outlet temperatures, the modular
helium nuclear power reactor system can also efficiently produce hydrogen by high
temperature electrolysis or thermochemical water splitting.
Russia has selected the GT-MHR as an option for plutonium destruction,
because of GT-MHR’s efficiency in burning plutonium in once-through fashion,
and because the technology is also readily convertible to a conventional low
enriched uranium fuel cycle for commercial power applications.
Reactor plant preliminary design completed with the demonstration of key
technologies are underway.
(6) Energy Multiplier Module (EM2)
According to the IAEA (2012), the EM2 is a 500 MWt, 240 MWe
helium-cooled fast-neutron HTR operating at 850 °C. The EM2 design intended to
burn used nuclear fuel and has a 30-year core without the need for refuelling or
reshuffling. In a first generation plant, the fuel consists of about 22.2t of LEU starter
and about 20.4t of used nuclear fuel. The used nuclear fuel is roughly 1% U, 1% Pu
and mixed actinides and 3% fission products, the rest is U-238.
The nuclear power reactor design life is 60 years. The design has one loop and
utilises two shutdown systems, control drums and separate shutdown rods. The
design utilises the power conversion system for normal decay heat removal from
the reactor vessel with the passive direct auxiliary cooling system. Specific design
features include vented porous uranium carbide fuel, silicon carbide clad and a
variable high speed turbine-generator set (TRP 2012).
EM2 would also be suitable for process heat applications. The main pressure
vessel can be trucked or railed to the site, and installed below ground level (IAEA
2012).
(7) Antares
According to UxC Company, Antares is a concept being developed by Areva
and belongs to the HTR/VHTR family of SMRs. This design could be used for
hydrogen production at high temperatures, for industrial heat production, and for
water desalination.
Antares is a modular design and uses TRISO fuel. In its standard HTR com-
position, each module has an output of 600 MWth and electricity production of
96 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

285 MWe with a reactor core outlet temperature of up to 850 °C. A very high
temperature (VHTR) version of the Antares operates with a reactor outlet tem-
perature of up to 1000 °C, and this design allows for hydrogen production among
other co-generation features.
(8) Adams Engine
Adams Engine is a small HTR concept with a capacity of 10 MWe direct simple
Brayton cycle plant with low-pressure nitrogen as the reactor coolant and working
fluid, and graphite moderation. The initial units will provide a reactor core outlet
temperature of 800 °C and a thermal efficiency near 25%. Power output is con-
trolled by limiting coolant flow. A demonstration plant is proposed for completion
after 2018. The Adams Engine is designed to be competitive with combustion gas
turbines (WNA 2016).
(9) The Modular Transportable Small Power Nuclear Reactor (MTSPNR)
According to UxC Company, the MTSPNR design, which has recently become
better known as GREM, has twin nuclear power reactors with a total thermal
capacity of 4.8–5.2 MWth, producing 2 MWe el electricity. The unit is designed
for co-generation of electricity and district heating and can supply 2  1.2 GJ/h in
heat generation. The unit is meant to service remote regions, including potentially
settlements of up 2500 residents or strategically important industrial facilities.
MTSPNR is a high-temperature reactor with a single circuit. The unit has a
closed cycle gas turbine and is air-cooled, eliminating the need for local sources of
water. It will be factory fabricated and factory fuelled, ensuring lifetime core
operation. It uses 20% enriched fuel and is designed to run for 25 years without
refuelling (WNA 2016).
(10) X-Energy-100 (Xe-100)
The Xe-100 is a small-sized pebble bed high temperature gas-cooled nuclear
power reactor with continuous thermal rating of 100 MWth. It features a continuous
fuelling regime with low enriched fuel spheres of about 10% entering the top of the
reactor going once through the core to achieve a final average burnup of
80,000 MWd/thm after a single passage. The relatively high burnup causes the bred
fissile Pu to be utilised in situ by about 90%, thus rendering the spent fuel well
depleted. Furthermore, the total used fuel inventory will be stored on-site in a
designated interim storage facility for the life of the nuclear power plant. A major
aim of the design is to improve the economics through system simplification,
component modularisation, reduction of construction time and high plant avail-
ability brought about by continuous fuelling (IAEA 2014).
The Xe-100 is intended for electricity production suitable for small or isolated
grids. It can also provide super-heated steam for co-generation, petro-chemical
processes, etc. The Xe-100 also provides a scalable platform to increase total power
generation from a single site by adding additional reactor modules. Site
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 97

configurations can consist of one to eight nuclear power reactor modules with a
small operational staff.
(11) Star Core HTR
The Star Core HTR is a small (30 MWe) concept design of helium-cooled
pebble bed reactor from StarCore Nuclear in Quebec, Canada, designed for remote
locations (displacing diesel and propane) and with remote control system. The
company said it is prepared to complete the design and detailed engineering, build,
and begin operating at least two pilot plants in Canada by 2018 (WNA 2016).
(12) MHR-T
According to OECD-NEA (2009), the MHR-T reactor/hydrogen production
complex makes use of the basic GT-MHR reactor design as the basis for a
multi-module nuclear power plant for energy and hydrogen production. For the
energy production (energy sector), MHR-T uses a four-module nuclear power plant
including four reactor modules, as well as nuclear power plant systems and facilities
supporting operation of these plants. For hydrogen production
(chemical-technological sector) is achieved through the steam methane reforming
process or high-temperature solid oxide electrochemical process from water is
performed by coupled the plant with the modular helium nuclear power reactor(s).
The basic operation mode of the MHR-T energy-technological complex is 100%
power operation with parallel production of hydrogen and electric energy (com-
bined mode).
The use of modular helium units makes the system flexible and allows the
possibility to use various power unit schemes: with gas turbine cycle, steam-turbine
cycle and with the circuit supplying high-temperature heat to industrial applica-
tions. The modular high temperature gas-cooled nuclear power reactor possess
salient safety features with passive decay heat removal providing a high level of
safety even in case of total loss of primary coolant.
(13) High Temperature Modular Reactor (HTMR-100)
The HTMR-100 pebble bed is a high temperature gas cooled reactor, graphite
moderated and cooled by forced helium. The existing design of the module is to
produce high quality steam which is coupled to a steam-turbine/generator system to
produce 35 MW electric power. The steam can be used in a wide range of
co-generation applications. The reactor is also suitable to provide direct high
temperature energy for process heat. The design of the reactor is based on proven
technology and therefore no new basic technology development is needed. The size
of the reactor and the fuel cycle were chosen to simplify the design and operation of
the module. The approach to small intrinsic safe modular units ensures continuous
production, easy road transportability, skid mounted sub systems, wider range of
manufactures, fast construction and a fairly easy licensing process (IAEA 2014).
The HTMR-100 exhibits the following excellent features:
98 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

• Fully ceramic fuel elements, which cannot melt even in extreme accidents,
which may result in the total loss of active core cooling;
• Use of coated fuel particles (TRISO) effectively retaining the fission products
within the fuel, and allowing for very high burn-up of the fuel;
• Use of helium as coolant, which is both chemically and radiologically inert and
does not influence the neutron balance. It allows for very high coolant tem-
peratures during normal operation;
• Use of fully ceramic (graphite) core internal structures, which enables operation
at high temperatures;
• A reactor core with a low power density, providing a thermally robust design
with a high heat capacity, renders the reactor thermally stable during all oper-
ational and control procedures;
• The reactor core can tolerate a loss of forced cooling event. Passive decay heat
removal is possible and fuel temperatures stay below admissible values.
Therefore, the fission products remain inside the fuel particles even in extreme
accidents;
• Very strong negative temperature coefficients contribute to the excellent
inherent safety characteristics of the reactor;
• Efficient retention of fission products in the coated particle fuel in normal
operation allows for a clean helium circuit, resulting in low levels of contami-
nation of the coolant gas, low release of radioactivity, and extremely low
radiation dose values to the operation staff;
• Efficient retention of fission products in the coated particles under extreme
accidents results in a nuclear power reactor without catastrophic release to the
environment under these conditions.
The HTMR-100 is capable of supplying electric power to a large, medium and
small grids, to standalone or isolated electric users as single module or
multi-module plants and for medium temperature process heat applications. The
HTMR-100 is a perfect fit for clients who want to progressively extend their
generating capability. The unique safety characteristics of this type of reactor make
it possible to introduce and construct these plants to non-nuclear countries.
Developed countries that want to utilise their stock of plutonium for peaceful
applications are also markets for HTMR-100 reactors. Conceptual design is com-
pleted and the design is in an early stage of the basic design phase.
(14) Steam Cycle High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (SC-HTGR)
The SC-HTGR is a modular, graphite-moderated, helium-cooled, high temper-
ature nuclear power reactor with a nominal thermal power of 625 MWth and a
nominal electric power capability of 272 MWe. It produces high temperature steam
suitable for numerous applications, including industrial process heat and high
efficiency electricity generation. The safety profile of the SC-HTGR allows it to be
collocated with industrial facilities that use high temperature steam. This can open a
major new avenue for nuclear power use. The modular design allows plant size to
be matched to a range of applications. The SC-HTGR concept builds on Areva’s
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 99

past experience of HTGR projects, as well as on the development and design

advances that have taken place in recent years for modular HTGRs. The overall
configuration takes full advantage of the work performed on early modular HTGR
concepts such as the MHTGR and the HTR-MODUL (IAEA 2016).
The HTGR steam cycle concept is extremely flexible. Since high pressure steam
is one of the most versatile heat transport mediums, a single basic reactor module
configuration designed to produce high temperature steam is capable of serving a
wide variety of near-term markets. The steam cycle is also well suited to
co-generation of electricity and process heat.

2.4.3.4 Fast Neutron Reactors

The major difference with fast reactors compared with LWRs, is that they are
designed to use the full energy potential of uranium via a full reprocessing recycle
route, i.e. closing the nuclear fuel cycle with management of plutonium and con-
sumption of minor actinides. Typical coolants include liquid metal such as sodium,
lead, or lead-bismuth, with high conductivity and boiling point, each of which
carries its own challenges. They operate at or near atmospheric pressure and have
passive safety features (most have convection circulating the primary coolant)
(Fig. 2.15).
The following are some of the small fast nuclear power reactors under devel-
opment in some countries:
(1) Power Reactor Innovative Small Module (PRISM)
General Electric with the U.S. national laboratories had been developing a
modular liquid-metal-cooled inherently-safe reactor called “PRISM”, but today’s
PRISM is a GE Hitachi (GEH) design for compact modular pool-type reactors with
passive cooling for decay heat removal.

Fig. 2.15 Fast Neutron Nuclear Power Reactors: (a) 4s, (b) PRISM and (c) Gen4 (Hyperion).
Source (a) IAEA (2014) (b) and (c) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (2011)
100 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

Each PRISM power block consists of two modules of 311 MWe (840 MWth)
each, (or, earlier, three modules of 155 MWe, 471 MWth), each with one steam
generator, that collectively drive one turbine generator. The pool-type modules
below ground level contain the complete primary system with sodium coolant at
about 500 °C. An intermediate sodium loop takes heat to steam generators. The
metal Pu and DU fuel is obtained from used light water reactor LWR fuel. All
transuranic elements are removed together in the electrometallurgical reprocessing
so that fresh fuel has minor actinides with the plutonium and uranium. PRISM have
two versions: For the LWR fuel recycle version, fuel stays in the reactor four years,
with one-quarter removed annually and for breeder version fuel stays in the reactor
about six years, with one-third removed every two years (WNA 2016).
The nuclear power plant design life is 60 years. Specific design features include
the use of electromagnetic pumps. Transportability is enhanced by the modular
construction sized for trucks and rail. Special benefits of the design are flexibility
allowing use for either waste management or resource utilisation missions and the
co-location of a small recycling centre (TRP 2012). In 2011, GE Hitachi announced
that it was shifting its marketing strategy to pitch the reactor directly to utilities as a
way to recycle excess plutonium while producing electricity for the grid.
(2) CEFR
The CEFR is a sodium cooled, 65 MWth experimental fast reactor with PuO2–
UO2 fuel, but with UO2 as the first loading. It has been operating since 2010 and it
is an important part of China’s reactor development. The main objective of the
CEFR is to accumulate experience in fast reactor design, fabrication of components,
construction, pre-operational testing, and operation and maintenance (WNA 2016).
(3) Integral Fast Reactor (ARC-100)
Advanced Reactor Concepts LLC (ARC) is commercialising a 100 MWe
sodium-cooled fast reactor based on the 62.5 MWth Experimental Breeder
Reactor II (EBR-II).7
The ARC-100 system comprises a uranium alloy core submerged in sodium. The
liquid sodium is passed through the core where it is heated to 510 °C, then passed
through an integral heat exchanger (within the pool) where it heats sodium in an
intermediate loop, which in turn heats working fluid for electricity generation. It
would have a refuelling interval of 20 years. A 50 MWe version of the ARC is also
under development (WNA 2016).
(4) Rapid-L
A small-scale nuclear power reactor design developed by Japan’s Central
Institute of Electric Power Industry is the 5 MWth, 200 kWe Rapid-L, using
lithium-6 (a neutron poison) as control medium. The reactivity control system is
passive, using lithium expansion modules (LEMs) which give burn-up

7
The EBR-II was a significant fast reactor prototype at Idaho National Laboratory.
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 101

compensation, partial load operation as well as negative reactivity feedback. During

normal operation, lithium-6 in the LEM is suspended on an inert gas above the core
region. As the reactor temperature rises, the lithium-6 expands, moving the
gas/liquid interface down into the core and hence adding negative reactivity.
Cooling is by molten sodium. The refuelling would be every 10 years in an inert
gas environment. Operation would require no skill, due to the inherent safety design
features. The whole plant would be about 6.5 m high and 2 m diameter (WNA
2016). The larger RAPID reactor delivers 1 MWe and is U–Pu–Zr fuelled and
sodium-cooled.
(5) Super-Safe, Small and Simple (4S)
The Super-safe, small and simple (4S) ‘nuclear battery’ system is being devel-
oped in Japan. It uses sodium as coolant (with electromagnetic pumps) and has
passive safety features, notably negative temperature coefficient of reactivity. The
whole unit would be factory-built, transported to site, installed below ground level,
and would drive a steam cycle via a secondary sodium loop. It is capable of three
decades of continuous operation without refuelling. Metallic fuel is
uranium-zirconium enriched to less than 20% or U–Pu–Zr alloy with 24% Pu for
the 30 MWth (10 MWe) version or 11.5% Pu for the 135 MWth (50 MWe) ver-
sion. Both versions of 4S are designed to automatically maintain an outlet coolant
temperature of 510–550 °C. After 30 years the fuel would be allowed to cool for a
year, then it would be removed and shipped for storage or disposal (WNA 2016).
The design has one intermediate loop and one secondary loop and utilises two
independent diverse shutdown systems: the drop of the annular reflector, and the
insertion of a central shut-down rod. The design utilises passive decay heat removal
from the reactor vessel. Transportability is via truck or rail (TRP 2012).
Toshiba planned a worldwide marketing programme to sell the units for power
generation at remote mines, for extraction of tar sands, desalination plants and for
making hydrogen. Eventually it expected sales for hydrogen production to out-
number those for power supply (WNA 2016).
(6) BREST-300
A significant Russian design from NIKIET is the BREST fast neutron reactor, of
700 MWth, 300 MWe, or more with lead as the primary coolant, at 540 °C, sup-
plying supercritical steam generators. It is inherently safe and uses a U+Pu nitride
fuel. Fuel cycle is 10 months. No weapons-grade plutonium can be produced (since
there is no uranium blanket), and used fuel can be recycled indefinitely, with on-site
facilities (WNA 2016).
BREST-300 is a reactor facility of pool-type design, which incorporates within
the pool the reactor core with reflectors and control rods; the lead coolant circu-
lation with steam generators and pumps; equipment for fuel reloading and man-
agement; and safety and auxiliary systems. The reactor equipment is arranged in a
steel-lined, thermally insulated concrete vault. The BREST decay heat removal
systems are characterised by passive and time-unlimited residual heat removal
102 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

directly from the lead circuit by natural circulation of air through air-cooled heat
exchangers, with the heated air vented to the atmosphere (Alemberti et al. 2014).
A pilot unit was planned to be built at Beloyarsk, and 1200 MWe units are
planned. It is at preliminary design stage.
(7) SVBR-100
A smaller and newer Russian design is the lead-bismuth fast reactor SVBR-100
of 280 MWth, 100 MWe, being developed. It is an integral design, with 12 steam
generators and two main circulation pumps sitting in the same Pb–Bi pool at 340–
490 °C as the reactor core. It is designed to be able to use a wide variety of fuels,
though the pilot unit will initially use uranium oxide enriched to 16.3%. The
refuelling interval is seven or eight years and 60-year operating life is envisaged.
The SVBR-100 unit would be factory-made and transported by railway, road or
waterway (WNA 2016).
According to UxC Company, the SVBR-100 nuclear power reactor is designed
to be used in the remote regions of Russia and can have various power levels and
purposes. The nuclear power reactor can be used for co-generation of electricity and
process heat (and potentially serve as a power source for desalination) and will be
placed in the immediate vicinity of populated areas. The nuclear power reactor can
be also used for coastal and offshore nuclear power plant. The designers of the
reactor also envisioned for it to be used as part of industrial facilities. One other
interesting possible implementation of SVBR reactors is on the sites of the PWR
units undergoing decommissioning using the existing infrastructure. Several mod-
ules can be used together if more power is required.
The plan is to complete the design development and put online a 100 MWe pilot
facility by 2019.
(8) Gen4 (Hyperion) Power Module
The Gen4 Power Module is a 70 MWth/25 MWe lead-bismuth cooled reactor
concept using 19.75% enriched uranium nitride fuel, from Gen4 Energy. The reactor
was originally conceived as a potassium-cooled self-regulating ‘nuclear battery’
fuelled by uranium hydride. However, in 2009, Hyperion Power changed the design
to uranium nitride fuel and lead-bismuth cooling to expedite design certification.
This now classes it as a fast neutron reactor, without moderation. The company
claims that the ceramic nitride fuel has superior thermal and neutronic properties
compared with uranium oxide. Enrichment is 19.75% and operating temperature
about 500 °C. The unit would be installed below ground level (WNA 2016).
The nuclear power reactor design life is 30 years. The design has one primary
loop and one secondary loop and utilises two independent shutdown systems. The
design utilises passive natural circulation for decay heat removal from the reactor
vessel with water as the ultimate heat sink. Specific design features include con-
taining the reactor in a sealed cartridge to avoid onsite refuelling, a primary shut-
down system with inner and outer B4C control rods and a secondary shutdown
system having a central cavity into which a single B4C control may be inserted. The
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 103

nuclear power reactor is transported via truck, ship or rail. Special benefits of the
design include passive decay heat removal from the reactor vessel with a water
jacket and the ability to operate in remote locations (TRP 2012).
This type of nuclear power reactor is designed to operate for electricity or
process heat (or co-generation) continuously for up to 10 years without refuelling.
Another unit could then take its place in the overall nuclear power plant.
In March 2012, the U.S. DoE signed an agreement with Hyperion regarding
constructing a demonstration unit at its Savannah River site in South Carolina
(WNA 2016).
(9) Encapsulated Nuclear Heat-Source (ENHS)
The ENHS is a liquid metal-cooled reactor concept of 50 MWe. The reactor core
is at the bottom of a metal-filled module sitting in a large pool of secondary molten
metal coolant, which also accommodates the eight separate and unconnected steam
generators. The whole reactor sits in a 17-metre-deep silo. The fuel is a
uranium-zirconium alloy with 13% enrichment (or U–Pu–Zr with 11% Pu) (WNA
2016).
The ENHS has a very long reactor core life (15–20 years), and it uses natural
circulation to cool the reactor and to produce steam to drive the turbine. The ENHS
concept relies on autonomous control that is, after the reactor is brought to full
power, variation in power output follow the electricity generating needs automat-
ically (load following) by using temperature feedback from the varying steam
pressure and feedwater flow. The ENHS concept is based on the idea of encap-
sulating the reactor core inside its own vessel as a module, with no external piping
connections (U.S. Department of Energy 2001).
The ENHS module is manufactured and fuelled in the factory, and shipped to the
site as a sealed unit with solidified Pb (or Pb–Bi) filling the vessel up to the upper
level of the fuel rods. With no mechanical connections between the reactor module
and the secondary system, the module is easy to install and replace, similar to using
a battery. After installation, hot coolant is pumped into the vessel to melt the solid
lower part. At the end of its life, the ENHS module could be removed from the
reactor pool and stored on site until the decay heat drops to a level that lets the
coolant solidify. The module with the solidified coolant would then serve as a
shipping cask. Its compact, sealed design combined with very infrequent refuelling
provides high proliferation resistance (U.S. Department of Energy 2001).
The ENHS is designed for developing countries and is highly proliferation-
resistant, but is not yet close to commercialisation.
(10) Secure Transportable Autonomous Reactor (START) STAR-LM,
STAR-H2, Small STAR (SSTART)
START reactor is being designed by Argonne National Laboratory and its
portfolio consists of three designs: 1) Small STAR; 2) STAR-LM, where LM stands
for liquid metal; and 3) STAR-H2 design, where H2 stands for hydrogen
104 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

production. Main components of STAR-H2 vessel are presented in the work of

Wade and Peddicord (2002).
According to WNA (WNA 2016), the STAR-LM is a factory-fabricated fast
neutron modular reactor cooled by lead-bismuth eutectic, with passive safety fea-
tures. Its 300–400 MWth size means it can be shipped by rail. It uses
uranium-transuranic nitride fuel in a cartridge which is replaced every 15 years.
Decay heat removal is by external air circulation. The STAR-LM was conceived for
power generation with a capacity of about 175 MWe.
The STAR-H2 is an adaptation of the same nuclear power reactor for hydrogen
production, with reactor heat at up to 800 °C being conveyed by a helium circuit to
drive a separate thermochemical hydrogen production plant, while lower grade heat is
harnessed for desalination (multi-stage flash process). Its development is further off.
SSTAR has lead or Pb–Bi cooling, 564 °C core outlet temperature and has
integral steam generator inside the sealed unit, which would be installed below
ground level. Conceived in sizes 10–100 MWe, main development was focused on
a 45 MWth/20 MWe version as part of the U.S. Generation IV effort.
Some notable features of SSTAR include reliance on natural circulation for both
operation and shutdown heat removal; a very long core life without refuelling (after
a 20 or 30-year life without refuelling, the whole reactor unit is the returned for
recycling the fuel); and an innovative supercritical CO2 (S-CO2) Brayton cycle
power conversion system (Alemberti et al. 2014).
The main mission of the SSTAR is to provide incremental energy generation to
match the needs of developing nations and remote communities without grid con-
nections. A prototype was envisaged for 2015, but development has apparently ceased.
(11) LBE Cooled Long-Life Safe Simple Small Portable Proliferation-
Resistant Reactor (LSPR)
The Lead Bismuth Eutectic Cooled Fast Reactor of 150 MWth/53 MWe, the
LSPR, is under development in Japan. The concept is intended for developing
countries (WNA 2016).
According to UxC, the LSPR could be used for electricity generation, seawater
desalination, hydrogen production, process steam production, among others.
The LSPR is a factory fabricated design and it is designed to operate without on-site
refuelling during the whole reactor life (30 years), then it is returned. The type of
fuel used in this reactor is nitride with a fuel enrichment of 10–12%.
(12) Swedish Advanced Lead Reactor (SEALER)
SEALER is a lead-cooled reactor designed with the smallest possible core that
can achieve criticality in a fast spectrum using 20% enriched uranium oxide
(UOX) fuel. The nuclear power reactor is a 8 MWth, with a peak electric power of
3 MWe, leading to a reactor core life of 30 full power years (at 90% availability).
The reactor vessel is designed to be small enough to permit transportation by
aircraft (WNA 2016).
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 105

2.4.3.5 Molten Salt Reactors (MSR)

This type of reactor use molten fluoride salts as primary coolant, at low pressure.
Lithium-beryllium fluoride and lithium fluoride salts remain liquid without pres-
surisation up to 1400 °C, in marked contrast to a PWR which operates at about
315 °C under 150 atmospheres pressure. In most designs (not the AHTR) the fuel
is dissolved in the primary coolant.
In a normal MSR, the fuel is a molten mixture of lithium and beryllium fluoride
(FLiBe) salts with dissolved enriched uranium—U-235 or U-233 fluorides (UF4).
The reactor core consists of unclad graphite moderator arranged to allow the flow of
salt at some 700 °C and at low pressure. Heat is transferred to a secondary salt
circuit and thence to steam.
The fission products dissolve in the fuel salt and may be removed continuously
in an on-line reprocessing loop and replaced with fissile uranium or, potentially,
Th-232 or U-238. Actinides remain in the reactor until they fission or are converted
to higher actinides which do so.
The liquid fuel has a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity and a strong
negative void coefficient of reactivity, giving passive safety.
Potential roles for MSRs, in addition to electricity production include minor
actinide and plutonium consumption and for those designs that can use higher
temperature salts, then process heat applications, including hydrogen production
could be feasible (Fig. 2.16).
The following are some of the Molten Salt Reactors under development in some
countries:

Fig. 2.16 Molten Salt

Reactor (SmATHR). Source
Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (2010)
106 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

(1) Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (Flibe LFTR)

Flibe LFTR or LFTR is under development in the USA and is a 40 MW
two-fluid graphite-moderated thermal reactor with a reactor outlet temperature of
450 °C. It uses lithium fluoride/beryllium fluoride (FLiBe) salt as its primary
coolant in both circuits. Fuel is U-233 bred from thorium in FLiBe blanket salt.
Fuel salt circulates through graphite logs. Secondary loop coolant salt is
sodium-beryllium fluoride (BeF2-NaF) (WNA 2016).
The nuclear power reactor design life is five to ten years. The design utilises
passive decay heat removal from the reactor vessel with water in the underground
silo as the ultimate heat sink. Specific design features include underground location
of the reactor and primary heat exchanger is made of liquid-silicon-impregnated
carbon-carbon composites. Transportability is via barge or truck. Many quantitative
aspects of the design have not yet been determined (TRP 2012). A 2 MWth pilot
nuclear power plant is envisaged to be built in the future (WNA 2016).
(2) Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR)
China is building a 5 MWe TMSR, essentially an LFTR. China claims to have
the world’s largest national effort on these and hopes to obtain full intellectual
property rights on the technology. The target date for TMSR deployment is 2032
(WNA 2016).
(3) Fuji MSR
The Fuji MSR is a 100–200 MWe graphite-moderated design developed inter-
nationally by a Japanese, Russian, and U.S. consortium.
According to UxC Company, the basic technology of the nuclear power reactor
includes the use of molten salt coolant in a graphite moderated core. The nuclear
power reactor operates at a near-breeding level with a mix of Th and U-233 fuel,
although it can also use U-Pu MOX fuel.
Several variants have been designed, including a 10 MWe mini Fuji. Thorium
Tech Solutions Inc (TTS) plans to commercialise the Fuji concept and is working
on it with the Halden test reactor in Norway (WNA 2016).
(4) Advanced High-Temperature Reactor (AHTR/FHR)
Research on molten salt coolant has been revived with the AHTR. This uses a
coated-particle graphite-matrix fuel and with molten fluoride salt as primary cool-
ant. It is also known as the Fluoride High Temperature Reactor (FHR). While
similar to the gas-cooled HTR it operates at low pressure (less than 1 atmosphere)
and higher temperature, and gives better heat transfer than helium. The FLiBe salt is
used solely as primary coolant (WNA 2016).
The AHTR pursues three design goals: High reactor-coolant exit temperatures
(700–100 °C) to enable the efficient production of hydrogen by thermochemical
cycles and the efficient production of electricity; passive safety systems for public
acceptance and reduce costs; and competitive economics. To achieve competitive
economics, the AHTR is a large nuclear power reactor with passive safety systems
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 107

and high temperatures. The high temperatures minimise the size of the safety
systems and power conversion equipment per kilowatt (electric) output (Forsberg
2004).
A 5 MW thorium-fuelled prototype is under construction at Shanghai Institute of
Nuclear Applied Physics in China with a target for operation by 2020.
A 100 MWth demonstration pebble-bed power plant with open fuel cycle is
planned by about 2025.
(5) IMSR
This simplified IMSR integrates the primary reactor components, including
primary heat exchangers to secondary clean salt circuit, in a sealed and replaceable
core vessel that has a projected life of seven years. The IMSR will operate at 600–
700 °C, which can support many industrial process heat applications in Canada.
The fuel-salt is a eutectic of low-enriched uranium fuel (UF4) and a fluoride carrier
salt at atmospheric pressure. Emergency cooling and residual heat removal are
passive. Each plant would have space for two nuclear power reactors, allowing
seven-year changeover, with the used unit removed for off-site reprocessing when it
has cooled and fission products have decayed (WNA 2016).
According to IAEA-ARIS (2016), the reactor core of the ISMR is manufactured
in a controlled factory environment and then brought to the nuclear power plant site
where, following final assembly, it is lowered into a surrounding, annular buffer salt
tank, which itself sits in a below grade reactor silo. There, the reactor core is
connected to secondary piping, which contains a non-radioactive coolant salt.
The fuel is separately brought to the nuclear power plant site as a solid, where it
is melted and added to the ISMR core. This allows the ISMR operates with online
fuelling. Additionally, and unlike solid-fuel nuclear power reactors, there is no need
to remove a proportion of old fuel during refuelling. All of the fuel stays inside the
closed ISMR core during the entire power operations period of the reactor core.
Unlike other nuclear power reactor systems, the ISMR core needs never be opened
at the nuclear power plant site, either during star-up fuelling or during refuelling.
The basic design approach to safety in the ISMR is to achieve an inherent,
walk-away safe nuclear power plant. No operator action, electricity, or externally-
powered mechanical components are needed to assure the most basic safety
functions.
The IMSR is scalable and three sizes are under development: 80 MWth,
300 MWth and 600 MWth, ranging 30 MWe–300 MWe, but a 2016 report from
the company gives 400 MWth and 192 MWe (WNA 2016). It is expected that the
first commercial nuclear power reactor is ready by the early 2020s.
(6) Transatomic TAP
Transatomic Power Corp is a new U.S. company partly funded by Founders
Fund and aiming to develop a single-fluid MSR using very low-enriched uranium
fuel (1.8%) or the entire actinide component of used LWR fuel. The TAP nuclear
power reactor has an efficient zirconium hydride moderator and a LiF-based fuel
108 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

salt bearing the UF4 and actinides, hence a very compact reactor core (WNA 2016).
After a 20 MWth demonstration reactor, the envisaged first commercial plant will
be 1250 MWth/550 MWe.
(7) ThorCon
This is a single-fluid thorium converter reactor in the thermal spectrum, graphite
moderated with a capacity of 250 MWe. It uses a combination of U-233 from
thorium and U-235 enriched from mined uranium. Fuel salt is sodium-beryllium
fluoride (BeF2-NaF) with dissolved uranium and thorium tetrafluorides (Li-7
fluoride is avoided for cost reasons). There is no on-line processing—this takes
place in a centralised plant at the end of the reactor core life—with off-gassing of
some fission products meanwhile. All components are designed to be easily and
frequently replaced. It is expected an operating prototype by 2020 (WNA 2016).
(8) Molten Stable Salt Reactor (MSSR)
MSSR is a conceptual UK nuclear power reactor design with no pumps and
relies on convection from vertical fuel tubes in the reactor core at the center of a
tank holding the primary coolant, while a secondary salt coolant conveys heat to the
steam generators. Reactor core temperature is 500–600 °C, at atmospheric pressure.
Decay heat is removed by natural air convection. A 150 MWth pilot plant is
envisaged in the coming years (WNA 2016).
(9) Seaborg Waste Burner—SWAB
Seaborg Technologies in Denmark has a thermal-epithermal single fluid reactor
design for 50 MWth pilot unit with a view to 250 MWth commercial modular units
fueled by spent LWR fuel and thorium. Fuel salt is Li-7 fluoride with thorium,
plutonium and minor actinides as fluorides. Fission products are extracted on-line
(WNA 2016).
(10) Molten Salt Thermal Wasteburner (MSTW)
The Seaborg Technologies’ MSTW is a thermal spectrum, single salt, MSR,
operated on a combination of spent nuclear fuel and thorium. It is envisioned to
produce 100 MWe, or 115 MWe with a two stage turbine, from 270 MWth. The
reactor core outlet temperature is 700 °C, but can go as high as 900 °C for special
uses, such as hydrogen production. The MSTW is designed around inherent safety
features; no active measures are required to control the reactor under abnormal
circumstances (IAEA 2016).
According to Seaborg Technologies (2015), one novel safety feature of the
MSTW is the use of an overflow system in addition to the commonly used salt plug
system. This safety system prevents meltdowns, hinder accidents from human
operator error, automatically shuts down in case of out of scope operation condi-
tions, and flushes the fuel inventory to a passively cooled and sub-critical dump
tank below the core vessel in case of loss of operation power.
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 109

The reactor relies on a novel on-board chemical fluoridation flame reactor, which
can continually extract fission products from the salt during operation. The flame
reactor is also used to adjust the fuel levels in the salt such that no absorbing control
rods are needed during normal operations; this facilities a better neutron economy
in the reactor.
The fully modularised MSTW is suitable for mass production. As a module
reaches the end of its lifecycle, it will be extracted and returned for recycling in a
central production facility after it has cooled down. The reactor core, including the
graphite-based moderator, is projected to have a lifecycle of seven years, while the
power plant will operate on the same batch of spent nuclear fuel for the 60 year
facility lifetime. The MSTW is in the early design phase and Seaborg Technologies
is focused primarily on neutronics, radiative transfer, computational fluid dynamics,
and the physics of the design (IAEA 2016).
The MSTW is designed for electricity production, district heating/cooling, sea
water desalination, among others. Due to the high outlet temperature it is well
suited for synthetic fuel, as well as industrial process heat applications. Its high
burnup and the fact that it is fuelled directly with spent nuclear fuel makes it a good
option for spent nuclear fuel stockpile reduction. However, it can, without modi-
fication, operate on a wide array of different fuels.
(11) SmAHTR
According to Greene et al. (2010), SmAHTR is a 125 MWth, integral primary
system FHR concept. The design goals for SmAHTR are to deliver safe, affordable,
and reliable high-temperature process heat and electricity from a small nuclear
power plant that can be easily transported to and assembled at remote sites. The
initial SmAHTR concept is designed to operate with a nuclear core outlet tem-
perature of 700 °C, but with a system architecture and overall design approach that
can be adapted to much higher temperature as higher-temperature structural
materials become available. The SmAHTR reactor vessel is transportable via
standard tractor-trailer vehicles to its deployment location.
SmAHTR employs a “two-out-of-three system” philosophy for operational and
shutdown decay-heat removal. Transition from operational power production to
shutdown decay-heat removal is accomplished without active components,
employing passive systems relying on natural convection, and the reactor core is
designed with large negative reactivity feedback coefficients.
The SmAHTR concept has been developed with three potential operating
modes: 1) Process heat production, 2) Electricity production, and 3) A combined
co-generation mode in which both electricity and process heat are produced.
The nuclear core and all primary components are contained in the reactor vessel
(integral design). This design eliminates the large break loss-of-coolant accident
scenario. The use of an innovative liquid-salt thermal energy storage system or “salt
vault” expands the flexibility and applicability of the SmAHTR reactor for all
applications. The salt vault offers the potential to combine multiple SmAHTR
reactor modules to meet thermal and electricity demands, a robust capability to
110 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

buffer the reactors and processes heat load from transients, and the ability to buffer
multi-reactor module installations from upset within a single reactor.
As a high-temperature system, SmAHTR is potentially compatible with several
highly efficient power conversion technologies. The most attractive options for
power conversion systems are Rankine and Brayton cycle technologies.
(12) Mark 1 Pebble-Bed Fluoride-Salt-Cooled High-Temperature-Reactor
(Mk1 PB-FHR)
The Mk1 PB-FHR design is the first integrated FHR design to propose driving a
nuclear air-Brayton combined cycle for base-load electricity generation.
The purpose of the Mk1 FB-FHR design is to provide efficient and highly
flexible power output and grid support services, and therefore to enable a new value
proposition for nuclear power. The 236 MWth Mk1 PB-FHR uses a General
Electric 7FB gas turbine, modified to introduce external heating and one stage of
reheat, in combined-cycle configuration to produce 100 MWe under base-load
operation, and with natural-gas co-firing to rapidly boost the net power output to
242 MWe to provide peaking power (Andreades et al. 2014).
The Mk1 PB-FHR is designed so that all components (including the reactor
vessel, gas turbine, and building structural sub-modules) can be transported by rail,
enabling modular construction. Sub-module fabrication and delivery occur in par-
allel with module assembly and plant civil construction at the reactor site
(Andreades et al. 2014).
The configuration of the Mk1 PB-FHR places the reactor and coiled tube air
heaters slightly below grade, and allows the reactor building to be separated from
the power conversion system so the reactor can be located inside the plant protected
area, while the power conversion system is in the owner-controlled area that
requires a lower level of physical protection (Hong et al. 2014).
The Mk1 PB-FHR is designed with advanced passive safety features and
intrinsic fuel and coolant properties, which make the consequences of severe
accidents much easier to manage.

2.4.3.6 Others Types of SMR

LEADIR-PS100
This is a new design from Northern Nuclear Industries in Canada, combining a
number of features in unique combination. LEADER-PS100 is a 100 MWth,
36 MWe reactor with graphite moderator, TRISO fuel in pebbles, lead (Pb-208) as
primary coolant, all as integral pool-type arrangement at near atmospheric pressure.
It delivers steam at 370 °C, and is also envisaged as an industrial heat plant. The
coolant circulates by natural convection. Passive decay heat removal is by air
convection (WNA 2016).
2.4 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) 111

2.4.3.7 Hurdles that Must Be Overcome for the Deployment

of the SMRs

There are various factors that need to be overcome in order to facilitate the intro-
duction of SMRs in a particularly country, but many of these factors affect also any
new technological product in several sectors. For this reason, specific needs must be
identified, markets must be developed, and the product has to prove itself.
Some of the main factors that are impeding the deployment of the SMRs in
several countries are the following:
• Economic competitiveness of SMRs, especially the higher specific construction
cost of SMRs with respect to larger nuclear power reactors (Kuznetsov and
Lokhov 2011);
• Economies of scale often advantage the construction of large nuclear power
reactors, which fit well into long-term programmes for countries with centralised
energy supply and well-developed distribution networks;
• Differences in the regulations among different countries could require various
design changes, which increase the cost of developing SMRs, according to
Nuclear Energy Agency source;
• Potential concerns about the possibility of constructing SMRs in sites close to
end-users, based on the current regulatory norms and practises established to
support the deployment of nuclear power plants with large nuclear power
reactors (Kuznetsov and Lokhov 2011);
• Legal and institutional issues regarding the possibility of international transport
of nuclear power plants with factory fabricated and fuelled reactors from one
country for deployment in another (Kuznetsov and Lokhov 2011);
• The first-of-a-kind nature of this new type of nuclear power reactors usually
implies the need to demonstrate the main new features;
• Management of nuclear waste;
• The multitude of similar SMR designs currently being proposed results in a
splitting of efforts and capital;
• There is a lack of capital development. The uncertainty of market conditions in
the medium term favours investments in well-established technologies rather
than in riskier R&D efforts, according to Nuclear Energy Agency sources;
• Heat generation faces additional problems. Nuclear heat is currently not cost-
competitive with fossil fuels in some countries, and district heating is additionally
burdened by the distribution cost, according to Nuclear Energy Agency sources.
There are other factors that may affect the deployment of SMRs. Part of the
population is generally opposed to any form of nuclear energy uses (specialty after
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident), although the opposition may be less in the
case of SMRs. There is also general uneasiness with regard to advanced technology,
as well as fear of radiation. Opposition to SMRs in particular could also come from
the concern that, because of their smaller size, there could be more of them on more
sites, and that these sites could be closer to home.
112 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

2.5 Nuclear Fusion Reactors

The main part of the current nuclear power reactors is based in the so-called “fission
reaction”, but there is another type of reaction to get energy, this is the so-called
“fusion reaction”. Nuclear fusion is occurring in the Sun to generate heat, which
allows us to live, and for this reason it can be said that the fusion energy would be
an almost inexhaustible source of electricity in the future. However, nowadays the
fusion nuclear energy is not feasible to generate electricity due to different technical
reasons; this type of reaction is now in pre-development phase. For this reason,
there will be no possibility to build a fusion nuclear power plant, at least until the
middle of this century.
Nuclear fusion occurs when the nuclei of atoms collide with one another and
bind together. This releases large amounts of energy, which can be converted to
heat and used to generate electricity as with other thermal power plants. The most
efficient fusion reaction to use on the earth is that between the hydrogen isotopes,
deuterium and tritium, which produces the highest energy at the ‘lowest’ (although
still extremely high) temperature of the reacting fuels.8
For the fusion reaction to occur, the nuclei need to be brought very close
together. If the atoms of a gas are heated, the motion of the electrons and the nuclei
will increase until the electrons have separated from the nuclei. This state, where
nuclei and electrons are no longer bound together, is called “plasma”. Heating the
plasma further to temperatures in the range of 100–200 million °C, results in col-
lisions between the nuclei being sufficiently energetic to overcome the repulsive
force between them and to fuse.
Although nuclear fusion is unlikely to be ready for commercial power generation
in the coming decades, it remains nevertheless an attractive energy solution and
arguably, as a sustainable option for large-scale baseload supply in the long-term. If
the research and development in fusion energy deliver the advances predicted, then
it will continue on a steady course to achieve this aim in the second half of the
century (Tzimas 2011).
Fusion energy’s many benefits include an essentially unlimited supply of cheap
fuel, passive intrinsic safety and no production of CO2 or atmospheric pollutants.
Compared to nuclear fission, it produces relatively short-lived radioactive products,
with the half-lives of most radioisotopes contained in the waste being less than ten
years, which means that within 100 years, the radioactivity of the materials will
have diminished to insignificant levels (Tzimas 2011).

8
There are others possibilities, but the conditions are more demanding to produce nuclear fusion
reaction. These possibilities are: deuterium-deuterium reaction and deuterium-3 helium. In the
latter, it is necessary tenfold temperature for deuterium-tritium reaction.
2.5 Nuclear Fusion Reactors 113

Other benefits are the following:

• The fuel for fusion is abundantly available. Deuterium is available from sea-
water and it is expected that tritium can be produced within a fusion power plant
from a small quantities of lithium;
• Fusion has a low environmental impact. The only radioactive wastes produced
from a fusion power plant would be from the intermediate fuel, tritium, and any
radioactivity generated in structural materials. The radioactivity of tritium is
short-lived, with a half-life of around 10 years, and if chosen appropriately the
structural materials have a half-life of around 100 years;
• Fusion is inherently safe in that it does not rely on a critical mass of fuel;
• Fusion power plants would present no opportunity for terrorists to cause
widespread harm owing to the intrinsic safety of the technology;
• Fusion power plants would provide energy at constant rate, making them suit-
able for baseload electricity supply;
• Fusion power plants would not produce fissile materials and make no use of
uranium and plutonium, the elements associated with nuclear weapons (Nuttall
2008).
At the same time, nuclear fusion has some drawbacks:
• It is an underdeveloped technology, therefore initial cost will be expensive and it
will take several decades to be consolidated;
• It is necessary to use initially a lot of energy to get fusion of the nuclei.
Fusion energy production has already been demonstrated by the European
flagship experiment, the Joint European Torus (JET). The next step on the path to
fusion energy is the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER),
which is under construction at Cadarache (France). It aims is to carry out its first
experiments before the end of the decade and in the following years it should
demonstrate the scientific and technical feasibility of fusion energy.
The successful operation of ITER is expected to lead to the go-ahead for the
following step, a demonstration power plant (DEMO), which would aim to
demonstrate the commercial viability of fusion by delivering fusion power to the
grid by 2050.

2.5.1 Plasma Confinement and Its Devices

Given the tendency of plasma to diffuse itself, splitting the nuclei each other at high
speed, it is necessary to confinement it in a closed space where cannot run away. In
addition, plasma cannot touch the walls of confinement vessel due to its high
temperatures, because if that happens the walls would be destroyed and the erosion
would contaminate the plasma, stopping the reaction and the plasma.
114 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

The plasma should be held for a long enough time to occur a lot of fusion
reactions and a very high temperature. There are several options to achieve the
plasma confinement:
(a) Magnetic confinement:
Plasma is an electrically conducting fluid electrically neutral from the outside in
which ions and electrons move practically independently of each other. Submerged
in a magnetic field, ions and electrons will follow helical trajectories winding
around field lines and will be forced to move along the field. This is the magnetic
confinement principle. Initially, straight topologies were examined.
However, these featured a drawback in that they let the plasma escape at
extremities. To avoid this, the cylinder was closed on itself, resulting in a toric
configuration, frequently characterised by the ratio between its major radius and its
minor radius, referred to as the aspect ratio. However, in this type of configuration,
the curve and lack of homogeneity of the field give rise to a drift of charged
particles. Ions and electrons tend to separate; some move to the top and the others
move to the bottom and end up leaving the magnetic trap. To compensate for this
effect, the field lines were modified and made helicoidal. Thus, particles succes-
sively cross at the top and then at the bottom of the magnetic configuration.
Therefore, the drift effect, which is always in the same direction, is on average
compensated. This is achieved by adding another magnetic field (poloidal field)
perpendicular to the toric field (toroidal field).
The method implemented to generate these helicoidal field lines gives rise to two
types of machines:
• TOKAMAK: The word “Tokamak” come from Russian and is an acronym of
Torodalnaya KAmera MAgnetiK (toroidal chamber with magnetic coils), first
developed by Soviet research in the late 1960s, according to ITER sources. It is
a doughnut or torus-shaped vacuum chamber surrounded by magnetic coils,
which create a toroidal magnetic field. A second set of coils is centred on the
axis or pole of the torus (the hole in the donut). This poloidal magnetic field
adds a vertical component to the magnetic field, which has the effect of giving
the magnetic field throughout the vessel a twist. This circulates the particles that
have drifted towards the outside of the ring back into the centre, preventing the
plasma from escaping.
Deuterium and tritium are injected into a doughnut chamber and heated to the
point at which its electrons break free (Fig. 2.17).
• STELLARATOR: In a Stellarator, unlike in a Tokamak, the field coils alone
provide an induced helicity to the plasma. There is no transformer action with a
sweeping driven current, so the machine operates in a steady-state mode, with
plasma confinement arising solely from the geometry of the external magnetic
field.
Several different configurations of Stellarator exist, including: Torsatron (con-
tinuous helical coils (Pastor 2013), Heliotron [helical coils together with a pair
of poloidal field coils (Pastor 2013), Modular Stellarator [with a set of modular
2.5 Nuclear Fusion Reactors 115

Fig. 2.17 Tokamak

principle. Source European
Nuclear Society (2016)

coils and a twisted toroidal coils (Wakatani 1998)], Heliac [the magnetic axis
follows a helical path to form a toroidal helix rather than a simple ring shape
(Pastor 2013)] and Helias [using an optimised modular coil set designed to
simultaneously achieve high plasma, low Pfirsch-Schuluter currents and good
confinement of energy particles (Wakatani 1998) (Fig. 2.18)].
(b) Inertial Confinement:
The method called “inertial confinement” provides the best hope for a workable
fusion reactor. This uses bombardment by high-energy photons—X-rays—to
confine and compress a pellet of hydrogen and its isotopes. Successive X-ray
pulses emanate from a large number of lasers completely surrounding the
pellet, doing the work of heating, ionising and compressing the hydrogen to the
point where it can fuse. The biggest barrier to a working model lies in the X-ray
lasers, which require a lot of energy to operate.

Fig. 2.18 Stellarator

principle. Source CIEMAT
116 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

(c) Muonic fusion:

Muonic fusion, which seemed very promising in the beginning, is now only
investigated in a few laboratories. The idea is to produce muons, which are the
heavy sisters of the electron. The muon is injected into a deuterium-tritium gas
mixture. There is a finite probability that the muon will be captured by a tritium
or deuterium atom and form a deuterium-tritium molecule. Since the muon is
very heavy, the dimension of such a molecule are much smaller than those of a
normal molecule with bound electrons. Therefore, the nuclei will be much
closer to each other and there is a greater likelihood that they will undergo a
fusion reaction. The problem of this scheme is that the production of muons
costs too much energy and that the muon will only “catalyse” about two
hundred fusion reactions (Hamacher and Bradshaw 2001).

2.5.2 Fusion Reactor Projects

The main projects are:

• Joint European Torus (JET): It is a Tokamak. The JET investigates the potential
of fusion power as a safe, clean and virtually limitless energy source for the
future generations. The largest Tokamak in the world, it is the only operational
fusion experiment capable of producing fusion energy. Advanced facilities are
being developed for the future project, such as ITER and DEMO;
• International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER): ITER is one of the
most ambitious energy projects in the world today. In southern France, 35
nations are collaborating to build the world’s largest Tokamak, a magnetic
fusion device that has been designed to prove the feasibility of fusion as a
large-scale and carbon-free source of energy based on the same principle that
power our Sun and stars, according to ITER sources. The experimental cam-
paign that be carried out at ITER is crucial to advancing fusion science and
preparing the way for the fusion power plants of tomorrow.
ITER will be the first fusion device to produce net energy; it will be the first
fusion device to maintain fusion for long periods of time, and will be the first
fusion device to test the integrated technologies, materials, and physics regimes
necessary for the commercial production of fusion-based electricity.
• Demonstration Power Station (DEMO): The know-how gained with ITER is to
yield the principles underlying construction of a demonstration power plant that
affords all the functions of the power plant. This could be followed up with the
first commercial fusion power plant. The objectives set for DEMO are still
generally formulated for the time being: The device is to supply the power grid
with a few hundred MW of electric energy, demonstrate sufficient reliability and
availability and work with a closed fuel cycle. This latter means that the device
must itself produce beforehand the tritium it needs, according to ITER sources;
2.5 Nuclear Fusion Reactors 117

Table 2.5 Total number of fusion experimental devices by confinement method

• Wendelstein 7-X: Following nine years of construction work and one year of
technical preparations and tests, on 10 December 2015 the first helium plasma
was produced in the Wendelstein 7-X device at the Max Planck Institute for
Plasma Physics (IPP) in Greifswald, Germany. The production of the first
hydrogen plasma followed on 3 February 2016 and marked the start of the
experimental operation of the device. The purpose of the Wendelstein 7-X, the
world’s largest Stellarator type fusion device, is to investigate the suitability of
this configuration for use in a power plant (Max-Planck Institute 2016)
(Table 2.5).

2.6 Conclusions

In the coming years several countries will need more electrical power installed to
satisfy the foreseeable increase in the electricity demand necessary to support the
new industrial development in developed countries, and for the support of the
economic boost in developing countries to continue their deployment. The increase
use of fossil fuel to satisfy the growth in electricity demand in several countries
enhance the concern about climate change and emergency requirement of curbing
the emissions of greenhouse gases effect.
In this future situation, nuclear energy has a great opportunity to increase its
participation in the energy mix in developed and developing countries alike. The
other alternative energy source that can play an important role in the structure of the
energy mix of many countries is the so-called “renewable energies”. However, this
type of energy source cannot assure a continuous energy supply due to its
dependency of weather conditions and storages equipment to stock up the excess
energy generated when the power plants are in full operation.
With the intention of enlarging its participation in the energy mix in several
countries, nuclear energy industry and institutions are carrying out a great effort in
the development of new technologies and type of nuclear power reactors. Fruits of
118 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

this effort three lines of investigation can be identified: European Pressurised

Reactors (EPRs), Generation IV of nuclear power reactors, and SMRs.
Today several EPR reactors (Generation III+ reactor) are under construction and
although much is expected of the EPRs, great size of the nuclear power reactors
with evolutionary design and improved safety characteristics, and better use of fuel,
continuous delays and overruns in their construction are affecting their acceptance
in the energy global market.
On the other hand, SMRs have drawn attention because of their size (300 MW
or less compared to large reactor 1100–1600 MW); their many useful applications,
including generating emission-free electricity in remote locations, where there is
little or no access to the main power grid, and in providing heat for industrial
applications; their modular design, which means they can be manufactured in a
factory and delivered and installed at the sites in modules as needed based on
electricity demand growth; and their construction on a smaller scale, reducing the
upfront costs of building a nuclear plant power plant and shrinking the time needed
to build it.
But if the world really want to change the economics of nuclear energy, then it
will need to fundamentally change how nuclear power plants operate. That is where
Generation IV reactors come in. These new designs alter the kinds of fuel and
coolant that would be used, experimenting with mixes that potentially offer inherit
safety, greater efficiency, and less waste.

Acknowledgments I would like to thanks Ambassador Jorge Morales Pedraza (editor) for give
me the opportunity to collaborate with him, and for his assistance in the elaboration of my Chapter.

References

Advanced Reactor Concepts. Technical Review Panel Report (2012), Technical Review Panel
(TRP), December 2012.
Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) (2013), ARIS IAEA, Barc, India, June 2013. Online at:
https://aris.iaea.org/sites/..%5CPDF%5CAHWR.pdf, 2013.
Advances in Small Modular Reactor. Technology Developments (2014), International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, September 2014.
Advances in Small Modular Reactor. Technology Developments (2016), International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, August 2016.
Alemberti, A., Frogheri, M.L., Hermsmeyer, S., Ammirabile, L., Smirnov, V., Takahashi, M.,
Smith, C.F., Wu, Y. and Hwang, I.S. (2014), Lead-cooled Fast Reactor (LFR). Risk and Safety
Assessment, Generation IV International Forum Risk and Safety Working Group (RSWG),
Rev.8, April 2014.
Andreades, Charalampos; Cisneros, Anselmo T.; Keun Choi, Jae; Ching, Alexandre Y.K.; Fratoni,
Massimiliano; Hong, Sea; Huddar, Lakshana R.; Huff, Kathryn D.; Krmwiede, David L.;
Laufer, Michael R.; Munk, Madicken; Scarlat, Raluca O.; Zweibaum, Nicolas; Greenspan,
Ehud; and Peterson, Per F. (2014), Technical Description of the “Mark” Pebble-Bed
Fluoride-Salt-Cooled Hight-Temperature Reactor (PB-FHR) Power Plant, Department of
Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA, Report UCBTH-14-002,
September 30, 2014.
References 119

Angela Merkel switches on Wendelstein 7-X fusion device (2016), Max-Planck Institute, 03
February 2016.
Ardron, K. (2009), Overview of the UK EPR GDA Submission, UKEPR-0013-001 Issue 00,
AREVA NP & EDF, 2009.
Areva lands world’s biggest ever nuclear power order (2007), World Nuclear News, 26 November
2007.
Areva data base, 2016.
AWHR300-LEU Advanced Heavy Water Reactor with LEU-Th MOX Fuel, Bhabha Atomic
Research Centre (BARC), Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai, India. Online at http://
www.barc.gov.in/reactor/ahwr.html.
Bai, Y., Chen, H, Chen, Y, Chen, Z., He, M., Huang, Q., Jiang, Q., Wang, W., Wu, Y., Zhu, Y.,
Zou, J., Shen, M., Yao, X. (2011), Overview of PbBi-Cooled Reactor Development and ADS
Program in China, FDS Team. Presented at the International Conference on Research
Reactors: Safe Management and Effective Utilization, Rabat, Morocco, 14-18 November 2011.
Baxi, C.B., Pérez, E., Shenoy, A., Kostin, V.I., Kodochigov, N-G., Vasyaev, A.V., Belov, S.E.
and Golovko, V.F. (2006), Evolution of the poer conversion unit design of the GT-MHR,
Nuclear Science and Engineering. Present at the 2006 International Congress on Advances in
Nuclear Plants, Nevada, USA, June 4-8, 2006.
Buckworth, Nicholas, Borovas, George and Webber, James (2015), Austria and Luxemburg Will
Challenge Hinkley Point C State Aid, Shearman & Sterling LLP, 25 June 2015.
Carelli, Mario D. and Ingersoll, Daniel T. (2014), Handbook of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors,
1st Edition, ISBN 978-0857098511, Woodhead Publishing, 05 September 2014.
China is Developing Floating Nuclear Power Plants (2016), The Lyncean Group of San Diego,
August 26, 2016.
Debontride, Benard (2006), Design of EPR, Areva Framatome ANP. Presented at the International
Conference “Nuclear Power Plants for Poland NPPP 2006”, Warsaw, Poland, 1-2 June 2006.
Delmastro, D.F., Boado Magan, H., Markiewicz, M., Lopasso, E., Diez, F., Giménez, M.,
Rauschert, A., Halpert, S., Chocrón, M., Dezzutti, J.C., Pirani, H., and Balbi, C (2011),
CAREM Prototype Construction and Licensing Status, IAEA, 2011.
European Nuclear Society , 2016.
Flamanville EPR timetable and costs revised (2015), World Nuclear News, 03 September 2015.
Forsberg, Charles (2004), The Advanced High-Temperature Reactor: High-Temperature Fuel,
Molten Salt Coolant, and Liquid-Metal-Reactor Plant, Progress in Nuclear Energy, Elsevier
Ltd. Presented at the 1st International Conference on Innovative Nuclear Energy Systems for
Sustainable Development of the World (COE INES-1), Tokyo, Japan, October 31-November
4, 2004.
Generation IV Nuclear Reactors (2016), World Nuclear Association. Updated July 2016.
Generation mPower data base, 2016.
González-Romero, Enrique (2012), Reactores de generación iv: camino a la sostenibilidad a largo
plazo de la energía nuclear, Publicaciones DYNA SL, Rev. 2/ 9 January 2012.
Gosden, Emily and Swinford, Steven (2016), New Hinkley Point nuclear plant in doubt as
Government delays decision despite EDF approval for £18bn project, The Telegraph, 29 July
2016.
Greene, S.R.; Gehin, J.C.; Holcomb, D.E.; Carbajo, J.J.; Ilas, D.; Ciscenos, A.T.; Varma, V.K.;
Corwin, W.R.; Wilson, D.F.; Yoder Jr. G.L.; Qualls, A.L.; Peretz, F.J.; Flanagan, G.F.;
Clayton, D.A.; Bradley, E.C.; Bell, G.L.; Hunn, J.D.; Pappano, P.J.; and Cetiner, M.S. (2010),
Pre-conceptual Design of a Fluoride-Salt-Cooled Small Modular Advanced High-Temperature
Reactor (SmAHTR), OAK Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA,
December, 2010.
Gribben, Roland and Roland, Denise (2013), Hinkley Point deal ‘opens flood gates’ form more
investment in nuclear, The Telegraph, 21 October 2013.
Hamacher, T. and Bradshaw, A.M. (2001), Fusion as a Future Power Source: Recent
Achievements and Prospects. Presented at the 18th World Energy Congress Energy Markets:
The Challenges of the New Millennium, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 21-25 October, 2001.
120 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

Holtec Technical Bulletin. Essentials of SMR-160 Small Modular Reactor (2015), Holtec
International, Rev. 9, May 14, 2015. Online at http://www.holtecinternational.com/website/wp-
content/uploads/2015/05/HTB-015-SMR-160-05-14-15.pdf, 2015.
Hong, Sea; Kazama, Diasuke; Duy Nguyen; Huu and Root, Jaben (2014), Structural Design and
Modular Construction Approach For the Mk1 PB-FHR, Department of Nuclear Engineering,
U.C. Berkeley, June 20, 2014.
Ingersoll, Daniel (2011), Overview and Status of SMRs Being Developed in the Unites States, Oak
Ridge Laboratory. Presented at the “INPRO Dialog. Forum on Common User Considerations
for SMRs”, October 10-14, 2011.
Innovative small and medium sized reactors: Design features, safety approaches and R&D trends
(2005), IAEA, TECDOC-1451, Final Report of a technical meeting held in Vienna, 7-11 June
2004.
International Atomic Energy Agency data base, 2016.
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor data base, 2016.
KLT-40S Reactor Plants for Small Nuclear Plants, Afrikantov OKBM. Online at: http://www.
okbm.nnov.ru/images/pdf/klt-40s_en_web.pdf.
Koo Kim, Keung, Lee, Wonjae, Choi, Shun, Rho Kim, Hark and Ha, Jaejoo (2014), SMART: The
First Licensed Advanced Integral Reactor, David Publishing, Journal of Energy and Power
Engineering 8, pages 94-102, January 31, 2014.
Kozmenkov, Y., Rohde, U., Baranaev, Yu, Glebov, A. (2012), Simulation of RUTA-70 Reactor
with Cermet Fuel Using DYN3D/ATHLET and DYN3D/RELAP5 Coupled Modes, IAEA, 2012.
Online at: http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/42/105/42105737.
pdf, 2012.
Koster, A. (2008), Nuclear Energy Materials and Reactors. Pebble Bed Modular Reactor,
Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), February 06, 2008.
Kuznetsov, Vladimir and Lokhov, Alexey (2011), Current Status, Technical Feasibility and
Economics of Small Nuclear Reactors, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, June 2011.
LaBar, M. P., Shenoy, A. S., Simon, W. A. and Campbell, E. M. (2003), Status of the GT-MHR for
Electricity Production, World Nuclear Association. Presented at World Nuclear Association
Annual Symposium, London, UK, 3-5 September, 2003.
Lee, Kang-Heon, Kim, Min-Gil, Lee, Jeong Ik, and Lee, Phill-Seung (2015), Recent Advances in
Ocean Nuclear Power Plants, Energies, ISSN 1996-1073, 2015.
Lokhov, Alexey, Cameron, Ron and Sozoniuk, Vladislav (2013), OECD/NEA Study on the
Economics and Market of Small Reactors, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 30 September
2013.
Gerard, Ludwig Leverenz, Rüdiger, and Göbel, Andreas (2004), The Europen Pressurized Water
Reactor: A Safe and Competitive Solution for Future Energy Needs, Areva
Framatome ANP. Presented at the International Conference “Nuclear Energy for New
Europe 2004”, Portoroz, Slovenia, 6-9 September 2004.
Makhijani, Arjun and Boyd, Michele (2010), Small Modular Reactors. No Solution for the Cost,
Safety, and Waste Problems of Nuclear Power, Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research and Physicians for Social Responsibility, September 2010.
Mínguez, Emilio (2015), El futuro de la energía nuclear hacia 2020, Documento de trabajo
15/2015, Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos (IEEE). Online at http://www.ieee.es/
Galerias/fichero/docs_trabajo/2015/DIEEET15-2015_FuturoEnergiaNuclear_E.Minguez.pdf.
Accessed 05 October 2015.
Modular Nuclear (2009), Advanced Materials & Processes, Volume 167, Issue 11-12, pages
48-49, November/December 2009.
New build EPR Reactors (2008), Areva. Ankara, Turkey, September 2008.
Nuclear Energy Agency data base, 2016.
Nuclear Power in Finland (2016), World Nuclear Association. Updated June 2016.
Nuclear Power in France (2016), World Nuclear Association. Updated July 2016.
Nuclear Production of Hydrogen (2009), OECD-NEA. Presented at the Fourth Information
Exchange Meeting, Illinois, United States, 14-16 April 2009.
References 121

Nuttal, W.J. (2008), Fusion as an Energy Source: Challenges and Opportunities, Institute of
Physics, London, United Kingdom, September 2008.
Pastor, Luis (2013), Reactores de Fusión Termonuclear, 2013. Online at: http://www.luispastor.es/
pdf/2-reactores-fusion.pdf, 2013.
Pioro, Igor (2016), Handbook of Generation IV Nuclear Reactors, 1st Edition, ISBN
978-0081001493, Woodhead Publishing, 20 June 2016.
Polidoro, Franco, Parozzi, Flavio, Fassnacht, Friederike, Kütt, Moritz and Englert, Matthias
(2013), Proliferation Resistance of Small Modular Reactors Fuels, ResearchGate, September
2013. Online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258840513_Proliferation_
Resistance_of_Small_Modular_Reactors_ Fuels, 2013.
Ragheb, M. (2014), Fourth Generation Reactor Concepts, Nuclear, Plasma and Radiation
Science, part IV, ch 6. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. Online at http://
mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/index.
htm. Accessed 03 November 2014.
Record-breaking deal for Areva/China Guangdong (2007), Nuclear Engineering International, 26
November 2007.
Report to Congress on Small Modular Reactor (2001), U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, May 2001.
RITM-200 Reactor Plant for the New Generation Universal Icebreaks, Afrikantov OKBM. Online
at: http://www.okbm.nnov.ru/images/pdf/ritm-200_en_web.pdf.
Seaborg Wasteburner. Molten Salt Reactor (2015), Seaborg Technologies, SEAB-WP-2015-001,
March, 2015.
Small Modular Reactors. Their potential role in the UK (2012), National Nuclear Laboratory, July
2012.
Small Nuclear Power Reactors (2016), World Nuclear Association. Updated June 2016.
SMR Nuclear Technology data base. Online at http://www.smrnuclear.com.au/.
Status of Small and Medium Sized Reactor Designs (2011), International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna, Austria, September 2011.
Status of Small Reactor Designs Without On-Site Refuelling (2007), IAEA, IAEA-TECDOC-1536,
January 2007.
Status of Small and Medium Sized Reactor Designs (2012), International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna, Austria, September 2012.
Status Report 77 – System-Integrated Modular Advanced Reactor (Smart) (2011c), IAEA, 2011.
Online at: https://aris.iaea.org/sites/..%5CPDF%5CSMART.pdf, 2011.
Status Report – Terrestrial (ISMR-80) (2016), IAEA/ARIS (Advanced Reactors Information
System). Online at https://aris.iaea.org/sites/..%5CPDF%5CiMSR_Terrestrial.pdf, 2016.
Status Report 70 – Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) (2011), ARIS IAEA, August 2011.
Online at: https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/PBMR.pdf.
Status report 84 – VVER-300 (V-478) (VVER-300 (V-478)) (2011a), ARIS IAEA, June 2011.
Online at: https://aris.iaea.org/sites/..%5CPDF%5CVVER-300(V-478).pdf, 2011.
Status Report 66 – VBER-300 (VBER-300), (2011b), ARIS IAEA, May 2011. Online at: https://
aris.iaea.org/sites/..%5CPDF%5CVBER-300.pdf, 2011.
Status Report 95 – Integrated Modular Water Reactor (IMR) (2011d), ARIS IAEA, July 2017.
Online at: https://aris.iaea.org/sites/..%5CPDF%5CIMR.pdf, 2011.
Steenkampskraal Thorium Limited (STL) data base, 2016.
Takizuka, Takakazu (2005), Reactor Technology Development under the HTTR Project,
ELSEVIER, Progress in Nuclear Energy, Vol. 47, No, 1-4, pp. 283-291, 2005.
The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) (2002), A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV
Energy Systems, GIF-002-00, U.S. DOE Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee and
the Generation IV International Forum, December 2002.
The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) (2009), GIF R&D Outlook for Generation IV
Nuclear Energy Systems, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency for the Generation IV International
Forum, 21 August 2009.
122 2 Advanced Nuclear Technologies and Its Future Possibilities

The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) (2014), Technology Roadmap Update for
Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency for the
Generation IV International Forum, January 2014.
Terrestrial Energy data base, 2016.
Tzimas, Vangells (2011), 2011 Technology Map of the European Strategic Energy Technology
Plan (SET-Plan), ISBN 978-92-79-21630-5, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, European
Union, 2011.
Ux Consulting Company (UxC). Online at https://www.uxc.com/smr/.
VBER-300 Innovative Reactor Plants Developed by JSC “Afrikantov OKBM” for Ground and
Floating Power Plants. VBER-300 Reactor Plant and Associated Power Units,
Afrikantov OKBM. Online at: http://www.okbm.nnov.ru/images/pdf/vber-300_extended_en_
web.pdf
VK-300 Innovative Special-Purpose Reactor Facility for Regional Cogeneration, (2014), NIKIET.
Online at: http://www.nikiet.ru/eng/images/stories/NIKIET/Publications/Conf/mntk_nikiet_
2014/I-15_en.pdf, 2014.
Yan, X., Kunitomi, K., Nakata, T. and Shiozawa, S., (2002), Design and Development of
GTHTR300, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute. Presented at the 1st International Topical
Meeting on HTR Technology, Petten, Netherlands, April 22-24, 2002.
Wade, D. C., and Peddicord, K. L. (2002), STAR-H2: The secure transportable autonomous
reactor for hydrogen production and desalinization. Proceeding of ICONE 10, Arlington, VA,
April 14–18, 2002.
Wakatani, Masahiro (1998), Stellarator and Heliotron Devices, ISBN 0-19-507831-4, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, New York, USA, 1998.
Whitlock, J. and Sprinkle, J. (2012), Proliferation resistance considerations for remote small
modular reactors, Canadian Nuclear Society and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Presented
at the “International technical meeting on small reactors”, Ottawa, Canada, 7-8 November
2012.
World Nuclear Association data base, 2016.
Chapter 3
The Current Situation and Perspective
of the Small Modular Reactors Market
in North and South America, Including
the Caribbean Regions

Abstract The Three Miles Island and Chernobyl nuclear accidents occurred in
1979 and 1986 respectively, stop all new construction of nuclear power reactors in
the U.S. until today, as well as in Canada, where the last unit was connected to the
grid in 1993. However, the construction of new units continued in Argentina, where
the last unit was connected to the grid in 2014, and in Brazil where the last unit was
connected to the grid in 2000. These two countries continued the construction of
one unit in 2016. The new nuclear power reactors under construction in the region
are mostly large units (more than 1,000 MW), except for one SMR in Argentina the
so-called “CAREM-25” with a capacity of 25 MW.

3.1 Background

The use of nuclear energy for electricity generation started to be used in the U.S.
since 1957, with the connection to the grid of two nuclear power reactors, GE
Vallecitos and Shippingport. Since 1957, a total of 171 nuclear power reactors were
built in the whole region, most of them in the United States.1
The Three Miles Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986) (Morales Pedraza 2013)
nuclear accidents stop all new construction of nuclear power reactors in the U.S.
until today, as well as in Canada, where the last unit was connected to the grid in
1993. However, the construction of new units continued in Argentina, where the
last unit was connected to the grid in 2014, and in Brazil where the last unit was
connected to the grid in 2000. These two countries continued the construction of
new units in 2016, one in Argentina and another in Brazil. The new nuclear power

1
A total of 137 units were built in the U.S., 25 units in Canada, four units in Argentina, three units
in Brazil and two units in Mexico.

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 123

J. Morales Pedraza, Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52216-6_3
124 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

reactors under construction in the region are mostly large units (more than
1000 MW), except for one SMR in Argentina the so-called “CAREM-25” with a
capacity of 25 MW.
However, the situation in the U.S. has changed in the last years due to the
support of the U.S. government to the development of SMR type of reactor as well
as to the construction of new large units. For this reason, in the FY 2012
Administration budget, a new programme for the development and use of SMRs for
electricity generation was approved. This would involve obtaining design certifi-
cation for two light-water SMRs on a cost-share basis with the nuclear industry,
with the purpose of accelerating the commercial deployment of this type of reactor
in the country. The NRC also requested US$11 million for pre-application work on
SMR licensing with two developers leading to filing the design certification
applications, and some initial review for one such application.
More advanced designs such as metal—or gas—cooled SMRs could get some
funds from DoE’s separate Reactor Concepts Research Development and
Demonstration Programme, US$30 million of which is envisaged for SMR
concepts.

3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use

of Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation
in the United States and Canada

3.2.1 United States

A 2011 report for U.S. DoE prepared by the University of Chicago Energy Policy
Institute says “development of small reactors can create an opportunity for the U.S.
to recapture a slice of the nuclear technology market that has eroded over the last
several decades, due to the lack of any important investment in the construction of
new nuclear power reactors in the country”. Much recent development in SMR
designs has been in the U.S. led first by Westinghouse with variants ranging in size
from 50 to 225 MWe. NuScale and mPower gained U.S. DoE funding for their
reactor designs. These types of reactors are integral PWRs with the core, steam
generators, pumps and pressuriser integrated into one vessel. Most designs make
some use of natural circulation cooling for power operation or decay heat removal.
Integral construction and passive cooling are significant ways of reducing cost. The
same factory that constructs reactor vessels can make the other components and the
assembly is delivered to site either by barge or rail. Similar features are present in
other SMR designs from Russia (VBER 300), China (ACP100) and South Korea
(SMART) (Roulstone 2015), just to mention some of the new designs under
development in some countries.
It is important to highlight that the economic strategy of SMRs is unproven and
for this particularly reason must overcome the lack of economic competiveness of
3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular … 125

the first built reactors. There are several licensing issues that must be dealt with as
well, and the export process may be a detriment to developing a strong export
process. Until SMRs are built in sufficient volumes, it will remain unclear whether
they have conquered the cost problem (Kurth 2013).
The investment decision in an industrial activity largely depends on the capa-
bility of the project to adequately recover and remunerate the initial capital
expenditure. The uncertainty of the capital cost estimation, affects the ability to
make a reliable estimation of the investment profitability. The uncertainty affects
the scenario conditions, the project realisation and operation; as a result, the stream
of income generated by the project is also affected by uncertainty. Therefore,
expected profitability has a degree of risk embedded and a series of different
possible outcomes, depending on the realisation of stochastic variables. Investment
in liberalised electricity markets, as in most of the European and North American
countries, compels investors to include uncertainty in their business plan analysis
and to give risk as much relevance as profitability into their decision making. The
key variables to the financial performance of the investment project are forecast to
get a reasonable estimation of the project profitability and economic soundness.
For all of the above, nuclear power plants represent a long-term investment with
deferred payouts. Moreover, the nuclear industry is very capital-intensive. This
means that a high up-front capital investment is needed to set up the project and a
long payback period is needed to recover the capital expenditure.
The longer this period, the higher is the probability that the scenario conditions
may evolve in a different, unfavorable way, as compared to the forecasts.
A capital-intensive investment requires the full exploitation of its operating capa-
bility and an income stream as stable as possible. On a long-term horizon, a low
volatility in a variable trend might translate into a widespread range of realisations
of the variable value. This condition is common to every capital-intensive industry.
Nevertheless, some risk factors are specific or particularly sensitive to the nuclear
industry, typically, the public acceptance, the political support in the long-term
energy strategy, the activity of safety, and the work of the regulatory agencies.
For these reasons, nuclear investment is usually perceived as the riskier invest-
ment option among the power generation technologies, and it is one of the reasons
why no nuclear power plant has been built in the U.S. in the last decades until 2012.
Clearly, risk is not the only or the most relevant criterion in the selection of a power
generation technology. Besides risk and cost, other strategic and economic issues are
included in a technology investment evaluation, such as the power generation
independence, the power density (as compared to the land occupation), the power
supply stability (base-load), and the electricity price stability, among others.

3.2.2 Nuclear Power Plants Operating in the United States

Table 3.1, includes the number of nuclear power reactors under operation in the U.S.
in 2016 (April) (Fig. 3.1).
126 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

Table 3.1 Number of nuclear power reactors under operation in the USA in 2016
Name Type Location Reference Gross First grid
unit power electrical connection
(MW) capacity
(MW)
ANO-1 PWR POPE 836 903 1974-08-17
ANO-2 PWR POPE 993 1065 1978-12-26
BEAVER PWR SHIPPINGPORT 921 959 1976-06-14
VALLEY-1
BEAVER PWR SHIPPINGPORT 904 958 1987-08-17
VALLEY-2
BRAIDWOOD-1 PWR BRAIDWOOD 1194 1270 1987-07-12
BRAIDWOOD-2 PWR BRAIDWOOD 1160 1230 1988-05-25
BROWNS BWR DECATUR 1101 1155 1973-10-15
FERRY-1
BROWNS BWR DECATUR 1104 1155 1974-08-28
FERRY-2
BROWNS BWR DECATUR 1105 1155 1976-09-12
FERRY-3
BRUNSWICK-1 BWR SOUTHPORT 938 990 1976-12-04
BRUNSWICK-2 BWR SOUTHPORT 920 960 1975-04-29
BYRON-1 PWR BYRON 1164 1242 1985-03-01
BYRON-2 PWR BYRON 1136 1210 1987-02-06
CALLAWAY-1 PWR FULTON 1215 1275 1984-10-24
CALVERT PWR LUSBY 866 918 1975-01-03
CLIFFS-1
CALVERT PWR LUSBY 850 911 1976-12-07
CLIFFS-2
CATAWBA-1 PWR YORK 1146 1188 1985-01-22
COUNTY
CATAWBA-2 PWR YORK 1146 1188 1986-05-18
COUNTY
CLINTON-1 BWR HART 1065 1098 1987-04-24
TOWNSHIP
COLUMBIA BWR BENTON 1107 1190 1984-05-27
COMANCHE PWR GLEN ROSE 1218 1259 1990-04-24
PEAK-1
COMANCHE PWR GLEN ROSE 1207 1250 1993-04-09
PEAK-2
COOK-1 PWR BRIDGMAN 1045 1100 1975-02-10
COOK-2 PWR BRIDGMAN 1107 1151 1978-03-22
COOPER BWR BROWNVILLE 768 801 1974-05-10
DAVIS BESSE-1 PWR OTTAWA 894 925 1977-08-28
(continued)
3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular … 127

Table 3.1 (continued)

Name Type Location Reference Gross First grid
unit power electrical connection
(MW) capacity
(MW)
DIABLO PWR AVILA BEACH 1138 1197 1984-11-11
CANYON-1
DIABLO PWR AVILA BEACH 1118 1197 1985-10-20
CANYON-2
DRESDEN-2 BWR MORRIS 894 950 1970-04-13
DRESDEN-3 BWR MORRIS 879 935 1971-07-22
DUANE BWR PALO 601 624 1974-05-19
ARNOLD-1
FARLEY-1 PWR DOTHAN 874 918 1977-08-18
FARLEY-2 PWR DOTHAN 883 928 1981-05-25
FERMI-2 BWR LAGOONA 1122 1198 1986-09-21
BEACH
FITZPATRICK BWR OSWEGO 813 849 1975-02-01
FORT PWR FORT 482 512 1973-08-25
CALHOUN-1 CALHOUN
GINNA PWR ONTARIO 580 608 1969-12-02
GRAND GULF-1 BWR PORT GIBSON 1419 1500 1984-10-20
HARRIS-1 PWR NEW HILL 928 960 1987-01-19
HATCH-1 BWR BAXLEY 876 911 1974-11-11
HATCH-2 BWR BAXLEY 883 921 1978-09-22
HOPE CREEK-1 BWR SALEM 1172 1240 1986-08-01
INDIAN POINT-2 PWR BUCHANAN 1020 1067 1973-06-26
INDIAN POINT-3 PWR BUCHANAN 1040 1085 1976-04-27
LASALLE-1 BWR MARSEILLES 1137 1207 1982-09-04
LASALLE-2 BWR MARSEILLES 1140 1207 1984-04-20
LIMERICK-1 BWR LIMERICK 1130 1194 1985-04-13
LIMERICK-2 BWR LIMERICK 1134 1194 1989-09-01
MCGUIRE-1 PWR CORNELIUS 1160 1215 1981-09-12
MCGUIRE-2 PWR CORNELIUS 1158 1215 1983-05-23
MILLSTONE-2 PWR WATERFORD 869 918 1975-11-09
MILLSTONE-3 PWR WATERFORD 1229 1280 1986-02-12
MONTICELLO BWR MONTICELLO 647 691 1971-03-05
NINE MILE BWR SCRIBA 613 642 1969-11-09
POINT-1
NINE MILE BWR SCRIBA 1277 1320 1987-08-08
POINT-2
NORTH ANNA-1 PWR MINERAL 948 990 1978-04-17
NORTH ANNA-2 PWR MINERAL 943 1011 1980-08-25
(continued)
128 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

Table 3.1 (continued)

Name Type Location Reference Gross First grid
unit power electrical connection
(MW) capacity
(MW)
OCONEE-1 PWR OCONEE 846 891 1973-05-06
OCONEE-2 PWR OCONEE 848 891 1973-12-05
OCONEE-3 PWR OCONEE 859 900 1974-09-18
OYSTER CREEK BWR FORKED 619 652 1969-09-23
RIVER
PALISADES PWR SOUTH HAVEN 805 850 1971-12-31
PALO VERDE-1 PWR WINTERSBURG 1311 1414 1985-06-10
PALO VERDE-2 PWR WINTERSBURG 1314 1414 1986-05-20
PALO VERDE-3 PWR WINTERSBURG 1312 1414 1987-11-28
PEACH BWR YORK 1308 1412 1974-02-18
BOTTOM-2 COUNTY
PEACH BWR YORK 1308 1412 1974-09-01
BOTTOM-3 COUNTY
PERRY-1 BWR PERRY 1256 1303 1986-12-19
PILGRIM-1 BWR PLYMOUTH 677 711 1972-07-19
POINT BEACH-1 PWR TWO CREEKS 591 640 1970-11-06
POINT BEACH-2 PWR TWO CREEKS 591 640 1972-08-02
PRAIRIE PWR RED WING 522 566 1973-12-04
ISLAND-1
PRAIRIE PWR RED WING 518 560 1974-12-21
ISLAND-2
QUAD CITIES-1 BWR CORDOVA 908 940 1972-04-12
QUAD CITIES-2 BWR CORDOVA 911 940 1972-05-23
RIVER BEND-1 BWR ST. 967 1016 1985-12-03
FRANCISVILLE
ROBINSON-2 PWR HARTSVILLE 741 780 1970-09-26
SALEM-1 PWR SALEM 1169 1254 1976-12-25
SALEM-2 PWR SALEM 1158 1200 1981-06-03
SEABROOK-1 PWR SEABROOK 1246 1296 1990-05-29
SEQUOYAH-1 PWR DAISY 1152 1221 1980-07-22
SEQUOYAH-2 PWR DAISY 1125 1200 1981-12-23
SOUTH TEXAS-1 PWR BAY CITY 1280 1354 1988-03-30
SOUTH TEXAS-2 PWR BAY CITY 1280 1354 1989-04-11
ST. LUCIE-1 PWR FORT PIERCE 982 1045 1976-05-07
ST. LUCIE-2 PWR FORT PIERCE 987 1050 1983-06-13
SUMMER-1 PWR JENKINSVILLE 971 1006 1982-11-16
SURRY-1 PWR GRAVEL NECK 838 890 1972-07-04
SURRY-2 PWR GRAVEL NECK 838 890 1973-03-10
(continued)
3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular … 129

Table 3.1 (continued)

Name Type Location Reference Gross First grid
unit power electrical connection
(MW) capacity
(MW)
SUSQUEHANNA-1 BWR SALEM 1257 1330 1982-11-16
SUSQUEHANNA-2 BWR SALEM 1257 1330 1984-07-03
THREE MILE PWR DAUPHIN 819 880 1974-06-19
ISLAND-1
TURKEY POINT-3 PWR FLORIDA CITY 802 829 1972-11-02
TURKEY POINT-4 PWR FLORIDA CITY 802 829 1973-06-21
VOGTLE-1 PWR WAYNESBORO 1150 1229 1987-03-27
VOGTLE-2 PWR WAYNESBORO 1152 1229 1989-04-10
WATERFORD-3 PWR TAFT 1168 1250 1985-03-18
WATTS BAR-1 PWR SPRING CITY 1123 1210 1996-02-06
WOLF CREEK PWR BURLINGTON 1200 1285 1985-06-12
Total: 99 units
Net capacity: 99,185 MW; Units under construction: 5, with a net capacity of 5633 MW
Source IAEA-PRIS (2016) (April)

Fig. 3.1 Location of nuclear power plants in operation in the U.S. Source NRC

As most nuclear power reactors began construction in the 1960s and the 1970s,
they are concentrated in the eastern half of the country (reflecting population
concentrations of the time). Only six units are located in the western part of the
country.
130 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

Table 3.2 Nuclear power reactors retired or to be retired during the period 2013–2015
Reactor Capacity (MW) Retirement year
SONGS 2 1070 2013
SONGS 3 1080 2013
Kewaunee 566 2013
Crystal River 860 2013
Vermont Yankee 612 2014
Fort Calhoun 478 2016
James A. Fitzpatrick 837 2017
Clinton 1065 2017
Quad Cities 1 908 2018
Quad Cities 2 911 2018
Pilgrim 682 2019
Oyster Creek 615 2019
Diablo Canyon 1 1122 2024
Diablo Canyon 2 1118 2025
Total 11,924
Source Compiled from different sources

Although several nuclear power reactors originally suffered severe cost and time
overruns, the capital expenditures for these units have largely been paid off. Many
of them are now approaching the end of their original 40-year licensing period and
now require re-licensing, if they wish to continue operations for an additional
20 years. According to U.S. source, 14 nuclear power reactors are going to be
retired within the period 2013–2025 (see Table 3.2).
In total, almost 12 GW of nuclear power reactors have either retired or plan to
retire soon, representing approximately 12% of U.S. nuclear capacity at the
beginning of 2011. From a climate change perspective, the closure of nuclear power
plants constitutes a major threat to U.S. carbon reduction goals under both the
Clean Power Plan and the U.S.’s international commitment at the Paris climate
accord.
In addition, existing nuclear power plants face two major challenges: In the
short-term, electricity market design, low natural gas prices, and a lack of effective
climate policy pose significant obstacles for the extension of the operational life of a
large portion of the current nuclear power plants; in the long-term, market impacts
from high penetrations of renewables,2 increasing age of the U.S. nuclear power

2
Dramatic cost declines and corresponding growth in solar and wind energy are threatening to
upend the economics of even the most cost efficient nuclear power plants. According to
Bloomberg (2016), it expects wind and solar to become the cheapest ways of producing electricity
in many countries during the 2020s and in most of the world in the 2030s. It sees onshore wind
costs falling by 41% and solar PV costs dropping by 60% by 2040. Wind and solar will account
for 64% of the 8.6 TW of new generating capacity added over the next 25 years, and for almost
60% of the $11.4 trillion invested, it says.
3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular … 131

plants, and the need for an increasingly flexible system threaten the economics of
almost all remaining nuclear power reactors.
Overall, nuclear power plants are some of the largest individual power plants in
the country. The smallest nuclear power reactor in the country has a capacity of
478 MW, larger than most natural gas or coal units. While some nuclear power
plants consist of only a single reactor, most nuclear power plants have two reactors
while several have three. The largest nuclear power plant in the country, the
three-reactor 4.2 GW Palo Verde nuclear generating plant, is the second largest
power plant in the entire country.

3.2.3 Types of Small Modular Reactors Under Development

in the United States

In the U.S., the SMR concepts included the following types of reactors (See
Table 3.3).3
The DoE is funding with US$452 million during the next five years, two out of
the six U.S. competing SMRs included in Table 3.3. The first project to gain
backing in the programme is on the Clinch River at the abandoned fast breeder
reactor site, where the Tennessee Valley Authority, the largest public utility in the
U.S., has partnered with engineering firm Babcock & Wilcox to build two prototype
SMRs by 2022. Undoubtedly, SMRs are “a very promising direction that we need
to pursue,” said former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz at his confirmation
hearing in the U.S. Congress. “I would say it is where the most innovation is going
on in nuclear energy.”

Table 3.3 Types of SMRs under development in the U.S.

Design Company Type Modules Total plant Total capital cost
per plant output (MWe) (US$ millions)
mPower Babcock & LWR 2 360 1800
Wilcox
NuScale NuScale Power LWR 12 540 2500
Inc.
W-SMR Westinghouse LWR 1 225 1013
SMR-160 Holtec LWR 1 160 800
HPM Hyperion/Gen4 LMR 1 25 100
PRISM GE-Hitachi LMR 4 1244 3200
Source Presentation of Jonathan Hinze, Senior Vice President, International, 5th Annual SMR
Summit, April 2015

3
The only SMR reactors under construction in 2014 were CAREM in Argentina, HTR-PM in
China and the twin barge-mounted KLT-40S in Russia (Akademik Lomonosov), planned to be
located near Vilyuchinsk (Carelli and Ingesoll 2015).
132 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

In the first U.S. government-backed SMR effort, Babcock & Wilcox’s nuclear
energy subsidiary, B&W mPower, is developing a 180-MW SMR prototype.4
Proponents of this type of nuclear power reactor believe a fleet of bite-size reactors
might have a better chance of getting built than a conventional large nuclear power
reactor.5 Although existing nuclear power reactors (thanks to their cheap fuel)
currently provide electricity at lower cost than coal or natural gas plants, building a
brand new big nuclear power plant is costly6 and most of them with great delay in
the construction phase. It is important to highlight that none of the above types of
SMRs under development in the U.S. is ready for deployment before 2022–2025.
The following are the main criteria that the U.S. is using to support the future use
of SMRs for electricity generation in the country:
1. Economic affordability
• Lower up-front capital cost;
• Better financing options;
2. Load demand
• Better match to power needs;
• Incremental capacity for regions with low growth rate;
• Allows shorter range planning;
3. Site requirements
• Lower land and water usage;
• Replacement for aging fossil power plants;
• Potentially more robust nuclear power reactor designs;

4
For additional information of this type of nuclear power reactor see Chap. 2.
5
Proposals for 30 new nuclear power reactors have been advanced by U.S. energy utilities in recent
years; more than half of these have been withdrawn to date. A large nuclear power plant carries
another big financial risk; what if there’s not enough demand for all that power? (Ferguson 2013).
6
Bob Rosner, a nuclear energy expert at the University of Chicago, agreed that the price of a new
nuclear plant—which can be around US$20 billion—is one that only a handful of energy com-
panies can currently afford (Ferguson 2013). Actual information on large conventional nuclear
power reactors under construction (in western countries) gives evidence of relevant time-schedule
and cost overruns. It must be highlighted that this comparison applies on SMR versus large nuclear
power plant expected costs. This means that capital cost overruns, which seem to systematically
affect actual costs of large nuclear power plant projects, are not considered. When actual costs of
construction are considered, it is expected that SMRs might have better control on construction
schedule and costs, and higher probability to meet capital budgeting. The main assumption is that,
the simpler the design, the easier the procurement, manufacturing and assembling process and the
project management. Projected cost and the lead time of the new projects under construction in
Europe or under construction in the U.S., have all been dramatically revised upwards, with a rate
of increase per year of delay in the plant commissioning in excess of 20% (Carelli and Ingesoll
2015).
3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular … 133

4. Grid stability
• Closer match to traditional power generators;
• Smaller fraction of total grid capacity;
• Potential to offset variability from renewables.

3.2.4 The Commercialisation Programme of Small Modular

Reactor Technology in the United States

While many SMR technologies are being studied around the world, a strong U.S.
commercialisation programme can enable the U.S. industry to be one of the first to
market SMRs, thereby serving as a pivot for export growth, as well as a lever in
influencing international decisions on deploying both nuclear power reactors and
nuclear fuel cycle technology. All of this would enable the U.S. to recapture
technological leadership in commercial nuclear technology, which has been lost to
suppliers in France, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russia and, now rapidly emerging,
China.7
The domestic development of the nuclear sector includes an established DoE
cost-share funding programme, a tax credit for advanced manufacturing that
reduces emissions, and government facilities utilising SMRs through power pur-
chase agreements. These three options will greatly enhance the chances for com-
mercialisation success by increasing the initial cost competitiveness and assisting in
licensing issues. These policies will not only benefit the recipients of the funds, but
will also benefit future SMRs vendors due to resolution of licensing issues and
other lessons learned through operation. They will also allow government agencies
to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases (Kurth 2013).
While U.S. nuclear supply companies have not been involved in the construction
of new nuclear power reactors in the country since 1978, the same U.S. companies
as well as companies from other countries have been involved in the construction of
nuclear power plants abroad. The development of a robust domestic SMR com-
mercial enterprise will bring many benefits to the economy, the environment, and
the safety and security of the U.S.8 The reduced capital costs, shorter construction

7
There are four integral pressurised water SMRs now under development in the U.S.: Babcock &
Wilcox’s mPower; NuScale; SMR-160; and the Westinghouse SMR. It is projected that around the
year 2035, China will have surpassed America in nuclear energy consumption. According to Kurth
(2013), China is projected to have increased its nuclear energy consumption over 800 billion kWh
by 2035, equivalent to the entire current output of American nuclear power. In 2015, the U.S.
nuclear electricity generated by its nuclear power plants reached 797,178.00 GWh or 19.5% of the
total electricity generated by the country in that year (IAEA-PRIS 2016).
8
U.S. designed SMRs have considered the issues of transporting large reactor components between
factory and site. But they do not appear to have considered offsite manufacture and transport of the
rest of the plant so thoroughly. Also, the transport system in the U.S. with its many wide rivers and
134 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

times, and less strenuous grid requirements will allow more utilities to include
nuclear energy in their portfolio, increasing energy diversity and reduction of
greenhouse gases that are prevalent in oil, coal, and natural gas usage. In general, it
can be said that SMRs could significantly mitigate the financial risk associated with
the construction of large nuclear power plants, potentially allowing small units to
compete effectively with other energy sources in many countries, including the U.S.
However, it is important to highlight that nuclear power’s prospects of achieving
its rightful place in the world’s energy provision are very limited unless the nuclear
industry and its supporters win the economic battle. It was also argued that eco-
nomic salvation cannot be achieved without the industry building many standard-
ised and simple nuclear power reactor designs, preferably with several units on each
site.
What can be done to overcome the problems that the U.S. nuclear industry has
with the aim of expanding the nuclear market in the country? According to the U.S.
government, the country is projected to increase its nuclear energy consumption by
approximately 68 billion kWh by 2035 (Analysis and Projections, EIA 2013).
Using the assumption that a 100 MW SMR will be built and operates at 85%
capacity, this leads to approximately 91 SMRs to be constructed during the coming
decades to fulfill this gap. Regrettably, the current nuclear power programme in the
USA is far from reaching this level of construction of this large number of SMRs.
The following are three special market opportunities that may provide the
additional market pull needed to successfully commercialise SMRs in the U.S.:
• The federal government;
• International applications;
• The need for replacement of existing coal generation power plants.
The federal government is the largest single consumer of electricity in the U.S.,
but its use of electricity is widely dispersed geographically and highly fragmented
institutionally (i.e., many suppliers and customers). Current federal electricity
procurement policies do not encourage aggregation of the demand, nor do they
allow for agencies to enter long-term contracts that are acceptable by suppliers. In
addition, federal agencies are required to review and modify electricity purchases to
comply with Executive Order 13154 issued by former President Obama on October
5, 2009. The Executive Order calls for reductions in greenhouse gases by all federal
agencies, with DoE establishing a target of a 28% reduction by 2020, including
greenhouse gases associated with purchased electricity. Without any doubt, SMRs
provide an excellent source to meet the President’s Executive Order in addition to
the adoption of others relevant measures.
Regarding international applications previous studies have documented the
potential for a significant export market for SMRs produced in the U.S., mainly for

(Footnote 8 continued)
generous gauge rail systems is not replicated elsewhere. If SMRs are to access wider global
markets, then other transport considerations need to be assessed (Roulstone 2015).
3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular … 135

developed countries that do not have in some regions the demand or the necessary
infrastructure to accommodate GW-scale LWRs. Clearly substantial upgrades in all
facets of infrastructure requirements, particularly in the safety and security areas,
would have to be made. In addition, to the above it is important that the U.S. offers
a good financial scheme in order to provide the necessary resources to carry out this
important investment not only for the construction of new SMRs inside the country,
but in other countries as well. However, it is important to note that, according to
Rosner et al. (2011), studies performed by Argonne National Laboratory suggest
that SMRs would appear to be a feasible power option for countries that have grid
capacity of 2000–3000 MWe, and this positive factor should be in the mind of the
U.S. nuclear industry representatives when considering the construction of this type
of reactor in some countries.
Respect to the need for replacement of existing coal generation power plants,
SMRs have the potential to replace existing coal generation power plants that may
be retired in light of pending environmental regulations. Several industry studies as
well as recent EIA analysis indicate the potential for retirement of 50–100 GWe of
existing coal generation units in the U.S. These units are older, smaller (i.e., less
than 500 MWe), and less energy efficient than most of the existing coal power plant
fleet currently in operation in the country, and lack the environmental controls
needed to meet emerging air and water quality, and coal-ash management
requirements. Many of these plants could be retired by 2020 (Rosner et al. 2011).
This situation is a good business opportunity for the U.S. nuclear industry for the
coming decades.
Undoubtedly, a commercialisation of SMRs in the U.S. will produce many
beneficial attributes that affect the environment, the economy, and the safety and
security of the country in a positive way. SMRs provide a great alternative to more
carbon intensive energy sources and provide a way to influence foreign countries to
use less carbon emitting technology. The commercialisation effort, with an
emphasis on export, will be able to positively affect nonproliferation efforts through
enhanced relations and the adoption of the U.S. standards through its technology.
These excellent reasons explain the advantages to ensuring the U.S. has a place
among the world’s SMR producers.

3.2.5 Financing of Small Modular Reactors in the United

States

Another important element associated with SMRs is the one related to their
financing. As the cost of individual SMRs are much less than current GW con-
ventional nuclear power units (around US$1 billion vs. US$5–8 billion for large
nuclear power plant), nuclear power plants comprising several SMRs are expected
to have a lower capital and production cost in comparison to one of these larger
nuclear power plants.
136 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

But any individual SMR unit within that nuclear power plant should potentially
have a funding profile and flexibility otherwise impossible with larger nuclear
power plants. As one unit is finished and starts producing electricity, it will generate
positive cash flow for the next unit to be built. Westinghouse estimated that
1000 MWe delivered by three IRIS units (SMRs) built at three year intervals
financed at 10% for ten years require a maximum negative cash flow of less than
US$700 million (compared with about three times that for a single 1000 MWe
unit). For developed countries, small modular units offer the opportunity of building
as necessary; for most of developing countries, it may be the only option for the use
of nuclear energy for electricity generation, because their electric grids cannot take
units of 1000 MWe of capacity, and the cost of large nuclear power plants are too
high that cannot be afforded by most of these countries.
In the specific case of the U.S., the use of SMRs could be a good opportunity to
expand the U.S. current nuclear power programme during the coming decades, and
to continue the use of this type of energy source for electricity generation at a
rational cost. The low initial capital investment and the reduction in the construction
time could be two important elements that could facilitate the recovering of the U.S.
nuclear industry: This possibility will also help the country to reduce significantly
the use of other conventional energy source for electricity generation, and the
emission of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere. It is important to highlight that the
U.S. is one of the most pollute country on the Earth.

3.2.6 Market Perspective of the Small Modular Reactors

in the United States

Despite what has been said above, and due to the lack of a clear government nuclear
policy supporting the use of this type of energy source for electricity generation, the
U.S. market perspective for SMRs are not yet strong enough to be considered by the
U.S. and by foreign nuclear and investment companies as a good business
investment opportunity. For this reason, SMRs must find a viable marketplace in
domestic markets, if this type of reactors would like to play an important role in the
country future energy mix.
One potential marketplace is the replacement of old coal power plants that are
retiring or close to be retired. Environmentalists are actively pursuing the closure of
coal power plants and have been relatively successful with as many as 147 planned
retirements and a goal of 375 more to be closed in the coming years (Sierra Club
2013). Coal power plants are also subject to other disadvantages, which include
modest demand growth, relative fuel prices, availability of highly efficient natural
gas combined-cycle power plants that are not fully utilised, and environmental
compliance costs. These older coal power plants that are facing retirement tend to
be smaller, around 150 MWe, and older, around 56 years old (U.S. Energy
Information Administration 2013).
3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular … 137

Another potential domestic market for SMRs is in remote locations. Remote

locations have characteristics that are well suited for SMRs. They do not have the
large energy demands that are necessary for large nuclear power plants, and at the
same time do not have the grid capabilities or infrastructure to support this type of
power plants. Remote locations also rarely have gas pipelines for natural gas usage.
Remote locations generally have high energy prices, due to lack of natural resources
and a dependence upon imported diesel fuel or other type of energy source.
Finally, another domestic market is high security facilities in need of grid iso-
lation. The Department of Defense has recognised that military bases depend upon
the civilian grid, which is vulnerable to external threat. SMRs have the potential to
reduce that vulnerability by creating an ‘island’ grid and can also aide in
former President Obama’s intended goal of reducing government emissions of
greenhouse gases (President Obama, 2013).
In summary, SMRs fill many niche market needs. These are the following:
• Modular nuclear capacity expansion (small bites off the apple);
• New countries/utilities with smaller grids/power needs;
• Replacement of aging coal/oil-fired power plants;
• Back-up power integrated with renewables;
• Remote sites/Military installations;
• Process heat applications/Desalination.

3.2.7 The Need of Small Modular Reactors in the United

States

An important area of potential domestic SMR deployment is the overall growing U.

S. market and its need for additional generating capacity. The U.S. is projected to
increase its nuclear energy consumption by approximately 68 billion kilowatt-hours
by 2035 (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2013) as a result of the closure of
several old coal power plants. Using the assumption that a 100 MW SMR is built
and operates at 85% capacity, this leads to approximately 91 SMRs fulfilling this
gap. However, the lack of sufficient funds to support the development of prototypes
of different SMRs now under research and development, and a lack of a clear
government nuclear energy policy, are making more difficult any recovery for the
U.S. nuclear industry and the closure of the abovementioned gap.
The other set of issues surrounding the domestic development of SMRs concerns
the initial phase of deployment and exactly how they will fit into the marketplace.
As mentioned, there are several markets that could utilise SMRs, and each has its
own set of issues. The general domestic market for nuclear energy is a relatively flat
and slow growth over the development and deployment period of SMRs (U.S.
Energy Information Administration 2013). It will be largely dictated by the
domestic price of natural gas which currently is very low. Nuclear and all other
138 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

energy source cannot compete with the low cost of natural gas at the moment.
However, natural gas prices are volatile and subject to possible carbon legislation,
which nuclear and other renewables are not (Rosner et al. 2011).
It will be necessary to determine what cost society is willing to pay for cleaner
energy and how much energy utilities value energy diversification. Under optimal
scenarios, higher natural gas prices and clean energy pricing, SMRs will be com-
petitive (Rosner et al. 2011). However, the U.S. does not have a strong recent
record of building new nuclear power plants. The year 2012 was the first time a
general commercial nuclear power reactor was authorised to be built in over
30 years. It is this combination of uncertainty and history that would suggest this
market potential is not ideal.
For sure, nuclear energy has many promising benefits to help the U.S. reduce its
environmental impact from electricity generation. Nuclear energy while providing
approximately 19% of the country electricity, accounted for producing 64% of the
U.S. emission free electricity generation (Nuclear Energy Institute 2013). This
energy output accounted for approximately 570 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide avoidance in the year 2012 (Kroodsma 2013).
On the other hand, and for SMRs to increase the probability of achieving a
robust commercialisation in the U.S., they must examine and exploit also inter-
national markets.9 There is competition of foreign vendors who are currently pur-
suing SMR technology and there is also the navigation through U.S. export laws.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration has projected that several countries
have nuclear energy consumption growth rates greater than their total energy
consumption growth rates, other than America, Australia, New Zealand, and the
Middle East (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2013). It is important to
highlight that, in the case of the U.S., the international market shows a much
stronger case for nuclear development than domestic potential and the trend is to
keep this situation without change during the coming years.
Finally, it is important to highlight the following: In the U.S., recent attention
has focused on SMR designs that have the most in common with the current
generation of nuclear power reactor technology. The class of SMRs called “integral
pressurised water reactors” (iPWRs)10 is regarded as the least risky regarding

9
In the case of the international market it is important to highlight the following: There are four
separate American government agencies that are involved in the nuclear export process. The
process is difficult to navigate due to the multiple agencies involved. It also is opaque at times due
to the DoE’s lack of a modern application system, which would allow real time tracking. It is
inefficient, which results in long approval times, and it is more restrictive in its controls than many
other foreign counterparts. The inefficiencies stem from the multiple agencies involved, which can
create communication and coordination errors between agencies. There is also a lack of dedicated
staff in the DoE’s National Nuclear Security Administration. The staff currently is comprised of
three individuals who also have other responsibilities (Glasgow et al. 2016).
10
The “integral” in iPWR refers to the characteristic that certain systems, structures, and com-
ponents (SSCs)—notably the steam generators, control rod drive mechanisms, and pressuriser—
are integrated into the reactor pressure vessel containing the nuclear fuel. In current-generation
large PWRs, such SSCs are external to the pressure vessel. There is no technical reason that would
3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular … 139

development, licensing, and commercial deployment, even though they still have
many unique attributes that will require careful analysis (Lyman 2013). This cri-
terion could limit the possibility of the use of other types of SMRs currently under
research and development for electricity generation during the coming years.

3.2.8 Public Opinion Regarding the Use of Nuclear Energy

for Electricity Generation in the United States

Public opinion regarding the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation in the
U.S. has generally been positive, and has grown more so as people have had to
think about security of energy supplies and climate change. Different polls carried
out in recent years in the U.S. show continuing increase in public opinion favorable
to the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation in the country. More than
three times as many strongly support the use of nuclear energy for electricity
generation than strongly oppose it. Two-thirds of self-described environmentalists
favor it.
A May 2008 survey carried out by Zogby International showed 67% of
Americans favored building new nuclear power plants, with 46% registering strong
support; 23% were opposed (Zogby International 2008). Asked which kind of
power plant they would prefer if it were sited in their community, 43% said a
nuclear power plant, 26% a gas power plant, and 8% a coal power plant. Men
(60%) were more than twice as likely as women (28%) to be supportive of the
construction of a nuclear power plant.
A series of Bisconti-GfK Roper surveys carried out since 2010 showed that
strong public support for the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation was
being sustained, with about two-thirds of people in favor of it, half of these strongly
so. Over 80% think that the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation will be
important in meeting electricity needs in the years ahead, support license renewal
for nuclear power plants currently in operation, and believe utilities should prepare
to build more of this type of power plants. About three-quarters agree that U.S.

(Footnote 10 continued)
prevent designers from integrating the SSCs into the pressure vessels of large PWRs. However,
such hypothetical large integral pressure vessels would not be compatible with factory production
because they would be too heavy to transport to reactor sites (using current methods), and therefore
would have to be built on site. The integral design of small iPWRs has advantages and
disadvantages. A potential safety benefit is that the design eliminates large-diameter piping outside
of the reactor vessel, thus eliminating the possibility of a large-break loss-of-coolant accident from
a ruptured pipe. (Such accidents are relatively low-probability events, so the reduction in overall
risk may not be very significant). Of concern, incorporating the steam generators into the same
space as the reactor core requires compact and sometimes novel geometries, such as helical coils.
That increases the intensity of the radioactive environment in which the generators must operate,
and could affect such issues as corrosion and also make the generators much more difficult to
inspect and repair (Lyman 2013).
140 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

nuclear power plants are safe and secure, and would support adding a new unit at
the nearest nuclear power plant. Most respondents gave reliability, affordability and
clean air top importance for electricity production, and strongly associate nuclear
energy with those attributes.
In September 2013, among eight considerations for the way electricity is pro-
duced, 82% gave top importance to reliability and 82% also to clean air. Large
majorities also gave top importance to affordability (78%), efficiency (76%), energy
independence (73%), job creation (67%), and economic growth (65%). Only 51%
gave top importance to climate change solution as a consideration in electricity
generation. Internationally, 75% thought that the U.S. nuclear industry should play
a leading role in world markets.
A more general March 2010 Gallup poll on energy showed 62% in favor of
using nuclear energy for electricity generation, including 28% strongly so, and 33%
against, the most favorable figures since Gallup began polling the question in 1994.
An early March 2011 Gallup poll just before the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
accident showed 57% in favor and 38% against, and in March 2012 still 57% were
in favor with 40% against (men: 72–27%, women 42–51%).
There was a temporary reduction in support for a year or so after the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear accident, but a September 2011 Bisconti-GfK Roper survey found
that 82% of Americans believed that lessons had been learned from Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear accident and 67% of respondents considered U.S. nuclear power
plants safe (the same level as reported one month before the nuclear accident
occurred). Also 85% of said that an extension of commercial operation should be
granted to those nuclear power plants that comply with federal safety standards, and
59% believed that more nuclear power plants should be built in the future with the
purpose of reducing the participation of coal in the energy mix of the country.
A Bisconti-Quest poll carried out in March 2014 highlighted that 94% of
Americans favored a diversified electricity mix, and 74% said nuclear energy will
be important in the years ahead. In ranking attributes of electricity supply, 83%
nominated reliability, 80% clean air, 77% affordability and 76% efficiency. Overall
63% favored nuclear power as a source of U.S. electricity and 34% opposed it, the
positive figure being a 6% drop from September 2013. In October 2014, 61%
believed that more nuclear plants should be built in the future.
A March 2015 Bisconti-Quest poll showed 68% in favor to the use of nuclear
energy for electricity generation with 30% opposed, 78% considered nuclear energy
important for the future, 83% said reliability and 82% clean air attributes were of
top importance. Also 79% agreed that U.S. nuclear power plants were safe and
secure. Regarding energy diversity, 96% said it was important to maintain this.
Another March 2015 poll carried out by Gallup showed that some 51% of U.S.
citizens favor the use of nuclear energy for the country’s electricity generation, with
43% opposing it. The pro-nuclear figure was slightly down on the 53% recorded by
Gallup in 2013, with the percentage opposing nuclear unchanged. Support peaked
at 62% in 2010 and Gallup describes current support as “on the low end” of its
findings over the past 20 years: only the 46% support recorded in 2001 was lower.
3.2 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small Modular … 141

A September 2015 poll by Bisconti showed 64% of Americans were in favor of

the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation and 33% opposed. Nuclear
energy was well recognised among the 83% supporting low-carbon energy sources,
and 73% associated it with clean air. After a factual prompt, 84% said nuclear
energy should be more important in the future. Other figures were in line with
previous surveys.
A January 2016 major poll carried out by the University of Texas on energy
questions showed an increase in support for nuclear power from 2015, to 39%
support compared with 26% opposing and 35% ambivalent or unsure. A March
2016 Gallup poll focused on environmental hazards showed a decrease in support,
54% opposing and 44% supporting the use of nuclear energy for electricity gen-
eration. This compared with its 2015 figures of 51% support and 43% against.
Gallup considered that reduced concern about energy security accounted for the
change.
Finally, a March-April poll by Bisconti-Quest showed that only one-fifth felt
well-informed about nuclear energy and among these 75% were in favor of it and
18% against. After learning that nuclear energy is the only large-scale source of
clean air energy, 86% said it should be an important energy source in the future.
This included 59% of respondents who initially said they oppose to the use of
nuclear energy for electricity generation. Overall 82% supported taking advantage
of all low-carbon energy sources, 69% agreed that nuclear power plants operating in
the U.S. are safe and secure, and 82% supported license renewal of plants con-
tinuing to meet safety standards.

3.3 Canada

3.3.1 Current Nuclear Power Plants Operating in Canada

Canada currently operates 19 CANDU power reactors at four different provinces,

providing around 16.60% of national electricity output in 2015. Table 3.4 includes
all nuclear power reactors operating in Canada in 2016.
The sites of the nuclear power plants currently operating in Canada is shown in
Fig. 3.2.
In Canada, there is only one type of nuclear power reactor operating for the
electricity generation, the so-called “CANDU reactor”, which is a PHWR type .11
Undoubtedly, nuclear power is an important energy source in Ontario’s industrial
heartland and supplies over half the province’s electricity (in 2015 around 60% of
the total electricity generated in the province) (Ontario Power Generation 2016).

11
CANDU reactors are moderated and cooled by heavy water; the moderator and coolant are in
separate circuits.
142 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

Table 3.4 Nuclear power reactors operating in Canada in 2016

Reactors
Name Type Status Location Reference Gross First Grid
Unit Electrical Connection
Power Capacity
[MW] [MW]
BRUCE-1 PHWR Operational TIVERTON 760 830 1977-01-14
BRUCE-2 PHWR Operational TIVERTON 730 800 1976-09-04
BRUCE-3 PHWR Operational TIVERTON 750 830 1977-12-12
BRUCE-4 PHWR Operational TIVERTON 750 830 1978-12-21
BRUCE-5 PHWR Operational TIVERTON 817 872 1984-12-02
BRUCE-6 PHWR Operational TIVERTON 817 891 1984-06-26
BRUCE-7 PHWR Operational TIVERTON 817 872 1986-02-22
BRUCE-8 PHWR Operational TIVERTON 817 872 1987-03-09
DARLINGTON-1 PHWR Operational TOWN OF 878 934 1990-12-19
NEWCASTLE
DARLINGTON-2 PHWR Operational TOWN OF 878 934 1990-01-15
NEWCASTLE
DARLINGTON-3 PHWR Operational TOWN OF 878 934 1992-12-07
NEWCASTLE
DARLINGTON-4 PHWR Operational TOWN OF 878 934 1993-04-17
NEWCASTLE
PICKERING-1 PHWR Operational PICKERING 515 542 1971-04-04
PICKERING-4 PHWR Operational PICKERING 515 542 1973-05-21
PICKERING-5 PHWR Operational PICKERING 516 540 1982-12-19
PICKERING-6 PHWR Operational PICKERING 516 540 1983-11-08
PICKERING-7 PHWR Operational PICKERING 516 540 1984-11-17
PICKERING-8 PHWR Operational PICKERING 516 540 1986-01-21
POINT PHWR Operational SAINT JOHN 660 705 1982-09-11
LEPREAU
TOTAL 19 13,524 14,482
Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

Fig. 3.2 Sites of the Canadian nuclear power reactors. Source Canadian Nuclear Society
3.3 Canada 143

There are currently no nuclear power plants operating in Western Canada: The
British Columbia government has prohibited the use of nuclear energy for elec-
tricity generation and uranium mining (Bill 17—2010: Clean Energy Act 2010).12
Over the border, Alberta’s government is considering proposals to use nuclear
energy to help extract oil from the tar sands. However, it is unlikely a nuclear power
plant in the tar sands could come online before the decade is out (Daly 2013, and
WNA website 2016).13
In Canada, the energy mix is structured in the following manner: Hydroelectric
power provided 63% of output in 2014, while the use of coal-fired generation
represented 15% of output. Gas provided 4% of generation, wind farms 1%, and
diesel power is used in remote communities in the northern half of the country,
where winters are fiercely cold and access is challenging.
In 2015, nuclear energy provided 16.60% (98,374.97 GWh) of the total elec-
tricity produced in the country (592,755.75 GWh). According to WNA, there have
been proposals to build several nuclear power reactors to go into operation in the
next decade, but these have been deferred or have lapsed. Two nuclear power
reactors are planned in Ontario, one was proposed in New Brunswick and one (or
possibly four smaller units) were proposed in Alberta. Total capacity of the new
nuclear power reactors would have amounted to as much as 9 GWe.
According to Dr. Robert Walker, former President and CEO of Canadian
Nuclear Laboratories, a joint SMR development project between the public and
private sectors could eliminate the need for reliance on diesel fuel entirely in the
country’s northern region. SMR activity in the U.S. and UK has been supported by
federal government funding pledges and design competitions, aimed at accelerating
technology development and similar approach can be applied in Canada. For
example, in the case the Saskatchewan region annual electricity demand is expected
to nearly double over the next ten years and the province’s local uranium resources
make nuclear power a natural fit for its energy needs. Remote communities, mining
and oil/gas production sites, as well as government facilities are the three most
likely customers of remotely-deployed SMRs. Roger Humphries, director of SMR
Development for Amec Foster Wheeler, confirmed there is a promising market for
SMRs in northern Canada, where high energy prices in remote areas are subsidised
by the Canadian government.

12
The reason of this specific prohibition is that currently British Columbia hydroelectric power
plants satisfies almost 86% of the province's base-line electricity needs.
13
Why nuclear power? It is estimated that approximately 90% of the Alberta oil sands are too far
below the surface to use open-pit mining. Making liquid fuels from oil sands requires energy for
steam injection and refining. Mining oil sands is water intensive; Drilling one well consumes
5.5 acre-feet of water each year, and the production of one gallon of oil requires thirty-five gallons
of water (Daly 2013).
144 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

3.3.2 Type and Capacity of Small Modular Reactors to Be

Built in Canada

Potential SMR supply markets in Canada include remote off-grid applications,

where prices associated to diesel-fired power plants are high due to challenging
access, as well as higher consumption markets in more densely-populated areas.
Older nuclear power plants remain a key power generation source in the south-east
provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick.
What type of SMRs can be deployed in Canada in the future? Terrestrial Energy
plans to build a commercial Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR) in Canada in the
2020s before broader deployment in North America and beyond, and it had raised
US$7.1 million in Venture Capital for the development of its IMSR technology.14
These funds will be used to support engineering towards pre-construction and
pre-licensing applications of this type of reactor in the country (WNN 2016). ISMR
holds the greatest promise as an alternative to conventional energy sources
according to the opinion of Terrestrial Energy experts (Canadian Nuclear
Association 2015). Considering the paper entitled “Canada edges closer to SMR
build after VC funding deal (Nuclear Energy Insider 2016)”, the first ISMR com-
mercial power plant is being designed and engineered as a 400 MWth (192 MWe)
unit and the ISMR can be formulated in a range from 80 MWth (38.5 MWe) to
600 MWth (288.5 MWe). The smallest design, suitable for prototype models, could
be deployed to off-grid remote power applications, while the larger models would
be suitable for traditional on-grid power applications and competitive with fossil
fuels, according to company source.
Terrestrial Energy plans to commence the vendor design review pre-licensing
process, conducted by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), later this
year. As Terrestrial and other SMR technology developers work towards the crucial
design licensing steps, those participating in Canada are set to benefit from a
licensing framework, which is considered relatively supportive of new technology
development. Progress in U.S. and UK licensing process should also help build the
regulation in Canada. The company will become the first advanced reactor devel-
oper to enter the CNSC’s review process, which verifies, at a high level, the
acceptability of a nuclear power plant design with respect to Canadian nuclear
regulatory requirements, as well as Canadian codes and standards.

14
The IMSR represents true innovation in safety, cost, and functionality. It will offer safe and
reliable power solutions for electricity production, both on- and off-grid, and energy for industrial
process heat generation. These together extend the applicability of nuclear energy far beyond its
current footprint. With this profile, the IMSR is capable of driving the rapid global decarbonisation
of the primary energy system by displacing fossil fuel combustion across a broad front. It is
complementary to renewable power sources and ideal for distributed power systems on existing
grids. Using an innovative design and proven MSR technology, the IMSR can be brought to global
markets in the 2020s. Terrestrial Energy is currently developing its IMSR commercial demon-
stration power plant for deployment in Canada (Marketwired 2016).
3.3 Canada 145

On the other hand, and according to the energy situation within the country, it is
perhaps convenient to construct several SMRs with a capacity between 5 and
30 MWe in the northern part of the country, particularly in Canada’s remote mines
and communities within that region, and other several SMRs with a capacity
between 200 and 300 MWe in the southern part of Canada. It is important to
highlight that in Canada, the SMR industry is almost exclusively focused on niche
market applications, such as providing electricity and heat to a remote, off-grid
communities, and industrial facilities such as mines. Many of these remote com-
munities and mining operations currently rely on diesel power plants for most of
their electricity. Very small nuclear reactors are therefore expected to bring sig-
nificant environmental and economic benefits as a low greenhouse gas emission
alternative for electricity generation.15
Two provinces were identified to expand the use of nuclear power in Canada. In
late 2010, the Ontario provincial government released the revision its 20-year
energy plan (Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan 2010). The new Long-Term Energy
Plan envisages 12,000 MWe of nuclear capacity by 2030 out of a total installed
capacity of around 41,000 MWe (2010 total capacity: 35,000 MWe), or
48,000 MWe including conservation measures. This would be achieved by mod-
ernising the Darlington and Bruce units and building two new units at Darlington.
This level of nuclear capacity would account for 50% of Ontario’s electricity
supply. The 2010 energy plan projected US$33 billion capital expenditure on new
and refurbished nuclear capacity to 2030, the latter involving all the existing plants.
The total cost of the new plan came to around US$87 billion over the 20 years
covered by it. The plan called for an update in 2013, which deferred the new
construction due to reduced demand forecasts. Following the 2013 Long-Term
Energy Plan, in December 2015 Bruce Power and the Independent Electricity
System Operator agreed on long-term sales of 6300 MWe from Bruce, enabling a
major refurbishment programme to extend operating lives of units 3–8 by up to
35 years. Meanwhile, in 2014 the government closed the province’s last coal-fired
power plant (Nuclear Power in Canada 2016). The cost of electricity by energy
source in Ontario can be found in Table 3.5.

15
The mining industry in Canada is a significant contributor to the economy. It employs 418,000
workers and adds over US$50 billion to Canada’s GDP. At the same time, mining’s GHG
emissions and energy consumption account for 7.7 and 8.5% of Canadian industrial greenhouse
gases emissions and energy use. While the industry’s overall energy efficiency and greenhouse
gases emissions in mining have improved in the past 20 years, the fossil fuel consumption for
power generation is steadily growing at off-grid mining operations in Canada’s northern regions.
In 2013, a total of million liters of petroleum fuel was consumed for power generation at northern
off-grid mining operations, emitting 690,000 metric tons of CO2.
Canada is also home to 292 remote communities, with a total population of approximately
194,000 people, based on natural resources Canada estimates. Many of these communities are not
connected to grids and are powered instead by local diesel generators. The total remote diesel
generating capacity in these communities is 328 MW, consuming over 90 million liters of diesel
annually, and emitting 240,000 metric tons of CO2 and several other air contaminants in the
process (Gihm 2015).
146 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

Table 3.5 Cost of the electricity by type of energy source

Energy by source % of total supply (%) Total unit cost cents per kWh
Nuclear 58 6.8
Hydro 23 5.7
Gas 9 14.0
Wind 8 13.3
Solar 2 48.1
Source Ontario Energy Board (OEB), May 2016
Numbers may not equal 100% as they have been rounded

According to Table 3.5, the Regulated Price Plan report (2016) confirms that
nuclear energy is low-cost to ratepayers. Electricity generated by nuclear power
plants is almost seven times most cost-effective than the electricity generation using
solar energy. In recent years, nuclear power has supplied Ontarians with almost
60% of their electricity. The Ontario government’s commitment to refurbish
reactors at both Darlington and Bruce shows the province believes in the use of
nuclear energy for electricity generation—with its minimal greenhouse gas emis-
sions and small land footprint—is not only good for the environment, but also good
for ratepayers.
In March 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory
(INL) and the Alberta Research Council agreed to jointly study the potential role
and implications of nuclear power for extracting and treating Alberta’s tar sands,
which seem set to become an increasingly important source of oil for the U.S. In the
initial phase of this collaboration a paper providing background scientific and
engineering information aimed at informing industry, the public, and policy-makers
was published (The Nuclear Energy Option in Alberta 2008). The paper was
commissioned by Alberta’s Nuclear Power Expert Panel, which was established by
Alberta’s Minister of Energy in May 2008.
The Nuclear Power Expert Panel had itself been requested to prepare a report for
the government on the issues associated with the use of nuclear energy for elec-
tricity generation in Alberta. Released in March 2009, the Panel’s report (Report on
Nuclear Power and Alberta 2009) forms the basis of a public consultation to gather
views of Albertans on nuclear power in the context of the province’s electricity
system. Meanwhile, the Canadian Energy Research Institute, CERI, published a
report (Canadian Energy Research Institute 2009) in February 2009, which says
that “employing nuclear energy with (so far untested) carbon capture and storage in
tar sands extraction and processing could make oil from that source cleaner than
conventional oil in respect to its greenhouse gas and other emissions”. The CERI
report looked at both very large (1600 MWe) and multiple very small (10 MWe)
nuclear power reactors.
3.3 Canada 147

3.3.3 The Future Role of Nuclear Power in Canada

Backed by decades of research, experience, and innovation, Canada’s nuclear

industry is well positioned to take advantage of opportunities around the world to
expand the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation, particularly in the Asia
and the Pacific region, were the major construction programmes are underway.
However, over the past two decades declining R&D funding has combined with an
absence of new domestic nuclear power plant construction to push the sector into
stagnation. Political and public support, once a source of strength and pride for the
Canadian nuclear industry, has waned to such an extent that it is one of the greatest
contributors to nuclear energy’s decline. Recent decisions by political leaders,
including moratoria on uranium mining in Quebec, Nova Scotia, and British
Columbia, Ontario’s hesitancy to build proposed new nuclear power reactors, and
the federal government’s privatisation of the reactor business of Atomic Energy
Canada Limited (AECL), are seen by many as evidence that government is now
looking to redefine its role in the sector.
According to several Canadian sources, as many as ten nuclear power plants will
need to be refurbished over the next decade and could generate significant eco-
nomic benefits. Some booming economies like India and China continue to use
heavy water reactors in general, and CANDU technologies in particular. This
provides Canada with a market in countries that are seeking to expand their energy
capacities. One advantage that CANDUs have over many other designs is their
ability to use different fuel sources, including spent fuel from LWRs. In 2010,
China was able to extract uranium from spent fuel recovered from its LWRs and use
it to power its Qinshan Phase III CANDU reactor. This successful experiment
demonstrated CANDU’s adaptability, which could offer a cost-effective option for
host countries to get more energy from imported uranium and reduce stocks of
highly-radioactive used fuel at the same time.

3.4 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use

of Small Modular Reactors in Latin America
and the Caribbean

In the Latin America and the Caribbean region, only three countries are using now
nuclear energy for electricity generation. These countries are: Argentina, Brazil and
Mexico (see Table 3.6).
On the other hand, and according to the IAEA, the only country in the Latin
America and the Caribbean region that is now taking effective measures to use
SMR for the electricity generation is Argentina. The country is now constructing
the only SMR within the region, the so-called “CAREM” nuclear power reactor,
with a capacity of 25 MW.
148 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

Table 3.6 The total number of nuclear power reactors operating in the Latin America and the
Caribbean region
Country Number Total Net Electricity Nuclear Number of Capacity
of Electrical Generated share Reactors Under
Reactors Capacity (MW) (%) Under Construction
(MW) Construction (MW)
Argentina 3 1632 5258.17 4 1 25
Brazil 2 1884 14,463.39 2.9 1 1245
Mexico 2 1440 9311.6 5.6 – –
Total 7 4956 29,033.16 – 2 1270
Source IAEA PRIS (2016)

Brazil is studying the possibility to introduce SMR in remote or isolate areas or

where the demand is not high enough to construct a large nuclear power reactor.
According to WNA, Electronuclear has proposed building two new nuclear power
plants in the northeast part of the country and two more near Angra in the southeast.
At the end of 2009, it commenced initial siting studies. Early in 2013, two sites
were under final appraisal: One in the northeast part of the country on a large dam
on the Sao Francisco River between Pernambuco and Bahia states for up to
6600 MWe, and another in the north of Minas Gerais state in the southeast of the
country, inland from Angra, for 4000–6000 MWe. Each of the eight units planned
by Electronuclear will need approval by Congress, therefore a lot of careful
groundwork with communities is being undertaken before any announcement. In
January 2016, Electronuclear took representatives from China National Nuclear
Corporation (CNNC) to Sergipe on the northeast coast, north of Bahia state’s
coastline, to look at a potential site.
Eletronuclear is looking at the Westinghouse AP1000 (which is reported to be
favored), the Areva-Mitsubishi Atmea-1, and Atomstroyexport’s VVER-1000.
However, funding is likely to be a problem. In May 2012, the government said that
construction of any new nuclear power plants would not commence until after
2020. Rosatom has offered to consider a build-own-operate project, as in Turkey,
and in July 2014 Rusatom Overseas and Camargo Correa signed an agreement for
construction of several facilities on the site of the existing Angra nuclear power
plant, and possibly cooperating in building nuclear power units on new sites. In
June 2015, Westinghouse signed an agreement with CNEN subsidiary, Nuclebras
Equipamentos Pesados (NUCLEP), for collaboration on fabrication of AP1000
reactor components in Brazil. South Korea’s KEPCO is offering its APR1400
(Fig. 3.3).
In the case of Mexico, the government supports an expansion of the use of
nuclear energy for electricity generation and seawater desalination in the coming
years, primarily to reduce dependence on natural gas, but also to cut carbon
emissions. Until 2011, the country’s energy policy called for increasing carbon-free
power generation from 27 to 35% of the total by 2024. The Electricity Federal
Commission (CEF) in May 2010 approved four scenarios for new power generation
3.4 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small ... 149

Fig. 3.3 CAREM-25. Source

J, Vergara, LAS-ANS Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, 2014

capacity from 2019 to 2028, ranging from a heavy reliance on coal-fired power
plants to meet growing demand, to a low-carbon scenario that calls for big
investments in nuclear and wind power.
Under the CFE’s most aggressive scenario, up to ten nuclear power plants would
be built so that nuclear energy supplied nearly a quarter of Mexico’s power needs
by 2028. An earlier proposal was for one new nuclear unit to come on line by 2015
with seven more to follow it by 2025 to bring nuclear share of electricity up to 12%.
However, this proposal has not been approved.
CFE in November 2010 was talking about building six to eight large nuclear
power reactors (1400 MWe units), the first two at Laguna Verde nuclear power
plant site. With the release of the 2012 energy policy, the government urged
looking beyond low gas prices to consider building two more nuclear power
reactors at Laguna Verde nuclear power plant site or elsewhere in Veracruz state, as
a first step in expanding nuclear capacity to 2026. In mid-2015, the Development
Programme of the National Electric System included plans to commission new
energy capacity, including three nuclear power plants, with a tentative schedule to
enter commercial operation by 2026, 2027 and 2028. These units are large nuclear
power reactors.
Despite to these plans, in the longer term, Mexico may look to construct SMRs
for electricity generation and seawater desalination for agricultural use, but no plans
have been approved so far on the use of this type of nuclear power reactor for any of
these purposes.
150 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

The National Research Institute has previously presented ideas for the con-
struction of three IRIS nuclear power reactors16 sharing a stream of seawater for
cooling and desalination. With seven reverse-osmosis desalination units served by
the IRIS reactors, 140,000 m3 of potable water could be produced each day, as well
840 MWe.
Finally, it is important to highlight that no other Latin American and the
Caribbean countries are thinking, at this specific moment, to introduce nuclear
energy for electricity generation in the coming years or decades or have concrete
plans to do so. The main reasons are:
• Latin America has a moderate nuclear ambition, but if any of the major player in
the region support the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation, perhaps
others will follow this position;
• Current nuclear operating countries entered the field in a very different political
context, realised mainly by strong state’s will to use nuclear energy for elec-
tricity generation;
• Develop countries, particularly the U.S. and other European technological
advanced countries, promoted and supported in the past the use of this type of
energy source for electricity generation, and their position influenced a group of
developing countries to follow this approach. However, this situation has
changed significantly and the only region with a huge nuclear power programme
until today is Asia and the Pacific, a region very far from the American region.
The potential use of SMR for electricity generation in the region in the coming
decades can be found in Fig. 3.4.
From Table 3.7 can be stated the following: Only Argentina is actively pursuing
SMRs in the region, mainly for export opportunities, and this situation will not
change at least during the coming decades. In the case of Chile, the government and
the industry is thinking to introduce the use of nuclear energy for the electricity
generation, but without having a firm plan to do so at least at the government level.
The WNA stated that in 2010 the Energy Minister had said that the first nuclear
plant of 1100 MWe should be operating in 2024, joined by four more by 2035 to
replace coal capacity and that a public-private partnership is proposed to build the
first nuclear power plant, with a tender to be called in 2016. However, plans have
not developed significantly since then.
Public opinion in Chile turned strongly against nuclear power after the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident and a poll conducted in April 2011 showed that

16
International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) is a Generation IV reactor design made by an
international team of companies, laboratories, and universities and coordinated by Westinghouse.
IRIS is a modular pressurised water reactor with an integral configuration (all primary system
components—pumps, steam generators, pressuriser, and control rod drive mechanisms—are inside
the reactor vessel). It is offered in configurations of single or multiple modules, each having a
power rating of 1000 MWt (about 335 MWe) (Carelli 2003).
3.4 The Current Situation and Perspective on the Use of Small ... 151

Fig. 3.4 Options for the use of SMRs in the region in the coming decades. Source J. Vergara,
LAS-ANS Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2014

Table 3.7 Potential use of SMR in the region in the coming decades
Country Option Possibilities in the nuclear field
Argentina Active Current, in addition to large reactors
Colombia Unknown Possibly beyond 2040–50
Chile Unknown Possibly beyond 2020
Brazil Active SMRs in subs, but focus in large reactors
Mexico Unknown Focus in large-sized reactors
Peru Unknown Possibly beyond 2030
Source J. Vergara, LAS-ANS Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2014

around 84% of those surveyed were against the development of a nuclear power
programme in Chile, with only 12% in support (HydroWorld.com 2011). There are
no serious objection to the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation in
Argentina and Brazil. In Mexico the situation is different regarding the use of
nuclear energy for this specific purpose.
152 3 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small Modular …

References

About OPG - Ontario’s clean energy provider, Ontario Power Generation website, www.opg.com/
about, 2016.
Analysis & Projections: International Projections, U.S. Energy Information Administration,
[online] 2011, http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=IEO2011&subject=0-
IEO2011&table=1-IEO2011&region=0-0&cases=Reference-0504a_1630, 19 June 2013.
Beyond Coal (2013), Sierra Club, [online], http://content.sierraclub.org/coal/victories, 9 July 2013.
Canada edges closer to SMR build after VC funding deal, Nuclear Energy Insider, 2016.
Carelli, Mario D, and Ingersoll, Daniel T. (2015), Handbook of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors,
Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy, Number 64, 2015.
Daly, John (2013), Canada Considering Nuclear Reactors in Alberta Tar Sands Fields,
OilPrice.com, 2013.
Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries, WNA, 2016.
Environment: Emissions Prevented, Nuclear Energy Institute, [online], http://www.nei.org/
resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/Environment-Emissions-Prevented, 8 July 2013.
Executive Order 13154 issued by President Obama on October 5, 2009.
Ferguson, Will (2013), Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Planned for Tennessee, For National
Geographic, Published June 07, 2013.
Glasgow, J.A.; Teplinsky, E.; Markus, S.L. (2012), Nuclear Export Controls: A Comparative
Analysis of National Regimes for the Control of Nuclear Materials, Components, and
Technology, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Washington D.C., October 2012.
Gihm, Brian (2015), Very Small Nuclear Reactors, Canadian Consulting Engineer, 2015.
Green Bitumen: The Role of Nuclear, Gasification and CCS in Alberta’s Oil Sands (2009), Study
119, Canadian Energy Research Institute, February 2009.
Hinze, Jonathan (2015), Senior Vice President, International, 5th Annual SMR Summit, April
2015.
HydroWorld.com, Public increasingly opposed to HidroAysén, nuclear power – Ipsos, 13 April
2011.
International Atomic Energy Agency, Power Reactor Information System, IAEA-PRIS (2016).
Kroodsma, D. (2013), Interactive Map: All the World’s Nuclear Reactors, Climate Central,
[online] 25 April 2011, http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/interactive-map-all-the-worlds-
nuclear-reactors, 8 July 2013.
Kurth, Michael (2013), Advancing the Commercialization of Small Modular Reactors, Sponsored
by the American Nuclear Society, August 1, 2013.
Lyman, Edwin (2013), Small Isn’t Always Beautiful. Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns about
Small Modular Reactors, Union of Concerned Scientists, September 2013.
Morales Pedraza, Jorge (2013), World Major Nuclear Accidents and their Negative Impact on the
Environment, Human Health and Public Opinion; International Journal of Energy,
Environment and Economics (IJEEE 21 #2) Volume 21 Issue 2; Nova Science Publishers,
Inc.; 2013.
New Energy Outlook 2016 Powering a Changing World (2016), Bloomberg New Energy
Finance’s, 2016.
New Act powers B.C. forward with clean energy and jobs (2010), News release, Office of the
Premier Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, 2010.
Nuclear Power in Canada, World Nuclear Association website, 2016.
Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan: Building Our Clean Energy Future, Ontario Ministry of
Energy and Infrastructure (2010); McGuinty Government’s Long-Term Energy Plan Turns On
Clean Power, Turns Off Dirty Coal, Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure press
release, 23 November 2010.
Regulated Price Plan (2016), Price Report, Ontario Energy Board, 2016.
Report on Nuclear Power and Alberta (2009), Nuclear Power Expert Panel, February 2009.
References 153

Rosner, R.; Goldberg, S. and Hezig, Joseph (2011), Small Modular Reactors—Key to Future
Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.; EPIC, University of Chicago: Chicago, USA, 2011.
Roulstone, Tony (2015), Economies of scale vs. economies of volume, 6 August 2015.
Terrestrial Energy secures funding for reactor project, World Nuclear News (WNN), 2016.
Terrestrial Energy Says Molten Salt is the Future of SMR Technology, Canadian Nuclear
Association, 2015.
Terrestrial Energy Awarded $5.7 Million Grant From Canadian Federal Government,
Marketwired, 2016.
The Nuclear Energy Option in Alberta (2008), submitted by Alberta Research Council and Idaho
National Laboratory to the Government of Alberta Nuclear Expert Panel on October 1, 2008.
Vergara Aimone, Julio (2014), Small Modular Reactors in Latin America, presentation made in
LAS-ANS meeting held in Río de Janeiro, Brazil on July 20th, 2014.
Zogby International (2008), 10. 67% Favor Building New Nuclear Power Plants in U.S., 2008.
Chapter 4
The Current Situation and Perspective
of the Small Modular Reactors Market
in the European Region

Abstract Despite the fact that several hundreds of reactors were built all over the
world and many European countries generate most of their electricity from it,
nuclear power has faced continuing questions over cost, safety, waste disposal, and
proliferation. In addition, after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, environ-
mental movement has adopted in some European countries a fierce domestic
opposition to nuclear power, causing that many governments to take an almost
schizophrenic stance regarding the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation.
Germany, for example, has decided to abandon nuclear power completely by 2022
in favour of the use of alternative energy for electricity generation, but the severe
winter of 2011–2012 got so cold that the Danube was freezing and Berlin had to put
some of the mothballed nuclear power reactors back into service. This opposition
also means that many Western countries have a shortage of nuclear engineers
because many see it as a dying industry not worth getting into. This is particularly
acute in the U.K., which have not retained the capacity for building the huge reactor
vessels and must farm this out to overseas manufacturers. Worse, nuclear power
suffers from the natural gas boom brought on by new drilling techniques and
fracking that opened up vast new gas fields in the West, particularly in the U.S., and
dropped the price of gas to the point where coal and nuclear have a hard time
matching it. For the reasons mentioned above, the SMR market within the
European region is expect to be very small and this type of reactor is expected to be
used by a limited European countries in the future.

4.1 Introduction

At world level, and particularly in the European region, there is a growing demand for
electricity that is cheap, reliable, abundant, and with the less negative impact on the
environment. There is also an increasing needs to find sources of energy that do not
rely on doing business with hostile or politically unstable nations. Within the
European region, there are very few, if any, good alternatives to the use of nuclear
energy for electricity generation, even considering that the population is demanding

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 155

J. Morales Pedraza, Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52216-6_4
156 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

clean, cheap, and reliable energy. There is a real role for tidal power, wind, and solar
in a balanced energy portfolio in several European countries. Carbon capture and
storage (CCS) clearly has significant potential, but is yet to be commercially scalable,
while the research work on batteries is likely to be part of the longer term energy mix.
From a general point of view, state’s priorities are usually the security of supply
and energy independency. However, there is no real electricity supply problem in
the particular context of Europe involving all European countries: It is more the
case in emerging countries such as China and India with high growth. In Europe,
the energy policy is more about climate change, the use of renewable energies for
electricity generation and nuclear acceptance (reducing the use of fossil fuels points
in the direction of energy independency). Today and within the European scope, the
policy driver thus contains three dimensions:
• Climate policy, which is divided into two aspects: Carbon policy and renewable
policy;
– Carbon policy, which will determine the incentives regarding carbon emis-
sions and promote low-carbon energies;
– Renewable policy, which is closely related to carbon policy, can be
described in Europe by four kinds of tools: feed-in tariffs, green certificates,
tenders, and fiscal incentives (Bordier 2008);
• Nuclear policy: The use of this energy source can be controversial according to the
national context, with the positions of European countries being very different.
France has historically adopted a strongly pro-nuclear stance; the importance of
the nuclear facilities and expertise inherited from the past should maintain France
in a strong pronuclear stance. The U.K. has adopted a moderate pro-nuclear
stance, although recent development in the nuclear field in the country shows
strong support, as the agreement with EdF for the Hinkley Point C shows
(Department of Energy and Climate Change and Prime Minister’s Office 2013);
however, the government’s will never to directly support financially nuclear
makes U.K. policy “moderately pro nuclear”. On the other hand, Germany, Italy,
and Spain have adopted an anti-nuclear position; for pro-nuclear countries, we add
the “strike price” variable to describe the nuclear policy more accurately;
• Electricity market reform policy, which will have a direct influence on the
investors’ environment and the investors’ profiles themselves.
At the same time, recent concerns over global warming have resulted in many
governments pledging their nations to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide they
generate and new, stricter environmental regulations threaten to close coal-powered
plants across Europe, China, and the U.S.. The hope was that massive investments
in alternative technologies such as solar and wind power would make up for this cut
in generating capacity, but the inefficiencies and intermittent nature of these tech-
nologies made it clear that something with the capacity and reliability of coal and
natural gas power plants was needed. The use of nuclear energy for electricity
generation is the only option available. Europe has a lot of experience in using this
4.1 Introduction 157

Table 4.1 Number of nuclear power reactors operating in the European region
Country Number of reactors Total net electrical capacity (MW)
Belgium 7 5913
Bulgaria 2 1926
Czech Republic 6 3904
Finland 4 2752
France 58 63,130
Germany 8 10,799
Hungary 4 1889
Netherlands 1 482
Romania 2 1300
Russia 35 25,443
Slovakia 4 1814
Slovenia 1 688
Spain 7 7121
Sweden 10 9648
Switzerland 5 3333
Ukraine 15 13,107
United Kingdom 15 8883
Total 184 162,135
PRIS IAEA January 2016

type of energy for electricity generation and for this reason, should not exclude the
use of this type of energy source for electricity generation for non-technical and
economic reasons.
From Tables 4.1 and 4.2 the following can be stated: 41.6% of the total nuclear
power reactors under operation in the world are located in the European region and
24.2% of the nuclear power reactors under construction are constructed in this region.
Then, which is the problem with the use of nuclear energy for electricity gen-
eration in the European region? The problem is that nuclear energy is the proverbial
political hot potato, even in early days when the new energy source exploded onto
the world scene. The tremendous amount of energy locked in the atom held the
promise of a future like something out of a technological Arabian Nights. It would be
a world where electricity was too cheap to meter, deserts would bloom, ships would
circle the Earth on a lump of fuel the size of a baseball, planes would fly for months
without landing, the sick would be healed and even cars would be atom powered.
But though nuclear power did bring about incredible changes in our world, in its
primary role, generating electricity for homes and industry, it ended up as less of a
miracle and more of a very complicated way of boiling water. Not only complicated,
but expensive and potentially dangerous, if nuclear safety measures are not adopted
and strictly followed by nuclear power plant operators (Szondy 2012).
Despite the fact that several hundreds of reactors were built all over the world
and many European countries generate most of their electricity from it (see
Fig. 4.1), nuclear power has faced continuing questions over cost, safety, waste
158 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

Table 4.2 Number of nuclear power reactors under construction

Country Number of reactors Total net electrical capacity (MW)
Belarus 2 2218
Finland 1 1600
France 1 1630
Russia 8 6582
Slovakia 2 880
Ukraine 2 1900
Total 16 14,810
PRIS IAEA January 2016

Fig. 4.1 Nuclear share of electricity generation in 2015. PRIS-IAEA (2016)

4.1 Introduction 159

disposal, and proliferation. In addition, after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear acci-
dent, environmental movement has adopted in some European countries a fierce
domestic opposition to nuclear power, causing that many governments to take an
almost schizophrenic stance regarding the use of nuclear energy for electricity
generation. Germany, for example, has decided to abandon nuclear power com-
pletely by 2022 in favour of the use of alternative energy for electricity generation,
but the severe winter of 2011–2012 got so cold that the Danube was freezing and
Berlin had to put some of the mothballed nuclear power reactors back into service.
This opposition also means that many Western countries have a shortage of nuclear
engineers because many see it as a dying industry not worth getting into. This is
particularly acute in the U.K., which have not retained the capacity for building the
huge reactor vessels and must farm this out to overseas manufacturers.
Worse, nuclear power suffers from the natural gas boom brought on by new
drilling techniques and fracking that opened up vast new gas fields in the West and
dropped the price of gas to the point where coal and nuclear have a hard time
matching it (Szondy 2012).
Undoubtedly, the cost of the construction of a nuclear power plant is one of the
key problems facing a revival of nuclear power at world level. Up until now, the
sort of nuclear power reactors used for generating electricity have tended toward the
gigantic with units reaching gigawatt levels of output. With plants that large, small
wonder that the cost of construction combined with obtaining permits, securing
insurance and meeting legal challenges from environmentalist groups can push the
cost of a conventional nuclear power plant toward as much as US$9 billion in some
cases.1 It also means very long build times of 10–15 years. This is not helped by the
fact that big nuclear power plants are custom designed from scratch in multi-billion
dollar exercises, because even if the same type of reactor is used in the construction
of a nuclear power plant, the structure of not always the same. With so much time
and resources involved, an unforeseen change in regulations or discovery of
something like a geological fault under the reactor site can make this a case of
putting a lot of very expensive eggs in a very insecure basket.
However, and despite the rejection of several European countries to the use of
nuclear energy for electricity generation, there are sound economic and technical
reasons for some other European countries to diversify nuclear generation by
building a large number of SMRs instead of building a small number of large nuclear

1
The European Commission (EC) is calling on Europe’s utility companies to make major
investments in nuclear energy in a report which be published in the coming weeks. In its new
report on the state of the nuclear industry, the Commission estimated that to secure energy supply
across the 28-nation bloc, investments of between €450 and €500 billion are needed in nuclear
power by 2050. The report states that because of Europe’s growing electricity needs, nuclear
power is unavoidable. Of the sums the report suggested, between €45 and €50 billion would be
needed to maintain current nuclear power plants while the rest would need to be invested in
building new plants.
160 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

power plants.2 It is a fact that in several European countries, nuclear-powered

electricity generation should be a key component of every country’s energy portfolio
in order to reduce their dependence on oil and coal for this purpose and of the CO2
emission. In addition, with declining fossil fuel production and reserves in Europe,
the continent is increasingly dependent on imported coal and gas and so subject to
volatile market prices and the ever-present threat of politically motivated disruption
of supply by producers or even countries hosting pipelines.3
In the EU, large power markets exist that are well interconnected. However,
large power additions/subtractions can cause grid instabilities. Additionally, future
systems will have increasing shares of unpredictable renewable energy sources
(mainly wind and solar power) that will affect the electrical grid operation and
require a different and more flexible back-up approach. Most SMR concepts are
intended for production of baseload power; however, nuclear power can be oper-
ated in a load-following mode at some loss (2%) of available capacity (EC 2010).
Additionally, some future systems (e.g., MSR) will have the capability to rapidly
change power output to support load following. If these nuclear power reactors are
cost competitive with gas power plants, they could be used as peak and back-up
power units. The EU is also considering a “smart grid” and energy storage systems
to allow greater use of decentralised sources of renewable energy, which would also
enable economic operation of nuclear power reactors producing baseload electric-
ity. New studies are showing the potential benefit from combining wind and solar
energy with nuclear energy on the electricity network (Duffey and Miller 2005).
Studies are needed to evaluate the potential benefits of deploying SMRs in systems
that contain large shares of renewable energy. Successful integration of these
energy technologies would help utilities reduce their planning margins and asso-
ciated costs for spinning reserves.
It is true that the initial investment in new, large-scale nuclear power plants could
be a barrier to further development of the nuclear industry in Europe,4 but the initial
capital investment in the construction of SMRs is less high that in the case of large
nuclear power plants. In addition, nuclear power plants offer sustainable, practical
electricity supplies with very low emissions compared with coal-and gas-fired

2
However, it is important to highlight that SMRs may compete more directly with diesel, natural
gas, hydro, or renewables rather than with large nuclear power plants.
3
The relatively low cost of fossil fuels in the form of gas from Russia and Norway and LPG from
Qatar are obstacles, as is the decline in oil prices. But it must be remembered that the cost of fossil
fuels is volatile, supply issues are politically sensitive, and there are still significant emissions of
greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
4
The construction of new nuclear power reactors in developed countries, particularly in the EU,
has virtually ground to a halt in recent years due to safety fears following the 2011 Fukushima
Daiichi disaster and because nuclear projects struggle to find financing as they compete with
cheaper natural gas and renewable energy. Russia has won nuclear contracts in developing nations
with offers of cheap export credits, but in the U.S. and Europe, nuclear projects can be counted on
the fingers of one hand. The sole major nuclear new build contract in Europe is for French EdF and
Chinese utility CGN to build two reactors in Hinkley Point C, Britain thanks to 35-year subsidies,
if finally the U.K. government agree in the implementation of this project.
4.1 Introduction 161

power generation. Around 5 g of carbon dioxide per kWh of electricity from a

nuclear power plant compares very favourably with as much as 900 g from
coal-fired power plants and over 300 g from gas-fired power plants.
Finally, it is important to highlight the following: Regrettably, this does not
apply to building new nuclear power plants at least in some countries within the
EU. Europe in the 21st century will not see a repeat of the political will such as the
post-war decision by France to build 58 PWRs, which created a strong supply chain
in France and elsewhere. More recently, Asia—and, in particular, China—has
demonstrated similar political will, and it could be argued that the European supply
chain exists today mainly thanks to China. However, with the emergence of an
indigenous nuclear industry in Asia, that market is no longer so attractive to
European suppliers and will certainly not maintain the industry and the critical
supply chain in Europe for the next decades, if new market in Europe are not open.

4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small

Modular Reactors in the European Region

Within the European region, France, Italy5 and the Russian Federation are countries
with active programmes on SMR design development and deployment. Tables 4.3,
4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 shows SMRs in operation, construction and near-term deployment
in the European region (Fig. 4.2).
The potential users of SMRs within the European region are the following:
Russia, France, U.K., Poland, and Estonia (Figs. 4.3 and 4.4).
According to Table 4.7, it is expect that by the year 2035, Russia, UK, Finland,
Lithuania, Sweden, and Slovenia will increase is nuclear power capacity by
installing different types of SMRs. Russia and U.K. are expect to be the two
European countries with the highest number of SMRs installed.
The situation and perspectives in the use of SMR reactors in several European
countries is described in the following paragraphs.

5
The integrated model for competitiveness assessment of SMRs (INCAS), developed by the
Politecnico di Milano, Italy, provides a framework for a consolidated approach to the combined
application of assessment models. INCAS focuses on the comparative assessment of deployment
scenarios with SMRs and large nuclear power reactors. It consists of an investment model and an
external factors model. The investment model is developed with a modular approach, with separate
models to calculate cash flow profiles and economic and financial indices. The external factors
model attempts to consider some social and market related factors that could be subjective and
non-quantifiable, but are likely to produce a certain impact on decision making regarding different
nuclear options. At the end, the analytical hierarchy process merges together the results of the
financial assessment and the stakeholders’ judgements on the external factors to make a final
judgement on the attractiveness of an SMR based nuclear project (IAEA 2013).
162 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

Table 4.3 Small nuclear power reactors currently in operation

Name Capacity (MWe) Type Developer
EGP-6 11 LWGR At Bilibino, Siberia (cogen)
Source WNA

Table 4.4 Small nuclear power reactor designs under construction

Name Capacity (MWe) Type Developer
KLT-40S 35 PWR OKBM, Russia
Source WNA

Table 4.5 Small (25 MWe up) nuclear power reactors for near-term deployment—development
well advanced
Name Capacity (MWe) Type Developer
VBER-300 300 PWR OKBM, Russia
BREST 300 FNR RDIPE, Russia
SVBR-100 100 FNR AKME-engineering, Russia
Source WNA

Table 4.6 Small (25 MWe up) nuclear power reactor designs at earlier stages (or shelved)
Name Capacity (MWe) Type Developer
VK-300 300 BWR RDIPE, Russia
SC-HTGR (Antares) 250 HTR Areva, France
Moltex SSR c 60 FNR Moltex, UK
Source WNA

4.2.1 The Russian Federation (Russia)

The Russian Federation has an industrial infrastructure in place to develop a large

nuclear energy programme that utilises nuclear power reactors of varying types and
sizes. The currently Russian nuclear power programme includes 35 nuclear power
reactors (see Table 4.8) with an average age of 30 years, and a total capacity of
26,053 MWe. The energy availability in 2014 was 81% and the nuclear share in
2015 reached 18.59%.
For many nuclear experts, Russia is the leading country in the development of
SMRs.6 Russia is a growth market, where rural populations and industry need
reliable electricity, fuelling growth and an uplift in standards of living. The use of

6
Other leading countries are: U.S., South Korea and China. Russia is now developing the fol-
lowing prototypes of SMRs: Russia’s KLT-40S demonstration plant at Pevek to be expected to be
online in 2016; Russia’s BREST-300 demostration plant construction that will start at Seversk
soon; Russia’s SVBR-100 demostration project at Dimitrovgrad expect to begin in 2017.
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 163

Fig. 4.2 Types of SMRs. Source IAEA

Fig. 4.3 Status of countries with nuclear energy initiatives. Source IAEA

SMRs for electricity generation have an important advantage over gas in these rural
markets, as they do not require additional fuel pipeline and storage infrastructure to
be established over many thousands of kilometres. It is likely that nations with
indigenous SMR programmes would be launch markets for their own technology,
164 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

Fig. 4.4 Countries considering the use of SMR technology. Source IAEA

with ‘non-developer’ nations being considered as growth markets once SMR

technology has been proven (Waddington 2014). The total market potential is
shown in Table 4.9.
According to Table 4.9, Russia has a potential market for SMRs of 10 GW by
2030. The construction of SMRs for external market is also important. The fol-
lowing are the main activities carried out by Russia on SMRs.
• KLT-40S: While Russia continues to design and build large nuclear power
plants, it is currently developing SMRs for remote applications that can be used
within land based or floating nuclear power plants. For example, construction of
a pilot floating co-generation plant with two water cooled KLT-40S reactors
started in June 2006 and has now neared 95% completion, preparing for com-
missioning in 2016. Its deployment date will be 2016. The two units of the
KLT-40S series, to be mounted on a barge, will be used for co-generation of
process of heat and electricity in remote areas7;
• ABV-6 M: Another prototype of SMRs under development in Russia is the
ABV-6 M with an electrical output of 8.6 MWe. The main objective of the
project is to create small, multipurpose nuclear power plant providing easy
transport to the site, rapid assembly and safe operation during 10–12 years
without refuelling at the berthing platform or on the coast. Currently, the
development of ABV-6 M is at the finishing stage (IAEA-ARIS 2014)8;

7
For more information on this type of SMR see Chap. 2.
8
For more information on this type of SMR see Chap. 2.
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 165

Table 4.7 Installed capacity of SMR versus total grid size

Country Grid Size—total installed grid SMR installed SMR as % of grid
electricity capacity (MW, IEA capacity (MW, size (2035,
projected 2035) 2035, scenario B) Scenario B)
China 3,205,366 15,000 0.47
United States 1,299,854 15,000 1.15
Russian 375,097 10,000 2.6
Federation
United 122,845 7000 5.7
Kingdom
Brazil 226,771 6200 2.73
India 793,567 4800 0.6
Argentina 63,982 2900 4.53
Australia 77,730 2000 2.57
Canada 179,963 1650 0.92
Mexico 109,467 1500 1.37
Finland 21,927 1320 6.02
Indonesia 52,451 1000 1.91
Kazakhstan 30,729 1000 3.25
Saudi Arabia 115,917 700 0.6
South Africa 99,660 600 0.6
Turkmenistan 4679 500 10.69
Lithuania 5022 400 7.97
Chile 28,620 300 1.05
Sweden 47,994 270 0.56
Qatar 11,563 225 1.95
Oman 9149 180 1.97
Tunisia 8223 160 1.95
Jordan 7416 150 2.02
Slovenia 4197 150 3.57
Bahrain 7489 75 1
Mew 656 75 11.43
Caledonia
Brunei 1794 50 2.79
Darussalam
Source Waddington (2014)

• RITM-200: The RITM-200 reactor is being designed by OKBM Afrikantov as

an integral SMR with forced circulation for use for multipurpose nuclear ice-
breaker, floating and land-based nuclear power plants with an electrical output
of 50 MW(e). The main design approach is an efficient combination of passive
and active safety means and systems, optimal use of the normal operational and
safety systems. Two RITM-200 reactors are being manufactured for the first
multipurpose icebreaker aiming for complete delivery in 2016. A follow up
166 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

Table 4.8 Nuclear power reactors currently in operation in Russia in 2016

Reactor Type MNe net, Commercial operation Expected
V = PWR each shutdown
Balakovo 1 V-320 988 5/1986 2045
Balakovo 2 V-320 1028 1/1988 2033
Balakovo 3 V-320 988 4/1989 2034
Balakovo 4 V-320 988 12/1993 2023
Beloyarsk 3 BN-600 FBR 560 11/1981 2025
Beloyarsk 4 BN-800 FBR 789 (2016) –
Bilibino 1–4 LWGR EGP-6 11 4/1974–1/1977 2019–22
Kalinin 1 V-338 950 6/1985 2025
Kalinin 2 V-338 950 3/1987 2032
Kalinin 3 V-320 988 11/2005 2034
Kalinin 4 V-320 950 9/2012 2042
Kola 1–2 V-230 432-411 12/1973, 2/1975 2019, 2020
Kola 3–4 V-230 411 12/1982, 2026, 2039
12/1984512/1982
Kursk 1 and 2 RBMK 1020-971 10/1977, 8/1979 2022, 2024
Kursk 3 RBMK 971 3/1984 2029
Kursk 4 RBMK 925 2/1986 2030
Leningrad 1 RBMK 925 11/1974 2019
Leningrad 2 RBMK 971 2/1976 2021
Leningrad 3 RBMK 971 6/1980 2025
Leningrad 4 RBMK 925 8/1981 2026
Novovoronezh 3 V-179 385 6/1972, 3/19732 2016, 2017
and 4
Novovoronezh 5 V-187 950 2/1981 2035
Smolensk 1 RBMK 925 9/1983 2028
Smolensk 2 RBMK 925 7/1985 2030
Smolensk 3 RBMK 925 1/1990 2024
Rostov 1 320 990 3/2001 2020
Rostov 2 320 990 10/2010 2040
Rostov 3 320 1011 9/2015 2045
Combined years of operation remaining 421 years
Source Nuclear Energy Insider

deliveries of nuclear power reactors for two consequent nuclear icebreakers will
be in 2017 and 2018 (IAEA-ARIS 2014)9;
• VK-300: The VK-300 is a 250 MW(e) BWR that operates with natural circu-
lation and employs passive residual heat removal systems. Research and

9
For more information on this type of SMR see Chap. 2.
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 167

Table 4.9 Total SMR market potential

2025 2055
USA 7.5 GW U.S. 15 GW
Russia 5 GW Russia 10 GW
China 2.5 GW China 15 GW
Other nations *5 GW Other nations *20 GW
UK 0–1.5 GW UK 7 GW–21 GWb
Total 20–21.5 GW Total 70 GW/85 GWa
Source Waddington (2014)
a
Mid-point figure for the U.K. based on SMR deployment alongside existing/future plants at
currently licensed nuclear sites (approximately 4 GW), plus a small number (approximately
3 GW) of additional SMR deployment at government owned (e.g., former military) sites.
b
Expanded figure for U.K. based on ETI projections using the ESME model to understand greater
role for nuclear in future lowest cost energy mix.

development activities are currently under way for further validation and actu-
alisation of the design approach adopted in the VK-300 design10;
• UNITHERM and SHELF PWR: The N.A. Dollezhal Research and Development
Institute of Power Engineering (NIKIET) is designing the UNITHERM to gen-
erate 6.6 MW(e), based on design experience in marine nuclear installations, and
the SHELF PWR, a 6 MW(e) underwater, remotely operated power source. The
design assumes that most of the fabrication, assembly, and commissioning of the
nuclear power plant modules can be done at a plant. The UNITHERM reactor
operates for 20–25 years without refuelling. The land-based siting nuclear power
plant or barges siting conditions are both viable for the UNITHERM reactor
design. Nuclear power plant with UNITHERM may consists of a number of units
depending on purpose and demand (IAEA-ARIS 2014). The same Institute,
NIKIET, is currently developing a nuclear turbine-generator plant of 6 MW(e) as
an underwater energy source (SHELF). The plant comprises a two circuit nuclear
power reactor facility with a water cooled and water moderated reactor of
28 MW(th), a turbine-generator plant with a capacity of 6 MW, and an auto-
mated remote control, monitoring and protection system by means of engineered
features, including electricity output regulation, control, and monitoring
instrumentation11;
• RUTA-70: This is a 70 MW(th) integral pool-type heating nuclear power
reactor. Reactor pool is made of reinforced concrete lined by stainless steel. The
period of continuous operation of the reactor equipment without a need of
maintenance is about one year;
• ELENA is a direct conversion water-cooled nuclear power reactor capable to
supply electricity and heat over a 25-year life of the plant without refuelling.

10
For more information on this type of SMR see Chap. 2.
11
For more information about these two types of SMRs see Chap. 2.
168 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

This is a very small nuclear power reactor with just 68 kW(e) in power gen-
erating capacity and another 3.3 MW(th) of heating capacity. The key aspect of
this design is that it is meant to be an “unattended” nuclear power plant,
requiring nearly no operating or maintenance personnel over the lifetime of the
unit. The ELENA NTEP is a land-based plant; however, in principle it is
possible to develop versions for underground or underwater deployment. The
nuclear power reactor and its main systems are assembled from
factory-fabricated finished units, whose weight and dimensions enable any
transport delivery for the complete plant, including helicopter and ship
(IAEA-ARIS 2014)12;
• GT-MHR: The gas turbine modular helium reactor couples an HTGR with a
Brayton power conversion cycle to produce electricity at high efficiency. As the
reactor unit is capable of producing high coolant outlet temperatures, the
modular helium reactor system can also efficiently produce hydrogen by high
temperature electrolysis or thermochemical water splitting.13

4.2.1.1 Transition to Fast Power Reactors in Russia

According to WNA (2016), the future nuclear power of Russia will be based on
new technology platform envisages full recycling of fuel, balancing thermal and fast
reactors, with the aim that the foresee 100 GWe of total capacity requires to satisfy
the future electricity demand will be provided by these type of nuclear power
reactors. To operate these nuclear power reactors, Russia will need only about 100
tonnes of input per year, from enrichment tails, natural uranium and thorium, with
minor actinides being burned. About 100 t/yr of fission product wastes will go to a
geological repository.
The BN-series fast nuclear power reactor plans are part of Rosatom’s so-called
“Proryv” (Breakthrough) project, to develop this type of reactors with a closed fuel
cycle whose MOX fuel will be reprocessed and recycled. They have a negative
temperature coefficient of reactivity so that higher temperatures decrease reactivity.
Starting from the period 2020–2025 it is envisaged that fast neutron power reactors
will play an increasing role in Russia, though these will probably be new designs
such as BREST with a single core and no blanket assembly for plutonium pro-
duction. Fast reactors are projected to have some 14 GWe capacity by 2030 and
34 GWe of capacity by 2050.
It is important to highlight that the BN-600 fast reactor at Beloyarsk has operated
successfully since 1980 and is now licensed to 2020. It is a three-loop pool type
reactor of 1470 MWt, 600 MWe gross and 560 MWe net.
The Beloyarsk 4 BN-800 fast reactor designed by OKBM Afrikantov was
intended to replace the BN-600 unit 3 at Beloyarsk, with a cost of US$ 2.05 billion

12
For more information about these two types of SMRs see Chap. 2.
13
For more information about these two types of SMRs see Chap. 2.
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 169

project. The first unit, and perhaps the only to be built by Russia, started up in June
2014, with first power to the turbine in November 2015, was connected to the grid
in December 2015, reached full power in August 2016, and is expected in com-
mercial operation later in the year. It is 2100 MWt, 864 MWe gross, and
789 MWe net.
However, it is important to highlight that the BN-800 is essentially a demon-
stration unit for fuel and design features for the BN-1200, or as Rosatom said in
September 2015: BN-800 has been created for testing elements of closing the
nuclear fuel cycle rather than electricity generation. Uralenergostroy, the general
civil contractor for both Beloyarsk reactors, sees BN-800 as a bridge to significantly
different future designs such as BN-1200, which in 2015 Rosatom described as “by
2025 the first commercial fast neutron power reactor” produced by Russia. Among
other things, the BN-800 must answer questions about the economic viability of
potential fast reactors, if such a unit has more functions than to generate electricity,
then it becomes economically attractive. The Beloyarsk plant director said: “The
main objective of the BN-800 is to provide operating experience and technological
solutions that will be applied to the BN-1200”.
The BN-1200 reactor is being developed by OKBM Afrikantov in Zarechny, and
the engineering design is expected to significantly improve upon that of the
BN-800. Rosatom sees this as a “Generation IV design with natural security” with
closed fuel cycle. It is 1220 MWe gross, with breeding ratio quoted as 1.2–1.4.
According to OKBM source, it is expected the first BN-1200 unit with MOX fuel to
be commissioned in 2020, then eight more to 2030, moving to dense nitride U-Pu
fuel. OKBM earlier envisaged about 11 GWe of BN-1200 nuclear power plants by
2030, including South Urals nuclear power plant where the second BN-1200 will be
built. The Chelyabinsk regional government has planned for three units to be built
at South Urals nuclear power plant. In November 2013, the Regional Energy
Planning Scheme included construction of two BN-1200 units at South Urals by
2030. The government decree of August 2016 specified only one unit instead of
three.

4.2.1.2 Russia Plan Export of Nuclear Power Reactors to Other

Countries

According to Conant (2013), Rosatom is taking the lead on the construction of new
nuclear power plants in the country and abroad. Newcomers, as the Russians fondly
call them, have been found from nations that do not have nuclear power plants
operating in the country and signed cooperation agreements for Rosatom to build or
even operate nuclear power plants in the future for them in a very favorable
financial terms. Russia’s growing roster of clients without nuclear power plants in
operation, includes Turkey and Vietnam, among others. Rosatom has already fin-
ished the construction of nuclear power reactors in China and India. In July, a
Finnish consortium recommended selecting the company to supply its next nuclear
power reactor.
170 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

The Russian government adopted a US$55 billion plan to make Russia a leading
global supplier of nuclear power plants all over the world (see Table 4.9). Already
the country intends to build roughly 40 new nuclear power reactors at home, and it
expects as many as 80 orders from other countries by 2030. Included are facilities
that would generate power and desalinate water, of particular interest in the Middle
East. The expansion comes as a result of the shutdown of all nuclear power in
Germany by 2022, the U.S. industry is struggling to a renaissance of its nuclear
industry and Japan is in the midst of soul-searching about its post-Fukushima
Daiichi intentions. President Vladimir Putin has called the build-out “a rebirth, a
renaissance” of Russia’s nuclear technology.
Rosatom is eyeing the U.K. and U.S. markets, too—it owns uranium mines in
Wyoming and supplies about half of the fuel used in U.S. nuclear power reactors,
according to the WNA. But for now, it is primarily targeting developing nations and
countries that had close ties to the former Soviet Union. For some of these new-
comers, Rosatom has a unique offer: It can be a one-stop nuclear shop. It will
provide fuel and will permanently take back the spent fuel from its reactors,
eliminating the need for some countries to build geologic waste repositories. That
service, offered by no other country, is a tremendous marketing advantage for the
Russians, says Alan Hanson, who recently joined the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology after 27 years as an executive at Areva.
Russia is sweetening the deal by providing scholarships to young men and
women from client nations to study in Russia and obtain degrees in nuclear power
plants and other nuclear facilities. And because an average nuclear power reactor
costs at least US$3 billion, Russia is offering the first ever rent-a-reactor programme
in which Rosatom builds and runs nuclear power reactors on foreign soil
(Table 4.10).

4.2.1.3 The Future of Small Modular Reactors in Russia

By utilising proven technologies of the propulsion reactors originally developed for

nuclear submarines and later used in icebreakers, the Russian Federation foresees
that the SMR programme could benefit economically from standardised production.
Should this programme prove successful, the Russian Federation may not only
acquire a specific technology to offer to developing countries, it might also provide
a case study on the benefits of standardising an SMR programme to achieve pro-
duction in series. Russian nuclear propulsion reactor technology is well established.
It has an experience base resulting from 8000 reactor-years of operation. Moreover,
this technology has been utilised within a standardised process of serial production
and installation, which has been shown to reduce costs.
The Experimental Design Bureau for Machine Building (OKBM) conducted a
comprehensive economic study of the propulsion nuclear plant life cycle. The study
was performed in three stages to analyse the impacts of production in series on the
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 171

Table 4.10 Export sales and prospects for Russian nuclear power plants
Country Plant Type Estimate Status and financing
cost
Ukraine Khmelnitski 2 2  V-320 Operating
and Rovno 4 reactors,
1000 MWe
Iran Bushehr 1 V-446 reactor, Operating
1000 MWe
China Tianwan 1 and 2 2  AES-91 Operating
India Kudankulam 1 2  AES-92 US$3 Operating
and 2 billion
Operating: 7
China Tianwan 3 and 4 2  AES-91 US$4 Under construction from
billion Dec 2012
Belarus Ostrovets 1 and 2 2  AES-2006 US$10 Loan organised for 90%,
(V-491) billion construction start 2013
Construction: 4
India Kudankulam 3 2  VVER-TOI US$5.8 Confirmed, loan organised
and4 million for 85%, construction start
2017?
Bangladesh Rooppur 1 and 2 2  AES-2006 US$4 Confirmed, loan organised
(V-392 M) billion for 90%, construction start
2017?
Turkey Akkuyu 1-4 4  VVER-TOI US$25 Confirmed, BOO,
billion construction start late 2016?
Vietnam Ninh Thuan 1, 1 2  AES-2006 US$9 Confirmed, loan organised
and 2 (V-491) billion for 85%, construction start
2020?
Finland Hanhikivi 1 1  AES-2006 €6 Contracted, Rosatom 34%
(V-491) billion equity, also arranging loan
for 75% of capital cost,
construction start 2018?
Iran Bushehr 2 and 3 2  AES-92 Construction contract Nov
(V-466B) 2014, NIAEP-ASE, barter
for oil or pay cash
Armenia Metsamor 3 1  AES-92 US$5 Contracted, loan for 50%
billion
Contracted: 14
Egypt El Dabaa 4  AES-2006 US$26 Planned, state loan organised
billion for 85%, repaid over
35 years from
commissioning. Contract
due 2016
China Tianwan 7 and 8 2  AES-2006 Planned
Vietnam Ninh Thuan 1, 3 2  AES-2006 Planned
and 4
India Kudankulam 5 2  AES-92? Planned, framework
and 6 agreement due 2016
(continued)
172 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

Table 4.10 (continued)

Country Plant Type Estimate Status and financing
cost
Hungary Paks 5 and 6 2  AES-2006 €12.5 Planned, loan organised for
billion 80%
Slovakia Bohunice V3 1  AES-2006 Planned, possible 51%
Rosatom equity
Jordan Al Amra 2  AES-92 US$10 Planned, BOO, finance
billion organised for 49.9%
Ordered: 15
India Andra Pradesh 6  AES-2006 Negotiated in 2015
Bulgaria Belene/Kozloduy 2  AES-92 Cancelled, but may be
7 revived
Ukraine Khmelnitski completion of US$4.9 Was due to commence
2  V-392 million construction 2015, 85%
reactors financed by loan, but
contract rescinded by
Ukraine in 2015
South Thyspunt up to Broad agreement signed, no
Africa 8  AES-2006 specifics, Russia offers
finance, prefers BOO
Nigeria AES-2006? Broad agreement signed, no
specifics, Russia offers
finance, BOO
Argentina Atucha 5? AES-2006 Broad agreement signed, no
specifics, Russia offers
finance, contract expected
2016
Indonesia Serpong 10 MWe HTR Concept design by OKBM
Afrikantov
Algeria ? ? Agreement signed, no
specifics
Note AES-91 and AES-92 have 1000 MWe class reactors, AES-2006 have 1200 MWe class
reactors
Source WNA (2016)

costs of fabrication of nuclear power reactor plant equipment, of the installation of

reactor plant equipment and systems, and of operation, life extension and repair of
the plant. The economic data for these three stages of the study were collected from
manufacturers (fabrication), ship building enterprises (installation) and dockyards
(repairs), respectively. As a result of the study, it was determined that serial pro-
duction reduces fabrication costs by 30–35% and installation costs by 20–40%.
Apart from the costs of fabrication and installation, the OKBM study also indicated
that the costs of repair drop by a minimum of 30%. The Russian SMR programme
has the potential to offer a developed technology and to provide the economic
benefits of serial production. Consequently, other country could learn from this
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 173

experience and plan the development of its industrial infrastructure in a manner

configured to capture the benefits of standardised, serial production. (IAEA
STI/PUB/1619 2013).
Already operating in a remote corner of Siberia are four small units at the
Bilibino co-generation plant. These four 62 MWt (thermal) units are an unusual
graphite-moderated boiling water design with water/steam channels through the
moderator. They produce steam for district heating and 11 MWe (net) electricity
each. They have performed well since 1976, much more cheaply than fossil fuel
alternatives in the Arctic region (WNA 2015).

4.2.2 The United Kingdom (U.K.)

The U.K. nuclear power programme includes 15 nuclear power reactors, with an
average age of 32 years and a total capacity of 8883 MWe. The energy availability
of these units in 2014 was 70.3%. The nuclear share reached 18.87% in 2015.
Table 4.11 includes the U.K. nuclear power reactors currently in operation in the
country.
The U.K., in 2014, published a feasibility study report on SMR concepts.
Following this, a second phase of work is intended to provide the technical,
financial, and economic evidence base required to support a policy decision on the
use of SMRs for electricity generation in the country. If a future decision was to
proceed with U.K. development and deployment of SMRs, then further work on the
policy and commercial approach to delivering them would need to be undertaken,
which could lead to a technology selection process for U.K. Generic Design
Assessment (GDA). In 2015, Westinghouse presented a proposal for a shared
design and development model under which the company would contribute its
SMR conceptual design and then partner with U.K. government and industry to

Table 4.11 Nuclear power reactors currently in operation in the country (2016)
Plant Type Present capacity First power Expected shutdown
(MWe net)
Dungeness B 1 and 2 AGR 2  520 1983 & 1985 2028
Hartlepool 1 and 2 AGR 595-585 1983 & 1984 2019 or 2024
Heysham I 1 and 2 AGR 580-575 1983 & 1984 2019
Heysham II 1 and 2 AGR 2  610 1988 2023
Hinkley Point B 1 and 2 AGR 475-470 1976 2023
Hunterston B 1 and 2 AGR 475-485 1976 & 1977 2023
Torness 1 and 2 AGR 590-595 1988 & 1989 2023
Sizewell B PWR 1198 1995 2035
Combined years of operation remaining 70 years
Source Nuclear Energy Insider
174 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

complete, license, and deploy it. The partnership would be structured as a U.K.-
based enterprise jointly owned by Westinghouse, the U.K. government and the U.
K. industry. NuScale said “it aims to deploy its SMR technology in the U.K. with
local partners, so that the first of its 50 MWe units could be in operation by the
mid-2020s”. If NuScale supplies 25% of the global SMR market that would mean
building between 28 and 38 SMR units per year.

4.2.2.1 Global Support of Small Modular Reactors and Its Impact

in the United Kingdom

Global support for SMR development is accelerating in several regions of the

world, and 2016 will see developers take major steps towards deployment in U.S.,
Asia, and the U.K. Leading industry figures from the U.S., Europe, Russia, China,
Japan, and Korea set out the next steps for the commercial deployment of SMRs,
which could open up massive supply chain opportunities for the nuclear industry.
Global competition is increasing as China fast-tracks the development of new
SMRs, while North American companies submit permit applications towards the
first commercial SMRs in the early 2020s. The U.K. has also launched a compe-
tition to identify the best-value SMR design that could be part of its expansion
nuclear power programme.
U.K. has signaled support for new SMRs reactor development and, for this
reason, the government has recently increased funding for SMR licensing and
backed the development of advanced reactors. In all countries where SMRs are
being developed, government involvement is supporting the companies with the
relevant technology capabilities. The financial risks for industry to develop SMRs
in the U.K. are judged to be too great without government support and commitment
on a similar scale. Financial involvement by the U.K. government in the country
nuclear industry is a significant decision, but consistent with the requirement to
deliver the strategy laid out in the “U.K. Nuclear Future” (Waddington 2014).
For above reason, the U.K. is ready to make a major effort to build 19 GWe of
large nuclear power reactors over the next two decades, but at the same time the U.
K. appears to be headed towards doubling down on its atomic energy bet with a
push to open up opportunities for SMRs.14 U.K. Energy Secretary Amber Rudd
told Parliament in November 2015 that “SMRs have excellent potential and that the

14
It is important to answer the following question: How many orders for new SMRs does an SMR
vendor need to go the financial markets to get funding to build a factory to make lots of them? The
answer, according to David Orr, head of nuclear business development for Rolls Royce in the U.
K., which has been making small reactors for the U.K.’s Royal Navy submarine fleet for decades,
is a minimum of about four dozen units and six dozen would be better. Those are high numbers
which make some proponents of SMRs unhappy. The reason is this estimate means that turning
out the first 50 or so SMRs for any firm in the business could be a high wire act.
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 175

current government of U.K. is doing as much as it can to support the technology”.15

To that end, the U.K. government announced US$378 million funding over the next
five years for nuclear research and development, including a competition to identify
the best value SMR design for the U.K. The U.K. is doubling funding for the
Department of Energy and Climate Change’s energy innovation programme to
£500 million over five years, including research into SMRs (Yurman 2016).
The government said in a policy statement, presented to parliament by
Chancellor George Osborne, that the competition will generate a list of SMR
developers that could “deliver on the government’s objectives”. The government
said it will also publish an SMR delivery roadmap later this year and will allocate at
least £30 million for an “SMR-enabling advanced manufacturing R&D pro-
gramme” to develop nuclear skills capacity. At the time Mr. Osborne said the
investment would strengthen future security of supply, reduce the costs of decar-
bonisation and boost industrial and research capabilities.
In January 2016, Fluor Corporation’s NuScale unit, which is seeking to be a
pioneer in the SMR market, said the U.K.’s ambitions to build SMRs could be
realised as soon as 2025.
There are a number of key issues facing SMR deployment in the U.K. that need
to be overcome before the first SMR can be deployed. These are the following:
• Technical hurdles: The necessity to convince Office for Nuclear Regulation that
any design meets the U.K.’s requirements for safety, security, and safeguarding
at an economically viable price;
• Building the first one: It takes a significant leap of faith for any utility to build
the first SMR, particularly when the evidence of support for new nuclear in the
U.K. is so limited;
• The economic justification: Even though the first SMR will be a fraction of the
price of a large nuclear power reactor at £1–2 billion it still represents a huge
risk given the technology is yet to be commercially deployed in Europe;
• The logistical and political challenges: There remains a host of issues around
siting; local, national and international approvals; agreement on a strike price;
changes to the way reactors are manned and operated, amongst other things
(Waddington 2015).
The London-based Nuclear Industry Association welcomed the government
announcement. Chief executive Tom Greatrex that said SMRs could potentially
play “a significant complementary role to the U.K.’s existing new build

15
While NuScale and Westinghouse are targeting construction of their first-of-a-kind units in the
U.K. by 2025, the real challenge will be to book enough orders to bring investors to the table to
build factories to turn out SMRs on a cost effective production line basis. There is not enough of a
market within the U.K. itself to generate these orders. This means both firms likely see the U.K. as
a launch pad to gain market share in Europe and the Middle East. Everything depends on both
NuScale and Westinghouse passing through the gauntlet of the U.K.’s notoriously complicated and
expensive generic design review process to certify the safety of their reactors. Both firms have
made optimistic estimates of how long this will take (Yurman 2016).
176 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

programme” and it is welcome that the government is looking seriously at the

development of SMRs. He said: “It is important that the roadmap the Chancellor
has promised by the autumn maximises the opportunities for U.K. industry.”
For this reason, the U.K. government should re-evaluate its nuclear power
strategy and provide more resources to accelerate the development and approval of
SMR designs so that consumers can benefit from lower costs and the U.K.’s nuclear
renaissance can be cemented. While continuing to back EdF’s US$25.6 billion
Hinkley Point C EPR project, the U.K. government launched last month phase 1 of
its SMR competition to gauge developer and investor interest and plans to publish a
roadmap for SMR development later this year. This roadmap must set a clear path
towards streamlined GDA procedures for SMR plants and provide further clarity on
siting, appropriate to the specific safety cases of the new designs.

4.2.2.2 The Future of Small Modular Reactors in the United Kingdom

The U.K. currently has eight approved sites for the construction of new nuclear
power plants with a potential maximum capacity of approximately 19 GW. If there
is a future requirement for 40 GW of power from new nuclear power plant, the
remaining 21 GW will have to be on additional sites. The number of sites suitable
for large nuclear power reactors may be limited and this issue is the subject of a
separate study. However, if sufficient sites cannot be found this issue may neces-
sitate the requirement to try and identify places where SMR plants would work,
e.g., along the major U.K. rivers. The requirement for U.K. power from SMRs can
therefore be bracketed between 1.5 GW (using only the limited space on existing
defined sites) and 21 GW (where no other suitable sites are found for large nuclear
power reactors). A conservative midpoint of 7 GW has therefore been used for the
remainder of the analysis (Waddington 2014). Undoubtedly, the U.K. today has all
of the necessary skills to design, develop, manufacture, and build SMRs.
If a future decision was to proceed with U.K. development and deployment of
SMRs, then further work on the policy and commercial approach to delivering them
would need to be undertaken, which could lead to a technology selection process
for U.K. GDA. A key area for the GDA of SMR designs will be the passive cooling
concepts, which have been built into the plants, as they often do not have active
systems to backup this passive safety system. U.K. regulations require two
nuclear-grade means of performing each safety function and this had a significant
impact on the GDA for the EPR and also impacted the GDA for the Westinghouse
AP1000 design, which is yet to be completed. The U.K. requirements tend to drive
them into installing extra nuclear grade systems to back up the main line of pro-
tection, this is going to be a significant challenge for the SMR concepts that have
been seen until today (Nuclear Energy Insider 2015).
It is important to highlight that the U.K. government agreed to invest at least £250
million in nuclear research and development in the next five years and has launched
in early 2016 a competition to identify the best value SMR design among those that
are now under development. The funding, announced November 25 (2015) in the
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 177

Autumn Spending Review, is a significant boost to the advanced nuclear industry,

and comes as global SMR developers move towards cooperation with U.K. firms
and the government to develop the first commercial unit. As part of this, the above
investment of at least £250 million over the next five years in an ambitious nuclear
research and development programme that will revive the UK’s nuclear expertise
and position the U.K. as a global leader in innovative nuclear technologies
(Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015). This will include a competition to
identify the best value SMR design for the U.K. and will pave the way towards
building one of the world’s first SMRs in the U.K. in the 2020s. Detailed plans for
the competition will be brought forward early next year.
The government funding will create “opportunities for the North’s centers of
nuclear excellence in Sheffield City Region, Greater Manchester and Cumbria, as
well as the nuclear research base across the U.K.,” (Spending Review and Autumn
Statement 2015). The funds will be in addition to the £25 million already pledged
by the U.K. government towards a Joint Research and Innovation Centre with
China, to be based in the North West of England.16
The U.K. government has signaled increasing support for SMR development and
is studying the commercial feasibility of current designs. This follows a technology
feasibility study published by National Nuclear Laboratory in 2014, which said
“SMR development would allow the U.K. to regain technology leadership in the
nuclear sector”. The study reviewed the CNNC ACP100+, B&W and Bechtel
mPower, Westinghouse and NuScale SMR designs.
Industry interest was heightened in October when Westinghouse proposed to
partner the U.K. government in the licensing and deployment of its SMR tech-
nology, by contributing its conceptual design and partnering with U.K. government
and industry to complete, license, and deploy the plant (Nuclear Energy Insider
2015).
The U.K. government will also have to provide support for SMR developers in
order for the country to establish its own technology leadership and achieve the first
commercial nuclear power reactor in 2025–2030. The next 10 years are key for
proving technologies at scale and in markets that countries then want to roll out for
the following 20 years to get to a low carbon economy. Based on current claims
from SMR technology vendors, and assuming that a technology selection process
was conducted efficiently and effectively during 2016-early 2017, it would be
reasonable to expect a first SMR in commercial operation in U.K. around 2025–
2027, certainly before 2030,” Mike Tynan, director of the U.K.’s Nuclear
Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, said (Nuclear Energy Insider 2015).
Why now the U.K. is considering the use of SMRs and large nuclear power
plants for electricity generation? The U.K. has a mature nuclear power industry with
the nuclear infrastructure of regulation, engineering knowledge and technical skills,

16
The U.K. has already pledged £25 million towards a £50 million joint nuclear research and
innovation centre with China, which will also be based in the north-west of England. The facility
will allow U.K. and Chinese academics and industry experts to work together across the whole
nuclear power cycle.
178 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

as well as the electricity grid system, necessary to support the deployment of large
nuclear power reactors. In order to satisfy its foreseeable increase in the electric
demand in the coming years, the U.K. government has decided to build SMRs in
parallel to the construction of large nuclear power plants in closed cooperation with
Areva. The arguments used by the U.K. government to support its decision to build
SMRs are the following:
• Economic and business benefits: A number of U.K. companies have long and
successful track records in the global nuclear power industry, as well as strong
links to the nation’s universities that have teaching and research activities in the
sector. This combination provides a solid foundation on which to build SMR
capability, which could potentially gain a share of the future market for these
reactors as it emerges globally. However, experience from the U.S. suggests that
such an initiative is unlikely to be followed unless there is strong government
support, in the form of public funding or the provision of licensed sites for
development, or both. The introduction of new overseas export opportunities
would be of benefit to the U.K. economy as well as to the local nuclear industry.
Similarly, the U.K.’s well established engineering consultancy and civil engi-
neering companies could engage in work associated with SMR construction not
only in the country, but also abroad as well. In all cases, this could mean
significant employment opportunities for U.K. engineering firms. Further future
employment and international commercial opportunities could become available
to the U.K.’s Office for Nuclear Regulation, based upon its worldwide respected
reputation. Additionally, the nation’s established nuclear safety and quality
assurance consultancy businesses would gain if they were engaged with SMR
developments in the U.K.;
• SMR contribution to U.K. grid performance: Although it is difficult to fully
evaluate the potential benefits to U.K. grid performance at this stage, as planned
new large-scale nuclear power plants are deployed on the system in the coming
decade, the impact of a power trip on stability will likely become more sig-
nificant. As an example, approximately two years ago Sizewell B went off line
from full power suddenly (tripped) and the subsequent grid disturbance caused
Dungeness B to also go off line. The inclusion of an SMR unit or units on a
demonstration site on the grid system has the potential to help mitigate this
effect when considering a potential U.K. site (Institution of Mechanical
Engineers 2014).
According to WNN, the U.K. government’s policy to close all coal-fired power
plants by 2025, combined with the retirement of the majority of the country’s
ageing nuclear power plants and growing electricity demand, will leave the U.K.
facing a 40–55% electricity supply gap, according to a new report published today
by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. The report’s authors make three rec-
ommendations. These are the following:
• Firstly, that the U.K.’s National Infrastructure Commission should assess the
necessary incentives for industry and the public “to reduce the demand on the
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 179

electricity system through engineering efficiencies into processes and equip-

ment, awareness raising and advocacy”;
• Secondly, that the commission “must urgently implement changes necessary
across the industry and supply chain” to deliver security of electricity supply
with no coal-fired power generation. These include investment in research and
development activities for renewables, energy storage, combined heat and
power and innovation in power plant design and build;
• Finally, the government and industry should “review the capacity in the supply
chains to deliver the construction of the ‘most likely’ new power infrastructure”.
This includes identifying timeframes and milestones for conventional and
unconventional power generation build—fossil fuel, nuclear, energy storage,
combined heat and power and off-grid options—along with growth in skills and
knowledge within the U.K. to meet the potential increase in demand.
After almost 20 years without building new nuclear power plants, the first new
nuclear power plant built in the U.K., the EdF Energy’s Hinkley Point C, will
comprise two EPR reactors, with first operation scheduled for 2025. Together, the
two reactors will provide about 7% of the U.K.’s electricity. However, it is
important to highlight that the construction of these two units are still under
negotiations and there is no sign that the conclusion of these negotiations will end
up in a deal to begin the construction of this nuclear power plant anytime soon.
According to Jenifer Baxter (2016), Head of Energy and Environment at the
Mechanical Engineers Institute, “the U.K. is facing an electricity supply crisis. As
the U.K. population rises and with the greater use of electricity use in transport and
heating it looks almost certain that electricity demand is going to rise. However,
with little or no focus on reducing electricity demand, the retirement of the majority
of the country’s ageing nuclear fleet, recent proposals to phase out coal-fired power
by 2025 and the cut in renewable energy subsidies, the U.K. is on course to produce
even less electricity than it does at the moment.” She added: “Currently there are
insufficient incentives for companies to invest in any sort of electricity infrastructure
or innovation and worryingly even the government’s own energy calculator does
not allow for the scenarios that new energy policy points towards. Under current
policy, it is almost impossible for U.K. electricity demand to be met by 2025
(Baxter 2016).”
The National Nuclear Laboratory concluded that “there is an opportunity for the
U.K. to regain technology leadership in the ownership and development of
low-carbon generation and secure energy supplies through investment in SMRs”. It
also stated that “there is a very significant market for SMRs where they fulfil a
market need that cannot be met by large nuclear power plants, with the size of the
potential SMR market calculated to be approximately 65–85 GW of new capacity
by 2035, valued at £250–£400 billion” (Waddington 2015). A report from the NNL
released in December 2014 indicates “there is a very significant market” for SMRs
to meet the needs of up to 7 GWe of generating capacity by 2035. Keep in mind
that SMRs come in sizes of 50–300 MW. An installed fleet of 7 GWe would
180 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

represent as few as 20 SMRs and as many as over 100 depending on their size
(Yurman 2016).
However, serious questions need to be answered related with the development of
the SMR. According to Waddington (2015), these questions are the following:
• Are SMRs actually commercially viable?
• What is the U.K. government appetite for SMR deployment?
• How can we develop a localised SMR supply chain?
• What are the issues with siting and licensing?17
• What to do with the nuclear waste?
• And how will the U.K. fit in with international SMR deployment?
The most important question to be answered is whether SMRs might be a better
alternative to EdF’s two EPRs at Hinkley Point C (2  1600 MWe) or
Hitachi-owned Horizon Energy’s proposed ABWR at Oldbury and Wylfa, with a
combined rating of 1300 MWe. The issue has been raised by Civitas, which says
Britain’s nuclear industry “faces an uncertain future as foreign companies position
themselves to rebuild the U.K.’s nuclear capacity.” They argue that U.K. nuclear
industry is now entirely vulnerable to the political agendas of other countries, and
that the already established supply chains of EdF, Hitachi, and Toshiba, which
plans to build three Westinghouse AP1000 reactors by 2024, threaten to undermine
the U.K.’s nuclear expertise, which is estimated to be worth £4 billion a year.
Outsourcing nuclear power projects that the U.K. will be committed to for the next
60 years must be handled carefully, if our indigenous industry is not to be
diminished.
A programme of government support for smaller nuclear power reactors—which
are quicker to build and could be manufactured largely in the U.K.—could provide
an attractive alternative to the high-risk and “eye-wateringly expensive” projects
currently planned.
Of course, international investment in the nuclear energy field is welcome, if in
collaboration with U.K. businesses. The government has two options: Let the U.K.
become merely a host nation whence other nations can springboard their global
nuclear ambitions and lose our own nuclear capability; or choose to let the start of a
new-build programme of nuclear power reignite the U.K.’s nuclear supply chain,
expand its fuel cycle facilities and showcase its world-class research and develop-
ment capability. Supporting a programme to bring smaller, affordable, secure, SMRs
to U.K.-based commercialisation could do just that. The U.K. is well equipped to
supply the necessary forgings for SMRs and already has the capacity to supply more
than 70% of other nuclear components. The idea of SMRs looks credible and even
desirable, but if you stack up the advantages it (SMRs) does make sense, the piece

17
The U.K. is currently limited in the number of licensed sites suitable for large nuclear power
reactors and SMRs may allow the U.K. to use some smaller licensed sites, as highlighted in a
recent Energy Technologies Institute report. However, the main attraction of SMRs is to open up
new nuclear power markets in third countries, especially where finance is limited or where the
power grid is not robust enough to take large nuclear power reactors (Matthews 2015).
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 181

that is missing is the first mover. To realise the economy of mass production, those
vendors who develop SMRs will need a line of customers (Ford 2014).
Urenco with others commissioned a study by TU-Delft and Manchester
University on the basis of which it has called for European development of very
small—5–10 MWe—‘plug and play’ inherently-safe reactors. These are based on
graphite-moderated, helium cooled HTR concepts. The fuel block design is based
on that of the Fort St Vrain (FSV) reactor in the U.S.. It would use 17–20%
enriched uranium and possibly thorium fuel. A 20 MWt and a 10 MWt design have
been developed, the latter with beryllium oxide reflector. The smaller “U-battery”
would run for five years before refueling and servicing, the larger one for 10 years.
The smaller design, 1.8 m diameter, may be capable of being returned to the factory
for this. Urenco is seeking government support for a prototype to be built in the
coming years (WNA 2015).
The issue where nuclear enthusiasts and opponents are perhaps furthest apart is
the disposal and management of nuclear waste (Beken et al. 2010). According to
Ahearne (2011), after much research into the issue of nuclear waste, “geological
disposal remains the only scientifically and technically credible long-term solution
available to meet the need for safety without reliance on active management.” It is
important to highlight that nuclear wastes are minute in comparison to waste from
fossil fuel electricity generating plants (Beken et al. 2010; MacFarlane 2010).
However, economically nuclear waste is big and is inclining to get bigger. These
costs are due to the fact that radioactive wastes from electricity generation are
highly dangerous over hundreds to thousands of years, with the appropriate means
of disposal resulting in a matter of controversy (Beken et al. 2010).
One method to try and reduce the volume of high level waste is reprocessing.
Reprocessing is practiced by countries such as the U.K. and France and involves
reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel, extracting the plutonium and uranium, and
turning the remaining waste into glass logs which are transported to a repository
(MacFarlane 2010). This method does not get rid of the waste, but may decrease it in
volume by a factor of about 4–10 times. However, although reprocessing does
reduce the waste it also causes a rise in plutonium separation that can be conceivably
be used for creating nuclear weapons (Azapagic and Stamford 2011; Schaffer 2011).
On this issue, GEH is promoting to U.K. government agencies the potential use
of PRISM technology to dispose of the U.K.’s plutonium stockpile, and has
launched a web portal in support of its proposal. Two PRISM units would irradiate
fuel made from this plutonium (20% Pu, with DU and zirconium) for 45–90 days,
bringing it to spent fuel standard of radioactivity, after which is would be stored in
air-cooled silos. The whole stockpile could be irradiated thus in five years, with
some by-product electricity (but frequent interruptions for fuel changing) and the
plant would then proceed to re-use it for about 55 years solely for 600 MWe of
electricity generation, with one-third of the fuel being changed every two years. For
this U.K. version, the breeding ratio is 0.8. No reprocessing plant (Advanced
Recycling Center) is envisaged initially, but this could be added later (WNA 2015).
On 25 November, as part of the Spending Review/Autumn Statement 2015,
British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced “a major
182 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

commitment to SMR reactors”. In their quarterly report, the regulators said that this
may involve them “in earlier work than expected”. The Department of Energy and
Climate Change has undertaken a techno-economic assessment (TEA) for SMR
technology deployment in the U.K. This concluded earlier than expected and was
followed by an announcement of the competition phase to identify the technology
(ies) to be taken forward. The regulators said in their quarterly report: “To date
ONR has hosted a SMR workshop as part of the TEA, to identify regulatory areas
of interest and to explore regulatory strategies for design assessment and nuclear
site licensing. Additionally, the Environment Agency has met with Department of
Energy and Climate Change to discuss design assessment and permitting of SMRs.
The regulators will also provide regulatory input into the competition phase.”
Once the U.K. has determined its future nuclear strategy and future scenarios,
and if this conclusion calls for the greater role of nuclear energy (for example,
greater than the envisaged 16 GWe of new nuclear capacity foreseen today), then
there are several recommended activities that need completing:
• An assessment of the economics of SMRs is undertaken in the U.K., including
the potential financial models. An understanding is needed to mitigate the risk of
not only First of a Kind (FOAK) engineering, but also FOAK business and
financial models;
• A siting study should be completed for SMRs in the U.K. to determine if there
are any advantages to be gained over larger nuclear power plants, both in terms
of total generating capacity that is possible to site on existing sites and what the
size of the construction area would be for SMRs on existing sites;
• An assessment of SMR technologies for a range of roles in the U.K. should be
complete, including district heating, industrial heat supply and plutonium
management. The findings of such a study could drive the potential nuclear
choices in the future, including SMRs;
• The U.K. skills and manufacturing base should be reassessed for SMRs,
including the potential for factories in the U.K. to manufacture the full required
modules for SMRs. This activity should be linked into the Nuclear Advanced
Manufacturing Research Centre in Sheffield.

4.2.3 France

France has 58 nuclear power reactors currently in operation with a total capacity of
63,120 MWe and an average age of 30 years. The energy availability in 2014 was
83.8% and the nuclear share 35.8%. The nuclear power reactors in operation in
France in 2016 is shown in Table 4.12.18

18
Italy has no nuclear power reactors in operation in the country in 2016.
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 183

Table 4.12 Nuclear power reactors in operation in France in 2016

Class Reactor MWe net Commercial operation
900 MWe Blayais 1–4 910 12/81, 2/83, 11/83, 10/83
Bugey 2–3 910 3/79, 3/79
Bugey 4–5 880 7/79–1/80
Chinon B 1–4 905 2/84, 8/84, 3/87, 4/88
Cruas 1–4 915 4/84, 4/85, 9/84, 2/85
Dampierre 1–4 890 9/80, 2/81, 5/81, 11/81
Fessenheim 1–2 880 12/77, 3/78
Gravelines B 1–4 910 11/80, 12/80, 6/81, 10/81
Gravelines C 5–6 910 1/85, 10/85
Saint-Laurent B 1–2 915 8/83, 8/83
Tricastin 1–4 915 12/80, 12/80, 5/81, 11/81
1300 MWe Belleville 1 and 2 1310 6/88, 1/89
Cattenom 1–4 1300 4/87, 2/88, 2/91, 1/92
Flamanville 1–2 1330 12/86, 3/87
Golfech 1–2 1310 2/91, 3/94
Nogent s/Seine 1–2 1310 2/88, 5/89
Paluel 1–4 1330 12/85, 12/85, 2/86, 6/86
Penly 1–2 1330 12/90, 11/92
Saint-Alban 1–2 1335 5/86, 3/87
N4-1450 MWe ChoozB 1–2 1500 12/96, 1999
Civaux 1–2 1495 1999, 2000
Source Nuclear Energy Insider

Two PWR type designs, the SCOR (France)19 and the MARS (Italy)20 have the
potential to be developed and deployed in the short-term, but show no substantial

19
The Simple Compact Reactor (SCOR) is a 2000 MW(th) integral design PWR. The design for
the reactor was developed at the Nuclear Energy Division of the Commissariat à l’Energie
Atomique in Cadarache, France. A detailed description of SCOR design and features is provided in
Chap. 2. The SCOR is mainly being developed for electricity generation, providing competitive
costs, when compared to large sized nuclear power reactors, through system simplification and
compactness in plant layout. However, the SCOR could be used in cogeneration schemes, such as
seawater desalination using low temperature processes, as well as thermo-compression or
multi-effect distillation. The SCOR is an integral design nuclear power reactor having new features
with respect to the designs of typical integral type reactors, which usually contain several modular
steam generators inside the vessel. Such architecture has led to the design of a large vessel, limiting
the output of the reactor to a maximum of 1000 MW(th). In the SCOR concept, the steam
generator is located above the vessel and acts as the vessel head. This layout component provides
space inside the vessel to increase core size and therefore, has the same safety advantages
(elimination of a large break loss of coolant accident); the SCOR unit power is twice as high as the
maximum power of a typical integral design reactor (IAEA NP-T-2.2 2009).
20
The Multipurpose Advanced Reactor, inherently Safe (MARS) is a 600 MW(th), single loop,
PWR; its design was developed at the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Energy Conversion
of the University of Rome “La Sapienza”. The design was conceived in 1984 as a nuclear power
plant able to conciliate well proven PWR nuclear technology with special safety features intended
184 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

progress toward deployment. The SCOR, with 630 MW(e), is in the conceptual
design stage, and is of interest as it represents a larger capacity integral-design
PWR. The modular MARS, with 150 MW(e) per module, is at the basic design
stage, and is of interest as it represents an alternative solution to other PWR SMRs,
the solution based on the primary pressure boundary being enveloped by a pro-
tective shell with slowly moving low enthalpy water.
France, with its large nuclear capacity, has the lowest emissions from power
generation of any European country. However, France in order to diversify its
energy mix has decided to reduce the role of nuclear energy in the electricity
generation to 50% during the coming years.
On the other hand, France is continuing to develop new nuclear power reactor
designs. The new France nuclear power reactor design is the so-called “Flexblue
design”, a small seabed nuclear power reactor with an output of 160 MW(e) with a
target deployment by 2025 (Fig. 4.5).
Each module, with the length of 146 and 14 m diameter, is moored on a stable
seafloor at a depth of up to 100 m within territorial waters. Additional modules can
be installed as demand increases. Flexblue is designed to be remotely operated from
an onshore control room. However, each plant includes an on-board control room
giving operators local control over the critical operations, including start up and
maintenances. Major overhaul is scheduled every 10 years (IAEA-ARIS 2014).21
Another type of SMR developed by France is being put forward by Areva. It is
based on the GT-MHR and has also involved Fuji. Reference design is 625 MWt
with prismatic block fuel like the GT-MHR. Core outlet temperature is 750 °C for
the steam-cycle HTGR version (SC-HTGR), though an eventual very high tem-
perature reactor (VHTR) version is envisaged with 1000 °C and direct cycle. The
present concept uses an indirect cycle, with steam in the secondary system, or
possibly a helium-nitrogen mix for VHTR, removing the possibility of contami-
nating the generation, chemical or hydrogen production plant with radionuclides
from the reactor core. It was selected in 2012 for the U.S. next generation nuclear
power plant, with 2-loop secondary steam cycle, the 625 MWt probably giving
250 MWe per unit, but the primary focus being the 750 °C helium outlet tem-
perature for industrial application (WNA 2015).

(Footnote 20 continued)
to facilitate plant location in the immediate proximity of highly populated areas in fast growing
countries, to meet their energy and potable water needs. The plant has to guarantee a high and
easily understandable safety level, has to be inexpensive and easy to build, operate, maintain and,
eventually, repair, and has to ensure low production of radioactive wastes. The objective of the
design effort was to find those (suitably supported by tests) plant solutions that could keep the
features of a ‘traditional’ PWR in an essentially simplified design (IAEA NP-T-2.2 2009). It is
important to highlight that Italy will not use in the country the prototype of SMR under
development, due to the law rejecting the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation recently
approved by the government.
21
For more information about this SMR see Chap. 2.
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 185

Fig. 4.5 Flexblue. Source IAEA

4.2.3.1 The Future of Small Modular Reactors in France

A detailed analysis of the French nuclear power reactors (all PWRs) shows that
construction costs and schedule have increased over time with the size of the plants.
The French PWR programme exhibited substantial real cost escalation, in spite of a
unique institutional setting allowing centralised decision making, regulatory sta-
bility, and dedicated efforts for standardised nuclear power reactor designs. This
evidence challenges the applicability of a learning economy on nuclear power plant
construction, as far as ‘traditional’ nuclear power plant is considered, without
introducing the concepts of design simplification and modularisation. The use of
SMRs could reduce the cost associated to a large nuclear power programme, due to
the modularisation concept associated with this type of nuclear power reactor
(Carelli and Ingersoll 2015).
France has a significant amount of large-scale nuclear generating capacity and it
is likely that this will continue into the future. It is unlikely that a supplementary
SMR market will be valuable in the short-term. Additionally, it is unlikely that
international companies would lead the deployment of SMR technology within
France, as the indigenous French nuclear industry is in a dominant position within
the French nuclear electricity generation market. Combined with this, France has
made a statement that they intend to reduce the nuclear generation mix from the
current 76.9–50% making SMRs in the next ten years unlikely.
The research and development of alternative nuclear technologies received a
boost when the U.K. committed £12. 5 million to join a group of nine other
governments and three utilities in a French test reactor. The Jules Horowitz Reactor
(JHR), under construction in Cadarache, France (the same southern city where the
ITER fusion Tokamak is rising) is scheduled for completion by 2016, at a cost of
186 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

€750 million. The JHR will support the development of different nuclear power
reactor systems, including those based on existing and future technologies. It will
have the potential to look at thorium fuels, fast reactors, novel fuel designs for
SMRs, among others. The project also includes the European Commission, as well
nuclear company Areva, French utility EdF, and Swedish utility Vattenfall. It is part
of a fleet of six European Union material test reactors, including the Halden reactor
in Norway, which will soon begin irradiating thorium fuel, and which supplies heat
to a nearby paper mill. JHR will replace the older Osiris Reactor, currently in
operation in France. At 100 MW, it will be the largest of the European test reactors.
France’s Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), a major
backer at JHR, has also been involved in the others.

4.2.3.2 The Future of the Nuclear Power Programme in France

The future of the nuclear programme in the country is uncertain. France’s pro-
duction of nuclear power has been steadily falling since May 2016, largely due to a
law passed by the French government in November 2015 intended to reduce the
share of nuclear energy production from 76.9% to only 50% by 2025. The legis-
lation could force EdF, the country’s state-controlled utility, to close 18–20 of its 58
nuclear power reactors by 2025. France’s nuclear industry is one of the most
advanced in the world and is still very active in developing nuclear technology and
is building some of the world’s most advanced reactors, but the implementation of
this law could have a negative impact in the French nuclear industry. EdF has
serious financial problems and many of its projects have credit ratings below
investment grade. The company has more than US$40 billion in debt. Shares in EdF
have fallen 55% over the past year, reducing its market capitalization to only US
$23.6 billion. The French government owns 85% of EdF. France currently operates
63,200 MW of nuclear capacity, according to the WNA.
The law requiring nuclear reactors to be shut down in favor of solar power is
extremely controversial in France. It stems from a promise made by French
President François Hollande during the 2012 election to prop up his temporary
alliance with the anti-nuclear Green party. Shutting down reactors is a major policy
shift as reactors and fuel products and services are a major French export. The
country is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity and mainly sells to Italy,
Great Britain, Switzerland, Belgium and Spain—it earns France about $3.38 billion
annually.

4.2.4 Ireland

Electricity generation in Ireland contributes to almost a quarter of the country’s

overall greenhouse gas emissions and most import dependent country in Europe. In
future markets, Ireland’s electricity generation will consist of a large supply coming
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 187

from renewable sources. However, these sources are variable and still require a
base-load supply from a power plant to meet demand for the entire year. These
power plants are currently being run by fossil fuels, however, to reduce the
country’s emissions a more environmental source for base-load supply such as
nuclear must be considered.
Due to the nature of Ireland’s electricity grid, large nuclear power reactors are
considered too large. However, in recent years a new type of reactor, SMRs, has
been designed for small electricity grids such as Ireland. These reactors have many
advantages such as significantly lower capital costs, enhanced safety features,
factory fabrication and can be built modularly to meet the demand, among others.
Having explored issues related to the feasibility of SMR’s for Ireland there are a
number of conclusions, which can now be drawn:
• Energy security and climate change appear to be the key drivers towards an
electricity mix with a significant contribution from emission free sources.
However, renewable energy will not meet 100% of the demand due to fluctu-
ations in supply, therefore an emission free base-load supply that promotes
energy security such as nuclear power should be considered;
• Due to the nature of the Irish grid, large nuclear power reactors are deemed too
large and it is, therefore, necessary to analyse the feasibility of SMRs, which
have many advantages, including enhanced safety, modular construction, sig-
nificantly lower capital cost, and their smaller output allows them to adapt more
easily to small electricity grids such as Ireland;
• The main barriers identified in deploying the nuclear technology in the country
are dealing with the spent fuel and public opinion rejection of the use of this
technology for electricity generation (Brazill 2013).

4.2.5 Sweden

Nuclear power in Sweden includes nine nuclear power reactors, with an average age
of 36 years and a total capacity of 8849 MWe. The energy availability in 2014 was
74.7% and the nuclear share in 2015 reached 34.33%. The Sweden nuclear power
programme is shown in Table 4.13.
Despite the decision of the previous Swedish government to close all nuclear
power reactors in the coming decades, the current coalition government is thinking
to continue the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation in the future. To
support the continuation of the Swedish nuclear power programme, the nuclear
industry is developing new types of nuclear power reactors with new safety
features.
Without any doubt, the Lead Cold Reactors (Blykalla Reaktorer) is a spin-off
company from the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm.
Its SEALER (Swedish Advanced Lead Reactor) is a lead-cooled reactor designed
with the smallest possible core that can achieve criticality in a fast spectrum using
188 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

Table 4.13 The Sweden nuclear power programme in 2016

Reactor Type MWe net Commercial operation Expected shutdown
Oskarshamn 1 BWR 473 1972 2017–19
Oskarshamn 2 BWR 1400 1985 2035 or 2045
Ringhals 1 BWR 878 1976 2020
Ringhals 2 BWR 807 1975 2019
Ringhals 3 BWR 1062 1981 2041
Ringhals 4 BWR 938 1983 2043
Forsmark 1 BWR 984 1980 2040
Forsmark 2 BWR 1120 1981 2041
Forsmark 3 BWR 1187 1985 2045
Combined years of operation remaining 160–170 years
Source Nuclear Energy Insider

20% enriched uranium oxide fuel. The reactor is 8 MWt, with a peak electric power
of 3 MWe, leading to a core life of 30 full power years (at 90% availability). The
reactor vessel is designed to be small enough to permit transportation by aircraft.
SEALER-5 is a 5 MWe reactor design. Replacing the standard uranium oxide
fuel with uranium nitride, the same core can host 40% more fissile material. This
allows the core to operate at 40% higher thermal power for the same duration as
SEALER-3, i.e., 30 years.
SEALER-10 is the waste management system. After 30 years of operation, the
early SEALER units will be transported back to a centralised recycling facility. The
plutonium and minor actinides present in the spent fuel will then be separated and
converted into nitride fuel for recycle in a 10 MWe SEALER reactor. One such
reactor will be sufficient to manage the used fuel of 10 smaller SEALER units
(WNA 2015).

4.2.6 Germany

It is important to highlight that the PBMR type of reactor was originally designed
by German companies, but they abandoned the design in 1991 when it became clear
that no country would buy it. A 15 MW prototype PBMR, known as the AVR,
operated in Germany from 1967–1988. A report released in 2008 by the Jülich
Research Center on its pebble bed reactor design revealed significant technical
problems with the AVR, including unexpectedly high operating temperatures. In
addition, radioactive graphite dust was generated when the “pebbles” moved
against each other, which increases problems in decommissioning and could pose a
serious safety problem in an accident. Finally, the report recommended containment
structures, which would increase the cost of the design significantly (Moormann
and Thomas 2008).
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 189

Despite the fact the Germany is one of the European countries with great
experience in the construction and operation of nuclear power plants, the German
government took the decision to shut down all nuclear power reactors currently in
operation by 2022, and will exclude after that year the use of nuclear energy for
electricity generation. It makes little sense to be against the use of nuclear power if
global warming is an existential threat to mankind, but this contradiction persists in
many countries, particularly in the developed world. This contradiction now
manifests itself in Europe where cutting CO2 emissions has been institutionalised,
and where Germany is eliminating nuclear power and France is beginning to cut its
growth. This contradiction has important implications in the German energy sector
and could have a big impact in the structure of the energy mix in many other
European countries in the coming years.

4.2.7 Poland

Poland is a growing European economy. But it energy consumption per capita is

much lower than in some other EU countries, particularly in the case of electricity.
This is one of the main limitations as the country’s economic and social prosperity
grows. Production of primary energy in Poland is based mainly on fossil fuels. The
first place belongs, and will most likely belong for a long time, to hard coal and
lignite, which cover 56% of the demand. Crude oil also has a significant share of
25% (Chmielowski 2013).
The Ministry of Economy has issued a programme on the future use of nuclear
energy for electricity generation entitled “Energy Policy for Poland until 2030”,
considering nuclear power as an important component of the electricity supply mix
for the country in the future. The government of Poland adopted resolution 4/2009,
related to the Polish nuclear power programme development on 13 January, 2009,
supporting the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation (Chmielowski 2013).
According to the government plan, Poland has the intention to build two nuclear
power plants, each with a 3000 MW capacity,22 as part of a strategy to diversify the
country’s energy sources away from coal and an over-reliance on natural gas from
Russia. Replacement of aging coal fired power plants in places like Poland and
elsewhere in Eastern Europe, represent possible market opportunities for SMRs.
The primary reason in favour to the use of SMRs in Poland is that a 50 MW, or
even a 225 MW, is still orders of magnitude cheaper than a 1000 MW unit planned
to be constructed in the country. One important element that need to be aware of, is
that the first unit can, with its revenue, pay for the second, and so on (Yurman
2016).

22
In November 2011, the short list of three potential sites was announced to the public: Choczewo
(Choczewo commune, poviat of Wejherowo, Pomeranian voivodships); Gąski (Mielno commune,
poviat of Koszalin, West Pomeranian voivodships), and Żarnowiec (Krokowa commune, poviat of
Puck, Pomeranian voivodships) (Chmielowski 2013).
190 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

However, the year 2015 was not successful for the Polish nuclear power pro-
gramme, considering the decision taken by the government in December 2014,
leading to termination of an agreement with the Worley Parsons company, which
had been dealing with the environmental and location research of the Poland first
nuclear power plant. This is one of the reasons, why the recent months have been
characterised with low value information about the construction of nuclear power
plant in the country, the purpose of which was to convince the public that the
project aiming at creating the first Polish nuclear power plant is still valid.
In 2015, consultations involving the Pomeranian municipalities, in which the
nuclear power plant would be built were carried out. Some news also emerged
regarding the potential uranium supplies realised by the KGHM mining company,
should the project be initiated—within the scope of recovering the radioactive
element from the copper strata in the Lubin-Sieroszowice region.
In fact, the only interesting series of events regarding the construction of the
Polish nuclear power reactors during 2015 could have been seen in the evolution of
the stance taken by the Law and Justice party, when it comes to the initiative of
providing Poland with a nuclear power plant. Prior to the parliamentary election,
the party in question assured the society that it is going to continue the investment,
with the new ministry responsible for the matters of energy taking the lead role
regarding the issue. However, after Law and Justice party won the election, the
declarations pertaining the nuclear power programme became far more reserved.
Moreover, some critical voices, with arguments against the construction of the
nuclear power plant, also emerged in the public sphere, claiming that the future of
the initiative still remains unclear, and that no relevant decisions were made within
that scope so far. What is more, discussions pertaining the future energy mix also
avoided the use of the term “nuclear power”. The Polish officials were focused on
the use of gas and coal for electricity generation instead (creating the second gas
terminal, curing the mining industry, renegotiating the climate policy provisions,
among others).
In December 2015, the Polish General Directorate for the Environment (GDOS)
started the scoping phase for the Environmental Impact Assessment for the first
Polish nuclear power plant with a notification to states within 1000 km from the
proposed three sites. Directly after the start of this scoping phase, Polska Grupa
Energetyczna informed GDOS that it was withdrawing one of the three proposed
sites, at Choczewo, because of the potential impacts on protected nature areas
(Rynek Infrastruktury 2016). In January 2016, Poland’s newly formed government
further slowed down nuclear power plans with the head of the Energy Ministry
admitting that the 2020 target for commissioning a first unit was no longer viable
(NIW 2016).
The role of the EU on the Polish nuclear power programme implementation is
very important. In June 2013, the Commission has proposed to amend the 2009
nuclear safety directive. The proposal:
• Introduces new EU-wide safety objectives;
• Sets up a European system of peer reviews of nuclear installations;
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 191

• Establishes a mechanism for developing EU-wide harmonised nuclear safety

guidelines;
• Strengthens the role and independence of national regulators;
• Increases transparency on nuclear safety matters;
• Includes new provisions for on-site emergency preparedness and response.
The EU needs its own verification mechanism to ensure that common safety
objectives are achieved. At least every six years, nuclear installations would have to
undergo specific assessments on one or more nuclear safety issues. The assessments
would be submitted for EU-wide peer reviews. Such strategy forms solid founda-
tion for construction and operation of nuclear power plants in Europe, and partic-
ularly in Poland (Chmielowski 2013).
Taking the above into account, speculations began to emerge, suggesting that the
investment is going to be hampered, or even frozen by the Law and Justice party,
and modified in the future, in the light of the fact that SMR technology is being
quickly developed now. Such approach would make it possible for the new gov-
ernment to continue the nuclear power programme, distributing it across a longer
time-line and decreasing the cost of the initiative. Not only does the above refer to
the nuclear power reactors themselves, but also to reconstruction of the distribution
network, so that power could be effectively provided to the whole country.

4.2.7.1 The Future of Small Modular Reactors in Poland

A new report published by Poland’s National Center for Nuclear Research

(Narodowe Centrum Badań Jądrowych, NCBJ) concludes that while SMR might
become important for Polish power industry in the future, it is very unlikely that
they will ever play a key role as basic electricity source in the country. SMRs might
appear in a rather long-term perspective, not before 2030. The idea of SMRs (e.g.,
HTRs that might co-generate electricity and heat) is pursued jointly with some
partners from the country and abroad (Mining & Metallurgy Academy AGH in
Cracow and Prochem, Warsaw University of Technology).
One thing is true: SMRs will not be commercially available soon and for this
reason in Poland, some SMR technology for commercial plants now under con-
sideration by the government will probably not be selected before 2022, while
building permit for the first SMR plant, if approved, will be issued around 2025,
and the plant may be put into operation around 2030.
One of the element that could influence the decision of the Polish government
regarding the possible construction of SMRs instead of a large nuclear power plant
is the fact that investment outlays per unit power could be, in the case of SMRs,
higher than those necessary in case of any classical nuclear power plant.
The Polish government’s policy is to develop by 2030 nuclear power reactors of
a combined electric power of 6000 MW. A few tens of SMR reactors would be
needed to attain that power level. Such a large number of SMRs would be not only
economically unjustified, but also technically unfeasible.
192 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

Besides, since safety is an absolute priority issue for the government in Poland,
the government are going to deploy only such reactors that can demonstrate record
of successful operation in other countries, during the recently concluded stress test
programme carried out in several countries, and meet the most stringent safety
standards. Therefore, they will be for sure the so-called “Generation III” reactors.

4.2.8 Finland

According to IAEA and WNA sources, Finland generates about 70 billion kWh per
year, the majority from imported fossil fuels (mostly coal and some natural gas).
Coal is imported from Russia (66% of the total) and Poland; all of its natural gas
supply comes from Russia. Overall the country pays about €7 billion per year to
import two-thirds of its energy, and two-thirds of that from Russia.
In 2015, electricity production was 66,160 TWh, and of this nuclear energy
provided 22,323 TWh or 66.26% of the total. As a result, nuclear power is the
biggest source of electricity with around 27% of Finnish consumption. In 2014, the
electricity generated by coal and natural gas was 18 TWh, hydro 13.4 TWh and
biofuels 11.7 TWh. Net import was 18 TWh.
It is important to highlight that Finland has a very high per capita electricity
consumption—almost 15,000 kWh per head per year. In 2012, electricity con-
sumption was 82.1 TWh, including 15.7 TWh (19%) net imports.
Finland has four nuclear power reactors currently in operation with a total
capacity of 2752 MW and with an age average of 37 years; one nuclear power
reactor is under construction with a capacity of 1600 MW. The nuclear power
programme in Finland foresee the construction of one additional large nuclear
power reactor with a capacity of 1200 MW, but the final decision to start the
construction of this unit has been postponed due to delay in the conclusion of the
construction of Olkiluoto 3. The energy availability in 2014 reached 93.7% and the
nuclear share in 2015 reached 33.74%. The Finland nuclear power programme does
not foresee the construction of SMRs in the near future.
Table 4.14 shows the nuclear power reactors currently in operation in Finland in
2016.
The country is part of the deregulated Nordic electricity system, which faces
shortages, especially in any dry years, when hydroelectric generation is curtailed.
Finland is very short of power until Olkiluoto 3 is commissioned. Over 2009–2011
some two-thirds of imported electricity came from Russia, but following the
completion of the Fenno-Skan 2800 MWe HVDC link with Sweden, in 2012,
three-quarters came from Sweden and Russia dropped back to 4.4 TWh. In 2014,
energy imports from Sweden were much higher than in 2013 (WNA-Finland 2016).
4.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small … 193

Table 4.14 Nuclear power reactors currently in operation in Finland in 2016

Reactor Type Model Present capacity (MWe net) First power Licence to
Loviisa 1 WER-440 V-213 488 1977 2027
Loviisa 2 WER-440 V-213 488 1980 2030
Olkiluoto 1 BWR – 885 1978 2039
Olkiluoto 2 BWR – 880 1980 2042
Combined years of operation remaining 74 years
Source Nuclear Energy Insider

4.2.9 The Nuclear Power Programme in Other European

Countries

4.2.9.1 Belgium

The Belgian nuclear power programme includes seven nuclear power reactors with
an average age of 36 years and a total capacity of 5943 MWe. The energy avail-
ability in 2014 was 61.6% and the nuclear share in 2015 reached 37.53%.
Table 4.15 shows the Belgium nuclear power programme in 2016.
The Belgian government has no plans for the use of SMRs for electricity gen-
eration in the future. By the contrary, the Netherlands and Germany governments
are requesting the Belgian government the closure of all nuclear power plants
currently in operation in the country, due to lack of different operational problems
that both plants are facing.

Table 4.15 The Belgian nuclear power programme in 2016

Reactor Type Present capacity (MWe net) First power Expected shutdown
Doel 1 PWR 433 1974 2025
Doel 2 PWR 433 1975 2025
Doel 3 PWR 1006 1982 2022
Doel 4 PWR 1047 1985 2025
Tihange 1 PWR 962 1975 2025
Tihange 2 PWR 1008 1982 2023
Tihange 3 PWR 1054 1985 2025
Combined years of operation remaining 58 years
Source Nuclear Energy Insider
194 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

Table 4.16 The Bulgarian nuclear power programme in 2016

Reactor Type Model Present capacity First power Expected shutdown
(MWe net)
Kozloduy 5 WER-1000 V-320 963 11/87 2017a
Kozluduy 6 WER-1000 V-320 963 8/91 2021a
a
Plans to extend plant life to 50−60 years began in 2012
Source Nuclear Energy Insider

4.2.9.2 Bulgaria

The Bulgarian nuclear power programme includes two nuclear power reactors with
an average age of 27 years and a total capacity of 1926 MWe. The energy avail-
ability in 2014 was 88.8% and the nuclear share in 2015 reached 31.32%. The
Bulgarian nuclear power programme is included in Table 4.16.
It is important to highlight that the Bulgarian government has no plans for the
use of SMRs for electricity generation in the future.

4.2.9.3 The Czech Republic

The nuclear power programme in the Czech Republic includes six nuclear power
reactors with an average age of 25 years and a total capacity of 3904 MWe. The
energy availability in 2014 was 83.8% and the nuclear share in 2015 reached
32.53%. Table 4.17 includes the current nuclear power programme in the Czech
Republic.
The Czech Republic has no concrete plans for the use of SMRs for electricity
generation in the coming years.
A summary of the remaining nuclear power programme in other European
countries is included in Table 4.18.

Table 4.17 The nuclear power programme in the Czech Republic in 2016
Reactor Type Model Present capacity (MWe First Licence
net) power to
Dukovany1 WER-440 V-213 468 1985 2025
Dukovany 2 WER-440 V-213 471 1986 2026
Dukovany 3 WER-440 V-213 468 1986 2026
Dukovany 4 WER-440 V-213 471 1987 2027
Temelin 1 WER-1000 V-320 1023 2000 2020
Temelin 2 WER-1000 V-320 1003 2003 2022
Combined years of operation remaining 50 years
Source Nuclear Energy Insider
References 195

Table 4.18 Nuclear power programme in a group of European countries in 2016

Country No. of Capacity Average 2014 Combined Planned capacity
reactors (MWe net) age Energy years of
availability operation
(%) remaining
Switzerland 5 3333 41 90.8 42 –
Slovenia 1 696 35 100 27 1100–1600
Spain 7 7070 30 87.9 33 –
(Licences until)
Slovakia 4 1816 24 90.7 56 2  471 MWe by
2017/2018 and
2  1200 MWe
Romania 2 1310 15 94.1 – 2  720 MWe by
2019/2020
Hungary 4 1889 31.5 88.1 35 2  1200 by
2023/2025
Source Nuclear Energy Insider

References

Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments (2014): A Supplement to: IAEA
Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS) http://aris.iaea.org; 2014.
Approaches for Assessing the Economic Competitiveness of Small and Medium Sized Reactors
(2013), IAEA, STI/PUB/1619, 2013.
Azapagic, A, Stamford, L (2011), Sustainability indicators for the assessment of nuclear power,
“Energy”, 36, 6037–6057, 2011.
Baxter, Jenifer (2016), Engineering the UK Electricity Gap, Mechanical Engineers Institute, U.K.,
2016.
Beken, T., Daele, S., and Dorn, N. (2010), Security risk in nuclear waste management:
exceptionalism, opaqueness and vulnerability, Journal of Environmental Management 91,
940–948, 2010.
Bordier, C. (2008), Développement des énergies renouvelables: quelle contribution du marché du
carbone?’ CdC Climat Recherche, Point Climat:16. Available at: http://www.caissedesdepots.
fr/fileadmin/PDF/finance_carbone/etudes_climat/note16_energies_renouvelables.pdf,
Accessed October 2, 2013.
Brazill, Keith (2013), Feasibility of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Ireland, Department of
Engineering, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland, 2013.
Carelli, Mario D, and Ingersoll, Daniel T. (2015), Handbook of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors,
Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy, Number 64, 2015.
Chmielowski, Andrzej G. (2013), Nuclear Power for Poland, Institute of Nuclear Chemistry and
Technology, Warsaw, Poland, World Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 2013.-
Department of Energy & Climate Change and Prime Minister’s Office (2013) ‘Initial
agreement reached on new nuclear power station at Hinkley – Press releases - GOV.UK,’
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/initial-agreement-reached-on-new-
nuclear-power-station-at-hinkley, Accessed November 6, 2013.
Conant, Even (2013), Russia’s New Empire: Nuclear Power, Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting,
2013.
Design Features to Achieve Defence in Depth in Small and Medium Sized Reactors (2009), IAEA
Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-2.2, IAEA; Vienna, Austria, 2009.
196 4 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small ...

Duffey, B., and Miller, A., (2005), The Contributions to Energy and Environmental Sustainability
of Nuclear Energy, Wind power and Hydrogen. In: 2005 WSEAS Int. Conf. on Environment,
Ecosystems, and Development, Venice, Italy, November 2e4, 2005, pp. 103e111, 2005.
European Commission (EC, 2010), Load-following operating mode at Nuclear Power Plants
(NPPs) and incidence on Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs, SPNR/POS/10 03 004
Rev. 05, ISSN 1018e5593, 2010.
European Wind Energy Association, Wind in Power, 2015 European statistics, February 2016.
Ford, Jason (2014), The case for small modular nuclear reactors in the UK, 2014.
International Atomic Energy Agency, Power Reactor Information System (IAEA-PRIS), IAEA
website, 2016.
MacFarlane, A. (2010), Nuclear power - A panacea for future energy needs?, Environment, 52(2),
34–46, 2010.
Matthews, Juan (2015), Small modular reactors – the real nuclear renaissance? Filed Under:
Featured, Science and Technology Posted: November 18, 2015.
Ministry of Economy, Energy Policy for Poland until 2030, Warsaw, 2009. http://www.mg.gov.pl/
files/upload/8134/Polityka%20energetyczna%20ost_en.pdf, 2009.
Moormann, R. and Thomas, Steve (2008), The demise of the pebble bed modular reactor, The
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, June 22, 2009, http://www.thebulletin, org/web-edition/features/
the-demise-of-the-pebble-bedmodular-reactor, 2008.
NIW, Weekly Roundup, 22 January 2016.
Nuclear Energy Insider (2015), UK SMR design filings must focus on back-up systems, spent fuel
to curb approval costs, 2015.
Nuclear News, Reference Special Section 47–67, Mach 2011.
Nuclear Power in Finland, World Nuclear Association, WNA, 2016.
Rynek Infrastruktury (2016), PGE EJ1 rezygnuje z lokalizacji ‘Choczewo, 2 February 2016,
(in Polish), see http://www.rynekinfrastruktury.pl/wiadomosci/elektrownia-jadrowa-nie-
powstanie-w-choczewie-52648.html, accessed 23 May 2016.
Schaffer, M.B. (2011), Towards a viable nuclear waste disposal programmeme, Energy Policy,
39, 1382–1388, 2011.
Small Modular Reactors a U.K. Opportunity (2014), Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2014.
SMR Market Map: Overview of the international SMR Market (2015), Nuclear Energy Insider,
2015.
Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015 (2015), policy paper, U.K. government, 2015.
Szondy, David (2012), Small modular nuclear reactors - the future of energy? GIZMAG, www.
gizmag.com › Energy › Nuclear › Thermoelectricity, 2012.
Waddington, Gordon (2015), Small Modular Reactors: a future in the UK? Independent
Consultant and author of NNL’s SMR feasibility study, Nuclear Energy Insider, 2015.
Waddington, Gordon (2014), Small Modular Reactors (SMR) Feasibility Study, 2014.
World Nuclear Association, December 2015.
World Nuclear Association, Small Nuclear Power Reactors, WNA, August 2015.
World Nuclear Association, Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries, WNA, Updated 31 May
2016, see http://www.worldnuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/emerging-
nuclear-energy-countries.aspx, accessed 2 June 2016.
Yurman, Dan (2016), The UK’s plan to become a global centre for small nuclear reactors: can it
succeed? 2016.
Chapter 5
The Current Situation and Perspective
of the Small Modular Reactors Market
in the Asia and the Pacific Region

Abstract Without doubt, Asia and the Pacific is the region of the world with the
largest nuclear power programme to be implemented in the coming decades. The
countries with the largest nuclear power programme are China (36 units), the
Republic of Korea (25 units), and India (22 units). China has the largest nuclear
power construction programme in the world (20 units). However, according to
OECD/IEA sources, nuclear power has a limited role in Southeast Asia during the
coming decades. This reflects the complexities of developing a nuclear power
programme in some of the countries in that region and the slow progress to date of
most countries that have included a nuclear power programme in their long-term
plans. Vietnam is the most active and is currently undertaking site preparation,
work force training and the creation of a legal framework. Moreover, Vietnam has
signed a co-operative agreement (that includes financing) with Russia to build its
first nuclear power plant, with the aim of entering the energy mix of the country
before 2025. Thailand includes nuclear power in its Power Development Plan from
2026, but these plans could face public opposition. It is expected that Thailand
could start producing electricity from nuclear power plants before 2030.

5.1 Introduction

According to the nuclear power programme in Asia (WNA-Asia 2016), in contrast

with North America and most of Western Europe, where growth in electricity
generating capacity and particularly nuclear power levelled out for many years,
several countries in East and South Asia are planning and building new nuclear
power reactors to meet their increasing demands for electricity.
During the period 2014–2025 it is expected to add, in some countries of the
region, a nuclear generating capacity of 1400 GWe, over 120 GWe per year. This is
about 46% of the world’s new capacity in that period—under construction and
planned (current world capacity is about 6200 GWe, of which 380 GWe is
nuclear). Much of this growth will be in China, India and Korea. The nuclear share

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 197

J. Morales Pedraza, Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52216-6_5
198 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

Table 5.1 Nuclear power reactors operation in the Asia and the Pacific region
Country Number of reactors Total net electrical capacity (MW)
Armenia 1 375
China 36 31,402
India 22 6225
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 915
Japan 43 40,290
Korea, Republic of 25 23,133
Pakistan 3 690
Total 131 103,030
The following information is included in the totals:
Taiwan, China 6 5052
Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

of this to 2020 is expected to be considerable in three of those countries, especially

if environmental constraints limit fossil fuel expansion.
However, according to OECD/IEA sources, nuclear power has a limited role in
Southeast Asia during the coming decades. This reflects the complexities of
developing a nuclear power programme in some of the countries in that region and
the slow progress to date of most countries that have included a nuclear power
programme in their long-term plans. Vietnam is the most active and is currently
undertaking site preparation, work force training and the creation of a legal
framework. Moreover, Vietnam has signed a co-operative agreement (that includes
financing) with Russia to build its first nuclear power plant, with the aim of entering
the energy mix of the country before 2025. Thailand includes nuclear power in its
Power Development Plan from 2026, but these plans could face public opposition.
It is expected that Thailand could start producing electricity from nuclear power
plants before 2030.
Without doubt, Asia and the Pacific is the region of the world with the largest
nuclear power programme to be implemented in the coming decades. The countries
with the largest nuclear power programme are China (36 units), the Republic of
Korea (25 units), and India (22 units). China has the largest nuclear power con-
struction programme in the world (20 units) (see Tables 5.1 and 5.2).
The number of nuclear power reactors operating in the region is included in
Table 5.1. This is the second largest nuclear programme in the world after Europe.1
The number of nuclear power reactors under construction in that region in 2016
is shown in Table 5.2.2

1
If the nuclear power reactors of Japan are not included, then this programme is the third after the
nuclear power programme of the European region and the U.S.
2
This construction programme is the largest in the world.
5.1 Introduction 199

Table 5.2 Number of nuclear power reactors under construction in Asia and the Pacific Rim in
2016
Country Number of reactors Total net electrical capacity (MW)
Pakistan 3 1644
Korea, Republic of 3 4020
Japan 2 2650
India 5 2990
China 20 20,500
Total 33 31,804
The following information is included in the totals:
Taiwan, China 2 2600
Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

Fig. 5.1 Nuclear power reactors per country in the Asia and the Pacific region in 2014

The distribution of the nuclear power reactors planned, under construction and
operational per country in the Asia and the Pacific region in 2014 can be seen in
Fig. 5.1.
The major electricity producers of the Pacific Rim are shown in Table 5.3.
According to Table 5.3, only two countries in the Pacific Rim have no nuclear
power plants currently in operation: Australia and Indonesia. The government in
these two countries has no immediate plans for the introduction of a nuclear power
programme, but Indonesia had discussed this possibility in the past.
200 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

Table 5.3 Major electricity producers of the Asia and the Pacific Rim

As set out by Locatelli et al. (2014), countries committed to the introduction of

nuclear power include Vietnam, which is securing four Russian VVER-1000s, and
Bangladesh have also committed to a nuclear power programme—two
VVER-1000s. Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia are in the process of developing
plans for the introduction of a nuclear power programme in the future. Finally, in
the phase of public discussion for nuclear power are the Philippines, Singapore, and
Sri Lanka.
Surveying the Southeast Asian region of growing nuclear power needs, there is
ample opportunity for smaller output SMRs to contribute towards green energy
demand. The options for SMRs span from integral PWR to HTGRs, SFRs and even
MSRs, but in the near future it is the integral PWR, which will have the most
impact because of its 8-10-year timeframe (Kessides and Kuznetsov 2012) to
market as opposed to the 20-year time scales of most advanced designs. Two
leading iPWR designs mPower and NuScale are in the process of NRC review for
licensing, while Russia has a variety of marine-reactor derived LW-SMRs and the
Argentinian CAREM and Korean SMART SMRs are either under construction or
in advanced development. The Chinese CNNC/ NPIC’s ACP-100 has finalised its
preliminary design (Paterson 2015).
It is important to highlight that many Asian-Pacific countries like Malaysia,
Indonesia and Australia are coastal-dwelling nations with long power-grid struc-
tures requiring vast distances of transmission. A network of distributed SMR power
plants can serve to distribute energy production more efficiently, minimising
transmission losses with the added benefit of bringing employment to more regional
areas. Moreover, the modest output of SMRs at less than 300 MWe allows their
deployment on electrical grids without upgrades to existing transmission infras-
tructure (Paterson 2015).
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 201

5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small

Modular Reactors in the Asian and the Pacific Region

5.2.1 China

China is moving ahead rapidly in building new nuclear power plants, many of them
conspicuously on time and on budget. Some units under construction are leading
new-generation western designs.
China has today the largest nuclear power programme in the world. In 2016, a
total of 36 nuclear power reactors was in operation in the country and 20 units are
under construction. In 2015, nuclear power install capacity reached 31,402 MW
and power generation 5,618,400 GWh (170,355 GWh from nuclear energy).
Nuclear power generation represents 3.03% of the total electricity generated in the
country in 2015. For this reason, the government wish to increase the participation
of nuclear energy in the energy mix of the country in the future, including the use of
SMRs.
The nuclear power reactors operating in the country in 2016 is included in
Table 5.4.
The nuclear power reactors under construction in 2016 is shown in Table 5.5.
China’s electricity demand has been growing at more than 8% per year.
According to IEA sources, since 2012, China has been the country with the largest
installed power capacity, and it has increased this by 14% since then to reach
1245 GWe in 2014, or 21% of global capacity, slightly ahead of the U.S. (20%).
The age structures of the nuclear power plants in these two countries differ
remarkably: in China, almost 70% (865 GWe) was built within the last decade,
whereas in the U.S. half of the fleet (580 GWe) was over 30 years old.
In 2015, electricity demand growth was only 0.5%, corresponding with a 6.9%
growth in GDP, showing a marked decoupling of the two metrics, though this is
partly due to subdued economic conditions. Residential consumption is about 13%
of the total (compared with about 20% in Europe and 34% in the U.S.). The
electricity demand is strongest in the Guangdong province adjacent to Hong Kong.
To satisfy the foresee electricity demand, national plans adopted by the Chinese
government call for the addition of 58 GWe nuclear capacity by 2020, requiring an
average of 9700 MWe per year. This plan seems impossible to meet. At present,
China has 21.3 GW of nuclear supply under construction and a further 31.4 GW
already in service. Given that new plants take five years or more to build, the
country faces a shortfall of more than 7 GW on its target (Thomas and Steve 2016).
The Chinese industry projects 150 GWe nuclear by 2030. Per capita electricity
consumption was 3510 kWh in 2012. By 2030 it is expected to be 5500 kWh/year
and by 2050 about 8500 kWh/year (WNA-China 2016).
Electricity generation in 2015 increased only 0.3%, to 5.81 TWh. That from fossil
fuels was 4242 TWh, from hydro 1126 TWh, nuclear 171 TWh and renewables
271 TWh, according to the National Bureau of Statistics. Nuclear energy was the
202 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

Table 5.4 Nuclear power reactors operating in China in 2016

Name Type Location Reference Gross First grid
unit power electrical connection
(MW) capacity
(MW)
CHANGJIANG-1 PWR Changjiang 610 650 2015-11-07
CHANGJIANG-2 PWR Changjiang 610 650 2016-06-20
DAYA BAY-1 PWR SHENZHEN 944 984 1993-08-31
CITY
DAYA BAY-2 PWR SHENZHEN 944 984 1994-02-07
CITY
FANGCHENGGANG-1 PWR Fangchenggang 1000 1080 2015-10-25
FANGCHENGGANG-2 PWR Fangchenggang 1000 1080 2016-07-15
FANGJIASHAN-1 PWR Jiaxing 1012 1080 2014-11-04
FANGJIASHAN-2 PWR Jiaxing 1012 1080 2015-01-12
FUQING-1 PWR Fuqing 1000 1080 2014-08-20
FUQING-2 PWR Fuqing 1000 1080 2015-08-06
FUQING-3 PWR Fuqing 1000 1080 2016-09-07
HONGYANHE-1 PWR DALIAN 1061 1119 2013-02-17
HONGYANHE-2 PWR DALIAN 1061 1119 2013-11-23
HONGYANHE-3 PWR DALIAN 1061 1119 2015-03-23
HONGYANHE-4 PWR DALIAN 1000 1080 2016-04-01
LING AO-1 PWR SHENZEN 950 990 2002-02-26
LING AO-2 PWR SHENZEN 950 990 2002-09-14
LING AO-3 PWR SHENZEN 1007 1080 2010-07-15
LING AO-4 PWR SHENZEN 1007 1080 2011-05-03
NINGDE-1 PWR Ningde 1018 1080 2012-12-28
NINGDE-2 PWR Ningde 1018 1080 2014-01-04
NINGDE-3 PWR Ningde 1018 1080 2015-03-21
NINGDE-4 PWR Ningde 1018 1080 2016-03-29
QINSHAN 2-1 PWR Jiaxing 610 650 2002-02-06
QINSHAN 2-2 PWR Jiaxing 610 650 2004-03-11
QINSHAN 2-3 PWR Jiaxing 619 660 2010-08-01
QINSHAN 2-4 PWR Jiaxing 610 660 2011-11-25
QINSHAN 3-1 PHWR Jiaxing 677 728 2002-11-19
QINSHAN 3-2 PHWR Jiaxing 677 728 2003-06-12
QINSHAN-1 PWR Jiaxing 298 310 1991-12-15
TIANWAN-1 PWR Lianyungang 990 1060 2006-05-12
TIANWAN-2 PWR Lianyungang 990 1060 2007-05-14
YANGJIANG-1 PWR Yangjiang 1000 1086 2013-12-31
YANGJIANG-2 PWR Yangjiang 1000 1080 2015-03-10
YANGJIANG-3 PWR Yangjiang 1000 1080 2015-10-18
Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 203

Table 5.5 Nuclear power reactors under construction in China in 2016

Name Type Location Reference Gross First grid
unit power electrical connection
(MW) capacity
(MW)
FANGCHENGGANG-3 PWR Fangchenggang 1000 1150
FUQING-4 PWR Fuqing 1000 1080
FUQING-5 PWR Fuqing 1000 1087
FUQING-6 PWR Fuqing 1000 1087
HAIYANG-1 PWR Haiyang 1000 1250
HAIYANG-2 PWR Haiyang 1000 1250
HONGYANHE-5 PWR DALIAN 1000 1080
HONGYANHE-6 PWR DALIAN 1000 1080
SANMEN-1 PWR Taizhou 1000 1250
SANMEN-2 PWR Taizhou 1000 1250
SHIDAO BAY-1 HTGR Weihai 200 211
TAISHAN-1 PWR Taishan 1660 1750
TAISHAN-2 PWR Taishan 1660 1750
TIANWAN-3 PWR Lianyungang 990 1060
TIANWAN-4 PWR Lianyungang 990 1060
TIANWAN-5 PWR Lianyungang 1000 1118
TIANWAN-6 PWR Lianyungang 1000 1118
YANGJIANG-3 PWR Yangjiang 1000 1080 2015-10-18
YANGJIANG-4 PWR Yangjiang 1000 1080
YANGJIANG-5 PWR Yangjiang 1000 1087
YANGJIANG-6 PWR Yangjiang 1000 1087
Source IAEA PRIS (2016)
China is developing the world’s smallest nuclear power plant which could be installed in one of
the islands in the disputed South China Sea to supply power to households and can run for up to
decades without refuelling, according to media sources. Modelled on the compact lead-cooled
thermal reactor used by the navy of the former Soviet Union in its nuclear submarines in the 1970s,
Chinese researchers are carrying out intensive work to develop “portable nuclear battery pack”
within five years

fastest-growing electricity source in 2015 (29% growth), while generation from

fossil fuels dropped 2.7%, due to weak economic conditions more than the ongoing
energy transformation. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency said that 2015 gross
nuclear generation was 169 TWh, 3% of total, and net 158.3 TWh. Net export was
12 TWh in 2013, with that to Hong Kong being 9 TWh, adding to its 39 TWh
generation (29 TWh from coal, 10 TWh from gas) (WNA-China 2016).
Finally, it is important to highlight the following: The February 2015 edition of
the BP Energy Outlook 2035 projects that by 2035 China becomes the world’s
largest energy importer, overtaking Europe, as import dependence rises from 15 to
23%. China’s energy production rises by 47% while consumption grows by 60%.
China’s fossil fuel output continues to rise with increases in natural gas (+200%)
204 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

and coal (+19%) more than offsetting declines in oil (−3%). China’s CO2 emissions
increase by 37% and by 2035 will account for 30% of world total with per capita
emissions surpassing the OECD by 2035. In the 13th Five-Year Plan from 2016, six
to eight nuclear power reactors are to be approved each year and after 2020 the
number of units to be approved each year increase to 10 (WNA-China 2016)
(Table 5.6).

5.2.1.1 The Development of Small Modular Reactors in China

One of the most advanced small SMR project is in China, where Chinergy is starting
to build the 210 MWe HTR-PM, which consists of twin 250 MWt HTRs which
build on the experience of several innovative reactors in the 1960s to 1980s
(WNA-SMR 2016).
The following are the SMRs under development in China:
1. ACP100
The Nuclear Power Institute of China (NPIC), under China National Nuclear
Corporation (CNNC), has designed a multi-purpose SMR, the ACP100. It has
passive safety features, notably decay heat removal, and will be installed under-
ground. In April 2015, CNNC requested a review of the design by the IAEA in its
Generic Reactor Safety Review process, expected to take seven months from July.
In October 2015, the Nuclear Power Institute of China (NPIC) signed an agreement
with UK-based Lloyd’s Register to support the development of a floating nuclear
power plant using the ACP100S reactor, a marine version of the ACP100.3
CNNC New Energy Corporation, a joint venture of CNNC (51%) and China
Guodian Corp, is planning to build two ACP100 units in Putian county, Zhangzhou
city, at the south of Fujian province, near Xiamen, as a demonstration plant. This
will be the CNY 5 billion (US$788 million) phase 1 of a larger project. Completion
of preliminary design is expected in 2014, with construction start in 2015 and
operation in 2017. Construction time is expected to be 36–40 months. The com-
pany signed a second ACP100 agreement with Hengfeng county, Shangrao city in
Jiangxi province, and a third with Ningdu county, Ganzhou city in Jiangxi province
in July 2013 for another ACP100 project costing CNY 16 billion (US$2,521.6
million). Further inland units are planned in Hunan and possibly Jilin provinces.
Export potential is considered to be high.
2. CAP-150
This is an integral PWR, with SNPTC provenance, being developed from the
CAP1000 in parallel with CAP1400 by SNERDI, using proven fuel and core
design. It is 450 MWt/150 MWe and has eight integral steam generators (295 °C),
and claims “a more simplified system and more safety than current third generation

3
For more information on this type of SMR, see Chap. 2.
Table 5.6 Further nuclear power units proposed
Plant Province MWe gross Expected model Project control Construction Start
up
Nanchong (Nanchun, Sanba) Sichuan 4 × 1150 Hualong 1 CGN
units 1-4
Shidaowan units 3 and 4 Shandong 2 × 1250 AP1000 SNPTC and Huaneng
Tianwan units 7 and 8 Jiangsu 2 × 1200 VVER-1200 CNNC
(AES-2006)
Xianning (Dafan) units 3 and 4 Hubei 2 × 1250 AP1000 CGN
Pengze units 3 and 4 Jiangxi 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI
Bailong units 3 and 4 Guanxi 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI
Shidaowan units 5 and 6 Shandong 2 × 1250 AP1000 SNPTC and Huaneng
Ruijin or Wan’an units 1 and 2 Jiangxi or Fujian 2 × 600 HTR-600 CNEC and CGN 2017? 2022
(3 × 2 × 100)
Haiyang units 5 and 6 Shandong 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI
Hongshiding (Rushan) units 1 Shandong 2 × 1150 Hualong 1 CNNC
and 2
Cangzhou units 1 and 2 Hebai 2 × 1150 Hualong 1 CNNC and Huadian
Xiaomoshan units 3 and 4 Hunan 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI
Pingnan/Baisha units 1 and 2 Guangxi 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular …

Pingnan/Baisha units 3 and 4 Guangxi 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI

Xudabao/Xudapu units 3-6 Liaoning 4 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC with Datang
Lufeng (Shanwei) units 3-6 Guangdong 4 × 1250? AP1000? CGN
Yingtan units 1-4 Jiangxi 4 × 1250 AP1000 Huaneng
Nanyang units 1-6 Henan 6 × 1250? AP1000 (if CPI) CNNC (or CPI)
Xinyang units 1-4 Henan 4 × 1150 Hualong 1 CGN
(continued)
205
Table 5.6 (continued)
206

Plant Province MWe gross Expected model Project control Construction Start
up
Changde (Chenzhou, Hengyang) Hunan 4 × 1150 Hualong 1 CNNC and Guodian?
CGN
Zhangzhou units 5 and 6 Fujian 2 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC and Guodian
Jiyang/Chizhou units 1 and 2 Anhui 2 × 1250? AP1000 CNNC
Sanmen units 5 and 6 Zhejiang 2 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC
Cangnan units 1 and 2 Zhejiang 2 × 1250 AP1000 CGN and Huaneng
Fuling units 1 and 2 Chongqing 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI
Jingyu units 1 and 2 Jilin 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI and Guodian
Donggang units 1 and 2 Liaoning 2 × 1150 Hualong 1? Huadian
Xiapu units 1-6 Fujian 6 × 1250 AP1000 Huaneng
Wuhu units 1 and 2 Anhui 2 × 1250 AP1000 CGN
Ningdu units 1 and 2 Jiangxi 2 × 100 ACP100 CNNC and Guodian
Xiaomoshan units 1 and 2 Hunan 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI
Yanjiashan/Wanan/Ji’an units 1 Jiangxi 2 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC
and 2
Shaoguan Guangdong 4 × 1250 AP1000 CGN
units 1-4 (inland)
Subtotal: 92 units 64 × 1250
18 × 1150
2 × 1200
6 × 200
2 × 100
=104,500 MWe
(continued)
5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …
Table 5.6 (continued)
Plant Province MWe gross Expected model Project control Construction Start
up
Further proposals (less definite or further away)
Cangzhou units 3-6 Hebai 4 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC and Huadian
Jiyang/Chizhou units 3 and 4 Anhui 2 × 1250? AP1000? CNNC
Cangnan units 3-6 Zhejiang 4 × 1250 AP1000 CGN/Huaneng
Longyou/Zhexi units 1-4 Zhejiang 4 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC
Haijia/Haifengunits 1 and 2 Guangdong 2 × 1250 AP1000 CGN
Fuling units 3 and 4 Chongqing 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI
Jingyu units 3 and 4 Jilin 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI and Guodian
Songjiang units 1 and 2 Shanghai 2 × 1250? AP1000 CGN and Guodian
Wuhu units 3 and 4 Anhui 2 × 1250 AP1000 CGN
Heyuan/Jieyang units 1-4 Guangdong 4 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC? CPI?
Xiaomoshan units 5 and 6 Hunan 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI
Haiyang units 7 and 8 Shandong 2 × 1250 AP1000 CPI
Hengren units 1-4 Liaoning 4 × 1250 AP1000 CPI
Zhanjiang units 1-4 Guangdong 4 × 1250 AP1000 CGN
Xiangtan Hunan 4 × 1250 AP1000 Huadian?
Donggang units 3 and 4 Liaoning 2 × 1000 Huadian?
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular …

Pulandian units 1-4 Liaoning 4 × 1250 AP1000 Huaneng

Shizu Chongqing 2 ×? CNNC
Qiaofushan Hebai 2 ×? CNNC
Xianning units 5 and 6 Hubei 2 × 1250 AP1000 CGN
Guangshui Hubei 4 × 1250 AP1000 CGN
Zhingxiang Hubei 4 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC, Datang
(continued)
207
Table 5.6 (continued)
208

Plant Province MWe gross Expected model Project control Construction Start
up
Hebaodao Guangdong 2 ×? CNNC?
Yibin Sichuan 2 × 1250 AP1000 CNNC
Gulei units 1 and 2 Fujian 2 × 100 ACP100 CNNC-CNEC
Hengfeng units 1 and 2 Jiangxi 2 × 100 ACP100 CNNC and Guodian
Tongren Guizhou 2 × 1250 AP1000 CGN
Xiapu Fujian 1 × 210 HTR Huaneng
Xiapu unit 1 Fujian 1 × 600 FNR (TWR-P) CNNC
Jiamusi Heilongjiang 2 × 1150 Hualong 1 Huaneng and CNNC, or
CGN
Subtotal: about 79 units 62 × 1250
2 × 1150
8 × 1000 or?
2 × 880?
1 × 210
1 × 600
4 × 100
=90,770 MWe
Total proposed: about 170 195,000 MWe
Note: It is likely that many proposed AP1000 units listed in this Table will be replaced by Hualong One or CAP1400. All are PWRs except Shidaowan and
Ruijin HTRs and Xiapu FNRs. Some of these entries are based on sketchy information. For WNA reactor table, 80% of numbers and capacity from this table
are listed as ‘Proposed’: 136 units and 153 GWe
5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 209

reactors”. It is pitched for remote electricity supply and district heating, with
three-year refueling and design life of 80 years. In mid-2013, SNPTC quoted
approx. US$5000/kW capital cost and 9 c/kWh.4
3. CAP-FNPP
In China, a SNERDI project was for a reactor for floating nuclear power plant. This
is to be 200 MWt and relatively low-temperature (250 °C), so only about 40 MWe
with two external steam generators and five-year refueling.5
4. ACPR100, ACPR50S
China General Nuclear Group (CGN) has two small ACPR designs: An ACPR100
and ACPR50S, both with passive cooling for decay heat and 60-year design life.6
The ACPR100 is an integral PWR, 450 MWt, 140 MWe, having 69 fuel assem-
blies. The offshore ACPR50S is 200 MWt, 60 MWe with 37 fuel assemblies and
four external steam generators. It is designed for mounting on a barge as floating
nuclear power plant. The applications for these are similar to those for the ACP100,
but the timescale is longer.
5. High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors (HTR-PM)
These use graphite as moderator (unless fast neutron type) and either helium,
carbon dioxide or nitrogen as primary coolant. The experience of several innovative
nuclear power reactors built in the 1960s and 1970s has been analysed, especially in
the light of U.S. plans for its Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) and China’s
launched its HTR-PM project in 2011.7 Lessons learned and documented for NGNP
include the use of TRISO fuel, use of a reactor pressure vessel, and use of helium
cooling (UK AGRs are the only HTRs to use CO2 as primary coolant). However,
U.S. government funding for NGNP has now virtually ceased, and the technology
lead has passed to China.
6. HTR-10
According to WNA (2016), China’s HTR-10, a 10 MWt high-temperature
gas-cooled experimental reactor at the Institute of Nuclear and New Energy
Technology (INET) at Tsinghua University north of Beijing, started up in 2000 and
reached full power in 2003. In 2004, the small HTR-10 reactor was subject to an
extreme test of its safety when the helium circulator was deliberately shut off
without the reactor being shut down. The temperature increased steadily, but the
physics of the fuel meant that the reaction progressively diminished and eventually
died away over three hours. At this stage a balance between decay heat in the core
and heat dissipation through the steel reactor wall was achieved, the temperature

4
For more information on this type of SMR, see Chap. 2.
5
For more information on this type of SMR, see Chap. 2.
6
For more information on these types of SMRs, see Chap. 2.
7
For more information on this type of SMR see Chap. 2.
210 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

never exceeded a safe 1600 °C, and there was no fuel failure. This was one of six
safety demonstration tests conducted then. The high surface area relative to volume,
and the low power density in the core, will also be features of the full-scale units
(which are nevertheless much smaller than most light water types).8
In February 2006, the State Council announced that the small HTR was the
second of two-high priority National Major Science and Technology Projects for
the next 15 years. China Huaneng Group is the lead organisation in the consortium
to build the demonstration Shidaowan HTR–PM with China Nuclear Engineering
and Construction Group (CNEC). Tsinghua University’s Institute of Nuclear and
New Energy Technology (INET) is the R&D leader. Following the agreement on
HTR industrialization cooperation between CNEC and Tsinghua University in
2003, the two parties signed a further agreement on commercialisation of the HTR
in March 2014. CNEC is responsible for the HTR technical implementation, and
becomes the main investor of HTR commercial promotion at home and abroad
(Kang and Jeremy 2015).
7. Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR)
China is building a 5 MWe thorium-breeding MSR (Th-MSR or TMSR), essen-
tially an LFTR, with 2015 target for operation at the Shanghai Institute of Nuclear
Applied Physics. China claims to have the world’s largest national effort on these
and hopes to obtain full intellectual property rights on the technology. The U.S. DoE
is collaborating with the China Academy of Sciences on the program, which had a
start-up budget of US$350 million. The target date for TMSR deployment is 2032
(WNA-China 2016).

5.2.1.2 Nuclear Technology Exports Policy of China

China has a determined policy for exporting nuclear technology, based on devel-
opment of the CAP1400 reactor with Chinese intellectual property rights and backed
by full fuel cycle capability. The policy is being pursued at a high level politically,
utilising China’s economic and diplomatic influence. CNNC and SNPTC are
focused on the export potential of the CAP1400, and SNPTC aims at “exploration of
the global market” from 2013, particularly in South America and Asia. In January
2015, the cabinet announced new incentives and financing for industry exports,
particularly nuclear power and railways, on the back of US$103 billion outbound
trade and investment in 2014. The Hualong One reactor is intended for export, with
CGN focusing on Europe and CNNC elsewhere, particularly South America.
Table 5.7 shows the countries and the type of nuclear power reactors that China
has intention to export to other countries.
According to Table 5.7, China is constructing in Pakistan two new 300 MWe
CNP-300 PWR units, joining the two units built there earlier, supplied by CNNC.

8
For more information about this type of SMR see Chap. 2.
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 211

Table 5.7 Countries and the type of nuclear power reactors that China has intention to export to
other countries
Country Plant Type Est. cost Company Status, financing
Billion
US$
Pakistan Chasma 3 CNP-300 2.37 CNNC Under construction, Chinese
and 4 finance 82% of $1.9 billion,
Exim-Bank.
Karachi Hualong One 9.6 CNNC First unit under construction,
Coastal 1 $6.5 billion vendor finance,
and 2 maybe 82% China finance,
Exim-Bank.
Romania Cernavoda Candu 6 €7.7 CGN Planned, to complete part-built
3 and 4 units, Chinese finance,
Exim-Bank and ICBC, Nov
2015.
Argentina Atucha 3 Candu 6 5.8 CNNC Planned, with local
involvement and $2 billion
Chinese financing, ICBC.
Atucha 4 Hualong One 7 CNNC Vendor financing envisaged,
or other ICBC in lead role.
site
UK Bradwell Hualong One CGN Promised future opportunity.
Iran Makran 2 × 100 MWe CNNC Agreement July 2015.
coast
Turkey Igneada AP1000 and SNPTC Exclusive negotiations
CAP1400 involving Westinghouse, 2014
agreement.
South Thyspunt CAP1400 SNPTC Prepare for submitting bid.
Africa
Kenya Hualong 1 CGN MOU July 2015.
Egypt Hualong 1 CNNC MOU May 2015.
Sudan ACP600? CNNC Framework agreement May
2016.
Armenia Metsamor 1 reactor CNNC Discussion underway.
(No HTR600 CNEC Export intention.
country)
Kazakhstan Fuel plant JV CGN Agreement Dec 2015.
Source WNA-China (2016)

In 2013, CNNC announced an export agreement for twin ACP1000 units, for
Pakistan’s Karachi Coastal Power station, costing US$9.6 billion. This will now use
Hualong One technology and be built by China Zhongyuan Engineering
Corporation. Construction of the first unit started in August 2015. CNNC is keen to
export the Hualong One reactor more widely, and says it is open to EPC, BOT and
BOO project models (WNA-China 2016).
In May 2014, Romania’s Nuclearelectrica signed an agreement with CGN to
explore the prospect of building two new nuclear power reactors at Cernavoda
212 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

nuclear power plant site, which currently has two Candu 6 nuclear power reactors. In
November 2013, two nuclear cooperation agreements were signed by Nuclearlectrica
with CGN, one a letter of intent relating to construction of units 3 and 4.
In July 2014, an agreement was signed by Argentine and Chinese presidents
towards construction of Atucha 3 as a PHWR unit. CNNC will provide most of the
equipment and technical services under long-term financing. Candu Energy will be
a subcontractor to CNNC. In September 2014, the utility NASA signed a com-
mercial framework contract with CNNC to progress this, with CNNC’s Qinshan
Phase III units as reference design for a Candu 6 unit. It will have US$3.8 billion in
local input and US$2 billion from China and elsewhere under a long-term financing
arrangement (WNA-China 2016).
SNPTC is keen to export the CAP1400 reactor, and considers Turkey and South
Africa to be good prospects. In November 2014, SNPTC signed an agreement with
Turkey’s utility EUAS and Westinghouse to begin exclusive negotiations to
develop and construct a four-unit nuclear power plant in Turkey. In December
2014, it signed two agreements in South Africa with a view to nuclear power plant
construction, and CNNC signed another there (WNA-China 2016).
CNEC has promoted the HTR technology to Dubai, UAE, Saudi Arabia, South
Africa, and Indonesia, and has signed agreements with some of them.

5.2.1.3 The Future of Small Modular Reactors in China

The future development of SMR in China is focusing on two types: Floating

seabed-based SMRs and land-based SMRs. According to the CNNC’s land-based
SMR developing plan, SMR can be designed to supply electricity and heating for
mid-size cities, to provide power to remote regions, and to serve the big industrial
hubs. Many province’s government such as Hunan, Jiangxi, and Heilongjiang have
announced their demands for SMRs and they have already started working with the
developer companies. CGN also proposed their floating and seabed-based SMR
plan for ACPR100. One of the most important use of the floating and seabed-based
reactor is offshore energy supply, which can serve the ocean development works
like offshore oil exploitation and seawater desalination (Kang and Jeremy 2015).
As SMR technology is being improved and SMR utilisation is being diversified,
more and more people are interested in the development of SMR. IAEA predicted
that by the year of 2030, there will be a total 18 million MW of SMR in operation
worldwide.
SMR in China is also regarded as a potentially huge market. Besides those
companies like CNNC, CGN and China Huaneng Group, which developed their
own technology of SMR, some other companies, like China Power Investment
Corporation (CPIC) and China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC), are also
trying to absorb other technologies and involve in the SMR industry. For example,
CPIC has already moved to the step of site election and plan to set up a subsidiary
with SPNTC in charge of its SMR programmes; CSIC has also come up with several
developing plans about floating and seabed-based SMRs (Kang and Jeremy 2015).
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 213

However, there are some difficulties for the development of SMRs in China.
These are the following:
• Due to low power level, current SMRs per kW appears close to Generation III
LWRs even though each unit is small;
• The prospect of SMRs depends on whether the revolutionary improvement of
nuclear safety can be achieved;
• Elimination of off-site emergency response should be the first priority in SMR
development in China for city district heating;
• Licensing system for SMR is not complete yet. Current commercial SMR
reviewing in China still follows conventional LWR procedure. For instance,
ACP100 uses large nuclear power plant site. Without clear reviewing and
licensing strategy, the elimination of off-site emergency response planning is
hard to achieve and SMR reflects little advantages on its flexibility and safety;
• Lack of relevant regulation and standards. In 2013, National Nuclear Safety
Administration of China established a special office working on legislation of
SMR. However, until today there is no proper regulation of SMR in China yet9;
• Economy lacks competitiveness in power generation. Unit power capital cost of
SMRs is much higher than large nuclear power plants. Electricity cost is also
higher. While efficiency is relatively low. Advantage of low financial threshold
reflects less interested in China compared with U.S. Nuclear power plants
owners in China are easy to get the financial resources.
Finally, it is important to stress the following: The 58 GW target of nuclear capacity
in service by 2020 is not achievable and, like nuclear capacity targets in the past in
China and elsewhere, it will be quietly revised down. The challenge for the Chinese
nuclear industry is to do what no other nuclear industry worldwide has been able to do;
to bring the cost of nuclear generation down to levels at which it can compete with
other forms of generation, particularly renewables (Thomas and Steve 2016).

5.2.2 The Republic of Korea (South Korea)

South Korea imports 96% of its energy by ship. Some US$170 billion was spent on
imported energy in 2011, one-third of all imports. Without nuclear power, this

9
The NNSA is under particular pressure to oversee the operation of 36 nuclear power reactors and
the construction of 20 more reactors, as well as being the first regulatory authority to review six
new designs. Not even the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which monitored standards
during the huge build out of the industry in the 1960s and 1970s, has faced such a workload.
Safety authorities are usually reluctant to appear critical of their international peers. but in 2014, a
senior French safety regulator described NNSA as “overwhelmed”, and claimed that the storage of
components was not at an adequate level. A senior official from SNPTC said in 2015: “Our fatal
weakness is our management standards are not high enough.” To build up the capabilities to
support such a large construction programme a pause in ordering new plants and equipment may
be necessary (Thomas and Steve 2016).
214 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

import bill would have been about US$20 billion higher, according to KEPCO.
Power demand in South Korea has increased by more than 9% per year since 1990,
but slowed to about 2.8% between 2006 and 2010 and is projected to be 2.5% in
2020. Per capita consumption in 2013 was 9700 kWh, up from 860 kWh/year in
1980. Over the last three-and-a-half decades, South Korea has enjoyed 8.6% average
annual growth in GDP, which has caused corresponding growth in electricity con-
sumption—from 33 TWh in 1980 to 545 TWh in 2014. South Korea is the only
OECD country with nuclear power and where the electricity market has not yet been
formally liberalized (WNA-South Korea 2016).
In 2015, electricity production was 549 TWh gross, with 236 TWh of this from
coal, 165 TWh (30%) from nuclear, 118 TWh from gas, 16.5 TWh from oil,
6 TWh from hydro, and 3.8 TWh from wind and solar (IEA provisional data). At
the end of 2015, installed capacity was 98.8 GWe, comprising 28.55 GWe coal,
30.4 GWe gas, 21.7 GWe nuclear, 4.1 GWe oil, 14.0 GWe hydro and other
renewables (KHNP figures).
In 2020, nuclear generation capacity of 26.4 GWe is expected to supply over
220 TWh—some 43% of the electricity generated in the country, simply consid-
ering those units now under construction and allowing for Kori 1 retirement. In
2022, nuclear capacity of 32.9 GWe was expected to be nearly one-third of the
national total of 101 GWe then. By 2030, the government earlier expected nuclear
energy to supply 59% of the power (333 TWh), from 41% of the installed capacity.
This would require adding about 24 GWe nuclear by 2030. But at the end of 2013 a
draft proposal to government was for nuclear to provide only 29% of capacity by
2035, instead of 41%, hence holding it at around the 2022 level (WNA-South Korea
2016).
South Korea has 25 nuclear power reactors operating in the country and three
units under construction in 2016. The nuclear power reactors operating in the
country in 2016 is shown in Table 5.8.
The number of nuclear power reactors under construction and planned in 2016 is
shown in Tables 5.9 and 5.10.
South Korea has a policy to promote the export of its nuclear technology to third
countries. Following the UAE sale, it was marketing to Turkey, Jordan, Romania,
Ukraine, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Philippines, Vietnam, and Czech Republic.
In addition to exporting reactors, it also plans to enter the US$78 billion market for
the operation, maintenance and repair of nuclear power reactors.
In April 2015, KEPCO signed an agreement with Brazil’s Eletrobras and
Eletronuclear, as a bridgehead into Latin America. In August 2016, KEPCO signed
an agreement with Kenya Nuclear Electricity Board (KNEB) to cooperate on con-
struction of nuclear power plants in Kenya. In November 2014, there were 200 UAE
engineers at Korean nuclear power plants, gaining experience for Barakah. The
workforce of 18,000 at Barakah includes 2300 Koreans. In 2016, KHNP signed an
agreement with Ukraine’s Energotatom, one objective of which is to complete the
construction of the Khmelnitski 3&4 partly-built Russian nuclear power reactors. An
associated objective is to cooperate in the Ukraine-EU “energy bridge” project,
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 215

Table 5.8 Nuclear power reactors operating in South Korea in 2016

Name Type Location Reference Gross First grid
unit power electrical connection
(MW) capacity
(MW)
HANBIT-1 PWR Yeonggwang-gun 997 1000 1986-03-05
HANBIT-2 PWR Yeonggwang-gun 984 993 1986-11-11
HANBIT-3 PWR Yeonggwang-gun 994 1050 1994-10-30
HANBIT-4 PWR Yeonggwang-gun 980 1032 1995-07-18
HANBIT-5 PWR Yeonggwang-gun 994 1053 2001-12-19
HANBIT-6 PWR Yeonggwang-gun 993 1052 2002-09-16
HANUL-1 PWR Ulchin-gun 966 1003 1988-04-07
HANUL-2 PWR Ulchin-gun 967 1008 1989-04-14
HANUL-3 PWR Ulchin-gun 997 1050 1998-01-06
HANUL-4 PWR Ulchin-gun 999 1053 1998-12-28
HANUL-5 PWR Ulchin-gun 998 1051 2003-12-18
HANUL-6 PWR Ulchin-gun 997 1051 2005-01-07
KORI-1 PWR Gijang-gun 576 608 1977-06-26
KORI-2 PWR Gijang-gun 640 676 1983-04-22
KORI-3 PWR Gijang-gun 1011 1042 1985-01-22
KORI-4 PWR Gijang-gun 1012 1041 1985-11-15
SHIN-KORI-1 PWR Busan and Ulsan 999 1049 2010-08-04
SHIN-KORI-2 PWR Busan and Ulsan 996 1046 2012-01-28
SHIN-KORI-3 PWR Ulsan 1340 1400 2016-01-15
SHIN-WOLSONG-1 PWR Gyeongju-si 997 1045 2012-01-27
SHIN-WOLSONG-2 PWR Gyeongju-si 993 1045 2015-02-26
WOLSONG-1 PHWR Gyeongju-si 657 685 1982-12-31
WOLSONG-2 PHWR Gyeongju-si 652 675 1997-04-01
WOLSONG-3 PHWR Gyeongju-si 665 688 1998-03-25
WOLSONG-4 PHWR Gyeongju-si 669 691 1999-05-21
Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

Table 5.9 Number of nuclear power reactors under construction in South Korea in 2016
Name Type Location Reference unit Gross electrical
power (MW) capacity (MW)
SHIN-HANUL-1 PWR Ulchin-gun 1340 1400
SHIN-HANUL-2 PWR Ulchin-gun 1340 1400
SHIN-KORI-4 PWR Ulsan 1340 1400
Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

exporting power from Khmelnitski 2 to Poland. In January 2015, the SMART Power
Company was launched with support from six supply chain companies in order to
export the small reactor technology, particularly to the Middle East for desalination.
216 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

Table 5.10 South Korean nuclear power reactors planned

Reactor Type Gross capacity Start Commercial
(MWe) construction operation
Shin Kori 5 APR1400 1400 September 2016 March 2021
Shin Kori 6 APR1400 1400 September 2017 March 2022
Shin Hanul 3, Ulchin APR1400 1400 2018 December 2022
Shin Hanul 4, Ulchin APR1400 1400 2019 December 2023
Cheonji 1 APR+ 1500 2022? December 2026
Cheonji 2 APR+ 1500 2023? December 2027
Cheonji 3 or Daejin 1 APR+ 1500 2025? 2029?
Cheonji 4 or Daejin 2 APR+ 1500 2026? 2029?
Total planned: 8 11,600
Note: Those not under construction are listed as planned in the WNA reactor table and the dates are
according to the 7th power supply plan, so all are expected online by the end of 2029
Source WNA-South Korea (2016)

In December 2009, the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) selected a

consortium headed by the Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) with
Daewoo to build a 5 MW research and test reactor (JRTR) at the Jordan University
for Science and Technology—the country’s first nuclear reactor. The reactor will be
like South Korea’s HANARO heavy water reactor, and is financed partly by a US
$70 million soft loan from South Korea, with 0.2% interest rate and repayment over
30 years (WNA-South Korea 2016).

5.2.2.1 Development of Small Modular Reactors in South Korea

South Korea is one of few countries in the world that has implemented nuclear
power programme continuously and aggressively since the first nuclear power plant
(Kori 1) commercial operation.
The development of the SMRs started in South Korea in 1997 with the begin-
ning of the implementation of the SMART development project. The main com-
ponents of the project are the following:
• The main type of SMR to be developed is the integral small LWR with
330 MWth power called “SMART”;
• The standard SMR design approval was in July 2012;
• The SMR development was based on LWR technology;
• Feasibility study for design development was performed;
• The construction of a SMR with a capacity of 50 MWe for global market;
• The use of Long-Lead Advanced Technology Development for SMR;
• Boron free operation, Internal CEDM, among other features;
• The construction of the prototype of SMR was initiated in 2013.
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 217

Why the need to develop SMR by South Korea? After nuclear power generation
became established in the 1950s, the size of reactor units has grown from 60 MWe
to more than 1600 MWe, with corresponding economies of scale during operation.
Most nuclear power plants currently available on the market are large-sized plants
requiring a large initial investment and a long construction period. Therefore, only a
select number of countries can afford to utilise nuclear energy for electricity gen-
eration. However, most countries operate small-sized power plants for their elec-
tricity supply using other energy sources, and 96.5% of the 127,000 power plants
currently operating in the world are under 300 MWe (World Electric Power Plant
Database 2011). These countries cannot deploy large-sized nuclear power plants
partly owing to the high capital cost and small electricity grids (NP-T-2.1, IAEA
2009). Therefore, several countries including South Korea have entered a race to
develop small-sized reactors that can be built independently or as modules within a
larger complex, with capacity added incrementally as required. The economies of
scale are provided by the numbers produced. Small units are seen as a much more
manageable investment than large ones.
KAERI started developing SMART in 1997, aiming to export it to countries
with small electric grids and water supply issues (Chang et al. 1999; Kim et al.
2002).
1. System Integrated Modular Advanced Reactors (SMART)
SMART10 is a type of SMR intended primarily for the international market, par-
ticularly to countries where energy resources and transmission capacity are scarce,
and electricity is expensive. This type of SMR is expected to sell for about US$400
million, and thus would have a cost that is roughly competitive with the mPower
design. It is designed to provide heat for desalination, as well as electricity. For this
reason, the SMART will be a nuclear powe r reactor suitable for developing
countries that do not have large-capacity transmission and distribution power grids.
SMART is a 330 MWt PWR, designed to generate up to 100 MWe for thermal
applications like water desalination. It is more cost-effective and safer than the
current generation of conventional nuclear power reactors. The establishment of
the SMART consortium is part of the larger South Korean goal of becoming one
of the top three exporters of nuclear power reactors, along with the U.S. and
France, by 2030.
While the basic design is complete, the absence of any orders for an initial
reference unit has stalled development and frustrated export intentions. KAERI
licensed the design (standard design approval) in 2012 and incorporated
post-Fukushima Daiichi modifications to 2016. In mid-2010 a consortium of

10
For additional information on this type of SMR see Chap. 2. SMART will probably include
Generation III + cost saving and safety features.
218 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

13 South Korean companies led by KEPCO pledged US$83 million to complete the
design work. U.S.-based engineering company URS provided technical services to
KAERI. Cost is expected to be about US$5,000/kW. It has 57 fuel assemblies very
similar to normal PWR ones but shorter, and it operates with a 36-month fuel cycle.
KAERI planned to build a 90 MWe demonstration plant to operate from 2017, but
this is not practical or economic in South Korea.
In January 2015, the SMART Power Company (SPC) was launched with sup-
port from six supply chain companies to export the technology, particularly to the
Middle East for desalination. In March 2015, KAERI signed an agreement with
Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah City for Nuclear and Renewable Energy to assess the
potential for building at least two South Korean SMART reactors in that country,
and possibly more. The cost of building the first SMART unit in Saudi Arabia was
estimated at US$1 billion. The agreement is seen by South Korea as opening
opportunities for major involvement in Saudi nuclear power plan, and it also calls
for the commercialisation and promotion of the SMART reactor to third countries.
Through to November 2018, pre-project engineering will be undertaken jointly
including engineering design and preparations for building two units. KAERI has
designed an integrated desalination plant based on the SMART reactor to produce
40,000 m3/day of water and 90 MWe of power at less than the cost of gas turbine.
The first of these was envisaged for Madura Island, Indonesia, but the focus is now
on the Middle East (WNA-South Korea 2016).
South Korea’s drive to develop small- and medium-sized nuclear power reactors
based on its own technology is expected to be stimulated as a consortium led by a
state-owned electric power company has agreed to invest in it. The ministry of
Education, Science and Technology said that a consortium led by KEPCO and
comprised of 13 local companies, including POSCO and STX Heavy Industries
Co., will inject US$81.8 million into a project to complete design work and
technical verification of the system integrated modular advanced reactors.
2. South Korean Fast Reactor Designs
In South Korea, KAERI has been working on sodium-cooled fast reactor designs,
but a second stream of fast reactor development there is via the Nuclear
Transmutation Energy Research Centre of Korea (NuTrECK) at Seoul University.
It is working on a lead-bismuth cooled design of 35 MW, which would operate on
pyro-processed fuel. It is designed to be leased for 20 years and operated without
refuelling, then returned to the supplier. It would then be refuelled at the
pyro-processing plant and have a design life of 60 years. It would operate at
atmospheric pressure, eliminating major concern regarding loss of coolant accidents
(WNA-South Korea 2016).
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 219

5.2.3 Iran, Islamic Republic of

The Iranian government plans to expand its reliance on nuclear power to generate
electricity and reduce the use of oil and gas for this specific purpose. This pro-
gramme will substitute for some of Iran’s oil and gas consumption and allow the
country to export additional fossil fuels. To reach that objective, Iran has begun to
operate the Bushehr nuclear power reactor and the government is intended to build
additional units to generate 20,000 MW of power within the next 20 years (Islamic
Republic of Iran News Network, February 2009).
Iranian nuclear power programme includes one nuclear power reactor in oper-
ation with a capacity of 915 MW (see Table 5.11). In mid-2015, total generating
capacity of the country was 74 GWe, including 12 GWe from hydropower
plants. The country plans to boost generating capacity to 122 GWe by 2022, with
substantial export potential (WNA-Iran 2016). There are no new units under con-
struction in 2016.

5.2.3.1 Recent Development of the Iranian Nuclear Power Programme

Russia and Iran signed a contract for the construction of two 1000 MW nuclear
power reactors in November 2014 in the Bushehr site. The project is estimated at
US$10 billion and will take 10 years to complete.
In November 2014, a further protocol to the original 1992 agreement was signed
by Rosatom and AEOI, covering construction of four VVER reactors on a turnkey
basis at Bushehr, and four more at another site yet to be determined. These are all to
involve maximum local engineering content, and will be fully under IAEA safe-
guards. As usual with its foreign projects, Rosatom will supply all the fabricated
nuclear fuel for the eight units “for the whole period of the nuclear power plant
operation” and will take all used fuel back to Russia for reprocessing and storage.
However, under the terms of the 1992 agreement, Rosatom and AEOI also signed a
MoU to “work on necessary arrangements for the fabrication in Iran of the nuclear
fuel or its elements to be used in Russian design units” (WNA-Iran 2016).
Also in November 2014, a contract for construction of the first two units as
Bushehr phase II was signed by NIAEP-ASE and the Nuclear Power Production
and Development Company of Iran (NPPD). Two desalination plants are to be part
of the project. Rosatom said they would be paid for progressively by Iran in the
same way as with Bushehr unit 1. Site works were expected to start by March
2016, but AEOI called for delay due to technical issues, in particular, agreement on
seismic parameters. A foundation stone was formally laid in September 2016 to
inaugurate the project, and AEOI said that it would take ten years to build and cost
US$10 billion. Rosatom said the reactors were to be AES-92 Generation III+,
apparently V-466B, based on the VVER-1000 V-392 reactor. Atomenergoproekt
has a contract for detailed design of the two units by August 2018. Iran is to finance
them (WNA-Iran 2016).
220 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

Table 5.11 Nuclear power reactors operating in Iran in 2016

Name Type Location Reference unit Gross electrical First grid
power (MW) capacity (MW) connection
BUSHEHR-1 PWR HALILEH 915 1000 2011-09-03
Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

Iran energy plan is to increase its nuclear electricity production from its current
1000 MW of electricity to 20,000 MW working in co-operation with the Russian
state-owned nuclear energy corporation Rosatom, which is currently working to
construct the second stage of Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant (Table 5.11).
To reach 30,000 MW of nuclear capacity during the coming decades, Iran is
considering the construction of new units. Table 5.12 includes the new nuclear
power reactors planned and proposed by Iran.
According to Table 5.12, Iran has in 2016, a total of four units planned with a
capacity of 2200 MWe and seven units proposed. The intention of the government
to increase the role of nuclear energy in the energy mix of the country during the
coming years.
In 2015, the country total electricity generation reached 279,480 GWh, from
which a total of 3547 GWh was generated by the nuclear power plant. This rep-
resents only 1.27% of the total electricity generated in the country in that year and
the intention of the government is to increase this percentage in the coming
decades.

Table 5.12 Nuclear power reactors planned and proposed in Iran

Type MWe gross Construction Commercial
start operation
Bushehr 2 AES-92, 1057 2018? 2024
VVER-1000V-466B
Bushehr 3 AES-92, 1057 2020? 2025
VVER-1000V-466B
Makran ACP100 100 2018?
coast
Makran ACP100 100
coast
Planned: 4 2200
Darkhowin LWR, IR-360 360
Bushehr 4 VVER ?
Bushehr 5 VVER ?
Other 1-4 VVER?
Proposed: 7
Source WNA-Iran (2016)
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 221

5.2.3.2 The Future of the Nuclear Power Programme in Iran

In May 2007, the AEOI said it was planning to build an indigenous 360 MWe
LWR at Darkhowin/Darkhovain on the Karun River in Khuzestan province in the
west, close to Iraq at the head of the Gulf. Two Framatome 950 MWe units were
about to be built here in 1970s, and two 300 MWe Chinese plants were planned in
the 1990s. However, in May 2013, a senior government official said that Iranian
experts were designing a 300 MWe LWR for Darkhowin, under IAEA supervision.
In May 2014, the AEOI said it had made progress on the project.
A February 2013 announcement also said that 16 sites had been selected for new
nuclear power plants to be built over the next 15 years. In December 2013, AEOI
said that most of the Iran’s new nuclear facilities will be on its southern coast on the
Persian Gulf and on the northern coast on the Caspian Sea, while another nuclear
power plant would be in central Iran. It was in talks with Rosatom regarding
4000 MWe of new nuclear power reactors, mainly at Bushehr or in Bushehr pro-
vince (WNA-Iran 2016).
In July 2015, AEOI announced that China would build two of the next four
nuclear power reactors, at a site on the southeastern Makran coast on the Gulf of
Oman. Press reports subsequently quoted the AEOI and the vice president that these
would be two units of 100 MW each, evidently ACP100 from CNNC, with China
having indicated readiness to finance them.
In February 2016, the AEOI agreed to a project with Hungary to design and
develop a 25 MWe nuclear power reactor and another unit of up to 100 MWe,
which could be sold across Asia and Africa while being built in Iran (WNA-Iran
2016).
On the other hand, Iran and Russia reached agreement in March 2014 for the
construction of two additional LWR in Bushehr. These units were to have been
completed by March 2016, but were delayed because of unspecified disagreements
with Russia. According to an interview in April 2016, Vice President Salehi said
“the reactors’ construction will start once we reach a consensus with Russian
experts” (Speech presented by H.E. Dr. A. A. Salehi 2015). This consensus has
been reached with Russian experts in September 2016, and the country has begun
the construction of its second nuclear power plant, which include two units that is
expected to go online in 10 years from now, at a cost of US$ 10 billion and with a
capacity of 1057 MW. The construction of the first unit started in September 2016
and the second in 2018.

5.2.3.3 The Future Use of Small Modular Reactors in Iran

The government electricity generation strategy will focus in the use of nuclear
energy, including on the development and use of SMRs. For this reason, the
government and the nuclear industry is currently assessing potential partners for
cooperation in the field in addition to Russia. The government is now making the
necessary assessment as to whether it is feasible for Iran or not to use this type of
222 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

nuclear power reactors for electricity generation in the future as part of its pro-
gramme for the expansion in the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation and
desalination, and then will look around and see which countries are willing to
co-operate with the country in the development of SMRs for this specific purposes.

5.2.4 India

India has a rapidly developing economy and needs to increase their electricity
generation to sustain growth; in other words, more factories requiring more power.
Their economic expansion is rather similar to Brazil, Russia, and China. Both
Russia and China have aggressive goals for nuclear power. India has a goal for 25%
of the electricity generated in the country to come from nuclear power by 2050. In
2015, nuclear energy contributes only with 3.53% of the total electricity generated
in the country in that year.
Why India needs to increase the use of nuclear energy for the electricity gen-
eration? India is reportedly running out of domestic fossil fuel so they need to look
in another direction to not import more gas and coal, particularly coal due to the
contamination produced using this type of energy source for electricity generation.
In addition, importing uranium as a fuel for its use in the operation of the nuclear
power plants in India is significantly cheaper than importing gas, coal, or petro-
leum. This is important for a country, such as India, with a low reserve on natural
resources.
In 2015, India generated a total of 980,325.95 GWh of electricity, but only
3.53% were produced by the seven nuclear power plants, with 21 units currently in
operation in the country (34,644.45 GWh) (see Table 5.13). There are five units
under construction, one FBR and four PHWRs (see Table 5.14). A further 20
nuclear power reactors are planned beyond that, including four more Russian units
and two modern French ones. Plans are for 15 GWe by 2020 and 63 GW in 2032.
It is important to highlight that nuclear power is the fourth-largest source of
electricity generation in India after thermal, hydroelectric and renewable energy
sources.

5.2.4.1 The Future of the Nuclear Power Programme in India

The nuclear power reactors planned and proposed in India are included in
Tables 5.15 and 5.16.
According to Table 5.15, there are 20 units planned to be constructed in the
coming years with a total capacity of 18,600 MWe. The total units proposed is
approximately 55 with a total capacity of approximately 64,000 MWe (see
Table 5.16).
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 223

Table 5.13 Nuclear power reactors in operation in India in 2016

Nuclear Power Plant Unit Type Capacity Date of commercial
(MWe) operation
Tarapur Atomic Power Plant 1 BWR 160 October 28, 1969
(TAPS), Maharashtra
Tarapur Atomic Power Plant 2 BWR 160 October 28, 1969
(TAPS), Maharashtra
Tarapur Atomic Power Plant 3 PHWR 540 August 18, 2006
(TAPS), Maharashtra
Tarapur Atomic Power Plant 4 PHWR 540 September 12, 2005
(TAPS), Maharashtra
Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant 1 PHWR 100 December 16, 1973
(RAPS), Rajasthan
Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant 2 PHWR 200 April 1, 1981
(RAPS), Rajasthan
Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant 3 PHWR 220 June 1, 2000
(RAPS), Rajasthan
Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant 4 PHWR 220 December 23, 2000
(RAPS), Rajasthan
Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant 5 PHWR 220 February 4, 2010
(RAPS), Rajasthan
Rajasthan Atomic Power Plant 6 PHWR 220 March 31, 2010
(RAPS), Rajasthan
Madras Atomic Power Plant 1 PHWR 220 January 27, 1984
(MAPS), Tamilnadu
Madras Atomic Power Plant 2 PHWR 220 March 21, 1986
(MAPS), Tamilnadu
Kaiga Generating Plant (KGS), 1 PHWR 220 November 16, 2000
Karnataka
Kaiga Generating Plant (KGS), 2 PHWR 220 March 16, 2000
Karnataka
Kaiga Generating Plant (KGS), 3 PHWR 220 May 6, 2007
Karnataka
Kaiga Generating Station (KGS), 4 PHWR 220 January 20, 2011
Karnataka
Kudankulam Atomic Power 1 VVER-1000 1000 December 31, 2014
Project, Tamilnadu (PWR)
Narora Atomic Power Plant 1 PHWR 220 January 1, 1991
(NAPS), Uttarpradesh
Narora Atomic Power Plant 2 PHWR 220 July 1, 1992
(NAPS), Uttarpradesh
Kakrapar Atomic Power Plant 1 PHWR 220 May 6, 1993
(KAPS), Gujarat
Kakrapar Atomic Power Plant 2 PHWR 220 September 1, 1995
(KAPS), Gujarat
Total: 21 units with a total capacity of 5780 MWe
Source Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (2016)
224 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

Table 5.14 Nuclear power reactors under construction in India in 2016

Name Type Location Reference unit Gross electrical First grid
power (MW) capacity (MW) connection
KAKRAPAR-3 PHWR SURAT 630 700
KAKRAPAR-4 PHWR SURAT 630 700
PFBR FBR MADRAS 470 500
RAJASTHAN-7 PHWR KOTA 630 700
RAJASTHAN-8 PHWR KOTA 630 700
Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

Table 5.15 Nuclear power reactors planned (XII plan 2012, and April 2015 approval in principle)
Reactor State Type MWe Project Start Start
gross control construction operation
(each)
Kudankulam Tamil Nadu AES-92 1050 NPCIL March 2017 2022
3
Kudankulam AES-92 1050 NPCIL 2017? 2023
4
Gorakhpur 1 Haryana PHWR 700 NPCIL 2016? 2022
(Fatehabad
district)
Gorakhpur 2 PHWR 700 NPCIL 2016? 2023
Chutka 1 Madhya PHWR 700 NPCIL 2017? 2024
Pradesh
(Mandla)
Chutka 2 PHWR 700 NPCIL 2017? 2025
Bhimpur Madhya PHWR × 2 700 NPCIL 2017?
1 and 2 Pradesh
Mahi Rajasthan PHWR × 2 700 NPCIL 2017?
Banswara
1 and 2
Kaiga 5 and 6 Karnataka PHWR × 2 700 NPCIL 2017?
Kudankulam Tamil Nadu AES 1200 NPCIL ?
5 and 6 2006 × 2
Kalpakkam Tamil Nadu FBR × 2 600 Bhavini 2017?
2 and 3
Jaitapur Ratnagiri, EPR × 2 1700 NPCIL 2018? Delayed due
1 and 2 Maharashtra to liability.
Kovvada Srikakulam, AP1000 × 2 1250 NPCIL 2018? Delayed due
1 and 2 Andhra to liability.
Pradesh
Subtotal 20 units 18,600
planned
Source WNA-India (2016)
Table 5.16 Nuclear power reactors proposed in 2016
Reactor State Type MWe Project control Start Start
gross construction operation
(each)
? AHWR 300 NPCIL 2017? 2022
“Haripur 1 and 2” West Bengal (but likely relocated, maybe to AES-2006 1200 NPCIL
another site Kavali in Andhra Pradesh)
Kudankulam 7 and Tamil Nadu AES 2006 1200 NPCIL
8
“Kudankulam Andhra Pradesh AES-2006 1200 NPCIL
9-12”
Gorakhpur 3 and 4 Haryana (Fatehabad district) PHWR 700 NPCIL 2019
Chutka 3 and 4 Madhya Pradesh PHWR 700 BHEL-NPCIL-GE?
Rajouli, Nawada Bihar PHWR 700 NPCIL
1-2
? PWR × 2 1000 NPCIL/NTPC
Jaitapur 3 and 4 Ratnagiri, Maharashtra PWR— 1700 NPCIL
EPR
? ? FBR × 4 500 Bhavini
Jaitapur 5 and 6 Ratnagiri, Maharashtra PWR— 1700 NPCIL
EPR
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular …

Markandi (Pati Orissa PWR 6000 NPCIL

Sonapur) MWe
Kovvada 3 and 4 Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh AP1000 1250 NPCIL
Earlier: “Kovvada Originally Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh Originally 1600 NPCIL 2018?
1-6” ESBWR
Nizampatnam 1-6 Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 6x? 1200 NPCIL
(continued)
225
Table 5.16 (continued)
226

Reactor State Type MWe Project control Start Start

gross construction operation
(each)
Haripur 3 and 4 West Bengal, Orissa or Kavali in Andhra AES-2006? 1200 NPCIL
another site Pradesh
Pulivendula Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh PWR? 1000? NPCIL 51%, AP
PHWR? 700? Genco 49%
Kovvada 5 and 6 Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh AP1000 1250 NPCIL
Chhaya-Mithi Bhavnagar, Gujarat AP1000 1250 NPCIL
Virdi 1-6
Subtotal proposed Approx 55 64,000 MWe approx (discounted
44 units, 51 GWe)
Note: For WNA reactor table: first 20 units ‘planned’; next (estimated) 55 units and 64 GWe ‘proposed’—80% of both figures listed (44 and 51,000 MWe).
There is likely some duplication among reported plans for West Bengal, Orissa and with Russian units beyond Kudankulam 8.
Source WNA-India (2016)
5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 227

In July 2014, the new Prime Minister urged the Department of Atomic Energy
(DAE) to triple the nuclear capacity to 17 GWe by 2024. He praised “India’s
self-reliance in the nuclear fuel cycle and the commercial success of the indigenous
reactors.” He also emphasised the importance of maintaining the commercial via-
bility and competitiveness of nuclear energy compared with other clean energy
sources.
Longer term, the Atomic Energy Commission, however, envisages some
500 GWe nuclear on line by 2060, and has since speculated that the amount might
be higher still: 600-700 GWe by 2050, providing half of all electricity generated in
India. Another projection is for nuclear share to rise to 9% by 2037. In November
2015, NPCIL was talking of 14.5 GWe by 2024 as a target (WNA-India 2016).

5.2.4.2 Stages in the Development of the Nuclear Power Programme

in India

India is a pioneer in developing the thorium fuel cycle, and has several advanced
facilities related to this type of fuel. Over the next five years, India plans to start
building a safe nuclear power reactor that can be installed in the heart of any city
without posing danger to people and environment. The 300-MWe AHWR, whose
construction will start in the 12th plan period, would be so safe that it can be erected
in the heart of any city, according to S.A. Bhardwaj, director of NPCIL (Merchant
and Brian 2012).
India’s infamous three-stage nuclear power programme, probably the foremost
and best-funded thorium power programme in the world, is edging nearer to frui-
tion. In a meeting in May 2012, the government announced it was well into its
thorium programme, and was currently developing its 10.7 million tons of Monazite
sands, from which thorium is extracted.
According to DAE sources, the country is well into the first stage based on
natural uranium fuel, both from domestic and imported sources. This will be fol-
lowed by second stage comprising of fast nuclear power reactors. It is proposed to
set up a large power generation capacity based on fast nuclear power reactors before
getting into the third stage. Thorium cannot produce electricity and it should be first
converted to uranium-233 in a nuclear power reactor. A comprehensive three-stage
nuclear power programme is therefore being implemented sequentially. However,
the thorium nuclear power reactor should be assessed on various aspects in the
long-term before replicating similar models with bigger capacities (Merchant and
Brian 2012).

5.2.4.3 The Current Situation and the Perspective of Small Modular

Reactors in India

India has by far one of the largest civil nuclear power generation programme at
world level. In recent years, international collaboration with India around its
228 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

civilian nuclear programme has opened, and several countries have signed MoU or
collaboration agreements. For this reason, has been assumed that at least one of the
countries currently developing SMRs will be prepared to supply them to India,
provided that India adds the SMR(s) to its list of nuclear facilities subject to IAEA
safeguards (Waddington 2014).
On the other hands, the NPCIL is now focusing on 540 and 700 MWe versions
of its PHWR, and is offering both 220 and 540 MWe versions internationally.
These small established designs are relevant to situations requiring small to medium
units, though they are not state of the art technology and are not a typical SMR. In
addition to the PHWR design, India conclude the development of an AHWR-300
LEU 300 MWe11 and is ready to begin its construction. A PFBR-500 Liquid metal
cooled fast breeder reactor is now under construction, with a capacity of 500 MW,
according to IAEA-ARIS (2012).
It is important to single out most nuclear power reactors currently in operation in
the country can be classified as small or medium nuclear power reactor.
In summary, the following can be stated: There is some potential for SMR
deployment in India, as it is likely that in such a large nation sites and locations that
require power will exist, that are not suited to large nuclear power plants or other
forms of electricity generation. There is also the potential for a significant Indian
market for nuclear-based desalination and industrial process heat. By 2035, India
could have a SMR installed capacity of 4800 MW representing 0.6% of the total
capacity installed in the country by that year (Waddington 2014).

5.2.5 Pakistan

Pakistan has a small nuclear power programme, with three nuclear power reactors
in operation with a capacity of 750 MWe, three units under construction with a
capacity of 1694 MWe, and two units planned, but is moving to increase this
substantially with Chinese help. Table 5.17 shows the current nuclear power pro-
gramme in Pakistan.
It is important to highlight that all nuclear power reactors currently operating in
Pakistan can be classified as small nuclear power reactor, but not necessary as
SMRs. The same thing can be said about the nuclear power reactors under con-
struction with the exception of the K-2 PWR, which has a gross electrical capacity
of 1100 MWe.

11
The AHWR is a 300 MWe vertical pressure tube reactor, cooled by light water, but moderated
by heavy water. The reactor is intended to work with a thorium cycle with initial Pu seed. The
detailed design work on the reactor was completed in 2014 and it is anticipated that construction of
the first demonstration plant with be in 2016 with operation by 2025.
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 229

Table 5.17 Nuclear power reactors in operation in Pakistan in 2016

Name Type Location Reference Gross First grid
unit power electrical connection
(MW) capacity
(MW)
CHASNUPP-1 PWR KUNDIAN 300 325 2000-06-13
CHASNUPP-2 PWR KUNDIAN 300 325 2011-03-14
KANUPP PHWR Karachi 90 100 1971-10-18
Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

5.2.5.1 The Future of the Nuclear Power Programme in Pakistan

In 2015, Pakistan generated 4.4% of its electricity by its nuclear power plants
(4332.70 GWh), and the government plans for 8.9 GWe of nuclear capacity at ten
sites by 2030. The 2005 Energy Security Plan included an increase in nuclear
capacity up to 8800, 900 MWe of this by 2015 and a further 1500 MWe by 2020.
Projections included four further Chinese nuclear power reactors of 300 MWe each
and seven of 1000 MWe, all PWRs. There were tentative plans for China to build
two 1000 MWe PWR units at Karachi as KANUPP 2 and 3, but China then in 2007
deferred development of its CNP-1000 type, which would have been the only one
of that size able to be exported. Pakistan then turned its attention to building smaller
units with higher local content. However, in 2013 China revived its 1,000 MWe
designs with export intent, and made overtures to Pakistan for the ACP1000 design,
which became Hualong One (WNA-Pakistan 2016).
According to the Nuclear Energy Vision-2050 approved by the Pakistan gov-
ernment, the country envisages nuclear power generation capacity of 40,000 MW
by 2050 in order to make an important contribution to the socio-economic sector of
the country by bringing home the fruits of peaceful applications of nuclear tech-
nology for the Pakistani people. To reach that goal, the government needs to
construct as many as 32 nuclear power reactors by 2050.

5.2.5.2 The Future of the Small Modular Reactors in Pakistan

Pakistan has no research and development programme associated with the con-
struction of SMRs and has no concrete plans on the use of this type of reactors
within its nuclear power programme for the coming years. However, it is important
to highlight that most of the nuclear power reactors under construction and oper-
ating can be classified as small or medium size reactor (see Table 5.18), but not
necessary as SMR.
230 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

Table 5.18 Nuclear power reactors under construction in Pakistan in 2016

Name Type Location Reference unit Gross electrical First grid
power (MW) capacity (MW) connection
CHASNUPP-3 PWR KUNDIAN 315 340
CHASNUPP-4 PWR KUNDIAN 315 340
K-2 PWR Karachi 1014 1100
Source IAEA-PRIS (2016)

5.2.6 Bangladesh

The Perspective Plan of Bangladesh: 2010–2021 and Power System Master Plan
2010 outlined the construction of 2400 MW(e) nuclear capacity by 2024–2025 and
4000 MW(e) by 2030. In April 2009, the government approved the Russian pro-
posal to build a 1000 MWe AES-92 nuclear power reactor at Rooppur for about US
$2 billion, and a year later this had become two such reactors. A nuclear energy bill
was introduced into parliament in May 2012, setting up a Bangladesh Atomic
Energy Regulatory Authority (BAEC). Parliament was told that 4000 MWe of
nuclear capacity was envisaged by 2030, and a second nuclear power plant would
be built in the south once Rooppur is operating.
In May 2010, an intergovernmental agreement was signed with Russia, pro-
viding a legal basis for nuclear cooperation in areas such as siting, design, con-
struction and operation of power and research nuclear reactors, water desalination
plants, and elementary particle accelerators. Other areas covered included fuel
supply and wastes—Russia will manage wastes and decommissioning. An agree-
ment with Rosatom was signed in February 2011 for two 1000 MWe-class reactors
to be built at Rooppur for the BAEC. Another intergovernmental agreement was
signed in November 2011 for the project to be built by Russia. In 2014,
Moscow AEP said that the nuclear power plant would be AES-2006 with V-392 M
reactors, with Novovoronezh II being the reference plant (WNA-Bangladesh 2016).
The National Parliament passed a resolution in 2010 indicating how to overcome
the increasing power crisis in the country and the need to begin the construction of
nuclear power plants as soon as possible. To speed up the process related with the
introduction of a nuclear power programme in the country, the government formed
high-level committees in 2010 to perform the tasks recommended in the IAEA
Nuclear Energy Series Publications for the Development of Policy Documents and
Infrastructure Development (NEPIO). The government/NEPIO identified general
and specific activities to be carried out and provided directives to all concerned
ministries, departments, divisions, directorates and agencies to perform their
respective functions to facilitate implementation of the approved nuclear power
programme.
In 2012, a bilateral agreement on cooperation in the field of nuclear and radiation
safety in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes was signed between the
Russian Federation and the Bangladesh government, and in 2013, both
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 231

Table 5.19 Planned nuclear power reactors

Type Capacity Construction Commercial
(MWe) start operation
Rooppur 1 AES-2006/V-392M 1200 August 2017 2023 or 2024
Rooppur 2 AES-2006/V392M 1200 2018 2024 or 2025
Source WNA-Bangladesh (2016)

governments signed an agreement on export credit for financing of preparatory

stage of construction of the Rooppur nuclear power plant.
In 2013, the government approved a project development document on con-
struction in 2017 of Rooppur nuclear power plant (First Phase).

5.2.6.1 The Future of the Nuclear Power Programme in Bangladesh

In summary, the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission plans to build two

Russian nuclear reactors of 1200 MWe capacity. The construction of the first unit is
expected to begin in August 2017, with commercial operation beginning in 2023,
and the second one will be a year behind it. Other projections give 2024 and 2025
commissioning. It is a turnkey project, and Rosatom will maintain the nuclear
power plant for the first year of operation before handing over to BAEC. There are
no plans for the use of SMR type of reactor for the coming years (Table 5.19).

5.2.7 Indonesia

With an industrial production growth rate of 10.5%, electricity demand is estimated

to reach 45 GW in 2026.12 To satisfy the foreseen growth in electricity demand,
which is expected to growth at 7.4% per year, the government is promoting the
development of several independent power projects that could help to generate
233 TWh by the end of 2016. The Java-Bali grid system accounts for more than three
quarters of Indonesia’s electricity demand—132 TWh in 2012. The Indonesia's
Electricity Corporation, projects 55 GWe new capacity by 2021, 38 GWe of this will
be produced by coal-fired power plants. For 2025, 115 GWe capacity is projected,
20% of this from new and renewable energy sources. The government also plans
major grid enhancements on Java, on Sumatra, and Kalimantan, with a link Sumatra
to Java.

12
The electricity generating capacity installed in the country is around 40 GW in 2012. It is
expected that the generation capacity installed should increase in the coming years to satisfy an
electricity demand of 248 TWh in 2016 (Power in Indonesia 2013).
232 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

More than one-third of Indonesia’s electricity is generated by oil and gas, so as

well as catering for growth in demand in its most populous region, the move to
nuclear power will free up oil for export. However, in mid-2012, the National
Energy Council said that nuclear power was an unlikely last resort in the country
and all plans for the construction of a nuclear power plants has been delayed.
In March 2015, the government issued a white paper on national energy
development policy to 2050. In this paper, nuclear power is expected to provide
5 GWe by 2025, alongside other new and renewable energy sources providing
12 GWe. In December 2015, the National Energy Council completed the national
energy plan to 2050 which awaited presidential signature. This is reported to
exclude major nuclear capacity, but has major increases in oil, gas and renewables
(WNA-Indonesia 2016).

5.2.7.1 The Future of the Nuclear Power Programme in Indonesia

The government of Indonesia intends to apply an optimum energy mix comprising

all viable prospective energy sources and issued a Presidential Regulation No. 5 in
2006 concerning on National Energy Policy as the main guidance in national
energy management to achieve the security of domestic energy supply. This reg-
ulation sets a clear target of the share of each type of energy up to 2025 as follows:
• Oil should decrease to less than 20%;
• Natural gas increases to be more than 30%;
• Coal should be more than 33%;
• New and renewable energy to be more than 17%.
The Regulation indicates the target of energy mix until 2025 and the share of
nuclear energy is about 2% of primary energy or 4% of electricity (4000 MWe)
(Current status of Indonesia’s nuclear power programme 2012).
In summary, can be stated the following: According to BATAN published plans
in 2014, the government is considering the constriction of two 1000 MWe LWR
reactors on Java, Madura or Bali from 2027, and for two more in Sumatra from
2031. In September 2015, Rusatom Overseas signed an agreement with BATAN on
the construction of large nuclear power plants in Indonesia. It also proposed the
construction of a floating nuclear power plants for the country.13 In January 2016,
BATAN indicated that a nuclear energy programme implementation organisation
(NEPIO) was planned for launch in 2016, to move towards having up to four large
nuclear power reactors online by 2025 (WNA-Indonesia 2016).

13
Russia is keen to export floating nuclear power plants, on a fully-serviced basis, to Indonesia as a
means of providing power to its smaller inhabited islands. In August 2015, Rosatom and BATAN
signed a cooperation agreement on the construction of these type of nuclear power plant. Earlier,
the province of Gorontalo on Sulawesi was reported to be considering the construct a floating
nuclear power plants from Russia (WNA-Indonesia 2016).
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 233

The government is also considering the possibility to build instead of large units
for the Java-Bali grid to build a small nuclear power reactor near Jakarta. In August
2016, China Nuclear Engineering Corporation (CNEC) signed a cooperation
agreement with BATAN to develop HTRs in Indonesia. CNEC reported that
Indonesia aimed to construct small HTRs on Kalimantan and Sulawesi from 2027.
In October 2015, Martingale from the U.S. signed an agreement with the
Indonesia’s Thorium Consortium—comprising state-owned companies’ PT
Industry Nuklir Indonesia (INUKI), PT PLN and PT Pertamina—to build a
ThorCon thorium MSR to generate electricity. Martingale is developing the
ThorCon 250 MWe design, and aims to commission one there in 2021. In addition,
before any of the above small-scale proposals, BATAN had undertaken a
pre-feasibility study for a small Korean SMART reactor for power and desalination
on Madura island. However, this awaits the building of a reference plant in Korea
(WNA-Indonesia 2016).
In 2015, a consortium of Russian and Indonesian companies led by NUKEM
Technologies had won a contract for the preliminary design of the multi-purpose
10 MWe HTR in Indonesia, which would be a flagship project in the future of
Indonesia’s nuclear power programme. It will be a pebble-bed HTR at Serpong.
Atomproekt is architect general, and OKBM Afrikantov the designer. The con-
ceptual design was completed in December 2015, and will lead to BATAN calling
for bids to construct the reactor, for both electricity and process heat (WNA 2016).

5.2.8 Vietnam

The electricity demand is growing rapidly resulting in rationing. Electricity demand

growth—mostly in the south—has been 15% per year to 2015. A 500-kV grid runs
the length of the country and some 95% of the rural population has access to
electricity. Projections of power demand in 2011 were:
• 30.8 GWe, 194 TWh in 2015 (33% hydro, 35.5% coal);
• 48.9 GWe, 320 TWh in 2020 (26% hydro, 46% coal, 17% gas, 1.5% nuclear);
• 71.8 GWe, 490 TWh in 2025 (21% hydro, 46% coal, 16% gas, 6% nuclear);
• 101.9 GWe, 695 TWh in 2030 (16% hydro, 56% coal, 11% gas, 8% nuclear—
with nuclear share then increasing to 20–25% by 2050).
In 2016, the 2030 projection was for 570 TWh in 2030, with 32.5 TWh (5.7%)
of this from nuclear. and is expected to reach about 320 TWh per year in 2020—
from 123 TWh in 2012. In 2015, one-third of its power comes from hydro,
one-third from gas and the rest from coal or imported from China (see Table 5.20).
According to this table, the country is expecting to introduce the use of nuclear
energy for electricity generation by 2020, due to the construction of the first unit of
the first nuclear power plant with a capacity of 1000 MW in Ninh Thuan (Phuoc
234 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

Table 5.20 Power balance 2011–2030

Power balance 2011–2030 (Base case)
Years 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030
Total demand 18,406 30,802 48,956 71,857 101,955
Total installed capacity, MW 24,623 42,316 70,115 89,188 137,800
Total reserve capacity, MW 6217 11,514 19,787 17,331 23,183
Reserve ratio, % 33.8 37.4 40.4 24.1 22.7
Hydropower 10,677 14,377 17,987 18,816 21,100
Coal TPP 4135 14,015 32,535 39,740 77,300
Oil and gas TPP 8332 11,272 13,625 15,965 17,500
Small hydropower and renewable 511 1579 3129 4779 4800
Nuclear power – – 1000 4000 10,700
Import 918 1073 1839 5888 6300
Source Tuan (2011)

Dinh site). In Phuoc Dihn site, a total of four units will be constructed by Russia. In
2025, the nuclear capacity installed in the country could reach 4000 MW with the
construction of the first unit of the second nuclear power plant to be built in
Vietnam in Ninh Thuan (Vinh Hai site) by Japan, and for 2030, this capacity could
reach 10,700 MW. The Vinh Hai site will have four units (WNA-Vietnam 2016;
Tuan 2011). In addition, the country has a research reactor at Da Lat, operated with
Russian assistance.
The total nuclear power reactors to be built by Vietnam in the coming years is
shown in Table 5.21.

Table 5.21 Planned and proposed nuclear power reactors

Location Plant (province) Type MWe Start Operation
nominal construction
Phuoc Dinh Ninh Thuan 1-1 VVER-1200/V-491 1200 2023 2028
Ninh Thuan 1-2 VVER-1200/V-491 1200 2024 2029?
Ninh Thuan 1-3 VVER-1200/V-491 1200 ?
Ninh Thuan 1-4 VVER-1200/V-491 1200 ?
Vinh Hai Ninh Thuan 2-1 Atmea1? 1100 Delayed 2028?
Ninh Thuan 2-2 Atmea1? 1100 Delayed ?
Ninh Thuan 2-3 Atmea1? 1100 ?
Ninh Thuan 2-4 Atmea1? 1100 ?
Central APR-1400? 1350 ?
Central APR-1400? 1350 ?
Total planned (4) 4800
Total proposed 7100
Source WNA-Vietnam (2016)
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 235

In July 2011, the government issued a master plan specifying Ninh Thuan 1 and
2 nuclear power plants with a total of eight 1000 MWe-class reactors, one coming
on line each year 2020–2027, then two larger ones to 2029 at a central location. The
Ministry of Industry and Trade is responsible for the actual projects, while the
Ministry of Science and Technology supports the programme, developing a master
plan and regulation.
Speaking at the Civil Nuclear Export Showcase in London on 28 January, Phan
Minh Tuan, Deputy Director of Ninh Thuan, confirmed that a realistic schedule for
the project to build two VVER-1000 reactors supplied by Russia’s AtomStroyExport
would be for first concrete in 2017 or 2018. Commissioning of unit 1 would then
commence in 2023, with the second unit following a year later. Protracted negoti-
ations on the technology and financing were cited as one of the main causes of the
delay. According to Tuan, the schedule for the country’s second nuclear power plant
—to be supplied by Japan—at the Vinh Hai site (also in Ninh Thuan province), will
also be delayed. In the light of safety concerns following the March 2011 accident at
Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Tuan said that “technology selec-
tion is very tough for us” and that this was delaying progress on the project.
Construction on the project had previously been expected to commence at the end of
2015 (WNN 2014). In accordance with Japan Kyodo news agency and TASS
(2016), in October the government was asked to reconsider plans to build nuclear
power plants, as under the current conditions it would be extremely difficult to
allocate sufficient funding for these projects.
In accordance with the strategy of development of the electric power industry
until 2030, Hanoi plans to build and put into operation 13 nuclear power units. In
2011, Nguyen Tan Dung, the prime minister of Vietnam, approved the Vietnam
Power Development Plan for the 2011–2020 Period (also known as the Power
Development Master Plan VII, or PDP 7), which envisaged the first reactor
accounting for 2.1% of the country’s projected 330 TWh electricity consumption in
2020. By 2030, the plan assumed nuclear power capacity to reach 10.7 GWe,
accounting for 10.1% of electricity production (WNN 2014).

5.2.9 Thailand

Thailand interest in the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation has revived
due to a forecast growth in electricity demand of 7% per year for the next 20 years.
About 54% of electricity generated in the country comes from natural gas (see
Fig. 5.2). Capacity requirements in 2016 are forecast at 48 GWe. In the Thailand
Power Development Plan 2010–2030, which was approved by the government in
2010, there is 5000 MWe of nuclear capacity envisaged, with 1000 MWe units
starting up over 2020–2028. The first nuclear power plant will be internally financed.
According to Fig. 5.2, the first nuclear power reactor is expected to begin its
construction in 2020 and to generate electricity by 2026 covering around 2% of the
total electricity generated by the country in that year. It is also expected that by
236 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

Fig. 5.2 Estimating installed capacity by fuel. Source Gatngern (2012)

2030, nuclear energy will generate around 3% of the total electricity generated by
the country in that year. However, it is important to highlight that the government is
revising its decision to begin the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation
after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, and this could have a negative
impact on the implementation of the approved plan for the introduction of a nuclear
power programme in the country during the next decade. In addition to the negative
impact of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in the public opinion in Thailand,
the decision adopted by the National Energy Policy Council to postpone the
introduction of a nuclear power programme in the country was also due in part to
recent comments from the IAEA, which said that it did not believe Thailand was
ready for nuclear power. The IAEA raised several issues, including Thai laws and
regulations, and the opposition of local people to the construction of nuclear power
plants.
Meanwhile, the government have continuing sending their specialists to receive
trainings from the countries, which have nuclear technology and consider making
investment in Thailand nuclear power programme, such as China, Japan, among
other countries in Europe. It is important to single out that Thai power producers
has a small stake in nuclear energy project in China, which would boost cooperation
prospects in the future, if Thailand takes up the nuclear option in the coming years.
In January, Ratchaburi Electricity Generating Holding announced an investment of
US$210 million in a nuclear power plant in China.
Thailand has had an operating research reactor since 1977 and a larger one is
under construction, but apparently halted.
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 237

5.2.10 Philippines

The Philippines has one nuclear power reactor completed in 1984, but it never
operated due to concerns about bribery and safety deficiencies. The nuclear power
plant has a capacity of 630 MW. In 2007, the government set up a project to study
the possible use of nuclear energy for electricity generation, in the context of an
overall energy plan for the country, to reduce dependence on imported oil and
coal.14 In 2008, an IAEA mission commissioned by the government advised that
the nuclear power plant could be refurbished and economically and safely be
operated for 30 years.
In addition, the government is considering the construction of two 1000 MWe
Korean units by 2025, but this possibility has been delayed due to the hold up in the
establishment the necessary infrastructure. According to government sources, the
final decision will be take when the time comes and all necessary safeguards and
safety issues would be established and put in place.

5.2.11 Malaysia

In 2008, the government announced that it had no option but to consider the
possible introduction of nuclear energy in the energy matrix of the country during
the coming decades, due to high fossil fuel prices. Despite the existence of
Five-Fuel Diversification Policy, i.e. oil, gas, coal, hydropower and renewable
energy, there are only three major energy sources used for power generation, with
coal mostly imported, indigenous gas supply uncertain beyond 2019, and hydro-
power resources located mostly in Sarawak and adequate to only around 2030
(Puad Haji Abu and Mohamad 2011).15 Early in 2010, the government said it had
budgeted US$7 billion funds for this, and sites are being investigated.

14
The bulk of the electricity demand in the Philippines in the coming years is expected to be
supplied by hydroelectric, geothermal, and oil-fired plants. The Philippines have substantial
reserves of hydro capacity, but very little of fossil fuels.
15
The current situation of the different energy sources that exist in Malaysia is the following:
Oil: Depleting national oil reserves, with exploration moving to deeper seas. Malaysia expected
to revert to being a net oil importer within the decade; need to reserve oil for future generations and
other sectors, such as transportation, where it is difficult to replace oil as fuel; oil already decoupled
from power sector and no longer viable for electricity.
Gas: The country has a high dependence on gas for power, with cap on use of gas for power
generation; deregulation of gas prices with subsidy roll-back; current gas fields depleted by around
2030 with new fields of higher CO2 content; competing demand as feedstock to petrochemical
industry and as industrial fuel; committed exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from fields in Sabah
and Sarawak; inadequacy of gas supply for power beyond 2018 and import of LNG from 2015.
Coal: Supply security issues with over 97% national dependence on coal imports; supply
constraints by exporters and coal price volatility, especially within the region; limited availability
of high quality indigenous coal deposits, with mostly sub-bitumeneous and lignitic coal.
238 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

The following factors have been considered during the discussion about the use
of nuclear energy for the electricity generation in the country as recommended in
the Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-G-3.1 document entitled “Milestones in the
Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power” (2007). The 19 key
areas:
• National position;
• Nuclear safety;
• Management;
• Funding and financing;
• Legislative framework;
• Safeguards;
• Regulatory framework;
• Radiation protection;
• Electrical grid;
• Human resource development;
• Stakeholder involvement;
• Site and supporting facilities;
• Environmental protection;
• Emergency planning;
• Security and physical protection;
• Nuclear fuel cycle;
• Radioactive waste;
• Industrial involvement;
• Procurement (Ghazali and Zulkafli 2012).
Malaysia wants a proven type of 1000 MWe type of reactor, which is already
deployed. Plans are to be presented to the government in 2015. In July 2014, the
government announced a feasibility study including public acceptance on building
a nuclear power plant to operate from about 2024, with three or four units providing
between 10% and 15% of electricity generated by the country in 2030.

(Footnote 15 continued)
Hydropower: Remaining potential in the Peninsula exhausted, except for small peaking hydro;
limit to availability of Sarawak hydropower resources for supply to Peninsula; geographical
hydropower supply-demand mismatch between Peninsular and Sarawak with need for subsea
HVDC link over 670 km. through South China Sea.
Renewable energy: Renewable energy sources lack economic competitiveness in near future;
limited potential for renewable energy of total of only 4000 MWe by 2030; introduction of feed-in
tariff (FIT) for power generation from renewable energy; more suited in reducing commercial
energy demand than in substituting supply; development of solar power equipment manufacturing
industries (Puad Haji Abu and Mohamad 2011).
5.2 Current Situation and Perspective in the Use of Small Modular … 239

5.2.11.1 The Future of the Nuclear Power Programme in Malaysia

According to Puad Haji Abu and Mohamad (2011), in 2021 and 2023 Malaysia
plan to have 1000 MW reactor respectively and probably by 2030, two SMRs might
be proposed to propel nation’s future energy demand. Five possible locations on
peninsula Malaysia have been identified for the construction of these reactors.
However, according to government sources, the earliest day for the first nuclear
power plant to be operational is 2030.

References

Chang, M.H.; Sim, S.K.; Hwang, Y.D. (1999), SMART—An advanced small integral PWR for
nuclear desalination and power generation, in: Proceedings of International Conference on
GLOBAL 1999, Jackson Hole, USA, Aug. 29-Sept. 3, 1999.
Current status of Indonesia’s nuclear power programme (2012), Center for Nuclear Energy
Development National Nuclear Energy Agency (BATAN), Presented in IAEA Technical
Meeting/Workshop on Topical Issues on Infrastructure Development: Managing the
Development of National Infrastructure for NPP, Vienna, 24–27 January 2012.
Excerpts of the Speech Presented by H.E Dr. A. A. Salehi, President’s Deputy and Head of AEOI
in the Presence of Organization’s Personnel,” July 20, 2015. Available at http://www.aeoi.org.
ir/Portal/Home/ShowPage.aspx?Object=NEWS&CategoryID=3fe2bc57-c1a6-47dc-9d1d-
e1290fe3ad77&WebPartID=774bd8ac-b7a7-49d5-9dde2197faa15e57&ID=2c12026b-06ae-
4064-85c8-54c334b536e8166, 2015.
Gatngern, Chairat (2012), Current Status of Thailand’s Nuclear Power Program, Engineering
Control Department, Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand, Vienna, Austria, Nov 26–29,
2012.
Ghazali, Zulkafli (2012), Nuclear power program in Malaysia, https://www.iaea.org/…/
documents/STATUS_OF_MALAYSIA_NUC, 2012.
Hoang Anh Tuan (2011), Update on Nuclear Energy Programme in Vietnam, VAEA, IAEA
Interregional Workshop on Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technology for Near Term
Deployment, Vienna, Austria, 4 – 8 July 2011.
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series, CUC (Common User Consideration) by Developing Countries for
Future Nuclear Energy Systems, NP-T-2.1, IAEA, 2009.
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-G-3.1, document entitled “Milestones in the Development of
a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power”, 2007.
International Atomic Energy Agency, Power Reactor Information System, IAEA-PRIS (2016).
Iran to Follow Nuclear Timetable Regardless of IAEA Reports—Official, Islamic Republic of Iran
News Network, February 25, 2009. A spokesperson for the Atomic Energy Organization of
Iran stated on January 11, 2016, that the country “needs to generate 20,000 megawatts of
nuclear electricity” and should produce 12,000 megawatts of nuclear electricity by 2025 (Sara
Ma’sumi, Interview with Behruz Kamalvandi, “Less Than Seven Day to the Implementation of
the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action],” E’temad, January 11, 2016.
Kang Deng, Jeremy (2015), The Small Modular Reactor in China, Linkedin, November 9, 2015.
Kessides, I., Kuznetsov, V. (2012), Small Modular Reactors for Enhancing Energy Security in
Developing Countries, Sustainability 4, pp 1806–1832, 2012.
240 5 The Current Situation and Perspective of the Small …

Kim, S.H.; Kim, K. K.; Yeo, J.W.; Chang, M.H.; and Zee, S.Q. (2002), Design development and
verification of a system integrated modular PWR, in: Proceedings of 4th International
Conference on Nuclear Option in Countries with Small and Medium Electricity Grids, Croatia,
June 2002.
Locatelli G., Bingham C., Mancini M., (2014), Small modular reactors: A comprehensive
overview of their economics and strategic aspects. Progress in Nuclear Energy, v 73, p 75–85;
2014.
Merchant, Brian (2012), India is about start building its thorium-fueled nuclear power plant,
motherboard.vice.com/blog/india-is-about-to-start-building-its., 2012.
Paterson, Adi (2015), Latest Developments in Small Modular Reactors, Annual Meeting of Four
Societies, 2015.
Puad Haji Abu, Mohamad (2011), The progress of nuclear power programme in Malaysia, NPRO
Dialogue Forum on Nuclear Energy Innovations: Common User Consideration for Small and
Medium-sized Nuclear PR, Vienna, 10–14 October 2011, Malaysian Nuclear Agency (Nuclear
Malaysia) Ministry of Science, Technology & Innovation (MOSTI), 2011.
Power in Indonesia (2013), Investment and taxation guide, 2013.
Status of small and medium sized reactor designs. A Supplement to the IAEA Advanced Reactors
Information System (ARIS), http://aris.iaea.org, 2012.
Small Nuclear Power Reactors (2016), World Nuclear Association (WNA), 2016.
Nuclear power programme in Asia (2016), World Nuclear Association (WNA), 2016.
Nuclear power programme in China (2016), World Nuclear Association (WNA), 2016.
Nuclear power programme in South Korea, World Nuclear Association (WNA), 2016.
Nuclear power programme in Iran, World Nuclear Association (WNA), 2016.
Nuclear power programme in India, World Nuclear Association (WNA), 2016.
Nuclear power programme in Indonesia, World Nuclear Association (WNA), 2016.
Nuclear power programme in Pakistan, World Nuclear Association (WNA), 2016.
Nuclear power programme in Bangladesh, World Nuclear Association (WNA), 2016.
Nuclear power programme in Vietnam (2016), World Nuclear Association (WNA), 2016.
Thomas, Steve (2016), For China 2016 has not been the Year of Nuclear Power. Chia Dialog,
November 7, 2016.
Vietnam may delay construction of Russian nuclear power project (2016), Kyodo news agency
and Tass, 2016.
Waddington, Gordon (2014), Small Modular Reactors (SMR) Feasibility Study, National Nuclear
Laboratory, 2014.
World Electric Power Plant Data Base, Platts, The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2011.
World Nuclear Association, Small Modular Reactor, 2016
World Nuclear News (WNN), Vietnamese delay confirmed, 2014.
Chapter 6
Benefits of Small Modular Reactors

Abstract Many countries are moving swiftly to develop and commercialise SMRs
as they offer an assortment of benefits that make them attractive to utilities and
investors. They have the potential to solve challenges faced by large nuclear power
reactors such as cost overruns and construction delays risks, safety, and prolifera-
tion concerns. SMRs are designed to be safer than large nuclear power reactors and
offer serious cost advantages over the larger nuclear power plants. SMRs are
well-suited for locations with small grid and remote areas and could be affordable
for many countries with limited investment capability. SMRs offer also a greater
flexibility for utilities for incremental capacity growth, which could potentially
increase the attractiveness of SMRs to investors. The objective of this chapter is to
discuss in details the benefits offered by the SMRs. Particular attention is given to
the superior safety features of SMRs.

6.1 Introduction

The construction of large nuclear power plants has been generally hampered in the
U.S. and Europe due to various reasons, including cheap natural gas, which has put
the economic viability of some existing nuclear power reactors and proposed
projects in doubt, lack of financing and uncertainty following Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear accident. In addition, many large nuclear power plants that are under
construction, particularly those under construction in Finland and in France, suffer
from cost overruns and construction delays forcing utilities to spend more resources
than planned.
In the U.S., about 90% of the new nuclear power reactors that were planned to be
built in response of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 have been cancelled. Currently,
only four new nuclear power reactors are under construction in the U.S. and those
have suffered cost overruns and schedule delays. In addition, five aging nuclear
power reactors have been retired early due to serious repair challenges. For
instance, in June 2013, the two 30-year old PWR at San Onofre nuclear power plant
in California were retired permanently due to regulatory delay and uncertainty

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 241

J. Morales Pedraza, Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52216-6_6
242 6 Benefits of Small Modular Reactors

following damage in the steam generators of one unit. In addition, in August 2013,
Entergy announced that its 635 MWe Vermont Yankee reactor would be shutdown
at the end of 2014 for economic reasons and this was done.
Furthermore, over a dozen of aging nuclear power reactors have been considered
to be at risk of early closure for economic reasons, regulatory issues and local safety
and reliability concerns (WNA 2016). In Europe, the only nuclear power reactors
under construction in 2016 are in Russia, Belarus, Slovakia, Ukraine, Finland, and
France (IAEA-PRIS 2016). The nuclear power reactors under construction in
France and in Finland are behind schedule and over budget, while other countries
such as Germany, have decided to eliminate their reliance in nuclear power after
2022, when all nuclear power plants will be permanently shutdown.
Nuclear advocates have changed their focus from conventional large nuclear
power reactors to overcome the above-mentioned concerns, including cost overruns
and construction delays, to the development of SMRs. There has been recently a
growing interest in the development and commercialisation of a new generation of
SMRs as they offer a new promising path for nuclear industry and are likely a viable
solution to the economic and safety challenges faced by large nuclear power plants
(Cunningham 2012).
Currently there are three nuclear power reactors operating and three other under
construction that fall under the category of SMRs (Table 6.1) (WNA 2016). In
addition, there are more of 45 SMRs designs under development for different
application, ten of which are for near-term deployment (IAEA-ARIS 2014) in more
than 15 industrialised and developing countries alike. Example of these SMRs and
their development stage is presented in Table 6.1. Innovative SMR designs are
under development for water cooled, gas cooled, liquid metal cooled, and molten
salt cooled reactor lines, as well as some non-conventional combinations thereof.
The desire for the development of SMRs stems from various key benefits that
they offer, such as:
• Simple design and robust safety features;
– Robust safety margins with inherent passive resistance to severe accidents,
including design basis accidents and beyond design basis accidents;
– Less vulnerability to natural event (e.g., earthquake, tsunami, and tornado)
and human external events (e.g., air craft crash);
• Free carbon emission (like large nuclear power plants);
• Low upfront capital cost—significant reduction in risks associated with SMRs
deployment and easier financing scheme;
• SMRs have the ability to be cost competitive with other energy sources;
• Flexibility for utilities for incremental capacity growth, which could potentially
increase the attractiveness of SMRs to investors;
• Quick revenue stream due to shorter construction times compared to large
nuclear power reactors;
6.1 Introduction 243

Table 6.1 SMR operating, under construction or near-term deployment

Name Electrical Reactor Technology developer Status
capacity type
(MWe)
CNP-300 300 PWR CNNC, operational in Operating
Pakistan and China
PHWR-220 220 PHWR NPCIL, India Operating
EGP-6 11 LWGR at Bilibino, Siberia Operating
(cogen)
KLT-40S 35 PWR OKBM, Russia Under-construction
CAREM 27 Integral CNEA and INVAP, Under-construction
PWR Argentina
HTR-PM, 2
105 HTR INET, CNEC and Under-construction
HTR-200 Huaneng, China
VBER-300 300 PWR OKBM, Russia Development well
advanced
NuScale 50 Integral NuScale Development well
PWR Power + Fluor, U.S. advanced
Westinghouse 225 Integral Westinghouse, U.S. Development well
SMR PWR advanced
mPower 180 Integral Bechtel + BWXT, U.S. Development well
PWR advanced
SMR-160 160 PWR Holtec, U.S. Development well
advanced
ACP100 100 Integral NPIC/CNNC, China Development well
PWR advanced
SMART 100 Integral KAERI, South Korea Development well
PWR advanced
Prism 311 Sodium GE-Hitachi, U.S. Development well
FNR advanced
BREST 300 Lead RDIPE, Russia Development well
FNR advanced
SVBR-100 100 Lead-Bi AKME-engineering, Development well
FNR Russia advanced
Source (WNA 2016)

• Modularisation—greater quality control and potential reduced schedule and

cost-overruns risks;
• Ability to accommodate a small electricity grid and remote locations.
The objective of this chapter is to discuss in details the above-mentioned benefits
offered by the SMRs. Particular attention is given to the superior safety features of
SMRs.
244 6 Benefits of Small Modular Reactors

6.2 Enhanced Safety Features

Most of SMRs are designed for a high level of passive or inherent safety. A study
conducted by American Nuclear Society a few years ago, showed that many safety
provisions necessary, or at least prudent, in large nuclear power reactors are not
mandatory in SMRs (American Nuclear Society 2010).
These type of reactors present an opportunity to develop a new generation of
nuclear power plants with enhanced safety performance, which will be discussed in
the following sections.

6.2.1 Improved Source Term

The reactor source term (i.e.; total quantity of radio nuclides produced in a reactor
core), which depend on various parameters, such as the initial fuel composition and
reactor average exit burnup, is roughly proportional to the nuclear power reactor
total power (Ingersoll 2010).
SMRs have a favorable source term characteristic. Due to their lower power
output (<300 MWe) the source term of SMRs is significantly lower than that of
large nuclear power reactors, including Generation III LWRs. Consequently, the
potential radiological consequences of any accident are expected to be orders of
magnitude smaller than those of large nuclear power reactors. In other words,
SMRs are expected to have higher safety margins and potential lower large release
frequency compared to Generation III LWRs, which increases the ability to site
SMRs closer to populated areas.
It should be noted that when multiple SMRs are built on the same site to meet
the same energy needs as a large nuclear power plant, the occurrence of an accident
scenario that result in fuel failure in all reactor modules concurrently is highly
unlikely, consequently the probability of a large radiation release is reduced.

6.2.2 Reduced Linear Element Rating

Another inherent safety features of the SMRs reactor design include a low linear
element rating (LER) due to reduced core operating power (<300 MWe). For
instance, LER of mPower is about 11.5 kW/m, which is significantly lower than
that of a typical Generation III PWR (18.7 kW/m) (IAEA-ARIS 2014). The
reduction in LER results various benefits including, but not limited to:
• Low fuel and cladding temperatures during accidents;
• Lower flow velocities that minimise flow included vibration effect;
• Lengthen the fuel cycle duration (i.e. higher core exit burnup and hence
improved uranium utilisation and significant reduction in the spent fuel volume).
6.2 Enhanced Safety Features 245

6.2.3 Enhanced Decay Heat

In most of SMR designs, the decay heat is passively removed from the core under
any designed accident conditions by natural convection air or water circulation
systems. For instance, as shown in Fig. 6.1, mPower SMR has decay heat removal
systems that consist of a passive heat exchanger connected with the atmosphere (as
the ultimate heat sink), an auxiliary steam condenser on the secondary system,
water injection or cavity flooding using the reactor water storage tank, and passive
containment cooling (IAEA-ARIS 2014). The enhanced decay heat can ease the
burden on operating staff and create opportunities for more effective accident
management.
Small plant designs are able to accommodate this heat transfer through passive
measures better than large nuclear power plants for the following key reasons:
• Evidently lower core operation power and consequently reduced decay heat;
• Reduced reactor core volume, which favours effective conduction of the decay
power to the reactor vessel (Lorenzini 2010).

6.2.4 Other Inherent and Passive Safety Features

Most of SMRs designed for a high level of passive or inherent safety and hence are
supposed to be safer than current nuclear power reactor designs. SMRs, such as
SMR-160, which has been developed by Holtec International, have been designed to
achieve extreme safety by eliminating vulnerabilities that have been the source of
prior accidents in nuclear power plants, specifically, pumps and motors to run plant’s

Fig. 6.1 mPower—Decay heat removal strategy. Source IAEA-ARIS (2014)

246 6 Benefits of Small Modular Reactors

safety systems. Instead of using these pumps and motors, they rely on gravity to run
all or most significant systems in the plant. Replacing these motors and pumps with
gravity driven fluid flow systems, which does not depend on the availability of
electric power, is a significant advantage under many accident scenarios, harden the
plant against serious nuclear accidents like Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl.
Some SMR designs, such as Flexblue and mPower, use boron-free reactor
coolant as an added safety feature. Boron, which is present in LWRs, is used to
control the change in reactor core reactivity (due to fission product buildup and
fissile isotopes depletion), is balanced by burnable poison (in general gadolinium)
or additional reactivity control rods. The elimination of boron from the coolant in
SMRs results in enhanced uranium utilisation, strong negative moderator temper-
ature coefficient and preclude boric acid corrosion issues, which results in a simple
chemical control system (IAEA-ARIS 2014).
In many SMR designs, such as HTR-PM, the decay heat is passively removed
from the core under any designed accident conditions by natural mechanisms, such
as heat conduction or heat radiation, and keeps the maximum fuel temperature. This
significantly reduces the possibility of core melt and large releases of radioactivity
into the environment. Consequently, there is no need for emergency core cooling
system(s) in the design, and the decay heat is removed by natural mechanisms.
Some SMR designs incorporate inherent safety features, such as higher thermal
inertia. In some cases, fast‐moving accidents such as Loss‐of‐Coolant Accidents
(LOCAs) have been eliminated, and transient response is more benign, which
results in enhanced safety slower accident response, and improved severe accident
performance.
In addition, most of SMRs have large coolant volume to core power ratio
compared to large nuclear power plants. For a typical Generation III PWR reactor
this ratio is usually about 0.08, which is significantly lower than that of mPower,
0.18. Higher coolant volume to core power ratio means more time for safety system
response during accidents.
Auxiliary or supporting systems can affect the reliability of safety systems. Use of
passive systems in place of active systems improves reliability. In the typical SMR
design, elimination of all active cooling systems from the reactor side and elimi-
nation of all emergency cooling systems from the reactor building result in greatly
improved plant simplicity and reliability. Radiated heat from the reactor vessel is
removed by passive means. The conducted heat into the containment may also be
removed by the natural air cooling from the surface of the containment. An integral
nuclear steam supply system may use an immersed primary pump, so no motor or
pump seal cooling is required. As the result, all active cooling systems may be
eliminated. This is illustrated in Table 6.2 below (American Nuclear Society 2010).
In general, SMRs have large operating safety margin compared to large nuclear
power plan. SMRs designs in development are expected to have a core damage
frequency and large release frequency that are significantly lower than those of the
current-generation large nuclear power plants, including Generation III of LWR.
This is due to small core inventory, the vastly simplified design (fewer systems) and
the inclusion of advanced design features, such as passive safety systems. It is
6.2 Enhanced Safety Features 247

Table 6.2 High level comparison of current nuclear power plant safety systems to potential SMR
safety systems
Comparison of current-generation plant SMR safety systems
safety systems
High and low pressure injection system. Passive core cooling.
Emergency diesel generators. Passive design eliminates the need for
emergency diesel generators to maintain core
cooling.
Nuclear core cooling occurs without any
external power, which eliminates loss of
off-site power as an issue.
Active containment heat removal systems. Not needed because of passive heat rejection
Containment spray system. out of containment.
Spray systems are not needed to reduce the
containment steam pressure and temperature.
Complex design which results in significant Simpler and passive safety systems result in
amount of online testing of safety systems. less testing and are not as prone to inadvertent
initiation.
Emergency feedwater system, condensate Capability of core heat removal without an
storage tanks, and associated emergency emergency feedwater system.
cooling water supplies.
Potential safety concerns due to leakage of Integral designs eliminate the need for seals.
seals. Seal maintenance and replacement not
required.
Heat rejection to an external water heat sink SMR designs are passive and remove heat by
is required. conduction and convection.
Closed cooling water systems are required for No closed cooling water systems are needed
safety‐related systems. for safety‐related systems.
Heating, ventilating, and air‐conditioning are SMR is designed to reduce or eliminates the
needed to support proper operation of safety‐ need for HVAC system.
related systems.
Source (American Nuclear Society 2010)

anticipated that the frequency of events that could lead to core damage in a SMR
design is less than that of the current-generations of nuclear power plants due to
simplicity of the designs, the enhanced seismic protection (some designs), the
reduced need to operator action, and the physical capability to passively accom-
modate heat removal functions from both the reactor and containment.

6.3 Economic Competitiveness Between Small Modular

Reactors and Large Nuclear Power Reactors

SMRs have attractive characteristics of simplicity, enhanced safety features, and

require limited upfront cost. However, SMRs are considered not to be cost com-
petitive with large nuclear power reactors because of the economy of scale
248 6 Benefits of Small Modular Reactors

principle. Based on this principle the specific capital cost (US$/kWe) of a SMR is
generally higher than that of a large nuclear power reactor. However, the economy
of scale has limitation and is only true if the SMR and large nuclear power reactor
have similar design (Carelli et al. 2010). Currently, SMRs have very different
designs and characteristics from large nuclear power reactors, and hence the
assumption that the capital cost of a small size nuclear power reactor is higher than
for a large size reactor is erroneous (Carelli et al. 2004).
The overnight capital cost (OCC) and the levelised cost of energy (LCOE) are
two key metrics that are commonly used for determining the project economics of
nuclear energy, and more generally, electricity generation assets. OCC is the cost of
a construction of a nuclear power reactor assuming no interest was incurred during
construction, as if the project was completed “overnight.” LCOE is the price the
nuclear power plant must charge per unit of electricity sold for it to break even over
its lifetime, and defined as follow:

Total costs over lifetime

LCOE ¼
Electricity produced over lifetime

Total costs include:

• Capital cost or (total capital investment);
• Operation and maintenance (e.g., prevention of routine, reliability, and safety);
• Fuel cost, i.e., the sum of the costs for the fissile/fertile materials (e.g., fuel
manufacturing and enrichment, reprocessing of spent fuel, and wastes disposal);
• Decommissioning costs, this means costs for the administrative and technical
actions taken to allow the removal of some or all of the regulatory controls from
a nuclear facility (National Nuclear Laboratory 2014).
Various studies have been conducted to assess the competitiveness of SMRs and
concluded that SMR are cost competitive with large nuclear power reactors.
The OCC of SMRs is generally aligned with current market estimates for
first-of-a-kind large scale nuclear projects. With the potential for being comparable
with Nth-of-a-kind costs for large scale nuclear projects. These show also that
LCOE of SMRs are broadly aligned, if not slightly cheaper than that of large
nuclear power reactors (NEA 2011).
Other studies concluded that it is meaningless to compare a single SMR needs to
a single larger nuclear power reactor on an economy of scale basis, as SMRs are
generally well-suitable for those areas that might not be fitting for larger nuclear
power reactors. Nevertheless, a series of SMRs could be deemed comparable to
fewer larger nuclear power reactors to attain the same overall power plant capacity.
In this scenario, SMRs have a potential to be economically competitive by taking
advantage of many SMRs design approach such as:
• Reduced design complexity;
• Reduced construction time and cost, to enable a more rapid return on
investment;
6.3 Economic Competitiveness Between Small Modular Reactors ... 249

• Cost reductions through factory mass production associated with serial manu-
facture of standardised plants or equipment modules incorporating unified
structures, systems, and components;
• Reduce operation and maintenance costs, which is achieved by generally:
– Reducing the number of structures, systems, and components that require
maintenance and, in some case, design for autonomous operation;
– Elimination of on-site refuelling: This require neither refuelling equipment
nor storage capacity for fresh or spent fuel (NEA 2011).
It should be that it was found that SMRs could compete with many non-nuclear
technologies in cases when large nuclear power reactors are, for whatsoever reason,
incapable to compete (OECD 2011).

6.3.1 Lower Upfront Cost

The desire for SMRs has two key drivers: Low capital requirements and the ability
to attain manufacturing scale. Minimisation of capital requirements is of paramount
importance to governments as building a large nuclear power plant requires sig-
nificant capital to finance the project. Due to financial instability around the globe,
the acquisition of capital, particularly large sums traditionally needed for large
nuclear power plants, may be hard to obtain. The cost of large nuclear power
reactors typically varies between US$6 and US$9 billion, which often exceeds the
financing capabilities of most utilities or even small countries (Schlissel et al. 2008).
On the contrary, the capital investment for SMRs is limited to hundreds of millions
of dollars. SMRs at commercial scale could produce a 100 MW plant for about US
$250 millions (Ondrey 2009). This major advantage that SMRs have with respect to
capital expenditure allows many investors, utilities, and many small nations to
consider nuclear as an reasonable option to meet the energy needs of a country. In
addition, SMRs require small up-front capital investment before producing returns,
which provides an attractive proposition to potential investors of a faster return on a
lower amount of money and results in a smaller financial risk.

6.3.2 Modularisation

SMRs can be modularised, i.e., can be constructed in a factory and shipped to a

nuclear plant site. Modularisation is a specific advantage of SMRs that can only be
replicated by large nuclear power plants to a very limited extent. Modularisation has
many advantages including, but not limited to:
250 6 Benefits of Small Modular Reactors

• Greater standardisation of components and designs;

• Better quality control of components and systems due to off-site factory pro-
duction and standardisation;
• Potential limited on-site preparation, which results in substantial reduction in
construction times that are typical of large nuclear power reactors;
• Significant reduction in risk associated with construction delays and cost
overruns;
• Scalability, which results in a significant cost reduction. It should be noted that
scalability here refers to the process of creating a technology that can be
manufactured in a manner similar to a highly efficient, or highly scaled, pro-
duction line (World Nuclear Association 2012);
• Substantial reduction in interest during construction due to the potential shorter
construction duration;
• Flexibility, additional modules can be added incrementally as demand for
electricity increases. SMRs can be constructed incrementally, which allow for
revenue generation from early financing follow-on units;
• Revenue generation, the modularity offers the benefit that one module requires a
smaller capital investment and could be producing electricity, while a second
module is being built.
Various studies have shown that SMRs can be built in roughly one-half to
one-third of the time required for conventional nuclear power plants (Ondrey 2009).
This reduction in construction time provides a quicker revenue stream for SMRs.
Once the first module comes online a site can start generating revenue that can be
used for funding the construction of subsequent modules. When SMR units are
being built simultaneously SMR project is completed before that of large nuclear
power plants, which represent a significant cost advantage over this type of power
plants (Carelli et al. 2010).
Conversely, large nuclear power reactors are generally designed to be built
uniquely for each project, which could lead to delays in inflated costs. In addition,
even if most of the new large nuclear power reactors are currently including
factory-fabricated components into their design, a significant amount of field work
is needed to assemble these components into an operational nuclear power plant.
It should be noted that various studies show that the traditional large scale of
economy of large nuclear power plants can be countered through the application of
modular construction techniques (NAYGN-Webinar 2013).

6.4 Potential Solution for Remote Locations

and Developing Countries

Many remote locations are facing challenges in providing electricity and heat to it
population due to various reasons such as:
6.4 Potential Solution for Remote Locations and Developing Countries 251

• Population size;
• Population distribution;
• Geographical isolation, which influence significantly the cost of materials;
• Potential exorbitant infrastructure costs;
• Excessive transportation;
• Weak transportation links (e.g., ice-road or fly-in-populations);
• Extreme harsh weather condition;
• Limited investment capability or weak infrastructure.
SMRs have the potential to be well-suited for these remote locations where large
nuclear power plants are not required or sites that lack the infrastructure to
accommodate large nuclear power reactors. For instance, in northern Canada,
communities would generally depend on diesel generators as their source of either
heat or electricity. The need for a continuous supply of electricity especially in
extreme harsh weather conditions is of a supreme importance for the health and
safety of the population. Any interruption in the power supply especially in winter
where the temperature drops routinely bellow −25 °C, would have serious conse-
quences on the well-being and safety of the residents and may require their evac-
uation (Waters and Didsbury 2012).
This strong reliance of electricity creates unique energy reliability requirements
that can be met by SMRs. Various studies have shown that Canada`s northern
market can be considered a niche market for SMRs as they are an excellent can-
didate for providing a reliable, affordable, safe, and free carbon source of energy
(Waters and Didsbury 2012). SMRs eliminate the need on any reliance on trans-
portation of generator fuel to the population.
In addition, SMRs have the potential to compete economically against diesel
power generator technology and contribute to maintaining a sustainable economic
and social development in these remote regions of Canada (Ontario Ministry of
Energy 2016). It should be noted that a reliable low-cost energy will facilitate
mining development that will create jobs in these remote areas and hence lead to
stable communities.
About 25% of global population are deprived of electricity and are concentrated
mostly in rural villages and urban ghettos in developing nations (National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration 2013). Lack of electricity continue to have an
adverse impact on the well-being of these population. Access to affordable modern
energy carriers is of paramount importance in alleviating poverty and enabling the
expansion of local economies. SMRs have the potential to be deployed in many
developing countries to meet the energy needs of its population and contribute
positively to their health, economic and social development. Example of these
developing countries where SMRs can be deployed in the future is presented in
Table 6.3.
The population of about 370 cities in many developing countries with small
grids and limited investment in Asia, Africa, and Latin America is expected to have
more than one million people each; the total population of these cities would
account for 1.5–2 billion people. SMRs have a range of key characteristics, despite
252 6 Benefits of Small Modular Reactors

Table 6.3 Potential SMRs Country SMRs potential deployment

markets capacity GWe
Algeria 22.8
Angola 19.2
Australia 11.4
Bolivia 10.0
Botswana 1.9
Central African Republic 5.7
Chad 13.9
Congo 4.2
Gabon 1.0
Guyana 0.6
Kazakhstan 9.3
Libya 2.5
Mali 15.6
Mauritania 3.9
Marshall Islands 0.03
Mongolia 1.4
Namibia 1.6
New Zealand 2.7
New Caledonia 0.2
Niger 16.9
Sudan 45.0
Solomon Islands 0.6
Suriname 0.3
Turkmenistan 5.7
Uruguay 3.3
Zambia 14.6
Sources Russian energy strategy (2013)

the specific technology, that make SMRs have the potential to play a key role in
meeting the energy needs of these countries driven by many factors such as
growing population and urbanisation. These key SMRs features include:
• Ability to accommodate small electricity grids;
• Lower absolute overnight capital costs compared with large nuclear power
reactors;
• Incremental capacity increase that could meet the incremental increase of
demand and minimise financial risk to the investor;
• Expected lower operating and maintenance costs than those of large nuclear
power plants due to inherent and passive safety features and greater simplicity of
the SMRs design;
6.4 Potential Solution for Remote Locations and Developing Countries 253

• Small reactor size, which requires less land area compared with large nuclear
power reactors;
• Due to their cooling requirements, SMRs could be deployed in inland sites
closer to users, which would not require a significant investment in transmission
infrastructure;
• Due to their superior safety features, SMRs can be sited next to populations
centers without any threat to the local environment or population. Placing SMRs
close to cities and towns will reduce transmission losses and enable the plant
workers to live in the local community.

6.5 Proliferation Resistances

One of the most important challenges facing today’s world nuclear power industry
is the assurance that nuclear power plants and their fuel cycles achieve the highest
degree of proliferation resistance. Many SMRs has incorporated intrinsic prolifer-
ation resistance features, which minimise the attractiveness of SMRs technology as
a target for proliferation. These features include, but not limited to:
• Unlike large nuclear power reactors, many SMR designs, such as mPower, offer
to place the reactor modules underground, which significantly reduces their
vulnerability to natural disaster and malevolent attacks (e.g., terrorist attacks)1;
• Other SMR designs, such as Generation IV (Gen4 Energy 2012), are designed
to have the reactor sealed off underground, i.e., the reactor will never be open
once it is installed, enhancing proliferation resistance. Sealed core presents a
high level of resistance to the threat of both technology misuse and material
diversion;
• It is important to note that proliferation resistance is a characteristic of the entire
fuel cycle, and not just the reactor technology. In this respect, most of SMRs
designs have in generally a higher average exit burnup compared to large
nuclear power reactors, including LWR. Such designs include Energy Multiplier
Module (EM2) which has an average core burnup of 137 (GWd/t). With a
higher burnup the reliability of spent nuclear fuel for nuclear weapons purposes
decreases considerably. In addition, SMRs will have a longer core live than the
large nuclear power reactors. For instance, the core life of EM2 is about
32 years. This feature will limit the access to the core, which will improve
safeguards protection as the frequency for a threat diversion of fissile material
would significantly decrease;

1
However, it is important to highlight that the construction of SMRs underground bring a number
of difficulties that need to be evaluate before a decision is taking on this idea. In case of flooding,
the whole SMR could end up underwater; in case of an accident the access to the reactor core
could be complicated, the construction cost could be hired that the construction above the ground,
just to mention some of these difficulties.
254 6 Benefits of Small Modular Reactors

• SMRs designs are expected to have a lower service and maintenance require-
ments for reactor systems and components compared to large nuclear power
reactors. This feature ensures that the SMRs would not be shutdown for
maintenance between outages;
• Depending on the design, the SMRs core length would be, in general, consid-
erably smaller than large nuclear power reactor designs, which results shorter
fuel elements. The small size of these fuel element tends to render concealment
easier. This issue is mitigated in SMRs by reducing refuelling frequencies and
sealed cores, as well as comprehensive containment and surveillance of spent
fuel handling.
SMRs design incorporates various features that are clearly attractive from the
proliferation and safeguards view point and may ensure the progress of nuclear
power as they provide an increased robustness of barriers for sabotage protection.

6.6 Conclusions

There are a considerable number of SMR designs at various stages of development

around the world today. SMRs offers many attractive benefits, such as reduced
design complexity, low upfront cost, simplified operation and maintenance
requirements, high safety features, and modularisation, among others. They could
be affordable for many countries and utilities that cannot contemplate the colossal
multi-billion dollars outlay of the large nuclear power reactors. SMRs offer also a
greater flexibility relative to conventional large nuclear power reactors as they
provide for incremental capacity increase through multi-module plant clustering,
can be built to be grid-independent, and can be used for a variety of energy
applications.
Furthermore, due to their small size, SMRs are better able to incorporate passive
safety features and lessons learned from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. The
large release frequency and core damage frequency of SMRs are expected to be
significantly lower than those of conventional large nuclear power reactors.
From proliferation and safeguards view point, SMRs include various attractive
intrinsic characteristics that provide an increased robustness of barriers for sabotage
protection and may ensure the progress of nuclear power during the coming dec-
ades. SMR, as their name implies, can be “modularised”, i.e., they can be con-
structed in factories and actually transported to site. Factory construction would
result for greater quality control and substantial reduction in construction times that
are typical of large nuclear power reactors.
SMRs would be suitable for locations with small electrical grids and for remote
areas like northern Canada, the Siberia region, just to mention two examples. The
financial risks associated with the SMRs deployment would be significantly lower
than for conventional large nuclear power reactors, which increases their attrac-
tiveness to investors.
6.6 Conclusions 255

The development of SMRs has the potential to solve the major challenges that
are facing large nuclear power reactors, such as soaring costs, safety, and
radioactive wastes. However, there are numerous challenges that hampered the
development of SMRs, which are discussed in details in Chap. 2.

References

Carelli, M. et al. (2004), The design and safety features of the IRIS reactor. Nucl. Eng. 2004.
Carelli, M. et al. (2010), Economic Features of Integral, Modular, Small-to-Medium Size Reactors,
Progress in Nuclear Energy, 2010.
Cunningham, N: (2012), Small Modular Reactors: A possible Path Forward for Nuclear Power,
American Security Project, 2012.
Gen4 Energy web site: http://www.gen4energy.com/technology/safety-security/2012
http://naygn.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NAYGN-Webinar-SMR-Presentation-February-2013.
pdf, 2013.
IAEA, (2005), Innovative Small and Medium Sized Reactors: Design Features, Safety Approaches
and R&D Trends, Final report of a technical meeting held in Vienna, 7–11 June 2004,
IAEA-TECDOC-1451, Vienna, 2005.
IAEA, (2006), Status of Innovative Small and Medium Sized Reactor Designs, IAEA-TECDOC-
1485, Vienna, 2006.
IAEA (2014), Advances in Small Modular Reactor Technology Developments, A Supplement to:
IAEA Advanced Reactors Information System (ARIS), IAEA_SMR_Booklet_2014, Vienna,
2014. IAEA-Power Reactor Information System (PRIS), 2014.
IAEA-PRIS (2016), International Atomic Energy Agency, Power Reactor Information System.
Ingersoll, D.T. (2010), Passive Safety Features for Small Modular Reactors, International
Seminars on Planetary Emergencies Erice, Sicily, 2010.
Interim Report of the American Nuclear Society (2010), President’s Special Committee on Small
and Medium Sized Reactors (SMR) Generic Licensing Issues, American Nuclear Society,
2010.
Lorenzini, P. (2010), NuScale Power: Capturing the Economies of Small Modular Reactor,
presentation at the International Conference on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants (ICAPP)
2010, San Diego, CA, June, 2010.
National Nuclear Laboratory (2014), Small Modular Reactors (SMR) Feasibility Study, from
http://www.nnl.co.uk/media/1627/smr-feasibility-study-december-2014.pdf, 2014.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2013): http://www.noaa.gov/, 2013.
NEA (2011), Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of Small Nuclear Reactors,
2011 Edition, OECD, Paris, France, 2011.
Ondrey, G. (2009), Modular design would shorten construction times for nuclear plants, Chemical
Engineering, 2009.
OECD (2011), Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of Small Modular Reactors,
Paris, from https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2011/current-status-small-reactors.pdf,
2011.
Ontario Ministry of Energy (2016), SMR Deployment Feasibility Study Feasibility of the Potential
Deployment of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in Ontario, H350381-00000-162-066-0001,
Rev. 0, 2016.
Russian Energy Strategy (2013), Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of SMRs in
Russia, 2013.
Schlissel, D., and Biewald, B. (2008), Nuclear Power Plant Construction Costs. Cambridge:
Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. 2008.
256 6 Benefits of Small Modular Reactors

Waters, C. and Didsbury, R. (2012), Small Modular Reactors—a solution for Canada’s North?
AECL Nuclear Review, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Volume 1, Number 2, 2012.
World Nuclear Association (2012), The Economics of Nuclear Power, from http://www.world-
nuclear.org/info/inf02.html, 2012.
World Nuclear Association (2016), Small Modular Reactors, from World Nuclear Association
web site: http://www.world-nuclear.org/, 2016.
Chapter 7
The Future of Small Modular Reactors

Abstract The small size and the modular structure of the SMRs make them
suitable to small electric grids. For this reason, they are a good option for locations
that cannot accommodate large-scale nuclear power plants. The modular con-
struction process associated to SMRs would make them more affordable by
reducing capital costs and construction times. Their modular structure would also
increase flexibility for utilities since they could add units as demand changes. This
type of nuclear power reactors can be used for on-site replacement of aging fossil
fuel plants.

7.1 Introduction

Nuclear technology is one of the main base-load electricity-generating sources

available in the world today, generating 10.7% of the global power production in
2015, according to Schneider et al. (2016). According to the IAEA, the use of
nuclear energy for electricity generation is expected to grow around the world,
particularly in Asia and the Pacific Rim, as demand for electricity increases as
foreseen in several countries in that region, particularly in China, India, and South
Korea, among others.
In 2016, a total of 31 countries was operating 447 nuclear power reactors with an
installed capacity of 389,051 MWe. At the end of 2015, the electricity generated by
nuclear power plants reached 2441.33 TWh, which is 1.3% higher than the elec-
tricity generated in 2014.
After a detailed analysis of the relevant information published by the
IAEA-PRIS (2016), the WNA (2016), and WANO (2016), among other relevant
international sources on the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation and the
future of this energy source, the following can be stated: It is expected that the
nuclear market could gradually recover from the decline it suffered from being
included in the energy mix of different countries during the period 2006–2014,
particularly after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in March 2011. The level
of its recovery will depend on the following elements:

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 257

J. Morales Pedraza, Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52216-6_7
258 7 The Future of Small Modular Reactors

• Fossil fuel reserves;

• Fossil fuel prices;
• Uranium fuel supply and future of advanced fuel cycles;
• Energy security concerns;
• Environmental and climate change considerations;
• Nuclear safety concerns;
• Nuclear waste management;
• The availability of new design of nuclear power reactors;
• The cost of new nuclear power reactors now under development (Generation III
and III +, Generation IV and SMRs);
• Public opinion acceptance;
• Nuclear proliferation risks management.
Undoubtedly, the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation is not a cheap
alternative or/and an easy option free of risks for many countries. It is a real fact that
many countries do not have the necessary conditions to use, in an economic and
safe manner, nuclear energy for electricity generation at least during the coming
decades. From the technological point of view, the use of nuclear energy for
electricity generation could be very complicated and costly for many countries,
particularly for those with a low technological development or with limited
financial resources to be invested in the nuclear energy sector.
There are costs associated to the construction of a nuclear power plant that can
and cannot be cut. Some nuclear experts indicate at least four areas for attention in
new designs for nuclear power reactors, particularly SMRs. Firstly, the design must
have inherent safety characteristics eliminating the need for expensive and redun-
dant safety systems. Secondly, designs must utilise existing supply chains and not
require development or commercialisation of new or unproven materials and fuels
as much as possible. Thirdly, modularity must allow whole reactors or their
components to be mass-produced and assembled uniformly, preferably at the site.
Finally, high thermal efficiency is necessary to enable new type of reactors to
generate more electricity from a smaller physical plant.

7.2 Investment in Nuclear Power Plants

There is an agreement within the nuclear industry, that nuclear power plants rep-
resent a long-term investment with deferred pay-outs. Moreover, the nuclear
industry is very capital-intensive. This means that a high up-front capital investment
is needed to set up the project and a long payback period is needed to recover the
capital expenditure. The longer this period, the higher is the probability that the
scenario conditions may evolve in a different, unfavourable way, as compared to the
forecasts. As an example, market price of electricity might be driven downwards by:
7.2 Investment in Nuclear Power Plants 259

• Unexpected market dynamics;

• Unexpected operating or design drawbacks that might also undermine plant
availability.
A capital-intensive investment, as the one related to the construction of a nuclear
power plant, requires, after its conclusion, the full exploitation of its operating
capability and an income stream as stable as possible. On a long-term horizon, a
low volatility in a variable trend might translate into a widespread range of reali-
sations of the variable value. This condition is common to every capital-intensive
industry. Nevertheless, some risk factors are specific or particularly sensitive to the
nuclear industry: typically, the public acceptance, the political support in the
long-term energy strategy, the activity of safety, waste management, proliferation
risks, and regulatory agencies. For these reasons, nuclear investment is usually
perceived in many countries, as the riskier investment option among the power
generation technologies now available.
In addition, some of the countries that are now considering nuclear power as a
potential option for the electricity generation in the future, lack of well-prepared and
trained professionals, technicians, and highly-qualified workers, and have a rela-
tively small electrical grid, elements that could limit the use of this type of energy
for electricity generation in the coming decades. In comparison to coal-fired and
natural gas-fired-power plants, it is true that for many countries nuclear power
plants could be more expensive to build, although less expensive to operate.
Finally, it is important to highlight the following: Asian’s investment in nuclear
projects could reach US$781 billion during the period up to 2030. Most of the
planned nuclear power reactors in that region are of large capacity, except in cases
where some types of SMRs are seriously under consideration.

7.3 Safety Issues Associated to Nuclear Power Plants

After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, all countries with major nuclear
power programmes revised their long-term energy plans and have developed
stringent safety measures so that they can continue safely with their nuclear power
development in the future. Despite the introduction of additional stringent safety
measures in almost all nuclear power reactors currently in operation in the world, it
is expected that the installation of new units in several countries in the future will
continue its growth trajectory, but perhaps at a slower pace. As a direct conse-
quence of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, in some countries all nuclear
power plants currently in operation will be phase out during the coming decades,
such as Germany and Switzerland, among others, excluding with this action the use
of this type of energy source for electricity generation in their future energy mix
(Morales Pedraza 2015).
260 7 The Future of Small Modular Reactors

7.4 Construction of New Nuclear Power Plants

The future growth of nuclear power will be driven by large-scale capacity additions
in the Asia and the Pacific market. Of the total of 495 new projects, 316 are planned
to be constructed in the Asia and the Pacific region (63.8% of the total). In addition,
in 2014, a total of 47 units were under construction in that region (70% of the total
units under construction) and 142 units were planned for 2030. In 2016, there were
a total of 62 nuclear power reactors under construction in 15 countries according to
IAEA sources (IAEA-PRIS 2016). Although most of the planned nuclear power
reactors (36 units) were also located in the Asia and the Pacific region (China 22
units; India six units; Korea three units; Japan two units; and Pakistan three units), it
is important to highlight that Russia has also plans for the construction of eight new
nuclear power reactors during the coming years. In addition to the setting up of new
nuclear power reactors in the countries mentioned above, large amount of capacity
will be created through plant upgrades in several others.
On the other hand, it is important to be aware that nuclear power capacity is
expected to rise steadily worldwide, but a slower path than initially planned. This
increase is needed in order to satisfy a growth in the energy demand in several
countries, particularly in China, India, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, UK,
Hungary, the Czech Republic, and in some newcomers like the UAE, Turkey,
Belarus, Poland, Vietnam, Jordan, and Bangladesh, the need to reduce the green-
house emissions, and the negative impact on the environment as a result of the use
of fossil fuels for the electricity generation.
Based on what has been said before, it is expected that nuclear power capacity
reach 520.6 GWe in 2025, and that nuclear power generation reach 3698 TWh by
the same year; this means an increase of 56.8% respect to 2014.
There are six different types of nuclear power reactors now operating in 31
countries. These are the following:
• Pressurised Water Reactors (PWR);
• Boiling Water Reactors (BWR);
• Fast-Neutron Breeder Reactors (FBR);
• Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR);
• Gas-Cooled Reactors (AGE and Magnox);
• Light Water Graphite Reactor (RBMK and EGP).
Advanced nuclear technologies are expected to drive the future of the nuclear
power market. They offer exciting potential for growth in the industry and expor-
table technologies that will address energy security, feedstock security, and emis-
sions concerns. For this reason, the nuclear power sector is expected to benefit in
the near future from the following new nuclear technologies:
• Generation IV nuclear power reactors;
• European pressurised reactors (EPRs);
• Small modular reactors (SMRs).
7.5 The Small Modular Reactors 261

7.5 The Small Modular Reactors

A description of the economic and industrial potential features of SMRs, was given
in 2010 by the US Secretary of Energy. According to his opinion, SMRs would be
less than one-third the size of current nuclear power plants, and with a capacity less
than 300 MWe. They have compact designs and could be made in factories and
transported to sites by truck or rail. In other words, SMRs are designed based on the
modularisation of their components, which means the structures, systems and
components are shop-fabricated, then shipped and assembled on site, with the
purpose of reducing considerably the construction time of this type of units, one of
the main limitations that the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation has
today. For this reason, SMRs is the type of reactor that would be ready to ‘plug and
play’ upon arrival. If commercially successful, SMRs would significantly expand
the options for nuclear power and its applications in several countries, particularly
in those countries with relatively small grid, with a limited technological devel-
opment, or with limited financial resources available to finance the use of this type
of energy source for electricity generation.
The small size and the modular structure of the SMRs make them suitable to
small electric grids so they are a good option for locations that cannot accommodate
large-scale nuclear power plants. The modular construction process associated to
SMRs would make them more affordable by reducing capital costs and construction
times. Their size would also increase flexibility for utilities since they could add
units as demand changes, or use them for on-site replacement of aging fossil fuel
plants.
The SMRs are based on proven LWR technologies and could be deployed in
about 10 years. The SMRs include a large variety of designs and technologies and
in general, consist of:
• Advanced SMRs, including modular reactors and integrated PWRs;
• Innovative SMRs, including small-sized Generation IV reactors with non-water
coolant/moderator;
• Converted or modified SMRs, including barge mounted floating nuclear power
plants and seabed-based reactors;
• Conventional SMRs, those of Generation II technologies still being deployed
(Fig. 7.1).
Advanced SMRs will use different approaches for achieving a high level of
safety and reliability in their systems, structures, components, and that will be the
result of complex interaction between design, operation, material, and human
factors. The main causes of the major nuclear accidents reported since 1950s have
been taken care during the development of SMRs. For this reason, interest in SMRs
continues to grow as a real attractive option for future power generation and energy
security, particularly in developing countries (Fig. 7.2).
However, the first phase of advanced SMRs deployment should ultimately
demonstrate high levels of plant safety and reliability, and prove their economics in
262 7 The Future of Small Modular Reactors

Fig. 7.1 Prototype of an SMR. Source ANS

Fig. 7.2 SMRs research and development by country. Source: IAEA

order that further commercialisation be feasible. It is important to highlight that this

type of nuclear power reactor would have greater automation, but will still rely on
human interaction for supervision, system management, and operational decisions,
because operators are still regarded as the last line of defence, if failures in auto-
mated protective measures occur.
7.5 The Small Modular Reactors 263

The use of SMRs for electricity generation or for any other non-electrical pur-
pose, offers several advantages in comparison with larger nuclear power reactors.
Some of these advantages are:
• Lower initial capital investment (in absolute terms);
• Siting flexibility at locations unable to accommodate more traditional larger
nuclear power reactors (remote areas);
• Potential for enhanced safety and security;
• Shorter construction period (modularisation);
• Design simplicity;
• Suitability for non-electric application (desalination, etc.);
• Replacement for aging fossil plants, reducing GHG emissions;
• Fitness for smaller electricity grids;
• Options to match demand growth by incremental capacity increase;
• Reduced emergency planning zone;
• Easier financing scheme;
• Reduced fuel volume;
• High niche market.
Many recent project initiatives reflect that SMRs are receiving more interest
from potential new nuclear power plant applicants. It is important to single out that
SMRs avoid many of the obstacles encountered by conventional nuclear power
plants. Not only can SMRs easily fit into small electric grids, they can also be sited
closer to urban centres due to their enhanced safety features that require a much
smaller emergency zone. Perhaps the biggest advantage of the SMRs is that they
require less cooling water per unit than conventional nuclear power reactor designs,
lessening the importance of cooling water supply on siting suitability.
SMRs could also provide an opportunity to consider hybrid or dry cooling
options, which would have a major impact on the influence of water supply when
siting the plants. For this reason, the selected sites for a SMR not necessary have to
be located near the coast of a river and can be located in the country side without
any consequences for the safety operation of the plant.
According to the IAEA opinion, reduced plant size and complexity and design
simplifications, enabled by the SMRs, should allow:
• Better control on shorter construction lead-time—leaner project management
(e.g. higher factory-fabrication content, and modularisation of reactors);
• Lower supply chain risks—increased number of suppliers and reduced need of
special and ad hoc manufacturing and installations;
• Better control on construction costs—if plant complexity of GWe-scale nuclear
power plants has been a driver of cost escalation, SMRs should enable econo-
mies from standardisation and accelerated learning. The ability to meet cost
projection should also improve.
264 7 The Future of Small Modular Reactors

The main challenges in the use of SMRs can be summarise as follows:

• Licensability;
• Non-LWR technologies for embarking countries;
• Operability performance/record;
• Technology maturity;
• Human factor engineering;
• Operator staffing for multiple-modules plant;
• Post Fukushima action items on design and safety;
• Non-technological issues;
• Economic competitiveness;
• First of a kind cost estimate;
• Legal and regulatory infrastructure;
• Availability of design for newcomers;
• Infrastructure requirements;
• Size of the emergency planning zone;
• Security personnel requirements;
• Post Fukushima action items on public acceptance;
• Higher fuel enrichment.
Due to their features, SMRs can reduce the severity of many risk factors in
pre-construction, supply chain, construction and operating phases. An IAEA
investigation on the topic reached the conclusion that SMRs may present mitigation
factors against some major financing challenges of nuclear power. In particular,
lower upfront investment of an SMR and low construction lead-time are key fea-
tures able to decrease the financial risk of the investment.
Finally, it is important to highlight the following: Economy of scale has been the
key driver of the nuclear industry over the past. The evolution of nuclear power
technology is characterised by a constant trend in the output size increase. The U.S.
utilities converged to 1000–1400 MWe sized plants, French nuclear power plants
were scaled from 950 to 1550 MWe in the 1971–1999 period, up to the recent 1600
MWe ERP. As a capital-intensive industry, nuclear power generation technology
pursued the economy of scale law, to decrease the incidence of fixed costs over a
higher output base. Nevertheless, the evidence of construction cost escalation of
GW-scale reactors triggers considerations about the applicability of the economy of
scale law on nuclear power plants: An increase in the plant scale apparently pro-
duces a growth in the intrinsic complexity, which challenges the project man-
agement and other activities in the plant design, construction, and assembly.1

1
Along with the design-related cost benefits, the SMR exploit the economics of small mass
production. SMRs are conceived to take the maximum advantage from standardisation and
economy of replication, also referred to as the ‘economy of multiples’ paradigm. Moreover, SMRs
may encompass a broad range of reactor unit sizes. In principle, the lower the size, the higher the
loss of economy of scale to be compensated, and the loss of cost effectiveness in terms of
generation cost.
7.5 The Small Modular Reactors 265

In principle, SMRs are heavily penalised by the loss of economy of scale:

Applying a typical scale exponential law (usually with coefficient in the range 0.6–
0.7), a stand-alone 335 MWe SMR may bear 70% cost increase on a unit base
(7/kWe) over a 1340 MWe. SMR units with smaller size would bear a greater
penalty (up to 350%); this should be recovered by other means, in order to uphold
cost competitiveness.
Some of the main benefits of the SMRs are the following:
• Modularity;
• Lower capital investment;
• Siting flexibility;
• Gain efficiency;
• Increase safety:
• Reduce proliferation risk;
• International marketplace.
If nuclear energy is expected to continue to be part of the energy mix in a
significant number of countries in all regions in the future, then a new type of
reactors, less costly and safer, should be developed and commercialised. The SMRs
is seen, according to the opinion of different experts, the appropriate answer to this
concern.

7.6 Priorities in Research and Development Activities

to Be Considered for a Group of Selected Small
Modular Reactors

According to the Technical Review Panel Report (2012), the main priorities in the
field of research and development of a group of SMRs are the following:

7.6.1 Priority R&D for Gas-Cooled Fast Reactors

The need for the development of a fuel cladding system with the objective of
obtaining a fuel that can withstand high burnup, high damage, and high tempera-
ture, while accommodating both uranium and transuranic compositions. In addition,
the safety case for that fuel needs to be demonstrated;
• The need for a programme to develop, demonstrate, and validate the safety
system of a GFR. That programme should comprise the safety system and
component design and testing, and an integrated analysis approach;
• The need for a programme to design and test reactor components. That pro-
gramme should comprise the design and identification of key R&D needs for
performance and safety, and execution of that R&D.
266 7 The Future of Small Modular Reactors

7.6.2 Priority R&D for Lead-Bismuth Eutectic-Cooled

Reactors (LBE)

• A more in-depth design review of the LBE fast reactor concept should be
performed. Numerous unanswered questions must be resolved to provide sound
recommendations concerning the proper research and development programme
going forward;
• The need for development of a programme to evaluate erosion/corrosion
mechanisms and the implementation of control approaches. This programme
will focus on demonstrating licensable pathways for these technologies;
• The need for a programme focus on developing advanced structural materials
resistant to erosion/corrosion by LBE be implemented. The objective of that
programme is to develop new steels that would not require active control
mechanism during the lifetime of the reactor;
• The need for a trade study to look at the pros and cons associated with the use of
both oxide and nitride fuel for the LBE reactor. If oxide fuel is found to be too
much of a penalty, only then a programme focused on developing, testing, and
licensing nitride fuels be implemented. The objective of that programme would
be to obtain a safe nitride fuel that can be fabricated for long term fuelling of
small deployed LBE reactors;
• Once the basic feasibility of the concept is demonstrated and its economic
viability is established, that a programme is needed to support the design and
testing of LBE reactor components. That programme should comprise the
design, identification of key research and development needs for performance
and safety, and execution of that research and development.

7.6.3 Priority Research and Development

for Sodium-Cooled Reactors

• Continued support should be provided for the design and testing of sodium
reactor components. That programme should comprise the design and identifi-
cation of key research and development needs for performance and safety, and
execution of that research and development;
• The need for a programme devoted to the demonstration of advanced fuels for
sodium cooled reactors, with an emphasis on the demonstration of their safety
behaviour;
• The need for continued support for the design and demonstration of technolo-
gies for under sodium viewing.
References 267

References

Advanced Reactor Concepts: Technical Review Panel Report (2012), Evaluation and
Identification of Future R&D on Eight Advanced Reactor Concepts, conducted April—
September 2012, published in December 2012.
International Atomic Energy Agency website, www.iaea.org, 2016.
International Atomic Energy Agency-Power Reactor Information System, IAEA-PRIS, 2016
Morales Pedraza, Jorge (2015), The Current Status and Perspectives for the Use of Small Modular
Reactors for Electricity Generation, Chapter 4, Advances in Energy Research. Volume 21,
Nova Science Publishers, New York, USA, 2015.
Schneider, Mycle, and Froggatt, Antony and others (2016), World Nuclear Industry Status Report
2016, A Mycle Schneider Consulting Project, 2016.
World Association of Nuclear Operators website, www.world-nuclear.org, WANO, 2016.
World Nuclear Association website, www.world-nuclear.org, WNA, 2016.