DOCSLIB.ORG

Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of Small Nuclear Reactors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of Small Nuclear Reactors Nuclear Development June 2011 Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of Small Nuclear Reactors NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY Nuclear Development Current Status, Technical Feasibility and Economics of Small Nuclear Reactors . © OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION OF ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Foreword Larger nuclear reactors typically have lower specific costs due to the economy of scale, resulting in nuclear power plants with reactors of 1 000-1 600 MWe being most commonly commercialised today. However, there is currently a growing trend in the development and commercialisation of small and medium-sized reactors (SMRs), i.e. reactors with effective electric power less than 700 MWe. The main arguments in favour of SMRs are that they could be suitable for areas with small electrical grids and for remote locations, and that due to the smaller upfront capital investment for a single SMR unit the financial risks associated with their deployment would be significantly smaller than for a large reactor. This offers flexibility for incremental capacity increases which could potentially increase the attractiveness of nuclear power to investors. This report is a summary of the development status and deployment potential of SMRs. It brings together the information provided in a variety of recent publications in this field, and presents the characterisation of SMRs currently available for deployment and those that are expected to become available in the next 10-15 years. Additionally, it highlights the safety features and licensing issues regarding such reactors. Particular attention is given to the economics of SMRs, and the various factors affecting their competitiveness are analysed and discussed. Vendors‟ data on the economics of different designs are compared with independent quantitative estimates of the electricity generating costs, and the deployment potential of such reactors in a number of markets and geographic locations is assessed. 3 Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Vladimir Kuznetsov, Consultant, and Alexey Lokhov of the NEA Nuclear Development Division. Detailed review and comments were provided by Ron Cameron and Marco Cometto of the NEA Nuclear Development Division, with other reviews and input from members of the NEA Nuclear Development Committee. 4 Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 11 Overview of SMR designs considered ............................................................................................... 12 The analysis of factors influencing the competitiveness of SMRs ..................................................... 14 Estimates of levelised unit electricity cost ......................................................................................... 17 The competitiveness of SMRs deployed in regular and remote or isolated areas .............................. 20 Safety features and licensing of SMRs ............................................................................................... 24 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 25 1. Introduction and Context ................................................................................................................ 27 1.1 Outline of the report ................................................................................................................ 28 References .............................................................................................................................................. 30 2. Definitions ......................................................................................................................................... 31 References .............................................................................................................................................. 32 3. Brief Characterisation of SMRs Available for Commercial Deployment ................................... 33 3.1 Land-based heavy water reactors (HWRs) .............................................................................. 33 3.2 Land-based pressurised water reactors (PWRs) ...................................................................... 34 3.3 Barge-mounted PWRs ............................................................................................................. 34 References .............................................................................................................................................. 36 4. Characterisation of Advanced SMR Designs ................................................................................ 37 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 37 4.2 Basic characteristics and technology lines .............................................................................. 38 4.3 Design status and possible timeframes for deployment .......................................................... 50 4.4 Energy products ....................................................................................................................... 52 4.5 Load following operation and compatibility with electricity grids ......................................... 55 References .............................................................................................................................................. 56 5. Small and Modular Reactors (“Mini” Reactors) and their Attributes ....................................... 59 References .............................................................................................................................................. 64 6. Factors Affecting the Competitiveness of SMRs ........................................................................... 65 6.1 Introduction and designers‟ cost data for SMRs ...................................................................... 65 6.2 Factors affecting the investment cost of SMRs ....................................................................... 71 6.3 Operation and maintenance and fuel costs .............................................................................. 81 6.4 Decommissioning costs ........................................................................................................... 83 6.5 Co-generation with non-electrical applications (heat credit model) ........................................ 84 6.6 SMRs in liberalised energy markets ........................................................................................ 85 6.7 Summary of the factors affecting SMR economy ................................................................... 88 References .............................................................................................................................................. 89 5 7. Assessment of the Deployment Potential of the Various Proposed SMR Designs ...................... 91 7.1 Independent estimates of LUEC for typical SMRs ................................................................. 91 7.2 Evaluation of SMR deployment potential ............................................................................. 100 References ............................................................................................................................................ 115 8. Safety Designs of Advanced SMRs ............................................................................................... 117 8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 117 8.2 Pressurised water reactors ..................................................................................................... 118 8.3 Boiling water reactors ............................................................................................................ 122 8.4 Advanced heavy water reactors ............................................................................................. 123 8.5 High temperature gas cooled reactors ................................................................................... 124 8.6 Sodium cooled fast reactors ................................................................................................... 125 8.7 Lead-bismuth cooled fast reactors ......................................................................................... 126 8.8 Summary of SMR safety designs .......................................................................................... 128 References ............................................................................................................................................ 132 9. Licensing Issues .............................................................................................................................. 133 9.1 Licensing status and compliance with the current regulations .............................................. 133 9.2 Possible regulatory issues and delays in licensing ................................................................ 134 9.3 Reduced emergency planning requirements .......................................................................... 136 9.4 New regulatory approaches ................................................................................................... 137 References ...........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Russia's Nuclear Security Policy
    Innovative approaches to peace and security from the Stanley Foundation POLICYANALYSISBRIEF THE STANLEY FOUNDATION | MAY 2015 Russia’s Nuclear Security Policy: Priorities and Potential Areas for Cooperation The crisis over Ukraine has led to a drastic reduction in regular official Russian-US contacts in most areas, including those where it is in the two countries’ mutual national security interests to work together. Bilateral cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear security has been among the affected areas. The United States has suspended contacts with Russia in the framework of the G-8 and in the Russian-US Bilateral Presidential Commission’s Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Security Working Group. Implementation of the September 2013 agreement on Cooperation in Nuclear- and Energy- Related Scientific Research and Development (R&D Agreement), which Anton Khlopkov prioritizes joint efforts on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear security, has also been put on hold, and exchanges between nuclear scientists of the two Author countries have been frozen. In turn, Russia has decided not to take part in Anton Khlopkov1 is director of the preparations for the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit. Moscow also notified Moscow-based Center for Energy and Washington that most of the joint nuclear security projects in Russia would Security Studies and editor in chief of the not be extended beyond December 31, 2014. journal Nuclear Club. He is a member of the Advisory Board under the Security This trend is a serious cause for concern, given that Russia and the United Council of the Russian Federation and States, which are depositaries of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of chairman of the Moscow Nonproliferation Nuclear Weapons (NPT), bear special responsibility for maintaining the Conference.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Modular Reactors and the Future of Nuclear Power in the United States
    Energy Research & Social Science 3 (2014) 161–177 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy Research & Social Science jou rnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss Review Small modular reactors and the future of nuclear power in the United States ∗ Mark Cooper Institute for Energy and the Environment, Vermont Law School, Yale University, United States a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Small modular reactors are the latest “new” technology that nuclear advocates tout as the game changer Received 30 May 2014 that will overcome previous economic failures of nuclear power. The debate over SMRs has been particu- Received in revised form 28 July 2014 larly intense because of the rapid failure of large “nuclear renaissance” reactors in market economies, the Accepted 31 July 2014 urgent need to address climate change, and the dramatic success of alternative, decentralized resources in lowering costs and increasing deployment. This paper assesses the prospects for SMR technology from Keywords: three perspectives: the implications of the history of cost escalation in nuclear reactor construction for SMR technology learning, economies of scale and other process that SMR advocates claim will lower cost; the challenges Nuclear cost escalation SMR technology faces in terms of high costs resulting from lost economies of scale, long lead time needed Decentralized resources to develop a new design, the size of the task to create assembly lines for modular reactors and intense concern about safety; and the cost and other characteristics – e.g. scalability, speed to market, flexibility, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Isn't Always Beautiful Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns About Small Modular Reactors
    Small Isn't Always Beautiful Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns about Small Modular Reactors Small Isn't Always Beautiful Safety, Security, and Cost Concerns about Small Modular Reactors Edwin Lyman September 2013 © 2013 Union of Concerned Scientists All rights reserved Edwin Lyman is a senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists Global Security Program. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. More information is available about UCS at www.ucsusa.org. This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org/SMR and may also be obtained from: UCS Publications 2 Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02138-3780 Or, email [email protected] or call (617) 547-5552. Design: Catalano Design Front cover illustrations: © LLNL for the USDOE (background); reactors from top to bottom: © NuScale Power, LLC, © Holtec SMR, LLC, © 2012 Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Energy, Inc., and © Westinghouse Electric Company. Back cover illustrations: © LLNL for the USDOE (background); © Westinghouse Electric Company (reactor). Acknowledgments This report was made possible by funding from Park Foundation, Inc., Wallace Research Foundation, an anonymous foundation, and UCS members. The author would like to thank Trudy E. Bell for outstanding editing, Rob Catalano for design and layout, Bryan Wadsworth for overseeing production, and Scott Kemp, Lisbeth Gronlund, and David Wright for useful discussions and comments on the report. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the organizations that funded the work or the individuals who reviewed it.
    [Show full text]
  • E-Mail: [email protected]
    ATOMENERGOMASH JSC Nuclear and Power Engineering Address: 28/3 Ozerkovsakaya nab., Moscow, 115184 Telephone: +7(495) 668-20-93 Fax: +7(495) 668-20-95 Website: http://www.aem-group.ru/en/ E-mail: [email protected] www.aem-group.ru/en/ 3 JSC Atomenergomash ABOUT US Аtomenergomash JSC (AEM, Сompany, Group) is a machine building division of ROSATOM State Atomic Energy Corporation. One of the leading Russian power engineering companies, a supplier of efficient integrated solutions for nuclear and thermal power plants, natural gas and petrochemical industry, shipbuilding, hydroelectricity, demineralization, water treatment, water purification and special steel market. FIGURES AND FACTS ATOMENERGOMASH • The key developer and equipment manu- • AEM was established in 2006 as part of facturer for the reactor facility of the ROSATOM State Atomic Energy Corporation. water-water energetic reactor (VVER). • The Holding includes about 20 • The key developer and equipement man- power engineering companies, R&D, ufacturer of fast nuclear reactors (FNR). manufacturing, construction and • Equipment manufacturer for the turbine construction companies located in Russia, island of NPP with VVER. Ukraine, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. • The only Russian manufacturer of steam • The Holding’s equipment is installed in generators and main circulation pumps more than 20 countries. for Russian-built NPPs. • 14% of global Nuclear Power Plants (NPP) • The key developer and manufacturer of and 40% of Thermal Power Plants (TPP) marine reactor plants for the Navy and in Russia and the former Soviet Union nuclear icebreakers. countries run our equipment. • One of the largest manufacturers of power plant boilers and Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) for medium and large Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) units.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Modular Reactor Design and Deployment
    INL/MIS-15-34247 Small Modular Reactor Design and Deployment Curtis Wright Symposium xx/xx/xxxx www.inl.gov INL SMR Activities • INL works with all vendors to provide fair access to the laboratory benefits • INL works with industry on SMR technology and deployment • INL is supporting multiple LWR SMR vendors – Small, <300MWe reactors and less expensive reactors compared to current LWR reactors (Small) – Often, but not always, multiple reactors at the same site that can be deployed as power is needed (Modular) – Primary cooling system and reactor core in a single containment structure, but not always (Reactors) – Factory built, usually, which improves quality and costs • Integrated PWR SMR’s are closest to deployment – designed to be inherently safer and simple – primary reactor system inside a single factory built containment vessel – Higher dependence on passive systems to simplify operation and design Reactor Power Nuclear Plant Power Los Angeles Class Submarine -26 MW 5000 Enterprise Class Aircraft Carrier 8x 4000 Unit Power Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier 2x97MW, 194MW 3000 Plant Power NuScale Reactor 12 x 150MW, 1800MW 2000 Cooper BWR, 1743MW PowerThermal MW 1000 Westinghouse AP-1000, 3000MW 0 European Pressurized Reactor, 4953MW SMRs are Smaller VC Summer • Power less than 300MWe. Dearater – Current Plants 1000MWe – Physically smaller – Fewer inputs – Fits on power grid with less infrastructure – Built in a factory – Simplified designs VC Summer • Passive systems Core • Fewer components NuScale Reactor Multiple Units • SMR Nuclear
    [Show full text]
  • On the Development, Applicability, and Design Considerations of Generation IV Small Modular Reactors
    Spring 2019 Honors Poster Presentation May 1, 2019 Department of Physics and Astronomy 1 2 1. Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University John Mobley IV , Gregory Maxwell 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa State University On the Development, Applicability, and Design Considerations of Generation IV Small Modular Reactors BACKGROUND RESULTS CONCLUSIONS Small modular reactors (SMRs) are a class of fission reactors with DEVELOPMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Incorporation of SMRs within existing power grids offers a scalable, power ratings between 10 to 300 MWe which can be utilized as Fission power systems from each reactor generation were isolated based upon A molten salt fast breeder small modular reactor (MSFBSMR) was devised on low initial investment energy solution to increase energy security and modules in the unit assembly of a nuclear steam supply system. The their significance and contributions to the development of current designs. the basis of long-term operation with high fuel utilization. independence. rapid development of SMRs has been spurred globally by two main features: proliferation resistance/physical protection and economic Figure I: Timeline of Nuclear Reactor Generations Table I: Critical System Reactor Materials and Specifications ■ Maturity of nuclear energy technologies have facilitated an appeal. On the topic of proliferation resistance/physical protection, Material Classification Key Property Color environment of revolutionary reactor designs. SMRs require much less nuclear material which can be of lower 6 FLiBe coolant COLEX processed; Pr = 13.525 enrichment, thus the potential for application in weapon systems is ■ Evaluation of reactor generations through a simplified SA reveals 15Cr-15Ni Ti cladding7 austenitic (Mo 1.2%) stymied by quantity and quality of the fissile material.
    [Show full text]
  • WASH-1097.Pdf
    WASH 1097 UC-80 THE USE OF THORIUM IN NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS JUNE 1969 PREPARED BY Brookhaven National Laboratory AND THE Division of Reactor Development and Technology WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY BABCOCK & WILCOX GULF GENERAL ATOMIC OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORY For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.25 FOREWORD This report on "The Use of Thorium in Nuclear Power Reactors" was prepared under the direction of the Division of Reactor Development and Technology, U.S.A.E.C., as part of an overall assessment of the Civilian Nuclear Power Program initiated in response to a request in 1966 by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. It represents the results of the inquiry by the Thorium Systems Task Force whose membership included representatives of Babcock & Wilcox Company, Gulf General Atomic Company, the Argonne National Laboratory, the Brookhaven National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Publication of this report, which provides information basic to the AEC reactor development program, completes one phase of the evaluation effort outlined in the 1967 Supplement to the 1962 Report to the President on Civilian Nuclear Power, issued in February 1967. The 1967 Supplement outlined changes since 1962 in the technical, economic and resource picture and provided background for further study. Specifically, this report represents the consensus of the task force on the potential use of the thorium cycle and the specific thorium fueled reactor designs which have been proposed.
    [Show full text]
  • Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications Report Prepared for Alberta Innovates
    PNNL-25978 Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications Report Prepared for Alberta Innovates November 2016 SM Short B Olateju (AI) SD Unwin S Singh (AI) A Meisen (AI) DISCLAIMER NOTICE This report was prepared under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), as an account of work sponsored by Alberta Innovates (“AI”). Neither AI, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), DOE, the U.S. Government, nor any person acting on their behalf makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by AI, PNNL, DOE, or the U.S. Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of AI, PNNL, DOE or the U.S. Government. Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications SM Short B Olateju (AI) SD Unwin S Singh (AI) A Meisen (AI) November 2016 Prepared for Alberta Innovates (AI) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Executive Summary At present, the steam requirements of Alberta’s heavy oil industry and the Province’s electricity requirements are predominantly met by natural gas and coal, respectively. On November 22, 2015 the Government of Alberta announced its Climate Change Leadership Plan to 1) phase out all pollution created by burning coal and transition to more renewable energy and natural gas generation by 2030 and 2) limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from oil sands operations.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of the Benefits and Applications of the Thorium Fuel Cycle Vincent Hall University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Chemical Engineering Undergraduate Honors Chemical Engineering Theses 12-2010 A review of the benefits and applications of the thorium fuel cycle Vincent Hall University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/cheguht Recommended Citation Hall, Vincent, "A review of the benefits nda applications of the thorium fuel cycle" (2010). Chemical Engineering Undergraduate Honors Theses. 25. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/cheguht/25 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Chemical Engineering at ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chemical Engineering Undergraduate Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. A REVIEW OF THE BENEFITS AND APPLICATIONS OF THE THORIUM FUEL CYCLE An Undergraduate Honors College Thesis in the Ralph E. Martin Department of Chemical Engineering College of Engineering University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR by Vincent Hall 09-21-2010 1 Abstract This paper aims to inform the reader of the benefits that can be achieved by using thorium as a fuel for nuclear power. Stages of the thorium cycle are directly compared against the current uranium based nuclear fuel cycle. These include mining, milling, fuel fabrication, use of various reactor designs, reprocessing, and disposal. Thorium power promises several key advantages over traditional nuclear power methods, namely a dramatic decrease in long lived radioactive waste, increased fuel efficiency, greater chemical stability during disposal, and higher adaptability for differing reactor designs across a wider range of the thermal neutron spectrum.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Advanced Nuclear Technologies
    A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D MARCH 2017 B | CHAPTER NAME ABOUT THE CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY The Center on Global Energy Policy provides independent, balanced, data-driven analysis to help policymakers navigate the complex world of energy. We approach energy as an economic, security, and environmental concern. And we draw on the resources of a world-class institution, faculty with real-world experience, and a location in the world’s finance and media capital. Visit us at energypolicy.columbia.edu facebook.com/ColumbiaUEnergy twitter.com/ColumbiaUEnergy ABOUT THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS SIPA’s mission is to empower people to serve the global public interest. Our goal is to foster economic growth, sustainable development, social progress, and democratic governance by educating public policy professionals, producing policy-related research, and conveying the results to the world. Based in New York City, with a student body that is 50 percent international and educational partners in cities around the world, SIPA is the most global of public policy schools. For more information, please visit www.sipa.columbia.edu A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D* MARCH 2017 *Andrew C. Kadak is the former president of Yankee Atomic Electric Company and professor of the practice at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He continues to consult on nuclear operations, advanced nuclear power plants, and policy and regulatory matters in the United States. He also serves on senior nuclear safety oversight boards in China. He is a graduate of MIT from the Nuclear Science and Engineering Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Design and Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Core for Innovative Small Light Water Reactors
    0 Department of Nuclear Engineering And Radiation Health Physics DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF A NUCLEAR REACTOR CORE FOR INNOVATIVE SMALL LIGHT WATER REACTORS. By Alexey I. Soldatov A DISSERTATION Submitted to Oregon State University March 9, 2009 1 AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Alexey I. Soldatov for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Nuclear Engineering presented on March 9, 2009. Title: Design and Analysis of a Nuclear Reactor Core for Innovative Small Light Water Reactors. Abstract approved: Todd S. Palmer In order to address the energy needs of developing countries and remote communities, Oregon State University has proposed the Multi-Application Small Light Water Reactor (MASLWR) design. In order to achieve five years of operation without refueling, use of 8% enriched fuel is necessary. This dissertation is focused on core design issues related with increased fuel enrichment (8.0%) and specific MASLWR operational conditions (such as lower operational pressure and temperature, and increased leakage due to small core). Neutron physics calculations are performed with the commercial nuclear industry tools CASMO-4 and SIMULATE-3, developed by Studsvik Scandpower Inc. The first set of results are generated from infinite lattice level calculations with CASMO-4, and focus on evaluation of the principal differences between standard PWR fuel and MASLWR fuel. Chapter 4-1 covers aspects of fuel isotopic composition changes with burnup, evaluation of kinetic parameters and reactivity coefficients. Chapter 4-2 discusses gadolinium self-shielding and shadowing effects, and subsequent impacts on power generation peaking and Reactor Control System shadowing. 2 The second aspect of the research is dedicated to core design issues, such as reflector design (chapter 4-3), burnable absorber distribution and programmed fuel burnup and fuel use strategy (chapter 4-4).
    [Show full text]
  • Nuscale Energy Supply for Oil Recovery and Refining Applications
    Proceedings of ICAPP 2014 Charlotte, USA, April 6-9, 2014 Paper 14337 NuScale Energy Supply for Oil Recovery and Refining Applications D. T. Ingersoll,a C. Colbert,a R. Bromm,b and Z. Houghtona aNuScale Power, LLC 1100 NE Circle Blvd, Suite 200, Corvallis, OR 97330 bFluor Corporation 100 Fluor Daniel Dr., Greenville, SC 29607 Tel: 541-360-0585 , Email: [email protected] Abstract – The oil recovery and refining market is highly energy intensive, representing roughly 7% of the total U.S. energy consumption. The NuScale small modular reactor design is especially well suited for supplying clean, reliable energy to this market due to the compact size of the reactor and the high degree of modularity included in the design, allowing multiple reactors to be combined into a scalable central plant. A preliminary technical and economic assessment has been completed to evaluate the feasibility and desirability of using NuScale power modules to support oil recovery and refining processes, thus reducing the overall carbon footprint of these industrial complexes and preserving valuable fossil resources as feedstock for higher value products. I. INTRODUCTION modular reactors (SMR), are generally characterized by having unit power outputs of less than 300 MWe and are The production of refined petroleum products is highly substantially manufactured in a factory and installed at the energy intensive with most of the energy being used either site rather than constructed on-site. in the field for crude oil recovery processes or at a refinery A new SMR design that has been under development for processing of the crude oil into end-use products such in the United States since 2000 is the NuScale design that as transportation fuels or petrochemicals.
    [Show full text]