The Current Status and Perspectives for the Use of ...

The Current Status and Perspectives for the Use of Small Modular Reactors for Electricity Generation

2015

The document describes briefly the current situation and perspectives for the use of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) concept in the generation of electricity and for other non-electricity purposes.

Jorge Morales Pedraza

______________________________________________________________________________

1- General Overview Nuclear technology is one of the main base-load electricity-generating sources available in the world today. Nuclear energy generated 11.2% of the global power production in 2013. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity is expected to grow around the world, particularly in some specific regions, as demand for electricity increases as foreseen. In 2014, a total of 31 countries were operating 439 nuclear power reactors with an installed capacity of 376,910 MWe. Nuclear power plants generated 2,370 TWh of electricity in 2013, which is 1.2% more than the level generated in 2012. The slight increase in nuclear power generation capacity can be attributed to three new nuclear power reactors that came online in 2013: two in China and one in Iran. In 2014, the electricity generated by nuclear power plants reached 2,358.86 TWh, which is 0.6% less than the electricity generated in 2013. The number of nuclear power reactors in operation in 2014 and the evolution of the generation of electricity by the use of nuclear energy during the period 2006-2014 are shown in Figures 1 and 2 and in Table 1.

Note: The total number of nuclear power reactors in China includes also six units in Taiwan Source: PRIS-IAEA Fig. 1: Number of nuclear power reactors in operation in 2014

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________ Table 1: Total number of nuclear power reactors in operation in 2014 Country ARGENTINA ARMENIA BELGIUM BRAZIL BULGARIA CANADA CHINA CZECH REPUBLIC FINLAND FRANCE GERMANY HUNGARY INDIA IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF JAPAN KOREA, REPUBLIC OF MEXICO NETHERLANDS PAKISTAN ROMANIA RUSSIA SLOVAKIA SLOVENIA SOUTH AFRICA SPAIN SWEDEN SWITZERLAND UKRAINE UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TOTAL

Number of Reactors

Total Net Electrical Capacity MWe

3 1 7 2 2 19 24 6 4 58 9 4 21 1 48 23 2 1 3 2 34 4 1 2 7 10 5 15 16 99 439

1,627 375 5,927 1,884 1,906 13,500 20,056 3,884 2,752 63,130 12,068 1,889 5,308 915 42,388 20,721 1,330 482 690 1,300 24,654 1,815 688 1,860 7,121 9,474 3,308 13,107 9,243 98,476 376,910

The following information is included in the totals in Table 1: TAIWAN, CHINA

6

5,032

Source: PRIS-IAEA

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

Electricity generated (MWe) 2700

2,660 2,608

2,597

2600

2,629

2,558

2,517

2500 2400

2,346

2,370

2,358

2012

2013

2014

2300

2200 2100 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Electricity generated (MWe)

Source: PRIS-IAEA Fig. 2: Evolution of the world’s generation of electricity by nuclear energy during the period 2006-2014

According to Figure 2, the nuclear electricity generation worldwide decreased 11.4% during the period 2006-2014, with the exception of the period 2009-2010 and 2012-2013. The main reason for this decrease is that the number of nuclear power reactors that were shut down in that period was higher than the number of new nuclear power reactors connected to the electrical grid. Figure 2 shows very clearly that nuclear power generation witnessed a decline in 2011, 2012 and in 2014, caused by the drop in nuclear power generation in Japan and Germany as well as in other countries after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in March 2011. The Fukushima Daiichi meltdown caused not only the shut down of almost all of Japan’s operating nuclear power reactors in 2011, but eight units were also immediately shut down in Germany as well, among several units in other countries. As a result of the Fukushima nuclear accident, the German government took the decision to shut down all of its nuclear fleet due to the negative reaction of the public to the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity in the country. After a detailed analysis of the relevant information elaborated by the IAEA, the World Nuclear Association (WNA), and the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) 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. The level of its recovery will depend on the following elements:    

Fossil fuel reserves; Fossil fuel prices; Energy security concerns; Environmental and climate change considerations;

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

 Nuclear safety concerns;  Nuclear waste management;  The cost of new nuclear power plants associated with new types of nuclear power reactors now under development (Generation IV);  Public opinion; and  Nuclear proliferation concerns (Morales Pedraza, 2013). Undoubtedly, the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity is not a cheap alternative or and easy option free of risks. It is a real fact that many countries have no conditions to use, in an economic and safe manner, nuclear energy for the generation of electricity at least during the coming decades. From the technological point of view, the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity 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. Moreover, most of the countries considering nuclear power as a potential option in the future, lack well-prepared and trained professionals, technicians and highly-qualified workers and have a relatively small electrical grid. In comparison to coal-fired and natural gas-firedpower plants, it is true that in many countries nuclear power plants are more expensive to build, although less expensive to operate. Undoubtedly, this is an important characteristic that should be noted by the national competent authorities during the consideration of the future structure of any country’s energy mix (Morales Pedraza, 2013). After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, all major nuclear power countries 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. But in at least two countries the governments have come up with plans to completely phase out nuclear power from their energy mix: Germany before 2022 and Switzerland before 2035. Some others are thinking to do the same in the future, such as Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands, among others, while others such as China, Japan, France1 and the UK, have developed strong frameworks for nuclear safety and also performed stress tests on their existing nuclear power reactors in operation to ensure their safe operations in the future. Despite the introduction of additional stringent safety measures in nuclear power reactors 1

The French nuclear safety regulator has specified additional post-Fukushima safety measures to be taken at the country's fuel cycle and research facilities. Stress tests that were performed on European nuclear power reactors following the March 2011 Fukushima accident were extended in France to cover all basic nuclear installation. The aim of these stress tests was to determine the safety margins that exist on these facilities with regard to extreme hazards, such as earthquakes and flooding or AREVA, these stress tests were performed on fuel cycle facilities at its La Hague, Romans-sur-Isère, Tricastin and Marcoule sites. Meanwhile, such tests were carried out at fuel and research facilities operated by the French Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission (CEA) at Marcoule, Cadarache and Saclay. According to World Nuclear News, in June 2012, following an analysis of these stress tests, France's nuclear safety regulator, the Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN), asked AREVA and the CEA to define a "hardened safety core" of systems at each facility that are incredibly robust and will provide essential safety services during even the most extreme circumstances. This should push the safety of all facilities well beyond their original design bases, and combined with enhanced management during evolving crises, help to ensure even severe accidents have limited consequences. Having examined the proposals submitted by AREVA and the CEA, ASN has now issued resolutions "establishing additional prescriptions stipulating the requirements applicable" in meeting their proposed hardened safety cores.

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

currently in operation in several countries, it is expected that the installation of new units in the future will continue its growth trajectory, but perhaps at a lower pace. According to the IAEA, the future growth of nuclear power will be driven by largescale capacity additions in the Asia and the Pacific market. Of the total 495 projects in the pipeline, 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 and 142 units were planned for 2030. Asian investment in nuclear projects could reach US$ 781 billion during the period up to 2030 according to WNA sources. Undoubtedly, the biggest nuclear power program in the Asia and the Pacific region is the one currently under implementation in China with 22 units in operation in the Mainland plus 2 in Taiwan, and 25 units under construction according to the information provided by the government. In 2015, China will begin the construction of five new nuclear power reactors with a capacity of 5 GW according to WNA sources. Nuclear power capacity is expected to rise steadily worldwide. This increase is needed in order to satisfy an increase in the demand of energy in several countries, particularly in China, India, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, UK, Hungary, Czech Republic, and in some newcomers like the UAE, Turkey, Belarus, Poland, Vietnam, Jordan, and Bangladesh, the need to reduce the greenhouse emissions and the negative impact in the environment as a result of the use of fossil fuels for the generation of electricity. In 2014, there were 69 nuclear power reactors under construction in 15 countries according to IAEA sources. Although most of the planned nuclear power reactors were located in the Asia and the Pacific region (China 25 units; India 6 units; Korea 5 units; Japan 2 units2; and Pakistan 2 units, see Figure 3), it is important to highlight that Russia has also plans for the construction of nine 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 many others. Based on what has been said above, 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.

2 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.

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

Source: PRIS-IAEA Fig.3: Nuclear power reactors under construction at world level in 2014

There are six different types of nuclear power reactors now operating in 31 countries. These are the following:      

Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) 3; Boiling Water Reactors (BWR); Fast-neutron Breeder Reactors (FBR); Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR); Gas-cooled Reactors (AGE and Magnox); Light Water Graphite Reactor (RBMK and EGP).

The number of nuclear power reactors by type in operation worldwide in 2013 is given in Table 2. Table 2: Nuclear power reactors in commercial operation in 2013 Reactor type Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor 'CANDU' (PHWR) Gas-cooled Reactor (AGR & Magnox)

Main Countries US, France, Japan, Russia, China US, Japan, Sweden Canada UK

Number 273

GWe 253

Fuel Enriched UO2

Coolant Water

Moderator Water

81

76

Water

Water

48

24

Enriched UO2 Natural UO2

15

8

Heavy water CO2

Heavy water Graphite

Natural U (metal), Enriched

3

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).

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________ Light Water Graphite Reactor (RBMK & EGP) Fast Neutron Reactor (FBR)

Russia

11 + 4

10.2

Russia

2

0.6

UO2 Enriched UO2 PuO2 and UO2

Water

Graphite

Liquid sodium

None

Total 434 372 Note: In 2014, they were 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in 31 countries, five more than in 2013. Source: IAEA

2- Advances Nuclear Technologies Advanced nuclear technologies are expected to drive the future of the nuclear power market. 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 pressurized reactors (EPR);  Small and medium sized modular reactors (SMRs).

2.1- Generation IV Nuclear Power Reactors This is the new generation of nuclear power reactors now under research and development in several countries. This new generation of nuclear power reactors is a revolutionary type with innovative fuel cycle technologies. According to Morales Pedraza (2013), the main factors that are influencing the development of new generation of nuclear power reactors are the following: a) Economics; b) Safety; c) Proliferation resistance; d) Environmental protection; e) Improved resource utilization; and f) Reduced waste generation. Adding to innovations designed to achieve improved fuel efficiency, there are other issues which require innovative approaches, including high temperature applications and designs to be used in isolated or remote locations. According to the IAEA report “International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power” (2008), specific innovative development approaches that could lead to improvements in efficiency, safety, and proliferation resistance include, among other benefits:    

Long life fuel with very high burn-up; Improved fuel cladding and component materials; Alternative coolant for improved safety and efficiency; Robust and fault tolerant systems;

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

 High temperature Brayton cycle power conversion4;  Thorium fuel design. Why a new generation of nuclear power reactors is needed? The answer is the following: Generation IV initiative is the recognition that the current safety features of Generation III and Generation III+, while representing a significant improvement over older nuclear power reactors (Generation I and II) from the technological and safety point of view, are not enough to satisfy government and the public opinion in several countries on the safe use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity, particularly after the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. On the other hand, if the current global nuclear capacity of 376,910 MWe is maintained, then it will be insufficient to reduce and stabilize CO 2 emissions to the atmosphere in the long-term, particularly due to a foreseeable increase in the energy demand all over the world. The increase in the energy demand in a group of countries such as China, India, South Africa, Brazil, South Korea, and Russia, among others, will be very high, and the use of different renewable energy sources for electricity production in the coming years will not be enough to satisfy this new demand. For this reason, the international community needs to use energy sources such as nuclear power, which could deliver the highest power capacity in a sustainable manner and in the safest possible means. The following are the designs of Generation IV systems already under research and development in a group of countries:      

Gas cooled fast reactor (GFR); Lead cooled fast reactor (LFR); Molten salt reactor (MSR); Sodium cooled fast reactor (SFR); Super critical water cooled reactor (SCWR); Very high temperature gas reactor (VHTR

2.2- European Power Reactor (EPR) The EPR system offered by AREVA is considered by the owner company as the world’s most advanced PWR to enter into operation within the so-called “Generation III+” during the coming years. It is considered by AREVA as the world’s most powerful reactor system, capable of generating more than 1,600 MWe of electricity. The EPR system is up to now according to AREVA, the only Generation III+ reactor to be 4

The Brayton cycle is used for gas turbines only where both the compression and expansion processes take place in rotating machinery. The Brayton cycle is made up of four internally reversible processes: a) Isentropic compression (in a compressor); b) Constant pressure heat addition; c) Isentropic expansion (in a turbine); and d) Constant pressure heat rejection. All four processes of the Brayton cycle are executed in steady flow devices so they should be analyzed as steady-flow processes.

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

marketed on a global scale. In fact, it has been certified by several leading nuclear regulatory authorities in several countries. Four EPRs are currently under construction in France (one unit), Finland (one unit) China (two units), and two units are planned to be constructed in the UK in the coming years. In addition, negotiations are underway with some countries for the construction of several new EPR systems in the near future. According to AREVA home page, the main characteristics of the EPR system are the following:  The EPR system builds upon the most recent evolution of light water reactor technology and is positioned at the cutting edge of a continuous innovation process;  The EPR system is optimized to meet the highest safety requirements of the new generation of nuclear power plants while offering very competitively priced electricity generation;  The EPR system has been designed with unparalleled safety levels, highly resistant to internal and external hazards as well as combination of hazards. Nuclear safety is central to the EPR design, which has benefited from the input and involvement of French and German nuclear safety authorities from its earliest phases. The result is the EPR design with unparalleled safety levels, highly resistant to both internal and external hazards;  The EPR system follows first a deterministic approach for design development, complemented with probabilistic studies. The design approach integrates past experience to guarantee safety objectives through full diversity, complementarity, and redundancy of proven technologies;  The EPR system has been licensed and approved by the world’s most demanding organizations. The quality of EPR technology is reflected in its world-class licensing record. It complies with the technical specification criteria issued by European electricity companies (European Utilities Requirements, EUR) and the American Electric Power Research Institute;  An AREVA first fleet of EPR systems rests on a solid foundation of extensive building experience, with continued construction of 102 nuclear power plants since the 1970s and operation of light water reactors worldwide 5;  The EPR system provides from uranium and plutonium safe, sustainable electricity from an exceptionally cost-effective source of energy at a long-term predictable cost, particularly in the context of fossil fuel depletion. While meeting higher safety

5

A total of 102 nuclear power reactors have been built or under construction by AREVA in 11 countries, of which 91 units are still in operation with no significant safety issues so far, These are: 84 PWRs (including 11 German nuclear power reactors temporarily suspended); six BWRs also German nuclear power reactor temporarily suspended; one PHWR; seven shut down reactors; and four EPR units currently under construction: One in France; one in Olkiluoto Finland; and two in Taishan, China (Taishan 1 and 2). One EPR system is projected to be constructed in the UK in the coming years.

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

requirements, the EPR system offers significant competitive advantage through an efficient use of resources and high performance. Operators can expect: -Lower operating expenses; -Optimal capital expenditure; -Higher availability (targeted at 92%); -Superior fuel management and output per kilo of fuel; -High durability with an expected 60-year operating lifetime.  Thanks to its enhanced safety and its high efficiency, the EPR system improves upon existing light water reactors to the benefit of the environment.  The EPR system has been designed in such a way to reduce radioactive waste production and allow for better waste management;  The EPR system layout offers exceptional and unique resistance to internal or external hazards or combination of hazards, especially earthquake and large airplane crash. The ERPs under construction or to be constructed in the world during the coming years are the following:  Finland - Olkiluoto 3 project is the first Generation III+ system under construction in the world;  France - Flamanville 3 is the first Generation III+ system under construction in the country;  China - Taishan 1 and 2 are the first two Generation III+ system under construction in the country6;  United Kingdom - Hinkley Point C, is the first Generation III+ system to be constructed in the country in the near future. However, and despite the positive evaluation of the EPR system made by AREVA, the experience in the construction of the Olkiluoto Unit 3 has not been very successful. According to STUK, the Finish competent nuclear regulatory authority, the construction of this unit is facing a series of difficulties and problems that are not only delaying the conclusion of the construction work, but are increasing considerably its cost, well above the initial budget approved. The delays have been due to various problems with planning, supervision, and workmanship, and have been the subject of an inquiry by STUK. The first problems that surfaced were irregularities in the foundation concrete, and caused a delay of months. Later, it was found that the subcontractors had provided heavy forgings that were not up 6

These two reactors EPR (Taishan 1 and 2) represent the largest international commercial contract signed in civil nuclear history.

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

to project standards and which had to be re-cast. An apparent problem constructing the reactor’s unique double-containment structure also caused delays, as the welders had not been given proper instructions. Several times the deadline for the entry into commercial operation of the unit has been changed. It is expected that the construction work would end in 2018, several years after the first deadline was given.

2.3. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) The SMRs include a large variety of designs and technologies 7 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/ moderator8; 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.

The SMRs are designed based on the modularization 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.

7

The IAEA defines small nuclear power reactor, as a reactor under 300 MWe, and medium nuclear power reactor up to about 700 MWe. However, the most common use of SMR is as an acronym for “small modular reactor”, designed for serial construction and collectively to comprise a large nuclear power plant. In other words, SMR is being used to refer to the use of diverse pre-fabricated modules to expedite the construction of a single large nuclear power plant in the same site. On the other hand, DOE defines reactors as SMRs if they generate less than 300 MWe of power, sometimes as little as 25 MWe, compared to conventional nuclear power reactors, which may produce more than 1,000 MWe. SMRs can be constructed in factories and installed underground, which improves containment and security but may hinder emergency access. 8 SMR designs using liquid sodium as a coolant for the reactor permit operation at nearly atmospheric pressure with a large mar gin to the boiling point of the coolant (subcooling margin). Maintaining the core coolant subcooled provides assurance that the fuel cladding is not being overheated. The subcooling margin for these reactors is much greater than in an existing PWRs. Operation at atmospheric pressure eliminates the possibility of pressure transients (ANS interim report, 2010). However, the cost picture for sodium-cooled reactors is rather grim, particularly in the US. They have typically been much more expensive to build than light water reactors, which are currently estimated to cost between US$ 6,000 and US$ 10,000 per kilowatt in the US. The costs of the last three large breeder reactors have varied wildly. In 2008 dollars, the cost of the Japanese Monju reactor (the most recent) was US$ 27,600 per kilowatt (electrical); French Superphénix (start up in 1985) was US$ 6,300; and the Fast Flux Test Facility (startup in 1980) at Hanford was US$ 13,800. This gives an average cost per kilowatt in 2008 dollars of about US$ 16,000, without taking into account the fact that cost escalation for nuclear power reactors has been much faster than inflation (Makhijani and Boyds, 2010).

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

Source: ANS Fig. 4: Prototype of a SMR

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. Undoubtedly, interest in SMRs continues to grow as a real option for future power generation and energy security9, particularly in developing countries. However, the first phase of advanced SMRs deployment will have to ultimately demonstrate high levels of plant safety and reliability, and prove their economics in order for further commercialization to 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 defense, if failures in automated protective measures occur.

3- Benefits of the Use of SMRs The use of SMRs for electricity generation or for any other non-electrical purpose, offers several advantages in comparison with larger nuclear power reactors. Some of these advantages are:   

Lower initial capital investment (in absolute terms); Scalability; Siting flexibility at locations unable to accommodate more traditional larger nuclear power reactors (remote areas);

9

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.

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________



Potential for enhanced safety and security.

According to US Department of Energy (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 electrical markets, the need to supply electricity in isolated areas10 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 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 efficiencies and multiple energy end-products, while increasing grid stability and security. Some advanced SMR designs can produce a higher temperature process heat for either electricity generation or industrial applications;  Nonproliferation: SMRs also provide safety and potential nonproliferation benefits to the international community. Most SMRs will be built below grade for safety and security enhancements, addressing vulnerabilities to both sabotage and natural phenomena hazard scenarios. Some SMRs will be designed to operate for extended periods without refueling. The SMRs could be fabricated and fueled 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 cycle;  International Marketplace: There is both a domestic and international market for SMRs in several countries, particularly developing countries in all regions. However, two important elements should be highlighted regarding the use of SMR systems. One element is that the use of SMRs would create a more complex waste 10

Some SMR proponents argue that the size and safety of the designs of this type of 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).

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

problem. Supporters of SMRs claim that with longer operation on a single fuel charge and with less production of spent fuel per reactor, waste management would be simpler. However, in fact, spent fuel management for SMRs could be more complex than expected, and therefore more expensive, because the waste would be located in many more different sites. In some proposals, the unit would be buried underground, making waste retrieval even more difficult and complicating retrieval of radioactive materials in the event of an accident. For instance, it is highly unlikely that a 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 present far greater technical challenges and costs per kilowatt of capacity than faced by present-day aboveground SMR designs. The second element to be considered is that the use of SMRs will not be a 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 is now facing (Makhijani and Boyds, 2010). However, there are four different types of SMRs now under construction in three countries, and their entry into operation could reduce the CO 2 emissions in a short period of time.

4- The Current Situation and Perspective of the SMRs Market at World Level Globally, there is a growing demand for cheap, reliable, and abundant supply of electricity in almost all countries in all regions, particularly in emerging economies and in several developing countries as well. There is also an increase need to find new sources of energy that do not rely for their supply on hostile or politically unstable countries. 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 produce as a result of conventional electricity generation, and in the adoption of new and stricter environmental regulations, which threaten to close dozens coal-powered plants across Europe and the US. The hope was that massive investments in alternative energy technologies, such as solar and wind power, would make up for this cut in generating capacity, but the inefficiencies and intermittent nature of these technologies made it clear that something with the capacity and reliability of oil, coal or natural gas power plants was needed. The only well-known energy alternative to the use of more coal or oil power plants is nuclear energy. But 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

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

fracking11 that opened up vast new gas fields in the West. The use of this new technology has dropped significantly the price of gas and oil to the point where the option of nuclear energy has a hard time competing with gas and oil. In addition, the strong public opposition to the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity in several countries is making more difficult the use of this type of energy source for this specific purpose. Undoubtedly, the lack of funds available for developing new nuclear power projects is expected to delay the revival of the nuclear power industry in the US 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 US and the EU forcing several other governments to reconsider their nuclear power policies. The policy changes adopted, which are backed by a fear of radiation, the safe operation of the nuclear power plants, the management of nuclear waste, environmental issues and anti-nuclear public opinion, have caused uncertain market conditions, whereby investment in nuclear power projects is deemed increasingly risky. A number of international funding institutions have also become skeptical of 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 a negative impact in the expansion of the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation in several countries, particularly in the US and in some European countries as well. Up until now, the sort of typical nuclear power reactors used for generating electricity had tended to be large with units reaching gigawatt levels of output. With nuclear power plants that large, the cost of construction combined with obtaining permits, securing insurance, and meeting the legal challenges from environmentalist groups can push the cost of a conventional nuclear power plant of two units toward as much as US$ 9-10 billion. It also means very long construction times of ten to fifteen years in many nuclear power projects. With so much time and money involved, an unforeseen change in regulations or discovery of construction errors or an unfortunate geological fault under the reactor site can make nuclear power projects very risky and uncertain investment for any utilities. 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 to introduce a nuclear power program for the first time. As it was said before, one of the main characteristics of the SMRs is that they could be built independently or as modules in a larger complex, with capacity added

11

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 in order to fracture shale rocks to release natural gas inside.

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

incrementally as required12. This is without doubt an important characteristic of SMRs that make this type of nuclear power reactors very appropriate for many countries, particularly medium size developing countries, and even small developing countries, given the necessary conditions and suitable electrical grid sizes. There are also moves to develop independent small units in order to provide electricity in remote sites in several countries, particularly in developing countries. On the other hand, small units are seen as a much more manageable investment than big ones whose cost often rivals the capitalization of the utilities concerned. This specific characteristic of the SMRs makes them a real alternative for the generation of electricity in several countries, including developing countries. It is important to highlight that modern small reactors for power generation are expected to have greater simplicity of design, economy of mass production, and reduced siting costs. Most are also designed for a high level of passive or inherent safety 13 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 programs in a country or the introduction of this type of program in the future. One of the important characteristics of the SMRs is that they can be designed to be employed below ground level, giving a high resistance to terrorist threats14. However, the underground siting of reactors is not a new idea. Decades ago, both Edward Teller and Andrei Sakharov proposed siting reactors deep underground to enhance safety, but it was recognized later that building reactors underground increases cost. 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). As a result, the industry lost interest in underground siting. 12

In order for individual units to remain independent, the number of support staff and amount of safety equipment would need to increase with the number of units on a site. Only through significant sharing of systems and personnel by multiple units, the associated cost increase could be moderated. Thus, the SMR vendors want to reduce the number of control rooms and licensed operators that the US NRC would ordinarily require for a certain number of units. For example, the NuScale design could have a single control room operator in charge of as many as 12 units, the feasibility of which would have to be verified through performance testing. But such a strategy of sharing would run counter to the lessons of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident (Lyman, 2013). On the other hand, this possibility could have safety implication. For example, some companies have been talking about cutting costs by using just one control room to run five to six reactors. When you get to the root cause of nuclear accidents, it is almost always due to human error, and if you have fewer people watching the reactors, there is a greater chance of problems and this is something that governments and nuclear industry should carefully evaluate. 13 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 overheating. 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 convection cooling should be sufficient to maintain the core at a safe temperature in the event of a serious accident like a station 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). 14 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, it could have disadvantages as well. Again, studying the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, emergency diesel generators and electrical 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 reactors (Lyman, 2013).

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

Another important characteristic of the SMRs is the improvement in all safety aspects associated with the operation of a nuclear power reactor. A 2010 report by a special committee convened by the American Nuclear Society (ANS interim report, 2010) showed that many safety provisions necessary or at least prudent in large reactors are not necessary in the small designs forthcoming. Safety systems for SMRs will include the systems used to shut down 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 shut down. 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 shut down state in a safe manner. After the automatic shut down 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 designs is illustrated by the fact that many, if not all, of the systems/features upon which a current‐generation reactor relies, are not required to be maintained in this type of nuclear reactors. Of the various types of proposed SMRs, liquid metal fast reactor designs pose particular safety concerns. Sodium leaks and fires have been a central problem — 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 SMR that is going to be built in the country. According to World Nuclear Association, a 2009 assessment by the IAEA under its Innovative Nuclear Power Reactors and Fuel Cycle (INPRO) program concluded that “there could be between 43 and 96 SMRs in operation around the world by 2030, but none of them in the US15”. In 2011, there were 125 small and medium units – up to 700 15

According to the IAEA, the US with its nuclear energy policy is not attractive enough to mobilize the resources that are needed to expand its nuclear power program.

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

MWe – in operation and 17 under construction in 28 countries totaling 57 GWe of capacity. 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 under development for various purposes and applications, but most of these prototypes will not be ready for a commercial operation before 2030 (see Tables 3, 4 and 5). The exceptions are four prototypes of SMR designs that were under construction in 2014: CAREM-25, an industrial prototype in Argentina, KLT-40S and RITM-200, floating SMRs in the Russian Federation, and HTR-PM, an industrial demonstration plant in China. Table 3: Snapshots of small and medium-sized reactor designs under development and deployment

CAREM-25 (Argentina)

ACP100 (China)

Water-cooled SMRs Flexblue AHWR300 (France) (India)

DMS (Japan) ABV-6M (Russian Federation) RUTA-70 (Russian Federation) Elena (Russian Federation)

IMR (Japan) RITM-200 (Russian Federation)

SMART (Republic of Korea) VVER300 (Russian Federation)

KLT-40S (Russian Federation) VK-300 (Russian Federation)

IRIS (International Consortium) VBER-300 (Russian Federation) UNITHERM (Russian Federation)

mPower (United States)

NuScale (United States)

Westinghouse SMR (United States)

SMR-160 (United States)

HTR-PM (China) PBMR-400

GTHTR300 (Japan) HTMR-100

(South Africa)

(South Africa)

CEFR (China) PRISM (United States) Source: IAEA

PFBR-500 (India) Gen4 Module (United States)

SHELF (Russian Federation)

High temperature gas-cooled SMRs GT-MHR MHR-T (Russian Federation) (Russian Federation) EM2 SC-HTGR (United States) (United States) Liquid-metal cooled fast SMRs 4S SVBR-100 (Japan) (Russian Federation)

MHR-100 (Russian Federation) Xe-100 (United States)

BREST-300 (Russian Federation)

Table 4: Updated status on global SMR development –as of September 2014 reactor design

Water Cooled Reactors CAREM-25 ACP-100 Flexblue

Reactor type

Designer, country

Capacity (MWe) / Configuration

Design status

Integral pressurized water reactor Integral pressurized water reactor Subsea pressurized water reactor

CNEA, Argentina

27

CNNC (NPIC/CNPE), China DCNS, France

100

Under construction Detailed design Conceptual design

160

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 18 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________ AHWR300-LEU IRIS

Pressure tube type heavy water moderated reactor Integral pressurized water reactor Boiling water reactor

BARC, India

304

Basic design

335

Basic design

300

Basic design

350

Conceptual design completed Licensed/Des ign certification received in July 2012 Under construction, target of operation in 2016 – 2017 Licensing stage Preliminary design completed Conceptual design

IMR

Integral modular water reactor

IRIS, International Consortium Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy, Japan Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Japan

SMART

Integral pressurized water reactor

KAERI, Republic of Korea

100

KLT-40S

Pressurized water reactor

OKBM Afrikantov, Russian Federation

35 × 2 modules barge mounted

VBER-300

Integral pressurized water reactor Integral pressurized water reactor

OKBM Afrikantov, Russian Federation Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, US

325

SMR-160

Pressurized water reactor

Holtec International, US

160

High temperature gas cooled reactors HTR-PM

Pebble Bed HTGR

211

GT-HTR300

Prismatic Block HTGR

GT-MHR


Tsinghua University, China Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Japan OKBM Afrikantov, Russian Federation

MHR-T reactor/Hydrogen production complex MHR-100


OKBM Afrikantov, Russian Federation


PBMR-400

Pebble Bed HTGR

HTMR-100

Pebble Bed HTGR

OKBM Afrikantov, Russian Federation Pebble Bed Modular Reactor SOC Ltd, South Africa Steenkampskraal Thorium Limited (STL), South Africa

4 x 205.5 Hydrogen production 25 – 87 cogeneration 165

SC-HTGR


AREVA, US

272

Xe-100

Pebble Bed HTGR

X-energy, US

35

Sodium-cooled fast reactors

China Nuclear Energy Industry Corporation, China

20

DMS

Westinghouse SMR

Liquid metal-cooled fast spectrum reactors CEFR

˃225

100 – 300 285

35 per module (140 for 4 module plant)

Under construction Basic design Conceptual design completed Conceptual design Conceptual design Detailed design Conceptual design, preparation for prelicense application Conceptual design Conceptual design

In operation

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 19 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________ PFBR-500

Sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor

Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, India

500

4S

Sodium-cooled fast reactor

Toshiba Corporation

10

BREST-OD-300

Lead-cooled fast reactor

300

SVBR-100

Lead Bismuth cooled fast reactor Sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor

RDIPE, Russian Federation AKME Engineering, Russian Federation GE Nuclear Energy

General Atomics, US

240

Gen4 Energy Inc., US

25

PRISM

EM2 G4M

High temperature heliumcooled fast reactor Lead-bismuth cooled fast reactor

101 311

Preparation for start-up, commissioni ng Detailed design Detailed design Conceptual design Detailed design Conceptual design Conceptual design

Source: IAEA

Table 5: SMRs under construction for immediate deployment – the front runners

Country

Output (MWe) 27

Designer

Argentina

Reactor Model CAREM-25

China

HTR-PM

250

2 mods, 1 turbine

India Russian Federation

PFBR-500 KLT-40S (ship-borne)

500 70

Tsinghua Univ. /Harbin IGCAR OKBM Afrikantov OKBM Afrikantov

2 modules

RITM-200 (Icebreaker)

50

CNEA

Number of units 1

1 2 modules

Site, Plant ID, and unit # Near the Atucha-2 site Shidaowan unit-1

Commercial Start 2017 ~ 2018 2017 ~ 2018

Kalpakkam Akademik Lomonosov units 1&2 RITM-200 nuclear-propelled Icebreaker ship

2015 ~ 2016 2016~2017

2017 ~ 2018

Source: IAEA

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 US. The distinct concepts of operations, staffing and security requirements, size of emergency planning zones, licensing process, legal and regulatory framework are the main issues for the deployment of this specific type of SMR.

4.1- The Current Situation and Perspectives of the SMRs Market in the US A 2011 report for US-DOE prepared by the University of Chicago Energy Policy Institute says “development of small reactors can create an opportunity for the United ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 20 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

States 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”. According to Rosner and Goldberg (2011), SMRs have the potential to achieve significant greenhouse gas emission reductions. They could provide alternative base load power generation to facilitate the retirement of older, smaller, and less efficient coal generation power plants that would, otherwise, not be good candidates for retrofitting carbon capture and storage technology. They could be deployed in regions of the US that have less potential for other forms of carbon-free electricity, such as solar or wind energy. There may be technical or market constraints, such as projected electricity demand growth and transmission capacity that would support SMR deployment, but not GWscale light water reactors. From the onshore manufacturing perspective, a key point is that the manufacturing base needed for SMRs can be developed domestically. Thus, while the large commercial nuclear industry is seeking to transplant portions of its supply chain in the US from current foreign sources, the SMR industry offers the potential to establish a large domestic manufacturing base building upon current US manufacturing infrastructure and capability, including the naval shipbuilding and idle domestic nuclear component and equipment facilities. A number of sustainable domestic jobs could be created – that is, the full panoply array of design, manufacturing, supplier, and construction activities – if the US can establish itself as a credible and substantial designer and manufacturer of SMRs. While many SMR technologies are being studied around the world, a strong US commercialization program can enable the US industry to be first to market SMRs, thereby serving as a fulcrum for export growth as well as a lever in influencing international decisions on deploying both nuclear power reactor and nuclear fuel cycle technology. All of this would enable the US to recapture technological leadership in commercial nuclear technology, which has been lost to suppliers in France, Japan, South Korea, Russia and, now rapidly emerging, China16. While US nuclear supply companies have not been involved in the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the country since 1978, the same US companies as well as companies from other countries have been involved in the construction of nuclear power plants abroad. 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. What can be done in order to overcome the problems that the US nuclear industry has with the aim of expanding the nuclear market in the US? The following are three

Four integral pressurized water SMRs are under development in the US: Babcock &Wilcox’s mPower; NuScale; SMR-160; and the Westinghouse SMR. 16

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 21 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

special market opportunities that may provide the additional market pull needed to successfully commercialize SMRs in the US:  The federal government;  International applications;  The need for replacement of existing coal generation plants. The federal government - The federal government is the largest single consumer of electricity in the US, 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 into 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 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. International applications - Previous studies have documented the potential for a significant export market for SMRs produced in the US, mainly for developed countries that do not have in some regions the demand or the necessary infrastructure to accommodate GW-scale light water reactors. 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 US 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 (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 2,000-3,000 MWe, and this positive factor should be in the mind of the US nuclear industry representatives when considering the construction of this type of reactor in some countries. 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. A number of industry studies as well as recent EIA analysis indicate the potential for retirement of 50-100 GWe of existing coal generation units in the US. 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, and lack the environmental controls needed to meet emerging air quality, water quality, and coal______________________________________________________________________________ Page 22 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

ash management requirements. Many of these plants could be retired by 2020 (Rosner and Goldberg, 2011). This is a good business opportunity for the US nuclear industry. Another important element associated with SMRs is related to their financing. As the cost of individual SMRs are much less than current GW conventional units, nuclear power plants comprising a number of SMRs are expected to have a capital cost and production cost comparable to one of these larger nuclear power plants. But any individual SMR unit within that nuclear power plant will 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 1,000 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 1,000 MWe unit). For developed countries, small modular units offer the opportunity of building as necessary; for developing countries, it may be the only option, because their electric grids cannot take units of 1,000 MWe of capacity. Despite of 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 the generation of electricity, the US market perspective for SMRs are not yet strong enough to be considered by the US and by foreign nuclear and investment companies as a good business investment opportunity. 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 mentioned earlier, are making more difficult any recovery for the US nuclear industry. Finally, it is important to highlight the following: In the US, recent attention has focused on SMR designs that have the most in common with the current generation of nuclear power reactor technology. In particular, the class of SMRs called “integral pressurized water reactors” (iPWRs) 17 is regarded as the least risky with regard to development, licensing, and commercial deployment, even though they still have many unique attributes that will require careful analysis (Lyman, 2013). This criterion could limit the possibility of the use of other types of SMRs currently under research and development. 17

The “integral” in iPWR refers to the characteristic that certain systems, structures, and components (SSCs)—notably the steam generators, control rod drive mechanisms, and pressurizer—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 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).

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 23 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

The status of development and licensing for several SMR designs is summarized below:  mPower (B&W): The mPower reactor is a 180-MWe PWR. B&W was awarded the first cost-sharing agreement under the DOE’s SMR development program in November 2012. B&W has teamed up with BECHTEL and the Tennessee Valley Authority to design, license, and build a set of 2-6 mPower modules at TVA’s Clinch River site. B&W plans to submit its design certification application to the NRC by the end of this year;  NuScale: The NuScale reactor is an even smaller, 45-MWe PWR reactor module. NuScale Power will apply for the follow-on (second round) DOE program costsharing award that was just announced. It has partnered with FLUOR to develop and build the SMR, and is considering building its first SMR modules at the DOE Savannah River Site. It expects to submit its design certification application to the NRC some time in 2015;  HOLTEC: HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL, which is developing a 160-MWe (light water) SMR, may also apply for the second DOE grant, and is also interested in constructing its SMR at the Savannah River site;  WESTINGHOUSE: WESTINGHOUSE is developing a 225-MWe PWR that shares many design features of its larger AP1000 plant. It is partnering with Burns & McDonnell, Electric Boat, and the AMEREN utility to design, license, and build its first SMR plant at AMEREN’s existing Callaway plant site in Missouri. It is expected to also apply for the second round of cost-sharing grants under the DOE’s SMR program;  Non-LWR SMRs: The most advanced non-light water SMR project is the Gen4 Energy’s lead-bismuth-cooled 25-MWe reactor module (formerly Hyperion). Given the DOE’s focus on near-term SMR deployment, however, and the NRC’s indication that licensing a non-light water reactor will take a much longer amount of time, it is unclear whether non-light water SMRs have much prospect for winning a cost-sharing award under the DOE’s current SMR development program. Gen4 Energy withdrew its application for the initial round of DOE grants and it is not clear if it will apply for the second round. A more detailed description of the US involvement in SMR activities can be found in several IAEA documents and reports, as well as in several WNA and WANO papers.

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 24 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

Source: DOE Fig. Three types of SMRs under development in the US

4.2- The Current Situation and Perspectives of the SMRs Market in Other Countries Undoubtedly, the future of nuclear power is in the Asia and the Pacific region, where most of the countries with important nuclear power programs and plans for the construction of dozens of new nuclear power reactors are located. Several Asian countries are developing SMR prototypes including China, Japan18, India, and Republic of Korea19. Elsewhere, the Russian Federation and some European countries, Argentina and South Africa have developed several designs, some already operating successfully. China - The most advanced SMRs project is in China, where CHINERGY is starting to build the SMR 210 MWe HTR-PM, which consists of twin 250 MWt high-temperature 18

The Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) designed the MRX, a small (50-300 MWt) integral PWR reactor for marine propulsion or local energy supply (30 MWe). The entire plant would be factory-built. It has conventional 4.3 % enriched PWR uranium oxide fuel with a 3.5-year refueling interval and has a water-filled containment to enhance safety. Little has been heard of it since the start of the Millennium. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries have a conceptual design of Integrated Modular Reactor (IMR), a PWR of 1,000 MWt, 350 MWe. It has design life of 60 years, 4.8 % fuel enrichment and fuel cycle of 26 months. It has natural circulation for cooling. The project has involved Kyoto University, the Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), and the Japan Atomic Power Company (JAPC), with funding from METI. The target year to start licensing is 2020 at the earliest. Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute's (JAERI's) High-Temperature Test Reactor (HTTR) of 30 MWt started up at the end of 1998 and has been run successfully at 850°C for 30 days. In 2004 it achieved 950°C outlet temperature. Its fuel is in prisms and its main purpose is to develop thermochemical means of producing hydrogen from water. Based on the HTTR, JAERI is developing the Gas Turbine High Temperature Reactor (GTHTR) of up to 600 MWt per module. It uses improved HTTR fuel elements with 14% enriched uranium achieving high burn-up (112 GWd/t). Helium at 850°C drives a horizontal turbine at 47 % efficiency to produce up to 300 MWe (WANO sources). 19 On a larger scale, Republic of Korea’s SMART (System-integrated Modular Advanced Reactor) is a 330 MWt pressurized water reactor with integral steam generators and advanced safety features. It is designed by the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) for generating electricity (up to 100 MWe) and/or thermal applications such as seawater desalination. Design life is 60 years, fuel enrichment 4.8 %, with a three-year refueling cycle. Residual heat removal is passive. While the basic design is complete, the absence of any orders for an initial reference unit has stalled development. It received standard design approval from the Korean regulator in mid-2012 and KAERI plans to build a 90 MWe demonstration plant to operate from 2017. A single unit can produce 90 MWe plus 40,000 m3/day of desalinated water (WANO sources)

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 25 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

gas-cooled reactors, which build on the experience of several innovative reactors already built in the 1960s to 1980s. Another significant line of development is in very small fast reactors under 50 MWe. Some are conceived for areas away from transmission grids and with small loads; others are designed to operate in clusters in competition with large units. India - Also in the small reactor category are the Indian 220 MWe PHWRs based on Canadian technology, and the Chinese 300-325 MWe PWR such as the one built at Qinshan Phase I and at Chashma in Pakistan20. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) is now focusing on 540 MWe and 700 MWe versions of its PHWR, and is offering both 220 MWe and the 540 MWe versions internationally. These reactor designs are relevant to situations requiring small to medium units for the generation of electricity. Other SMRs in operation or under construction are included in the following tables. Europe - URENCO has called for European development of very small nuclear power reactors, between 5 MWe and 10 MWe, “plug and play” inherently-safe nuclear power reactors based on graphite-moderated HTR concepts. It is seeking government support for a prototype "U-Battery", which would run for 5-10 years before requiring refueling or servicing. France – A full-size HTR design 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 HTR version (SC-HTGR), though an eventual very high temperature reactor (VHTR) version is envisaged with 1,000°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 contaminating the generation, chemical or hydrogen production plant with radionuclides from the reactor core. It was selected in 2012 for the US Next Generation Nuclear 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 temperature for industrial application. FLEXBLUE is a conceptual design from DCNS (a state-owned defense group), AREVA, EdF and CEA from France. It is designed to be submerged, 60-100 meters deep on the sea bed up to 15 km offshore, and returned to a dry dock for servicing. The reactor, steam generators and turbine-generator would be housed in a submerged 12,000 ton cylindrical hull about 100 meters long and 12-15 meters diameter. Each hull and power plant would be transportable using a purpose-built vessel. Reactor capacity is 50250 MWe, derived from DCNS’s latest naval designs, but with details not announced. When first announced early in 2011 it was said that DCNS could start building a prototype FLEXBLUE unit in 2013 in its shipyard at Cherbourg for launch and deployment in 2016, possibly off Flamanville (WANO sources). 20

Now called “CNP-300”.

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 26 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

Russian Federation- The Russian Federation is the country with the most active research and development program on SMRs and an extensive array of designs and operating modules. Already operating in a remote corner of Siberia are four small units at the Bilibino co-generation power plant. These four 62 MWt units are an unusual graphitemoderated boiling water design with water/steam channels through the moderator. They produce steam for district heating and 11 MWe (net) of electricity each. They have performed well since 1976, much more cheaply than fossil fuel alternatives in the Arctic region. Argentina - The CAREM-25 reactor prototype being built by the Argentine National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA), with considerable input from INVAP, is an older design modular 100 MWt (27 MWe gross) pressurized water reactor, first announced in 1984. It has 12 integral steam generators and is designed to be used for electricity generation or as a research reactor or for water desalination (with 8 MWe in cogeneration configuration). CAREM has its entire primary coolant system within the reactor pressure vessel (11m high, 3.5m diameter), self-pressurized and relying entirely on convection (for modules less than 150 MWe). The final full-sized export version will be about 300 MWe, with axial coolant pumps driven electrically. Fuel is standard 3.1 % or 3.4 % enriched PWR fuel in hexagonal fuel assemblies, with burnable poison, and is refueled annually (WANO sources). The first 25 MWe prototype unit is being built next to Atucha nuclear power plant site on the Parana River in Lima, 110 km northwest of Buenos Aires, and the first larger version (probably 100 MWe) is planned to be built in the northern Formosa province, 500 km north of Buenos Aries, once the design is proven. Some 70 % of CAREM-25 components will be local manufacture. South Africa - South Africa’s pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) was being developed by the PBMR (Pty) Ltd consortium led by the utility ESKOM, latterly with involvement of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and draws on German expertise. It aimed for a step change in safety, economics and proliferation resistance. Full-scale production units had been planned to be 400 MWt (165 MWe) but more recent plans were for 200 MWt (80 MWe). Financial constraints led to delays and in September 2010 the South African government confirmed it would stop funding the project. However, a 2013 application for federal funds from National Project Management Corporation (NPMC) in the US appears to revive the earlier direct-cycle PBMR design, emphasizing its ‘deep burn’ attributes in destroying actinides and achieving high burn-up at high temperatures. The earlier plans for the 400 MWt PBMR following a 2002 review envisaged a direct cycle (Brayton cycle) gas turbine generator and thermal efficiency about 41%, the helium coolant leaving the bottom of the core at about 900°C and driving a turbine. Power would be adjusted by changing the pressure in the system. The helium is passed through a water-cooled pre-cooler and intercooler before being returned to the reactor vessel. The PBMR Demonstration Power Plant (DPP) was expected to start construction ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 27 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

at Koeberg in 2009 and achieve criticality in 2013, but after this was delayed it was decided to focus on the 200 MWt design. The PBMR was proposed for the US Next Generation Nuclear Plant project and submission of an application for design certification reached the pre-application review stage. The company is part of the National Project Management Corporation (NPMC) consortium which has applied for the second round of DOE funding in 2013. PBMR development in South Africa has now been abandoned due to lack of funds (WANO sources). The different prototypes of SMRs under research and development in several countries are presented in Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9. Table 6: Small (25 MWe up) reactors operating

Name CNP-300 PHWR-220

Capacity 300 MWe 220 MWe

Type PWR PHWR

Developer CNNC, operational in Pakistan NPCIL, India

Source: WNA Table 7: Small (25 MWe up) reactor designs under construction

Name KLT-40S CAREM HTR-PM

Capacity 35 MWe 27 MWe 2x105 MWe

Type PWR PWR HTR

Developer OKBM, Russia CNEA & INVAP, Argentina INET & Huaneng, China

Source: WNA Table 8: Small (25 MWe up) reactors for near-term deployment – development well advanced

Name VBER-300 ACP100 SMART PBMR BREST SVBR-100

Capacity 300 MWe 100 MWe 100 MWe 165 MWe 300 MWe 100 MWe

Type PWR PWR PWR HTR FNR FNR

Developer OKBM, Russia CNNC & Guodian, China KAERI, South Korea PBMR, South Africa; NPMC, US* RDIPE, Russia AKME-engineering, Russia

Source: WNA Table 9: Small (25 MWe up) reactor designs at earlier stages

Name VK-300 AHWR-300 LEU CAP150 ACPR100 SC-HTGR (Antares) IMR LFTR/TMSR Integral MSR Fuji MSR

Capacity 300 MWe 300 MWe 150 MWe 140 MWe 250 MWe 350 MWe 5,100 MWe 29,120, 288 MWe 100-200 MWe

Type BWR PHWR PWR PWR HTR PWR MSR MSR MSR

Developer RDIPE, Russia BARC, India SNERDI, China CGN, China AREVA Mitsubishi, Japan SINAP, China Terrestrial Energy, Canada ITHMSI, Japan-Russia-US

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 28 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________ Leadir-PS100

36 MWe

Lead-cooled

Northern Nuclear, Canada

Source: WNA

5- Other Elements to be Considered The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident was clearly a factor in the turnabout toward increased international information and technology sharing, which is something new to the nuclear industry. This industry has been characterized in many countries by its high secrecy, lack of transparency and misinformation of the public about the activities of the plant in case of serious accident or incident. There have been a significant number of initiatives at international level, in particular through the IAEA, to review existing safety requirements and practices, and to press for rigorous safety checks in operating plants particularly in Europe. The IAEA member states have adopted an Action Plan on Nuclear Safety to ensure necessary lessons from Fukushima nuclear accident were learned and applied everywhere. The ultimate goal of the Action Plan is to strengthen nuclear safety worldwide. In addition to safety initiatives and project execution, workforce development is another area requiring cooperation. After so many years with a low level of construction of new nuclear power reactors in the EU and the absence until recently of the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the US, the availability of well-trained and experienced workforce in the nuclear sector is now relatively low. In addition to the above, the fairly high numbers of countries that are thinking to join the nuclear club during the coming years are increasing significantly the demand for adequately trained personnel. For countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE) or Vietnam, just to mention three examples of newcomers that lack a history of nuclear operations, partnering with more-experienced nations for training is a real option to increase their number of well-trained professionals in the nuclear field. For this reason, this approach should be promoted and supported. Although the civilian nuclear industry began as a domestically based one in the US, UK, former Soviet Union, and Canada, the resources needed to develop a nuclear power program meant that major suppliers soon had to enter foreign markets. Why? According to ROSATOM CEO, the future of the nuclear industry is multinational, not national. In other words, nuclear power is no longer a market for a few countries; it’s a global marketplace, whether one likes it or not. In fact, the overseas market is keeping the US nuclear industry alive. However, if the US wishes to increase its presence in overseas markets, then it should change its current investment policy. Otherwise, the US companies will continue facing aggressive marketing policies in this area from other supplier companies of China, France, Japan, Russia, and the Republic of Korea, which makes their offers for the construction of new nuclear power reactors more attractive. Many experts admit that utilities can no longer finance nuclear projects on their own; the future requires more cooperative ventures; this means that “cheap, low-cost nuclear” ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 29 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

days are over. Today, it is impossible to finance the construction of new nuclear power plants in a completely deregulated environment. That is part of the market dynamics of the world’s nuclear sector and the dynamics of the US nuclear sector as well. Shale discoveries and resulting low gas prices are the main reasons why smaller and single-site US nuclear power reactors are not recovering their costs of operation. Promoters of SMRs, including the DOE, point out that by virtue of the plain fact that they are smaller, the capital cost of an SMR will be less than that of a large unit of the same design because construction will require less material, less labor, and less time. Those factors could overcome one significant financing barrier to building large nuclear power reactors (NRC, 2011a). They emphasize that SMRs are thus more affordable than large reactors (Ingersoll, 2011). However, affordable does not necessarily mean “cost-effective.” According to basic economic principles, the cost per kilowatt-hour of the electricity produced by a small nuclear power reactor will be higher than that of a large unit, all other factors being equal. That is because SMRs are penalized by the economies of scale of larger nuclear power reactors—a principle that drove the past industry trend to build larger and larger nuclear power plants (Shropshire, 2011). For example, a 1,100 MWe plant would cost only about three times as much to build as a 180 MWe version, but would generate six times the power, so the capital cost per kilowatt would be twice as great for the smaller plant (Carelli et al., 2007)21. SMR proponents argue that other factors could offset this difference, effectively reversing the economies of scale. For example, efficiencies associated with the economics of mass production could lower costs, if SMRs are eventually built and sold in large numbers. But such factors are speculative at this point, because the number of SMRs that could be sold in the coming years is unknown. In addition to that, the degree to which they might reduce costs has not been well characterized. A 2011 study found that even taking into account all the factors that could offset economies of scale, replacement of one 1,340 MWe reactor with four 335 MWe units would still increase the capital cost by 5 % (Shropshire, 2011). On the other hand, the promoters of SMRs have indicated that for nuclear power plants consisting of several smaller reactor modules instead of one large unit, the construction time will be shorter and, therefore, costs will be reduced. However, this argument apparently fails to take into account the implications of installing many nuclear power reactor modules in a phased manner at one site. In this case, a large containment structure with a single control room would be built at the beginning of the project that could accommodate all the planned capacity at the site. The result would be that the first few units would be saddled with very high costs, while the later units would be less expensive. 21

According to Lyman (2013), unless the negative economies of scale can be overcome, SMRs could well become affordable luxuries for several countries: More utilities may be in a financial position to buy an SMR without “betting the farm,” but still lose money by producing high-cost electricity.

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 30 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

The realization of economies of scale would depend on the construction period of the entire project, possibly over an even longer time span than present large nuclear power reactor projects. If the later-planned units are not built, for instance due to slower growth than anticipated, the earlier units would likely be more expensive than present units, just from the diseconomies of the containment, site preparation, instrumentation and control system expenditures. Alternatively, a containment structure and instrumentation and control could be built for each unit. This would greatly increase unit costs and per kilowatt capital costs. Some designs (such as the PBMR) propose no secondary containment in order to reduce costs, but this would increase safety risks (Makhijani and Boyds, 2010) and in most places would not be licensed to operate. In addition to imposing a penalty on the capital cost of SMRs, economies of scale would also negatively affect operations and maintenance costs (excluding costs for nuclear fuel, which scale proportionately with capacity). Labor costs are a significant fraction of nuclear power plant operations and maintenance costs, and they do not typically scale linearly with the capacity of the plant: After all, a minimum number of personnel are required to maintain safety and security regardless of the size (Lyman, 2013). The potential cost-benefits of assembly-line module construction relative to custombuilt on-site construction may also be overstated. Moreover, mistakes on a production line can lead to generic defects that could propagate through an entire fleet of SMRs and be costly to fix. The experience to date with construction of modular parts for the nuclear industry has been troubling. For example, a plant to fabricate modules (built in Lake Charles, Louisiana, by the SHAW Group, later acquired by Chicago Bridge and Iron) for the AP1000s under construction in Georgia and South Carolina has had serious production delays and other problems that have caused slips in the construction schedules and cost escalation for those projects (Lyman, 2013). Taking into account all above elements it can be said that the future for world’s nuclear energy, and particularly the use of SMRs for electricity generation, except for a limited group of countries located mainly in the Asia and the Pacific region, is difficult to predict in the US and in the EU.

6- Nonproliferation and Security Features of the SMRs According to ANS (2010), with the production of the SMRs, a new class of nuclear power reactors has been specifically designed to meet the electrical power, water, hydrogen, and heat needs of small and remote users/communities and of medium to large industrial applications. In this type of reactor, the small size, long refueling interval, and simplified operations, will assist in the minimization of security threats. As already mentioned, sized in the 10‐ to 50‐MWe range and up to the 300‐MWe range, these ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 31 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

reactors utilize factory modularization for rapid site deployment and assembly of single or multiple reactor modules, placing an even greater premium on design standardization. With large (mostly light water) 1,000‐MWe reactors capacity or more limited to about two dozen heavily industrialized countries, it is evident that the use of SMRs could be a very feasible solution to addressing the energy needs of the remainder of the world’s nations in both the short-and long-terms. Since most of the SMRs are generally in the early stages of development, a significant opportunity exists to affect designs in a way that: a) Minimizes the future need for either substantial security measures, excess engineered devices, and/or complex procedural methodologies; and b) Allows for the design optimization needed for more effective deployment of new applications. Early‐stage design input can compensate in part for later possible design vulnerabilities against intentional acts of sabotage or theft. Therefore, IAEA safeguards, and physical security of the SMRs, must be proliferation resistance and be included in the early design phase in order for the SMRs to be an economically feasible solution when built. It is imperative that any SMR design demonstrate proof of requisite high levels of safe and secure survivability from all credible threats, including malevolent terrorism, theft, or aircraft impact. An approach such as the protection evaluation methodology developed for Generation IV nuclear energy systems offers an attractive framework for application to SMRs. Stakeholders must understand the risks (i.e., financial and functional), the actual level of threat, and required protection must be carefully assessed and understood by the appropriate qualified engineers/designers during the very early stages of design/engineering (ANS, 2010).

7- Main Challenges to be Overcome As impressive as many of the SMRs that are currently under research and development sound, most of them are still in one stage or another of development or approval. It is a long way from there to flipping a switch and watching the lights go on, even for those four SMR prototypes now under construction in three countries. Most of these designs have roots that go back over half a century. In the 1950s, Admiral Hyman Rickover, the architect of the US nuclear fleet, pointed out that the small research reactors, the precursors of SMRs, had a lot of advantages. They were simple, small, cheap, lightweight, easy to build, very flexible in design and needed very little development. On the other hand, practical reactors must be built on schedule, need a huge amount of funding spent on “apparently trivial matters”, are expensive, large, heavy and complicated. In other words, there is a large gap between what is promised by a technology in the design phase and what it ends up as once it is built. ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 32 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

So it is with the current stable of SMRs. Many hold great promise, but they have yet to prove themselves. Also, they raise many questions. Will an SMR need fewer people to run it? What are its safety parameters? Will they fulfill current regulations? Will the regulations need to be changed to suit the nature of SMRs? Will evacuation zones, insurance coverage or security standards need to be altered? What about regulations regarding earthquakes? Indeed, it is in government regulations that the SMRs face their greatest challenges. Whatever the facts about nuclear accidents from Windscale to Fukushima, a large fraction of the public, especially in the West, are very nervous about nuclear energy in any form. There are powerful lobbies opposed to the operation of any nuclear power reactors in many countries and the regulations written up by governments reflect these circumstances. Much of the cost of building nuclear power plants is due to meeting all regulations, providing safety and security systems, and just dealing with all the legal barriers and paperwork that can take years and millions of dollars to overcome. Modular reactors have the advantage of being built quickly and cheaply, which makes them less of a financial risk, and factory manufacturing means that a reactor intended for a plant that missed approval can be sold to another customer elsewhere. And some SMRs are similar enough compared to conventional reactors that they do not face the burden of being a new technology under skeptical scrutiny. Finally, it is important to highlight the following: For any nuclear power plant, large or small, a key factor that determines the level of safety is the most severe accident that the plant is designed to withstand without exceeding certain radiological release limits, a hypothetical event known as the maximum “design-basis” accident. For current nuclear power plants, the most challenging design-basis accident is an event far less severe than what occurred at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The US NRC is currently considering proposals that would expand the range of accidents that nuclear power plants would be required to be able to withstand. All of these plants—whether large or small, actively or passively safe—should be prepared to withstand accidents or sabotage attacks resulting in site conditions comparable to what was experienced at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Moreover, greater levels of nuclear plant safety and security cannot be achieved by smart design alone. It must also extend to the operation. Without an overarching regulatory framework focused on substantially increasing the level of operational safety, there will be no assurance of greater safety for next-generation reactors either large or small (Lyman, 2013).

8- Conclusions and Recommendations Six decades of nuclear development have shown that nuclear energy can further progress only if long-term strategies are employed across the nuclear industry with ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 33 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

government involvement. In an economic climate where there are alternative energies offering far quicker returns on investment, clear nuclear energy policy should be adopted by governments in order to ensure that SMRs do remain a realistic alternative for energy provision. Undoubtedly, SMRs present an opportunity to develop a new generation of nuclear power reactors with enhanced safety performance that could be used to convince public opinion in several countries of the safe operation of this type of nuclear power reactors under all circumstances. SMRs could serve as first units for countries that have no nuclear power program now, no budget for a standard behemoth-size reactor, and grids too weak or too small to tolerate one large unit. It is very difficult to connect a standard 1,200 MWe nuclear power reactor on a small grid, without triggering a nationwide blackout every time it shuts down unexpectedly or for any other specific reason. Many of the SMR designs make use of passive safety systems with simpler components, fewer dependencies, and less stringent operational/maintenance requirements. Some designs incorporate inherent safety features such as higher thermal inertia. In some cases, fast‐moving accidents such as Loss‐Of‐Coolant Accidents have been eliminated, and transient response is more benign. Some designs present less of a challenge in the severe accident arena and have favorable source term characteristics. These differences can ease the burden on operating staff and create opportunities for more effective accident management and should, therefore, result in a more efficient licensing process than that used for current light water reactor designs. Light water reactor requirements provide assurance of safety system quality, capability, reliability, and redundancy commensurate with the safety characteristics of current designs. To the extent that SMR designs incorporate passive safety features, enhanced safety margins, slower accident response, and improved severe accident performance, opportunities to simplify and streamline the regulatory process and requirements should be considered (ANS, 2010). For SMRs, however, several offsetting factors will tend to neutralize their advantage in comparison with larger units and could make the costs per kilowatt of small reactors higher than large reactors. First, in contrast to cars or smart phones or similar widgets, the materials cost per kilowatt of a reactor goes up as the size goes down. This is because the cost of surface area per kilowatt of capacity, which dominates materials, goes up as the reactor size is decreased. Similarly, the cost per kilowatt of secondary containment, as well as independent systems for control, instrumentation, and emergency management, increases as size decreases. Cost per kilowatt also increases if each reactor has dedicated and independent systems for control, instrumentation, and emergency management. For these reasons, the nuclear industry has been building larger and larger reactors in an effort to try to achieve economies of scale and make nuclear power economically competitive (Makhijani and Boyds, 2010). ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 34 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

It is important to bear in mind that by reducing an SMR’s size it becomes simpler to build, easier to transport and ultimately cheaper than a large reactor. However, a reduction in unit size also means a reduction in energy production and perhaps a reduction of energy efficiency and for this reason an increase in the need to build additional power plants. In recent years, big step changes and increased energy in the SMR industry has come about as a result of the changing dynamics in the industry after the Fukushima nuclear accident as well as the increased competitive nature of the SMR race. In terms of the Fukushima impact on the dynamic of the nuclear industry, one clear development since 2011 has been the great emphasis on passive safety in a new type of nuclear power reactor designs as well as anything that can be done to convince regulators, politicians, as well as the public that nuclear power safety is at the highest possible levels. Moreover, the smaller market size in general in the post-Fukushima world has reduced the potential opportunities for some of the competing larger nuclear power reactor designs. This new situation has provided SMRs with a number of new market opportunities that may not have existed before, particularly in the developing world. Despite of the problems that the US nuclear industry is still facing, according to the NRC, by October 2014, it had extended the licenses of 75 nuclear power reactors (72 of them still operating), almost three-quarters of the US total, and about 30 were actually in their 40-60-year age bracket. The NRC is considering license renewal applications for 19 further units, with six more applications expected. Hence, almost all of the US power reactors are likely to have 60-year lifetimes, with owners undertaking major capital works to upgrade them at around 30-40 years. The license renewal process typically costs US$ 16-25 million, and takes 4-6 years for review by NRC. Similar processes are carried out in several other countries with nuclear power programs as well, particularly in the European region, including Russia. The first license renewal application was submitted to the NRC in April 1998, and the last application for a first renewal is scheduled to be submitted in 2018. Of those units with a renewed license, 20 units have entered the period of extended operation from 40 to 60 years. On the basis of all of the above, the following recommendations should be considered by governments and the nuclear industry when contemplating the expansion or the use of SMRs for electricity generation, production of heat or for any other possible non-electricity generation: 1- It is important to increase the role of governments in the support of the construction of new nuclear power reactors, particularly SMRs. It is clear from the nuclear energy policies adopted by the US and the EU, that the resources for the construction of new nuclear power plants should come from the private sector, taking into account the maturity already reached in nuclear technology. Due to the above governmental energy policies, international funding institutions are very ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 35 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

reluctant to support the construction of new nuclear power reactors, including SMRs. This position is affecting negatively the role of the private nuclear industry of several countries and it is limiting their capacities in acquiring the necessary financial support for the construction of new nuclear power plants. Undoubtedly, the efforts made so far by the US government to expand its nuclear power program through the construction of new nuclear power reactors are not enough and for this reason does not as yet have a positive impact on the development of the domestic nuclear energy sector. As can easily be seen, the main countries that are considering the use of SMRs are outside the North America and the European regions, with the exception of a few countries, particularly the Russian Federation; 2- According to the projections discussed in this paper, the major nuclear power programs are going to be implemented in countries located in Asia and the Pacific region, as well as the Russian Federation. Only around one third of the new nuclear power reactors are going to be constructed in a few other countries outside the Asia and the Pacific region. For this reason, it is important to understand the need for a change in the nuclear energy policies already adopted by the US, the EU, and the international funding institutions in order to support the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity in countries that are able to implement such options. The reason is very simple: Nuclear energy is the only energy sources beyond fossil fuels that could be used as a base load generation, and moreover, contrary to fossil fuels it is a clean energy technology for the generation of electricity; 3- It is important to be aware of the possible positive impact that the use of SMRs could have in the expansion of nuclear power programs in several developed and in a select group of developing countries as well, where the current types and sizes of nuclear power reactors cannot be used due to the limited capacity of their electrical grids, the lack of financial support, and the remote location of potential sites, among others; 4- It is important to single out the role that the nuclear industry and the international funding institutions could play in the expansion of the current nuclear power programs in developed countries, in the construction of new nuclear power reactors in developing countries, and in the introduction of nuclear power programs in a select group of countries. Without any change in the current nuclear energy policies in North America and the EU, as well as in the relevant international funding institutions, the future of nuclear energy will depend not only on the level of the increase in energy demand foreseeable in the future, but mostly on the decisions of governments in the developing world and in some developed countries to use nuclear energy to satisfy this increase, particularly in countries located in Asia and the Pacific region. ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 36 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________

5- The importance of the understanding that the use of SMRs can have for the supply of electricity and other non-electrical purposes in far or remote areas, where it is very difficult to construct and operate the current types of nuclear power reactors or any other power plants, due to long distances to population areas and to adequate services, the lack of appropriate support infrastructure, difficult access, lack of well-trained staff, among others. In this specific area, the possible massive use of SMRs could represent an important boom in the Western nuclear industry, which is facing economic difficulties in the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the US and the EU; 6- The need for a change in the US and the EU public opinion regarding the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation, particularly their concerns about its safety, economics, and environmental impact, in comparison to the use of fossil fuel for the same purpose. For this reason, governments and nuclear industry should adopt more transparent and flexible energy policies in order to convince the public about the benefits of the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation, and to address all their safety and environmental concerns, particularly as regards the use of SMRs or Generation IV systems in the future; 7- The importance of the reduction in the time actually consumed for the approval of the construction and operational licenses of new nuclear power reactors construction time and cost associated with the construction of new types of nuclear power reactors, particularly SMRs in the US and the EU in order to promote the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation. 8- The importance of addressing properly the main problems and challenges that have been identified in this paper, such as the reduction of the construction time, the financing of new nuclear power reactors, the management of nuclear waste, the lack of well-trained professionals and technicians, the concerns of the public about the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation in several countries, among others, with the aim of expanding the use of nuclear energy, especially SMRs, for the generation of electricity, heating, and other industrial applications such production of potable water (desalination) in several countries. Acknowledgement I would like to thanks Dr. Massoud Samiei (IAEA Consultant) for his relevant comments and suggestions that allowed me to improve significantly the first draft of the manuscript.

References: -

AREVA Again Raises Estimate of Cost of Olkiluoto Reactor (2012), The Wall Street Journal, 13 December 2012. Retrieved 13 December 2012.

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 37 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________ -

Boxell, James (2012), Areva’s atomic reactor faces further delays, Financial Times, Retrieved 10 August 2012.

-

Carelli, M.D.; Petrovic, B,; C.W. Mycoff, C.W.; Trucco, P.; Ricotti, M.E.; and Locatelli, G. (2007), Economic comparison of different sized reactors, Online at http://www.lasans.org.br/Papers%202007/pdfs/Paper062.pdf, accessed July 22, 2013.

-

Chronology of Olkiluoto 3 project (2007), AREVA, 27 September 2007

-

Floran, Clare (2013), Small Reactors May Be Nuclear Power’s Future, National Journal, www.nationaljournal.com/energy/small-reactors-may-be-nuclear-power...

-

Hopf, Jim (2013), Update on Small Modular Reactor theenergycollective.com/ansorg/...small-modular-reactor-development, 2013.

-

Ingersoll, D. (2011), Overview and status of SMRs being developed in the United States. Presentation for INPRO dialogue forum on nuclear energy innovations: Common user considerations for small and medium-sized nuclear power reactors. Vienna, Austria. October 10−14. Online at http://www.iaea.org/INPRO/3rd_Dialogue_Forum/07. Ingersoll.pdf, accessed June 29, 2013.

-

International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power (2008), IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 2008.

-

Interim Report of the ANS President’s Special Committee on SMR Generic Licensing Issues (2010); American Nuclear Society (ANS), 2010. IPFM 2010, op. cit., p. 68, 2010.

-

Development,

-

Keywords: Nuclear Power, Finance, Energy and Economy, News, Politics & Legislation, doe, small modular reactor (SMR).

-

Licensing of Olkiluoto 3: Preliminary safety assessment on the application for a fifth nuclear power plant (2000), STUK, Finland, 2000.

-

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; US; 2010.

-

Morales Pedraza, Jorge (2013), New Technologies Associated to the Construction of Nuclear Power Plants, in Advances in Energy Research, Vol. 16 Editor Morena J. Acosta, ISBN 978-162808-827-4, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2013.

-

Myers, W.; and Elkins N. (2009), Underground nuclear parks and the continental supergrid; 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.

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 38 of 39


______________________________________________________________________________ -

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (2011a), Briefing on small modular reactors. Transcript of proceedings, Washington, DC, March 29. Online at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/ commission/tr/2011/20110329.pdf, accessed June 29, 2013.

-

Olkiluoto 3 delayed beyond 2014 (2012), World Nuclear News, 17 July 2012. Retrieved 24 July 2012.

-

Olkiluoto pipe welding deficient (2009), World Nuclear News, 16 October 2009. Retrieved 8 June 2010.

-

Rosner, Robert and Goldberg, Stephen Goldberg (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.

-

Shropshire, D. (2011), Economic viability of small to medium-sized reactors deployed in future European energy markets. Progress in Nuclear Energy 53:299−307, 2011.

-

Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa (2012), Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012. Retrieved 13 December 2012.

-

World Nuclear Association data base.

-

World Association of Nuclear Operators data base.

______________________________________________________________________________ Page 39 of 39

The Current Status and Perspectives for the Use of ...

The Current Status and Perspectives for the Use of ...

Suggest Documents

The current status and future perspectives of

The current status and future perspectives of laparoscopic surgery for

Current Status and Perspectives of Cosmic Microwave

Current Status and Perspectives of Forestry ... - SEEFOR

Current Status of the Use of Antibiotics and the ...

The Control System of SPES Target: Current Status and Perspectives.

3d gis: current status and perspectives - CiteSeerX

Survey on the Current Status and Perspectives Towards Automotive ...

Current status and unanswered questions on the use of ... - Core

Current status and future perspectives for yttrium-90 (90Y) - Nature

The current status of beta blockers' use in the

Use of Antimony in the Treatment of Leishmaniasis: Current Status ...

Use of Antimony in the Treatment of Leishmaniasis: Current Status ...

Current Perspectives on the Use of Alternative ... - Semantic Scholar

Current Perspectives on the Use of Fetal Fibronectin

Current status and perspectives of chimeric antigen receptor modified ...

Current status and future perspectives of capsule ... - Semantic Scholar

The current trends and future perspectives of

Current status and perspectives of genome editing ... - Semantic Scholar

Current status and perspectives of interventional clinical trials ... - Core

Current Status and Future Perspectives of Energy Recovery Linacs

the current situation and the perspectives

INTEGRAL: The Current Status

Current Status and Future Perspectives of Mass ... - BioMedSearch